The Forgotten Trinity: Recovering the Heart of Christian Belief

by James R. White

Luther, like Augustine before him, wrote in no uncertain terms, The Lord Christ is angry below the surface and says: “Do you want to know who I am? I am God, and that in the fullest sense. Do as you please. If you do not believe that I am He, then you are nothing, and you must die in your sin.” No prophet, apostle, or evangelist may proclaim and say: “Believe in God, and also believe that I am God; otherwise you are damned.[23]

And in 18:5–6, John even repeats himself just to make sure no one can possibly miss the reason why the soldier fell back upon the ground: They answered Him, “Jesus the Nazarene.” He said to them, “I am He.” And Judas also, who was betraying Him, was standing with them. So when He said to them, “I am He,” they drew back and fell to the ground. Twice John repeats the phrase ego eimi, emphasizing that it is the uttering of these words that causes the soldiers to draw back and fall down.

We might do well, then, with this understanding in mind, to look at Jesus’ words at John 8:24: “Unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.” Jesus here gives us the content and object of saving faith—real faith is that which focuses on the real Jesus. A faith that demands a change in Jesus before a commitment is made is not real faith at all. The Jews standing around Him during this conversation most assuredly would not have denied that He was a man—but that was not sufficient for faith. Some had only recently proclaimed Him as Messiah—but that was not sufficient for faith. Some might hail Him as a prophet or a miracle worker, blessed by God—but that was not sufficient for faith. Some today say He was a great moral teacher and philosopher—but that is not sufficient for faith. Some call Him “a god” or a great angel—but that is not sufficient for faith. No, Jesus himself laid down the line. Unless one believes Him for who He says He is—the ego eimi—one will die in one’s sins. There is no salvation in a false Christ. If we are to be united with Christ to have eternal life, then we must be united with the true Christ, not a false representation. It is out of love that Christ uttered John 8:24. We would do well to heed His words.

Of course, if Jesus is described as the Creator, another truth is therefore established. He who creates cannot himself be created. Hence, the eternality of Christ is directly related to His being the Maker of all things.

By its very character Gnosticism was dangerous, for it was an eclectic movement. That is, it was willing to “make room” in its theology for religious leaders and beliefs it encountered as it spread west into the Roman Empire and south into the academic strongholds of Egypt.

First, the very term “gnosticism” comes from the Greek term gnosis,[2] meaning “knowledge.” Devotees of Gnostic thinking believed that salvation was primarily a matter of obtaining certain knowledge (normally available only through their particular group, often disseminated by secret rituals). This knowledge, in turn, allowed a person to “escape” from the corruption of the world and their physical bodies.

Dualism is the idea that what is material (matter, flesh, the world) is inherently evil, while that which is spiritual (the soul, angels, God) is inherently good.

This is one of the reasons that when Paul made mention of the resurrection in his sermon on Mars Hill (Acts 17:32) they began to mock, for anyone who sees salvation as being freed from the body will hardly find the message of the resurrection of the body to be good news.

The Docetics were individuals who denied that Jesus had a real physical body. They were called Docetics because the Greek term dokein[4] means “to seem.” Hence, Jesus only seemed to have a physical body, when in fact He didn’t.

By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world. (1 John 4:2–3)[5]

And He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. (Colossians 1:15–17)

Those who do not understand the doctrine of the Trinity will assert, “See, He’s the image of the invisible God, not the invisible God himself,” wrongly assuming that we believe the Father (the “invisible God”) and the Son to be the same Person. In response, we point out that no creature can be the image of the invisible God, at least not in perfection. The Bible likewise describes Christ in similar language when it says that He is the “exact representation of His nature” (Hebrews 1:3). The Son can perfectly reflect the nature of God, and be the perfect image of the Father, because He, like the Father, is eternal and unlimited in His deity.

The first major task in properly addressing this passage is dealing with the meaning of the Greek term prototokos (firstborn).[6]

But it has a much more important usage in a number of other passages. The “firstborn” was entitled to a double portion of the inheritance or blessing (Deuteronomy 21:17; Genesis 27), and received special treatment (Genesis 43:33).

For example, in Exodus 4:22 God says that Israel is “My son, My firstborn.” Obviously Israel was not the first nation God “created,” but is instead the nation He has chosen to have a special relationship with Him. The same thought comes out much later in Jeremiah 31:9, where God again uses this kind of terminology when He says, “For I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is My firstborn.”

Psalm 89:27: “I also shall make him My firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth.” This is a highly messianic Psalm (note verse 20 and the use of the term “anointed” of David),

When we come to the New Testament,[8] we find that the emphasis is placed not on the idea of birth but instead upon the first part of the word—protos, the “first.” The word stresses superiority and priority rather than origin or birth.[9] In Romans 8:29, the Lord Christ is described as “the firstborn among many brethren.”

when the Old Testament use of the term is examined, it primarily speaks to a position of power, primacy, and preeminence.

Everything, anywhere, at any time, looks to the Son of God as “Creator.”

The NWT tries to defend the insertion of the word “other” by referring the reader to passages where one could logically insert the word “other” to make sense of the passage.[21] However, there is no such need here, and the grammar of the passages cited is quite different than what we are considering in Colossians.

The more complex argument goes like this: Jesus is the “firstborn of all creation.” It is insisted that the Greek grammar indicates that this means Jesus is a part of the creation,[22] thus, one must translate “all things” as “all [other] things” to make sense of the passage.

Such an interpretation, however, is “excluded by the context,”[23] which makes a strong and undeniable distinction between the Son and “all things.” Nowhere ...

The position taken by those who deny the deity of Christ falls right into the trap of agreeing with the Gnostics against Paul! In other words, if we interpret this passage as saying Jesus is a part of the creation, and not the Creator himself, we are left with a Jesus who looks very much like the Gnostic “aeon” that Paul is arguing against!

No, Paul makes it impossible for the Gnostic to hold on to his false beliefs about the world and try to make room for an edited “Jesus” by firmly asserting that everything that exists, including the physical universe, came into existence through the creative activity of Jesus Christ.

And every created thing which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea,

If Jesus is a creation, a mere creature, then is He not likewise joining into this song of praise?

Or it too should say "other"

We have seen already the importance of recognizing the truth that creation is not only the work of the Father or only the work of the Son (or even of the Spirit). Instead, creation is the work of Yahweh,

The Father decrees, the Son enacts, the Spirit conforms.

The hymns sung by the church have always told of the faith that is hers. While few today dwell on what our hymns really say, the early church placed much more emphasis upon the content of her hymns. Fragments of the earliest “hymnal” are found in the text of the New Testament.

Philippians 2:5-11 has been identified as the Carmen Christi, the “Hymn to Christ as God.” Some modern translations, such as the NIV, NRSV, TEV, and JB, set this passage apart in poetic form to indicate the fact that most scholars see in this passage something other than straight prose or teaching. Instead, what is found here may well be a section, maybe a verse or two, of an ancient Christian hymn.

Paul is not talking about a literal “emptying” of faith, but a metaphorical “making empty,” i.e., making void.[6] So it is here. The King James Version does an excellent job by rendering it “made himself of no reputation.” Paul is not saying Jesus ceased to be God, or in any other way stopped being equal with the Father, but that He voluntarily laid aside the privileges that were His.

where a chosen few saw Him in His true glory, the rest of mankind looked upon Him who, as Isaiah had said, “has no stately form or majesty that we should look upon Him, nor appearance that we should be attracted to Him” (Isaiah 53:2).

He who had eternally been served by cherubim and seraphim now takes on the form of a slave so as to serve others! And what service is He called to? “Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.”

Therefore, we can reach only one conclusion: Paul is presenting this great early hymn as his highest example of humility of mind, and because of this, we must understand the passage to present Jesus as having eternally existed in the very form of God, having eternally possessed equality with the Father, and yet, out of His great love for us, He voluntarily laid aside those privileges so as to give His life as a “ransom for many.” If context means anything at all, this is what the passage is teaching.

he goes on to use a passage from the Old Testament to demonstrate the deity of the Father and the Son: Therefore also God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Philippians 2:9–11)

But notice carefully what Paul does with his words. He quotes from an Old Testament passage, Isaiah 45:23, which reads, “I have sworn by Myself, the word has gone forth from My mouth in righteousness and will not turn back, that to Me every knee will bow, every tongue will swear allegiance.”

I believe in the Trinity because the Bible teaches the doctrine. No, the Bible doesn’t use the specific word “Trinity” any more than it uses the specific word “theocratic” or “Bible.” Instead, it teaches the doctrine by teaching the three pillars or foundations that make up the doctrine. The first such pillar is that there is only one true God, Yahweh, the Creator of all things. The second is that there are three divine persons, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Spirit, and the Spirit is not the Father. Three persons who communicate with one another and love one another. Finally, the third pillar is the teaching that these three persons are completely equal in sharing in the divine Being. This would include the deity of Christ and the personality of the Holy Spirit. This is where we directly disagree. May I show you from the Bible how it teaches these truths?

I assume you would agree with me that there is only one true God, Yahweh, or as you pronounce it, Jehovah. I believe the name “Jehovah” refers to the very divine Being, the eternal God who created every thing. We can agree, I assume, that the Father is identified as Jehovah.[1] But I believe that the Bible identifies Jesus as Yahweh, as well, and the Spirit is the Spirit of Yahweh. Each of these three persons share the one divine name, Yahweh or Jehovah. May I show you a few passages of Scripture that make this identification?

Hebrews 1:10–12 in comparison with Psalm 102:25–27, and John 12:37–41 in comparison with Isaiah 6:1–10.

Of old You founded the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands. Even they will perish, but You endure; And all of them will wear out like a garment; Like clothing You will change them and they will be changed. But You are the same, and Your years will not come to an end.

applying it to Jesus Christ. Here is how he does it in Hebrews 1:8-12: But of the Son He says, “YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM. YOU HAVE LOVED RIGHTEOUSNESS AND HATED LAWLESSNESS; THEREFORE GOD, YOUR GOD, HAS ANOINTED YOU WITH THE OIL OF GLADNESS ABOVE YOUR COMPANIONS.” And “YOU, LORD,[4] IN THE BEGINNING LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH, AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS; THEY WILL PERISH, BUT YOU REMAIN; AND THEY ALL WILL BECOME OLD LIKE A GARMENT, AND LIKE A MANTLE YOU WILL ROLL THEM UP; LIKE A GARMENT THEY WILL ALSO BE CHANGED. BUT YOU ARE THE SAME, AND YOUR YEARS WILL NOT COME TO AN END.”