Return To Home

<< Part 1

Series Index

Resurrection >>

There many passages which imply, ambiguously suggest, or clearly state that Jesus is indeed divine. This study, for the sake of brevity, will stick to a few passages which have popularly been taken as the clearest passages on Jesus nature in general.¹

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God. The Word was with God in the beginning. All things were created by him, and apart from him not one thing was created that has been created. John 1:1-3.

Now the Word became flesh and took up residence among us. We saw his glory-the glory of the one and only, full of grace and truth, who came from the Father. John 1:14.

John, interestingly, starts his Gospel account by echoing Genesis: In the beginning God... (Genesis 1:1.) Only here, the Word is the object of the first clause. John goes on to say that the Word was with God and was God. We later discover that the Word is none other than Jesus Christ prior to his being born in the flesh. Thus, this is perhaps the most clear assertion of Jesus' divinity, but let's not get ahead of ourselves quite yet. John seems to be careful here in trying to articulate the nature of the word: the Word was with God (implying a distinction between the Father and the Word) and was God (implying unity in substance or being with the Father). John dares not to be interpreted as conflicting with his strict monotheistic, Jewish background, and yet assents to the divinity of the Word. It is actually not unique in the Jewish background to personify God's wisdom or word.² What we will find is unique here, however, is that the Word became flesh (v. 14).

One attempt to avoid this implication is to render the last part of the first verse, "... the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." And indeed, the original Greek doesn't have the definite article in the last clause (the definite article would be similar to "the" in English). This is how the New World Translation, a version of the Bible made by Jehovah's witnesses, translates the passage. However, this is problematic: if the Father is the Only True God as opposed to false gods, as seen above, then doesn't this mean that the Word is a false God? Furthermore, there are a few other times in John 1 where the definite article is not used of God. For instance, John 1:6 could be translated "There was a man sent from a god..."³ even though the NWT even renders it "as a representative of God." It should be evident that even without the definite article, it is safe to conclude that every instance of "god" in this context refers to One God of the Bible.

Anthother popular interpretation is that the Word was in fact not the eternal God, but was the very first creation. However, John goes to great length to stress that everything that was created by the Word. The obvious implication is that if something exists that was not created by the Word, it was not created. This obliterates any tradition that claims to be Biblical and yet says that the Word itself was the first creation. This is where Jehovah's Witnesses go wrong, as the Word cannot be a creation itself if everything that was created was created by the Word. One cannot, after all, create oneself.

Still, there are some that do not deny that the Word was "God," but reject that he was personal until "it" was born as Jesus. This is a more serious objection, and based on some more literal translations, it seems it might have merit. However, we do have indication elsewhere that this is not the case. Later, John the Baptist speaks of his role as preparing the way for Jesus: "I am the voice of one shouting in the wilderness, 'Make straight the way for the Lord,' as Isaiah the prophet said." John 1:23 (cf. John 1:6-7). Yet, this is what we read in Isaiah: A voice is calling, "Clear the way for the LORD in the wilderness; Make smooth in the desert a highway for our God." Isaiah 40:3, NASB. Notice, "LORD" here is in all capital letters. Many Bible translations of the Old Testmanent use this convention when translating the name of God (which is sometimes transliterated "Yahweh"). In other words, John was preparing the way for God Himself. Furthermore, we read, "Then the glory of the LORD will be revealed, And all flesh will see it together; For the mouth of the LORD has spoken." Isaiah 40:5. Here, the same LORD which John the Baptist prepares the way for is the same LORD who had spoken in Isaiah's day. This is clear evidence for the personhood of the preincarnate Word. Now, I don't suggest that this name of the LORD in the Old Testament always refers to the one who the Gospel of John calls the Word, but this is in the same context as the prophecy in question.

Going back to John 1, we had read, Now the Word became flesh and took up residence among us. We saw his glory-the glory of the one and only, full of grace and truth, who came from the Father. v. 14. The Word became flesh -- it is possible that part of the purpose behind John's Gospel account was to address an early form of Gnosticism. Gnosticism viewed flesh as being intrinsically evil, and thus was something to escape. Because of this, they detested the idea of God coming in the flesh, so while they assented to Christ's divinity, they rejected His humanity. This may simply be speculative, but regardless John is clear that Christ is indeed God and is indeed man.

This should be sufficient to establish the Bible perspective on the Son's position in the Trinity. There are other passages that are worth noting in regards Christ's deity, of course.⁴ However, there is another objection that sometimes comes up.

Another objections is, if Jesus is God, and thus is equal to the Father, why does He submit to Him? For instance, Jesus says, "I tell you the solemn truth, the Son can do nothing on his own initiative, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise. John 5:19. Also, we read Jesus say in John 6:38, "For I have come down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of the one who sent me." Some have interpreted this to mean that Jesus cannot be God, but only an inferior. The obvious problem with this objection is that it conflates Christ's effective subordination with some sort of ontological inferiority. One could be of the same nature or essense with another person, and yet be functionally subordinate to the person. After all, do you submit to political authorities over you? Yet, they are human, and presumably so are you.

So, we have these three persons who are God. Yet, the Bible is also clear that there is only one God. For instance, This is what the Lord, Israel's king, says, their protector, the Lord who leads armies: "I am the first and I am the last, there is no God but me. Isaiah 44:6. There are many other verses like this (also refer back to John 17:3 above), however it is clear at this point there there seems to be some tension between God's unity and His triunity. This has led to some divergent views of God's triune nature. For instance, Modalism holds that God revealed himself sequentially in three forms, but is not simultaneously three distinct persons. He was the Father, they say, and then became the Son, and is now the Holy Spirit. Oneness theology also denies that God is three distinct persons, but rather sees the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three manifestations of the same Person.⁵ The Trinitarian view, on the other hand, holds that the Father is distinct from the Son, the Son is distinct from the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is distinct from the Father. This is not to say that they are separate (for if indeed they were, then they would be three gods), but rather that a distinction can be made between the three Persons.

The Bible favors the Trinitarian view of the Persons. Jesus said of His mission, For I have come down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of the one who sent me. John 6:38. Jesus distinguishes between His own will and the will of the Father. If having a will is an attribute of personhood (which, in my understanding of orthodoxy this is as is understood), then the implication here is that the Father and the Son have distinct wills. Furthermore, we earlier looked at 1Cor. 12:11, where the Holy Spirit is said to have a will. It is also noteworthy here, as the one who is said to possess the "will" in 12:11 is the Holy Spirit. God doesn't even show up in the immediate context as a contiguous being. Thus, the Spirit also has his own will, and thus is also a distinct person.

This should cover the key points of Trinitarian Doctrine. However, one may wonder why this is such an important issue. After all, don't all these different views diverge from the same Christian tradition? Perhaps some may be as bold to say that they are all different views of the same God, much like three blind men coming to different conclusions about one elephant?

First, one defining attribute of Christians is that they know God (cf. Jer 31:34). However, if we knowingly have flawed views of God, to what degree can we claim to know Him? For instance, if someone was to believe that the tree in his front yard was God, would he be saved? Aside from universalists, most who share the claim of being Biblical would say no. Thus, at some point we must conclude that where a professed believer should know better, to know God they must have correct views of God, inasmuch as God has allowed. The view that God is one being in three persons is not less mutually exclusive to the view that God is a tree than the view that God is one person.

Now, some may rebut that there are always some things that we may never know about God. Thus, what is the big deal with getting it right? However, even though it is granted that we are limited in our capacity to understand God, nevertheless God has chosen to reveal Himself to the extent that He has wanted us to know Him, and thus it would only dishonor God to reject Him as He revealed Himself for some pale, man-made construct.

Another common objection is that many Christians today don't really understand the Trinity, and in fact most of the early church may not have understood it. However, my language has been nuanced as it has been for a certain reason. You see, Christian tradition as early back as we know distinguished between blatant heresy and "heresy" of ignorance. In other words, would these Christians embrace Trinitarian theology as we know it if the knew better? Generally it has not been ignorance of doctrine that has been condemned as heresy, but rather the teaching of false doctrine when the individual knew correct doctrine but rejected it nonetheless. Nevertheless, we should seek correct doctrine and teach it to those who err.

Second, there is Biblical evidence that, at the very least, salvation itself is related to proper understanding of who Christ is. That is, willful rejection of Christ's deity would forfeit one from being saved by grace, so long as they don't repent of their false belief. For instance, we have a very popular passage: Jesus replied, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. John 14:6. Now, this verse doesn't reference Jesus' deity, but consider, what if someone believed that Jesus was the tree in their front yard. Could such faith save Him? Again, note that knowledge of someone is required in order to know them. Therefore, if Jesus is God, and someone knowingly rejects that, then they cannot come to the Father, for that access is only available through God the Son: the real Jesus. And since salvation is knowing "the Only True God," such a person would not be saved.

If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved... For everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. Romans 10:9,13. Paul, here, stresses the importance of calling on Jesus as Lord. In fact, He quotes an Old Testament passage about those who call on the Lord being saved. However, the original passage in the OT says, "And it will come about that whoever calls on the name of the LORD will be delivered." Joel 2:32, NASB. Again in some translations, when the "LORD" comes up in all caps, it refers to the Hebrew name of God. In other words, the original passage Paul cites in Rom. 10:13 is actually speaking of calling on God to be saved. Since the only person who comes up in the context in Romans 10:6-13 is Jesus, the implication is that Paul not only is saying that Jesus is God, but calling on Him as God is important for salvation.

Finally, Jesus told the Jews who did not believe in him, "Thus I told you that you will die in your sins. For unless you believe that I am he, you will die in your sins." John 8:24. At the very least, we again see that knowing of the identity of Jesus is crucial for salvation. (On "to die in one's sins," it is reported, "Dying in one's sins, with one's sins unrepented and unatoned for, renders one subject to the wrath and judgement of the Holy God."⁶). Yet, there is more that can be said about this. There is no "he" in the second sentence in the Greek, though it can be taken as implied. This is probably why the Jews in the next verse ask who Jesus is, and then Jesus replies that he already stated who he was ("I am"?). Then later during the same discourse, Jesus pronounces, Jesus said to them, "I tell you the solemn truth, before Abraham came into existence, I am!" John 8:58. At this point, the Jews pick up stones and prepare to stone Jesus. But why? Bad grammar is not a capital offense. However, the most probable offense which could prompt a stoning is blasphemy (Lev. 24:10-16). The most likely explanation is that the Jews interpreted the "I am" in v. 58 as an application of a name of God. Raymond E. Brown, who is by no means a "fundamentalist," explains that though this "I am" can roughly mean "it is I," the absolute usage, with no predicate, has peculiarly divine connotations in the Greek version of the Old Testament:

The most important use of the OT formula "I am Yahweh" stresses the unicity of God: I am Yahweh (or I am He) and there is no other, e.g., in Deutero-Isaiah, as well as in Hosea 13:4 and Joel 2:27. The Hebrew for "I Yahweh" or "I He" is translated in the Greek OT simply as "I am" (ego eimi); and since the predicate is not expressed, that translation puts added emphasis on existance.

There is even evidence that the use of ego eimi in the Greek of Deutero-Isaiah came to be understood not only as a statement of divine unicity and existance, but also as a divine name. The Hebrew of Isa 43:25 reads, "I, I am He who blots out your transgressions." The Greek translates the first part of this statement by using ego eimi twice. This can mean, "I am He, I am He who blots out your transgressions"; but it can also be intepreted, "I am 'I AM' who blots out your transgressions," a translation that makes ego eimi a name. Isa 51:12 is similar. The Hebrew of Isa 52:6 states, "My people shall know my name; in that day (they shall know) that I am He who speaks"; but the Greek can be read, "that ego eimi is the one who speaks," so that "I AM" becomes the divine name to be known in the day of the Lord.

Against this background the absolute use of "I AM" by the Johannine Jesus becomes quite intelligible; he was speaking in the same manner in which Yahweh speaks in Deutero-Isaiah. For instance, in John 8:28 Jesus promises that when the Son of Man is lifted up (in return to the Father), "then you will know ego eimi"; in Isaiah 43:10 Yahweh has chosen Israel, "that you may know and believe me and understand ego eimi." The absolute Johannine use of "I AM" has the effect of portraying Jesus as divine with (pre)existence as his identity, even as the Greek OT understood the God of Israel.⁷

If indeed Jesus claimed to be "I AM," and Jesus indeed wasn't God (as the Jews here would have presumed, given their disbelief in Jesus), then the charge of blasphemy would be warrented. God called the Israelites to believe that He is "I am," just as Jesus states the people will die in their sins because they fail to believe that He is "I am." While this interpretation isn't bulletproof, it would push the opponent of Christ's deity into the position of having to explain why Jesus is not, in fact, using the background of ego eimi in the Greek OT.

Having all this in mind, we can see how vital the Trinity doctrine is, and why it was officially adopted as the position of the church so early. To willingly deny the Trinity not only skews one's ability to know God, but also conflicts with Scripture and may even negate the salvation of some, depending on their view of Christ. This is too foundational to equivocate over, and we do ourselves a great disservice when we take the doctrine lightly.

<< Part 1

Series Index

Resurrection >>

Notes and Citations:

1. More extensive studies on this topic alone abound. One recommended article covers more implicit yet nevertheless clear evidences of Christ's deity in the Bible: <http://tear.sinfree.net/Trinity/VariousJesus.html>

2. J.P. Holding goes into detail regarding the possible influences on John, here, by earlier, prechristian Jewish authors. See: <http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/trinitydefense.html>

3. Keating, Corey. "Comparing the Use of the Word 'God' and the Definite Article in John Chapter 1." Resources for Learning New Testament Greek. July 10, 2001. June 3, 2005. <http://www.ntgreek.org/answers/john1-article-god.htm>

4. My old notes on the various passages are still online. See here: <http://tear.sinfree.net/Trinity/BriefEssay.html>

5. One definition of Oneness I've seen says that it is actually the same thing as Modalism. However, I have met Oneness adherents who do not believe that God became the Son and then later became the Holy Spirit (and thus can "manifest" the three forms simultaneously). For this essay, I will group the views together, as I believe they fall for making the same mistake, but will permit that in some traditions they may be seen as distinct views.

6. Arnold, Clinton E., ed. Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary. vol. 2, p. 84. Zondervan. Grand Rapids, MI. 2002

7. Brown, Raymond E. Introduction to New Testament Christology. 138-139. Paulist Press. New York. 1994