The Forgotten Trinity (12 page)

THE MIGHTY GOD

Long before the blessed night of the Incarnation, Isaiah was led by
the Spirit of God to utter these words:

For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us;
And the government will rest on His shoulders;
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. Christians have always seen this
passage applying to the Lord Jesus Christ. There are a number of reasons why this is true. Isaiah says a "child" will be "born" to us. Both
terms are the normal words for the natural birth of children. But when
Isaiah says a "son will be given to us," he uses the literal word for
"given." One cannot help but think of the fact that the one born in
Bethlehem was truly a child, born as children are born (that is to say,
truly man, truly flesh), but was also the Son, given to us so as to redeem
us.

The passage is definitely Messianic, referring to the coming Messiah and His rule and reign (v. 7). But before speaking of what the
Messiah will do, the passage tells us who the Messiah will be. Here we
have a string of descriptive names, all of which are filled with high
meaning. We must focus, however, upon that name that indicates the deity of the coming One, that being the name El gibbor, "Mighty
God.""

Very few deny that this phrase is being used of the Messiah, the Son
of God. Instead, two routes are taken to avoid the impact of the description. 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.

Apart from the problem introduced by having two "true" Gods, all
of these attempted ways around the force of the verse run smack dab
into a brick wall provided by Isaiah himself. F. Delitzsch put it this
way:

But all these renderings, and others of a similar kind, founder,
without needing any further refutation, on ch. x. 21, where He, to
whom the remnant of Israel will turn with penitence, is called El
gibbor (the mighty God). There is no reason why we should take
El in this name of the Messiah in any other sense than in ImmanuEl; 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 kdam [i.e., between God and man], as ch.
xxxi. 3 (cf. Hos. xi. 9) clearly shows. And finally, El gibbor was a
traditional name of God, which occurs as early as Deut. x. 17, cf.
Jer. xxxii. 18, Neh. ix. 32, Ps. xxiv. 8, etc. The name gibbor is used
here as an adjective, like shaddai in El shaddai. The Messiah, then,
is here designated "mighty God." Undoubtedly this appears to go
beyond the limits of the Old Testament horizon; but what if it
should go beyond them? It stands written once for all, just as in
Jer. xxiii. 6 Jehovah Zidkenu (Jehovah our Righteousness) is also
used as a name of the Messiah.... Still we must not go too far. If
we look at the spirit of the prophecy, the mystery of the incarnation of God is unquestionably indicated in such statements as
these. But if we look at the consciousness of the prophet himself,
nothing further was involved than this, that the Messiah would be the image of God as not other man ever had been.32

The use, then, of El gibbor of Yahweh in Isaiah 10:21, a scant chapter later, makes the attempted excuse that the phrase indicates an inferiority and does not indicate true deity untenable. The Incarnate One
will be the Mighty God, truly, Immanuel, God with us.

THE CHURCH OF GOD

"Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which
the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of
God which He purchased with His own blood" (Acts 20:28).

As Paul traveled to Jerusalem, sure of the chains and imprisonment
awaiting him there, he called the elders of the church at Ephesus to
meet him along the seashore. There he exhorted them to remain faithful to the cause of Christ. He strongly impressed upon them the need
to watch over the flock, recognizing that it was the Holy Spirit himself
who had placed them in that position of leadership. Then Paul described the church they were to shepherd as that which He "purchased
with His own blood." The phrase has prompted a large amount of discussion," and, of course, controversy. Here are the two major issues
in looking at this passage:

(1) The passage contains an important "textual variation" in the
Greek manuscripts.34 Many manuscripts read "the church of the
Lord" rather than "the church of God."35

(2) There is great debate over whether the last phrase should be translated "His own blood" or, as it is rendered in other translations,
"blood of His own Son" (so NRSV, NJB).

As a result, we cannot, with certainty, insist that this passage is a reference to the deity of Christ. It can be understood in the following
ways:

(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").

(3) If we read the passage as "church of the Lord," the phrase "with
His own blood" would naturally refer to the blood of Christ.

I believe the evidence favors the second choice, though certainly the
first choice remains a valid possibility. But in light of the possibilities,
one cannot be dogmatic on the passage.

THE TRUE GOD AND ETERNAL LIFE

The same must be said regarding an inability to be dogmatic concerning the last passage we will examine, where the specific word
"God" may be used of Christ, that being 1 John 5:20:

And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us
understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are
in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God
and eternal life.

Two possible understandings are easily seen: the phrase "the true
God and eternal life" can refer, logically and grammatically, to either
the Father ("Him who is true") or to Jesus Christ. The demonstrative
pronoun "this one" normally refers to the closest antecedent, in this
case, "Jesus Christ." But one can even argue that "His Son Jesus Christ"
would make the "His" (i.e., the Father) the antecedent. In either case,
we cannot say with absolute certainty what the antecedent is, nor,
really, do we have to be overly concerned to know. Why? The relationship between the Father and the Son in John's writings is so close,
so intimate, and so perfect, that in reality, the description "the true
God and eternal life" can be used of either one or both. Think about
it: Jesus said that it is eternal life to know the Father and to know the
One sent by the Father, Jesus Christ (John 17:3). It is not eternal life,
in John's theology, to know the Father without the Son. He had just
written these words:

The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in
himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar,
because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given
concerning His Son. And the testimony is this, that God has given
us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has
the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the
life. (1 John 5:10-12)

So to have eternal life, one must have both the Father and the Son (cf.
1 John 2:23!). Thus, we might well be completely missing the point in
trying to find out whether it is the Father or the Son who is being
referred to in 1 John 5:20. 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.

OTHER TESTIMONIES TO HIS DEITY

There are literally hundreds-no, thousands-of passages that testify to the deity of Christ once we understand that no creature could
possibly do or say the things that the Lord Jesus did and said. And we
certainly cannot catalog them in this brief work. Instead, I would like
to focus upon just a few more passages that, while not using the term
"God" of Jesus, communicate the very same idea but in different
terms.

When Paul wrote to the Colossians, he emphasized over and over
again the supremacy of Jesus Christ. I again remind my fellow believers
that the descriptions of our Lord found throughout the New Testament
defy any attempted application to a mere3" creature. Only true deity
can be described as our Lord is. This is especially true in Paul's description of Christ to the Colossians as the one in whom are hidden
all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Colossians 2:3). Paul then
makes Jesus Christ the standard of all human knowledge and thought:

See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and
empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to
the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to
Christ. For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form.
(Colossians 2:8-9)

Why is Christ the standard? Why is He worthy to be the benchmark
by which everything else is to be measured? Because all the "fullness
of Deity" dwells in Him. Each word is full of meaning. When we read
of the "fullness of Deity," we find here a claim to the deity of Christ
that is, in some respects, stronger than if Paul had used the very word
"God" of the Lord in this passage. Why? Because the word itself is very
strong. The King James Version renders it "godhead," which is not only
ambiguous, but since the KJV elsewhere renders other less strong terms
by the same word (e.g., Romans 1:20), it can be quite confusing. The
Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker lexicon renders the word "deity,
divinity, used as an abstract noun for 06S."37 Thayer's lexicon says,
"deity, i.e. the state of being God, Godhead: Col. ii. 9."31' Dr. Thayer is
here giving us the words of Dr. Grimm. However, he then goes on to
provide some important information on his own:

[SYN. Oeotrlc, Oetotrl;: Oeot. deity differs from OEtft divinity, as
essence differs from quality or attribute]

What does this mean? Basically, this lexical source is indicating that
the word we have at Colossians 2:9 is different from the weaker term
used at Romans 1:20. The term Paul uses here of Christ refers to the
very essence of deity rather than a mere quality or attribute.39 Thayer
notes as one of his sources the work of Richard Trench on synonyms
in the New Testament. Trench said of these two terms:

... yet they must not be regarded as identical in meaning, nor
even as two different forms of the same word, which in process of
time have separated off from one another, and acquired different
shades of significance. On the contrary, there is a real distinction
between them, and one which grounds itself on their different derivations; OsotrlS being from OF-6;, and Oetotrlc not from to Oetov,

which is nearly though not quite equivalent to OF-6;, but from the
adjective 96oS ... But in the second passage (Col. ii. 9) St. Paul
is declaring that in the Son there dwells all the fulness of absolute
Godhead; they were no mere rays of divine glory which gilded
Him, lighting up his person for a season and with a splendour not
his own; but He was, and is, absolute and perfect God; and the
Apostle uses OEOitlS to express this essential and personal Godhead of the Son.40

This is why B. B. Warfield hit it on the head when he said of this
passage, "that is to say, the very Deity of God, that which makes God
God, in all its completeness, has its permanent home in Our Lord, and
that in a `bodily fashion,' that is, it is in Him clothed with a body."41

ALPHA AND OMEGA

In the book of Revelation we read the following passages:

BEHOLD, HE IS COMING WITH THE CLOUDS, and every eye will
see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the
earth will mourn over Him. So it is to be. Amen. "I am the Alpha
and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and
who is to come, the Almighty" (Revelation 1:7-8).

When I saw Him, I fell at His feet like a dead man. And He
placed His right hand on me, saying, "Do not be afraid; I am the
first and the last, and the living One; and I was dead, and behold,
I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades"
(Revelation 1:17-18).

"Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to
render to every man according to what he has done. I am the Alpha
and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end"
(Revelation 22:12-13).

Christians have used the title "Alpha and Omega" of the Lord Jesus
from the very beginning. Alpha (A) was the first letter of the Greek
alphabet, and Omega (Q) was the last. It would be the same as saying
"the A and the Z" in the English language. It carries the same meaning as "first and last"42 and "beginning and end."43

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. Since Jehovah is the first
and the last (Isaiah 41:4), and each of the divine Persons is likewise
identified as Yahweh (see chapter 9), the phrase "Alpha and Omega"
would apply equally to the Father, to the Son, or to the Spirit.