One of the most popular concepts in Christianity, championed by believers and non-believers alike, is that God is love. This is a direct quotation of 1st John 4:8 and 4:16 which say:
The one who does not love does not know God, because God is love.
[1st John 4:8]
And we have come to know and have believed the love which God has in us. God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.
[1st John 4:16]
Now while it is the case that this beautiful truth has—like so many others—been utterly perverted by a fallen world (being declared as though it were an excuse to affirm sinners in their rebellion against God), we believers cannot lose sight of the astounding beauty that this truth contains. And, while the statement certainly stands as glorious in its plain reading, it actually provides us a uniquely heart-wrenching and mind-blowing insight into the very nature of God.
First Observations
“God is love” is a quite unique statement in Scripture. There are a number of “God is” statements in Scripture, including:
God is not a man, that He should lie,
Nor a son of man, that He should repent;
[Numbers 23:19]
God is a consuming fire, a jealous God.
[Deuteronomy 4:24]
God is a compassionate God
[Deuteronomy 4:31]
God is one
[Deuteronomy 6:4; Galatians 3:20; James 2:19]
God is the God of gods and the Lord of lords
[Deuteronomy 10:17; Daniel 2:47]
God is exalted
[Job 36:22, 26]
God is righteous
[Psalm 7:11; Daniel 9:14]
God is faithful
[1st Corinthians 1:9, 10:13; 2nd Corinthians 1:18]
God is light
[1st John 1:5]
But what you’ll notice about each of those statements (with the exception of the last) is that the phrase “God is” is then followed by an adjective. God is being described. That is, when the Bible says “God is,” you can expect that it will either be describing something that God is doing (ex: in your midst, or giving you this land) or an attribute of God (ex: God is faithful; God is righteous; etc.).
But the statement “God is love” is different. In the declaration that “God is love,” we see a break in the usual formula. Here God is not being described by one of His attributes like holiness, faithfulness, or righteousness. No, “love” is not an adjective. Instead, “love” is a noun. John did not say that “God is loving,” but that “God is love.” Why belabor the point? Because this construction is (almost) absolutely unique. What 1st John 4:8 and 4:16 communicate is not simply one attribute of God, or a characteristic of how God acts in time, but rather, 1st John 4:8 and 4:16 tell us about the very nature of God. To follow the phrase “God is” with a noun instead of an adjective is to say that, ‘This thing is central to what God is. It’s not just about what He does or even who He is, but this is about what He is’—and that is entirely unique in all of Scripture.
About 1st John 1:5
Well, I say it’s entirely unique, but of course I’ve already noted that 1st John 1:5 (“God is light”) does the same thing: it follows “God is” with a noun instead of an adjective. However, I still maintain that “God is love” is an entirely unique insight in all of Scripture.
I say this because there seems to be a distinction in how the Apostle John uses the two statements. When we examine the context of 1st John chapter one, and when we cross reference that with John 1:4 - 5, 3:19 - 21, it seems clear that “light” is serving as a metaphor. “Light” serves as the metaphor for God’s all-consuming, all-illuminating, all-holy presence. For John to say “God is light,” is for him to say, ‘God functions as though light: He overcomes the darkness of the world and of our hearts.’ It also seems that the statement “God is light” must be metaphorical, because light is a necessarily created thing—it exists in the created world. Even when it is said that “they will not have need of the light of a lamp nor the light of the sun, because the Lord God will illumine them,” this is because God will be willing the existence of light de fiat as a manifestation of His glory [Revelation 22:5].
When we turn again to 1st John 4:8 and 4:16, however, we see that no apparent metaphor is present. Further, “love” is abstract and transcendent, not a creation like light. So where we might be forced to understand “God is light” in the metaphorical sense, not wanting to conflate the Creator with His creation, we are not immediately compelled to do the same for “God is love,” because it is not so obvious that love is a created thing.
Instead, we can take the verse at face value. This is not to say that we did not take 1st John 1:5 at face value, but rather that the author does not intend a metaphor here as he did there. And because John does not intend a metaphor by saying “God is love,” we conclude that what he has done is given us an unprecedented insight into the very nature of God.
So what’s the point?
The point is this: in order for it to be truly said—as the Apostle John truly does say—that “God is love,” it must also be affirmed that God is a Trinity. No conception of God can truly hold that God is love except the Trinitarian one. The implications then, are obvious. If the Bible so clearly states that God, in His eternal existence and very nature “is love,” then the only viable conception of God is the one which allows, nay proposes that “God is love.”
What is love?
Consider this: according to the Bible, what is love? The most clear answer to this question is given in 1st Corinthians 13:4 - 8
“Love is patient, love is kind, is not jealous, does not brag, is not puffed up; it does not act unbecomingly, does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered; it does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; it bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails.”
Love, biblically, is an action. We are called to recognize how God has loved us, and then to love one another. In order for an action to fall in the category of “love,” however, it must meet a certain definition. It must be patient, kind, selfless, etc. These are all adjectives, but they describe how the action of love must be carried out if it is to be truly loving. Nevertheless, we see that “love” is an action—it’s something that we do.
So then, let me ask you this: can one person engage in love? If love is an action, specifically an action that is done between persons, then can love truly be experienced by a single person? The answer would be no. No, in order for love to occur there must be both a subject and an object, a giver and a receiver. If I am to love my brother, that requires my brother to exist; if I am to love anyone, that requires that someone exists.
Can God be an action?
The next question, then, is this: If love is an action, and it requires a giver and a receiver, then how can God be love? Notice again, the Bible does not say that God is “loving,” but that He is “love.” God doesn’t just have the capacity to love; God is not just inclined to love; God is love. This can only work within the Trinitarian conception of God, and this is why:
First, in the unitarian understanding of God (that is, the belief that the one God is only one person), it is impossible for God to be partaking in love until He creates something to love. This is called contingent love. Contingent love is love that is “contingent” (or, “dependent”) on the thing that is loved. This is how human beings love. My love for my brother is contingent on my brother’s existence. My brother’s love for me is contingent on my existence, and even my continued existence. If I or my brother did not exist, then there could be no love between my brother and I.
With unitarian theology in mind, the only way that God can love is through contingent love. God’s expression of love is dependent on having something to love. Now remember, unitarians (i.e. Jews, Muslims, Oneness Pentecostals) believe that there only exists one person within the one being of God; unitarians believe that the one God is only one person. This means that love must be shared from the one person of God to something or someone that is outside of Himself. Now, anything that exists outside of God is necessarily created. Therefore, unitarianism forces us to say that God’s love is dependent on creation, meaning that God is not actually able to love until He creates. This flatly contradicts what 1st John 4:8 and 4:16 say about God. Again, what 1st John says about God is that he “is love.” That is: God, in His very existence, is love; God, in His very existence from eternity, is partaking in the action of love. But unitarianism cannot affirm that God is or (more importantly) has always been love, because God did not have anything to love until He created the world.
Second, we are given no indication that the “love” in view in 1st John 4:8 and 4:16 is some sort of self-love. The only way for unitarians to affirm that “God is love” (in the biblical sense that God partakes in the action of love) is to say that ‘God loves Himself.’ Because God is only one person, and because there exists nothing with God until He creates, the only remaining possible recipient of love would be God Himself. So, the unitarian is forced to say that “God is love” really means that ‘God loves Himself.’ This, however, is quite obviously problematic.
- Self-love is never seen as a good thing in Scripture.
- God’s love is defined as selfless and humble, and it would take some serious gymnastics to say that the one person of God loving Himself is selfless or humble.
So we see that, in light of 1st John 4:8 and 4:16, unitarianism is not tenable. Unitarianism cannot account for how God could eternally partake in the action of love, which is the clearest meaning of what the Apostle John said. Unitarianism forces one to conclude that either God simply isn’t love because He can’t love until He creates, or that the highest expression of love (that is, God’s love) is merely an endless cycle of self-love, which runs completely counter to the biblical definition of God’s love being selfless and humble.
How does the Trinity answer the question?
So unitarianism has been found to be inadequate. A unipersonal God cannot be accurately defined as “love” because He, by definition, has no one to love. Instead, it is Trinitarianism that provides a way for understanding this beautiful truth of Scripture.
First, we must define terms—most importantly, we need to define the doctrine of the Trinity.
The doctrine of the Trinity, carefully defined, is this: that there is One God, Yahweh, and that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all Yahweh; the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit co-equally and co-eternally share in the one essence of God. The three are equal in all the qualities that pertain to being God, namely, being equal in their eternality, their power, and their glory, etc. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have always been and will always be Yahweh—God. The three persons are inseparable from each other, since to divide the persons would be to divide the one essence of God which is indivisible; it is not that possible that the divine essence exists apart from any of the three persons, nor that any person exists apart from the essence. Rather, God exists as God is, was, and ever will be, and could not be anything other than what He is.
Get all that? If not, just remember this: the Trinity teaches that there is one God who has always existed in three persons.
Now, I want you to think back to the issues that arose when we evaluated the unitarian position. What we found is that the unitarian position was not tenable because it asserts that there is one God who is one person. Because there is, supposedly, only one person in God, there is then no one to receive the love of God until He creates. However, Trinitarianism does not have this problem.
Trinitarians affirm—as the Bible teaches—that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have always existed together as the one God. From eternity, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have always been together in perfect relationship, always in perfect love with one another. This is the secret to understanding that God is love.
Because God has always been three co-equal and co-eternal persons, we can understand how it is that He is always engaged in the action of love: the Father has always been loving the Son, and the Son has always been loving the Spirit, and so on and so on. This is the only way to make sense of John’s words in 4:8 and 4:16—there needs to be a plurality of persons within the one being of God. Without a plurality in the Godhead there cannot possibly be an eternal sharing of love, and yet an eternal transfer of love is exactly what John tells us is going on. But when we see God as He is—as Trinity!—we understand that He truly is love because His entire existence has been defined by the ad-intra operation of love between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Notice that phrase: ad-intra operation. “Ad-intra” means “internal,” or “turned inward.” Ad-intra operations speak of the timeless, uncreated activities that occur within God’s being. In contrast to ad-intra operations stand ad-extra operations. Ad-extra operations are activities that occur outside of God’s being. Actions like creation, revelation, incarnation, and redemption are all ad-extra operations of God. Now, notice the similarity between these ad-extra operations and the concept of contingent love that we discussed previously. These are things that happen outside of God. God performs the ad-extra work of creation, which allows Him to have contingent love for that which He has created. Most of God’s activities are ad-extra and outside of Himself, because they relate to creation in some way.
However, we also understand that there exists such a thing as ad-INTRA operations of God. I propose that these ad-intra operations include the love that God is said to be in 1st John 4:8 and 4:16. This also opens to us the concept of essential love. “Essential love”—in contrast to contingent love—is a love that is core to the very nature and existence of God… which is exactly how we have understood John’s declaration that “God is love.” Essential love is not love that is dependent on an outward recipient, but is focused on inward recipients—these inward recipients are the three distinct members of Godhead who exist in perfect relationship with one another.
So we see that the Trinitarian understanding of God is able to account for the teaching that “God is love,” because it provides the context for there to be both senders and receivers of love within the eternal being of God.
Why three persons?
But why must we conclude that “God is love” forces us toward Trinitarian theology? If all we need is a plurality in the Godhead, then why can’t we propose binitarianism (two persons) or poly-hypostacism (many persons)? Why draw a hard circle around three?
Consider this: love expresses itself in two ways. First, there is interpersonal love, wherein love is expressed from one person to another within a single unit. But second is cooperative love. Cooperative love is a love that flows from two persons to a single person. Think of it this way: a husband and wife might love each other, and might even love each other with an uncompromised, perfect love. But with time, the husband and wife relationship turns into a father and mother relationship. Now there is a third person whom the two partners will love together. While the original interpersonal love is still maintained, there arrives a new, previously impossible mode of love.
It is this kind of love (which must exist within God if indeed He truly “is love”) that rules out binitarianism. Within the binitarian Godhead, there exists only two persons, which would mean that this cooperative love is contingent upon creation, which we have already ruled out as inadequate.
So, there must be at least three persons in the Godhead, so that there can be both interpersonal and cooperative love within God’s eternal existence. But why stop at three? Well, because of simple reason. In the realm of philosophical theology, it is generally ill-advised to go beyond that which is absolutely necessary. Let’s retrace our steps for a second.
- We started with the Scriptures, finding that they teach “God is love.”
- We examined the implications of this from philosophy
- We are arriving at a theological conclusion
In essence, our journey could be mapped as going from exegetical theology (that is, deriving doctrine from Scripture), to philosophy (the examination of contingent love, essential love, cooperative love, etc.), to inferred theology (arriving at a conclusion that is not explicitly taught in Scripture but is a natural conclusion of what Scripture teaches).
In this exercise, we have come to the conclusion that in order for the statement “God is love” to be true, God must be Trinitarian. This is as far as we can go. It would not be right for us to go beyond what we know to be an absolute necessity. It is absolutely necessary that God be a Trinity in order to be love. A poly-hypostatic conception might also be able to conclude that “God is love,” but to propose a poly-hypostatic God is an act of utter speculation. We have not speculated that the being of God must be shared by three persons, we have come to that as a necessary conclusion—but to wander further and propose a four, five, six, infinite number persons within God would be speculative.
Further, we know that God is not a composite being, nor is He needlessly (take note of the word “needlessly”) complex. God is certainly more complex than we are (possibly complex beyond our comprehension), but God is not made of parts, nor is His essence any more complicated than it needs to be—God is simply God. What we have found with the Trinity is that it properly articulates the complex irreducibility of God. The Trinity is complex: it proposes three persons within the Godhead instead of one. But the Trinity is irreducible: take out one of the persons and suddenly it doesn’t work. The same cannot be said for a poly-hypostatic God.
First, a God with many persons (or, more than three) multiplies complexity without purpose. We have identified that there are two modes of love, interpersonal and cooperative. This requires at least three persons, but also requires no more than persons. If there are only two modes of love, and if those two modes are the interpersonal and cooperative, then there can only exist three unique roles: there is the giver and the receiver in the interpersonal mode; there is giver one, giver two, and receiver in the cooperative mode. There are no other possible roles. Notice, the addition of a second giver in the cooperative model fundamentally changes the dynamic—but adding a fourth person, or fifth person, or any number of persons does not change the dynamic because it remains within the cooperative mode. So proposing additional persons within the Godhead (more than three) is completely needless and irrational—but God is neither needlessly complex nor irrational, and thus a God of more than three persons can be dismissed.
Second, the Triune God is irreducible. We’ve seen that the Trinity cannot logically be turned into a quaternity, or a quinunity, or anything other than a Trinity. But also, we’ve already seen that the Trinity cannot be diminished into a binary or a unitary. The Trinity is irreducible. Just as it cannot be added to, it cannot be taken away from, because God cannot be less or more than He is, for He is perfect—and He is Triune.
Λοιπόν - FINALLY
The love of God may very well be the most popular truth about Him—sadly for wrong reasons. But what we know is that the love of God is so much deeper than just superficial affection and aimless grace—no, we truly know that God is love. God, in His eternal, unchanging, perfect existence, has been and always will be partaking in love—and God, in His eternal, unchanging, perfect existence, has been and always will be a Trinity: the Father, always loving His eternal Son; the Son, along with the Father, always loving the Holy Spirit.
The proclamation that “God is love” ought to bring comfort to the Christian, knowing that in God we see our loving Father, our crucified and risen Savior, and the all-comforting presence of life and light—but it also ought to inspire a bottomless sense of wonder. God is so much higher than we could ever comprehend, but in just one (seemingly) simple statement He has given us a truly beautiful glimpse of who He is.
.jpg)
.jpg)
