A Study of John 1 - Part 2

The “orthodox” Trinitarian Creeds (in which we find various references to the “eternally begotten Son of God") stand apart from the witness of Scripture. Their language is peculiar, paradoxical, nonsensical, and above all… unBiblical.

Thus:

The notion that the Son was begotten by the Father in eternity past, not as an event, but as an inexplicable relationship, has been accepted and carried along in the Christian theology since the fourth century....

We have examined all the instances in which 'begotten' or 'born' or related words are applied to Christ, and we can say with confidence that the Bible has nothing whatsoever to say about 'begetting' as an eternal relationship between the Father and the Son.[2]

We see therefore, that when John speaks of the logos he does not refer to a pre-existent Messiah – he refers to the conception of a Divine plan and purpose, which found its literal expression in the person of Jesus Christ.

As previously noted, James Dunn agrees with this interpretation, but still finds it difficult to reconcile the necessarily impersonal nature of the logos with the text of the KJV.

His chief concern is that:

The point is obscured by the fact that we have to translate the masculine "logos" as "He" throughout the poem.

But Dunn is clearly labouring under a false assumption. There are no grounds on which it might be argued that we have to refer to the “logos” as “He.” It is true that the word “logos” is masculine (at least, in the grammatical sense) but this is irrelevant. Instead of focusing his attention on the word "logos", Dunn would do better to examine the word autos, which the KJV has translated as “Him.”

In fact, right up until the publication of the KJV 1611, most Bibles referred to the logos of John 1 as “it” instead of "he", even though their translators believed the logos to be a pre-existent Christ.

Yes, the logos was “in the beginning… with God.” But it was not God Himself, nor was it another divine being beside Him. So, while the logos (according to John) is divine, the logos is not the pre-existent Christ.

This distinction is crucial.

It is in verse 10 of John 1 that we encounter the next phase of the Trinitarian argument:

He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not

Here we seem to have a reiteration of John 1:3 -

All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Under the Trinitarian interpretation, both verses are taken as saying that Christ himself was personally responsible for the Genesis creation; and at face value, this seems to be an inescapable conclusion.

We are told that Christ was "in the world"; we are told that he "made the world" and we are told that "the world knew him not." Clearly, the "world" being referred to here is the same "world" in each instance: the material world of verse 1. It seems most unlikely that John is speaking of the spiritual world (or "new creation", as Paul calls it in Colossians 1), since this would make no sense in the context of the statements "he was in the world" and "the world knew him not."

While it is true that John is no longer speaking of the logos at this point (for verse 10 is actually speaking of "the light"), it is nevertheless clear that "the light" is an unequivocal reference to Christ.

However, there is a proviso to this reference, for we must remember that verse 4 has described the light as something that was in the logos - proving that the light is not synonymous with the logos. This is conclusive proof that Jesus cannot be the logos himself.

But how are we to understand verse 10? While we agree that Christ was "in the world" and also that "the world knew him not", in what sense can Christ be said to have "made" the very world in which he lived, and which knew him not?

The answer is found by interpreting Scripture with Scripture.

A Study of John 1 - Part 1

God Speaks, and His Will is Performed - the Basic Message of John's Prologue

John 1:1-3 is known amongst Christians as “the battleground of the Trinity” – and it is not hard to see why. At first glance, this passage may appear to show irrefutable evidence for the deity and pre-existence of Christ. But a careful analysis will show that the entire Trinitarian case turns upon a spurious translation of John 1:1-3, by means of which the Greek word ”logos” is subjected to the most astonishing abuse.

As with any other proof text, the most effective way to refute the Trinitarian claim is to build up a counter-argument on the basis of first principles, in addition to the socio-historical context of John’s Gospel. But before we do anything else, we must establish that the logos is not a person, but rather the outworking of God's purpose and plan. This is even clearer when we read the Genesis record, in which:

God said… and it was so.

Even a cursory glance at Scripture is enough to show that the Old Testament creation account never uses the language that Trinitarianism requires. Not once does Genesis attempt to persuade us that this spoken word was a divine person. Not once is this spoken word referred to as a distinct entity. It is always described as “the word” of God – never as God Himself.

Thus, in the words of Psalm 33:6 & 9...

By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth... For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

See also Psalm 107:20; 147:15, 18, 19, Hebrews 11:3 (compare with Jeremiah 10:12, 13:5) and II Peter 3:5,7:

. . . by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water . . . But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

Ignoring the fact that the message of the New Testament is necessarily founded upon the old (and therefore cannot contradict it) Trinitarians place great emphasis on the alleged significance of the word logos in the Johannine prologue, which they claim is a direct reference to the pre-existent Christ.

The superficial nature of this argument is easily exposed.

In the KJV, for example, logos is translated by more than twenty different English words and is used for utterances of men (e.g., John 17:20) as well as those of God (John 5:38). The Bible, as we have already seen, informs us that there was no creation without the word; no creation without God speaking and causing it to occur. Nothing occurring without a direct expression of the Divine will.

That is the context in which the word "word" is used, both in the OT and the NT. This means that even if we accept the KJV reading (“…he was in the beginning with God; all things were made through him… by him was not anything made that was made…”) at face value, it must still be proved that a literal, personal being is here referred to. The very most that a Trinitarian can claim (on the basis of the KJV rendition) is that the logos has simply been personified.

Hence the following observations from a standard authority:

Prior to verse 14 we are in the same realm as pre-Christian talk of wisdom and logos, the same language that we find in the wisdom tradition and in Philo, where as we have seen we are dealing with personifications rather than persons, personified actions of God rather than an individual divine being as such. The point is obscured by the fact that we have to translate the masculine "logos" as "He" throughout the poem.

But if we translated "logos" as "God's utterance" instead, it would become clearer that the poem did not necessarily intend the "logos" in verses 1-13 to be thought of as a personal divine being. In other words the revolutionary significance of verse 14 may well be that it marks . . . the transition from impersonal personification to actual person. [1]

Christ was certainly God's spoken word in action – and therefore His representative on Earth – but that was all. He did not pre-exist as some sort of supernatural thing called "The Word."

This point is confirmed by the Old Testament, where we see that angels and prophets have also been vehicles by which God has transmitted His logos.

In most instances, Scripture describes this event in the following way:

The word [dabar] of Yahweh came to…

At some point however, we must address the fact that there are a couple of passages in which Christ is called “the logos of God.” What do we make of them? What are they telling us, and how might they be explained to our interested friends?

The answer is found in the principle of God manifestation.

Christ is the complete manifestation ("revelation") of the logos, for "in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." (Colossians 2:9.) This same logos was “in the beginning with God”, before the existence of Christ.

When the "word was made flesh" (John 1:14) then, and only then, did Christ come into existence as “the logos made flesh.” Christ is called the logos (Revelation 19:13, compare with I John 1:1; Luke 1:2) because he constitutes the outworking of God’s logos; the physical reality of a plan which had previously existed in the mind of God.

Was there is a pre-existence of that which was and is Jesus Christ? Not in any literal sense whatsoever. A man might say that he existed as "A twinkle in my father's eye and a knowing look on my mother's face", but this is radically different from literal pre-existence. Could we honestly tell our friends that "That which is me, existed before I was conceived"? Not at all.

Christ came into existence when he was conceived and subsequently begotten. When did this occur? Luke 1:35 tells us that it was some two thousand years ago in Palestine, when the power of God overshadowed Mary, the betrothed of Joseph. (See also Matthew 1:20.)

[1] Dunn, James D. G. (1980), Christology in the Making.

Historical Trinitarian Quotes

The Old Testament tells us nothing explicitly or by necessary implication of a Triune God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit.... There is no evidence that any sacred writer even suspected the existence of a [Trinity] within the Godhead.... Even to see in the Old Testament suggestions or foreshadowings or ‘veiled signs’ of the Trinity of persons, is to go beyond the words and intent of the sacred writers...The Jews never regarded the spirit as a person; nor is there any solid evidence that any Old Testament writer held this view. . . . The Holy Spirit is usually presented in the Synoptics and in Acts as a divine force or power. ... Although this spirit is often described in personal terms, it seems quite clear that the sacred writers never conceived or presented this spirit as a distinct person.

Fortman, Edmund J. (1972), The Triune God, Baker Book House, pp. xv, 8, 9.

"It must be admitted by everyone who has the rudiments of an historical sense that the doctrine of the Trinity, as a doctrine, formed no part of the original message. St Paul knew it not, and would have been unable to understand the meaning of the terms used in the theological formula on which the Church ultimately agreed".

Dr. W R Matthews, Dean of St Paul's Cathedral, "God in Christian Thought and Experience", p.180

"In order to understand the doctrine of the Trinity it is necessary to understand that the doctrine is a development, and why it developed. ... It is a waste of time to attempt to read Trinitarian doctrine directly off the pages of the New Testament".
R Hanson: "Reasonable Belief, A survey of the Christian Faith, p.171-173,1980

The doctrine of the Trinity is not taught in the Old Testament.
New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. XIV, p. 306.

The Old Testament can scarcely be used as authority for the existence of distinctions within the Godhead. The use of ‘us’ by the divine speaker (Gen. 1:26, 3:32, 11:7) is strange, but it is perhaps due to His consciousness of being surrounded by other beings of a loftier order than men (Isa. 6:8).
Davidson, A.B., Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. II, p. 205.

"The formulation ‘One God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century.... Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective"

New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. 14, p. 299.

It may startle those who are but acquainted with the popular writing of this day, yet, I believe, the most accurate consideration of the subject will lead us to acquiesce in the statement as a general truth, that the doctrines in question (viz., the Trinity and the Incarnation) have never been learned merely from Scripture.

Surely the sacred volume was never intended, and is not adapted to teach us our creed; however certain it is that we can prove our creed from it, when it has once been taught us. . . . From the very first, the rule has been, as a matter of fact, for the Church to teach the truth, and then appeal to Scripture in vindication of its own teaching.
Cardinal Newman, Roman Catholic - Arians of the Fourth Century (1833)

We are to consider the order of those persons in the Trinity described in the words before us in Matthew 28:19. First the Father and then the Son and then the Holy Ghost; everyone one of which is truly God. This is a mystery which we are all bound to believe, but yet must exercise great care in how we speak of it, it being both easy and dangerous to err in expressing so great a truth as this is. If we think of it, how hard it is to imagine one numerically divine nature in more than one and the same divine person. Or three divine persons in no more than one and the same divine nature. If we speak of it, how hard it is to express it.

If I say, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost be three, and everyone a distinct God, it is false. I may say, God the Father is one God and the Son is one God, and the Holy Ghost is one God, but I cannot say that the Father is one God and the Son is another God and the Holy Ghost is a third God. I may say that the Father begat another who is God; yet I cannot say that He begat another God.

I may say that from the Father and Son proceeds another who is God; yet I cannot say that from the Father and Son proceeds another God. For though their nature be the same their persons are distinct; and though their persons be distinct, yet still their nature is the same. So that, though the Father be the first person in the Godhead, the Son the second and the Holy Ghost the third, yet the Father is not the first, the Son the second and the Holy Ghost a third God.

So hard it is to word so great a mystery aright; or to fit so high a truth with expressions suitable and proper to it, without going one way or another from it.
Bishop Beverage, Private Thoughts, Part 2, 48, 49, cited by Charles Morgridge (1837), The True Believers Defence Against Charges Preferred by Trinitarians for Not Believing in the Deity of Christ. (Publisher: Boston: B. Greene.)

The subject of this fatal controversy, which kindled such deplorable divisions throughout the Christian world, was the doctrine of three Persons in the Godhead, a doctrine which in the three preceding centuries had happily escaped the vain curiosity of human researches, and have been left undefined and undetermined by any particular set of ideas.
J. L. Mosheim (D.D.), Lutheran, Ecclesiastical History (1863), from the translation by Murdock and Soames.

I ask with all humbleness where the idea of Threeness is expressed in the New Testament with a doctrinal sense and force? Where is the Triune God held up to be worshipped, loved, and obeyed? Where is He preached and proclaimed in that threefold character?

We read 'God is one,' as too, 'I and the Father are one;' but nowhere do we read that Three are one, unless it be in a text long since known to be interpolated. . . .

To me the whole matter is most painful and perplexing, and I should not even speak as I now do, did I not feel on the threshold of the grave, soon to appear before the Throne of all truth....Certainly not in Scripture do we find the expression 'God the Son,' or 'God the Holy Ghost.' Whenever I pronounce the name of God, simply, and first, I mean God the Father, and I cannot help meaning that, if I am meaning anything.
Reverend T. Mozeley, brother-in-law to Cardinal Newman, As quoted by H. A. Stannus (1882), in A History of the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Early Church.

My belief in the Trinity is based on the authority of the Church: no other authority is sufficient. I will now show from reason, that the Athanasian Creed and the Scripture are opposed to one another.

The doctrine of the Trinity is this:

-- There is one God in three persons; Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. The Father is God, the Son is God: and the Holy Ghost is God. Mind, the Father is one person, the Son is another person, and the Holy Ghost is another person. Now, according to every principle of mathematics, arithmetic, human wisdom, and policy, there must be three Gods; for no one could say that there are three persons and three Gods, and yet only one God. . . .

The Athanasian Creed gives the universal opinion of the Church, that the Father is uncreated, the Son uncreated: and the Holy Ghost uncreated -- that they existed from all eternity. Now, the Son was born of the Father; and, if born, must have been created. The Holy Ghost must also have been created, as he came from the Father and the Son. And, if so, there must have been a time when they did not exist.

If they did not exist, they must have been created; and therefore to assert that they are eternal is absurd, and bangs nonsense. Each has his distinct personality: each has his own essence. How, then, can they be one Eternal? How can they all be God? Absurd.

The Athanasian Creed says, that they are three persons, and still only one God. Absurd; extravagant! This is rejected by Arians, Socinians, Presbyterians, and every man following human reason. The Creed further says, that our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God and of man, 'not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the manhood into God.' Now, I ask you, Did the Divinity absorb the manhood? He could not be at the same time one person and two persons. I have now proved the Trinity opposed to human reason.
Rev. James Hughes, Roman Catholic Priest, As quoted in Percy White's The Doctrine of the Trinity (1913.)

The Trinity is a mystery of faith in the strict sense, one of the “mysteries that are hidden in God, which can never be known unless they are revealed by God” (Dei Filius 4: DS 3015). To be sure, God has left traces of his Trinitarian being in his work of creation and in his Revelation throughout the Old Testament. But his inmost Being as Holy Trinity is a mystery that is inaccessible to reason alone or even to Israel’s faith before the Incarnation of God’s Son and the sending of the Holy Spirit.
Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church, Paragraph 237

People who adhere to sola scriptura (as they believe) often adhere in fact to a traditional school of interpretation of sola scriptura. Evangelical Protestants can be as much servants of tradition as Roman Catholics or Greek Orthodox Christians; only they don't realise that it is "tradition."
From Bruce's personal correspondence.
F. F. Bruce (M.A., D.D.), Evangelical Protestant

The Trinity is a mystery of faith in the strict sense, one of the “mysteries that are hidden in God, which can never be known unless they are revealed by God” (Dei Filius 4: DS 3015). To be sure, God has left traces of his Trinitarian being in his work of creation and in his Revelation throughout the Old Testament. But his inmost Being as Holy Trinity is a mystery that is inaccessible to reason alone or even to Israel’s faith before the Incarnation of God’s Son and the sending of the Holy Spirit.
Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church, Paragraph 237

This article first appeared on another Christian apologetics discussion form at the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (CARM) where it was posted by the author himself who goes by the name "Alethia." Here he refutes standard Trinitarian answers to the question "Why didn't God mention the Trinity in His Word, the Bible?" Take careful note of his initial premise: that "The idea of God as three coequal and coeternal 'persons' is never mentioned in Scripture."

This is a problem which Trinitarians have yet to solve. Their proposed solutions are many and varied - but none of these will resist the force of a logical cross-examination.

----

The idea of God as three coequal and coeternal “persons” is never mentioned in Scripture. None of the creedal concepts that make up Trinitarian dogma can be found directly in Scripture. It is not just the lack of the word itself, it is the lack of any direct statement of the concept in any words whatsoever.

So why then did God fail to mention the Trinity anywhere in Scripture? I think we can safely assume that He did not merely forget to tell us about it.

Could it possibly be because it was just not important enough to bother wasting a few verses on here and there? Well, if it wasn’t important to God, why would it be important to you or me?

The most common rationalizations of this problem that I hear from Trinitarians are:

#1 You shouldn’t try to dictate to God how he reveals himself.

Indeed I do not. If He didn’t reveal himself as a Trinity, I trust he did not expect to be understood as a Trinity.

#2 You can’t describe God in a single verse.

True enough, but irrelevant. You certainly could describe God as triune in a verse or two. Men seem to have managed to figure out a statement of the Trinity, so presumably God could have managed as well or better, if He had wanted to. Most Trinitarians can give me a brief one or two sentence summary of the doctrine. Surely God could have found a way to say it if it were what He wanted us to understand.

#3 While the Trinity is not taught directly in Scripture, it can be supported from Scripture.

That is circular. It doesn’t address the question. If God intended us to understand it, why didn’t He say so? To support it from Scripture, we would first have to know what it was we were supposed to be trying to support, and without a man-made statement of the Trinity, we would never know it. People seek to support the Trinity from Scripture only because they already believe in it.

#4 The word Trinity is not in the Bible, but the concept is.

This is a red herring or straw man. It is not just the word which is not there. There is no statement of the concept in any words at all. It has to be assembled from widely scattered, fragmentary, deductions, inferences, and human reasoning. There is no statement of a three-in-one god in Scripture, regardless of words.

#5 There are lots of other doctrines that aren’t directly stated in Scripture either.

This is a great one. This is just saying that you believe lots of things that aren’t in the Bible. So, you believe lots of unscriptural things. Yes, you probably do.

A typical example of this form of illogic is in a Lutheran pamphlet entitled “Why Baptize Children?” It uses this defense:

“The objectors to the Baptism of babies say: ‘Show me a single Scripture passage in which the Baptism of infants is commanded, and we will baptize babies.’ But they cannot show us a single passage in Scripture where God is called the ‘Triune God,’ and yet the whole Christian Church believes in the Triune God.”

Actually, the Lutheran pamphlet there employs both #4 and #5 at the same time, keying in on the word ‘Triune’ rather than the concept. They defend one unscriptural teaching by referring to another commonly accepted but unscriptural teaching.

#6 Everybody already knew about, so there was no need to mention it in Scripture.

Oh? And we know this how? Since it is never mentioned in Scripture, how would one determine that everyone already knew about it? And how could they have known about it, since it was never mentioned in any recorded utterance of any representative of God? Nor in fact was it even directly described by any Christian writer for centuries afterwards.

It was certainly not mentioned by any Jewish writer, ‘wisdom Christology’ notwithstanding. There was no Hebrew Trinity. If “everybody knew about it,” they certainly did a great job of keeping it to themselves. Why? Also, does this excuse imply that Scripture speaks only of those things that Christians did not already know about?

#7 The creeds were written only in response to heresy.

Actually I’m not sure what relevance this statement has to the problem, but it is a frequent response. Much of the New Testament was written in response to various heresies. Why did it miss this one? Why should the Trinity be of importance only as a negative response to opposition?

The idea seems to be that it is not important that you believe it, only important that you do not disbelieve it. Ignorance is fine. This sounds like the Church at work alright – ignorance of the masses are fine, just don’t let them start reading the Bible for themselves.

Numbers 6 & 7 have an underlying assumption that should be strongly questioned and doubted by any reasonable person. The unstated assumption is that there was a whole hidden oral tradition outside of Scripture which is the actual means of transmission of the “real” gospel. The obvious but unspoken idea behind this is that “tradition” of the “church” is at least equally as valid a path for the transmission of the gospel as is Scripture itself.

The Roman Catholic Church of course teaches this explicitly and directly. I would think that Protestants would be more doubtful of it, but they seem to buy into it as well for this one doctrine. How they reconcile that with the rejection of Catholicism, I do not know. Actually, this idea of an unwritten oral gospel was a Gnostic tradition, argued against by other Christians in the early centuries.

It is clear that for 6 & 7 to be reasonable assertions, one must assume that “everyone” knew about this very important doctrine to the extent that it was not worth mentioning again. For that to be true, we would have to relegate Scripture to a position of a repository of trivia – a place to read about the facts of lesser importance, but not a particularly necessary or very important source of teaching. After all, it fails to mention what is the most essential dogma of orthodox Christendom (along with other such things as infant baptism).

We should therefore expect that it would fail to mention many other important doctrines, and what do you know? It does indeed fail to mention a number of other of the dogmas that Christendom today believes. I would draw a different from conclusion from that: That Christendom is in error in many respects.

Is the assumption that “everybody knew about the Trinity” at all reasonable? For it to be true, either the Jews of the first century also believed in it, but never wrote about it and totally forgot about it soon after, or else there had to have been a silent mass conversion of those Jews who were the majority of the early church, without the Apostles and Evangelists ever putting a word of it down on paper. The Apostles dealt with all other sorts of heresies and apostasies in Scripture. The bulk of the Epistles are directed at correcting errors such as Judaism, Gnosticism, and doubts about resurrection and Christ’s return.

Surely along with being wrong about the need to continue to keep the Law of Moses, some of those Jews would have been at least a little bit hazy as to finding out that God was really three instead of the One they had previously believed. But the Apostles never bothered to correct them. Jesus continued to preach “the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.” The God of the New Testament is still the God of Israel, the same as the God of the Old Testament. It seems that neither Jesus nor his Apostles felt any need to directly clarify the supposedly triune God to the Jews.

Of course, there really aren’t any “Bible Only” Trinitarians. There are a few who claim to be, but that claim is patently false. It escapes me why they bother attempting to argue their doctrine from a Bible Only standpoint, when their doctrines very obviously come from their tradition rather than from Scripture. They should just do a better job of justifying tradition as their source of doctrine, and admit that the Bible is not their true source.

If anyone has any better explanations, excuses or rationalizations, I would be interested to hear them. None of these are any good at all.

--http://thechristadelphians.org/