IS GOD A TRINITY? PART FOUR
IS JESUS GOD?
John 1: 1-3: In the beginnynge was the worde and the worde was with God: and the worde was God. The same was in the beginnynge with God. All thinges were made by it and with out it was made nothinge that was made.
Luke 1:31-35: You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end." "How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?" The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born (Greek gennao) will be called the Son of God.
It is argued that the one eternal creator God, here pictured as “the Most High,” would by His power (Holy Spirit) beget Jesus who through the Virgin Mary is a human descendant of David. This totally human descendant of David would be given David’s throne and because of being conceived by the power of God and later resurrected by God’s power to eternal life, Jesus would be called the Son of God. Several additional scriptures are quoted to support this position.
Romans 1:3-4: regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.
Acts 13:32-35: "We tell you the good news: What God promised our fathers he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising up Jesus. As it is written in the second Psalm: "`You are my Son; today I have become (Greek gennao: In KJV, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.) your Father.' The fact that God raised him from the dead, never to decay, is stated in these words: "`I will give you the holy and sure blessings promised to David.'
These passages are seen to teach that the Father/Son relationship was consummated at the resurrection when Jesus was granted eternal life. This relationship is not seen as Jesus having been God or becoming God. Jesus is seen as being exulted to the right hand of God through resurrection from the dead. Jesus is not seen as “eternally begotten” as described in the Creeds, but as a human born through Divine conception in Mary’s womb and through resurrection becoming the Son of God, not God the Son.
Some believe Jesus became the Son of the Father when He was baptized by John in the
To summarize the position A view, the Son became the Son, Jesus the Christ, at His human conception. Therefore, the Son was the literal personification of the thought and will of the Father God which was to send a Savior into the world as promised from the beginning. The word of God, as it relates to Christ, is seen as God's thought, will and purpose in providing a redeemer to mankind. Jesus became the physical product of what was in the mind of God from the beginning. This would be similar to a human planning to do something in his mind and then physically producing it. All references to Jesus apparent existence prior to His physical existence (such as God creating all things through Christ) are seen as references to Christ as the thought, will and purpose of God (God's logos) in creating the universe with the intent of Christ being generated at a particular point in history to facilitate reconciliation and eternal relationship with humanity. Jesus, after His resurrection, is seen as being elevated to the right hand of His Father and being given glory and authority above all other Beings in the universe other than the Father Himself. Paul’s statement to the Corinthians is seen as verification of Jesus being right under the Father as His chief agent but not being God as God is God.
1 Corinthians 15:27-28: For he "has put everything under his feet." Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.
This statement by Paul is seen to clearly show that Christ is subject to the Father God and is separate from the Father and not consubstantial and coequal with the Father.
Position B Non-Trinitarians take the traditional view that the logos represents a pre-existent Being who became Jesus but don’t view this Being as one and the same with the one God. It is pointed out that the first mention of God in John 1:1 is the Greek “ho Theos” with “ho” being the grammatically definite article and thus identifying God as “the God.” This part of the passage literally translated can read “was with the God.” The second mention of God is without the definite article and can be translated “was a god.” or “the word a god was.” This acknowledgement of the Greek construction in John 1:1 is supported by a number of Greek scholars. Non-Trinitarians emphasize that being “a god” does not equate with being “the God.” Since those to whom the one God gives power and authority are often called gods (elohim) in scripture, it is believed the logos was “a god” from the time He was created and it was this god, the Son of the one and only Father God, that became Jesus.
It is further pointed out that John writes that the Word was with God and was God. If God is defined as the tri-unity of Father, Son and Spirit, John is virtually saying the Word (the Son) was with Himself and was Himself which makes no sense. Trinitarians argue that the first mention of God in this passage refers to the Father as the first person of the Trinity and that the Word (Son), the second person of the Trinity, was with the Father in this sense. This, however, is an arbitrary distinction since the Greek here is Theos in both occurrences and nothing in Theos implies Father in and of itself. Secondly, how can you speak of a first, second and third person of the Trinity if the Trinity represents a single entity? What makes a person or distinction within the Trinity first, second or third if all three are consubstantial and coequal? Furthermore, if you’re going to say the first occurrence of Theos means Father what does the second occurrence of Theos mean? It can’t mean Father because then the Word (the Son) would be the Father which no Trinitarian would accept. If the second occurrence of Theos means the Trinity, then the Word (Son) is the Trinity which is also problematical for Trinitarian doctrine because the Word is considered a person of the Trinity, not the Trinity itself which is Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
The difficulty of defining God as a Trinity is seen in quoting John 1:1 in the following manner: In the beginning was the Word (Jesus), and the Word (Jesus) was with the Trinity (God) and the word was the Trinity (God).
Non-Trinitarian Oneness theology sees John 1:1 as confirming that the Son (the Word) and God are one and the same single person. When John says the Word became flesh (verse 14) John is actually saying the one God became flesh. It is pointed out that since God is also the Father, when John says the Word was God it is the same as saying the Word is the Father. Therefore, the Word is seen as the manifestation of the one God who is the Father. This one God, the Father, became incarnate in the Son as to the Son’s Divinity and became Father to the Son as to his humanity. Oneness theologians read John 1:1 as, “In the beginning was the Word (Jesus), and the Word (Jesus) was with God the Father and the word (Jesus) was God the Father.
Position B Non-Trinitarians point to the impossibility of the Son being in a Trinitarian relationship with the Father or the Son being the Father because the Father and Son are shown throughout the NT to be separate entities. Position B Non-Trinitarians believe the following passages resolve the entire issue of who God is and who the Son is.
I Corinthians 8:6: Yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
Hebrews 1:5-9: For to which of the angels did God ever say, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father”? Or again, "I will be his Father, and he will be my Son"? And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, "Let all God's angels worship him." In speaking of the angels he says, "He makes his angels winds, his servant’s flames of fire." But about the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy."
Paul clearly identifies the one God as the Father and Jesus Christ as the one Lord through whom the one God called Father does His work. There is absolutely nothing in Paul’s statement to indicate the Father and Jesus are in a consubstantial, coequal relationship or that the Son is actually the Father as Oneness theology teaches. It is felt Paul makes a creedal statement that totally overturns the proclamations of the fourth and fifth century creeds.
The passage in Hebrews implies that this one God became the Father of the Son and brought the Son into the world. Therefore, the Son must have at some given time in history been generated by the Father God and therefore has not eternally existed and is not coeternal and coequal with the one and only true God. Secondly, God shows how the Son is superior to angels. Angels are created beings. If the Son is God as God is God, there would be no reason to cite His superiority over angels as that would be a given. Saying that, “Your throne, O God, will last forever...” is seen as Jesus being identified as the one to whom the Father has given great power and authority and the promised Kingdom. Therefore, it is believed “O God” should read as “O god.” The Greek Theos does not inherently mean the one true God. Like the Hebrew elohim, it can apply to humans who are in positions of honor, authority and power. When the writer says, “God, your God has set you above your companions” it is seen as a clear statement of God the Father being the God of Jesus and therefore superior to and greater than the Son which negates any hint of they being coequal. It is pointed out that Jesus made it clear that the Father was a distinct and separate person of greater status than He was.
John 8:17-18: In your own Law it is written that the testimony of two men is valid. I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father, who sent me."
1 John 4:14: And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world.
1 John 5:20: We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him (God) who is true. And we are in him (God) who is true--even in his Son Jesus Christ. He (God the Father) is the true God and eternal life.
John 17:3: Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.
John 14:28: "You heard me say, `I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.
John 13:16: I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. (Jesus shows the inequality between a master and servant)
John 5:26: For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son to have life in himself.
John 5: 43-44: I have come in my Father's name, and you do not accept me; but if someone else comes in his own name, you will accept him. How can you believe if you accept praise from one another, yet make no effort to obtain the praise that comes from the only God? (In the Greek it is “The one and only God” and is so translated in other versions such as the New American Standard
It is pointed out that the Father and Son are repeatedly shown to be separate Beings in scripture with the Father always shown as superior to the Son. Trinitarians argue that such references pertain to the Son in His relationship to the Father as the human Jesus, and that in His pre-existent eternal state He is one with the Father and Spirit in a consubstantial Triune relationship. Non-Trinitarians argue that there would be no reason for Jesus to say His Father is greater than He as pertaining only to His humanity as it would be a given that Jesus or any human would be a lesser Being than God. It is believed Jesus is simply stating that His Father is greater than He, period. Jesus made it clear that it is the Father who has granted life to the Son. This precludes the Son having existed eternally and being self existent as the Father. Non-Trinitarians argue that the Trinity is a human construct of God and runs contrary to what the scriptures clearly teach about the nature of the Father and the Son. It is pointed out that when Jesus says He is going to the Father who is greater than He, He is not saying He is going to His Father with whom He is coequal. When the scriptures speak of the Father sending the Son it clearly shows the Father having a higher status than the Son. When Jesus says to the Father in John 17:3 that the Father is the only true God, he is not including Himself in that recognition as He relates to Himself as separate from the only true God. When Jesus speaks of being granted life by the Father it doesn’t mean He is self existent as the Father. It is believed that to say the Father and Son are coequal is to do violence to the scriptures.
AUTHOR’S COMMENTS:
We need to further explore the distinction made between “the God” and “a god” in John 1:1. As seen above, this passage is used by all sides of this issue to advance their position. The word logos is derived from the verb legein which means to “say or speak.” It can also mean “reason or mind.” The first mention of God in this passage is ho Theos where Theos is of an articular construction meaning that Theos is preceded by the definite article “the” and literally means “the God.” The phrase “ho Theos” is called a predicate noun. The second mention of God is theos without the definite article and so it is called an anarthrous noun. Anarthrous simply means non-articulated or without the article. Without the article, theos is a singular predicate noun and occurs before the verb logos in the sentence and is literally translated “god was the word.” In Greek an articular noun points to an identity whereas a singular predicate noun points to a quality.
In the early 1930’s a Greek scholar named E.C. Colwell, after having looked at various texts in the NT, proposed a rule of Greek grammar which states that “a predicate nominative which precedes the verb cannot be translated as an indefinite or a 'qualitative' noun solely because of the absence of the article; if the context suggests that the predicate is definite, it should be translated as a definite noun in spite of the absence of the article.” What Colwell is saying in reference to John 1:1 is that since the first mention of God in this passage has the definite article, thus pointing to an identity, the second occurrence of God, even though it lacks the definite article (the) should be defined in the same manner as the first mention of the word God in this passage where God is preceded by the definite article. Trinitarians see this as confirmation of their position that both occurrences of God in this passage refer to the one God and the Word is, therefore, God.
While Colwell’s rule appears to be generally applicable, it doesn’t always apply as numerous exceptions to this rule have been found in the NT scriptures. It has been pointed out that Colwell’s rule applies well when the anarthrous theos is in the genitive and dative case but is not generally true when in the nominative case which is the form used in John 1:1.
More importantly, this “rule” does not require a predicate nominative which precedes the verb to be definite when a predicate in the same passage is definite. Nothing in this rule says anything about what must be definite. All the rule is saying is that if the context indicates it, a predicate nominative should be defined as definite (as though it had the definite article). Some research has shown that anarthrous predicate nominatives preceding the verb are qualitative around 94% of the time. Some feel this could indicate a high probability of the anarthrous being qualitative in John 1:1 rather than pointing to identity. By being qualitative, it could define Word (word) as divine in the sense of having qualities of a god but not necessarily being the one true God. Trinitarians will argue that even looking at it this way shows the Word as being God because of sharing God like qualities. Non-Trinitarians respond that someone having God like qualities doesn’t make that person the one God. Positions A Non-Trinitarians believe it is the quality of mind and thought that is represented when the passage says “the word was God.”
Most Trinitarians believe “Colwell’s rule” applies in this passage and since the first mention of God is one of identity, the second mention of God is also one of identity. Non-Trinitarians argue this is pure speculation as Colwell’s rule doesn’t demand such a conclusion and this rule is not in any way absolute in NT grammar. Therefore, this passage could be read in several ways. In the beginning, was the Word (or word) and the Word (or word) was with God (the God) and the Word (or word) was God (or god) or (god was the word). Both Trinitarian and Non-Trinitarian positions can be supported by this passage depending on how the Greek is interpreted. This passage is not, therefore, a definitive passage for the establishment of any one of the positions articulated thus far in this series.
Furthermore, one has to question the significance of the present or absence of the definite article in establishing how theos is being used. If theos is used as the equivalent of elohim, it can be applied to the Supreme God or it can be applied to a lesser being than the Supreme God as is seen in the application of elohim in the OT. The presence or absence of the definite article does not appear to be the determining factor. For example, it can be seen by context in John one verses 6, 12, 13 and 18 that theos is a reference to the Supreme God. Yet these occurrences are not preceded or followed by the definite article.
The fact that John uses the definite article in the first use of theos and doesn’t used the article in the second use of theos in John 1:1 doesn’t, of itself, tell us what John meant by such usage. John tells us the Word (word) was God or god and that this Word (word) became flesh which is identified as Jesus. If John’s second use of God in verse one was in John’s mind equivalent to his first use of God, then Trinitarians have a possible case for identifying Jesus as in some manner equal with the one Supreme God provided the “Word” is referring to Jesus and not the thought of the father. If, on the other hand, John was consciously making a distinction between the Supreme God and a lesser god by not using the article with the second usage of theos, the position B Non-Trinitarians have a good case for Jesus being a god in the sense of having been granted power and authority by the Supreme God but not in any sense being equal with the one Supreme God. As already indicated, because of several possible ways John 1:1 can be interpreted, this passage does not establish either the Trinitarian or the Non-Trinitarian position.
This being said, there is an interesting observation that has been made relative to John 1:1. Though the NT was originally written in Greek, it quickly came to be translated into other languages of the first and second centuries of the Church including Syriac, Latin and Coptic, which is Egyptian. Coptic was spoken and written by early Egyptian Christians in what is called the Sahidic dialect. In the early twentieth century a copy of a Sahidic version of the Gospel of John was discovered and translated in 1911 into English. This Gospel followed the Alexandrian Greek text in its translation into the Coptic language. The Sahidic Coptic shows John 1:1 translated in such a way as to clearly say the word was with the God and the word was a god. While the Greek does not have the indefinite article with the second occurrence of theos, the Sahidic Coptic has the indefinite article in its construction of this passage and therefore it was apparently understood by the translators of Greek to Coptic that the Greek text was saying “the word was a god” which is the way it is translated. This Coptic version is believed to date from somewhere in the second century. The implication is that the early Egyptian Christians understood that the word was not the same as ‘the God” and translated the Greek to reflect that.
In addition to the problematic translations of John 1:1, there is another difficulty in this passage relative to Trinitarian doctrine. If both references to God in John 1:1 refer to the same identity, namely the one God, how can the Word, if referring to the Son, be with the one God and be the one God at the same time. The Word is seen as being with “the God.” Trinitarians try to get around this problem by saying the first mention of God refers to the Father as God and the second mention of God refers to God as God essence but not the Father. In other words, the Word is of God essence. This conclusion makes the Father “the God” which coincides well with Paul’s statement that the Father is God (1 Corinthians 8:6). In Trinitarian theology, however, God is not only Father but Father, Son and Spirit. There appears to be cognitive dissonance here. To say the first mention of God in John 1:1 means Father and the second mention of God means God essence is not based on any evidence that this is in fact the case. Rather, these conclusions appear to be an attempt to make this passage support an assumed Trinitarian position.
Trinitarians will sometimes point to the fact that logos is a masculine noun in the Greek and therefore should be proceeded by the masculine pronoun “he” which identifies logos as a person. The masculine Greek gender, however, has nothing to do with such identification. Masculine and feminine genders are seen to randomly apply to persons, places and things and are not at all gender specific in their application. Though logos is masculine and according to Greek rules of grammar requires a masculine pronoun such as “he” or “him,” this has nothing to do with the noun signifying a person as such as masculine nouns often relate to places and things in the Greek language. Therefore, masculine nouns can be legitimately translated into another language with a pronoun such as “it.” This matter of gender in the Greek language will be addressed in greater detail in our discussion of the Holy Spirit later in this series.
It should also be noted that John 1:1 is also used by those who promote the family of God concept discussed earlier in this series. With proponents of this position, this passage is seen to teach that there are two distinct Beings called God. The Word is seen as God the Son and the one who became Jesus. The God that the Word was with is seen as the Father and a separate and superior Being to the Son.
The Son is believed to be the YHWH of the Old Testament and therefore YHWH and the Father are two separate God Beings. These conclusions are based on the assumption that John’s use of logos relates to a pre-existent Being called the Son. As we have seen, this is a problematical assumption. Furthermore, it is rather clear that YHWH and the Father are the same in Old Testament Scripture.
The relationship between the Father and the Son cannot be firmly established on the basis of John 1:1. Other scriptures must be considered. Trinitarians cite many scriptures they feel demonstrate the validity of their position. Non-Trinitarians look at these same scriptures and come away with a different perspective. We will look at these scriptures one by one, examine the arguments presented by both sides, and determine which argument is best supported by the scriptures.