FAQ 4: The Prologue of John (John 1:1-14)

The Word (Logos) of God

Was Jesus the eternal son of God, face to face  “with” God, in the beginning?

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning.3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it. 6 There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. 8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. 9 The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God. 14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth (John 1:1-14, NIV).

Trinitarians consider the prologue of John a pillar (foundation) of Trinitarian Biblical evidence. To briefly summarize their interpretation of the prologue of John, they perceive a preincarnate Jesus to be the “Word” (Logos). They believe Jesus to be the 2^nd person of the Trinity, the Eternal Son of God who left heaven to be the sacrifice for our sin. By replacing “Word” with “Jesus” you can see how this could be a powerful support for the Trinity if it was true. This is how Trinitarians would interpret John 1:1-2, 14:

In the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was with God, and Jesus was God. 2 Jesus was with God in the beginning. 14: Jesus became flesh and made his dwelling among us.

Let me be clear, this is NOT an accurate interpretation of these verses. Adhering to this understanding supports everything precious and critical to the doctrine of the Trinity e.g. Jesus is eternal; Jesus is creator; Jesus is equal to God; Jesus is savior; Jesus left heaven and became a man. They also state that the phrase “was with God” (pró stón theón) means that Jesus was face to face with God. These are all fictional foundations, false and unsupported in the Bible. They contradict the general truth of the Bible: there is only one God; that He was alone in creation; that no one was beside him; that Jesus existed only in the mind and plan of God before he was born. These faulty conclusions also deny the legitimate meaning of the words by succumbing to the lessons of Greek philosophy and they deny the long-standing heritage and understanding of Jewish teaching regarding the meaning of “the Word.”

I intend to approach this from multiple perspectives. 1. From a novice’s (mine) understanding of Greek words in the prologue as expressed by Greek scholars. 2. From Robert Sabin’s lessons and studies. 3. From the writings of Theophilus, a 19^th century scholar and theologian.

In John 1:1, the Greek word “logos” is translated “word” or “Word.” The error of inserting their doctrinal bias and holding an inaccurate interpretation of “logos” has led Trinitarians to an incorrect understanding of John 1:1 and mislead the Church in their perception of Jesus.  Below are several explanations of the meaning of “logos” from different authors:

Strong’s Concordance Greek Dictionary: Word, logos.  NT:3056

…something said (including the thought) (emphasis mine); by implication a topic (subject of discourse), also reasoning (the mental faculty) or motive; by extension, a computation.

From Thayer’s Greek Lexicon

In several passages in the writings of John ‎logos ‎denotes the essential Word of God, i.e. the personal (hypostatic) wisdom and power in union with God (emphasis mine), his minister in the creation and government of the universe, the cause of all the world’s life both physical and ethical, which for the procurement of man’s salvation put on human nature in the person of Jesus the Messiah and shone forth conspicuously from his words and deeds: John 1:1,14;

Liddell and Scott Abridged Greek Lexicon-Logos

The word or that by which the inward thought is expressed (emphasis mine), Lat. oratio; and, (B) the inward thought itself.

Wuest’s Word Studies

It comes from the verb which means literally “to pick out or select,” thus “to pick words in order to express one’s thoughts,” thus “to speak.” It speaks of a word uttered by the human voice which embodies a conception or idea (emphasis mine). It refers not merely to a part of speech but to a concept or idea.

W.E. Vine

LOGOS denotes (I) the expression of thought (emphasis mine) not the mere name of an object-(a) as em­bodying a conception or idea….(II) The Personal Word, a ti­tle of the Son of God….the personal manifesta­tion , not of a part of the Divine na­ture, but of the whole Deity (emphasis mine).  W.E. Vine, Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, (Fleming H. Revell Company ©1981), Volume 4, pp. 230-231.

A snippet of the authors’ collective understanding of logos so far: “…something said (including the thought) …by implication a topic (subject of discourse), also reasoning (the mental faculty) or motive; the personal (hypostatic) wisdom and power in union with God…that by which the inward thought is expressed…embodies a conception or idea….” There seems to be a common thread or concept in this compilation: It takes thought to generate a statement to speak. It takes thought to create an idea. Reasoning requires thought.

Based upon what these scholarly men have written, an acceptable translation for logos may be “thought.” Similar to replacing “logos” for “Jesus” as I suggested Trinitarians do earlier, I will plug in “thought” for “logos.” John 1:1 paraphrased: In the beginning were the thoughts of God, and the thoughts of God were with God, and the thoughts of God were God. Verse 2 The thoughts of God were with God in the beginning. Verse 18 The thoughts of God became flesh and dwelt among us.

God had a plan, his thoughts, from the foundation of the world to become a man whose name would be Jesus and whose role would be Christ, Anointed one, Messiah.  God’s thoughts, or plan, caused him to become Jesus and walk among us. Jesus did not exist, except in the mind and plan of God before he was born in Bethlehem. I refer to the story of the night of Jesus’ birth from Luke 2:8-12, appearing initially in the chapter titled “A Great Deception” on page 16.

3056, Logos; intelligence, word as the expression of that intelligence. Logos is the articulate utterance of human language.  It can be unspoken as formulation of thought in the mind (emphasis mine) which in that case stand in contradiction to voice.  When it refers to discourse, is regarded as the orderly linking and knitting together in connected arrangement of words of the inward thoughts and feelings of the mind (emphasis mine)…. In John 1 Jesus Christ in His preincarnate state is called ho Logos, the Word, meaning first immaterial intelligence and then the expression of that intelligence in speech that humans could understand. [1]  

Please take note of the bold text from the Zodhiates’ quote which shows a similarity to the earlier authors. Zodhiates appears to accept “thought” as an interpretation of logos. Now, look at the underlined phrase: “Jesus Christ in His preincarnate state is called ho Logos.” Zodhiates is not the only Trinitarian to make the mental jump of inserting their theology into the process of their interpretation. There is never an inkling in the Bible to claim Jesus is the Word in the beginning. There is never a mention of an eternal son in the Bible. John 1 describes the Word becoming Jesus. There is absolutely no foundation or accuracy to state Jesus was the Word in the beginning—the language does not support it. Nevertheless, the Amplified Bible translates John 1:14, “And the Word (Christ) became flesh.” Adam Clarke, a respected 18^th century Bible commentator writes, “That very person who was in the beginning-who was with God-and who was God.”

The Greek definitions of logos alone, determine the word to be an attribute of God, similar to the wisdom of God mentioned in Proverbs 8. Wisdom is identified as “she” and speaks as “I” but is not considered another member of the godhead. Between the lines of the Greek scholars promoting logos to be the preincarnate Jesus, we find hints of what logos means in relationship to the attributes of God. Logos represents the words, thoughts, intelligence, concepts, plans, and ideas of God. God’s thoughts, intelligence, concepts, and ideas became flesh and dwelt among us. The Logos became Jesus, but Jesus was not the Logos before that moment. God spoke through the psalmist “You are my Son; today I have become your Father” (NIV). “Today,” a moment in time, at the point of conception. When the Logos and Jesus existed in the plans and thoughts of God’s mind. Jesus, the baby, the child, and the man, were not in the beginning. The Logos was God’s plan, established before the world began, to become Jesus but Jesus did not exist until he was conceived by the Spirit of God.

The Trinitarians roar How can you say that? Scripture says Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever. (Hebrews 13:8). What makes Hebrews 13:8 true is the fact that the eternal unchanging God lived in Jesus and Jesus existed in the mind and plan (Logos) of God before the creation of the world. For Trinitarians to take liberties with the meaning of “Logos” by stating that Logos is the preincarnate Jesus is unwarranted, inaccurate, and contradicts the basic premise of God’s monotheism.

This discussion of the Word (Logos) so far has been on a biblical level involving the meaning of words and principles of the Bible. I would like to apply some logic and common sense to the Trinitarian position. If the Word was with God, the Word was with theos (Strong’s nt:2316, of uncertain affinity; a deity, especially (with NT:3588) the supreme Divinity; figuratively, a magistrate; by Hebraism, very.KJV –  exceeding, God, god [-ly, -ward]. If God was triune, the Word would have been with the entire Triune God, all of God, not the second person of the Trinity with the first and third person of the Trinity. If God means all of God, and the Word was with all of God, then the Word could not be a member of the Trinity because there would now be four members in the association. God must be under­stood to be all of God or all three members of the Trinity. Trinitarians have failed to acknowledge that the word God means the supreme Deity, not God the Father, first member of a fel­lowship of Gods. They have also failed to apply the meaning of the Word (Logos). The meaning of Logos is not controversial; it is the application of their understanding that sparks controversy. Trinitarians have inter­preted this text in the light of their doctrinal understanding instead of fol­lowing the rules of biblical interpretation where scripture molds the doctrine. 

Secondly, Trinitarians interpret John 1:14 (the Word be­came flesh) as describ­ing the Eternal Son’s incarna­tion. Either the Word is a separate person resulting in the Godly cor­poration having four members, as we have al­ready suggested, or God has two sons: The first son existed throughout eternity and the second began his exis­tence when he was born at Bethle­hem. Remem­ber, the Trinitarians are forced to interpret God as indicating the entire triune Godhead by their own in­terpretation of the word Elohim in describing Almighty God.  Since the Word was God in John 1:1, and the Word became flesh in John 1:14, the Bible is saying that all De­ity  became flesh. To a Trinitarian, all of God would be God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit became flesh. Though this interpretation is consistent with the Bible, it does not align with Trintarian doctrine.

Theological discussions about the meaning of Word (Logos) are immaterial in this context because the Word, whatever is meant by it, was with God, and was God. It cannot be another partner in the corpo­ration; there are no vacancies. If we find it dif­ficult to understand that GOD MEANS GOD, whenever we read the word God, we can say to our­selves, “all Deity.” Example: Matthew 1:23: Be­hold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, all Deity with us. It was not just the second person of a Trinity with us, the whole being of God was with us in Christ Jesus. Example:  2 Corinthians 5:19: To wit, that all Deity was in Christ, recon­ciling the world unto himself.  It was not the first or sec­ond person of the Trinity in Christ; it was all of God. 

This same understanding assists one to comprehend and reply to the Trinitarian argument that, “the Word was with God,” means the Word was face to face with God.  This interpretation is popular among Trinitarians because one famous Greek scholar (A.T. Robertson) suggested in one sentence that the preposition with means “face to face.” If the Word was face to face with God, then the Word could not be God.  Anything facing God was already facing all Deity, and there­fore could not be deity. The Trinitarians must make the mistake of un­derstanding “God” in verse 1 to mean God the Father, first person of the Trinity to support their interpretation.

This ends the section expressing my understanding of the prologue of John.

We move now to a lesson taught by Robert A. Sabin titled, “Logos—What John Meant.” This material was originally taught from a PowerPoint presentation created around 2012. I never heard this lesson taught or knew it existed until RAS’s widow allowed me to review his computer in 2021. I never heard or was aware of RAS’s understanding of Targums or the word “Memra.” I have minimally altered the PowerPoint formatting to add it to this book but have attempted to maintain the format that Brother Sabin used. The words to follow are taken directly from the PowerPoint unless specified by the use of brackets [ ] which I tried to avoid since RAS also used brackets. As done previously, anything preceded by “Comment” is from me.

LOGOS—What John Meant

By Robert A. Sabin

[There are] two words in John by which Christians of all kinds define who is Orthodox and who is not, who is in the church and who is not.

Two words – Word and With

John 1:1 In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God.

John 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.

[There are] two words in John by which Christians of all kinds define who is in the church and who is not.

The simplest of these words is the preposition “with.”
The word was “with” God.
The other word is the word “word.”
The “word” was with God.

[There are] two words in John by which Christians of all kinds define who is a heretic and who is orthodox, who is in the church and who is not.

THE WORD, LOGOS

WHAT DID JOHN MEAN BY THIS VERY APPROPRIATE BIBLICAL WORD?

• If the book of John was translated from the Greek language as many believe, John would have used the word LOGOS to express the word – word.
• If the book of John was translated from the [A]ramaic language, as many believe, John would have used the word MEMRA to translate the word – word.
• No one can be certain what language the book of John was translated from.
• What we can be certain about is where John was from and how the people he originated from understood the word –word.
• In the beginning was the [LOGOS]* Word, and the Word [LOGOS]* was with God, and the Word [LOGOS]* was God. JOHN 1:1 OR
• In the beginning was the [MEMRA]* Word, and the Word [MEMRA]* was with God, and the Word [MEMRA] was God. JOHN 1:1.

* RAS’s brackets.

THREE DIFFERENT GROUPS OF PEOPLE USED THIS WORD AT THE TIME THE GOSPEL OF JOHN WAS WRITTEN

[Greek Philosophers
Alexandrian Jews
The Palestinian Jews]

• TO THE GREEK PHILOSOPHERS THE LOGOS WAS AN INFERIOR DEITY, A “DEMIURGE”, THE “CREATOR OF THE WORLD.” PLATO CALLED IT INTELLIGENCE, CREATOR (DEMIURGE), LOGOS AND WISDOM.
• JOHN WOULD NOT BE EXPECTED TO WRITE THIS MOST IMPORTANT GOSPEL USING GREEK PHILOSOPHICAL TERMINOLOGY!

WHO WERE THE GREEKS?

• The Greeks were heathen who worshipped various deities, and were noted for the oriental philosophers, particularly Plato and Aristotle.
• From them came the idea of an “impassible God” who required intermediaries.
• From them came the different “categories of existence” such as a “being” and a “person.”
• These two ideas greatly influenced the so-called “Fathers” who interpreted John.
• If a Greek Philosopher used the word Logos, he was most probably using it to represent an intermediary being between man and God.
• But John was never a Greek Philosopher.
• John was a poor Galilean fisherman.

TO THE ALEXANDRIAN JEW,

• THE LOGOS WAS AN EMANATION FROM THE SUPREME BEING,
• NEVER IN THE FULLEST SENSE THE SUPREME GOD.
• THE TERM WAS USED IN THIS SENSE BY PHILO JUDAEUS A[L]EXANDRINUS, AN ALEXANDRIAN JEW.
• The Alexandrian Jew, Philo, speaks of the Logos more than fourteen hundred times in his writing.
• The Logos is for Philo, the thought of God coming to expression in speech.
• The Logos is what is knowable about God
• Philo has no thought of the Logos as being a real being with particular functions distinct from God. God alone is creator.
• IT IS MOST UNLIKELY THAT JOHN WAS IN CONTACT WITH PHILO, THE JEWISH PHILOSOPHER OF ALEXANDRIA, EGYPT, THOUGH THEY WERE COMTEMPORARIES. PHILO WAS NOT A CHRISTIAN, AND AS A HELLENIST, HE HAD NO. [Unfinished thought]
• WHO WAS JOHN? John was a Galilean fisherman, who spoke the language of his region, Aramaic.
• It might be expected that he would best understand and use the terminology that was common to the Jews, and not that which was solely a product of Grecian philosophy.

The word Logos (Greek), in Palestine, would likely be represented by the word Memra, (Hebrew-Chaldaic, later Aramaic), a word meaning, word.

• To THE PALESTINIAN JEW THE LOGOS WAS GOD HIMSELF, ACTING AND REVEALING HIMSELF.
• “When the Jews returned from Babylon, the mass of them spoke the Chaldee language, modified in some degree by the ancient Hebrew.”
• The Chaldee language became, in the time of John, Aramaic.
• “To meet the needs of this great mass of the Hebrew people for whom Hebrew had become a dead language, a translation of the Bible was prepared in the Chaldee language, or Hebraeo-Chaldaic dialect.”
• “Different portions of the ancient scriptures were translated by different individuals into Chaldaic; and hence they received names accordingly.
• Taken together, they were called Targums; and the translators, the ”
• “[It has been] long since stated, by competent authority, that the phrase, ‘the Word of Jehovah,’ is used for Jehovah, six hundred times in these Targums.”Adapted from Moses Stuart.[2]

Targums

600 times in the Targums God is referred to as the “Word.”  The Meaning of the phrase is clearly, the supreme God, Himself, in action as revealing himself.

Exodus 19:17 of the Bible states: “And Moses brought the people forth out of the camp to meet with God,” where the Targum for Exodus 19:17 reads “And Moses brought the people forth out of the camp to meet with the Word of the Lord.”

Job 42:9 the LORD also accepted Job. Ps. 2:4: the Lord shall have them in derision.  Targum: Job 42:9, “The Word of the Lord accepted Job. Targum: Ps 2:4, “The Word of the Lord  shall have them in derision.”

Gen. 26:3Sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee, Gen. 39:2And the LORD was with Joseph.  Targum Gen 26:3, “My Word shall be thy helper.” Targum Gen 39:2, “The Word of the Lord was with Joseph.”

Joseph Barber Lightfoot, 1828-1889

Greatest master of Rabbinical learning, textual critic, English scholar,

“So all along, that kind of phrase [WORD=GOD] is most familiar among them…Specially is this the case, when God is represented as transacting affairs of moment between himself and his people.”

“Thus in Lev. 26:46 (Heb.): ‘These are the statutes which the Lord made between him and the children of Israel.’” Targum states: ‘Between his Wordand the children of Israel’’’( Lightfoot).

Deut 20:1, (Heb) ‘The Lord thy God is with thee;’ Targum, ‘Jehovah is thy God, his Word is with thee.’

“Such is the striking usage of the Targumists, in respect to the phrase Word of God.  They carry it indeed still further, and often express by Memra  [the Chaldee Word  in question] the emphatic pronouns myself, thyself, himself…”’

(Lightfoot).

“Thus Memra  [the Logos, the Word ] came to be employed not only to designate God as acting, or making some revelation  of himself, or of his will. The Logos  was the most appropriate word John could have used to designate God revealing himself to man, with a clearness which he had never done before” (Lightfoot). End of RAS PowerPoint.

Comment:

During the Jewish exile to Babylon, the Israelites lost their ability to speak Hebrew. Their Rabbi’s used “Targums” to teach the Torah to the people. It was through the Targums that they, and we, learned how “Memra” the Chaldean, and later Aramaic word, was used to describe God in all his fulness.

According to the Jewish Encyclopedia: “As an interpretation of the Hebrew text of the Bible the Targum had its place both in the synagogal liturgy and in Biblical instruction, while the reading of the Bible text combined with the Targum in the presence of the congregation assembled for public worship was an ancient institution which dated from the time of the second temple, and was traced back to Ezra by Rab when he interpreted the word “meforash” (Neh. viii. 8) as referring to the Targum” (Meg. 3a; Ned. 37b; comp. Yer. Meg. 74d, line 48, Gen. R. xxxvi., end). [3]

“The Targum (plural, Targumim) is an Aramaic paraphrase/explanation/interpretation of the Hebrew text of the Jewish Scriptures provided by the rabbis in the course of teaching. These paraphrases or explanations were not meant to carry equal authority with the Word of God, and it was normally forbidden to record them in writing, just to make sure that no one would equate them with the written Word of God. However, this rule was not always obeyed, and a good many were written down. In some circles, certain of the targumim were considered authoritative. Various rabbis whose targumim were recorded had followers who accepted their explanations as authoritative, and, in some cases, they put them on par with the Word of God. It is against this backdrop that Christ conducted His ministry and often clashed with various sects who “let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions” (Mark 7:8). [4]

Comment:

1. This understanding is a game changer in the discussion of the prologue of John. It neutralizes any discussion of the definitions and understandings of Logos. If the information about Memra is true, John was not using an Alexandrian Philosophical definition of Logos ascribed to Philo in the prologue, he was referring to God Almighty as the rabbis taught during his childhood synagogue gatherings.
2. It is troubling to me to learn that Theophilus (referenced in the earlier footnote) wrote Biblical Trinity in 1855, and Joseph Barber Lightfoot lived 1828-1889. Both men understood the existence and significance of the Targums where the understanding of “Memra” came to light, yet I have never heard anything taught on either the Targums or the understanding of “Memra” from any pulpit until I came across it in Biblical Trinity and Robert Sabin’s PowerPoint lesson. It seems obvious that the real truth about Logos has either been denied, ignored, or hidden in obscurity to protect a doctrine that has no place in the Church.

Excerpts from “Biblical Trinity”

By Theophilus

The original work of Biblical Trinity[5] is in public domain in the United States of America which means it can be freely copied and distributed since no one holds a copyright to it. The real name of the author is a mystery though he seemed to be known by his contemporaries.

This book was Robert Sabin’s most treasured volume. His copy had been made by copying both the odd and even pages of an original on one page and binding the pages into a hard copy book. He studied this book so ferociously, with margin notes, underlining, highlighting and associated thoughts, that it is difficult to make out the original text in places. Upon his death, his wife blessed me with his treasure.

In preparation for this section, I transcribed thirty-six pages of Biblical Trinity, copying the entire section on the prologue of John, to not only have it available digitally, but also to allow me to share it. The formatting is as found in the original manuscript.

While reading Biblical Trinity in preparation for this portion, it was immediately made profoundly clear to me that I was out of my league; biting off more than I could chew; having delusions of grandeur if I thought I could understand Theophilus well enough to add any beneficial commentary. Theophilus is so far beyond my back yard theology that I cannot think of a comparison. Even so, I did make some comments.

We begin at p. 186, paragraph 2.

“Now, it will doubtless be granted on all hands, that if any writer of the New Testament treats his subject in a “learned and philosophical manner,” it is the apostle Paul; and that the apostle John, above all those writers, uses language “in a loose and popular way,” and not “in a learned and philosophical manner,” with “logical and scholastic distinctions,” or “formal exactness.””

Comment:

Theophilus compares the writing styles of Paul and John. Paul’s style is described as “learned and philosophical” whereas John is described as “loose and popular” without “logical and scholastic distinctions” or “formal exactness.” According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary “loose” could be understood to mean lacking in precision, exactness, or care; also permitting freedom of interpretation. Webster defines “popular” as adapted to or indicative of the understanding and taste of the majority, frequently encountered or widely accepted. These descriptions would be consistent with those of John in Robert Sabin’s PowerPoint previously discussed John as a fisherman, unfamiliar with Greek philosophy, speaking the common language of the Jews. This is an opinion based on observation of Theophilus, not a fact, but it makes sense.

“There is often some great subject which fills his mind, that he presents over and over again, either in several different forms of expression or in nearly the same form, to explain or impress the general truth. Thus in John 1:13, those who become the sons of God, the writer says, “were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” Here the same truth is presented in a different form: four times; three times negatively, and one positively. So in the seventh (20^th) verse: “And he confessed, and denied not, but confessed, I am not the Christ.” here the same truth is stated three times. The same thing is done in chapter 17: 8, 9, 12, and many other places. In 1 John 1:1-3, the same varied form of expression is used, repeating substantially the same important truth several times; in stating other truths two or three times each, before the end of the sentence: “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our (p. 187) eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (for the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and show unto you the eternal life,  which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us); that which we have seen and heard, declare we unto you.” Here the fact of this apostle’s having, in the same or in different ways, come to the knowledge of what he declares, is mentioned seven times; the manifestation of it, twice; and his making it known to them, three times—all in the same sentence. The same thing is done in chapter 2:11, and 3:9. So in Rev. 22:13, the same writer says: “I am the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last”—the same thought presented in three sets of terms.

It is, then according to the genius of this writer, to repeat an important truth which he would express and enforce upon the minds of others, in similar or in very different language, several times; but “in a loose and popular way,” without “logical or scholastic distinctions.” This is true, far beyond the proper limits of Hebrew parallelism. Let us examine and see if the same thing is not manifest , in a few verses at the beginning of his Gospel.”

Comment:

Theophilus continues his description of John’s writing style and supports his observation of John being “loose and popular” by focusing on the repetition throughout his writings of the same expression in different forms when referring to an important truth to embed the desired truth in the mind of the reader.

““In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the Logos was made flesh, and (p. 188) dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.”

The point now to be considered is; Whether the great object of the sacred writer here, is not, to teach and maintain the Supreme Divinity of the Logos, considered as the revealer of the Godhead in the works of creation, providence, and redemption; without any reference to the distinction of three Persons in the nature of God himself, as since maintained. In other words; whether his object is not to teach us that he who makes these revelations of the Godhead, is not a derived or subordinate divinity, like some gods (e.g. the Æons of the heathen philosophers of that day, nor a Divine attribute; but the true God himself, denominated the logos, with reference to these manifestations.”

Comment:

I struggle to understand Theophilus’ use of “not” in this paragraph. I assume it is the style of the time. He frames an inquiry without a question mark by writing “the object of the writer here, is not, to teach” instead of writing: We must determine if the sacred writer is teaching and maintaining the Supreme Deity of the Logos…without any reference to the distinction of three Persons in the nature of God himself…. He confirms this interpretation by rephrasing his previous sentence as I paraphrase: his object is to teach us that he who makes these revelations of the Godhead, is not a derived or subordinate divinity, like some gods but the true God himself, named [Definition of denominated by Webster] the logos. 

“So God is denominated [Definition: named-per Webster] Jehovah with reference to his self-existence; and Lord or King, with reference to his supreme dominion; and Creator, Father, Shepherd, and the like, with reference to some particular aspect or relation of the Supreme Being, on account of which the appropriate name in each case is applied to him. It is no less true that he is the Supreme God, whether designated by one or another of these names; whether occasionally or generally, temporarily or permanently, so designated. We are to look through the name—the  Shekinah—the manifestation in the flesh, up to him who thus manifests himself. he is the logos.

If these things are so, then the sacred writer of the (p. 189) passage before us asserts the Logos is the true God, according to his frequent manner of stating many truths, four times in somewhat varied forms of expression: “The Logos existed at the beginning of all things—in eternity; and the Logos was of one and same nature with God; I mean, the Logos was the true God himself. This Logos was not a Divine attribute, nor a derived being, but was eternally one and the same with the true God himself.” More briefly, “The Logos—the Revealer of the Godhead—existed before the creation began, and was eternally one and the same with the true God.” In illustration of his meaning, the writer goes on to say, here and elsewhere: “All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made. He was the living God, the light of the world, the author and communicator of Divine and saving knowledge to men. This Logos became incarnate; and as the Shekinah—the Son of God on earth—the only beloved of the Father—he dwelt among us, abounding in grace and truth suited to the wants of men.”

Comment:

Theophilus asserts that God is designated to be the Supreme God due to the names that are applied to him. According to the description of the Logos by John, God is the Logos when he states: the Logos was of one and same nature with God…not a Divine attribute, nor a derived being, but was eternally one and the same with the true God himself.

“The only real difficulty in this passage, appertains to the preposition [pros] —with. And why should any stumble at a particle, when we have the clear light of revelation shining upon our path? It is a connecting word, used with very great latitude, —as mentioned in the first chapter of this work, —the meaning of which is often determined entirely by the connection in which it stands, or by the general nature of the subject introduced, if not fully stated. The meaning of this preposition (p. 190) when applied to men, may differ, in important respects, from its meaning when applied to God; as do a multitude of other words. Shall we, then, fix on some general, scholastic, or metaphysical[6] meaning of this word, for the true sense; or on one which gives a metaphysical sense to the phrase; as though the apostle John had been a disciple of Plato, or been trained in some modern school of metaphysics? The light which the Scriptures shed upon the general subject, —the being, and the attributes and relations of the true God, —must be our main guide (emphasis mine). It would be hardly fair to carry back the “logical and scholastic distinctions: of the present day, or those of the Nicene or Athanasian fathers, and apply them to explain the simple, artless writings of the beloved disciple John. Such metaphysical speculations would have been of little service to his plain, unlettered, common-sense readers or hearers; and it is somewhat doubtful, to say the least, whether they contribute much to the edification of the church, in faith and in holiness, at the present day.”

Paraphrase:

The only problem in understanding this text relates to the preposition, “with.” Why should we struggle with a preposition/particle, an insignificant portion when we have a clear declaration of the truth to guide us? “With” is a connecting word used with much flexibility. The meaning is often determined by the associated words or the subject being discussed. Should we assign a Platonic meaning to this preposition as though John was a student of Plato? The Scriptures have clearly shown us the being, attributes, and relations of God, they must guide our understanding. Using the lofty interpretation of Plato or the Nicene and Athanasian fathers to communicate to John’s plain, common-sense readers would not enhance the understanding of the message by his audience.

“It is here suggested, with very great deference, whether the sense already given of the passage before us, as teaching the Supreme divinity of the logos —the true God revealing himself, —does not exhaust its meaning, and express its ultimate design and its whole bearing; without supposing it to teach any distinctions or distinct Persons at all, in the nature of the Godhead itself, —but only a different manifestation (p. 191) of the one true God, suited to the exigencies of the case.”

Paraphrase:

It is with great respect for those sharing in this discussion, that I suggest that the passage before us is intended that the Logos as the one true God revealing himself without any inference of distinct persons in the Godhead, but rather a different manifestation of the one true God.

“What evidence is there that the declaration, “the Logos was with God,” was understood by any of the early Christians not imbued with the Platonic or New Platonic philosophy, to mean, or that it does in fact mean, with him socially—with him in any proper sense in which one “distinct person,” or one “distinct and competent moral agent,” may be said to be with another—living, consulting, deliberating, and covenanting with him? Does the Greek preposition here (?????? necessarily or properly teach this, in reference to the true God? Such is, indeed, the view which the passage presents when seen through the indigo-medium of Platonic or Nicene philosophy; but is it so when viewed by common sense, in the light of the revealed character of God? If you assume that it does, at the outset of the investigation, you assume the very point in debate; and the argument begs the question. But this cannot be assumed, while the question is, What does the phrase, “the Logos was with God,” mean? Does the use of this preposition (????—with??in the Greek or English classics, and in reference to men, simply, decide what it means in the present case, in reference to the true God? Can it be supposed that a doctrine which is really of so much importance as is claimed for that of  “three Persons in the nature of God” furnishing “infinitely blessed society in the Divine mind,” is left to depend very much, or at all upon the use of a preposition, whose meaning is often (p. 192) determined entirely by the nature of the subject and the connection in which it is found?”

Comment:

Theophilus is asking for evidence that any early Christians that were not trained in Platonic philosophy believed the “Logos was with God” as one person would be with another. He is trying to determine if it is possible that the understanding of the nature of God depends entirely on the interpretation of a preposition?

“Here are two cases, distinct and unlike in their nature. One is that of a man being or living with another man. The meaning of this is obvious; for we know there are two such men: it is a thing well understood. But when, in the other case, we come to apply this human language to the infinite God, it becomes a very different thing. We are met with the Scripture doctrine of the unity of God. The oft-repeated declaration, “Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God is one Jehovah!” stands on the sacred page just as it always has done. It is not expunged, recalled, or explained to mean “three Persons in the nature of God.” We are often told, indeed, that the Divine unity is taught in Scripture, not in opposition to a Trinity in the nature of the Godhead, but in opposition to idols. But this, so far as appears, is simple assumption. We are told, on good authority, “that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.” We are not to suppose the declaration of the Divine unity to be made simply in opposition to dumb idols, but everything which the plain common sense of men regards as more than “one God;” whether dumb idols, or “three distinct and competent moral agents” supposed to be united in one substratum, and furnishing “infinitely blessed society in God,” or whatever else amount to the same thing. Christ himself taught the same doctrine: “Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord.”—Mark 12:29. (p. 193) This was a point well established, and settled in the Scriptures, if anything can be so regarded. The beloved disciple John should be expected to teach nothing contrary to it, or inconsistent with it. Especially, in so important a matter as that presented in the common theory of the Trinity, relative to the nature or mode of the Divine existence, it seems altogether natural and reasonable to expect that it would not be left to depend mainly on the meaning of the preposition in this passage, and on a few other passages of difficult if not doubtful interpretation. It has been soberly asked, Why did not Christ deny the truth of the common theory, if it is not well founded? He did not undertake to deny, or name, all the erroneous views of Divine truth which have been entertained from that day to the present. He and his apostles taught great cardinal doctrines, which are to be our guide on particular and difficult points, and in opposition to which nothing should be received a Divine truth on the authority of human interpretation.”

Comment:

Theophilus takes us back to the basics, the Shema (Deut 6:4). He rejects the attempt of Trinitarians to inject plurality into the Shema as a support for the Trinity when it should be used for opposition to idols. This is the second consecutive paragraph where he promotes the use of “common sense” to oppose the Trinity as it opposes the cardinal doctrine of monotheism taught by the Shema. He endorses the “one God” message of the Shema, to be the “common” (accepted, standard, universal) theory of Israel and asks Why did Jesus not correct the thinking of the common people if it was not true (paraphrase)? He encourages us to adhere to the apostle’s teachings on the great cardinal doctrines for our guide on difficult points and not rely on the authority of human interpretation.

(p. 194) “When we find a word, like this Greek or English preposition, sometimes used in application to men with reference to society, —much oftener in English than in Greek, —we should inquire how it can be applied to God, consistently with what is elsewhere plainly taught respecting him; remembering that he is not “such an one as ourselves.” In interpreting such language, having reference to the “one Jehovah,” it is evident that it should not be understood in a literal or a quasiliteral[7] sense, as when one man is said to be with another; any more than the language which has been understood to teach “eternal generation,” “eternal procession,” or “transubstantiation;” or that which represents God as hearkening, hearing, and keeping a memorandum-book, in order to aide his recollection of the good conduct of men.—(Mal. 3:16.) It must, then, be understood in a modified sense, and some other interpretation must be given to the preposition in this case, than that which indicates two Persons, with the attributes of two distinct and competent moral agents, supposed to be united in one substratum, in order to avoid, as much as possible, the untenable position of acknowledging more Gods than one.”

Comment:

Theophilus reminds us that even though a preposition can refer to society between men, we must determine how use of this preposition applies to God. Care must be given to avoid a conclusion of two Persons, two distinct moral agents which also leads to more Gods than one.

“Next to this use of the preposition, we resort to the teaching of our common “exegetical guide:” what says that in regard to the meaning of the passage before us? “Hear, O Israel; Jehovah our God is one Jehovah! There is none other God but one.”

This appears to be essentially the view of the Logos, which is presented by the sacred writer, in the first five verses of his gospel. He makes the same general statement, setting forth the Supreme Divinity of the (p. 202) Logos several times, according to his frequent manner of stating important truth, in varied language, and with some diversity of thought, all serving to explain, confirm, and impress the general truth, and partaking more or less of the nature of Hebrew parallelism. Who shall say that the passage, thus understood, does not evince consummate wisdom, skill, order, harmony, and knowledge of the subject, in the sacred writer? He has, indeed, presented his thoughts in the simple style of the Hebrew-Greek, or rather, we might say, in the Johannian idiom and it would be somewhat difficult to present each form of the thought literally, and at the same time fully, in the idiom of our own language; but not more difficult, than so to present many other truths contained in the original Scriptures. Could we enter exactly into the views of this writer, and see all the circumstances present to his mind, as he saw them, there would doubtless be far less difficulty in understanding this passage, than has generally been felt. This, however, is not the fault of the sacred writer but of the reader. It has been well said, that “every writer has special reference to his own times; To those for whom he primarily writes; Not to future times, so as to neglect his contemporaries. The obscurity which arises from this mode of writing is not a necessary one; But results merely from the change which time makes in languages. It is an obscurity common to all good ancient writers; For the ground of (p.203) it lies in the ignorance of later readers, and not in the writers.”

No one who may have a different view of the above passage from that which has just been given, if he has a manly, opposing argument in store, will attempt to express this view literally throughout, in English terms, according to the Hebrew-Greek or Johannean idiom; like saying, “Jehovah our Gods is one Jehovah,” or “calling Charlamagne the great emperors, to denote special dignity.” An exact literal rendering of many passages, without any explanatory words, would do violence to this sense, or to the idiom of our language, or both.”

Comment:

Here we are taken back to the “General Truth of the Bible” discussed earlier. Our general truth, referred here as our “exegetical guide,” is Deuteronomy 6:4, ““Hear, O Israel; Jehovah our God is one Jehovah!” It is pointed out that if we could walk in John’s shoes and see through John’s eyes the passage would be much less difficult to understand. The fact that we are unable to accomplish this is not John’s fault as a writer but ours as readers. To deviate from his thought with my application of it: the Church Father’s did not understand exactly what John was trying to communicate because writers write with their contemporaries as their audience. The Church Fathers were not John’s contemporaries any more than I am a contemporary of Theophilus struggling to understand him. He warns against seeking a literal translation in English terms to avoid violence to the writing.

“We have been confirmed in the preceding view of the passage before us, by the manner in which the word Logos is used in the Targums, or translations into the Chaldee of the Hebrew Scriptures. “When the Jews returned from Babylon, the mass of them spoke the Chaldee language, modified in some degree by the ancient Hebrew. Hence it became necessary that this same mass should have the scriptures translated into the Chaldee or Hebræo-Chaldee dialect” (Stuart, emphasis mine). Different portions of the ancient scriptures were translated by different individuals; and hence they received names accordingly. Taken together, they were called the Targums; and the translators, the Targumists. We remember to have it long since stated, by competent authority, that the phrase, “the word of Jehovah,” is used for Jehovah six hundred times in these Targums (emphasis mine). We wish here to (p. 204) introduce Prof. Stuart’s account of the use of this phrase in these books. He says, in the article already referred to (pp. 20, 21):

This expression [the Logos or Word of Jehovah] is employed in the Targums, in cases almost without number, instead of the simple Jehovah or Elohim of the Hebrew text (emphasis mine). In particular, wherever the Hebrew represents the divine being as in action, or as revealing himself by his works, or by communications to individuals; in a word, wherever God operates ad extra [externally] and thus reveals himself, it is common for the Targumists to say that his Word operates, or makes the revelation. A few examples are necessary to show the manner of this.

In Ex. 19:17, the Hebrew runs thus: ‘And Moses brought forth the people out of the camp to meet with God;’ in the Targum, ‘To meet with the Word of the Lord.’ Job 42:9, (Heb.): ‘the Lord accepted Job;’ in the Targum, ‘The Word of the Lord accepted Job.’ Ps. 2:4, (Heb.): ‘The Word of the Lord shall deride them.’ Gen. 26: 3, (Heb.): ‘I will be with thee;’ Targum, ‘My Word shall be thy helper.’ Gen. 39: 2, (Heb.): ‘The Lord was with Joseph.’ Targum, ‘The Word of the Lord was with Joseph.’ Lightfoot, that great master of rabbinical learning, says of these and the like cases: ‘So, all along, that kind of phrase is most familiar amongst them’ (emphasis mine).—Hor. Bib.in Johan. 1.1. Specially is this the case, when God is represented as transacting affairs of (p. 205) moment between himself and his people. Thus in Lev. 26: 46, (Heb.): ‘These are the statutes which the Lord made between him and the children of Israel;’ Targum, ‘Between his Word and the children of Israel.’ Deut. 5:5, (Heb.): ‘I stood between you and the Lord, at that time;’ Targum, ‘I stood between you and the Word of the Lord.’ Deut. 20:1, (Heb): ‘The Lord thy God is with thee;’ Targum,’ Jehovah is thy God, his Word is with thee.’”

Comment:

Theophilus now breaks new ground, transitioning to the Jews returning from Babylon with most of them having lost Hebrew as their native language. The use of Targums is introduced as a translation of Hebrew scripture into their current Hebræo-Chaldee dialect. He observes that the term “word of Jehovah” was used in numbers ranging from 600 times to innumerable instead of Jehovah or Elohim from the Hebrew text.

“Such is the striking usage of the Targumists, in respect to the phrase Word of God. They carry it indeed still further, and often express by Memra [“the Word” in Chaldee, emphasis mine] the emphatic pronouns myself, thyself, himself…. Thus Memra [the Logos] came, by usage among the Jews, to be employed not only to designate God as acting, or making some revelation of himself or of his will, but to be employed as a kind of intensive paraphrastic pronoun to designate God himself (emphasis mine). The transition was not unnatural. That which is often employed to express God revealed, may easily come at last to express the idea of God simply considered.

Here we have the nucleus of the whole subject. The Chaldee word for Logos, designating God revealing himself, was in use and well understood among the Jews, in the time of John; the Hebrew being a dead language (emphasis mine). We are gratified in having so full an account of the matter, before it is too late to make use of it, in illustration of the subject. Considering all the circumstances of the case, the Logos was the most (p. 206) appropriate word John could have used to designate God revealing himself to man, in a degree and with a clearness and fullness which he had never done before (emphasis mine). “Christ, the Light of the world, was the first who fully developed the Godhead: ‘No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.’  In the connection in which this passage stands, the implication is that neither Moses, nor any other Old Testament writer, has made a full disclosure of the gospel doctrine respecting God. ‘Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.’”—(Stuart.) God revealed himself by Moses, and by other ancient prophets, but preëminently so by Jesus Christ. He plainly “declared,” or revealed, the Godhead to man “God in Christ” was God (the Logos) manifesting himself in the work of redemption.”

Comment:

Please note the bold type since it is self-explanatory. “Memra” is shown to be the means to communicate “the word” and the pronouns myself, thyself…God himself. Hebrew is described as a “dead language.” “The Logos was the most appropriate word John could have used to designate God revealing himself to man, in a degree and with a clearness and fullness which he had never done before.”

Theophilus rejects the Trinitarian Logos as the pre-existent Jesus for the Jewish Logos, Memra, for the eternal God revealing himself.

“The phrase, the Logos or Word of God, anciently had three meanings. The Jewish sense was, Jehovah. This has been particularly noticed. The Alexandrine Jewish sense was that of an emanation from the Supreme Being; not, in the fullest and highest sense, the Supreme God. If we understand it correctly, Philo Judaeus Alexandrinus used the term in this sense. The third, or heathen sense, was that of an inferior god, “the creator of the world;” which some of the oriental philosophers “distinguished from the Supreme Divinity by the name of demiurge.” —(Mosheim.) Plato calls it intelligence, creator, (demiurge,) logos, and wisdom” (emphasis mine). — (Knapp.)

Comment:

Of the three meanings provided for Logos or Word of God, we should only be concerned with the Jewish version since it is the only understanding based on the biblical perspective of God. Philo’s Alexandrine explanation is based on his Platonic philosophy and had no basis in the Bible. No comment is required to justify the heathen meaning.

(p. 208) “In view of what has been already advanced, we feel constrained to dissent from the following statements, contained in the learned and able article to which reference has repeatedly been made: “To say, then, that the Logos is with him, must mean, that there is a diversity of some kind between the Logos and God; although the writer has not undertaken to define in what that diversity consists.” —p. 31. “An intimate connection [or community][8] between God and the Logos may be asserted, and be credible, without any explanation of the manner of that connection.” —p. 37.

Comment:

Theophilus expresses his hesitation to disagree with an “able” article printed in an earlier portion of the book by a “learned” author. He then shares two quotes from the article that obviously promoted the Trinitarian position of relationship between the Logos and God.

“But we had before been told by this venerable author (p. 16), the Greek verb (ἦν) rendered was, means here was existing: “At the beginning, the Logos was existing.” How does it appear that this verb was not the same meaning in the very next member of the same sentence? Does the nature of the subject prove this? It does not so appear. Does the language of the second member of the seconds prove it? If so, it must be the word πρός—with, or this in connection with the word God. But if we follow “our exegetical guide,” and at the same time duly consider the meaning which, according to this learned Professor, (p. 209) and able lexicographers, this preposition sometimes has, shall we not be constrained [compelled] to say, that the meaning of this member of the sentence is: “The Logos was existing in respect to God;”—as to the divine nature, or very God;”—especially, when it is immediately added: “the logos was God,” or was existing as “true God—supreme God?” There would then be “some diversity between God and the Logos”—the same as between God unrevealed and God revealing himself. This sense of the passage does not require more expletive words, not in the original, to give in English the full sense of the text, than do a great many passages of the original Scriptures; as any scholar may see by looking into those Scriptures, and as any English reader may see by looking at the italic words in his English Bible. (Leave out those italic words, and see how it will read.) This author clearly shows, on pp. 32, 33, that there are many passages of Scripture which cannot be translated literally and give the sense, because our language or our idiom is not competent so to do it; a defect not peculiar, but common to the translation of all languages. Nor does the passage before us, understood as above, and expressed in some of the forms already given, depart more from the literal meaning of the original words, than is requisite in giving the true sense of many other passages of the same sacred writer.”

Comment:

Theophilus points out a potential discrepancy, or inconsistency in the application of “was” in John 1:1. What other purpose could he have when he states: “How does it appear that this verb was not the same meaning in the very next member of the same sentence?” He suggests that a more accurate interpretation of “was” than being face to face would be to follow the exegetical guide of the Shema and conclude the preposition was meant to describe “The Logos was existing in respect to God;”—as to the divine nature, or very God.”

“In John 14: 23, it is said: “If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come (παρά) unto him, and make our abode (p. 210) (pros) with him.” Who thinks of understanding this language literally? Plainly it is to be understood in a modified sense; and just so much modified as the nature of the subject requires. It doubtless expresses high favor, intimate communion and fellowship; and of course is understood in a modified sense. Bloomfield, remarking on this passage, says: “God is said to come to men, when he promises or bestows peculiar benefits on them; also to dwell or remain with those whom he especially favors; and also to leave and depart from those whom he ceases to benefit.”

Christ says, John 14:11: “Believe me, that I am in the father, and the father in me.” How was the Son in the Father, and the Father in the Son? Can we say, “David was in Jonathan, and Jonathan in David?” If the nature of the subject is to have anything to do with determining the sense of the passage just quoted, why not also of the declaration, “the Logos was with God?” If we may interpret the former phraseology in a modified sense, as denoting intimate spiritual union, fellowship, friendship, why not, in accordance with the nature of the subject, interpret the latter declaration, as denoting the oneness and sameness of the Logos with the real nature of God—with very God himself? This would be exactly in accordance with the teachings of “our exegetical guide.”

Comment:

He makes a case for the interpretation of Logos being the same as the nature of God himself is consistent with the exegetical guide.

“We had occasion, in the first chapter of this work, to introduce a remark of professor Stuart relative to the use of the preposition διά in Romans 5: 19. He is right in (p. 211) saying that we cannot “lay any stress on the preposition itself as determining either for or against” the point in question there; must examine “the general nature of the whole phrase;”—yes, and what is elsewhere revealed respecting the same subject. So we say of the preposition πρός—with, in the passage before us. To judge of its meaning here, we must look not only at “the general nature of the whole phrase,” but at the general subject of the Godhead as revealed in the Scriptures; in other words, we must proceed in our investigations, in the light of “our exegetical guide.” It would not be in exact keeping with such an occupation, to go into hair-splitting niceties as to the classic use of a Greek preposition (though such use favors our interpretation), employed by a fisherman of Galilee, in the plain and simple style of the apostle John, when it’s meaning often—not to say generally—depends on the character of the company in which it is found.

In deciding such a question as this, it is important to consider the great latitude of meaning with which prepositions are used. Schleusner gives to the Greek preposition πρός, twenty-five meanings, when used with the single case which it governs in the passage before us—the accusative. The last one is the meaning we have given to it in this passage. To διὰ, he gives thirty-one meanings, beside subordinate ones; and to ἐν, thirty-one meanings. In English, Webster gives to the preposition with, fifteen meanings; by fourteen; to, twenty-eight or twenty-nine. (p. 212) He adds: “In the foregoing explanation of to, it is to be considered that the definition given is not always the sense of to by itself, but the sense rather of the word preceding it, or connected with it, or of to in connection with other words.” What is the meaning of the preposition to, in these lines of Watts?

“O, may I live to reach the place
Where he unveils his lovely face!”
(Edition of 1816, and in Dwight)

The meaning evidently is not, “oh, may I live long enough to reach the place;” but, “so as to—so that I may reach the place.” The foregoing remark of Webster is true of prepositions in general, and of the Greek preposition in question.

Our object in these remarks is, to show that it will not do to build an important theory—important if true —on a preposition, the meaning of which often depends entirely on the nature of the subject, or on the connection in which it is found. When Paul says that one class of persons are “justified by faith,” in another class “through faith;” we are not to suppose that he is speaking of different methods of justification. The same remark applies to the phrases, “Walk in the Spirit” (Gal. 5: 16); “So walk ye him” (Col. 2: 6); “He that dwelleth in love, dwelleth God, and God in him” (1 Jn. 4:16). The common interpretation of this whole class of passages-which is not small-modifies their literal meaning as much as does that given of the passage under examination. Such modification of scripture language is very often required by the nature of the subject, and is especially to be expected in regard to the language of one who was remarkable for writing “in a loose and popular way,” for common, plain, uneducated men; and not “in a learned and philosophical manner,” for philosophical minds. We do this in both of the cases just mentioned, for the same reason; because the nature of the subject requires it. And why is it not as philological, as philosophical, as rational, as scriptural, as unobjectionable an interpretation in the one case, as in the other?

Still, some insist on interpreting the phrase in question literally— or quasi-literally—as denoting “society,” and therefore a distinction of persons in the very nature of the Godhead, in order to form that society. They begin by stating—truly enough—that the Bible teaches there is but one God; and that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. These they have called “different revelations;” the latter one implying a metaphysical distinction of three Persons in the very nature of this one God—instead of understanding it in a more simple way. They (p. 214) then fortify their position by the argument from ignorance (emphasis mine): We do not any of us know enough of the internal nature of God to affirm, that these single ‘different revelations’ are contradictory, or that the facts which they disclose respecting the nature of God are absurd. We therefore conclude that they are true.” The proper answer to be given to such an argument is: “Neither do you know enough of the eternal nature of God, to assert that they are not contradictory and absurd: therefore, leave this subject where the Bible leaves it. Stop right there!”

Comment:

The point is made that those who promote the understanding that the preposition “with” describes society within the Godhead attempt to fortify their understanding through an argument from ignorance. My paraphrase of this argument: Since we do not know enough of God’s nature to be sure that a society of distinct persons does not exist, we conclude our revelations our true. Theophilus advises against this position since man’s understanding of God’s nature is not complete enough to be confident they are not contradictory and therefore this line of thinking should be avoided.

“Now, let this argument change sides: let us apply it to the other view which has been taken of the Trinity; viz.[9], that God, revealed as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, acts in three different capacities and relations in the work of redemption. The argument is this: “We do not any of us know enough of God in his government, to affirm that this view of the Trinity is not perfectly consistent with his nature, attributes, and relations to the universe. We are not competent to disprove this position, or show it to be absurd; therefore, it must be true. Nay, more; this view of the Trinity, is true because it is so revealed, even if more than this is true; viz., even if there are three eternal distinctions or three Persons in the nature of the Godhead itself.”

But these “different revelations” are not contradictory; they are entirely consistent: it is only men’s interpretations of them that conflict. The revealed truths are not absurd; but only the constructions and (p. 215) inferences which men put upon and derived from them it is not the sacred writer who needs to be freed from absurdity; but the human interpreter, who, by his own interpretation, has created that absurdity. It is this interpreter who conflicts with revelation; not revelation with itself. Sound philosophy does, indeed, require us to receive these truths as they are revealed, but not his interpretation of them; for that is not revealed. The mistake lies in substituting the interpretations or inferences, —which he gets by looking at the scriptures through antique scholastic glasses of uneven surface, discoloring and distorting them, —for the truths themselves as they are revealed. Would he only lay aside his scholastic glasses and look at what is actually revealed, with his naked eye and in the light of our common “exegetical guide,” he would see the truth as it is. If it were true—which is questionable—that there is a possibility of such a union of three Persons in the very nature of the Godhead, has a “society,” constituting but one God, still, we are not any of us competent to prove or to affirm such a union as a reality, until we have another revelation setting it forth; for the scriptures do not affirm it. We do not say that all this is as clear as sun-light; but it is so clear that common eyes, if they do not look at the object through a false medium, can see it plainly, in its length and breadth. The argument from ignorance, therefore, even if granted, proves just nothing at all, except that—we are ignorant.”

Comment:

Part I of the argument from ignorance was to accept that the deviation from scripture’s description of God because we could not, as a result of our limited understanding of God, prove that the deviation was not true, they must be true. Part II of the argument from ignorance is the flip side stating that since we don’t know beyond doubt that the deviation is false, then it must be true. Theophilus goes on to propose that the mistake of interpretation results from looking at the subject matter through rose colored glasses, or another medium that distorts the true image.

(p. 216) “The error in respect to this subject, lies in three unwarrantable assumptions (emphasis mine).

1. In taking language appropriate to men, and applying it to God as if literally true, and yet in apparent opposition to the general tenor of the Scriptures, that there is but one Jehovah, one God, one infinite Divine ancient agent in the universe.
2. In ascribing to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost the properties or attributes of three distinct individualities— three distinct incompetent Divine agents; and then, to avoid the appearance and evade the charge of tritheism, uniting these three eternal distinctions, these three sets of Divine attributes, these three distinct and competent moral agents, in one substratum—an unknown, unintelligible, metaphysical non entity (so far as appears), which does not alter the real facts of the case of at all.

The Independent for April 26, 1849, referring to a certain view of the Trinity, makes the following pertinent and timely remarks: “It is no better than the quasi emanation-theories of the Arian and Athanasian controversy—no better than the theory of three sets of attributes inhering in one substance; which to our view is nothing less than an empty clatter of words which in their combination have no real meaning. Discussion on such subject—theory, hypothesis, explanation, or whatever it may call itself—the moment it attempts anything more than the ascertainment of the facts revealed in the record, sinks into an unfathomable (p. 217) abyss; and therefore the faith of all Christians is constantly tending to work itself free of all dogmatism on this point, and to rest in the great facts, with all the impenetrable mystery which hangs around them.” [We would rather say, “whatever impenetrable mystery may hang around them.”] It is even so. And these heavings which are sometimes very manifest in the Christian community, are no mistaken indications of an effort, on the one part, to throw off this burden of a theory, and on the other to retain it, as though it contained the very essence of all spiritual life.

These three distinct and competent moral agents (so assumed) taken separately, are, for convenience’ sake, called Persons; but thus united together, they are called one Being—one God. And yet, so represented, they are—in every intelligible sense—thee distinct, eternal, harmonious Divinities, consulting and covenanting together and communicating happiness to one another; though metaphysically united in one substance or substratum. This “one substance” is only saying that they do not acknowledge, but (in words) wholly discard, the notion of three Gods. We accept it as an intentional disclaimer, upon but not as the truth, noras, in any proper sense, a fit explanation of the truth. Theoretically and virtually they are a “society” of three distinct, united, equal, infinite, eternal and harmonious Beings, designated by the specific name of God. So the whole human race, consisting of innumerable individuals, is called by the specific name of man. The former have one common nature, and are united in one (p. 218) substratum: the latter are homogeneous in nature, and are united in a common humanity.

It is extremely difficult to keep up this distinction of Persons and this union in one Being, with perfect consistency. At one time, each of the three is a distinct incompetent moral agent—one “mind;” then, presently, all the three are included “in the Divine mind.” Even Professor Stuart, who holds the common theory of the Trinity in the least exceptional form,—the same as the simple Trinity of the Scriptures, with the exception of a few metaphysical terms, to us unintelligible,—sometimes speaks, without his usual caution, and from a seemingly unconscious necessity, of more “beings” than one, in the Godhead. He says (Bib. Sacra, p. 32): “An actual literal space- relation is out of the question, as has already been hinted, for the Logos and God are spiritual beings, yea purely spiritual.” So difficult is it to preserve a consistent use of terms, in setting forth the common theory. And it seems not very material to the subject itself, whether, with one or another of the writers quoted on the preceding pages, we speak of each Person taken separately, as one “spirit,” one “mind,” or one “being;” or of the three united in one God, as “the Divine spirit,” “the Divine mind,” or “the Divine being.” They are virtually three gods.

3. In maintaining that these assumptions are to be received as the genuine teachings of revelation; treating them as Divine verities, and the non-reception of them in this light as dangerous heresy. The most effectual argument in the support in defense of this (p. 219) assumption has been the argumentum ad invidiam[10], or “mad- dog” argument. To this have been added, that of civil and ecclesiastical law, employed in a manner according with the taste and fashion of the age; that of an excited, overpowering public opinion; and whatever else has promised to be effectual, in the circumstances of the case.

But these assumptions can by no means be admitted in the general argument; for they are not derived from the Scriptures by fair interpretation, but by dialectic subtilty. Fair interpretation, in the light of “our exegetical guide,” does not, either necessarily or consistently, imply that the phrase, “the Logos was with God” means with him socially—with him as an associate “Person,” a “Peer,” or a “distinct and competent moral agent” in the very nature of the Godhead. “Such an artificial distinction built on a grammatical circumstance of such minuteness” as the use of the preposition in this phrase, “is not at all in the spirit of John.” If true in this instance,—and it needs more evidence than has yet been produced, to establish it,—it must be a singular case; it is not Johannean. But if God designed to reveal to man the real existence of three Persons in the Divine nature itself—after having so distinctly and so often asserted his oneness in the Old Testament, in language addressed to the common sense of men, and by that sense to be received and understood, and after Christ himself personally had taught the same truth in the same language, —would it not have been more in accordance with God’s usual course (p. 220) of proceeding, to have somewhere revealed so important to truth, as this claim to be, more plainly (emphasis mine)? Is it his known method to reveal highly important truths, which yet seem wholly inconsistent with those which he has clearly taught, so obscurely that his children, who really desire to know and do their Father’s will, are greatly perplexed and distressed in their humble efforts to ascertain what he means? Some persons, indeed, looking through a certain scholastic medium, find—or think they find—the common theory taught almost everywhere. They discover it in the natural language of devout adoration, and of intense emotion in religion, in poetry, in eloquence, and in music; as may be daily seen or heard. Yes, the seraphim taught it, when Isaiah heard them thrice crying, one to another, “Holy! holy! holy! is Jehovah of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory!” The four living creatures, whom John saw and heard in his Apocalyptic vision, each one having six wings full of eyes within and around—these rapt spirits taught it, when they rested not day or night, saying “Holy! holy! holy! Lord God Almighty, who was and is, and is to come!” Such persons put under contribution to this theory almost everything in nature, but most of all, a fruitful imagination.

Still, if anything that this Greek preposition in the passage before us, supplies them with a telescope of such magnifying power and perfect transparency, that they can penetrate into the Divine nature itself, and discover there evident distinctions which lay a foundation (p. 221) for three Persons in the very nature of the Godhead; and if they are properly authorized so to use it, —they have a perfect right to do so, on their own responsibility. Yet it is very doubtful, to say the least, whether this sacred writer intended to furnish them with such a telescope; clear, it may seem to their own imaginations, but dark, very dark, to many a humble inquirer after the truth which God has revealed. In so many ages, and in so many instances all along, from very early Christian times down to the present, this has been the fact with respect to the common theory, that we can hardly say of it, as is said of “life and immortality,” that it is “brought to light by the gospel.”

Prologue Final Comment:

The three previous numbered sections summarize and conclude the discussion of John 1:1-14. I find it significant that Biblical Trinity was published in 1850, 174 years earlier and it appears to have had no impact in correcting the theology of the Orthodox Christian Church. You don’t hear it taught; you don’t hear it discussed; you don’t see it widely published. The teaching of Memra and the Targums has been equally ignored and buried in obscurity. I can’t help but be reminded of the saying, History is written by the victors.

In conclusion of this section, I have tried to shed biblical light on the texts that have been used to promote fictional foundations of Trinitarian thought throughout our Christian history. Jesus is not declared to be the Word of God in the prologue of John and the “Word being with God” does not declare that Jesus actually was with God face to face in eternity.

[1] Spiro Zodhiates, AMG Publishers, Lexical Aids to the New Testament.

[2] Robert Sabin did not offer bibliographical references for his quotes in this lesson but he frequently referred to the book “Biblical Trinity” by the mysterious author named Theophilus.  I believe much of the material for the PowerPoint is originated from Biblical Trinity.

[3] https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/14248-targum

[4] https://www.gotquestions.org/Jewish-Targum.html

[5] Biblical Trinity, by Theophilus. Published by Edwin Hunt in Hartford Connecticut, 6 Asylum Street, in the year 1850.

[6] Metaphysics (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/): The word ‘metaphysics’ is derived from a collective title of the fourteen books by Aristotle that we currently think of as making up Aristotle’s Metaphysics. Aristotle himself did not know the word. (He had four names for the branch of philosophy that is the subject-matter of Metaphysics: ‘first philosophy’, ‘first science’, ‘wisdom’, and ‘theology’.) At least one hundred years after Aristotle’s death, an editor of his works (in all probability, Andronicus of Rhodes) titled those fourteen books “Ta meta ta phusika”—“the after the physicals” or “the ones after the physical ones”—the “physical ones” being the books contained in what we now call Aristotle’s Physics. The title was probably meant to warn students of Aristotle’s philosophy that they should attempt Metaphysics only after they had mastered “the physical ones”, the books about nature or the natural world—that is to say, about change, for change is the defining feature of the natural world. This is the probable meaning of the title because Metaphysics is about things that do not change.

[7] Quasi definition: Seemingly, apparently, but not really. Supposedly, allegedly.

[8] Normally, and in all other uses of brackets for this discussion, brackets have been used to denote my parenthetical comments. In this instance, the brackets are used to denote the comments of Theophilus.

[9] Viz. definition: Namely; in other words; that is to say (Latin: Videlicet).

[10] Argumentum ad invidiam definition: “Argument to hatred.”An argument that appeals to popular hatred or prejudice to sustain its rationale.