A Church Divided
Under the umbrella of Christendom the battle rages on between churches divided by a multitude of views—everything from the doctrine of faith vs. works to such issues as whether to be sprinkled or immersed for baptism. Hardly a thing in scripture escapes controversy. One teaching, however, that almost all orthodox churches hold in common is the blessed Trinity, God in three persons, each God, each equal, a trinity in unity. Here is the fountainhead of Christianity, separating it from all other religions and cults. Yet probably most believers have not examined this teaching, cheating themselves of what can be an enlightening discovery. Without going into lengthy detail, we would look at two chief reasons behind the origin of the Trinity doctrine and their impact upon our faith—1) the scriptures and 2) the influence of culture.
First, however, to see how the Trinity came into being, let us focus on the history and culture of the times. One must understand that as centuries passed after Christ’s first advent, many questions arose concerning the nature of Christ. Was He God, was he only a man, or perhaps something of each? By the time Constantine legalized Christianity, some of the views had reached a fever pitch, causing serious divisions between the Church at Rome, at Antioch, and at Alexandria, where a certain Arius contended that the person of Christ was less than God, a created being by whom God created the world. This view together with other conjectures and questions of terminology caused Constantine to order the bishops of the Church to resolve the controversy for the good of a unified Rome at the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. Believers of every persuasion came from all parts of the empire to express their views. Some 300 bishops attended, many not deeply familiar with the issue to be resolved. We might profit in our understanding of the problem they faced by putting ourselves in their place, apart from our footnoted Bibles, concordances, computer programs, et al. Of course, we would also need to sense the influence of the culture existing at the time, to be aware of the then current consensus of Roman thought that had been so affected by Greek philosophy. Also, we, who are so fervent in the separation of Church and State, would need to be conscious of the weight of Constantine’s presence over the Council, as well as the peer pressure that invariably attends such events.
If we were to place ourselves at the Council, foremost in arriving at our conclusions would be the first of the two reasons accounting for the origin of the Trinity—the scriptures themselves. In searching them, we would see that in scores of places Christ is spoken of as God, and inferred to be so by His own words and by those of others. Then, is the truth of the Trinity not a given, without any further consideration needed? Seemingly so, but what if other scriptures are in opposition as is the case? When scripture seemingly is contradictory, we are convinced it can be reconciled. God is not the author of confusion.
Of the many verses that undoubtedly influenced the Council's views, probably one verse, more than any other, was John 1:1:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
As translated and commonly understood, the verse seems to say that Christ was preexistent with and equal to God. Apparently, over time, Gentile thought lost sight of the Old Testament view and became influenced by the theology of Greek philosophers of the day. Foremost in that theology was the need for a logos or some kind of intermediary to account for the disparity between what was believed to be a God of perfection and the imperfect world that existed. Since scripture sometimes personified certain truths such as "wisdom" in Proverbs 8, it is not surprising that Christ was seen to personify the "Word" and signify its meaning. After all, he was the center of attention, the one whose nature was in question. (The error was to overlook John 1:14 where "the Word was made flesh." It was there that the broad scope of God's plan centered on Christ who personified it. Not before.)
A little background regarding the "Word" is helpful. Used over 300 times in the New Testament of the KJV, logos varies widely in its meaning, depending on the context where it is used. According to Strong’s dictionary, it may speak of reason, of speech, an utterance, of a work, a treatise, a charge, a revelation to mention but a few. Quite naturally it is used of Christ himself. Most often it speaks of truth revealed by and related to God, i.e., to prophecy, to God’s sayings and words, to the whole body of truth revealed by God. Strong’s dictionary defines the Logos as meaning an idea or thought and its expression, or more specifically, God’s plan and purpose for redeeming a lost world to Himself.
The mention of logos in John 1:1-14 was nothing new apart from its being translated into Greek. The phrase "word of the Lord" appears 265 times in the KJV, 252 times in the O.T., 13 in the N.T. Almost always it is translated either from the Hebrew word dabar, connoting a matter or concept, or by the word peh, most often referring to the mouth, suggesting being spoken by the Lord. The phrase "word of God, though used most often in the N.T., is from the same Hebrew word dabar in the O.T. Used in this way, it clearly can refer to any of the many different aspects of God's purpose, easily confirmed by studying the context of its usage. With respect to its use in John, one might assume it conveys a different meaning, but that goes against accepted rules of interpretation. The thought or message of one language must necessarily be carried over to the other. God's choice of logos is intriguing considering the purpose of John's gospel to refute Greek mythology and mystery common in that time. The word carries the idea of an orderly plan or concept as opposed to unreasoned thought.
However, ignoring the historical usage of the Word, prevalent Greek thought profoundly influenced how the logos was to be understood, leading to the conception of a Trinity. Let us zero in on the first four verses of John 1:1-14.
1)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was
God.
2) He was in the beginning with God.
3) All things
were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.
4) In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.
Obviously the exact meaning of the “Word” is at the crux of this discussion. Any translator is faced with a challenge in how he renders the existing manuscripts. First, since they most often are written in uncials (all capital letters) without any punctuation, verse numbers, etc., it is necessary to determine how certain words are to be interpreted and sentence structure best treated. For instance, the Greek language, like Spanish with which we may be more familiar, assigns different genders to words, either masculine, feminine, or neuter, influencing the translation, as will be shown.
Second, no matter how objective a translator may be, he is necessarily under the influence of the particular culture that has shaped his thinking. For instance, the translators of the King James Version interpreted the manuscripts from the long established Trinitarian viewpoint. Like any translator, we also must admit to being influenced by our presumptions that can be fallible. No doubt this accounts for differences in Bible versions and also among believers.
When the “Word” that figures so prominently in John 1:1 is understood in the sense of God’s comprehensive plan rather than confined to the person of Christ alone, the verses in John take on a different thrust. One might say they speak of God’s blueprint for how He would accomplish all His purposes—the creation of the heavens and the earth, the Garden of Eden, Adam’s sin, lawlessness, the Flood, the confusion of languages, Abraham, Israel under the law, the first advent of Christ at his birth in Bethlehem, his life, resurrection, ascension, the Church, the second coming, the rule of Christ during the millennium, His prophesied glory, the final Judgment, and the Day of God bringing about the New Jerusalem. As the key part of God’s eternal intention, the first advent of Christ would occur at the appointed time forecast in the plan. I Peter 1:20 was fulfilled: “He indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you.” The Messiah, in the fullness of time, stepped into history; according to verse 14, “…the Word was made flesh.” Christ was made the fulfillment of the “Word” expressed in verses 1:1-13.
With all the foregoing in mind, verses 1-4 quoted above can read quite differently:
1) In the beginning was the plan, and the plan was with regard to God, and the plan was God [that is, the plan originated with God, was about Him, and was the expression of Him]
2) The same was in the beginning with regard to God.
3) All things came to pass through it; and without it not any thing came to pass that came into being.
4) In it was life; and the life was the light of men.
When translated apart from a Trinitarian bias, the passage presents a radically different theology. Is this different view legitimate and more accurate? See what you think as the reasons for the differences are advanced.
First, as has already been shown, the word logos is more accurately translated “plan” or “message” rather than being limited solely to Christ. This in turn has a bearing on the pronouns modifying “the Word.” The word logos, rather than being personal, is instead abstract and of a neuter gender, and properly requires a neuter pronoun, that is, the use of “it” rather than “him” or “his.”
In verses one and two, the word Greek word “pros” translated “with” leads us astray. When used in the accusative sense it carries the meaning of “directed toward” or as we might say “with regard to.” If the idea of being along side were meant, the Greek word “meta” would be a far better choice.
In verse three, the words “were made by” in the KJV more accurately carry the meaning of “coming to pass through” rather than implying the act of creating. The Greek work “ginomai” is used hundreds of times in this sense of becoming, as distinguished from being “initially created” or “made.” It is the same word referring to John the Baptist in John 1:6, “There was (ginomai) a man.” In Matt. 7:28 it reads, “And it came to pass (ginomai), when Jesus had ended these sayings...” Related to this is the KJV translation of the word “by” from the Greek word “dia.” Strong’s dictionary defines the Greek word “dia” as “A primary preposition denoting the channel of an act.” The word more accurately means “through,” as it is so translated in this same verse in the New King James Version. In summary, instead of all things being “made by Him,” the Greek words more accurately show all things “came to pass” through this plan or body of truth. Indeed, it is this message that is light.
Leaving our study of John, let us continue by examining the events following the ascension of Christ and leading to the times when men set out to explain the divinity of Christ. Walker in his A History of the Christian Church sheds light on how the word Logos was understood at the time of Christ:
The Judaism of the dispersion was much influenced by Hellenism, especially by Greek philosophy, and nowhere more deeply than in Egypt. There, in Alexandria, the Old Testament was given to the reading world in Greek translation, the so-called Septuagint, as early as the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus (B.C. 285-246) . . . The most influential of the Alexandrian interpreters was Philo (B.C. 20?-A.D. 42?). To Philo, the Old Testament is the wisest of books, a real divine revelation, and Moses the greatest of teachers; but by allegorical interpretation Philo finds the Old Testament in harmony with the best in Platonism and Stoicism. The belief that the Old Testament and Greek philosophy were in essential agreement was one of far-reaching signifi-cance for the development of Christian philosophy. This allegorical method of Biblical explanation was greatly to influence later Christian study of the Scriptures. (Emphasis mine)
In the second century, Justin Martyr, then Tertulian and Origin, and, later in the fourth century, Augustine would draw upon this mediatorial aspect of Hellenism to harmonize it with Christianity.
The impact of the Greek culture on the "Church fathers" cannot be overestimated. These philosophers were brilliant men for their time, and their writings are worth studying. Often what Plato and others wrote seemed to speak of Biblical truth. The life of Socrates in his pursuit to know good and follow it, even to the point of dieing for it, has caused some to think he was a saved Christian. Be that as it may, he set an example for seeking after truth and embodying it in life. We must remember that Greek thought was not without credulity; it undoubtedly influenced the so-called “Church fathers” as they wrestled with how to explain Christ. We need to remember that the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. The wisdom of the Greeks led so far as Gnosticism where it was thought Christ could not have been actual flesh and blood because of the evil nature of all in the world. When we understand the world view prevailing at the inception of the Trinity, it’s easier to see how those at the Council of Nicea reached their conclusions.
Probably the closest we can come today in appreciating the circumstances and challenge faced by the Council of Nicea might be some kind of joint session of Congress trying to hammer out vital legislation hopefully in accord with the Constitution that would be acceptable to the President without the possibility of a veto. Fine points of law, the meaning of wording used, precedents, etc. all discussed, examined, and undoubtedly compromised to gain a majority opinion and final approval. As we are so aware in our system, no matter how noble the efforts, opposite political views, even ones honestly held, make bipartisanship difficult at best. Once passed, the law of the land is established and enforced despite any dissent.
To quote Ecclesiastes, “There is nothing new under the sun.” As today, so then. So with due credit to the intent of the Council to explain the nature of Christ, we do well to remember the infallibility of men, that their words are not on a level of “Thus saith the Lord.”
Despite intense opposition by many, Rome overcame it; and, as with our own Constitution and Amendments, modifications were made to the original declaration over the years. At the Council of Chalcedon in 381 A.D., an apparent oversight of Nicea was corrected to include the Holy Spirit as the Third Person of the Godhead. So it was that once and for all the Trinity doctrine was stated as it remains today. Following is an excerpt from the very beginning of the Athanasian Creed which, far exceeding any favors or penalties Rome could impose for dissent, added the threat of losing one’s salvation.
“Whoever would be saved, must first of all take care that he hold the Catholic faith, which, except a man preserve whole and inviolate, he shall without doubt perish eternally. But this is the Catholic faith, that we worship one God in trinity, and trinity in unity…”
Suddenly a new standard for salvation resting on a concept never declared in scripture is invoked. Whatever happened to the scriptural condition for salvation revealed in Romans 10:9 that “if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved"?
Even in the face of long-lasting opposition that was often fiercely persecuted, the Trinity remains to this day the hallmark of our faith, and understandably so. After all, it is the majority view, arrived at by the "Church fathers" and affirmed by almost all theologians, churches and Christian organizations. The Creeds are based upon it; we sing it from our hymnals. In most quarters, to question it borders upon the heretical. The two reasons for its origin remain the same, a misunderstanding of the scriptures and the influence of Greek thought upon our own culture. Once a lie is fostered as the truth, especially when accepted by the “leadership” in the Church it is next to impossible to reverse. The blind acceptance of the Trinity today is amazing similar to another deception what many fundamental Christians oppose, that is, evolution. This lie right from the mouth of Satan, has come to be accepted by some of our most reputed seminaries seeking credit for being in agreement with so-called science. The acceptance has come not from personal, critical examination but from simply taking the word of the “experts,” just as many believers rely solely on their preacher rather than doing their homework. The evolutionary view has become so established as to make conformity to it a requirement for acceptance in the scientific community. Students must give what they suspect are wrong answers to pass their courses. Scientists wanting accreditation, grants, etc. risk loss if not on the bandwagon. Majority opinion, however wrong, especially when endorsed by the elite in positions of influence and power, can reduce opposition to a voice crying in the wilderness.
Nevertheless, for anyone disposed to search, the Bible provides us with the truth. As noted, many scriptures are in opposition to the prevailing Trinitarian view that gives rise to no end of questions. We submit for brevity's sake three questions deserving answers.
1) Was Christ really equal with God
the Father?
2) How could he be called God if he wasn't?
3) Was he pre-existent prior to his birth at Bethlehem?
In answering the first question, two verses immediately come to mind:
John 14:28 “My Father is greater than I.”
Mark 13:32 “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. [Jesus’ words concerning his second coming]
These two verses speak for themselves. Obviously, he acknowledged God to be greater than himself and that he was not omniscient.
In answer to the second question, though Jesus was not God in himself as a man, clearly as God’s chosen son, he is shown to be in a remarkable union with his Father whereby, in our relation to him, he can be addressed as God.
John 14:10 “Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works.”
Can we who are one with Christ not understand this, we who are in Christ and he in us?
John 5:30 “I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.”
Surely being of the same will as his Father speaks of his oneness with God. Moreover, unlike so many of us, he recognized his own total dependency and God’s sufficiency.
Phil 2:9 “Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name”
By his obedience so well described in Phil 2:5-8, his work on the Cross resulted in all power and authority being given to him to rule as the "Son of David" in his coming millennial kingdom as "God of gods and Lord of lords" (Deut 10:17).
John 17:3 “And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.”
Do we fully appreciate Jesus' words? Do we know the nature of both the Father and His Son and their respective roles in our salvation? They can each rightfully be called our "Savior." Father/Son--you can't have one without the other.
Finally, in answer to question three, the only verses relating to his birth are limited to that in Jerusalem 2,000 years ago. Where is any mention of a birth in eternity that is inferred by such creedal statements that he was "begotten"? His eternal existence must be in the sense that he was always in his Father's mind and plan. The Father would reveal HIMSELF by means of His anointed Son. To see the Father is to see the Son. Is this not the clear, central message of the Bible? We need to distinguish between the opposite natures of divinity and humanity, of the one true God and His Son Jesus Christ. "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself (II Corn. 5:19). The divinity of Christ was that of His Father who indwelled him. Because of his union with his Father, expressed by his perfect obedience even to the Cross, we properly worship Christ as God, who has been given a name above all other names. We must understand their relationship in will and purpose, and that each played a role the other couldn’t in order to procure our salvation.
Heb 1:5 “For to which of the angels did He ever say: "You are My Son, Today I have begotten You"? And again: "I will be to Him a Father, And He shall be to Me a Son"?
The future tense of the words, “will be, shall be,” makes it difficult to conceive that Christ was preexistent, except in the sense that he had always been in God’s plan.
Gal 4:4 “But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law”
As mentioned, regarding the Creeds and such speculations as Eternal Generation, we cannot find any scriptures other than the above that describe Jesus’ birth.
May these few examples stir you to search the scriptures more fully for yourself.
As you undoubtedly have perceived, a closer look at the Trinity doctrine, so readily and almost universally accepted, raises questions deserving answers. Of course, it’s easier just to go along with the crowd. But if you are convinced of the accuracy and authority of scripture, if you are unafraid to challenge popular opinion in a search for truth, if you are prepared to spend some time in study, the reward will be an incalculable new appreciation of God’s word. Never has it been more important to obey the command of 2 Timothy 2:15:
Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.