1: I was raised Oneness, but didn’t start realizing it until I was a teenager. (My parents were more neutral on this in the home. We were just taught to believe in God, Jesus, live a Christian life, and love people. I am thankful for my parents and my upbringing.)
I was pretty heavy into Oneness (the belief that “God is one person who has manifested Himself in three primary ways: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”) from 1996 to 2002 (I married in 1998). My pastors were all Oneness, and in my studies I learned the “big texts.”
2: I rejected Oneness around 2003. What got me to thinking was how I kept reading about the “Father and Son” in the Bible (plus my Bible study skills were sharpening then). I didn’t understand near as much “Bible” as I do now, but I just couldn’t see how Scripture would speak of a Father and Son (the Father speaks about his Son at the baptism; the Son prays to the Father; John 17:5 “the glory I had with you”; John 8 “two witnesses”) and there not really be a Father and a Son. This is what scares me about the Oneness position, there isn’t really a Son, it’s just a different mode or manifestation. (Illustration: Clark Kent gets into a phone booth and becomes Superman. Two roles are being played, but there’s only one person.) The one person is God Almighty, so the Son is just God turning into the Son to play a role. So I accepted the Trinity, because at the time all I knew was either Oneness or Trinitarian - and I got my hand on several scholarly works on the Trinity, because I wanted the best this side had to offer. I have in-depth books/studies on Oneness and the Trinity, and of course I listened to lectures and debates constantly, always cross-referencing Scripture. A good Oneness vs. Trinity Debate is: David Bernard vs. Gene Cook, and in my opinion Bernard crushed him. If I was an outsider listening in, I would have for sure thought Bernard’s position was the Scriptural one. Here’s the link: https://youtu.be/lyGbol-YUH0 But… I still ended up on the Trinity, because I was trying to be honest with the text of Scripture. The scholarly books on the Trinity - their exegesis and explanation of key texts in Scripture - answered Bernard’s points adequately (I felt), even though Gene Cook didn’t do the best job. 3: In 2004 I began to find out there were other (minority) views, namely Arianism (Jehovah’s Witnesses) and Biblical Unitarianism. I studied both views out and the Arian position made more Biblical sense to me after watching and dissecting a debate between James White and Greg Stafford (I believe from 2003). Here’s the link: https://youtu.be/x-L3IoUq-fk My studies developed from there through 2004 and 2005, and I accepted Biblical Unitarianism (mid 2005) studying tons through Anthony Buzzard, a professor at that time of the Atlanta Bible College. Through his website I listened to lectures, debates, read books, and I’ve been at this position since 2005 (constantly developing my views and arguments). I believe it’s the most well-rounded position on the subject, taking all the Biblical data into account. Here’s some good debates and discussions on Biblical Unitarianism vs. Trinitarianism: 1 - https://youtu.be/-77IYnZq8Io 2 - https://youtu.be/b0t90eJe0q4 3 - https://youtu.be/c35_uFjEbx8 4 - (A) https://youtu.be/GL476wkUhqs (B) https://youtu.be/gqh09OByaBE 5 - https://youtu.be/9z3lS7cZV5Y 4: Answering the main verses I used to use…
ANSWER: Yahweh is one (cp. Mark 12:28-32), but the actual word Lord (Adonai or Adoni) isn’t used in Deut. 6:4. Yeshua is Adoni-Master-Lord, but he was made Lord by the one Yahweh (Acts 2:36). He is the second Lord in the English versions of Psalm 110:1, and the language there is post-resurrection (Ephesians 1:20-23). For God to have a Son doesn’t contradict the Shema - God the Father is still the one of the Shema, He just has a unique Son that He sent to accomplish the greatest of all missions upon the earth.
ANSWER: Interestingly enough, this verse is never quoted in the NT as pertaining to Yeshua. (Isaiah 9:1-2 is, but verses 6-7 are not specifically.) Some scholars view it as a reference to Isaiah’s son, others say it’s King Hezekiah’s royal succession after the death of King Ahaz. “Mighty God” is the king portrayed as divinity in that he represents Elohim on earth (Ancient Near Eastern context). “Everlasting Father” represents the king’s fatherly concern over the nation. I think it’s okay to find a second fulfillment in Yeshua here, and the titles “El Gibbor” and “Aviad” can be viewed in a similar, but greater light (as in Hezekiah). No doubt Yeshua is a mighty one, look at his ministry: virgin born, sinless life, powerful teaching, healing the sick, raising the dead, casting out demons, opening blind eyes, walking on water, predicting his own death and resurrection. Aviad - father of eternity - could be Yeshua’s fatherly concern for humanity, but it could be father in the sense of first to obtain eternal, immortal life (Gen. 4:20-21, Jubal was the father of all who play the lyre and flute). [There are additional ways to understand Isaiah 9:6; “one long Hebrew name praising Yahweh.] Trinitarians vigorously argue for “Mighty God” but explain “Father of Eternity” in a way that doesn’t conflate Yeshua with being THE Father. Oneness take them both as showing the absolute deity of Yeshua. I don’t think either position is a must.
ANSWER: Isaiah 43’s context is in the midst of the trial of the false elohim. A string of chapters where Yahweh speaks of His uniqueness as the one, true Elohim of Israel, who rescued Israel, and none of the elohim of the other nations did it. It does not mean Yahweh can’t send a savior. In the post-Pentateuch book of Judges, Ehud, Othniel, and Shamgar are called savior - yasha in Hebrew - the same word Yahweh says he alone is. Nehemiah 9:27 says Yahweh sent saviors plural to Israel. Moshe was the savior of Israel. Yeshua is the sent savior that Yahweh raised up (see Acts 5:29-31). Ultimately, all salvation comes from Yahweh. Think of a generator (Yahweh) and an extension cord (Yeshua) to your camper. You need both, but the ultimate power comes from the generator.
ANSWER: John 1:1 - ton Theon (noun) vs. Theos (adjective) in one sentence. Word = thought, speech (cp. Gen. 1 and Psalm 33). “All things were made by it” in some English translations from the Greek prior to the KJV. Illustration: blueprints in the mind of their designer. I told my young son once (5), “That Dodge caravan was at one time in the mind of its designer.” He said, “Daddy, how can that big van fit inside a man’s head?” John 10:30 - It’s not one in person here but one in unity, togetherness, mind, will, and plan. The context is about keeping the sheep, and the Father is spoken of by Yeshua as the greatest (Jn. 10:29), and the sheep were given by the Father to the Son. A similar Greek construction is found in 1 Corinthians 3:6-8). The word one still means one, but it can function as a unifier. Our English word works the same way. John 14:9 is understood easily by just reading the next verses. Yeshua is speaking of the miraculous works he is doing - the Father *in* him does the works. No doubt, there is a close relationship here, Yeshua is the greatest man to ever live, and no one will ever be as close to Yahweh as Yeshua.
ANSWER: There is a textual variant here, but it’s highly debatable (Nomina Sacra; Theos shortened and “he” or “who” look almost identical in Greek). I think “Theos” is a probable reading, but I think the understanding of manifested is key - to make known or reveal. Yahweh Elohim made himself known through the man Yeshua of Nazareth. When you look at Yeshua, it’s as close as you can get to looking at Yahweh - his character, demeanor, actions, speech, conduct.
ANSWER: First, Jesus is not the name of the Father. You can’t look at the NT and superimpose that over (back into) the OT (that’s anachronistic). So *name* of the Father in Mt28:19 is Yahweh. “And the name of the Son” does NOT have to be the same name. Look at Genesis 48:16 - name (singular) and then two names are mentioned. The baptisms in Acts are centered around calling on Yahweh (Acts 22:16) and confessing Yeshua (Acts 8, the eunuch). There’s never a case in Acts where we read of the person doing the baptism as having something specific to say (“baptismal formula”), it was the baptizee - the person being baptized - that called on Yahweh (the Father) and confessed the Son (Yeshua). [NOTE: The Holy Spirit could be better read as the beginning of verse 20, since we are taught by the Spirit of Yahweh upon our hearts and minds per John 16:13.]
0 Comments
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." [John 1:1 KJV]
Last but certainly not least we come to the end of verse one where we read, "...and the word was God". We have up to this point noted the following: (1) In the beginning references us to the original creation and reminds us of Genesis 1:1. (2) The "word" that was in the beginning is a plan, promise, purpose placed into a spoken word; in this case the spoken word of Yahweh (Psalm 33:6). (3) This plan is said to be "with" Yahweh in the sense that in Hebrew thought a man's plans or words are "with him" that is to say "in his mind or thought". But what about the word being God? First, think about it in relation to you and your own word. Your word is expressive of your very being. Even “old timers” say, “A man’s word is his bond,” or “A man’s only as good as his word.”A man’s thoughts, plans, promises, purpose, words, etc. are (in Hebraic thought) said to be with him, and can also be said to be him in some sense of the phrase. Your thoughts and plans are reflective of yourself. I have a good friend who's been in carpentry for over 25 years. His thoughts, plans, and words often come out in the form of a finished house. The finished house show's forth the excellency and skill of the carpenter; the house is not one-to-one identical with the carpenter but is an expression of the previously existing plans in the mind of the carpenter. Secondly, let me say that a technicality must be discussed here in reference to the translation of John 1:1c. Please stay with me as I know technicalities can sometimes be difficult, but you must realize that the Bible was not written in English and the translations into English do not always exactly “mirror” the original intent of the original language. In this case we must look at the Greek text of John 1:1c in order to determine the proper understanding of the “word was God.” Literally the text reads: “kai theos en o logos,” which is in English “and God was the word.” In Greek this reveals to us that the word is the subject because of the definite article “the” before it. Notice that there is no definite article before theos (God), showing that this use of God is slightly different from the former use of God in this very same verse. John 1:1b “the word was with God” literally reads “the word was withthe God,” with “the” God meaning Father Yahweh. This is why translations of John 1:1c place “the word” first in the clause. It is because the subject is the word and God is used as somewhat of an adjective and not a noun as in John 1:1b. (Adjectives describe nouns and even adverbs at times. A very simple sentence to illustrate is “The grass is green.” Grass is the subject and green is the adjective describing the color of the grass.). In English the subject comes first, but in Greek the subject can come second, but be distinguished as the subject because of the definite article before it. Such is the case with John 1:1c. If God was to have the definite article then we could say that the “word” is to be identified exactly with the noun “God,” but this is not the case. An example in English will suffice. If I say “THE preacher is THE man, or THAT man,” then I am identifying the preacher as some direct, specific man. However if I say, “The preacher is man,” the word man becomes an adjective. In this case I mean that the preacher is to be classified as male, he is human. This is why the New English Bible states, “What God was, the word was.” James Moffat renders this “And the word was divine.” In other words Yahweh’s (God’s) word, plan, promise, thought, intent that was with him was in and of itself divine because it belonged to him. It was the expression of the very being and nature of God. And this word became flesh or humanity and dwelt among men. Yeshua Messiah did not exist literally in the beginning with God, but the thought, plan, purpose, intent, etc. of Yeshua Messiah existed in the beginning – in the plan or word of Almighty Yahweh. Remember G.B. Caird's translation of John 1:1, 14: "In the beginning was the purpose, the purpose in the mind of God, the purpose which was God’s own being… this purpose took human form in Jesus of Nazareth." [New Testament Theology, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995, pg. 332.] PS: For further explanation of John 1:1c please see the following resources: 1. Basics of Biblical Greek, Second Edition by William D. Mounce, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1993. 2. Jesus as They Knew Him, by William Barclay, Harper and Row, New York, 1962, pg. 21-22. Matthew Janzen "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." [John 1:1 KJV]
In my last post I identified the "word" as the thought, mind, plan, purpose of Yahweh. This is seen to be perfectly legitimate when examining the Greek text behind "word" which reads logos. When one does not already have the presupposition that "word = Son" in their minds, one can easily see that there is no pre-existent Son being spoken of in John 1:1. Many scholars, theologians, and Bible translations have been faithful to the text of Scripture and rendered the remainder of John 1:1 in a fashion that does not equal trinitarian dogma, but rather remains true to the original intent of the text. We next come to the statement, "...and the word was with God..." One may at this point ask how can a man’s word or more correctly in this context, Yahweh’s word, be with Him? At this point I need to bring up a concept which you most likely already believe, at least to an extent. In Hebraic thought items or even persons of great magnitude and importance are said to exist in the thought, plan, and purpose of Yahweh before ever coming into existence literally or actually. For example passages like Romans 8:28-30, Ephesians 1:3-9, and 1 Peter 1:1-2 speak of Yahweh foreknowing His elect children even to the extent of glorifying those elect in his beginningless plan. Likewise 1 Peter 1:18-20 states that Yeshua the Messiah was foreordained before the foundation of the world but was made known or revealed in these last times for us. This must be a reference to Yeshua being the antitypical lamb that was slain from the foundation of the world (Revelation 13:8). We know that he was not actually or literally slain, hanging there beside the Father since the beginning of time, but in the mind and plan of Yahweh the crucifixion could not be thwarted. Yeshua always existed, but his existence wasn't actual it was ideal or as John later writes "in the bosom of the Father" (John 1:18). Allow me to give a human example of this to illustrate. What If I told my second son Elijah, “Our car was once in the mind of its designer?” Elijah (6 years old) may respond, “But Dad, how did that car fit in a man’s head? It’s way too big for that!” The concept or thinking of my child would be inaccurate because he would be thinking that the actual or literal car was in a man’s mind, rather than the thought, plan, or blueprint (if you will) existing in the mind of the designer. Consider these passages: Job 10:12-13 – “Thou hast granted me life and favour, and thy visitation hath preserved my spirit. And these things hast thou hid in thine heart: I know that this is with thee.” Job 23:13-14 – “But he is in one mind, and who can turn him? and what his soul desireth, even that he doeth. For he performeth the thing that is appointed for me: and many such things are with him.” Job 27:11-13 – “I will teach you by the hand of Elohim: that which is with the Almighty will I not conceal. Behold, all ye yourselves have seen it; why then are ye thus altogether vain? This is the portion of a wicked man with God, and the heritage of oppressors, which they shall receive of the Almighty.” Job 12:12-13 – “With the ancient is wisdom; and in length of days understanding. With him is wisdom and strength, he hath counsel and understanding.” This last reference is to and elderly man, but it still significant in showing that in Hebrew thinking when something is logded in a persons mind or thoughts, that something can be said to be "with" a person or being. Thus Yahweh's plan has always been with Him; therefore the Son has truly always been with the Father, but not as a co-equal, co-eternal person. His pre-existence is in the plan of Yahweh. I must also labor the point that the word "God" in the phrase "...and the word was with God..." is a direct reference to the Father. The term in the Greek is "ho theos" having the meaning of "The God" being used as a noun in the Greek language. In other words "The thought, plan, and purpose was with the God in the beginning." The reason for pointing this out will been seen even further in my next post which will examine the phrase (KJV) "...and the word was God." Matthew Janzen "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." [John 1:1, KJV]
The next part of this passage I would like to consider is the term "the Word" in the "a" part of the verse. In the beginning was the word. What is this word? Most people believe that the word was the pre-existent Son, but the text does not say "In the beginning was the Son," nor "In the beginning was Yeshua," but only "In the beginning was the word." So once again, what was this "word"? It is extremely common for Trinitarians at this point to read the Son into this passage at John 1:1 because of what is mentioned in John 1:14. However, here are some facts to consider: Fact #1: The text reads word (Greek: logos), it does not read son. Fact #2: When we look at the Greek word used here (its definition, along with the many other places in Scripture that use it) we should see clearly what is being referenced in John 1:1. The Scriptures teach that the word of Yahweh made the creation come into existence. (Psalm 33:6-9; Psalm 148:1-5). We read in Genesis 1 over 20 times that “Elohim said…” and creation happened. Thus it was literally by the speaking of Yahweh that creation came to be. When looking at several Greek uses of the word logos in the New Testament we see the following: A. Matthew 8:8 – word B. Luke 1:29 – saying C. Acts 19:40 – account D. 1 Corinthians 2:1 – speech E. Acts 19:38 – matter F. 2 Corinthians 8:7 – utterance G. Ephesians 4:29 – communication H. 1 Peter 3:15 – reason I. Romans 9:28 – work J. Acts 10:29 – intent K. Acts 14:12 – speaker As we look at these uses we see that all have a reference to what is thought of in the mind, a purpose or plan that comes out in the form of words through an individual. Some of the definitions that Thayer’s gives (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon) for this Greek word include the following: speech, something said, thought, decree, discourse, teaching, narrative, reason, the mental faculty of thinking, etc. (NOTE: The last definition Mr. Thayer gives for the word logos is Jesus Christ, but he does this simply upon his assumption that this the Son is spoken of in John 1:1, not on the actual meaning of the word logos in the Greek language.) By looking at the use of the word logos, we need conclude nothing more that what John 1:1a is speaking of when he says, “In the beginning was the word,” is that at the laying of the foundation of the heavens and earth the thought, intent, speech, utterance, work, plan, etc. existed. For those of us that know what the remainder of John 1:1 states we realize that this is the thought, plan, word, etc. of Almighty Yahweh. Interestingly enough, a renown Oneness Pentecostal theologian “hits the nail on the head” with his understanding. "The Word was not a separate person or a separate god any more than a man’s word is a separate person from him. Rather the Word was the thought, plan, or mind of God… In Greek usage, logos can mean the expression or plan as it exists in the mind of the proclaimed - as a play in the mind of a playwright - or it can mean the thought as uttered or otherwise physically expressed - as a play that is enacted on stage. John 1 says the logos existed in the mind of God from the beginning of time. When the fullness of time was come, God put that plan in action. He put flesh on that plan in the form of Jesus Christ." [The Oneness of God, by David K. Bernard, Word Aflame Press, 2000, pg. 60.] The late professor G.B. Caird gave the translation of John 1:1, 14 as follows: "In the beginning was the purpose, the purpose in the mind of God, the purpose which was God’s own being… this purpose took human form in Jesus of Nazareth." [New Testament Theology, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995, pg. 332.] Here are very scholarly theologians that recognize the use of the word logos in John 1:1 does not mean that the Son was being referred to in person, or that the Son literally pre-existed with the Father in the beginning. Rather, the word was in the beginning. These theologians are much more accurate than the common understanding of Trinitarian theologians today. Matthew Janzen |
AuthorBlog by Matthew Janzen. Lover of Yahweh, Yeshua, my wife and 5 children. All else is commentary. Archives
December 2023
Categories
All
|