Posted on by rschut1945 · 2 Comments

What the Bible Really Says About the Trinity

My research on the topic of the Trinity began around 1970 when a friend of mine thought he would consider becoming a Jehovah Witness.  I didn’t know much about them at the time, but one thing about them stood out and that was that they did not believe in the Trinity, and they did not believe that Jesus was God. 

I began looking into why they didn’t believe in such a long-standing doctrine of the church and read about their own beliefs on the being of God and Christ.  This eventually evolved into a life-long search for truth on this important doctrine.  

There are some denominations who do not believe that the Bible is the final source or authority of all doctrines and teachings.  Some think that only bishops should make these decisions. While others think that this is the responsibility of prophets or elders who they believe are appointed by God just for this purpose.  But for the purpose of this paper I am assuming that both myself as well as the reader believe that the Word of God as recorded in the Bible is the source and authority of true doctrine and teaching.  Yet, I also believe that each of us is responsible for what we believe and what we practice.  There are enough resources today to be able to see if certain doctrines are clearly written in scripture.  And if there’s any question on a doctrine, we ought to simply withhold belief until it becomes clear without intimidation from others.  If we don’t feel certain about a doctrine, we should not have faith in it. This is exactly what Paul taught the Christians at Rome when it came to the eating or abstinence from meat offered to idols.

Romans 14:23 (KJV)
23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

IS THE TRINITY IN THE BIBLE

DEFINITION

The definition of the Trinity is really very complicated, but most people reduce it to the belief that God is three separate and distinct persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  Each has the essence of God and are co-equal with one another. 

In order to justify the Trinitarian doctrine as stated, the Son is presumed to be an Eternal Son without a beginning.  He always existed as a Son, and there was never a time when he did not exist as a Son.

For more information on the Son of God please click on the link below: Word Study on the Only-Begotten Son (Hypostasis) 

There is only one place in the entire Bible where the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are written together clearly with a sense of unity.  This is found in Matthew 28:19 where Jesus speaks about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in reference to baptism.  There are other verses that include the Father, Son, and Spirit, but there is no real sense of unity attached nor is there any inference that they are individual persons. However, since they are mentioned together, I have listed them in the footnotes.1

So let’s begin our study by looking at Matthew 28:19.

Matthew 28:19 (KJV)
19  Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

The first thing that I noticed about this verse was a troublesome phrase about the name applied to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as being only one name.  What then was the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? More on Matthew 28:19.

We all think we know the name of the Son, which is Jesus.  But what about the name of the Father?  And what about the name of the Holy Spirit? Take a minute to think about this question because it’s extremely important.

Since Jesus linked this phrase to a baptismal formula.  Wouldn’t it be great if we could find out the baptismal formula that was used by the early church.  We might then uncover this name that was used by all three.

In my research I found three appearances of a baptismal formula.  There was one by Paul in Acts.

Acts 19:4-6 (KJV)
4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
5When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

One might argue that Paul wasn’t there when Jesus made his statement about the Trinity and baptism because he wasn’t yet a believer at that time, so maybe he was corrected later about the proper baptismal formal.  This might have some merit to it except there are 2 more statements made by Peter, John, and Luke that we must examine.

The second one is by Peter and John.

Acts 8:14-16 (NKJV)
14  Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them, 15 who, when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. 16  For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

The third one is by Peter alone.

Acts 2:38 (KJV)
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

There is also another baptism recorded that helps bring this all together.

Acts 10:48 (NKJV)
And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.

So, by using only Scripture we can see that it clearly teaches us that the only name that was used in baptism was Jesus.  This was the original and true Baptismal Formula. 

Based upon the first 2 examples we can then determine that Acts 10:48 also refers to the name of the Lord as being the name of Jesus.  It was Peter who made the statement in Acts 10:48 as well as Acts 2:38. But notice that Peter used the word Lord when referring to the name of Jesus.  This supports the idea that Jesus is, in fact, God and nothing less.  And that any time we see the phrase “name of the Lord” it refers to the name Jesus.

Example:

Romans 10:13 (KJV)
13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

We can see the importance of this connection when we link it to the Old Testament.

Joel 2:32 (NKJV)
32 And it shall come to pass That whoever calls on the name of the LORD Shall be saved.

This comes from the Old Testament, and it specifically refers to the name YHVH (‏יהוה) (LORD in all caps).  This also equates the name Jesus with the name Yahweh as the name of the LORD.

So, the original and Biblical baptismal formula was to baptize in the name of Jesus or the Lord Jesus.  It is therefore, this name that traces back to the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but we’ll look at this in more detail later. See The Eusebian Form of the Text of Matthew 28:19.

WHEN AND HOW DID JESUS BECOME THE SON OF GOD?  

Now let’s take a look at what scripture says about the existence of the Son.  Was the Son created at some point in time, before time, or did he have an eternal existence as a Son? 

The Trinitarian belief that was stated earlier said that Jesus was always the Son of God and therefore there was never a time when he was not the Son.  Let’s take a look to see if this doctrine is found anywhere in Scripture.

I think that the best place to begin such a search is to look at the scriptures that speak about the actual birth of Jesus during the time that Mary was visited by an angel.

The angel Gabriel clearly tells Mary that it was because the Holy Spirit would come upon her that this Child would be called the Son of God.

Luke 1:31-32 (KJV)
31  And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
32  He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

All of the verbs in this promise to Mary are in the future tense.  She will conceive.  His name will be Jesus.  He will be great.  He will be called the Son of the Highest.  And he will be given the throne of David.

But no reference is made that leads us to believe that he was already the Son of God coming down into the womb of Mary as a pre-existent Son of God.  And the verse that says David would be his father was meant in a physical way to show that this was to be a flesh and blood relationship with David.

Luke 1:35 (NASB)
35 The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; for that reason also the [a]holy Child will be called the Son of God.

And in this verse Gabriel makes it clear what the reason was that he shall be called the Son of God.  It is because the Holy Spirit comes upon her and overshadows her—and the thing that shall be born will be called the Son of God, not that he already was the Son of God and being somehow transmigrated or transferred through her.2

It is becoming more difficult to find a meaningful translation of this verse probably because it could strongly suggest that the beginning of the sonship of Christ began in Mary’s womb.  But with a little effort I found the proper translation in the New American Standard Version.  It translates the Greek words “dio kai” (διὸ καὶ) correctly as “For that reason.”  Other versions simply use the word “therefore” which means the same thing, but is much weaker and more ambiguous than “for that reason” which refers directly to what Gabriel just said as the reason he would be called the Son of God (See BDAG pg. 250).

Just to make it clear again.  There is no reference to Jesus being the Son of God prior to his incarnation.  If the Son of God already existed as a Son, Gabriel should have made this clear.  He could have said that the Son of God shall enter into you and come through you in childbirth.  But he didn’t say anything like that. We therefore, shouldn’t speculate about something as important as the origin of the Son of God.

There are also three references given by Paul and the writer of Hebrews taken from Psalm 2 that declare that the Son was begotten in time and not eternal.

Psalm 2:7 (KJV)
7  I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

References are also found in Acts 13:33, Hebrews 1:5, 5:5.

Of course, if we are set in our minds that Jesus was already the Eternal Son of God, one might look at it differently.  An example of this is the belief that Jesus was an angel held by the Jehovah Witnesses. In spite of the phrasing of the verses in Hebrews 1:5 and 5:5, they insist that Jesus is still an angel. But in all my dealing with heretical beliefs and cults, I’ve learned that I have to force them to first establish the likelihood of their belief being true before they can manipulate other less clear scriptures to say what they want them to say.  In other words, there needs to be irrefutable evidence that Jesus existed as the Son prior to his incarnation.  There has to be some scripture that actually says this.  Without that we are twisting scriptures to to conform to our beliefs.  I have yet to hear any such clear, irrefutable evidence in the form of scripture that makes the pre-existent Christ an eternal son.

For more information on the Son of God please click on the link below: Word Study on the Only-Begotten Son (Hypostasis) 

A RULE FOR INTERPRETING SCRIPTURE

A basic rule of interpretation that we must apply when we study scripture is noted by the John Knox Institute which says that we must use clear scriptures to interpret ambiguous ones. Here is a quote directly from their website, JohnKnoxInstitute.org:

“The answer can be summarized in a single phrase: Always interpret the obscure in light of the clear. In other words, always interpret difficult and more obscure passages by comparing them to simpler and more plain passages.” (JohnKnoxInstitute.org)

Jesus was the only revelation of God that was actually born through the flesh of child-birth by Mary.  This not only made him the only Son, but made him a unique Son as well. That is the clear teaching of Scripture and my own understanding as well.

Earlier I said that there was only one verse in the Bible that mentioned the Trinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in a unity, and in this verse there was clearly no mention of them being three persons.  Then what verses speak about a Trinity as the Being of God existing in three persons?  Actually—none.

Neither the word Trinity nor the concept of God being three different persons appears anywhere in the Bible.  It does not appear in John 1:1 where he says that the Word was with God and was God.  Why not?  Why did John decide to say that the preexistence of Christ was the Word and not as the Eternal Son in a Trinity of three persons?

It does not appear in Phil 2:5 where Paul teaches that Jesus was actually in the form of God, but says nothing about him being a person in a Trinity or a preexistent Son. Why not?  It seems to me a likely place to have put it.  

It does not appear in Hebrews 1:3-5 where the author spends a lot of time describing who Christ is, but nowhere mentions the Trinity of three persons.  Why not? 

If this was so important, I would think that these authors would have made sure that it was memorialized into the Holy Scriptures.

One of my favorite tests of doctrine is not simply finding where it appears in the Bible, but also questioning why it doesn’t appear in the Bible.  In my years as a Bible teacher, I found that there are many false doctrines that people believe that don’t exist in the Bible.  They simply don’t understand that it would have been so simple for Paul or others to simply have written those beliefs down clearly in one sentence, especially if it was so important.  Yet, they didn’t.  

Let’s see if we can understand more about the Biblical version of the Trinity if we look deeper into the name that Jesus was referring to in his statement in Matthew 28:19.

WHO WAS YHVH AND HOW DOES HE RELATE TO THE SON OF GOD?

By now you might be thinking that I do not believe in the Trinity or the deity of Christ, but you would be very wrong.  I believe in both.  But I do not believe in the Trinity the way Athanasius, or the Roman Catholic Church defines it, and how it is taught today in many churches.  So, what do I think is the true definition of the Trinity?

Because of the problem with the lack of Jewish scholarly input from the early church, they have drifted away from the understanding of God’s Old Testament revelations under the name YHVH a.k.a. Yahweh.  The idea of God revealing himself as YHVH had taken a backseat if not disappeared altogether in the Gentile church.

Even today the idea of YHVH has been phased out by the Trinitarian doctrine.  YHVH has always been the name of God as he revealed himself to Israel. Each revelation of himself was progressively closer to the revelation of Jesus as the Savior of Israel. But scripture never teaches that YHVH was one of three different persons. He was taught as being God himself.

There was no understanding of God being three persons according to any Jewish understanding of God nor any Old Testament scripture that I could ever find.  As a matter of fact, I searched the entire Bible and couldn’t even find one reference to God as even being one person anywhere.  And there’s a reason why.

To label God as a person would be to diminish his divine power and glory.  In order to truly know God’s essence, we would have to see God face to face, which we cannot do according to the Bible.  Therefore, we must be satisfied with God simply being God.  Perhaps it’s natural for men to want to create a god in their own image and I believe that is what happened in the 3rd Century and contiues today.

Isaiah 40:18 (KJV)
18 To whom then will ye liken God? or what likeness will ye compare unto him?

We have to stop trying to define God as though he were some kind of philosophical idea that we can control through definition. In the Jewish understanding of things, if Jesus was a true revelation of God, he would have to be YHVH and nothing else.

There is no such record in the Old Testament showing that God had a Son prior to his birth through Mary.  There are references to sons of God, but these are either of angels or believers.

God had only one name and that name was YHVH (Yahweh). Jesus confirmed this by reciting the prayer called The Shammah in Mark.

The Shammah: Hear Oh Israel.  The LORD our God, The LORD is one!

Mark 12:29 (KJV)
29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

Why didn’t Jesus simply say:  Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is three persons?!

THE NAME OF GOD

Philippians 2:9 says that Jesus was given a name that was above all names. He was given the one name of God which was YHVH.  There is no other name greater than that name.  This name comes to us in the form of YESHUA or Jesus which means Yahweh Our Salvation.  There is only one name of God because there is only one being of God who has been revealed in numerous revelations as the name of YHVH (Yahweh).

Scripture says that there is only one name by which we are saved:

Acts 4:12 (NKJV)
Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."

There aren’t three names that save us as in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but only 1 name—Jesus!

So why does the church make this doctrine the litmus test for authentic Christians?

  1. It is not a belief taught by Paul, Peter, James, John, or any other Bible author.
  2. It doesn’t exist as a teaching in the Bible—either in the Old or New Testament.
  3. But it is the result of early Gentile philosophy and possibly a Pagan understanding of God blended into a doctrine and forced upon the believers in the church.
  4. Failing to accept this doctrine resulted in not only excommunication but also to torture and murder carried out by the church in the name of God. (See the story of Michael Servetus) Click here.

It is time to reunite our LORD under one name and that name is Jesus. 

The story doesn’t end here.  There is so much more to say that would fill up an entire book.  But few would actually buy it and even fewer would read it because the church would never let that happen.  Instead they put fear into the believer who challenges or even tests or questions this doctrine.  

WHAT DOES SCRIPTURE SAY ABOUT TESTING DOCTRINES?

1 Thessalonians 5:21 (KJV)
21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

1 John 4:1 (KJV)
1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

We must test any belief that takes away from the glory of Jesus’ name being YHVH.  Our faith is in Jesus as our LORD and not in the Trinity.  There is no such scripture that prevents a person from salvation because they don’t believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, but there are scriptures warning us against believing in anything other than Jesus as being our LORD and the incarnation of God. 

We must hold fast to the idea that God in Christ is a mystery:

1 Timothy 3:16 (KJV)
16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Colossians 2:2 (NET1)
2 My goal is that their hearts, having been knit together in love, may be encouraged, and that they may have all the riches that assurance brings in their understanding of the knowledge of the mystery of God, namely, Christ,

Christ is the mystery that must capture our faith as well as our imagination and awe–not the Trinity of Nicaea.

Please see my other posts relating to this topic:

History of the Trinity

  1. Matthew 3:16,17, Mark 1:10, Luke 3:22, John 1:32, Galatians 4:6, 1 Peter 1:2, ↩︎
  2. The idea that God already had a Son that was to come down through her was not an idea that Mary would have been able to understand unless Gabriel had told her this outright. Scripture cannot mean something to us today that it didn’t mean to the one originally intended to hear it. ↩︎

Posted on by rschut1945 · 3 Comments

The Only-Begotten Son: A Word Study on Monogene (μονογενῆ)

These comments are directed towards the TDGNT (Theological Dictionary of the Greek New Testament) Vol 4, pp. 739-741 regarding the meaning of the word μονογενῆ (monogene).

On these pages of the TDGNT we are told that the word monogene means “only-begotten.”  References to the use of this word are given as Heb 11:17 which tells us that Isaac is Abraham’s only-begotten (monogenes).  In Luke 7:12, the dead man raised is called the only son (monogenes) of his mother.  In Luke 8:42, Jairus is called the only child (monogenes).  In Luke 9:38 (the TDGNT mistakenly has Luke 8:42), the demonic boy is called the only son (monogenes) of his father (739). The word monogenes as used in each of these verses is translated as either only-begotten, only child, or only son.  Notice that there is nothing to lead us to believe that any of these children are a different “kind” of child, but simply an only born child. 

The TDGNT goes on to say “As the only-begotten Son Jesus is in the closest intimacy with God.  There is no other with whom God can have similar fellowship” (740).  It says that if one translates monogenes as only, when it applies to Jesus, it would simply create a comparison rather than the intimate relationship due Jesus.  It says that the meaning of the word as it’s used here denotes more than the uniqueness or incomparability of Jesus (741).  It also denotes the origin of Jesus (741). 

It is this last conclusion that we must take exception to and seek out the rationale behind such a conclusion.

I believe that this statement on page 741 implies that by interpreting monogenes as “only Son” or perhaps “one and only Son,” as translated by several newer Bible versions, when it applies to Jesus would then be in error because it does not reflect the intimate relationship that Jesus has with God nor his origin.  So then using “only” instead of using “only-begotten” is incorrect.  John 3:16 would be an example of the acceptable way to translate monogenes versus the unacceptable way.

 John 3:16 (KJV) (Acceptable)
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
John 3:16 (NET1) (Unacceptable)
16 For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.

The TDGNT goes on to say, “When John speaks of the Son of God, he has primarily in view the man Jesus Christ, though not exclusively the man, but also the risen and pre-existent Lord” (741). 

It then claims that this idea is supported by reference to John 17:5, 24.  It says that this is indisputable evidence that John refers to the pre-existent Lord as Son.  Please note that there is a difference between referring to Jesus as a pre-existent Lord and a pre-existent Son. One does not prove the other.  They are independent ideas.  So just to make it clear, the TDGNT is saying that the word monogenes, when used only of Jesus, refers to his being a son prior to his earthy birth making him an eternal Son in his pre-existent state.  Although these verses might support the idea of a pre-existent Lord, do they support the idea of a pre-existent Son?  Could there be an alternative way to take these verses?  Below are the indisputable verses in question. 

John 17:5 (KJV)
5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
John 17:24 (KJV)
24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

Let’s take a closer look at these verses and see exactly how indisputable they refer to a pre-existent Son. 

What glory did Jesus have before the world existed?  If he was an eternal Son as the 2nd person of the Trinity, it might explain these verses, but can we really use these verses to create or even support the belief that he was a pre-existent Son and not simply pre-existent?  Can these verses stand on their own merit without further support as being indisputable?  A connection, therefore, must be made between the pre-existence of Christ and his Eternal Sonship and it must be clear and distinct.  Without such a connection we cannot make this indisputable claim. 

We know that Paul wrote about Jesus’ pre-existence in Philippians 2:5-7:

 Philippians 2:6-9 (KJV)
6  Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7  But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8  And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

We can see from these verses that whoever Jesus was prior to his incarnation that he was not only in the form of God, but that he was also equal with God.  He then became a man, was crucified, and then exalted by being given a name above all names.  Note that Paul does not make any mention here of Jesus being in this form as a son.

I believe that the key to understanding these verses is that Jesus was given a name above all names so that he would be exalted.  What was this name?  We must consider that Paul was a Jew and the only name a Jew would consider above all names is the name Yahweh.  This was the name that God spoke to Moses when he asked him for his name.  But was this the name that Jesus had prior to his incarnation?  Let’s look at another scripture. 

John 17:5-6 (ASV)
5 And now, Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
6 I manifested thy name unto the men whom thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them to me; and they have kept thy word.

Jesus asked his Father to give him the same glory that he had previously, the glory which was in the name which he already had and manifested to them.  The difference being that the name has now been glorified because God has now actually become our Savior through the life and death of Christ and he is now entitled to be called by the name of God, Yahweh Our Savior (Yeshua/Jesus). 

And in this next verse we now can further see that Jesus is sending them out into the world just as he was sent out into the world. 

John 17:16-18 (KJV)
16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.

It might sound a bit strange to our ears to hear about Jesus being sent into the world and exactly what that might mean.  So the best way to determine that is to follow one of the rules of interpretation which is to use scripture to interpret scripture. 

This scripture doesn’t mean that his disciples were in heaven and were being sent down to earth.  It means that they were sent out into the world on a mission in the same way that he was.  Here is a verse that might help us to see this meaning clearer.

John 1:6 (KJV)
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

I don’t think that anyone would suggest that although John was sent from God, that he had a pre-existence in heaven beside God.  It simply says that God authorized the mission of John as he authorized the mission of Christ.

The idea that Jesus was a pre-existent Son is certainly not indisputable in these verses, for it simply says that he was sent out on a mission as the Son of God after having taken on the form of a man. 

Does this mean that Jesus didn’t have a preexistence?  No.  He did have a preexistence which John speaks of as the Word.  We will get into that later.  But for now there is nothing indisputable about these verses as pointing to a pre-existent Son before the birth of Christ.

Now let’s take a closer look at the second verse that was used as indisputable evidence.

John 17:24 (KJV)
24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

God loved Jesus before the world’s foundation or creation.  We might think that we know what this verse might mean, but let’s see if there are any other verses that we can use to interpret this one.  There are several verses that can help us out here.  The first one is from Ephesians.

Ephesians 1:4 (KJV) 
4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

We were chosen before the foundation of the world.  This doesn’t mean that we all have a pre-existence before God created the world.  It simply means that God is able to predestine things based upon his foreknowledge (See Rm 8:29-30).  God predestined his love for Jesus before the world’s foundation in the same way he predestined our being chosen. 

And a verse from Jeremiah.

Jeremiah 1:4-5 (KJV)
4 Then the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.  

These verses have something in common and that’s God’s ability to see things from his eternal time frame.  God loved Jesus, chose us, and knew, sanctified, and ordained Jeremiah to be a prophet before they actually happened without any pre-existence on their part. 

And here’s another verse from Peter.

1 Peter 1:19-20 (KJV)
19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

Here we have Peter teaching us that Jesus was foreordained before the foundation of the world to be our Savior but was actually manifested as Savior in these last times.  Again, there is nothing indisputable about these verses meaning that Jesus pre-existed as a Son before his incarnation.  This verse clearly says that Jesus was foreordained, meaning that God already had a plan in place for our salvation.  But it wasn’t until Jesus was actually born in the flesh and manifested to us that it actually happened in space and time.

The TDGNT goes on to make its point.  It does admit that John does not use the term son for the pre-existent Lord either in his prologue (John 1:1), or in John 8:58, but he does describe his relationship with God as that of a son.  It concludes that you cannot extrapolate that this means that the pre-existent Lord is only the Word, and that the son is only the historical and risen Lord (741). 

Apparently, it does mean that you can somehow only extrapolate that Jesus is the Eternal Son?  But is that really what John is trying to say here?  Is he really saying that Jesus was an Eternal Son?  He had every opportunity to say exactly that but chose not to.  The question is why didn’t he take these perfect opportunities to make this idea of the Eternal Son’s pre-existence clear?  

There is a rule of interpretation given to us by Gordon Fee saying that a Bible verse cannot mean something to us today that it never meant to those for whom it was originally intended.1  And there is no way that John could have believed that Jesus was the 2nd person of a Trinity as a pre-existent Eternal Son, or he simply would have said it.  It certainly is not found in any Jewish writings or theology of that time.   

It appears that the only way the TDGNT can come to this conclusion is that it isn’t actually a conclusion, but a supposition.  One must already have this idea firmly in their mind as a conclusion prior to translating or interpreting John’s writings. You cannot and should not interpret scripture based upon supposition. 

There is another rule of interpretation that says we cannot use ambiguous scriptures to interpret clear and distinct ones.  But rather we must use clear and distinct scriptures to interpret the ambiguous ones.2

A doctrine must be based upon verses that can only have one clear and distinct meaning. Ambiguous verses might be helpful in supporting those clear and distinct verses, but they cannot be used as source scriptures for creating doctrines or teaching.

The TDGNT makes another comment about the beginning of John’s prologue. 

John 1:1-3 (KJV)
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made.

The TDGNT doesn’t believe that John’s reference to Christ as the Word is intimate enough as it would have been if he had used the term son.  But let me point out that John is telling us that not only is there an intimate relationship between the Word of God and God, but that the Word of God is God.  And John is trying to make this very clear by telling us that Jesus was the very being of God and not another person or being distinct from God.  He was God! 

It is true that in our day our word doesn’t really mean very much, but in the Biblical days it was very different.  But it isn’t what we think of our word today that matters.  It’s what it meant at the time that John penned his gospel.  This is what John thinks about the Word.

John 17:17 (KJV)
17  Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

God’s relationship to his Word is the most intimate relationship that there can be.  God’s Word represents his thoughts and his will.  God’s Word is his truth expressed in our time and space in the form of the Christ.  This is what John was actually saying.  There is nothing in any of these verses above that even hints that he was speaking about a pre-existent Eternal Son of God.

John tells us more about who Jesus was in the following selection of verses.   

 John 14:6-7 (KJV)
6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.    
John 1:14 (KJV)
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Seeing Jesus was the same as seeing his Father.  The two were not only equal but had an ontological bond that was inseparable.  And that truth was now expressed in flesh and glory of God as was seen through his grace and truth.  And this all took place after his incarnation.  It does not imply that he was an Eternal Son, but that he was an incarnated Son.

The TDGNT also mentioned John 8:58 as a scripture that somehow supports the idea of a pre-existent Eternal Son. 

 John 8:58-59 (KJV)
58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

Here Jesus is telling the Jews in their own language that he existed before Abraham, not as an Eternal Son, but as Yahweh, the LORD.  We know this by the fact that he uses the name of God, “I AM.” This was his pre-existent identity!

The TDGNT does, however, concede that John may not be directly using the term monogenes as referring to his pre-existent sonship.  But it still believes that he probably is. 

The note at the bottom of page 741 states that since the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the world, there is no room for doubt that the pre-existent Lord was already a Son.  The term logos (Word) as used by John does not give us the right to assume that logos was a power of God standing in an impersonal relationship to Him. (741)

We already covered this idea of the Word being more than capable of carrying the idea of such a personal relationship and perhaps even more as it makes the Word equal to God. 

There are many questions that I have concerning this teaching of an eternal son and among them are why it’s not directly mentioned in scripture by anyone and why didn’t any of the writers of the New Testament teach that Jesus was the 2nd person of a Trinity or that he existed as the Eternal Son of God long before he was ever born to Mary?

No New Testament writer addresses these issues because these beliefs were never believed by Jesus’ disciples nor the very early church.  These ideas came about much later and weren’t accepted into the church until almost 300 years after the crucifixion of Christ and more than 200 years after the New Testament was finally completed. And not without much argument and disagreement between the bishops. (See my History of the Trinity post).

To further justify my point, I suggest that you should do a Bible search on the phrase “The word of the LORD” and you will find a great many verses that speak about the authority of God’s word.  When God spoke, all the prophets listened and obeyed.  In this very same way Jesus was also the Word of the LORD.  God spoke through Christ as the Word of the LORD.  Jesus didn’t simply speak the Word of the LORD, but he became the Word of the LORD.

Psalm 33:6-11 (KJV)
6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.
7 He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses.
8 Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him.
9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.
10 The LORD bringeth the counsel of the heathen to nought: he maketh the devices of the people of none effect.
11 The counsel of the LORD standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations.

But Jesus wasn’t simply the word of God.  He was the Word of YHVH (LORD).  Today the whole idea of the Jewish identity of Christ as YHVH (Yahweh) has become diminished if not entirely lost because it has given way to the Gentile idea of a pre-existent eternal son.

In summary, if we apply the rules of interpretation to this belief, we must use clear and distinct verses to clarify obscure and ambiguous ones. Those clear and distinct verses say that Jesus was born to Mary and for this reason he is called the Son of God (Luke 1:35).  This is the only time that Jesus was spoken of as having been actually born.  So, any ambiguous verses about a pre-existent son being eternally born or begotten cannot carry their own meaning as authoritative without having a clear and distinct reference verse as its authority.  All scriptures therefore must be interpreted in reference to this event of the incarnation of Christ as a human child.

If there was another event when God himself gave birth to a son, whether in time, before time, or eternally, it must be clearly and distinctly set in scripture and not ambiguous.  

But no writer of the New Testament ever wrote any such verses because they simply did not believe that there was any such pre-existent son.  If they did, they didn’t share it in their writings.   

In a follow-up paper I will show how Athanasius mis-represented the Trinity through his lack of understanding Jewish theology and the importance of the Name of God (YHVH) in understanding the true identity of Christ.

  1. How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, Gordon Fee, 2nd Ed. Pg 19. ↩︎
  2. https://media.johnknoxinstitute.org/file/johnknox/hermeneutics/hm_04.pdf ↩︎