“Thereby, and because of creation, reasonably termed the Father.”
Idea of “FATHER” is one of progenitor, nourisher, protector and upholder. In the Old Testament the concept of Yahweh as Father is not as fully developed as in the New Testament; although, He is acknowledged as such by the Psalmist (68:5; 89:26), and the prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah (see Isa 9:6; 63:16; 64:8 and Jer 3:19; 31:9 respectively). Moreover, the New Testament magnified His capacity as creator, nourisher, protector, and upholder of all things in heaven and earth, both visible and invisible (Col 1:16), by His eternal Word (see John 1:1-3 and Heb 11:3 respectively). God’s Fatherhood is abundantly demonstrated in both Testaments.
This fact sets the deity of the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures apart from the deity of the Islamic Qur’an. Of the much touted names of Allah in the Qur’an, not one of them is Father. It is acknowledged that for God to be one’s Father implies relationship. Therefore, the God of the Bible is a God of relationship, unlike the god of the Qur’an, who is impersonal and un-relational.
The writer of the epistle to the Hebrews writes of the Father-hood of God on this wise: “Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?” (Heb 12:9; cf Zech 12:1). The prophet Malachi acknowledges one Father, who is the one God that created us (Mal 2:10). Congruent with all this is the apostle Paul, who writes: “But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things,…” (1 Cor 8:6). Therefore, the Creed states correctly that because of His acts of creation, it is reasonable to term (call) the one solitary God, the Father.
“The Father is He to whom all that exists owes its origin. He is in Christ; and through Christ, He is the source of all things. Moreover, His existence is existence in itself, and He does not derive His existence from anywhere else. Rather, from Himself, and in Himself, He possesses the actuality of His being. He is infinite because He, Himself, is not contained in something else, and all else is within Him. He is always beyond location, because He is not contained; always before the ages, because time comes from Him.… God, however, is present everywhere; and everywhere He is totally present.
Here Bishop Hayes is teaching on the term, Father, as that term is related to God.
“Thus, He transcends the realm of understanding. Outside of Him there is nothing, and it is eternally His characteristic that He shall always exist. This is the truth of the mystery of God, And of the impenetrable nature which this name Father expresses; God is invisible, unutterable, and infinite. In His presence, let a word about to be spoken remain silent; let a mind attempting to investigate admit it’s weariness; let an understanding which attempts to comprehend admit its own limitation. Yet, He has, as we have said, in the word Father a name to indicate His nature; but He is Father as such. For He does not, as humans do, receive His Fatherhood from elsewhere. He Himself is unbegotten and eternal; and it is His property, eternally in Himself, that He shall always be.” (Hilary of Poitiers, A.D. 310-367)
Because of error, that has found its way into the Lord’s church, it was necessary to not only profess One God, but to define what the Scriptures mean by ONE (see lines 1 and 2). So, too, here. Because of false teaching concerning the “Word,” it is necessary for the Creed to set forth what the Scriptures mean by this term. Here, in line 5, the Creed defines the “Word” of God as “the breath of His mouth.” In this statement the Creed militates against the logos-christology of all Pluralists.
The logos-christology, that found purchase in Christianity from the late 3rd century and onward, originated in the theological philosophy of Plato (Greek philosopher 428-348 B.C.). Logos-christology makes the “Word” (Greek: logos) a separate person from God the Father and the Holy Spirit.
Space will not allow an exhaustive examination of the logos theology, however a few comments on the subject are necessary at this point. As stated, logos-christology sees the logos(Word) as a separate person (individual) from God the Father, and has come into Christianity from pagan thought, in point of fact: from Plato by way of Philo (first century Jewish Platonic philosopher) and the early Christian (so-called) Apologists (so-called) such as Justin Martyr.
Plato (fourth century B.C.) taught that God the first principle was, Himself, too holy to personally come into contact with a universe of matter, so He brought into existence, as His first creation, god the second principle, whom Plato called the logos (translated in our English Bibles as “word”). God the first principle delegated creation of the physical universe to the logos (god the second principle). Once the universe was created by the logos, according to Plato, both god the first principle and god the second principle (logos) brought into existence a third entity whom Plato called the world spirit.
This concept of the godhead was current in the pagan world in which Christ's church found itself. Contemporaneous to Christ was one Philo of Alexandria, Egypt: a Platonic Jewish philosopher. This Philo saw the Jewish Messiah pre-shadowed in Plato’s logos concept of god the second principle. It must be pointed out that Philo was a non-Christian, who had a profound effect upon later generations of Christians, who would become apostate from Biblical-Christology.
The logos concept of Plato required one more step to infect Christianity; this needed step was found in the early Christian Apologists, of whom Justin Martyr is a prime example. Justin (A.D. 100-165) was a Platonic philosopher who continued to wear the philosopher’s habit, as a Christian preacher. (Justin was not representative of the Christianity of his time. According to his own testimony, he was not associated with any Christians other than those who sought him out as a philosopher.
(Justin Martyr and Companions: Justin Martyr Is Questioned About Christian Meetings
"Where do you assemble?" Rusticus proceeded.
“Wherever we want to and are able to," Justin replied. "Do you imagine that we all meet in the same place? Not so! The God of the Christians is not limited to a location. He is invisible, and he fills heaven and earth. Therefore, he is worshipped and glorified everywhere by the faithful."
Rusticus sighed. This was no angry prefect. He was not the least bit interested in Justin's speech. "Just tell me where you personally assemble. In other words, in what place do you, Justin, gather your followers?"
"I live above a man named Martin, at the Timiotinian Bath." Justin paused, then, knowing what the next question would be, he continued, "During the entire time I've lived here, because I'm now living in Rome for the second time, I don't know about any other meetings. I've simply taught the truth to anyone willing to come to me.")
Justin saw Christianity as the fruition of Platonism, and preached Christ (Messiah) according to the understanding of Philo. Justin called Jesus the “second god.” Through Justin Martyr, and others of his time and philosophy, logos-christology came to the fore in post-apostolic thought.
Hello friends, my name is Jerry Hayes, I am a full time biblical researcher. I rely on freewill love offerings (from those of you who benefit from my work) and book sales for my support. Would you please consider leaving a small donation at the link provided here? Thank you for your support.
When John wrote that all things were made by the Word, it was not the logos of Plato, nor of Plato’s student, Philo, that he had in mind. It is clear that John is writing to combat this false christology, for he opens his gospel with words that strike a fatal blow to this heresy. Plato, Philo, and one Cerinthus
(Eusebius, Church History: Chapter XXVIII.—Cerinthus the Heresiarch.
1. We have understood that at this time Cerinthus, the author of another heresy, made his appearance. Caius, whose words we quoted above, in the Disputation which is ascribed to him, writes as follows concerning this man:
2. “But Cerinthus also, by means of revelations which he pretends were written by a great apostle, brings before us marvelous things which he falsely claims were shown him by angels; and he says that after the resurrection the kingdom of Christ will be set up on earth, and that the flesh dwelling in Jerusalem will again be subject to desires and pleasures. And being an enemy of the Scriptures of God, he asserts, with the purpose of deceiving men, that there is to be a period of a thousand years for marriage festivals.”
3. And Dionysius, who was bishop of the parish of Alexandria in our day, in the second book of his work On the Promises, where he says some things concerning the Apocalypse of John which he draws from tradition, mentions this same man in the following words:
4. “But (they say that) Cerinthus, who founded the sect which was called, after him, the Cerinthian, desiring reputable authority for his fiction, prefixed the name. For the doctrine which he taught was this: that the kingdom of Christ will be an
earthly one.
5. And as he was himself devoted to the pleasures of the body and altogether sensual in his nature, he dreamed that that kingdom would consist in those things which he desired, namely, in the delights of the belly and of sexual passion, that is to say, in eating and drinking and marrying, and in festivals and sacrifices and the slaying of victims, under the guise of which he thought he could indulge his appetites with a better grace.”
6. These are the words of Dionysius. But Irenæus, in the first book of his work Against Heresies, gives some more abominable false doctrines of the same man, and in the third book relates a story which deserves to be recorded. He says, on the authority of Polycarp, that the apostle John once entered a bath to bathe; but, learning that Cerinthus was within, he sprang from the place and rushed out of the door, for he could not bear to remain under the same roof with him. And he advised those that were with him to do the same, saying, “Let us flee, lest the bath fall; for Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within.”)
taught that the logos had a beginning as the first creation of God the first principle; but, John’s first salvo is “In the beginning was the Word (logos).” To John the logos did not have a beginning, the logos was eternal—had always been. Secondly, John was a Jew who knew and confessed the Shema. To him God was a radical one. When he wrote that the “logos was God,” one may be confident that he did not mean “a god” or “another god” or “also god.” To John there was but one God: namely, the Father. The logos was that God.
Whereas, logos-christology understands the Word to be a personal being, separate and distinct from God the Father, who is ALSO God (second god, says Justin Martyr), the Modalist theol-ogy of the Creed defines the Word, by which the one God created, to be the breath of the Father’s mouth. This is not just so much Modalistic interpretation—it is the word of God! To show that this is not just so much bluster, one is directed to see Psalms 33:6, where the Psalmist writes: “By the word of the LORD (YHWH) were the heavens made; And all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.”
The true disciple of Christ will permit the Bible to interpret itself. Whereas John, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, writes that all things were created by the Word, the Psalmist explains that it was by “the breath of his mouth.” The difference in the logos-christology of Justin (originating from Plato and Philo and showing up in the pluralism of the Arians and later Trinitarians), and the Hebraic-Christology of the bible, is this: In logos-christology the logos (Word) is the second person of the Godhead, while in Hebraic-Christology (which is held by Modalistic Monarchians) the logos (Word) is the speaking of God, i.e. “the breath of his mouth.” Truly, this is the narrative of Genesis where Yahweh created by saying; “Let there be!” (Genesis 1:6, 9, 14, 20, 24.)
To attempt any other understanding of the “Word” leads to an unending world of confusions. For example, consider John 1:1. A question would be asked the one who believes Plato’s logos theory:
In John 1:1 who is the God that was with the logos? The answer would most likely be: The Father. ～ Accepting the answer, let us read the text in that light, substituting the word Father for the word God: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the Father, and the Word was the Father.” Immediately the Pluralist would object because that is not his theology, at all. So, we would try again by asking the same question: Who is the God that was with the logos (Word)? This time, perhaps, we get a new, and, hopefully, better answer: The God that was with the logos, we are told, was the Trinity. ～ Accepting this second answer, let us then read the text of John 1:1, substituting the word Trinity for the word God: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the Trinity, and the Word was the Trinity.” Again, immediately, foul is called: because neither is this his theology.
Here, are the horns of the dilemma upon which the Pluralist, whether Arian or Trinitarian, finds himself tossed back and forth. On the first horn, if God is understood to be the Father, then the Word is proven to be the Father. Since pluralism demands the Word to be a separate god-person from the Father, this horn proves too sharp, and off it comes. However, finding itself impaled upon the second horn is even less desirable, for if the God of the text is the Trinity, then the Word is Not. That is to say, the Word is said to be “with” the Trinity (alongside of the Trinity, or as Pluralists of every stripe like to say: “face to face with...”); therefore, not a component of the Trinity. Compounding the confusion is the statement that “the Word was God,” which, according to the Pluralist, is the Trinity. This is the third horn upon which the Pluralist is impaled. Either of these three horns proves too sharp for such an unscriptural understanding of logos—the Word.
Such a dilemma is avoided by accepting the Holy Bible’s interpretation of the Creating-Word as is masterfully presented by the Psalmist: “By the word of the LORD (YHWH) were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth” (Ps 33:6). It is interesting and edifying to read John 1:1 in the light of this biblical truth. The paraphrasing of John 1:1: In the beginning was the breath of God’s mouth, and the breath of God’s mouth was with God, and the breath of God’s mouth was God. The reader will see that this works perfectly well with all the Scriptures say about God and His Word. A man and his word are one – how much more God; a man and his word cannot be separated – how much less God!
Here, line four of the Creed reflects the proposition of Holy Scripture: God created all things in the universe, both visible and invisible (Col 1:16) by His Word. The Gospel of John reads: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God (The Grk actually reads: “God was the Word.” “theos En ho logos.”) . The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him(Him: the Gk is “autos” translated “it” in all English translations before the KJV.); and without him was not any thing made that was made” (John 1:1-3).According to this text the Word was in the beginning: therefore, eternal.
Also, according to this text, the Word was “with God:” Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. (Greek: πρὸς τὸν θεόν, transliterates as: pros ton theon); that is, “with God.” Those not knowledgable of Greek idioms would see pros ton theon (with God) as meaning “face to face” with God (which meaning the Greek preposition “pros” does have), however, that would be a mistake.Here, “pros ton theon” should be understood as “pertaining to God.” A companion text is found in 1 John 1:2, (καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἐφανερώθη, καὶ ἑωράκαμεν καὶ μαρτυροῦμεν καὶ ἀπαγγέλλομεν ὑμῖν τὴν ζωὴν τὴν αἰώνιον ἥτις ἦν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα καὶ ἐφανερώθη ἡμῖν. Here eternal life is said to πρὸς τὸν πατέρα); the clause: πρὸς τὸν πατέρα transliterates to pros ton patera,“with the Father;” it is understood, however, that “with the Father” means “pertains to the Father.” Eternal life “pertains to the Father.” No one understands eternal life to be a separate person that is “face to face” with the Father. So, then the Word of God pertains to God just as does eternal life. Moreover, according to our text the Word “was God.” Just as eternal life is an intrinsic part of God’s identity, so, too, is His Word.
The present English reading of John 1:1 (“and the Word was with (pros) God”) as we have seen, is used by John, again, in 1 John 1:2, where he states that Eternal Life was with (pros) the Father. No one understands “pros ton patri” to mean that Eternal Life was another person alongside, or face to face, with the Father. So, then, it is doctrinally dishonest to insist that in John 1:1 the same writer meant to say that the Logos was along side of, or face to face with, God; by his words of “pros ton theon.”
It is a challenge to interpret Scripture without bringing any bias to the table: a challenge that most men, no matter how well intentioned, cannot overcome. The inconsistency of Trinitarianism is demonstrated when 1 John 1:2 is juxtaposed with John 1:1. It was Shakespeare who said, “O Consistency, thou art a virtue.” Another maxim that is true is, “Inconsistency is the pitfall of all false doctrine.”
Hello friends, my name is Jerry Hayes, I am a full time biblical researcher. I rely on freewill love offerings (from those of you who benefit from my work) and book sales for my support. Would you please consider leaving a small donation at the link provided here? Thank you for your support.
Let us now move to a tool for showing the eternality of the “Word” of God. A syllogism is a proven method of establishing truth. A syllogism is formed when a major premise and a minor premise together produce an unavoidable conclusion. So, then, in order to establish the “Word” of God as being eternal, the following syllogism will be most helpful:
Major premise: The Word is God, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (John 1:1)
Minor premise: God is Eternal, “The eternal God is thy refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms: ... .” (Deut 33:27)
Conclusion: The Word is Eternal.
The Word of God has always existed; and, like eternal life (1 John 1:2), pertains to Yahweh’s very essence and is, therefore, inseparable from His identity. Thus, the Word is said to be God. It should be pointed out that the capitalization of the word “Word” is the work of Pluralists translators, and does, in fact, lead the causal reader to suppose that a person is being referenced. Koinē Greek (Koine from κοινός/κοινή "common", also known as Alexandrian dialect, common Attic or Hellenistic Greek) It developed through the spread of Greek following the conquests of Alexander the Great in the 4th century BC, and served as the common lingua franca of much of the Mediterranean region and the Middle East during the following centuries. Koine Greek displayed a wide spectrum of different styles, ranging from more conservative literary forms to the spoken vernaculars of the time. )did not use capitalization. However, since it does appear in our Bibles capitalized, we give it here in that fashion.
John 1:3 tells us that all things were made by “it.” The KJV employs the pronoun “him;” however, the Greek pronoun is “autos” (Strong’s #G846.): πάντα δι' αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν. ὃ γέγονεν. “Autos” (the lexical form) is the singular third person pronoun that translates either: “him,” “her,” or “it.”Here, “autos” is better translated as “it.” English translations of this passage, pre-dating the King James Version, did in fact render autos as “it.” (William Tyndale: 1526; Matthew’s Bible by John Rogers: 1537; The Great Bible by Miles Coverdale: 1539; The Geneva Bible:1560; The Bishop’s Bible: 1568. It is said that the KJV is seventy-five percent Tyndale. However, when translating Jn 1:1-3 the KJV translators followed the Vulgate instead of Tyndale and the earlier English translators. All, English translations since have followed the KJV.)
Moreover, in v4 the “Life” and the “Light,” which are attributed to Yahweh’s essence, are, also, better referenced with the pronoun “it.” Rendering “autos” with the masculine pronoun “him” (in John 1:3) tends to lead the reader to think in terms of a second god alongside God the Father. Such an understanding does violence to the Shema (Deut 6:4 “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one! 5 You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength. (NKJV)), and the monotheism of Holy Scripture.
Truly, the writer of Hebrews tells us that “… the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear” (Heb 11:3). Moreover, it is seen in Genesis chapter one, that Yahweh created by His spoken word. One can never ignore the repeated announcement: “And God said….”(Gen 1:3, 6, 9, 11, 20, 24, 26.)
Another View
Having stated the facts concerning the Greek autos, it is further acknowledged that personifications of the Word of God are common enough in Holy Scripture. In fact, Moses informs the readers of Genesis, “And they (Adam and Eve) heard the voice of the LORD (Yahweh) God walking in the garden in the cool of the day” (Gen 3:8)). With this in mind, the masculine pronoun, in reference to God’s Word, would not be considered out of place if understood as a personification. (Wisdom is personified: "Happy is the man that findeth wisdom, .... She is more precious than rubies: and all the things thou canst desire are not to be compared unto her" (Prov 3:13-15)."Wisdom hath builded her house, she hath hewn out her seven pillars" (Prov 9:1). Riches are personified:"No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon" (Matt 6:24). Sin is personified: "...Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin" (John 8:34). "Sin hath reigned unto death" (Rom 5:21). "Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?" (Rom 6:16).Death is personified:"Behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death" (Rev. 6:8).The Spirit is personified: "When he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself..." (John 16:13). The nation of Israel is personified: "Again I will build thee, and thou shalt be built, O virgin of Israel: ..." (Jer 31:4).The Believers in Christ are personified: "I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ" (2 Cor. 11:2). "...the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready" (Rev. 19:7)).
“Thereby, and because of creation, reasonably termed the Father.”
