Bishop's Epistle

Thursday, October 1, 2020

New England Trinitarianism

(Adapted from “A Critical History of the Evolution of Trinitarianism and Its Outcome in the New Christology," by Levi Leonard Paine, (Oct. 10, 1832 — May 10, 1902) Waldo Professor of Eccleslastical History in Bangor Theological Seminary)

Iassc Watts, (July 17, 1674 – November 25, 1748) was an

English Christian minister (Congregational), hymn writer, theologian, and logician. He was a prolific and popular hymn writer and is credited with some 750 hymns. He is recognized as the "Godfather of English Hymnody"; many of his hymns remain in use today and have been translated into numerous languages. A good illustration of this is how his hymns have influenced the molding of English as well as American religious thought and devotion.

The trinitarianism of Watts was a curious amalgamation of Sabellianism and Arianism. "Person," in his view, "as applied to the Trinity is not to be taken in the full common and literal sense of it." "The Father, the Word, and the Spirit are so far distinct as to lay a foundation for the scripture to speak of them in a personal manner, as "I", "Thou," and "He," and upon this account they are called three persons, but they are not so distinct as to have three distinct consciousnesses.”

Nathanael Emmons, (April 20, 1745 - September 23, 1840)

was an American congregational minister and influential theologian of the New Divinity school. It was as a theologian that Emmons was best known, and for half a century probably no clergyman in New England exerted so wide an influence. He developed an original system of divinity, somewhat on the structural plan of that of Samuel Hopkins, and, in Emmons' own believe which was contained in and involved in Hopkinsainism. While by no means abandoning the tenants of the old Calvinistic faith, he came to be looked upon as the chief representative of what was then known as the New Divinity; also he is known as the father of New England Trinitarianism.

Emmons gave prominence to the theory of "official subordination." "The name Father is taken from the particular office which he sustains in the economy of redemption. The second person assumes the name of Son and Word by virtue of his incarnation." In this way this very statement is the Sabellianizing leaven which one day will leaven the whole lump. Father and Son are "names" "assumed" to set forth certain activities of the one Absolute God. This is essential Sabellianism at the start. But Emmons goes further. He casts aside the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son, then he suggests that the names Son and Word had no existence before the incarnation. "They were probably unknown in heaven until the purposes of grace were revealed." But if the names Word and Son were unknown before the incarnation, how about the real personality of the second person of the Trinity? Did the Son exist personally before the incarnation without a name, or does the want of the name imply the non-existence of the reality? Emmons halts at this point, but his followers, Stuart and others, will take up the pregnant suggestion that he had dropped so providentially.

Moses B. Stuart (March 26, 1780 - January 4, 1852, age 71),

an American Bible scholar, was born in Wilton Connecticut. Graduating with highest honors at Yale in 1799; in 1802 he was admitted to the Connecticut bar and was appointed as a tutor at Yale, where he remain for two years. In 1806 Stuart became the pastor of the Center (congregational) Church of New Haven, being appointed professor of sacred literature in the Andover Theological Seminary in 1809. In 1848 Stuart resigned his chair at Andover. He died in Andover on January 4, 1852.

Stewart has been called the father of exegetical studies in America. He contributed largely by his teaching to the renewal of foreign missionary zeal - of his 1500 students more than 100 became foreign missionaries, among them such skilled translators as Adoniram Judson, Elias Riggs and William G. Schauffler.

In 1819 and Arian minister named William Ellery Channing preached a sermon challenging the Trinitarian dogma of the day. He was forthwith joined in a running debate by Moses Stewart that lasted over 30 years and greatly influenced how the Trinity came to be viewed in American to this very day.

Moses Stewart, in his defense of traditional trinitarianism, refused to accept the term "person" as a proper term to define the distinctions in the Trinity. He wishes the word "had never come into the symbols of the church." "I believe in a threefold distinction in the Godhead, and do not venture to make any attempt at explanation." Stewart goes back to the position of Augustine, who said "three somewhats," and Anselm, who said "three I know not whats." The term "distinction" which Stuart substituted for "person" is of Sabellian origin. John Calvin saw its real character and pierced it with one of the keenest shafts of his wit. It came into use in New England apparently through Watts; but Stuart made it current coin, and from his day to the present it has largely replaced "person" in the Trinitarian language. "A threefold distinction in the Godhead," which is all that Stuart dared to say, is a fit legend to be placed at the head of the latest chapter in the history of New England Trinitarianism. The Sabellian leaven of Emmons and Stuart did its work thoroughly, and New England Trinitarianism through all its veins became inoculated with its precepts. Some years later, Stewart translated, with extensive notes, an essay of Friedrich Schleiermacher in which Schleiermacher had defended Sabellius from the charge of patripassianism and interpreted the Sabellian view as essentially Trinitarian, though distinguishing a Trinity developed in time from the Trinity eternally immanent in the divine being, Schleiermacher opposed the Nicene doctrine of eternal generation, holding that the Son is self-existent and independent, that he is absolute God, and that the Trinity is a manifestation of the one God in different modes of creating and redeeming activity. Schleiermacher's essay only fructified in Stuart's mind the seed that Emmons had already sown.

Although Stuart's doctrine was thoroughly Sabellian, a modification was introduced which, it was claimed, changed the whole character. Sabellianism holds to the eternally immanent uni-personality of God, but introduces a trinity of developments of God in time for purposes of divine manifestation in creation and redemption. These developments are in personal modes, but not such as constitute three personal beings. This is the doctrine also of Stuart and his disciple Bushnell. But Stuart laid hold of the idea of Watts and Emmons that there is "laid a foundation in the divine nature" for three distinctions. Bushnell was at first agnostic on this point, that later he tentatively accepted. But this qualification did not affect the essential Sabellianism of the whole doctrine. Sturat and Buchnell both, following Schleiermacher, declared that God is not eternally tri-personal, but uni-personal. The Trinity is not fully developed until the incarnation. Here, Stuart takes up the suggestion of Emmons that the names "Word" and "Son" were not known in heaven before the birth of Christ, which implies that the Trinity came into real existence at this event. Stuart seems at times to hold a developed Trinity of real rational persons, and seems to want to hide his Sabellianism under this cover. But in fact his persons are not rational anymore than the Sabellain persons are - they are modes of the personal existence of the One Divine Being. He talks about the Son's personality, but he frankly confesses that he uses person "to designate a distinction which cannot be comprehended or defined, and would not employ it if it had never been used." Personality as related to God is, for Stuart, the great enigma, as it was for Augustine. He accepted "a numerical unity of substance" in the Godhead, but he declares that "this excludes such personality as exist among men." He even suggests that personality cannot be essential to divinity. Stuarts doctrine was modalistic and he frankly allows it, quoting and appropriating Turretin's phrase "modal distinctions." In Stuart's extreme caution to avoid the pitfalls of tritheism – the Sabellain denial of three real and rational persons was the only refuge remaining to him – as it is to all Trinitarians who wish to avoid the heresy that is tritheism.

Henry Boynton Smith, (November 21, 1815 - February 7,

1877), American theologian, was born in Portland Maine. He is best known for introducing many Americans to avant-gard German historical scholarship, especially in his history of the Church of Christ. In Chronological Tables: A Synchronistic View of the Events, Characteristics, and Culture of Each Period, Including the History of Polity, Worship, Literature, and Doctrines: Together with Two Supplementary Tables upon the Church in America; And an Appendix Containing the Series of Councils, popes, Patriarchs, and Other Bishops, and a Full Index (1860).

Concerning our topic of review (New England Trinitarianism) H. B. Smith is known to be a proponent of the Sabellian position, especially as demonstrated by his quote: "The one Supreme Personality exists in three personal modes of being, but it's not three distinct persons."

Isaak August Dorner: (June 20, 1809 - July 8, 1884) was a

German Lutheran church leader. One of the most noteworthy of the "mediating" theologians, he has been ranked with Friedrich Schleiermacher, August Neander, Julius Muller and Richard Rothe.

Dorner is referenced in the context of New England Trinitarianism because he represents a German element of influence which profoundly affected this whole school, and also because his writings have been widely read in New England.

Dorner call the Godhead the "Absolute Personality".

"The absolute personality is present in each of the divine distinctions in such a way that though they are not of them selves simply personal, they have a share in the one divine personality, in their own manner.""The eternal result of the Trinitarian process is the eternal presence of the divine personality in different modes of being."

Here is Modalism and Sabellianism taught clearly under the name of Trinitarianism.

Joseph Flavius Cook: (1838-1901) Born in Ticonderoga, New

York, attended Phillips Academy, and then entered Yale College. Later transferring to Harvard College, from which he graduated in 1865.

Boston had installed him "in Moses' seat." The orthodox elite of Massachusetts sat at his feet and hung upon his every word. When he announced his theme there was a universal hush of expectation and sympathy. Truly the opportunity was great. Mr. Cook's aim in his addresses were to defend Trinitarian orthodoxy as he understood it. He especially proposed to exorcise the "paganism," as he called it, of "three gods." After giving a definition of the Trinity, which Sabellius would have not found a fault with, He introduces an illustration which had been used by both Orthodox and Arians in the early church, but with opposite application. – That of the sun and it's rays.

"Sunlight, rainbow, heat, one solar radiance; Father, Son, Holy Ghost, one God. As the rainbow shows what light is when unfolded, so Christ reveals the nature of God." "As at the same instant the sunlight is it self and also the rainbow in heat, so at the same moment Christ is both himself and the Father. And both the Father and the Holy Ghost." "As the solar rainbow flees from sight, and it's light continues to exist, so Christ ceases to be manifest and yet is present.""As the rainbow is unraveled light, so Christ is unraveled God." "When the rainbow faded from the east I did not think it had ceased to be. It had not been annihilated; it had been revealed for a while, and, disappeared, it was received back into the bosom of the general radiance, and yet continues to fall upon the earth. In every beam of white light there is potentially all the color which we find unraveled in the rainbow; and so in all the pulsations of the will of God the Father in His works exist the pulsations of the heart of him who wept over Jerusalem," "for there is that one God." "So the Holy Ghost figured by heat is Christ's continued life.”

Conclusion

The doctrine of the Trinity has long been cast in the Sabellian mold of Modalistic Monarchianism. Here we have looked at the leading Trinitarian theological heads of New England during the 18th and19th centuries and have witnessed the influence of Sabellian modalism upon their trinitarian thought. As the Church moved into the 20th-century the circumstance did not change. With the writings of men like Karl Barth (1886-1968), Protestant, and Karl Rahner (1904-1984), Roman Catholic, the triumph of Sabellianism in trinitarian theology is declared, not just over America, but over Europe, and, indeed, the whole of the world. This is testified to by the flowering of Oneness Pentecostalism within the 20th-century, which maintains a vibrant following of over 16.8 million adherents throughout the earth in 2020 (See author's essay: "Proto-Trinitarian" ; http://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2020/09/proto-trinitarian.html). Added to this witness are some of the top theologians of both Protestant and Catholic schools of thought who cast their trinitarianism in Sebellian and Modalistic terms, who, with one voice are calling for the rejection of the word "person" from the explanation of the distinctions within the Godhead.

As the Lord's church marches on into the 21st-century let us continue applying the pressure of the Scriptural truth of the Mighty God in Christ until the Societal Tritheistic Trinity is no more considered any ways orthodoxy.

Apostolically Speaking,

☩ Jerry L Hayes

If you enjoyed this essay, you would also like to read another essay by Bishop Hayes entitled "Proto-Trinitarian"
http://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2020/09/proto-trinitarian.html

Saturday, September 26, 2020

Proto-Trinitarian

Proto-Trinitarian

English is a living language. We are often reminded of this when we experience new words coming into use that one has never heard with the ear nor seen on the written page. Old words fall into disuse and often disappear altogether, while new words come to the fore and challenge us to embrace them and include them into our already crowded vocabulary.

Then there is this: the minefield of changing meanings of common words and phrases of a past generation. God forbid that one of my generation (baby boomer) call someone queer when we actually mean they are odd or strange acting—we are sure to be misunderstood. Since I am a biblical researcher and write mostly on theological matters, there are certain words that I must take great care to define just how they are being used. An example is the word “cult”. I may use the word “cult” as its primary and lexical meaning of “formal religious veneration: worship; a great devotion to a person, idea, or thing”, which is all positive when referencing Christianity and the worship of Jesus. However, the word has been so used in popular circles as to taint it altogether. Thus, a causal reader, who is unaccustomed to theological terminology is sure to misconstrue my meaning, or, at least, be confused.

During the last decade (2010-2020) I have noticed some new comers to the vocabulary of theology in the area of Godhead discussion. Two of these new kids on the block are the terms christophany and proto-trinitarian. I do not mean to imply that these words have been coined at some point during the last decade, but what I am observing is that they are just now surfacing as acceptable theological currency. Since I covered “christophany” in Godhead Theology (2015), I will only focus on “proto-trinitarian” in this writing.

Like “christophany” the term “porto-trinitarian” is so new to the theological landscape that it does not, as yet, appear in the general English dictionaries. Also, as with the term “christophany”, “proto-trinitarian” has been coined, in this writers considered opinion, as a reflexive response to pressure the Modalistic Monarchian (Oneness) theology has been applying to the trinitarian camp for the past century. Ergo, Modalism has proven that the God of the Old Testament is Jesus of the New Testament. As a result, the Pluralists have tweaked their position to say that the Father makes no appearance in the Old Testament at all; that all appearances of God in the Jewish scriptures are christophanies, not theophanies. Ergo, Modalists writers, in agreement with the scholarship coming from the intelligentsia of Christian schools of higher learning, have proven that the doctrine of the Trinity is not found within the New Testament, and that the Trinity was not the Godhead understanding of either the Lord’s apostles nor the Apostolic Fathers of the second century, and that a whole extra biblical vocabulary was coined to represent the evolving concept of a tri-personal deity. Thus, the Trinity is an evolved dogma that did not appear in its present form until the late fourth or early fifth century. With this piece of church history being indisputable, the Puralists’ camp has coined a new term with which to label those churchmen of the second, third, and fourth centuries who knew nothing of a Societal Trinity which has three separate and distinct rational persons in society. By “in society” I mean in personal relationship. Thus, enter the term “proto-trinitarian”.

The term “proto-trinitarian” can be confusing. What is meant by its use? That question may not be so easily answered and may depend on the one using it. The best we can do at this early stage of its use is to examine the term by way of its etymology.

Although the theological term “Trinity” has different meanings, depending on the one using it, most likely we can all agree that in relation to God the term “Trinity” means that God exists as three somethings — Terullian said “persons”; Augustine said, “three somewhats”; Anselm, “three I know not what”; Barth, “three ways of being” or “three modes”; Professor Moses Stuart said, “three distinctions”. Keeping a safe distance from tritheism we may safely affirm with Stuart and Barth that God exists as three modes or distinctions. We identify these modes/distinctions as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Thus, remaining safely within the bounds of the Shema (Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord: Deutronomy 6:4 KJV) we have identified a Trinity that we can accept. However, that acceptable Trinity is most likely not the Trinity embraced by those putting forward the term “proto-trinitarian”.

Continuing in our study of the etymology of our term “proto-trinitarian” we now look to the prefix “proto”. Primarily the term means original or primitive: first; anterior; relating to a precursor: ORIGIN. It arrives from the Greek: prōtos, ‘first’. What follows is the definition given in Webster’s New World College Dictionary, Fourth Edition, Copyright 2005: “1) First in time, original, primitive [protoplast] 2. first in importance, principal, chief [protonotary] 3 [P-] prehistoric or original: set of a people or language [Proto Germantic] 4 a) forming nouns on the way to becoming the (specified) thing or kind of person [proto-suburbia, a proto-terrorist] b) forming adjectives on the way to having the {specified) quality or relationship [a proto Cubist painting] 5 Chem. a) being the number of a series of compounds having the lowest proportion of the (specified) element or radical [protoxide] b) being the parent form of a (specified) substance.” Of the five definitions given, the first four seem to be applicable to our consideration in one form or another. The fifth may apply if one is generous with class definitions.

First, it is important to mention that by default the apostles of our Lord and, in fact, all the writers of the New Testament come under the label of “proto-trinitarian” by those who use the term as having legitimacy. This becomes important information when we understand that the term is employed to indicate that all those coming under its banner, though on the right path, had not yet arrived at the full truth of the Godhead. A true Christian must feel the sting, even the insult, at the insinuation that the apostles, the very ones who had their understanding to the Scriptures opened by divine fiat (Luke 24:45), did not know the truth of the Godhead.

At this point we will take a look at the various definitions and how they would be applied:

First in time, original, primitive [protoplast]: If this definition is intended, then the Godhead understanding of the first three centuries would be considered the “primitive” form of the finished dogma. This would be saying that the apostles, their surrogates, and the churchmen of the next two/three hundred years were the original Trinitarians, thou holding the dogma in its primitive form without any of the language (or what that language would imply) that would come along in later centuries.
First in importance, principal, chief [protonotary]: This can hardly be intended by those who coined the term, those who hold the Trinity in its finished form; because this definition would make the finished form of the Trinity (Societal Trinitarianism: i.e., the Athanasian Creed variety) a bastardization of the original, and, therefore, not worthy of adherence. This would, indeed, be the position of those, today, who continue to maintain the selfsame Godhead position as the Christians of the first three/four centuries. I.e., the Modalistic Monarchians.
[P-] prehistoric or original: set of a people or language [Proto Germantic]: This definition is much like the first, only here people groups and language groups are referenced. While definition #1 can be applied to the dogma, this definition #3 could apply to the people group holding said dogma.
Forming nouns on the way to becoming the (specified) thing or kind of person [proto-suburbia, a proto-terrorist] b) forming adjectives on the way to having the {specified) quality or relationship [a proto Cubist painting]: In all truthfulness this fourth definition permits the reader to comprehend what is actually intended by the epithet “proto-trinitarian”. This term is intended to reference a people and their dogma that are on their way to “becoming” the Trinity of later centuries—which is a Societal Trinitarianism which has separate and distinct rational persons, each possessing their own individual centers of intellect, will and volition, each interacting in personal relationships with each other.
Chem. a) being the number of a series of compounds having the lowest proportion of the (specified) element or radical [protoxide] b) being the parent form of a (specified) substance: Of the five definitions given, the first four seem to have some relation to our term under consideration, but this fifth definition can be disregarded as non-applicable. Unless the chemical qualities could somehow be transliterated and associated with the different personas of Father, Son and Holy Spirit which begin as modes but mutates along the way into rational persons. Tertullian actually attempts this transformation for his Economical Trinity in his treatise “Against Praseas” (See, Ante Nicene Fathers, Hendrickson Publishers, ISBN 978-1-56563-082-6, Vol. 3, Tertullian, Part Second, pages 597-627.)

Misnomer

There is a need, for those holding to a Societal Trinity, to have a bridge to the apostolic church of the first century. Their legitimacy depends on whether or not such a connection can be made. If this bridge cannot be established between Societal Trinitarianism of the fifth century onward and the apostolic church of the apostles, then all of Roman Catholicism (which includes Protestantism), Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy (to a lesser degree) must be considered a wholly different religion from the apostolic church. The Hebraic-Christology of the Hebrew prophets, of which Isaiah 9:6 and Micah 5:2 are examples, stands in stark contrast to the Logos-Christology of Plato, Philo, and Justin Martyr, which is embraced by modern Trinitarianism.

Since modern scholarship has established the absence of any form of a Societal Trinitarianism during the first three centuries of the Lord’s church, modern Trinitarianism attempts to bridge themselves to the apostolic church by labeling the apostles and the churchmen of the first three/four centuries as “proto-trinitarians”. This is a misnomer, however, in that there is nothing found within any writing of the Apostles or the Apostolic Church Fathers that comes anywhere close to the Trinitarian dogma of “Three In One”, as it presents itself in modern times—indeed, since the fifth century. (Even 1 John 5:7 [KJV], the Great Trinity Hope of finding itself in the Holy Scripture, proved to be a spurious text. And as for the only other text that lends itself to a Trinitarian understanding, Matthew 28:19: there are red flags all over it, as far as textual criticism is concerned.) Not even in the Creed of Nicæa (Creed of the 318) is there a hint of a relational Trinity with three rational persons.

In this view “proto-trinitarianism” would not be a proper epithet for the Godhead dogma of this period (first through the fourth centuries), but Monarchainism would be. This is what the majority of Christians of this time period actually called their dogma. Writing of this period of the Church, the Most Eminent Cardinal John Henry Newman of England (1801-1890) states: “Noetus was in Asia Minor, Praxeas taught in Rome, Sabellius in Africa. ... their doctrine prevailed among the common people, then and at an earlier date, to a very great extent, and that the true faith was hardly preached in the churches” (Essays and Sketches, Vol I, Primitive Christianity 5:2). By “the true faith” Cardinal Newman meant the dogma of the Trinity. Tertullian writes of the numerical superiority of the Monarchians in his time (AD 155-240), and the steadfastness of their position: “To be sure, plain people, not to call them ignorant and common – of whom the greater portion of believers is always comprised – in as much as the rule of faith withdraws them from the many gods of the heathen world to the one true God, shrink back from the economy” (the economical trinity) “they are constantly throwing out the accusation that we preach two gods and three gods... . We hold, they say, the monarchy” (Against Parxeas ch III). Supporting the testimony of Cardinal Newman and Tertullian is the witness of The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, which also declares that Monarchianism was in the majority in the 3rd and 4th centuries: “Monarchianism, identified the Father, Son and Spirit so completely that they were thought of only as different aspects or different moments in the life of the one Divine Person, called now Father, now Son, now Spirit, as His several activities came successively into view, almost succeeded in establishing itself in the 3rd century as the doctrine of the church at large.... In the early years of the 4th century, the Logos-Christology, in opposition to dominant Sabellian tendencies, ran to seed in what is known as Arianism....” (I.S.B.E., Heading “Trinity” section 22.)

Segueing off of The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia’s statement (“In the early years of the 4th century, the Logos-Christology, in opposition to dominant Sabellian tendencies, ran to seed in what is known as Arianism….” ) we are obliged to point out the following: The brand of Christianity that holds Societal Trinitarianism does not look to the Monarchians (“Noetus, Epigonus, Praxeas, Sabellius, etc.) as their forefathers in the Faith, but they look to men such as Hippolytus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Origen. These men are less than stellar when it comes to their doctrine concerning Christ. Hippolytus was the first anti-pope (in opposition to Calixtus, the legitimate Monarchian Bishop of Rome); Justin Martyr was a subordinationist who taught the Son of God to be a “second god” (Henry Chadwick “The Early Church” Grand Rapids: Eerdman’s, 1962, page 85.); Origen taught that the Son of God was the logos who, although eternal, was of a different substance than the Father; Tertullian taught that the Trinity was not eternal but came into existence sequentially (See Against Praxeas). His Godhead paradigm is called the Economic Trinity. One should ask: Why do the Roman Catholic and Eastern and Oriental Orthodox embrace suordinationalists such as Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Origen (Men who did not recognize the full deity of Christ and who would be placed outside of the Faith if they lived today.) as their church fathers? If the question was seriously asked and investigated the answer would be painfully clear: Their God (the Societal Trinity) comes into Christianity from the Greek logos philosophies, and the men mentioned were necessary steps to the finished Logos-Christological dogma. The route was Plato-Philo-Justin-Origen-Tertullian; the last mentioned gave to the world the first systematic theology of a Trinitarian dogma (Friedrich Loofs) based on the logos. It, further, should be pointed out that Tertullian was out of fellowship with the Orthodox and a member of an excommunicated group called Montanist at the time he wrote "Against Praxeas" (Tertulliam lamented the fact that Praxeas was received in fellowship by the Bishop of Rome and was successful in having Rome’s letter of fellowship recalled from the Montanist.); neither was Justin associated with the mainstream of Christianity of his time: In “Justin Martyr and Companions” Justin, though living in Rome for the second time and having a school there, confessed of not being knowledgeable of other Christians and their meeting places in Rome. It should be alarming to all Christians that the men modern Trinitarianism looks to as their headwater for Logos-Christology were not in fellowship with the Orthodox Christians of their time and would be excommunicated—to a man—by the very ones that sing their praises today.

In this climate there is no warrant to reclassify the doctrine of these centuries as in any way trinitarian. Any attempt to do so is seen as a means to artificially create a touchstone to the apostolic church. The orthodox of this age of the Church were Monarchians who believed in the Monarchy which saw Jesus and the Holy Spirit as self revelations of the Father. To label them as proto-trinitarians is a misnomer of the highest order.

The apostolic church, with the teaching of the Lord’s apostles of baptizing in the name of Jesus and the worship of the Monarchy, has always maintained a presence in the earth, though not always easily visible in the historical records of nations. The true apostolic church has had its existence alongside of the Church of Iniquity from the most earliest of times. Today, in the Year of Our Lord 2020, there are more than 116.8 million Modalistic Monarchains (Oneness Pentecostals) throughout the world, (According to the Pew Research Center, Pentecostals and Charismatic Christians numbered over 584 million or a quarter of the world's 2 billion Christians in 2011. According the the researchers of the Boston Globe, Oneness Pentecostals are just over 20% of that number. This data is nine years old at the time of the writing of this article and during this time Pentecostalism has been growing expeditiously in the Southern part of the globe.). To help put this number in some prospective, as of 2018 the world Jewish population was 14.6 million (DellaPergola, Sergio (2019), "World Jewish Population, 2018", in Dashefsky, Arnold; Sheskin, Ira M. (eds.), American Jewish Year Book 2018, American Jewish Year Book, 118, Springer International Publishing, pp. 361–449,).

Apostolically Speaking

☩ Jerry L Hayes

If you enjoyed this essay you would also like to read the essay entitled "New England Trinitarianism"
https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2020/10/new-england-trinitarianism.html

Wednesday, September 23, 2020

John 1:1 Revisited (pros ton theon)

πρὸς τὸν θεόν

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, …” —John 1:1

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: see 1 Corinthians 13:12), 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 Pluralists, working from the misconception that the Word (logos) is the second person of the Godhead, feel that the phrase in John 1:1 “with God” proves that the Word (logos) was another god-person with God the Father in the beginning. As we demonstrated above 1 John 1:2 disproves that assumption. Moreover, what follows is more evidence that the Greek preposition "pros" of John 1:1 is highly unlikely to have the meaning of "face to face" or "along side of", or "in the presence of": or any like meaning.

"Pros" is a Greek preposition that is used 723 (my personal count -- allow two points plus or minus for margin of error) times in the Greek New Testament, as listed in "The Englishman's Greek Concordance of the New Testament" by Geroge W. Wigram. The primary meaning of "pros" is to, or unto. Other rare usages of the word are: among, at, about, nigh, and for. Not counting John 1:1, since that is the text under examination, only 24 times out of 723 does "pros" translate to "with" in the sense of one thing being along side of , or in the presence of another thing. While "pros" does seem to, on rare occasions, have the meaning of "alone side of" or "in the presence of" that is most certainly not its primary meaning or use. In fact, in other New Testament texts where the exact same phrase ("pros ton theon”) is used, the idea of "along side of" or "in the presence" is far from the meaning. Two of those texts are Hebrews 2:17 and Hebrews 5:1. In these places "pros ton theon" is not translated "with God", but is understood, and indeed translated, as "pertains to God".

Hebrews 2:17, “Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.” πρὸς τὸν θεόν, “pros ton theon” pertaining to God
Hebrews 5:1, “For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins:” πρὸς τὸν θεόν, “pros ton theon” pertaining to God

The translation of John 1:1 πρὸς τὸν θεόν, “pros ton theon” as “with God,” instead of “pertaining to God,” demonstrates the bias of the translators.

Since the same phrase is used in Hebrews 2:17 and 5:1, as is used in John 1:1, and there (in both Hebrews’ texts) is translated “pertaining to God,” it cannot, therefore, be a conclusive forgone proof that “pros ton theon” means “with,” in the sense of one person being with another person. In point of fact, the evidence tends to lean heavily in favor of the Monarchians’ understanding of “πρὸς τὸν θεόν” (pros ton theon) meaning: “pertaining to God.” The Word, then, of John 1:1, pertained to God, as a man’s word pertains to himself.

The question is asked, What harm would it do to biblical doctrinal continuity to translate “pros ton theon” (as it appears in John 1:1) as the phrase is translated elsewhere in Scripture? The answer is, It does no harm, but aids very much the clarity of holy Scripture. The Word pertaining to God would be in harmony with Psalm 33:6 “By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.” God’s Word, then, pertains to God, as does His breath (Ps 33:6), His hand (Ezek 2:9), His arm (Isa 51:9) or ETERNAL LIFE: 1 John 1:2 (as we have seen above) informs us that Eternal Life was πρὸς τὸν πατέρα (pros ton patera) “with the Father.” Now, all concerned agree that “pros ton patera” means “pertains to the Father;” so, it is evident that “pros ton theon” of John 1:1 should be understood as meaning “pertains to God” or “pertaining to God.”

The task of Bible teachers is to interpret the Word of God in such a way that every part is in harmony. The Psalmist writes: “The sum of Your word is truth ...” (Ps 119:160 NASB). Therefore, John 1:1 must be interpreted in a way that will harmonize with Deuteronomy 32:39. The Pluralists will interpret John 1:1 to mean that the Word (Logos) was another person from God, and that this other person, that was with God, was also God. The fact is, Trinitarianism places another god-person with the Father in the beginning. Now, the problem that this presents is found in Deuteronomy 32:39, where the Father states, “See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me... .” This statement, of Father God, that there was no other god-person with Him, makes null and void the Trinitarian’s insistence that the Word was another god- person with God the Father in the beginning. Since there are no opposing truths in the Bible, John 1:1 and Deuteronomy 32:39 cannot stand in tension, the one to the other, but must be harmonized by rightly dividing the Word of God (II Timothy 2:15). When God’s word is rightly divided, it becomes clear that the word “with,” as found in John 1:1, does not indicate another person from God. We know this, because 1 John 1:2 states that Eternal Life is “with” God. 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.” We do not understand Eternal Life to be another person from God because Eternal Life is said to be with God. No, we understand Eternal Life to be an attribute of God, that pertains to God. In the book of Job 12:16, Strength and Wisdom are said to be with God, “With him is strength and wisdom ... .” We do not understand Strength and Wisdom to be other god-persons from God the Father, because Strength and Wisdom are said to be with God. No, we understand Strength and Wisdom to be attributes of God, that pertain to God. The Word is no more a person because it is said to be with God than are Strength, Wisdom or Eternal Life!

What would mean “Face to Face”?

At the very beginning of this essay we introduced 1 Corinthians 13:12 as a place (the only place) where "pros" is associated with the phrase "face to face".

βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι' ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον: ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

But even there "pros" is not connecting one rational person with another rational person, as the Pluralists attempt to make "pros" do, in John 1:1. In the Corinthians text Paul's analogy is a mirror as a means to know and understand oneself. In the Apostle's time mirrors were notoriously unclear. (Darkly: "Literally, in an enigma. Old word from ainissomai, to express obscurely. This is true of all ancient mirrors. Here only in N.T., but often in LXX:" A. T. Robertson). He employs the analogy of a mirror to illustrate that in this life we cannot know ourselves, but when "that which is perfect is come" (the perfect age) we will understand (know) ourselves a clearly as we are understood (known) by God Himself (e.g., "we will know even as we are known"; this references the clarity with which God knows His children.). The Greek phrase Paul uses to say this is "πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον:” -"prosōpon pros prosōpon", literally, "face to face". But, since his analogy is a mirror, it is not another's face that is in view here but one's own face.

For the Pluralists to have an argument from John 1:1-3, the Greek should read para ton theon, but it does not. Para’ primary meaning is "face to face", or "alongside of". It appears in the Greek New Testament about 210 times with the primary meaning of "alongside of", or "in the presence of", or "face to face" when persons are referenced. Clear examples of "para" are found in the following passages:

Matthew 22:25 “Now there were with (para) us seven brethren... .” “ἦσαν δὲ παρ’ ἡμῖν ἑπτὰ ἀδελφοί: ...”
John 14:17 “... for he dwelleth with (para) you, and shall be in
you.” “... ὅτι παρ’ ὑμῖν μένει καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν ἔσται.”
John 14:25 “These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with (para) you.” “Ταῦτα λελάληκα ὑμῖν παρ’ ὑμῖν μένων:”

Conclusion

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 John 1:1 is juxtaposed with 1 John 1:2, Hebrews 2:17 and 5:1. 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.”

Apostolically Speaking

☩☩ Jerry Hayes

Read other essays from the Bishop on the subject of the Godhead:

"The Dual Nature Of Jesus Of Nazareth"

https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-dual-nature-of-jesus-of-nazareth.html

"The Worlds, Made By The Son"

https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-worlds-made-by-son.html

"Hebrews 13:8 vs 1 Corinthians 15:28"

https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2012/12/hebrews-138-vs-1-corinthians-1528.html

"Glory With The Father"

https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2012/12/glory-with-father.html

"Philippians 2:6-8, Answering Trinitarian Objections"