We have all seen the sign. Sometimes it is along a highway. Or sometimes we see it painted on a rock surface along the road. Certainly, if you have seen a baseball game, there it is in the stands—right behind home plate. And if you have watched an American football game, there it is, in the background, when a field goal is attempted.
What am I referring to? The verse that is perhaps the most widely displayed verse from the entire Bible—John 3:16. “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.”
Yet, for all the advertisement of this verse, and even though it is perhaps the most memorized verse of the entire Bible, how many people really know what it means?
Many professing Christians think they know, but mostly what they understand about this special verse is simply that God loves us and Christ died for us. Of course, that much is true, and should be a great source of inspiration and encouragement. However, there is much more meaning behind this “golden verse” than most people—even most professing Christians—understand. For example, who and what is God? And who is the Son? Why did God give His Son for us? And what does it mean to perish or to have everlasting life? These are all very important questions, which could be answered at length in several articles. For now, consider just the first two words of that verse: “For God…”
The Greek Version
It is easy to pass over these opening words without challenging our thinking about who God is. Sadly, most people do not know the true God—not even most professing Christians! Many assume without ever proving it that the God of the Bible is a Trinity—three persons (hypostases) in one—but where did this concept come from? Eerdman’s highly regarded Handbook to the History of Christianity tells us that: “In Against Praxeas, Tertullian developed the doctrine of the Trinity” (p. 111).
But who was Tertullian, and from where did he get his ideas about God? Tertullian was born around 160AD and “received the typical education of the late second century.… But his well-known question, ‘What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?’ expressed a rejection of philosophy that was not true of his own work, since he demonstrated how pagan intellectual achievements could be made to serve Christianity” (ibid.).
Clearly, Tertullian and others were products of their educations which were heavily influenced by the philosophical and pagan ideas of their time and location. In contrasting the thinking of various church scholars of the late second century ad, Eerdman compares the two primary North African cities that influenced such men as Tertullian and Origen:
“The differences between the orthodoxy of, for instance Alexandria and Carthage, arose out of the different ways of thinking of their theologians. Tertullian used the language and thought-forms of law, rhetoric and Stoicism—and Montanism; Clement and Origen used the concepts of Platonism and Pythagoreanism—and Christian Gnosticism. Origen, and even Tertullian, may at times have been so heavily influenced by them as to cross the narrow frontier that separates orthodoxy from heresy” (ibid., p. 109).
These theologians read the Bible through the lenses of their non-biblical biases, and one of the great debates of the day involved the nature of God:
“Tertullian gave the Latin West a theological vocabulary that has hardly yet been bettered. He drew upon Stoicism and Roman law for his language, and taught that God was one being (substantia) but three concrete individuals (personae).…
Origen’s teaching dominated the East in the third and fourth centuries.… he insisted that Father, Son and Spirit were three eternally distinct persons (Greek hypostaseis–roughly the same as personae).… Origen’s ideas were deeply coloured by Middle Platonism, which graded existence into different levels” (ibid., p. 112).
In addition to the problem of pre-conceived perceptions about God based on heathen influences, it is important to understand the arrogance that accompanied these prejudices. For example, the Bible affirms that the apostles were part of the foundation of the Church: “having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone” (Ephesians 2:20). Further, Jude—who was the brother of Christ—admonishes us to return to the faith that the apostles once delivered (Jude 3). There was no sense of a progressive theology with Jude, but not so with Origen who came along much later. Origen felt quite superior to the Apostles Peter, John, James and the other men Christ had personally chosen: “The speculative Origen not only includes paragraphs on the soul, free will, devils and angels, but also claims that the apostles left much else ‘to be investigated by those who were fit for the higher gifts of the Spirit’” (ibid., p. 115).
How many people realize the questionable sources from which their ideas arise? And how many realize that the concept of the Trinity is just as controversial today as it ever was? Any student of the subject realizes that there are different schools of thought about the nature of the Trinity. Without belaboring the point, notice these headings from the online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy regarding the Trinity: “Modalism, Latin Trinitarianism, (Divine Life Stream Theories, Relative Identity Theories), Social Trinitarianism (Functional Monotheist Social Trinitarianism, Trinity Monotheist Social Trinitarianism, Perichoretic Monotheist Social Trinitarianism, Group Mind Monotheist Social Trinitarianism, Mysterianism), Negative Mysterianism and Positive Mysterianism.” You obviously have plenty of company if you do not understand the Trinity!
The Biblical Version
How refreshing are Jude’s words when we simply go back to the Bible and read what it says about the nature of God. “Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3).
The first place the term “God” is used in scripture (Genesis 1:1), it comes from the Hebrew Elohim, a plural word. The plurality of God is affirmed in verse 26: “Then God [Elohim] said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness.… ’” The terms Us and Our indicate more than one member in the God family, but how can one reconcile humankind being made in the image and likeness of a Trinitarian god? Think about it. If God is a Trinity, with all that this means and implies, how could we human beings truthfully be said to have been made in His image and likeness?
The Apostle John gives us great insight into the nature of God: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God” (John 1:1–2). Setting aside any preconceived notions, the clarity with which John writes is refreshing. We see here two beings: one is called God and the other the Word. Yet the Word is also called God and He was in the beginning with God. A simple analogy is that of a man and a woman who are married. Both are named Smith. The husband is Smith and the wife is Smith. Interestingly, God tells us that the man and his wife are to be one (Genesis 2:24, Matthew 19:5).
John further reveals that the one known as the Word is He who became known as Jesus the Christ (John 1:14), and it was through Jesus that everything was made that was made (John 1:3, Colossians 1:15–18). There is no mention here of the Holy Spirit being a part of this family or of being a separate personae or hypostasis. In fact, if the Holy Spirit were a person, we would be confronted with several problems.
Matthew 1:20 tells us: “But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, ‘Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife,for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.’” Now, consider—if the Holy Spirit is a person, then who would Jesus’ Father be? The Holy Spirit would be Jesus’ Father! But we know this cannot be. Thus, we can see the fallacy of the Trinity teaching. Of course, when Trinity-believers are confronted with this passage, one will often hear the response, “You don’t understand the doctrine of the Trinity.” But that is okay, because neither does the person who responds this way. The doctrine of the Trinity is known as a strict mystery, which is defined as: “A revealed truth that so far exceeds the capacity of a created intellect that its full meaning cannot be comprehended except by God alone. Yet strict mysteries, such as the Trinity and the Incarnation, can be partially understood, with varying degrees of insight, depending on God’s grace or the believer’s own effort and experience” (CatholicReference.net).
Another problem for Trinitarians is found in the language Paul and Peter used in Scripture to greet their readers. Near the beginning in twelve of Paul’s epistles—always within the first seven verses—we find the following: “Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” (Romans 1:7; Ephesians 1:3). Why is there no mention of the Holy Spirit? Peter writes a similar greeting: “Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord” (2 Peter 1:2).
The Lord Is One!
Most Jews look to Deuteronomy 6:4 as the most important verse in the Bible: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one!” Jesus, too, confirms the oneness of God: “I and My Father are one” (John 10:30). So, this brings us to the question, “In what way is God ‘one’?”
Origen defined God’s oneness through the lens of Greek philosophical concepts. “The issue of the Trinity (a later term) became an unavoidable problem. It was particularly difficult to resolve because of the influence of the Greek concept of unity, as perfect oneness, excluding any internal distinctions (Eerdman’s, p. 110). But is this the biblical definition of oneness?
Thankfully, we are not left in doubt concerning this question. Jesus Christ answers this most important question for us and it has no relationship to “the Greek concept of unity, as perfect oneness, excluding any internal distinctions.” On the night in which He was betrayed, Jesus was on earth and He prayed to His Father in heaven. He prayed not only for His disciples of that day, but also for those who would believe through them. In effect, He was also praying for us. Note these clear words about oneness found in this prayer: “I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; that they all may be one” (John 17:20–21). So we see that He wants us all to be one, but in what way? So “that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one; I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one” (vv. 21–23).
Could anything be more plain? The oneness God is describing is not the Trinitarian concept of a three-in-one closed godhead. We human members of God’s family are to be one, “just as” God the Father and Jesus Christ are one. Now we all know that true Christians today are not absorbed into a single entity with no internal distinctions. We all have separate physical bodies. We are not in the same space at the same time. In fact, we are not normally all in the same room, city, or country at the same time. Yet, Jesus prayed that we would all be one, just as He and the Father are one! Is it not evident that this biblical oneness is referring to being at one in mind and purpose?
Note also that human beings are to “be one in Us [God the Father and Jesus Christ]” (v. 21). This oneness certainly does not fit with the idea of a closed godhead, an idea the Trinity doctrine requires. On the contrary, we are called to be a part of the very God family. (For further information, if you have not already done so, please request our booklet, Your Ultimate Destiny, by contacting the Regional Office nearest you, listed on page 23 of this issue, or going online to TomorrowsWorld.org to read the booklet).
Sincere Questions
Many professing Christians simply assume that the Bible shows the Holy Spirit as a person. There are several passages that might on the surface appear that way, so let us take a closer look at one of them. John 14:16–17 tells us: “And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever—the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him, but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you.” The word translated “Helper” (“Comforter” in the KJV) comes from the Greek parakletos. As is the case in numerous languages, nouns in Greek are gendered—they are usually either masculine or feminine, but in some cases they can be neuter. The gender of a noun does not impute actual gender to the object—many nouns carry a masculine or feminine gender that has nothing to do with the actual gender of the object. Is a table male or female simply because of its noun and pronoun? Of course not! In this case, the noun parakletos is masculine, so it requires a masculine pronoun. Most English translations therefore translate the pronoun as the masculine “He”—but “It” would be both grammatically and doctrinally acceptable, as it is rendered in some Bible translations such as the French Geneva Bible. However, even if one translates “He” as “It,” this does not remove the problem entirely. Even with “It,” some readers are tempted to construe the passage as if it is talking about a person. The answer is found in understanding a literary term called personification. The Oxford University Press online dictionary defines personify this way: to “attribute a personal nature or human characteristics to [something non-human].” Now, does the Bible ever do this? The answer is an emphatic, yes! See Proverbs 8:1–3: “Does not wisdom cry out, and understanding lift up her voice? She takes her stand on the top of the high hill, beside the way, where the paths meet. She cries out by the gates, at the entry of the city, at the entrance of the doors.… ” Chapter 9 of Proverbs also personifies wisdom: “Wisdom has built her house, she has hewn out her seven pillars; she has slaughtered her meat, she has mixed her wine, she has also furnished her table” (vv. 1–2).
Now, does anyone think wisdom is a person? Of course not, unless “Wisdom” is someone’s name. Does personification by itself prove that the Holy Spirit is not a person? Perhaps not if that were the only reason for such belief, but there are many other reasons not to ascribe personhood to the Holy Spirit. As we have already seen, if the Holy Spirit were a person, it would be the Father of Jesus; and Paul and Peter would have been very insensitive in leaving that person out of their greetings to the various groups of Christians to whom they wrote. Additionally, we must note that the Holy Spirit is seen as being poured out (Acts 10:45) and as the power of God (Luke 1:35; Romans 15:13). It is also described metaphorically as wind (Acts 2:2; John 20:22) and water (John 7:37–39).
When Jesus said He would send the Helper (John 14:16–17), He finished the thought in the next verse: “I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.” The Holy Spirit is the power that flows out from God the Father and Jesus Christ. It is the agent through which Christ would come to them, and through which Paul could proclaim: “Christ lives in me” (Galatians 2:20). It is the Spirit of Truth that will guide us into truth (John 16:13–14), just as wisdom instructs us (Proverbs 9:4–6).
Yes indeed. God—the one and only true God of the Bible—did so love the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life! And He gave Christians His Spirit—not a person, but rather the very power of God Himself—through which they could live His way in preparation for that everlasting life to come.