This Kindle book, And the Word was a god: Conversations on the Most Disputed Text in the New Testament - John 1:1 is available on Amazon by clicking here
From: The “Proper Deity of the Word” 1834 (Page 19) by John Scott Porter
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." This is a text on which our Trinitarian brethren rely with peculiar confidence. Yet, in my mind, it does not clearly establish their point. And, if it does not do this, clearly and unequivocally; if, after having carefully examined it, a doubt exists in the mind, NOT PROVEN must be the verdict of any upright judge. Let us examine the text. It asserts that “the Word was God.". Now, I admit, that our Saviour is here designated as “the Word;" and the Word, God. In short, I admit that our Saviour is here styled God; but I deny, that the Evangelist, in giving him this title, could possibly have meant to lay down the doctrine of his Proper Deity. For, look to the language he employs. He says, indeed, that the Word was God, but, when he also says, the Word was with God, does he not clearly show, that he speaks of Christ in an inferior sense? If our Saviour was Proper Deity, how could John say of him, he was with God? that he was with himself? Would not this be perfect nonsense? If, then, it would be absurd to say that God was with himself, does it not follow, that he must have been with a separate and distinct Being; and, if we admit this separate and distinct Being to be infinite, does it not follow, that there were, in the beginning, two infinite Beings, dwelling together; or, in other words, that there were more Gods than one? This never could have been the Evangelist's meaning. The interpretation of our Trinitarian brethren goes too far, even for themselves. It would justify Polytheism.
Surely those who teach the Proper Deity of our Lord, and try to prove it by the text under consideration, are bound, if not in equity, at least in charity, to tell us, clearly, what their meaning is, when they use the words, and furnish the world with an intelligible paraphrase of this important passage.
We think that our interpretation of the introduction of John, is the only one that is intelligible to the reader, consistent with the general tenor of Scripture, or honourable to the Supreme Being. We say that Christ was with God,” by the close affinity which subsisted between Him and the Father. He had no feeling, no purpose at variance with his will. In this sense, he was one with him.
Again, our Saviour might be called God, in perfect consistency with Hebrew usage, and Hebrew phraseology. If those to whom the Word of God came, are called Gods, in Scripture, well might He receive the same title, “who was the brightness of the Father's glory, and the express image of his person;" “and in whom, was the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” That this interpretation of John, 1:1, is as Scriptural, as it is simple and intelligible, may be seen by consulting many portions of holy writ. See Genesis, 3:5,“In the day, that ye eat thereof, ye shall be as Gods,” i. e., as angels. See also, Judges, 13:22,-"Then Manoah said unto his wife, we shall surely die, because we have seen God.” Here, the epithet God is applied without any circumlocution to one, who was evidently nothing more than God's messenger. Again, this title is applied to mere men; as Exodus, 7:1,-"See I have made thee a God to Pharaoh, &c." And, again, Ist Samuel, 28:13,-“And the woman said unto Saul, I saw Gods ascending out of the earth: and he said unto her, what form is he of? And she said unto him, an old man cometh up, and he is covered with a mantle. This passage is interesting in more ways than one; it not only illustrates the Hebrew custom of applying the epithet God, to a mere mortal; but it also proves, that this people often made a plural noun, to express a singular meaning. The woman said, she saw Gods ascending out of the earth, and the monarch asked, what form is HE of not, what form are THEY of, as would have been said, had plurality of persons been implied by the woman, or understood by the King.
It would be tiresome to recount all the passages in which the title God is ascribed to persons vastly beneath that rank which every Unitarian awards his Saviour. Suffice it to state, that the title is ascribed to the Judges of Israel; to other eminent men; to angels, and even to false deities. O, but our opponents answer, “Although we admit the truth of what you affirm, we hold, that in all the places where such titles are given, the rank of the individuals can be easily learned from the collateral passages.” This is, undoubtedly, true. The inferiority of such beings, to God, may be easily learned by such a comparison. And, by the same steps we affirm, may our Lord's inferiority to the Father be ascertained. As a proof of this, look to the 14th verse of the chapter before us. We there read, “that 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.” Here (then) the passage explains itself. Here it demonstrates, in the most unequivocal manner, the inferiority of our blessed Lord to the Father. "The Word became flesh," not
the Father. God could not become flesh, for he is a Spirit. He might, indeed, (as the orthodox hold) unite himself with flesh and blood; and, if it were so stated in Scripture, we could not argue against the doctrine. But the Evangelist does not even say that the Divine Word attached itself to the man Christ, so as to exhibit, at once, two perfect natures. There is no such union even hinted at. “The Word, itself,” he affirms, “became flesh, and dwelt amongst us, and we beheld his glory.” What glory? The glory as of the ONLY BEGOTTEN Son of God.” If this be not broad, plain, on equivocal, downright Unitarianism, language has no meaning.
No comments:
Post a Comment