Trinities

In this episode I discuss the gospel according to John with the author of a unique commentary on it, one which focuses on the rhetoric and arguments which feature so prominently in the book.

In this first part of our conversation we discuss dating, authorship, why the book is so different from Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the popular thesis that christology developed in a "high" direction over the course of the second half of the first Christian century, the danger of anachronistic interpretations, attempts to find "the deity of Christ" in the first three gospels, and what I call "the fulfillment fallacy" (although I don't call it that here).

Links for this episode:

This episode is an extended conversation with Bill Schlegel, host of the One God Report podcast.

Hosted by our friend Sam Adams for his YouTube channel Transfigured, we have a friendly argument about whether "the beginning" mentioned in John 1:1 is supposed to be the time of the Genesis creation or the time of God's "new creation" through Jesus, the start of the new Christian era. Another question is: is "the Word" here the man Jesus, or is it something like God's wisdom?

For Bill, the whole Prologue is about the man Jesus's era. As I read it, the account starts with the time of creation and then tells a story that culminates in God's word living among us in the Messiah Jesus.

Are you persuaded by Bill's case? By mine? Why or why not?

Links for this episode:

In this presentation I ask what the author means by saying in John 1:1 that "the Word was God." Is this the same god as the one mentioned before ("the Word was with God") or is it a different god? And also, is this "Word" supposed to be the same self as the man Jesus?

It seems that Christian theologians c. 150-250 A.D. disagreed on these questions! As I explain here, there are four options for reading this opening to the fourth gospel - these seem to correspond with the streams of mainstream catholic theologies of the late 100s and early 200s.

I explain why, given the scriptural background to this gospel, only one of those four rightly interpreted this famous Prologue.

Because my PowerPoints will help you to follow this presentation, I recommend the YouTube screencast version of this episode here:

Links for this episode:

In this episode I discuss "Socinian"-type readings of John 1 with Carlos from Restoration Fellowship.

First, I explain the common anachronistic misreading of this passage, and then the "Socinian" rival interpretation.

I then lodge several objections against this interpretation.

Along the way we discuss Socinus, the Racovian Catechism, the evolution of my own views, why I don't believe in Jesus's pre-existence, problems with two-natures speculations about Jesus, and a textual problem in John 1:13.

Links for this episode:

Big news! I can announce today that I have received a new letter from the Lord Jesus. An angel who said his name was "Boloni" appeared to me and showed me where the golden plates were buried. (I am not at liberty to disclose this location.)

I thought this was a most unusual method of delivery, especially as the soil was fresh; the plates had just been buried. You see, this is no ancient composition written in Greek or Aramaic or Reformed Egyptian. Evidently, in the intervening period, the Lord Jesus has learned English. And it’s clear that he has continued to be attentive to our theological situation.

Naturally, I was only allowed to borrow the golden

As I read and re-read this epistle I realized that the Lord was continually referring to or quoting the New Testament, so I added a number of footnotes, mostly for scriptural citations. I was quite surprised to see that Jesus always quotes the NRSV. Sorry, ESV and NIV – evidently this is the new Authorized Version.

In any case, it seems to me that this letter contains an important message for our day. Jesus forcefully addresses some widespread confusions about who he is, calling Christians back to an apostolic christology.

You can download and print my transcription here.

Links for this episode:

In this episode you'll hear interpretations of John 1 by unitarian minister and educator Dr. Lant Carpenter (1780-1840, pictured here) and minister Stephen Nye (1648-1719).

I then explain some concerns I have about the "Socinian" sort of interpretation of the prologue to John, which ends up in a discussion of how John 1 relates to 1 John 1:1-4. We'll hear the translation of this latter passage in the Improved Version of the New Testament which we learned about in the previous episode. Those who favor this sort of interpretation of John 1 usually think that a consideration of 1 John 1:1-4 helps their case. But I explain why I don't think it does.

Be sure to listen all the way to the end of this episode to hear about something new from the UCA.

Links for this episode:

In this episode we'll explore the sort of interpretation of John 1 where "the beginning" in question was in the first century, and on which "the Word" is the man Jesus Christ.

Pioneered by the radical reformation Protestants known as the Polish Socinians, this sort of interpretation was adopted in the 17th-19th centuries by some English-speaking unitarian Christians.

We'll hear the translation and exposition of the prologue to John in the 1817 4th ed. of what is basically a unitarian "Study Bible" edition of the New Testament.

We'll also hear some discussion of John 1 from the 1680 version of the famous Racovian Catechism, as translated into English by Thomas Rees in 1818. These two sources are perhaps the most famous expositions of this sort of Jesus-centered approach to John 1.

Are you convinced? Why or why not?

Links for this episode:

This is the first in a series of podcasts dealing with how to interpret John 1:1-18. This famous Prologue to John's gospel is unique in the New Testament. It is routinely read in light of Nicene-controvery-era concerns: the eternality and full deity of Christ, a multi-personal God, the pre-human Jesus as "involved in" the Genesis creation, the "incarnation" of the eternal Logos, wherein a divine nature gains a "complete human nature, rational soul and body." Part of the interest of this passage stems from the fact that such things are not clearly taught in most of the rest of the New Testament; hence, this passage is viewed as a gold mine for trinitarian and "high christology" purposes.

But according to my guest in this new interview, Christadelphian independent scholar Dr. Andrew Perry, common interpretations of this passage are off track. In his view, yes, "the Word" is Jesus, but it is the man Jesus, not an alleged pre-human Son. And "the beginning" mentioned is the beginning of Jesus's earthly ministry, not the time of the Genesis creation, although the author does clearly allude to the Genesis creation. In Dr. Perry's view, Jesus is the second "God" mentioned in John 1:1, but here and in John 20:28 Jesus should be understand as the "God" over the new creation which God accomplished through him. (James 1:18)

Some have referred to this general type of interpretation of John 1 as "Socinian," as those early modern unitarian Christians did develop and defend such interpretations. But as you'll hear, Dr. Perry has his own take on several elements of this famous text. Among other things, he holds that there's a reference to Jesus's baptism here, as well as typological references to the Old Testament "Word of Yahweh" and to Abraham's son Isaac.

Are you convinced that Dr. Perry has drawn out the author's meaning?

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it.

There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness to testify to the light, so that all might believe through him. He himself was not the light, but he came to testify to the light. The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world.

He was in the world, and the world came into being through him; yet the world did not know him. He came to what was his own, and his own people did not accept him. But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God, who were born, not of blood or of the will of the flesh or of the will of man, but of God.

And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth. (John testified to him and cried out, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks ahead of me because he was before me.’”) From his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. The law indeed was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son (or: It is an only Son, God, or It is the only Son) who is close to the Father’s heart, who has made him known.

John 1:1-18, New Revised Standard Version

Links for this episode:

In this episode I interact with a short video by Dr. William Lane Craig, and with a critique of it by Dr. James White.

You'll learn what they have in common as apologists, as well as what separates them. You'll hear Dr. White distinguish between two things which might be meant by calling the Trinity "essential."

I explain why in my view "the Trinity" isn't essential in either sense.

I also explain why White's work is perennially popular with the laity, and also why scholars investigating the meaning and justification for "the Trinity" always ignore it.

Who do you most agree with on this topic: Dr. Craig, Dr. White, or me?

Links for this episode:

In this final part of his follow-up podcast pastor Sean Cole argues that in the New Testament the Son and the Spirit of God are as divine as is the Father. In his view the New Testament rather obviously implies that the one God is the Trinity.

About the Son, he argues that in various passages he is called "God over all," "our Great God and Savior," and "the true God."

I respond, critically weighing the evidence.

About the Holy Spirit, he argues from John 14, in which God's spirit is spoken of in personal terms, as a "he" and a "Helper."

Does all of this, including what he argued in the previous episode, amount to a strong case that New Testament theology is trinitarian and not unitarian? What is your evaluation?

Links for this episode: