Unitarian Struggle to Assimilate John’s Prologue

John’s prologue (John 1:1-18) has long been one of the primary passages in support of God’s Son having a preexistence before His human birth and an active role in the creation of all things. The connection between the opening statement of Genesis and the opening statement of John’s Gospel (“In the beginning”) has not been challenged in Christian history until rather recently. Certain modern Biblical Unitarians, finding seriously problematic the usual explanation of John’s prologue by men like Anthony Buzzard, have developed an entirely new interpretation which has led to internal debate among Biblical Unitarians who deny any preexistence for the Son of God.

Biblical Unitarians such as Anthony Buzzard have long held that the “Word” (Logos) in John’s prologue is not a Person (the Son of God) but was an abstract “Plan” in the mind of God. But the idea that the “Word” is merely a “plan,” merely an idea, an abstract concept which has no real concrete existence, goes nowhere when engaging Trinitarians for at least three reasons:
1. John’s statement that “the Word was God” defines what the “Word” is – “God,” which is both a concrete (not abstract) noun, and a personal noun (always referring to a specific person).
2. The opening statement of John’s first epistle refers to the “Word” as something that the Apostles heard, saw, and handled – Jesus.
3. In Revelation 19:13 John wrote about Jesus, “His name is called the Word of God,” making “Word” a name of a Person rather than an abstract thing like a Plan.
All of these things require that the “Word” in John’s prologue must refer to both something concrete which is a Person with the name “Word.” This illustrates the fatal flaw in Mr. Buzzard’s interpretation when he insists that the lexical meaning of the term “word” here defines what John meant rather than these other considerations of the context. Mr. Buzzard’s approach would be like claiming that the entity called “Peter” (“Petros” which means “stone”) is not really a person in the Gospels but was a literal rock.

Bill Schlegel and a few other Biblical Unitarians have come around to acknowledging the “elephant in the room,” and have conceded that “the Word” in John’s prologue must refer to Jesus. But since John stated plainly that everything that exists originated “through Him” (the Word), these Neo-Biblical Unitarians are forced to reinterpret the clauses “in the beginning” and “all things.” They now claim that these clauses refer to “the beginning” of Jesus’ ministry and that “all things” which originated “through Him” are limited to the things of the “new creation” which God accomplishes through Jesus as Man, that is all things related to God’s plan to restore and reconcile all things to Himself.

There are at least as many serious problems with Mr. Schlegel’s approach as there are with Mr. Buzzard’s interpretation. One significant problem occurs in John’s statement, “Everything originated through Him, and without Him nothing originated.” The underlined words are aorist indicative verbs which describes a single historical event in the past. If “all things” refers to the renewed creation rather than the original creation, then everything related to the restoration of creation has already been accomplished. The passing away of the old order and the arrival of the New Heavens and New Earth already occurred. Additionally, verse 10 says “He was in the world, and the world through Him originated, yet the world did not know Him.” If this is the origin of the new creation, then the new “world” is already here, which is what Mr. Schlegel claims. Jesus came into that new “world,” but the new (restored) world rejected Him.

Another problem for Mr. Schlegel is verse 14 where John wrote “the Word became flesh.” This describes an ontological transformation of one thing to a different thing. Therefore the “Word” was not “flesh” before this transformation. The verb “became” is the same verb used in Matthew 4:3 in the statement “stones become bread” and in John 2:9 “water became wine.” These illustrate a total transformation in ontological nature, one concrete thing being completely transformed in essence into a different concrete thing. Thus, if the “Word” in John 1:1-3 refers to Jesus, then this statement absolutely requires a preexistence for Jesus when He was not “flesh.” Incidentally, John 1:14 is equally problematic for Mr. Buzzard’s interpretation. Since the other two examples above, “stones become bread,” and “water became wine” require that the transformation is from one concrete thing to another concrete thing, then the “Word” which “became flesh” must also be a concrete noun. It cannot be an abstract noun (like “Plan) which has no real existence but is only imaginary “became” a concrete thing like “flesh.”

The straight-forward reading of John’s prologue indicates that the one who became flesh in v. 14 was present with God at the beginning of creation week, that God created all things through Him. This simple reading, which Unitarians strenuously try to avoid, becomes extremely obvious when one looks at Moses’ and John’s accounts side by side in the Greek.[1]  

Genesis 1 (LXX)

1. Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν

    In beginning, made the God the heavens and the earth

3. καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεός γενηθήτω φῶς καὶ ἐγένετο φῶς

   And said the God, cause light to become, and light originated

Throughout the creation account in the LXX, when God said, “cause ______ to become” (let there be {3rd person imperative}) the text then adds, “and ________  ἐγένετο (originated)” or “and ἐγένετο (originated) thus.”[2] Let’s compare this to John’s prologue, where both accounts use the same critical Greek words:

John 1 (NA28)

1. Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος

    In beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and God was the Logos.

2. Οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν.

    This one was in beginning with the God.

3. πάντα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν.

   Everything through Him originated, and without him originated not one thing.

10. ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἦν, καὶ ὁ κόσμος δι᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ ὁ κόσμος αὐτὸν οὐκ ἔγνω.

   In the world He was, and the world through Him originated, and the world Him not knew.

Notice that exactly the same language – that certain things through Him originated (δι᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο) – is found in verse 10 and in verse 3. In verse 3, in the statement “all things through Him originated,“ the pronoun “Him” refers to Logos. In verse 10, in the statement, “and the world through Him originated,” the pronoun “Him” refers to Jesus, the one who came unto His own, was rejected, but those who believe on Him become children of God. Thus Logos in verses 1-3 is clearly the Son in verses 10-12. Any fair assessment of John’s prologue, when compared to Moses’ creation account (especially in the LXX), must acknowledge that John’s intent was to place the one he called “Logos” (Word) as not only being “with God” in the beginning of the original creation, but God’s personal Agent through whom[3] He created everything. Both accounts begin with precisely the same words in Greek, Ἐν ἀρχῇ (In beginning). Moses explained that each thing ἐγένετο (originated) immediately after God gave a command, “cause _____ to become.” Yes, these are third person imperatives, commands, which everywhere else in Scripture refer to someone else, expecting them to act in response. The natural expectation of readers of Moses’ creation account should be that someone else was expected to carry out these commands. According to Moses, when God gave the command, that thing is said to have ἐγένετο (originated), seemingly spontaneously without naming an intermediary or agent. John built on Moses’ account by claiming that everything that Moses said “originated” ἐγένετο did not do so spontaneously, but rather ἐγένετο (originated) δι᾽ αὐτοῦ (through Him – Logos). Thus John specifically named God’s Agent in creation which Moses only hinted at by quoting God’s direct commands, “cause _________ to originate” (usually translated “let there be ______”) and then by use of the plural, “Let Us make man in our image and after our likeness.” John’s use of “Logos” in relation to the creation was no doubt borrowed from the following Psalm:

Psalm 33:6 (LXX) τῷ λόγῳ τοῦ κυρίου οἱ οὐρανοὶ ἐστερεώθησαν καὶ τῷ πνεύματι τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ πᾶσα ἡ δύναμις αὐτῶν

Literally: “With the Logos of the Lord the heavens were made, and with the Spirit of the mouth of Him all their host”

Genesis 2 states that “the Spirit [or breath] of God was hovering over the face of the waters” (ESV) as though it was in some sense distinct from God. The above Psalm, by using the typical poetic style of a parallelism, equates “the Logos” with “the Spirit of His mouth” which was hovering over the primordial waters before anything was formed from the raw material. By combining what Moses said with what was stated in this Psalm, John identified the “Logos” (Word) with the “Spirit (Breath) of His mouth” which was distinct from the one speaking (God).

John’s purpose was to reinforce Paul’s earlier treatment of the same subject which is even more problematic for Unitarians. Not only did Paul’s statement attribute the creation of all things (including the angelic realm) as originating by means of (through) a personal Agent (not a “plan”), but Paul identified that Person as the Son of God, placing both His origin and personal presence at the beginning of the creation week, as the πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως (lit. “first-produced of all creation”). He then identified Him as Jesus who is now head of the church.

Col. 1:15-17a (ESV) 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For [in] him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities — all things were created through him [δι᾽ αὐτοῦ] and for him. 17 And he is before all things, … 18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, …

Notice that this cannot refer to Bill Schlegel’s alleged “new creation” since it includes all things visible and invisible, since all visible things are necessarily part of the original creation. Likewise Hebrews makes Christ an active participant in the original creation and in guiding Israel’s history.

Hebrews 1:1-2 (ESV) 1 Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom [δι᾽ οὗ] also he created the world.

The clause “created the world” (ἐποίησεν τοὺς αἰῶνας) is better translated “fashioned the ages,” pointing to the Son’s role in forming God’s plan for the sequence of ages. However, a few verses later, the Son’s active role in forming the physical creation is highlighted.

Hebrews 1:8-12 (ESV) 8 But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. 9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.” 10 And, “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands; 11 they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment, 12 like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will have no end.”

Thus Paul interpreted both Psalm 45:6-7 and Psalm 102:25-27 as references to the “Son,” in showing His superiority to the angels. Psalm 45 applied to the Son shows His superiority over the angels because He is the one who will reign as King in HIs Kingdom. Psalm 102:25-27 shows His superiority over the angels because the original creation is the work of the Son’s hands which even includes the angels.

John did not originate the idea of the Son’s direct and personal involvement in the original creation. That idea was introduced into the New Testament by Paul in Colossians, then in Hebrews. It was something which he borrowed from Proverbs 8:22-31, Solomon’s description of “Wisdom” as having been “begotten” by God at the beginning of creation week, and who then worked alongside God in forming the creation as a “master-craftsman.” Since Paul had previously shown the Son’s role in the original and visible creation, John did not introduce a new idea about the “beginning” of the new creation in his prologue, but merely affirmed Paul’s prior teaching. Thus Bill Schlegel’s interpretation cannot be correct.

On the other hand, Anthony Buzzard’s interpretation of John’s prologue interprets “In the beginning” and “all things” as referring to the original creation. Mr. Buzzard’s device for denying the Son’s pre-human existence is to claim that Logos (Word) is not a person, but God’s “Plan.” He claims that the pronouns which are translated “He” and “Him” referring to Logos should be translated in the neuter (it), even though they are masculine in Greek. The pronouns which have “Logos” as their antecedent are required by the rules of Greek grammar to be in the masculine gender because the noun “Logos” (Word) is masculine in Greek. Mr. Buzzard would be correct that the sense in English should be neuter (it) UNLESS the term “Logos” was being used as a proper noun, a name. That question is resolved by Revelation 19:13 which states of the Son, “His name is called The Word [Logos] of God.” When Paul’s treatment of the subject in Colossians and Hebrews is placed alongside John’s, it is clear that the one through whom all things were created was the Son of God who afterward became man.

Yet one does not have to read through the entire New Testament to get to Colossians, Hebrews, or Revelation for the proof that Logos (Word) was a Person in John’s prologue. The proof is contained within the very first verse. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (NASB). The underlined clause above is a predicate nominative construction. It claims that Logos was “God.” The noun “God” (θεὸς Theos) is not an adjective (attributing divine qualities to Logos), but a personal noun. There are certain words that always refer to persons in the Bible, usually defining them by the role they fill. Such words as father, mother, son, daughter, child, servant, slave, master, and king are all personal nouns (referring to a person). The word “God” (or “god”) is always a personal noun. Everywhere in the Bible the word “God” (θεὸς Theos) refers to a person, whether to a false god, or to Satan as the “god of this world,” or to the one true God, and on rare occasions to a human ruler. Consequently, it is the predicate nominative statement, that “the Word was God” which absolutely requires that Logos (Word) is a Person, not an impersonal abstract concept such as a “plan.”

The Unitarian objection to this is that two persons cannot be “God” since Scripture is clear that there is only one God. Yet, the deficiency of this argument is on open display in the following Psalm of David.

Psalm 45:6-7 (NASB) 6 Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of uprightness is the scepter of Thy kingdom. 7 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated wickedness; Therefore God, Thy God, has anointed Thee With the oil of joy above Thy fellows.

This Psalm is quoted in Hebrews 1:8-9, with the term “God” in v. 6 applied to the Son of God, who has a “God” above Him. This passage refers to two distinct Persons, in communion with one another, the one being subject to the other, yet each is independently called “God.” If the above Psalm refers to the Father as “God” and to His subordinate Son also as “God” (which it clearly does), why would it be improper for John to do exactly the same thing in his prologue?

The issue is not whether both Father and Son can properly be called “God” in the very same statements. The issue is WHY the Son is called “God” in these statements. The assumption by both Unitarians and Trinitarians, that reference to the Son as “God” somehow implies He has all of the divine attributes including being co-equal and co-eternal, is a false assumption. The only reason the Son is occasionally called “God” in Scripture is because He is the visible “image” of the invisible God. Scripture states many times that God is invisible, has never been seen by man, and cannot be seen by men.[4] Yet the Son is portrayed as “the image of the invisible God”[5] and “the exact representation of his being” (NIV) or “the express image of His person” (KJV/NKJV),[6] and the “one Mediator between God and men.” The one true God has as yet never personally appeared to mortal man. He has always done so through His sole personal Agent, both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament. And that most definitely applies to every Old Testament passage where “God” or “Yahweh” is said to have appeared and spoken face to face with individuals.[7] John’s summary statement in His prologue (John 1:18) should be taken literally and at face value. The NKJV renders this as: “No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.” The Son, Logos, is not Himself the one true God. But as “the image of the invisible God,” Logos was the personal Agent who has always appeared as “God” and as “Yahweh” throughout the Old Testament.[8] John’s point in John 1:18 was to explain exactly who it was who since the beginning of time has appeared as “God,” being His personal Agent through whom all was created, and who was authorized to use His name and His titles in personal and direct contact with mankind. Again, God cannot be seen, which is why He has personally communicated His covenants through His Agent who is His “Image.” Thus, the Son, Logos, was “God” to all those who had contact with Him in the Old Testament. In the New Testament, Jesus said the same thing about Himself.  

John 14:8-10 (NASB) 8 Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” 9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how do you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works.”

John’s prologue makes perfect sense when it is taken at face value without trying to force it into either a Trinitarian or Unitarian mold. Both Mr. Buzzard and Mr. Schlegel have run roughshod over the Greek grammar, the context, and the plain sense of the text in their efforts to deny a pre-human existence for the Son of God. Yet they have also ignored the earliest Christian testimony by men who were directly or indirectly linked to John Himself, men who not only explained the meaning of John’s prologue, but explained the current gnostic heresies and false teachers John meant to overthrow. Irenaeus, disciple of Polycarp who was himself a disciple of John, gave the following explanation for John’s prologue in Against Heresies, Bk. III, ch. xi.

1. “John, the disciple of the Lord, preaches this faith, and seeks, by the proclamation of the Gospel, to remove that error which by Cerinthus had been disseminated among men, and a long time previously by those termed Nicolaitans, who are an offset of that “knowledge” falsely so called, that he might confound them, and persuade them that there is but one God, who made all things by His Word; and not, as they allege, that the Creator was one, but the Father of the Lord another; and that the Son of the Creator was, forsooth, one, but the Christ from above another, who also continued impassible, descending upon Jesus, the Son of the Creator, and flew back again into His Pleroma; … and that this creation to which we belong was not made by the primary God, but by some power lying far below Him, and shut off from communion with the things invisible and ineffable. The disciple of the Lord therefore desiring to put an end to all such doctrines, and to establish the rule of truth in the Church, that there is one Almighty God, who made all things by His Word, both visible and invisible; showing at the same time, that by the Word, through whom God made the creation, He also bestowed salvation on the men included in the creation; thus commenced His teaching in the Gospel: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made. What was made was life in Him, and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not.” “All things,” he says, “were made by Him;” therefore in “all things” this creation of ours is [included],”

Notice that Irenaeus was not a Trinitarian, he acknowledged one Person as Almighty God and distinguished Logos from Him. Apostolic Monotheism, as explained by many of the earliest writers, while claiming that the Father alone is the one eternal God, also firmly held to an origin for the Son, His “begetting” out of God, as God’s first act which began day-one of the creation week. Thus the Son preexisted in time only, not in eternity according to the earliest post-apostolic Christian writers.

Neither Mr. Buzzard’s nor Mr. Schlegel’s interpretations of John’s prologue are derived from superior hermeneutics, sound exegesis, or objectivity in handling Scripture. Anthony Buzzard attempts to reinterpret John’s statement, “and the Logos was God.” Bill Schlegel tries to reinterpret John’s statement, “In the beginning.” Yet their interpretations are mutually exclusive. Both men represent the very same Unitarian group, the Church of God General Conference. But neither agrees with the other’s attempt to assimilate John 1 into their “Biblical Unitarianism.” This is powerful evidence that there is something seriously wrong with the system into which they are trying to force John. They apparently do this because of the misguided idea that allowing a pre-human existence for the Son requires surrendering to one of the pillars of Trinitarianism, a co-equal and co-eternal “God the Son.” It does not. There is much in Trinitarianism that is contradicted by Scripture. But denying what is plainly stated, and what was understood by those trained by the Apostles, throws the baby out with the bathwater. The origin of the Son of God at the beginning of the creation week, and His interaction with both the creation itself and with mankind, are essential components of the earliest recorded understanding of God and His Son at the close of the apostolic age, which was neither Trinitarian nor Unitarian. The Abrahamic Faith and the Gospel of the Kingdom are seriously distorted when the one who is both “the Founder and Finisher” of the Abrahamic Faith is denied His rightful place and relegated as a latecomer to the Faith.

The exegetical gymnastics used by Unitarians in their handling of John’s prologue does nothing to defeat Trinitarianism, but rather casts serious doubt on Unitarianism’s central axiom, which is absolutely true, that the Father alone is the one true eternal God.

Go to: Mistranslation of John 1:3-4

---

[1] Most of the quotes in the New Testament from the Old Testament were taken from the Greek Septuagint (LXX), a translation from the early Hebrew made by Temple priests about 250 years before Christ. The Septuagint was the Bible of the synagogues outside of Judea throughout the Roman Empire. Thus the original readers of John’s Gospel had the Septuagint as their Old Testament.

[2] Gen. 1:3,5,9,11,15,20,24,30

[3] δι᾽ αὐτοῦ (through Him) requires that Logos was present and the Agent through whom all was created. The same expression is used in Acts 2:22 – “Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him [δι᾽ αὐτοῦ] in your midst… “

[4] John 1:18; 1 Tim. 1:7; 1 Tim. 6:16

[5] Col. 1:15

[6] Heb. 1:3

[7] See Gen. 18 for an excellent example.

[8] It is also clear in the OT that the Messenger of God and Yahweh uses the title “God” and the name “Yahweh.” (ex. Exod. 3 & Judges 2:1-4). This is because God said of this Messenger of Yahweh, “My name is upon Him” (Ex. 23:20-21). Those who saw “the Messenger of Yahweh” then claimed to have seen God (ex. Gen. 16:7-13; Judges 13:3-23).