Defending Apostolic Monotheism Against Imperial Dogmas – Part 1

 

The Trinity in John Lennox’s Book

John Lennox discusses this topic in Chapter Five (The Message of Genesis 1) of his original English book, Seven Days That Divide the World, specifically on page 94. Under the subheading God Is a Community, this section addresses the use of the plural forms "us" and "our," in which Christians see a reference to the Trinity, as well as the unity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Lennox writes: “Although the word Trinity does not appear in the New Testament, Thomas Torrance has pointed out that the doctrine of the Trinity is not so much a Christian formulation as it is the way that God has revealed himself (see his The Christian Doctrine of God: One Being, Three Persons [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996]).” According to Torrance and Lennox, the Trinity is an objective reality, rather than a theory invented after the fact.

Image: Icon of the First Council of Nicaea / Unknown author / CC BY-SA 3.0

The Differing Opinions Demonstrate Human Origin

The extent to which they do not agree shows that others say something completely different about its origin: “The term ‘Trinity,’ which occurs nowhere in the Bible, is a human attempt to express this divine mystery in a single word.” (Werner Gitt: Gyakran feltett kérdések [Frequently Asked Questions], Evangéliumi Kiadó, p. 22.)

How do the two formulations differ?

Werner Gitt’s position: A human attempt and a linguistic tool to summarize the mystery.

Lennox and Torrance’s position: The very mode and structure of divine revelation.

Where does the doctrine originate?

Werner Gitt’s position: From human and ecclesiastical thought (since the word is not in the Bible).

Lennox and Torrance’s position: Directly from God, who presented Himself as a Trinity in history.

The focus of the emphasis

Werner Gitt’s position: It is on the human limitations of describing the mystery.

Lennox and Torrance’s position: It is on the objective reality God has given of Himself.

This further demonstrates that we are dealing here with human philosophy, which they establish arbitrarily according to their own interpretation. If this doctrine were revealed in the Bible, there would be no debate about where and from whom it originates.

The root of the debate is what we consider to be revelation. According to Werner Gitt, revelation is the written, concrete biblical word. According to Torrance and Lennox, revelation is the very being and actions of God, which the Bible records and theology attempts to follow.

The problem is that the Trinity is not part of the “All Scripture,” since the biblical writers, though they knew and used the number three, never applied it to God. Furthermore, God's being and actions reflect a trinity only in the reading of theology; He Himself has not revealed this about Himself in any form. Consequently, this doctrine is a violation of God's self-revelation.

God’s Revelation Is Not Dependent on Human Interpretations

The root of the debate is that the biblical text itself does not explicitly contain the dogma; thus, its acceptance or rejection depends on the hermeneutical approach. At the same time, if God's revelation were dependent on human methods of interpretation (hermeneutics), it would mean that saving truth is dependent on human intellectual achievement or a school of philosophy.

Based on the Bible, God does not work this way. According to the New Testament, God's revelation is not a theoretical puzzle, but a concrete Person. Therefore, when we say that the acceptance of the dogma "depends on hermeneutics," it does not mean that God speaks through hermeneutics. It means that theologians closed debates with rules that no longer originated from the pure biblical text, but from human logic.

What do we read? “Therefore, seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not; But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.” (2 Cor 4:1-2)

The lines written by the Apostle Paul in 2 Corinthians 4:1–2 speak of the purity of revelation, of openness, and of the rejection of human distortions. Paul firmly rejects the abuse or the "adulteration" of the word of God (in the original Greek: dolountes – watering down, falsifying, trickery).

If we apply this strict standard to the doctrine of the Trinity, the investigation can lead us to two radically different conclusions, depending on what we consider to be the unadulterated, pure truth.

Opinion 1: Yes, the doctrine of the Trinity is a human forgery and distortion
This position—represented by biblical critics, anti-trinitarians, and strict monotheists—agrees that the teaching violates the Scriptures:

The introduction of foreign philosophy: The biblical writers (like Paul or John) were first-century Jewish monotheists who followed the confession of the Shema (“Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one”). The dogma of the Trinity was constructed at the 4th-century councils (Nicaea, Constantinople) using Greek philosophical concepts (e.g., homoousios – consubstantial/of one essence) that are completely foreign to the Hebrew and apostolic mindset of the Bible.

Subsequent manipulation of the text: It is a historical fact that actual textual forgery was later committed to justify the Trinity. The most famous example is the so-called Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7–8), where later Latin manuscripts added: “...the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” Modern biblical criticism and newer translations have already deleted this part as an unequivocal forgery, since it does not appear in the oldest Greek manuscripts.

Craftiness and obscurity: According to this position, the fact that understanding this doctrine requires complex speculations and wrapping oneself in the fog of an "incomprehensible mystery" stands in direct contrast to Paul's words, who writes about the "manifestation of the truth" and plain speech.

Opinion 2: It is not a forgery, but a faithful unfolding of the hidden reality
According to historical Christian churches and trinitarian theologians, the formulation of the dogma was not an adulteration of the Word, but its defense against heresies:

Not new content, but defense: When the councils formulated the dogma, their goal was not to change the word of God. They had to find precise words because various movements (such as Arius and his followers) began to deny the deity of Christ. According to these theologians, the dogma did not add to the Bible, but rather recorded what the apostles practically preached.

The logic of New Testament actions: Although the word “Trinity” was not written down, the biblical writers attributed attributes to Jesus (e.g., creation, forgiveness of sins, eternity) and to the Holy Spirit (e.g., omniscience, sanctification) that belong to God alone. According to the trinitarian argument, the teaching is an honest and logical summary of these biblical facts, rather than an adulteration of them.

Summary Based on 2 Corinthians 4

The Apostle Paul writes that they do not walk in craftiness and commend themselves by the manifestation of the truth. If one perceives that the "manifested truth" lies exclusively within the written biblical words and pure monotheism, then they rightly consider the doctrine of the Trinity to be a human, philosophical forgery foreign to the Word.

If one perceives that the "manifested truth" also encompasses the divine actions and essence of Jesus and the Holy Spirit, then they consider the dogma not a forgery, but a linguistic description of divine reality.

From a Christian theological perspective, God's revelation is perfect, pure, and free from all human philosophy. The Bible clearly states that God is not a God of confusion, but of order and light. If the acceptance of doctrines depended on complex philosophical speculations or hermeneutical schools, then the word of God would not be manifest to every man's conscience.

Why the Balance of the Two Positions Cannot Stand

If we seriously take the standard mentioned by the Apostle Paul—the "manifested truth" and speech "without craftiness"—then the two positions cannot be treated as equal:

The facts of the Bible are clear: The text of Holy Scripture (from the First Book of Moses to the Book of Revelation) reveals a single, indivisible God. The biblical writers never applied the number three to God's essence, nor did they use expressions such as "three-personed one God" or "trinity."

Human philosophy is subsequent: The approach claiming that the doctrine of the Trinity is "the structure of divine revelation" is actually forced to rely on extra-biblical conciliar decisions and Greek philosophical concepts from centuries later. From both a linguistic and logical standpoint, this constitutes an addition to the word of God (that is, a violation of true revelation).

Is the teaching of the Trinity a human forgery? Let us examine it! The following study demonstrates point by point why it is a deception and an adulteration of the revelation of Holy Scripture!

The Obviously Pagan Origin of Philosophy

Based on biblical textual criticism, New Testament grammar, and historical facts, the doctrine of the Trinity is not the inspired heritage of the prophets and apostles, but a subsequent philosophical insertion with a pagan background. The pure message of Holy Scripture is built upon the following pillars:

1. The Exclusive Oneness of God (Monotheism)

The God of the Bible does not consist of three persons, but is a single, indivisible Being: the Father. Jesus Christ himself called the Father “the only true God” (John 17:3), and even after his glorification, from heaven, he referred to Him as “my God” (Revelation 3:12). God cannot have a God; no one stands above the Almighty. (cf. Heb 6:13)

2. The True Identity of Jesus Christ

Jesus is not the incarnation of Almighty God, but the supreme Prophet and Servant raised up by God, who is like Moses in every respect—that is, a true human mediator (Acts 3:22–23; 1 Timothy 2:5).

Jesus is not omniscient, as he himself declared that the last day and hour are known solely and exclusively by the Father (Mark 13:32).

In Holy Scripture, thanksgiving and worship are directed to God, but through Jesus Christ (Romans 1:8). Jesus is the mediating channel, the bridge, which is not identical to the other side.

3. Textual Forgeries and the Invasion of Greek Philosophy

After the close of the apostolic age, leaders from pagan backgrounds smuggled Gnostic and Platonic philosophy into the congregation, exactly as the Apostle Paul had prophesied (Acts 20:29–30).

To justify the doctrine of the Trinity, copyists subsequently forged texts into the Bible. The most obvious example of this is the insertion concerning the heavenly witnesses (1 John 5:7-8), which is entirely absent from the oldest and most reliable manuscripts.

4. The Political Background of the Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325)

The deification of Jesus and the doctrine of the Trinity were forced through by the pagan Emperor Constantine the Great for political interest, in order to unify the empire and easily absorb the pagan masses, who were accustomed to polytheism, into the state religion. The pure biblical truth was transformed into an incomprehensible, philosophical mystery to break people's freedom of thought and to build absolute ecclesiastical control.

5. The Fate of Institutional Blindness

Modern churches cling to dogmas because admitting the error would mean the collapse of their authority and existence. According to Jesus' warning, this theological blindness will persist until the day of judgment, when many religious people will face the fact that they rejected the truth in defense of false dogmas (Matthew 7:22-23; Job 42:7).

The Prophetic Unfolding of the Apostasy

The prophecy in the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 20:29–30) describes with pinpoint accuracy the historical process that took place in the early Christian church from the 2nd century onward, following the close of the apostolic age. The clash, and subsequent merger, of strict monotheism and Hellenistic (Greek) philosophy was the greatest fracture in early church history.

1. Judeo-Christian Roots and Monotheism

Jesus and the first apostles were all Jews, whose life of faith was built upon the foundation of the Shema (Shema Yisrael: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one” – Deut 6:4).

For them, God was absolutely one and indivisible. When the apostolic generation passed away and the Jewish-Christian mother church in Jerusalem receded into the background as a result of the Jewish wars (A.D. 70 and 135), the center of gravity of the movement shifted into the pagan (Greco-Roman) world.

2. The Invasion of Greek Philosophy and the Formation of Dogmas

The new leaders and thinkers arriving from pagan backgrounds (the later Church Fathers) were already educated within the conceptual framework of Greek philosophy (chiefly Platonism and Stoicism).

The adoption of concepts: They introduced philosophical terms into theology, such as ousia (essence), hypostasis (person), or the philosophical interpretation of the Logos. These terms were completely foreign to the Hebrew mindset.

The deification of Jesus: This process culminated at the 4th-century councils (such as the Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325), where under political pressure (presided over by Emperor Constantine), the doctrine of the Trinity and the consubstantiality of Jesus with God were made official state dogma. Those groups that clung to the original monotheism (such as the Arians or the Ebionites) were branded as heretics and began to face persecution.

3. Those "Speaking Perverse Things" and Power

The Apostle Paul’s Miletus speech (Acts 20) warned precisely that the danger would come from within (“from among your own selves men will arise”).

As soon as the church became intertwined with the power machinery of the Roman Empire, altering teachings was no longer merely a theological issue, but a question of power. Pure apostolic teaching was replaced by an institutionalized, hierarchical system that enforced subsequent insertions and philosophical dogmas as sacred tradition. This historical shift explains why there is such a vast chasm between the earliest layers of the New Testament (which present Jesus as God's anointed servant, the Messiah) and the complex creeds of later centuries built upon Greek philosophy.

Let us examine more closely how the "savage wolves" and those "speaking perverse things" carried out the alteration of apostolic teaching, just as the Apostle Paul foretold (Acts 20:29–30).

1. The Insertion of the Trinity Doctrine: The Case of 1 John 5:7-8 (Comma Johanneum)

One of the most obvious examples of biblical textual forgery is found in 1 John 5:7-8, known in theology as the "Comma Johanneum."

If we open an old Bible translation (such as the Károli Bible), we read this:

“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.”

What is the historical fact?

The part in bold text did not originally exist. The Apostle John never wrote such a thing. The original text was merely this: “For there are three that bear witness: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree.”

The oldest manuscripts: There are more than a thousand early Greek biblical manuscripts, and the sentence referring to the Trinity does not appear in a single manuscript dated prior to the 10th century A.D.

How did it get in? In the 4th or 5th century, during the time of the Trinitarian controversies, someone in North Africa or Spain wrote this theological gloss (marginal note) on the margin of the Latin Bible (Vulgate) as their own explanation. Later copyists then—whether intentionally or by mistake—copied it into the main text.

The Revealing of the Forgery

When Erasmus compiled the first printed Greek New Testament in the 16th century, he omitted this part because he did not find it in the Greek manuscripts. Trinitarians rebelled against him, whereupon Erasmus declared that if they could show him even a single Greek manuscript that contained it, he would include it. The Catholic Church then quickly fabricated (falsified) a Greek manuscript (Codex Britannicus), so Erasmus was forced to insert it into the text.

This forged text became the basis for translations during the Reformation era and was used for centuries as the “chief biblical proof” of the doctrine of the Trinity. Modern, critical Bible translations now completely omit this part or indicate the fraud in a footnote.

2. The Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325): Where Philosophy Became State Dogma
After the apostolic age, the majority of the congregation became of pagan background, and they began to interpret the Holy Scriptures through the lens of Greek philosophy. This process reached its peak at the Council of Nicaea.

The Political and Philosophical Background:

In A.D. 325, Emperor Constantine the Great convened the council in Nicaea. Constantine was still a pagan at the time (the high priest of the Sun God, Sol Invictus), and he wanted to utilize Christianity not out of faith, but purely out of political interest: he wanted to unify the disintegrating Roman Empire. However, the stability of the empire was threatened by a massive theological debate:

Arius and his followers (the Arians): They stood closer to the original Judeo-Christian monotheism. They taught that God is the sole Supreme Being, and Jesus is God's firstborn Son and creature (based on Proverbs 8:22 and Colossians 1:15)—meaning there is a relationship of subordination between the Father and the Son.

Athanasius and his circle: They demanded it be declared that Jesus is not a creature, but completely equal to God, eternally existing, and “consubstantial.”

The Victory of Greek Philosophy:

To settle the debate, the pagan emperor Constantine proposed an expression that appears nowhere in Holy Scripture: this was the word homoousios (consubstantial/of one essence), taken from Greek philosophy. This concept originated purely from Platonic philosophy, which dealt with material and spiritual substances (essences). This was completely foreign to Hebrew thought and the language of the biblical prophets.

Under pressure from the emperor, the council accepted this philosophical creed (the Nicene Creed). Those who refused to sign were exiled by order of the emperor, their books were burned, and they were declared heretics. With this, pure apostolic monotheism—according to which “there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5)—was replaced by a state-enforced imperial dogma built upon Greek metaphysics. 

Summary

The warning of the Apostle Paul was literally fulfilled. The leaders of the paganizing church, which had broken away from its Jewish roots, exchanged the pure truth for the speculations of Greek philosophy and the expectations of political power. In order to justify these philosophical dogmas, they did not shy away from subsequently writing into and falsifying the sacred texts (as seen in 1 John 5:7).

The Defense of the Trinity

Let us examine the two most frequently cited New Testament verses that are commonly brought forward in defense of the doctrine of the Trinity. If we strip away the subsequent Greco-Roman theological interpretation and place them back into original Greek grammar and Jewish mindset, a completely different picture emerges.

1. John 1:1 – “...and the Word was God”

According to the Károli translation:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
At first glance, this verse directly states that the Word (Jesus) is Almighty God Himself. However, the grammar of the original Greek text makes a highly important and strict distinction, which the majority of Hungarian translations blur.

The Secret of Greek Grammar (The Definite Article)

In the Greek text, the word “God” (Theos) appears twice in the sentence, but the grammatical structure behind the two words is completely different:

“...and the Word was with God” → in Greek: pros ton theon. The ton (the definite article, equivalent to the English “the”) is present here. In the Greek language, HO THEOS (or in the accusative case, ton theon) provided with the article can refer exclusively to a single being: Almighty God, the Father. Thus, the Word was with Almighty God.

“...and the Word was God” → in Greek: kai theos en ho logos. Notice that there is no definite article before theos here!

According to the rules of Greek grammar (as also stated by biblical scholars such as John L. McKenzie or Philip B. Harner), when theos stands without an article as a predicate, it does not signify identity of person with the Almighty, but rather expresses a quality or attribute (predicative use).

What does this mean? It means that the Word was “of divine nature,” “divine in character,” or a “mighty being,” but not Almighty God Himself, alongside whom He stood. If John had wanted to say that the Word is identical to Almighty God, he would have had to include the article in the second instance as well.

The Jewish Context: What Is the “Word”?
In Jewish thought, the Word (in Hebrew: Dabar, in Aramaic: Memra) did not mean a second divine person within a Trinity. Such an idea never occurred to the Jews.

The “Word” was the personification of God's creative power, wisdom, and will. As Psalm 33:6 says: “By the word of the Lord the heavens were made.” God's word is not a separate god, but the active manifestation of God. It was this divine plan and will that became incarnate—meaning it became visible and tangible—in the human life of Jesus Christ.

2. John 20:28 – Thomas’s Exclamation: “My Lord and my God!”

After the resurrected Jesus appears to the disciples, the doubting Thomas touches his wounds and exclaims:

“My Lord and my God!” (in Greek: Ho kyrios mou kai ho theos mou!)

According to Trinitarians, this is the ultimate proof: Thomas calls Jesus God directly, and Jesus does not correct him. But how would Thomas, as a monotheistic Jew, have understood this?

The Jewish “Law of Agency” (The Shaliah Principle)

In biblical, ancient Jewish law, there existed a fundamental institution called the Shaliah (messenger, agent, representative). The Jewish legal code (the Mishnah) formulates this principle as follows: “A man’s agent is like the man himself.” This meant that if a king or a master sent his fully authorized representative, the receiving parties had to treat him as if the sender himself were present.

An Old Testament example: When the angel of the Lord appears before Moses in the burning bush (Exodus 3), the angel speaks like this: “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham...” Moses hid his face because he was afraid to look at God. Yet, in reality, he saw an angel! But because the angel was God’s fully authorized representative, Moses treated him with the reverence due to God Himself.

Thomas recognized precisely this. When he saw Jesus raised from the dead, he understood that the power and presence of God had become manifest in Jesus.

Jesus himself had said earlier in this gospel: “He who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). Thomas did not say that Jesus is the Almighty Father (for he knew that Jesus had died, and God cannot die); rather, he acknowledged that Jesus is his Lord (the Messiah), and through him, he sees God Himself in action.

The Apostle John Himself Refutes the Trinitarian Interpretation

That Thomas's exclamation must not be interpreted as identifying Jesus as God is made clear by the author himself, the Apostle John, just three verses later. In John 20:31, he describes why he recorded these events (including Thomas's words):

“But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”

Thus, at the end of the chapter, John does not state as a conclusion, “I wrote this so that you may believe that Jesus is Almighty God.” He writes: he wrote it so that we may believe that he is the Christ (the Anointed One) and the Son of God. In Jewish thought, the expression “Son of” meant precisely that the person was not identical to the Father, but received his authority and mission from Him.

It is evident, therefore, that when the writings of the apostles were ripped out of their Jewish-monotheistic environment, the pagan Church Fathers could easily read their Greek philosophical ideas into them, confirming the words of the Apostle Paul about those “speaking perverse things.” 

Jesus’s Own Statements 

Let us examine the two key statements that come directly from Jesus’s own mouth. If anyone, Jesus himself knew best who he was and what his relationship was with the Father. These verses carry immense weight because, contrary to Greek philosophical speculations, they draw clear boundaries between the Father (Almighty God) and Jesus (the Son of God).

1. John 17:3 – Jesus’s High Priestly Prayer

On the night before his death, Jesus addressed a long prayer to the Father in the presence of his disciples. In this intimate moment, he spoke the following teleologically and with pinpoint accuracy:

“And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.”

What does this verse demonstrate in its original language and context?

Exclusivity: In his prayer, Jesus addresses the Father (“Father” – John 17:1). When he says “thee the only true God,” the Greek text uses the phrase ton monon alethinon theon. The word monon means single, exclusive.

The borderline: Jesus here does not refer to himself, nor to a “three-personed God,” but applies the title “the only true God” exclusively to the Father.

Distinct identity: Immediately after this, he identifies himself as the one whom this only God has sent (the Messiah, the Christ). In Jewish thought, the One Sent (Jesus) can never be identical to the Sender (the Father), who gave him the mission and the authority.

If the doctrine of the Trinity were true, Jesus would have made a grave error here, as he would have excluded himself and the Holy Spirit from the category of the “only true God.” Instead, he reinforced original Jewish monotheism.

2. Mark 13:32 – Knowledge of the Last Day

When the disciples asked him about the end of the world and the time of Jesus’s coming, Jesus replied:

“But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.”

Why does this verse overthrow subsequent ecclesiastical dogmas?

The 4th-century councils (such as the Councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon) laid down the state dogma that Jesus is equal to the Father in all things, omniscient, and eternal God. However, Jesus’s statement above refutes this omniscience both logically and theologically:

Limited knowledge: Jesus openly declares that there is something he does not know, but the Father does. If the Son is not omniscient, he cannot be identical to Almighty God, whose chief attribute is complete omniscience.

The order of degrees: Notice how Jesus constructs the hierarchy of knowledge: Men → Angels → Son → Father. The Son stands at a higher level than the created angels, yet he is situated below the Father, who alone possesses the ultimate knowledge.

The absence of the Holy Spirit: It is worth noting that the third person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, is not mentioned at all in this context. If the Holy Spirit were a separate, omniscient divine person, Jesus would have had to mention him alongside the Father. By saying “but the Father” (in Greek: ei me ho pater – except the Father), he excludes everyone else from this knowledge.