Some translation commentary which might be of interest from a non-trinitarian translation (REV)
John 1:3
All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.
"All things came into being through it, and apart from it nothing came into being that has come into being."
“All things were made through it.” The logos is an “it,” not a “him.” God made everything through and according to His logos, His plan and purpose, and with wisdom. The logos was God’s plan and purpose, especially as it was put into action (see commentary on John 1:1). Furthermore, it was integrally tied together with His wisdom (see commentary on John 1:2).
To understand one reason why most English versions say “him” but others say “it,” we must understand how pronouns are used in languages such as Greek. Unlike English, but like many languages, including Spanish, French, German, Latin, and Hebrew, the Greek language assigns a gender to nouns. Then, grammatically, the gender of any pronoun must match the gender of the associated noun. The gender assignment of nouns happened in ancient antiquity, and often there seems to be no reason why a noun has the gender assigned to it that it does.
In French, for example, a table is feminine, la table, while a desk is masculine, le bureau. Thus a strictly literal translation of a French sentence with nouns and matching pronouns might be, “I like the table, she is just right for the room, but I do not like the desk, he is too big.” In correctly translating from French to English, however, we would never translate the English as, “the table, she,” or “the desk, he.” Not only is it improper English, it misses the point. Even the French people do not think of tables and desks as being masculine or feminine. The gender of the nouns is simply a part of the language that has come down through the ages.
Furthermore, no one would ever insist that a table or desk was a person just because it had a masculine or feminine pronoun associated with it. Good English translators recognize that even though a noun is assigned a gender in another language and the associated pronoun follows the gender of the noun, their job is to bring the meaning of the original into English, not introduce confusion into the English translation. Hence, someone translating from French to English would use the English designation “it” for the table and the desk, in spite of the fact that the original French language called them “she” and “he.”
What is true in the examples from the French language is true in any language that assigns a gender to nouns and then uses pronouns with that same gender. For example, the Greek word for “lamp” is luchnos, a masculine noun, and therefore proper grammar dictates that any pronoun associated with it is masculine. Thus, if the Greek text of Matthew 5:15 were translated literally, it would read, “Nor do they light a lamp and place him under the bushel.” However, every English version we checked said, “it,” as proper English dictates.
The same grammatical rule that the pronoun must agree with the noun is followed when the noun is feminine. According to the literal Greek text, Christ told his disciples that when they entered a “city” (polin; a feminine noun) or “village” (kome; a feminine noun), they should “find out who in her is worthy” (Matt. 10:11; literally translated). The English versions correctly read, “it” instead of “her.” When translating from another language into English, we have to use the English language properly. Students learning Greek, Hebrew, Spanish, French, German, etc., quickly discover that one of the difficult things about learning the language is memorizing the gender of each noun—something we do not have in the English language.
Once we clearly understand the gender of a pronoun is determined by the gender of the noun, we can see why one cannot build a doctrine on the gender of a noun and it’s agreeing pronoun. Only confusion would result from that kind of erroneous exegesis. In John 1:3, the pronoun autou is masculine so it agrees grammatically with the masculine noun logos. Most Trinitarians believe that the logos refers to Jesus Christ, so to them the translation “him” is proper. However, we assert that the logos is not a person, but the plan or purpose of God, and is therefore an “it.”
Historically, Trinitarians have thought of the logos as Jesus Christ, so they have translated the pronoun as “him,” but not every version does that. The first English translation from the Greek text was done by William Tyndale (1494-1536; John Wycliffe translated into English earlier, but used the Latin as his base text). He translated the pronoun as “it,” not “him.” In 1537, the Matthew’s Bible, translated by John Rogers using the pseudonym “Thomas Matthews,” used “it,” not “him.” In 1539, the Great Bible, a revision of Matthew’s Bible, had “it.” This was important because the translation was overseen by Miles Coverdale, and in the Coverdale Bible of 1535, done some years earlier and based on the Latin, Coverdale used “him,” not “it,” but in this later version he apparently switched his preference and used “it.” When Queen Mary forbade the printing of the English Bible, translation moved to Geneva, and the Geneva Bible of 1560 became the household Bible of the English-speaking people. It was the Bible used by Shakespeare, as well as the Puritans who settled New England. Under Queen Elizabeth the English Bible was once again printed in Great Britain, and the Bishop’s Bible was published in 1568. It used “it,” not “him” in John 1:3-4, but was never popular with the people. The major change came with the King James Bible, which used “him,” not “it” in the opening of John, and most English versions since then have done the same. Nevertheless, we should be aware that the translation “it” has good literary foundation and a solid Christian history. [For translating the gift of holy spirit as an “it,” see commentary on John 14:17].
Although we today should think of the logos as an “it” for clarity, we need to acknowledge that the ancient people personified the concept of the logos and spoke of it as if it was a person, even though they did not believe it was a person. This seems strange to us, but it was perfectly natural for the ancients to use the figure of speech personification to express many concepts (for more on the figure personification, see commentary on Proverbs 1:20, “Wisdom”). Nevertheless, for us today it makes the text clearer if we say that God had a plan, and God worked through it (not, “him”) to restore the world to Himself.
John 1:10
He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.
"It was in the world, and the world came into being through it, and the world did not know it."
“and the world was made through it.” John 1:10 shows that the logos, God’s express purpose and plan was in the world, and it also repeats in a different way what had been stated in John 1:3, that it was through the logos that God made the world. However, John 1:10 adds that the world did not know the logos and thus by implication the world did not know God.
That John 1:10 restates what John 1:3 says brings this section of John to a close in a kind of inclusio, wrapping John 1:1-10 together and expressing what God did via the logos. John 1:11 changes subjects, and although we are to understand that it is still God working, but now through Christ and not through the logos, it seems apparent that the subject changes from the logos to Christ. Although we modern English readers could wish for a clearer presentation of what is happening in the text, given the poetic style of what John is writing, we can gain sufficient clarity from the scope of Scripture.
Some scholars think the phrase, “the world was made by him,” is a reference to the new creation only that is being made by Christ (cp. Col. 1:15-20 and Heb. 1:1,10), but that does not seem as likely an explanation as John 1:10 is highlighting what verse 3 said. For that alternative explanation, see the Racovian Catechism pp. 89-91
1 Corinthians 8:6
yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.
"yet to us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we are for him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we are through him."
“one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we are for him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we are through him.” This verse clearly distinguishes between Jesus and God. There is one God and Father, and there is one man, Jesus, who is our “Lord.” This verse shows how God and Jesus work in unity to get the Church what it needs. God gave Jesus all authority and made him head over the Church, so now we get what we need “through” Jesus.
Some Trinitarians say that this verse supports the doctrine of the Trinity because it says that all things came through Jesus Christ. But what the verse actually says is that all things came “from” God, “through” Jesus. That stands in contradiction to Trinitarian doctrine because it places Jesus in a subordinate role to God. According to this verse, Jesus is not “co-equal’ with the Father; the Father is “God” and the ultimate source of all things, and Jesus is not called “God.”
The context is the key to understanding what the phrase “all things came through him” means. There is no mention in either the immediate or the remote context about the creation of the world such that the “all things” refers to the original creation of Genesis. This verse is speaking of the Church. God provided all things for the Church via Jesus Christ.
The whole book of 1 Corinthians is taken up with Church issues, and Paul starts 1 Cor. 8:6 with “to us,” i.e., to Christians. 1 Corinthians 8:4-5 had said that even though there were “so called” gods, for us “there is no God but one.” The Roman world was polytheistic, and people were used to having different “gods” and different “lords” provide different things in different ways. As the various gods provided things, often those provisions would be mediated and distributed to the people through “lords,” lesser gods or people, such as the priests. That was a major reason the Romans had so many temples and shrines to the different gods and worshipped them all—to curry as much of their favor as possible. But Paul challenged that commonly-accepted practice, and boldly stated that there was only one God “from whom are all things,” and only one Lord “through whom are all things.”
The very next two verses, 1 Cor 8:7-8, have a practical application of the truth that there is only one God who provides everything for us through Jesus Christ. Since “no idol in the world really exists,” (1 Cor 8:4), then they do not really provide the food that is sacrificed to them and cannot affect it for better or worse. Thus, for the Church, there are no laws against eating food sacrificed to idols. Verse 1 Cor 8:8 says, “But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.” However, this revelation was new for the Church. The Old Testament believers did not have this freedom. They had dozens of food laws, and many people who had converted to Christianity still could not eat food with a clear conscience if it had been offered to an idol—even though the idol was nothing and the source of the blessing was God working through Jesus Christ. Hopefully though, by explaining the situation, more Christians would become free in their conscience and not be bound by old regulations.
By wording the verse the way he does and saying there is one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus, Paul pens this verse in a way that clearly stands against the Trinity. If the Trinity really existed, then this verse would have been the perfect place to say so, and have something such as, “for us there is only one God made up of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost,” or something similar. There is no good reason that the verse would be written in a way that is so clearly non-Trinitarian, calling the Father, “God,” and Jesus, “Lord,” if the Trinity existed. Furthermore, the logical reason that this verse is worded the way it is and the reason that the Bible does not make a clear statement about the Trinity, here or anyplace else, is that there is no Trinity. There is, as this verse says, “one God” and “one Lord, Jesus Christ.” [For more discussion on this verse, see J. S. Hyndman, Lectures on The Principles of Unitarianism, pp. 58-63; Patrick Navas, Divine Truth or Human Tradition, pp. 42-45. For more information on Jesus being the fully human Son of God and not being “God the Son,” see Appendix 10, “Jesus is the Son of God, Not God the Son.” For more on “the Holy Spirit” being one of the designations for God the Father and “the holy spirit” being the gift of God’s nature, see Appendix 11, “What is the Holy Spirit?”].
Hebrews 1:2
in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.
"...has at the end of these days spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he has given form to the ages,..."
“ages.” The Greek word is the plural of aiōn (#165 αἰών ) and means “ages.” This verse is referring to the “ages,” not the “world.” Vine’s Lexicon has, “an age, a period of time, marked in the N.T. usage by spiritual or moral characteristics, is sometimes translated ‘world;’ the R.V. margin always has ‘age.’” Bullinger’s Critical Lexicon (under “world”) has: “Aion [age], from ao, aemi, to blow, to breathe. Aion denoted originally the life which hastes away in the breathing of our breath, life as transitory; then the course of life, time of life, life in its temporal form. Then, the space of a human life, an age, or generation in respect of duration. The time lived or to be lived by men, time as moving, historical time as well as eternity. Aion always includes a reference to the filling of time.”
Since most translators are Trinitarian and think that Jesus was the one who made the original heavens and earth, they translate “ages” as “world,” or even “universe” in this verse. There are other Greek words that mean “world,” such as kosmos and oikoumene, and when the Devil tempted Jesus by showing him all the kingdoms of the “world,” these words are used. In Hebrews 1:2 aiōn means “ages,” and should be translated that way.
Trinitarians use Hebrews 1:2 to try to prove that Jesus Christ created the world as we know it, but the context of the verse shows that cannot be the correct interpretation. Heb. 1:1-2 show that God spoke through Jesus “in these last days,” whereas God had spoken “in the past” in various other ways. If indeed it were through Jesus that the physical world was created, then one of the ways that God spoke in the past was through Jesus. But that would contradict the whole point of the verse, which is saying that God spoke in other ways in the past, but “in these last days” is speaking through the Son.
Since Heb. 1:1-2 say that it was “God” who spoke through prophets and through His Son, it is clear that God is the prime mover and thus different from the Son. These verses show that the Son is subordinate to God and, as a “mouthpiece” for God, is compared to the prophets.
The fact that God appointed the Son to be “heir” shows that God and the Son are not equal. For the Son to be the “heir” means that there was a time when he was not the owner. The word “heir” is a common one and, because death and inheritance are a part of every culture, it occurs in all the biblical languages. Any dictionary will show that an heir is one who inherits, succeeds or receives an estate, rank, title or office of another. By definition, you cannot be an heir if you are already the owner. No one in history ever wrote a will that said, “My heir and the inheritor of my estate is…ME!” If Christ is God, then he cannot be “heir.” The only way he can be an heir is by not being the original owner. That Christ is an “heir” is inconsistent with Trinitarian doctrine, which states that Christ is co-equal and co-eternal with the Father. If Christ were God, then he was part owner all along, and thus is not the “heir” at all. These verses teach that God is the original owner, and will give all things to His heir, Jesus Christ. It is obvious from the wording of these first two verses that the author of Hebrews does not consider Christ to be God.
Since aionas means “ages” and not “world,” it is fair to ask in what sense God has given form to the ages through Jesus. The Greek word from which “given form” is translated is poieō, a word with very many meanings. Alone, and in combination with other words, it is translated more than 100 different ways in the NIV. Some of the ways poieō is translated are: accomplish, acted, appointed, are, be, bear, began, been, bring, carry out, cause, committed, consider, do, earned, exercise, formed, gain, give, judge, kept, made, obey, performed, preparing, produce, provide, put into practice, reached, spend, stayed, treated, was, win, work, wrote, and yielded. Although most people read poieo in Hebrews 1:2 as referring to the original creation, it does not have to mean that at all. The context dictates that the “ages” being referred to are the ages after Christ’s resurrection. In Heb. 1:2, Christ became heir after his resurrection. In Heb. 1:3, he then sat at God’s right hand after his resurrection. Heb. 1:5-6 also refer to the resurrection. The context makes it clear that God was not speaking through His Son in the past, but that He has spoken “in these last days” through His Son, and “given form to” the ages through him. For more information see, One God & One Lord.