The term “Godhead” is equivalent to the term “Deity”. To say that there is only one “Deity” does not imply that there is only one divine Individual. Consider an analogous word, “humanity”. One could say that there is only one “humanity”, and yet there are clearly billions of human individuals within humanity.What exactly is meant by this term Godhead?
I understand “The Logos of God” in John 1:1 to refer to the Son of God. The primary meaning of “logos” is “expression”. Jesus is the expression of God the Father ---- the exact expression. In Hebrews 1:3, Jesus is said to be “the exact expression of [God’s] essence”, so exact, so identical, that Jesus was able to say, in response to Philip’s request, “Show us the Father”, “He who has seen me has seen the Father”. Jesus did not mean as in Oneness theology, that He was, in fact, the Father, but Another, exactly like the Father.
Clearly Jesus existed before His birth. He said, “Before Abraham I am”. I don’t know how He could have stated His pre-existence any more clearly.
The expression “Logos of God” also occurs in the following passage:
For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and spirit, of joints and marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And before him no creature is hidden, but all are open and laid bare to the eyes of him with whom we have to do. Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. Hebrews 4:12-12
Here the Logos is said to be living. This in itself suggests a living being of some kind, and not a mere quality. What but a person can “discern the thoughts and intents of the heart”?
“And before Him no creature is hidden.” Can this be said of a quality of God? Can it be said of anything impersonal?
In verse 12, the author seems to link our “great high priest…. Jesus the Son of God” with the “Logos of God” about which he was just speaking.
But how can it be that “the Logos was with God and the Logos was God”? That’s the way a lot of people read the statement, stressing the word “was”. If that were what John intended to express, then we had better all become modalists. Besides, how could the Logos be with God and yet be God? Can God be with Himself?
In Greek, the statement reads quite differently. First of all the Logos is said to be “pros ton theon” (toward God). Notice the definite article before “theon”. That means that “theon” refers to God the Father). The basic meaning of the preposition “pros” when followed by the accusative case, is “toward”. Often it is translated in some other way, since “toward” sometimes seems awkward in English, even though the meaning is clear. For example in 2 Peter 1:3, the RSV has: “His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness.” Literally, it reads “having given all to us of His divine power toward life and piety.” We see that the phrase makes sense even if we retain the basic meaning of “pros”. In my opinion, it should so translated as “toward” in John 1:1 also. But then what would it mean to say, “The Logos was toward God”? According to Abbott-Smith’s Greek Lexicon, the word is sometimes used of “mental direction, hostile or otherwise”. The first words of John 6:52 is given as an example of this --- literally, “Then the Jews fought toward one another.” So John may mean in John 1:1 that the Logos had a positive mental direction toward God, that is, He was in unity with Him in all of His wishes and decisions. Come to think of it, in that sense, one could say that He was “with God”. We sometimes use “with” that way in English. e.g. “George is with me in this plan.”
Now the second phrase of John 1:1 reads “kai theos ān ho logos.”(literally “and God was the Logos) First of all, we notice that the definite article does not occur before “theos”. That should suggest to us that “theos” might not refer to God the Father. The New World Translation of the JWs takes advantage of this fact, and translates the phrase as “The word was a god.” But the word order is wrong for this translation. If the JW translators had been correct, the word order should have been “kai ho logos ān theos”. But the reverse order “theos ān” gives it a different meaning. To discover what this meaning might be, let’s examine similar reverse orders in other passages:
I John 4:6 God is love. The Greek words are: “ho theos agapā estin” (literally “The God love is”). By reversing, “love” and “is”, John indicates that “love” is the quality or kind of thing that God is.
John 17:17 Your word is truth The Greek words are: ‘ho logos ho sos alātheia estin” (literally “The word the one of you truth is”).
By reversing “truth” and “is”, John indicates that “truth” is the kind of thing that God’s word is.
Similarily, by reversing “God” and “was” in John 1:1, John indicates that “God” is the kind of thing the Logos was. A translation which would reflect this idea might be “And the Logos was Deity” or “And the Logos was divine.”
Martin Luther (whatever else he was) was a good Greek scholar. Concerning the phrase “kai theos ān ho logos” inJohn 1:1, he put it succinctly:
The lack of an article is against Sabellianism [modalism]; the word order is against Arianism [who supposedly thought Jesus was a lesser god]
When the NT refers to Jesus as “the only-begotten Son” (not “the one and only Son” as some translations have it), it is speaking of his having been begotten by the Father, as the Father’s first act, as the early writers such as Justin Martyr attest. It was not “an eternal begetting” as was formulated in the fourth century. It was a single act in the beginning of time. If the begetting of His Son, was God’s first act, then it must have occurred at the beginning of time, (in the sense that “time” is merely a measurement of the passing of events).
Thus Arius was mistaken in saying, “There was a time at which the Son did not exist.” Untrue, since there was no “time” before the beginning of time. Justin Martyr compared the begetting of the Son with kindling a small fire from a larger one. The small fire is of the same substance as the larger. In no way does the kindling of the smaller fire lessen the larger one. Yet, the smaller fire has a separate existence.
The Father and the Son share the name “Yahweh”. It was the Son who remained behind and spoke to Abraham, after the two angels went ahead to deal with Sodom and Gomorrah. He was addressed by Abraham as “Yahweh”. Indeed, in Genesis 19:24, two Individuals each of whom is called “Yahweh” are mentioned:
Then Yahweh rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from Yahweh out of heaven
The Father and the Son share the same spirit. Jesus promised that He and the Father would make their dwelling in the disciples. That is the Holy Spirit. Jesus and the Father dwell in heaven. But they extend their spirit, their personalities into each disciple. Sometimes the NT speaks of the “spirit of God” and sometimes of the “spirit of Christ”. Justin Martyr as well as Trypho (the Jew) spoke of the Holy Spirit. Surely Trypho would not have had a Third Person in mind when he used the term. Nor did Justin ever correct him. However at one point, Justin asked, “Could there be a THIRD Individual who can properly be addressed as “God”? Trypho replied, “Well, hardly, since you’ve taken all this time in trying to convince us that there is even TWO!” If Justin had believed in “the Trinity”, this would have been an ideal time to expound on it. But no, Justin then indicated that he was just testing Trypho to see whether he was contradicting himself. I could not understand in what sense this question was a test of that.
It seems that John recorded Jesus having stated his begetting in John 16:28:
I emerged out of the Father and have come into the Universe. I am leaving the Universe and going to the Father.
The word I translated as “emerged” is “exerchomai”. The prefix “ex” means “out. This has been carried over into English, as in “exit”. But the preposition “ek” (or “ex” before vowels) itself means “out”. This preposition occurs in the text immediately after “exerchomai”. That forms a sort of “double out”.
“Exerchomai” has been translated as “come out” (or whatever the appropriate tense) in every occurrence in the New Testament.
So Jesus emphasized that He came out of the Father, and into the created Universe. When He “ascended” to His Father after His resurrection, He went out of the created Universe to His Father in the Heavenly realm. Notice He didn’t say that He would go “into” His Father again, but simply go “to” (“eis” in Greek) His Father. That is, They remain separate divine Individuals.
Now a word about the term “God” as it is used in the NT. Whenever the definite article “ho” comes before “theos”, the reference is to the Father. When the definite article is not used, the word sometimes refers to Jesus, and sometimes refers to Deity as a quality.
plārōma
Colossians 2:9 For in him the whole plārōma [fullness] of deity dwells bodily.
God’s Son is the complement of the Father. Together they form the one an only plārōma of deity. The word “plārōma” seems to have been used of the complement as well as the fullness. For example, Heracleon, commenting on John 4:16, said that Jesus told the Samaritan woman to go call her plārōma, that is, her complement, who, together with her would form the fullness. Today, some people refer to one’s spouse as “the other half” (or “the better half”) suggesting that the person and his spouse together form a whole (or the fullness).
One also needs to bear in mind that all three NT passages which speak of “one God” refer to the Father:
1 Corinthians 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.
Ephesians 4:6 one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all.
1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.
Part of Jesus’ prayer in John 17 was:
And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.
So even Jesus addressed His Father as “the only true God”. Thus, one can understand the position of Unitarians who believe that Jesus is not God. But I think theirs is a position which contradicts a number of Scriptures.
So is He God, or is He not? It all depends upon one’s use of the word “God”.
If by “God” one means “the Father”, then the answer is “No”. Jesus is not God the Father. If by “God” one means “Deity”, then the answer is “yes”. Jesus is equally divine. He was generated (or “begotten”) by God at the beginning of time, and is Another One exactly like the Father. He shares all the divine attributes of the Father. He temporarily divested Himself of His divine attributes while He lived as a man on earth. He shares the same Spirit with the Father. He shares the same name “Yahweh” (the one who was, and is, and is to come) with the Father. To see Jesus is to see the Father. He, like the Father, is worthy of our worship. If He were something other than Deity, it would be idolatry to pray to Him or worship Him.
To sum up, “the Godhead” or “the Deity” is one Plārōma consisting of God the Father, and His Son Jesus. Does that mean there are two Gods? In the sense of divine Individuals, yes. (Gods said, “Let us create man in b]our/b] own image”). In the sense of “true God”, no. In the sense of full Deity (the Plārōma), no.
In short, there is one “True God”;’ there are two “Divine Individuals”; there is one Plārōma of Deity.
.
.