Was John Mistaken?

[darinhouston]

Darin,

You wrote:

The "light" is both a qualitative characteristic and is also personified in Jesus

I have no quarrel with this statement as far as it goes. The bigger question to me is was the light personified in The Word, the status quo ante the incarnation. I affirm and you appear to deny. I can't see how you can possibly get around this:

Philippians 2:5-8

5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, as He already existed in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself by taking the form of a bond-servant and being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death: death on a cross.

I don't really understand your question about the personification in the Word pre-incarnation - but I don't think so - I think it was speaking qualitatively about the essence of the Word - both pre-incarnation in the Torah perhaps (a common view of John 1 by "Jewish" commentators) and pre-Creation in the more esoteric aspect of the λογοσ per se. The reason and logic of God is eternal and is "enscribed" in the Torah and "enfleshed" in the man Jesus. This is in line with the thought process used often by NT Wright (and others before him) when he speaks of Jesus as both "Temple and Torah." Wherever God's Word is shown or made apparent, there is light as it is ultimate Truth - Jesus brought that light to mankind - now the church (the body of Christ) does so - in some sense the church is now Temple and Torah and the corporate body of Christ. Is it the man? No, but it's Christ working in the world nonetheless. We speak like that sometimes - I think it's fair to let John speak that way also. And it was also somewhat impressionistic as a doxology and poetic introduction to his message.

[dwight92070]

Though you pound a fool in a mortar with a pestle along with crushed grain, yet his foolishness will not depart from him.

[darinhouston]

Though you pound a fool in a mortar with a pestle along with crushed grain, yet his foolishness will not depart from him.

You can't help but insult with ad hominem. You might spend some time in prayer before posting. (and maybe re-read Matthew 5:22)

[Homer]

Darin,

I can't see how you can fit this into your theory, or why you would even want to. Seems pretty straight forward to me:

but emptied Himself by taking the form of a bond-servant

From Strongs:
Morphe (form); morphe is therefore properly the nature or essence, not in the abstract, but as actually subsisting in the individual, and retained as long as the individual itself exists.

The true meaning of morphe in the expression "form of God" is confirmed by its recurrence in the corresponding phrase, "form of a servant." It is universally admitted that the two phrases are directly antithetical, and that "form" must have the same sense in both.

[darinhouston]

Darin,

I can't see how you can fit this into your theory, or why you would even want to. Seems pretty straight forward to me:

but emptied Himself by taking the form of a bond-servant

From Strongs:
Morphe (form); morphe is therefore properly the nature or essence, not in the abstract, but as actually subsisting in the individual, and retained as long as the individual itself exists.

The true meaning of morphe in the expression "form of God" is confirmed by its recurrence in the corresponding phrase, "form of a servant." It is universally admitted that the two phrases are directly antithetical, and that "form" must have the same sense in both.

It fits perfectly with not only my theory but the very gospel message itself. My interpretation of this verse would be the same whether trinitarian or not and it's held by many trinitarians. While depriving Trinitarians of a proof-text, it is not inconsistent with either and is not in my view an "existential" point about Christ but a contrast between the first Adam who tried to elevate himself and become like god and the second Adam who lowered himself and humbled himself as a servant to men - an "everyman" instead of an "uberman" and instead of claiming the prerogatives that could have been his as the Son of God. The next verse goes further than his "humble nature" that he maintained and gave the ultimate example of this humility in allowing himself to being obedient even unto death - the humiliating death of an accused man on a cross. To the glory not of himself but to the Father. The point is the humbling was out of obedience and the cross is the ultimate expression of what his whole life entailed. That is the context of the passage - again, not his birth narrative.

The point is that he emptied himself - it doesn't say this happened at his birth and I believe the context fits better as something he did consciously in his walk as a man (regardless of whether he had a pre-existence in some manner even as God). As a man, he had a choice and he took the choice Adam didn't take.

I really don't think this is (or should be) very controversial - it is an apologetic to the gospel and not a birth narrative.

I think the jury is out on the semantic range of μορφε - but, even if it is essence it is not necessarily an eternal existential nature - more of the beauty within sort of essence of what you're really like on the inside (even if reflect on the outside) - nonetheless, I tend to see it as the outward appearance/character/personality sort of thing - but, either fits. If you want to read more on morphe, you might appreciate this... https://www.revisedenglishversion.com/Philippians/2/6

[dwight92070]

Though you pound a fool in a mortar with a pestle along with crushed grain, yet his foolishness will not depart from him.

You can't help but insult with ad hominem. You might spend some time in prayer before posting. (and maybe re-read Matthew 5:22)

You might spend some time learning how to interpret scripture and some prayer wouldn't hurt either. That verse says that whoever is angry at his brother or who calls his brother a fool without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. When a person looks at a blue sky and insists over a period of years that the blue sky is green with black polka dots - all the while he is being told daily that the sky is blue - you have a fool whose foolishness will not go away.

[darinhouston]

Though you pound a fool in a mortar with a pestle along with crushed grain, yet his foolishness will not depart from him.

You can't help but insult with ad hominem. You might spend some time in prayer before posting. (and maybe re-read Matthew 5:22)

You might spend some time learning how to interpret scripture and some prayer wouldn't hurt either. That verse says that whoever is angry at his brother or who calls his brother a fool without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. When a person looks at a blue sky and insists over a period of years that the blue sky is green with black polka dots - all the while he is being told daily that the sky is blue - you have a fool whose foolishness will not go away.

We clearly have a different opinion - this is the place to discuss such things, not to accuse brothers of being a fool.