Page 1 of 8

The word [Jesus?] was God

Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 1:07 pm
by _Ely
Okedokee,

The so-called "Johanine Prologue" in John 1 is seen as perhaps THE clearest teaching of the divinity of Jesus Christ. Having for a long time concurred with this, I now disagree. (For the record, I don't think that this idea is taught anywhere in the scriptures.)

Briefly, my understanding of this passage (not uniquely mine really, just what I've gathered from reading various exegetes far better than I) is that here, John is speaking about the plan, counsel, purpose of God being manifested in Yeshua. In John 17;17, Yeshua says's to the Father "Your word is truth." To say “in the beginning was the word and the word was with God” is to say that His plans, purpose and counsel, i.e. the truth, was with Him from the beginning – but not revealed to men until He so chose to reveal it.

Understood this way, Yahweh’s word was fully revealed through His son, Yeshua. Yeshua is the word of God made flesh. Not to say that a literal being was made flesh, but rather to say that “God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son.” yahwe's word is truth, likewise, Yeshua is the truth.

Yahweh said of this great prophet: “I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him.” Yeshua constantly made clear his and works were not his own, but were from the Father who sent him. He perfectly obeyed his Father in all things and made known His character, His holiness, His righteousness. In Yeshua, we find THE highest revelation to men from Yahweh Elohim, the one true God.

This truth helps us to understand what John meant in saying that the "word was God.” His plans, counsel and purposes, the truth, reveals Him. In that sense, the word of Yahweh is Yahweh. Yeshua, is a living representation of Father. In that sense, Yeshua is the Father. He was able to say things like “I and the Father are one” and “He who has seen me has seen the Father.” But this is not to elevate him to the status of Yahweh, for he many times affirms both in his words and his deeds, that he is not Yahweh, but the son of Yahweh, subordinate to him.

So, that, briefly, is my understanding of this passage. Open to comments.

Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 1:56 pm
by _Rick_C
Ely,

I'm hoping to get that new thread (on Larry Hurtado) started soon. I may include Margaret Barker within the thread.

To reply to you generally, here is an excerpt from Barker's website:
Margaret Barker, Biblical Scholar: Publications
In The Great Angel. A Study of Israel’s Second God (London: SPCK, 1992) she tested the hypothesis that when the early Christians read the Old Testament as an account of the pre-incarnate Christ, they were reading in a traditional way and were not innovators. She proposed that pre-Christian Judaism was not monotheistic in the generally accepted sense of that word. From a comparison of ancient versions of the OT she proposed that Israel had known a High God and a second, national God, known as the Son of God Most High....She concluded that when the Christians declared ‘Jesus is the Lord’ they were affirming that Jesus was the final manifestation of Yahweh, the national God of Israel in the Old Testament.
I lean very strongly in agreeing with Barker's findings and assessments. Other scholars, like Larry Hurtado, point in the same direction though they may disagree on details. What direction? you may ask. To summarize: I lean in the direction of seeing God the Father as being the deity "El Elyon" (the Most High God) and that the deity "Yahweh" is, in fact, the pre-incarnate Jesus. In other words, two distinct deities: 1) Yahweh (Jesus) as the Son of 2) the Most High (El Elyon). This doesn't make me, Barker, or Hurtado Jehovah's Witnesses, btw. We are all trinitarian and evangelical!!!

This may be off topic for this thread and other trinitarians may want to debate me on this (yes, I am a trinitarian, lol)...and no, I won't debate it here, lol. I'm trinitarian but not in a totally traditional sense as I am not fully convinced of the "fusing of El and Yahweh (into a single deity)"... Anyway, I hope to get the new thread or threads started soon.

I should also say that I'm not 100% convinced on what Barker, Hurtado and others have to say. But the evidence is practically overwhelming!

Lastly, I've wondered if Steve (Gregg) may be familiar with what these scholars have to say... I've never asked him. Barker, I know for sure, is considered "liberal" on the "fusing of El and Yahweh" (which I lean toward also). I'm sure Steve wouldn't accept this idea/belief. Larry Hurtado, as far as I know, is more "standard evangelical"...I don't know if he goes into "Deutero-Isaiah" themes or OT Redaction or not.

Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 2:13 pm
by _Derek
I am assuming that you will say that the Word is not in mind when John says

Joh 1:3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

First the word is called "him", but I suppose you'll say its just the "plan personified" or something.

"He" is the subject of the preceding sentece, so the natural reading of this statement would be that "the Word" created all things.

Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.

Again, "the world was made" through Him. Not through the "word of God' but through the Word, Him (Jesus).

Though the bible elswhere says "by the word of the Lord, the heavens were made", in this context, and in John's thought in general (1Jn 1:1-2) the Word, is obviously Jesus.

You may say that all of the uses of the "word" is a personification of God's plan, however, when comparing the idea that Jesus made all things with other biblical writers, we see that Jesus did, in fact make all things.

This would comport with Paul:

Col 1:16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him.


And the author of Hebrews:

Heb 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.

The obvious problem, is that if He created all things (Jn 1:3; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2 etc.), He couldn't be created Himself.

The immdeiate context, and other scriptures indicate, that He did create all things, and hence cannot be created.

I mention all of this, not to jump to other scriptures, but to show that interpreting "the Word" to mean "the plan" messes up plain bible teaching (-at least elswhere-i.e.that Jesus created all things) by the 3rd verse of the prologue.


Just sticking to the thought of John, He seems to present Jesus as existing consciously, (i.e. more than a "plan"), with the Father before the incarnation.

He cam down from heaven, (Jn 3:13,31; 6:33, 38), from where He was before, (6:62;16:28), and speaks of the "glory He had before" (17:5).

Without necessarilly going into all of these texts in which Jesus says in so many words, that He was with the Father in heaven before He came here, are you saying that you think He is speaking of existing only as a "plan" before? In other words, that He didn't "exist" at all?

So to summarize, if Jesus made all things, and He was with the Father in some way other than being an abstract idea (which means "He" wasn't really with the Father), then the "Word is God" is not a personification of the plan of God, but is rather Jesus Himself.

God bless,

Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 3:22 pm
by _Rick_C
Hello Derek,

On: the Word (Greek, "Logos")
Philo of Alexandria, a Jew who lived in the first century, wrote about The Logos. I don't believe he was heretical (within his Judaism), nor a "Hellenizer."

He spoke of The Logos in a twofold manner: First, as the rational prinicple of the universe and/or Reason or Reasoning of Divinity. He also spoke of The Logos "the Man of God" and, yes, even as "the Son of God"! As a Jew Philo taught that every man should aspire to become united with The Logos, to become a man of God...a son of God.

In John One I see compatibilities and distinctions between what John was teaching and what Philo taught: But John went further. Philo taught that each man could -- and should -- aspire to be united with The Logos. And that, in doing so, he could become a man of God and a son of God (uniting with "The Logos, the Son of God"). For Philo The Logos was both transcendent yet what we should aspire to "ascend" to.

John taught that this Logos: as the Divine Reasoning and rational principle underlying all things in the universe, had not only pre-existed along-side the High God (as Philo had taught); John told how this transcendent Logos became flesh: Jesus! Christ fully embodied and lived everything The Logos was, is, or could possibly ever be or be-about. He is, Himself, that very Logos!

"Very Logos of Very Logos" to put it creedally, lol

Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 3:55 pm
by _Derek
Hi Rick,

This does not answer Jesus' claims to have been with the Father "before" He came here.

Do think that Jesus was really with Him, or do you think that Jesus was refering to back when He was "the Divine Reasoning", which would really mean "He" didn't exist at all?

I think that this interpretation renders Jesus' words in Jn 3:13,31; 6:33, 38; 6:62;16:28; 17:5, meaningless. It turns them into mystical nonsense, in my opinion.

Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 5:20 pm
by _Rick_C
Hi Derek,
you wrote:This does not answer Jesus' claims to have been with the Father "before" He came here.
Correct, in that: John One doesn't actually "quote" Jesus.
you also wrote:Do think that Jesus was really with Him, or do you think that Jesus was refering to back when He was "the Divine Reasoning", which would really mean "He" didn't exist at all?
Yes, I believe the pre-existing Christ was with the Father. Yet Jesus never referred to himself as The Logos (Word) that I know of; not in the canonical scriptures anyway. I believe Jesus existed as The Logos before he came to earth but I do not believe he was a human being (as of yet)...if that's what you were asking (?).
lastly, you wrote:I think that this interpretation renders Jesus' words in Jn 3:13,31; 6:33, 38; 6:62;16:28; 17:5, meaningless. It turns them into mystical nonsense, in my opinion.
I'm not sure what you mean by "this interpretation". After looking up all of the texts you cited I don't see any dis-connect between what The Logos was known to be in Jesus' day and what Jesus taught. While he, himself, never proclaimed himself as The Logos -- which is considered to be a later development with John's Gospel -- I don't find anything in "Logos theology" that goes against what Jesus taught. Interesting though, that the some of texts you cited reveal Jesus' own favorite self-description: The Son of Man! And, as you already know, I see The Jesus Movement as stemming, at least in part, from Enochian Judaism...which is yet another topic!

Anyway, I'm gonna get going & visit a church that just started Saturday night services. They call it "Satruday Night Live" lol...BBL :)

Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 5:33 pm
by _Derek
Yes, I believe the pre-existing Christ was with the Father. Yet Jesus never referred to himself as The Logos (Word) that I know of; not in the canonical scriptures anyway. I believe Jesus existed as The Logos before he came to earth but I do not believe he was a human being (as of yet)...if that's what you were asking (?).
But if he existed as the Logos, the way you are interpreting it, ("Divine Reasoning and rational principle underlying all things in the universe"), then "He" really didn't exist. Only an abstraction. A person "exists" in a far different way than a "principle". Jesus expressed that He existed and was with the Father before He came here.

Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 6:14 pm
by _Ely
Hey Derek,

1. He or It, or both?
Concerning the use of the word “Him“ (note: capitalised by the translators, not John), you might be interested to know that many early English versions did not start the personalisation till much later in the passage. See for example the Geneva Bible of 1580 (others include Tyndale’s version and the famous Bishop’s Bible):

In the beginning was that Word, and that Word was with God, and that Word was God. This same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by it, and without it was made nothing that was made. In it was life, and that life was the light of men. And that light shineth in the darkenesse, and the darkenesse comprehended it not.

Apparently, the Greek does not require personal pronouns. Such versions did not begin to personalise the pronouns until the man Jesus was definitely in view, in verse 10.

He was in the world, and the worlde was made by him: and the worlde knewe him not. He came vnto his owne, and his owne receiued him not.

This would support the idea that in the opening verses, John was referring to something other than a literal, personal being.

But what John did mean to personalise the word? Well, in that case, I don’t see any reason to suppose that he was first employing a literary personification of God’s word, and then, from verse 10, making known that God’s word had literally been personified.

I think strong support for this idea comes from Solomon’s personification of the wisdom of God as a woman in Proverbs. Many saints have noticed that Solomon attributes very similar things to wisdom as John does to the word. For example, wisdom was in the beginning "with God" (Proverbs 8:22-24, 29-30, 3:13-20), all things were made through wisdom (Proverbs 3:18-19) and wisdom also has life (Prov 3:16-18, 9:3, 11).

That there is a close similarity between the idea of the wisdom of God and the word of God is seen elsewhere in the apostolic writings. On a couple of occasions, Yeshua apparently equated himself with the personified wisdom (Luke 11:49-50/ Prov 1:24-31, Matt 11:19). And Paul said “we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.” (1 Corinthians 1:23-24).


2. "Jesus created all things"?
Now, you said that the Bible says that Jesus created all things. Actually, it doesn't. John 1:3, Colossians 1:16 and Hebrews 1:2 all say that “all things were made dia him.” Trinitarian bias on the part of the translators means that they translate this word as by, thus implying that Yeshua was the one who was doing the creating. But this is not the meaning of the word.

In Strong’s we read that dia is “a primary preposition denoting the channel of an act; through (in very wide applications, local, causal or occasional).” Thayer elaborates by saying that the word can mean “the ground or reason by which something is done.”

In one his many explicitly Unitarian staments, Paul explains:

Therefore concerning the eating of things offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God but one. For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords), yet for us there is one God, the Father, out of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through [dia] whom are all things, and we through [dia] him. 1 Corinthians 8:4-6

See, the Father is the one God who did the creating. Jesus is our lord who is the reason God created all things (cf. Ephesians 3:9 Majority Text). The Colossians passage really makes this plain:

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For through Him all things were created [i.e. by the one God, the Father] that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. Colossians 1:15-1

Again, Jesus did not create all things, rather, all things were created by the Father for Jesus His son. Like I said somewhere else, he is the one in whom all of Yahweh’s plans and purposes for His creation will be fulfilled in. John 1 proclaims this great truth in lofty splendor.


3. Jesus consciously with the Father before?
About those places where you think that Jesus speaks of being “consciously with the Father” before he was conceived in Mary’s womb. First up, one of those texts that you quoted makes clear that we cannot interpret them in strict literalism (who’d have thought that I would ever say something like that that to you!):

No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven. John 3:13

To take this strictly literally, we would need to conclude that Jesus had already ascended into heaven (when would that have been?), and that while he was there talking to Nicodemus, the son of Man (i.e. the man Jesus, son of Mary) was also at that same time in heaven?

Actually, while I can’t give you an explanation for that particular text, I think I can explain the other ones. We need to consider God’s foreknowledge. Paul reminds us that God calls things that are not, as though they are (Romans 4:17). David understood this when he said "Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them." (Psalm 139:16), Yahweh told Jeremiah "I knew you before I formed you in the belly; and before you came out of the womb, I consecrated you. I appointed you a prophet to the nations." (Jer 1:5). This is a common idea that runs right through the scriptures (cf. Eph 2:10, Romans 8:29-30, etc.).

Peter says of Messiah that he was “foreknown before the foundation of the world but made manifest in these last days” (1 Peter 1:20). I think this is what Yeshua had in mind in those sayings you quoted. For example, when he spoke of receiving the glory which he had with the Father before the world was formed, he was speaking of receiving the glory which the Father had prepared for him.

Shalom brother,
Ely

Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 10:47 pm
by _Rick_C
back from church....
Derek wrote:But if he existed as the Logos, the way you are interpreting it, ("Divine Reasoning and rational principle underlying all things in the universe"), then "He" really didn't exist. Only an abstraction. A person "exists" in a far different way than a "principle". Jesus expressed that He existed and was with the Father before He came here.
Derek,
In the first century The Logos would have been readily understood by John's readers since they were in the Dispersion and/or living among the "Greeks." To them The Logos wasn't understood as a mere "abstraction" or novel idea of some kind. It may seem like a bizarre concept to us if we aren't familiar with this term which came from Greek philosophy.

Excerpted from this wikipedia article on: Logos
The Greek word "logos" is a word with various meanings. It is often translated into English as "Word" but can also mean thought, speech, account, meaning, reason, proportion, principle, standard, or logic, among other things. It has varied use in the fields of philosophy, analytical psychology, rhetoric and religion.

Heraclitus also used Logos to mean the undifferentiated material substrate from which all things came: "Listening not to me but to the Logos it is wise to agree that all [things] are one." In this sense Logos is Heraclitus' answer to the Pre-Socratic question of what the arche is of all things. Logos therefore designates both the material substrate itself and the universal, mechanical, "just" way in which this substrate manifests itself in and as individual things; that is, it subsumes within itself the later Platonic distinction (in Timaeus) between "form" and "matter".

By the time of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, logos was the term used to describe the faculty of human reason and the knowledge men had of the world and of each other. Plato allowed his characters to engage in the conceit of describing logos as a living being in some of his dialogues. The development of the Academy with hypomnemata brought logos closer to the literal text. Aristotle, who studied under Plato, first developed the concept of logic as a depiction of the rules of human rationality.

The Stoics understood Logos as the animating power of the universe.
The article goes on to explain how John used the term and differing interpretations of it. As you can see, The Logos was certainly much more than just an abstract idea of some kind to both the Greeks and to John.

John expresses that The Logos was indeed a person "the Word became flesh". So, I'm not really following you on why you seem to think that I was somehow implying that Jesus wasn't a Person in the Godhead before his incarnation..."the Word became flesh". What am I missing here, Derek?

One thing we should keep in mind is that calling or naming the Persons of the Godhead: "Persons" was a later (post-apostolic) development in the Church. Iow, the term "Persons" is not used in the NT to describe: Father, Son, or Holy Spirit.

Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 11:06 pm
by _Rick_C
Ely,
You wrote:In one his many explicitly Unitarian statements, Paul explains:

Therefore concerning the eating of things offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God but one. For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords), yet for us there is one God, the Father, out of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through [dia] whom are all things, and we through [dia] him. 1 Corinthians 8:4-6

See, the Father is the one God who did the creating. Jesus is our lord who is the reason God created all things (cf. Ephesians 3:9 Majority Text).
Larry Hurtado and myself see in this passage a "binitarian devotion" to both the High God of Israel (the Father) and to the Lord of the OT (Yahweh/Jesus). The early Christians, imo, did not hold to the conventional "Jerusalem monotheism" of the time: both God and the Lord Jesus were worshipped (as two divine beings).

This passage, to me, shows the Father as the ultimate source from ("out of") Whom all things came -- and -- the Lord Jesus as the agency through Whom all things came into being (existence). God as the source; the Lord Jesus as the agency.

I guess I need to get that Hurtado thread going, huh?
You also wrote:No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven. John 3:13

To take this strictly literally, we would need to conclude that Jesus had already ascended into heaven (when would that have been?), and that while he was there talking to Nicodemus, the son of Man (i.e. the man Jesus, son of Mary) was also at that same time in heaven?
Although the phrase "the/a son of man" can and does simply mean "a man, a person, a human being, someone"; I believe Jesus used it as the "one like a son of man" (as seen in Daniel and 1 Enoch). Jesus was "Enochian" imo! The Son of Man in 1 Enoch is a pre-existent divine being who was to come down (be incarnated) into the world!
1 Enoch 46:1-4, Nickelsburg/Vanderkam translation wrote:1) There I saw one who had a head of days ["ancient of days" in Daniel], and his head was white like wool.
And with him was another, whose face was like the appearance of a man;
and his face was full of graciousness like one of the holy angels.
2) And I asked the angel of peace, who went with me and showed me all the hidden things, about that Son of Man --
who he was and whence he was (and) why he went with the Head of Days.
3) And he answered me and said to me,
"This is the Son of Man who has righteousness,
and righteousness dwells with him.
And all the treasuries of what is hidden he will reveal;
for the Lord of Spirits has chosen him,
and his lot has prevailed through truth in the presence of the Lord of Spirits forever.
4) And this Son of Man whom you have seen --
he will raise the kings and the mighty from their couches, and the strong from their thrones.
He will loosen the reins of the strong,
and will crush the teeth of sinners."
Once again, in this text we have two divine beings: God: the Head of Days, who is also called the Lord of Spirits in 1 Enoch, and, The Son of Man who, till this time in 1 Enoch, is still in heaven and has not come down into the world to do his mission, cf. John 3:13, above. I believe Jesus saw himself as this very same Son of Man described in 1 Enoch!

How many miles off-topic am I by now? Or should that have been kilometers, lol