God and the Word of God

[Homer]

An excerpt from the Anchor Bible Dictionary, Volume III, p. 923, by Johannine scholar Robert Kysar:

God and the Word of God

Among the images employed to express the identity of Jesus are two which make the bold assertion that Jesus is God. The first of these is the use of the title, logos (Word) for Jesus in 1:1-18. The search for the religious and philosophical background out of which this title was drawn has lead only to the recognition of the enormous breadth of meaning the word carried in 1st century Greek. It had associations with the prophetic and creative work of God in the OT and had become identified with both Torah and Wisdom in Jewish thought. Among Hellenists the word had a philosophical heritage which equated it, among other things with the rational center of being itself. Very likely the word was chosen for its wide meaning, encompassing as it did both Hellenistic and Hebraic shades of meaning. Typical of the evangelists love of words with multiple meanings it engages the reader - regardless of his or her background - on the very first page of the gospel. It is clear, however, that the evangelist meant to claim that Jeus was the self-expression of God - the revealed, public side of the divine being. By claiming that Jesus is the Word of God the author supposes that Jesus is the divine medium of communication with humanity.

The Word is said to be both God and to be with (pros) God. The Language suggests both identification with God and distinctive individuality - a paradoxical relationship typical of Johannine Christological reflection. The existence of the word precedes creation, and it is through the Word that creation is accomplished (1:2-3). Ther Word therefore is the "life" and the "light" of humanity, i.e., the source of authentic and meaningful existence. Through the Word God sought to restore the divine human relationship, empowering humans to become "children of God", although such efforts were rejected (1:10-12). In Jesus the word became incarnate and manifested the identity and nature of God (1:14).

As the prologue began with the assertion that Jesus (the Word) is God, so it would appear to end. 1:18 is marred by a textual problem but may have spoken of Jesus as the "only God" (monogenes theos). As the gospel began with the assertion that Jesus is God, so the gospel concludes with the confession of Thomas, "My Lord and my God" (20:28). Thus by identifying Jesus with the Word and attributing to Him the title, God, the fourth evangelist boldly claims the divine identity of the central figure of the gospel. This is reinforced by the fact that Jesus is made to claim that to know and see Him is to know and see the Father (8:19; 14-9), a further articulation of 21-18.

Several different suggestions have been offered with regard to the meaning of the confession "Lord and God" in 20:28. The first is that the two titles encompass both the common name for the deity in Hellenistic and Jewish thought of the 1st century. Consequently Thomas' confession makes a universal claim for the deity of Christ. The second suggestion is that in Hellenistic Judaism the title, God, represented the creative power of the deity, and the title, Lord, the eschatological power of the deity. Thus Thomas' confession is understood to attribute the two definitive powers to Christ.

It should be noted that pre-existence is claimed for Jesus in 17:24 as well as in 1:1. (8:58 may also imply such a view.) While such a claim is not unique to the Fourth Gospel (cf., e.g., Col. 1:15:16), nowhere else is it accompanied with such a clear identification of Christ with God.

This high and unequaled NT assertion regarding Jesus demonstrates the author's concern to say that Jesus is the one in whom humans encounter the true revelation of God. That concern is manifested in the other images used of Jesus. But associated with it is the necessity to claim that Jeus is related to the one he reveals. In this case, the claim is made that he is fully identified with the God whom he reveals.

[darinhouston]

That would be a perfectly reasonable take on the passage if other scripture plainly taught such a thing, though there are many other takes on the passage. I think one of the things that bothers me the most about what seems to me a reaching back into time to put our assumptions and developed theology back on the text is that there is absolutely ZERO indication that the original readers had this view. The complete lack of apostolic debate such as Jerusalem Council or otherwise for such a premise or in the earliest writings is very odd -- especially if it's that plain to us today, surely it would have been even clearer to them then and would have been immensely controversial. It is more likely to me that the original context was understood in ways that weren't controversial and which were consistent with other passages such as 1 John and elsewhere where the subject was consistently ways to view what happened during Jesus' ministry and not at creation or other metaphysical origin stories.

[Homer]

That would be a perfectly reasonable take on the passage if other scripture plainly taught such a thing, though there are many other takes on the passage.

But it appears to be just as plainly taught in Col. 1:15-16. And it might be asked what scriptures plainly contradict his understanding?

[darinhouston]

That would be a perfectly reasonable take on the passage if other scripture plainly taught such a thing, though there are many other takes on the passage.

But it appears to be just as plainly taught in Col. 1:15-16. And it might be asked what scriptures plainly contradict his understanding?

I don't see that taught in Col 1:15-16. If you hold that position, it can be interpreted to support it, but it's not an explicit unambiguous teaching along the lines of "there is one God" and "Jesus has a God" and so forth. The list of verses affirming one God and distinguishing Jesus from God and stating he has a God and that he was begotten and so forth... they're all VERY clear. Most of that requires no interpretation aside from "begotten" (resolved only by the strange notion of being eternally begotten). If you interpret the difficult texts based on the clear ones, it's a no brainer even if it makes us scratch our heads on passages like John 1:1 and do a little work to go back to original understanding and undo the strong influence of tradition. I don't want to derail this thread with all of those passages, but I've been meaning to put a list together of these clear and unambiguous texts that all have to be qualified or explained away to hold onto these often highly stylized or poetic passages Trinitarians list out, so if I do that I'll try and come back here and list them.

[dizerner]

You have to work really, really hard to make "the Word was God" somehow "not clear."

[darinhouston]

You have to work really, really hard to make "the Word was God" somehow "not clear."

Not really, but even if the Logos was God even in the most eternal deity sense of the unbegotten Yahweh, it is not so clear that the Logos=Jesus and therefore that Jesus was God. The Logos "became" "enfleshed" or "embodied" in Jesus. That has to be interpreted. But, that's a bit of a digression and a road we've tread before. It's very interesting to note that the language of John 1 and especially the prologue is very similar to the language used in the gnostic/hermetic/alchemical texts about Hermes Trismegistus and that this language and the concepts used in John's gospel would have been VERY familiar to the various and diverse gnostic communities in John's day - we also know from John's other writings that this was an audience he was very keen to influence and teach against and it would not be unusual for this to explain why his gospel is so different from others and if you look into these concepts you can perhaps understand why he worded it how he did. Scholars have long debated these issues and VERY MAINSTREAM theologians have tried to explain this gnostic influence in John's writings - most of them fail to my mind, but only because they are trying so hard to maintain the trinitarian presuppositions. More now are considering other ways to understand this and they make much more sense to me.

We have learned A LOT about this gnostic and hellenized jewish communities after the Nag Hamabi discoveries and so forth. To ignore this seems foolish.

What we DO know is this preamble in particular is a mysterious text and to build a doctrine from it seems foolish as well.

[dwight92070]

What is foolish is to go outside the canon of scripture to heretical, and in some cases, even blasphemous, gnostic (and other) sources, to interpret the canon of scripture.
Paul told Timothy that "All SCRIPTURE is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
If we cannot interpret John 1 accurately, using only other scripture and John 1 itself, then Paul's statement to Timothy is inaccurate. Like Dizerner said, paraphrasing, you have to work really, really hard to NOT understand John 1. Obviously, there are other legitimate sources, such as dictionaries, commentaries, enycyclopedias, Bible teachers, etc., as long as they don't differ from the canon, or add to it, or take away from it.

[dwight92070]

The problem with John 1 for non-trinitarians, is not that it is mysterious, but that it is too plain and obvious, and that it successfully refutes their false interpretation.

[darinhouston]

What is foolish is to go outside the canon of scripture to heretical, and in some cases, even blasphemous, gnostic (and other) sources, to interpret the canon of scripture.
Paul told Timothy that "All SCRIPTURE is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
If we cannot interpret John 1 accurately, using only other scripture and John 1 itself, then Paul's statement to Timothy is inaccurate. Like Dizerner said, paraphrasing, you have to work really, really hard to NOT understand John 1. Obviously, there are other legitimate sources, such as dictionaries, commentaries, enycyclopedias, Bible teachers, etc., as long as they don't differ from the canon, or add to it, or take away from it.

If you aren't considering the historical background and purpose of a writer, you're just using their writings for your own purposes. If we don't consider the cultural understanding of those to whom John is writing and the errors he was speaking into, we aren't reading John for his own perspectives, but abusing them to reinforce our own ideas. I see John approaching the gnostics in a similar vein of Paul approaching the pagan philosophers at Mars Hill. Just as much of what Jesus said to the Pharisees was meant to convey requires us to know a bit of what the pharisees believed and why they said things they did.

[dwight92070]

So the Gospel of Thomas was discovered at Nag Hammadi, with it's early collection of 114 "sayings of Jesus". Number 114 is:

14) Simon Peter said to him, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life."
Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become
a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will
enter the kingdom of heaven."
The Gospel
According to Thomas

I agree with you that we should look, to a certain extent, at historical background, customs, and even beliefs of early "Christians", but when you come across blasphemous lies about what Jesus said, then you know why these writings were considered heresy. How about this one?

Jesus said, "When you disrobe without being ashamed and take up your garments and
place them under your feet like little children and tread on them, then will you see the son
of the living one, and you will not be afraid"

Could you explain how we can better translate John 1, by reading this blasphemous trash?