Someone called in to today's show asking about the "nature" of the logos in John 1:1; whether the logos is a person.
Let's assume for argument sake that the logos is literally, the mind of God, which became flesh in the person of Jesus.
My question is: if this is the case, how does that make Jesus any less deity? In my view, this would make him more deity than a second person of the trinity as is traditionally taught. What (or who) could be any more like (or equal to, or the same as) another person than being that person's very mind incarnate?
Steve mentioned several verses that need to be accounted for by the "logos as mind" theory. But, I think these verses can easily be reconciled with the "logos as mind" theory.
Tim
The Logos - Personal or Impersonal
The Logos - Personal or Impersonal
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Perhaps the pneuma is the mind of God.
For what person knows that which is of a person except the spirit of the person which is in him? So also no one perceives that which is of God except the spirit of God. 1 Corinthians 2:11
For what person knows that which is of a person except the spirit of the person which is in him? So also no one perceives that which is of God except the spirit of God. 1 Corinthians 2:11
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Paidion
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
Excellent point! Perhaps the logos and the spirit are personal aspects of God (in this sense, this might shed light on our being created in the image of God; we have a mind / soul, and spirit as well) working in our time-space continuum.
In the same way that God "appeared" to Abraham, Jacob, Moses (as men, angels, burning bushes), though I don't know that anyone would argue that these appearances were really God, the logos was made flesh in the person of Jesus.
I think that Steve makes this point in his second lecture on the Deity of Christ. I believe his last comment was a speculation that Jesus is the ultimate (perfect?) theophany. I paraphrase based on my recollection.
In the same way that God "appeared" to Abraham, Jacob, Moses (as men, angels, burning bushes), though I don't know that anyone would argue that these appearances were really God, the logos was made flesh in the person of Jesus.
I think that Steve makes this point in his second lecture on the Deity of Christ. I believe his last comment was a speculation that Jesus is the ultimate (perfect?) theophany. I paraphrase based on my recollection.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_SoaringEagle
- Posts: 285
- Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2005 10:40 pm
- Location: Louisville, KY
Having emailed a few scholars about the meaning of the word logos, I can show what some have said in their reply.
Dr. Mark Strauss says:
The word logos (and dabar) has a huge range of possible meanings, so only the context can tell you what it means.The same language about the logos is used in vv. 1-13 that is used afterward. The logos comes into the world and is testified to by John in 1:8-9 as well as in 1:14f. He comes to his own people in 1:11-12 but they do not receive him. If the author was suddenly changing the subject from an impersonal force to a person in v. 14, he would have totally confused his original readers.
Dr. Parsenios thought I believed what that John's usage of "Word" was an impersonal usage, so he responded back to me as if they were my beliefs when I merely had presented a different way some understand John 1:1.
Dr. George Parsenios says
Thank you for sharing your ideas about John 1:1. But, your mistakes here are manifold. Listing the many uses of "Logos," even within the Gospel of John, tells us very little about the meaning of the term in John 1:1. John specifically, and the Bible more generally, can use the same word in very different senses. In chapter 3, for instance, the word "pneuma" means both spirit and wind. On the cross, it might also refer to Jesus' breath, but perhaps also to the Holy Spirit. But this introduces your greater mistake. You take a single term or a single phrase and read it in isolation from other verses. For instance, you have read John 1:1 in isolation from John 17, where Jesus refers to himself being with the Father before the foundation of the world (John 17:24) and before the world existed (17:5).
Dr. Mark Strauss says:
The word logos (and dabar) has a huge range of possible meanings, so only the context can tell you what it means.The same language about the logos is used in vv. 1-13 that is used afterward. The logos comes into the world and is testified to by John in 1:8-9 as well as in 1:14f. He comes to his own people in 1:11-12 but they do not receive him. If the author was suddenly changing the subject from an impersonal force to a person in v. 14, he would have totally confused his original readers.
Dr. Parsenios thought I believed what that John's usage of "Word" was an impersonal usage, so he responded back to me as if they were my beliefs when I merely had presented a different way some understand John 1:1.
Dr. George Parsenios says
Thank you for sharing your ideas about John 1:1. But, your mistakes here are manifold. Listing the many uses of "Logos," even within the Gospel of John, tells us very little about the meaning of the term in John 1:1. John specifically, and the Bible more generally, can use the same word in very different senses. In chapter 3, for instance, the word "pneuma" means both spirit and wind. On the cross, it might also refer to Jesus' breath, but perhaps also to the Holy Spirit. But this introduces your greater mistake. You take a single term or a single phrase and read it in isolation from other verses. For instance, you have read John 1:1 in isolation from John 17, where Jesus refers to himself being with the Father before the foundation of the world (John 17:24) and before the world existed (17:5).
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Thanks for sharing this information. A couple points in response:
It is stated:
For instance, you have read John 1:1 in isolation from John 17, where Jesus refers to himself being with the Father before the foundation of the world (John 17:24) and before the world existed (17:5).
I see no inconsistency here when viewing the logos as the mind of God, the thoughts of God, etc. Jesus was with (was loved by) the Father before the foundation of the world as the logos of God. I could just as reasonably make the counter-argument that the scholar you quoted is guilty of reading John 17 in isolation from John 1:1!
What I am suggesting is that we take John 1:1, at face value, as the definitive statement (at least in John's gospel) of the nature of Christ. If we do this, which I am inclined to do, then these later verses have a completely different flavor (or at least, it opens them up to an alternate flavor).
The other scholar that you quoted says:
If the author was suddenly changing the subject from an impersonal force to a person in v. 14, he would have totally confused his original readers.
First of all, how does he know that this would have totally confused his readers? Just because it confuses him, does not mean that it would have confused others. Would first century readers have read the logos as a personal, independent being? I don't know the answer to that and I'm not sure that anyone else does either. From the little that I have studied, neither the Greeks nor Jews thought of the logos / word in that way.
Secondly, I am not arguing that the logos is an impersonal force, but the living, active, powerful, creative word of God. As the Word of the Lord came to the prophets of old, so the Word of the Lord became flesh and dwelt among us.
It is stated:
For instance, you have read John 1:1 in isolation from John 17, where Jesus refers to himself being with the Father before the foundation of the world (John 17:24) and before the world existed (17:5).
I see no inconsistency here when viewing the logos as the mind of God, the thoughts of God, etc. Jesus was with (was loved by) the Father before the foundation of the world as the logos of God. I could just as reasonably make the counter-argument that the scholar you quoted is guilty of reading John 17 in isolation from John 1:1!
What I am suggesting is that we take John 1:1, at face value, as the definitive statement (at least in John's gospel) of the nature of Christ. If we do this, which I am inclined to do, then these later verses have a completely different flavor (or at least, it opens them up to an alternate flavor).
The other scholar that you quoted says:
If the author was suddenly changing the subject from an impersonal force to a person in v. 14, he would have totally confused his original readers.
First of all, how does he know that this would have totally confused his readers? Just because it confuses him, does not mean that it would have confused others. Would first century readers have read the logos as a personal, independent being? I don't know the answer to that and I'm not sure that anyone else does either. From the little that I have studied, neither the Greeks nor Jews thought of the logos / word in that way.
Secondly, I am not arguing that the logos is an impersonal force, but the living, active, powerful, creative word of God. As the Word of the Lord came to the prophets of old, so the Word of the Lord became flesh and dwelt among us.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_SoaringEagle
- Posts: 285
- Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2005 10:40 pm
- Location: Louisville, KY
When he said "impersonal force", I take him to mean an impersonal thing. Either the Word was personal, or it was impersonal, being a personification of the Word of God. One thing that cannot be disagreed with is the fact that the Word of God was distinguished from and identified as God.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Let me ask an even more fundamental question: so what if the Word was personal or impersonal in the beginning? This will not change one bit the fact that Jesus is Lord today and forever into the future. I don't understand what difference it makes. Jesus, the Word made flesh, is certainly personal today, in my life, and that is all that matters.
In His Name,
In His Name,
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
I have come to the conclusion that Jesus appeared to man numerous times, prior to His incarnation, as the "Angel of the Lord". Consider the following:
In Genesis 16:10 the Angel of the Lord says to Hagar "I will multiply your descendents...."
In Genesis 32:24 Jacob wrestled with "a man" and said he had seen God. Then in Hosea 12:3-4 we read:
Hosea 12:2-4 (New King James Version)
2. “ The LORD also brings a charge against Judah,
And will punish Jacob according to his ways;
According to his deeds He will recompense him.
3. He took his brother by the heel in the womb,
And in his strength he struggled with God.
4. Yes, he struggled with the Angel and prevailed;
He wept, and sought favor from Him.
He found Him in Bethel,
And there He spoke to us—
In Joshua 15:13-15 we must assume the person who appeared as a man and identified himself as the commander of the army of the Lord was not God himself, but yet he accepted worship. Angels are not objects of worship. (Revelation 19:10)
In Judges 6:11-22 the Angel of the Lord is referred to as "the Lord" and the "Angel of the Lord" interchangeably.
Additional "Angel of the Lord" references could be cited.
Jesus was not the Son of God prior to His incarnation; if He was, John would have said so, but the Spirit inspired him to use the term "the Word". There is an implied disparity between Father and Son, but none between God and his word, nor is one prior to the other. They are coetaneous.
Interestingly, regarding Jesus John informs us:
John 1:3 (New King James Version)
3. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.
In the act of creation we find repeatedly "and God said, let there be....", "....let the waters", "....let the earth", as He spoke creation into existence. Through the word.
In Genesis 16:10 the Angel of the Lord says to Hagar "I will multiply your descendents...."
In Genesis 32:24 Jacob wrestled with "a man" and said he had seen God. Then in Hosea 12:3-4 we read:
Hosea 12:2-4 (New King James Version)
2. “ The LORD also brings a charge against Judah,
And will punish Jacob according to his ways;
According to his deeds He will recompense him.
3. He took his brother by the heel in the womb,
And in his strength he struggled with God.
4. Yes, he struggled with the Angel and prevailed;
He wept, and sought favor from Him.
He found Him in Bethel,
And there He spoke to us—
In Joshua 15:13-15 we must assume the person who appeared as a man and identified himself as the commander of the army of the Lord was not God himself, but yet he accepted worship. Angels are not objects of worship. (Revelation 19:10)
In Judges 6:11-22 the Angel of the Lord is referred to as "the Lord" and the "Angel of the Lord" interchangeably.
Additional "Angel of the Lord" references could be cited.
Jesus was not the Son of God prior to His incarnation; if He was, John would have said so, but the Spirit inspired him to use the term "the Word". There is an implied disparity between Father and Son, but none between God and his word, nor is one prior to the other. They are coetaneous.
Interestingly, regarding Jesus John informs us:
John 1:3 (New King James Version)
3. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.
In the act of creation we find repeatedly "and God said, let there be....", "....let the waters", "....let the earth", as He spoke creation into existence. Through the word.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
A Berean
This is a fascinating line of thought and I appreciate your insights. My frustration with the creeds, and so-called "orthodoxy", is that this kind of thinking is dismissed out of hand without even the chance for measured consideration. In many cases in the OT, the angel of the Lord and God are seen as ... equivalent? Yet, there was no confusion about the oneness of God. A principle of agency has been suggested as a reconciliation for this (if God sends His agent to perform a task, it is as if God appeared Himself).
I agree almost wholeheartedly with the following:
This is why I enjoy this forum and the listeners to the radio program.
[/i]
I agree almost wholeheartedly with the following:
Yet, this sort of statement is "heresy" for many. There must be some good reason why John did not say "In the beginning was the Son (or Jesus, etc.), and the Son was with God and the Son was God." Many people plug their ears and yell "I am not listening ... I am not listening ..." when you suggest things of this sort.Jesus was not the Son of God prior to His incarnation; if He was, John would have said so, but the Spirit inspired him to use the term "the Word". There is an implied disparity between Father and Son, but none between God and his word, nor is one prior to the other. They are coetaneous.
This is why I enjoy this forum and the listeners to the radio program.
[/i]
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Maybe I over-simplify concepts but it is very understandable to me why God would call Jesus His Son and also the Word. We as humans relate well to the term "Son". God does this all the time, bringing heavenly terms into terms better understood by us. At the same time He brings the terms of His diety into focus in order that the persective cannot be missed.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason: