I am having an email exchange on passages related to the Incarnation with Derek Leman and as I thought that more people might be interested we will continue our discussion on my blog. As with most discussions on the ‘divinity’ of Jesus the first text that people call for as evidence is the prologue of John and as such this is the first text we are discussing. At present I hold that Jesus was not G’d but the human agent of G’d, or as Peter puts it in Acts 2:22:
a man attested to you by G’d with mighty works and wonders and signs that G’d did through him in your midst
You are welcome to chip into the discussion, however I will moderate the comments, so that I will not get a dozen emotional appeals of how close I am to losing my salvation. I have studied this quite carefully yet of course I dont claim to be the only one knowing the truth out there, and I may even have overlooked things. So if you are a Trinitarian and its important for you that I believe in it as well, feel free to post your comments, although these must be on the passage discussed and not while we are discussing the Prologue turn to Colossians or the Angel of the L’rd as this will make the discussion endless and I think it would be more effective to discuss passage by passage and not all at the same time.
So heres the first question of Derek:
It is very interesting you saying that the logos in John 1:1 and 14 is not Yeshua. Let me examine your logic:
1. The plan of God was with God and is God.
2. The plan of God became flesh and lived among us.
3. But the plan of God is someone other than Yeshua?
If so, then who? “Became flesh and lived among us”means a person and if not Yeshua, who? I think I know what you will answer, but I will wait and see. If you answer the way I think you will, I am prepared to make the next move.
As for the prologue, I would translate it like this:
1 In the beginning was the plan/divine reason, and the plan/divine reason was with G’d, and the plan/divine reason was [expressing all of] G’d [in a way that one could say that the divine reason or plan was G'd]. 2 It was in the beginning with G’d. 3 All things were made through it, and without it was not any thing made that was made. 4 In it was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. 6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him. 8 He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light.
9 The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world.
10 He (i.e. the logos/light) was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him [when he appeared in the person of Jesus]. 11 He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. 12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of G’d, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of G’d.
14 And the plan/divine reason became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth
Although you may have built up a nice table with Plan=G’d and Plan=Jesus => G’d=Jesus, transitivity does not hold in this case, as Jesus is the continuation of the logos, or the divine reason of G’d emobodied on earth, the agent expressing fully G’ds will/reason, to such an extent that if one has seen him, he has seen G’d. Even as the divine reason or logos fully expressing G’ds will, and thus being called by John G’d. But one shouldnt be mistaken to think that this was a distinct divine being for that would be to miss the intent of the logos-thought and also much of what Onkelos did with the Memra.
As I said yesterday even though Isaiah says that Hashem is the only saviour, this doesnt mean that when Cyrus is used as the agent in the saving operation, Cyrus becomes Hashem, no, he’s an extension of Hashem’s will at that moment, an agent but not to be confused with the One pulling the strings.
V10 is difficult, as here you can no longer use the IT, but the Greek, I have been told, must be rendered masculine lending credence to the thought that this is specifically about Jesus. Still one is able to harmonize this by seeing Jesus as the continuation of the logos/light in the world and actually theres basis for this as John uses the neuter form for “the light” in v5 but switches to the masculine form in v10.
As I mentioned v14, is the best evidence a Trinitarian has, although this one too can be harmonized to some extent by seeing it as a way of talking about Jesus assuming the task of the logos/divine reason of Hashem in the world.
You say transitivity does not work in this case. But is your argument stronger than mine?
I say the Plan was God, the Plan became flesh, Jesus became flesh and dwelt among us. You say the Plan is not Jesus, but something interior to God that pre-existed Jesus and embedded itself within Jesus. Nice move to avoid the simpler meaning. But “the Word became flesh”does not sound the same as “the Word embedded in the flesh of Jesus”. Those are not the same thing.
You are removing the Plan from Jesus by making an assumption that is unproven and then trying to force it to fit vs. 14.
The Logos became. The Logos already was before. The Logos dwelt and we have seen it. Is this simply an embedded part of God inside Jesus? Maybe you could argue that, but why? Where is the proof? Became flesh is direct.
14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only,[a] who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
Lets try it in Hebrew (transliterated and mixed with English my hebrew is not that good! Sorry)
14 Dvar (Hashem) became nefesh and made his sukkah among us. We have seen his kavod, kavod Echad and only, who came from the Av hen vehesed emet.
Christian for Moses are you talking about his revelation becoming known through Y’shua, why can’t it be both his Dvar and his revelation?
Daniel
To Derek:
Transitivity doesnt hold as the equation logos = G’d is not completely accurate, G’d is not the logos, now it may be that you would say that the logos is G’d, and I would agree in the sense that the logos is fully expressing G’d will, or more accurately it being G’ds will. Yet its quite a stretch for the logos-thought to say that G’d is the logos, in this way the equation fails, and consequently transitivity does not hold.
I did not say that the logos was embedded in Jesus. With the Prologue the use of specific words is very important as its such a complicated passage. What I said was that Jesus was “the continuation of the logos/light in the world”. So again I do not equate these but see Jesus as the continuation of the divine reason in this world, and as Jesus lived in perfect line with G’d, and thus expressed to the fullest extent G’d will, he was [like] the divine reason or plan of G’d.
As the thought of the logos being a distinct divine being is not found, why would I start with that assumption? Wouldnt it be more reasonable to start with the understanding that was prevalent before and during the Gospel was written? Actually I would argue that for a new understanding, and dont get me wrong, new understandings are possible, the burden of proof falls on the respective proponents side.
Blessings,
Daniel
To Daniel of Messianic Judaism Quest:
The actual Hebrew text is:
והדבר נהיה בשר וישכן בתוכנו ונחזה כבודו ככבוד בן יחיד לאביו רב־חסד ואמת
But I dont really see the necessity of the Hebrew text here…
First of all plz address me as Daniel, Im not an organization, just a fellow-seeker. Im not talking about His revelation becoming known through Yeshua, although of course it has. What Im talking about is that the divine reason of G’d exhausted G’d to the point of John calling it G’d. And as Jesus was fully in line with G’d to the extent that when one has seen him, he has seen G’d, it is possible for John to say that the logos has become flesh.
Blessings,
Daniel
Certainly in this type of discussion it is important to consider the simplest and most direct meaning of the verses under consideration, as Mr. Leman has made abundantly clear. Curiously, in John 1:1 the first usage of the word “G-d” (Greek “theos”) “and the word was with G-d” includes the use of the definite article (Greek “to”). This is not true of the second usage of “theos” commonly translated;“and the word was G-d” which omits the definite article in the Greek. Because “theos” in the AS is not exclusively used of G-d alone but also is used to describe the Devil (2 Corinthians 4:4), lesser gods (1 Corinthians 8:5) as well as individuals of great power and authority (John 10:34-35, Acts 12:22), it is indeed crucial to know how “theos” is being used in any given verse, based on context. Of course the original Greek texts present something of a challenge in this regard being that the text was written in all upper case letters it is therefore impossible to distinguish “theos” as “G-D” (all capitals) in the way we are familiar with in modern translations today.
From what I understand, in just about every case in the AS, when “theos” is meant to describe “G-d” the definite article is employed. Because John 1:1 uses the definite article with “theos” in describing that “the word was with G-d” indeed we can safely say that G-d in the most proper sense is being described here. However, since John omits the definite article in the second usage of “theos” we cannot be so dogmatic that “theos” in this phrase, normally translated; “and the word was G-d”, in indeed referring to G-d in His full and proper Self.
Certainly, if John wanted to communicate that “theos” in the second usage of 1:1 is referring to G-d would he not have included the definite article as he did with the first usage of “theos”? Because John omits the definite article, it can be understood from the plain Greek grammatical construction, that “theos” in this second usage of verse 1 is communicating the more general understanding of “authority and power”. In this way, the verse is not saying that “the word was G-d” but rather that “the word was divine” (or containing all authority and power as having originated from G-d). Again, in 1:2 John goes on to employ the definite article in conjunction with “theos” in reiterating that “the same” (Word/Logos) “was in the beginning with G-d”.
The next verse to reference Word/Logos is of course John 1:14 “and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us”. Being that John has already established in 1:1-2 that the Word was “with” G-d and has the authority/power of G-d behind it, we then, from the plainest sense of the Greek here, understand that the authoritative plan, reason, purpose of G-d that was “with” Him from the beginning, is what became flesh and found perfect fulfillment and expression in the human life of Yeshua, being “full of grace and truth”. For the simple meaning that John communicates does not include the Word as equal with G-d.
In this way I would propose that the meaning we often consider “the simplest one” is really the result of trusting translation bias that has developed over the years. Surely, the “simplest” meaning of all is that which the plain Greek construction communicates to us in these verses.
Shalom,
Paula
Daniel,
The reason that the Hebrew is important is because the Logos idea is foreign to Judaism. I know it was used by Philo, but the concept of Dvar Hashem dwelling among the Jewish people, similar to the Shechinah and Torah in the midst of Tzadikim Israel needs to be considered.
Some Jewish scholars speak of the hidden Moshiach who will bring the Geulah in 7 years. In our perspective he dwells and has always been in the presence of Hashem containing his wrath. I personally feel that Y’shua and Hashem are Echad because they share the same attributes that are conveyed in the idea of the Sephirot. You can see this in the narratives about his life and the way he expresses the character of Ha Kadosh Baruch Hu.
Dan T.
When we try to understand what John could have meant by the “word” (“logos”), we have to recognize that his theological concepts are thoroughly Jewish. We know from the Bible and the Targumim that the “word of G-d” was sometimes inserted for “G-d” and that in this way the “word of G-d” and the “wisdom of G-d” were personified. One should not think, however, that this was ever meant to introduce a plurality of persons within the One G-d. In the same way as it is completely erroneous to assume that the creative Wisdom personified in the Book of Proverbs, ch. 8, is a second divine person alongside G-d the Father, it is also completely erroneous to assume a second divine person in the Prologue of John, the Word. Wisdom is clearly not meant to be a second person (“Lady Wisdom”) in Proverbs, for that would imply that G-d for his wisdom is dependent on this second person, instead of having his wisdom in Himself. Proverbs ch. 8 simply wants to affirm that all the creative works of G-d were made by Him through or by means of His wisdom and that G-d did make nothing without his attribute of wisdom.
In a slightly different sense Yeshua is said to be G-d’s power and wisdom in 1 Cor. 1:24 (cf. Col. 2:3). Of course this text doesn’t mean that G-d the Father has to rely on Yeshua’s wisdom and power to be wise and powerful. It means that Yeshua is G-d’s power and wisdom in an objective sense, namely that he is the great demonstration and expression, the embodiment so to say, of G-d’s eternal wisdom and power. For it is through him that G-d’s eternal purpose is realized and fulfilled.
With this in mind we can easily see that in the Prologue of John Yeshua is introduced as the “word made flesh”, i.e. as the creative and redemptive purpose of G-d realized here on earth, in a human person. In a sense of course Yeshua is the word from eternity. Not as a pre-existent divine being, but in the eternal purpose and plan of G-d. That is exactly what the expression “the word of G-d” means. In Jewish tradition pre-existence has always this sense of predestination or forordination. Therefore it is said that the Torah, and Messiah, and Israel, are from before creation. From the fact that Israel is included in this category of things “from before creation” it is manifest that no real pre-exstence is intended.
Many Christians read the Prologue as if it says that the Son of G-d, Messiah, was with G-d from eternity and was a second divine person. This is never said by John. Yeshua is never called “Son” by John before his birth, and this is in in perfect harmony with first chapter of the Gospel of Luke, where it is expressly said to Miryam (Lk. 1:35): “The Ruach HaKodesh shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of G-d”. The word “therefore” gives the precise reason why Yeshua is called “Son of G-d”. It is because he was born by a special creative act of G-d’s Spirit. This act of course was part of the eternal purpose of G-d. The word-made-flesh is indeed the Son of G-d, as John says (1:14): “And the word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth”.
Daniel: Out of curiosity, why did you stop with vs. 14 and not continue to vs. 18? John’s prologue is generally considered to be 1:1-18 and vs. 18 has much to offer in this conversation.
I have more to say but I’m not at my computer and I’ve been having internet problems for the past few days so it might be a little while before I’m able to return to this.
Hi Nick,
Good point, as you probably can guess I would favor “only begotten Son” over “only begotten G’d” and consequently see not much difficulties with that verse. But I would like to hear your thoughts on v.18 so if your computer is running again please send your thoughts.
Good luck!
Daniel
Perhaps I may refer to an article on my own Weblog that shows the theological necessity for a re-evaluation of the doctrine of Messiah’s Deity from the Messianic Jewish perspective. The central statement of the article is that the Deity doctrine is the cornerstone of traditional Supersessionism. See: http://messianic613.wordpress.com/2008/12/22/the-doctrine-of-messiahs-deity-and-theological-supersessionism/
Daniel: Okay, I finally have my internet back and am ready to make a couple of comments. I’ll just rattle off some random thoughts rather than writing a lengthy reply (all in reference to your first comment). I’ve numbered them to make them easier to respond to.
(1) I’m not sure that “plan/divine reason” in your translation accurately conveys John’s thought in the Prologue or his use of the term logos throughout the Gospel. When surveying the various uses of logos it seems much more probably that John has in mind “Word” here as opposed to “plan/divine reason.” (which consequently seems a more Philonic than Johannine concept).
(2) Your translation of the demonstrative pronoun οὗτος in vs. 2 and and the personal pronoun αὐτοῦ in vs. 3 as “it” intrigue me especially since you translate the same pronouns as “he” and “him” in vs. 7. You said: “V10 is difficult, as here you can no longer use the IT, but the Greek, I have been told, must be rendered masculine lending credence to the thought that this is specifically about Jesus.” To be consistent “it” should not have been used for αὐτοῦ earlier since the gender hasn’t changed. αὐτὸν is also masculine.
(3) It’s a misnomer to say that the Logos is Jesus prior to the incarnation. I think this is something that confuses discussions like this quite a bit. It seems that you’d agree with me that Jesus was not Jesus until his birth, but I think we’d disagree about the Logos preexisting personally prior to the incarnation (I affirm personal preexistence).
(4) What exactly are the issues at stake here? As I see it, there are a few things from the Prologue that can be discussed, e.g., the deity of the Logos/Son, the preexistence of the Logos/Son, and the identification with/distinction from God [the Father]. Before continuing I’d like to make sure that I don’t veer off topic by discussing something you’re not interested in.
Hi Nick,
(1) Could you explain the difference between plan/divine reason and word? Would you see word in the way that the Targumim use it? Not knowing exactly how you would see it, I would say that the way in which Onkelos uses the word doesnt indicate any personal, or distinct divine being, this is misreading his intention, to quote the Rambam:
Now you might suggest that John uses it in a different way, probably you do:P, but it seems quite improbable to sever the links I proposed between the Targum’s use and also Philo’s understanding of the Logos and John’s use. But explain plz.
(2) First of all to avoid any miscommunication, my knowledge of Greek goes as far as the symbols I use in Maths:P Which could raise some eyebrows as for my guts to disagree with scholars on the Prologue:P I would say that its quite evident that in vv.2-3 its about the logos, which was regarded at least by Philo as impersonal and v.7 is about John, which is evidently a person. Consequently I dont see the problem? Unless of course all the pronouns are not neuter but masculine, then my first assertion of a change from neuter to masculine from vv.2-3 to v.10, would be in error..
(3) You’re right in that we disagree about the logos being a pre-existent distinct divine being.
(4) At the outstet Derek and I didnt really point out issues at stake, but I guess its mostly about the Deity of Jesus, although it seems that during discussions like these all these issues come into play as the Prologue is a whole.
Blessings,
Daniel
—————————————-
[1] Moses Maimonides, The Guide for the Perplexed (New York: Dover Publications inc., 2000), p.31
Daniel:
There are two strategies I can see here that allow John 1:1 to mean something other than Yeshua as the incarnation of God.
1. God in the third clause is indefinite and therefore means something less than God exactly, maybe meaning something broadly like “divine.”
2. The Word is not exactly Yeshua but something abstract that was part of who Yeshua was or who he became.
As to the first one, I have inquired of Christian theologian Scot McKnight and his response: “The predicate’s being anarthrous doesn’t mean it is indefinite in substance (a God). One cannot argue from form (indefinite) to substance (indefinite) because language isn’t that simplistic; often weighty words are more weighty by making them indefinite.”
Also, regarding the first one, it is a little absurd to start making “divine” mean something other than God. But since this argument was someone else’s, and not yours, Daniel, I will stop with that.
As for the second, the idea that the Word here is not actually Yeshua, but some abstract thing (God’s plan) is problematic. The Word/Plan/Whatever became flesh and dwelt among us. Vs. 14 says we beheld his glory, as of the only Son. That is a direct equation: the glory that we beheld in the Word was the Son. This does not sound like something implanted in Yeshua (a divine nature added later or something like that). It sounds like the Word is the Son. And in vs. 18 we find that those who have seen Yeshua have seen God’s direct nature. Sounds like equation to me.
Derek
Daniel:
You said to me that it is odd that John is basically the only writer who speaks of Yeshua’s divinity.
When we are ready for round two, I will bring up Romans 9:5 and Titus 2:13.
Derek
In light of Mr. Leman’s most recent comments, I would like to present a quote from F.F. Bruce’s commentary on the Gospel of John, regarding John 1:1c for consideration;
“Since ‘logos’ has the article preceding it, it is marked out as the subject. The fact that ‘theos’ is the first word after the conjunction ‘kai’ (‘and’) shows that the main emphasis of the clause lies on it. Had ‘theos’ as well as ‘logos’ been preceded by the article the meaning would have been that the Word was completely identical with God, which is impossible if the Word was also ‘with God’. What is meant is that the Word shared the nature and being of God, or (to use a piece of modern jargon) was an extension of the personality of God. The NEB paraphrase ‘what God was, the Word was’, brings out the meaning of the clause as successfully as the paraphrase can. John intends that the whole of his gospel shall be read in the light of this verse. The deeds and words of Jesus are deeds and words of God; if this be not true, the book is blasphemous.” (F.F. Bruce, “The Gospel of John”, 1983, Wm. B. Eerdman’s, Grand Rapids, Michigan, p. 31)
Though Bruce prefaces his comments by saying that “theos en hos logos” demands the translation ‘the word was God’”, by examining the Greek construction he cannot come to the conclusion that the Word is exactly G-d. Bruce also comments in the previous paragraph that “The Word of God is distinguished from God himself; yet exists in close personal relationship with him” (ibid.).
Even Trinitarian scholars in considering theos without the definite article in John 1:1c are forced to acknowledge that to say “the word was G-d” is not synonymous with saying “Yeshua is G-d”. Mr. McKnight’s explanation that “often weighty words are more weighty by making them indefinite” does not seem to solve the dilemma that weightiness does not mean equality in relation to theos and logos in John 1:1c.
Also, regarding the “absurdity” of making “divine” mean something other than G-d (proper), curiously, the late James Moffatt (former professor of Greek and New Testament Exegesis at Mansfield College, Oxford) translates John 1:1c as “the logos was divine” (The Bible: James Moffatt Translation, 1994, Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids, MI).
Shalom,
Paula
As to the problem of the change of the neuter into the masculine in John 1:10, it can be argued that the masculine form in :10 is introduced to connect the more general logos/light with its specific extension and continuation in the person of Yeshua. If Yeshua is the continuation and extension of the logos/light, then :10 essentially says: “He [= the logos/light] was in the world; the world was even made by means of him [= logos/light]; and yet the world failed to recognize him when he [=the logos/light] appeared in the person of Yeshua.
The masculine form thus not only introduces the person of Yeshua, but also strongly connects the light — which grammatically is neuter — to the grammatically masculine logos it belongs to.
The phrase “the world was made by him”, thus refers back to the original creation in :3 “all things were made by him, without implying or suggesting a personal pre-existence of that specific extension of the logos which is Messiah Yeshua, who in :14 appears as the logos made flesh.
Daniel:
Your theory seems to be something like, “Yeshua was a man, unique like Adam in having no human father. He became divine when the Plan of God entered into him (at his baptism?).”
What does Yeshua mean then in John 17:5 and 17:24?
Also, Yeshua often says the Father sent him (e.g., John 17:3). He does not say, “You sent the Word into me,” but “you sent me.”
Finally, Yeshua says the real Manna is the Bread of God sent from heaven. And Yeshua says he is that Bread of God which comes down from heaven (John 6:32-35).
Maybe you can give special pleading against one verse here or there, but the cumulative evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the deity of Messiah.
Maybe whenever we wrap up the exegetical debate we can get to the real issue that leads you to look for a special explanation to refute any claim to Messiah’s deity. I suspect that there is a logical presupposition that is prior to your exegesis of these texts, something like, “God does not become man,” or “Judaism does not believe in God becoming man.” I’d enjoy dialoguing with you about the problems with those statements as well.
Paula:
Perhaps you would like to elaborate more on what James Moffat thinks “divine” means.
Derek
To Derek Leman,
How can you seriously hold that verses like John 17:5 & 24 can be used as an argument for Yeshua’s Deity or pre-existence? In my view this is a very biased reading of these verses. When 2 Timothy 1:9 says that each Christian was given grace “before the world began”, no one tries to prove the believer’s pre-existence. Everyone knows that what is meant here is that we ‘existed’ in the mind of G-d, i.e. in G-d’s forknowledge and for-ordination. The same is true for Messiah. His glory was “with the Father” before the world began, and in John 17:5 we find him praying that this glory might become manifest.
If one looks a few verses back, at John 17:3 one finds a clear statement of Yeshua himself which unambiguously excludes that he is G-d: “This is life eternal, that they might know Thee, the only true G-d, and Yeshua the Messiah, whom thou hast sent”. Yeshua calls the Father “the only true G-d”, and thus makes a clear distinction between himself and the Father. If the Father is the “only true G-d” then Messiah is clearly excluded from being G-d.
Verses that state that Yeshua was sent from G-d show that G-d is the Ultimate Source of him who is sent. Yochanan the Immerser is said to be sent from G-d in the Prologue of John’s Gospel (1:6). Expressions like “sent from G-d” or “sent from Heaven” should be properly understood according to their context. G-d told his people that He would open the windows of Heaven and pour out blessings (in Mal. 3:10). Of course no one believes that this implies that G-d literary throws things out of Heaven to the earth. These phrases only mean that G-d is the Origin of the received blessings. Was John’s Baptism literary in Heaven because it had to be acknowledged that it was “from Heaven” (Matt. 21:25)?
Throughout the NT always a clear distinction is made between G-d and the person of Messiah Yeshua. These two are never confounded or said to be two persons within an Essence that is a multipersonal G-d. This is Catholic mythology. It never occurs that Yeshua is called “G-d the Son”. He is called the “Son of G-d”, an expression which again excludes that he himself is G-d. G-d is not his own Son. And the Gospel of Luke perfectly explains what this expression means, in the Angel Gabriel’s conversation withh Miryam: “The Ruach HaKodesh shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of G-d”. The clue is in the “therefore” The reason why Yeshua should be called “Son of God” is because of his supernatural conception by the Ruach HaKodesh.
I dare say that all the verses that are generally used to prove the Deity of Messiah are, when duly considered, no proof at all. Here is the same delusion at work which leads many to believe that the NT is anti-Torah. An endless reservoir of verses is brought forward to prove this. In this case as well as in the case of the Deity doctrine all these “proofs” can be dismantled by proper exegesis that is not dogmatically biased and prepared to consider the context of the verses in question.
The ideas of a multipersonal G-d, and of a Messiah who is G-d himself, are to my knowledge utterly foreign to the Bible.
Messianic613:
You again and again resort to special pleading, a kind of logical error in which, to avoid the obvious meaning of something, you argue for a special or less-than-literal meaning of words which do not fit your presupposition (which apparently is God does not become man).
Case in point, and you are helping me win when you make such weak arguments, you said, “Verses that state that Yeshua was sent from G-d show that G-d is the Ultimate Source of him who is sent. Yochanan the Immerser is said to be sent from G-d in the Prologue of John’s Gospel (1:6). Expressions like “sent from G-d” or “sent from Heaven” should be properly understood according to their context. G-d told his people that He would open the windows of Heaven and pour out blessings (in Mal. 3:10). Of course no one believes that this implies that G-d literary throws things out of Heaven to the earth.”
Your argument seems to be:
1. God says he pours blessings out of heaven.
2. This is clearly a figure of speech and no one thinks God dumps a blessing bucket on the earth.
3. Thus, Yeshua’s words about being sent from heaven are less than literal too and may mean anything as inane as saying we are all sent from heaven.
Now, there are a number of verses which trump your “sent-from-heaven-means-nothing” argument. On several occasions, Yeshua declared that his status as coming from heaven was unique:
John 3:13, No one has ascended into heaven but he who descended from heaven, the Son of man.
John 3:31, He who comes from above is above all; he who is of the earth belongs to the earth, and of the earth he speaks; he who comes from heaven is above all.
If you fail to concede this point and work into your theology the idea that Yeshua is uniquely sent from heaven, then I must conclude that you have no interest in anything I am saying. The only option I see for you, other than conceding, is coming up with a counter argument that I have no anticipated.
Comment #2:
Messianic613:
Again, regarding the idea of Yeshua’s pre-existence, you resort to special pleading. You made up your mind that God does not become man and you refuse to entertain any interpretation to the contrary.
You said, “How can you seriously hold that verses like John 17:5 & 24 can be used as an argument for Yeshua’s Deity or pre-existence? In my view this is a very biased reading of these verses. When 2 Timothy 1:9 says that each Christian was given grace “before the world began”, no one tries to prove the believer’s pre-existence. Everyone knows that what is meant here is that we ‘existed’ in the mind of G-d, i.e. in G-d’s forknowledge and for-ordination. The same is true for Messiah. His glory was “with the Father” before the world began, and in John 17:5 we find him praying that this glory might become manifest.”
Your logic is very similar to that mentioned in my last comment:
1. The Bible says we all were loved before the foundation of the world.
2. This does not mean we pre-existed, but that we existed in the mind of God only.
3. Thus, Yeshua’s statements about pre-existence mean the same.
I turn your attention to the wording of John 17:5, “Father, glorify me alongside yourself. Give me the same glory I had with you before the world existed.” It was a glory Yeshua had with the Father. It is relational. This is not some Platonic/Gnostic exaggeration. This is relationship prior to creation.
Messianic613, would you be comfortable praying John 17:5 about yourself? It would be blasphemous.
Further, there are other statements about Yeshua’s pre-existence, such as John 10:58, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am,” and Revelation 22:13, “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.”
Finally, you assert that my interpretation of these verses is forced while yours is natural. Yet in this encounter, you have claimed that two of Yeshua’s teaching are not about him being unique but are things which apply to every person.
Now I ask you, who is forcing interpretation? Is it me because I claim that Yeshua intended these teachings to show his uniqueness or you because you claim these teaching are about common traits for all mankind?
I hope you can discern who is forcing interpretation on the Procrustean bed, because it isn’t me. Yeshua claimed unique status repeatedly and my interpretations fit within that larger context. The burden of proof is on you to show that Yeshua was “just a regular guy.”
Derek
Hi Derek,
Im a bit confused by your summary of my theory. First of all, to my knowledge, I did not give the impression that Yeshua ever became divine, nor did I intend to convey that the Plan of G’d entered into him:S
My idea in one sentence, when looking at the relationship of Yeshua and the logos would be: Yeshua lived, by the holy spirit, to the fullest extent of G’ds will, as such that he reflected His will, and was in a sense His will, and thus could be equated with the logos, although not ontologically. To repeat what I said in an earlier comment: “he was [like] the divine reason or plan of G’d.”
Although I understand your thoughts on my motivations, the starting point in my Christological quest was not so much a desire to find an explanation that would fit with Judaism but much more with issues in the text, specifically the continuous distinction by the NT writers between Jesus and G’d. Which I would like to examine after the Prologue.
I have many contacts in the Orthodox-Jewish community but the divider is not only the Incarnation, although very much(!), but the idea that Jesus is the Messiah, and thus I never really had the urge to find a definition of G’ds nature that would fit will with them. We both accept that we belong to different camps and respect that. But of course, I cannot really get into my subconsciousness, so who knows. Yet, even it were true, the arguments should still be given thought, apart from the issuer’s motivations, and that’s why I think it is more fruitful to look at the text than debate motivations.
Blessings and my best wishes for the New Year!:)
Daniel
Derek,
As to John 17:5, Of course I cannot as an ordinary Messianic believer pray this verse for myself. I hope that you understand that the person of the Messiah has an entirely different place in G-d’s forordained plan than a normal believer. I am very surprised that you deduce from my exegesis of the verse that a normal believer could say this prayer. This is simply nonsense.
Further, as to the verses you quote, these are excellently treated on the website of the Biblical Unitarians, which I would recommend to you. Discussions on this subject are only sensible if proceeded in a scholarly manner, and on this website they do an excellent job in the exegesis of all the verses that are traditionally quoted as support for the Deity doctrine: http://www.biblicalunitarian.com
Lets try not to point to websites as this would dry up the ‘debate’ and Im sure Derek or someone else has a handful of websites as well. Instead I suggest trying to incorporate their explanation in your comments, of course preferably in a concise manner.
Thanks,
Daniel
Daniel: Happy New Year!
I’d love to add a few thoughts and there has been so much that has been said that I’d like to comment on but I’ll have to limit myself here. Again, I’ll number my responses to correspond to yours.
(1) I guess I should be asking you to explain the difference since you chose “plan/divine reason” to translate logos rather than “Word.” As I see it, the difference is that “plan/divine reason” indicate something like the logic of God or the mind of God, whereas “Word” is more along the lines of God’s self-expression and his (both transcendent and immanent) activity.
Having said that, no, I wouldn’t see John’s use of logos as being the same as the use of Memra in the Targumim. As far as I can tell, the Memra for the most part serves as a circumlocution of the divine name; along with Keener I’d say that “its usual function, however, seems to be to buffer God’s name from being connected with apparent anthropomorphism.” [1] Unfortunately I don’t have time to get into a detailed discussion on the Memra but it seems that we pretty much agree about its function in the Targumim.
I think that a pretty good case can be made that John was not influenced by either the targumic Memra, mainly because it had very limited use in the Targumim and also because there’s little evidence that it was in use in the first century like it was in later times; or Philo’s Logos, mainly because his view of the Logos was metaphysical and often (but certainly not always) impersonal, something decidedly different from John’s Logos. For John the Logos stands on the divine side of the Creator/creature divide, while for Philo the Logos is the dividing line.
(2) But your translation then begs the question. Unless you presuppose that the logos of John 1:1-3 is impersonal then you wouldn’t translate the pronouns as “it” instead of “he/him.” Also, as I just said above, Philo did not always regard the Logos as impersonal, but even if he always and only considered the Logos to be impersonal, that doesn’t tell us how John viewed it. You’d have to first go about establishing Johannine dependence on Philo, which isn’t as easy as one might think. But all of the pronouns in vs. 2-3 are masculine, hence my original comment. The same pronouns used in vss. 2-3 are also used in vss. 7 & 10.
Concerning John viewing the Logos as personal, this can be established in the second clause of vs. 1 where John says that the Logos was “with God” (Gk. pros ton theon). The preposition pros when used with the accusative (here ton theon is in the accusative case) denotes intimacy, fellowship, a living union, a motion towards, or a facing (cf. Mat. 13:56; 26:55; Mk. 6:3; 9:16; 1Cor. 16:6; 2Cor. 5:8). The meaning then that the Logos was with God in an intimate and personal sense, he was not merely near God or beside God. If this were the case then the preposition para would have served John’s purpose. That this relationship is stressed is seen by the same phrase appearing again in vs. 2.
(3) I’d say ‘person’ as opposed to ‘being’ but yes, we clearly disagree. I do think however that when the Fourth Gospel is read in its entirety then it can be seen that Jesus understood himself to have preexisted his incarnation. Some of your commentators have pointed out John 17:5 as one example and to that I’d add John 8:58.
(4) Here is where the textual variant in John 1:18 comes into play. Here Jesus is unequivocally called ‘God’ and a common dictum in textual criticism is that the ‘harder reason is [usually] to be preferred’ and calling Jesus the ‘unique’ or ‘only begotten’ God is certainly the harder reading. See Bruce Metzger’s A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. (Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 1994),169-70 for a fuller discussion of why this reading was chosen to appear in the standard critical text of the Greek NT.
But even apart from 1:18 I think that it is fairly evident that 1:1 calls the Word who later becomes incarnate as the man Jesus Christ ‘God.’ Some of your commentators have suggested that it means something like “divine” but this isn’t the case. For starters there is a perfectly acceptable adjective that finds usage in the NT (see Acts 17:29; 2Pet. 1:3-4) for “divine” (Gk. theios). Secondly, Daniel Wallace says:
[2]
So “God” (Gk. theos) here is qualitative as opposed to adjectival.
I’d love to address a number of other comments but unfortunately I’m going to have to limit my interaction to yours alone (although I will add that with reference to BiblicalUnitarian.com I have always found their handling of the text to be less than impressive). This one already ended up being longer than I intended. Thanks for inviting me to the discussion.
- – - – - – - – - -
[1] Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003), 1.349.
[2] Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetic Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 269.
The Moffat translation of John 1:1 reads:
~~~~“The Logos existed in the very beginning, the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine. He was with God in the very beginning.”~~~~
Based on the fact that the Moffatt Bible is a contemporary English translation, clearly Moffatt would have in mind the contemporary English understanding of the word “divine”. According to The Webster Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language “divine” means “godlike” or “pertaining to G-d”. When consulting several different dictionary definitions of “divine” I was unable to find any that would equate “divine” with fully or equally G-d, but instead as “emanating” from G-d. If Moffatt uses “divine” in any sense other than the contemporary English meaning he thereby nullifies the very purpose for his translation. Because Moffat uses the word “G-d” to translate “theos” in 1b and v.2 he obviously understands “theos” to have a different shade of meaning in 1c, or else why would he not employ the word “G-d” (in all its contemporary English understanding as G-d Himself) there as well?
Interestingly, Moffatt refers to his translation of John’s prologue in lectures he gave at the Divinity School of Yale University in 1940 (published under the title “Jesus Christ the Same”). Straight from the author’s mouth, here are his comments regarding the prologue;
~~~~~“The Word was God…And the Word became flesh,’ simply means ‘The word was divine…And the Word became human.’ The Nicene faith, in the Chalcedon definition, was intended to conserve both of these truths against theories that failed to present Jesus as truly God and truly man…” (Moffatt, Jesus Christ the Same, Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1945, p. 61) ~~~~~~~
I find Moffatt’s thoughts here much along the lines of F.F. Bruce. Though he believes that Jesus is truly G-d and truly man he will not compromise his scholastic understanding of the Greek language in order say “The Word was God” without qualifying that this “simply” (plainly, solely) means “The Word was divine”. But perhaps the most pertinent thing to be found in his statement is that Moffatt must look to the “Nicene faith” and the “Chalcedon definition” to defend and “conserve” his Trinitarian beliefs. For he realizes that non-Trinitarian “theories” can arise from the simple meaning of the words in the scripture.
When the simple or most literal meaning of scripture must be protected by means of doctrine and definitions, it makes me wonder who is really “avoiding the obvious meanings” and “refusing to entertain contrary interpretations”.
Shalom,
Paula
Also: I find it very interesting that Trinitarian scholars grapple with Moffatt’s translation by pointing out the contemporary understanding of “divine” and how “misleading” it is in this context. How unfortunate that a renown 20th century linguist did not realize this when choosing the words for his contemporary English translation of this most vital and central verse. Despite his prominent credentials he yet failed to consider how contemporary English speaking people would understand the word “divine, though this is the very audience he is translating for. If Moffatt was this incompetent, his translation should not be taken seriously by anyone.
Daniel: Sorry for the random responses but I’m just addressing some things that have jumped out at me (not in any specific order). There’s a lot to be addressed in this thread and I doubt that I’ll be able to get to it all.
Messianic13: In reference to your comment from December 18, 2008 at 2:54 am, I’d say that while there are certain similarities between John’s Logos and the Chokma of Proverbs 8 they clearly aren’t the same. It’s easy enough to assert that because Wisdom is a personification in Proverbs that the Word is in John as well, but it’s another thing to support the assertion. Concerning ‘Wisdom Christology’ in Paul’s epistles, I’d direct your attention to Gordon D. Fee’s recent volume Pauline Christology (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2007) for a devastating critique of this view. Your proposal for the Word’s preexistence as being in the mind and plan of God amounts basically to nothing, as Douglas McCready said: “Ideal preexistence is trivial because if existence in the mind of God qualifies as preexistence, everything and everyone must be described as preexistent.” [1] That Jesus is never called the Son before his birth ignores Jesus’ reference to his Father and their relationship with each other before the foundation of the world in John 17:5. He doesn’t speak as if this relationship was any different then (btw, I’m completely unconvinced by your treatment of John 17:5 in subsequent comments).
In your comment from January 1, 2009 at 6:49 AM you said:
Two things: (1) That there is a clear distinction between the Father and the Son is not a point of contention, in fact it’s a necessary component of Trinitarian orthodoxy and making sense of John’s Gospel. (2) Your claim here is the formal fallacy of denying the antecedent. I’ll give you a textbook example of this fallacy and then switch the terms to apply to this discussion:
Here we can see that embezzling college funds is the antecedent and being guilty of a felony is the consequent. Notice how the conclusion does not follow from the premises. Carl may not have embezzled the college funds but he could have committed murder, and murder is a felony. To state this properly it must be said:
Notice how Carl not committing a felony at all excludes him from having committed a specific felony (embezzlement). Now let’s switch the terms to fit John 17:3:
To the person who denies the deity of Christ this looks perfectly logical, but as we have seen it is not. It is entirely possible that if one is the Son, then one is the only true God as well, so while the Son may not be the Father he may still be the only true God (see e.g., 1Jo. 5:20). To make this syllogism work it must be stated:
So if one is not the only true God then they cannot be the Father, but it can likewise be argued that if one is not the only true God then they cannot be the Son (or the Holy Spirit).
- – - – - – - – - -
[1] Douglas McCready, He Came Down from Heaven: The Preexistence of Christ and the Christian Faith (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2005), 17.
[2] Irving M. Copi and Carl Cohen, Introduction to Logic, 11th ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2002), 281.
_______________________________________________________________
Paula: In reference to your comment from December 17, 2008 at 11:59 pm I’d point out a minor error in your saying that the definite artivle “to” was used in John 1:1. The article is actually “ton” (I’m willing to entertain that this may have been a simple typo). Secondly, Greek manuscripts being written in all capitals has no effect on translation so this is no challenge at all.
You said:
Not really since there are much better ways to go about doing this (like using an adjective, or perhaps even a word that means power/authority). John is communicating that there is not a 1 to 1 identification between the God (Gk. ton theon) of the second clause and the Word (Gk. ho logos). As Wallace said in the quote from my last comment, theos here is being used qualitatively. The Logos has the quality of being God without being exactly identical to the God already mentioned. To state it in later Trinitarian terms, the Son/Word is God but he is not the Father. That which you dub the “simplest meaning. . .that which the plain Greek construction communicates to us in these verses,” is anything but simple or communicative of what the passage is saying.
With regard to your comment from January 1, 2009 at 10:25 pm I’m not sure what your last point there is; it seems like you’re trying to say that Moffat couldn’t have been wrong because if he was then he would have realized it. Wallace is saying that “divine” is a possible translation, but it’s one that militates against both the grammar of the Prologue and the theology of the Fourth Gospel.
Also, in suggesting that “divine” is the most obvious meaning of theos you are also suggesting that most scholars have gotten it all wrong and someone like Moffatt is the one who Got it right? The fact is that the vast the majority of English Bibles ever produced avoided this translation of theos as “divine” in John 1:1, why? Because of some theological bias? Doubtful, and if this is the case then doesn’t that argument cut both ways? Wouldn’t it be easier to admit that Moffatt is the odd man out here, and that while possible, his translation is not the most probable?
And lastly, your reasoning is flawed here. Simply because Moffatt may have been incompetent in his translation of one verse (honestly there’s quite a bit wrong with his NT translation) it doesn’t follow that his overall translation shouldn’t be taken seriously by anyone (but for the record, in all of my reading on the subject [and I read a lot on it] hardly anyone makes reference to Moffatt, so I’m not sure how seriously he’s taken anyway).
To Nick Norelli,
I’ll only make a few and final remarks here, in this discussion, for the rest, especially for the exegesis of the biblical verses mentioned, I recommend you, and others who are interesed, to the Unitarian websites and the other sources which can be found by means of my own site. There is a wealth of scholarly material available in them, and a clear and extensive exposition of all the verses that are traditionally used to support the Deity and Trinity doctrines can be found there. In my opinion it is better to first study the Unitarian position, from the available sources, before starting to criticize it. Otherwise all kinds of repetitious discussions emerge about problems which have since long been sufficiently treated and solved in the sources themselves.
Now first, as to the thougt that ideal pre-existence is trivial, because in that case everything and everyone must be described as pre-existent, this is not true when we regard the diverse positions that things and persons have. Yeshua was foreordained to be the Messiah and I was foreordained to be an ordinary believer, as I already said in a former post, and that’s a huge difference in position. Yeshua was in the mind of G-d the person who would be the one who wholly embodied G-d’s salvific plan and purpose, the person in whom this plan and purpose were to become reality, and that is the reason why he is our Saviour and is called: “the word made flesh”, i.e. the purpose and plan of G-d fully realized in human existence.
Second, as to the supposed logical fallacy in my treatment of John 17:3, I think that the fallacy is on the other side of the argument. According to your own Trinitarian doctrine the Father is only one person of the Trinity. So, if the Father is said by Yeshua to be the only true G-d, then it necessarily follows that the other two supposed members of the Trinity are not the only true G-d. There is only one person who is the Father, and the Trinity is not equal to the Father. Yeshua did not say that the Trinity is the only true G-d — which you seem to presuppose — he said that the Father is the only true G-d. If the person of the Father is the only true G-d, and that is what Yeshua said, then the Son is excluded from being the true G-d.
Messianic613: Thanks for your reply. I’ll just mention a couple of things in response.
(1) I’m very familiar with the Biblical Unitarian website and I’m a subscriber to their magazine The Sower and have been for quite some time now. In fact, about two years ago I debated (if you can call it that) a Unitarian who cut and pasted entire articles from the website and used them as their rebuttal. You can see my brief responses to those articles here.
I’m also very familiar with Anthony Buzzard’s (not sure if you’re familiar with him) Restoration Fellowship website and receive his Focus on the Kingdom newsletter. In fact he sent me his latest book entitled Jesus Was Not a Trinitarian: A Call to Return to the Creed of Jesus (Morrow, GA: Restoration Fellowship, 2007) for review. I’ve corresponded with him briefly on my blog as well as another one.
I have dialogued with various other Unitarians at length on the specific topic of John 17:3 here. And I don’t limit my exposure to Unitarianism to the Socinian variety alone. I also dialogue with Oneness Pentecostals, Christadelphians, and Jehovah’s Witnesses. So I’ve said all this to say that I am quite aware of the Unitarian position and I’ve dealt with Unitarian interpretations of the Bible for quite some time now. It’s because of this interaction that I’m convinced they’re wrong.
As to your last paragraph, I’m still trying to make sense of it. It doesn’t seem that you acknowledge the formal fallacy committed in your reasoning even with the example given. I’m not following the argument you’re trying to make either. It seems little more than a non sequitur. In any event, thanks again for the interaction.
Before one can make a defense for Deity or Trinity they must first prove the validity of the Apostolic writings apart form themselves. to quote the NT as proof of itself is intellectually deceitful.
There is no evidence that can be presented apart from those creating this religion and the religion itself that will it anything more than a myth and legend.
I think we could handle some hebrew here. I have at least two translations from hebrew (from greek first, ok):
Hebrew New Testament Delitzsch renders John 1:1 as:
בְּרֵאשִׁית הָיָה הַדָּבָר וְהַדָּבָר הָיָה אֶת-הָאֱלֹהִים וְהוּא הַדָּבָר הָיָה אֱלֹהִים:
Isaac Salkinson and Christian David Ginsburg, 1887, renders:
בְּרֵאשִׁית הָיָה הַדָּבָר וְהַדָּבָר הָיָה אֵת הָאֱלֹהִים וֵאלֹהִים הָיָה הַדָּבָר:
There are small differences, but Delitzsch translates as an emphatic call to what (Who) is the subject, Logos/Davar (…ve hadavar hayah et-haelohim ve HU HADAVAR…) – He (Elohim) the Logos (Davar).
Is good to remember that 1st century followers of Yeshua used to call Him as: תורה שהולכת (Torah sheholchet/Walking torah).
One should consider rendering Yochanan such:
1:1 In the beginning was the Torah and the Torah was with Elohim and Him, the Torah, was Elohim.
So Elohim commands Moshe to build the Mishkan, to dwell among Israel (veshachan’ti – I [will] dwell)
To Nick:
(1) Well, the reason I asked you is because I dont see much of a difference, but think ‘divine reason’ better conveys logos than ‘word’, as ‘word’ is kind of ambiguous. But if one would understand ‘word’ as ‘divine reason’, then that’s fine with me:) Its just that, especially among Christians, ‘the word’ is seen as a synonym for the Son, and while there a good reason for this, I don’t think that’s what the writer of the Prologue intended. Rather I think the idea was to present the Son as functioning in the same sense as the logos.
As for the link between Philo and John’s logos, I think, knowing that Philo was, sort of, the one who introduced this concept into Judaism, and John being a Jew, a link, at least, should be given thought. I agree that their use is not exactly the same and of course you are right in that they had different intentions but nonetheless the reading I propose seems to work and more importantly, at least for me, prevents the enormous tension that arises when Jesus is presented as G’d by only 1:14 and granted some other [ambiguous] verses. Maybe it would be a good idea to investigate the ‘link’ further, if you know of any papers on that, let me know. Hopefully in the upcoming book of James F. McGrath this will be given a look.
(2) I think I answered the first part above. Obviously the ‘translation’ I posed is preceded by the presupposition that the logos was not personal and not a distinct divine being, mainly because pre-John (my own term:P) it was seen as that, and that is also the reason why James G. Dunn says that this was a break through Hellenistic-Jewish thought, whereas the rest of the Christological verses/thought were/was all more or less within that realm (Im not at home so don’t have the book at hand for a specific reference).
As for the masculine pronouns, I have been pointed to the fact that this does not necessarily imply personhood. Even as in Dutch ‘sun’ is feminine and ‘moon’ masculine, this doesn’t at all imly that the sun is a feminine being, let alone a person.
As for the distinction between pros and para (and note again that this is not familiar territory for me) I would say that this is precisely the right wording for what Im posing, I don’t pose that the logos would be near to G’d or besides G’d, nay, I say it flows from G’d, it is a way of describing his divine reason/will, and that would be much more appropriate to be described in a intimate sense, though in no wise introducing plurality.
(3) As I already had said 17:5 is a difficult verse and the same goes for John 8:58 for someone not believing in pre-existence. Ill grant you those two;)
(4) I think its unlikely that John would have written the only begotten G’d, the NT authors whenever it seems they talk in this way are much more subtle and careful. But lets, for the sake of the argument, assume it was written only begotten G’d, I could counter this by pointing to the fact that Elokim does not always denote the supreme deity, Hashem, but is used of angels, Davidic kings, Moses, judges etc., and thus I could harmonize it by seeing him in that way, and in fact he is the supreme Davidic King and the one like unto Moses A”H.
Again though some may have pointed out divine, I don’t see Yeshua as divine in any way, he is the supreme head of creation, the firstborn from the dead, but man and thus not divine.
Im enjoying the dialogue:)
To: ‘Grasping the truth of YKVK’
Im pretty sure that all who are commenting here share the same basic idea that the NT (or Apostolic Writings) is authorative/valid/inspired, and this I think is what makes the debate/dialogue interesting as otherwise we could simply cut out John and the case would be alot easier:)
For a good survey on the NT see F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003)
To: Yochai
I don’t really see what you are trying to point out through the Hebrew, maybe you could clarify it a bit. And also your last comment, of Hashem dwelling with His people, I have an idea what you are trying to point to but please communicate it yourself instead of letting me guess.
As for Yeshua being the walking Torah, I can agree with this although I can’t really think of a verse where the disciples/apostles called Yeshua the walking Torah, but maybe you could show me.
As for your translation (in the beginning was the Torah…), Ive seen this somewhere else as well, and would want to ask you, as I think you hold the view that Yeshua is literally pre-existent and G’d incarnate, how you would see the Torah. Did it also literally pre-exist the world, as a document? Would it have been personal or impersonal? Did it exist alongside G’d?
Obviously these are questions to trap you:P I mean although it is said by the Rabbanim that the Torah was the plaything of Hashem and that by it the world was formed, it being the tool of the Grand Artist, the blueprint of Creation, in no wise did the Rabbanim think of it being an actual tool, or a real plaything. This was the way of how they spoke Torah as they saw it as reflecting G’ds wisdom, His reason, so that when one studied the Torah and lived in accordance with it, he would live in accordance with G’ds will as it was fully expressed in it. But to see Yeshua in this way is exactly what Im trying to show here, he is fully reflective of G’ds will, to the extent, that even as in the Torah, one can see G’ds will, so in Yeshua we see G’ds will, as such the writer of the prologue equates these. He is [like] G’ds divine reason/Torah.
Blessings,
I have read F.F.Bruce The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? Once we get past the “inferred”, “seems to” “could be” “is possible”…. he offers nothing more than the NT verifying itself. One book verifying another is no proof. He correctly shows that “Christianity” existed which is no more proof than proof that the myth was created, which we already know.
Apart from the writings of church fathers and NT writers he supplies not one piece of valid historical information. To say that Mark is valid because Luke attests to it is absurd.
E.G. if 100s of saints came out of their graves after the so called resurrection, walked about town, it is impossible that not one historian recorded it. If all these miracles occurred at this time it is impossible that not one historian recorded it. I could go on and on but you get the myth.
Again, apart form itself there is no one piece of historical evidence for the story of the NT.
Grasping: What’s your point? That you don’t accept the validity of the NT writings is supposed to mean what to those who do? As Daniel said, we all at least agree in granting the NT texts as being inspired/authoritative so we’re able to dialogue on that basis. What exactly are you bringing to the discussion?
BTW, if Matthew recorded an event then at least one historian DID record it. It’s certainly not good historical-critical method to exclude sources because you don’t like what they say. But this is very off topic.
Daniel: (1) I don’t think “Word” is ambiguous at all and given the background it has in the Hebrew Scriptures I think John’s audience would have discerned his intention immediately (see e.g., Ps. 33:6; 107:19-20; 147:15-18; Is. 55:10-11). Also of significance is the verbal links between John’s Prologue and the opening of Genesis. God creates by speaking in Genesis; in John all things are created through the Word. Also, I think it’s hard to argue against the idea that John equated Word with Son given Jo. 1:14; 18 (given the variant you prefer).
Re: Philo, It’s fallen out of favor that John drew from him. In most of my reading scholars don’t propose a link between Philo and John (Dunn says as much in Christology in the Making). I’d say that Philo introduced the Logos in a special way to Judaism, but the Septuagint had set the stage for Philo. I think it’s likely that both Philo and John drew heavily from the same source, i.e. the Septuagint.
(2) My point isn’t that masculine pronouns denote personhood, in fact in one of the links I provided above I say the same thing (i.e., that my argument isn’t dependant on masculine pronouns); but to remain consistent you should have translated them all as he/him. I can talk about a boat as a “she” without the boat being a person, but I’m still using a feminine pronoun to do it.
If you want to talk about the Word or the Son or Jesus coming “from” the Father than the language of the Creeds (I have in mind the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed) seems to work best (i.e., “Light of Light, true God of true God…”) where “of” is the Greek “ek” which could also re rendered “out of” or “from.” Either way, it’s consistent with Trinitarian orthodoxy.
(4) That’s the thing about John’s Gospel, it’s anything but subtle. Three times Jesus is almost stoned for making claims that were understood to be blasphemous, i.e., claims to deity. He speaks as one clearly aware of his preexistence. If we understand the Prologue to be an outline so to speak (since it is probable that this was added after the Gospel was completed), then it makes sense to see that John would make such an explicit claim in the beginning of the Gospel. It’s just setting the stage for what’s to come.
Concerning what Yochai is saying, while I think it’s unnecessary to look to Hebrew translations of the Greek here, there is in the background of the Prologue Wisdom and Torah traditions. Jesus being seen as the embodiment of Torah makes sense in the context of the Gospel, especially in the Prologue (esp. vs. 17).
Nick,
My point was simply that you’re all debating the level of idolatry you are willing to accept based on pagan myth, legend, and an incorrect twisting of OT scriptures.
If you spent as much unbiased time determining if your foundation is valid instead of just lining up for the Kool-Ade you might be surprised.
That was it.
This is a conversation I have seen tear congregations apart. I find myself truly blessed to be able to watch it progress in a respectful forum.
Grasping for truth,
I believe I understand your point. However, for any kind of meaningful dialogue to take place, certain rules must be agreed upon. It becomes impossible to discuss the deity of Yeshua if one side of the argument simply says the NT is wrong. Likewise, it becomes impossible to argue whether the Torah stands, or was done away with if the person you are talking with thinks the whole thing was the ramblings of a mad man.
For the sake of this discussion, it seems the baseline needs to be that both the tanak and the NT are valid, and that translations and interpretations are what are to be questioned. If we start denouncing books, or even portions of books as our main argument, we lose the common ground required for meaningful debate.
Jonboze
To: Nick
(1) Even though I know you gave these references only as examples, and your case doesn’t stand or fall with these, I couldn’t withhold myself from checking them up to see if I could easily refute them:P
Ps 33:6 “By the word of the L’rd the heavens were made, and by the breath of his mouth all their host.”
Would you consider breath also to be personal and pre-existing?
Ps 107:20 “He sent out his word and healed them, and delivered them from their destruction.”
If the Psalmist tried to convey the word being sent, and it or he healed them, why doesn’t he say and it or he healed them, and it or he delivered them from their destruction? He doesn’t as the point of writing “He sent out his word”, is meant to convey that G’d willed it, not that he literally briefed the word with his mission to go and heal some folks down there.
Ps 147:15-18 “He sends out his command to the earth; his word runs swiftly. He gives snow like wool; he scatters hoarfrost like ashes. He hurls down his crystals of ice like crumbs; who can stand before his cold? He sends out his word, and melts them; he makes his wind blow and the waters flow”
Would you consider command, or wind in similar terms as you understand the word?
All of these in my opinion refer simply to G’ds will, and the use of wind, word, command, breath are just ways of talking about G’ds will being put into effect.
To cite the great Rambam:
[1]
And on Psalm 33:6 he comments:
[2]
As for equation of the word and the son, as can be seen in my previous comment, I myself argue for an equation albeit obviously in a different way than you:) The equation is more along the lines of the son functioning in the same way as the word. So when the Tanakh speaks of the word, it speaks of G’ds will or as I said before divine reason, and, forgive my repetition, as Jesus lived in perfect line with G’ds will, it was as if he was G’ds will, or word.
As for Philo, yesterday I remembered the existence of a work in my university’s library Philo in Early Christian Literature (Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum Ad Novum Testamentum) by David T. Runia, Im still in Istanbul but will go back to Holland on Thursday and maybe go to university on Friday, if I have time ill work through it and present you its findings, as Im quite sure there is a chapter devoted to the link I propose. Until that time I would like to ask you how the Septuagint adds to John’s use.
(2) I don’t think so:P It has been pointed out to me that these pronomina don’t have to be translated in all cases as masculine, as this depends solely on the function of these pronomina. If these point to a masculine person, then obviously they should be, but for other cases they can simply be translated in accordance with the normal rules of English. In French, table is feminine (“la table”), and thus in French you point to a table by using “elle”, but it would be ridiculous to import this to English and point to the table by using ‘she’. Naturally you would use ‘it’, because this is about a thing and not a person. I see this as the same with the logos, its not about a person but a principle. So I think it would actually be wise to translate it with ‘it’, as this avoids a lot of confusion, but only later switch to ‘he’ to make the switch from logos to Jesus more fluent.
(4) I felt like replying; no it is subtle:P but let me try to stay ‘scholarly’. As for the three times Jesus was almost stoned, I think again the case isn’t that clear cut, and actually in one case (John 10) he doesn’t affirm but applies קל וחומר, if men to whom the word of G’d came (btw note the use of ‘the word’:P) are called gods a fortiori the special agent of G’d can be called G’d, in as much as he is consecrated by G’d to fulfil his will on earth. To be commissioned by G’d, as in, to claim to work on behalf of G’d, is not the same as to claim to be G’d in essence. And for the former they stoned him, as he was not, as the other Rabbanim claiming in general working on G’ds authority but special and exclusively.
As for Yeshua being the embodiment of the Torah, this is exactly what I am saying, as the Torah is G’ds will (logos) and as Jesus lived to the fullest extent of G’ds will he is of necessity the embodiment of the Torah.
———————————–
[1] Moses Maimonides, The Guide for the Perplexed (New York: Dover Publications inc., 2000), p.33
[2] Ibid.
To: Jonboze
It is indeed sad to see how relationships can break down as a result of a difference in understanding wrt our subject. And to be honest, this is the reason I dont talk about this with my offline community, as I know how deeply people would be grieved, and how they would be in anguish for my soul’s destination. Although its very important that Biblical issues are discussed, I find it much more important that I have good relationships with my environment and see that as a much bigger mitzvah than to spread my ideas on this issue. And I learned this from Rashi, in his comments on Gen 18:13, where he points out that Hashem himself, for the sake of peace altered Sarah’s words.
Blessings,
Daniel
Daniel: (1) Since ‘breath’ in Ps. 33:6 is ruach I wouldn’t have much of a problem as seeing it as personal and preexistent since the Holy Spirit is the Ruach Hakodesh.
I don’t understand your objection to Ps. 107:20. His word is the means by which he healed them. I’m not arguing that the Hebrew Scriptures hypostasize the word (= davar), I’m arguing that John’s Logos (which is hypostasized) is building off of a tradition that his audience would have been familiar with (i.e., the manner in which God works through his Word).
You asked: “Would you consider command, or wind in similar terms as you understand the word?
‘Command’ (= ‘imrah) is synonymous with ‘word’ (= davar) so I’d have no real problem seeing a connection, especially in this psalm as there seems to be a parallelism. ‘Wind’ (= ruach) again doesn’t hurt my position, but this could go either way here; it could just be wind or it could be a veiled reference to the Spirit.
Concerning the Septuagint, the opening words of Genesis 1:1 are the same as in John 1:1: “in the beginning” (= en arche). John is drawing attention to the Genesis narrative which describes God creating through his word (i.e., when God creates it’s always communicated as “and God said…”)
(2) Again, I’m not arguing that masculine pronouns = personality, but when you have masculine pronouns as opposed to neuter then a masculine translation seems to make more sense. Your rendering of ‘it’ causes more confusion than it solves, but I understand that you’re basing it on an a priori assumption that the Logos is not personal. It’s simply my contention that such an understanding is exegetically impossible from the Prologue and must be assumed first and then read into the passage. And in English it’s not as ridiculous as you think to refer to certain ‘its’ with gendered pronouns (e.g., cars, boats, wines, etc.).
(4) I don’t know how to respond. When we read:
This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. (Jo. 5:18)
The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.” (Jo. 10:33)
It doesn’t seem subtle at all. The Prologue is anything but subtle, and certainly John 20:28 is as blatant a text as exists. I won’t go into interpreting all of these texts since you asked that we focus on the Prologue in this post but I will say that I disagree with what you’ve said about them above.
But as I said on my blog, I find this conversation a bit odd because John’s Gospel is the one in which scholars have no qualms about saying that it affirms a divine Christ. To be honest, I’ve never quite come across objections or interpretations like yours and that alone makes me nervous, not because I think they can’t be dealt with, but because if such things have not been obvious to people before you then the chances are these thoughts don’t have much going for them.
In any event, if we’ve exhausted the Prologue discussion (which honestly, it seems that we might have) I’ll look forward to the next text you want to discuss.
One thing that should be mentioned (some comments came close) is that, in the time in which the Gospel of John was written, terms like “Word”, “Wisdom” and “Spirit” were all somewhat interchangeable ways of referring to the one G-d’s interaction with the world and humanity (see for instance James Dunn’s Christology in the Making for a helpful treatment of this subject). That being so, prior to the clear distinction made in later Christianity, the reference to the Word becoming flesh might well have been understood to be synonymous to the Spirit descending and remaining on him.
This possibility is explored in Charles Talbert’s commentary on John, Reading John, as well as in an article by Francis Watson. Here are the details if anyone is interested in exploring the exegetical and theological details further:
Watson, Francis, “Is John’s Christology Adoptionist?” in L.D.Hurst and N.T.Wright (eds.), The Glory of Christ in the New Testament, Oxford: Clarendon, 1987, pp.113-124.
Talbert, Charles H., “‘And the Word Became Flesh’: When?”, in Abraham J. Malherbe and Wayne A. Meeks (eds.), The Future of Christology, Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993, pp.43-52 [also discussed in his commentary, Reading John, pp.73-77]
Fuller, Reginald H., “The Incarnation In Historical Perspective”, in W. T. Stevenson (ed.), Theology and Culture (ATR Supplement Series, 7), November 1976, pp.57-66
To Nick:
(1) I think it would be very hard to read the 2nd and 3rd members/persons of the Trinity into Psalm 33:6 (word and breath), this is beyond what the author of the verse intends to convey and can in my opinion only be read into it by discarding his intent. I think as James McGrath pointed out, word, breath, command, spirit are all somewhat interchangeable and are used to denote G’ds will being carried out, or as he said: the one G’ds interaction with humanity.
The Rambam proves this [w.r.t. Ps.33:6] by saying:
Again I would like you to consider the author’s intent, there was of course no doctrine of the Trinity around, and I know you don’t claim that, but to say that the author intended to convey ‘word’ as personal and pre-existing and the same for ‘breath’, would lead me to think that you impose this upon the writer.
I think Dunn perfectly sums it up in this line:
(2) As for me assuming a priori that the logos is not personal and pre-existing, I think I have good reasons for this, one would be the fact that this is not found in the Tanakh, the word is not presented as personal, as we, albeit little, argued about above. Also, although I don’t want to get off-track, but Judaism, heterogeneous as it may have been was monotheistic, to fully equate the word with the son would be a breakthrough Hellenistic-Jewish thought which I don’t think would pass by this unnoticed, as can be evidenced from the toils of Paul in explaining the idea of the opening up of the Kingdom to the Gentiles. And considering what G.F. Moore as cited by Dunn:
has to say about it (see I have some scholars on my side!:D), I would consider your proposed understanding to be a break.
But lets try to stay out of the endless debate of whose presuppositions are valid and stick to the text and see which ones reading make most sense in the larger picture.
(4) As for the lack of scholars on my side of the argument, I think James McGrath at least gave you some references who would cast doubts on what John meant when he wrote “[…]the Word became flesh”.
You are right that we are coming to the end of the discussion on the Prologue and if after your reply nobody has points to counter, I wanted to ask you and others to send a final comment, not really directed at anything specific, but in positive terms explaining how you read the Prologue what you think should be taken into account by the other party, and with that we will continue to another passage for which Im preparing a blogpost now.
—————————————————–
[1] Moses Maimonides, The Guide for the Perplexed (New York: Dover Publications inc., 2000), p.98
[2] James G. Dunn, Christology in the Making (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2003), p.218
[3] Ibid. p.219
To James McGrath:
Thanks for the references, Im honored by your presence at my blog:)
Shalom, I am curious to hear what you [Daniel and others] understand, or believe to be at stake here given the particular “side” you side with. Explain as clear, succinct, and practical as you can!
peace,
Joel U.
Joel: I think there are a couple of things at stake: (1) Orthodoxy, and (2) Salvation. The Church has long been settled on the deity of Christ and to deny his deity is heresy. I say salvation because if our faith is to be placed in someone/thing for salvation then I firmly believe it needs to be placed in the right someone/thing. If who we believe Jesus to be is not who Jesus really is then I think our faith has been misplaced and a misplaced faith is not a saving faith. I’m well aware that others would disagree but that’s okay, I respect everyone’s right to be wrong.
Upon reading Nick’s reply I understand what you mean;
For me theres not much of a problem if one believes in the Incarnation or not. Obviously I favour the latter, as I think it better reflects the NT but I dont think anyone would lose his salvation by believing in it, simply as I dont think salvation is based strictly on what doctrines/creeds one adheres to. But before I get all kinds of questions on my views of salvation based on faith etc this is a discussion on the Prologue and its interpretation and as such lets keep the comments focused on that.
Blessings,
Daniel
All:
It seems to Daniel as well as to me that this section is wrapping up. I have ordered a few books and I know I will research the Fourth Gospel and Yeshua as theos quite a bit in days to come.
I do not feel John 1 has been given proper heed by those who question the deity of Messiah. Too easily, IMO, Daniel and others have sought a special pleading explanation of texts in John 1 and 17 that speak of the pre-existence and equality of Yeshua with the Father.
One of the major issues for the non-deity people seems to be Yeshua’s continued insistence on speaking of himself as lower than the Father as well as the New Testament’s nuanced language about Yeshua’s equality with the Father. I believe the traditional position of Christendom more than adequately explains both Yeshua’s co-equality and his separateness. An interpretation that takes all the texts seriously will need to do a good job of interpreting all the relevant scriptures on the matter.
Daniel has settled on a low view of Yeshua that cannot possibly make sense of the NT texts. His view is that Yeshua simply lived the Torah perfectly and in his obedience reflected the divine image perfectly. This perfect-man Christology hardly accounts for “the Word was with God,” “the glory I had with you before the foundation of the world,” and so on.
I feel that this dialogue will require a more extensive comparison of interpretations. I will be working in January, perhaps into February, on an analysis of the key texts in the Fourth Gospel. Perhaps Daniel and I can do a comparison between our blogs of interpretations. In the meantime, this discussion has made me realize how overdue my own research into this topic really is.
Derek
One thing I think might help the conversation is if the “traditional position of Christendom” is better defined. It’s clear that Daniel is coming on the side that Moshiach was Hashem’s anointed and not Hashem himself. Because it is a clear position, it is easy to argue against.
However the position of Christendom has never been clear. Within the people who believe he is divine, I have heard multiple positions, including:
1 That he is in fact Hashem.
2 That he is separate from Hashem but their will is one.
3 That he became separate from Hashem as a man, then “remerged” (forgive my terminology) entirely back into Hashem after his death.
4 That they are two, but are one in the family sense.
Like the idea that he is not divine at all, all of these points can be refuted with scripture and logic. One of the biggest hindrances to this discussion is that one arguing for the divinity of Yeshua generally shifts between each of these points within the discussion, never clearly defining what it is he is arguing for. This puts the two sides of the argument on uneven footing.
Jon: Of the multiple positions you’ve heard only one is that or orthodox Christianity (#1). I haven’t noticed anyone wavering between the options you’ve listed in this discussion; can you point to specific examples? I can only speak for myself but I think I’ve been very clear in what I’m arguing for (i.e., the deity of Christ; personal preexistence) although in general I’ve only been responding to certain points brought up by others.
Daniel: I just noticed your response from January 9; I don’t know how I missed it.
(1) I think you’ve completely misread me. I said that the Hebrew Scriptures do NOT hypostasize these things like the NT does so I’m NOT reading the 2nd and 3rd persons of the Trinity back into the psalms. I’ve said that the Hebrew Scriptures provide a background to John’s prologue that his readers would have been familiar with which in turn would give them the conceptual basis to understand what John was doing in the prologue. But you then asked (for what reason I’m not exactly sure) if I would say that the wind, breath, command, etc. were personal from reading those psalms. I merely pointed out that such an argument doesn’t hurt my position because in fact those things are synonymous with Word & Spirit.
While authorial intent is important I don’t think it’s the be all end all of Biblical interpretation. If we want to talk about an author’s intent then we’d have to disregard a good amount of what is considered messianic prophecy since the authors of the Hebrew Scriptures certainly didn’t have Jesus in mind, and in some passages it’s questionable whether they even had the messiah in mind!
(2) But the Logos is presented as personal in John’s prologue! Even if you approach the text with an a priori assumption that the Logos is impersonal then reading it should produce an a posteriori result of seeing personality.
(4) I have my doubts that they’d cast any real doubts at all, but I’ll check them out as time allows.
Hi Nick:
(1) I did notice you saying that you did not think the Psalmist was hypostasizing but I think I got confused as I thought that would automatically lead to my conclusion. But I now get your point.
(2) I disagree:) I try to read the Scriptures progressively, that is, if the Tanakh presents the Torah as eternal and binding upon the Jewish people, I would read the Gospels and Paul with that in mind, and harmonize passages that at first sight seem to speak otherwise. Similarly as the Tanakh presents G’d as being one, I approach the NT with that in mind.
To all:
Thanks for your participation in the discussion, I enjoyed it, and learned a lot from it. I had originally planned to do a next passage right after this one ended but found out that I spent a lot of time behind my blog during this discussion and cannot combine this with my current block at the university, where instead of 2 courses I need to follow 4 courses. Having said this, the next ‘round’ will not commence right away but in some time from now. But I will announce it.
For those interested in reading some material that made me form my views, I recommend the following book: James D. G. Dunn, Christology in the Making(Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2003)
Blessings,
Daniel
Nick
Please forgive me for my lack of response. I am holding off until the next part of the discussion is started, so that we can keep it in one thread.
Shalom Aliekum,
Yeshua was a Shaliach or ambassador of Y/H/V/H, and as such he was given all of the authority of Y/H/V/H , hence the forgiving of sins. But He was not Divine in anyway. Yeshua is a man to be followed not a man to be worshiped. The Tanakh as well as the Apostolic letters all agre that Yeshua is not co-equal with the Father, Paul even says Yeshua will be subjected to Y/H/V/H. G-d cannot subject G-d. So you are right in the fact that Yeshua is not G-d