It seems clear that the LOGOS cannot be the same QEOS that he is with (John 1:1b). Therefore, the preverbal anarthrous PN in 1:1c should be rendered "a god" since QEOS is a count noun and serves as an instantiation of the class, QEOI. We again encounter one of the major problems for Trinitarian theology, namely, explaining the Trinitarian relations within the Godhead.
Asserting that PROS implies being with or toward or even in close communion with someone else, certain scholars have tried to explain John 1:1 by resorting to a priori categories of person and substance. However, John McKenzie has pointed out that John the apostle did not differentiate between the divine substance and three Persons who are sharers in that divine substance. John simply used QEOS to describe the Being whom he identified as the only true God (John 17:3). This Being is distinct from the man who was called Jesus Christ on earth, and He is also set apart from the LOGOS who was with the only true God before the world existed (John 17:5). Granted, John used QEOS of the LOGOS in 1:1c, but it does not seem that he was trying to equate the Word with Almighty God (John 14:28; 20:17).
G.R. Beasley-Murray contends that PROS TON QEON means: "in the presence of God" or "in the fellowship of God." B.M Newman and E.A. Nida reject an "in the presence of God" understanding and opt for the notion of "a kind of interactive reciprocality between the Word and God."
200 comments:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20041213_notification-fr-haight_en.html
Have you read his book?
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=C8p3CAAAQBAJ&pg=PT545&lpg=PT545&dq=haight+jesus+symbol+of+god+personification&source=bl&ots=sZxSCHwCvV&sig=ACfU3U1Jlw4J6fg8T4J9XbyFQaz6jNdLcw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjS8pyJr5HkAhVfTxUIHQPZA6YQ6AEwDnoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=haight%20jesus%20symbol%20of%20god%20personification&f=false
Duncan, I have not read his book, and it seems that the Vatican is not happy with him.
Proverbs 7:4 - Say to wisdom, “You are my sister,”
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=C8p3CAAAQBAJ&pg=PT545&lpg=PT545&dq=haight+jesus+symbol+of+god+personification&source=bl&ots=sZxSCHwCvV&sig=ACfU3U1Jlw4J6fg8T4J9XbyFQaz6jNdLcw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjS8pyJr5HkAhVfTxUIHQPZA6YQ6AEwDnoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=personification%20is%20recognised&f=false
This page is interesting.
While Haight departs from "orthodoxy" in some respects, much of what he writes about the Logos-Christ is standard Trinitarian fare. And while a non-Trinitarian could agree with some of his remarks concerning the Logos, once we get beneath surface structures, the non-Trinitarian differs greatly from Haight.
On the issue of Wisdom in the Hebrew Bible, others also have suggested it's personification and not hypostatization. I can see how a case might be made for the position, but I continue to view Christ as divine wisdom personified and likely hypostatized as the early church viewed Proverbs 8--both pro-Nicenes and Arians.
But how do we know what Arians believed. Isn't the history we have written only by the victors in this controversy?
Also a plain reading of Hebrews 1:5 adds to the difficulty. A Queen Bee is still a Bee.
https://brill.com/view/journals/laaj/6/1/article-p229_8.xml?crawler=true
"It is only relatively recently that modern scholars have come to
recognise the degree to which this polarised model is a polemical
construct that has severely distorted our understanding of the theological debates of the 4th c. and their participants. The relative insignificance of Arius himself within the controversy which has taken his name has been amply demonstrated, notably by Maurice Wiles,6 while R. P. C. Hanson in particular has emphasised that the traditional image of a conflict between established ‘orthodoxy’ and manifest ‘heresy’ cannot be maintained. "
pg 232 of above
"What we find throughout the complex period between the councils of Nicaea and
Constantinople is instead a wide spectrum of differing theological positions, whose respective adherents sought to establish their own beliefs as the approved teachings of the one ‘orthodox’ and ‘catholic’ Church. "
from same page
"Thus, although it is true that a scene such as the Raising of Lazarus “can be seen as a statement of orthodox belief in the divinity of Christ, and a concomitant denial of the Arian belief that Christ was not by nature divine”,29 that same scene could be viewed as a proof of Christ’s divinity by every Christian in the 4th c., regardless of their precise doctrinal beliefs."
pg 237.
But what does "divine" here even mean?
"People were raised from the dead even in Old Testament times, as in the case of the prophet Elijah (1 Kings 17:17-23). The prophet Elisha also raised someone from the dead (2 Kings 4:17-37). Indeed, even Elisha's bones caused a man to be raised (2 Kings 13:20-21: an explicit biblical confirmation of relics)."
https://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/0199280134.001.0001/acprof-9780199280131
Granted, the victors wrote the history of Arianism, but plenty of information exists regarding Arius. See https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2007/04/was-lactantius-arian.html
Especially read this tome: R. P. C. Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1988).
Cf. https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2017/02/arius-of-alexandria-maurice-wiles-book.html
To the main point, we can be fairly confident that Arius thought of Christ as the wisdom of Proverbs 8.
Jaroslav Pelikan long ago pointed out that the pro-Nicenes and Arians were not polar opposites. I've posted on the subject here. See https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2017/12/book-review-of-christian-tradition-by.html
The adjective "divine" should be understood according to context. When Trinitarians say "divine," they normally mean Christ is fully God, but angels are divine in a lesser sense and so are resurrected anointed ones.
The work by Sara Parvis is interesting: I have that book in digital form. As a side note, Parvis was an external reader/examiner for my doctoral dissertation. She sat on the committee when I defended my work. She's an accomplished historian.
Just two points here. My question about the term divine was in reference to the work and it's assertion that he was considered divine because of raising the dead as depicted on an ossuary. Not unique in the biblical accounts. Prophets were not deemed divine.
Secondly, with reference to proverbs 8 and the reason I sighted proverbs 7. The Hebrew term is feminine, which does not mean much but to label it as sister is another.
Your post regarding Jaroslav Pelikan, I did buy that first book. Pg 197 of the book discusses the term "angel" and it's usage. It references Hebrews 1:4 but strangely makes no mention of 1:5.
How can the term angel be applied?
Galatians 3:19 is problematic - transmitted by angels (plural). The mediator being Moses.
The reasoning was also circular as it comes back to there idea of logos.
http://www.tertullian.org/collections/collections.htm
https://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.397914
Would this also be useful?
Just time for a few remarks. Pelican is chiefly doing history rather than exegesis, so he restricts his comments to what he seems necessary. He's reporting on events, not necessarily siding with the pro-nicenes. I cited him to show the Arians and pro-nicenes were not polar opposites.
Galatians 3:19 differentiates between Moses and the angels. Why couldn't God transmit the Law using both Moses and the angels? It's not an either-or proposition.
Trinitarians do think Christ is divine (God) by virtue of his resurrection. I don't agree, but that's what they think.
Personally, I don't find the feminine language for hokhmah/Sophia to be ontologically significant. It's literary and poetic.
Lastly, Angel may designate a human or spirit messenger, depending on context.
The law was transmitted through Moses from God. An intermediary is possible, but plural?
I haven't read the work by Robin Ward, but it might be a useful dissertation for learning more about 4th century Christology.
You'll have to spell out why having multiple intermediaries is a problem because to my knowledge, most early Jews or Christians did not have difficulty reading the account that way. Compare Acts 7:53; Hebrews 2:1-2.
I went back and read Pelikan (p. 197). His treatment of Heb. 14 and omission of 1:5 needs to be understood in the light of the overall discussion. Pelikan was making a point about the Arian view of Jesus qua angel. Hence, he only discussed Heb. 1:4.
Heb. 14 should be 1:4.
Do you have access to Craig Keener's Acts commentary, vol. 2:1428-9? :)
It contains a dense set of remarks on Acts 7:53 that show why intermediaries of Torah is no problem.
See https://books.google.com/books?id=oqTHAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT467&lpg=PT467&dq=craig+keener+acts+7:53&source=bl&ots=JOj8L1cbOY&sig=ACfU3U2ezLbF5roACNkQnAhjueniD1rypA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi3zeT7i5jkAhWPiOAKHQkiBZsQ6AEwB3oECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=craig%20keener%20acts%207%3A53&f=false
According to the commentary it still stated the point regarding god and Moses so regardless of methods of emphasis, "angels" is not accurate. Also being superior to angels does not make an angel of any king. This is about status and function. The ultimate messenger.
Duncan, quite frankly, it is not clear to me exactly what your objection is. Okay, so we have God and Moses. Why can't there be other intermediaries? After all, Gal. 3:19 states, διαταγεὶς δι' ἀγγέλων
Moreover, you cannot say that using the translation "angels" is not accurate. You may not agree with the rendering, but "angels" is a perfectly good way to render ἀγγέλων. Angels may be spirit or human, but all indications are that Paul meant the former rather than the latter in this case.
See https://biblehub.com/hebrew/4397.htm
The link shows that angels could be spirit or human.
I agree that being superior to an angel does not make an angel of a king, but who's ever argued that way? On the other hand, to argue that Christ is superior to human "messengers" is somewhat deflationary within the context of the argument being made in Hebrews 1. So he becomes superior to human messengers by sitting at God's right hand and being the exact representation of God's very being? Then we're supposed to believe that God commands all human messengers to render homage to Christ the king? (Heb. 1:6)
This reasoning is deflationary.
I am still formulating but much of this relates to Deuteronomy 27. Whoever wrote Galatians seems detached from the understanding of the curses - the effect on others, the community. Sacrifice controlled domestic animal population. Idol were related to practises in living, primarily agriculture (sustenance and covering). I can furnish a better reply next week.
In modern English messenger and angel have very different meaning but IMO translations work in reverse. All should be translated messengers as that is the function as understood in modern English. If unearthly the context will make clear the difference.
Sorry, just picked up on one of your points. The writer of Hebrews is suspected of using a Hebraism. That angels is being used like elohim. Plural superlative. I am not claiming that the messenger is human but I see no reason to see Jesus here as a heavenly being because he is superior to The angel. The term spirit Hebrews is - Hebrew.
David son sits at the right hand. See Mat 1:1. But Mat 22:41-46, Mark 12:35–37, Luke 20:41–44 actually answers nothing. If the son surpasses the father then he might call him lord which is not the same as father. It also occured to me that Psalm 110 could originally have been talking about Solomon as he was the one who built the temple and what that meant to the land and the people, surpassing David.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a0d8/a07bb39aa84106a53c4d7b79bf07631c7c2a.pdf
Found some support for the idea even though the author tries to use above scriptures to prove something they do not. That's the problem with a cryptic non answer. Open to interpretation.
I part ways with your reading of Gal. 3, to some extent, but just on the point about angels/messengers, my contention is that we can't say "angel" is not the accurate translation of aggelos, any more than we could say "soul" does not accurately render nepes. IMO, most occurrences of aggelos normally refer to spirit messengers. If we just rendered it messenger all the time, it might not be apparent to readers that spirits are being discussed.
A number of indicators from Heb. 1 point to Jesus Christ being more than human. How could Hebrews 1:3-4 be referring to a human with those descriptive words? He sits at God's right hand and is the reflection of God's glory along with being the exact representation of God's being, having become superior to the angels. It's hard to understand how such words would be predicated of a human.
Heb. 1:3-4 doesn't merely say that he sits at the right hand, but rather ἐν δεξιᾷ τῆς Μεγαλωσύνης ἐν ὑψηλοῖς.
See https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2013/09/11/key-christological-texts-psalm-110-isaiah-4523-25/
Compare https://www.amazon.com/Psalm-Hebrews-Library-Testament-Studies/dp/0567662705
https://faculty.gordon.edu › Text › Articles › Bateman-Ps110-BS
"He is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact imprint of God’s very being, and he sustains[a] all things by his powerful word."
Who's powerful word? It's saying the same as the prologue.
His message is more powerful than the that of the prophets and even angels.
This is the language of Paul.
You last link not working.
The subject of Heb. 1:3 is the resurrected and exalted Christ. More than likely, it's the Son's own powerful word by which all things are sustained. See https://www.bsw.org/project/biblica/colossians-1-17-hold-together-a-co-opted-term/549/article-p68.html
To me, there are substantial differences between Heb. 1:3 and the Johannine Prologue: rather than identifying the Son/Christ as Logos, 1:3 explains that Christ sustains all things by means of his powerful word (i.e., utterance).
His utterance/word sustains the universe: that is not something we predicate of humans. Plus, you can't ignore the reflection/exact imprint of his being language or the fact that he sits at the right hand of the exalted Majesty.
The last link contained an article by Herbert Bateman on Ps. 110. I downloaded the pdf from that link if you want to read it.
Yes please, i would like to read it.
The right hand of God is a modern interpretation. In Hebraic terms this would be the strong hand of God. Etymology of left hand comes from weak hand. No specific side.
Your point about not using the term angel just proves the point. Hebraically it is one word that primarily means messenger. Context should make the kind obvious. If it does not then it is a guess.
I am not ignoring the language but it is only Paul that uses it. Paul never met the flesh of Jesus. Also all his language must be bench marked against what a Pharisee actually did. Did they divide law and oral law in language?
All the things said here could and were used regarding the law.
See Isaiah 41:13.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=cmdMAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA110&lpg=PA110&dq=the+torah+holds+the+universe+together&source=bl&ots=dVk_Y1FOvF&sig=ACfU3U0o9tCQqc6aGYEK4Yb4hp4-y9JSLg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi9quiwjJzkAhVO3KQKHY3nCtwQ6AEwDXoECAMQAQ#v=onepage&q=the%20torah%20holds%20the%20universe%20together&f=false
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=AgYqDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT107&lpg=PT107&dq=the+torah+holds+the+universe+together&source=bl&ots=aPLqPvpFM8&sig=ACfU3U1_RN5GxVeXWCE5_VIIWsRUB7BPYg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiX6O2ejZzkAhW0unEKHd9XCGI4ChDoATAEegQICBAB#v=onepage&q=the%20torah%20holds%20the%20universe%20together&f=false
So Jesus Torah became Paul's Torah but Torah has only one source.
Also what ever is being said her has to be benchmarked by what comes before - Neh. 9:6.
I should probably make this my last reply about the subject because I'm not gaining any clarity with respect to how Heb. 1:3-4 teaches that a human Jesus Christ is being discussed. I'm not necessarily a linear thinker, but it's hard for me to follow your argument here.
How is the right hand of God a modern interpretation? I could show you ancient or medieval explanations that concur with so-called modern interpretations of the "right hand" language. In 1 Kings 22, aren't the angels at God's right and left hand? Yet, Psalm 110 foretells that Messiah will sit at the right hand of God.
Heb. 1:4 likely refers to spirit messengers; so does Gal. 3:19. To render 1:4 with "messengers" would not be wrong, but it might not be so elucidating to contemporary English readers. I fail to see how much is lost by using "angels" in Heb. 1:4.
How does the fact that things could be said of law/Torah promote the human understanding you mentioned earlier? See my confusion? :)
I also don't see how Nehemiah 9:6 conflicts with any of my beliefs.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/left
Strong and weak best and worst.
Best foot forward.
http://albertis-window.com/2014/05/ancient-egyptians-and-greeks-left-foot-forward/
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/hebrew-bible/left-handed-people-in-the-bible/
Notice some early church interpretations of Ps. 110:
http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1010-99192014000200005
https://books.google.com/books/about/Glory_at_the_Right_Hand.html?id=mpIztAEACAAJ
Is not just one thing though "Torah can hold things together." "Torah as the logos" "Torah creates the universe"" There are more but we have been over this ground before.
One needs to focus on the word DIA. "Instrumental agency".See Luke 12:7- numbered by whom, what is implied?
HEB 1:2 through whom he programmed the ages. Genitive - what is happening now. 1 Peter 1:20. Appeared in these last days.
No text speaks of Jesus coming to the earth. "Into the world" is Jewish idiom.
See Nigel Turner on colosians 1:16. The change in verb tense is also applicable here.
See Isaiah 51:16. Compare NASB. Restarting the world.
The scriptures don't say that Jesus sits/rules at the left hand of God, but rather, his right hand. I still don't see the modern interpretation aspect of the right hand of God: plenty of ancient and medieval writers discussed the right hand respecting Jesus. It's not a modern invention.
https://catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2017/06/22/why-the-son-sits-on-the-fathers-right-hand-according-to-st-augustine/
One difference between Christ and Torah is that Torah is not a person, but Christ is.
DIA has been discussed often on this blog and I've also written about the word. It doesn't detract from Christ's office but actually explains his role in creation and salvation: God creates through his Logos-Christ.
Our hairs are numbered by God: the idea is implied in Luke 12:7, but not spelled out by the writer/speaker. Compare Matthew 10:29-31. Yet this has little to do with DIA, which does not appear in Luke 12:7, but instead diaphero.
Heb. 1:2 is not "programmed"; see BDAG, etc.
If Jesus didn't come to earth, we're all in trouble. And it's hard to prove that "into the world" is simply a Jewish idiom.
I do have Nigel Turner, thanks.
How does the genitive in Heb. 1:2 indicate that the action is happening now? I.e., first century?
Notice the occurrence of ἔθηκεν and ἐποίησεν.
John 17:18 - into the world.
See psalms 102:18
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/apostolic/psalms/102.htm
http://dssenglishbible.com/psalms%20102.htm
V23-25.
Compare with psalms 101 LXX, in particular v25.
See ff Bruce on v22.
The Latin term for left hand mean "sinister"?
Isn't it true that all English translation prior to the KJV used "it" instead of "he" for the prologue?
Both Jesus and his disciples were sent into the world, but that doesn't mean both types of sending are exactly the same. We honor the Son as we honor the Father. However, is that necessarily a 100% correlation between both kinds of honor? The same applies to apostolic oneness and the oneness between God the Father and his Son.
I read Ps. 101/102 and did not see the relevance to this conversation. I wish you would have spelled it out, but moving on.
I've read the point before about left hand = sinister, but again, I would not attribute that view to the Bible writers and the fact is that we read where the Son sits: it is not at the left hand. Nor are the sheep of Mt 25 at the king's left hand. Does that mean left hand = sinister to the Bible writers? I would not say that.
In answer to your last question, I'm not sure. Yet see https://www.biblestudytools.com/wyc/john/1.html
Maybe it's the instructor in me, but I like to remain focused on one subject and gain clarity or make progress regarding the subject. Not trying to be crabby, but I sometimes feel our conversations jump all over the place. :)
Maybe it's because I'm an old guy, but I end up forgetting how the discussion relates to the original post.
The Psalms information is directly important to Hebrews 1:2 & contextually sets the scene for all that follows.
Now, if the Torah (it) became flesh. And the Torah of Messiah was then transmitted to the disciples. They would pass it on "into the world" just as Jesus had been doing.
I have to post things as the come to mind that relate to an overall picture. I have spent too much time dealing with circular arguments and am trying to avoid this by bringing in a spectrum of argumentation.
2 John 1:7 For many deceivers have gone out >>>into the world<<<, refusing to confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh.
This is the antithesis.
John 3:17
John 12:46 (John 1:4)
Into the world is very Johannine, can you differentiate the usage?
The OP was about John 1:1, but okay, I agree that Ps. 102 is related to Heb. 1:2-4, 10-12.
The Torah did not really become flesh. Which verse ever teaches that Torah became flesh? As I've also pointed out before, Logos is grammatically masculine--not neuter. Wycliffe apparently translated with masculine pronouns in John 1.
Logos in the flesh not only passed teaching into the world, but "himself" entered said world.
Avoiding circular arguments is fine; however, logical thinking is still structured/coherent. If dialogue is to advance, we must strive for clarity. Not that I'm always clear, but it's my aim (most of the time).
The meaning of into the world must be determined from context and referent. We must also take the Bible's whole teaching into consideration.
The point of analogies is that similarities and differences exist between A and B: they are not exactly alike.
"The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world" (John 1:9 NRSV).
Not only did he come into the world (i.e., Jesus Christ/Logos), but he "was coming into the world"
How? See John 1:14; 3:16
Where does scripture teach that Torah became flesh? Secondly, if Messiah was not sent from above, then how are we delivered from sin?
Jesus was "begotten" in Mary's womb. Not conceived.
Wycliffe said ">>this<< was in the beginning with God"
Is that equivalent to "he"?
See Hebrews 4:12. The Torah lives.
"Barr lists three possibilities. First, Logos was Torah, the Revelation of God, their Scriptures." So it's on the table.
Characteristics like truth, beauty, folly, or honor are always feminine but are they female entities?
John 1:10-11. 1 Enoch, where Wisdom is rejected and homeless. “Wisdom went out to dwell with the children of the people, but she found no dwelling place. So Wisdom returned to her place, and she settled permanently among the angels (42:1-2).
Herbert Weir Smyth wrote
Gender. – There are three genders: masculine, feminine, and neuter. a. Gender strictly marks sex-distinction. But in Greek, as in German and French, many inanimate objects are regarded as masculine or feminine. Such words are said to have ‘grammatical’ gender, which is determined only by their form.
In the NT as also classical Greek, and especially in John’s writings, the neuter is frequently used of >>a person<< when he is being thought of in an abstract way.
How was Jesus begotten in Mary's womb? What was the significance of his begettal? Whose son was he? Why was there no sin/deception in him?
"This" could be equivalent to "he." That is another way to translate the Greek demonstrative. Also, Wycliffe explicitly uses masculine pronominals throughout the Prologue in referring to the Logos.
I agree that Torah lives, but Torah and Logos are not interchangeable. Secondly, Logos doesn't always refer to Jesus Christ. Heb. 4:12 probably refers to God's word of promise spoken to ancient Israel.
I would have to see Barr's reasoning in more detail, but if he doesn't put Jesus on the table as potential Logos enfleshed, I must demur.
Grammatical gender doesn't necessarily map onto natural/biological gender. Pneuma is neuter, ruah is feminine, paracletos is masculine (I think), spiritus is masculine while anima is feminine. We can't conclude much from this information.
You would probably agree that wisdom is being personified in 1 Enoch. And wisdom is still not said to be enfleshed there.
No arguments with Smyth, but my point is that Logos is masculine--not neuter. The pronoun construed with Logos in John 1 could be masculine, feminine or neuter (grammatically speaking). But construed with Logos, it's probably masculine.
Please see https://books.google.com/books?id=7dQOFoXqchgC&pg=PA253&lpg=PA253&dq=logos+neuter+or+masculine+john+1&source=bl&ots=PkNd0AE0u_&sig=ACfU3U0_ld2XChgzL2Pa-KHwKRuVhVaX3w&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjakaW_o5_kAhWtneAKHRuDC8sQ6AEwCXoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=logos%20neuter%20or%20masculine%20john%201&f=false
Notice what Vincent writes about the masculine and neuter pronouns in John 1: https://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/cmt/vws/joh001.htm
"4Several authors have maintained that the Johannine Logos is only a masculine
surrogate of the feminine Sophia (e.g., J. Rendel Harris, The Origin o f the Prologue to St.
John’s Gospel [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1917], 4; Eldon Jay Epp, “Wisdom,
Torah, Word: The Johannine Prologue and the Purpose of the Fourth Gospel,” in Current Issues
in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation: Studies in Honor of Merrill C. Tenney Presented by His
Former Students, ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975], 132; Lindars, The
Gospel o f John, 83). This view, however, is most insistently argued by Scott. He starts from
the presupposition that the Jewish wisdom figure, which in both Hebrew (napn) and Greek
(aocjiia) is a feminine noun, was actually conceived under the influence of ancient Near Eastern
goddess worship and came eventually to be depicted as “God in feminine form, equivalent to the
more common Jewish expression of God in the masculine form, Yahweh” (Sophia and the
Johannine Jesus, 77). Then he seeks to identify the impact of the feminine gender of the
personified Sophia on the Johannine portrait of Jesus. In his analysis of the Prologue, he not
only contends that this passage reflects the influence of the Sophia tradition (ibid., 94), but also
that it contains a Christological understanding of Jesus as Sophia incarnate (ibid., 105), and that
the use of Logos imagery is John’s solution to gender dissonance, that is, “since Jesus is male,
so too is the Logos” (ibid., 105). In other words, the masculine title “Logos” is nothing else but
“a cover for the gender problem surrounding the identification of Jesus with the female Sophia”
(ibid., 115). Scott goes so far as to assume a sort of androgynous understanding of the
Johannine Jesus, whom he calls “Jesus Sophia”: “a unique blend of the male and female”;
“Jesus is a man who exhibits all the characteristic traits of the woman Sophia” (ibid., 174). For
a concise but effective analysis of Scott’s proposal, see the review of his book by Craig R.
Koester (JBL 113 [1994]: 152-154)."
https://www.unasp.br/ec/sites/centrowhite/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/AND104.pdf
I think Ben sira culminates Sophia as torah. As time permits I will mine David Barr for more information of Torah as logos.
Karen Jobes critiques Sophia Christology, which is shaped by feminist theory. See http://www.karenjobes.com/images/Sophia_Christology.pdf
Jesus of Nazareth was not androgynous.
Before Jesus was born, "androgynous" has no meaning.
You know my thought on el shaddai of yehovah.
Something interesting came up that Ehrman wrote regarding the work of Hertado:-
"I think his work is thoroughly researched and passionately presented. I do think that the category of “divine” is somewhat more complex than he intimates. With Jesus one always has to ask in what *sense* is he divine. Human and divine are gradations of being for ancients, they are not separated by a huge chasm, as for most of us today."
https://youtu.be/XC7jgU1Cd6U
Masculine or neuter?
Regarding Ehrman, he's only partly correct. He cannot tell me that YHWH was not thought to be "divine" in a far greater way than angels or "divine" humans. That would be nonsense and not in conformity with the ancient texts. Moreover, the church father distinguished between divine creatures and the one they considered to be divine and human, namely, Christ. So without a greater context, it's difficult to assess his claim. Yet I agree that we have to ask in what sense the first-century Christians thought Jesus Christ was divine.
I would not make much of Tyndale calling the Logos "it," just based on his translation. What did he actually believe about the Logos? As I've said before, Logos is grammatically masculine, and that is why we tend to use masculine terms for the Logos of John 1 besides other indicators from the context.
One illustration I've given before is the Latin "Qui est," which applied to YHWH should be translated "He who is"--not she who is/it that is.
To knowledge there were 18 notable English translations of the Bible prior to the KJV 1611 & they all use "it". As far as Tyndale's intent, how can we know?
It's not saying much that these translations used "it," and I've shown that the first English translation used masculine pronouns in the Prologue for the Logos. Even Tyndale employs masculine pronouns in John 1:10-11. Besides these translators believed that Christ was the Logos enfleshed, even if they did use "it."
As for Tyndale, he wrote other things, so we can get some indication of his thought from other works.
This link shows why t's difficult to build a theological position on Hebrew/Greek grammar and gendered nouns/pronouns: https://www.revisedenglishversion.com/John/chapter1/3
Also, Vincent's Word Studies on John 1:10:
Him (αὐτὸν)
The preceding him (αὐτοῦ) is, in itself, ambiguous as to gender. So far as its form is concerned, it might be neuter, in which case it would refer to the light, "the Word regarded as a luminous principle," as it, in Joh 1:5. But αὐτὸν is masculine, Him, so that the Word now appears as a person. This determines the gender of the preceding αὐτοῦ.
Compare wisdom 9:10, Baruch 3:36,37, 1 Enoch 42:2.
Also Daniel 2:21-23
My favourite is Proverbs 8:12.
I've often preached that we cannot make much of arguments based on grammatical gender. For instance:
Judah has gone into exile because of affliction[a]
and hard servitude;
she dwells now among the nations,
but finds no resting place;
her pursuers have all overtaken her
in the midst of her distress.
(Lamentations 1:3 ESV)
Then we have John 14:16-17 ESV):
And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you.
Yet compare Romans 8:16 KJV. We even call things like ships or cars, "she."
Did Tertullian write the below in Against Praxeas or is anything in this translation incorrectly rendered? :-
For before all things God was alone— being in Himself and for Himself universe, and space, and all things. Moreover, He was alone, because there was nothing external to Him but Himself. Yet even not then was He alone; for He had with Him that which He possessed in Himself, that is to say, His own Reason. For God is rational, and Reason was first in Him; and so all things were from Himself. This Reason is His own Thought (or Consciousness) which the Greeks call LOGOS by which term we also designate Word or Discourse and therefore it is now usual with our people, owing to the mere simple interpretation of the term, to say that the Word was in the beginning with God; although it would be more suitable to regard Reason as the more ancient; because God had not Word from the beginning, but He had Reason even before the beginning; because also Word itself consists of Reason, which it thus proves to have been the prior existence as being its own substance. Not that this distinction is of any practical moment. For although God had not yet sent out His Word, He still had Him within Himself, both in company with and included within His very Reason, as He silently planned and arranged within Himself everything which He was afterwards about to utter through His Word. Now, while He was thus planning and arranging with His own Reason, He was actually causing that to become Word which He was dealing with in the way of Word or Discourse. And that you may the more readily understand this, consider first of all, from your own self, who are made “in the image and likeness of God,” Genesis 1:26 for what purpose it is that you also possess reason in yourself, who are a rational creature, as being not only made by a rational Artificer, but actually animated out of His substance. Observe, then, that when you are silently conversing with yourself, this very process is carried on within you by your reason, which meets you with a word at every movement of your thought, at every impulse of your conception. Whatever you think, there is a word; whatever you conceive, there is reason. You must needs speak it in your mind; and while you are speaking, you admit speech as an interlocutor with you, involved in which there is this very reason, whereby, while in thought you are holding converse with your word, you are (by reciprocal action) producing thought by means of that converse with your word. Thus, in a certain sense, the word is a second person within you, through which in thinking you utter speech, and through which also, (by reciprocity of process,) in uttering speech you generate thought. The word is itself a different thing from yourself. Now how much more fully is all this transacted in God, whose image and likeness even you are regarded as being, inasmuch as He has reason within Himself even while He is silent, and involved in that Reason His Word! I may therefore without rashness first lay this down (as a fixed principle) that even then before the creation of the universe God was not alone, since He had within Himself both Reason, and, inherent in Reason, His Word, which He made second to Himself by agitating it within Himself.
Matthew 4:4 & John 4:34, I think they have an important link.
The passage is from Adversus Praxean: I wrote about this section in my M.Th. thesis, which was later published by Rowman and Littlefield. There are different translations of Adv Prax, but it seems that the words you quote are okay.
I don't have a problem with someone linking those verses. Seems highly plausible to me.
Just reading through my Tyndale 1526 original spelling edition on Jhon - the fyrst chapter.
The way it seems to read is that the light is the "he" - not the worde.
What became v15 says - "And that worde was made flesshe"
A combination of two elements?
Still trying to find record of Tyndales thoughts on this matter.
Is your Masters thesis available online?
See Tyndale's thoughts about the NT here: https://faithofgod.net/TyNT/Prologue.htm
You'll see that he affirms the eternal deity of the Logos-Christ.
My M.Th. thesis is at this location: https://theses.gla.ac.uk/71906/
I later edited/revised the work and published it through Rowman & Littlefield. You might still find something that addresses the issue raised.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_j_2RMMKVus
https://extra.shu.ac.uk/emls/moretyndale.pdf
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=P0bObTmMazAC&pg=PA125&lpg=PA125&dq=tyndale+unitarian+debate&source=bl&ots=Jfjj2PxL7w&sig=ACfU3U0UC5DlWxlvi5QfM2afmO6DZNQoFA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiptKulquzkAhXEh1wKHRLrAWgQ6AEwCnoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=The%20unitarian%20tracts&f=false
This is when the "he" was really pushed in response.
A war had begun.
https://bibleatbeineckedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/dscf8619-john.jpg
In other posts, however, I've presented evidence that although Tyndal used "it" for the Logos, he still believed Christ was Almighty God the Son and the enfleshed Logos. I still don't think much can be deduced from a grammatical accident like this, and what is more, Logos is grammatically masculine. People long understood Logos in John to be masculine way before Tyndale and the Unitarians. The pronoun used in John could be rendered "he" or "it."
Note John 1:10 in the VG: In mundo erat, et mundus per ipsum factus est, et mundus eum non cognovit.
See the discussion here: https://books.google.com/books?id=2ZkQquIwnVMC&pg=PA17&lpg=PA17&dq=logos+viewed+as+masculine+in+gospel+of+john&source=bl&ots=b7AG8NfGjh&sig=ACfU3U0iouqrQUDRZcmcnz0tDD5b8qqdPg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiDmf_jnu3kAhVnh-AKHcMzCus4ChDoATAFegQIBxAB#v=onepage&q=logos%20viewed%20as%20masculine%20in%20gospel%20of%20john&f=false
https://youtu.be/3G_PS43cwwo
https://youtu.be/b77QHL7RjQ0
https://youtu.be/GsfLm9421Ew
https://youtu.be/ftM4cY7e4Zw
This is all without circular reasoning based on what people think that Paul is talking about.
IMO Tyndale's use of "it" was no mistake. He knew his languages. It was probably this that got him killed.
I'll consider what you're saying, but just to be clear, are you denying that Tyndale affirmed Christ's deity and preexistence? Secondly, I've never said that "it" used in parts of the Prologue is wrong, but neither is the masculine pronoun wrong. Thirdly, John clearly speaks of the Logos as masculine in the Prologue: see John 1:10 where the masculine pronominals are used.
In German, while Luther used das Wort (neuter), H. Ewald preferred der Wort (masculine). And Luther was clearly Trinitarian and believed in the deity of Christ.
I will check out the videos, but I don't see myself ever denying Christ's literal heavenly preexistence. Unitarians have to explain away too much in order to make the idea work.
One more thing, Duncan. I don't know if these guys are totally devoid of circular reasoning. We all commit logical fallacies every now and again.
See B.F. Westcott's observations about the pronouns in John 1: https://books.google.com/books?id=Y8YUAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=westcott+gospel+of+john&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi3oZTClPDkAhURVd8KHd5mCMQQ6AEIKjAA#v=onepage&q=westcott%20gospel%20of%20john&f=false
page 14 onward.
Pre-existance is highly problematic. Even in basic logic how does one exist before one exists? (Not even considering existence before creation). If a prehuman existence how do we make the leap to an angel? Unitarians refer to personification which is not a unique idea to them. I just do not see them explaining that much away really in this instance, although there are a number of other independant ideas that they hold that are quite lacking.
Why ignore the indication of seven arch angels of Enoch when revelation speaks of the seven angels that also have trumpets. Compare Jude.
In the case of Christ, preexistence means that he existed as God (the Son) or as an angel in heaven before he assumed/took on flesh. There is nothing inherently contradictory about the idea when it's stated that way. The "pre" part relates to his humanity rather than his existence as a "divine being."
Witnesses conclude he was an angel based on various scriptures like Daniel 12:1; Colossians 1:15-17; Rev. 3:14, etc. If he preexisted, he was either God or a creature. We conclude he's not God, so he must have been a creature, and so forth.
One example of not dealing adequately with the evidence are the many texts in John that indicate Christ was preexistent. John 3:13, John 8:24ff, 8:58.
When did Jews start to believe that more than one archangel existed? Jude speaks of one archangel, namely, Michael. What evidence suggests otherwise? It's conceivable that early Christians only believed in one archangel, not seven. The Bible only calls one angel, archangel. Are the seven angels in Revelation archangels?
Each book or letter has to be delt with in its own right before attempting connections. It seems that working the other way around is dangerous. So let's stick with John for the time being.
https://youtu.be/AlTCk2rYl34
https://www.biblicalunitarian.com/verses/john-3-13
"There is nothing inherently contradictory about the idea when it's stated that way.". Pre-existance is not a good term for this & it has many problems. Foremost of which is the idea of a restored memory that the pre-baptised jesus does not seem to have. A person is the sum of mind an action and this sounds like possession and it detracts from the idea of a virgin birth and what Jesus hears at his baptism. He is called teacher after his baptism and not before.
Either arc angels carry a trumpet or they do not. 7 angels and much earlier 7 arc angels. "The word of him who holds the seven stars" what have you argued stars mean?
Trumpets and thunders, connected?
Compare revelation 21:6 with John 19:30.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/030908920402900105
The thin end of a wedge is getting thicker.
Follows on from earlier works such as "WRESTLING WITH THE PRINCE OF PERSIA: A STUDY ON DANIEL 10" in relation to the use of "prince" in Daniel.
Don't want to change the subject though. Want to stick with John for the time being.
What somewhat gets me about this whole discussion is that I have to address things that I do not believe, for instance, that Christ was God incarnated. Strictly speaking, Witnesses don't believe Christ was God in the flesh. The Incarnation doctrine teaches that God became flesh (i.e., became human or assumed humanity)--Witnesses believe no such thing. Yet we do believe that the heavenly and preexistent Word/Son of God became human (John 1:14).
John 3:13 does not assert that the Son of Man came down "from above," but rather, ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καταβάς. Check out the various studies on divine anabasis/katabasis that Rudolph Bultmann explored.
Compare John 6:32-33,38, 41-2, 50-51; 6:58 and Proverbs 30:4 (LXX).
Also, what about John 16:28, which does not just state that Christ was sent from God, but rather ἐξῆλθον ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ ἐλήλυθα εἰς τὸν κόσμον
I don't understand how preexistence would detract from the virgin birth. Philippians reports that Christ existed in God's form/the form of a god, but then emptied himself. We should probably understand the syntax in a concessive manner (i.e., although he was existing in God's form). At any rate, it's problematic to apply those words to a human; secondly, it relates that he emptied himself. Okay, would that not explain Christ's temporary loss of heavenly memories? Furthermore, how does his example represent the supreme instance of humility if he did not empty himself of being Logos? Finally, how are you going to deal with 2 Cor. 8:9? How was the human Jesus "rich" before he became impoverished?
Jesus is called teacher after baptism because that's when he was anointed and started his ministry. Acts 10:38. Why would he have been called teacher before his baptism?
Who says only archangels carry (figurative) trumpets? The belief in 7 archangels is a later development in Judaism. The idea likely did not exist before Israel came out of Babylon and the Bible nowhere explicitly teaches there are 7 archangels.
Star can refer to spirit angels, but read the seven stars reference in context. A number of commentators take the seven stars of Revelation to be humans, not spirits.
Interesting about Daniel, but I'd rather stick to one subject as well.
Douglas McCready writes:
"A doctrine of incarnation required preexistence. The developing understanding of the NT writers can be seen in the sending statements of the synoptics, the Johannine prologue, 2 Cor 8:6, Gal 4:4, Phil 2:6–11 and Hebrews 1, to list only the most prominent passages. Objections to belief in Christ’s preexistence have had in some way to
deny the apparent meaning of these texts."
See McCready's article in JETS 40/3 (September 1997) 419–432.
Notice the discussion by Hurtado and his use of 1 Cor. 8:6, which requires some explaining from Unitarians.
See https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2014/05/15/jesus-pre-existence-etc-responding-to-questions/
Hurtado's explanation is still circular.
Let's stick with John.
https://youtu.be/kvis-A_JHOU
Note the comparison between 1:15 & 1:30. It embarrassingly simple.
Videos deal with trinitarian arguments but preexistence is not just trinitarian.
Elijah goes up to heaven and descends. Sure, the LXX includes яко but if a dss is ever found I would not expect it to be any different to the Mt.
James 1:17 must also be taken into account. The idea of it.
Did Jesus "ascend" to bring it down?
Quite frankly, Duncan,m I see you overlooking plenty of things in John that I've posted including things that militate against the "it" argument. I'll take another look at John 1:15, 30, but you might forget that we've discussed such things before without any resolution.
Incarnation is trinitarian and that's what the one website you provided said.
My statement above was about the difference between "from above" (an adverbial word in Greek) and ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καταβάς
They're not necessarily the same thing: the Son of Man descended "from heaven," not just from above. And we have John 16:28 as well.
Jesus descended by becoming flesh and taking on a body made especially for him. Where does the text say he descended "to bring it down" although I;m not sure what "it" is in this case.
The son of man comes down from God (from heaven). You are going to have to prove that this instance referring to a place. We know how other gospels use the term. The "it" is the same word that came to the prophets.
For John 16:28 see John 3:2, 16:27 & 16:28 - erchomai.
John 16:27-28 probably reiterate v19. World is referring to the Church as he said.
John 3:13 specifically states that the Son of Man descends from heaven? How does one descend from a spiritual person (God)? Let's also not add to what the verse claims: it says "from heaven" and not "from God" or "from above," which John could have written. The descending part adds weight to the preexistence idea plus if you study anabasis/katabasis literature, it illuminates the Johannine account.
I cited many verses that use the expression, "from heaven," even "down from heaven. They're not necessarily the same as the "from God" or "from above" references.
In this case, I call the logos a "he."
With John 16:28, I'm emphasizing that he comes "from the Father."
As you know, Kingdom of heaven in one gospel is mirrored with kingdom of God in another sparking of similar or eve. The same parables. So I am adding nothing.
I also add Revelation 21:2 to this discussion."out of heaven - from God."
I agree that kingdom of heaven can = kingdom of God. But it has yet to be proved that "down from heaven" = "down from God"; not even Rev. 21:2 simply means that the holy city comes down from God. John sees the city descending (in a vision) from heaven. But we likely should not read that verse as "descending from heaven, that is, from God." Rather, he is reporting what he sees: εἶδον καταβαίνουσαν ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ
Similarly, while it's conceivable that "from the Father" = "from God," that is not necessarily the case.
To be fair, I'll say that it's possible to read Rev. 21:2 as you read it, Duncan. D. Aune apparently reads the verse that way. Robert L. Thomas writes about Rev. 21:2:
([katabainousan ek tou ouranou apo tou theou]). The Greek expression describing this descent occurs in two other places, both of which describe this same event (3:12; 21:10). The preposition (ek, “out of”) tells the origin of the Holy City and the ἀπὸ (apo, “from”) points to the city’s originator (Beckwith, Moffatt).
Robert Mounce seems to make a similar point.
Beckwith's remarks can be found here: https://books.google.com/books?id=HNLF5T3AC6AC&pg=PR6&lpg=PR6&dq=beckwith+revelation&source=bl&ots=gRIWsfgng1&sig=ACfU3U0FkurwuVD4eOjPPfWWiNKRGgnMaQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjh-6vQnffkAhURO60KHVqDDwkQ6AEwEXoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=new%20jerusalem&f=false
http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/NTeSources/NTArticles/GTJ-NT/Black-Jn3-GTJ-85.pdf
John 3:13 has its problems and I do not think omnipotence has anything to do with it.
Some of the works on Google books you seem to have access too, I do not.
The access problem could be resulting from different stipulations/codes between Google UK and Google US. However, I think you've read some of Beckwith's commentary before since you referenced in a past discussion. But I sometimes experience thye same thing with the UK site.
I've read D.A. Black's article. As usual, he's in the minority with his approach to the issue. If you have access to the works, read R.E. Brown and R. Schackenburg on John 3:13.
A couple of Unitarian takes on 3:13:-
https://youtu.be/f_d3qtwMLUQ
https://youtu.be/4L060AipZUc
http://dssenglishbible.com/daniel%2010.htm
See the difficulties here.
Princes vs kings.
Some observations from Craig Keener on John 3:13--
"We should also observe that, unlike Moses (cf. 6:32–33), Jesus did not merely witness heaven; he is “from heaven” (3:13, 31; 6:38, 41–42, 50–51, 58), from God’s realm (1:32; 3:27; 6:31–33; 12:28; 17:1). In this context Jesus is not a Moses figure himself but the instrument through which Moses brought salvation (3:14). The context emphasizes that he is greater than Moses (cf. also 1:17; 5:46; 6:32; 9:28–29),[283] divine Wisdom itself."
From J.R. Michaels:
"Jesus’ words now reaffirm what the Gospel writer claimed from the start, that 'No one has seen God, ever. It was God the One and Only, the one who is right beside the Father, who told about him” (1:18). Others in Jewish tradition (especially certain apocalyptic traditions) were said to have seen God or ascended into heaven, but Jesus here denies that any of them actually did so.⁸⁰ Only he has been to heaven. Only he can tell of “heavenly things,” and his revelation alone can be trusted (compare v. 11). Through him all the impossibilities become possible, and through him the way to rebirth and eternal life is opened for those who believe."
https://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=5607
Simon Gathercole
"For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world—to bear witness to the truth."
What more answer do you need - born and then come (baptism). All gospels refer to the teaching from god in Jesus.
John 3:31 is a good reason to suspect that 3:13 is the longer version.
"In this context Jesus is not a Moses figure himself but the instrument through which Moses brought salvation (3:14)." - the Torah from God.
Why is Jacobs stairs not mentioned?
For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world—to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.
Again, being born comes first.
From what time did he bear witness to " the truth" ?
See וּבָ֙אתִי֙ in Daniel 10:14. Who says it? The one with no name. Interesting how many times it refers to word and words.
"But I am to tell you what is inscribed in the book of truth."
Jesus's preexistence does not conflict with his status as Logos of God in heaven.of course, he is Torah in human form, but even in the beginning, the personal Logos/Torah was.L
Do you mean why Keener or Michael's didn't mention Jacob's stairs?
The birth refers to his entry as a human; the bearing witness refers to his activity as a man.
Read Novatian of Rome and Lactantius. They both insist that Christ had 2 births.
Compare 1 Corinthians 8:6; 15:47; 2 Corinthians 8:9.
Some of Donald A. Carson's reflections on John 3:13:
"Although the words ‘who is in heaven’, appended to ‘the Son of Man’, are absent from the two oldest manuscripts of John (P66 and P75), they occur in many others, sometimes with minor variations. If original, they constitute strong support for the anachronism many find in the verse (discussed above). It is frequently argued that one can easily understand why copyists might have found it difficult and left it out, but one cannot easily think of a good reason for inserting it–i.e. it is the ‘harder reading’ which, all things being equal, is more likely original. But if no sensible copyist would have put it in, one wonders why we should think John would put it in. Must the author always be judged less sensible than the copyist? It seems best to regard the additional words as an interpretative gloss that reflected later Christological developments at a time when dogmatics was more influential than sensitivity to chronology and historical development (cf. Metzger, pp. 203–204)"
You have side stepped my point - >>I have come into the world<< to bear witness?
J.R. Michaels & Jabcobs stairs?
Novatian of Rome and Lactantius can insist wherever they like at 200ce+. Jews believed in many births:-
"While the term “born again” has become a popular cultural appellation for Jesus’ followers, Judaism often uses rebirth as a metaphor to describe the change of a person’s status, such as when an individual converts to Judaism. The Talmud describes a convert to Judaism as a newborn infant (b. Yeb 22a, 62a, 48b; y. Bik 3:3 vii). Rebirth also occurs on a man’s wedding day; when he takes a wife he becomes like a newborn child (y. Bik 3:3 vii). Jewish tradition teaches that when Israel offered sacrifices to God on Rosh Hashanah (the Feast of Trumpets, or Jewish New Year; Lev. 23:24Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)), God considered it as though He had created them as a new being (Lev. Rab. 29:12). God also told Moses that he would create him into a new being when he called Moses to speak as God’s representative (Ex. Rab. 3:15)."
"45 So also it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 >>>However, the spiritual is NOT first, but the natural; then the spiritual<<<. 47 The first man is from the earth, [n]earthy; the second man is from heaven. 48 As is the earthy, so also are those who are earthy; and as is the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly. 49 Just as we have borne the image of the earthy, >>>[o]we will also bear the image of the heavenly.<<<"
http://dro.dur.ac.uk/12846/1/12846.pdf
http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/1760/1/1760.pdf
See page 136.
I have to wonder what Donald A. Carson's opinion has to do with this discussion?
"One wonders why we should think John would put it in." & we must also wonder the converse.
As I have already said that text does not have to be interpreted as the main stream does - keeping in mind Jacobs stairs. Both at the bottom and the top - the continuous flow of teaching from god.
How did I sidestep your point? I explained from my pov that I see nothing problematic about Jesus coming into the world to bear witness to the truth. Of course he became man (was born in the flesh) to bear witness to the truth. What's the problem? :) That doesn't mean he didn't bear witness to the truth while he existed in heaven.
J.R. Michaels is commenting on John 3:13 which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with Jacob's stairs.
Novatian, Lactantius (and I could name others including Ignatius of Antioch, who is earlier) are important because they're church members, who see no contradiction between the Logos having 2 births and they derived the idea from Tanakh and the GNT.
Sorry, but it's somewhat misleading to say the Jews believed in many births. More accurate to say they affirmed many figurative births, not literal ones. The early church thought the Logos has 2 literal births, and not only 3rd century Christians believed this doctrine.
1 Cor. 15:47 makes a distinct contrast between the first man and the second Adam, in terms of their origins. Vs. 46 is easily understood when look at it contextually in terms of the resurrection when the second Adam became a life-giving spirit. The verse does not negate Christ's preexistence.
I like how Matthew Poole explains the verse: Christ, the spiritual Adam, was not first in order of time, but the natural Adam, God in his providence rising from more imperfect to more perfect dispensations: and so it is as to God’s providences relating unto us; we have first natural bodies, we are born with such, we grow up and die with such, but then we shall rise again with others, in respect of more excellent qualities and endowments.
I quoted D.A. Carson because you mentioned John 3:13. The evidence is that the "who is in heaven" part does not belong in the text. See Carson, Metzger, etc. Carson is saying the added part found in KJV does not belong: he's not questioning the entire verse. I believe Metzger makes the same point.
Even though the world came into existence through the Logos, the world did not know him when he became flesh (John 1:10-14). So yeah, he came into the world to bear wwitness, but the world also came into existence through him (John 1:3).
I don't know if you read the Barclay piece on 2 Cor. 8:9, but it might be worth your time to peruse it.
John 3:13 in the Tyndale House GNT (THGNT):
καὶ οὐδεὶς ἀναβέβηκεν εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν εἰ μὴ ὁ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καταβάς, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ [a]ἀνθρώπου.
Footnotes:
ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ ΚΑΤΑ ΙΩΑΝΝΗΝ 3:13 ἀνθρώπου P66 P75 א B L T Wsupp; add ο ων εν τω ουρανω A*(vid omit ων) Ac K Δ Θ Ψ 69 1424
So is Ignatius a reliable witness?
Letter to the Ephesians
He interprets the Song of Songs as referring to Jesus.
“He was born and baptized, that by His passion He might purify the water”
“God being manifested as a man.”
“breaking one and the same bread, which is the medicine of immortality, and the antidote which prevents us from dying, but a cleansing remedy driving away evil, [which causes] that we should live in God through Jesus Christ.”
You say that some were expecting a pre-existent messiah?
13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” 14 And they said, “Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.” 15 He *said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
Where is your evidence that some were expecting a pre-existent messiah as opposed to a re-incarnated one? In the above passage it could have all been clarified.
What is clarified is that Jesus is the expected messiah, the one chosen by god, the son of david, the king.
"4.3 Was Jesus pre-existent?
Only one letter has Jesus as pre-existent. And in it, there are not one, but three references.
'to the Magnesians':
"... Jesus Christ, who was with the Father before the worlds and appeared at the end of time." (6:1)
"... Jesus Christ, who came forth from One Father ..." (7:2)
"... the divine prophets lived after Christ Jesus. For this cause also they were persecuted, being inspired by His grace to the end ... Jesus Christ His Son, who is His Word that proceeded from silence, who in all things was well-pleasing unto Him that sent Him." (8:2)
>>>>Note: in the same epistle, Jesus performed a feat never mentioned before:
"... He whom they [the prophets] rightly awaited, when He [Jesus] came, raised them from the dead." (9:2b)<<<<"
Through the path of sacrifice, forgive all sins and deliver safely (Rigveda 103:1:6)
HE whose shadow and death become drink of life, HIS shadow and death shall give strength to soul (Rigveda 10:121:2)
It must be bound to a sacrificial post (Rigveda x:90:7, 15 bruhadaranyakopanishad III 9:28. Yajurveda)
Nails must be driven into its four legs till they bleed (Rigveda)
The cloth covering the goat should be divided among the four priests. (Rigveda ithareya brahmanam)
It’s flesh should be eaten. (Rigveda sathapada brahmanam 5:1.1.1-2)
Coincidences? or is this what some early Jews also thought?
https://archive.org/stream/messianicideaini013825mbp/messianicideaini013825mbp_djvu.txt
"In the Tannaitic period there was still no conception of a "suffering Messiah" or a "pre-existent Messiah."
pg 459.
The Messiah and his kingdom, a heritage from the house of David,
are, therefore, an inseparable part of the Messianic expectations of
the Tannaim.
We turn now to the name of the Messiah. This name receives rather
strange treatment in the Talmudic literature. An unusual Baraitha
reads:
Seven things were created before the world was created, and these are
they: the Torah, repentance, the Garden of Eden, Gehenna, the Throne of
Glory, the Temple, and the name of the Messiah. The Torah, for it is
written. . . . 10 The name of the Messiah, as it is written (Ps. 72:17), "His
name shall endure forever, before the sun his name shall exist." "
What this name is the Baraitha does not reveal. To conclude from
this passage that the Messiah's name preceded the creation of the
world (pre-existence) would be senseless. What need would there be
for the Messiah's name if the Messiah himself did not yet exist? And
that the Messiah himself existed before Creation is nowhere stated in
Tannaitic literature. We have no recourse, therefore, but to accept
the hypothesis of Maurice Vernes 12 and Meir Friedmann, 13 that "the
name of the Messiah" is the idea of the Messiah, or, more exactly, the
idea of redemption through the Messiah. This idea did precede Crea-
tion. Before Creation, Israel was predestined to produce from itself
a Messiah, to be redeemed by him, and through him to redeem all
https://book-ofenoch.com/chapter-48/
2. In that hour was this Son of man invoked before the Lord of spirits, and >>>his name<<< in the presence of the Ancient of days.
3. Before the sun and the signs were created, before the stars of heaven were formed, >>>his name was invoked<<< in the presence of the Lord of spirits. A support shall he be for the righteous and the holy to lean upon, without falling; and he shall be the light of nations.
4. He shall be the hope of those whose hearts are troubled. All, who dwell on earth, shall fall down and worship before him; shall bless and glorify him, and sing praises to the name of the Lord of spirits.
5. Therefore the Elect and the Concealed One existed in his presence, before the world was created, and for ever.
6. In his presence he existed, and has revealed to the saints and to the righteous the wisdom of the Lord of spirits; for he has preserved the lot of the righteous, because they have hated and rejected this world of iniquity, and have detested all its works and ways, in the name of the Lord of spirits.
7. For in his name shall they be preserved; and his will shall be their life. In those days shall the kings of the earth and the mighty men, who have gained the world by their achievements, 1 become humble in countenance.
8. For in the day of their anxiety and trouble their souls shall not be saved; and they shall be in subjection to those whom I have chosen.
Ignatius is reliable for some things; besides, he's not the only early writer to affirm Christ's preexistence. What's wrong with applying Song of Songs to Jesus? Origen does it and so do many early fathers of the church. Witnesses do it too. I wasn't bringing up all things Ignatian, but just responding to your comment that 200 CE writers believed in the preexistent Christ. Well, Ignatius is earlier than that.
Justin Martyr and Irenaeus affirmed Christ's preexistence, and Justin speaks of the Eucharist in ways similar to Ignatius. Another writer who confirmed preexistence was Tatian the Assyrian.
For Ignatius, see also Ephesians 7:2; Epistle to Polycarp 3.2. It's incorrect to say Ignatius only affirms Christ's preexistence in 3 places.
What orthodox 1st century Jew or any ancient Jew, for that matter, ever believed in reincarnation? That would have been a fringe belief, for sure. The earlier point I find for reincarnation in Judaism is the middle ages.
See http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12339-preexistence#anchor4
https://www.livius.org/sources/content/1-enoch-the-son-of-man/
Just because Jesus does not clarify his preexistence in a certain text doesn't mean the ideas is not taught in the GNT.
Not sure what Rig-veda connects to a discussion of the messiah, but what makes you think those passages correspond to practices in ancient Judaism?
https://www.scribd.com/doc/2019085/4-Ezra-Revised-English
Have you read 4 Ezra 7:28 - 400 hundred years of happiness at the end of time? You could claim some kind of pre-existence with is but it does not really fit.
12:32 - the messiah kept back until the end. after high priest and cyrus etc.?
cont.
Notice John J. Collins' response:
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/scholars-study/is-the-son-of-man-pre-existent-and-enthroned/
I first read the idea about the preexistent Messiah in John L. McKenzie, when he remarks on John 8:58.
To reincarnate is as described. To re appear in the flesh again and that is exactly what those in Matthew thought.
https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2019/02/06/pre-existence-in-ancient-jewish-tradition-and-the-nt/
"God doesn’t make up his plans on the fly, but ordered all things from the beginning."
This does not require a pre existant independant being.
This creates a significant problem with free will.
And how does one get from a pre-existance to being Michael, ">>>one of<<< the chief princes"?
Reincarnation usually does not simply mean reappearing in the flesh, but it normally has a more extensive definition. Ancient Jews believed in resurrection but not in reincarnation.
See https://www.britannica.com/topic/reincarnation
People in the new earth will be resurrected, not reincarnated. The first century Jews likewise hoped in the resurrection (anastasis) as opposed to reincarnation.
Jesus preexisted as Michael. See Eph. 6:11-12; Col. 1:15-17 for statements about spiritual principalities, etc.
I never said God ordered all things from the beginning.
Those scriptures do not get us to a specific being called Michael "one of the chief princes".
See lxx Exodus 4:22,Jeremiah 31:9, Psalms 88:27
Time Vs status.
The free will issue is for Jesus the man. If the logos had already made the decision then the man just carried it out with eons of wisdom and experience behind him. How does that sit in the scales with Adam?
I cited the scriptures in Ephesians and Colossians to illustrate how an angel (spirit being) can also be a prince or ruler. Satan is even called ruler of the demons. I was not trying to show that Jesus Christ was the preexistent Michael if that's what you're getting at. You should know the verses that are used to posit an identity between Jesus and Michael: they're only a handful that include Dan. 12:1 and Rev. 12:7-12. Whether Christ was Michael is beside the point IMO; the important question is whether he existed before he assumed humanity.
What firstborn means will depend on the context. Does it mean first in time, first in priority or first in time and priority? Furthermore, we need to find out if firstborn is being used literally or figuratively. Add Gen. 4:4; 35:23; 49:3 Deut. 21:17; Heb. 11:28 to your list. Don't forget that Esau was also a literal firstborn of his father.
Here's something I wrote long ago:
Petr Pokorny, who also thinks that Col. 1:15 applies to the preexistent Christ writes: "Conversely the Arians used Col. 1:15 (>) as evidence for the relatively subordinate position of Christ, who for them was a superman indeed, but nevertheless was a part of the created order (Athan., Contra Arian. I, 5, 35). This is a secondary meaning, for the primary function of the hymn was to emphasize the dignity of Jesus. There the 'image' of God must be interpreted as invisible, pre-existent image which stands in juxtaposition
to the created order" (Colossians: A Commentary, page 200, Petr Porkorny).
Interestingly, Porkorny does not gainsay the Arian application of Col. 1:15: he just denies that the Arian interpretation is the most important feature of the verse. Instead, Pokorny contends, Col. 1:15 emphasizes the "dignity of Jesus . . . as [the] invisible, pre-existent image which stands in juxtaposition to the created order." However, Pokorny has to admit that when Colossians was written: "the dogmatic distinction between the begotten Son of God and the created order that was in vogue during the Arian controversy was not yet
formulated. The title 'firstborn' emphasizes the priority of the redeemer here and is not intended to obliterate the boundaries between him and other human beings" (Pokorny 75).
Porkorny's comments must also be balanced by Thayer's observation that Col. 1:15 could well be a partitive genitive. There are countless LXX examples that seem to buttress this view. At any rate, Pokorny and Richard R. Melick agree that Col. 1:15 applies to the preexistent image of the invisible God, namely, the one who became Christ and Lord.
Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the Logos/Michael/Son of God became 100% human: he emptied himself of eisting in God's form and took the body prepared for him. Romans says that he came to be "inb the likeness" of human flesh. Philippians makes similar professions which make no sense if Jesus was just an ordinary man.
Nevertheless, we believe he was fully human--nopt full God and fully human. Nor was he still Logos or angel since he emptied himself of Giod's form. He was like us humans in all respects except he existed without sin. How, if he was just like any other man?
So no, the Logos didn't make an eternal decision and have a man to carry it out. Acts 2:22 assures us that Christ was a man, not a god in the flesh: he became human in order that humans might become like him. For a comparison between Christ and Adam, read Romans 5:14 and Heb. 2:14ff.
Jesus the human with memories that no human will ever have.
IMO the flesh part does not really compare.
If he did not have the memories then he was not the logos as you frame it.
Once one sees that both passages do not have to be referring to a genesis creation (and John 1). Then rulers, authorites etc. can all be applied to the new creation. I could list numerous scriptures that can encompass all aspects but I am sure you already know them.
What you say applies to all humans: we all have memories that no other human will have. John Locke, although he was likely wrong, used memory as the criterion for personal identity. Even if memory alone does not establish personal identity, it's still the case that I remember things no one else will remember and so do you.
Romans 8 teaches that he was in the likeness of human flesh. I think it's relevant if someone wants to claim that Christ was only a man, born like we all are, without any preexistence.
I'm not claiming that Jesus had no memories whatsoever of his preexistent life. The Bible doesn't say, but WTs have noted that Christ had some memory of his life in heaven even before he was baptized and experienced the heavens opening up.
Again, I don't claim that Eph. 6:11-12 refer to the Genesis account, but the scholarly consensus, even if it's wrong--is that Colossians 1 does allude to Genesis. I certainly don't see how anyone can definitively rule out an allusion to Genesis in Colossians 1:15-17. The interpretation is plausible and exegetes have explained it that way for some 2000 years.
Rulers, authorities could be applied to the new creation: I'm not denying that possibility at all. Just don't think that's what Paul had in mind. I've read Dunn's Colossians commentary and many others. I'm familiar with the opposing viewpoint for Col. 1. But see Pokorny's commentary on Colossians and Lightfoot. I cited Richard Melick as well.
F.F. Bruce has an article on the Christ hymn of Colossians 1: he's always a perceptive scholar whether I agree with him or not.
Another article on Colossians 1: notice Burney and Wright's approach to this part of the epistle: https://robertatkin.net/essays/christ-creation-church-colossian-hymn-colossians-115-20/
https://politicaltheology.com/the-politics-of-christ-the-beginning-colossians-115-28-alastair-roberts/
https://brill.com/view/book/9789047424123/Bej.9789004170810.i-344_011.xml
I will look through all you have listed again but just to say that I stand by my point about memory. Yes we all have our own memories but they are human memories. If we look at it from your perspective then Jesus would be able to control his physiology in untold ways. He would know how it works. This could include his ability to heal others. I try to relie on Jesus own words - Mark 13:19; cp. Heb. 4:4
One thing I have learnt over the years is to understand the bias of each author. For example - https://robertatkin.net/about/statement-of-faith/
So when we talk about consensus in a non empiricle discipline, is the consensus already basically of the same mind - in this case, trinitarian?
Pre existence is a given.
Also the controlling bias of the institution in which the study was funded.
Let's face it, if one wants to stay employed it tends to be about towing the line. That's why most biologists have to frame all conclusions in an evolutionary sense, even when unnessasary.
Bill Mollison had much to say on the subject, but here is the intro to an old course.
https://youtu.be/hZYZ41SOIK0
Just the first few minutes.
Romans 8 is from an author that never actually met Jesus in the flesh.
I'll try to be brief.
IMO, you're trying to judge Jesus by an ordinary yardstick when Trinitarians and JWs agree that we can't do that. Of course, Jesus had and apparently still has human memories (Heb. 2:17-18; 4:15), but while he was human, it's possible that he had memories of being the Logos too. There is nothing contradictory about this position. Imagine that a young girl switches bodies with her mother for 1 year (like we see portrayed in fiction), then it would be conceivable that when the pair regained their original bodies, they could have memories of both states of being. This illustration demonstrates how Jesus the man could have memories of the Logos and vice versa.
Next, I'm not suggesting that Jesus' own power was responsible for him recalling--at least partly--how the Logos lived in his preexistence. Rather, his Father "opened up the heavens," thus allowing Christ to recall (partly) is previous life. What I say is not intended to be dogmatic. There's plenty we don't understand about the Logos becoming flesh.
Keep in mind that everybody has a Tendenz--even unitarians. One writer said that there are no conceptual apprehensions without preapprensions. I can't help but agree. However, one needs to know and recognize his/her presuppositions. So even if the majority of writers, who favor preexistence, are Trinitarians--the important thing is whether one recognizes and challenges/examines his presuppositions since we all have them. But one clearly does not have to be a Trinitaran to believe in the preexistence of the Jewish Messiah or in Jesus Christ.
I don't agree with evolution, yet I understand why biologists insist on measuring scientific theories by evolution (inter alia). As I see it, they're not just towing the line but consider it to be good methodology. At any rate, when I talked about the consensus, I was only referring to the consensus about Colossians 1:15-17; I was not talking about the consensus among Trinitarians/scholars about preexistence as a whole. I hope that distinction is stated clearly enough.
The father tore the heavens apart - I do not know what that means.
Well Duncan, you either believe and accept the apostolic authority of Paul or you don't: these writings are inspired or they're not. I don't see that it matters whether Paul saw Jeesus in the flesh or not. See Gal. 1:11-17.
I didn't exactly say "tore," but that God "opened" the heavens. Compare John 1:51; Revelation 19:11.
I take the expression to be figurative.
Albert Barnes:
The expression, “the heavens were opened,” is one that commonly denotes the appearance of the clouds when it lightens. The heavens appear to open or give way. Something of this kind probably appeared to John at this time. The same appearance took place at Stephen‘s death, Acts 7:56. The expression means that he was permitted to see far into the heavens beyond what the natural vision would allow.
Compare Mark 1:10.
Not that I totally buy this explanation, but I find it interesting. Thomas Aquinas writes:
As Jerome says on Matthew 3:16-17, the heavens were opened to Christ when He was baptized, not by an unfolding of the elements, but by a spiritual vision: thus does Ezechiel relate the opening of the heavens at the beginning of his book. And Chrysostom proves this (Hom. iv in Matth.; from the supposititious Opus Imperfectum) by saying that "if the creature"—namely, heaven—"had been sundered he would not have said, 'were opened to Him,' since what is opened in a corporeal sense is open to all." Hence it is said expressly (Mark 1:10) that Jesus "forthwith coming up out of the water, saw the heavens opened"; as though the opening of the heavens were to be considered as seen by Christ. Some, indeed, refer this to the corporeal vision, and say that such a brilliant light shone round about Christ when He was baptized, that the heavens seemed to be opened. It can also be referred to the imaginary vision, in which manner Ezechiel saw the heavens opened: since such a vision was formed in Christ's imagination by the Divine power and by His rational will, so as to signify that the entrance to heaven is opened to men through baptism. Lastly, it can be referred to intellectual vision: forasmuch as Christ, when He had sanctified baptism, saw that heaven was opened to men: nevertheless He had seen before that this would be accomplished.
https://biblehub.com/text/mark/1-10.htm
https://biblehub.com/text/matthew/27-51.htm
As for Romans 8 it says - sending His own Son in the likeness of >>>sinful<<< flesh and as an offering for sin.
1 Peter 2:22
The davar in his mouth.
True, Romans says sinful, but compare Philippians 2:7-8. See 2 Corinthians 5:21 and Peter confirms Christ was sinless. How could he have been ordinary?
Extraodinary and pre-existant are two separate propositions. I believe in the virgin birth. Someone without the dent in the mould.
http://richardmburgess.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/php_2_Talbert_-_Problem_of_pre-existence_in_Philippians_2_6-11.82180622.pdf
Any update or rebuttal to this?
Let's say he was born of a virgin. How could a non-preexisting human be the agent of creation? How do you explain 1 Corinthians 8:6? Unitarians also present weak arguments for the Johannine passages, including John 1:1-3. But we've been there already. If unitarianism makes you happy ☺
There are many responses to Talbert. I guess refutation is in the beholder's eyes.
John 1:1-3 has nothing of note to refute when compared with mark.
The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
Basically going straight to John the Baptist and Jesus baptism. Where the baptist is placed in The prologue is no coincidence.
How about Luke 1:2? The beginning and the word.
So "the beginning" is the only real issue & the "word became flesh".
Talbert is a Lutheran trinitarian.
Many have interacted with Talbert including Hamerton-Kelly in his book about preexistence (pages 156-9) and Robert Strimple and Charles Wannamaker. Few have been convinced by his thesis.
Hamerton-Kelly defines pre existence in the introduction as "A mythological term which signifies that an entity had a real existance before it's manifestation on earth, either in the mind of God or in heaven."
Just looking at Vermes on 1 cor 8:5-6.
"A passing hint at the secondary instrumentality of Christ in God the fathers creative action may be found"
IMO the "we for him" & "we through him" are the point of focus.
https://biblehub.com/lexicon/2_corinthians/5-17.htm
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=BpiBih0H2EwC&pg=PA11&lpg=PA11&dq=Pre-Existence,+Wisdom,+and+The+Son+of+Man+by+R.+G.+Hamerton-Kelly&source=bl&ots=ODDI3FNmOa&sig=ACfU3U1qJfUVNI-T7jFiWngaurz8CUGluQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi7tfbs6IXlAhVUecAKHaMbCE04ChDoATAEegQICBAB#v=onepage&q=Pre-Existence%2C%20Wisdom%2C%20and%20The%20Son%20of%20Man%20by%20R.%20G.%20Hamerton-Kelly&f=false
Dunn , Christology in the making pg 243 regarding the prologue.
"The conclusion which seems to emerge from our analysis thus far is that it is only with verse 14 that we can begin to speak of the personal Logos. The poem uses rather impersonal language (became flesh). . . . Prior to verse 14 we are in the same realm as pre-Christian talk of Wisdom and Logos, the same language and ideas that we find in the wisdom tradition and in Philo, where, as we have seen, we are dealing with personifications rather than persons, personified actions of God rather than an individual divine being as such. The point is obscured by the fact that we have to translate the masculine Logos as “he” throughout the poem. But if we translate Logos as “God’s utterance” instead, it would become clearer that the poem did not necessarily intend the Logos of verses 1-13 to be thought of as a personal being. . . . The revolutionary significance of verse 14 may well be that it marks not only the transition in the thought of the poem from pre-existence to incarnation but also the transition from impersonal personification to actual person."
This is in line with the Tyndale translation.
One thing that strikes me is pais in the didache and first Clement.
I referenced Hamerton-Kelly because he interacts with Talbert, among others. Not that I fully agree with his analysis. And what Dunn writes is possible, but he lets his presuppositions control his analysis just like other people.
As I've pointed out about Tyndale, and you can read his writings for yourself, he's no unitarian/Socinian and does not gainsay the preexistence of Christ.
https://books.google.com/books?id=xD11FZNLWpYC&pg=PA56&dq=william+tyndale+deity+of+christ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwin7sunw4blAhVESN8KHeCWDIsQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=william%20tyndale%20deity%20of%20christ&f=false
https://books.google.com/books?id=vc3wCAAAQBAJ&pg=PT16&lpg=PT16&dq=william+tyndale+trinity&source=bl&ots=RTMfAxkLbS&sig=ACfU3U3XWedCHTPltTRiJir-NxzkRefRHg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjYsI7OxYblAhUhmuAKHc1UDtM4ChDoATAFegQICRAB#v=onepage&q=pre%20existence&f=false
If you read the rest of Gathercole's remarks, he tries to make a case for actual preexistence.
I.H. Marshall challenged Talbert in Tyndale Bulletin 19 (1968) 104-127. He favors actual preexistence in Phil. 2:6ff.
I don't think we are going to get much further on this at the moment. Can't seem to get away from the circular reasoning. If we are not looking at each work in isolation no headway can be made. Nearly every work you cite and some of your own arguments appeal to another book or letter to "prove" what the first means. I am guilty of this also to some extent. So what Dunn, Tyndale and others have done demonstrate what I am driving at. Look back through this discussion and I never argued a contrary position as to what Tyndale believed. The point is, which scriptures did he base his beliefs on. Clearly, not the prologue of John.
Looking at the books this way I think that the list of proof texts will get significantly shorter.
I think the Johannine Prologue clearly teaches a preexistent Christ, but I understand there's room for disagreement. Citing Philippians 2 or 2 Cor. 8:9 isn't necessarily intended to prove that John teaches preexistence, but to show an overall picture given in the GNT. Furthermore, I still insist that we can't use the "it" rendering for John 1 to prove the Logos is impersonal. That is simply a grammatical accident and masculine pronouns are used in John 1 also.
I disagree that Tyndale did not base his beliefs on the Prologue, but I'm willing to change my mind if shown sufficient evidence. Do you have evidence that the Prologue did not shape his views?
Gathercole does seem to look at the Synoptics in isolation. His book seems worth reading to me along with McCready's book on preexistence.
Notice Vincent's comments on John 1:10. This is why I say a person can prefer the neuter in the Prologue and still affirm Christ's deity and preexistence:
The preceding him ( αὐτοῦ ) is, in itself, ambiguous as to gender. So far as its form is concerned, it might be neuter, in which case it would refer to the light, “the Word regarded as a luminous principle,” as it, in John 1:5. But αὐτὸν is masculine, Him, so that the Word now appears as a person. This determines the gender of the preceding αὐτοῦ.
Notice also the appropriateness of the two verbs joined with the neuter and the masculine pronouns. In John 1:5, with it, the Word, as a principle of light, κατέλαβεν , apprehended. Here, with Him, the Word, as a person, ἔγνω, recognized.
Yet, for John 1:1, part of Vincent's comment include these words:
The Logos of John is the real, personal God (John 1:1), the Word, who was originally before the creation with God. and was God, one in essence and nature, yet personally distinct (John 1:1, John 1:18); the revealer and interpreter of the hidden being of God; the reflection and visible image of God, and the organ of all His manifestations to the world. Compare Hebrews 1:3. He made all things, proceeding personally from God for the accomplishment of the act of creation (Hebrews 1:3), and became man in the person of Jesus Christ, accomplishing the redemption of the world. Compare Philemon 2:6.
Regardless of what you think about Vincent's comments, my point is that he acknowledges John might describe the Logos as neuter in some places of the Prologue, yet still affirm a personal deity. Vincent certainly thinks he does.
Jo-Ann BRant thinks John puts off identifying who the Lolgos is--until John 1:17. So she might accept the impersonal descriptions of the Logos while still connecting Logos with Jesus. To quote Brant verbatim:
"Jesus, as the logos, is the means by which God communicates his intent. Through the incarnation of God’s word in the person of Jesus, the believer now comes to know God as the Israelites once knew God through his words to the prophets. At the same time, the prologue redresses the propensity to categorize Jesus as a prophet (4:19; 6:14; 7:40; 9:17) by affirming the divine status that Jesus claims for himself (8:58). What is actually being said about the relationship of Jesus to God in the prologue? Is the preexistent logos an hypostasis (a manifestation of the essence of God) or an emanation of God (something that issues from God)? The language of monogenēs does not necessarily imply that God generates Jesus; this is a term of relationship. The prologue presents Jesus as an autonomous eternal being who shares God’s authority, power, glory, and righteousness, but who as a righteous son is obedient to God the Father. While the prologue places Jesus within the same station as God, it also corrects the accusation made on a number of occasions by Jesus’s opponents that he is “making himself equal to God” (5:18; 10:31–33). Jesus is an agent, albeit a unique agent, who is subject to God’s authority. Nevertheless, Jesus stands beyond the exalted agents of Jewish tradition: Abraham, Moses, and Elijah. He is and always has been God’s Son. John places the accent on Jesus’s creative life-giving work that he shares with God not because he has been delegated the task, but because, as God’s Son, such tasks fall within his station. The world’s failure to recognize that Jesus’s actions are divine gifts to humanity and expressions of a true son’s imitation of his father is the cause for its rejection of Jesus.
https://hydra.hull.ac.uk/assets/hull:5625a/content
Much to plow through. But the same author says elsewhere regarding Tyndales theology:-
"The Covenant is not, as most theological systems state, a Covenant of salvation
between God and man. Tyndale regards it as a Covenant of Re-creation. As
such it is a covenant between the Persons of the Trinity to restore creation to
its pristine condition before Adam sinned and brought evil into the world."
https://churchsociety.org/docs/churchman/121/Cman_121_3_Werrell.pdf
So an emphasis on the "new creation".
Gathercole on GJohn - very interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1RgsLVbrT8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yf2SJb55iJ0
New creation
In the video I was not able to pickup on who was asking Gathercole about the personal pronoun but he gives the impression that they are well qualified. When should "it" change to "he".
Thanks for the Gathercole video.
Recreation and new creation, in the biblical sense, are two different things. But I think the point still stands that Tyndale appeals to the Johannine Prologue to make his case that Christ is very God and very man. He affirmed Christ's deity and believed in the Trinity.
Furthermore, I see no evidence that Tyndale applied John 1 to the new creation. I highly doubt that NT Wright understands Col. 1:15 that way either: he interprets the text as Jesus is "the firstborn over creation." In other words, Christ is deity.
See also http://ntwrightpage.com/2016/07/12/jesus-and-the-identity-of-god/
Wright claims that the GNT teaches an incipient form of trinitarianism. Concerning the Johannine Prologue, he claims:
Several of the Jewish themes I have mentioned come together in the famous Johannine prologue.[15] Jesus is here the Word of God. The passage as a whole is closely dependent on the Wisdom tradition, and is thereby closely linked with the Law and the Presence, or Glory, of God. “The Word became flesh, and tabernacled in our midst; we saw his glory, glory as of God’s only son.”[16] However much the spreading branches of Johannine theology might hang over the wall, offering fruit to the pagan world around, the roots of the tree are firmly embedded in Jewish soil.
I think it must have been Sarah Broadie that asked the question:- https://youtu.be/PSmobPhSblg
N.T. Wright's statements of faith have little to do with a conference such as this. They are pushing the envelope.
https://logos.wp.st-andrews.ac.uk/conference/
It's not only his statements of faith, but also what he's written about Colossians in other places. I would be shocked if he said anything in this video that undermined/conflicted with his Colossians commentary on Col. 1:15ff.
The argument presented suggests that the term "Theos" in John 1:1c ("and the Word was God") should be rendered as "a god" because the Logos (the Word) cannot be "the same God" (why not just the same *person* understood under the term "the God") that it is with in John 1:1b. However, this interpretation misunderstands the grammatical and theological context of the verse.
First, the structure of the Greek in John 1:1c, where "Theos" (God) precedes the verb and lacks the article ("ho"), is a common grammatical construction in Koine Greek known as a preverbal anarthrous predicate nominative. This construction emphasizes the quality or nature of the subject, rather than identifying the subject as a specific instance of a class (as in "a god"). The intended meaning, therefore, is not that the Word is a lesser or separate god, but that the Word shares the very nature or essence of God. The translation "the Word was God" captures this nuance correctly.
Secondly, the broader theological context of the Gospel of John supports this understanding. John's prologue is concerned with establishing the divinity and pre-existence of the Word (Logos). The Word is "with God" (indicating a relationship within the Godhead) and "was God" (indicating that the Word shares the same divine essence as God). John 1:1-18 as a whole emphasizes the unique and divine status of the Word, culminating in the Word becoming flesh (John 1:14), revealing God's glory.
The interpretation that the Logos is "a god" undermines the consistent message of John's Gospel, which portrays Jesus (the Logos) as fully divine, co-eternal with the Father, and not a created being or a lesser god. Additionally, the claim that John did not differentiate between the divine substance and the three Persons of the Trinity reflects a misunderstanding of Trinitarian theology, which was developed to articulate the relationships within the Godhead, not to deny the distinct personhood of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
In conclusion, the rendering "a god" in John 1:1c is not supported by the grammar, context, or theology of the text. The traditional translation "the Word was God" remains the most accurate and faithful to the intent of the original Greek and the theological message of the Gospel of John.
Dear Anonymous Trinitarian, You write:
"The intended meaning, therefore, is not that the Word is a lesser or separate god, but that the Word shares the very nature or essence of God. The translation "the Word was God" captures this nuance correctly."
You also said that I misunderstood the grammar of John 1:1c, which I think is an untrue statement. Granted, in terms of grammar, the verse could possibly be construed as you suggest. However, does that make the Witness understanding of the passage wrong or ungrammatical? No, it, does not. There is more than one possible way to understand John 1:1c grammatically. Witnesses have correctly pointed this out again and again.
J.W. Wenham (The Elements of NT Greek, page 35):
"In ancient manuscripts which did not differentiate between capital and small letters, there would be no way of distinguishing between ©eos ('God') and 0eos ('god'). Therefore as far as grammar alone is concerned, such a sentence could be printed: 6eos εστίν 6 Aoyos, which would mean either, ' The
Word is a god', or, 'The Word is the god'. The interpretation of John 1. 1 will depend upon whether or not the writer is held to believe in only one God or in more than one god. It will be noticed that the above rules for the special uses of the definite article are none of them rigid and without exceptions. It is wiser
not to use them as a basis for theological argument until the student has reached an advanced stage in the knowledge of the language."
I disagree that "a god" implies polytheism, but I concur with Wenham's observation about grammar and possible renderings.
You correctly pointed out that the grammar can be interpreted in more than one way, but it is essential to consider not just grammatical possibilities but also context, theology, and how this phrase fits into the broader framework of John's Gospel.
The phrase "θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος" is constructed with an anarthrous predicate nominative ("θεὸς" without the definite article), which precedes the verb "ἦν." This construction in Greek typically emphasizes the qualitative aspect of the noun. Hence, "θεὸς" is not merely describing "a god" as a separate entity but emphasizing the nature or quality of the Logos. The absence of the article here does not necessarily imply indefiniteness, but rather it highlights the essence of the Word as divine.
In the broader context of John's Gospel, the Word (Logos) is consistently portrayed as having a unique and intimate relationship with God the Father. John 1:18 refers to the "only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father," further stressing the unique, divine nature of the Word. This makes an interpretation of the Word as "a god" problematic, as it would conflict with the monotheistic framework of John's Gospel, which portrays a singular divine nature.
Translating "θεὸς" as "a god" introduces theological difficulties, especially in a monotheistic context where it could suggest polytheism. The understanding of "the Word was God" fits more consistently with the doctrine of the Trinity, which sees Jesus (the Word) as fully divine and consubstantial with the Father, rather than as a separate, lesser deity.
Wenham's observation is technically correct in that ancient manuscripts, which did not differentiate between capital and small letters, leave room for grammatical ambiguity. However, context and theological consistency are crucial in interpreting John 1:1.
The context of John's Gospel emphasizes the unique and divine nature of the Logos (Word). The Gospel consistently portrays Jesus as fully divine, sharing the same essence as the Father (e.g., John 1:18; John 10:30).
The Greek phrase "θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος" uses an anarthrous predicate nominative ("θεὸς" without the article), which often emphasizes the quality or nature of the subject. In this case, it indicates that the Word has the same divine nature as God, rather than suggesting that the Word is "a god" among many.
Interpreting "θεὸς" as "a god" could imply polytheism, which contradicts the strict monotheism of the biblical text. The early Christian understanding of God was rooted in the Jewish monotheistic tradition, which does not support the existence of multiple gods.
The early church, closest to the original context, unanimously interpreted John 1:1 as affirming the full divinity of the Logos, not as introducing another god.
While grammar alone might allow for multiple translations, context, theological consistency, and historical interpretation strongly support the translation "the Word was God" as the most accurate rendering.
Post a Comment