The Son is said to be the “Word (Logos)” of God in John 1:1, 14 (cf. 1 John 1:1; Rev 19:13). As is commonly recognized, this designation owes much to Genesis 1 (with its repeated “God said”) and to the Jewish personification of the dynamic word of the Lord (cf. Ps 33:6; Isa 55:11; Wis 9:1; 18:14 ff.; Jewish targums; Philo).4 And there is a sense in which speech is generated by the speaker (cf. Isa 55:11: “My word … that goes forth from my mouth”).5
But can we say that the designation of the Son as the Word of God implies the generation of the Son? May it not be that to say so is to read more into the description than is warranted? Perhaps so. Nonetheless the designation is more or less suggestive of divine generation, to say nothing of the description of the Word as monogenēs, a term we shall consider shortly.
Footnote 4:
This is not to deny that a debt is also owed to the conception of the divine Wisdom in Proverbs, Wisdom and Sirach and to the conception of the Logos in Greek philosophy.
8 comments:
That's all well and good but does the work mention Sirach 50 or is it just talking about Sirach 24?
More precision is needed.
"Nonetheless the designation is more or less suggestive of divine generation,"
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Son-God-Charles-Lee-Irons/dp/1498224288
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSDDVD7exf4
Does the work you quote recognize the connections made here?
Also wondering how you got on with the book claiming pre-existence in GMatthew?
https://youtu.be/raCdsfoJgZQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOBjxIzy5hU
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0301.htm
Chapter 21 is very interesting.
I was quoting Dahms to show that these writers are aware of the apocryphal works, many have read them or written on them, yet they don't renounce Trinitarianism because of it. Rather, Dahms thinks that the Wisdom literature potentially supports Christ's deity and Crispin-Fletcher seems to agree.
Again, I quoted Dahms for a specific reason. He wrote a journal article for JETS which is necessarily going to be narrow and not concerned with Sirach 50, etc. But that is not why I quoted him anyway.
I'm slowly working my way through the Gathercole book.
Yes, Tertullian (Apology) 21 is interesting. I read it numerous times in grad school. It's also fun to read in Latin.
I found this interesting. I thought about the scripture Matthew 24:34.
https://www.ancient-hebrew.org/studies-interpretation/hebrew-concept-of-order.htm
Post a Comment