Jun 072012
I had the pleasure of meeting J. Dan Gill recently in Atlanta. He’s a retired pastor in Nashville, Tennessee, but is very active with his wife Sharon in promoting what many call “biblical unitarianism,” what he calls a “One God” theology. (I prefer “unitarian Christianity” or “Christian unitarianism.”) He came to these views back in the 80s after rejecting “Oneness” Pentecostal theology. He’s an insightful speaker and Bible interpreter, always in pursuit of his dream “of seeing Christians pursue original / authentic Christianity together.”
He does a great job here, interviewing me about my background, Philosophy, the evolution of my views, and so on. Downloads are available on the version posted on his website, 21stcr.org.
Print 
PDF
Dale
Interesting interview! I couldn’t agree more that we need to get into the Bible writers’ mindset before we can appreciate what they mean.
You may find this ‘Dilbert’ applicable. Replace Dilbert with say, John, and it seems to echo, in a tragi-comic way, what you were saying…
http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2007-11-21/
Andy
[...] Here’s a brief interview with Dale Tuggy from the recent theological conference. Check out his website at trinities.org. [...]
Dale,
Is there anywhere on this blogg or perhaps somewhere else where you discuss why you went from a subordinationist (a’la the early church fathers) view of Jesus to a unitarian human-Jesus christology?
Hi Par,
No – not really. I think it came up a little bit in my review of Burke-Bowman debate.
There are at least three difficult issues here:
1. a handful of “pre-existence” proof-texts
2. the metaphysical status of the Holy Spirit
3. whether it is possible for a genuine human being to have existed even if God had never created anything in the physical cosmos – the church fathers, it seems to me, make some controversial assumptions about what it is to be a human being – they think that any being with the right parts or components counts – but this is far from clear.
While I have somewhat settled my views on these things, I haven’t written about them (1) for lack of time, and (2) because I think this humanitarian vs. subordinationist dispute really matters less than the unitarian-trinitarian dispute. If Jesus isn’t God himself, and isn’t divine in exactly the same sense that the Father is, I don’t see that it makes a whole lot of practical (or theological) difference whether or not he existed before being a human being, or even whether he was God’s instrument of creation. His status and role in God’s Kingdom, and relationship to us, will be the same either way, or so it seems to me.
I will have to at least briefly address these matters in the book I’m working on; can’t make any promises about when it’ll be done… *possibly* by the end of next summer??
In Part 8 of your series on the evolution of your views on the Trinity (posted June 7, 2011) you said:
Some of us have been waiting (with varying degrees of patience) for that “next time” – as evidenced in several comments, both then and since.
So your answer to Pär is troubling. I hope it doesn’t mean that we are waiting in vain.
While I agree that the beliefs related to different classes of unitarians do not have any practical effect on our understanding of Christ’s status and role in God’s kingdom, the same can be said for trinitarian beliefs.
Take Dallas Willard, for example. He is a strong trinitarian. And yet, in part 7 of your series you speak about his book as having had a profound influence on your life.
I can say the same thing. I have never forgotten his definition of a disciple of Christ as “one who walks WITH him in order to learn FROM him how to be LIKE him.”
Then why is it necessary to fight HIS theological beliefs, but not Clarke’s?
The fact is, IF a “proof text” is used wrongly, it’s possible to refute the error. You have done that again and again. So why not treat the subordinationist “proof texts” the same way?
At least give us the concluding chapter on the evolution of your views, as promised over a year ago. Please.
On the subject of “proof-texts,” Dale, one passage that has not been adequately dealt with can be summed up in this comment from Anthony:
“God did not speak in a SON in the OT times, Heb.1. You are contradicting this statement.”
So I have been looking carefully at the words of Hebrews 1:1; and if I have misunderstood it, I expect to be corrected.
There are two parallel clauses:
Of old God spoke to the fathers by (en) the prophets
In these last days [God] spoke to us by (en) a son …
The subject in both clauses is God. The verb is spoke. The object is people (the fathers/us). The messengers are men (prophets/a son).
The verb has to do with oral speech, produced and understood by men. The frame of reference is clear: it has to do with MANKIND. That’s all.
Does this negate the idea of a pre-existent son, as intimated in verse 2?
Not really. God revealed himself long before there were any men to “speak” to. Notice Job 38:4-8.
Job wasn’t there, and neither were the fathers. There were no men to “speak” to. But there was an audience that could appreciate the expression of the mind of God as seen in creation.
This fits perfectly with verse 2 of Hebrews 1.
And now, at the COMPLETION of those ages, “he has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself” (ch. 9:26).
It also fits perfectly with the word, through which all things came into existence (John 1:2), and through whom the world was caused to exist (v. 10). The creation was an expression of the thoughts of God, brought about by the agency of the word, even though the world did not know him when the word became a man.
All of it is perfectly harmonious, it seems to me.
Thank you for correcting my careless use of the term “earliest writers,” Vil. I should have stuck with my earlier, more cautious statement – which was based on Comments 3 and 4 of this (related) thread.
I can’t speak for others, V., but I agree with the TDNT (and at least 3 other lexicons/dictionaries) about what 1 Cor. 8:6 actually SAYS. It says that all things come FROM the one God, THROUGH (the agency of) the one Lord. And the creation is specifically cited.
That evidence carries more weight than the opinion of those whose particular theories are threatened by it.
I am also sure (at the moment) of what Jesus actually SAID in John 8:58. That was dealt with at length in another thread, but I would be glad to hear your interpretation of it.
As for John 1:1, we are told that the Logos was God (no article; God as an adjective = divine). That does not give any reason to conclude that there are two Gods, or that the one God is two persons.
In fact, Jesus himself makes it clear that the ONLY true God is the Father (John 17:3). And he is the “faithful and true witness” (Rev. 1:5).
There is no mention in either the immediate or the remote context about the creation of all things in the beginning. Therefore it would be unusual for this verse to mention God’s original creation of Genesis 1:1, which it is not. Rather, it is speaking of the Church. God provided all things for the Church via Jesus Christ. The whole of 1 Corinthians is taken up with Church issues, and Paul starts 8:6 with “for us,” i.e., for Christians. The very next two verses speak about the fact that, for the Church, there are no laws against eating food sacrificed to idols. Verse 8 says, “But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.” This revelation was new for the Church. The Old Testament believers did not have this freedom. They had dozens of food laws. The verse is powerful indeed, and states clearly that Christians have one God who is the ultimate source of all things, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, who is the way by which God provided all things to the Church.
http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/verses/1-corinthians-8-6
To those who are seeking to learn what the NT actually says, I suggest that the consistent evidence of lexicons and dictionaries (including the TDNT, which was recommended by Anthony) carries more weight than the opinion of those whose theories are threatened by it.
Marg (November 25, 2012 at 5:13 pm)
I presume this is in reply to my comment of November 24, 2012 at 5:50 pm addressed to you at “God and his Son: the Logic of the New Testament (Dale)”. I don’t understand why you reply here
I do not have a written copy of the TDNT, and it is not fully accessible online, so I cannot check your quotation (see your comment of November 21, 2012 at 11:26 at “God and his Son: the Logic of the New Testament”).
OTOH, I do not find entirely convincing the Unitarian explanation of 1 Corinthians 8:6 endorsed by Xavier (November 25, 2012 at 10:18 pm), whereby 1 Corinthians 8:6 when speaking of “one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live” would ONLY speak of the Church (see http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/verses/1-corinthians-8-6).
The problem with Paul is that, unlike the Evangelist John, he did not have (anyway didn’t resort to) the notion of Logos (which –which– before the Incarnation, is an eternal attribute of God, while it is NOT –NOT yet– a person), so, I believe, he refers with a prolepsis (= “anticipation of the … circumstances that would make it applicable”) to the “what” of the pre-incarnated Jesus Christ.
Here I FULLY agree with the interpretation given at http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/verses/john-8-58b: If you put the phrase “Before Abraham was I am” (John 8:58b) in context, in particular if you consider the previous paragraph (John 8:52-56), Jesus’ reply to the Jewish leaders is clearly shorthand for, “Even before Abraham saw my day in vision, and was overjoyed, I was, I am IN God as His Logos, His future Son and His Messiah”
No objections here: once again, the Logos, before the Incarnation, is an attribute of God, while it is NOT –NOT yet– a person.
Again, no objections here, BUT, after the Resurrection and the Ascension, the Eternal Father Yehowah made His Son Yehoshwah LORD, on a par with Himself, giving Yehoshwah equal Majesty, Power and Glory.
MdS
Marg
Why should anyone care about your opinion then?
Hello V. Thank you for answering here.
The Lord’s words in John 8:58 answer a specific question of the Jews: “You are not yet 50 years old, and have you seen Abrahan?” They were not asking about what Abraham had seen. They were questioning the age of Jesus. How could Jesus have seen Abraham if he was less than fifty years old?
His answer to their question was, “Before Abraham was born, I [already] am.” And they tried to stone him.
Obviously, the Jews did not understand it as shorthand to mean what you say, or they would hardly have tried to kill him. After all, he said something far more serious in verse 24: “… if you do not believe that I am, you will die in your sins.”
Their response was, “Who are you then?” If they understood him to mean what you suggest, they didn’t think it was worth stoning him for.
In verse 58, on the other hand, they tried to stone him because he was claiming pre-existence to Abraham. That fits the grammatical construction of the sentence, it answers the question they asked, and it was enough (in their eyes) to justify their violent response.
Marg, thanks, and we (and others) have dealt with these verses extensively in our two books.
I was just reading the WBC commentary on Colossians and the author points out that the “create” word is ALWAYS the activity of GOD and NOT Jesus [Rom 1:25 Eph 3:9 9 (NOT KJV) 1 Cor 11:9 Eph 2:10 4:24; 1 Tim 4:3 Mark 13:19 I Pet. 4:19 Rev 4:11; 10:6 ]
The new creation is through Jesus of course and the Genesis creation was IN him, “because of him” [Col. 1:16].
John 1:1 says nothing about the SON, but it speaks of the “word” NOT “Word” (an IT, which is neuter as light in v. 5 and a person in v.10). There you see the transition.
Matthew and Luke give the amplest description of the ORIGIN of the Son of God [Mat 1.18, 20; Luke 1.35]. Would you talk about these too?
Your Jesus is an angel before he becomes a man. I don’t think this is Messiah. Mary did not take in a person from outside, but this is what you KEEP proposing.
@ Marg (November 26, 2012 at 11:28 am)
First, you seem to disregard completely the fact that John the Evangelist attributes obtuse questions to Jesus’ interlocutors (just think of Nicodemus’ question to Jesus, “How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter his mother’s womb and be born a second time, can he?” – John 3:4).
Second, you simply cannot quote snippets, ignoring the context. So, while it is true that “the Jews” asked Jesus, “You are not yet 50 years old, and have you seen Abraham?” (John 8:57), BUT Jesus had NEVER claimed that he had seen Abraham, INSTEAD he had affirmed, “Abraham saw my day in vision, and was overjoyed” (John 8:56). OBVIOUSLY Jesus was speaking of a prophetic vision of Abraham.
You seem to be unaware that, although John the Evangelist may seem to present “the Jews” as obtuse, in fact theirs was a deadly duel with Jesus, as they were bent on catching him out for blasphemy.
And they understood dead well that for Jesus to imply that he was eternally associated with God (as God’s Word), was far more serious claim than to hint at some form of “pre-existence”.
On the contrary! See above.
First, why would have been Jesus’ personal pre-existence sufficient ground for “the Jews” to consider it blasphemy, IF Jesus was indeed implying/claiming to be the Messiah? To claim to be the Messiah was NOT considered a blasphemy: many, before and after Jesus, claimed to be the Messiah, without being considered blasphemous. Just think of Simon of Peraea (c. 4 BCE) and of Simon bar Kokhba (died c. 135).
Also it was you who insisted on the “Heavenly Preexistence” of the Messiah, quoting extensively from the Jewish Encyclopedia (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/10729-messiah#anchor14). No mention of blasphemy there …
Second, my friendly advice is, try to read the verse taking off your “personal pre-existence prejudice glasses”.
MdS
MdS
I think it was seen on the level of being a false prophet, since Messiah was believed to be THE prophet and sole mouthpiece of YHWV (Deu 18). That’s why all those claimants were killed, especially when they did not restore/establish the Kingdom.
Good discussion and sorry for chipping in…
Logos theology was but one formulation of God’s activity in OT times seen in retrospect. It was particularly popular in Alexandria, Egypt with its champion, Philo. But it was only one way of formulating wat notionally “preexisted.” Paul, who studied at the rabbinical schools, appears to have had a more purely rabbinical take on preexistence. His was more in line with “preexistent” Torah, Israel, repentance, Messiah, etc. Prolepsis is future reality experienced now from a human perspective, while notional preexistence is from God’s perspective. Logos theology and Jewish preexistence theology should not be polarised as you seem to do above.
Yes and no, I think. It does describe God’s activity. That activity is also a description of God’s plan and purpose. So I think the definition of “logos of God” should be extended beyond merely an attribute of God. I’d say the logos of God is God-by-reference. Whether that be God’s activity, his plan, his purposes, etc., eventually all we can say is, “We discerned God.” To hypostatise logos is going way beyond what Philo intended, precisely since he described human logoi in similar language. (I know you’re not doing that, Vilanovanus).
I think you’re taking the “on par with Himself” too far. You’re giving too much weight to ontological identity instead of pointing out the prominent notion of functional identity in John. John is misunderstood immediately if two central interpretive principles are ignored: Philo’s understanding of logos and secondly, the shaluach principle (John ch 5-7). Jesus is LORD in function and reference, not in himself.
Yes. Their judgment was wicked anyway. It wasn’t the claim itself that upset them, but the one claiming what he did. That was their issue (Thanks to James McGrath nicely pointing that out).
Dalman, Heine, Dunn and Kausner, among others, agree that Messiah preexisted in mind and purpose, not in reality.
Jaco
Jaco
Are you familiar with Robert Hach’s The Prophetic Pre-existence of the Messiah paper in Navas’ book?
@ Xavier (November 26, 2012 at 2:31 pm)
Neither Simon of Peraea nor Simon bar Kokhba (nor, more in general, any of the many Jewish Messiah claimants – see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Messiah_claimants) were accused, while living, of being “false Messiah” and/or “false prophet”. Only in hindsight they were disqualified, when, by being defeated, they proved –according to the Jewish expectations, that is– that they were not THE Messiah.
But you are right in seeing the claim to Messiahship as closer to the claim of being a prophet.
BTW, Deuteronomy provided two perfecly clear tests for self-proclaimed prophets (see Deut 13:1-4 and Deut 18:21-22), both of which, BTW, Jesus passed …
villanovanus
Those specific people may not have been killed initially but LATER proved to have been false.
Same with Jesus, his ULTIMATE prophecy regarding the KOG come, at his parousia, is YET to happen. Hence why so many Jews still see him as a false prophet/Messiah.
@ Jaco (November 27, 2012 at 4:33 am)
No reason to feel sorry for “chipping in”: this is a public discussion, NOT a private debate …
Herebelow, I quotate your comments, with my own counter-comments.
[a] The Logos (Hbr. Dabar) is not the only activity/attribute of God that is repeatedly referred to in the OT. The other one is God’s Pneuma (Hbr. Ruwach). You can see them explicitly named as instruments of God’s creative activity in Psalm 33:6, and, I believe, alluded to as God’s “everlasting arms” in Deut 33:27 (see also ahead).
[b] I totally disagree that a mere “notional pre-existence” is attributed to God’s Logos, anyway, certainly NOT in John 1:1,14: while it would be unfounded, exorbitant and arbitrary to affirm that the pre-incarnated Logos is referred to, in the Prologue to the Gospel of John, as a distinct person, it (it …) is certainly referred to as an essential attribute of God, somehow distinct in God (pros ton theon), BUT fully God (theos).
[c] My use of the concept of prolepsis, applied to Paul, means that Paul (who “unlike the Evangelist John, … did not have –anyway didn’t resort to– the notion of Logos”) referred to the pre-incarnated Logos in Creation (e.g. 1 Cor 8:6; Col 1:16) with the name of Jesus Christ, that is proleptically (=“in anticipation of the circumstances [the Incarnation] that would make [the reference to Jesus Christ] applicable”).
I disagree that to refer to God’s Logos (NOT as a person BUT) as an attribute of God is to “hypostatise logos”. In fact, if you consider the a.m. biblical images of God’s Logos/Dabar and Pneuma /Ruwach as God’s “everlasting arms” (BTW Irenaeus understood Deut 33:27 and Psalm 33:6 precisely this way – see his Against Heresies and his Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching), to speak of them as “attributes” of God is no more to “hypostatise” them than to speak of a man’s arms as his “attributes”.
As for Philo, he did far worse than “hypostatise the Logos“: he more than bordered on bitheism when he spoke of the Logos as “second god” (deutheros theos – see Philo, Questions and Answers on Genesis 2:62)
I think that you, Jaco, OTOH, are watering down the status of the pre-incarnated Logos AND the Lordship of the Resurrected, Ascended Jesus.
No “ontological identity” whatsoever. Once again, equality of Majesty, Power and Glory, that Yehowah, in His omnipotence, bestowed on His Son Yehoshwah.
I take seriously –actually at face value–Phil 2:9-11, Acts 2:36 and Acts 7:56.
Why? Don’t you?
I am not sure what you mean by “[i]t wasn’t the claim itself that upset them, but the one claiming what he did.”
Presumably, by “the claim itself “, you mean, as I do, the claim of being eternally associated with God (as God’s Word).
But what do you allude to by “[what upset them was] the one claiming what he did”?
Again, while the “preexistence of the Messiah” is only late Jewish spin, to reduce the status of the pre-incarnated Logos to mere “notional pre-existence” is to commit an error specularly opposite (and equally wrong …) to the spin on the “co-equal, co-eternal, tri-personal tri-unity” of the Cappadocian scoundrels (Basil of Caesarea, his younger brother Gregory of Nyssa and the close friend Gregory of Nazianzus).
MdS
@ Xavier (November 27, 2012 at 12:55 pm)
I agree.
I ALSO believe that Jesus’ “Olivet discourse” (Mark 13, Matthew 24, Luke 21) are the authentic and prophetic words of Jesus (not some pseudepigraphic passages cleverly retrofitted by some “early Christians” after the Fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE), and that they refer partly to what actually happened to Jerusalem (not only in 70 CE, but also in 135 CE), but mostly to the end times, and to the tribulation and persecution before Jesus’ Second Coming (parousia), and the ultimate triumph of the Kingdom of God.
MdS
Hi there
Hey, bro. I’ve read about the author, but haven’t read the book. I’ll surely look for it, thanks!
Maybe you can elaborate what you disagree with re. notional preexistence. You don’t believe that the Garden of Eden literally existed before its own creation, do you? Or even the patriarchs or Israel, do you? According to Philo, God’s logos was operational on all these preexistent entities before creation. Hence my insistence that logos was one way of formulating/expressing this concept.
I see where you make the connections, yes. Paul does use a different, yet similar, scheme. It is similar precisely since the Philonic duality we see in Hebrews is present in both John and Paul. That is where the two schemes agree. Logos was God by reference – in activity and plan. The rabbis appreciated the preexisted plan even before they realised in activity.
Philo use so much metaphor and figure of speech that one needs to use his own explanations to determine what he thought of logos. James Drummond’s Philo Judaeus is a great resource. As Dunn and Caird also insist, Philo’s logos was not a literal hypostatised person. It only approximates such a notion in figurative language, nothing more.
Of course I do too. I just think your idea of logos could dangerously tilt the wrong way. Maybe you can explain where I’m watering down the status of the “pre-incarnated Logos AND the Lordship of the Resurrected, Ascended Jesus.” If I think of the Almighty and the Most High, I think of One, and that is Yahweh. Jesus executes according to what the Almighty bestows upon him. And as in pre-christian times when angels acted in Yahweh’s stead, even bearing Yahweh’s name without threatening Yahweh’s sole position as Almighty, in similar way Yahweh’s superiority is maintained even after Jesus ultimate exaltation (2 Cor. 1:3; 1 Cor. 11:2; Php 2:11). Position vs. function. That is the Jewish principle.
Taking the highest acceptible Christology assigned to this could be the functional status of Yahweh bestowed upon Jesus. I’m convinced that it is a reference to Jesus claiming to be the one intended since from before Abraham (even creation, namely the intended Messiah). Neither the concept of bearing Yahweh’s name nor the concept of the pre-intended Messiah is blasphemous per se. But the fact that someone as detested by the Jews as Jesus claiming to be the one, THAT is what made them play the blasphemy card.
What God expressed had already been determined. Both expression and plan/purpose were understood as God’s logos, as the one implies and eventually result in the other. Joseph Klausner in The Messianic Idea in Israel shows that the idea of notional preexistence was present and pervasive by the First Century. It was not as late as many would want it to be. All seven and additional preexistent entities are mentioned and focused on in the Book of Revelation.
I don’t think it’s a matter of disagreement between us – more like a fine-tuning of our positions…:-)
Jaco
@ Jaco (November 27, 2012 at 4:29 pm)
First of all, I take good note that you have studiously skirted around both of my comments on the scriptural support (at least Deut 33:27 and Psalm 33:6) for BOTH God’s Logos/Dabar and Pneuma/Ruwach as God’s “everlasting arms”, which, AFAIAC, gives also full support to the legitimacy of considering them essential attributes of God: that is, to be clear (and however I try to avoid metaphysical language), integral to God’s essence.
See above. Once again, I affirm that the pre-incarnated Logos is referred to, in the Prologue to the Gospel of John, as an essential attribute of God, somehow distinct in God (pros ton theon), BUT fully God (theos).
OTOH, if words mean anything at all, to refer to the preexistence of God’s Logos as “notional” suggests (to me, at least) that the distinction of the Logos in God is, for you, Jaco, “not evident in reality; hypothetical or imaginary” (see Collins English Dictionary, def. no. 2 of ” notional “). If you mean something different, it is now for you to clarify …
BTW, re. Garden of Eden etc. I presume we both consider Genesis 1-11 largely mythical. OTOH, I see no reason for discarding a priori the historicity of the patriarchs or Israel.
Your comment is so steeped with obscurity and ambiguity as to be unmanageable. I pass …
I can be just as good at throwing names, if I want to: I suggest that you seriously consider Marian Hillar’s online article, “The Logos and Its Function in the Writings of Philo of Alexandria: Greek Interpretation of the Hebrew Myth and Foundations of Christianity” (http://www.socinian.org/philo.html). You may want to get straight to the chase, viz. the Summary of Philo’s Concept of the Logos, where you can read: “Philo’s … Logos is clearly the second individual in one God as hypostatization of God’s Creative Power – Wisdom”.
You claim that, “of course”, you also take seriously Phil 2:9-11, Acts 2:36 and Acts 7:56, but then treat the Resurrected, Ascended Jesus Christ as no more than a mega-angel (of course, unless even this is merely … er … “notional” …). But Jesus is the Incarnation of God’s Logos (John 1:14 – where the Incarnated Word is crystal-clearly distinct from the Father) and, therefore God himself. If you suggest that the Lord (kyrios) Yehoshwah, after Resurrection and Ascension, remains somehow “inferior” to the Lord (kyrios) Yehowah, it is for you to say and justify.
You use so many obscure and vague words … let me try to put it in cleared and simpler words: are you suggesting that what irked “the Jews” was not so much the “song” (the claim to Messiahship, even –as they understood Jesus’ words – of personal pre-existence as Messiah) but the “singer”, “someone as detested by the Jews as Jesus”?
I am not sure what you mean by “additional”. Here is the Talmudic passage about the “seven preexistent entities”, anyway:
In the continuation of the quoted Pesachim passage, they are all explained in terms of “deep” understanding of the TaNaKh, but I see no mention of Dabar. Why? Simple, because Dabar is NOT “created before the world was created”, BUT is God Himself or, to be accurate (and, inevitably resorting to ontological lingo), an essential attribute of God, or, better, with the figurative language of the Bible, one of His “eternal arms”.
However much I hate to resort to Greek-philosophical lingo, the real (albeit NOT personal) subsistence of God’s Logos is non-negotiable …
MdS
Vilanovanus
I think you’re a bit paranoid. I have not skirted around your comments. I merely decided not belabour a point we probably agree on. I dared to mention hypostatisation of the logos, adding that you are not the one arguing for hypostatisation and there you go running wild with it… You’re a bit of a hair-splitter I see…
You default to ontological identity. I never said logos notionally preexisted. I said the use of logos was a way to describe WHAT notionally preexisted. God’s idea, purpose and plan – whether for repentance, salvation, Messiah or paradise – notionally or ideally preexisted. “Logos” was a way to articulate what notionally preexisted.
Good grief, you’re impossible to even have a decent dialogue with… I’d say Asperger’s…
Marian Hillar is not an expert on Philo. James Drummond spent 50 years working ONLY on Philo. Do your math. I’ve read Hillar’s superficial study and he doesn’t add anything new to what other non-experts have written on Philo.
False dilemma – as if Jesus can either be your sterile proposal or “a mega-angel.” There is a third option, sorry, and that is the one YOU chose to tip-toe around above. If you care, consider what I wrote earlier. You’ve also ignored the texts CLEARLY showing Jesus to be inferior to Yahweh. So it’s your ball…
YOUR Wernicke’s and YOUR Broca’s… NOT my language…
There were more – I’m not going to do your homework for you…
According to Philo, logos was neither created nor uncreated…now get your mind around that one…
I don’t think you’re the kind of character one can have a mature dialogue with. You’re petty and temperamental. Depending on your reply, I’ll decide whether you’re worth communicating with…
@ Jaco (November 28, 2012 at 12:59 pm)
A rather swift change of tone and style from the initial “sorry for chipping in” …
It is entirely obvious that you have chosen to resort to personal insult so that our exchange gets discontinued.
Fine by me.
Enjoy your pompous Philonian delusions … in the company of your McGrath, Dalman, Heine, Dunn, and Klausner, Drummond etc etc.
MdS
Enjoy your island…
Jaco & MdS
Christian brotherhood at its best.
Great job guys. :/
I shouldn’t have replied the way I did. I should have left the discussion once I saw I wouldn’t go anywhere. I apologise for my behaviour.
Jaco
Good.
James 4.
@ Xavier
You seem to approve of an half-harted, half-sactimonious apology …
… I suggest you look at “The Fox and the Grapes,” one of Aesop’s Fables …
MdS
MdS
Guess you didn’t read James 4. : (
Xavier,
You didn’t need to disturb James. And, if you don’t like Aesop, I suggest you consider (in case you haven’t yet) the notion of passive-aggressive behaviour …
MdS
It’s probably my age; but by the time I have thoroughly digested what is said in a comment, I’m away behind.
I agree with much of what you say, Villanovanus, but before I take too much for granted, there are two sentences in comment #14 that seem to be contradictory:
The first sentence seems to suggest that the Jews did not really ask the question John attributes to them. The second says, quite clearly, that they really did ask the question. Could you clarify?
@ Marg (November 29, 2012 at 4:03 pm)
Your question is perfectly legitimate, and I need to unpack a bit more what I meant.
Perhaps, also, as I am not a native English speaker (I am Italian), I may have used improperly the phrase “the Evangelist attributes obtuse questions to …”. It was NOT meant to imply (not in my intention, anyway) that it was a mere literary device by the Evangelist John. Rather it was meant to imply that the (apparently obtuse) question of “the Jews” at John 8:57 backfired on them, very much like the (apparently obtuse) question of Nicodemus at John 3:4 was an opportunity for Jesus to correct his misconception.
See the following parallel.
The question of Nicodemus at John 3:4 (“How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter his mother’s womb and be born a second time, can he?”) was ONLY APPARENTLY obtuse, BUT, in fact –by being over-literalistic– grotesque and (perhaps, even slightly) sarcastic: everybody knows perfectly well that NOBODY can literally re-enter one’s mother’s womb. This gives to Jesus the opportunity of correcting Nicodemus’ (fake?) obtusity, explaining the deep, meaning of his previous claim (“I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born from above [Greek: anôthen, which can also mean "again"], he cannot see the kingdom of God.” – John 3:3), that Nicodemus had responded to so obtusely (sarcastically?), in a deeply spiritual and theological sense (“I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born of water and spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. …” – John 3:5).
Similarly (but with an added element of aggression and polemic), the question of “the Jews” at John 8:57 (“You are not yet 50 years old, and have you seen Abraham?”) was ONLY APPARENTLY obtuse, BUT, in fact –by being over-literalistic– deliberately grotesque and mockingly sarcastic: everybody knows perfectly well that NOBODY can have literally seen someone who had lived possibly 1,800 years before. This gives to Jesus the opportunity of defeating their fake obtusity, explaining the deep, prophetic meaning of his previous claim (“Your father Abraham was overjoyed to see my day, and he saw it and was glad.” – John 8:56), that “the Jews” had responded to obtusely/sarcastically, in a deeply spiritual and theological sense (“I tell you the solemn truth, before Abraham came into existence, I am!” – John 8:56).
I hope that my parallel is clearer, and hopefully also more convincing, now.
MdS
I am glad we agree on one important thing, MdS. The evangelist does not deliberately falsify the record, just to make a point. Nor do any of the evangelists. They may differ in remembering certain insignificant details, but they are not dishonest.
I also agree that the CONTEXT is critical in understanding what is meant by a sentence. I have read again the confrontation described in John 8:12-59, and I can see that throughout, Jesus is talking about spiritual things, while the Jewish leaders are talking about temporal things.
For example, when they claim to be the children of Abraham, they are talking about physical descent, which gives them a privileged position, nationally.
But when Jesus talks about the children of Abraham, he is talking about moral likeness. If Abraham were really their father, they would resemble him. But they don’t. They resemble the devil, who is a liar. That makes them children of the devil, morally.
Are we in agreement so far? Or have I misunderstood you?
@ Marg (November 30, 2012 at 12:29 pm)
We seem to agree on this, that Jesus, in his exchanges with “the Jews” (or Judeans – even “those … who had believed him” – John 8:31) opposed his spiritual and figurative words to their material, and literal understanding.
But let’s not forget the starting point, which is this claim of yours …
… so whether we agree on the interpretation of this verse or not depends entirely on whether I have managed to persuade you that to interpret it as a literal claim, on the part of Jesus, to his “personal pre-existence”, would mean to fall exactly in the same material, and literal understanding of “the Jews”.
So my question to you is: do you still read John 8:58 through “personal pre-existence glasses” …
… or have I eventually persuaded you to do away with them?
MdS
Let’s go on then.
The confrontation begins with the words “I am” (the same words with which it ends). This is what Jesus says:
That is a stupendous claim. I never noticed before how closely it parallels the description of the Logos in ch. 1:4 –
The similarity is startling:
(Ch. 1) In [the Logos] was LIFE, and the LIFE was the LIGHT of men.
(Ch. 8) I am the LIGHT of the world [of men]; anyone who follows me will have the LIGHT of LIFE.
He is not only claiming to be the LIGHT, he is claiming that those who follow him will have the light of LIFE.
And that harmonizes with the statement of 1:12 – “As many as received him [the Logos in the world], to them he gave the authority to become the children of God.”
It seems so obvious to me, but the Pharisees were oblivious to it. They were occupied with their laws. All they said was, “You witnessed about yourself. Your witness is not true.”
Before I go on, have I said anything so far that the text does not support?
So “the light” was a preexisting “person” also? : /
I’ll continue with the context then, MdS, and if you see something you don’t agree with, I will expect you to point it out.
Jesus answered the Pharisees’ objection by pointing out that their law accepted the testimony of two men. He had definitely testified about himself, and his Father had also testified on his behalf. So their objection was not valid.
Peter tells us in Acts 2:22 HOW the Father had shown his approval of Jesus. It was by the miracles and wonders and signs that God did THROUGH him in their midst. And there is evidence in John 3 that the Pharisees were already well aware of this.
Nicodemus said to Jesus, “We know that you are a teacher come from God, because no man can do the signs that you do unless God is with him.”
Both the fact that he was doing “signs,” as well as the meaning of those signs, were known to the Pharisees.
But the Lord’s words to Nicodemus include something that helps us to understand their apparent blindness in chapter 8. After telling Nicodemus about the love of God, so great that he gave his only-begotten Son in order that men might be saved through him (vv. 16-18), Jesus said this:
The connection is clear: those who did not believe in the name of God’s only-begotten Son were rejecting the light.
In John 8:12, Jesus once again faced those men with the declaration, “I am the light of the world.” But they had already rejected that light. They were well aware of the miracles that showed him to be what he claoimed to be – the “sent one of God” – but they were determined to kill him anyway.
So I am inclined to agree with you that these men were only APPARENTLY (and deliberately) obtuse.
@ Marg
I’m travelling this week, with very limited access to computer. Will com back to you next week.
MdS
Have a good trip, MdS.
In the meantime, I have been looking at my dictionary’s definition(s) of the word “person”. It seems to me that the word is naturally associated with humankind, in one way or another. The only major exception is the theological (and artificial) use of the word in connection with tri-unity.
Since I consider the idea of “one God in three persons” to be both unbiblical and irrational, I would like to avoid using the word “person” of anything except a human being.
Dale posted an article once describing God as a “self”. God speaks of himself as “I myself,” so that designation seems appropriate.
Can “self” be used to describe other animate (but non-human) entities? For example, Satan is not a “person” (i.e. human), but is he a “self”?
Just a question of semantics, but it suddenly seems worth answering.
@ Marg
I managed to post this.
You haven’t said “anything so far that the text does not support”, but I suspect you keep implying something that the text does NOT support (NOT obviously, anyway): that the pre-incarnated Word was a person. OR, if for various reasons, you prefer, at least for the moment, to avoid the word “person”, a self, or a subject. If, OTOH, you said that you do not consider the pre-incarnated Word person (or a self, or a subject), then I really wouldn’t know what we are discussing.
Jesus was here referring, at the same time, to his previous statement (“If I testify about myself, my testimony is not true” – John 5:31), and, with his later statement (“It is written in your law that the testimony of two men is true” – John 8:17) at this principle from Deuteronomy:
At the testimony of two or three witnesses they must be executed. They cannot be put to death on the testimony of only one witness. (Deut 17:6)
I must admit that I have never understood Jesus’ “logic”, here, because it is not at all obvious that the testimony about himself would count as one of the “two or three witnesses” required by the Law. I fact, it would clearly count as self-witness. So, ultimately, his miracles (supportd by Gof, the Father Almighty) would be all that would “witness” for his claim of being the Son of God.
Nicodemus had clearly become (like, Joseph of Arimathea) a secret disciple of Jesus (see John 19:38-39). So, it is entirely exorbitant to deduce from Nicodemus’ belief and behaviour what ALL the Pharisees were supposed to believe.
I am glad to see that we agree on this.
OTOH, and once again, nothing of what you’ve presented so far supports (NOT obviously, anyway) that the pre-incarnated Word was a person (or a self, or a subject).
I totally disagree. If, for instance, you adopt this definition …
person: self-conscious entity, endowed with reason, freedom and will [#]
… then there is no reason why it should not apply (not only to humans, but also) to purely spiritual beings like angels, demons and, yes, even God Himself. This, incidentally (albeit slightly expanded), is the definition of person adopted by Severinus Boethius (ca. 480–524 AD) and by Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274 AD)
I believe that, by doing that, you are “throwing away the baby with the bath-water”, because you make it impossible to discuss whether the pre-incarnated Word was a person (or a self, or a subject).
And THAT is the question!
If you DO agree with the above definition [#] of person, then ask yourself if it would apply also to “purely spiritual beings like angels, demons and, yes, even God Himself”.
If you NO NOT agree with the above definition, please explain why you don’t.
MdS
Marg
So what type of “self” was Jesus before he was a “person”?
I’m glad you had the chance to post your comment, MdS.
Our use of the word “person,” then, depends on the definition we adopt. If the word is defined as
then it can certainly be used of ANY being – human or otherwise – that fits that definition. Including God.
I like the definition, and will understand it that way when you use it.
In any case, whatever you may think I imply, I am glad you agree that I have said nothing SO FAR that cannot be supported by the text. I hope that continues.
One thing I want to clarify is that when I say, ‘I think I know what Jesus actually said’ (in v. 58), I am talking about the literal words. He said (if John’s record is accurate)
Truly, truly I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.”/cite>
What he MEANT by that is the subject of this discussion.
And I want to add that my mind is open to evidence in any direction. It just has to be TESTED – that’s all.
:/
According to Eidersheim, Jesus’ answer regarding the two witnesses was a valid argument, and the Jews (obviously) did not dispute it.
Perhaps the clue is in the description of the second witness as “the Father who SENT me.” Jesus uses that phrase over and over. He never claimed to be on his own. He was the agent of another.
The miracles he did were evidence that he was what he claimed to be: sent by God. So his testimony was the testimony given to him by his God. It wasn’t his own, and he wasn’t testifying alone.
Whatever the reason, the Pharisees did not dispute the validity of his argument. Instead, they asked an insulting question: “Where is your father?”
To which he answered, “You do not know me or my Father. If you had known me, you would have known my Father also.” (v. 19)
This is the second time that he told them, “You do not know …” In v 14 he said,
“Even if I witness concerning myself, my witness is true, because I know where I came from and where I go, but you do not know where I came from or where I go.
You judge according to the flesh; I judge no one [that day is still future]. And even if I judge, my judgment is true, because I am not alone, but I and the Father who sent me.”
They didn’t know where he came from or where he was going. They judged according to the flesh. In the words of Paul (1 Corinthians 15:47) they were from the earth, and therefore earthy. He was the Lord from heaven, and therefore heavenly. He KNEW where he came from and where he was going.
@ Marg
I haven’t got much time, so this is just a quick post.
You say –conditionally– that “[i]f the word [presumably: “person”] is defined as ‘self-conscious entity, endowed with reason, freedom and will’, then it can certainly be used of ANY being – human or otherwise – that fits that definition. Including God.”
So my first question back to you is: why the IF? Why the conditional reply? What prevents you (or anybody, for that matter) from adopting that definition of “person”?
My immediately second question to you is: assuming you adopt the above definition of person, is the pre-incarnated Word, according to you, a person? If you answer yes, whence do you get the unquestionable evidence from the Scripture?
As for the question of witness, in spite of your apology, Jesus’ attempt to resort to Deut 17:6 to give authority to his own self-witness remains an unconvincing argument.
I find these words of Jesus much more straightforward, frank and convincing:
“Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father is in me, but if you do not believe me, believe because of the miraculous deeds themselves.” (John 14:11)
MdS
Not all dictionaries agree on the definition of person, MdS. However, all we need to do is agree on one. And I can cheerfully agree with this one.
Given this interpretation, whether the pre-incarnated Word is a “person” is exactly the CONCLUSION towards which I hope we are moving. I don’t think I have ever stated a conclusion, one way or the other, and I am not prepared to do so – YET.
You see, I was taught in high school – very forcibly – that NO conclusion should be stated until ALL of the evidence has been explored. We haven’t finished exploring the evidence that is familiar to me, and yours is still to come.
As for John 14:11, I agree with you that those words are “straightforward and convincing”. However, in John 8:17-18, Jesus was answering a specific charge; and the fact remains that the Pharisees did not dispute the validity of his argument, obscure though it may be to you and me.
Getting back to the narrative, when the Jews asked, “Where is your father?” Jesus answered, “You do not know me or my Father. If you had known me, you would have known my Father also.”
The words of John 14:11 fit here perfectly: “I am in the Father, and the Father is in me.” So “If you knew me, you would know the Father also.”
“If anyone asserts the fabulous pre-existence of souls, and shall assert the monstrous restoration which follows from it: let him be anathema.” Council of Constantinople, AD. 553
MdS – I want to thank you for the term “pre-incarnated Word”. I had never heard that term before, and I greatly appreciate its accuracy.
“Pre-existent” is a meaningless word that theologians have manufactured. How can anything exist before it exists?
But the question Greg asked (and that I am asking) has nothing to do with a “pre-existent” anything.
Instead, the question is – Was the pre-incarnated Word a PERSON, or an inanimate THING?
I am very grateful for that precise term, MdS. It is so obvious – but I never thought of it. And it clarifies what we are looking for as we continue to look at John 8.