podcast 100 – Dr. Larry Hurtado on God in New Testament Theology

Hi Roman,

The context of Colossians 1:12-20 is about what resulted from the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Neither Jesus, nor the saints received any “inheritance” (Colossians 1:12) or “kingdom” (Colossians 1:13) or “redemption” (Colossians 1:14) until Jesus was exalted.

If you read 2 Corinthians 5:17-19, it’s also evident that Paul identified “the new creation in Christ” with “reconciliation” and “forgiveness.” This is the same language he is using in Colossians 1:14-20 to speak about “forgiveness” and what was “created” through the “reconciliation” that resulted from the death and resurrection of Jesus. None of this took place during the time of Genesis.

Roman,

Paul doesn’t have to say “new creation” in Colossians 1:16 because he isn’t comparing anything to the “old” (as he does in 2 Corinthians 5:17-19). There are a number of other places where Paul uses “creation” without specifically referring to “old” or “new” (e.g. Romans 8:9-23).

Another thing to consider is that Paul used the same word “creation” to simply refer to the people of the kingdom in Colossians 1:23. Thus, it seems more reasonable to think he was using it the same way in Colossians 1:16.

If you[r] [Rivers’] Reading is right he [Paul] [i]s just saying the same thing twice, and it doesn’t make sense.

Paul is certainly not new to repeating himself. In Romans 5:12-21, he says that, “sin entered the world through one man”, “many died through the transgression of the one man”, “by the transgression of the one man, death reigned through the one”, “condemnation for all people came through one transgression”, “through the disobedience of the one man many were made sinners”.

Not just twice, but 5 times!

Roman,

Paul said “new creation” in 2 Corinthians 5:17-19 because he is contrasting it with the “old things” he just mentioned in the same sentence. Thus, it is reasonable to infer that “old things” is synonymous with an “old” creation. It isn’t necessary for Paul to say “old creation” in this context.

As I noted before, Jesus and the apostles often say the same things twice using different wording. It’s also very common throughout the Hebrew scriptures. The repetition of similar language in the same context actually helps us to better understand word usage and meaning.

See Miguel’s excellent comment about Romans 5:12-21 where he shows that Paul repeated himself numerous times in the same context.

Roman,

The only way to discern how the Colossians would have understood Paul’s statement is to consider the context. That is why I’m pointing out the relationship between the words:

1. “firstborn of all creation” = “firstborn from among the dead” (1:15, 18)

2. “all things created” = “all things reconciled” (1:16, 20)

3. “created through him” = “reconciled through his cross” (1:16, 20).

These similarities suggest to me that Paul is relating the “all things” that are “created” through Christ to his death (cross) and resurrection from the dead. I don’t see anything in this context that would require only the Genesis “creation” to make sense of the language.

Hi Roman,

I understand your explanation. Words like “all things” and “creation” have multiple meanings in scripture, so that makes the interpretation of Colossians 1:15-20 somewhat flexible.

Roman,

The “explicit” argument doesn’t work in Paul’s writings because there are at least two different “creation” reference in Paul. There is the “creation of the world” (Romans 1:18) and there is the “new creation in Christ” (2 Corinthians 5:17-19; Galatians 6:15).

Thus, I don’t think insisting that “creation” in Colossians 1:15 must refer to the time of Genesis is a reasonable argument. In fact, “all creation under heaven” in Colossians 1:23 cannot be referring to anything other than the people to whom Paul preached the gospel after the resurrection of Jesus.

There are really only two questions that matter in relation to the subject issue:

1. Do we *know* that a spirit being *can’t* be miraculously transformed into a human being?

Answer: No

2. Does the Bible teach that spirit being was miraculously transformed into a human being?

Answer: Yes

That’s enough for me. I think that to deny the miraculous is to deny biblical Christianity itself.

“Before we know whether some act X can be performed by God miraculously, we have to know what act X means.”

David,

forgive me for intruding in your exchange. The “act X” that you speak about is the virgin conception/birth. All the biblical “ingredients” are there.

“And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore [Grk. dio kai] the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.” (Luke 1:35)

As I have already commented at podcast 99, Jesus, truly man (because of his maternal heritage), is also truly God, NOT because he is the “second person of the trinity” (a political play on words), NOT because he is “eternally generated by the Father” (an Origenian clever trick conveniently recycled in the doctrine of the “trinity”), [NOT even because he is a pre-existent “spirit being that was miraculously transformed into a human being”] BUT because he truly is the “one-begotten” of the Father, the Incarnated Word of the God ( John 1:14), conceived by the power of the Father’s Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin Mary.

David,

excuse me, but why did you inquire with Sean, “Before we know whether some act X can be performed by God miraculously, we have to know what act X means”, if you knew perfectly well that “Sean thinks that Jesus existed before he was born, having a personality, memory etc.”? BTW, I made it clear enough that I disagree not only with “pre-existence”, but also with “eternal generation”, not to mention the full-fledged (co-equal, co-eternal, tri-personal) “trinity”.

“No I do not know what Sean means until he tells me”

I think you do, and I’m way too busy for these sorts of games.

Take care,
~Sean

“Actually I don’t think the Bible does says anywhere that a heavenly spirit
being became a human being
I did ask you where it says so, and no answer from you.
Only one conclusion is possible from that I think.”

That last sentence exemplifies perfectly why I refuse to engage in extended dialogue with Unitarians about preexistence. Not only are you folks *determined* not to see preexistence in places where it’s really unmistakable, but you just can’t resist the explicit or implicit jabs. Let me give you a bit of advice: If you Unitarians want to attract more members to your congregations, then stop the obnoxious apologetic games. The way you folks have treated me here over the past year or so (except for Dale, John, and Jaco), is such that even if I thought you were onto something, I’d never join your church.

I have, in fact, explained on this forum, several times, why GJohn can only be properly understood as a document that teaches the preexistence of the Son of God. Unitarian explanations for verses like John 17:5 and John 8:58 simply aren’t compelling. Even James D.G. Dunn, who is quoted more than any other contemporary scholar by Unitarians because of his controversial views of preexistence in certain Pauline texts, admits that preexistence is at the very heart of GJohn. He would say that such was the product of the Evangelist’s innovative mind, while I would say that there is continuity between the Pauline writings on this point and GJohn.

See: http://kazesland.blogspot.com/2015/06/before-abraham-was.html

“I also asked you what you mean by same. Is the criterion continuity
of memory, as in, say, Kafka;s Metamorphosis (when a man wakes up to
find himself a giant centipede)?…Again no answer from you.
Conclusion, you don’t know what you mean by a heavenly spirit being becoming a human being.”

I know as much about what it means for a heavenly being to become a human being as you know about what it means for God to be eternal. Both of the following statements are perfectly clear in what they are saying, but perfectly unintelligible to us:

1. God existed before time existed.

2. A heavenly being became a human being.

Neither of these statements are fully intelligible to us, yet we have no reason, as far as I’m concerned, to doubt either one of them.

“So if you don’t know what you mean by something, it is pointless to claim it is true isn’t it?”

Firstly, you are reversing my statement. I didn’t say that we can prove that God could miraculously cause a spirit being to become a human being. I said that we can’t prove that God can NOT miraculously transform a heavenly being into a human being. Do you understand the difference? If so, then why are you contorting my comments into something else? Apologetic games? Probably, yes?

Secondly, I know what the sentence “God existed before time existed” means, just as I know what the sentence “A heavenly being became a human being” means, but I don’t understand much beyond that, nor do you. Should I reject the notion that God is eternal because I find the deeper questions that such a proposition involves unintelligible? If so, then all Christians would have to reject God’s eternality. You’re not going to get very far with such recommendations.

~Sean

“Now if the Bible actually said that ‘a heavenly person became a human
person’ I suppose one would have to accept it. But John 8:58 does not
actually say that, and is capable of different plausible
interpretations. Likewise 17:5.”

On the contrary, I have yet to see a plausible interpretation of John 8:58 or John 17:5 that allows one to escape the conclusion that those texts teach the real personal preexistence of God’s Son.

“And would the resulting person really be human, or a heavenly mind inside a human body?”

I would assume that the heavenly mind can function as the human mind without violating the modus operandi of either the one or the other.

Otherwise the incarnation is an impossiblity, and that can’t be true can it? At least from my point of view or my understanding of the bible.

David Kemball-Cook,
For the record, we’ve also discussed why Sean’s interpretation of John 8:58 is critically flawed in numerous respects. I think he refuses to acknowledge the evidence against his ideas because he’s “determined” to see preexistence and incarnation in the 4th Gospel.

Let me give you fair warning: River’s argument against McKay hangs on several highly dubious propositions:

1. That the most respected Greek Lexicons available today, LSJ and BDAG, don’t define words correctly.

2. That all Greek grammarians (at least virtually all), living and dead, don’t understand how aorist infinitives function.

3. That we can make dogmatic statements about what an author _cannot say_ based on not 50, not 25, not 10, not even 5, but on 3 usages of a common word (PROS), and one of those three usages are found in the subject text itself, which must therefore be set aside, leaving two.

If Rivers wants to assert that all the grammarians are wrong about how aorist infinitives function, then he needs to make his case in the proper way, as I’ve told him previously. He needs to get the sort of training that one needs to make a credible attempt to overturn the prevailing understanding, write his thesis and articles, get them before the proper peers for proper vetting, and then we’ll see what happens.

But Rivers won’t even tell us the name of his thesis, where we can obtain a copy for perusal, or what his thesis advisers thought of it. He also won’t tell us where we can obtain copies of his published articles on the subject, or, if said articles were rejected (probable), what reasons were given by the journal editor(s) for rejecting his submissions.

If one wants to effect a paradigm shift in how Greek is to be understood, then one needs to do it the right way, and arguing with non-specialists on blogs is the wrong way. We have a constellation of highly qualified grammarians with full names, the credentials to give confidence that they know what they’re talking about, and published works that have made it past peer review. Or we have the man with one name, the wrong sorts of credentials for making the particular sort of argument he’s made in relation to McKay credible, and either no published works or none that he has enough confidence in to share with us.

~Sean

David Kemball-Cook,

The underlying problem with Kenneth McKay’s “PPA” interpretation of John 8:58 is that McKay misconstrues the Greek verb GENESQAI to be like a Past tense (mistranslated “was born”). Following from this mistake, he then further miscontrues EGW EIMI to be like a Perfect tense (i.e. “I have been”).

It’s very easy to check all the uses of GENESQAI in the 4th Gospel and to determine that it is not used as a Past tense. The writer of the 4th Gospel always uses this Aorist Infinitive form to signify something that hadn’t yet happened in a particular sequence of historical events.

There are also many uses of EGW EIMI in the 4th Gospel and they always refer to someone who is identifying himself as existing at the Present time (“I am”). There are no examples of any PPA using EIMI anywhere else in the Greek scriptures.

Without a Past tense verb, the PPA interpretation doesn’t work in any passage. Thus, McKay’s attempt to force a PPA interpretation in John 8:58 is implausible. The correct translation of John 8:58 is found in the YLT where it says “Before Abraham’s coming, I am.”

“What sense does it make in any context to affirm your existence before a future event?”

River’s view of the text is simply not possible. We know that GENESQAI must be past tense at John 8:58, because (1) of the context in which the word appears, and (2) because translations based on understanding it to have future tense are (a) non sequiturs, (b) borderline to utter gibberish, and, most importantly, (c) they form responses that would not have had the ability to incite the hostile reaction of Jesus’ opponents.

Just take a look at the entire chapter in which the subject text appears. Jesus opponents were looking for an excuse to kill him, and they let some pretty offensive statements (to them) pass, because in Jewish culture simply being offensive wasn’t a stoning offense. They needed to catch Jesus saying something potentially blasphemous, and “I exist before Abraham is resurrected” not only isn’t blasphemous, but it isn’t even offensive. The only reaction that such a statement could have incited in context is: “Huh?”

As I said before, if River’s wants to assert that the entire constellation of Greek grammarians and linguists — who have full names, full credentials, and vetted published writings — have somehow misconstrued how the aroist infinitive functions, then he needs to obtain the sort of education necessary to be taken seriously among such experts, present his novel views via doctoral thesis and published writings of his own, and let the vetting process do its work. Until he does so, we have more reason to be confident in the understanding of the aorist infinitive offered by the professionals in the field.

“This is the same thing that happens in John 3:3-5 where the answer Jesus
gave to Nicodemus in John 3:5 follows from what Jesus said in John 3:3
(and not from the misinformed question in John 3:4). Nicodemus asked
about a second natural birth because he didn’t understand that Jesus was
talking about being “born of the spirit” (i.e. resurrection life).”

On the contrary, Jesus answer in verse 5 is a direct answer to Nicodemus’ question, as it told him that he had the wrong idea of what being born again meant. Jesus’ answer to Nicodemus, though hard to understand, was not a non sequitur, whereas the non-answer you insist on placing on Jesus’ lips at John 8:58 is a non sequitur. Worse, as I’ve explained, it would not have had the capacity to incite Jesus’ opponents to try and stone him. They would have reacted just as we would today if someone made such an oddball disconnected reply that, unlike Jesus response to Nicodemus, has nothing to do with what was just asked.

This post exemplifies perfectly another reason why I try (not always successfully) to avoid debating preexistence with Unitarians. You guys can look at a statement that everyone else on the planet clearly discerns is absurd, and you claim that it’s not absurd. I don’t have a clue how to reason with someone who can make such delusional statements.

Sean,

You aren’t capable of reasoning on some of the issues here because you haven’t done the research. I don’t recommend that you get involved in debates on this topic either.

Rivers,

you said: “This is simply resurrection language. Jesus was saying the same thing about the resurrection faith of Abraham in John 8:51-58. It has nothing to do with the preexistence of anything, or anyone.”

I think you are simply begging the question here instead of letting the text speak for itself.

you said: “It simply means that something is yet “to happen” or that someone (e.g. Abraham) is yet “to come” or “become” something.”

In relation to the pre-existent Jesus Abraham’s coming in the flesh is something that will happen in the future. There is nothing about his resurrection in this passage. You are shoehorning it in to the text.

“Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day, he saw it and was glad”.

This does not refer to the resurrection but to something that Abraham experienced during his earthly life before the coming of Jesus. This is how the Jews understood it also.

“Thou art not yet fifty years old , and hast thou seen Abraham?”

If Jesus is talking about the resurrection of Abraham their question just doesn’t make sense.

They understood this encounter between Jesus and Abraham to be in the past, not in the future.

Miguel,

The interesting thing about the use of the verbs “to see” and “saw” in this text is that they are often used throughout the 4th Gospel to speak of both vision and of faith in what is unseen (compare John 1:18; John 14:9-10).

This is another reason to consider that Abraham probably meant that Abraham “saw” his day by faith, whereas the unbelieving Jews misunderstood it as a reference to a visible “encounter.”

Miguel,

Here are my thoughts about the “Abraham had a visionary experience” that you are proposing. Let me know how you would answer these issues:

1. The writer of the 4th Gospel and the 3 books used “see” and “saw” about 80 times and I can’t find a single reference to any kind of “visionary experience” associated with his usage of the word. The use of ORAW by the writer of the 4th Gospel is consistently for normal “seeing” (without supernatural assistance) and for “seeing” in the sense of “perceiving” (by normal cognitive understanding).

2. Doesn’t it seem more reasonable to take the other information about Abraham’s faith in “God being able to raise the dead” (Romans 4:17-19; Hebrews 11:17-19) as the explanation for how Jesus would have understood how Abraham “saw” the day of Jesus Christ? The entire conversation that Jesus is having with the Jews in John 8 is about his authority to give life to the dead (John 8:51).

Miguel,

Thanks for the detailed response. Here are my thoughts from an exegetical standpoint:

1. When I was referring to the 80 occurrences, I was taking into account both ORAW and QEOMAI since those are the ones that appear in the 4th Gospel and the John letters (as you noted concerning John 1:34).

2. I’m not too concerned about how “see” or “saw” was used by other biblical writers because there is no evidence that the writer of the 4th Gospel used any word to speak of a “visionary experience.” Thus, when interpreting John 8:56, it isn’t reasonable to suggest that “see” or “saw” was used of a “visionary experience” when the passage makes perfectly good sense if it just means that Abraham “understood” (by faith) that the day of Jesus would come. If the context demanded a “visionary experience”, then it would be appropriate to consider that option.

3. All I’m pointing out in Romans 4:17-19 and Hebrews 11:17-19 is that the apostles understood that Abraham believed that “God could bring the dead back to life” because of the experience he had with Isaac. Since it can be argued that the entire context of John 8:12-58 deals with the resurrection, it seems like this information about Abraham’s belief in the resurrection of the dead would be directly applicable to what is referenced in John 8:56, as well as John 8:58 (“before Abraham’s coming”).

4. Keep in mind, before the writer of Hebrews introduced the long lineage of faithful Israelites in Hebrews 11, he made the statement that “faith is the assurance of things hoped for, and evidence of things not yet seen” (Hebrews 11:1). Perhaps this is what Jesus was expressing about Abraham having “seen” the day (John 8:56) before the time was fulfilled (i.e. without requiring a visionary experience).

Miquel,

I don’t see any indication that John saw a “supernatural” vision in John 1:34. The passage makes perfectly good sense if “see” and “saw” are interpreted as ordinary natural vision. As in John 8:56, since the context doesn’t demand an unusual interpretation of the word, then it’s not likely that a supernatural “visionary experience” is intended to inferred from the grammar.

Miquel,

What is there in the language of John 1:32, 34 that requires a “supernatural vision”? Isn’t it reasonable to simply conclude that John actually “saw” those things with natural eyesight?

Miguel,

I’m just asking you the necessary critical questions. A theory isn’t of much value if it can’t account for the objections.

Miguel,

I understand your viewpoint. But, you haven’t given any evidence from the grammar or context of John 1:32-34 or John 8:56 that requires a supernatural interpretation to explain what John or Abraham “saw.” Simply insisting on your particular viewpoint isn’t answering the objections.

If I was a Trinitarian who kept telling you “the Trinity is right there in John 1:1 and John 8:58 and I’ve shown you the verses” I don’t think you would accept that as an answer to your objections either.

Hi Paul,

I agree with your interpretation of the statement that Jesus made about Abraham in John 8:56. I think this is referring to what the apostles understood about Abraham “believing that God gives life to the dead” (Romans 4:17-19; Hebrews 11:17-19). Yes, this refers to what Abraham believed during his own lifetime.

I understand that you are basing your interpretation of John 8:58 on the statement made by the Jews in John 8:57. However, I think the evidence suggests that the Jews didn’t understand who Jesus was or what he was talking about during the conversation (John 8:27, 43, 47, 53). Thus, I don’t think we should assume that Jesus was giving them a direct answer.

This is why it is so important to translate John 8:58 correctly. Without an accurate translation of the grammar, we aren’t going to be able to see the proper relationship between the statements in John 8:56-58. The popular “before Abraham was born” translation of John 8:58a is certainly not correct.

Hi David Kembell-Cook,

Abraham’s coming in the future would be referring to the resurrection when he would be present in the kingdom along with the other disciples of Jesus (Matthew 8:11). This couldn’t happen until Jesus was born and later given authority to raise the dead (John 17:2).

Something that is often overlooked is that Jesus was saying that the “hour” of the resurrection was already present (John 5:25-29) and that some of those of living in his own generation “will never die” (John 8:51; John 11:25; John 21:21-23). This should be taken into account when considering the resurrection implications in the context of John 8:51-58.

Thus when Jesus said that Abraham “rejoiced to see my day” (John 8:56), it is probably referring to the fact that Abraham’s faith was predicated upon his understanding of resurrection life (Romans 4:17-19; Hebrews 11:17-19). Since Jesus himself was “the resurrection and the life”, it was necessary for Jesus to be present (EGW EIMI) in that day “before” Abraham (who was “dead”, John 8:53) would “yet to come” (GENESQAI) to be with his people.

David Kemball-Cook,

Keep in mind that the language in John 8:58 meant something to the people who received it. Thus, we have to consider all of the evidence and try to come up with the most plausible translation and explanation. Throwing one’s hands up and giving up hope on discerning the meaning of the passage doesn’t help.

Thanks Sean

What is McKay’s view, and his translation?

Thanks Sean
This is interesting.
But I don’t understand what you say here

‘If we accept McKay’s observation that verse 58 is an example of the Extension from Past idiom (and there’s no reason why we shouldn’t), then Jesus’ response (a) makes perfect sense and constitutes an exquisite response in light of the question posed, and (b) would have constituted a stoning offense if untrue’

They took up stones in v59, so would it not have made more sense if it would have constituted a stoning offence if true?

regards

Thanks Miguel
I find this trialogue between you three really interesting.
But it has all been about the Greek which John has used to render Jesus’ words.
What about Jesus’ original Aramaic?

Thanks Sean
But what would Jesus have actually said in the original Aramaic, do you think?

Thanks Sean. But Jesus must have said something which the Jews did not like, unless we are to say that author made up the whole incident.

David Kemball-Cook,

There’s no such thing as “the original Aramaic.” Thus, there’s no reason to speculate about what Jesus might have said in that language. Moreover, the only version of the 4th Gospel we have is in Greek. We might as well work with the text we have.

“But that is a strange position, unless you are going to say that the whole gospel is basically fiction.”

No reputable scholar or historian that I’m aware of says that the whole gospel is fiction. What most experts say, however, is that none of the Gospels, most especially John, is strictly historical. As I said, I’m not committed to that position, but it is the predominant view, even among well-informed Christian scholars.

David Kemball-Cook,

I’m simply pointing out that there is no biblical or conclusive evidence that Jesus or any of the apostles spoke Aramaic. Many scholars speculate about that (based upon external sources), but I take the exegetical evidence at face value which can only lead to the conclusion that Jesus and the apostles spoke the native Hebrew language (Acts 6:1-2) and that most of the NT was transmitted in Greek (except for the one Hebrew version of Matthew).

I don’t have any issue with the words of Jesus being transmitted in Greek. Furthermore, it’s pointless to speculate about what Jesus might have said in Aramaic when there’s no evidence he spoke that dialect (and there’s no Aramaic version of any of the biblical manuscripts we have).

The critical flaw with (…) “Miguel’s” rendering (…) is that [it] lack[s] the ability to incite a stoning. [The] fanciful rendering would have incited nothing more than a perplexed: “Huh?”

What Sean fails to understand all along is that the Jews looked for any “reason” to get rid of Jesus, as the GoJ makes perfectly clear. Jesus, in fact, accuses the Jews of wanting to kill him, worse to be murderers, like their father, the devil. (John 8:37-47)

I think it’s evident that the writer of the 4th Gospel understood that the Jews wanted to stone Jesus Christ because he was “a man, making himself out to be God” (John 10:33)

It is essential to note, though, that Jesus immediately corrects their misconception …

34 Jesus answered, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods’? 35 If those people to whom the word of God came were called ‘gods’ (and the scripture cannot be broken), 36 do you say about the one whom the Father set apart and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?” (John 10:34-36)

Sean, not being a Trinitarian, would be precluded from reading “Son of God” as though it was God-the-Son. So, as he could not, even here, appeal to blasphemy. He would have to resort to another fanciful theory, like this:

“Jesus’ opponents considered Jesus’ claim to be older than Abraham to be a stoning offense because they considered such a claim to be a preposterous lie (=not true). According to the shiliah principle, ‘the agent is as the principal himself’ (legally). For an agent of God to tell a lie while fulfilling his commission as God’s agent would be to make God a liar, because the agent’s words were Gods’ words, legally.”

If fact, if you compare John 10:33 and John 19:7, the language is very similar. This suggests that the Jews understood that “making yourself out to be God” (John 10:33) and “making himself out to be the son of God” (John 19:7) was saying the same thing.

Not so fast! The GoJ shows that the “Jews” (the Jewish leaders) felt most I’ll at ease with the familiarity that Jesus manifested towards their God,

There are certainly many words, in the Hebrew of the OT, to refer to blasphemy (barakh gadhaph, charaph, naqabh, na’ats), but it always involves “dishonor and defiance offered to God” [ISBE] and its penalty is invariably death, death by stoning.

That being said, the “Jews” simply wanted any excuse to get rid of Jesus. His trial by the sanhedrin was a monkey trial.

… “blasphemy” … was the excuse they used to condemn him.

I agree.

Sean,

I agree with you here. The details of the trial accounts show that the personal claim to be “the son of God” was necessary to construe the charge of “blasphemy” and the death sentence (Matthew 26:63-66; Luke 22:66-71; John 19:7).

The Jews would not accept the testimony of God the Father (on behalf of Jesus) because they didn’t believe his words or works (John 8:17-20).

[Rivers] The details of the trial accounts show that the personal claim to be “the son of God” was necessary to construe the charge of “blasphemy” and the death sentence (Matthew 26:63-66; Luke
22:66-71; John 19:7).

[Sean] Jesus’ opponents needed clear testimony against him, and “I am [you fill in the blank]” doesn’t fit that requirement.

Let’s see. So, Jesus’ alleged blasphemy would not so much be that “he claimed to be the Son of God” (John 19:7), but, even more that, according to the Jews, he lied (and therefore he implicitly made God, of whom he claimed to be the representative on earth, a liar) when he said prin abraam genesthai egô eimi (John 8:58), which Sean (following McKay) “translates” as:

“I have been in existence since before Abraham was born.”

In other words, rather than taking the Jews’ question, “You are not yet fifty years old! Have you seen Abraham?” (John 8:57) as a misunderstanding (ingenuous or disingenuous), Sean prefers to think that Jesus has answered affirmatively their question.

“Fascinating” …

Since you’ve chosen not to address the critical point I made …

There is no “critical point” made by you that I have not addressed.

“Rather, the Jews wanted to stone Jesus because he claimed that their “God” was his own “father” in John 8:54.”

That doesn’t work, because they didn’t pick up stones at verse 54.

“OK, If we follow your “logic” in he previous comment, then we’d have to
conclude that Jesus didn’t die for “blasphemy” in John 19:7 because he
wasn’t crucified in the same verse. It’s no wonder you believe in
“preexistent spirit beings.”

Your comment makes no sense at all. I think that you zigged (agreed with me) and now wish you would have zagged (disagreed with me), because the point with which you agreed reveals a critical weakness in the Unitarian position.

They picked up stones in response to what Jesus said at John 8:58. Your position has been so thoroughly exposed as inadequate that you are now forced to argue that they really meant to pick up stones at verse 54, and that it just took them until verse 58 to get around to it, even while continuing to question Jesus, with questions designed to get him to incriminate himself, which questions were really superfluous since they supposedly had what they needed at verse 54.

Even though it seems to everyone else who reads John’s gospel that Jesus’ opponents picked up stones at verse 59 in response to what Jesus said at verse 58, you must now distance yourself from even this obvious element in the narrative.

I think the discussion about John 8:58 is done, finally. Time to move on.

~Sean

“So, once again, what “self-incriminating statement” by Jesus (formally
against the Law) would have ultimately served the purpose of the Jews?”

How many times to I have to answer that question? Agree to disagree if you choose to, but stop asking questions I’ve answered many times already.

~Sean

“By now Sean not only knows, but actively practices ‘cop out'”

Hardly. You’re simply not honest enough to acknowledge that I’ve answered a question that I did in fact answer, in the very blog post which you purport to have read, and here on this forum, several times at least.

It’s not that I’m a “cop out”; it’s that, sadly, you’re an internet troll. It saddens me to see a professed Christian stuck in a perpetual cycle of trollery. How many sheep do you expect to attract with your approach? Unfortunately, the only people who would be attracted to your “teachings” are others who enjoy trollery, and a congregation so constituted would not be an inviting place to visit.

~Sean

“See how Sean’s “logic” works…”

I don’t see a coherent argument anywhere in the 4 musings you offered. I certainly don’t see a rebuttal to the critical problem with your view that has been exposed here, allowing others to see very clearly that your view never gets off the ground.

It’s actually not difficult to explain why Jesus’ opponents would attempt to stone him in one context, be thwarted either by Jesus’ counter argumentation (John 5 and John 10) or other events (John 8), and then resume their efforts to build a case against him. Ironically, that is something that you would have to do in relation to your view as much as I or anyone else would have to do in relation to ours.

1. Yes, Jesus said words that they felt constituted and offense that they could use to ostensibly justify killing him. This would have to be true for any interpretation of the account that simply follows the narrative.

2. Why, in your historical reconstruction, did Jesus’ opponents leave him alone in John 9 when, according to you, he uttered what they would have taken to be a stoning offense in John 8? This isn’t a historical puzzle for me; it’s a historical puzzle for everyone, and it’s ultimately not that puzzling. It’s actually easy to explain, which is why it’s humorous to watch you try and make it a decisive point against me with these little observations.

3. You act as though it is merely according to my logic that Jesus’ opponents seek to get him to tell them “plainly” who he claims to be at John 10, and you assert that they therefore must have forgotten what he said at John 8:58. Once again, this isn’t a difficult problem to solve, but it is one that YOU ALSO have to deal with, because, according to your interpretation of John 8:58, Jesus uttered words there that they felt constituted a stoning offense. In your “logic” they must have forgotten that Jesus offered a hyper-elliptical statement at Jn 8 which already constituted a stoning offense for them.

4. They wanted him dead before the most lamentable conference in human history occurred, and it certainly isn’t a problem for my view that they tried to use any and every excuse possible to get rid of him along the way. Just take a look at their three-fold reason plus 1 offered to pilot, which omitted Jesus’ supposed claim to be “equal with God” (5:19) and to be “a god” (10:30). Their approach was ad hoc.

~Sean

Interesting why of selecting “bits” to respond to, i.e. replying to the first half of a sentence and leaving off the half that qualifies it, then leaving off the part where I pointed out that you have the same issues to deal with that I and anyone else has vis a vis historical puzzles, etc. In the spirit of your “select bits” method of dialogue, I’ll just comment on the following:

Sean: “Yes, Jesus said words that they felt constituted an offense that they could use to ostensibly justify killing him.”

“Miguel”: “All they needed was a legal excuse, even ill founded.”

Sean: You might want to look up the word “ostensibly”, because in your attempt to correct me, you’ve said essentially the same thing I’ve said.

“Miguel”: “Was proclaiming to be the Son of God a capital offense? Was proclaiming to be the Messiah?”

Sean: A claim to be the “Son of God” in context was a claim to be the “Messiah”. The former was just another way of saying the latter in relation to Jesus. There was no law against *being* the Messiah, but it would have been illegal to claim that status for yourself falsely. Obviously Jesus’ opponents were determined to view Jesus’ claim as a false one.

Additionally, as J.C. O’Neill has argued (convincingly, IMO), there may have been a tradition in place that held that God would appoint his Messiah, and so by claiming that status for himself, it was felt that Jesus was usurping a prerogative that only belonged to God.

“Miguel”: Was being (mis)understood as saying that he “existed before Abraham”?

As I pointed out to Dale a while back, you can’t say that they misunderstood Jesus, because their inference that Jesus existed as a real person before Abraham came to be is a logical one based on Jesus’ words. Jesus said:

“Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.”

So the point Jesus statement was *focused* on was that Abraham rejoiced at seeing the day the Messiah would come. However, that statement can legitimately imply that Jesus existed before Abraham. I can almost hear Jesus’ opponents reasoning:

“Wait a minute, did he just say that Abraham rejoiced at seeing his day? How could he possibly know that unless he witnessed Abraham’s rejoicing first hand?”

So then the *question* (not the assertion):

“You are not yet fifty years old,” they said to him, “and you have seen Abraham?”

Jesus blows them away by confirming their inference, and that was viewed as a preposterous lie. For an agent of God to lie while fulfilling his commission would be equivalent to making God a liar, because the agent’s words were God’s words, legally.

“Miguel”: “Was being (mis)understood as saying that he “existed before Abraham”? The first has no foundation in the OT. The second certainly isn’t: at most, one’s failure as Messiah would prove, retrospectively, that one was a false Messiah. The last one was unbeareable to the Jews because they prided themselves in being “seed of Abraham”.

Sean: It would only be unbearable if the inference that Jesus’ must have been claiming to have existed since before Abraham was born was (a) genuinely conceived (b) confirmed by Jesus’ subsequent reply.

~Sean

Sean: “You might want to look up the word “ostensibly”, because in your
attempt to correct me, you’ve said essentially the same thing I’ve said.”

“Miguel”: “On the contrary, you may want to take note of the expression “a legal excuse, even ill founded”. It was a monkey trial, and they had the
(effective) power to carry it out.”

LOL — More later, but I found that comment so humorous that I couldn’t wait to reply! Ahem, “Miguel”, a trial in which the prosecutors are only concerned with “ostensibly” justifying their objective IS a “monkey trial”.

You either didn’t take the time to look up “ostensibly” or you didn’t understand the meaning in this context:-) Too funny.

~Sean

“So, what? The difference between what you say and what I say is that the Jews had to have a charge against Jesus that at least formally was impeccable. I say that in a monkey trial, all you need is “a legal excuse, even ill founded”. Surely you can appreciate the difference between “formally impeccable” and “even ill founded”… If, in fact you are also saying that they didn’t really need an impeccable charge (“at least formally”), then I really do not understand why you put so much stock by Jesus’ reply at John 8:58 amounting to a blasphemy.”

LOL — This is just what I needed to get my morning off to a good start:-) You are so determined to disagree with everything I say that you are now seeking for distinctions that one must strain at a gnat to even see!

So the only difference, it would seem, between your view and mine is one of degree (possibly). For you, any old legal excuse would do, even one so ill founded that everyone could see through it, whereas I believe that the legal excuse had to at least appear justifiable.

Why is your view inadequate, IMO? As I’ve explained here recently, to Roman I think, the people held Jesus to be a prophet, and Jesus’ opponents would have feared that if they killed him for no ostensibly justifiable reason amid the crowds, there would probably be a riot and their own lives would then be in danger.

Jesus would not be the only one to parish on a day that they’d stone him in the midst of his followers for a crime that everyone could plainly see was ill founded. Moreover, once the riot broke out and killings committed, the Roman authorities would have had to step in and investigate, and who knows what new troubles that could bring down upon them.

~Sean

“Poor Sean must have really invested an awful lot in McKay’s “exquisite translation”, intellectually and emotionally … :)”

Awe, now you’ve resorted to taunting as a form of Christian “argument”. How…..predictable. Either you’re a troll, or you felt the power of the question, and now you’re trying to deal with the cognitive dissonance one experiences when one realizes deep down that a view they disdain is actually mighty compelling.

~Sean

Let’s look at the relevant verses of John 8:

56 Your father Abraham was overjoyed to see my day, and he saw it and was glad.” 57 Then the Judeans replied, “You are not yet fifty years old! Have you seen Abraham?” 58 Jesus said to them, “I tell you the solemn truth, before Abraham was, I am!” (John 8:56-58)

The critical phrase is [Greek] prin abraam genesthai egô eimi and, even more specifically, the phrase prin abraam genesthai.

Now, genesthai is the Second Aorist – Middle Deponent – Infinitive form of gi[g]nomai, which has a very broad spectrum of meanings (see Liddel-Scott-Jones Greek Lexicon), the most fundamental of which is “to become” and, only derivatively, “to be [born (absolute sense). Normally, in the sense of “to become”, genesthai is followed by a predicate, which is apparently not the case in John 8:58, so, the Greek phrase prin abraam genesthai is usually understood as though genesthai was actually used in the absolute sense, and consequently translated with something like “before Abraham was [born]”.

But, as I have already written in a comment at “podcast episode 63 – Thomas Belsham and other scholars on John 8:58”, one of the arguments raised by Belsham (A Calm Inquiry Into the Scripture Doctrine Concerning the Person of Christ, § 3, pp. 53-55) is that of double ellipsis.

If, instead of interpreting genesthai as absolute (“to be [born]”), we suppose that genesthai means “to become” (in an elliptical sense to be determined), the key phrase at John 8:58 becomes:

[Lit. Eng.] before Abraham become [ellipsis], I am [ellipsis]

Neither “become”, nor “I am” are, reasonably, used in an absolute sense.

So, there may be an ellipsis associated with each verb.

Unpacking the [double ellipsis], we may have:

“Before Abraham become [father of a multitude (viz. of nations) – Gen 17:5] I am [the Messiah]”

Less obscurely, what Jesus is saying to “the Jews” may be something like this:

“And verily I say, that the time for the accomplishment of what he foresaw is not yet arrived: for before Abram shall be Abraham, i. e. become the father of many nations, according to the import of his name, I am the Christ your Messiah.” (Interpretation and paraphrase of John 8:58 provided at the Theological Repository vol. iv. p. 351, as quoted by Thomas Belsham in A Calm Inquiry Into the Scripture Doctrine Concerning the Person of Christ, p. 54)

To end with, Belsham records that this interpretation of John 8:58 was first proposed by the Polish Socinians (presumably, the Polish Brethren, a non-trinitarian Protestant church that existed in Poland from 1565 to 1658).

One thing that McKay’s view has over that one [Interpretation and paraphrase of John 8:58 provided at the Theological Repository vol. iv. p. 351, as quoted by Thomas Belsham in A Calm Inquiry Into the Scripture Doctrine Concerning the Person of Christ, p. 54] is that his translation forms an exquisite [LOL!] response in context without having to insert 34 words that aren’t in the original text. Obviously Unitarianism requires a non sequitur here, which is why so many bizarre renderings and paraphrases are offered in an effort to avoid the implications of a natural one.

First, McKay “exquisite translation” (alternatively, “superlative English equivalent of what Jesus meant”, always according to Sean) of John 8:58 …

[Jesus said to them] “The truth is, I have been in existence since before Abraham was born!” (see Kenneth McKay, A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek: An Aspectual Approach, 1994, p. 41, 42)

… which, apart from the (arbitrarily) inverted order of words, is very much the same as one of the many proposed by others (Goodspeed, Moffat, Williams, Louw and Nida, etc.) as Sean easily admits in his blog (“Before Abraham was, I…what, exactly?“, June 12, 2015), and also at least one of the standard English translations (NTL).

Second, as I have already argued, Belsham’s essential translation is this …

“Before Abraham become [father of a multitude], I am [the Messiah]”

Which ,as can be easily counted, is exactly 11 words [including the filled-in ellipses], whereas the McKays’ corresponding translation is 10 words.

Third, Sean is evidently very fond of the Latin expression non sequitur, which he uses twice in his comment. Perhaps he should be reminded of what it means, so he is sure to use it appropriately.

non sequitur: a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.

Alternatively, Sean should be so kind as to point out what would be a non sequitur in Belsham’s (and my) argument.

Sure, any reply that has nothing to do with the question asked is by definition a non sequitur. Belsham’s fanciful “paraphrase” is not an answer to the question posed in verse 57.

On the contrary, with its implicit reference to the fact that God’s promise to Abram/Abraham at Gen 17:5 is not fulfilled yet, whereas Jesus, the Messiah, is already there, in front of the Jews, it blows apart their (ingenuous? disingenuous?) misunderstanding and calls their bluff. Thence their violent reaction (John 8:59)

“In his pedantic use of English, obviously Sean doesn’t know that
sometimes the common word order is modified (in English as well as in
Greek and many other languages), for emphasis … :(”

You must have forgotten that I was merely *responding* to your silly assertion that McKay “arbitrarily inverted” the word order. Everyone knows that writers will use non-standard word order for any number of reasons, including emphasis.

You’re all about the fun of the argument, not the truth, it seems to me.

~Sean

Hi Miguel,

I think the view you’ve expressed in your previous comment is reasonable since it correctly captures the future implications of GENESQAI (from the perspective of Jesus, who is speaking of himself in the Present tense, EGW EIMI).

The aorist is “unmarked” and takes its tense significance from context.

I am not sure what “unmarked” is supposed to mean. What is sure, once again, is that genesthai is the Second Aorist – Middle Deponent – Infinitive form of gi[g]nomai.

[1] The reason we can be certain that the writer of the 4th Gospel didn’t
use GENESQAI to refer to something that happened with Abraham in the
Past in John 8:58 is because we can see that the writer used the same
word a half dozen other times to refer to something that was “yet to
happen” as a result of something else. Moreover, this is the way he
always used other Aorist Infinitive verbs throughout his books.I haven’t had the time to check the “half dozen other times” when genesthai would occur in John. In a couple I have found (John 1:12; 3:9) I frankly don’t think that genesthai is used in a future sense. OTOH, in John 5:6 genesthai seems oriented to the future.

The most interesting verse, IMO, is John 14:29, in which not only do we find the infinitive genesthai, but even in the very same construction, prin genesthai as in John 8:58, and with an indisputable future sense.

I know of no qualified translator who would deny that PRIN can occur with GENESTHAI in a context where future tense is involved. That’s like a “well, dah” moment. The aorist is unmarked and can be used with past and future tense. I thought everyone knew that, and so I’m a little surprised to see you congratulating yourself for having “discovered” it at John 14:29.

If you had read carefully, you would have realized that far from any “discovery” and “self-congratulation”, I have drastically reduced the scope of Rivers’ statement whereby “[t]he reason we can be certain that the writer of the 4th Gospel didn’t use GENESQAI to refer to something that happened with Abraham in the Past in John 8:58 is because we can see that the writer used the same word a half dozen other times to refer to something that was ‘yet to happen’.”

Read better, read again, before you make a fool of yourself. 🙁

Let me point out the sense in which the Aorist Infinitive is used like a future aspect in passages like John 1:12 and John 3:9.

Sorry, Roman, but I find your explanations unconvincing.

For John 1:12, because, following your logic, as “to become” always involves a change, we should say that genesthai always expresses a “future sense”, whatever the context.

In John 3:9, contrary to the the prevalent use, I believe that genesthai does NOT mean “become”, BUT “come to be”, “happen” (absolute sense) …

Nicodemus replied, “How can these things happen?” (John 3:9)

… where “these things” (tauta) refers to what happens “with everyone who is born of the Spirit”, as Jesus has just explained to the puzzled Nicodemus.

“Thus, most scholars reject McKay’s idea because there is no exegetical
merit to it, and it doesn’t take into account the “context” established
by how the writer of the 4th Gospel actually used his own language.”

My Trinitarian friend was right when he warned to look out for the “spin”, because if that’s not “spin” then there is no “spin”.

What you dishonestly left out is *crucial* to the point at hand: Most scholars (all but one dead one?) reject your notion that GENESQAI is future tense at John 8:58, and if it’s past tense then McKay’s argument stands, as many experts have observed and corroborated.

~Sean

Kenneth McKay’s attempt to propose a PPA interpretation of John 8:58 by forcing GENESQAI to be a Past tense (“was born”) and EGW EIMI to be a Perfect tense (“I have been”) is a prime example of bad exegesis and irresponsible scholarship.

Even more problematic, in IMO, is Kenneth McKay’s attempt to force both gi[g]nomai and eimi to be understood in an absolute sense (respectively, “Abraham was born” “I have been in existence”), whereas, normally, both verbs are used with a predicate. The rest of the faulty translation follows, under lofty pretense of A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek.

And yes, of course, all that jazz is a rationalization for “the ‘pre-existent spirit being’ nonsense”.

These are other apparent reasons that “before Abraham was born” is the wrong translation of PRIN ABRAAM with GENESQAI (Aorist Middle Infinitive).

I find Belsham’s theory of the “double ellipsis” (“Before Abraham become [father of a multitude – Gen 17:5] I am [the Messiah]”) the most convincing, because, in spite of the heavy assumption one has to make (Jesus’ speech was deliberately and twice elliptical), it ties in nicely with the response that Jesus gives, in the GoJ, to other instances of (genuine or pretended) misunderstanding.

It’s is fair to say, though, that Belsham’s favourite hypotheis is that Jesus actually referred to his own “pre-existence”, NOT actual, BUT only in the mind and purpose of God.

“Yes, this looks plausible…I will check out #63…But still, your explanation, even if plausible, is only one amongst other possible ones”

No it’s not “plausible”, not by a long-shot!

“So does not my point remain, that it would be dangerous to try to prove any doctrine from this one verse?”

It’s certainly dangerous to listen to Rivers and “Miguel”, as they are desperate to avoid an inference to preexistence and they’re leading others astray with their faulty arguments.

So Jesus said this:

“Before Abraham become, I am”

And really meant this:

“And verily I say, that the time for the accomplishment of what he foresaw is not yet arrived: for before Abram shall be Abraham, i. e. become the father of many nations, according to the import of his name, I am the Christ your Messiah.”

You find that “plausible”? Do you really think that that’s what Jesus’ opponents inferred?

Remember, as I said in a previous post:

5. Jesus opponents never attempted to stone him for merely saying something unintelligible, confusing, or ungrammatical. They even pressed him to declare *clearly* who he claimed to be, precisely because they needed *clear* testimony against him to justify their intent before the people, who held him to be a prophet. Each time they tried to kill him it was because he said something that could be construed so as to ostensibly justify their evil designs.

6. Moreover, in all other such contexts Jesus responded directly to their questions. Why assume that Jesus would ignore them and make an unrelated statement of his own in response — or, rather, in non-response — to this one question (vs 57)?

And I’ll repeat the question you have chosen to not to answer yet:

So John 8:58 (a) has the elements of a PPA, (b) a rendering based on
that idiom forms an exquisite reply in context, and (c) the statement so
rendered would have constituted a stoning offense if untrue.

Let me ask you something: What are the odds that these required pieces
could fall so perfectly into place yet McKay’s understanding still be false? That would be the granddaddy of all ironies, would it not?

~Sean

“We have the evidence from John’s text that, in their exchange with
Jesus, the Jews either deliberately or obtusely equivocated Jesus’
words.

[56] Jesus was referring to Abraham “seeing” the “day” of the Messiah, NOT the other way round.”

You give some evidence of having read my blog post on John 8:58, but then you proceed to offer an argument that ignores the fact that I addressed this point. As I pointed out in that post, and previously here:

“Jesus’ opponents inferred from his statement in verse 56 that Jesus had
personally observed (first hand) Abraham rejoice over seeing his day.”

Since their inference is a possible logical conclusion based on what Jesus said, you don’t know that they misconstrued him. If you put yourself in their place you can follow their train of thought quite easily: “Wait a minute, did he just say that Abraham rejoiced at seeing his day? How could he know that unless he personally witnessed Abraham rejoicing? Is that what he means?”, then the *question* (not the *assertion*):

“You are not yet fifty years old,” they said to him, “and you have seen Abraham?”

Jesus responds with words that blow them away as they confirm that they read him right, and there was no way they would believe him, so they took up stones.

“[57] The Jews appeared to misunderstand Jesus, as though Jesus had claimed to have seen Abraham. In good faith? Mmm … In bad faith? Uh hu …”

Since their inference is a logical possibility, and their response was in the form of a question not a counter assertion, I’d say that a direct reply from Jesus was warranted, not the sort of absurd non sequitur that you and Rivers are determined to place on his lips.

“[58] Jesus gave a reply that incensed the Jews because he affirmed that,
while God’s promise at Gen 17:5 wasn’t quite fulfilled yet, he, Jesus
was the very person that Abraham was “overjoyed” to “see”: the Messiah.”

This is the primary (not the *only*) problem with Unitarian interpretations: You have to import dozens of words that are not in the text in an (unsuccessful) effort to twist Jesus’ words into a reply that comports with Unitarianism.

“Hint: had Abraham “seen” the Messiah in vision?”

Yeah, I addressed that the last time this subject came up.

~Sean

Hi Sean, Miguel, Paul and Rivers
This is all fascinating stuff
I lean towards the ‘before Abram became (Abraham), I am (the Messiah)’
But one thing none of you seem to have addressed is what Jesus would have said in the Aramaic
We do not expect Jesus to have known Greek, not considered PPA, the use of the aorist infinitive of ginomai or any other fine points of Greek grammar (or do we?)
We expect Jesus to have said something in idiomatic Aramaic which caused the Jews to pick up stones.
Is there a PPA in Aramaic?

Thanks Rivers. I hope you see my point, that there is no use debating meanings of John 8:58 which could not have been expressed in Aramaic (or Hebrew).

Hi Rivers
Well it all depends what we think the author of John was trying to say in the Greek. Which is where we came in!
I am with Miguel (and you?) in thinking Jesus was saying something like
‘before Abraham became (the receiver of the promise), I am (timelessly) the Messiah in the plan of God’
In other words Abraham rejoiced to see my day because he could look forward to my coming,
But my Hebrew is so rusty (euphemism for ‘forgotten almost all of what I learned’) that I could not translate.

Thanks Miguel
How do we know the genesthai is subjunctive?

Thanks Miguel

Maybe I spoke too soon when I said I was with you

I meant that an interpretation avoiding pre-existence is preferable from my POV. But I am willing to be convinced otherwise.

‘Before Abraham become’ is not correct English, is it?

I don’t understand where this ‘subjunctive’ comes from, and you have not answered my question.
There is nothing indefinite or merely possible in Abraham becoming the father of many nations.

regards

Thanks
Yes you are correct, ‘become’ is 3rd person present subjective

http://www.verbix.com/webverbix/English/become.html

But there is no future subjunctive.

Did Belsham think it was?

You did not answer my question. How do we know it is subjunctive?

“I lean towards the ‘before Abram became (Abraham), I am (the Messiah)”

It’s not grammatical, but it supports the personal preexistence of God’s Son.

~Sean

Thanks Miguel.
Yes the evidence for personal pre-existence is thin on the ground.
Moreover there is the problem of what is meant by it. Witness Sean’s refusal to answer that point.
What DOES it mean for a spirit being to turn into a human being?
What criterion makes it the SAME being?
No answer from Sean on that point

Thanks River. I have argued with a few JWs over the years. My main objection to their preexistence position is the same as I make to trinitarians, which is that such a strange hybrid being could not have been a real human being.

For a start, it would have needed two sets of memories, which starts us on the slippery slope that leads to two minds, wills etc. Then this being would have to have a consciousness that decides when it wants to dip into its human mind and when to access its spirit being mind.

But when you ask adherents to explain how all this works, and how this being is nonetheless a real human being, they don’t know what to say.

regards

Yes, I agree with all of that, except to disagree about historical references to the identity of this supposed ‘spirit being’. There are plenty of candidates (Memra, the Word, Wisdom, Michael, the Son of Man), but how to choose between them?

I don’t think there’s any reason to de-humanize LOGOS in John 1:1-2 when the writer plainly said that “the word was flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14) and that they “saw” and “touched” him (1 John 1:1-2).

I suspect your translation of egeneto with “was” at John 1:14 is … er … “motivated”.

In any case, as I seem to remember that you consider the word logos as some sort of “nickname” attributed by the disciples to Jesus, can you explain why we read eh archê ên ho logos, ho logos ên pros ton theon at John 1:1, and, likewise, ho ên ap archês, tên zôên tên aiônion êtis ên pros ton patera (all Imperfect Indicative) at 1 John 1:1-2, whereas we read ho logos sarx egeneto (Aorist Indicative) at John 1:14?

David Kemball-Cook,

No, a “being” and a “person” are the same thing in scripture. There is no vocabulary to distinguish these terms in the either of the biblical languages.

My point is that the writer of the 4th Gospel identified “the word” (LOGOS) with “flesh” in John 1:14 and as something that was “heard” and “seen” and “touched” by the disciples from the beginning (1 John 1:1-2). This language can only be referring to a person who was speaking something during the time the apostles were alive.

David Kemball-Cook,

Yes, I think John 1:14 indicates that “the word” (LOGOS) was a person who lived with the disciples. John 1:1 and John 1:18 indicate that he was a person distinct from God the Father. Revelation 19:13 indicates that “the word of God” was a “name” that belonged to Jesus Christ.

David Kemball-Cook,

It’s not that complicated. The “word” is a metaphor (just like Jesus is called “the light” and “the bread”). Metaphors don’t actually “die”. Jesus was called “the word” because God was “speaking” through him (Hebrews 1:1-2; 1 John 1:1-2).

Miguel,
No, the term resurrection is not a metaphor. People who rose from the dead literally come out of the graves (John 5:25-29; John 11:43-44).

Miquel,

The testimony of the apostles indicates that Jesus was teaching his disciples that the time of the resurrection “now is” (John 5:25-29) and that some of those who were following him (at the time) would “never see death” (John 8:51-52; John 11:25). He made a similar statement in Matthew 16:27-28.

Sean,

Yes, that is a significant difference. I think the inter-textual evidence suggests that the writer of the 4th Gospel used “the beginning” (John 1:1) as merely an allusion to Genesis in a similar way that he used “word” and “light” and “darkness” as metaphorical references to what was happening during the public ministry of Jesus.

In fact, there are eight occurrences of ARXH (translated “the beginning”) in the 4th Gospel and none of them explicitly refer to anything that happened before the time of the Genesis creation. The same is true of the nine times that ARXH occurs in the “John” letters.

Jesus himself spoke of “the beginning” as the time when he was with his disciples (John 6:64; John 8:25; John 15:27; John 16:4) which is consistent with how it is used elsewhere in the other gospel accounts that describe the same historical period (Mark 1:1; Luke 1:2-3; Acts 1:21-22).

David Kemball-Cook,
No, people are not metaphors. Thus, I would not suggest that Jesus is a “metaphorical” person.

I think LOGOS (i.e. a spoken “saying” or “message”) was used to refer to Jesus Christ in the flesh (John 1:14) because he was the embodiment of the truth about eternal life that God sent him to proclaim to the disciples (1 John 1:1-3). In other words, “in the last days, God spoke in a son” (Hebrews 1:2).

David Kemball-Cook,

Yes, “the word (LOGOS) was flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14) is referring to an human being (person). It was the same person (Jesus Christ) who was there “in the beginning” (i.e. of the apostolic ministry) and was “with God” (John 1:1) as a result of being “begotten” through his resurrection and ascension to the be with his Father (John 1:18; John 13:3).

David,

the difference between your understanding and that of Rivers is that you assert a clear, simple and consistent Unitarian (Socinian) position: “Jesus is the Word incarnate, meaning his life incarnates the words, will and plan of God”.

Rivers position on the logos and Jesus, on the other hand, is (probably equally Unitarian-Socinian but) more … er … slippery.

Do you think that Rivers’s view is more or less “slippery” then the view you hold, i.e. that a literal attribute of God became a man?

I have called Rivers’ view “slippery because it is not easy to pin it down. OTOH I have expressed mine quite in detail in an “op-ed” post.

Sean,

No (false), because I don’t think “will” or “plan” or “purpose” is the meaning of LOGOS. I think the use of the term LOGOS with respect to Jesus Christ in the 4th Gospel primarily emphasizes the “declaration” of those things by a particular person (John 4:25).

This is why I don’t think there was any LOGOS before the time of the public ministry of Jesus Christ (John 1:1; 1 John 1:1-2). Jesus is called LOGOS because he was “sent from God” (John 3:2) to proclaim something “new” (John 13:34; 1 John 2:8).

I think what most biblical unitarians are missing is that Jesus associated his “word” (LOGOS) with what God “sent” him to proclaim (John 5:38). Nobody associated this “word” (LOGOS) with Jesus Christ until they actually recognized who he was (John 1:29-34; Matthew 17:5).

Sean,

Revelation 19:13 explictly says that “the word of God” was a “name” for Jesus Christ. Perhaps the writer of the 4th Gospel is identifying Jesus Christ the same way in John 1:1, 14.

(Apparently the only difference between Sean and Rivers is how far back either is willing to push the personal existence of this LOGOS … I wonder if they really agree on all the rest …)

Well, if it is “probable” that “how far back either is willing to push the personal existence of this LOGOS” is the “only difference between Sean and Rivers”, then I wonder what “the rest” would amount to … [:grin:]

I think what most biblical unitarians are missing is that Jesus associated his “word” (LOGOS) with what God “sent” him to proclaim (John 5:38).

Perhaps God had “in mind” what He wanted him to announce quite some time before Jesus actually announced it. Perhaps even before Jesus was born …

Perhaps what God wanted Jesus to announce had even something to do with God’s “will” or “plan” or “purpose” …

My point is simply that there is no LOGOS until Jesus comes to speak the message to the people.

What God “had in mind” existed before Jesus. God’s Mind IS God’s logos.

LOGOS never means “God’s mind” when it is used by the writer of the 4th Gospel.

Logos never means “personal” name when it is used by the writer of the 4th Gospel. You are simply making
up your own definition of the term. I don’t think that’s a good approach.

Thus, the evidence that Jesus Christ was “called” by the “name” of LOGOS (Revelation 19:13) shouldn’t be ignored.

First, I haven’t got neither time nor patience to deal with all you slippery twists and turns. The evidence is there for anyone to see, with enough time and patience to read through the previous steps of our exchange.

Second, it was me who suggested to you to consider Revelation part of Johannine literature. You simply followed suit, first reluctantly, then more and more favorably.

Third, in that verse, for the resurrected and glorified Jesus to be “called” logos tou theou is just third after him being called pistos and al?thinos.

Rivers,

as you make such a big meal of logos being the name (or “name”) of Jesus, you may want to confront my third comment.

Rivers

Thus, if [Jesus?] was being “called” by the “name” of “the word (LOGOS)” of God in Revelation 19:13, then it’s possible that the writer was doing the same thing in John 1:1, 14 and 1 John 1:1.

Who is the “writer”? Have you become an advocate of “John” being one and the same writer for Gospel, Letters and Revelation?

I don’t think the important issue is whether or not people were calling Jesus Christ “the word”.

In the beginning (pun intentional) you started by referring to the disciples as those who would refer to Jesus as the logos, then you referred to the “writer” (of Gospel / Letters / Revelation). Now you speak, vaguely, of “people”? Question for Rivers: who are these “people”?

… I’m trying to demonstrate from the intercontextual evidence that “the word” (LOGOS) is associated with the human Jesus and not a “preexisting” impersonal plan or unidentifiable spirit being.

Why would Jesus be “called” (kekl?tai) logos tou theou (Rev 19:13), other than because, somehow, he was indeed … logos tou theou?

I think “the word of God” is being used metaphorically in Revelation 19:13 just like “the lamb of God.”

Rivers,

let’s go one step at the time. So, “the lamb of God” is a metaphor, that stands for something like “the perfect sacrifice”, right? (Otherwise, please explain what would be the meaning of “the lamb of God”).

Likewise, if “the word of God” is a metaphor, it must stand for something, right?

Homework for Rivers: what does “the word of God” stand for, as a metaphor?

Sean,

Good point. How anyone could look up the 60+ uses of the noun, LOGOS, in the Johannine corpus and think it ever meant “God’s mind” must have lost their own mind as well.

Sean,

I think many biblical unitarians try to force the “memra” idea into John’s use of LOGOS because they need to find some way to sustain the idea that LOGOS can somehow “preexist” without the human (or spirit person) Jesus.

This is also a way that they can try to make their “impersonal plan in the mind of God” definition of LOGOS appear to be consistent with something found in the Hebrew scriptures. Of course, they can also find “memra” associated with LOGOS in scholarly literature to bolster their theory as well.

Sean,

I think there is a critical problem if we try to argue that the writer of the 4th Gospel was trying to make LOGOS “appeal to a variety of people from various backgrounds” because there isn’t any evidence that he intended his Gospel for anyone but the Jews.

For example, it’s often overlooked that there are no “gentiles” even mentioned in the 4th Gospel and both the “Samaritans” and the “Greeks” identified in the book are descendants of Jacob just like the Jews (John 4:9, 12, 20; John 7:35).

Another interesting thing is that the writer of the 4th Gospel doesn’t use the word SOFIA (or SOFOS) in any of his books. I don’t find any particular use of LOGOS in the John books that necessitates the connotation of “wisdom” either.

Roman,

I understand what you’re trying to argue, but, from a forensic (exegetical) standpoint, it’s entirely speculative. Presuppositions about the supposed “influence of Philo” and “intended readers” cannot be substantiated by anything in the text of the 4th Gospel.

The term LOGOS is used 60+ times in the Johannine corpus and it ALWAYS simply refers to a “spoken saying or message” by a living person (usually Jesus himself) or else it is a “name” for Jesus (Revelation 19:13). This means that we don’t need Philo (or 14 other lexical definitions to understand the usage.

It’s always best to allow a pariticular speaker to define his own terminology. There is the potential for many exegetical fallacies when we start speculating about remote influences that cannot be corroborated.

Roman,

It doesn’t logically follow that “striking similarities = background influences.” Thus, without any direct corroboration between Philo and the anonymous writer of the 4th Gospel, it is pointless to speculate about any connection between how each writer used the term. It’s always better to let a writer define the usage of his own language.

I agree that the meaning of words is “flexible”, but the writer of the 4th Gospel doesn’t use LOGOS in multiple ways. It always simply refers to a spoken saying or message (over 40 times in the John books). Thus, it’s unnecessary to try to force any meaning from an external source into the Prologue. It’s not consistent with doing sound exegesis in this case.

Roman,

What you’re saying here is not correct. Speculating about possible “external” influences doesn’t constitute either “evidence” or “context.” It is actually sound exegesis to ignore external sources that have no direct corroboration. Similarity of vocabulary doesn’t mean that two different writers understood the same concepts.

The fact that you and I have different interpretations of “the beginning” and “all things” in the Prologue is a good example of why similarity of language doesn’t mean that you and I use the terms in the same way. 🙂

Roman,

There’s no evidence that LOGOS was referring to a “divine being.” The writer of the 4th Gospel plainly said “the word (LOGOS) was flesh” (John 1:14). It was the human Jesus who was “making himself equal with God” (John 5:18; John 10:33).

Also, there is no word for “created” in John 1:3 where it refers to “all things.” The verb GINOMAI means that something “happens” or is “realized” (John 1:17). The “all things” the writer is talking about were given to the human Jesus to disclose to his disciples during his public ministry (John 3:35; John 4:25; John 15:15).

I don’t think isolating John 1:1-3 from the rest of the context of the 4th Gospel in order to believe in a “preexisting divine god-being” who supposedly created the universe (and then trying to solicit uncorroborated external sources to try to justify this idea) is a good approach. It’s better to derive the meaning from analyzing the way the writer used his own language.

Why insist on the literal reference to Genesis, as opposed to a typological application of Genesis themes to the ministry of Jesus? The whole Fourth Gospel and especially the Prologue is saturated with typological patterns, not retrospective revisionism.

Your answer amounts to:”it’s just so.” Moreover its being a Prologue and not an epilogue or summation is a non sequitur. There is rich metaphor and typology in the rest of the Prologue.

I get that, but you don’t assume typology or analogy apriori, you have to argue for it, and argue why it’s more plausable than a regular plain reading.

A hyper-literalist reading of John is a violation of the mystical/archetypal/typological genre which he employed.

Jaco,

perhaps you should consider that the Gospel of John, in spite of its idiosyncratic traits, is also a narration of Jesus’ life, of its origin and of its “happy end”. The factual narration is not (necessarily) in conflict with the “mystical/archetypal/typological genre” to which the author(s) amply resorted.

The risk of Gnosticism (or “gnosticism”) is always present, if one resorts to a hyper-literary reading.

I think the other end of a hyper-literalist reading would be a purely mythical reading.

Jaco,

I also thought of the “mythical reading”, but then, melius re perpensa, I deliberately chose Gnosticism as the polar opposite, because there is more symmetry.

Hyper-literalism is the stronghold of fundies (who believe in the reality behind the narration). Likewise Gnosticism assumes the reality behind the narration, just of a very different kind. It is no coincidence that the GoJ was the favourite of most Gnostics.

Sure, but the question is what does “Divine origin” mean?
Everyone can argue that Jesus is of Divine origin from me, to socinians, to trinitarians to even Muslims.
When you say “spoken Word” of God, that’s an assumption, I think he’s expecting his listeners to think of the ideas which are paralleled in Philo, also Adam was not the begining of creation … not at all, InFact he was the last of creation, Jesus was the one through which all Things were created.

I have no problem With typology, it just has to be based on the actual text and not on what one is Reading inbetween the lines.
THroughout John Jesus makes it Clear that he comes from above, that he will ascend just as he descended, I think the prologue is saying where Jesus is from, that he is the Logos through which all Things were created.
We have to start from what the text actually says, and then move on to what it might mean, and if you want to argue a typology that’s fine, but it must be based on what the text says.
I think my Reading is simply more faithful to the text and to the historical jewish context, I think it’s how the prologue would have been understood and read by most first Century Jews.

Philo talked about the Logos as being an actual person, an archangel, the first born, the first created being through which all other things were created … NOT some personified word of God.

When the new testament says creation, we should assume it means creation, UNLESS we have some other reason to believe it’s not actually creation, we should only assume it means new creation if it says new creation or we have ample evidence that it actually means new creation.

It’s not that Jesus is from God, it’s that he descended, just as he ascended, he came down from heaven, he’s not from God in the same way we are from God in a certain way, he descended, he came down, we didn’t.

Typology can’t just be assuemed, it has to be argued for.

Jaco,

Good points. I agree that some of the “descended from heaven” texts in the 4th Gospel seem difficult but there is sufficient evidence that such language was typically used without inferring anything about Preexistence or Incarnation.

Miguel,

Incarnation properly means “God took on human flesh” and Preexistence properly means that “Jesus Christ was a person prior to his human birth.”

Miguel,
It doesn’t matter how Latin speaking people interpreted John 1:14. The Koine Greek grammar infers nothing about Incarnation or transformation. Thus, it shouldn’t be translated into modern English with any connotations of that sort.

The best translation of John 1:14 is “the word was flesh and dwelt among us.” This is also supported by the similar testimony the writer gave in 1 John 1:1 where he said that “the word (LOGOS) of life” was what that they “heard” (spoken word) and “saw” and “touched” (flesh). He was the human “son” of God the Father (1 John 1:3).

Miguel,

Translating John 1:14 as “the word became flesh and dwelt among us” is a poor translation because it isn’t consistent with English usage. Ordinary people who speak English never say that anyone or anything “became flesh.”

Good translations not only use the correct words to represent both languages but also render the translation of the original language with an expression that is meaning and consistent with the usage of the modern language.

Miguel,

Keep in mind, a lot of people think it is “idiotic” when someone makes up his own definition of LOGOS (as an impersonal “attribute” of God) and then claims that the Greek in John 1:14 supports his theory that this abstraction turned into an human being so “it” could live with people.

Anyone with a concordance can easily verify that EGENETO is often translated “was” in scripture because that is all that is needed to convey the sense of passages like John 1:14 into the English language.

Miguel,

1. Translating John 1:14 as “the word was flesh and dwelt among us” is an excellent translation of the Greek text into English. However, you can use whatever translation you like. It’s not my responsibility to convince you of anything. There are plenty of other options.

2. I’ve always said that the noun LOGOS means a “spoken” saying or message. That is how the writer of the 4th Gospel always used it. I haven’t waivered on the meaning of the biblical usage at all. I think you are so anxious to ridicule what others have to say that you don’t even read their comments.

3. I know biblical Greek far better than you do. There’s nothing about “an essential divine attribute transforming into an human being” in John 1:14. Any other Greek scholar will tell you the same thing. LOGOS occurs hundreds of times in the Greek scriptures and never means “attribute.”

Miguel,

Yes, the definition of LOGOS is very simple. It means a spoken “saying” or “message.” It never means an “attribute.”

The reason O LOGOS is applied to Jesus Christ is because “the word of life” was about him (1 John 1:1; John 1:14). Jesus said things about himself like “I am the way, the truth the life” (John 14:6) and “my flesh is the life of the world” (John 6:51).

Miguel,

EGENETO is translated “was” many times in scripture. There isn’t anything “wrong” with using that English word. Please consult a concordance and take some time to research the facts. An “idiot” is someone who keeps putting his foot in his own mouth.

Roman,

1. I agree. EGENETO can be translated at least a half dozen different ways in scripture.

2. I understand that we disagree on the implications of EGENETO in John 1:14. However, in the semantics of biblical Greek, one could speak of “flesh” appearing in a particular place. There isn’t anything about SARX EGENETO that requires that someone “became” something different. I respect your opinion, but it is an unnecessary interpretation that I don’t think has enough contextual support.

3. That’s OK, it’s good that Miguel, you, and I have different perspectives because it generates discussion. I appreciate the feedback from both of you because it helps me to keep a fresh conversation going on the evidence and an open mind about the different options.

2. Sarx Egeneto, would just mean the flesh apeared, or the flesh became, or the flesh came into being, the flesh would be the subject.
Ho Logos Sarx Egeneto, however is different, the logos is the subject, the sarx is the Object, so you have to translate the egeneto as “became,” had John meant to say the Word appeard as flesh, or in the flesh, he would have had to qualify that in the Language.

Logos Sarx Egeneto, demands that we understand that it is the Sarx that the Logos Egeneto ….
Now we either can put was … which makes no sense because egeneto only means “was” when it is the same as “appeared” or “came into being” or being introduced into a story, and THe Word didn’t appear to the flesh.
Or we can use the normal usage of egeneto which means becomes, then it makes Complete sense.

“Why wouldn’t “the word was flesh” make perfectly good sense in the context of John 1:14-15…”

Why would anyone make such a bizarre comment when speaking of a man who was like all other men in that he was born of a woman and didn’t exist in some other form before he became flesh? The John of River’s theology is a really odd communicator, who feels compelled to alert us that men are “flesh”. Well, duh. Now tell us something that doesn’t go without saying.

~Sean

My problem is With the grammer. The Contex doesn’t really tell us much about it in my opinion.
I don’t think “the Word was flesh” Works gramatically, it’s a missuse of the Word Egeneto.
I know that it’s translated as “was” otherplaces, but in those Places “was” is implying a different meaning.
You can use “was” as describing what an Object is, i.e. X was Y as in X had the property Y.
Or you use “was” as declaring that an Object is there, i,e, “X was” as in “at this point in time X was there, X appears in the story” and so on.
Egeneto cannot be used in the former sense unless it includes a transformation, i.e. a change in Place and time. (X comes to be Y) (X becomes Y) or (X appeared as Y).
Egeneto can be used in the latter sense, as well, but in John 1:14 it’s obvious it is not being used in that sense.

Roman,

I disagree. For the contextual reasons I’ve been pointing out, I think it’s more appropriate to translated EGENETO as “was” in John 1:14 because “became” give the wrong implications to an English reader who doesn’t say that anyone or anything “became flesh.”

Why would you ever translate Greek grammar into a literal English coupling that isn’t part of ordinary usage? There are many phrases in biblical Greek that could be translated very literally and make no sense in English. Translators don’t render them in a literalistic fashion because it would be inconsistent with English usage.

John 1:14 is just one of those passages where a unique Greek coupling (SARX EGENETO) that, if translated “became flesh”, ends up in a coupling of English words that has no corresponding usage (other than in the narrow context of Incarnation theology that was later expressed in Latin and English).

I think it’s better to defer to another option where the unusual combination of the Greek words ends up in a combination of English words (e.g. “was flesh”) that corresponds to ordinary English usage.

Roman,

I agree. But, John 1:14 can be interpreted to mean that “the word” (LOGOS) came (EGENETO) to the disciples from a person (flesh, SARX) who was with them.

The relationship between LOGOS and SARX is not doesn’t infer any ontological origin or transformation. Rather, it can simply refer to the fact that “the word” (LOGOS) was (EGENETO) embodied in a specific person (SARX). This is what the writer explained again in 1 John 1:1.

Another consideration is that biblical Greek had another verb (ALASSW) that was used to speak of an ontological transformation involving flesh (1 Corinthians 15:51-52).

Roman,

There doesn’t have to be a Genetive case and EGENETO doesn’t have to mean “transformation” in John 1:14. I realize that you prefer this translation, but it isn’t necessary or required by anything in the context.

Context is always more important than grammar. Thus, it’s weak to insist on defending a “transformation” when nothing in the context alludes to it.

What Rivers does not (refuses to?) understand is that there is not a single case in the NT (and also in the LXX) where, in a sequence …

Subject (e.g. ? ?????) – verb ??[?]????? – Predicate (e.g. ????)

… the verb ??[?]????? is correctly translated with “to be”.

There’s no worse deaf man than the man who doesn’t want to listen.

Jaco

[Roman] THroughout John Jesus makes it Clear that he comes from above, that he will ascend just as he descended, I think the prologue is saying where Jesus is from, that he is the Logos through which all Things were created.

[Jaco] To come from God does not by default mean a literal departure, travel and arrival from heaven.

I suggest that you consider this. As the well known scholar Raymond E. Brown has remarked, from the NT we derive that two key moments in Jesus’ life are his birth and his resurrection. Now, if you start fussing about whether he really comes from heaven, likewise you will inevitably start fussing about whether there was a real, bodily resurrection, as the Gospels unquestionably depict it, whether Jesus really ascended to heaven, whether he is really seated at the right of the Almighty.

Roman

… what to you mean “coming from heaven”?

1. That Jesus was generated in the womb of the BVM by God’s Holy Spirit (a power, NOT a “person”)

2. That Jesus is the true Son of God, because he was formed according to something essential to God: His logos.

Roman,

Good points.

1. According to you, so was Jesus, to be frank, I so absolutely NO difference between creation and you’re claim of some “literal” begetting of Jesus through Mary, other than a semantic difference.
2. I understand that, but if you interperate teh “logos” as simply meaning something essential to God, then it makes the statement indistinguishable from the statement about the imago dei in substance.

1. So it’s spiritual sperm? If it is physical (which it would have to be to be male DNA) then it’s created by God is it not? The Word became flesh simply means that …. it doesn’t mean LITEREALLY God has sperm which he injected into Mary, which is a very vulger belief and not at all insinuated in scripture.
2. Yeah, but you haven’t argued for it … you just assert it, the same With the Whole “liberal son of God” thing.

1. The information IS physical …. but Mary had an Egg, and even if God made the egg become a Zygote through some non physical mean,s it’s STILL creation ….
2. Well, I’m not going to rummage through the comments of other posts here on trinitites.org to find Your arguments for it …. in my discussion With you made no argument, you simply asserted it.

Roman,

I agree. Defining LOGOS as “an essential attribute of God” is nebulous and not based upon any exegesis. Miquel needs to do better than just making stuff up.

Ok, we’re going in circles here, you’re just claiming something without doing any exegesis or arguing for the position ….

The Word became Flesh ….

1. What’s the definition of a “creature” and why is Jesus not a creature?
2. So what? What’s the implication you’re assuming?

1. So what? That’s still created, all creation was Generated by GOd’s Holy spirit ….
2. As far as I know a Power cannot be described as a God, nor can a Power be With God.
But frankly, like most of Your arguments, it’s totally arbitrary, you’re the one saying that somehow Jesus is not a creature since he was “generated” in the womb … as if that means he wasn’t created … he came to be through God’s Power, that IS creation ….

Jaco,

I think it might be somewhat of an overstatement to say that “the 4th Gospel is fulfilled eschatology” because there are still many references to “the last day” and the unfulfilled events associated with it (e.g. John 5:25-29; John 6:39-44; John 11:24-26; John 21:20-23).

Word’s don’t have Direct translations in English, it’s not that simple, so for example in John 1:6, the Word is Egento, he came to be, that’s what it means, now it doesn’t mean he began to exist, but it does mean he came to be, we know it means something like “appeared” because of the way it’s used.
As for verse 10, the Reading is perfectly understandable, he was in the world, the world came into being through him, and yet the world did not know him.
If the world coming to be means his ressurection, (somehow, even though it’s never used that way in John, and there is absolutely no way the casual 1rst Century Jewish Reader would have understood it that way), then of course they didn’t know him, because the world hadn’t come to be through Jesus yet.
The point is even though the Whole world came into being through Jesus they still did’nt know him, that’s the Clear Reading.

The children disciples become children of God … again, this is normal Language, the same thing Works in English, if I say “I was made” that means I was brought into existance, if I say “I was made a made man” that means I was in existance but made a member of the mafia …. it’s no different. Greek, like English, is not a static langauge.
I can go on and on.

The fact that such a basic Word like Ginomai, is used in different contexts and means different Things doesn’t show anything any more than the fact that the Word “made” can mean different Things, but if I say “the world was made through Jesus” every one immediately knows what I’m saying, the fact that the Word “made” can be used in ways that don’t mean comming into being doesn’t change that.

The question is how would a regular Jewish person read the prologue, given the plain Language, and given the only context that they would have available using the exact same Language that we know about, i.e. Philo’s Logos theology.

Ginomai, does not mean “happen” it means “coming to be”, or “coming into being” or something like that, it can mean both, but like I said, Words don’t have a static definition.
THe world coming to be, or happening, through someone, MEANS creation, the Natural Reading would make one think of that. I mean if I say This house happened through me, or came into being through me, you would obviously be thinking about the building of the house.
It is not fallacious to speculate about what a regular jewish person would think or do.
You HAVE to do that, that’s what exegesis is, exegesis is trying to read the text as someone who the intended Reader would read the text, it’s what all historical exegesis is.
The writer of any text Writes in a way so that his intended audience can understand what he is trying to say, that’s the point, and thats how we do exegesis.
I go back to the use of the Word “communism” you use that term in the way that the intended Reader would undrestand it, if you mean it in a different way you’d use it in a different way, which is why you must understand how the general person within the Group of intended Readers of a text about communism would understand that Word.
The same principles apply to the New testament.

But the thing is John 1:3 says ????? ??’ ????? ???????, ??? ????? ????? ??????? ???? ??. ? ???????. All Things came into being through him …. All Things happened through him makes no sense, without him one one thing happened also makes no sense, especially in the context of “the Begining,” in the begining all Things were created by God, so saying all Things came into being through the logos makes more sense than any other translation.
I don’t think it is a fallacy to appeal to the intended audience, since that’s who John was writing to. I’m not FORCING any presupposition, I’m using the only context that we have which directly relates, what is the reason you think we should ignore thatn context?
All evidence is theoretical when it comes to the ancient world.

Context … Beginning, like “coming into being” does not have a static meaning, you can’t just look at other uses of “begining” in the gospel and say that it must mean that. Remembe this is all prior to when the Word became flesh and dealt among us. Also how did all Things come into being through the logos while Jesus was With his disciples? How was the logos With God and was God while Jesus was With his disciples.
I think what might help is if you give an actual translation/commentary on what you think the prologue means verse by verse, from John 1:1 to verse 18, and I can do the same.

So it’s kind of like this:

In the begining (of Jesus’ ministry) Jesus was there, and he was with God (Metaphorically) and he was God (because he was God’s son), all the stuff he said and taught us came into being through him, and not one thing that he taught us came into being without him.

then down to verse 14: Jesus was ressurected and dwelt among us, and we say his glory of a fathers only son. John said that he who comes after me ranks ahead of me because he was before me ……

First of all you have a problem with verse 15, it’s clear what the point is there. Then you have a problem with “all things” coming through Jesus being a tautology if those all things don’t actually mean “all things” but rather all the things that Jesus taught. Also saying in the begining of Jesus’ ministry Jesus existed is also a tautology …. The reading just doesn’t fit in my opinion.

1. What’s the point of saying if the beginning was the word of the beginning was Jesus’ baptism?

2. Except they understood him going to God as being literal, I.e. In his presence in heaven, and Jesus was not glorified with God in heaven at his baptism …. He was anointed, that’s not the same as being with God literally.

3. That doesn’t make sense, if all things are the teachings of Jesus, then saying all things came through him is a tautology.

4. So the word becoming flesh isn’t literal, it’s a metaphore? Since he always was “flesh.”

5. Not in the prologue he didn’t … 🙂 I made arguments for why. I.e if it just means what Jesus taught then saying it came into being through him is a toutology.

1. You’re assuming the prologue was a first person point of view statement, on not a kind of … well … prologue, a overview of what is going to happen, John is not saying “in the begining of the ministry of Jesus, which you haven’t read about yet dear Reader, Jesus was there” He’s saying “In the begining” … the Reader would understand that as being THE begining.
2. Then what’s the point of saying “in the begining”??? And then later ther Word became flesh? … This is why I think it would be helpful for you to make a verse by verse commentary of the prologue, it would help to see exactly what John is saying.
3. The Toutology point is this, if in the begining means the begining of Jesus’ ministry, then John is saying “In the begining of Jesus’ Ministry was Jesus,” it makes no sense, it’s nonsensicle statement, it’s a toutology in the sense that it’s like saying “when I ran a Marathon, I was there.”
4. On what basis are you claiming “egeneto” should be simply translated as “was” …? and interpretation based on later verses is not a valid basis, since the interpretation pre-supposes the conclusion you’re making.

There is Method is not a basis for a claim … if you don’t know greek then you’re just going on what People told you, if you know greek you should be able to make a linguistic argument, I know enough koine to know that egeneto doesn’t mean “was.”

Roman,

1. If the Prologue isn’t a first person point of view, what do you think the “we” and “us” refers to in John 1:14-16?

2. It should be any surprise that someone speaking in the first person would say “in the beginning” (John 1:1). For example, Jesus used the first person later when he spoke of being with the apostles “from the beginning” (John 15:27; John 16:4).

3. Thanks for clarifying your “taughtology” concern. I see your point, but I think it’s just a manner of speaking. If the writer and his audience identified “the word” with the human Jesus (John 1:14-15), then it they could have understood something like “in the beginning, was the human Jesus proclaiming the gospel.” This would be consistent with what the writer expressed in 1 John 1:1.

4. EGENETO is translated “was” in John 1:6 where it refers to John the baptizer (with no implications of incarnation). This is one reason it is plausible to translate it “was” in John 1:14 where it simply refers to the fact that the human Jesus came to dwell with the disciples after John the baptizer identified him (John 1:15). There’s nothing in the context that suggests that EGENTO should infer that “the word” had a previous existence in some other form.

Roman,
Thanks for the reply. Here’s how I would respond to your points:

1. Regardless of whether “us” and “we” are taken to be referring to the apostles or “all mankind”, it still remains in the first person because the author is including himself (and there’s no reason to think “all mankind” wrote the book).

2. When you say “he isn’t speaking in the first person, he’s speaking of the big picture”, that makes no sense. Anyone can speak in the first person (literally)and talk about “the big picture” (conceptually). The “big picture” is not a way of identifying the “person” of nouns.

3. I still think you’re confusing yourself with respect to John 1:1 and John 1:14. It makes perfectly good sense that Jesus was there “in the beginning” (of the ministry, John 1:1) and that he was also a man of “flesh” at the same time (John 1:14). There’s nothing in the context or flow of the Prologue that requires John 1:1 and John 1:14 to be separated by any period of time.

4. EGENETO doesn’t literally mean “came to be” (because it is not an Infinitive verb). Thus, you are starting out with the wrong translation of the word. EGENETO means that something “happened” or “resulted” or that someone “came” or “appeared” or “was.”

You are right that EGENETO is not the usual word for “was” (which is HN), but it is often translated “was” because EGENETO simply means that it “happened” that someone appeared in a particular place at a particular time. This is how EGENETO is used of John the baptizer (John 1:6) and Jesus Christ (John 1:14) in the Prologue. There is no implication that either of them experienced any kind of preexistence or incarnation before anyone knew them.

Roman,

1. I understand what you’re trying to say, but it doesn’t hold up. For example, In John 1:14, it would be impossible to argue that Jesus “dwelt among” all mankind or that all mankind “saw” his glory. Moreover, 1 John 1:1-3 indicates that the writer was distinguishing this personal experience with Jesus Christ from that of his readers who had never even seen Jesus Christ.

2. OK, your “we are all searching for truth” illustration would work in John 1:17, but not in John 1:14. Thus, you have to take into account that the first person writer of the 4th Gospel is not the same as “all mankind.” John 21:24 also explicitly attributes “who wrote these things” to one person. The terms “we” and “us” are not always used in an absolute sense. It depends upon the context.

3. John 1:14 doesn’t have to be translated “became flesh.” Thus, I don’t agree with the implications that you are suggesting based upon a misleading English translation. The Greek text can also be translated “was flesh” or “came flesh” without any implications of preexistence or incarnation.

4. Yes. All EGENETO suggests is that both John the baptizer (John 1:6) and Jesus Christ (John 1:14) were unknown to the disciples until they appeared in the wilderness preaching the gospel. That is why Mark 1:1 identifies the time of their appearing as “the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ.” The Prologue is describing the same historical events.

Roman,

1. I don’t think “dwelling among mankind” fits the context of John 1:14-15 or the further explanation of the same circumstances in John 1:29-43. It’s more likely that the “we” and “us” refers specifically to the writer himself and the other disciples who were witnesses of the resurrection of Jesus (John 21).

Even if you argue that “all” refers to a larger audience in John 1:16 (which I acknowledged is certainly plausible), you still have to show that it is necessary in John 1:14 where the circumstances are different. If you read the similar language in 1 John 1:2-3, it’s also evident that the writer used “we” to distinguish himself from the “you” to whom he is writing.

2. Yes, I agree. However, there are dozens of other uses of “we” and “us” throughout the 4th Gospel that can’t possibly refer to “all mankind.” Thus, you have to be able to substantiate that “dwelt among us” in John 1:14 requires such a broad first-person inference. This is difficult when it makes perfectly good sense that Jesus Christ simply “dwelt among (the disciples)” while he was on earth.

3. I agree that EGENETO doesn’t connote anything about “nature.” I’m just pointing out that EGENETO SARX can be translated “was flesh” (John 1:14) just like EGENETO ANQRWPOS can be translated “was a man” (John 1:6). The point of John 1:14-15 is simply that the “man” that John the baptizer said was “coming after him” is the one who “dwelt among” the disciples. There’s nothing in the context that requires that Jesus “became” something else at that time.

4. Yes, I completely agree with what you say about the implications of EGENETO. It means that something “happened”, or that a person “came” or “appeared”. However, to translate it “came flesh” or “appeared flesh” isn’t good English (since we would have to have a preposition and/or article between the words). This is why I think “was” is a better literal rendering of EGENETO where no preposition or article is present with SARX.

Roman,
Thanks for the reply. Here are my thoughts:

1. I think “we” and “us” fits the disciples better in John 1:14 because they are the one who knew John the baptizer and heard his proclamation about “the one coming after him” (John 1:15). The disciples were also the one who “saw the glory” of Jesus Christ while he was among them (John 2:11).

2. I don’t agree. There’s a reasonable difference between “we” (disciples) dwelling with Jesus Christ during his earthly ministry and “we” (all believers) receiving what the disciples received. This distinction is delineated in 1 John 1:1-5 where those who “heard” and “saw” and “touched” Jesus Christ did not included everyone who eventually heard the gospel.

3. I don’t understand why you would think that “there was a man named Rivers” and “Rivers was a man” is saying anything different. The phrase “was a man” communicates the same thing in both statements (even if the purpose of the two statements is different).

4. Yes, the reading of John 1:14 as “was flesh” doesn’t not take “preexistence” into account. My point is simply that there’s nothing that requires “preexistence” to make sense of John 1:14-15. The language can simply mean that the time came when the disciples recognized that Jesus Christ was “the lamb of God” John the baptizer spoke about and then they went to “live” with him (John 1:29-43).

Roman,

1. The apostles did have a relationship with John the baptizer (John 1:29-43; Acts 1:21-22) when they met Jesus Christ.

2. I think 1 John 1:1-5 is referring to the same thing as John 1:1-18. The historical context is the same, as well as a lot of the language. Thus, I think it can help us to understand how the writer was using the language in the Prologue.

3. I understand your point. But, “man” and “flesh” are essentially the same thing. John the baptizer and Jesus Christ have that in common as human beings. John was a man of flesh “sent” (John 1:6) and Jesus was a man of flesh who had the message of eternal life (John 1:14). Both of these men “came” (EGENETO) to be with the disciples.

4. What do you think is the significance of “EGENETO in Koine” as far as your perspective is concerned? Please clarify that.

5. I can understand your perspective because you believe in “preexistence” and thus it appears to be a “natural reading” for you. Please understand that, from my perspective, it seems “bizarre” and “awkward” to read “preexistence” into the context of the Prologue when none of the language requires it. Thus, I’m not trying to “get rid of” anything.

Roman,

1. I don’t think the text needs to say “we hung out with John.” It’s evident that the apostles were disciples of John the baptizer (Acts 1:21-22) and that he was the one who introduced them to Jesus Christ (John 1:29-43). That is probably why there is no record of any of the apostles being water baptized after they met Jesus.

2. What I’m trying to point out about “we” and “us” is that it is normally used in scripture to refer to the limited “relevant audience.” It is rarely (if ever) used to speak of “all people” in an absolute sense. Thus, I think it is more reasonable to assume a limited scope in the context of the Prologue which is describing events that only the apostles were a few were “eye witnesses” in the beginning (Luke 1:2-3).

3. I guess we disagree on the implications of EGENETO. It is a term with a wide semantic range.

4. I agree. That’s all I’m trying to say. EGENETO doesn’t connote anything about a “transformation” or “preexistence”. It simply meant that John and Jesus “came” or “appeared” at a particular time and place.

5. Agreed.

But it [? ????? ???? ??????? – John 1:14] doesn’t say Jesus “appeared” at a particlar time, it says he “appeared” as flesh at a particular time.

First, time is not mentioned at all, in John 1:14. It can only be inferred that some “point in time” is referred to.

Second, it is quite improper to translate (or even interpret) ? ????? ???? ??????? with “Jesus appeared as flesh”. The ONLY appropriate translation (in spite of its over-literality) is, “the word became flesh”.

Of course, while Rivers refuses any notion of “transformation”, Roman swears by “preexistence” …

Roman,

1. I think there’s enough in the context of John 1 to suggest that John the baptizer appeared to the disciples because he is associated with them in John 1:15 as well as John 1:29-43. Some of them were John’s own disciples.

2. I agree, but we always have to be careful to give priority to the relevant audience. It isn’t always appropriate to assume that pronouns are universal.

3. I’m not sure what you mean here. Context is part of doing translation. Word usage helps us determine what a particular term probably means in a particular context. These factors work together.

4. OK, but what’s the difference if he “appeared” (or “came”) at a particular time, or “appeared (or “came”) as flesh” at a particular time? The “particular time” is still the same. In the context of the Prologue, I see more evidence the “time” Jesus “appeared as flesh” followed after the ministry of John the baptizer (John 1:15).

Another consideration here is that the details of John 1:14-15 are elaborated extensively in John 1:19-43. Thus, I think we’re likely to find the right explanation of what the writer meant by “the word was flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14) in the historical details that follow immediately after the Prologue (where nothing is explained about any preexistence or incarnation either).

Roman,

1. I think John 1:14-15 certainly associated Jesus with John the baptizer and the apostles. The writer is establishing the historical context in which “the word was flesh and dwelt among us.” It followed after John the baptizer announced the “coming” of Jesus (John 1:15). This is no different than what is elaborated further in John 1:27-43.

2. Sometimes pronouns aren’t restricted to a particular audience, but it is VERY difficult to demonstrate that exegetically. We have to be careful about making any assumptions about a “wider audience” when it isn’t necessary to make sense of the normal use of the pronouns in a particular context.

3. One of the most important things we have to do in translation and interpretation is to determine the meaning of the word. Usage and context are always the determining factors. That is why a good exegete provides examples of word usage in order to substantiate a particular meaning and why it is plausible in a particular context. We shouldn’t just define (or redefine) the meaning of a word to suit a theological preference.

4. OK, but you still have to explain in what “sense” Jesus “became flesh.” Even if I accept the misleading translation “became flesh”, I can still argue from the context of John 1:14-15 that the writer simply meant that Jesus “became flesh” (i.e. was manifested to Israel”) at the time that John the baptizer introduced him to the disciples (John 1:15, 31) and Jesus “dwelt among them.”

Thus, it that sense, I could argue that Jesus “became flesh” when he was recognized by the apostles as the “man” John the baptizer was talking about (John 1:27-30). What is the difference between saying that Jesus “became flesh” (John 1:14) or “was manifested in the flesh” (1 Timothy 3:16). Neither term necessitates any Preexistence or Incarnation without support from the context.

Regardless of whether one translates it “became flesh” or “was flesh” or “was made flesh” in John 1:14, the context simply doesn’t require that this language infers anything about Preexistence or Incarnation. Any interpretation that doesn’t have explicit contextual support is very weak (especially when another reasonable explanation does have contextual support).

Hi Roman,

1. I still don’t think making “we” and “us” in John 1:14 include everyone is consistent with the context. For example, the writer speaks of the other believers in the 3rd Person (John 1:12-13). This occurs several times later in the book as well. For example, the “we” and “us” again refer only to “the disciples” who were present with Jesus (John 11:16). Thus, it seems reasonable to think that the First Person “we” and “us” are not inclusive of “all” the church.

2. I have no difficultly with the distinction between the summary information in the Prologue and the further development of the details of the story throughout the rest of the book. However, I don’t think this warrants dismissing the details from John 1:27-43 as if they aren’t referring to the same historical events in John 1:6-9 and John 1:14-15.

3. Another reason I don’t think the “we” and “us” in John 1:14 can be referring to anyone other than the writer and the apostles is because the writer says that they “saw” the “glory” of the “begotten” (risen) Jesus. Later in the book, Jesus referred to this again when he was specifically praying about those disciples (John 17:24).

4. EGENTO is often translated “was” so there is no problem with that option. It makes better sense in John 1:14 because “the word became flesh” is nonsense in English. Nobody speaks of anything that “became flesh” (except theologians who invented Preexistence and Incarnation long after the text was written in Greek).

5. I don’t have to interchange “the word was flesh” into “the word was manifested to Israel” in John 1:14. I was just trying to point out how “manifest” is not a word used for “birth” or “transformation” in scripture. There no reason to interpret John 1:14 or 1 Timothy 3:16 as referring to the “birth” of Jesus Christ when “manifest” and “flesh” were simply used to refer to the public appearances of the adult Jesus (John 1:31; John 6:51-58; John 17:6; John 21:1, 14).

6. The writer isn’t “misleading” anyone. It is the translation of John 1:14 as “became flesh” that is misleading. In biblical Greek, to say that some “was flesh” (John 1:14) or “manifested” (John 1:31; 1 Timothy 3:16) means nothing more than that a human being “appeared” at a particular time. Neither EGENETO or FANEROW connote anything about the “birth” or “origin” of a person.

Hi Roman,

No problem. Every one should consider the evidence for himself and make up his own mind. I appreciate the cordial conversation this week. Have a great weekend.

Miguel,

Here are some comments to help clarify some of the misrepresentations and misunderstandings in your previous comment.

1. MONOGENHS doesn’t mean “risen.” The term means “only child.” It was used of Jesus Christ after the resurrection because he became he was “appointed heir of all things” by God the Father (Hebrews 1:2).

2. The term “manifest” (FANEROW) is never used in biblical Greek to refer to someone being born. John the baptizer and the disciples used it to refer to the time when Jesus Christ began his public ministry (John 1:31; 1 John 1:2). They also used it to speak of Jesus when he was with them after his resurrection (John 21:1, 14).

Paul used it the same way in 1 Timothy 3:16 when he referred to the same historical circumstances.

3. John 6:51-58 uses “bread” and “eating” figuratively. However, the word “flesh” is not a metaphor in that context. When Jesus refers to “my flesh”, he is literally referring to himself. Likewise, in John 1:14, the writer is also using “flesh” to refer to Jesus himself.

Miguel,

1. If you read my comment in context, I said that MONOGHENS means “only child” and as a term applied to the risen Jesus. Please be more careful about representing my statements accurately.

2. When I was commenting on John 1:14, John 1:31, 1 John 1:2, and 1 Timothy 3:16, I was simply suggesting that these passages using FANEROW (“manifest”) and SARX (“flesh”) seem to be referring to the same historical context in which Jesus came to dwell among his disciples.

3. In the context of John 6:51-58, the terms “bread” and “eat” are being used figuratively, but “flesh” is not. Most interpreters understand this because it is common sense. Jesus is simply comparing himself (“flesh”) to the manna (“bread”) that kept the Israelites from perishing in the wilderness while they were consuming (“eating”) it.

Miguel,

The term MONOGENHS always means an “only child” when it is used in scripture. Of course, an “only child” would also be the only eligible “heir” in a father’s household.

The reason that the apostles used MONGENHS to refer to Jesus Christ after the resurrection is because the rest of “the sons of God” were not going to be redeemed and adopted until the resurrection was to take place at the end of the age (Romans 8:11-23).

Thus, Jesus Christ was the “only begotten son” (John 1:18) at the time the 4th Gospel was written. He was the only man “declared to be the son of God with power by the resurrection of the dead” (Romans 1:3-4) and hence became the sole “heir” of the world that belonged to the Father (Hebrews 1:2). He was literally “the firstborn from among the dead” (Colossians 1:18).

Miguel,

Many figurative sayings incorporate words that retain a literal meaning along with others that are intended to be taken non-literally in the context of whole expression. This is what Jesus is doing with “flesh” and “bread” and “eating” in the context of John 6:51-58.

We know the people understood that Jesus was a man of human “flesh” (John 1:14), but there’s no indication that any “bread” was made of human flesh or that those Jewish people “eat” human flesh. Thus, no interpreter should have difficulty discerning the Jesus is using himself as part of a figurative expression.

Roman,

I amply subscribe to the above, including, in particular, that (as I have already suggested myself) Rivers’ interpretations require considering the hypothesis that John the Evangelist would have resorted to vastly misleading language.

There is a point, though, where both your Greek and your logic simply do not work, most likely due to your presuppositions:

… part of the argument in verse 15 is that Jesus came before John … Had he had a pre-flesh life, that would make Complete sense, had he not, all you’re saying is that John used misleading Language.

You seem to ignore that John is resorting to a word play (paronomasia) which is made possible by the ambiguity of the Greek adjective prôtos.

This is the key sentence repeated by John the Baptist:

ho opisô mou erchomenos emprosthen mou gegonen oti prôtos mou ên (John 1:15, cp. John 1:30)

This is the word by word English translation:

‘The [one] after me coming in front of me has become, because first of me [he] was’

The critical word is, obviously, prôtos, which can have BOTH the meaning of “first in time” AND of “first in rank”. (Incidentally, the English adjective “first” has a similar kind of time/rank ambiguity.)

I suggest that, leaving aside any prejudice of “personal pre-existence”, you consider that this is
what John the Baptist was truly saying:

‘The man who comes after me has passed in front of me, because he was more important than me’ (John 1:15 – cp. John 1:30 – interpreted attributing to prôtos the meaning of “first in rank”)

If you want to argue that protos doesn’t actually mean what it literally means in the prologue, then you have to make an argument for it, you can’t just assume it.

Once again, “[y]ou seem to ignore … the ambiguity of the Greek adjective prôtos” which can mean BOTH “first in time” (more in general, in a certain order) AND “first in rank”.

For the general Greek, you may find useful to check LSJ, A Greek-English Lexicon, entry ???????? (A. ???????? Comp. and B. ?????? Sup.).

For the NT Greek, you may also want to check the Strong’s concordance for G4413 ??????, with the relative Thayer’s Greek Lexicon.

Read the entries, then you can come back and we can argue …

The former Reading makes sense, the latter Reading is a t[a]utology.

There is another word in the verse, beside prôtos, that is misunderstood, emprosthen, which is an Adverb, meaning “in front” “before”, “ahead”, in a local sense.

Once again, look at the relevant phrase:

ho opisô mou erchomenos emprosthen mou gegonen oti prôtos mou ên (John 1:15, cp. John 1:30)

There is a deliberate play on words between the three expressions with mou: opisô mou (“after me”); emprosthen mou (“in front of me”); prôtos mou (“more important than me”).

The play on words means the exact opposite of what the advocates of “pre-existence” believe:

“‘The man who comes after me has passed in front of me, because he was more important than me’” (John 1:15 – cp. John 1:30)

Let’s look at the (translated/interpreted) text of the relevant verses:

John witnesses about him and shouted [out] saying: “This was [the one of] whom I said, ‘‘The man who comes after me [????? ???] has passed in front of me [????????? ???], because he was more important than me [?????? ???]’” (John 1:15)

This is the one about whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who has passed in front of me, because he was more important than me.’ (John 1:30)

John 1:15 says exactly the same as John 1:30, the only difference being that, while v.30 is part of the “real time narration”, v.15 embeds the same contents in the Prologue, explicitly referring to it as “John’s witness and proclamation”.

So, from the above it is evident that, when Jesus meets John the Baptist at the Jordan River, John has already uttered his prophecy. So why would he have referred (prophetically) to “the man who comes after me” as having already “passed in front of [JtB]”, using a past tense (??????? – 2nd Perfect)?

Simple: JtB started on his prophetic mission and on his “baptism of repentance” in preparation of the Messiah, whom he knew was already there, hidden; even if he wasn’t already manifest.

Did JtB have to explain why the Messiah was “more important than” himself? Of course NOT! He had explicitly declared that he was NOT the Messiah, but ONLY the voice of one shouting in the wilderness, ‘Make straight the way for the Lord’ (John 1:23; cp. Isaiah 40:3)

The point is to Accept Your Reading (as well as the Reading of many scriptures in John) you have to kind of read in in a very Awkward and strained way, in a non Natural way.

What makes you commit yourself to the textually unwarranted presupposition that John knew anything about any alleged “personal pre-existence” of the Messiah?

(Because there is no doubt that he was speaking of the already existing Messiah, who was about 30 years when he met JtB at the Jordan River).

My reading is textually, grammatically, scripturally natural. If it seems “strange”, it is only because most (all?) standard translations retain a bias in favor of “personal pre-existence”.

LOL! “Personal pre-existence” is eisegesis …

It is worth adding, to the citation of John 1:31-33, the following verse:

“And I have seen and testified that this is the chosen [????????] of God.” (John 1:34)

A full Messianic witness.

Roman,

I don’t think the implication of “was before me” (PRWTOS MOU HN) is “higher rank” in the context of John 1:23-31. I think the “higher rank” is derived the title of “the Lord” given to Jesus in Isaiah 40:3 that John the baptizer quoted (John 1:23).

I think “was before me” corresponds to what John the baptizer said about “one (Jesus) who stands among you whom you do not know” (John 1:26) and “I did not recognize him, but so he might be manifested I came baptizing” (John 1:31). Thus, Jesus “was” (Imperfect HN) already there before John was sent to testify about him.

If you go back to John 1:14-15, it seems that this correspondence could fit there as well since the identity of Jesus wasn’t known until he came to dwell with the disciples (John 1:14) and they realized that he was the one that John had been talking about (John 15). Hence, Jesus “was” (HN) already there for 30 years (Luke 3:23) “before” John the baptizer was sent to testify about his “higher rank.”

Roman,

Why do you think the common conjunction OTI infers anything about Preexistence? OTI, like HN, can just mean that Jesus Christ was present before John was sent to manifest him.

Where in the context is there any explicit reference to any kind of Preexistence? Grammatical forms do not establish doctrines.

Roman,

I agree. But, in a context where there is no explicit evidence of Preexistence, the implication of the conjunction can simply be something like “Jesus had precedence over me [all along] because (OTI) Jesus was [already] here before [I came baptizing]. This is why Isaiah 40:3 indicates.

Even though we disagree, this is a great discussion because it shows why language is flexible and interpretation should depend upon context. We may not agree in the end, but I hope you understand that I’m just pointing out the reasons that it is not necessary to draw any conclusions about Preexistence from the grammar alone.

Roman,

It isn’t Jesus already being there that indicates the preeminence. It’s the quotation of Isaiah 40:3 by John the baptizer to explain why he was sent first that establishes the “preeminence” in the context.

Look also at John 3:28-29 where John the baptizer used the “bridegroom” analogy to illustrate why he was sent before Jesus (who was actually the Christ). The “friend of the bridegroom” announces the coming of the bridegroom who is already there (and is more important).

What John is talking about has nothing to do with the Preexistence of the bridegroom or if the bridegroom is older than the “friend.” These things are simply describing what happens in the historical context of when John and Jesus were preaching the gospel together.

Roman,

The word “Lord” in Isaiah 40:3-5 indicates that Jesus Christ had preeminence over John the baptizer who was sent ahead of him to “prepare the way.”

Your OTI argument is flawed because you are trying to force a grammatical implication that is not consistent with the context (just as you are doing with EGENETO in John 1:14). It’s not the right approach to doing sound exegesis. Grammatical forms are dynamic in any language.

That “bridegroom” has to be “already there” in John 3:28-29 or else there wouldn’t be any marriage (or any “friend of the bridegroom”). The point of the analogy is that the bridegroom (who’s already there) is more important than his “friend” who announces his appearing at the wedding.

Roman,

I think PRWTOS MOU EIN is just referring to the fact that Jesus was “among” the people before John the baptizer was sent to testify about him. That is what the whole context is about. John wasn’t sent to testify about “preexistence.”

The bridegroom analogy does explain “preeminence” because the whole point of the context is that “Jesus must increase, John must decrease” because the “bridegroom” should have the preeminence. This analogy certainly doesn’t infer any about “preexistence” either.

Roman,

Nobody is “ignoringzzz’ OTI (“for, beacause”) in John 1:30. However, this conjuction is used over 1,000 times in the NT and doesn’t connote anything about Preexistence. All it does is connect two clauses.

I account for OTI in John 1:30 because I interpret “for (OTI) he was before me” to simply mean that Jesus was already “among” the Israelites before John the baptizer was sent to testify about him (John 1:26).