Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Spotify | Email | RSS
I make an exciting announcement at the start of this episode!
In this and the following two episodes, I present and comment on my recent debate with Dr. James White. This episode contains my opening statement and part of his.
Here is an interpretive paraphrase which summarizes the interpretation I argue for in my opening statement:
John 1:1–5 The Early Career of God’s Word
When the world was created, God’s Word was with him—not that “he” was someone else. All things came into being through him; not a single thing came into being apart from God’s Word. He was the source of life, a guiding light for all people. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness didn’t overcome it.
1:6–9 Interlude: The Word Didn’t (Fully) Arrive in the Great Prophet John the Baptist
God sent a man named John [the Baptist], who came as a witness to testify to that light, so that all might trust in God through his Word. John came to testify to the light but wasn’t himself the Light. The True Light which enlightens everyone was yet to come.
1:10–13 The Further (Pre-Jesus) Career of God’s Word
God’s Word was in the world, which came into being through him, yet the world didn’t know him. He came to his own people, the Jews, but they didn’t fully accept him. Of course, he enabled those who received him, trusting him, to become God’s children, born of God, not merely of human blood, will, or flesh.
1:14–16 God’s Word Arrives Fully in the Man Jesus
Then God’s Word became a man and lived among us. And we’ve seen Jesus’ glory, that of the unique Son of the Father, one who is full of grace and truth.
1:17–18 – Jesus is an Even Greater Revealer of God than the Great Prophets John and Moses
(John the Baptist testified to him: “It was about him that I said, ‘The one coming after me surpasses me, because all along he’s out-ranked me.’ ”)
All of us have benefitted from Jesus’ fullness, grace on top of grace. God gave us the law through Moses, but now he’s given us grace and truth through Jesus the Messiah. You can’t see God, but his unique Son who’s close to his heart has shown him to us.
If you don’t want to download all of my opening statement slides, the following images should be enough to help you follow my opening statement in this audio version.
Links for this episode:
How John 1 was intelligible in the first century
Dale Tuggy – What John 1 Meant (UCA Conference 2021) (podcast)
the host of the debate: Covenant Reformed Baptist Church
Jeremiah Nortier’s Apologetics Dog channel
St. Patrick’s Bad Analogies [for the Trinity]
Gaston, Dynamic Monarchianism: The Earliest Christology?
podcast 259 – Who is the one Creator? – Part 2
podcast 258 – Who is the one Creator? – Part 1
John A. T. Robinson on “the Word” of John 1
Debating John 1: Eusebius vs. Marcellus
John 12:48 – Jesus personifies God’s word (as someone else)
Jesus Christ as “The Word of God” in Revelation 19:11-16
Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God
Do the Gospels disagree about Jesus and God? Part 1 – Three Options
our previous debate: Dale Tuggy and James White debate: “Is Jesus YHWH?” (best quality, with slides)
This week’s thinking music is “Gemini Instrumental” by Pipe Choir.
Love listening to these debates with my husband! Dale, you should reach out to Carl Trueman. He was my prof in college and would be an awesome option for focusing on church history with the Trinity. I’ve tried to engage him in convos on the Trinity post-college but, like you, he’s super busy and lecturing/writing. What I love about him and his wife is that they’re both really humble and thoughtful people. I think you would find whatever conversation you guys have to be informative and helpful for trinitarians (thinking ones) and biblical Unitarians. Btw- husband and I became Biblical Unitarians about 2 years ago! It’s been so encouraging to my faith to actually SEE the Bible as it is.
Hi Dr. Tuggy,
I noticed Jehovah’s Witnesses are singled out as supposedly standing out substantially from early so-called Christian writers from the 1st-4th century. It seems unreasonable to set Jehovah’s Witness christology as some novel interpretation, when indeed there were elements of such views throughout those centuries. Although the Bible is the only authoritative reference when it comes to what assessing these matters (especially since Christianity apostatised after the death of the apostles), I am curious what about our christology stands out so distinctly as being innovative to your mind? To me our understanding fits broadly into what you would term logos theology subordinationism…
Regards,
Nelson
The biggest difference of course is the Witnesses’ claim that Jesus, before becoming human, was angel Michael. On the surface, the view looks like, say, Origen’s, but starting with him and Novatian they help that God “eternally generated” the Logos/Son, which implies that God did not create him. But an angel is by definition a creature, yes? Another big difference between Witness Christology and some of the ancients, like Origen and Tertullian, is that I take it the Jesus of the Gospels is a spirit being (former angel) now in a human body. Origen held that the Logos was united with a human being, a man. Now, Origen clearly has one too many Sons! But at least there is a man in the picture. It’s not clear to me that a spirit being now inhabiting a human body is a real human being. So, as concerns theology–the one true God is the Father alone–yes, the Witnesses are on the same page as those ancient subordinationists. As concerns Christology, there are some big differences. Although broadly, both have the Son as a second and lesser being.
Hi Dr Tuggy
I’m a biblical unitarian and i wonder if John 1:10-13 are still about the “pre-Jesus”word as you call it. I find no problem interpreting John 1:1-9 as the personofied “lady wisdom” or “lady logos”. However, starting with verse 10 it seems to speak about Jesus.
verse 12 in particular speak of those “who believe IN HIS NAME” seemingly speaking of a PERSON already.
Verse 14 can be understood as a non-literal incarnation. In fact nobody undestands the verse 14 “literally”, not even trinitarians! “Sarx egeneto” would literally mean that the “word BECAME flesh” not that “it TOOK flesh” but that “became” flesh, something forbidden in the Atanasian creed
Can you help with verse 12 and “to those who believed in his name”?
thanks
Isaac
Comments are closed.