Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Spotify | Email | RSS
The Lord created me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of long ago.
Is this famous passage in Proverbs 8 about the pre-human Jesus? Many Christians have thought so. But why?
In this episode, we hear Proverbs 8 and explore how this passage is (and isn’t) interpreted in the New Testament.
We end up focusing on the prologue of the gospel according to John, and we hear part of a lecture from George Washington Burnap (1802-59) on how to read John 1 in light of Proverbs 8 and a few other texts from ancient Jewish wisdom literature.
At the start of this episode, we hear a new review of the podcast from itunes, and I briefly respond to this long response by Mr. Eliseo Rodriguez to episode 70. I bring in an insight on John 1:1 from the famous patristic scholar and apologist Nathaniel Lardner (1684-1768).
In our next episode, we’ll look at how Proverbs 8 was interpreted in the second and third Christian centuries.
You can also listen to this episode on stitcher or itunes (please subscribe, rate, and review us in either or both). It is also available on youtube (scroll down – you can subscribe here). If you would like to upload audio feedback for possible inclusion in a future episode of this podcast, put the audio file here.
Links for this episode:
- a response to episode 70 by Mr. Eliseo Rodriguez
- episode 70 – The one God and his Son according to John
- Lardner on the Trinity
- contains his A Letter Written in the Year 1730, Concerning the Question, Whether the Logos Supplied the Place of an Human Soul in the Person of Jesus Christ?
- He argues for a negative answer.
- George W. Burnap’s Expository Lectures on the Principal Passages of the Scriptures which relate to the Doctrine of the Trinity (pdf)
- John 1 and 1 John 1 and Proverbs 8
- This episode’s thinking music is the song “Hachiko (The Faithtful Dog)” by The Kyoto Connection.
Ride on, Rivers! 🙂
Mario,
You see to be trying to force an usual interpretation of John 12:34 by ignoring the many other times that Jesus called himself “the son of man” (where the writer gives no indication that anyone was unaware of its divine implications), as well as the fact that the writer plainly tells his readers that the crowed “did not believe in him” (John 12:37) or what was “reported” about him (John 12:38).
Again, if you continue to proudly disregard the context and the biblical usage of these terms, you’ll never be able to understand the simple message that the inspired writer was putting forward. Remember what the scriptures say … “God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble” (James 4:6). 🙂
Rivers,
here is the text and context:
34 Then the crowd responded, “We have heard from the law that the Christ will remain forever. How can you say, ‘The Son of Man must be lifted up’? Who is this Son of Man?” 35 Jesus replied, “The light is with you for a little while longer. Walk while you have the light, so that the darkness may not overtake you. The one who walks in the darkness does not know where he is going. 36 While you have the light, believe in the light, so that you may become sons of light.” When Jesus had said these things, he went away and hid himself from them.
37 Although Jesus had performed so many miraculous signs before them, they still refused to believe in him, 38 so that the word of Isaiah the prophet would be fulfilled. He said, “Lord, who has believed our message, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” (John 12:34-38)
If you believe that the question of the crowd at John 12:34, in context, shows familiarity with the expression “Son of Man” used by Jesus, nay, familiarity with its equivalence with “Messiah”, “Son of God”, “King of Israel”, please, by all means, go ahead and enjoy.
Mario,
If you look at the context of John 12:34-37, the writer indicates that the crowd simply did not “believe” that Jesus was the “son of man” that he was claiming to be (John 12:37). That it why it is reasonable to consider that that question in John 12:34 could be taken to mean that the people simply wanted to know “who” among them that Jesus was talking about.
Mario,
I’m just pointing out the evidence in scripture. It’s not my responsibility to convince you of anything.
Keep in mind, there are some people who think that your interpretations are “so far-fetched” as not to be worth considering. Thus, I think you should appreciate the fact that a few of us are willing to make the time and patience to interact with you. 🙂
Rivers,
your “explanation” of John 12:34 is so far-fetched, so far out, that I simply cannot be bothered with it.
As for John 1:51, it is part of the exchange that Jesus has with Nathanael, who, as I have already commented, had a “limited, traditional understanding of Messiahship”, that Jesus, with his allusion to Daniel’s “Son of Man”, was quickly trying to steer in a radically different direction.
Mario,
It depends in what sense the crowd was asking the question.
I think it’s more likely that they were asking “who [among us] is this son of man” (John 12:34) because they didn’t understand that Jesus was speaking about himself.
There other times in the 4th Gospel that Jesus referred to himself as “the son of man” and it’s likely that it was understood to be an honorary designation. For example, when Jesus said that they would “see the angels of God ascending and descending upon the son of man” (John 1:51), it seems unlikely that anyone would have misunderstood that he was speaking of himself as the exalted son of God.
As the writer of Hebrews argued, the supremacy of Jesus Christ over the angels of God is a critical aspect of his role as “the heir of all things” and “the begotten son” (Hebrews 1:3-6).
Rivers,
if “son of man” was easily understood as an honorary reference to the Messiah like “son of God”, then the question of the crowd (“Who is this Son of Man?” – John 12:34) would be incongruous, to say the least.
Mario,
Why do you think anyone reading Daniel 7:13-14 would not think that the “one like a son of man” in the vision was not synonymous with “the son of God”? Who else would be entitled to inherit “the kingdom” that belonged to “the ancient of days”? God’s own “son” would be the heir. That is what Daniel 7:13-14 was talking about.
It seems nonsensical for you to argue that “son of man” is a Messianic title in Daniel 7:13, but that is was “never an honorary title for the Messiah”. What could be more honorable than for the “son of man” to be “presented before the ancient of days” in order to “receive His kingdom” (Daniel 7:13-14)?
It seems to me that the implication of the question the people asked in John 12:34 was that they didn’t know his present identity, and not necessarily that they didn’t understand it was an honorary Messianic title (per Daniel 7:13-14). It also doesn’t logically follow that, because Jesus may have only used “son of man” to speak of himself, than it was no understood to be an honorary title like “the son of God.”
Rivers,
see my post of January 22, 2015 at 8:12 pm. I have nothing to add.
I had to look up “Salisbury steak”, because, being Italian, although I have been to the States quite a few times, I had never heard of it. I must say that the images I have found on the web, and the description, do not appeal to me one bit. When I deal with ground beef, then I definitely prefer an honest hamburger. If I want a steak, then it’s definitely got to be whole, preferably grilled. Oh, BTW, I still don’t know why you brought it up. 🙂
Your persisting problem with Luke 1:35, read at face value (“if we are to take it at face value, then the account of Luke is based on a misunderstanding”) seems to me more and more disconcerting. One can say that one refuses to read it at face value (because it is “obviously mythical”, because it is “a wink to pagan converts”, you name it). Just one thing you cannot do: try to obfuscate with it, because it is perfectly clear in what it says.
The problem I have with it (and with Matthew’s parallel, albeit different account) is of a quite different nature, as I have already said. Why did God resort to the miracle of the virgin conception to bring about His Messiah, the one who will be called “Son of God”? Just to give it all a “supernatural signature”? I refuse to believe it. (#) You see, it becomes inevitable to speculate. Once again, I believe that my tentative answer, viz. to read the “Son of God” in a “four-dimensional” way (1. well established honorific title for the Messiah, 2. one having a genetic relation with God, the Father Almighty, 3. one having a unique relation of love with the Father, 4. one being the incarnation of God’s Word) best fits the scattered NT data, the OT, the tradition, the development of the doctrine (including its aberrations) and history.
(#) In the same way, I refuse to believe that, at the other end, God resorted to the bodily Resurrection as a mere “supernatural signature”.
A little comment on “Son of Man”. You say that Jesus uses it “in the same way” (as Messiah, “Son of God”, and “King of Israel”). I don’t agree at all. The expression “Son of Man” is referred to Jesus ONLY by himself, and it is used more than twice as much as “Son of God”. Nevertheless, it is so obscure that the crowd asks Jesus “How can you say that the Son of Man must be lifted up? Who is this Son of Man?” (John 12:34). Besides, unlike “Son of God”, it was NEVER used as an honorific title for the Messiah. But, while Jesus uses the expression “Son of Man” obscurely, almost until the end, there is no doubt that the real meaning in which Jesus is using it gradually emerges towards the end of Jesus’ earthly mission and is fully clarified when Jesus is confronted by the High Priest Caiaphas:
63 But Jesus was silent. The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.” 64 Jesus said to him, “You have said it yourself. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.” (Matt 26:63-64)
Whereby Jesus confirms that not only he is “the Christ, the Son of God”, but he is the Messiah in the very sense of the Son of Man of Daniel 7:13
If I don’t hear from you before, have a safe journey. 🙂
Pierre,
Excellent comments in your rebuttal of Rodriguez.
I also think Rodriguez needs to consider that the apostles didn’t use the word “begotten” in the same way that they spoke of Jesus Christ being “conceived” (Luke 1:35) and being “given birth” (Matthew 1:25). The apostles seemed to have associated his status as “the begotten” with his resurrection (John 1:18; Acts 13:33; Hebrews 1:5; Hebrews 5:5) based upon how they interpreted Psalms 2:7.
I think this is because the apostles believed that Jesus Christ became “the firstborn from among the dead” (Colossians 1:18) when he was raised with “power” (Romans 1:3-4) and thus it entitled him to be “the heir of all things” (Hebrews 1:3-4).
This is probably why the writer of the 4th Gospel has John the baptizer speaking of Jesus Christ “existing before” and “having a higher rank” than even himself (John 1:15, 27-30). This is based upon the fact that Jesus was the first man to be “born of the spirit” (John 3:3-6) and also the one who would be able to give holy spirit to all others (John 3:34; John 7:39).
Mario,
If you consider the context of the book of Hebrews, the writer used LOGOS to refer to what was “spoken” by the angels (Hebrews 2:2), the prophets (Hebrews 1:1-2), and Jesus Christ (Hebrews 13:7). Since God “spoke” by the mediation of those creatures, it could be that Hebrews 4:12 is simply describing the power of the LOGOS that God “spoke” through them.
I ask you kindly again … please tell us what you think LOGOS is referring to Hebrews 4:12 and why you think there is exegetical evidence to support your own interpretation. 🙂
Mario,
It seem like you are continuing to evade the question.
I kindly asked you to tell us what you think LOGOS is referring to in Hebrews 4:12. Denying someone else’s interpretation is not giving an answer. 🙂
Mario,
My problem is like some things I saw at work lastnight, and I’ll mention one:
On the Salisbury Steak Swanson TV dinner, there is a picture of the salisbury steak, and it has grill marks on it. Why would they sear it on a grill like that? I’ve only ever heard of it pan-seared or baked. As such, it sounds like a cut of meat by the name, as though it describes a cut of steak — a salisbury kind! As such, since steaks are often preferred to be grilled by many, perhaps they felt that it would look more appealing to people to buy if it had grill marks on it — even though that would be like cooking meatloaf on a grill! Not impossible, but just strange.
To me, the account in Luke where Jesus being called God’s Son for the reason that He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit can be valid, as sons of God are, but it is like how the salisbury steak had dubious grill marks, though steaks IN GENERAL are often grilled.
For me, “only-begotten” or “monogenes” is talking about Jesus being special. Yes, this is based on the love, but in the Bible it’s used as though Jesus is God’s “special little guy” or like His favorite son. This only further pushes my understanding of Jesus being that CERTAIN son of God. Jesus is God’s monogenes son even as Isaac was Abraham’s monogenes son. It doesn’t mean that Ishmael wasn’t really his kid or was adopted or a bastard; but it means that Isaac was his special child, that one that he loved. That’s why it says, “your son, your only-begotten whom you love” in Genesis 22:2. God takes His Own special guy and offers him up like He commanded Abraham to offer his up.
The Bible is so saturated with this theme, that I can only see this as the MAIN point of Jesus being God’s Son. Concerning the king of Israel, I’m not saying that “son of God” MEANS “king of Israel”, but a messiah is specifically one appointed to rule by God. First it was the priests, and when Israel wanted a king, God gave them Saul. After this point, there were kings as the judges, but now Jesus is the judge. Even just calling Jesus “the Messiah” bolsters my point, since it is obviously saying a certain Messiah, since we know that there were other messiahs.
So, I have this:
1) Jesus is that specific Messiah
2) that specific Messiah is hallmarked as God’s Son (in contrast to the others, i.e. unique) in that God loves him so much that He gives him the kingdom forever
3) Messiah, King of Israel, and Son of God (and Son of Man) are used interchangeably in the Gospel accounts not only by people who would’ve known Jesus was virgin-birthed, but even by those who had never heard such a thing
So, if it’s only part of the meaning behind it, then that’s why I said that I could accept dio kai meaning “therefore also”. See, I wasn’t even coming at it from a grammatical point of view, but if it only means “therefore” grammatically, then I have to say that Luke’s accounting for Jesus being called God’s Son is a maverick accounting. It’s not as though the Messiah just happens to be called God’s Son because God loves him and also happens to be called God’s Son because he is created by God; but if we are to take it at face value, then the account of Luke is based on a misunderstanding. I could understand there being more implied there, but just at face value, it seems contradictory to the very specific reason that Jesus is called God’s Son EVERYWHERE ELSE. It’s not just some of the time, but every other place, Jesus is called God’s Son in reference to being the Messiah, and that for the reason that the Messiah was called God’s Son already, which is specifically the love reason.
This is why I had a problem with it seeming to say that for this very reason Jesus is God’s son.
Now, you mentioned about a speculative position. I will tell you something Mario, and I am telling you because I know that I can tell it to you. I have at various times speculated about doctrines and about things in the Bible. The only way I have found to ever be correct is to only go by what it says. So, I am just saying to be careful about speculating too much, because isn’t that the very reason that those who came up with weird doctrines did, although having honest hearts?
In my opinion, there is no lack in the synoptics concerning what John says, but just that John uses different words. In other words, if you remember what I was saying about what I feel about John 1, then it says the same things as the other Gospel accounts. Of course there are going to be variances, but all of the important things remain for all of them, naturally. This is yet another reason that I think that the Son of God relates specifically to Messiah as it is written about Him: that we are saved through believing on the name of the Son of God, and all that was related concerning His sonship in all of the Gospel accounts and in the letters is having to do with God’s love for him.
I will probably keep this in mind. I am scheduled to leave the country on Sunday, in two days, and stay there until Thursday, the fourth day after that Sunday. As such, I may not be able to continue for too much longer without being on hiatus for a little while! 🙂
Love,
-Jon
Jonathan,
unless you explain what reserves you still have on Luke’s Annunciation account, now that it’s been examined in detail, in particular that diò kaí, and its unquestionable causal connotation, I honestly don’t see how you can claim that “we are all sons of God, having ‘come down’ from God”. We can certainly say that we are (actually, become) God’ adopted children. Certainly we cannot say that we are all … monogenês, can we?
Once again, being the Messiah, the “son” of David, is certainly adequately expressed by the title “Son of God”. It this exhaustive? No! This is precisely the point. There is a deeper reason, a – literally – genetic reason. Does the miracle of the virgin conception exhaust this deeper reason? I still believe not, otherwise there would be no qualitative difference between Adam and Jesus (the “second Adam”). I believe that what is missing in Matthew and Luke is that they do not say that something essential has been passed to Jesus from the Almighty: His Word. That’s why I believe that ONLY putting together the “Son of God” as Messiah, AND the “Son of the Almighty” of the Matthaean and Lukan Nativity Accounts, AND the kai ho logos sarx egeneto of the Prologue of John, do we get the full picture. Is this speculative? Yes, but I believe that it is the best fit for the available evidence (scriptural, traditional, doctrinal and historical).
You seem to say that, also in the GoJ, the expression “Son of God” is equivalent to “King of Israel”: ultimately, Messiah. What you seem to miss is that it is the very notion of Messiah that has changed in the GoJ. Only on two occasions is Jesus, in the GoJ, referred to as “King of Israel”, and always by people with a limited, traditional understanding of Messiahship (Nathanael, John 1:49; the cheerers on Palm Sunday, John 12:13).
As you say yourself, the reason why Jesus refers to God as his Father is a unique relationship of love.
I really don’t understand your doubts about the priority between birth and love. What we know for sure is that, in the GoJ, Jesus is described as the one “who is in the bosom of the Father”.
My response to :Elisha Rodriguez:
I have reviewed your 89 minute audio on your response to Dale Tuggy’s podcast. First, I would like to say that I enjoyed the Shema song and it was a nice song introduction to your presentation. Second, I’m overjoyed that we both believe in the supremacy of the Father, who alone is true God, who is undivided and self-sufficient. In your presentation you made a sharp dividing line between Arianism and Unitarianism, subsequently, I will cite a reference: ARIANISM: This is Unitarianism. God is understood as a undivided unity, and the Son is subordinate the Father-It’s a Mystery!: The Unintelligible Theories about God Concise Studies in the Scriptures Volume One: Volume 1, pg. 8 (Raymond C. Faircloth 2015). Therefore I see Arianism and Unitarianism identical on matters of Theology, but slightly divided on matters of Christology. I think we need to do a little background information of Arius. Arius was born in 256 AD in Libya. If the Arians and Anhomoians learnt from Origen, how then can you say that the earlier Christians, Tertullian, Justin Martyr and Ignatius were Arians? Especially when he was not even born yet! Subordinationism (Uniterianism) would better fit the wide range of Christological confessions before the Nicene Council. You object to the personification of the logos in John 1:1. However, Wisdom and word are not a person but ways of speaking of God in his wisdom. Spirit, Wisdom, Word, are improperly so called, since they never really reach the status of divine beings independent of God in Jewish thought. ..there was certainly no thought of angels becoming man in order to redeem..( CIM Dunn p. 252 ) We must remember that John is fond of nouns in an adjectival sense God is love, light, God is word. Why not look at John 1:1c as logos in the adjectival sense? The point is that the One God the Father is the only one who is God (17:3) That is clear and the rest works round it. You mentioned that according to the Church Fathers that Jesus “assumed a body” “ took on a body” since you concur with that statement, would you be saying Mary was the mother only of the flesh of Jesus? What did Mary bear, if Jesus already had pre-existent life? Next, you use begotten and created as synonymous terms, if such is true, you are thus left with admitting that Luke 1:35 makes a valid starting point for Jesus. You also said in your audio reply that “ Jesus has substance from the Father” but the term OUSIA( substance) was naively inserted by the fathers at Nicaea, though not familiar to the masses caused disturbance, because the scriptures do not contain it..(Freeman 2008) Therefore I reject this Latinized term. If ever time you are reading the MEMRA/LOGOS back into OT and ascribing works of creation to the Son, would that not make him a Demiurge? When we look at the Ophitie sect there was a hostile opposition to the psychical Christ and rather a preference for the pneumatical(spirit) Christ.(Dr. Agustus Neander 1844) I conclude for now with a quote from distinguished Greek scholar F. C. Baur: “The idea of pre-existence lies completely outside the Synoptic [Matthew, Mark and Luke] sphere of view.” Church History of the First Three centuries (p. 65.).
Sincerely,
Pierre Leverette
Also: more the on the Memra later in my next response.
Mario,
I think I answered my own question on the relation in the first paragraph, but I’m not sure if that’s enough to make them one thing. I think my main problem is that, when Luke 1:35 is asserted as the specific reason, it leaves a lack in regards to understanding Jesus’ sonship, and also ours.
Mario,
It’s not so much that I have a problem with the reasoning used, and that it’s a valid reason also for anyone to be called God’s children. We have the angels “coming down” from God and being called sons of God in a few places, and also “gods”. We have Jesus equating “coming down” from God to His being born of God (another topic), and also relates that to everyone born of the Spirit. In this way, we are all sons of God, having “come down” from God, or, in other words, just having been born of God. It also relates to being like God.
The problem that I have with the Luke thing is that, throughout the Gospel accounts, the *VERY SPECIFIC* reason that Jesus is called God’s Son, although Luke’s may be a valid reason, is not the same as the reason in Luke. This is why I am put off by verse 35, which says, “for this reason He shall be called the Son of God.” It’s like, wait a minute: everywhere else, I am seeing Jesus being called the Son of God for another reason.
Let me put it this way:
Throughout the other Gospel accounts, they are constantly going like “the Messiah, the Son of God” or “the Son of God, the King of Israel”; in John in particular, Jesus also uses “the Son of Man” in the same way, but with the verses in which it appears in the Scriptures. I am thinking, “OK, so why do they seem to think, both people who knew of Jesus’ virgin birth AND THOSE WHO DID NOT, that the Messiah is God’s Son?” We have the reason in the Scriptures, and it is the prophecy through Nathan to David as recorded in 2 Samuel 7 and 1 Chronicles 17. These are the “sure blessings promised to David” which God gave Jesus, according to Peter.
We know in the relevant, inspired passages (Psalm 89:26-29; Psalm 2) that this is already established that this Messiah-to-come is being considered God’s Son, but the very reason in the prophecy is because God loves Him. It’s equivalent to Jesus saying that a servant doesn’t abide in the house forever, but a son remains forever. How do we know? The sign of the sonship is that God gives Him the house and the kingdom and he remains forever. Why is this? It’s because of His love, according to the prophecy. This is also the reason that sons remains forever, and the reason that Jesus says that this is, is because Jesus always does what pleases God.
Now, is the reason Jesus performs this way because He was made by God? I mean, I think there is a relation, seeing as how God had Jesus in mind from the beginning, and so for this reason He brought Him forth. As such, I’m not so sure the steps go from birth > love, but rather love > birth, since Jesus also said, “for You loved me before the world was.”
Keeping all that in mind, it’s conflicting for me to hear that Gabriel said, “for this reason the child shall be called the Son of God”, when that’s not the reason anywhere else in the Bible, either in the Old or New testament, unless the two are related more closely than I imagine.
Much love,
-Jon
For the word [logos<] of God is living and active and sharper than any double-edged sword, piercing even to the point of dividing soul from spirit, and joints from marrow; it is able to judge the desires and thoughts of the heart. (Hebrews 4:12)
Where do you read of “angels, prophets, Jesus, and the apostles” IN this specific verse? Nowhere, other than in your imagination.
Stop your bluff. You are going to hurt yourself.
Mario,
Instead of resorting back to your habit of hiding behind condescending rhetoric, why not provide some evidence to substantiate your interpretations. This is what people are interested in hearing.
I’ve asked you to offer your interpretation of LOGOS in Hebrews 4:12 and to demonstrate why it is plausible. I’ve taken the time to address your questions; I would appreciate the same; I would appreciate the same consideration on your part. 🙂
Especially by those who trust your … er … competence with Greek?
What you really mean is, where you can better lead the gullible by the nose … 😉
Mario,
The reason I think the LOGOS “spoken” by the angels (Hebrews 2:2) and Jesus (Hebrews 2:4) and the apostles (Hebrews 13:7) is what the writer is probably using LOGOS to refer to in Hebrews 4:12 is because it is consistent with how he uses LOGOS throughout the letter (and it makes perfectly good sense of the passage).
Again, if you think he was using LOGOS to refer to something else, please put forward the evidence so that we can all consider it. Why should anyone believe that your interpretation is plausible or valid when you cannot substantiate it with anything?
Mario,
The reason I continually appeal to word usage and contextual considerations is because that is the appropriate way to do sound, critical exegesis of the biblical text. Context always trumps rules of grammar because languages are flexible.
I appreciate our on-going discussion of these Johannine texts. I’m always looking for the interpretation that is most consistent with the context and the writer’s intent. I’ve given consideration to your unusual ideas about John 8:58 and John 1:1-14 but I don’t find them persuasive because I don’t think you can provide substantial exegetical evidence to support them.
Just because you may have taken a couple of Greek classes and can cut and paste Greek phrases from an online concordance doesn’t make you an authority on anything. I could do the same, but I don’t waste my time because it isn’t necessary. It’s better to work at the level of context where the argumentation can be understood by everyone. 🙂
Rivers
No point in trying to play dumb with me. These are your very words:
“I don’t think there’s any significance to the use of the singular pronouns in Genesis 1:27 simply because ALHYM and YHWH could also be used interchangeably for God the Father and angels who acted on His behalf (Genesis 18:1, Genesis 19:1, 29).” [what “pants” teaches us about “elohim” (“God”), Rivers, January 18, 2015 at 12:45 am, bolding and italics added]
Where do you read of “angels, prophets, Jesus, and the apostles” IN that specific verse, Hebrews 4:12? Nowhere, other than imagination, of course …
… which simply means that God, the Father Almighty, does NOT need any intermediary (angels, prophets, apostles, or even Jesus) to express His Word (and His Spirit).
And please stop once and for all with this charade of “grammatical or contextual evidence”. Hasn’t you game been exposed enough? Haven’t you proved that you simply ignore all that, when it doesn’t suit you? When I remind you of (rather basic) rules that apply to gi[g]nomai, you shake them off because I would be “trying to impose” them and they would be “irrelevant”. Not only that, you, who are forever invoking “grammatical or contextual evidence”, then proclaim that “rules of grammar are only interpretations”.
Stop your charade, at once!
Mario,
If you don’t like the idea that LOGOS refers to the spoken message of God through the angels, prophets, Jesus, and the apostles (Hebrews 1:1-2; Hebrews 2:2-4; Hebrews 13:7) in Hebrews 4:12, then what do you think it means?
If you don’t agree, and you think LOGOS is an “attribute” (or something else) in Hebrews 4:12, please give the grammatical or contextual evidence that warrants a consideration of your interpretation. Why do you think your interpretation of Hebrews 4:12 would affect anything in John 1:1-3, 14?
Mario,
It’s a fact that YHWH and ALHYM for often used interchangeably in the Hebrew scriptures. They were also used together. I don’t understand why that would pose any difficulty for you. If you can use a concordance, you can easily verify it. 🙂
But of course! How could I forget that you consider it some sort of “dogma” that not only elohiym, but even YHWM can be used to refer to angels, “because ALHYM and YHWH could also be used interchangeably” …
Jon,
1. Now that you have (at least summarily) verified for yourself that the whole expression diò kaí is a conjunctive clause, that is appropriate to translate it as “therefore”, “for this reason”, and that to add “also” is not just pleonastic, but wrong, I believe you should consider the consequences, starting from where you started, viz. Luke 1:35.
Let’s look at the relevant text and context, the exchange between Gabriel and Mary (Luke 1:26-38). Within this passage, I believe that this is the more immediate context that matters for understanding Luke 1:35:
31 “And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you will call his name Jesus. 32 He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give him the throne of his father David. 33 He will reign over the house of Jacob forever [eis tous aiônas lit. “for the ages”], and his kingdom will never end.” 34 And Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I have not known a man?” 35 And the angel said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore [diò kaí] the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.”
Essential comments/paraphrase:
31 The angel Gabriel notifies Mary in advance of what will happen to her, and how her child is to be called.
32 The son born from her will be great (without any qualification, unlike the “before the Lord” that was applied to John the Baptist – Luke 1:15). The connection between being called “the Son of the Most High” and receiving from the Lord God the throne of his “father” (royal ancestor) David is not spelled, but is implicit. This honorific use of the expression “Son of the Most High”, however, does not exhaust the sense of the Sonship of Jesus.
33 I believe it is not to force an interpretation on the text, to read the previous mention of David’s throne and this verse as an allusion to the prophetic verse Isaiah 9:7 and relative context, including the mysterious “child”. That the “kingdom will never end” may also echo Daniel 7:14.
34 Far from being impertinent and inopportune, Mary’s question is perfectly sensible. Besides, the Israelite expectations of the Messiah did NOT include an exceptional (or even miraculous) birth.
35. The answer of the angel Gabriel could not be more appropriate and exhaustive. The key word is that “therefore” (diò kaí), which establishes an unmistakable causal connection between God’s operation AND the divine Sonship of “the holy one to be born”.
Any problems with the above?
2. You seem to wonder if anyone had already made the point about diò kaí, and its strong causal connotation. The answer is, yes, at least the (rather independent-minded Catholic) theologian Raymond E. Brown (1928 – 1998). Here is what he wrote:
“Therefore. Of the nine times dio kai occurs in the New Testament, three are in Luke/Acts. It involves a certain causality and Lyonnet (in his L’Annonciation, 61) points out that this has embarrassed many orthodox theologians since in preexistence Christology a conception by the holy spirit in Mary’s womb does not bring about the existence of God’s son. Luke is seemingly unaware of such a Christology; conception is causally related to divine Sonship for him (…) [Will be called holy – Son of God] … I cannot follow those theologians who try to avoid the causal connotation in the ‘therefore’ which begins this line, by arguing that for Luke the conception of the child does not bring the Son of God into being.” (Raymond E. Brown, The birth of the Messiah: a commentary on the infancy narratives in Matthew and Luke, [1977], 1979, p. 291, bolding and italics added)
In the same book and elsewhere, Raymond E. Brown expands on the distinction/contrast between ‘conception christology’ and ‘pre-existence christology’. In a note in the same book, talking about ‘pre-existence christology’, he writes:
“This thought process is probably already at work at the beginning of the second century …” (note 27 at p. 141)
Jonathan,
That is a good observation you made about “the angel of the Lord” speaking to Philip in Acts 8:26. I think a lot of people miss the fact that what was “spoken” to the ancient Hebrews by God was actually mediated by the angelic visitors (Hebrews 2:2) or human prophets (Hebrews 1:1-2). Even God speaking from heaven is attributed to “the voice of the archangel” (1 Thessalonians 4:16; Revelation 19:17).
In the ancient Hebrew vocabulary, the anthropomorphic language attributed to “God” was probably on account of the fact that the angelic visitors exhibited all the functions of human beings (including their appearance and their speech, Genesis 18-19). Thus, they saw God “face to face” and heard God’s “voice” because the angelic visitors literally had faces and mouths (just like men do).
The Genesis writer said that Adam was “created in the image (physical) of God (ALHYM)” in Genesis 1:26 because the physical appearance and function of Adam resembled that of the angelic visitors (ALHYM) who always appeared as “men” (Genesis 18:1). This is also why terms like “sons of God” were used synonymously for both the angelic messengers (Genesis 6:2-4; Job 38:7; Job 1:6; Job 2:1) as well as resurrected human beings (Luke 20:36; Romans 8:19).
Mario,
If I overlooked a reference you made to LOGOS in Hebrews 4:12, it wasn’t intentional.
I would take LOGOS in Hebrews 4:12 to be referring to what the writer called “the word (LOGOS) spoken by angels” (Hebrews 2:2) or to the testimony of the apostles “who spoke the word (LOGOS)” to the disciples of Jesus (Hebrews 13:7).
I don’t see any indication that LOGOS was used in Hebrews 4:12 to refer to an attribute. It’s simply referring to the things that were “spoken” by the angels, and Jesus and the apostles (Hebrews 2:3).
Mario,
I did look at it briefly, and it appears as you say. In fact, it’s so constrained that I won’t look at it again probably unless the need arises. Thanks, because that’s one more thing that can be checked off the list!
Mario,
Maybe I’ll look over them. I was using the KJV as a reference there, where it translates it as “therefore also” or “wherefore also” (depending on the version), and so perhaps it’s the early modern English that made it seem as though it were giving the possibility that the kai there could be used as “also”.
If it’s as you say, then I only see Gabriel contradicting himself. Either that, or the reason that God loves Jesus is because God birthed Him. Yet, that’s not the case, since Jesus said that the Father loves Him because He always does what pleases God. However, it in that case could be suggesting that God made Jesus because He loved Him, or loved what He would be. This would go along with “for you loved me before the creation of the world”.
However, I want to scrutinize dio kai, because if it’s possible that they can be used separately and yet together, I’d like to know. It’s like certain compound words in English, which could be used as the compound, or mean something slightly different if they aren’t, and still make sense in the sentence. Until that time, I’ll be a little wary, but I’m going to suppose that you know what you’re talking about. The only doubts I might have had would have been from those who asserted it before you, or because of common usage in that way and no need to necessarily understand dio kai as saying “therefore also” since it wasn’t so critical in most or all other texts.
As it is, what you’re saying is that it is basically like saying, “and so…”, right?
Thanks for the tip, and I’ll look into it to verify it for my own purposes! 😉
-Jon
Jonathan,
thank you for your exegesis on Micah 5:2. Evidently, Matthew, who quotes it (Matt 2:6), didn’t put great store by that “his goings out”, by that “from the past, from the days of antiquity”. He simply omitted them.
Rivers,
I am glad that you fully appreciated my previous comments for you … 🙂
… oh, BTW, it is evident, by now, that you have chickened out of Hebrews 4:12 … 😉
P.S. A little lexical note for Jonathan
I believe that you misunderstand the meaning of Luke 1:35, because you consider diò and kaí as though they were separate and, together, should be translated “for this reason also”.
In fact the whole expression diò kaí is a conjunctive clause, which is regularly used instead of the simple diò (similarly for diò dê, diò dê kaí, dióper), and is to be translated simply as “therefore”, “for this reason”. To add “also” is not just pleonastic: it is wrong.
There are several examples in the NT (Luke 1:35; Acts 10:29; 24:26; Rom 15:22; 2 Cor 1:20; 4:13; 5:9; Phil 2:9; Hebr 11:12; 13:12). If they are not consistently translated in English as “therefore”, “for this reason”, that is only due to the poor translators.
Rivers,
Yes, I also feel that it’s a fault to fight against people on their own terms when they are not even relevant. An example is where I was speaking with someone about the Holy Spirit in Acts 8. They said the Spirit literally spoke to Philip, but when I opened it up, my eyes were directed to verse 26, where it said “the angel said”. So, either that “spirit” is just a general spirit, or an angel; or else the Holy Spirit IS an angel; or else the Holy Spirit is a messenger here, an general form of the word “angel”; or else every holy angel is a holy “spirit”, being that angels are spirits.
As such, instead of trying to explain away that the Holy Spirit was literally speaking (which I could do anyway), I didn’t have to, because it wasn’t even certain that it was the Holy Spirit speaking in Acts 8 at all!
So yes, I see many Unitarians as you do, in that they argue on the terms of their accusers to their own dismay, and to much confusion. I think a similar thing was done by some early philosopher Christians, who for some reason felt the need to try to merge the two. Even Gnostics seemed to do this, as they tried to relate Greek origin philosophies with Christianity and came up with some really BIZARRE stuff that was like a mixture of Greek mythology, Kabbalism, Christianity, and philosophy.
P.S. – why do you and Mario butt heads so much? I have noticed that you two seem to wrestle just a little bit… 😉
Love,
-Jon
Mario,
Thank you for your gracious comments. I notice that I do confuse a lot of people with what I say like that, and I am oftentimes misunderstood. It is as though I almost expect people to always be on the same page as I am, even sometimes without any previous conversation with them. As such, I understand that I do come off genuinely confusing. It’s something that I have to work on, and it’s difficult, because a lot of times I have a lot of thoughts going on while I type. I do notice, however, that sometimes these are the types of things that go on in the Bible. I guess it boils down to utilizing all of the context clues, since things aren’t always spelled out for us.
Example:
In Micah 5:2, it says this:
“But you, Bethlehem Ephratah, though you be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of you shall he come forth to me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.”
A skim over it without dissecting it might look like it’s merely saying this:
“Bethlehem Ephratah, although you are little, out of you shall come a ruler who is eternal.”
This I have seen, for instance, Sam Shamoun exegete like this, saying that “goings forth” means origins. In other words, he felt that the “goings forth have been from old” means that Jesus has eternal origins.
I think that this is totally bogus, and that, contrary to a similar exegesis in the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary, it is NOT an antithesis to the comings forth, but they are one in the same. I read it like this:
one shall COME FORTH
these GOINGS FORTH are from eternity
In other words, the “goings forth” are the going forth to be ruler, or the coming forth, depending on which way you’re speaking about it. In one point of view, He will “come forth” to be a ruler for God, but his “goings forth” are from eternity. It says “goings forth” here rather than coming forth because it’s speaking now from Jesus’ initiative, saying “whose goings forth”.
It might seem like I’m over-analyzing it, but I’m just trying to explain why exactly it should be understood that way. Let me put it this way: if it’s not understood that way, then Peter in 1 Peter 1:20 is just assuming that Jesus was chosen at that time.
Such strange exegeses as these are the reason why many orthodox people, I believe, are held in the dark. The “because Jesus is God” explanation leaves very little to the mind and, as a result, to be gained in understanding. 😐
God bless!
-Jon
Jonathan,
I agree with many of your observations (to Mario in the previous comments).
I think the biggest problem for the “LOGOS = eternal attribute of God” idea is simply that LOGOS never means “attribute” anywhere in the apostolic usage (and there is no need to add that definition in John 1:1-14). That fact that ‘O LOGOS was used as a “name” for Jesus Christ (Revelation 19:13) at least gives good reason to consider that the writer was also using it that way in John 1:1-14 and 1 John 1:2.
I think the reason that the “attribute of God” and “plan, purpose, and wisdom” of God interpretations have arisen (in an attempt to redefine the ordinary meaning of LOGOS) is because most non-Trinitarians cannot get past the misunderstanding that John 1:1 is referring to the time of Genesis 1:1 and misinterpreting “became flesh” (John 1:14) to mean “incarnation.”
Because preexistence and incarnation baggage create a problem for most unitarians, they are forced to make up creative ways to dehumanize someone (or something) that supposedly existed with God the Father during the time of the Genesis creation and was know by the same “name” as Jesus Christ later on (Revelation 19:13). They try to solve the problem by using John 1:14a to suggest that some impersonal “word” (i.e. attribute, wisdom, plan, purpose, etc) was transformed into an human being.
Whatever your view is, I’m glad that you are sticking to the simplicity of understanding that “the word” (LOGOS) was referring to the audible and tangilible man of flesh that the disciples knew personally (1 John 1:1-2; John 1:14).
Jonathan,
thank you for your two latest comments. Your clarifications made me fully appreciate that, were I thought there was awkwardness (and sometimes even clumsiness) of expression, but ultimately ingenuousness, there were instead hidden troves of exegetical (and of course hermeneutical) ingenuity.
Mario,
I said “alternative”, because when you asked why Matthew and Luke would “resort” to their accounts, it sounded like you meant that they defaulted to what they did because they didn’t have the opportunity to say something else. I thought that you were suggesting something more spectacular, such as one of the amazing origin explanations of Jesus in John 1.
I’ll tell you why I might believe that the account of Jesus’ birth might have been fueled by such a rationalization:
Luke, if he is the author also of the book of Acts as the tradition in the church goes, was going by what he heard and by compiled sources. As such, he may have heard a few accounts that people imagined or as legends or from liars of Gnostics with big imaginations. For instance, he’s the only one to, after having the thieves ridicule Jesus, have one rebuke the other one for speaking badly of Him. Bart Ehrman I think in one of the previous episodes (on his ‘How Jesus Became God’) reasoned that it was more important to them to get the point across. I thought that Dale mentioned that he also thought that, rather than having conflicting views, he believed that each other got their points across. I also feel this way, but if that author of Luke is Luke – a Luke who compiled others’ sources – then he was not an eye witness of Jesus while He was on the earth.
In any case, I mention this thing about Luke because we have another thing mentioned that isn’t mentioned elsewhere and so must be scrutinized. What I’m speaking about here is what Gabriel tells about Jesus, saying that “for this reason He will be called the Son of God”. Because of this, Anthony Buzzard for instance thinks that the reason Jesus is called the Son of God is because Jesus was literally birthed Jesus, inasmuch as God can literally birth someone without going too far into Tertullianism or Kabbalistic “emanations”, etc.
In any case, it has in there the Greek word “kai”, which could be “and” or “also”, depending on the context. They really mean the same thing if you think about it, but I mean to express the proper thing in English, one or the other is used in English. For me, if the account is accurate, then what’s going on is that Gabriel is saying “and for this reason ALSO He will be called the Son of God”. In other words, in addition to what was already said. What did Gabriel already say?
“He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.”
This is him paraphrasing the prophecy in 2 Samuel 7 and 1 Chronicles 17. In this prophecy, Jesus is to be God’s Son in the way that God LOVES Him, and NOT because He would birth Him. In other words, it relates to Jesus paraphrasing the law of Israelite indentured servants, saying, “a servant does not abide in the house forever, but a son abides forever”. This is what God is talking about when He says, “I will be a father to him, and he will be My son: I will not take My love away from him as I took it away from your predecessor (Saul).”
This is also why the NT is constantly calling Jesus, “the son of His love”, “the only-begotten son” (that is, the unique or beloved son), and God says of Him, “this is My beloved son – with Him I am well-pleased”.
So, if someone wants to be contentious and say that Gabriel meant that Jesus was called the Son of God SPECIFICALLY (not ALSO) because He was born of a virgin, then it goes against the context of Luke, and they have to default to it being an addition to Luke or a made up section. Either that, or Gabriel just didn’t know what he was talking about, which I think is wrong.
So, in short, this is what I meant about it possibly being an explanation to Jesus being called the Son of God (which, because of the prophecy, is equivalent to “Messiah”, and that’s how it’s used throughout *ALL* of the Gospel accounts where it’s mentioned). If everything in Luke is accurate, then I think Gabriel is just speaking matter-of-factly about what people will say — and it’s true, because as we can see, people do think Jesus is God’s Son based on His virgin birth, when that’s not what He’s called God’s Son for throughout the Bible, New or Old Testaments.
You said:
“I have no idea what you’re trying to say with:
“It really doesn’t explicitly say, but it doesn’t hint at because Jesus is somehow coming out of God like one of His attributes. That’s really weird to interject here, which is I think where this might be leading, although that’s just a guess by me.”
Care to clarify?”
I say:
I thought you believed that the Word was an attribute of God, so I was mentioning that I don’t think that the prologue of John is going in that direction at all. I meant to say something like, “I don’t think it’s calling Jesus ‘the Word’ to hint at the fact that He came out of God from one of His attributes”.
I don’t think that Immanuel combines with “The Word became flesh” except because it’s loosely related by everything that went on with Jesus. I typically don’t relate it to “the Word was God”, because I don’t take it to mean at all that Jesus is God, even in representation, but I think that Matthew is only relating Jesus’ virgin birth to the sign that God would save Israel, and this through Jesus. As such, I don’t even think that the angel is saying Jesus has “Immanuel” as an appellation, but just that it’s part of the verse that Matthew is quoting. The explanation of what it means in Greek is either so Greeks reading understand why he would be named Immanuel, or as a later note in the text. In either case, I think it’s like how we have footnotes in today’s Bible to give understanding. For instance, Isaac means “laughter”. This is related to “Abraham saw my day and was glad”. I could explain that more later, but the idea is that Isaac brought Sarah laughter in her old age, because who would have thought that she would be a mother at her age? Without a footnote like that, I would have totally missed the significance of the name Isaac. There is so much of that stuff in Hebrew that it’s amazing how much we miss out on if we don’t have notes. For instance, similar-sounding words are used poetically in various places, like in the creation account:
When it says that the serpent was more “cunning” than all the animals in the garden, the word “cunning” sounds like the word “naked” later on. The relation is that the serpent was a deceiver, and them being naked was them being deceived. Consider how this relates to modern symbols as where a person who has sinned, without the covering of Jesus Christ, is “found naked”. Also, how the devil is called “the dragon”, which is basically a snake with legs. Furthermore, there was the serpent whose sting brought death (Paul calling the sting of sin death), when they stung the Israelites for their rebellion. The only way they could be saved is if they looked on that sin hung on the cross. So, Jesus “became sin” (that is to say, He was treated as a sinner) to that they might live.
Re: Mario at January 21, 2015 at 8:46 am
By “added after the fact”, I mean added as the “Prologue” after the fact of the Revelation to Jesus Christ. In other words, if that prologue was written after Revelation was received, then it could relate to it. Otherwise, I could see from the account of the Gospel of John why Jesus would be called “the Word of God”, but I think in the immediate context of Revelation, it’s also apparent why Jesus is called the “Word of God”: because He there is judging with God’s words.
By “ex post facto”, I meant the same thing, and by “anachronistically”, I meant that it would seem that John would be calling Jesus “the Word of God” before such a revelation would have been given, being that the prologue is slapped on there before any of the Gospel account starts. So does Jesus being with God, so I don’t see a problem with that.
About the only thing being mistaken as being in the beginning of the universe being Jesus in the book of John, I meant to say that’s the only thing being discussed as having existed at the beginning of the universe. This if course is a mistake, because in John 17, the way Jesus puts it, it’s obvious that He’s talking about being ordained or determined to come forth into His glory, and not having literally existed as a person or in any other way, really, than being foreknown by God. (1 Peter 1:20, for instance)
I was saying that what we can not abandon so easily would be the idea that John is calling Jesus here “the Word of God” as He now is. Part of my reasoning there was that if we exclude it as a likely possibility that Jesus is “the Word of God” in the beginning because John doesn’t call Jesus “the Word of God” in the Gospel account, then why should we consider it to be talking about anything else called the Word of God in the beginning, being that the Gospel account doesn’t talk about anything else existing in the beginning? That’s why I brought up that the only thing that is considered by people to be talked about as existing in the beginning of the universe in the book of John is Jesus, albeit in error.
-Jon
Mario,
I’m just trying to ask the right questions about plausible interpretations of the text. That is what critical exegesis is all about (especially if one considers the biblical text to be reliable and the final authority on the questions we are asking here).
I don’t mean to be critical. It’s just that everyone (including scholars) must be careful to avoid making common exegetical and logical missteps. Scholars often commit the same errors that the average pastor or layperson does. We all have blind spots.
I could take bits and pieces of the work of other scholars and make it look like I have authority behind what I’m presenting here, but that’s not my approach. I don’t need to do that. However, one of the reasons I put forward these ideas is because I’m looking for honest critical feedback and am not afraid to put things to the text.
I appreciate your help 🙂
I trust you fully appreciate, from my lexical note, how fully I appreciate how, with the freedom in exegesis – and let’s throw hermeneutics in the bargain too – that only superior grasp of semantics and linguistics can avail a shrewd and sophisticated scholar like you, you can open up entirely new horizons in Biblical Criticism.
Mario,
There is no “weakness” in understanding how the semantics of a language work. Forcing rules of grammar to restrict meaning isn’t always appropriate. I’m demonstrated from the context of both John 1:6 and John 1:14 that the differences probably amount to nothing more than manner of speaking.
Please bear in mind that rules of grammar are only interpretations. They are never absolute and should never be the determining factor when interpreting a text. It is always context that determines the meaning. 🙂
Lexical note
To pretend, when used intransitively, has two quite different meanings:
1. To feign an action or character, as in play.
2. To lay claim: pretends to gourmet tastes.
The first time i ment the first, the second time the second …
… although I realize that scholars who … pretend to have superior grasp of semantics and linguistics, who … pretend to do “sound exegesis” consider these finicky distinctions below themselves … 😉
You are exposing your weakness (pretending that it is a sign of superiority) so pathetically, I feel truly embarrassed for you … 🙁
Mario,
I haven’t “forgotten” anything.
The grammatical rule you are trying to impose on “became (EGENETO) a man” (John 1:6) is irrelevant because the meaning of grammar is always determined by context. The semantics of biblical Greek (as any other language) allows for the same concept to be expressed in different manners of speaking.
Thus, it makes perfectly good sense to translate John 1:6 as “there became (EGENETO) a man named John” because the meaning of EGENETO in the context is simply that John “became” known as the human being (“a man”) that God sent to testify about the coming of Jesus Christ. This is just the manner of speaking the writer used in this particular verse.
Likewise, it makes perfectly good sense to understand “the word became (EGENETO) flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14) to simply mean that Jesus Christ “became” (EGENETO) known as the man (“flesh”) that John said would be coming after him (John 1:15). This is just the different manner of speaking the writer used in this particular verse.
When doing sound exegesis, we have to be careful to account for the semantic flexibility that is inherent in all spoken and written languages. Forcing rules of grammar to restrict meaning is fallacious. This is what unfortunately happens when a student is required to takes a few “Greek” classes but doesn’t get any training in semantics or linguistics. 🙂
Mario,
I’m not “forgetting” anything.
The grammatical rule you are trying to enforce on John 1:6 and John 1:14 is only arbitrary. It is always usage and context that determines meaning and not translation or grammatical rules. If you took any biblical Greek in school, I hope that someone explained that to you along the way.
If John 1:6 is translated “there became a man sent by God”, it makes perfectly good sense because the meaning of EGENETO (“became”) is simply referring to the fact that John “became” known to the people as a “witness” at that time (John 1:7). This is just the manner of speaking that the writer used in this verse.
Likewise, in John 1:14, “the word became (EGENETO) flesh” can simply be referring to the fact that Jesus Christ “became” known to disciples at the time when he began dwelling among them. This is a matter of interpretation (based upon the context) and not enforcing arbitrary grammatical rules.
Unfortunately, many students who take a couple of “Greek” courses don’t learn about semantics or linguistics and thus commit all kinds of exegetical fallacies by recklessly trying to enforce interpretative grammatical rules without any regard for flexibility in manner of speaking. 🙂
there translation => the translation
Mario,
When you use the term “appellative” to account for “names” that Jesus was called like “Immanuel” (Matthew 1:23) and “word (LOGOS) of God” (Revelation 19:13), I’m not sure I understand how that helps your “eternal attribute became a human being” idea. Can you please provide some clarification.
For example, if you concede that “word (LOGOS) of God” (Revelation 19:13) is an appellative, then how could you not prefer the understanding that it may also be an appellative in John 1:1-3, 14 also? What in the context of John 1:1-14 would lead you to believe that “word (LOGOS) of God” is intended to identify an attribute as opposed to an appellative?
I’m asking you to clarify this because it seems to be a critical problem for the “attribute” idea (since there’s no other evidence of LOGOS referring to an attribute anywhere else in the apostolic usage. If it is used as an appellative for an human being in Revelation 19:13, why should it be dehumanized in John 1:1-3, 14?
Rivers keeps forgetting (or, by now, pretending to forget?) that the Greek verb gi[g]nomai has quite different meanings, depending on WHETHER it used absolutely (with NO predicate) OR is part of a sentence where the subject is accompanied by a predicate.
In egeneto anthrôpos apestalmenos para theou onoma autô ioannes (John 1:6), egeneto is absolute (NO predicate), so there translation, “There became a man named John” is simply nonsensical.
In kai ho logos sarx egeneto (John 1:14), ho logos is the subject, egeneto is the copula and sarx is the predicate. So the proper translation is NOT the super-silly “Jesus became human flesh”, BUT the straightforward “the word became flesh”.
Jon [January 21, 2015 at 9:24 am]
Why do you use the word “alternative”, as though the miracle was in “alternative” to a “deeper reason” (a mystery)? (It isn’t.) Interesting that that you may consider the possibility of the Nativity account as a rationalization of the misunderstanding of the expression “son of God”.
I have no idea what you’re trying to say with:
“It really doesn’t explicitly say, but it doesn’t hint at because Jesus is somehow coming out of God like one of His attributes. That’s really weird to interject here, which is I think where this might be leading, although that’s just a guess by me.”
Care to clarify?
I agree with you that Emmanuel (which, BTW, ONLY appears in Isaiah 7:14, 8:8 and – as a quotation – in Matt 1:23 and is NOT a name but a mere appellative, “God [is] with us”) is equivalent to the real name that was given to Jesus (Yeshua, “YHWH saves”).
I also agree with you “[t]hat God was becoming a man does not fulfil Isaiah 7:14 — that God will save His people does, and that a virgin having a child does”.
How do you think this would combine with “the Word was God”, “the Word became flesh” (John 1:1,14)?
Jonathan,
… continued from previous comment:
Another consideration in John 1:14 is that the word translated “became” (EGENETO) is not the word for “birth” (especially in the 4th Gospel where the writer always used GENNAW when speaking of a human birth). Rather, GINOMAI can refer to someone “becoming” something in many other ways.
For example, in the Prologue, the same verb is used to speak of John the baptizer when it says “There became (EGENETO) a man named John” (John 1:6). We all understand that this does not mean that John “became a human being” before he began his ministry. Likewise, there is no reason to think that “became” (EGENETO) in John 1:14 meant that Jesus “became human flesh” before he dwelt among the disciples. In both cases, it simply meant that these two men (who were already existed for 30 years) were being commissioned by God at that time.
Jonathan,
I think you make some good points there. I wouldn’t put too much weight on when particular scripture books were written because we don’t have any dates to work with. Any of the Gospels could have been written before or after any of the others. Revelation may have been written later, but we can’t be certain.
I think your point about Jesus becoming known as “the word of God” (Revelation 19:13) is well-taken because we do know that all of the Gospels and letters were written after the resurrection of Jesus Christ (and there is no evidence that LOGOS was ever associated with Jesus Christ prior to that time). Thus, I think it’s likely that the John writer is looking back on the resurrection of Jesus Christ in the Prologue with the understanding that he was a man who embodied the everlasting life that he spoke about (1 John 1:1-5).
As Mario suggested in his reply to you, we can’t be certain about the meaning of “became flesh” (John 1:14a) because it is an unusual expression and could mean several different things. I don’t agree with Mario’s idea that “became flesh” refers to “the virgin birth” because there is nothing in the immediate context (or the rest of the Prologue) to support that interpretation.
I think it’s more likely that “the word became flesh” simply meant that Jesus Christ was “manifested” by John the baptizer (John 1:30-31) to his disciples at the beginning of his public ministry (John 1:34-49). This is what the immediate context is referring to (John 1:6-9, John 1:15), as well as the rest of John 1. There is nothing that requires “became flesh” to mean birth or incarnation in this passage, and I think the word “and” indicates that the “became flesh” and the “dwelling among” began at the same time.
Re: Mario at January 21, 2015 at 8:15 am,
I don’t think that Matthew and Luke “resorted” to the virgin birth, as though it were an alternative to some “greater truth”. If it was made up, then it was out of confusion for Jesus being called the Son of God. If not, then it’s because it happened. Why did it happen? Well, perhaps the genealogy given in one of them gives a clue, in that it calls Adam, who was created by God and a type of Christ, the “son of God”. It really doesn’t explicitly say, but it doesn’t hint at because Jesus is somehow coming out of God like one of His attributes. That’s really weird to interject here, which is I think where this might be leading, although that’s just a guess by me.
As far as imagining deeper reasons, I think speculation leads to a lot of junk and fantasy, but can be useful for learning. As far as Immanuel, the context of Immanuel was being a sign that God was going to save Israel. Jesus is never called Immanuel, but the Gospel account records the whole verse, although Jesus is neither named nor called Immanuel. However, in the cross-references, Messiah is to be named “Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins”. To me, the “God is with us” is the same as it is in Isaiah 7 and 8: because God will save His people from their sins. This is not to say that Jesus is God, but it is called a sign in the Gospel account. That God was becoming a man does not fulfill Isaiah 7:14 — that God will save His people does, and that a virgin having a child does.
I’ll respond later to the other message, since SOMEONE in this house is cranky… 🙁
Love,
-Jon
P.S. “Convincingly” includes confronting seriously the use of logos in Hebrews 4:12. 🙂
Rivers,
ultimately, every mental logos (the Greek philosophers referred to it as logos endiathetos) can be transformed into a spoken logos (the Greek philosophers referred to it as logos prophorikos) by … speaking! 🙂
Are you seriously saying that we have only two options, for how logos is used in the NT: EITHER “spoken saying or message”, OR your peculiar “name of Jesus”, to the exclusion of any abstract, mental sense, like “account”, “reason”?
If that is the case (I still give you the chance of reversing convincingly my impression), thank you: you will have saved me the bother of wasting my time and effort on a lost (and silly) cause. 🙂
Jon [January 21, 2015 at 7:50 am],
probably Dale will understand more easily than me what you are saying. I have no difficulty admitting that most of what you say (or hint at) escapes me. I am baffled. 🙁
What to you mean by “added after the fact”? What “fact”? What do you mean by “used ex post facto or anachronistically”? What is the relevance of saying that you don’t see “in the Gospel account [any] mention of the ‘Word of God’ existing in the beginning”? Where, in John 17, would Jesus demonstrate [the order the beginning of the universe?] “as being God’s ordination, and not Him as a Person”? What is that “we can[not] abandon so easily”? I would sincerely love to understand? Can you help me? 🙂
Mario,
…. continued from previous comment:
Neither of the passage you cited uses LOGOS in an “abstract, mental sense” (as you say). Let me show you why it is not the case.
Matthew 5:32 … the reason LOGOS is used here is because there would be a verbal accusation of unchastity (testimony of witnesses). Thus, the LOGOS (“reason”) is derived from the spoken accusation. See John 8:4.
Acts 10:29 … in this passage, the LOGOS (“reason”) is referring to Peter’s request for a spoken account from Cornelius as to why he sent for him. This LOGOS is given by Cornelius in the following verse (Acts 10:30).
Mario … this is where you have to be careful with linguistics. Think about the reason that writer uses a particular term in a particular context. Just because it reads better to translated LOGOS as “reason” in Matthew 5:32 and Acts 10:29, it was not being used in the sense of a “plan” or “purpose” in those texts. It was referring to the spoken accusation and explanation that was being requested. 🙂
Mario,
Thank you for replying to my questions.
1. I’m not sure that it makes any difference it LOGOS is usually an “it” (because it refers to a “saying” or “message”) because, when it is used of Jesus Christ (John 1:1-3, 14; 1 John 1:2; Revelation 19:13), it can be understood to be referring to an human being (John 1:14).
I also don’t think it matters how Philo used the term LOGOS (since there’s no evidence that Jesus or the apostles had any connection with Philo). The same goes for the Church Fathers. Some of them are notoriously bad exegetes and probably weren’t capable of doing the kind of linguistic analysis that is possible today.
2. If you don’t see any disconnect between John 1:14a and John 1:14b, then you must agree with me that Jesus didn’t “dwell among” his disciples until he was introduced to them (John 1:34-49). Thus, John 1:14a cannot be referring to “the word” at any time prior to his public ministry. It doesn’t matter how “dwell” is interpreted. Jesus didn’t “dwell” with his disciples at the time of his birth or as anything other than an human being.
Jonathan,
yes, it would have been really nice, and it would have certainly saved us all a lot of trouble, if the evangelist John had just added a few word. Something like:
“Now the Word became flesh [in Jesus of Nazareth, by the Holy Spirit, from a virgin called Mary] and took up residence among us.”
But, unfortunately, he didn’t. Now, can you answer these honest questions for me, please. Why do you think God (according to Matthew’s and Luke’s accounts) would have resorted to the miracle of the virgin conception of Jesus? Do you think that Matthew and Luke fully account for that reason? Can you imagine of a deeper reason than what is merely alluded at with that “they will call him Emmanuel” (Matt 1:23), with that “he will be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:35)?
Dale,
I thought that I was once told that there are those who believed that the account of the Gospel of John was written after Revelation. Some others also believe that the prologue is a hymn or poem that was added after the fact, and possibly something that they sang in church. In either of these cases, “the Word of God” could be used ex post facto or anachronistically, couldn’t it? After all, in the same way that John doesn’t call Jesus “the Word of God” in his account of the Gospel, I not only see in the Gospel account not mention of the “Word of God” existing in the beginning as far as the Gospel is concerned, but it is not very big of a topic so as to overshadow any compulsion which might otherwise lead them to believe that the context seems to say that John is speaking about something after the beginning of the universe. After all, if we do want to speak in the context of the book of John, the only thing that is even mistaken as being said to be there at the beginning of the universe is Jesus, isn’t it? This, of course, Jesus demonstrates in John 17 as being God’s ordination, and not Him as a Person. I just don’t think that we can abandon that so easily is all.
Much love,
-Jon
P.S.The list or NT references for logos in an abstract, mental sense, rather than spoken sense, is ampler than what I’ve cited. Here are a couple more: Matt 5:32; Acts 10:29.
It’d be really nice if John could have saved us all of the trouble and just wrote it in plain words. 😉
1. The predominant meaning of the Greek word logos, in particular in its biblical use (including the Johannine author) is of an “it”: not only, as you have repeatedly observed yourself, “spoken saying or message”, but also in the abstract sense of “account”, like in “giving an account” (Mat 12:36; Mat 18:23; Luk 16:2; Act 19:40; Rom 14:12; Phl 4:17; Heb 13:17; 1Pe 4:5). The only exceptions, the ones that apparently cannot be resolved as “word” or “saying” or “message” or “account” are a very limited list: John 1:1,14; 1 John 1:1; Rev 19:23. For a very unfortunate series of causes, very early (at least the beginning of the 2nd century CE), but even, funnily enough, by the scholars who, in the 19th and 20th century did away with “high christology”, the word logos in those verses (perhaps with the exception of Rev 19:23) was virtually unanimously given the meaning of “personal (hypostatic) wisdom and power in union with God, his minister in the creation and government of the universe”. This introduction of a duality in God (deuteros/eteros theos), which was already present in the Jewish theologian and philosopher Philo of Alexandria (c. 25 BCE – c. 50 CE) was what I refer to as the “original sin of Christianity”, which gradually led to the full-fledged “co-eternal, co-equal, tri-personal” “trinity”.
There is, though, in the NT, one verse, that, I believe, can help retrieve the true meaning of logos, when referred to God:
For the word [logos] of God is living and active and sharper than any double-edged sword, piercing even to the point of dividing soul from spirit, and joints from marrow; it is able to judge the desires and thoughts of the heart. (Hebrews 4:12)
It is certainly NOT a coincidence that this image of the “double-edged sword” is repeatedly referred in Revelation to the “son of Man” (Rev 1:16), to the one “called Word of God” (Rev 19:15)
It is the very mind of God at work, in creating, in guiding and in judging His creation. Is this logos of God a hypostasis? Why should it be? Is this logos of God fully, uniquely expressed in His one-begotten (monogenes) Son Jesus, starting with his conception and everlastingly, after his life passion, death, resurrection ad ascension? Only mental masturbations can go against this reading of John 1:14 and John 1:18
2. I don’t see nor posit any “disconnect”. The verse says that the incarnated Word “took residence among us” (eskênôsen en ymin), which clearly alludes to the OT tabernacle, where the Shekinah, the visible glory of God’s presence, resided, without specifically speaking of “Jesus Christ dwelling among his disciples”.
Mario,
Could you please address these two questions for me:
1. What do you think requires the LOGOS to be an “it” in the grammar or context of the Prololuge?
2. What do you think requires “the word became flesh” (John 1:14a) to be disconnected from the historical context of the rest of verse which speaks of Jesus Christ dwelling among his disciples?
oops!
reed => read
Dale
For anyone who was reading this verse …
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:14)
… without an agenda, I would say that “best expressed in the man Jesus” is definitely a wishy-washy description, but, of course, a Unitarian with an agenda may see things differently … 🙂
“Good thing”? Good for whom? Aren’t you giving your bias away a bit too openly? I have already noted that, in your post “Ireneus’s 2-stage Logos theory” of March2, 2013, you resorted the expression “evident nonsense”, without providing any satisfactory explanation. As it was not enough, you now resort the expression “obvious falsehood”. Do I need to tell you that, besides being unjustified, they both sound suspiciously un-scholarly and un-philosophical, as though you had a dog in the race but didn’t want to admit it?
The “writer of John 1 does not assume or assert that this Word is personally identical to Jesus” for the simple reason that the pre-incarnated logos is an “it” (I fancily call it an eternal, essential, structural attribute of God), and Jesus, in/as whom the logos “became flesh” (sarx egeneto) is a “he” (a person in the full and proper sense of the word: a self-conscious being, endowed with reason, freedom and will)
Now, be honest: is this what you read from John 1:14, or what you need to reed into John 1:14, to make it compatible with your agenda, dutifully barricaded behind a double barrage of “evident nonsense” and “obvious falsehood”? 😉
Dale, I acctually did a a blog post for this one on my website, and was a little less off the cuff. So it might not be so dry… and I repeat because some people miss points alot, so I rephrase to help someone who Might have been confused. Sorry about that…
Dale,
Thank you for the replies to my comments. Could you please answer a couple of questions that arise from your rebuttal of my remarks:
1. You seem to be making an arbitrary distinction between “the word became flesh” (John 1:14a) and “and dwelt among us” (John 1:14b) in order to dehumanize ‘O LOGOS throughout the Prologue. Can you provide any exegetical warrant for disconnecting those two clauses that mitigates the fact that the writer used the word “and” to put them together when he wrote the passage?
2. If you don’t believe the ‘O LOGOS refers to a person, then what do you do with the language in 1 John 1:1-2 where the writer explicitly refers to “hearing, seeing, observing, and handling” the LOGOS? How would you propose to dehumanize it in that context?
3. Do you think the disciples were somehow having a sensory interaction with a non-human LOGOS of some sort “from the beginning” (1 John 1:1-2)? Do you think “the beginning” in John 1:1-3 is different than the one in the Prologue?
Thanks, Dee. I’m glad you enjoyed it.
I’m leaning towards including music in future episodes… I think it sort of gives the listener a little break in which to process all the heavy stuff that’s been said…
Hi Mario,
“How should we understand the Logos in John 1:1-18, then? Is it an eternal attribute of God? Was it “expressed” at some point in time?”
Yes, it is supposed there to be eternal – it is already there in the beginning. (1:1)
Was it ever expressed?
Well, it was by this Word that God created, and it was the light of men, and so on. And the writer thinks it is best expressed in the man Jesus (1:14).
But the good thing is that I see no reason to think this writer is implicated in an obvious falsehood, as are some of the logos theologians, that what is an attribute at t1 becomes an intelligent agent at t2. This is because the writer of John 1 does not assume or assert that this Word is personally identical to Jesus. One can say that for him, this is not a literal incarnation – a spirt obtaining a body – but rather a metaphorical one. It is AS IF he/it became a human, so well does this human embody this logos.
“One certainly could take “the word (LOGOS) became flesh and dwelt among us” to be referring to the writer’s understanding that Jesus Christ himself was known as LOGOS throughout his life (including events in his life like his death and resurrection).”
NO. The writer is not there making any point whatever about terminology, i.e. what names Jesus went by. And just looking at the gospels, we never seem him elsewhere described or named as “ho logos”. So, it seems that was simply not a name or description he went by in his lifetime.
“Of course, we know that he had the “name” of LOGOS during Revelation as well (Revelation 19:13).”
Well, that’s not a time in his earthly life, right? Yes, he’s called that – no problem. I don’t see how that should affect our interpretation of John 1, though.
Hi Eliseo,
Umm… another 90 minutes? Let me suggest that you should summarize your arguments and make a blog post – something that can be read in 10 minutes. Or boil your points down to, say, 2 minutes, which I might then include in a future podcast. Honestly, there was a lot of repetition, digression, and thinking out loud in the first 90 minutes. I’m not sure if I’m up for another 90 right now…
Hi Rivers,
Despite your strident objections, nearly all readers think that “in the beginning” in John 1 refers to the time of creation, in part, because of the seeming reference to Proverbs 8, which is about the time of creation, But I agree that yes, more needs to be said about the interpretation that “the beginning” here is some later time. On the face of it, that might make sense, both grammatically and theologically.
About his alleged ““inexplicable difficulties and complexities”, I didn’t say here what those are. Those too need a hearing, as we fully evaluate a more catholic reading of John 1. But not now.
“no exegetical basis for his idea that LOGOS means an “attribute of God… LOGOS never means “attribute” or “power” or “wisdom” or “control” or “fullness of spirit” anywhere in the 4th Gospel.”
Well, this is begging the question. Yes, normally logos means things like word, reason, message, and such. But this is a highly unusual context.
” There is nothing in the context of Proverbs 8 that requires any direct application to the Messiah”
Agreed. It is about wisdom, divine and human.
“and there’s nothing in the context of John 1 that makes any direct allusion to the language in Proberbs 8.”
To the contrary, any educated reader would have noticed:
pros tov theon – John 1:1, cf. sumparemein autoi – “I was present with him” LXX in Pr 8
en arche “in the beginning” 8:23, LXX and John 1:1
And of course, the claim that God the word by his “Word” – “By the Word of the Lord” the heavens were established. (Ps 33:6, LXX Ps 32:6) – (and cf. Genesis 1)
http://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/greek-texts/septuagint/chapter.asp?book=24&page=32
Those are good reasons to think it is creation which the author has in mind, and also Prov 8. No invincible reasons which couldn’t be overturned by further considerations, of course. But good reasons, it would seem.
Elisio,
Thank you for taking the time to provide a lengthy response. I listened to it and thought that you made a few good points.
Although I don’t believe that the apostles were teaching any kind of preexistence or incarnation of “the word”, I do agree with you that ‘O LOGOS (“the word”) was referring to a living person (Jesus Christ) in John 1:1-18, 1 John 1:1-5, and Revelation 19:13.
I don’t agree with some of the other interpretations here which unnecessarily dehumanize “the word” because of the simple fact that there is no evidence that there was any ‘O LOGOS associated with Jesus Christ until after the disciples actually knew him (1 John 1:1-2) and wrote about him in hindsight (John 1:1-18).
Mario,
I agree.
The interpretation of John 1:14 is a critical part of understanding the context of the Prologue and the meaning of “the word.” I hope Dale will continue to invite a hearing of the different perspectives.
Dale,
in your post “Ireneus’s 2-stage Logos theory” of March2, 2013, we read:
“… for them [earlier 2nd century catholic apologists like Justin, Tatian, and Athanagoras], the Logos existed from all eternity as an attribute of God, and was only at a certain time, just before or at the time of God’s creation, expressed, so as to exist as another alongside God (cf. Proverbs 8), by means of whom God created the cosmos. (…) The idea … that this agent used to be an attribute of the Father is evident nonsense.” (bolding added)
The Wisdom of Proverbs 8 can be treated for what it is, a personification (a rhetoric figure) of an attribute of God. There is no need to assume that God “expressed” this attribute “just before or at the time of creation, so as to exist as another alongside God, by means of whom God created the cosmos”.
How should we understand the Logos in John 1:1-18, then? Is it an eternal attribute of God? Was it “expressed” at some point in time?
Well, it all depends on how you interpret John 1:14.
Dale,
I listened to the response by Rodriguez and I do think he makes a reasonable argument against your statement in your podcast that LOGOS did not apply to Jesus Christ throughout his life.
One certainly could take “the word (LOGOS) became flesh and dwelt among us” to be referring to the writer’s understanding that Jesus Christ himself was known as LOGOS throughout his life (including events in his life like his death and resurrection). Of course, we know that he had the “name” of LOGOS during Revelation as well (Revelation 19:13).
Of course, one could also argue that the Prologue encompasses the entire life of Jesus Christ too since it “begins” in John 1:1-3 and ends with him being “in the bosom of the Father” (John 1:18). This would be another reason to suggest that LOGOS was not limited to preexistence or an inhuman “plan, wisdom, or purpose” that preceded the birth or public ministry of Jesus.
Here is My response… 🙂 http://www.spreaker.com/user/arianism_today/response-to-dale-tuggys-podcast-71
Greetings Eliseo
Just remember the words: To read a metaphor as LITERAL speech is misinterpretation-Jesus Symbol of God [Roger Haight] pg. 210
My thoughts and research on Proverbs 8:22
The word Bara does not occur in Proverbs 8:22. According to BDB Lexicon the word BARA means:to create, make, Creator (Qal); choose, cut down, dispatch, (Piel); be created, be done
However the word Kanah(not BARA) is in that verse(unless one appeals to the Septuagint for ????? ) and here is the etymology of this Hebrew verb
299. Kanah Translation:+Purchase by Definition:+To acquire ownership or occupation through an exchange.AHLB:+1428-H (V) Strong’s:+7069 – “Ancient Hebrew Dictionary,” by Jeff A. Benner.
BDB Lexicon pg. 888 Kanah(Heb verb=Qal form) basic meaning is to get, acquire;of acquiring wisdom, knowledge (only Pr.): Pr 1:5 4:5; 4:7; 4:7 15:32 16:16; 17:16; 18:15 19:8 23:23. This Lexicon cites the number one definition as acquiring when used in ***poetical language*** Also can mean to purchase and produce. BDB Lexicon says can also mean of God as originating, creating,
NAS Exhaustive Concordance: a primary root, to get, acquire ( thus to get and/or acquire Wisdom)
Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance: attain, buy, teach, recover, redeem, procure.(thus to procure Wisdom)
Jewish Tanakh Study Bible commentary on Proverbs 8:22 ” states the reader should cautious of attaching this passage to Messiah, because here Wisdom is said to be acquired.( Wisdom is acquired)
Rashi commentary explains that Proverbs 8 is the Wisdom of Torah and that’s why SHE is said to have seven pillars.( Wisdom is said to have seven pillars)
We must always consider the background and language of the writer, who was Solomon Ben David. Solomon acquired Wisdom from Yahweh and it would explain his poetic personage of Lady Wisdom. Yes, Solomon loved many Ladies, but he also loved Lady Wisdom.
I do not object to this type of Wisdom inculcated in Jesus the Messiah, but to insist that this is a Messianic text and that it confirms his pre-existence or personal existence with the Father is dogmatic and not according to the Hebraic understanding. I have extensive notes regarding Proverbs 8:22( it has been said many times that prouparchein does not appear in the NT for Jesus.
The narratives in Matthew and Luke do not imply preexistence-See King and Messiah as Son of God Divine, Human, and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature
The Synoptics Gospels do not portray Jesus as preexistent-ibid.
The letter to the Hebrews strongly and clearly rejects the idea that Christ is an angel)Hebrews 1{{ See Hebrews: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Hermeneia: A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible) by Harold W. Attridge pg. 35-62 }}
The Annunciation by Gabriel is paramount and the words of Angels, especially this high ranking one is not to be disregarded.
The World Biblical Commentary this striking passage describes, in a mysterious way, the relationship of Woman Wisdom to the Lord. There is a strong emphasis on her origins and age. SHE was begotten of the Lord, and before anything else in creation
I would like to emphasize that metaphorical statements in Scripture cannot take precedence over literal plain statements. Luke 1:35 is the starting point of Messiah.
I will cite for you an excellent Jewish work on the subject: “In the beginning of God’s creating…” – Six things preceded the creation of the world; some of them were created and some of them were decided to be created.(i.e. notional) The Torah and the Throne of Glory were created. How do we know the Torah was? As it says (Proverbs 8:22): “God made me at the beginning of his way.” How do we know the Throne of Glory was? As it says (Psalms 93:2): “Your throne is established as of old etc.” The Patriarchs, Israel, the Temple, and the name of the Messiah were decided to be created. How do we know the Patriarchs were? As it says (Hosea 9:10)
Q #1 Please provide me some information that shows that the Jews regarded Proverbs 8 as a Messianic text?
Keefa,
Good points.
I Love It! Thank You! I like the music interlude too…Very Nice
Dale,
P.S. I think it’s good that you were willing to link Rodriguez’ rebuttal so that we could give it a fair hearing as well. 🙂
Dale,
Interesting podcast. However, I didn’t find Burnap’s interpretation persuasive for a few reasons.
First, Burnap arbitrarily assumes the “in the beginning” (John 1:1) must refer all the way back to the time of the Genesis creation but doesn’t offer any exegesis from the context of John 1:1-3 to establish it. Thus, what follows of his endeavor to make “the word” (LOGOS) refer to various “manifestations” (revelations) throughout the Hebrew scriptures is unnecessary.
Second, Burnap’s “inexplicable difficulties and complexities” with interpreting LOGOS as a person in John 1:1-14 arise because he doesn’t seem to be aware of how the context changes when if doesn’t assume that “in the beginning” must refer all the way back to Genesis. If “in the beginning” (John 1:1) is taken to refer only to the same time that Jesus actually “dwelt among his disciples” (John 1:14; 1 John 1:1-2) then there are no problems arise with regard to trying to reconcile a personal LOGOS with any kind of preexistence.
Third, Burnap offers no exegetical basis for his idea that LOGOS means an “attribute of God” or “the power, wisdom, and full control of God over nature by the fullness of His Spirit.” Anyone can look up the 35+ times the writer of the 4th Gospel used the term LOGOS and find that it never meant any of the things asserted in Burnap’s definition. This is an example of where Burnap creates his own unwarranted “complexities.” LOGOS never means “attribute” or “power” or “wisdom” or “control” or “fullness of spirit” anywhere in the 4th Gospel.
Fourth, Burnap’s argument that wisdom is feminine in Hebrew, but masculine in Greek, and thus Proverbs 8 and John 1 are referring to a personification of the same thing further disregards word usage and literary context. There is nothing in the context of Proverbs 8 that requires any direct application to the Messiah, and there’s nothing in the context of John 1 that makes any direct allusion to the language in Proberbs 8. John 1:1-14 can be explained numerous other ways without any dependence up the personification of wisdom in Proverbs 8.
Dale,
I’m glad to read it here, from you. I just wonder how should we consider your post “Ireneus’s 2-stage Logos theory” of March2, 2013. 🙂
?
Haunted?
Mario, this is how philosophers work. We circle around an issue a thousand times, over the course of years. I’m by no means done exploring this way of reading John 1. I want to be sure it is a well-motivated reading, which best fits both the text and the context. I hope to devote multiple episodes to exploring different readings of John 1 at some future time.
Dale,
this “attribute” thingy is really haunting you … 😉
Comments are closed.