|
Listen to this post:
|
Who is this baby born to Joseph and Mary on the first Christmas? Where did he come from, and what sort of being is he?
The most popular Christian answers have been these:
- 1. God (i.e. the one true God, Yahweh)
- He had recently become a man, and now he enters his public career.
- 2. The eternal Son of God.
- Actually, this is his second birth. His first was his inconceivable, eternal generation by God (the Father). Now, this eternal Logos (Word) has assumed a complete human nature, body and rational soul, making him “man” but not “a man.” He is one person with two natures, divine (because of his first birth) and human (because of his assuming a human nature).
- 3. The ancient Son of God.
- Actually, this is his second birth. His first was when he was generated out of the Father before creation, so that he could be God’s agent of creation. Now, he has become a real human being, because this ancient Logos (Word) is the soul of a real human body. Having been produced not from nothing, but from God, he is divine, and now he is human as well.
- 4. The virgin born, human Son of God.
- Like other humans, he began to exist some time between conception and birth. But unlike other humans, he had a human Mother, but no human Father. Rather, by his power, God caused Mary to become pregnant with him.
Trinitarians are split between 1 and 2. Many smudge the difference between them, though they are contrary claims, ones that logically could both be false, but could not both be true. Many ancient catholics up until about the end of the fourth century held to 3, until it was thoroughly pilloried and finally rejected as heresy. 2 then became the official catholic view, as the so-called “Second Ecumenical Council” in 381 voted in a revised version of the Nicene creed composed in 325, which was then enforced by the Empire. Unitarian Christians have been split between 3 and 4 (and also something close to 2 – see below).
A few observations:
- Only one of 1-4 can be true. No two of them can be true.
- 2 & 3 assume the truth of mind-body substance dualism – the view that a living human is an immaterial soul inhabiting a body, or else is a combination of an immaterial soul and a body, with only the soul-part being essential. 4 is consistent with, but doesn’t require dualism about human beings. If you think dualism is false, 4 is the only of these four views you can consistently accept. (I assume you want to avoid views on which Jesus only appears to be human.) It is less clear how 1 relates to dualism, though surely most who accept 1 accept dualism too.
- Much Christmas sermonizing these days suggests 1.
- 1 fits the views of Oneness Pentecostals, “modalists,” and some ancient “monarchians.”
- But 1 also fits one self trinitarians, who think there is but one self among the Trinity. In other words, they hold that Father and Son are different “Persons” (whatever that may mean) but the same self, the same who.
- 1 is denied by “social” (three self) trinitarians, though they tend to keep this on the down low, using “God” ambiguously for any of: the Trinity, the Father, the Son, the Spirit. So for them “God [the eternal Son] became man” yet “God [the Father] sent his Son.” This habit allows three self trinitarians to co-exist with those holding to 1; both fly the flag of creedal orthodoxy, and usually sound like they’re saying the same things.
- 1 seems ruled out by the explicit statements of all the gospels, even the ones which don’t have birth narratives. On the face of it, the one God didn’t come in person. Rather, he sent someone else, Jesus, his Son, the Messiah (aka the Son of God). For example,
- “The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” (Mark 1:1)
- “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son… Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.” (John 3:16-17)
- Some treat 1 as a shorthand for 2. But 1 is a lousy shorthand for 2. Given the New Testament and latter-day usages of “God,” 1 seems to say either that the Trinity or the Father or the one self who is Father, Son, and Spirit was born on Christmas. But 2 doesn’t say any of those.
- 2 is officially on the books in trinitarian churches, although the statement usually elides some of the points stated above. And many elements of 2 are not much understood by the laity, especially groups which intend to base their views directly on the Bible.
- 1-3 involve Incarnation, traditionally understood – a divine being in some sense becoming human.
- 4 would involve, one might say, non-literal “incarnation,” in that the man Jesus is the unique and best expression of God’s eternal message, plan, or wisdom (logos). In 4, what is incarnated isn’t the same self as Jesus, since it’s not a self. In contrast, in 1-3 what is incarnated is the pre-human Jesus. Option 4 has no pre-human Jesus.
- The so-called “Arians” affirmed 3. But they did not originate that sort of view. It was held by a number of mainstream catholic theologians long before them, such as Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and all the logos theorists before Origen. It is, frankly, merely propaganda that portrays 3 as a wholly new invention of Arius, and which falsely asserts that the catholic mainstream always taught 2.
- The Jehovah’s Witnesses too hold to their own version of 3.
- 1 & 3 & 4 affirm, but 2 denies that Jesus is a human being, a human self.
- This is because theorists who came up with 2 didn’t want there to be two selves in Jesus (the Word, and the human self which consists of a human body and a human-type soul). They theorized that because of the “hypostatic union” which was the result of the Word “assuming” a complete human nature, the elements of that particular human nature don’t constitute a human self, as they do in a human being like you or me. If the Word hadn’t assumed them, they would have composed a human.
- 3 gets rid of the human soul, leaving the ancient, divine Logos to take the place of a soul in the man Jesus. This avoids the difficult theory just described, but calls into question whether the resulting Jesus is really a man “like us in all things except sin.”
- 4 has Jesus consisting of whatever parts or components any human has; what’s different are his origin, his role in God’s plan, and his unique post-exaltation status as the one Lord under God.
- 4 is the view of the early modern Socinians and many other unitarian Christians since then. It is unclear just how popular this view was in the first three centuries of Christianity. It is known that Ebionites, and some holding what came to be derided as “mere man” christology held to this view, and probably some of the so-called “monarchians” too. Thus, in the second and early third centuries it existed with within and outside of the catholic mainstream. It was sidelined when the Platonic “logos christology” became dominant, through the course of the third century.
As you return to the stories of the first Christmas in Matthew 1:18-2:23 and Luke 1:1-2:40, ask yourself: which of 1-4 best fits those stories? Are these stories of (1) God becoming one of us and moving into our neighborhood, (2) of the eternally generated, divine Word, now with a human soul and body too, so now “human,” (3) of the ancient Word, a divine soul now in a human body, or (4) of a miraculously-conceived man, destined to be God’s Messiah?
One place to start is by asking: Do these accounts state, imply, or assume that Jesus, in Mary, went from non-human to human?
Which best fits these birth narratives, and why?
For more on different historical Christian views about Jesus, see my Clarifying Catholic Christologies.
Merry Christmas!
Related posts:
Daniel Waterland on "The Father is the only God" texts - Part 1
Is God a self? Part 1 - Gillman
podcast 90 - Listener Questions 1
podcast 310 - Channing's "Objections to Unitarian Christianity Considered"
Is God a Self? Part 5 – Varadaraja V. Raman
Bill Hasker's reply
The Cerberus analogy revisited
Tim Pawl: a God-man is possible
Karl Rahner on the word "God" in the New Testament
Craig's antiunitarian argument
One of my problems with 4 is the “mere man” aspect robs Jesus of his status as God’s actual son. Yes, I know that “son” is sometimes used in other manners in the Old Testament in ways that don’t include blood relationships, but the New Testament goes to great lengths to describe Jesus as God’s ONLY BEGOTTEN. “Begat” in the Bible clearly indicates real, actual paternity… Father and Son in the sense we understand, not as some general metaphor. God created Adam. But he BEGAT Christ. Socinian theology is too adoptionist for my taste. In general terms, Jesus was intended as God’s agent, and earned a place of power next to him, but was never… before or after the resurrection… God’s real son. In addition to being the only begotten one, there are other paternal references to God and Christ his son. “The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation”. I don’t know about you all, but that sure sounds like a “he’s the spitting image of his dad” and “he’s a chip off the old block” to me. So my position would have to be 3 (or the 3a option another reader posted); more of an Arian take.
Mario,
What would be the benefit of familiarizing ourselves with the opinion of an obscure figure from the 4th Century like Marcellus? What would he have to tell us about LOGOS that we couldn’t determine for ourselves by taking a critical look at the evidence of how the term was used by the apostles themselves?
The problem with your “LOGOS is an eternal attribute of God that became flesh” is that it doesn’t represent anything the apostles were teaching. LOGOS was never used for an “attribute” in biblical Greek, and it was never said to be something “eternal.” Also, “became flesh” doesn’t require a doctrine of “incarnation” or the transformation of an “attribute” into a human being.
Dale,
It is evident that, in spite of your philosophical competence, all you can do, confronted with the incarnation (sarx egeneto) of God’s eternal logos (that is NOT a “pre-existent person”, BUT an attribute of God —your very words at your post “Irenaeus’s 2-stage Logos theory”), all you can do is spin a silly gnome’s tale, or “illustrate” the theory with an equally silly image.
I challenge you to explain, in proper words, why, according to you, it would be “evident nonsense”. I suspect that you may have a “blind spot”, there … 😉
Maybe, familiarizing yourself with Marcellus of Ancyra and his understanding of God’s logos could be of some help.
Dale,
I think it’s evident that the “word (LOGOS) of God” was Jesus himself (Revelation 19:13). The writer of the 4th Gospel also said that the “word (LOGOS) became flesh AND dwelt among us” (John 1:14).
Thus, regardless of whether or not one believes that “the word” (LOGOS) preexisted in some form, the apostles used LOGOS to refer to Jesus Christ while he was a man living among them, and afterwards. See also 1 John 1:2.
“Followers of Christ had always taught that Christ is the eternal Son.”
Rose, this is demonstrably false. I don’t have time to dig up all the references now, but google “two-stage logos theory” as explained by the great patristic scholar Wolfson. Tertullian is very explicit about his view that there was a time when Jesus didn’t exist. I quote the relevant passages from two or three of his writings here: https://trinities.org/blog/archives/5049
On the other hand, a little earlier, Irenaeus is unclear on the matter: https://trinities.org/blog/archives/4370
It seems to have been Origen who turned the tide in favor of *eternal* generation.
About John 1 – have you considered that maybe the Logos is not the pre-human Jesus? Arguably, the “Word of God” in the OT is not Jesus. We would be surprised, then, if it were in the NT.
“Can you please explain why you say in Answer 4 that Jesus “began some time between conception and birth.” What is the “some time between” and where do you think that would be derived from the information in the narratives?”
No, I don’t think any time is specified. I just think that for cultures who don’t believe in reincarnation, the assumption is that the baby comes to exist at or after conception.
“All you have to do is take seriously (viz. literally, NOT metaphorically) 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)”
Hi Mario,
Are you suggesting that the pre-existent Logos (= the pre-human Jesus) was once a divine attribute? That is hard to take seriously. Please see this: https://trinities.org/blog/archives/1137 and the gnome story linked there.
I find this so implausible, that I’m reluctant to really attribute it to anyone. But as philosophers and theologians sometimes are pushed into saying bizarre things, I could be persuaded that various people have held it. I’m not convinced about Justin, Tertullian, or Irenaeus, though.
Happy New Year!
Rivers,
With reference to Psalm 90, you conveniently refer to this verse …
You have been our refuge from generation to generation. (Psalm 90:1)
… which speaks of “generations”. (And NO, it isn’t “Psalm 90:1-4”)
But the verse I quoted …
Before the mountains were brought forth, or You had formed the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting [‘owlam ‘ad ‘owlam], You are God. (Psalm 90:2)
… does NOT speak of “generations”, BUT of before [be terem] God’s creation.
And you still haven’t answered my question. Once again, you say that “everlasting can mean ‘never ending’ (which allows for a beginning)”.
Are you suggesting that, when it is applied to God, ‘owlam “allows for a beginning”? Yes or no?
Mario,
Here’s a point by response to your previous comments.
1. In the context of Romans 1:20, Paul is speaking of God’s AIDIOS power being apparent “since the beginning of creation” (Genesis 1:1). The biblical writers did not have any concept of “eternal.”
Some translators use “eternal” because they interpret the words AIDIOS and AIWNIOS from the perspective of their own philosophical understanding of God’s “nature.” Other translators use terms like “age-during” or “eonian” because they understand that “eternal” is not an accurate representation of the literal meaning of either ADIOS, AIWONIOS, or OULM.
2. I don’t know what you think I said was “wrong.” I was merely pointing out that fact that people who received what you call “eternal life” (including Jesus himself) did not have a timeless (eternal) existence, they all became living souls, were subject to death, and need to inherit a resurrection body that would enable them to die no more in a coming age (1 Corinthians 15:42-46; Matthew 19:29; Luke 20:34-36).
3. Your translation of OULM AD OULM proves that OULM does not mean “eternal.” Even if meant “everlasting to everlasting”, it is nonsensical to multiply the word “everlasting.” The reference to “generations” in the previous verse illumines us to how the ancient Hebrews were using the term OULM. It makes more sense to render it “age to age” (i.e. “throughout all generations”). Of, course this does not mean “eternal.”
4. From a biblical perspective, I don’t think the ancient Hebrews conceived that God was “eternal.” They understood that He was “the beginning and the end” (Revelation 1:8; Isaiah 46:10). They understood that He was present throughout all of their “generations” (Psalms 90:1-4). That is all that mattered to them.
5. No, I’m not a Mormon. I don’t know of any other Preterists who are Mormons either. 🙂
Rivers,
0. What you are grossly missing is that, while God’s creation has “beginning and end”, God Himself has NO beginning NOR end.
1. Romans 1:20 is definitely a “good example” of how you are ready to twist and turn anything so as to defend your “dogma”. You try to obliterate the difference between the application of God’s power (dynamis) to His creation (which, indeed, happens IN time) AND the eternity of God Himself, and, consequently of “His eternal/everlasting power” (aidios autou dynamis). If you do not like to equate aidios and “eternal”, in the sense of “timeless”, think of it as “unlimited in time”: BOTH before and after, though.
2. You are wrong. Look ye here:
26 For just as the Father has life in himself (zoên en eautô), thus he has granted the Son to have life in himself (zoên en eautô), 27 and he has granted the Son authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man. (John 5:26-27)
If God did NOT have “life in himself”, He could not “grant the Son to have life in himself”, and the Son, in turn, could not pass on this kind of life FOR the resurrection.
3. Again, you are wrong also about Psalms 90:2 and the sense of ‘owlam ‘ad ‘owlam. First, the translation I provided does NOT say “from eternity to eternity”, BUT “from everlasting to everlasting”. Second, you either didn’t notice, or preferred to ignore, that I had already discounted that, due to the unfamiliarity of Hebrew culture with “abstract, philosophical notions”, ‘owlam “retains something of the notion of time”, like “time without end”, or “perpetuity”.
Finally, you say that “everlasting can mean ‘never ending’ (which allows for a beginning)”. You are not suggesting that, when ‘owlam is applied to God, that “allows for a beginning”, are you? Besides being a full Preterist, you don’t also share something of the Mormons, do you? 🙁 😉
Rose,
The “beginning” in John 1:1 refers to the time when Jesus began his public ministry and the apostles came to know him as the LOGOS (1 John 1:1-2; John 15:27; John 16:4). This is why the apostles called it “the beginning of the gospel” (Mark 1:1; Luke 1:2-3) and spoke of following Jesus “beginning with the baptism of John” (Acts 1:21-22).
There is nothing in the language of John 1:1-3 that requires anything “eternal” or that Jesus “preexisted” in any form. The writer is only alluding to Genesis because the apostles understood that “in Christ, there is a new creation” (2 Corinthians 5:17-19; Galatians 6:15; Colossians 1:16).
Mario,
What you’re missing is that the biblical writers understood that there was a “beginning and end” to
everything God does (Ecclesiastes 3:11; Isaiah 46:10; Revelation 21:6; Revelation 22:13). There is no concept of “eternity” expressed in the languages they used. Genesis 1:1 says “in the beginning” and not “in eternity past.”
1. The use of AIDIOS in Romans 1:20 is a good example. The text plainly says it is referring to “since the beginning of creation” and through “what has been made.” Thus, the word AIDIOS was not describing the power of God in the context of “eternity” at all. As in Jude 1:6, the sense of AIDIOS is the permanence of something that has been put into place, and not duration of time (or timelessness).
2. The point I was making about life AIWNIOS is that it isn’t referring to duration of time either. The English word eternal means “timeless” or “having no beginning or end”, but AIWNIOS was not used that way in biblical Greek. Life AIWNIOS had a beginning at the resurrection (Matthew 10:30). It was associated with an “age” (AIWN) that had not come yet (Luke 20:35). The connotation of AIWNIOS was that of permanence, and not timelessness.
3. Your appeal to Psalms 90:2 shows that you are not paying attention to how the words were used together in that context either. First, the word OULM is repeated, which means it cannot mean “eternal” or “timeless.” It is nonsensical to translate OULM AD OULM as “from eternity to eternity.” If you look at the previous verse, it is evident that the writer was simply referring to the fact that God was present in the beginning (Genesis 1:1) which corresponded to His presence during “all their generations.”
Perhaps you are misunderstanding the difference between the words “everlasting” and “eternal.” Eternal means “timeless.” Everlasting can mean “never ending” (which allows for a beginning). Thus, it would be more biblical to speak of everlasting life (beginning at the resurrection) than using the term “eternal life.”
“What you’re missing is that the biblical writers understood that there was a “beginning and end” to
everything God does (Ecclesiastes 3:11; Isaiah 46:10; Revelation 21:6; Revelation 22:13). There is no concept of “eternity” expressed in the languages they used. Genesis 1:1 says “in the beginning” and not “in eternity past.””
This is a great point. “In the beginning was the Word” clearly indicates a starting point, not “always was and always will be”.
@Dale,
Followers of Christ had always taught that Christ is the eternal Son.
First century
In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. ~ John 1:1(Psalm 45:1 LXX)
The Father and the Son are one — in attributes [I give them eternal life…my hand…my Father’s hand = Deuteronomy 32:39 LXX]. ~ John 10:28-30
Baptize in the (one) name of the Father, and of the Son , and of the Holy Spirit. ~ Matthew 28:19 (Exodus 3:14 LXX)
Second century
~Athenagoras (A.D. c. 133 – c. 190)
If … it occurs to you to inquire what is meant by the Son, I will state briefly that he is the first product of the Father, not as having been brought into existence, for from the beginning God, who is the eternal mind, had the Logos in himself, being from eternity instinct with Logos ( Plea for the Christians Chapter 10).
~Irenaeus (A.D. c. 120– c.200)
The Word, the Son, is always with the Father ( Against Heresies 4:20).
Third century
~ Novatian ( A.D. 200-258)
The Word is always the Son (On the Trinity 31:1)
Fourth century
~ Athanasius
Rivers,
as should be known to any person who is educated enough to deal with words (of their own or of some other language) with a scholarly approach, words may have different nuances of meaning, or even different meanings. So, examples, if they are craftily selective, can be totally misleading.
That being premised, let’s proceed in order.
First, there are 2 occurrences of aidios in the NT. Of course, in spite of my remark on Rom 1:20, you chose the other one. But this is what we read in Romans:
For since the creation of the world His invisible [attributes] are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, not only [te] His eternal power [aidios autou dynamis] but [His] Godhead, so that they are without excuse … (Rom 1:20)
ALL relevant English translations, in agreement to sense and context, translate aidios dynamis with “eternal power”. Can Rivers, please, let us know how she translates aidios dynamis in Rom 1:20? 🙂
(Please, spare us the ruse of using the adjective “everlasting”. It is entirely evident that, applied to God and His attributes, the distinction between “eternal” and “everlasting” is a mere DWAD [Distinction Without A Difference])
Second, the expression zôê aiônios, that, indeed “was used dozens of times by Jesus and the apostles” does NOT refer, as such, to “resurrection life” (and expression that – unlike he anastasis kai he zôê [John 11:25] – does NOT even exist, in the Scripture), BUT to the Life that only God has, and can give, utterly distinct from merely biological life, (bios) that irreversibly goes towards its natural end.
God’s zôê aiônios leads, indeed, to the resurrection and to life in the resurrection (viz. life everlasting) ONLY those who, by responding to God’s Grace, partake of it.
Third, the OT Hebrew word ‘owlam. Certainly you, Rivers, are not the one who discovers that the Hebrew culture (unlike, say, the Greek culture) was not at ease with abstract, philosophical notions. So, it can be easily seen that in most of the 400+ examples of OT use, ‘owlam retains something of the notion of time, like “time without end”, or “perpetuity”.
You may want to consider this verse:
Before the mountains were brought forth, or You had formed the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting [‘owlam ‘ad ‘owlam ], You are God. (Psalm 90:2)
Oh, BTW, here is the correct answer to the question: zoê aiônios is the Life of God Himself: with NO beginning and NO end. Some finicky people prefer not to use the word “eternal” … 😉
Mario,
In biblical Greek, neither AIWNIOS nor AIDIOS denotes “eternal”. This is very easy to prove.
For example, AIDIOS is used in Jude 1:6 to speak of the “incarceration in darkness” of some of the angels, but the context makes it evident that these angels were not “eternally” bound, but had a previous domain, and would be judged at a later time.
The word AIWNIOS was used dozens of times by Jesus and the apostles to speak of resurrection life which was certainly not “eternal.” All people who receive resurrection life are born into existence at one time, and “inherit” at the time of resurrection (Matthew 19:29). None of them have a “timeless” (eternal) existence.
In other places, things like the AIWNIOS “sin” of blaspheming holy spirit was certainly not “eternal” in duration (Mark 3:29), and neither was the AIWNIOS slavery of Onesimus (Philemon 1:15).
If you take the time to research the 400+ times that the similar Hebrew word OULM and its forms were used throughout the OT, you’ll find that there isn’t a single time that the word means “eternal.” This is because the ancient Hebrews understood that the duration of the ages was from “beginning to end” (Isaiah 46:10; Revelation 21:6; Revelation 22:13). They had no conception of “eternity” or timeless existence.
Rivers,
there is no point discussing with you your pet theory of the “logos” being some sort of “nickname” attributed by the apostles to Jesus. You have obviously “invested” too much in it, to be able to take a step back, even for a moment, to give it a critical look … 🙁
I will just comment on this … er … “pearl”:
The biblical Greek language has NOT ONLY one word, BUT at least two:
aidios: see, in particular, Rom 1:20
aiônios: just in the GoJ, the expression zoe aiônios appears 9 times. It would be “interesting” to know how Rivers understands it …
Mario,
The fact that you “easily concede that the uneducated apostles knew nothing of the eternal LOGOS” shows that you are not getting your ideas from the biblical text or the apostolic testimony. It’s no wonder that grammatical and contextual arguments seem unappealing to you.
Your assertion that there is an “eternal LOGOS” being described in the Prologue (despite the ignorance of the apostles, in your opinion) is nonsensical. First, there is no mention of “eternal” in the text. Second, the biblical Greek language has no word corresponding to “eternal.” The concept of an “eternal LOGOS” is only in your imagination.
It doesn’t matter what a handful of spurious writers believed several hundred years after the apostles were gone. There’s no evidence that LOGOS could possibly mean “an eternal attribute of God” in the scriptures. Appealing to people from the 2nd Century to illuminate John 1:14 is a fallacious transfer of authority from the ancient text to the opinions of your preference. That’s not the way to do sound exegesis.
As I said earlier, it doesn’t matter if you interpret SARX EGENETO as “became a man” because the verb GINOMAI (from which EGENETO is derived) can refer to something “becoming” at any point in time. Moreover, there are about 40 times that GINOMAI occurs in the 4th Gospel and it never refers to the time of someone’s birth.
GINOMAI was used many other ways by the Johannine writer, including referring to when John the Baptizer “became” commissioned for ministry (John 1:6) and when the “antichrists” eventually “became” evident (1 John 2:18) and when the writer himself was going to “become” in the presence of his disciples (2 John 1:12). As in John 1:14, there is no reason to suggest that the use of the word GINOMAI requires any implication of a transformation an “attribute” into an human being.
Thus, “became flesh” can simply be referring to the time when Jesus Christ “became” manifest to his disciples through the testimony of John the baptizer (John 1:30-31). The writer described the “manifestation” of Jesus Christ as evident to the apostles on the basis of their being able to “hear, see, observe, and touch” him (1 John 1:2). This is because he was “dwelling among” at the time when he “became a man” to them (John 1:14).
Oops! deutheros => deuteros
@ Rivers
Zeroth (and most important) don’t you think that it is (more than a bit) odd that, confronted with Dale’s 4 “most popular Christian answers” to the question “Who was born on the first Christmas?”, you consider normal that Dale proposes (in descending order from the POV of “high Christology”) Answers 1,2,3 (even if, all considered, you speak of “difficulties that arise from [them]”, and, consequently “think that Answer 4 best fits the biblical narratives”), whereas, when confronted with 3a (that, to say the least, has no presupposition of “personal pre-existence”), you are even “reluctant” to simply insert it in the list? Think Rivers, think … 😉
First, I easily concede that it is more than unlikely that the apostles (the poorly educated people that they appear to be from the gospels’ narratives) had no inkling whatsoever of “the eternal LOGOS”. Still, there is no doubt that the Prologue to the Gospel of John speaks precisely of “the eternal LOGOS” and of how it (it …) came to be “flesh” (sarx egeneto). Let me say it quite boldly and frankly now: your idea that, logos (which normally only means “spoken saying or message”) in the Prologue to the GoJ (and also the Prologue to 1John and Rev 19:13 – as I kindly pointed out to you, and you, first with reluctance and then with a vengeance accepted and adopted), logos, I said, would exceptionally work as some sort of “name” of Jesus, is stressed, strained and bizarre in the extreme. NOT exegesis, BUT eisegesis, if you get my gist …
Second, I NEVER suggested that LOGOS would mean “mystery”. I do, however, affirm that how ho logos sarx egeneto IS a mystery. As for “attribute”, in a past post (“Irenaeus’s 2-stage Logos theory” of March 2, 2013) Dale wrote, as a well known historical fact, that “for them [earlier 2nd century catholic apologists like Justin, Tatian, and Athanagoras], the Logos existed from all eternity as an attribute of God” (italics in Dale’s post). Where the apologists went wrong (abandoning the logos of John and, unfortunately, following the Jewish theologian and Platonizing philosopher Philo of Alexandria) is in introducing (yes, introducing in Christian theology) the idea of the logos as deutheros (or heteros) theos.
Third, I may be “presumptuous” (in fact I am, challenging, as I do, as many as the 4 “most popular Christian answers” …). OTOH your “interpretation” that ho logos sarx egeneto would means that …
“… it’s evident that ‘became flesh’ was referring to what the apostles ‘saw’ when Jesus was ‘dwelling among’ them during the time of his public ministry …”
… is stressed, strained and bizarre in the extreme. NOT exegesis, BUT eisegesis, if you get my gist …
Fourth, by saying that “John testified about a ‘man’ (flesh) coming after him (John 1:30)” you (unwittingly) confirm that, far from being a “fallacy” to interpret sarx as a Hebraism, and therefore, obviously, also sarx egeneto as a Hebraism, is correct, and therefore it would be better (and far less confusing) to translate sarx egeneto with “became a man”, “became a person”.
To end with, if you believe that the notion of “eternal LOGOS” has no foundation in the OT, here is my Christmas gift for you:
Forever, O LORD, Your word [dabar] stands in heaven. (Psalm 119:89)
🙂
Mario,
I would also be reluctant to insert your “3a” option for a number of reasons:
First, there’s no evidence that the apostles conceived of what you call “the eternal LOGOS.” The term LOGOS was never used of Jesus Christ until after the apostles knew him as a person “from the beginning” of his public ministry (1 John 1:1-2). It even became a “name” for him (Revelation 19:13).
Second, the noun LOGOS is does not mean “mystery” or “attribute.” To suggest either meaning is to completely ignore the apostolic usage of the term (especially in the Johannine books). That is why it is never translated “mystery” or “attribute.”
Third, your explanation of John 1:14 is presumptuous and shows that you don’t seem to “take seriously” the context of the Prologue. Asserting that “became flesh” (SARX EGENETO) is “clearly an Hebraism” is fallacious. And, even if we read it as “became a person”, there is no implication that LOGOS was “a preexisting attribute of God” at all.
If you consider the rest of the language in John 1:14, and its place in the context of the Prologue, it’s evident that “became flesh” was referring to what the apostles “saw” when Jesus was “dwelling among” them during the time of his public ministry after John “testified about him” (John 1:6-9, 15).
John testified about a “man” (flesh) coming after him (John 1:30) that the apostles immediately began to reside with (John 1:38-39). This is when they “heard, saw, watched, and handled” the LOGOS (1 John 1:1-3). The “became flesh” had nothing to do with something being transformed into a human being at the time of Jesus’ birth.
Dale,
I also like your reasoning and analysis here, especially with regard to the difficulties that arise from Answers 1, 2, 3. I also think that Answer 4 best fits the biblical narratives.
Can you please explain why you say in Answer 4 that Jesus “began some time between conception and birth.” What is the “some time between” and where do you think that would be derived from the information in the narratives?
Dale,
your “most popular Christian answers” are listed in descending order from the POV of Christology, from 1 to 4, from “high” to “low”.
I suggest that, between 3 and 4, you (try to) “wedge in” this one:
3a. The Son of God, not only in the sense given by Luke 1:35 (miracle), but also in the sense given by the Prologue to the Gospel of John (John 1:1-18), that is the incarnation (sarx egeneto) of God’s eternal logos (mystery), that is NOT a “pre-existent person”, BUT an attribute of God (your words …)
I know how reluctant you are to confront this (see your post “Irenaeus’s 2-stage Logos theory” of March 2, 2013), but … 😉
Oh, BTW, you do not need at all to imagine that God’s eternal logos was “expressed” “just before or at the time of God’s creation, so as to exist as another alongside God (cf. Proverbs 8), by means of whom God created the cosmos”. God’s Wisdom at Proverbs 8 is clearly a personification (a rhetoric figure), NOT a person.
All you have to do is take seriously (viz. literally, NOT metaphorically) 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)
That “became flesh” (sarx egeneto) is clearly a Hebraism. Try and make the effort of reading “became a person” …
# Have yourself a Merry Little Christmas #
Dale,
As always you have brought your wonderful analytical faculty to bear on a most topical issue.!!
You have given the rest of us much to ‘mull over’ during the Christmas period!
In the meantime may I thank you for a most stimulating year – and wish you and yours every blessing now and in 2015 !
As Aye
John
Comments are closed.