Pages

Thursday, November 12, 2015

Is Jesus the eternal Logos?


Let's begin with a recent exchange between Dale Tuggy and me:

Tuggy: In brief, John never says that the eternal Logos is Jesus, and 1:14 doesn't say or imply that they are the same person. The Word is something like God's plan or wisdom, by which, the OT says in a couple of places, God created. It was "with" him then. 
Hays: In Jn 1, the Logos is a personal agent, not a plan. And it says the same Logos in 1:1-4 becomes flesh in 1:14. That refers to Jesus. It doesn't merely say the Logos was "with" God. It goes onto say the Logos was God (not to mention the Son's preexistence in 17:5). And this line of argument is capped in 1:18, where there are two divine subjects: Father and Son. And the Son reveals the Father because like reveals like. They are two of a kind.
"In Jn 1, the Logos is a personal agent, not a plan. And it says the same Logos in 1:1-4 becomes flesh in 1:14. That refers to Jesus. It doesn't merely say the Logos was "with" God. It goes onto say the Logos was God." 
Tuggy: Total question-begging, unfortunately, and a failure to appreciate the biblical reasons which motivate the view.

Let's compare Tuggy's claim to the text:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him. 8 He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light.
9 The true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. 11 He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. 12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth (Jn 1:1-14).

In Jn 1, the same X is called the word, life, light, and son. Notice the use of "light" as a leitwort connecting the coeternal Word that was with God, and was God, with the light to which John the Baptist bore witness. The same word and light made the world. The light that came into the world, parallels the word that became flesh and dwelt among them. Two descriptions of the same event. Likewise, the very Word which the narrator saw.  

By the same token, "light" and "life" are titles for Jesus in the Gospel. These terms are links in a chain connecting the Word in 1:1-3 with the "light" which John the Baptist witnessed, as well as the embodied Word which the narrator witnessed. Those are coreferential terms. They all denote the same X. 

In addition, we can use 1 Jn 1 as a commentary on Jn 1. Given common authorship and very similar vocabulary, is it not unmistakable that this is referring to the same X as Jn 1? 

1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life— 2 the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us— 3 that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ (1 Jn 1:1-3).

Did the author of 1 Jn "see" with his own "eyes" an abstract, impersonal "plan"? Did the author "touch" with his own "hands" an abstract, impersonal plan? 

No. This descriptive language has reference to a personal, empirically discernible agent. 

Notice, too, the allusion to the post-Resurrection appearance of Christ in the Upper Room (see below). 

24 Now Thomas, one of the Twelve, called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord.” But he said to them, “Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will never believe.”
26 Eight days later, his disciples were inside again, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.” 28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” 29 Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” (Jn 20:24-29).

10 comments:

  1. Jesus alludes to His preexistence many times in the Gospel of John. (e.g. John 1:14; 3:13, 31; 6:38, 62; 8:14, 23, 42; 10:36; 13:3; 16:28; 17:4-5 etc. [cf. 1 John 4:9-10, 14]). In most cases the context best fits with a personal preexistence rather than an impersonal preexistence.

    There are also those places in the Gospel of John where Jesus says He was "sent" by the Father (e.g. John 3:17, 34; 4:34; 5:23, 24, 30, 36, 37, 38; 6:29, 38, 39, 44, 57; 7:16, 18, 28, 29, 33; 8:16, 18, 26, 29, 42; 9:4; 10:36; 11:42; 12:44, 45, 49; 13:20; 14:24; 15:21; 16:5; 17:3, 8, 18, 21, 23, 25; 20:21). Most of these don't include the times Jesus said He "came" or had "come" from the Father. These set of passages would be in keeping with preexistence, even imply it according to context.

    Similarly, there are also the "I have come" sayings of Jesus in the Synoptics which suggest a personal preexistence.

    The author of John seems to allude to Christ's preexistence in John 12:41 saying, "Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory and spoke of him." In the previous verse (v. 40) John quotes Isaiah chapter 6. Which makes it likely that when John says "he [Isaiah] saw His glory" that John is referring to Isaiah's vision of Yahweh in Isaiah chapter 6.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The case seems so strong, doesn't it, when you only hear one side! Some things being left out: the precedents in early writings, in the deuterocanonical books of parallel ideas to John 1:14, wherein something divine comes down from heaven to dwell in this physical realm - but it's not a self. You also leave out the allusion to Prov 8 ("with God"), which helps us to understand the significance of "god/divine was the logos" at the end of v1. He's saying that this wisdom/reason through which God made all is just him, or his. It's not someone else. As the OT says in a few places, Yahweh (aka the Father) created the cosmos alone. You leave that out, and also the fact that Jesus never takes credit for being the (direct) creator - which is quite surprising if it's true that he was. For him, the Father is the creator. I think that's true for Paul too, but this isn't the place to argue the matter. Also, that the pronouns in 2-3 can be translated as impersonal, although personal makes sense, if the author is personifying God's word.

    Another relevant fact: when the Philonic Logos theology was first propounded (c. 150-200) it was very controversial, and constantly drew the objection that it was positing two creators. Now why on earth would this be so widespread, if everyone was reading John in the way which seems so obvious to you? The answer is that it was not so obvious to them. It was the Logos theology winning out which really cemented the catholic reading. It seems that some of the "monarchians" and others read it more in the way I'm suggesting.

    On the face of it, one would not expect "the Word of God" to be a person. Of course, a person in whom God's word is uniquely and best expressed can thereby by called "the Word of God" as we see in Revelation. Same point with "Life", "Light." Those wouldn't normally be terms for a self, but they can be, when God's word (which is life and light) is best expressed in that self, in the man Jesus.

    About John 1, I don't see how that helps the catholic reading. John saw and touched God's eternal life and message as manifest in the real man Jesus, in his life, deeds, teaching.

    All in all, not super-obvious either way. I don't think, though, that your arguments do anything to refute the multiply well motivated reading I've outlined. Also relevant will be whether we think a real man can have always existed, independently of Adam or any other previous humans, only lately becoming a human. And: whether we're impressed at all with the idea that the synoptics assume or hint at the personal pre-existence of Jesus. And whether we put any stock in the "two Yahweh" and other Jesus-in-the-OT arguments drawn from Philo and others, which made their way into catholic teaching in the latter 100s.

    Annoyed - that's quite a text dump you took there. :-) These points are all answerable, but, another time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dale

      "The case seems so strong, doesn't it, when you only hear one side!"

      Well, Steve quoted you in this very post, providing the relevant context, which in turn is in broader reference to another post currently still on the frontpage of this weblog; it looks like you've debated each other for about 4 years now in various and sundry posts here and elsewhere; your work is easily accessible to anyone online; you've published papers in various journals; and so forth. But I guess maybe you have a completely different idea of what "hear[ing] one side" means? :-)

      Delete
  3. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.- John 6:38

    5 Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said,
    "Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired,
    but a body have you prepared for me;
    6 in burnt offerings and sin offerings
    you have taken no pleasure.
    7 Then I said, 'Behold, I have come to do your will, O God,
    as it is written of me in the scroll of the book.'"- Heb. 10:5-7

    But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.- Heb. 2:9

    Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil,- Heb. 2:14

    For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ.- 1 Cor. 10:4b

    We must not put Christ to the test, as some of them did and were destroyed by serpents,- 1 Cor. 10:9

    The NET Bible has a very long footnote showing the evidence for and against the variants of "Christ" vs. "Lord." Nevertheless, it states, "...(Criston, “Christ”) is attested in the majority of mss, including many important witnesses of the Alexandrian (Ì46 1739 1881) and Western (D F G) texttypes, and other mss and versions..."

    Similarly

    Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.- Jude 1:5

    The NET Bible has a long footnote here too. Here's an excerpt: "The reading....(Ihsous, “Jesus”) is deemed too hard by several scholars, since it involves the notion of Jesus acting in the early history of the nation Israel. However, not only does this reading enjoy the strongest support from a variety of early witnesses (e.g., A B 33 81 1241 1739 1881 2344 pc vg co Or1739mg)"

    CONT.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. It seems to me that the burden of proof is on Unitarians who deny the personal preexistence of the Logos, not on Trinitarians (or even Unitarians like Greg Stafford) who believe it since the natural reading of all preexistence passages is of a personal one. Just as Unitarians disagree among themselves on whether Christ should be worshipped, so they disagree on the personal preexistence of the Logos.

      the precedents in early writings, in the deuterocanonical books of parallel ideas to John 1:14, wherein something divine comes down from heaven to dwell in this physical realm - but it's not a self.

      In the nature of the case the intertestamental books have a vague and uncertain Christology (as is the case with other doctrines progressively revealed in the New Testament). They weren't inspired and they were groping at deeper theological truths.

      You also leave out the allusion to Prov 8 ("with God")...

      Assuming for the sake of argument that Prov. 8 deals with the Logos (as I did when I was a Unitarian), wisdom is portrayed as having personal preexistence, self-awareness, speaking and expressing emotion.

      30 then I was beside him, like a master workman, and I was daily his delight, rejoicing before him always, 31 rejoicing in his inhabited world and delighting in the children of man.

      Nevertheless, if God wanted us to interpret Prov. 8 to have Christological significance, then it would have been wise (pun intended) of God to not personify Wisdom as a woman earlier in the chapter.

      In John 1:1 where it says "the Word was with God," the Greek word "pros" implies a personal and intimate relationship that's "face to face" (so to speak). Hence, supporting the Logos' personal preexistence.

      CONT.

      Delete
    3. You leave that out, and also the fact that Jesus never takes credit for being the (direct) creator - which is quite surprising if it's true that he was.

      Why would He need to. It's sufficient to know that the world was created through Him and for Him (1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:16 etc.). The author of the book of Hebrews in Heb. 1:10ff identifies Christ as the Lord who created heaven and earth by applying Ps. 102:25ff to Christ.

      10 And, "You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands; 11 they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment, 12 like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will have no end."

      It was the Logos theology winning out which really cemented the catholic reading.

      If in fact the author of John wrote in light of Philo's logos, the Greek philosophic logos, and the Aramaic Memra/Hebrew Debar or Metatron (etc.) speculations, John was taking sides and elucidating via revelation was was only speculation previously (based on natural theology, philosophic theology, and Jewish theology).

      On the face of it, one would not expect "the Word of God" to be a person.

      The Targums (the Aramaic translations/paraphrases) of the OT often describe the "Memra of the Yahweh" as doing the same things that the NT describes Jesus doing as the Logos. For example, the Targums on Gen. 1:1 say that the Memra was involved in the creation of the world like John's Logos. The Targums attribute the theophanies to appearances of the Memra in human form (cf. the Targums on Gen. 3:8, 18; 19:24; 32:30 etc.).

      Same point with "Life", "Light." Those wouldn't normally be terms for a self

      The OT and NT repeatedly refer to God as Light. For example, "For with you is the fountain of life; in your light do we see light" (Ps. 36:9). Or, "This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all" (1 John 1:5).

      Also relevant will be whether we think a real man can have always existed, independently of Adam or any other previous humans, only lately becoming a human.

      Trinitarians don't believe Jesus was a human prior to His incarnation.

      Delete
    4. On the face of it, one would not expect "the Word of God" to be a person.

      Not just in the Targums, but even in English translations the Word of Jehovah can sometimes be seen to be personal.

      After these things the word of Jehovah came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, [and] thy exceeding great reward.- Gen. 15:1 ASV

      Notice that the Word of Jehovah would sometimes came in a vision that was seen rather than merely heard.

      And, behold, the word of Jehovah came unto him, saying, This man shall not be thine heir; But he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir.- Gen. 15:4 ASV

      Notice the Word of Jehovah came and spake.

      And the child Samuel ministered unto Jehovah before Eli. And the word of Jehovah was precious in those days; there was no frequent vision.- 1 Sam. 3:1 ASV
      Now Samuel did not yet know Jehovah, neither was the word of Jehovah yet revealed unto him.- 1 Sam. 3:7 ASV
      3:21 And Jehovah appeared again in Shiloh; for Jehovah revealed himself to Samuel in Shiloh by the word of Jehovah.

      These are just some verses that could be cited.

      Delete
    5. And JEHOVAH came, and stood, and called as at other times, Samuel, Samuel. Then Samuel said, Speak; for thy servant heareth.- 1 Sam. 3:10 ASV

      From this verse we can infer that some being stood next to Samuel. That the being is called Jehovah. That Jehovah here is most likely the same person previously mentioned as the Word of Jehovah. Unless one wants to say both Jehovah and the Word of Jehovah were standing next to Samuel. But there's no need to do that since there are many passages in the OT where the Word of Jehovah or the Angel of Jehovah is sometimes simply called and identified as Jehovah.

      Michael Heiser deals with many of these in his videos. Some of which can be VIEWED HERE.

      Delete
    6. I didn't make explicit why I mentioned the Targumim and their use of the "Memra of Yahweh." It was in response to Dale's statement, "On the face of it, one would not expect "the Word of God" to be a person." Actually, the various Targumim that ante-date Christianity often portrayed the Memra of Yahweh" as personal and with a perceived "bodily" human form. So, yes, one WOULD expect the "Word of God" to be a person. Since the Jewish Targums presented the "Memra/Word of Yahweh" as a personal agent. Even the Hebrew sometimes suggests the Word of Yahweh was sometimes a visible personal entity.

      Delete