John 1:1 is Parallel to the Man Moses?
In the two previous One God Report podcast episodes, episode #69) In the Gospel of John, the “Jews” are “Judeans” (Not all “Jews”) and episode #70) The GREEKS in John's Gospel were GREEK-SPEAKING JEWS (not Gentiles), I gave evidence that the original audience of John’s Gospel were Diaspora, Greek-speaking Hebrews; that is, not Gentiles. If the original recipients of the Gospel of John were Greek-speaking Israelites they would have had various levels of familiarity with the Greek translation of the Old Testament Scriptures (the LXX).
In this current episode I will suggest that the author of John’s Gospel drew literary and thematic parallels from the Greek Old Testament to convince his Israelite readers that Jesus was the one “of whom Moses in the Law and also the prophets wrote” (John 1:45).
To listen to this episode on the ONE GOD REPORT podcast, click here.
I will focus on John 1:1, giving evidence that Greek-speaking
Israelites familiar with the Greek translation of the Old Testament could
recognize the first sentence of John’s Gospel, “In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” as a parallel to Moses.
Unfortunately, later Gentile audiences, instead of sticking with
the Bible, assimilated neo-Platonic philosophy about a divine Logos, and
misunderstood this first verse in John’s Gospel to be a reference to a second
divine figure involved in the Genesis creation. The Gentiles interpreted John
1:1 ontologically, that is, to be about nature, or essence, or deity. But an
Israelite would not necessarily interpret John 1:1 ontologically. An Israelite reader
familiar with the Greek Old Testament Scriptures could connect John 1:1 to
Moses.
Previously (podcast #7) we have given
reasons to understand that “in the beginning” of John 1:1 is not a direct
reference to the Genesis creation, but rather intentionally echoes Genesis
because John is about to describe a new beginning. Later I’ll mention how
Israel’s Exodus from Egypt was in fact a beginning as well. But in the podcast
today we will focus on the two statements that the Word “was with God” and “was
God”. My thesis (not only mine) is that “The Word was with God, and the Word
was God” is a comparison to Moses, not a description of a second divine person or
an abstract plan involved in the Genesis creation.
This podcast will have two parts:
1)
First,
we will see that literary and thematic parallels to
“was with God” and “was God” of John 1:1 are to be found in the Greek version
of the Old Testament, not in extra-biblical literature, and these phrases especially
refer to the man Moses.
2)
We
will see that the Gospel of John explicitly compares Jesus to Moses, and not to
God. John’s Gospel presents Jesus as the prophet like unto Moses sent by
God, not as God himself.
John 1:1 is About a Human Person
“The Word was with God, and the Word
was God” is speaking of a human person, not a second divine figure (a divine
“hypostasis”) nor an abstract idea like “Wisdom”.
I’d like to paraphrase Dr. Andrew Perry from episode #67 Why the
Man Jesus is Called the Word in John 1:1 (see also, Perry, A. John
1:1-18 A Socinian Approach, p. 25ff). Dr. Perry says that if we look for a
precedence in Second Temple Period literature or in the Old Testament of someone
or something that was “with God and was God”, either a second divine figure (hypostasis)
called the “Logos”, or of an abstract entity like Wisdom, we won’t find one. Rather,
the precedence for “was with God” and “was God” is a particular man, Moses.
So, our task is to see how the phrases “was with God” and “was God”
could be recognizable to Greek-speaking Israelites familiar with the LXX as pointing
to the man Moses. We will first take the
phrase in John 1:1b “was with God”. To whom, or to what, does the phrase “was
with God” refer to in the Greek Old Testament? It will be helpful to know the
phrase “was with God” in Greek: πρὸς τὸν θεόν, pros ton Theon.
πρὸς τὸν θεόν of Moses
Often the phrase pros ton Theon is translated in the LXX as
“to God” when followed by a transitive verb like “speak, say, call out, or pray”
as in “Abraham said to God” (Gen. 17:18, Neh. 4:3, etc.). But there are other
examples of pros ton Theon with verbs that have a sense of spatial
closeness, like “come near” and “make supplication” that are used most often of
one man, Moses.
Quite a few times Moses is said to be in a relationship pros ton
Theon / πρὸς τὸν θεόν “to/toward/with God” when Moses makes supplication
with God on Pharoah’s behalf. Here are some examples:
Exodus 8:29 (LXX Exo 8:25) “Then Moses said, ‘Behold, I am going
out from you, and I shall make supplication to Yahweh that the swarms of
insects may depart from Pharaoh’”
(καὶ εὔξομαι πρὸς τὸν θεόν).”
Exodus 8:30 (LXX Exo. 8:30) “So Moses went out from Pharaoh and made
supplication to Yahweh (ηὔξατο πρὸς τὸν θεόν).”
Pharoah again, Exodus 10:17 “Now therefore, please forgive my sin
only this once, and make supplication to Yahweh your God, that He would
only remove this death from me (προσεύξασθε πρὸς κύριον τὸν θεὸν ὑμῶν).”
Exodus 10:18 “And he (Moses) went out from Pharaoh and made
supplication to Yahweh (ηὔξατο πρὸς τὸν θεόν).”
Note three
things about these verses:
1. The verb in both Greek and Hebrew translated as “make supplication” has the idea of mediating or interceding. Moses can and does come pros ton Theon “with/toward/to God” in order to mediate and make intercession for others.
2. The LXX sometimes changes “LORD/Yahweh” to “God/Theon”. Where the Hebrew has “make intercession to Yahweh”, the LXX translates “make intercession to God (pros ton Theon)”.
3.
The
point: a reader familiar with the Greek Old Testament would associate making intercessory
supplication and the phrase pros ton Theon to Moses. Moses is presented
as a human being who has mediatorial access pros ton Theon, to/toward/with
the God of Israel.
Jethro’s advice:
Exodus 18:19 “Now listen to me: I shall give you counsel, and God
be with you. You be the people's representative before God, and you
bring their cases to God…” The LXX has pros ton Theon twice in
this verse. In the first instance, the LXX reads “you be for the people the things
pertaining to God.” Then Jethro says, “and you bring their cases to God
(pros ton Theon)”
(γίνου σὺ τῷ λαῷ τὰ πρὸς τὸν θεὸν καὶ ἀνοίσεις τοὺς λόγους
αὐτῶν πρὸς τὸν θεὸν).
הֱיֵ֧ה אַתָּ֣ה לָעָ֗ם
מ֚וּל הָֽאֱלֹהִ֔ים וְהֵבֵאתָ֥ אַתָּ֛ה אֶת־הַדְּבָרִ֖ים אֶל־הָאֱלֹהִֽים׃
The Hebrew reads: “You be for the people in front of God and bring
their cases to God”.
Certainly, Jethro saw the unique relationship of Moses to God on
behalf of the people. Moses, described with pros ton Theon, would
represent the people “in front of God” and with “the things pertaining to God”.
Let’s note additional occurrences of pros ton Theon with
verbs that involve Moses coming into close spatial proximity with God. After
the first time that Moses went up to God on Mt. Sinai and then returned back
down to the people and told the people what God had said:
Exodus 19:8 “And all the people answered together and said, ‘All
that Yahweh has spoken we will do!’ And Moses brought back the words of the
people to Yahweh (ἀνήνεγκεν δὲ Μωυσῆς τοὺς λόγους τοῦ λαοῦ πρὸς τὸν
θεόν).”
Next, when Moses was again with God on Mt. Sinai we read, Exodus
19:21 “And Yahweh said to Moses, ‘Go down and warn the people, lest they come
near to Yahweh to gaze and many of them perish’” (ἐγγίσωσιν πρὸς τὸν
θεὸν). The people were forbidden to come pros ton Theon. But Moses
could come pros ton Theon.
Still on Mt. Sinai, Exodus 19:24, “And Yahweh said to him, “Go
down, and come up bringing Aaron with you; but do not let the priests and the
people break through to come up to Yahweh, lest He break out
against them (βιαζέσθωσαν ἀναβῆναι πρὸς τὸν θεόν יֶֽהֶרְס֛וּ לַעֲלֹ֥ת אֶל־יְהוָ֖ה).”
Now note especially the next two verses. During Israel’s acceptance
of the Sinai Covenant, Aaron and his two sons, and 70 elders representing the
people were to come part way up the mountain with Moses but were only to worship
from a distance. We read:
Exodus 24:2 “Moses alone
shall come near to Yahweh; but the others shall not come near,
and the people shall not come up with him (καὶ ἐγγιεῖ Μωυσῆς μόνος πρὸς τὸν
θεόν).”
Finally, after the people had made a golden calf, and Moses came
down with God’s word in tablets of stone, and smashed them, and ground the gold
calf to powder:
Exodus 32:30 The next day
Moses said to the people, “You have sinned a great sin. And now I will go up to
Yahweh; perhaps I can make atonement for your sin”
(ἀναβήσομαι πρὸς τὸν θεόν).
I believe these examples show that a Greek-speaking Israelite who
had some familiarity with the Greek Old Testament (LXX) could recognize the
phrase pros ton Theon and associate it with the man, Moses. Moses made
mediatorial supplication pros ton Theon. Moses represented the people pros
ton Theon. Moses only came consistently into unique spatial
proximity prost ton Theon. For a Greek Old Testament reader, the coming
into or being in the position pros ton Theon described neither a second
divine figure nor an abstract attribute like Wisdom. It was the human being, the
man Moses, who was pros ton Theon.
There is some corraborating New Testament evidence that is fitting
to mention at this juncture where we find the phrase pros ton Theon used
specifically to designate a human person, the man Jesus Christ. Jesus the
Messiah, like Moses, but to a far greater extent, has a mediatorial role and
spatial relation pros ton Theon.
Hebrews 2:17 Therefore, he had to be made like his brethren in all
things, that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the things
pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people (τὰ
πρὸς τὸν θεὸν).
Hebrews 5:1 For every high priest taken from among men is appointed
on behalf of men in the things pertaining to God, in order to
offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins (τὰ πρὸς τὸν θεόν, cf. 2
Corinthians 3:4).
Serving as other people’s mediator in the things pertaining to
God pros ton Theon is the same role that Moses performed (Exo. 4:16,
18:19).
The Word was God - θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος - of Moses
Fine enough, you might say, the phrase pros ton Theon “was
with God” might be recognizable to a Greek-speaking Israelite as an allusion to
Moses, as one who had a unique spatial relation and mediatorial role between
God and Israel, but what about the next phrase, “the Word was God”? Does the
Old Testament ever say that Moses was God?
When God called Moses at the burning bush, and Moses expressed
reluctance to God sending him because of his inability to speak well, God told Moses
that Aaron would be Moses’s spokesman. And then, God said that Moses would be “God”
to Aaron.
Exodus 4:16 “He (Aaron) shall
speak for you to the people; and he shall be a mouth for you, and you shall be
to him as God.”
Now, most English translations put in the word “as” in translating
God’s declaration: “you shall be as God to him”. But the Hebrew
of this verse וְאַתָּ֖ה תִּֽהְיֶה־לּ֥וֹ לֵֽאלֹהִֽים does not have the
word “as” in it. The more literal translation is “You will be God to him” (cf.
Exo. 29:45; Jer. 24:7, 32:8; Eze. 34:24; Zec. 8:8).
Interestingly, the LXX adds a definite article which tends to
soften the direct reference to Moses being God: “you shall be to him the
things pertaining to God” (σὺ δὲ αὐτῷ ἔσῃ τὰ πρὸς τὸν θεόν). This is the
exact same phrase that we saw used of Jesus in the New Testament describing Jesus’s
mediatorial role as high priest (Exo. 18:19, Heb. 2:17, 5:1).
Exodus 4:16 is also of interest because it has the same “to be” verb
(but in a future tense) as John 1:1. John 1:1 says, “and the Word was
God”. Exodus 4:16 says, “You will be God.”
Exodus 7:1 “So Yahweh
said to Moses, ‘See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your
brother Aaron will be your prophet.’”
καὶ εἶπεν κύριος πρὸς Μωυσῆν λέγων ἰδοὺ δέδωκά σε θεὸν Φαραω καὶ
Ααρων ὁ ἀδελφός σου ἔσται σου προφήτης (Exo 7:1 BGT)
וַיֹּ֤אמֶר יְהוָה֙
אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֔ה רְאֵ֛ה נְתַתִּ֥יךָ אֱלֹהִ֖ים לְפַרְעֹ֑ה וְאַהֲרֹ֥ן אָחִ֖יךָ
יִהְיֶ֥ה נְבִיאֶֽךָ׃
English translations insert the word “like”: “I have made you like
God to Pharoah”. But the word “like” is
not in either the Hebrew or Greek Old Testament. The literal translation is “I
have made you God to Pharoah”.
So here we have a clear reference to Moses as God. Now, we all know
that the Bible is not saying that Moses was God in an ontological, physiological, or in an “essence” or in “nature” sense.
We can be certain that the Bible is NOT claiming that Moses is God in an ontological sense for various reasons, including:
1.
We
take the statement in context. We read the rest of the Bible. Moses was a baby,
someone tried to kill him, he grew up, shepherded sheep, died, etc. He is not the
one God of Israel ontologically.
2.
The
God of Israel “made” Moses God. Actually, the verb is not really “made you
God” but is more literally “gave, granted”. God said, “I have granted you to
be God to Pharoah”. The God of the Bible is not made, granted or allowed to
be God by anyone. But God “gave/granted/made” Moses God in that the man Moses
represented God in function, power, authority and probably character to both
Aaron and Pharoah. Moses had a “God-like” role in that Moses gave words to
Aaron as God gave words to Moses. It was God at work in and through the words and
deeds of Moses. Moses functioned as God to Pharoah because the plagues that
Moses brought upon Pharoah were brought by God.
This is the same with the man Jesus. It was God at work in and through the words and deeds of the man Jesus.
The Gospel of John is not declaring Jesus to literally or
ontologically be God in nature, just like the book of Exodus wasn’t declaring
Moses to literally or ontologically be God. In John’s Gospel Jesus is
distinguished from God. God sent Jesus (3:34, 5:24, 17:3. Cf. Exo. 3:12-15, etc.).
Jesus represents God and speaks the words that God gave him. In John’s Gospel Jesus
is “a man who told you the truth which I heard from God” (John 8:40, cf. John
14:1, Acts 2:36, 10:38, 2 Cor. 5:9).
To summarize so far, the phrases “with God” and “was God” of John
1:1 have parallels to the man Moses in the Greek Old Testament. We need to try
to shed ourselves of ontological interpretations of John 1:1 that contradict
the rest of Scripture.
We see that "the Word was with God and the Word was God"
parallels are much closer at hand than most Gentile Christian’s have seemed to
realize. The parallels are not in extra-biblical literature, but in the LXX of
passages like Exodus 4:16, 7:1, 24:2, 32:30. A Greek speaking Jew familiar with
the LXX would read John 1:1 and think “It's the prophet like unto Moses!”. A
Greek-speaking Jew familiar with the LXX would not read John 1:1 and think “Oh!
a second divine hypostasis!” Niether would he think, "Oh! Personified Wisdom!”,
which as far as I can tell, is an interpretation of John 1:1 that had its
origin in the Enlightenment Period in Europe.
Before we move on to see how Jesus is compared to Moses in the
remainder of John’s Gospel, it is worthwhile to note that the first part of
John 1:1, “In the beginning was the Word” also has parallels to Moses.
Beginning and Word/Torah
While I see “in the beginning” of John 1:1 in the main as an
intentional echo of Genesis 1:1 because in Jesus and his ministry God has set
into motion a new beginning, there is also a parallel of “word” with Moses and
the Exodus from Egypt, which was a new beginning.
Israel’s beginning and covenant came through the word of God. It is
significant that the word “word”, דבר davar in Hebrew and λόγος logos in Greek, is not found in the
creation account in Genesis. Rather, davar/logos relates in the Old
Testament more often to God’s revelatory promise to the patriarchs and the fulfillment
of that promise in the formation of the people of Israel.
God gave His word, a promise to the fathers. Then, God gave His
word uniquely through Moses at Mt. Sinai and Israel was formed. Modern
commentaries on the Gospel of John almost invariably describe what Logos
(the word) was to a Greek thinking mind. But Logos, word, to the Hebrew
mind would mean Torah, the body of revelation and teaching that God gave to
Israel through Moses. The beginning of Israel as a people came
through God’s word, God’s Torah. Even today religious Jews know that what is
most essential in the creation and maintenance of Israel as a people is God’s
word (Torah).
In the beginning, through the word, that is, through the Torah
given during the Exodus and Sinai experience, Israel experienced a new beginning.
Israel became a nation, God’s firstborn son, God’s people. That is why God
said: “This month is to be your beginning of months; for you it
is the beginning/first month of the year” (Exodus 12:2).
With Moses and Israel’s national beginning, God’s word/Torah came
etched on tablets of stone. But with the new beginning in Jesus, God’s Word was
flesh, a human being. The Bible is called the word of God because it contains
the words of God. Jesus was the Word of God because he had and spoke the words
of God in a way which no other human had.
Throughout John’s
Gospel Jesus is explicitly compared to Moses, not to God. Jesus is the 2nd Moses, not the 2nd
God
That John 1:1 is alluding to Moses is supported by the fact that the author of the Gospel early and often makes the direct comparison between Moses and Jesus. The Moses-Jesus comparison is based on the words of Yahweh which He communicated through Moses, as recorded in Deuteronomy 18:15-19:
"Yahweh your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers- it is to him you shall listen- 16 just as you desired of Yahweh your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly, when you said, “Let me not hear again the voice of Yahweh my God or see this great fire any more, lest I die.” 17 And Yahweh said to me, “They are right in what they have spoken. 18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers. And I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. 19 And whoever will not listen to my words that he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him."
In his first chapter, John states that while Torah came through Moses, grace and truth came through Jesus. Still in his first chapter, John hastens to declare through the testimony
of Andrew that “we have found him of whom Moses in the Torah and also the prophets wrote” (John 1:45). Moses never wrote about
a second God figure, a second God hypostasis, whom Yahweh would send. Rather,
Moses wrote about the prophet like himself that Yahweh would send.
Just like when Israel requested that a mediator speak the words of
God to them, and God said the request was appropriate (Deu. 18:16, Exo. 20:19-20), and
Moses was that mediator, even so God put His words into the mouth of the
mediator Jesus. The Gospel of John can say “the Word was God” because when
Jesus spoke it was God speaking. When Jesus performed a miracle, it was God
acting (cf. Acts 2:22). Moses and Jesus were God’s agents, through whom God spoke
and operated. But Jesus was God operating and speaking to such a degree that
Jesus himself was called the Word of God.
The statement “and the Word was God” is not an ontological
statement about Jesus being deity in nature or essence, but about agency. That
is, Jesus represented God. God was at work in and through Jesus (cf. 2 Cor.
5:19). The “Christology” of John’s Gospel, who Jesus is, is not “incarnation”,
that “God became man”, but rather “agency”, that the man Christ Jesus was sent
by God, represents God, speaks the words of God, and by God’s empowering does
the works of God. Moses did not perform God’s miracles through only the spoken
word. One time God told Moses to only speak, but he failed. Jesus was God’s
word to such an extent that when Jesus spoke, the lame were healed and the dead
were raised.
So, let’s see how Jesus is compared to Moses in John’s Gospel, not
to God, nor to an abstract idea in God’s mind. Moses is mentioned explicitly 13
times in John’s Gospel. The first time is in John’s Prologue.
John 1:17: “For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth
came through Jesus Christ.”
Moses and Jesus were both mediators, through whom something came.
The source of the Torah was God – it came through Moses. The source of grace
and truth was God – they came through Jesus Christ. “Grace and truth” are
central elements in the revelation of Yahweh to Moses to confirm that even
after the sin of the golden calf, Yahweh renewed His covenant with Israel and would
still be with Israel (Exo. 34:6).
Then, still in chapter 1, John 1:45, “Philip found Nathanael
and said to him, ‘We have found him of whom Moses in the Torah and also the
prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.’”
It is simply preposterous to suggest that Moses wrote about God
literally taking on human nature. The apostle Philip's confession flies in the face of
traditional Christianity’s interpretation of John 1. What Moses did write about
was God sending a prophet like himself.
Neither did the prophets write about God taking on human form. What the
prophets did write about was Yahweh God sending the Davidic Messiah (cf. John
1:41).
Jesus said in John 5:46: “If you believed Moses, you would
believe me; for he wrote of me.” Again, did Moses write about a god that would
take on human flesh, or a god-man whom a different person of God would send? No,
he wrote about the prophet like unto himself whom God would send. That prophet
would speak all that God commanded him.
The miraculous signs that the Gospel of John records are full of Moses
to Jesus parallelism (typology). Perhaps the best example of parallel miracle
signs is the feeding of the 5000, because it reminded the people of God’s
miraculous provision of manna when Moses led Israel for 40 years.
Note the people’s reaction to Jesus’s feeding of the 5000. John
6:14: “When the people saw the sign that he had done, they said, ‘This is
indeed the Prophet who is to come into the world!’” Jesus’s miracle connected
him to the promised prophet like unto Moses.
Jesus (like Moses) made clear, as he did on many other occasions
(e.g., John 5:30, 8:28, 14:10; Acts 2:22), that he was not the source of the
miracle. Jesus was the channel. God was the source. The Father was acting, but “behind
the scenes”, because He can’t be seen by humans. John 6:32: “Jesus then said to
them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from
heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven.’”
Like Moses, Jesus was the channel through whom and by which the
miracle was done.
John records for us the reaction of the people to Jesus’s teaching
in Jerusalem at the Festival of Tabernacles: John 7:40-41a “When they heard
these words, some of the people said, ‘This really is the Prophet.’ Others said, ‘This is the Christ.’” Moses emphasized the coming one to be a
prophet like unto himself, but did not describe the coming one as Messiah. The
prophets described the coming one as the Messiah, the anointed king descended
from David.
Finally, John shows the Moses-Jesus comparison even through the
words of the ones condemning the blind man to whom Jesus gave sight: John
9:28-29, “And they reviled him, saying, “You are his disciple, but we are
disciples of Moses. 29 We
know that God has spoken to Moses, but as for this man, we do not know where he
comes from.”
Other New Testament Comparisons of Jesus to Moses
I’d like to just mention that other New Testament literature
confirms the Moses-Jesus parallel that the Gospel of John presents. John
presents the same Christ as the rest of the New Testament, not a different
Christ. It should go without saying that if, as other New Testament literature,
the Gospel of John compares Jesus to Moses, this Gospel is not declaring that
Jesus is literally God.
In the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, Jesus is presented as the
prophet like unto Moses who goes up on to a mountain and interprets Torah. In
the Book of Acts the Apostle Peter and disciple Steven directly connect Jesus to
the statement of Moses that “God will raise up for you a prophet like me from
your brothers” (Acts 3:22-23, 7:35-37). Likewise, the author of the Book of Hebrews
directly compares Jesus to Moses (Hebrews 3:3-6).
Once one starts to notice, the parallels between Moses and Jesus
seem to be everywhere. As babies, both Moses and Jesus were threatened with
murder by the ruling political authorities. Through Moses the Passover was
initiated. Jesus told his disciples to remember his covenant securing death in
connenction to Passover. As Moses was ready to die for his people (Exo. 32:32),
Jesus was not only ready but did die “that the whole nation not perish” (John
11:50).
Review and Challenge
1. The literary and thematic parallels to the phrases “was with God” and “was God” of John 1:1 are to be found in the Greek version of the Old Testament, not in extra-biblical literature, and these phrases particularly refer to the man Moses. Greek-speaking Israelites familiar with the Greek Old Testament could recognize that Moses “was with God pros ton Theon“ and even “was God” in a representative sense, and understand that the author was introducing the coming of the “prophet like unto Moses…about whom Moses wrote”.
a. Explain why “was with God” (pros ton Theon) and “was God” are not applicable to Moses, and
b. Give evidence from the Bible and other Second Temple Period Jewish literature where either a second God-figure (hypostasis), or a divine attribute like wisdom, is presented as being both “pros ton Theon” and “was God”.
Comments
The Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the OT defines davar as:
“A single word [in the LXX logos, rhema] 2 Kings 18.36; Job 2.13.
It can also mean a “decree, plan, proposal 2Sam 17.6; 1 Kings 1.7.”
And the famous Liddel and Scott Greek-English Lexicon defines Logos as:
A "word, speech, statement, discourse, refutation, account, explanation, and reason."
The same is true when it comes to the Targums and the Aramaic Memra according to the jewishencyclopedia.org:
“God manifesting His power in the world of matter or mind; a term used especially in the Targum [ancient Jewish commentaries] as a substitute for ‘the Lord’ when an anthropomorphic expression is to be avoided.”
So it’s wrong to continue to capitalize logos as if it were a person.
Second, in Hebrew the preposition “with” can be used to describe the relationship between a person and what is in his heart or mind.
* In Job 10.12-13, 16 God’s life, love, wisdom, power and even His care are said to be with Him.
* Isa 40.10; 62.11 “His reward is with Him.”
* 2K 3:12 to say that “The word of the Lord is with him.”
Third, in the NT pros ton theon refers to things or attributes “with God”:
* Heb 2:17; 5:1; Rom 17:15 “things with God”;
* Acts 24:16 “conscience with God”;
* Rom 5:1 “peace with God”;
* 2Cor 3:4; 1 John 3:21 “confidence with God”;
* 1Thess 1:8 “Faith with God.”
Fourth, John’s own Commentary of his Gospel should not be ignored.
1 John 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard,
which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have
touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life.
2 The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us.
3 We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard…
NOTE: 5x which; 2x it; 1 this and 1 what.
So throughout John "the word of God" John 1.1 = the "words of eternal life" John 6.68 = “the word of Life" 1 John 1.1-2.
John 1:1 is far closer to biblical and Jewish strains of thought, I.e., the creative word of God, the word of the Lord that came to the prophets, has now become personal in Jesus who is the embodiment of divine revelation.
Hence, Jesus is what the word of God became and not the other way around!
REMEMBER
* A word and God cannot converse.
* A word was not begotten by God.
* A word cannot be a son, let alone the Son of God!
* A word doesn’t have a “conscious will.”
* A word is not your mediator.
* A word can be personified. E.g., Ps 147:15b the word of God runs very swiftly.
Which by definition means the word is not a person!
Thanks for the response. As lamb, door, way, truth, life, vine, bread are used as metaphors for Jesus, so is word. Bread, a door, a vine, a way, etc., don't have conscious wills either. But the metaphor is used to communicate an important aspect of who Jesus is.
The one with his robe dipped in blood was called "The Word of God".
The language pros ton theon is not used in the OT examples of "with God" that you give. In the NT examples you give, human beings are always involved. E.g., in the Hebrews 2:17 and 5:1 examples, it is the high priest who approaches "in things pertaining to God".
I think it helps to clarify, when do you think the man Jesus is referred to first (literally or metaphorically) in John's prologue? For instance, the light that was coming into the world that John testified to, was that the man Jesus?
Yes, of course there are human beings involved but my point is that in the NT “things” not people are “pertaining to God,” or “with God.”
Lastly, there’s no text saying Moses “was with God.” The Greek pros ton theon simply means “with God,” not “was with God.”
Along this line of thinking, Unitarians then have a common line of thinking that ties those 3 key parts (beginning, middle, and end) of John together, where Trinitarians I think have a point about the placement. That is, these key parts aren't meant to be 'explained away', but rather it seems more satisfying to say they are extremely important to John's message.
This sort of approach to 1:1 then takes important points Trinitarians make, but approaches them in a way that harmonizes much better with much else that John says (and the rest of the NT says).
Amen and Amen. I think it is difficult to argue against the idea that the Gospel of John is presenting Jesus as representing God (the Father). In this Gospel, Jesus is every "sent" by God, "sent" by the Father. Even the name of the pool where Jesus sends the blind man to wash and be healed is "Sent"!
So yes, I completely agree. John's Gospel is not making an ontological statement of "being God" (trinitarianism) or "being the Father" (modalism). All of the statements, like the ones you referred to, are better understood as concerning representation, agency.
bible vasanam tamil
"But the Hebrew of this verse וְאַתָּ֖ה תִּֽהְיֶה־לּ֥וֹ לֵֽאלֹהִֽים does not have the word “as” in it. The more literal translation is “You will be God to him”"
It would be very helpful to have a greater explanation of this. Almost all translations have the 'as' (or equivalent) in them. It seems the argument is that this is the translation of the 'le' on 'elohim'.
And while I'm at it, it would be very helpful also to have your take on 1 John 1 (maybe in a podcast?), and how you respond to the argument that the word is a 'what' or 'that' there.
As to your question about the (lamed) “le” in Exo. 4:16. It shouldn’t be translated as “as” or “like”. You can see the same kind of grammatical construction in passages like these (there are many more):
Exo. 29:45; Jer. 24:7, 32:8; Eze. 34:24; Zec. 8:8
Exodus 29:45 “I will dwell among the people of Israel and will be their (lamed, “le”) God.
Verses like these are NOT translated, “and I will be like their God”.
Jeremiah 24:7 “I will be their (lamed, “le”) God and they will be my (lamed) people.
This is the normal way for Hebrew to express statements such as: “I will be God”, “you will be my son”. The “lamed” is part of the grammatical construction. If anything, following the “to be” verb, there may be a sense of “become God”, but it’s probably better just to translate such phrases as “will be God”.
As to your other questions, let’s wait for the planned discussion in a couple weeks. Feel free to ask then. Thanks.
God Almighty made a testament/will in the OT with us that we should inherit His kingdom. So for this testament/will to be activated the testator has to die.
For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. Hebrews 9.16.
That is why God Almighty had to die on the cross (He didn't cease to exist just like we do not cease to exist when we die) but He died in the flesh so that He could spill HIS holy blood
Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. Acts 20.28
so that whoever believes in this gift of LOVE (self sacrifice John 15.13, Romans 5.8) should receive His Holy Spirit and be sealed for the kingdom (receive the inheritance)
You must believe in the Christ, the LOVE (self sacrifice/death) of God manifested in the flesh because it was the love of God that fulfilled the law that brings death.
Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not bear false witness,” “You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, “You shall love your neighbour as yourself.” 10 Love does no harm to a neighbour; therefore love is the fulfilment of the law. Romans 13
So if you believe in the love (self sacrifice/death) of God in the flesh, the death of the testator, you will be born again and receive His inheritance, His Holy Spirit and will no longer be under the law.
Trinity and unitarianism (and all other religions) will lead you therefore to hell because both doctrines demand a faith, in which a separate father sends his separate son to the cross. Whoever believes in this, whoever puts their faith in this sacrifice of an other, does not believe in the selfless self sacrificing Love of God, and will therefore not receive the Spirit of God but the spirit of the selfish (satanic) anti (in stead of) Christ.
God is SPIRIT and when He came to earth, He was still in heaven at the same time
No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven. John 3.13
That is how God Most High Himself was able to go to the cross and spill His holy blood and therefore activate the testament/will.
This is the gospel of peace which is based on the love of God.
Thanks for the comment. It sounds like your understanding of God and Messiah Jesus is a kind of "modalist" or "oneness" understanding. That is, that God is one self who has manifest himself in at least two different ways. However, in many places the Bible describes Jesus as a real human person, a real human person who is different from his God and Father.
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ..." Eph. 1:3, etc.
Modalism is trinitarianism in modes, meaning, the modalistic faith demands, just like the trinitarian faith, a belief in selfish sacrifice, when it was the selfless sacrifice, the self sacrifice of Almighty God (called the Christ) who saved us.
Modalists believe that God is one person who showed himself in three modes, when God is One SPIRIT who was in heaven and earth at the same time. In heaven He was called the father and on earth veiled in a flesh of no reputation (heb10.20) He was called the son. 2 Samuel7.14/15/16
It was the love of God that fulfilled the law that brings death. And the love of God is the opposite of sin (selfishness)
If we do not believe in the love of God (the Christ/self sacrifice) we are still under the law that brings death.
The sacrifice was already committed by Almighty God in heaven (the lamb was already slain before the foundation of the world) and made manifest for us on earth, so we can believe in it and be saved.
Have you considered that your assertions benefit from some more robust defense before you conclude your case?
Your interpretations are not the only contender, and arguing a point from the perspective of a debatable trinitarian church tradition and using a couple of debatably applied scriptures is not really proof of anything, right?
For example, you wrote, "God Almighty had to die on the cross (He didn't cease to exist just like we do not cease to exist when we die) but He died in the flesh so that He could spill HIS holy blood".
I have searched the scriptures exhaustively, and I don't find any reasonable basis for that interpretation that I once believed (because that is what I was taught as "orthodoxy"). For example: I see Paul saying that the second Adam died in place of the first (as it is written, a life for a life) and thus provided redemption for the seed of the first Adam, as our ransom. The first Adam was a fully created first man (called the son of God, Luke 3:38) without a personal origin, and it seems most reasonable to my (ex-trinitarian) mind that the second Adam must likewise have been a a fully created man (also called the son of God) without a personal origin.
I like this soteriology because I think it best harmonizes all the scriptures on the subject. However, there are other non god-man-died views to be considered. How about giving the various views a look-see? After all, even the trinitarians endlessly debate this. If you are secure in your faith, what could possibly be the risk to you? By doing so, you might even learn better how to refute error!
Are you open to the possibility that your view (that is arguably not particularly in sync with soteriological scriptures such as Romans 5 and 1 Timothy 6:16) may have to make its case (1 Peter 3:15) against competing soteriological perspectives? I certainly hope you are, because that is the way to love God with all your heart and mind.
Also, I would like to respectfully comment that your somewhat cryptic suggestion that brother Bill might "not believe in the love of God (the Christ/self sacrifice)" and may still "under the law that brings death" constitutes less than respectful apologetics, and that is unworthy of the gospel of Christ (Philippians 1:27a). It is not as though Bill has repudiated the gospel of the kingdom by which we are saved, and which is completely free of even a hint of having to believe that Jesus-is-personally-God, right?