To have been or not to have been...

[TJ]

In this thread I'm inviting Greg to continue our discussion which began in the comments section of the dustinmartyr blog.

[TJ]

Hello Greg,

Thanks for agreeing to answer some of my questions regarding your Biblical Unitarian view. Over at Dustin's blog, you listed a few of your objections to my position:

I typically add the text – “I alone created…” and they will grasp at something like “well, Jesus baptized… but…”

So before we go on – my real question is – what is the point or benefit? You already know my exegesis – I already know how you use text. Until you get “foreknowledge”/”notional pre-incarnate” (plainly taught IPet1:20, Rev13:8, Eph1:4, etc), until you get Jesus as referenced in creation rather than an agent in creation (ICor8:6, Col1:15), until you get the Logos as the Logos rather than some strange creature of God and lastly the “sent”/”coming from above” language as essentially meta-phoric, there is no further need to communicate as far as I can tell.

I then gave you my objective for a discussion:

I am primarily interested in discussing what, in your view, the Logos actually is and then exploring the implications of that view. I have no interest in any type of high-intensity, frustrating debate. Rather, I’m genuinely interested in better understanding your Christology. For example, you seem to have a very defined view of what is/isn’t a man; I’m interested in knowing how the incarnation of the Logos does/doesn’t play a factor in that definition and then how that answer relates to God’s overall purpose (I can explain what I mean by this more in-depth).

So I suppose to start things off, could you please give a brief description of what the Logos is and exactly how it relates to the man Jesus?


Thanks Greg!

[Greg Logan]

TJ

Thanks for setting this up.

I would appreciate your adding this comment in the above as it preceded the first comment and is really the key issue.

I tend to avoid interacting with with those adhering to an Arian Christology – for a very simple reason. They refuse to stick to standard hermeneutic of words retaining their standard meaning. As an example, for an Arian “man” does not mean “man” – “man” essentially means a divine being in a human body – but we still get to call it “man” – even though it really isn’t – well, because it fits our doctrine – regardless of reality. At this point, the discussion is pretty much ended since when one makes up their own meaning to words, then the texts become irrelevant. This is essentially simply a form of eisegesis and is perhaps even more troublesome than trin flip-flopping with Jesus’ natures and the person’s of God at will when the text does not fit their basic doctrine.

Please note that I removed the word "dishonest" and added just a bit in the first sentence to humanize it.

[Greg Logan]

So I suppose to start things off, could you please give a brief description of what the Logos is and exactly how it relates to the man Jesus?

Great question and very simple.

The Logos in Jn1:1-3 is simply the Logos of God as seen throughout the OT beginning in Gen 1. This is easily identified as v3 speaks of a specific function of the Logos which is that "all things were created though it". We see this specifically in Gen1 - God spoke his logos and "all things" were. This is specifically stated in Ps33:66

By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.

This is likewise specifically seen in the NT - Heb1:3 (rhema is synon w/logos in this instance) and 2Pet3:5. I expect there are dozen other instances that I have not stumbled on yet. Regardless, in each of these instances there is NO person in view - but simply the logos of God - the logos that "came" to the prophets - the logos that would not return void.

Key concept is that logos of God while it is of God is expressed in a manner that it is distinct from God. We see this in English as well. We can say - "His word is good". I think this distinction may be even more pronounced. John captures two other characteristics of the logos - it is towards the God (v1b) - and, as I understand, it is the very character of God (God was the word - v1c.

Then in v14 we see a great speaking of God - the Word was manifest as a man. God still had his word - but it was fully manifest in Jesus. Jesus is NOT the Word - Jesus IS the Word made flesh. I am uncertain whether there a prior parallel for this type of manifestation of the Word - though I suppose creation is the Word made manifest as well. Also, as we are supposed to be the light of the world even as Jesus is the light of the world - we are to be the Word of God - "whoever speaks, as one who speaks oracles of God" in Peter-speak - whereas in John-speak I think we would be the Word made flesh as we are to be "in Him even as He is in God"

Last point - I find this text in Acts 10:36 very interesting - "the word that He sent to the sons of Israel, proclaiming the gospel, peace by Jesus Christ--He is Lord of all." This statement seems exactly that of Jn1:14 except that it is without the poetic overtone that John provided.

The last point - John is very interesting - essentially sort of poetic/metaphoric - as to how he sees Jesus manifesting these realities. As an example - Jesus is said to be the light and the carrier of the light - as both being "one" though when fully parsed - Jesus Himself is separate. We see that God is the light - and Jesus is the lamp (Rev21:23) HOWEVER at other points Jesus is the light to the world... though he is not the actual light... God is, as John makes clear. To us Jesus is the light of the world - but when God is in view - Jesus is the lamp carrying the light... This provides us a hermeneutic to make sense of Jn1:1 - 18 and 1Jn1:1-5 and maintain consistency with all of scripture.

And the city has no need of the sun, nor of the moon, that they should shine in it; for the glory of God enlightened it, and its lamp is the Lamb.

To arbitrarily

[TJ]

Thank you for your replies Greg. I apologize that it took several days for them to show up here; I think I have that fixed. I've read over your posts carefully a few times and have looked up your scripture citations. Below are a couple of questions I have.

I tend to avoid interacting with with those adhering to an Arian Christology – for a very simple reason. They refuse to stick to standard hermeneutic of words retaining their standard meaning. As an example, for an Arian “man” does not mean “man” – “man” essentially means a divine being in a human body – but we still get to call it “man” – even though it really isn’t

I don't want to misuse words. Could you please clearly define what you believe the standard meaning of "man" is?

Then in v14 we see a great speaking of God - the Word was manifest as a man. God still had his word - but it was fully manifest in Jesus. Jesus is NOT the Word - Jesus IS the Word made flesh. I am uncertain whether there a prior parallel for this type of manifestation of the Word - though I suppose creation is the Word made manifest as well. Also, as we are supposed to be the light of the world even as Jesus is the light of the world - we are to be the Word of God[...]

[...]The last point - John is very interesting - essentially sort of poetic/metaphoric - as to how he sees Jesus manifesting these realities. As an example - Jesus is said to be the light and the carrier of the light[...]We see that God is the light - and Jesus is the lamp (Rev21:23) HOWEVER at other points Jesus is the light to the world... though he is not the actual light... God is, as John makes clear. To us Jesus is the light of the world - but when God is in view - Jesus is the lamp carrying the light... This provides us a hermeneutic to make sense of Jn1:1 - 18 and 1Jn1:1-5 and maintain consistency with all of scripture.

I think I get what you're saying, but I want to be sure. If Jesus can be both "the light and the carrier of the light", would it not be an equally valid interpretation to view him both as 'the word and the carrier of the word' (i.e. after he's come into existence)? In other words, do you believe that after Jesus is born he can rightly be called 'the Word of God'--not in the sense that he's the literal spoken word of God--but simply in that God's Word is manifested in him? (cf. Rev. 19:13)

[Greg Logan]

TJ

Not a problem - thanks for the follow-up.

I don't want to misuse words. Could you please clearly define what you believe the standard meaning of "man" is?

Look in the mirror...

I think I get what you're saying, but I want to be sure. If Jesus can be both "the light and the carrier of the light", would it not be an equally valid interpretation to view him both as 'the word and the carrier of the word' (i.e. after he's come into existence)? In other words, do you believe that after Jesus is born he can rightly be called 'the Word of God'--not in the sense that he's the literal spoken word of God--but simply in that God's Word is manifested in him? (cf. Rev. 19:13)

You really have two questions here - and both are great. Is Jesus really BOTH the light and the carrier of the light? That does not really make sense - and I find, if nothing else, the Bible ultimately makes a great deal of sense.... Therefore, may I suggest that in the speaking of God - even as we are to be the light of the world - the reality is - as Jesus said - I can do NOTHING OF myself.... Likewise He is the Light of the World in light of Him being the perfect lamb in which the Light is shining. Likewise for your and I. That is my present understanding - and the only way the I see that all these texts reconcile.

As to when we might say that Jesus was "the Word made flesh". That is another great question that I would never considered had you not asked. Upon reflection, I would definitely suggest at the time of his anointing. Even as Moses needed 40 years - Jesus needed 40 days to complete his "learning of obedience by the things he suffered".... There is no sense in the prologue that Jesus was the Word become flesh prior to his ministry....

[TJ]

Hi Greg,

Thanks for your response. This is very helpful for me to better understand your beliefs.

I don't want to misuse words. Could you please clearly define what you believe the standard meaning of "man" is?

Look in the mirror...

A frightening proposition.

But in all seriousness, I'm guessing you believe that there's more to the meaning of "man" than the mere appearance of such. After all, all parties seem to agree that Jesus looked like a man.

Let's try this. How would you respond to an argument put to you that went something like this:

• 1. Every human born has a biological father.
  2. Jesus was born with no biological father.
  3. Therefore, Jesus is not a human.

What differentiates that argument from the one below used to disprove the idea of Jesus having a pre-human existence?

• 1. No human could pre-exist in heaven.
  2. Jesus pre-existed in heaven.
  3. Therefore, Jesus is not a human.

I'm sincerely interested in knowing the exact definition of 'man'/'human' that you must have in view that both encompasses one coming from a virgin birth and yet excludes one coming from a heavenly pre-existence. And is this definition derived from human reason, the scriptures, or both?

That is my present understanding - and the only way the I see that all these texts reconcile.

That seems reasonable.

As to when we might say that Jesus was "the Word made flesh". That is another great question that I would never considered had you not asked. Upon reflection, I would definitely suggest at the time of his anointing.

Thank you for your candor, I'm glad this discussion might be mutually beneficial.

If I grant your position, it seems most reasonable to me that Jesus would only become 'the Word' at the time of his anointing. Given that, at what point did the man Jesus become God's Son? (cf. Hebrews 1:5) In your view, was it at his birth or at his anointing?

[Greg Logan]

TJ - I had not selected the Notification box - and so did not know you had replied. My apologies - I have checked it now.

But in all seriousness, I'm guessing you believe that there's more to the meaning of "man" than the mere appearance of such. After all, all parties seem to agree that Jesus looked like a man.

Let's try this. How would you respond to an argument put to you that went something like this:

• 1. Every human born has a biological father.
  2. Jesus was born with no biological father.
  3. Therefore, Jesus is not a human.

That argument is purely one of human reasoning. I have no interest in it.

What differentiates that argument from the one below used to disprove the idea of Jesus having a pre-human existence?

• 1. No human could pre-exist in heaven.
  2. Jesus pre-existed in heaven.
  3. Therefore, Jesus is not a human.

I'm sincerely interested in knowing the exact definition of 'man'/'human' that you must have in view that both encompasses one coming from a virgin birth and yet excludes one coming from a heavenly pre-existence. And is this definition derived from human reason, the scriptures, or both?

Yes - no man is a divine person of any sort. A man is created by God directly or indirectly from the earth if you want to look at something Biblically derived. But I am not interested in that kind of "word game" that Paul condemned. A man is simply a man that we all know is a man. I simply use the standard word - based on a standard hermeneutic with no games because something does not fit a dearly held tradition based on a faulty exegesis that I love (e.g. the Jesus as Creator thing, etc.).

As to when we might say that Jesus was "the Word made flesh". That is another great question that I would never considered had you not asked. Upon reflection, I would definitely suggest at the time of his anointing.

Thank you for your candor, I'm glad this discussion might be mutually beneficial.

If I grant your position, it seems most reasonable to me that Jesus would only become 'the Word' at the time of his anointing. Given that, at what point did the man Jesus become God's Son? (cf. Hebrews 1:5) In your view, was it at his birth or at his anointing?

Please note - that is a very preliminary viewpoint and not necessarily even important. Frankly, upon further reflection, I don't think it matters WHEN Jesus was the Word become flesh - rather simply that He was and is the Word became flesh. Again that gets into the word games Paul condemns. Our call is one of godliness and good works - and getting lost in these kind of word games does not lead to godliness and is a waste. The exception is that if there is some clear text to substantiate - or some very important meaning. My whole goal in Christology is to reclaim the man Christ Jesus and the amazing work that He accomplished from being replaced by some sort of divine being who is totally irrelevant to me or any man. What good is a resurrected deity?? I need a resurrected MAN!

The time when Jesus became God's son is actually very interesting - there seems to be more than one view in scripture inc. Paul's Acts13 view (at His baptism) and Luke's view - at his birth as a result of being conceived by the Holy Spirit. I am happy to work with Luke's view at present - as it is very clean and fits all the standard meaning of words. Paul's view in Acts 13 is not necessarily comprehensive and may ultimately fit within Luke's view.

[TJ]

Hello Greg and thanks for your response.

...no man is a divine person of any sort.

I take it from this that you mean also to say that no divine person could ever become an actual man, shedding himself of everything that makes him divine and being born a true flesh-and-blood human being, is that correct?

A man is simply a man that we all know is a man.

It may also be said that something "we all know" about a man is his inherent sinful nature, is it not? Paul himself defines the common state of man this way:

Romans 3:9-12

[W]e have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.”

I would assume that you would not include the man Jesus in this otherwise all-encompassing statement about mankind. So how do you reconcile what Paul says with your emphasis on Jesus being what "we all know is a man" under the standard hermeneutic?

My whole goal in Christology is to reclaim the man Christ Jesus and the amazing work that He accomplished from being replaced by some sort of divine being who is totally irrelevant to me or any man. What good is a resurrected deity?? I need a resurrected MAN!

Thank you for that; I don't at all doubt your motivations. Again, it is not my intention to frustrate you by asking these questions; I'm sincerely interested in the Unitarian viewpoint, and your feedback is very helpful to that end.

Given your last sentence above, i.e. that Jesus is a resurrected man, do you believe that after his resurrection Jesus became divine? Or is he still a man exactly as he was before his death?


Thanks again for your patience with me, Greg.

[Greg Logan]

TJ

While I appreciate your effort on the one hand - it is far to much an effort at "vain discussion" to nit-pick into these types of argumentation and contrary to the call of Christ. Paul called us away from these kind of vain discussions. We all know what a man is - why not simply accept the reality that we all know and move on? Jesus is repeatedly declared to be a man - I accept that as my basis since it is perfectly clear, formally and repeatedly stated -

there is one God, AND (someone other than the one God - which I know you already believe) - the MAN (which I know you are struggling with) Christ Jesus.

Just to address your one issue - "All men have sinned" and how this relates to Jesus as a man. Again - this is a vain, silly point that leads to nothing. However, since there is an easy answer I will provide just this one time. You will note that the word "all" often has exceptions (check out the Internal Revenue Code if you are wondering about this... ). So when scripture says that ALL will be submitted to Jesus - it is INTUITIVELY obvious based on the whole counsel of God that God Himself is NOT going to be submitted to Jesus - despite saying "ALL". Regardless, Paul goes on to specifically state - ALL here specifically EXCLUDES God. Likewise we see a similar concept when scripture says that Jesus was baptizing - or that Paul was persecuting Jesus. Yet in neither case were those statements meant to be take in an ultra-literal, physical sense (similar to "I am from above" language, etc.).

In other words - stick to the obvious, clear, repeated texts - and use your good ol' fashioned common sense for the rest.... You will be surprised at how it all easily fits once you get into the Hebraic linguistic culture AND use the entire counsel of God (which does take a LOT of OT reading... )

Best,

Greg