February 26, 2017
The Logos
Now we want to look at the logos and see if the logos doctrine is something that is supportive of the doctrine of the Trinity. We have gone ahead and talked about how the Bible shows that there is only one God and that there is no God created before or after him. And then we see created beings being called God biblically. And we explained that the reason that created beings are allowed to be called gods is because when the Bible speaks of there only being one God is in actuality speaking of how many gods there are. Who is really God and how many are there who are really God and the answer is there is only one and that is the father per 1 Corinthians 8:6. Because otherwise would have to deny all the verses where the Bible calls created beings God's. Even when God appointed Moses as a God to other humans in Exodus 7:1. We have come to understand that there is only one real God there are many other gods but they're not the real God and there has never been any created God who was real as the one true God who is God the father. So, in that we have a balance we are not going to the extreme in saying that nothing else in the Bible is called God in the kingdom of God because that would be false. We also acknowledging that some of the servants of God are also called gods including angels and humans but we are not going to go to the extreme of adding them to the concept of who God is but a technically that they are gods in some way but not violating the understanding that there is only one real God.
And then after this we built upon looking at Scripture that shows a plurality of conversation between beings were doing powerfully divine things like creation for example. And we acknowledge that this begs the question why if there is only one real God would there be a “we” alluded to “us” alluded to in Genesis 1:26 and Genesis 3:22 and other places. And so because there is no biblical reason to say that there are multiple personalities in the one God although that could be an answer that idea is not hinted at in the Bible. So, we decide that only one of the plurality in conversation can be God and the other is one in likeness like the real God and is participating in the creation of all things. Because we want to maintain the oneness of God the solution is not to add to our idea of who God is at personalities but understand that God is being assisted or is allowing someone to assist in his operation of creation. The safest route to go is not to add to the one God another personality but someone who is existing with him and is created first.
After this we began to examine the biblical mentioning of the angel of the Lord. And really the messenger of the Lord because that's all Angel really means. And we began to examine this messenger of God who was appearing and then saying that he was God also in various places in the Old Testament. And Trinitarian's want to say this as proof that the multiplicity in God is being revealed here. But as we continue to scrutinize and see the culture in which the Jewish understanding of the logos in the messenger and also Justin Martyr and his understandings of the logos and even John the apostle's understanding of who the Logos is we get an enlightening idea that the doctrine of the Trinity's idea of a tri-unity or a multiplicity in a divinity is not what's being spoken out. We realized that the reason the Bible shows a messenger and then God and then the messenger again is because the Bible is showing us that it is an agent for God but is not God. And that this being is in the role of mediator a go-between of two different parties. And that it's not actually showing that this being is also God but showing that this being is not God but is only an agent of God. Therefore, revealing that there is no Trinity being described here. That there is no allusion or inference of the Trinity here actually a separation and that the Bible goes to great lengths to show that this messenger is not God but is an image or representation of God to the world. We also understand that no one has ever seen God and therefore anyone who has seen someone that's called God for sure did not see the Almighty father but his servant his messenger his son. And also, the ramifications of why Jesus is able to be seen and how that in many other details disqualify him for being the one true God. But also, how it's allowed for him to be called God.
Now we're going to look at the concept of the word of the Lord. This is a very complex topic that reaches back into the Jewish understanding of the logos and the stoic understanding of wisdom, the apostolic idea of the logos, and the biblical representation of the logos. So, the first thing we want to look at is some verses concerning the logos in the Old Testament.
Psalm 33:4 NASB95
For the word of the LORD is upright,
And all His work is done in faithfulness.
Here we see that the Logos is being characterized with a personality it speaks of the word being upright and that his work is done faithfully or in faithfulness. When we see these characterizations we have to understand that it's not talking about literal words or ever was. This is obviously Jesus and it is describing how upright and how faithful Jesus is. Always must also understand is that these characteristics are characteristics of someone who is not God but is a servant of God. To be faithful and to operate in faithfulness means that you are being genuine and honest and obedient and always available to the one who is directing. And we know from the character of Jesus that he says he's not going to do anything without the father instructing him first. So, we see how in the Old Testament when we see the word of the Lord that it's talking about a person and that person is Jesus.
Now before we go on I'd like to show you a couple of verses where it talks about Jesus in the Old Testament and being the one who is representing God and revealing God to the world but is not necessarily the only true God himself.
Genesis 15:1 NASB95
After these things the word of the LORD came to Abram in a vision, saying,
“Do not fear, Abram,
I am a shield to you;
Your reward shall be very great.”
Here we see that the word of the Lord came to Abraham now we could see this as God sent a word to Abraham but that's not the structure of the sentence. If we look deeply at the way in which the sentence is structured is saying that someone called the Word of God or the word of the Lord came to Abraham.
We must look at the unusual way in which the Bible is describing things. And hopefully you will learn to see that sometimes when the word of the Lord is called out is not talking about some word flying towards an individual but as Jesus being called the word of the Lord coming to someone and then saying something. Because you can see how the word of the Lord comes and then the word itself says something. And this shows you that it's not actually sound coming to Abraham and then saying something it's a person being called the word of the Lord then saying something.
There are many other examples of this there are probably too many to talk about here. But this should give you a clue on how to see that.
ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus
But so much is written for the sake of proving that Jesus the Christ is
the Son of God and His Apostle, being of old the Word, and appearing
sometimes in the form of fire, and sometimes in the likeness of angels;
but now, by the will of God, having become man for the human race, He
endured all the sufferings which the devils instigated the senseless
Jews to inflict upon Him; who, though they have it expressly affirmed
in the writings of Moses, "And the angel of God spake to Moses in a
flame of fire in a bush, and said, I am that I am, the God of Abraham,
and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob," yet maintain that He who
said this was the Father and Creator of the universe.
Now here we see the infamous Justin Martyr explaining who the word of the Lord is and that it was the word of the Lord who appeared to Moses and not the Almighty. Know what we must understand is that Justin is teaching the same thing that Arians teach that Jesus is in the Old Testament that these are instances of Jesus being described. But are also not teaching that the creator of all the maker of all the father of all the all mighty uncreated being is not who their seeing. But that Jesus can be called God but is a messenger here it's generally translated as Angel and apostle and on and on. Then you could say that you think Justin is teaching trinitarianism and that Justin is giving the point of view of trinitarianism. But that is further truth than many Trinitarian's would like to admit. Because not only does Jesus appear as the word and the logos and the messenger and the apostle or prophet of God in the Old Testament to Justin but Justin calls Jesus another God. So numerically Justin is saying that Jesus is not the same God that the father is but that Jesus is another God another divinity but because we know that there's only one true God one real God he is saying of Jesus that Jesus is not the only true God. Which goes along with what Jesus confessed about himself and the father in John 17:3 in that verse Jesus says that the father is the only true God. Explicit confession that Jesus himself is not part of the true God that someone else is. So Jesus, Justin and Arianism are consistent in their description of who this logos messenger is and that's a servant of God the son of God but not God Almighty. We have to wonder as Trinitarian and you would have to wonder why does the Bible say that this logo is a messenger and an apostle or representative of God but it just does not call Jesus or the word Almighty. Why doesn't it just a God appeared there why does it have to say a messenger was there instead at some point. And this goes back to the same explanation that we got from the messenger of the Lord that the Bible shows that the word of the Lord and the messenger of the Lord are separate beings who are being used by God to represent him are not separate to each other they are the same being but they're not one with the father and not one with the true God they can be called God in our God in a certain sense but they are not the true God. Because as we are pretty discussed there is only one true God but there are other beings who are called God in the kingdom of God and Jesus and Moses are one of them. So, as we're going in this concept we are starting to realize that just because the Logos is in the Old Testament and just because it's Jesus and just because she is representing God in all of the theophany it does not mean that Jesus is part of the tri-unity. Because even the church that Justin represents between the time of 110 a D to 165 A.D. understands that Jesus is another God which is contrary to the concepts in the doctrine of the Trinity.
But I think what happened at the time of the Council of Nicaea when the concept of Jesus being God Almighty came to be developed is a direct result of the church itself drifting away from Jewish influence on the understanding of the Scriptures. The well-studied Arians during the fourth century were the ones who are most respected Like Eusebius of Caesarea whom the Trinitarian's painstakingly tried to Make him out to be the Trinitarian even though he opposed saying that Jesus was a part of God. These very respected scholars maintained the Jewish understanding that the word of the Lord was created like Philo that understood the the oldest of God's creations the son of God and the image of. This was the Jewish understanding of the time of Christ. And this is what was being lost by the Nicene Council who had come to a point of anti-Jewish sentiment. In trying to evolve into some other theology that distance itself from Jewish theology. What resulted was the pagan influenced multiplicity in the substance of God. So were to look at another Scripture talking about the word or the wisdom of God and look at the Jewish viewpoint that was being lost by the Nicene Council.
Proverbs 8:22–31 NASB95
“The LORD possessed me at the beginning of His way,
Before His works of old.
“From everlasting I was established,
From the beginning, from the earliest times of the earth.
“When there were no depths I was brought forth,
When there were no springs abounding with water.
“Before the mountains were settled,
Before the hills I was brought forth;
While He had not yet made the earth and the fields,
Nor the first dust of the world.
“When He established the heavens, I was there,
When He inscribed a circle on the face of the deep,
When He made firm the skies above,
When the springs of the deep became fixed,
When He set for the sea its boundary
So that the water would not transgress His command,
When He marked out the foundations of the earth;
Then I was beside Him, as a master workman;
And I was daily His delight,
Rejoicing always before Him,
Rejoicing in the world, His earth,
And having my delight in the sons of men.
Now this verse when given to a Trinitarian they immediately want to say that it is not concerning Jesus. This is because trinitarianism has a problem with this verse teaching who Jesus is but it is recorded in history that the early church including those at the Council of Nicaea on both sides agree that Proverbs did talk about Jesus. Athanasius agreed and Arius agreed it was talking about Jesus.
What we must understand about this scripture is what it actually says when it says that the Lord possessed me or came into possession or acquired me. All of those statements talk about coming into existence from nonexistent. God does not newly acquire part of himself at any point in time. God is completely God always but this scripture talking about Jesus says that God acquired Jesus, now how could God acquired Jesus God has everything already. The way God acquires Jesus is that he brings Jesus into existence and because it says that he acquired him the only way God acquires anything is if God brought into existence acquired means coming into possession of and that he did not always have possession of such for said item. So, if God is coming into possession of Christ is not because God lost him not knowing where he was although Christ had existed that is not the answer. The answer also is not that God forgot where part of himself was decided to remember and there acquired him then. It is truly talking about God being alone without anything else in existence and then God coming into possession or acquiring the firstborn of all creation Col 1:15 that beginning of the creation of God that Revelation 3:12 speaks about. So this verse that is most definitely talking about Jesus is talking about a time in which Jesus did not exist but it's not talking about the wisdom of God as though he did not always have his own wisdom.
This wisdom was made by the wise God in other words God by his wisdom created this whom is called the wisdom of God because he is the epitome of God's wisdom. We are not saying that God had no wisdom apart from this wisdom that he acquired but that Jesus was created and is so profoundly obedient and imitates the father so perfectly that he is called the wisdom of God because he shows and reflects God's own wisdom. Now we should look at the viewpoint of Judaism concerning wisdom and how this wisdom is seen as a representative of God and is not God himself.
Two Powers in Heaven CHAPTER FOUR
A CONTROVERSY BETWEEN ISHMAEL AND AKIBA 79
However, the most widespread sectarian doctrine derived from the first chapter of Genesis had to do with a second power, the logos, and not with gnosticism specifical1y. Of all the terms in the first sentence of the Bible, "In the beginning"-not either "heavens" or "earth"-was the most commonly used to derive a second divine creature. "In the beginning" is often understood as "by means of 'The Beginning,' " thus hypostasizing a principal angelic helper in creation. Even in the gnostic systems mentioned above, the logos is present as creator of the many divine archons. These themes seem to be based on the well-known identification of Wisdom as God's helper in creation (See Gen. R. 1, for instance). Furthermore, in the fragmentary targum 9 we find an interesting variant of the theme. Because it· was assumed that God's Wisdom had mediated the creation, the targum translated "In the beginning" as "By wisdom." The Samaritan liturgy also contains that reading. 10
This also may be the basis of the Sophia legend among the gnostics. The Tractatus Tripartitus of the Jung Codex emphasizes that though Wisdom fell from grace she had done so independently, by her own authority (exousia, l: 3). Furthermore, Christians, as exemplified by the church father Theophilus, maintained that "in the beginning" meant "Christ" because the gospel of John had identified the logos with the messiah. So many dangerous doctrines depend on the first verse of the Bible that one is reluctant even to specify which one is the most likely to have been the target of the polemic. 11
Here we see the evidences of the Targum being an influence on this doctrine that there is a second divine being who is being used by God to create the universe. This is not a new revelation in Arianism but it is an older Jewish revelation that has been documented in the Aramaic Targum's. So, this is the evidence and there is much more of how the Nicene counsel has drifted away from Jewish understanding and have fallen into incorrect dogma for theology.
Two Powers in Heaven "MANY POWERS IN HEAVEN" AND MISCELLANEOUS REPORTS
The basic heresy was that God had help in creation. In this case, the helper is called Adam, but the concept of a divine helper is not unlike the idea that Wisdom or the logos was God's agent in creation. In fact, Philo sometimes claims that the logos is identical to the primal man, on the basis of Gen. 1 :26. 14 At any rate, these reports seem to reflect the actual beliefs of various Jewish groups, which are evidenced in extra-rabbinic reports long before we can ascertain their presence from rabbinic literature. For those reasons, it is safe to assume that
12 Th is is another case of the rabbis using a figure important to some hereti cs to show up the error of the heresy. In this sense it resembles the Ahcr-Metatron traditions. See p. 60 f. and p. 112.
1: 1 Seep. 238 for Marcion's interpretation. Also p. 253 f.
H See Conf. 146 and Leg. All. i 43, where logos and wisdom are equated. See also Wisdom of Solomon 7:25 f. which may be an example of some traditional Jewish ideas Philo was using. Already in the Greek translat ion of Gen. 1:26, " the image" may be und erstood as an entity all its own. Adam and the logos are identical because they are both the image of God. See p. 173 f., 184 f .
1G Note that any correlation between the primal man and a savior seems first attested in Paul who sees the Christ as remedy to Adam's sin. Robin Scroggs, The LttJI Adam: A Study in Pctuline Anth,. o pology (Philadelphia: 1966).
So coming back full circle the logo's doctrine is an ancient Jewish doctrine in which Philo believed that the Logos was a created being and we see connections here were the logos and the wisdom are equated. So there we see in Judaism the logos and the wisdom with the same and in Arianism the word and the wisdom is Jesus who is Proverbs chapter 8 : 22 whom God acquired at a certain point. And also interesting here is that they're calling him also Adam which Paul the apostle also does calling him the last Adam. So in this ancient Jewish interpretation we see Paul affirming it we see John the apostle affirming it we see Philo affirming it we see Arianism and Justin Martyr all agree with this understanding and even Eusebius of Caesarea who made it a point to say that Jesus was not a part of God. Which in and of itself is the same. So I have shown you pre-Christian Judaism in the Targum's, the writings of Philo which are at the time of Christ, the writings of John the apostle who wrote about the logos, the writings of Justin Martyr reflecting the church at 165, the opinions of Arius, and the opinions of Eusebius of Caesarea and the rest of the Arians of that time. To show the heritage of the messianic faith must maintain itself within Jewish understanding. In the concept of the Shema that there is only one true God and he is numerically one not three and one must be maintained. The understanding that created beings can be called God must be applied also to Jesus, we also need to respect and acknowledge that Jesus is the firstborn of all creation and that through him we exist and hold our being. But we must also acknowledge his own words in which he said in John 17:3 “that they may know you the only true God”. If Jesus were a Trinity or consubstantial with the father as in a part of God himself Jesus would have said that they may know “us the only true God”. But he did not say that he said “that they may know you the only true God”. The person Jesus is talking to is who Jesus admits is the only member of “the true God”. “Only” means no one else can be added to who the one true God is in Jesus does not say anything without God telling him to say it. That means that God himself directed Jesus to say “that only the father is the only true God” and that most definitely excludes Jesus. There is no more explicit way for Jesus to have said “he is not the only true God”. There is no more explicit way for him to convey this.
LOGOS John deliberately used logos (translated “Word”) to describe Jesus (John 1:1). Logos had rich cultural meaning in the background of early Christians, both Jews and Greeks.
The Greek word logos (“word”) ordinarily refers to an explanation or reason for something otherwise meaningless. Logos has a variety of uses depending on context. With regard to language or grammar, logos can mean “sentence” or “statement,” while regarding logic or knowledge it can mean “reason,” “explanation,” “science,” or “formula.” A form of logos is utilized in English words to describe a particular discipline or science, such as theology, anthropology, and so forth.
Logos was given great significance by Greek philosophers, beginning with Heraclitus. The Stoics strongly emphasized the logos spermatikos (“seminal word”), the rational principle which pervades all reality, providing meaning and order to persons and the universe. The logos creates coherence and unity, provides an orderly pattern for existence, and holds everything together.
Foundational for biblical use of logos, however, is the OT concept of the “word” (dabar) of God. The Hebrews saw the word of God not as merely words but as a powerful and effectual means of accomplishing God’s purposes (Isa. 40:8; 55:11; Jer. 23:29). By His word God spoke the world into existence (Gen. 1:3–31; Ps. 33:6; 2 Pet. 3:5). God communicated His word directly to persons, especially in the Law (Exod. 20:1–17; 34:28; Deut. 5:4–5) and the Prophets (1 Sam. 15:10; 2 Sam. 7:4; 23:2; 2 Kings 7:1; Isa. 38:4; Jer. 1:4, 11; Ezek. 7:1; 11:14; Hos. 1:1; Joel 1:1; Jon. 1:1; Mic. 1:1; Hag. 1:1; Mal. 1:1). The wise person is the one who lives in accordance with the word of God (Gen. 15:1; Exod. 9:20–25; Num. 3:16; 1 Kings 6:11–12; Pss. 106:24; 119).
As Greek and Hebrew cultures overlapped, these concepts of “word” interacted. When Jewish scholars in Alexandria, Egypt, translated the Hebrew OT into Greek (the Septuagint, 275 b.c.), they utilized logos to translate dabar. An Alexandrian Jew, Philo (30 b.c.–a.d. 40), expressed Judaism in neo-Platonic terms, believing that Greek thinkers borrowed from Moses. Philo believed that Greek concepts such as logos were not contradictory to the OT view of the word and wisdom of God as personified in Prov. 8 and in the apocryphal books Wisdom of Solomon and Sirach. Just as the Stoic logos provided the rational order for creation, Philo reinterpreted the creation in Genesis to be through the Logos, the firstborn of creation.
In this cultural situation John described Jesus as the Logos (John 1:1–14). But John did not merely copy common cultural concepts. Writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, he poured new meaning into the concept of Logos. In relation to God, Jesus as the Logos was not merely an angel or created being who was the agent of creation, nor another word from God or wisdom from God, but He was God Himself (John 1:1–4). In relation to humanity, Jesus the Logos was not the impersonal principle of Stoicism, but He was a personal Savior who took on human flesh in the incarnation (John 1:4–14). The Word’s becoming flesh and living among us (John 1:14) was in sharp contrast to the Greek ideas. By depicting Jesus as the Logos, John portrays Him as the preexistent Creator of the universe, with God, and identical to God. From this perspective of Jesus’ divinity and eternity, any view of Jesus as a mere prophet or teacher is impossible (Phil. 2:5–11; Col. 1:13–20; 2:9–10; Heb. 1:1–4; 1 John 1:1–3; Rev. 19:13).
In other NT texts logos is used to refer to Scripture, particularly as proclaimed in gospel preaching (Luke 5:1; 8:11–15; Acts 4:31; 8:14; 12:24; Rom. 10:8; 1 Thess. 2:13; 1 Pet. 1:23–25; Heb. 4:12). The preaching of the gospel brings order and meaning to lives shattered by sin. Those who put faith in Jesus, the Logos, will be welcomed into the family of God (John 1:11–12).[1]
- Lemke, S. W. (2003). Logos. In C. Brand, C. Draper, A. England, S. Bond, E. R. Clendenen, & T. C. Butler (Eds.), Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary (pp. 1044–1045). Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers. ↑