The following is a rather rough outline of an argument in the works, which resulted from several debates with Unitarians on the preexistence of Christ in regards to John1:1-14. There are still three aspects of the argument which need to be addressed [as listed at the end], which I will add in later. I hate writing "articles", so the below is essentially in a "objection/reply" format. I've seen the activity of christadelphians and the like increase on several forums, and thought the below result of my own experiences might prove helpful to some.

There are still some areas which are tentitive. For instance, I'm not certain if I want to refer to the 'logos' as "titular" in regards to Christ, or express it in a much *deeper* sense.

Anyhow...

John Chapter 1 and the Christadelphians

Probably the most debated verse in support of the deity of Christ is John1:1 which is thus;

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Unlike the Jehovah's Witnesses [JW], the Christadelphians [CD] do not believe in the pre-existence of Jesus Christ, and in turn do not believe that the 'Word' in John1 is the person of Jesus, but the literal spoken word of the Father..e.g...Gen1:2 etc. They attempt to support this with the literal creation accounts in addition to various occurences of the literal 'dabar' [word] in the OT.

It is important to note that the prime focus is not on the rendering of the second occurence of "God" [theos] in vs1, as is the primary focus when concerning Arians. Rather, we will set our attention on the surrounding context in addition to scriptural harmonization in order to demonstrate the role of Jesus as the 'Word of God' in the Johanne prolouge.

There are several objections against the Trintarian (and even Arian to a degree) view of John1.

Objection:

The Greek word logos, although masculine, does not entail a personal being based upon the gender influenced rendering of "He", but should be honestly translated as "it". See William Tyndales's version of the John.

Response:

This objection is essentially fallacious as the immediate context is the prime factor in deciding the rendering of "He" in reference to the 'Word'.

They are, in fact, correct in that the 'gender' of a Greek word has little bearing on the actual "sex" of the subject itself. There are three possible genders for Greek words which are masculine, feminine, and neuter.

If Trinitarians apply the same "sex based on word gender" principle that CDs allude to then the 'neuter' terms would be referenced with an 'it'.

In fact neuter terms are used in reference to the following:

Infants cf..Luke1:41,44; 2:16; 18:15
Children cf..Mark5:39-41
Girls cf..Matt9:24,25; Mark5:41,42
Angels cf..Heb1:14

But yet they are personal beings.

Would referencing the 'Word' in Jn1 as an "it" exclude a personality? Read:

John6:39 "And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day."

In the above we see that the 'to be resurrected believers' are referenced to as an "it".

Malachi 4:2 " But unto you that fear my name shall the sun of righteousness arise with healing in its wings; and ye shall go forth, and gambol as calves of the stall."

What is interesting in the above is the reference to the Messiah i.e. "the sun of righteousness" and the reference made with "it". Would the CD exclude this reference as one to a personal being? Not on any reasonable basis. The same fallacy would in turn be applied to the 'Word'.

There is no argument from this vantage point. In fact it is based more on presuppostions and bias rather than any form of legit reasoning.

Objection:

CD's will often cite a particular scripture usually dealing with creation and a literal 'dabar' [Word] and then give the following explanation in support of their view that a 'literal word' is being referenced in Jn1. Let's read one of these examples:

Psalm 33:6-9 "By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.
He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses.
Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him. For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast."

Their prime objection in this instance being:

The "word" is clearly defined here as the spoken word of God - the "breath of His mouth", and His literal command. The text leaves no room for the word as a personal being. Your interpretation of John 1 stands in contradiction to the OT.

Response:

Is this accurate in exluding the 'word' as it is being used in passages such as Rev19:13?

Read:

Isaiah48:13 "Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens..."

Did YHWH literally create the universe with His hands? If the CD asserts that an OT creation account such as Ps33 is to be taken as nothing but literal, then they must also in turn understand the others to be taken as such. In fact it is less "literal" than it is "figurative". Other examples follow suit:

Job 37:10 By the breath of God frost is given: and the breadth of the waters is straitened.

In fact this line of reasoning backfires on the opponent as the Messiah [Jesus] is often described as being an ontological 'part' or aspect of YHWH in the OT. For example:

Isa 53:1 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD
revealed? For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a
dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no
beauty that we should desire him.

See also:

Jer10:12 "He hath made the earth by His power, He hath established the world by His wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion."

..cf..

1Cor1:24 "....Christ the power of God and the Wisdom of God."..cf..Prov8:22

[Note: For an excellent article on Jesus as God's Wisdom, read the material at the following link: http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_AOA.html ]

Figures of speech in Ps33 etc.. no more excludes Jesus from the picture than does;

Isaiah59:16 "And He [YHWH] wondered that there was no man, and wondered that there was no intercessor: therefore His arm brought salvation unto him; and his righteousness, it sustained Him."

..or..

Isa 40:10 Behold, the Lord GOD will come with strong hand, and his arm shall rule for him: behold, his reward is with him, and his work before him.

....exclude Jesus as being YHWH's "arm". (See Is59:16)

When speaking of Jesus as the 'Word' you may also want to note the following use of titular titles:

Lion of Judah.. cf..Rev5:5
Stump of Jesse.. cf..Is11:1
Branch of David.. cf..
Word of God.. cf..Jn1:1; 1Jn1:1-2; Rev19:13

Excluding Jesus from Psalm33 etc,. is based more on presupposition that anything else. The basis of rejection lies in a "YHWH" or "God" speaking within the passage and that this must therefore mean that Jesus is not in view. This line of reasoning is merely assuming what one already holds to i.e. "the Father only is God" and excluding the possiblilty that the Son is also God.

As far as the Trintarian view goes we could have the following:

Psalm 33:6-9 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his [Jesus] mouth.
He [Jesus] gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he [Jesus] layeth up the depth in storehouses.
Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him [Jesus].
For he [Jesus] spake, and it was done; he [Jesus] commanded, and it stood fast.

Or the Father vice versa. This is the Trinity working in harmony as we also see the Spirit's work in Gen1:2, Job33:4 etc,.

Jesus is the intermediate agent of creation. He was the means through [Gk: 'dia'] which God made the heavens and the earth. See this consistent language used in 1Cor8:6, Heb1:2..cf..Heb11:3, Col1:16, Heb1:10-12, Eph3:9.

In light of this, a "God said.." does not exclude Jesus from being the speaker or mover. To do so is based on the presupposition that Jesus is not God.

An argument can also be demonstrated from the theophanic view, or even merely from the perspective of "represention and agency". Read:

Exo 3:2 And the Angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.

Note that the 'Messenger of YHWH' is the one who is said to appear within the flaming bush. Now compare with:

Exo 3:4 And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I.

Note here that the voice coming from the bush is identified as being that of YHWH.

Although it is the "Angel of the Lord" speaking, it is accredited to 'God'. See also the attributation of 'God' or 'YHWH' to Jesus in the following cross-references: Mark12:26..cf..Acts7:30-31; Zech14:3-4..cf..Acts1:11-12.

With this in mind let's read once more and compare:

Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. Cf..Jn1:1-3

Ex 3:4 God called unto him out of the midst of the bush.. Cf..vs2

Objection:

Of course one of the following replies you may recieve to the above is something likened unto this:

You claim that Jesus IS the Word, while the OT says that the Word was God's spoken word. The Word is therefore defined for us by the OT. You attempt to redefine it in John 1, but that won't work.

Response:

This of course assumes that the 'Logos' is meant to be a literal 'word' such as one spoken into the air.
Jesus being titled as the 'Word' no more excludes Jesus as the 'speaker of the word' any less than the 'sower' is excluded from 'doing the sowing'.

In fact it is wholly appropriate for the Apostle John to address Jesus as the "Word" in that a look at the OT will demonstrate a stark representation of the character of Christ. Read the following and compare to the mission and character of our Lord:

The Word:

Heals-
Psa 107:20 He sent his word, and healed them, and delivered them from their destructions.

Is a light-
Psa 119:105 Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.

Is that in which people put their hopes-
Psa 119:114 Thou art my hiding place and my shield: I hope in thy word.
Psa 119:147 I prevented the dawning of the morning, and cried: I hoped in thy word.

Highly exalted-
Psa 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

Eternal-
Isa 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand forever.

Note the resemblance to Christ's ministry-
Isa 55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

See also the parallels to God's 'Wisdom':

Pro 8:30 "..even I [Wisdom] was a workman at His side; and I was daily His delight, rejoicing always before Him.." MKJV

Note in the above the resemblance to Jn1:1-3 in regards to being the agent in God's creation.

Pro 8:35-36 For whoever finds me finds life, and shall obtain favor from Jehovah.
But he who sins against me wrongs his own soul; all who hate me love death.

Note the resemblance to the Jesus Christ [Word]. Finding 'Wisdom' is finding 'Life'.
Compare with Jn1:4..cf..Jn8:12..cf..Matt4:16.

The bottom line is; If the CD wants to assert that the 'Word' in Jn1 is the "literal atmosphereic vibrations" of the Father from the OT, then they must present you with a direct parallel between the account of Jn1 and the OT in it's entirely concerning the "word".

For example. Assuming they take the view that a 'literal breath of air' is in question, have them explain to you where vs'4-12 are and demand the "consistence with the OT". They can't do it.

See also this article on the Memra

Objection:

One might try to present the following argument:

The really fascinating part is that nobody's ever explained to me why John would call Jesus logos in his prologue if he actually meant "Jesus"!

Response:

This, of course, is simply ludicrus. Let us note the double-standard here. Read:

Isaiah53:1- “Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of YHWH been revealed? He grew up like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground.”

...or once again..

Isaiah59:16 "And He [YHWH] wondered that there was no man, and wondered that there was no intercessor: therefore his arm brought salvagion unto him; and his righteousness, it sustained Him."

...another example...

Mal4:2 "But for you who revere my name, the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in it's wings." ..cf..Is9:2, Luke1:78-79.

By their logic, the "sun" here must be literal and not figurative of the coming Messiah.

One must now ask the CD how the authors of the above meant to convey the idea of Jesus without using the name "Jesus" or even "Messiah" within the context.

Note that although the text speaks of the coming Jesus, neither the words Jesus nor Messiah appear here. In fact most Messianic prophecies have dual applications and are therefore not even initially fulfilled in Christ.

We could even take ourselves to the Messianic prophecy of Isaiah9:6 to see the same.

Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

No sign of "Jesus" here. Another example:

Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and
bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Even in the 'virgin birth' prophecy we see neither of the words 'Jesus' nor 'Messiah' in the text.

The fact of the matter is; the above references were only revealed to us as being applicable to Christ from the revelation of the NT, same as with Jn1:1.

Objection:

The 'Word' in Jn1 is merely a personification. The context in no way implies the person of Jesus until vs14.

Response:

Let's read:

Johns gospel was composed after the earthly ministry of Jesus Christ. Therefore note carefully the allusions within the context:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, (Genesis 1:26) and the Word was God (Jn20:28, etc…).”
He was with God in the beginning (Prov8:30).”
“Through him all things were made; (1Cor8:6) without him nothing was made that has been made (1Col1:16). In him was life, (Jn5:26, Jn5:39, 1Jn5:11), and that life was the light of men (Jn3:36…I’ve provided many scriptures demonstrating Jesus as the “Light”). The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it (..cf..Jn3:19; Heb1:2).
“There came a man who was sent from God (Isaiah40:3..cf..Mal3:1..cf..Jn20:28). He came as a witness to testify concerning that light (Jn5:31-33).., so that through him all men might believe. He himself [Baptist] was not that light; he came only as a witness to the light. The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world (1Jn1:8-9).
“He [Word] was in the world, and though the world was made-(note the “literalism” then the jump in the second half to an action of Jesus…)- through him, the world did not recognize him [Word]. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him (Jn19:15-16..). Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his [Word] NAME (Jn20:31), he gave the right to become children of God, children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God (Jn3:16).
“The Word became flesh (1Tim3:16 “He [Jesus] appeared in a body..” Phil2:6) and made his [Word] dwelling among us. We have seen his [Word] glory, the glory of the One and Only.”

Note the scriptural parallels within the NT. Take care to see how the entire ministry of Jesus Christ is summed up in John's prolouge. You cannot divorce the reference to the Word as creator from the attributation of Savior from within the very context prior to vs14.

Jesus states many of these allusions himself as well as the NT authors . Read:

Jn8:12 “When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, ‘I AM the LIGHT of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”

Jn11:25 “Jesus said to her, ‘I AM the resurrection and the LIFE….”

1Jo 1:1 "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of LIFE;

Jesus is that light and life; the Word. Remember that Jesus said that HE was the ‘manna’ that came down from heaven.

Jn6:32 “I tell you the truth, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the TRUE bread FROM HEAVEN. For the bread of God is HE who comes DOWN FROM HEAVEN and gives LIFE to the world. ‘they said….from now on give us this bread.” Then Jesus declared, “I AM the BREAD of LIFE….”

More on Jesus as the ‘Light’; the ‘Word’.

Matthew 4:16 "...the people living in darkness have seen a great light; on those living in the land of the shadow of death a light has dawned."..cf..[ 4:16 Isaiah 9:1,2]

John 9:5 "While I am in the world, I am the light of the world."

John 12:35 "Then Jesus told them, "You are going to have the light just a little while longer. Walk while you have the light, before darkness overtakes you. The man who walks in the dark does not know where he is going...cf..Jn15:4-6.

John 1:7 "He came as a witness to testify concerning that light [Jesus], so that through Him all men might believe."

Notice how John was to testify of the light [Jesus] the light which is the world..cf..Jn1:10.

Jesus is the word. The context states it too clearly.

Additionally, if anyone wants to make a desperate stab at "personification" or mere "representation" with the above, merely direct their attention to vs12 where the 'Word' has a name on which to believe. Read:

Joh 1:12 But as many as received him [Word], to them gave he [Word] power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his [Word] name.."

..cf..

Joh 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.


Objection:

Another significant point - the "world" here (kosmos) is said to be made through the light, not by the light. The light, therefore, is not the primary agent of creation - which, no matter how much you squirm - does not fit the Trinitarian model. Trinitarianism requires Jesus (in his capacity as "God the Son") to have created the world ex nihilo. Simply arguing that he did this on behalf of the Father, doesn't cut it. You need Christ to be the prime mover, because unless he is the prime mover, there is no way you can claim that he is the creator of the world in any literal sense at all. And yet, Scripture precludes this hypothesis.

Response:

This is merely gross misrepresentation of what Trinitarians believe and teach. Citing

Robertson's Word Pictures of the NT:

By him (di' autou). By means of him as the intermediate agent in the work of creation. The Logos is John’s explanation of the creation of the universe. The author of Hebrews (Heb_1:2) names God’s Son as the one “through whom he made the ages.” Paul pointedly asserts that “the all things were created in him” (Christ) and “the all things stand created through him and unto him” (Col_1:16). Hence it is not a peculiar doctrine that John here enunciates. In 1Co_8:6, Paul distinguishes between the Father as the primary source (ex hou) of the all things and the Son as the intermediate agent as here (di' hou).

As Robertson notes we see this same word 'dia' used to protray Christ as the 'intermediate agent of creation' in passages such as Col1:16; Heb1:2..cf..Heb11:3; 1Cor8:6.

Interesting enough, Prov8-22-30 also portrays Christ as "a workman at His [YHWH's] side" i.e. an 'agent' in the process of creation.

Objection:

In citing John1:1-4:

"The 'Light' [Jesus] is said to be IN the Word, but not the Word itself. You can't be IN something and BE that something."

Response:

This is a rather easy to refute. Simply read the following scriptures:

Joh 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

Here we see from the above that the 'Life' is interchangeable with 'Light'.

Jn8:12 “When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, ‘I AM the LIGHT of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the LIGHT of LIFE."

Jn11:25 “Jesus said to her, ‘I AM the resurrection and the LIFE….”

In the above we see only a couple of emphatic statements that Jesus IS the 'Light and Life'. Now compare with the below:

Joh 5:26 "For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life IN himself.."

Yet here we see that the Son also is said to have the "Life" IN Himself.

Does this mean that Jesus is not the Life? Not at all as the above scriptures have demonstrated.

Harmonize John1:4 with 1John1:1-2..cf..5:11. The 'Word' in John1 that had the "Life" IN Him is the said to be Jesus, who has the Life IN him.

Objection:

Coming at a later date...

1.] John1:10 and "What 'world' is in question here"
2.] John1:14 and "ginomai sarx; does this exclude the preex of the Word as being Jesus?"
3.] John1:18 and "No man has seen God"

I really would liked to have spent more time on the 'Wisdom', 'Memra', and potential 'Metatron' aspects of the article, but for now this ought to help. The CD position is really quite easy to refute. Take John1:10 for example. From vs12 we know the 'Word' to have a name on which to believe Cf..Jn20:31. From this it is easy to conclude that vs10 is (as is obvious anyway) a reference to the Son. In fact, Evangelion once admitted this, but had to sidestep by insisting that there were three different meanings for the word 'world' all within the same passage! :o You can't attribute any "new worlds to come" here, as this in turn means this "new world' "..knew Him not".

This is outstanding, thanks for posting this!

I'll try to critique this later this week. Remind me if I do not post by Thursday night.

Thanks Hamster and Jaltus. I could really use some refinement here other than going another three rounds with 50 CDs. ;)

AV,

Have you waved this carrot under Evangelion's nose yet?

He hangs out at ChristianForums.com quite a bit I think. And he also has started his own Christadelphian forum.....

(BTW, not to hijack your thread or anything, but have you had a look at Christian Forums? I was pretty horrified - it is full of Christians trying to justify homosexuality 'till the cows come home. I mean, heck, nobody would call me a fundamentalist, and I was completely shocked.....)

Have you waved this carrot under Evangelion's nose yet?

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/34121-3.html :)
Now if only he could address the actual context of John, we'd all be fine.

He hangs out at ChristianForums.com quite a bit I think.

And from his behavior, he's about to be banned.

And he also has started his own Christadelphian forum.....

From which I was banned during a 'latrueo' debate I had engaged him in. Curious coincidence, eh? ;)

(BTW, not to hijack your thread or anything, but have you had a look at Christian Forums? I was pretty horrified - it is full of Christians trying to justify homosexuality 'till the cows come home. I mean, heck, nobody would call me a fundamentalist, and I was completely shocked.....)

Ack! I've never seen how this could possibly be done in harmony with the scriptures :dunce:. I think James White has a book addressing their arguments at his site: www.aomin.org

God bless you!

Great Article AVM

Hmm, AV does he know about us yet??

Major Critique I

Your argument neglects the truth that John 1-18 is a chiasm, something that would lend strength to the argument and take away from your detractors.

Let me show you what I mean:

A 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was with God in the beginning.

B 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

C 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of men.
5 The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

D 6 There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John.
7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe.


E 8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.
9 The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.


F 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him.
11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him.


X (center) 12 Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God--


F' 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.

E' 14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

D' 15 John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.'"

C' 16 From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another.

B' 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

A' 18 No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.


Obviously, you can see the correlation between John not being the light since Christ is the light (D, vv. 6-7) and Jesus coming into the world as flesh (D', vs. 14). The light made its dwelling in flesh, which means God instantiated Himself in the flesh (for God is the light, I John 1:5), which is who Jesus is.

**7** say hey Jaltus, excellent point. on the side, have you ever investigated the possibility that the whole of John (- ch. 21) might be a chiastic narrative modelled after the prologue? a fascinating book on this subject is Bruno Barnhart's _The Good Wine: Reading John from the Center_. its an old-school way of reading Scripture (a good move in my opinion), but the thrust of the argument is definitely worth consideration.
peace in Christ.

Good point. I'll keep that in mind. Thanks for posting. ;)

Phantaz-

Quit adding books to my wishlist.

Major Critique II

I am going to deal with this point:

CD's will often cite a particular scripture usually dealing with creation and a literal 'dabar' [Word] and then give the following explanation in support of their view that a 'literal word' is being referenced in Jn1. Let's read one of these examples:

Psalm 33:6-9 "By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.
He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses.
Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him. For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast."

Their prime objection in this instance being:

The "word" is clearly defined here as the spoken word of God - the "breath of His mouth", and His literal command. The text leaves no room for the word as a personal being. Your interpretation of John 1 stands in contradiction to the OT.

While your reply is good, it could indeed by much stronger.

Look at the use of LOGOS TOU QEOU (and derivative forms) in Acts, and you will see that it is used as a character in the narrative. While Paul goes out and comes back, the word only goes out, never coming back. The word is also said to do things in a strange way. It is nearly always the subject of a passive verb, with no agency in the actual sentence, giving the idea that it is moving itself.

Why is this striking? Because the Father and Son do not appear in narrative after the ascension!

For a look at this idea not totally in full bloom, see David Pao Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus, chapter 3.