Comments on: Jesus and “god” – part 11 – Review and Conclusion (Dale)

By: Dale

Dale — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 01:50:16 +0000

Scott – I think you’re asking the right question about John 1:1. Again – some of the discussions I’ve seen basically say – take the members of the Trinity (and if you like, add in God/The Trinity as well) and then try to make sense of what the terms or names refer to in John 1. So, e.g. “In the beginning was the Word (Son) and the Word (Son) was with God (the Father) and the Word was God (the Father). That doesn’t work so well, so we keep trying… readings where the referent of a term quickly “jump around” from one item to another, are, it seems, to be avoided, all things considered.

As to what you say is the common medieval take on “God sent Jesus”, it goes pretty hard against the grain of the NT to say that Jesus sent himself – he’s pretty clear about being sent by the Father. To say that “God” is ambiguous there… what would that help?

By: Scott

Scott — Thu, 25 Dec 2008 21:20:09 +0000

During mid-night Mass last night was read John 1.1-18. I spent several minutes thinking about the referent of ‘God’ in ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God[1], and the Word was God[2]‘. Is the referent, and the meaning, of God[1] the exact same as God[2]? I think a course in Peter Abelard would be very interesting on this topic. I’ve been reading about him lately and have been intrigued — especially b/c much of his (and Anselm’s) [Trinitarian] logic is ALL OVER THE PLACE in Henry of Ghent’s Trinitarian theology. If I were writing two dissertations, I’d definitely say something about Anselm and Abelard; but as it stands, they shall be in the footnote-cave.

By: Scott

Scott — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 04:54:10 +0000

Indeed– at least for the medieval boys that I read — saying that ‘God sent Jesus’ needs to be analyzed in a particular way. To get to the point here, the question is whether the name ‘God’ in this context signifies a divine person in a determinate way (i.e. the Father), or a divine person in an indeterminate way (e.g., Father, and/or the Son, and/or the Holy Spirit). My medieval friends, at least ones I’ve read, would say that ‘God’ here indeterminately signifies a divine person (it could be any one or all divine persons).

By: Dale

Dale — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 15:10:42 +0000

Hi Scott,

Exegesis of John 1 is no simple task. But first let’s remember that theologians often fudge this issue by talking of Jesus being “identified with” God – deliberately leaving that ambiguous between numerical identity, some lesser sort of sameness, or simply being somehow closely associated with. I take it that identifying the two is out of the question, as some things are true of one, but not the other. (e.g. being sent by God)

If you grant that point, then the passage can still be read as consistent with various Trinity theories – orthodox, borderline, and heretical.

The most important question about this whole chapter, in my view, is whether the logos/word of 1:1 is meant to be the same person as Jesus Christ. Most translations push you to a firm “Yes” answer, but when you see past the translation issues, and read this in conjunction with Proverbs 8, you start to see how the logos might be meant as a divine attribute, which is, late in history, expressed in the life and person of Jesus. On this sort of reading, Jesus isn’t directly mentioned until v. 14. I’ve read some very sophisticated people making this case – some day I’ll two a series or two on this.

By: Scott

Scott — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 23:31:45 +0000

Hmm- well, what do make of John 1.1-15? Jesus is identified with ‘the god’; the God that the jews worshipped. In this case, Jesus is identified with _this_ god; and then most of what is said about the god the jews worshipped, also would be true of Jesus, no?