YHVH’s Word - Dabar or Logos. Impersonal personification to actual person.
Dabar - from the Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon:
- Speech, word, speaking, thing.
- Speech.
- Saying, utterance.
- Word, words.
- Business, occupation, acts, matter, case, something, manner (by extension.)
Logos - from the Liddell-Scott-James Greek Lexicon:
- Logos; logos, ho: (A) the word or that by which the inward thought is expressed (Latin: oratio), and, (B) the inward thought itself (Latin: ratio.)
- Latin: vox, oratio, that which is said or spoken.
- Latin: ratio, thought, reason.
Ho LOGOS, the Logos or Word, comprising both senses of Thought and Word. (New Testament)
We the (Netzari Talmidim), use the Father's personal name as written in the Hebrew scriptures as YHVH/יהוה. We use his proposed pronunciation with vowels as Yehovah/יְהוָֹה. We also use Father or Abba (which Messiah used) in prayer or bible study and his general names of Elohim in place of God, Adonai in place of Lord.
Hebrew names have meaning. Being a Jew, Messiah's true Hebrew name Yehoshua/יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, means "YHVH is salvation." Others use the Aramaic name Yeshua/יֵשׁוּעַ which means salvation.
We do not use the Geco-Roman-English name of Iesous-Iesus-Jesus, which has NO MEANING at all.
The logos is YHVH's reason, purpose, and plan. It is what is what we call the "Word of YHVH-God", whether spoken, written or conceived in His mind. The Old Covenent uses the Hebrew word dabar in the same way that the Apostolic Writings-New Testament uses the Greek word logos.
The Biblical Use of Dabar
The Words of Men and Women:
- Genesis 44:2.
And put my cup, the silver cup, in the sack's mouth of the youngest, and his corn money. And he did according to the dabar that Joseph had spoken
YHVH's Law and commandments:
- Deuteronomy 4:2.
Ye shall not add unto the dabar which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Adonai your Elohim which I command you.
YHVH's creative work:
- Genesis 1:3, 6, 14-15.
And Elohim said, Let there be light: and there was light... And Elohim said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters... And Elohim said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.- Psalm 33:6.
By the dabar of the Adonai were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.
YHVH's purpose, as expressed through prophecy and fulfilled in world events: - Jeremiah 32:8.
So Hanameel mine uncle's son came to me in the court of the prison according to the dabar of the Adonai, and said unto me, Buy my field, I pray thee, that is in Anathoth, which is in the country of Benjamin: for the right of inheritance is thine, and the redemption is thine; buy it for thyself. Then I knew that this was the dabar of the Adonai.
The Biblical Use of Logos
- Consistent with the Biblical Use of Dabar:
- Matthew 13:19.
When any one heareth the logos of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side. - John 5:24.
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my logos, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. - John 8:51.
Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my logos, he shall never see death. - John 15:3.
Now ye are clean through the logos which I have spoken unto you. - John 15:25.
But [this cometh to pass], that the logos might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause. - John 17:20.
Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their logos. - Acts 2:41.
Then they that gladly received his logos were baptized and the same day there were added about three thousand souls. - Acts 4:4.
Howbeit many of them which heard the logos believed; and the number of the men was about five thousand. - Acts 4:29.
And now, Adonai, behold their threatenings: and grant unto thy servants, that with all boldness they may speak thy logos. - The Logos Pre-existent Messiah-Christ, or Personification of YHVH’s Word?
The conclusion which seems to emerge from our analysis thus far is that it is only with verse 14 that we can begin to speak of the personal logos. The poem uses rather impersonal language (became flesh), but no believer would fail to recognize here a reference to Yehoshua-Jesus the word became not flesh in general but Yehoshua the Messiah.
Prior to verse 14 we are in the same realm as pre-Christian talk of wisdom and logos, the same language that we find in the wisdom tradition and in Philo, where as we have seen we are dealing with personifications rather than persons, personified actions of Adonai-God rather than an individual divine being as such. The point is obscured by the fact that we have to translate the masculine "logos" as "He" throughout the poem.
But if we translated "logos" as "YHVH-God's utterance" instead, it would become clearer that the scripture did NOT necessarily intend the "logos" in verses 1-13 to be thought of as a personal divine being. In other words the revolutionary significance of verse 14 may well be that it marks . . . the transition from impersonal personification to actual person.
Dunn, James D. G. (1980), Christology in the Making.
Notice the point that Dunn is making - the logos became Messiah-Christ. He correctly observes that verse 14 involves the transition from impersonal personification to actual person. Until this happened, Messiah did not literally exist. As an expression of the logos, he too, is a part of Elohim's creation and by extension, he too, is a part of YHVH's self-expression.
This is amply demonstrated by the words of Isaiah 55:11, which prefigure the successful mission of Messiah-Christ as the pinnacle of YHVH's logos:
So shall my dabar 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.
Is the Logos of John 1 "He" or "It"?
A Review of Protestant Bibles Before the KJV:
- The Geneva Bible 1560.
In the beginning was the Worde, and the Worde was with God and that Worde was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by it, & without it was made nothing that was made. - Tyndales Bible 1525.
In the beginning was that Word, and that Word was with God: and God was that Word. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by it, and without it, was made nothing: that made it. - Tyndales New Testament 1530.
In the beginnynge was the worde, and the worde was with God: and the worde was God. The same was in the beginnynge with God.
All thinges were made by it, and with out it, was made nothinge, that was made. - Matthews Bible 1537.
Used it instead of him" in John 1:3-4. - Coverdales Bible 1539 & 1540.
In the begynnynge was the worde, and the worde was with God, and God was ye worde. The same was in the begynnynge with God.
All thinges were made by the same, and without the same was made nothinge that was made. - The Great Bible of 1539.
Used it instead of him in John 1:3-4. - The Bishops Bible 1568.
- Used it instead of him in John 1:3-4.
There is no justification for seeing the logos as a "he" instead of an "it." The sheer consistency of the OT and NT militates against such a proposal.
John's Prologue - Jewish Language; Jewish Concepts
Patristic theology of whatever school abused these texts by taking them out of context and giving them a meaning which John never intended. Functional language about the Son and the Ruach-Spirit being sent into the world by the Father was transposed into that of eternal and internal relationships between Persons in the Godhead and words like "generation" and "procession" made into technical terms, which New Testament usage simply will not substantiate
John is a typical representative of the New Testament, not the anomalous exception, with one foot in the world of Greek philosophy, that he is so often presented.
Robinson, J.A.T. (1984), Twelve More New Testament Studies.
Dr Robinson was a former Bishop of the Anglican Church in Woolwich during the 1960s
- The opening sentences of John's Gospel, which might sound like the philosophy of Philo, could be understood by an educated Jew or Christian without any reference to Philo. Therefore we should not argue from Philo's meaning of "word" as a hypostasis that John also meant by "word" a pre-existing personality. In the remainder of the Gospel and in I John, "word" is never to be understood in a personal sense...
It means rather the "revelation" of Elohim-God which had earlier been given to Israel (10:35), had come to the Jews in Holy Scripture (5:38) and which had been entrusted to Yehoshua and committed by him to his disciples (8:55; 12:48; 17:6; 8, 14, 17; 1 John 1:1) and which would now be preserved by them (1 John 1:10; 2:5, 14.) - The slightly personifying way in which the word is spoken of as into the world (1:9-14) is typical of the personifying style of the Old Covenant references to the word (Isa. 55:11; Psa. 107:20; 147:15. cp. 2 Thess. 3:1.) It cannot be proved that the author of the prologue thought of the word as a real person. Only the historical Yehoshua-Jesus and not the original word is said to be the Son (John 1:14, 18.) But in this Son there dwelt and worked the eternal revelation of YHVH-God.
Wendt, Hans (1907), System der Christlichen Lehre.
Dr Wendt was a former Professor of Systematic Theology at the University of Jena in Germany.
John's Prologue Pre-existence in the Jewish Mind
That any expression or vehicle of YHVH's will for the world, His saving counsel and purpose, was present in His mind, or His 'Word' from the beginning is a natural way of saying that it is not fortuitous (happening by accident or chance), but the due unfolding and expression of God's own being. This attribution of pre-existence indicates religious importance of the highest order.
Rabbinic theology speaks of the Law (Torah), of God's throne of glory, of Israel and of other important objects of faith, as things which had been created by YHVH-God, and were already present with Him, before the creation of the world. The same is also true of the Messiah. It is said that his name was present with YHVH-God in heaven beforehand, that it was created before the world, and that it is eternal.
But the reference here is not to genuine pre-existence in the strict and literal sense. This is clear from the fact that Yisrael is included among these pre-existent entities. This does not mean that either the nation Yisrael or its ancestor existed long ago in heaven, but that the community Israel, the people of YHVH, had been from all eternity in the mind of YHVH-God, as a factor in His purpose.
Mowinckel, S. (1954), He Who Cometh.
The importance of setting these texts within the historical context of meaning and of recognizing conceptuality in transition is indicated by the correlative recognition that these developments in earliest Christology took place within and as an expression of Jewish-Christian monotheism. In contrast, the too quick resort to the 'obvious' or 'plain' meaning actually becomes in some cases a resort to a form of bitheism or tritheism.
Dunn, James D. G. (1989), Christology in the Making (2nd edition), foreword.
What is Meant by The Word was God"?
If John says that the logos was...
pros ton theos
...meaning that the logos was with YHVH-God (by which he confirms that the logos was not literally the person of God, Who in this passage is obviously the Father) and then goes on to say that...
theos en ton logos
...the logos was divine, we cannot interpret theos en ton logos as a literal reference to YHVH-God Himself without presenting Christianity with (a) two separate Gods, or (B) Modalism (a so called heresy proclaimed by Christianity which taught that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all the same person.) We must therefore understand that theos en ton logos is a purely qualitative statement - it refers to the fact that the logos (being the reason, purpose and plan of God) was divine.
Even Trinitarians will agree with the fact that the logos was divine is a proper translation of the text, because they read John 1:1 as In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God the Son, and God the Son was with God the Father. So we are perfectly justified in reading theos en ton logos as the logos was divine.
In the Beginning was the Word.
And the Word was with God.
So the Word was divine.
It was in the Beginning with God.
By it everything had being.
And without it nothing had being ...
In his own New Testament translation, William Barclay (a former professor of Divinity and Biblical Criticism at Glasgow University) makes the following note:
Logos has two meanings, which no one English word can express. Logos means word, and Logos means mind. A word is the expression of thought. Therefore Yehoshua-Jesus is the expression of the thought of YHVH-God. Or to take the other meaning, in Yehoshau-Jesus we see the mind of God.
[...]
In Yehoshua-Jesus the mind of God becomes a person.
Again, in his Gospel of John, Barclay writes:
In Greek logos means two things: it means 'word' and it means 'reason.'
[...]
The Logos of YHVH-God, the mind of YHVH-God, is responsible for the majestic order of the world
[....]
He (John) said to the Greeks, "All your lives you have been fascinated by this great, guiding, controlling mind of YHVH-God. The mind of YHVH-God has come to earth in the man Yehoshua-Jesus. Look at him and you will see what the mind and thought of YHVH-God are like.
[...]
By calling Yehoshua-Jesus the logos, John said two things about Yehoshua:
(a) Yehoshua-Jesus is the creating power of God come to men. He does not only speak the word of knowledge (Torah); he is the word of power (Torah). He did not come so much to say things to us, as to bring the redemptive power for us.
b) Yehoshua-Jesus is the incarnate mind of YHVH-God. We might well translate John's words, 'The mind of YHVH became a man'. A word is always 'the expression of a thought' and Yehoshua is the perfect expression of YHVH's thoughts for men.
A Paraphrase of John 1
In the beginning, there was a pattern for everything.The pattern was Gods; the pattern was divine. The pattern was Gods from the beginning.
Everything that exists, came from that pattern. There is nothing that exists now, which did not first exist in the mind of God. The pattern is both the source of new life and the meaning of life.It is a way of being alive in opposition to death, and death cannot overcome it.
God sent a man named John to tell people about the possibilities of this way of being alive so that everybody would trust the agent of God, through whom this new life would come.John was not this agent, but he taught people how to recognise the one who was.The agent of new life was coming into the world.
To some people, however, this new life is unrecognisable.Some who could be expected to see the possibilities of this way of being alive, select death instead.Others embrace life. They trust what God has to offer.God made this offer to His entire creation. Its source is heavenly, not earthly.
God is not only the source, but also the meaning of life itself.
Gods divine pattern was embodied in a man who lived among us.
No man has seen God literally but they have seen His only-begotten Son Jesus the agent of new life, and the representative of God.
There is no argument for the deity of Christ here. Indeed, such a concept would serve no purpose in the context of John's prologue.
John 1:1-14 - a Closer Examination of the Text (Part I)
YHVH-God Speaks, and His Will is Performed - the Basic Message of John's Prologue
John 1:1-3 is known amongst Christians as the battleground of the Trinity and it is not hard to see why. At first glance, this passage may appear to show irrefutable evidence for the deity and pre-existence of Christ. But a careful analysis will show that the entire Trinitarian case turns upon a spurious translation of John 1:1-3, by means of which the Greek word logos is subjected to the most astonishing abuse.
As with any other proof text, the most effective way to refute the Trinitarian claim is to build up a counter-argument on the basis of first principles, in addition to the socio-historical context of John's Gospel. But before we do anything else, we must establish that the logos is not a person, but rather the outworking of God's purpose and plan. This is even clearer when we read the Genesis record, in which:
God said and it was so.
Even a cursory glance at Scripture is enough to show that the Old Testament creation account never uses the language that Trinitarianism requires. Not once does Genesis attempt to persuade us that this spoken word was a divine person. Not once is this spoken word referred to as a distinct entity. It is always described as the word of God never as God Himself.
Thus, in the words of Psalm 33:6 & 9...
By the WORD of the Adonai-LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth... For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.
See also Psalm 107:20; 147:15, 18, 19, Hebrews 11:3 (compare with Jeremiah 10:12, 13:5) and II Peter 3:5,7:
. . . by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water . . . But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
Ignoring the fact that the message of the New Testament is necessarily founded upon the old (and therefore cannot contradict it) Trinitarians place great emphasis on the alleged significance of the word logos in the Johannine prologue, which they claim is a direct reference to the pre-existent Christ. The superficial nature of this argument is easily exposed.
In the KJV, for example, logos is translated by more than twenty different English words and is used for utterances of men (e.g., John 17:20) as well as those of YHVH-God (John 5:38.) The Bible, as we have already seen, informs us that there was no creation without the WORD; no creation without YHVH speaking and causing it to occur. Nothing occurring without a direct expression of the Divine will.
That is the context in which the word "word" is used, both in the OT and the NT or covenants. This means that even if we accept the KJV reading (he was in the beginning with God; all things were made through him by him was not anything made that was made) at face value, it must still be proved that a literal, personal being is here referred to. The very most that a Trinitarian can claim (on the basis of the KJV rendition) is that the logos has simply been personified.
Hence the previous citation from Dunn, in the post above:
Prior to verse 14 we are in the same realm as pre-Christian talk of wisdom and logos, the same language that we find in the wisdom tradition and in Philo, where as we have seen we are dealing with personifications rather than persons, personified actions of God rather than an individual divine being as such. The point is obscured by the fact that we have to translate the masculine "logos" as "He" throughout the scriptures.
But if we translated "logos" as "YHVH's-God's utterance" instead, it would become clearer that the scriptures did not necessarily intend the "logos" in verses 1-13 to be thought of as a personal divine being. In other words the revolutionary significance of verse 14 may well be that it marks . . . the transition from impersonal personification to actual person. [1]
Messiah was certainly YHVH's spoken word in action and therefore His representative on Earth but that is all. He did not pre-exist as some sort of supernatural thing-being called "The Word." The point is confirmed by the Tanakh, where we see that angels and prophets have also been vehicles by which YHVH has transmitted His logos. In most instances, Scripture describes this event in the following way:
The word [dabar] of YHVH came to
At some point however, we must address the fact that there are a couple of passages in which Messiah is called the logos of YHVH. What do we make of them? What are they telling us, and how might they be explained to our interested friends?
The answer is found in the principle of YHVH-God manifestation. Messiah-Christ is the complete manifestation ("revelation") of the logos, for "in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." (Colossians 2:9.) This same logos was in the beginning with YHVH-God, before the existence of Messiah-Christ. When the "word was made flesh" (John 1:14) then, and only then, did Messiah or Christ come into existence as the logos made flesh. Messiah is called the logos (Revelation 19:13, compare with I John 1:1; Luke 1:2) because he constitutes the outworking of YHVH's-God's logos; the physical reality of a plan which had previously existed in the mind of YHVH.
Was there is a pre-existence of that which was and is Yehoshua Mashiach-Jesus Christ? Not in any literal sense whatsoever. A man might say that he existed as "A twinkle in my father's eye and a knowing look on my mother's face", but this is radically different from literal pre-existence. Could we honestly tell our friends that "That which is me, existed before I was conceived"? Not at all. Messiah came into existence when he was conceived and subsequently begotten. When did this occur? Luke 1:35 tells us that it was some two thousand years ago in Yisrael, when the power of YHVH overshadowed Mary, the betrothed of Joseph. (See also Matthew 1:20.)
The orthodox Trinitarian Creeds (in which we find various references to the eternally begotten Son of God") stand apart from the witness of Scripture. Their language is peculiar, paradoxical, nonsensical, and above all un-Biblical.
Thus:
The notion that the Son was begotten by the Father in eternity past, not as an event, but as an inexplicable relationship, has been accepted and carried along in the Christian theology since the fourth century....
We have examined all the instances in which 'begotten' or 'born' or related words are applied to Messiah-Christ, and we can say with confidence that the Bible has nothing whatsoever to say about 'begetting' as an eternal relationship between the Father and the Son. [2]
We see, therefore, that when John speaks of the logos he does not refer to a pre-existent Messiah he refers to the conception of a Divine plan and purpose, which found its literal expression in the person of Yehoshua the Messiah. As previously noted, James Dunn agrees with this interpretation, but still finds it difficult to reconcile the necessarily impersonal nature of the logos with the text of the KJV.
His chief concern is that:
The point is obscured by the fact that we have to translate the masculine "logos" as "He" throughout the poem.
Dunn is clearly labouring under a false assumption. There are no grounds on which it might be argued that we have to refer to the logos as He. It is true that the word logos is masculine (at least, in the grammatical sense) but this is irrelevant. Instead of focusing his attention on the word "logos", Dunn would do better to examine the word autos, which the KJV has translated as Him.
In fact, right up until the publication of the KJV 1611, most Bibles referred to the logos of John 1 as it, instead of "he." The reason for this is simple it is because the translators of those Bibles understood that the logos is not a literal, personal entity. There are no legitimate grounds on which YHVH's-God's logos can be defined as a pre-existent being. Yes, the logos was in the beginning
with YHVH-God. But it was not God Himself, but His Word, nor was it another divine being beside Him. So, while the logos (according to John) is divine, the logos is not the pre-existent Messiah-Christ. This distinction is crucial.
Moving on through the Johannine prologue, we arrive at:
The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.
Here we must take care to read the text properly. We have been told that it was the logos which was made flesh - not YHVH Himself. But what does this mean?
I refer once again to Dunns analysis:
But if we translated "logos" as "God's utterance" instead, it would become clearer that the scripture did not necessarily intend the "logos" in verses 1-13 to be thought of as a personal divine being. In other words the revolutionary significance starting at verse 14 may well be that it marks . . . the transition from impersonal personification to actual person. [3]
Indeed, it certainly does! Just as the spoken logos of YHVH had once brought forth light, now it resulted in a living entity - the Messiah.
John 1:1-14 - a Closer Examination of the Text (Part II)
Centuries of Misinterpretation - the History of the Trinitarian Logos
The astute reader of early Christian history will discover that it is possible to follow the evolution of the logos-dabar as a Jewish theological concept into the logos as a Hellenic philosophical concept - and, ultimately, a stepping-stone to Trinitarianism. It all began with the work of a man called Philo.
Philo (a well-educated Hellenic Jew from Alexandria) had a considerable influence on Christian leaders of the "Alexandrian School", such as Clement of Alexandria and Justin Martyr. His allegorical method for interpreting Scripture also influenced Origen, Ambrose, Augustine, and others. Many elements of his philosophy made an impact on later Christian thinking, including his use of proofs for God's existence, his logos doctrine, his views about the unknowability of God, his negative language about God, his position on ex nihilo creation, and his interpretation of Divine providence.
Philo attempted to interpret Scripture in terms of Greek philosophy. His approach was innovative and eclectic. Philo taught that human beings can know God, whether directly from divine revelation, or indirectly through human reason. Various forms of proof for God included Plato's argument for a Demiurgos in Timaeus and Aristotle's cosmological argument for an Unmoved Mover. Interacting freely with Greek philosophy, Philo borrowed certain Platonic concepts to express his own theistic views. His concept of the logos is a case in point. In De Opificio he describes the logos as a cosmological principle, saying:
God assuming, as God would assume, that a beautiful copy could never come into existence without a beautiful model...when He willed to create this visible world, first blocked out the intelligible world, in order that using an incorporeal and godlike model he might make the corporeal world a younger image of the older. [4]
Philo's philosophy was the original source of what later became the logos theology of mainstream Christianity. [5]
Philo himself had been influenced by Plato's Timaeus, in which he called the logos the image of God, and the second God. Many Trinitarians today are emphatic in their insistence that John's gospel deliberately makes use of the term "logos" because (according to them) he was fully aware of its Philonic meaning, and expected his readers to understand this! Some Trinitarians even go so far as to say that John himself was responsible for using the term in a new and specifically religious way.
But, as we have already seen, Robinson dismisses both claims with a common-sense reply:
John is a typical representative of the New Testament, not the anomalous exception, with one foot in the world of Greek philosophy, that he is so often presented. [6]
Of course, there is no disputing the fact that the term logos was widely used in the Greco-Roman culture (and also in Judaism), but it is not until the writings of Philo does the logos eventually become personified beyond personification and regarded as a, personal literal entity. In the LXX, the term logos (Hebrew: dabar) was used frequently to describe YHVH-God's utterances, and the messages of prophets - by means of which YHVH-God communicated His will to His people. Logos occurs in both the major and minor prophetical books, as a figure of speech designating God's activity or action. The Greek, metaphysical concept of logos is in sharp contrast to the concept of a personal YHVH-God described in anthropomorphic terms typical of Hebrew thought. Thus when Hebrew mythical thought encountered Greek philosophical thought, it was only natural that some would try to develop speculative and philosophical justification for Judaism in terms of Greek philosophy.
Philo (who was, we must remember, a Hellenized Jew) produced a synthesis of both traditions developing concepts for the future Hellenistic interpretation of Messianic Hebrew thought. His theology was drawn not just from his traditional Jewish background, but also from the philosophical ideas of the Greek culture in which he found himself. (One of his more creative ideas was the suggestion that Plato had borrowed his own conception of the logos from the writings of Moses!) Consequently, Philo's logos is not entirely foreign to the Jewish or Hellenic schools of thought - but at the same time not entirely compatible with either of them.
Thus:
This Logos, which according to the Stoics is the bond between the different parts of the world, and according to the Heracliteans the source of the cosmic oppositions, is regarded by Philo as the Divine word which reveals God to the soul and calms the passions (see LOGOS). It is finally from this point of view of the interior life that Philo transforms the moral conception of the Greeks which he knew mainly in the most popular forms (cynical diatribes); he discovers in them the idea of the moral conscience accepted though but slightly developed by philosophers up to that time.
A very interesting point of view is the consideration of the various moral systems of the Greeks, not simply as true or false, but as so many indications of the soul's progress or recoil at different stages. [7]
Philo had successfully united Hellenism and Judaism by identifying the common elements of each. (Or so he thought.) But in the process, he laid the foundations for the development of Christian logos theology as we know it today. The church preserved the Philonic writings because Eusebius of Caesarea labeled the monastic ascetic groups of Therapeutae and Therapeutrides (described in Philo's The Contemplative Life) as Christians. Eusebius also promoted the legend that Philo met Peter in Rome. Jerome (345-420 CE) even lists him as a church Father! All of this was patently false; but in time (as with so many man-made traditions), it came to be accepted as true.
The early synthesis between Hellenic philosophy and early Christianity was made easier by the fact that so many of the earliest apologists (such as Athenagoras and Martyr) were Greek converts themselves, whose belief system had consisted more of philosophy than religion. Anyone who claims to believe in the YHVH-God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob would be well advised to note that Jewish tradition was uninterested in philosophical speculation and did not preserve Philo's teachings. Indeed, it is possible to contrast his understanding of the logos against the Hebrew dabar, which (to a large extent) it was actually intended to identify, personify, and explain.
In the words of Philo himself:
The Absolute Being, the Father, who had begotten all things, gave an especial grace to the Archangel and First-born Logos (Word), that standing between, He might sever the creature from the Creator. The same is ever the Intercessor for the dying mortal before the immortal God, and the Ambassador and the Ruler to the subject. He is neither without beginning of days, as God is, nor is He begotten, as we are, but is something between these extremes, being connected with both. [8]
Predictably, the Jews found themselves unable to reconcile Philo's logos theology with their strictly monotheistic conception of God. This resistance to innovation and transition served as an impenetrable barrier, shielding Judaism from the philosophical developments which would slowly (but insistently) wash over Christianity in the many years to come. The earliest Christians (such as Peter, Paul, James, and John) were Jews themselves, which explains why the 1st Century church remained theologically static. Only later - in the 2nd Century and beyond - do we begin to find a subtle Hellenic influence taking hold. The Jewish Christians (with a conservative theology that was deeply rooted in the essential teachings of the Tanakh-Old Testament) strongly resisted any attempt to hijack, transform, or development of Christianity.
It was the Hellenic Christians such as Justin Martyr and Athenagoras (both well versed in Greek philosophy) who eventually transmuted the words of John into the logos of Platonic and Philonic philosophy. Searching for a way to justify Christianity in the eyes of their non-Christian colleagues, they soon found themselves justifying Hellenism to the Christians.
Thus:
The apologists began to claim that Greek culture pointed to and was consummated in the Christian message, just as the Tanakh-Old Testament was. This process was done most thoroughly in the synthesis of Clement of Alexandria. It can be done in several ways.
You can rake through Greek literature, and find (especially in the oldest seers and poets) references to God which are more compatible with monotheism than with polytheism (so at length Athenagoras.) You can work out a common chronology between the legends of prehistoric (Homer) Greece and the biblical record (so Theophilus.)
You can adapt a piece of pre-Christian Jewish apologetic, which claimed that Plato and other Greek philosophers got their best ideas indirectly from the teachings of Moses in the Bible, which was much earlier. This theory combines the advantage of making out the Greeks to be plagiarists (and therefore second-rate or criminal), while claiming that they support Christianity by their arguments at least some of the time. Especially this applied to the question of God.
Justin's creed, as we saw, spoke of a transcendent God and Father, of his Son (with the angels), and of the Spirit of prophecy. This triple confession is in line with what we know of the baptismal formula. But when we look at the theology of the apologists, we find that generally their thought is binitarian rather than trinitarian: it speaks of God and his Word, rather than of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The term Trinity was not yet in use in the Church. Theophilus is the first to use the Greek word for Trinity (trias, triad), when he takes the first three days of creation as signifying the trinity of God and his Word and his Wisdom (To Autolycus 2.15), and Tertullian soon after 200 was using the Latin trinitas of God.
If we suppose that the baptismal confession and central Christian belief was in a threefold form, we have to account for the binitarian thought of Justin and those like him. The most obvious explanation is that their apologetic is directed towards Greek thought. They began from what appeared to be common ground. Among the Greeks, a familiar notion was the thought of an utterly transcendent, perfect, unmoving God, and of a second, mediating, active being responsible for the created order, whether as its superior governor or as its immanent soul. Such a theology was being propounded, for instance, by the Platonist Albinos in Asia Minor at the same time that Justin was himself there, before he moved to Rome. [9]
Finally, we must keep in mind the fact that Mattityahu-Matthew, Mark and Lucas-Luke all insist that Yehoshua-Jesus existence began with his conception in the womb of Mary. It would be impossible for Yochanan-John to see the logos as a literal, personal, pre-existent Messiah without contradicting his own cultural and religious background - not to mention the other three gospels. The only way to reconcile the strict Jewishness of Yochanan's gospel with his (apparent) references to Messiah's pre-existence, is to accept his words in the context of Jewish thought (as opposed to Greek philosophy) and realise that he speaks of a pre-destined Messiah, rather than the Eternal Son of modern Trinitarianism.
Thus:
First we have the Christology of the Synoptic Gospels, and here it cannot be contended on any sufficient grounds that they give us the slightest justification for advancing beyond the idea of a purely human Messiah. The idea of preexistence lies completely outside the Synoptic sphere of view. Nothing can show this more clearly than the narrative of the supernatural birth of Jesus.
All that raises him above humanity - though it does not take away the pure humanity of his person - is to be referred only to the causality of the "Pneuma Hagion/Holy Spirit," which brought about his conception. This spirit, as the principle of the Messianic epoch, is also the element which constitutes his Messianic personality. The Synoptic Christology has for its substantial foundation the notion of the Messiah, designated and conceived as the "huios theou"; and all the points in the working out of the notion rest on the same supposition of a nature essentially human. God raised him from the dead, because it was not possible that he should be holden of it (Acts 2:24). [10]
Bibliography
[1] Dunn, James D. G. (1980), Christology in the Making.
[2] Buswell, J. O. (1962), A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion. Buswell is a former Dean of the Graduate School, Covenant College, St. Louis, MO.
[3] Dunn, James D. G. (1980), Christology in the Making.
[4] As quoted by Norman L. Geisler (2000) in his Baker Encyclopaedia of Christian Apologetics.
[5] This argument is comprehensively articulated (and defended) by a number of classical historians. For additional reading on the evolution of early Christian theology and practice (with particular reference to the infiltration of Hellenism), see Jaegers Early Christianity and Greek Paideia (1961), Engels Die Neue Zeit, Vol. 1 (1894-95), Werners The Formation of Christian Dogma, An Historical Study of its Problems (1957), and Reynolds The Christian Religious Tradition (1977).
[6] Robinson, J.A.T. (1984), Twelve More New Testament Studies. Robinson (now deceased) was a former Bishop of the Anglican Church in Woolwich during the 1960s.
[7] The Catholic Encyclopaedia (1908).
[8] Ante-Nicene Christian Library; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, (1868) or later editions.
[9] Hall, Stuart G. (1991), Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church. Hall was formerly Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Kings College, London. He now works as a parish priest of the Scottish Episcopal Church in Fife.
[10] Baur, F.C. (1853), The Church History of the First Three Centuries.