6

The Biblical Unitarian (BU) perspective on the pre-incarnational existence of the Son of God, revealed in such verses as John 1:1-2

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.

is that this pre-incarnational existence was a notional existence. A Biblical Unitarian website describes notional existence as opposed to literal existence as follows:

Notional pre-existence is the idea that something or someone may ‘exist’ in the mind of God before actualizing on earth in history at the appointed time. What God purposes and decrees is considered so certain that it is spoken of as though it already exists.

My question is regarding to what degree Biblical Unitarians carry "notionalism" throughout John's prologue. For instance, if we parenthetically add (notional) to John 1:1-2 it would look like this and, from what I understand, BU would agree:

In the beginning was the (Word/notionality), and the (Word/notionality) was with God, and the Word (notionally) was God. The same was (notionally) in the beginning with God.

Can verse 3 be rendered in similar fashion: Were all things only notionally created through him?

All things were (notionally) made by (the notional) him; and without (the notional) him was not any thing (notionally) made that was (notionally) made.

Can verse 4 be rendered in similar fashion: Was it only a notional life that was the notional light of men?

In (the notional) him was (notional) life; and the (notional) life was the (notional) light of men.

Can verse 6 be rendered in similar fashion: Did the notional light only notionally shine in the darkness?

And the (notional) light (notionally) shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

I don't know if I should ask whether the darkness and the non-comprehension are notional as well but the above questions are only intended as illustrative.

Ultimately, I am asking if Biblican Unitarians believe that the notional idea of Christ, the Son of God includes not just God's idea of an individual who is to come but also the creation, devastation, and reconciliation of everything through that individual.

In other words, Does everything God has ever thought have notional existence within Logos as long as it remains as His thought? For example, Did light exist notionally prior to God speaking? and, if so, did it exist notionally within Logos?

Mike Borden
  • 16,820
  • 2
  • 18
  • 50
  • In the beginning was the Word (notionally... Where does this come from? It is Jesus' notional existence, not the logos. This is totally convoluted. We don't even need notional if we just read what the Gospels provide. – steveowen May 01 '22 at 12:02
  • BUs tend not to hold that Jesus = the Logos at John 1. This article is a good starter. https://21stcr.org/commentaries/preexistence-overview/preexistence-articles/literal-and-notional-pre-existence/ – Only True God May 01 '22 at 15:46
  • @steveowen The Word is Jesus' notional existence, right? What else is included in that notion is the question. – Mike Borden May 01 '22 at 21:17
  • @OneGodtheFather I didn't name Jesus in the question in deference to your position. – Mike Borden May 01 '22 at 21:18
  • @OneGodtheFather From the article you linked: "These texts demonstrate that the Hebrew understanding of the word has an independent existence of sorts once it is sent forth. After God’s word is spoken it has a life of its own." and "The word is what is in the mind of God as well as what is expressed by Him." So, the Word, prior to being uttered, has an existence independent from God or it is God and is not independent until spoken? – Mike Borden May 01 '22 at 21:40
  • 1
    @MikeBorden I can't speak for the author of the article, I'm just giving it as an introduction to the idea of notional existence. BUs tend not to hold that Jesus or the Christ = the Logos at John 1. The Christ comes into being actually at the moment of Jesus' conception. – Only True God May 02 '22 at 04:05
  • 1
    @MikeBorden No, I think BUs would hold the Logos actually existed from the beginning. It is how God creates, basically. See Genesis. It is Jesus or the Christ who is spoken of as existing notionally or in God's plan before Jesus or the Christ is conceived. – Only True God May 02 '22 at 04:08
  • @OneGodtheFather Before God said "Let there be light" did light exist notionally in God's mind? My question is (and I know I have asked it clumsily (that's what these comments are for)), Does everything God has ever thought have notional existence? – Mike Borden May 02 '22 at 11:52
  • @OneGodtheFather I have made an edit, in hopes of clarity. Thank you for your comments. – Mike Borden May 02 '22 at 11:58
  • @MikeBorden The point of trying to apply notionalism to everything like light, etc. , escapes me. You have invented your own language and terminology that no one else is talking about, (certainly not the bible). There are no correct answers for these obscure concepts. As attempted to point out earlier - the logos IS - there is nothing notional about it. It WAS there in the beginning - Jesus was not. – steveowen May 02 '22 at 12:14
  • @steveowen I understand that Logos, itself, is not notional. My question is regarding what Logos entails...everything God has ever thought? Certainly He thought about creating light before he spoke it into being? – Mike Borden May 02 '22 at 12:37
  • 1
    Then in God, everything has notional existence. But we cannot bundle the logos in that everything too. It was in the beginning. So why have you got, "In the beginning was the Word (notionally)" – steveowen May 02 '22 at 12:43
  • @steveowen Because this has been a difficult question to formulate. The comments are helping. I will edit again. Thanks. Does everything have notional existence in God? – Mike Borden May 02 '22 at 12:47
  • 1
    I can understand the position for the first two verses (God had always known that Jesus would eventually exist, a well-defined idea not yet realized), but not for the following verses (someone that will some day exist has already performed physical and spiritual actions). – Ray Butterworth May 02 '22 at 13:24
  • @MikeBorden I suppose there will be lots of things in God's plan, but the Messiah would be a very important one. Whether everything that happens is part of God's plan moves into questions of determinism, and I'm guessing you would get different answers. I hold that God responds, and much of what happens isn't in His plan properly speaking. But my guess is BU would vary in their views on that. – Only True God May 02 '22 at 16:15
  • @MikeBorden Notional pre-existence of Christ is very clear from the BU pov at places like John 8:58. But at John 1 BUs don't equate the Logos with Jesus (Christ). So you have God, God's Logos, the Logo's Life, the Life's Light, and then the Logos becoming Jesus. The clearest correlate to Jesus would be the Light ("I am the light"). John 1 seems to skip around in time. Socinians (clearest historical antecedent to contemporary BUs) held John 1 all referred to the new creation. But contemporary BUs tend not to hold this. – Only True God May 02 '22 at 16:22
  • @MikeBorden You can listen to Dale Tuggy's (a BU) talk about John 1 here https://trinities.org/blog/podcast-338-what-john-1-meant/ , which includes a survey of main historical kinds of interpretation and his own interpretation. There's also a useful link to a handout for the talk on that page or directly here https://1drv.ms/b/s!AvWPAaQBbkKy5JUur1VZpmCWXzPKlQ?e=YBcxsQ – Only True God May 02 '22 at 16:34
  • @steveowen "TBH 5 UV for this convoluted Q is very interesting! Friends in high places? No, not that high!" Going from a standard Trinitarian reading of John 1 to something like a BU reading is a big shift, so not surprising there are lots of questions. – Only True God May 02 '22 at 16:39

1 Answers1

2

There are 3 main Biblical Unitarian views of John's prologue (John 1:1-18).

  1. The first is that the logos = God's plan or thoughts, and the beginning is the old beginning (Genesis 1).

  2. The second is that the Logos = a personification of God's word, and the beginning is the old beginning (Genesis 1).

  3. The third is that the Logos = Jesus (similar to how Jesus is the Light, the Bread, the Gate, and so on throughout John - it is a title or identifier which refers to Jesus), and the beginning is the new beginning (Mark 1:1, 1 John 1:1).

In all these cases, Biblical Unitarians (BUs) do not hold that John 1:1-13 refers to notional pre-existence of the logos. In the first two, God's plan or word really did pre-exist Jesus. In the third one, the beginning is Jesus' ministry, and so doesn't pre-exist Jesus.

So, for BUs who hold to one of the first two, the logos ('Word') of John 1 is not identified with Jesus. Rather, the understanding of 'Logos' is along the lines of an idea, plan, or indeed speech (as in Genesis 1, where God speaks things into existence - it is God's creative power). So at John 1:14, "the Logos became flesh" is understood similar to "the plan took shape" or "the idea became the cup" or even "the score became music" or "the script became a play". That is, the logos leads to, informs, and is reflected in Jesus. In this sort of sense, the Logos became flesh.

On the first two views, then, Jesus (= the Christ) comes to exist at his conception, which is held to be John 1:14, and they would hold this is then describing in different language what is also described at Luke 1:35. The lead up to this is a bit complex interpretively, because of the vagueness of John's language, but throughout John 1 these BUs typically hold John is describing what actually happened (the logos actually was with God, things actually were made through the logos, John the Baptist actually arrives on the scene, and so on).

This talk by Dale Tuggy (a BU) is a good discussion of John 1 from this sort of BU perspective, including an historical survey of interpretations, including a useful handout for the talk.

On the third view, however, John 1:14's kai ho logos sarx egeneto refers not to Jesus' conception (which is never discussed in John's Gospel) but rather to the beginning of Jesus' ministry (and so dovetails with John 1's 'beginning', which on this view is also the beginning of Jesus' ministry).

Also see 1 John 4:2, "Jesus Christ has come in the flesh [sarki]," similar to John 1:14 and to Weymouth's translation of John 1:14 ("And the Word came in the flesh"). See Jesus' own "for this reason I was born and came into the world" at John 18:37 - the coming appears to happen after his birth, not before it, and is consistent with the start of his ministry.

So naturally, Jesus begins his ministry and then 'tabernacled among us' (also in John 1:14, immediately after 'kai ho logos sarx egeneto') as an itinerant teacher (similar to how the Angel of the Lord tabernacles among the ancient Israelites as they wandered about).

Only True God
  • 6,628
  • 1
  • 18
  • 55
  • I liked, ‘the score became the music’ The reality is that the logos made flesh, was not doing exactly as God intended when He uttered things into existence by His will since creation. Jesus has his own will which must be willingly submitted to God in total trust, faith and love – steveowen May 03 '22 at 11:14
  • I understand that Logos does not equal Jesus for BU and I tried to avoid that implication in the question (I may have done a poor job of it). That is not my question and so this doesn't really answer it. Logos includes the plan of Jesus, yes? What else does Logos include the plan of? That is the question. Is Logos God's plan for everything? Is it His rational mind? The following link seems to indicate that it is... – Mike Borden May 03 '22 at 13:05
  • This article says Logos is not merely God's plan but God's very reasoning ability, God's mind itself ... https://www.biblicalunitarian.com/articles/history/on-the-logos-lecture-10-by-js-hyndman-1824 and contains this quote: "The translation I have proposed, which undoubtedly appears to be correct, and which is also according to the order of the words in the original, determines the meaning of the Word to be the power of God , and God himself." – Mike Borden May 03 '22 at 13:06
  • @MikeBorden I think you're going to get different answers from different BUs about what, exactly, John is thinking of with 'logos' at John 1. It is straightforward to say what logos here is not for a BU - it is not the second person of the Trinity. 'Word' IMO is pretty decent, as it captures the link between the mind and action. A word is inextricably tied up in your thought, but shapes the external world simultaneously. God's plan, God's reason, God's word, God's ideas - these are all similar. I believe one prominent early English translation actually used Idea instead of Word ... – Only True God May 03 '22 at 16:15
  • @MikeBorden ... but translators have settled on 'word' by and large nowadays. I think it's a decent translation as long as we have the surrounding conceptual context to inform it. I'll take a look at the article you linked to, looks interesting! – Only True God May 03 '22 at 16:17
  • @MikeBorden Perhaps the simplest way to get an idea of 'logos' here is Proverbs 8, an extended personification of God's wisdom. Tuggy in the talk above repeatedly refers to wisdom literature. Basically, John 1:1-13 is in the tradition of wisdom literature, and 'logos' here overlaps in meaning. God's word, God's wisdom, God's reason, God's plan. These all seem reasonable ways of understanding 'logos' here to varying degrees from a BU pov. – Only True God May 03 '22 at 17:44
  • @MikeBorden The article you link to has a similar understanding. "it was the constant custom of the Jews to personify the Word, by which they meant Jehovah considered in his authority, commanding or creating power and energy, the mode of speech here adopted seems just what we might have expected it." – Only True God May 03 '22 at 17:50
  • @MikeBorden The author of the article you linked does discuss Lawson's theory as to what 'logos' means, and on this view one seemingly must posit notional pre-existence for the logos to explain the logos being 'in the beginning'. I think this is an uncommon view among contemporary BUs, who tend to hold a more general view of what John means by the logos. – Only True God May 03 '22 at 21:34
  • I wouldn't begin to postulate that Logos had a notional existence because how could God have a notion of His own thoughts. As long as there has been God there has been logos. As the article states, " determines the meaning of the Word to be the power of God , and God himself.". God cannot be separated from His thoughts or power. This has to be tightly kept in mind when we consider that the Word became flesh. If God is the Word and the Word became flesh ...? – Mike Borden May 04 '22 at 11:27
  • 1
    @MikeBorden Yes, positing notional existence for logos if logos just means one's own thoughts is strange. – Only True God May 04 '22 at 16:19
  • 1
    @MikeBorden Yes, for BUs, the primary debate is about what 'became' means here. Our understanding of that will be informed by our understanding of what 'logos' means here. So I think really it's a debate about what 'logos' means as used by John. If one assumes a Trinitarian understanding ('logos' = person of Trinity) you get a coherent reading (with lots of downstream theological problems). If one assumes a Unitarian understanding ('logos' = something like a creative power of God, God's reason exemplified in the world, and so on) you also get a coherent reading. So how decide between the 2? – Only True God May 04 '22 at 16:42
  • https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/90954/do-biblical-unitarians-have-a-theology-and-definition-of-divine-simplicity – Mike Borden May 04 '22 at 20:25
  • 1
    @MikeBorden Significantly revised this answer. – Only True God Jul 14 '22 at 19:54
  • If verse 14 points to the beginning of Jesus' ministry (at ~30 years of age) doesn't this third view necessitate that the Logos of verse 1 is likewise limited in scope? "In the beginning was the plan for Jesus' ministry and the plan for Jesus' ministry was with God and the plan for Jesus' ministry was God. The plan for Jesus' ministry was with God in the beginning. All things were made by the plan for Jesus' ministry and without the plan for Jesus' ministry nothing was made that has been made ..." – Mike Borden Jul 15 '22 at 12:32
  • I think this third view makes John 1:3 very problematic as we are forced to interpret "all things" in a very limited scope; i.e. as all "new" things. – Mike Borden Jul 15 '22 at 12:36
  • @MikeBorden On option 3, the logos isn't a plan, it's a title or identifier for Jesus (as in the Light, the Bread of Life, the Gate, and so on). – Only True God Jul 15 '22 at 18:03
  • @MikeBorden Re John 1:3, yes, 'all' is interpreted to refer to all things related to the Kingdom, the new creation that God is bringing about through the Christ. This exegesis then also applies to Col 1:15-20, which enumerates the 'all' (thrones, dominions, rulers, authorities - NOT planets and rocks and so on, but rather things related to the Kingdom). Note Paul also there pairs 'beginning' with Jesus' resurrection, not primordial time. So go one way in interpreting John 1, then most of it applies to Col 1. – Only True God Jul 15 '22 at 18:12
  • @MikeBorden Added more on the third option, including references to 1 John 4:2 and John 18:37. – Only True God Jul 15 '22 at 18:27
  • @MikeBorden Also note how Col. 1:17's 'before' compares to John 1:15's 'before'. – Only True God Jul 15 '22 at 18:56
  • So you would have John 1:1 saying "In the beginning was Jesus and Jesus was with God and Jesus was God." where 'in the beginning' means the beginning of Jesus' ministry? And that beginning would be his birth, baptism, death, resurrection, ascension...? What if the beginning is the subjection of 1 Cor. 15:24? – Mike Borden Jul 17 '22 at 12:56
  • @MikeBorden I think John 1 reads most naturally if taking the beginning to be the beginning of Jesus' ministry - if you're looking for a specific event, perhaps his baptism, although it's not clear John is thinking a specific event. I don't understand your comment about 1 Cor. - can you rephrase? – Only True God Jul 18 '22 at 02:07
  • @MikeBorden Compare John 8:25's 'beginning'. – Only True God Jul 18 '22 at 02:11
  • What if the real beginning of the "new things" that "all things" in John 1:1 supposedly points to is 1 Cor. 15 where everything is finally subjected. to God through Jesus. A new heaven and earth wherein dwelleth righteousness is the end goal of Jesus. This would seem to make his birth or baptism the start of a process, but does it really? The exodus of Israel is part of bringing Christ into the world. The birth of Isaac. The calling of Abraham. The salvation of Noah. The promise of a seed to Adam. This takes us right back to the beginning. – Mike Borden Jul 18 '22 at 12:12
  • 1
    @MikeBorden Sure, it's possible. But it seems quite jarring to go from that to John the Baptist in 1:6. Then skip back to the primordial past in 1:10. And why does the narrator say "He himself was not the Light" at 1:8 - was anyone thinking John the Baptist was the primordial light of Genesis? No, they were thinking he might be the Christ. I think we nowadays don't appreciate how much the early Christian community was excited about and focused on the new beginning - the restored 'cosmos' which starkly started with Jesus's ministry. – Only True God Jul 18 '22 at 13:37
  • It does seem a bit jumpy but if you read 1 John the author is not exactly a linear thinker. V. 9 How is the start of Jesus' earthly ministry the light that enlightens Cain and Abel, for instance? – Mike Borden Jul 19 '22 at 10:19
  • https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/77467/hermeneutic-implications-of-in-the-beginning-of-johns-prologue/77478#77478 – Mike Borden Jul 19 '22 at 10:27
  • @MikeBorden My understanding is it is a forward-thinking description. Just like 'all' in 1:3. If you are 'enlightened', it is through the Christ as part of the Kingdom. John just repeats himself again and again, saying the same thing in different ways. Christ, Bread of Life, Light, Life, Way, these are all basically saying the same thing. Jesus is the Christ. Through him we can have eternal life. I just read 1 John and my sense was it flowed very well - what do you mean by 'not exactly a linear thinker'? – Only True God Jul 19 '22 at 14:49
  • "The rhetoric of 1 John is challenging. John rarely sustains a clear line of argument for more than a few lines or verses. He wanders from subject to subject, unencumbered by any discernible outline. Yet if he has no plan, he does follow a pattern: after leaving a subject he often returns to it. His style of thought has been termed circular rather than linear. It has also been termed symphonic, in that he states themes, moves away from them, and then revisits them with variations." - https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/course/1-john-introduction/#genre-setting – Mike Borden Jul 21 '22 at 12:34
  • @MikeBorden Thanks for this - I'll have to read it again with this in mind. Yes, circular and symphonic. I think that applies well to the prologue. 1-5 is one circle. 6-13 another circle adding another dimension (symphony). 14-18 another circle. But if you think 'beginning' is the Genesis beginning, John 1 will seem more disjointed. – Only True God Jul 21 '22 at 14:50
  • Re John 1:3 again, note similarity with John 12:32. Same word 'panta', often glossed with 'men' or 'everyone' at 12:32 instead of the 'all' usually used at 1:3. I think 12:32 is a repetition and elaboration of 1:3. Basically, the prologue isn't an introduction which sets the context for the Gospel (this is what was happening in primordial time), but a summary (in 3 movements, as noted above) of the Gospel. – Only True God Jul 21 '22 at 14:56
  • Or the prologue is a chiasm ... If 12:32 is what you suggest then wouldn't that indicate the crucifixion as the start of the all "new things" based on v. 33? – Mike Borden Jul 21 '22 at 19:57
  • @MikeBorden Any particular chiasm theory in mind? Of course it could be both. Yes, as in Col 1, John is in specific referring to what would follow the crucifixion. The argument I am making here is that in both cases the 'all' refers to things related to the new creation, NOT the old creation. – Only True God Jul 21 '22 at 22:13
  • Revelation Lad gave a pretty solid answer here: https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/77467/hermeneutic-implications-of-in-the-beginning-of-johns-prologue/77478#77478 – Mike Borden Jul 22 '22 at 12:26
  • New question: https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/77549/does-colossians-116-represent-the-creation-of-a-sub-set-of-things-within-the-un – Mike Borden Jul 22 '22 at 13:22
  • @MikeBorden Ya, I'm a bit skeptical of chiasms because they seem a bit like horoscopes some of the time. But it's interesting, and may be how John decided to structure his Gospel. But it also seems completely compatible with the prologue being a summary, no? – Only True God Jul 22 '22 at 14:25
  • Yes. I just think the summary has a wider scope than you :) – Mike Borden Jul 23 '22 at 13:43