11

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” ‭‭John‬ ‭1:1‬ ‭

The Word was God

“Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.” ‭‭John‬ ‭17:17‬ ‭

God’s Word is truth

“Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” ‭‭John‬ ‭14:6‬ ‭

Jesus says He is the truth

Hence the Word is Jesus by implication who is therefore God

Nihil Sine Deo
  • 9,044
  • 7
  • 38
  • 83
  • 1
    Not only reasonable, I suspect that it is a chief reason these verses were inspired. – EvilSnack Jul 05 '20 at 20:29
  • Reasonable ? Yes. Mandatory ? No. – Lucian Jul 06 '20 at 02:17
  • @NihilSineDeo I was merely making an observation that "some" when reading what you said may think the "Logos/Word" might understand you to mean that Jesus Christ is the spoken word. I was not trying to "preempt" anything, just making an observation for the sake of clarity, that's all. Would you agree that it is possible for some to look at it from that viewpoint? – Mr. Bond Jul 06 '20 at 02:25
  • @NihilSineDeo I want to make an observation about John 17:17 that you quoted. "Sanctify them in the truth, Thy word is truth." It should be noted that the "word" in this verse is the spoken word. Some of the non-christian cults latch on to John 1:1 and say Jesus Christ is the spoken word or He is the "plan, thoughts and purpose of God." The "Logos/Word" is a person, Jesus Christ. In other words, the Son was with God in a close personal relationship. John 1:18. Notice the context back at John 17:20. Jesus prays for His disciples and others to believe in Him through their word – Mr. Bond Jul 06 '20 at 02:49
  • @Mr.Bond it’s possible I agree – Nihil Sine Deo Jul 06 '20 at 02:53
  • @Lucian if not mandatory then also wrong? Reasonable but wrong. – Nihil Sine Deo Jul 06 '20 at 02:55
  • @NihilSineDeo: Being an option, and being the only option, are two distinct things. – Lucian Jul 06 '20 at 03:02
  • @Lucian agreed, so what’s the other reasonable option? – Nihil Sine Deo Jul 06 '20 at 03:09
  • @NihilSineDeo: A rabbi is a walking Torah; the Torah is the eternal word of God; therefore, the rabbi in question is both divine and eternal. – Lucian Jul 06 '20 at 03:13
  • @NihilSineDeo Or to put it another way you have created a "syllogism." Which in logic is a form of reasoning in which a conclusion is drawn from two given premises. Your first premise is, "The Word was God." You then quoted John 17:17 and said, "God's Word is truth." Obviously referring to Jesus Christ as the "Word." And to prove it you quoted John 14:6 and concluded, "Jesus says He's the truth." The only problem is your syllogism does not follow. This is based on the fact that John 17:17 is referring to the "SPOKEN" word/words of God and not the person of Jesus Christ as the "Logos/Word." – Mr. Bond Jul 06 '20 at 03:41
  • @Mr.Bond I beg to differ but it would take a lot more than a comment to explain how John17:17 refers to Jesus. But I’ll try a short cut. “the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction:” ‭‭Romans‬ ‭3:22‬ ‭I wonder if you can grasp what I’m saying in so few words. – Nihil Sine Deo Jul 06 '20 at 04:15
  • 2
    @Lucian—But, neither of those are true. The Torah is the Law of Moses which was given to Moses at Sinai, and he then promulgated it to the children of Israel. Gal. 3:17: “the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after...” Notice that it does not say anything to the effect of the law being eternal. Rather, it indicates the law was 430 years after the covenant God made with Abraham. And, “rabbi is a walking Torah” is not biblical (sounds ad hoc), so not sure how it bears on this discussion. – Der Übermensch Jul 06 '20 at 14:14
  • @DerÜbermensch: The other user (to whom it was addressed) clearly understood it. – Lucian Jul 06 '20 at 18:33

3 Answers3

1

I agree with the connection made by the OP. Without detracting from this, let add to it by providing further evidence.

John makes a similar connection at the start of his first epistle:

  • 1 John 1:1, 2 - That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our own eyes, which we have gazed upon and touched with our own hands—this is the Word of life. And this is the life that was revealed; we have seen it and testified to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was revealed to us.

Of all the NT writers, John uses what in Greek logic are known as category statements more than anyone else and most of these have Jesus as their subject. That is, John teaches more about Jesus and God via category statements than any one else. The most famous category statement of John is found in 1 John 4:8, 16 where he famously asserts:

God is love.

Back to Jesus. The Gospel of John contains a series of category statements based on various well-known metaphors:

  1. “I am” the Bread of Life (John 6:35-51) - a reference to the manna of the desert wanderings as well as the shew-bread in the OT tabernacle.
  2. “I am” the Light of the world (John 8:12) - a reference to the menorah in the temple and the parade of lights, one of the Jewsish festivals
  3. “I am” the Door of the sheep (John 10:7-9) - see #4 below.
  4. “I am” the Good Shepherd (John 10: 11-14) – a reference to YHWH as the great shepherd in places like Ps 23 & Eze 34:11 etc.
  5. “I am” the Resurrection & Life (John 11:25) - this may allude to Job 19:25-27 but this is not clear.
  6. “I am” the Way, Truth & Life (John 14:6) - a constant theme of John. In John 1:18 he declares that Jesus is "full of grace and truth." John 17:17 also says that "Your word/Word is truth."
  7. “I am” the Vine (John 15:1-5) - a reference to a metaphor of the vine in the OT.

John 1:14 establishes that Jesus is the Logos/Word. John then has a series of assertions around this noted by the OP as more category statements:

The Word was God (John 1:1) and Your word/Word is Truth. (John 17:17)

But there is more. Jesus repeatedly claimed to be the "I Am" of the the OT referring directly to Ex 3:13-15 and its subsequent use in the LXX in places like Deut 32:39, Isa 41:4, 43:10, 13, 25, 45:19, 46:4, 48:12, 51:12, 52:6. (This is clearer in Greek that in English.)

  1. John 4:26 – “Then Jesus said, ‘I am.’” [To the Samaritan woman at the well.]
  2. John 6:20 – “But then [Jesus] said to them, ‘I am. Fear not.’” [To the frightened disciples in the boat.]
  3. John 8:24 – “If you do not trust/believe that I am, you will die in your sins.”
  4. John 8:28 – “When you will lift up the Son of Man, then you will trust/know that I am.”
  5. John 8:58 – “Truly, truly, I say to you; before Abraham existed, I am.” [The Jews then tried to stone Him for blasphemy.] Note that this and the previous two mean that Jesus, in the space of this chapter of John 8 uses the unpredicated “I am” idea in the present (v24), future (v28) and past sense (v58). V24 & 28 appears to be tied to believers’ salvation as well.
  6. John 13:19 – “From now [on] I tell you before the occurrence, that you may believe when it occurs that, I am.”
  7. John 18: 5, 6, 8 – “He said to them, ‘I am.’ …Therefore, when He told them, ‘I am’, they fell backward to the ground.” [This occurred when the Jews tried to arrest Jesus in the garden. It could be reasonably argued that this is a case of identification. However, the fact that the arresting mob fell backward suggests that much more is intended here.]

There can be little doubt that John intended to defend the divinity of Christ (as well as His humanity; but that is another subject) by both implicit associations and explicit declarations such as:

  • John 1:1, 18, 5:17, 18, 23, 10:30, 20:28.

In the book of Revelation we have some further material: Jesus says: "I am the first and the last" (Rev 1:17, 18, 22:13) which is a direct reference to a title of YHWH/Jehovah in the OT, namely, Isa 41:4, 44:6, 48:12.

We also have John giving Jesus the title of "Lord of Lords" in Rev 17:14, 19:16 which is reference to another title of YHWH/Jehovah in the OT, viz: Deut 10:17, Ps 136:3, 26.

Dottard
  • 104,076
  • 4
  • 44
  • 149
1

That Jesus is fully God, the John 1:1 (and following verses, which identify Jesus with the Logos) clearly indicate; and similarly, also John 14:6 asserts unambiguously the God-ness of Christ, because to "be Truth and Life" means that He does not participate in those divine qualities, as do creatures, but is the very Fountainhead of them (together with the Father), and such is only God.

As to the John 17:17, I think, no! - here "word" is not used in a hypostatic sense, as pertaining solely to the Son, but in the sense of divine commandments. Similarly as in John 12:48 "I will not judge, the word I have spoken will judge", here the word of Jesus is exactly the same and identical to the word of the Father, and thus is not used in a hypostatic sense as it is not used in hypostatic sense in the John 17:17 either.

I think you commit here a fallacy of "ambiguity of terms", like, to give an analogy:

I premise: "God is Spirit" (John 4:24)

II premise: "God is Jesus' Father" (Luke 2:49)

III premise: "Jesus will send from the Father the Spirit who proceeds from the Father" (John 15:26)

Conclusion (wrong!): "Jesus will send from the Father the very Father who proceeds from the very Father Himself"

The wrongness of the collusion pending on the fallacy that in the I premise the Spirit is not used in a hypostatic sense, but in a generic sense, while in the III premise it is used in a hypostatic sense.

Levan Gigineishvili
  • 10,559
  • 1
  • 11
  • 26
  • So the act of sanctification is achieved apart from Christ? Through the words of the Father? – Nihil Sine Deo Jul 07 '20 at 19:53
  • No, for Father can do nothing but through the Son and vice versa, because all what is the Father's is the Son's also (John 17:10) words/commandments included. – Levan Gigineishvili Jul 07 '20 at 20:47
  • @NihilSineDeo No one is talking about the "act of sanctification." What you've originally posted would be in logic a "non-sequiter" which means, "it does not follow." Your premise is rendered invalid by a flow in its logical structure. John 1:1 is describing the Logos/Word as a person and not the "spoken" word of God. Vs2, "He/This one" was in the beginning with God." (What does you in so to speak) is you quoting John 17:17 where clearly the "word" in the verse is the spoken word. As Levan Gigineishvilli stated the Word at John 1:1 is used in a hypostasis sense referring to substance/nature. – Mr. Bond Jul 07 '20 at 21:16
  • @Mr.Bond ”Sanctify* them in the truth; your word is truth.” ‭‭John‬ ‭17:17‬* – Nihil Sine Deo Jul 07 '20 at 22:41
  • Also clarify how J17:17 is CLEARLY the spoken word and only the spoken word. Preferably from the Greek. The poster’s point was different, it was that the word was not exclusive to Jesus, as best as I understood – Nihil Sine Deo Jul 07 '20 at 23:28
  • @LevanGigineishvili "Father can do nothing but through the Son"... WHAT? What passage informs you of that? – Steve Jul 08 '20 at 02:48
  • 1
    @user48152 Before I answer, which I will do in few minutes, let me comment on your “WHAT?” - for you expressed by those capitals a strange bewilderment on behalf of a commonplace theological point you can easily find in any mainstream Christian introductory manual, which tells me that you are neither Catholic, nor Orthodox, nor Protestant, nor Coptic or Armenian, nor even Nestorian, for none of the mentioned billions of believers would have shared or even understood your bewilderment. – Levan Gigineishvili Jul 08 '20 at 03:22
  • Don't bother - that you've quoted your authorities, I'm not vaguely interested. – Steve Jul 08 '20 at 04:07
  • @user48152 "Don't bother"? If you aren't interested why do you even ask? "Authorities"? - all of them have arguments based on textual analysis entailing philology as well as history and theology, for they did not get their theological positions in a dream. So strange you haven't even bothered to regard those arguments. You are either Arian, or their modern heir Jehovah Witnessist, or a romantic "lonely wolf", so to say a freelancer private interpreter of the Bible frowning down upon all mainstream interpretative traditions But if you are really interested write to me: lgigineishvili@yahoo.com – Levan Gigineishvili Jul 08 '20 at 04:26
  • @NihilSineDeo "Also clarify how J17:17 is CLEARLY the spoken word and only the spoken word. Preferably from the Greek." It is simply counterintuitive and unless we somehow force upon a text our intentions, such interpretation, I think, is nudged and forced. Similarly, the Luke 11:28's "blessed are those who hear the word of God" does not mean "blessed are those who hear the Word of God, that is to say Me who am the Word of God", unless we want to piously twist the text. There are enough proofs for Jesus' God-ness even without such pious attempts. – Levan Gigineishvili Jul 08 '20 at 07:31
  • @Downvoter Hey, my old friend, anonymous down-voter! How long haven't you shown up! I was even getting nervous on your behalf. I know that it is hopeless for you will hardly betray your perfidious essence, but tell me if you have any objections, will be glad to hear them and will try to answer. Otherwise, have a nice day! – Levan Gigineishvili Jun 20 '21 at 09:23
-1

No, Jesus is not 'fully God'. He is like God, having His fullness and His image and His form. None of which make him God.

Jesus spoke truth when he said,

Now this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent. John 17:3

Jesus was in no doubt who God was - and it wasn't him. Being the son of God is not God - there were many 'sons of God'. Jesus is the only one who is without sin. No one else was in any doubt who God was. The disciples, Apostles and the whole NT is consistent in having only one God - the Father. His son Jesus is not that God.

I am the way, and the truth, and the life ‭‭John‬ ‭14:6‬

Jesus is the way to what? The Father. He speaks what? The truth about, and of, the Father. What is the life? The life of the Father that he would have after his resurrection - certainly not before as he was mortal, and that man could also have.

Making up 'truth' from inferences and speculations that doesn't fit with the rest of the biblical text is poor practise. Some like to infer that Jesus (the Son) and the Father are equal yet not one verse supports it.

Or like, 'In the beginning was the Word', 'Jesus is the Word', SO, Jesus MUST be 'in the beginning'! It's nonsensical and ignores the whole NT.

The "Logos/Word" is a person. Yes - but only when the 'word' became flesh. When was that? When he was born ~2000 yrs ago.

If Jesus was the 'word/God' in the beginning (whenever that was) then death would never be master over him.

Romans 6:9 knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him.

As noted in a comment below by Nigel, "The death of Christ was a matter of humanity. Sin was eradicated in his death. But he, himself, did not die."

What? God didn't send His only son to die for our sins? It was just a charade!? Perfect example of making stuff up!

That is why we have many bibles inserting 'begotten' in John 3:16.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

This way they can have an 'eternal Son' who is not mentioned anywhere from Gen to Rev, AND a human son who could die and be tempted etc.

God has only one unique son and making him begotten when the text has none of it is a shifty process and has continued the deception begun after the Apostles.

Looking at the last verse of John 14

But that the world may know that I love the Father, and as the Father has commanded Me, thus I do.

We see that Jesus is certainly not 'equal', but God's servant - unto death.

So the OP's premise that - "the Word is Jesus by implication who is therefore God", is absurd and irrational - not to mention totally unbiblical. When we allow the text to interpret itself, and not imagine strange constructs, we get closer to the truth Jesus brought.

Steve
  • 1
  • 1
  • 15
  • 45
  • The death of Jesus of Nazareth was the death of his humanity. His Spirit (his divine spirit, the Son of God) went to the Father. Yes, it is incorrect to say 'Jesus' is 'the Logos in the beginning'. But it is not incorrect to say that the Son of God was in the beginning. – Nigel J Jul 07 '20 at 18:11
  • Jesus wasn't spirit until he was raised from the dead. That's why death was MASTER! If he failed in the FLESH he would stay dead. – Steve Jul 07 '20 at 21:47
  • 1
    When Jesus died he yielded up the spirit ('gave up the ghost'). Prior to death he therefore was spirit (manifest in flesh). – Nigel J Jul 08 '20 at 02:19
  • no spirit/God is mastered by death. For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit 1Pet 3:18 your construct doesn't fit with the broader text. – Steve Jul 08 '20 at 02:42
  • The death of Christ was a matter of humanity. Sin was eradicated in his death. But he, himself, did not die. In the beginning was the Word. And God was the word : and Word was with God. His spirit survived death, just as do the spirits of the sons of Adam. Only the fleshly humanity dies. – Nigel J Jul 08 '20 at 02:53
  • 1
    If Jesus was 'in the beginning' he didn't HAVE a spirit - He WAS spirit, therefore cannot die. John 3:16 seems a farce according to your ideas (Jesus didn't die!). All the texts about Jesus being a 'man' in NT are only half truth then? – Steve Jul 08 '20 at 03:04
  • The system is discouraging extended discussion in comment, so I shall leave it there. – Nigel J Jul 08 '20 at 07:01
  • 1
    @user48152 You said, "Jesus wasn't spirit until he was raised from the dead." Then explain 1 Corinthians 10:4. and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ. Psalm 78:15, Exodus 14:19, Exodus 17:6. The "Messiah/Christ" existed in the OT and He was not only physically present but He was spiritually present with the Israelites. He sustained them by manna from heaven and water from the rocks. Paul is saying it is necessary that the Christ be identified to relate the OT example to the New Testament Church. – Mr. Bond Jul 08 '20 at 13:33
  • @Mr.Bond The rock was a type of Christ who was to come as per numerous prophecies. Jesus never 'followed' anyone - except his Father and God - certainly not the Israelites! The 'following; refers to his coming in a future timeline. There is only one Messiah - Jesus the Christ which God made in the NT 2000 yrs ago. – Steve Jul 16 '20 at 10:38
  • #user48152 I suggest you read Exodus 13:21, Exodus 14:19 where the angel of the Lord was going before them/Israel by day and by night. The angel of the Lord is the preincarnate Jesus Christ. And what Scripture are you using to say Jesus Christ was made? – Mr. Bond Jul 16 '20 at 20:44
  • Jesus is NOT an angel nor ever was. Acts 2:36 know assuredly that God has made Him both Lord and Christ--this Jesus whom you crucified. – Steve Jul 16 '20 at 22:34