From Genesis to Proverbs to John (2)

Thank you Skip, I appreciate this. He was YAH’S perfect conduit as we are called to be and become. Keep going with this Skip. Shalom brother.

Not that it matters, but I wonder if Godnwould have preferred a woman as the Messiah.

The Lord brought me forth as the first of his works,[a][b]
before his deeds of old;
23 I was formed long ages ago,
at the very beginning, when the world came to be.

Proverbs 8:22 Or way; or dominion
Proverbs 8:22 Or The Lord possessed me at the beginning of his work; or The Lord brought me forth at the beginning of his work

This is the NIV.

I think Laurita could straighten us out. ? I hope she shows up soon!
I miss her!!

Sorry everybody, I am currently living in the woods and working on building a stone fireplace with my brother to make money. I will be back home after I pay the taxes on it (home). Love the woods, though!

This is a complicated subject because it involves the unknowable: i.e. the exact nature of God, Who is so dimensionally distant from us who live suspended somewhere (we think) between only the third and fourth dimensions. In fact, I want to say it can get to be a huge problem in a hurry – especially to people who are not well grounded in the Word, and even for them, I have seen the temptation to add to, or subtract to, that Word can beguile all of us. What I have noticed, to my sorrow, is that the Way was NOT designed for us to step off of it at all. Which is to say that it is very hard to see it if we get off of it. Caution! Not a person on this planet has the ability to put themselves back on that track by themselves again – without repentance and forgiveness (there’s your help), of course. This is a caution about chasing rabbits too far off paths laid out for us. Not that the rabbits are a problem: its keeping our reference to the path we were told to stay on, much less finding our way back to it if we get off of it… Ok, this disclaimer is a public service for Skip, who can use it if he wants to. Now on to the other stuff.

I read stuff like this (and my mind does this all the time, y’all – its so fun!) with a big shaker of salt. I love where Skip wants to take this: the comparisons of Wisdom and Woman are much overdue, for sure, but to just automatically take it straight on into the limiting of Yeshua Messiah as just a MERE representation of God’s character with the insinuation (I hope that Skip does NOT want to insinuate it) that we are somehow able to become Christ, too (I have noticed the New Age LOVES this concept: they refer to it as “Christ consciousness) I want to say, is very, very dangerous ground. We cannot become God. We cannot become even little gods, not even by copying Him to all eternity. No deity for us. We are created beings. Someone want to debate this one? If we are going there, I would like to get it out in the open up front, first. Let’s not step there by degrees, please.

Exhilarating TWs! Challenges our paradigm.
“and-God-was-the-word”- without a doubt, as His words proceeded from His mouth.

The word (דָּבָר) as spoken by YHWH is already a well developed concept in the Hebrew Bible, as in
Psalms 33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made;
ו בִּדְבַר יהוה שָׁמַיִם נַעֲשׂוּ

for the law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. Isaiah 2:3; Micah 4:2
כִּי מִצִּיּוֹן תֵּצֵא תוֹרָה וּדְבַר־יהוה מִירוּשָׁלִָם׃

To reject the word of the LORD (דְּבַר־יהוה) is to reject wisdom (חָכְמָה), as in Jeremiah 8;

And just as creation was by the word of יהוה so also it came by God’s wisdom (Psalms 104);

John is speaking of יהוה ‘s Word as a judge over our lives.
Is not this what he has Yeshua say in John 12? 48 –
He that rejects me, and receives not my words, has one that judges him: the word that I have spoken the same shall judge him in the last day.
Yeshua always spoke as he hears, from his Father. Therefore we will be judged by our Fathers words.

Changing “Him/He” to it, brings forth a totally different perspectivet!
“And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.”

6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light,
that all men through [it] might believe.
8 He [John] was not that Light,
but was sent to bear witness of that Light
9 [It – ὁ λόγος] was the true Light, that lights every man that cometh into the world.
10 [It] was in the world, and the world was made by [it], and the world knew [it] not.
11 [It] came unto [its] own, and [its] own received [it] not
12 But as many as received [it], to them gave [it] power to become the sons of God,
even to them that believe on His [God’s] name:
13 Which … not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God [were born].

Here one is reminded of 1John 4:14, “And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the saviour of the world.” God also sent Moses (Exodus 3)

The Torah or Word of God didn’t come through the Messiah—it came through Moses.

The grace and truth that would come through Jesus (John 1:17) is the mercy and truth [חֶסֶד וֶאֱמֶת] that are attributes of the Great King (Psalms 89):

טו צֶדֶק וּמִשְׁפָּט מְכוֹן כִּסְאֶ חֶסֶד וֶאֱמֶת יְקַדְּמוּ פָנֶי
14 Justice and judgment are the habitation of thy throne: mercy and truth shall go before Thy face.

It is the primary theme in the book of John—that Yeshua comes to personify the word of God—the Torah—as it says (John 1:14), “And the word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.” Yeshua embodies the word of God and as our teacher we are to figuratively eat him.
There is the imagery in Scripture of eating the word, as in Jeremiah 15:
16 Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart:
for I am called by thy name, O LORD God of hosts.

And there is the imagery of eating a book, as in Revelation 19:

9 And I went unto the angel, and said unto him, Give me the little book. And he said unto me, Take it, and eat it up; and it shall make thy belly bitter, but it shall be in thy mouth sweet as honey. 10 And I took the little book out of the angel’s hand, and ate it up; and it was in my mouth sweet as honey: and as soon as I had eaten it, my belly was bitter.
John constantly emphasizes the Torah, the Word of God that is personified in the person of the messiah. And isn’t that what messiah—מָשִׁיחַ/Χριστός ‘anointed’—implies? Anointed with the word—the Torah—of God!
(to be cont’d)………

I should preface this comment thusly: I definitely agree that one should not impose preconceptions on the text. Let the text speak for itself! Having said that, I have a few observations. Quoting Buzzard, you wrote, specifically regarding the final clause of John 1:1: “. . . in Greek, ‘God’ (theos) without the article really means ‘having the quality of God’ . . .” The Gospel writer simply could have used the adjectival form (theios = “divine”), if that was strictly what he meant. Moreover, please note that the article is lacking before ‘God’ in v. 6 and vv. 12 & 13. Clearly those verses, in their relative contexts, do not merely connote qualitativeness at the expense of definiteness. There must be something else at play here.

There’s a new book by Ronald D. Peters, The Greek Article, which thesis is that there are many different functions of the article, some of which had been previously unrecognized. One is a discourse function, in which the article serves to ‘foreground’ the noun, with the conspicuous lack of an article serving to ‘background’ the noun. Applying this to verses 6-7, we find that ‘the light’ is prefaced with the article (v. 7), though neither ‘John’ nor ‘God’ are (v. 6). According to my understanding of Peters, this means ‘the light’ is the focal point here. This makes sense in that ‘the word’ is coextensive with ‘the light’, and this entity is the main subject throughout the prologue (1:1-18).

Similarly, note that in v. 12 both ‘those believing’ and ‘in his name’ are arthrous, which would mean that these are the focal points of 12 & 13, as I understand Peters. Hence, ‘God’ is anarthrous (twice) here because it is not the focal point in this particular context. The same would apply to verse 6.

Applying this to 1:1, I think: ‘logos’ being articular in all three clauses denotes its foregrounding in all three; and, the presence of the article in front of ‘God’ in the second clause means that both ‘logos’ and ‘God’ are foregrounded. This seems to make sense in that the author’s point is to show relationship/association between the two. The lack of an article prefacing ‘God’ in the final clause is not so much to make it qualitative, but to background it to ‘logos’ (like ‘beginning’ lacks the article in the 1st clause?).

But, there seems to be another reason why ‘God’ in this 3rd clause lacks the article. Since ‘the word’ was ‘with [the] God’ in the previous verse, stating ‘[the] God was the Word’ in the next would seem to connote a one-to-one correspondence between the two, which makes nonsense of this clause when read after the second. ‘The word’ can’t be ‘with the God’ (v. 2) and, at the same time, be coextensive with ‘the God’ (v. 3)! In other words, one cannot read the anarthrous ‘God’ as the subject nominative (as if it were the same entity as ‘the God’ in the 2nd clause) in the 3rd clause, as that would make nonsense when conjoined with the 2nd clause; and, (rightly) making ‘the word’ the subject nominative of the 3rd clause requires that ‘God’ be anarthrous for the same reason.

I should preface this comment thusly: I definitely agree that one should not impose preconceptions on the text. Let the text speak for itself! Having said that, I have a few observations. Quoting Buzzard, you wrote, specifically regarding the final clause of John 1:1: “. . . in Greek, ‘God’ (theos) without the article really means ‘having the quality of God.’” This is not untrue, however, the Gospel writer simply could have used the adjectival form (theios = “divine”), if that was strictly what he meant. Moreover, please note that the article is lacking before ‘God’ in v. 6 and vv. 12 & 13. Clearly those verses, in their relative contexts, do not merely connote qualitativeness at the expense of definiteness. There must be something else at play here.

There’s a new book by Ronald D. Peters, The Greek Article, which thesis is that there are many different functions of the article, some of which had been previously unrecognized. One is a discourse function, in which the article serves to ‘foreground’ the noun, with the conspicuous lack of an article serving to ‘background’ the noun. Applying this to verses 6-7, we find that ‘the light’ is prefaced with the article (v. 7), though neither ‘John’ nor ‘God’ are (v. 6). According to my understanding of Peters, this means ‘the light’ is the focal point here. This makes sense in that ‘the word’ is coextensive with ‘the light’, and this entity is the main subject throughout the prologue (1:1-18).

Similarly, note that in v. 12 both ‘those believing’ and ‘in his name’ are arthrous (without the article), which would mean that these are the focal points of 12 & 13, as I understand Peters. Hence, ‘God’ is anarthrous (twice) here because it is not the focal point in this particular context. The same would apply to verse 6.

Applying this to 1:1, I think: ‘logos’ being articular (with the article) in all three clauses denotes its foregrounding in all three; and, the presence of the article in front of ‘God’ in the second clause means that both ‘logos’ and ‘God’ are foregrounded. This seems to make sense in that the author’s point is to show relationship/association between the two. The lack of an article prefacing ‘God’ in the final clause is not so much to make it strictly qualitative, but to background it to ‘logos’ (like ‘beginning’ lacks the article in the 1st clause?).

But, there seems to be another reason why ‘God’ in this 3rd clause lacks the article. Since ‘the word’ was ‘with [the] God’ in the previous verse, stating ‘[the] God was the Word’ in the next would seem to connote a one-to-one correspondence between the two, which makes nonsense of this clause when read after the second. ‘The word’ can’t be ‘with the God’ (clause 2) and, at the same time, be coextensive with ‘the God’ (clause 3)! In other words, one cannot read the anarthrous ‘God’ as the subject nominative (as if it were the same entity as ‘the God’ in the 2nd clause) in the 3rd clause, as that would make nonsense when conjoined with the 2nd clause; and, (rightly) making ‘the word’ the subject nominative of the 3rd clause requires that ‘God’ be anarthrous for the same reason.

Well said Craig.
I will paraphrase my modern understanding:

In the beginning we start out focussing on biblical records.
The more we do this the closer we get to really understanding God’s will.
When we truly understand God’s will we will start revealing it in our lives.

When we do this we are reborn through water and spirit. Because of this we will be guided by God’s truth and be His sons and daughters…

I have to admit to some initial cognitive dissonance on this! Especially since I’d just noted three NT references to this term. But, before I buy any book I like to look at Amazon (and sometimes other sites) to see the reviews there. Here is one (by William B. Newkirk) that is pertinent (https://www.amazon.com/Copernicus-Jews-Separation-Church-Faith/product-reviews/0966925351/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_hist_2?ie=UTF8&filterByStar=two_star):

I agree with 80% of the book and disagree with 20%. Now that might seem like a 4 star review, but would you eat food that had 20% extraneous material? As many have pointed out, the scholarship in much of it is well done. However here is an example of my conundrum: Though he did thorough research (even to the point of overkill) as to the different meanings of the word translated, “Jew”, he did very little research as to the word translated, “Gentile”. He made the same mistake on that word that he criticizes the rest of the world for in the word, “Jew”. The word translated “Gentile” often does not mean non-Jewish people (in fact ethnos is at times used for Jewish people). For those of you who want to research more, just do a simple search on the Greek word, ethnos and it will become clear. Another example is his criticism of the term, “Christian”. Again, he refers to sketchy evidence of a strange term, “Chrestian”, and then tries to make a case for that. He states that the term, “Christian”, is never used by the early disciples to refer to themselves. However, he ignores the context of the introduction of the word in the book of Acts. Written by the Gentile, Luke, at the time of Paul’s house arrest in Rome, it is obvious that Luke is explaining to Theophilus how certain things came to pass. When he talks about the believers first being called Christians, it is during the unique point of history where Jewish believers were fellowshipping with Gentile believers – a brand new, unheard-of experience. Luke is not writing to someone outside of the faith, but to someone who was interested in the history of how things came to be, including a term that had come to be used for the believers, both outside and inside the faith. I wish the author did not have such a strong Judaizing agenda, because many of the points he makes have validity, but there is selectivity used to bolster his view. I did not get the impression that the first intent was to seek the truth (even though he tries to give that impression).

Since I had quoted Josephus in something I’d written years ago, I had the following quote ready-made:

Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works – a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews [Ιουδαίους, Ioudaious (genitive of Ioudaios)], and many of the Gentiles [Ἑλληνικοῦ, Ellēnikou (genitive of Ellēnikos ]. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians [Christianōn (genitive of Christianos)], so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
– Josephus, Flavius, “The Antiquities of the Jews”, transl. W. Whitson, The Works of Josephus Complete and Unabridged: New Updated Edition. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2009), bk. 18, 63-64.

It would seem to me that if the Jewish historian Josephus used Christianos that the term must not have had any sort of stigma attached to it(?). Also, in checking further, I note that Josephus used Christos (Christ) in reference to the Messiah twice (18, 163; 20, 200) and once as “anointed” in reference to Solomon’s palace (8, 137).

Craig and Skip
Thank you, a lot of bread (Word of God) to chew on…
I trust the water (Wisdom) will come before I chock on this information…

Craig on your linked comment you say it can also be rendered “Dwells all the Deity’s fullness bodily…”
This brought two specific scriptural references to mind…
Ezekiel 43:7
Isaiah 45:14-15
Would these not be the answer to the word taking on flesh and instead of a trinity god one God as in Ephesians 4:4-6 which is being manifested in His everlasting abode – in His creation…
Lot of room to practice exegesis’s here…
Last but not the least I acknowledge two worthy scholars today: Craig and Skip well done, you both are worthy crusaders and not just sojourners as most of us…