Was the “Word” a Person?

Question: Isn’t it true that the “Word” of John 1 was God’s creative purpose, or plan, and that it was this plan, not a preexistent person, that took flesh?

Reply: Unitarians, especially those of the Socinian school of thought, often interpret John 1:1‒14 this way. They rightly point out that, in Scripture, God’s word is the expression of His will, that it flows from His wisdom and encompasses His plan, purpose, and creative power, and that it is often personified as God’s agent in the world. They also rightly emphasize the Hebrew thought underlying John’s prologue.

In the Hebrew Scriptures, God’s word is sent forth from God to heal, deliver, create, and accomplish God’s purpose (Psalm 33:6; 107:20; 147:15; Isaiah 55:11). In the apocryphal book, Wisdom of Solomon, the word is identified with the angel of death who struck the firstborn of Egypt. God’s “all-powerful word leaped from heaven, from the royal throne, into the midst of the land that was doomed, a stern warrior carrying the sharp sword of your authentic command, and stood and filled all things with death, and touched heaven while standing on the earth” (Wisdom 18:15‒16, NRSV).

Similarly, wisdom is presented as God’s companion and creative agent. “I was appointed from eternity,” says Wisdom, “from the beginning, before the world began” (Proverbs 8:23, NIV). Wisdom was at God’s side when He established the foundations of the earth, set the boundaries of the sea, and arranged the heavens. “Then I was a craftsman at his side. I was filled with delight day after day, rejoicing always in his presence” (verses 27‒30).

John’s prologue echoes these personifications of God’s word and wisdom. From this, some have concluded that the Word of John 1 is simply a personification of the divine plan (which encompassed God’s wisdom and creative purpose) that was with God before the creation of the universe and took form (was “made flesh”) in the miraculous conception, birth, life, and ministry of Jesus Christ.

The Socinians are right in pointing out that John drew from the word/wisdom imagery supplied by Hebrew wisdom literature. But I believe they fall short at precisely the point at which John departs from the word/wisdom imagery. That point is John 1:1c: “…and the Word was God.” In the Hebrew wisdom literature, the word was with God before the world was made and served as God’s agent in creating and in carrying out the divine purpose, but nowhere is the word (or wisdom) identified as God!

John’s declaration, “the Word was God,” does not allow the conclusion that the Word of John 1 is simply the personification of God’s plan. Even if we suppose that the Word was “God in action,” we still cannot justify saying that the Word was other than God. John has defined “the Word” for us. Regardless the degree to which he draws upon Hebrew personifications, he tells us plainly that “the Word was God.”

Until we accept John’s own definition of “the Word,” we will not be able to recognize the profundity of verse 14. It reads, “And the Word became 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” (NKJV). This does not mean that God’s preexistent plan finally materialized. It means that God became a man!

Verse 14 serves as the foundation for the rich Christology that follows—from the many statements on Christ’s preexistence and participation in the Father’s glory to the “I Am” passages to Thomas’ affirmation, “My Lord and my God!”

New Testament scholar Raymond E. Brown said, “If Jesus is not ‘true God of true God,’ then we do not know God in human terms. Even if Jesus were the most perfect creature far above all others, he could tell us only at second hand about a God who really remains almost as distant as the Unmoved Mover of Aristotle” (An Introduction to New Testament Christology, Paulist Press, p. 150). But in Jesus we see more than an agent, for in Him we discover that God has come to us as one of us! Now we can relate to our Creator in a way that was not possible before.

How Does Jesus Fulfill the Law?

Question: What did Jesus mean when He said that He had not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets but to fulfill them? Are all the Old Testament laws still in force?

Reply: Jesus’ teaching on this subject is found in Matthew 5:17–20:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”

Jesus did not say that all the commandments, statutes, and judgments of the Mosaic Law would remain in force “until all is accomplished.” Rather, He said that not a dot or an iota would pass from “the Law”—the Torah, or Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible)—until all is accomplished. This simply means that the Torah would remain an authoritative source of divine revelation “until heaven and earth pass away.”

The phrase “the Law and the Prophets” was a common Jewish expression meaning the Holy Scriptures. Jesus came to “fulfill” the Scriptures, not “abolish them.” One of Matthew’s major themes is to show how Jesus, as the prophesied Messiah, fulfilled the Scriptures. He presents Jesus as the Prophet like Moses, the new David, and the true Israel. He shows that even scriptural passages on Israel’s history point to Jesus. Several times, he cites an event in the life of Jesus and points out that the event fulfilled a particular prophecy of Scripture. Jesus, then, was speaking of the prophetic features of the Law and the Prophets—the Scriptures—when He declared that He came to “fulfill them.” The prophetic features include both direct predictions and types and shadows of the Messiah and His redemptive work.

Since Jesus fulfills the Scriptures, “these commandments”—all the commandments of Scripture, including civil and ceremonial laws, the Ten Commandments, laws concerning the tabernacle and priesthood, ritual purification, clean and unclean meats, circumcision, consecration of the firstborn, Sabbaths, festivals, and tithes—must now be understood in light of the life, works, teachings, and mission of Jesus (the “Christ event,” for short).

The book of Acts and New Testament epistles show how the Christ event affects the Mosaic Law. The New Testament reveals that Christ is the new High Priest (Hebrews 4:15), an office forbidden to Him under the Mosaic Law (7:14). His blood, not the blood of goats and bulls, is the blood of sanctification (9:12). Christ carries out His priestly ministry in the heavenly tabernacle (8:2), not an earthly holy place. The covenant He mediates is a New Covenant, vastly superior to the Mosaic Covenant with its types and shadows (8:6–12; 10:1). And His circumcision—the cutting of His flesh—enables the true worshiper to enter the Holy Place and approach the heavenly altar with confidence (Colossians 2:11; Hebrews 10:19–22).

The Christ event had a positive effect on the universal and permanent features of the Old Testament Law. As the “Prophet like Moses,” Jesus brought to light the original and true meaning and intent of God’s commandments while exposing the erroneous traditions the scribes and Pharisees had attached to them.

And now, with the full restoration of the universal moral law, and with the shadows of the Mosaic Covenant having been replaced by the realities to which they pointed, the High Priest of the heavenly sanctuary and Mediator of the new and superior Covenant calls for nothing less than radical holiness—righteousness that “exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees.”

Is Jesus “Lord” but Not “God”?

Question: Proponents of the “One God” teaching cite 1 Corinthians 8:6 as proof that the Father alone is God. Doesn’t this verse show that the Father is the one God, and that Christ is “Lord” but not God?

Response: The folks you refer to do call their view the “One God” teaching, but I believe this title is misleading, so I call it what it really is: Unitarianism, which is really nothing more than the revival of a seventeenth century heresy known as Socinianism, named for the Italian theologian Fausto Paolo Sozzini. All conservative Christians are Monotheists, which means they believe in one God. They believe there is more than one center of consciousness within the Deity, but they nevertheless believe in only one Deity. Giving Unitarianism the “One God” title subtly implies that Binitarians and Trinitarians believe in two or three Gods, which, of course, is not the case.

Paul says, “[F]or us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist” (1 Cor 8:6, RSV).

Indeed, this seems to be a powerful proof text for Unitarians. Modern-day Arians (such as Jehovah’s Witnesses) and Socinians (such as Christadelphians) cite this verse as proof that the Father (or Jehovah God) alone is God, and that Christ is Lord, a term used in reference to human overseers, masters, and rulers, but not a title connoting divinity.

The problem with this interpretation is that it does not give due consideration to the context. Here, both “God” and “Lord” are used as titles of divinity. Paul writes, “For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many ‘gods’ and many ‘lords’—yet for us there is one God, the Father…and one Lord, Jesus Christ” (vv. 5–6). The “gods” and “lords” Paul speaks of here are the deities—the “so-called gods”—of the pagan world. It follows, then, that “God” and “Lord,” titles referring to the Father and the Son, are titles of divinity.

Rather than supply evidence against the deity of Christ, this verse affirms it. It might be described as a Christological amplification of the famous Hebrew Shema: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord” (Deut 6:4).

Is Open Theism Unorthodox?

The following is considered an orthodox view of God:

God’s knowledge of the past, present, and future is exhaustive. He cannot learn anything because He knows everything, including all the future free choices and actions of every human being. He also knows all contingencies—the choices each of us would make under any set of conditions.

Had God made the world differently—let’s say, had He intervened and prevented the murder of Abel—the world would have been very different. Possibly, there would have been no Shem, no Noah, and no flood. Or, maybe there would have been a flood, but no Noah to find grace in the eyes of the Lord—so all mankind would have been destroyed. God knows all the minute details of all that would have happened had Abel not been killed.

God also has exhaustive knowledge of the world that would have been had He not permitted the “serpent” to enter the Garden of Eden; of the world that would have been had He not caused the great flood in the days of Noah; of the world that would have been had He not destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. The contingencies are virtually limitless, and God has exhaustive knowledge of them all.

Before the foundation of the world, God looked at the future and saw all who would be saved and all who would be lost. He knew what conditions would have resulted in the lost being finally saved and could have made a world wherein that would happen—but He chose to make this world instead. Thus, through the very act of making this world, God predestined some and reprobated others.

I don’t know about you, but I find this view disturbing. If God knew from all eternity precisely which of all the potential worlds He would make, then there is no denying that He predetermined who would be saved and who would be lost. If this is true, we are wrong if we think every human baby born into this world is a potential citizen of God’s everlasting family. The fate of each was not decided in time, but was eternally foreknown (and therefore predetermined).

Why is this disturbing? One reason is that it seems to describe a God different from the One “who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:4). If God predetermined from all eternity the precise identities of those who would be lost, how can He desire salvation for all men? In fact, how can a timeless God who infallibly knows (and, through the act of creating, predetermines) every minute detail of the future “desire” anything?

One way of dealing with the seeming contradiction is to consider it a paradox. The argument goes like this: 1) God knows all things, including who will be saved and who will be lost. 2) Every child born into this world is a potential member of God’s everlasting family. Both statements are true, though they are paradoxical to us because our finite minds cannot fully fathom the things of God.

Another way of solving the problem is to adopt a different view of the world. This is the solution proposed by “open theists,” who believe that the future is partly settled because God has predetermined certain outcomes, and partly open because God gave humans free will and does not have exhaustive knowledge of every future free choice. Open theists argue that if God has exhaustive knowledge of all things, including every future free choice, then the minute details of the future have been settled and freedom is an illusion. Theologians who oppose open theism believe they are defending the orthodox understanding of the nature of God. Their intentions are good, but I’m not sure they are giving open theists a fair hearing. It seems to me that most open theists, particularly those within conservative Evangelicalism, are not redefining the nature of God but are redefining the nature of the world God made. Surely all would agree that God is capable of making a world with a partly open and partly settled future. (Wouldn’t denying God’s ability to do this be a denial of His omnipotence?) The disagreement seems to be over whether God did create such a world.

Scores of scriptures speak of God waiting to see what happens, changing His mind, responding to prayers, and hoping for repentance and faith on the part of His people. These descriptions are generally considered anthropomorphisms, but taking them literally does not pose a challenge to the orthodox view of God’s omniscience, immutability, or sovereignty. God knows everything that can be known, including all possible outcomes. His holy nature remains unchanged even when His creatures disappoint Him. And nothing—not even the uncertainties of the future—can threaten His sovereign power.

So, should open theism be accepted within the broad sphere of orthodoxy? You decide.

Spiritual Stillborns?

Calvinist claim: Because of the fall of man, human beings come into this world as spiritual stillborns. They are dead, spiritually dead! Just as a physical corpse is incapable of doing anything, a spiritual corpse is totally incapable of doing anything to please God. Being dead, he is incapable of expressing genuine repentance or exercising true faith. Before he can come to a faith unto salvation, he must first be vivified—made alive—by the operation of the Holy Spirit. This is what the apostle Paul says in Ephesians 2:1,5: “And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins…. [W]hen we were dead in trespasses, [He] made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved).”

Reply: First, the expression “dead in trespasses” appears to be one of several biblical metaphors for the sinful condition that, if not changed, will result in eternal death. Christians were once “dead in trespasses and sins” but have been “made alive” with Christ. Or, to use a different set of metaphors, Christians were once “slaves to sin” but have been “set free” to “become slaves of God” (Romans 6:22; cf., John 8:31–36). Jesus equated “sinners” with “those who are sick” (Mark 2:17) We were sick but made well, slaves but set free, dead but made alive. All these biblical metaphors are useful—unless we fail to recognize them as metaphors.

Second, we “die” when we begin sinning. Paul affirms, “I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died” (Romans 7:9). This shows that “death” occurs after we acquire the ability to recognize right from wrong, and then choose to do what is wrong. As James says, “But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death” (James 1:14–15). Death does not bring forth sin; sin brings forth death.

Third, repentance and faith are the conditions for, not the result of, regeneration (vivification, or being “made alive”). Upon hearing Peter’s message, many were “cut to the heart” and wanted to know what they should do. Peter said, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). Faith and repentance preceded regeneration. The same sequence is seen in the conversion of the Samaritans (Acts 8:14ff), of Saul (Acts 9:17ff), of Cornelius and his household (Acts 10:44ff; 11:14ff; cf., Acts 15:7–8), and of the Philippian jailer (Acts 16:30–31).

Regeneration—the raising to life in Christ—does not precede faith and repentance. Scripture presents just the opposite: faith and repentance, then regeneration. But that’s not to say that the Holy Spirit does not act on a person before that person turns to God in faith (see John 16:5–15). This pre-regeneration work of the Spirit is called “prevenient grace,” or preceding grace, which is the enabling (not coercing) grace that precedes faith and repentance and accompanies the preaching of the gospel.

Can Grace Fail?

A Calvinist View: Those who teach that a true Christian can fall away and be eternally lost believe in a grace that can fail. Jesus said plainly, “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out…. This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day…. No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day” (John 6:37,39,44). These verses tell us that the only ones who can come to Christ and be saved are those drawn of the Father, and that the ones the Father draws and gives to Christ can never be lost.

Reply: If I’m pulled to the safety of a boat after several days of bobbing helplessly in shark-infested waters, but later decide to jump back into the sea and go it alone, only to starve and dehydrate and finally be eaten by sharks, no one would think that the boat from which I leapt “failed.” It was a perfectly good boat and would have taken me safely to land had I not chosen to jump back into the water and take my chances. Similarly, a person who chooses to leap from the safety of grace and plunge back into the sea of sin can never rightly claim that grace failed to do what it is supposed to do. The failure here is with the one who took the plunge, not with the grace that would have taken him safely home.

Does this contradict what Jesus said in the verses quoted above? Not at all! The person the Father draws and gives to Christ is the one “who has heard and learned from the Father” (John 6:45). The Father doesn’t draw anyone who refuses to hear the truth proclaimed by Christ. Jesus said, “My doctrine is not Mine, but His who sent Me. If anyone wills to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God or whether I speak on My own authority” (John 7:16–17). Simply stated, the Father draws and gives to Christ only those who choose to do His will and thereby recognize the Source of Christ’s teaching.

Jesus promises that He will “by no means cast out” anyone the Father gives to Him. He says, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger; and he who believes in Me shall never thirst” (John 6:35). These are assuring words indeed! Of course, implicit in this saying is the condition of continuing in belief. Christ will never “cast out” or “lose” those who continue faithfully following Him.

Did Christianity Copy Mithraism?

The similarities between Christianity and Mithraism are striking. Like Christ, Mithra was born of a virgin on December 25, had twelve disciples, was a teacher of righteousness, performed miracles, was killed and resurrected, had a last supper, established a Eucharistic meal of bread and wine, and was known as the Light of the World and Mediator between heaven and earth. Since Mithraism preceded Christianity by some 200 years, is it not obvious that the latter copied the former? In other words, isn’t it obvious that the Gospel narratives were drawn from pagan sources?

Reply: First, similarities between two belief systems do not necessarily mean that one copied the other or that the two have a common origin. The gods and goddesses of ancient pagan cultures were often personifications of the phenomena of nature—thunder, lightening, rain, hail, wind, daily and seasonal cycles, and so on. The coldness and death associated with winter followed by warmth and the return of life in the spring could have easily given rise to myths about gods and goddesses going away or dying only to return to life again through some form of manifestation or reincarnation. So we should not be surprised to find similarities between belief systems that arose independent of each other.

Second, the writers of the New Testament were, for the most part, observant Jews. They were so radically opposed to paganism that it is not conceivable that they would have borrowed from pagan myths in telling the story of Jesus. In fact, the Jewish disciples of Jesus had no need to borrow anything from paganism; all the main features of Christ’s life and ministry were right there in the ancient Scriptures that were read in the synagogues every Sabbath day. The book of Isaiah, for instance, speaks of the virgin birth (7:14) as well as the death and resurrection of Christ and His work of atonement (53:3-11), and describes Him as a great king, the “Mighty God” (9:6-7), and righteous judge (11:1-5). So all the descriptions supposedly given to Mithra were already in the messianic prophecies of the Hebrew Scriptures.

Third, it is most probable that the Mithraism of the second and third centuries, A.D., copied Christianity, not the other way around. There is no evidence that the earlier forms of Mithraism taught that Mithra was born of a virgin (he was apparently born of a rock), was considered mediator between God and mankind (he was apparently mediator between light and darkness), or was a historical person. Instead, he was a personification of light (not the Light of the World), and was created before the world was made. He did not offer himself for the sins of the world; rather, he killed a bull (after doing battle with the sun) to save mankind. There appear to be few similarities between Christ and the early Mithra.

Given the fact that Mithraism (unlike Christianity) was not exclusivistic, but openly accepted other gods and beliefs into its system, it is most likely that the Roman Mithraism to which Christianity is most often compared drew many of its beliefs from Christianity, giving its Mithra titles and attributes that rightfully belong to Christ.