Trinitarian Training


Why is Jesus called the Word?​



Leave a Comment
Table of Contents
. . .

In conclusion, the title of Jesus as “the Word” encompasses themes of creation, revelation, incarnation, and redemption. Through the Word, God communicates His divine will and purpose to humanity, ultimately culminating in the person of Christ—the Word made flesh. As believers contemplate the significance of Christ as the Word, they are invited into a deeper understanding of God’s self-disclosure and a transformative relationship with the Godhead.
I include the post on the Word just to keep the context in view.

The TDNT on logos and related words is 46 pages when copied to the wordprocessor -- just to show how extensive the concept is. But I got some ideas skimming over that and your post. It made me realize a some new interesting points.

First, an old thing was realizing that John is answering who the Word is in response to Philo's writing on the topic. John also appeals to the Greek interest in logos.

I generally have seen Jesus in the logos sense as being the message of God to humanity. He became flesh to be the message as the way that humanity would know for sure what God is doing. We similarly see in the Free in Christ's post that the Word of God came to the prophets. Jesus is shown to be the bridge between the unseen God and the God that is heard. In this fashion Jesus is not as the prophet but is the one who informs the prophet -- not to neglect that Jesus is the Prophet like unto Moses.

I will take a momentary liberty to say the logos in John 1 is not the name of the divine Son who became incarnate -- while keeping a finger on Rev 19:13 that shows him as that Word. This is a placeholder concept probably to identify the second person of the Trinity without having an identifiable name -- perhaps that the Son is a later designation or revelation. Also, the use of logos at creation can be anachronistic, since there was no one in creation to hear the message. On the other hand, the universe was created by the logos. So there is a tie in with Heb 11:3 regarding the "word of God." In a fashion then, it can be acceptable to recognize the logos in John 1 as the message or equivalent to the spoken word but only inasmuch as that is an identifier of the unnamed Son of God who then is incarnate among humanity.

In all this, Jesus is the Word behind creation and then is the message giver to the prophets of old. He became incarnate. He died bodily at the cross and was resurrected while continuing to be divine and body and flesh. Though, I'm not sure how that last point works since we do not see him physically among us. (I might have to think on that some more.)
 
Last edited:
Jesus and the Word of God are two seperate things:

Revelation 20
4Then I saw the thrones, and those seated on them had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or hands. And they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.
I mean really???
You will use Rev 20:4 to deny Rev 19:13 as specifically showing Jesus is the Word of God?
Revelation 19:13 (NASB95)
13He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God.
 
@civic

The Purpose of Marriage
Man is created in the image of God, the imago Dei as the early church fathers would have called it. Yet this imago Dei is incomplete in Adam alone. God is both diverse and unified—think of the Trinity. (I would be remiss if I did not link you to a discussion about Christ here. I deal with this connection in “The Godhead” in chapter 7.) But there is no diversity within Adam just yet. This leads God to say something shocking. After a litany of “it was good” in chapter 1 (vv. 5, 10, 12, 18, 21, and 25), God comes to man’s status in Genesis 2:18 and says, “It is not good that the man should be alone” (emphasis mine).

. . .


Steven J. Halbert, The Relational God: What the Scriptural Commands for Children, Marriages, Siblings, and Parents Teach Us about God
Can you figure out a way to remove the line drawn across the text? The edit button at the top left of the panel lets you erase the formatting. Also, I find that posts that are too long will often be skipped. Just keep that in mind.
 
Can you figure out a way to remove the line drawn across the text? The edit button at the top left of the panel lets you erase the formatting. Also, I find that posts that are too long will often be skipped. Just keep that in mind.
Your right. It was just for Civic and his men's group study. I'll try one more time and I'll never do a long post again
 
Last edited:
Your right. It was just for Civic and his men's group study.
I see. I sort of noticed that but did not pay much attention to the mention of civic. So that is different. But you still can remove the line going across the text --within an hour of the original posting. It could have been in a separate thread too -- just to be a bit cleaner. But people can get around the post if they are not interested.

Oops. The original post disappeared and now is shown after my post. Hope the best!
 
@civic

The Purpose of Marriage
Man is created in the image of God, the imago Dei as the early church fathers would have called it. Yet this imago Dei is incomplete in Adam alone. God is both diverse and unified—think of the Trinity. (I would be remiss if I did not link you to a discussion about Christ here. I deal with this connection in “The Godhead” in chapter 7.) But there is no diversity within Adam just yet. This leads God to say something shocking. After a litany of “it was good” in chapter 1 (vv. 5, 10, 12, 18, 21, and 25), God comes to man’s status in Genesis 2:18 and says, “It is not good that the man should be alone” (emphasis mine).

Everything up to this point in the narrative has been categorized as “good.” And here is the first “not good” that we come to. Thus, the idea of “alone” must be more significant than we often make it, for Adam was not alone. Adam had all of the animals, and presumably, since Eve is not surprised by the serpent’s ability to speak to her later in the narrative, some of these animals could speak and reason! Yet Adam is still categorized as being “alone.” God’s prescription for that is that he needed a “helper fit for him” (Genesis 2:18); therefore, the creation of Eve and the immediate purpose of marriage was to combat this “aloneness.” To provide companionship.

Adam was created in the image of God; yet he was without diversity and companionship. Since there was no other creature that bore the image of God, there was no other creature that could complete Adam. Because of this aloneness, Adam could not fully reflect the image of God, and it is not until after the creation of Eve, that creation itself is labeled “very good” (Genesis 1:31). It is not until after the creation of Eve that the diversity and companionship found in the Trinity can be fully reflected in the imago Dei of humankind. This is also why any worship or overemphasis of either sex is wrong, because the sexes are only truly complete when they operate as a single unit together in marriage

Thus, the immediate purpose of marriage is to reflect the image of God through companionship. This reflection of the image of God will culminate, however, with the picture of Christ and the Church. This metaphor is now partially realized, but will be fully realized at the end of time. But more on that in chapter 7.

The Tasks of Marriage
So we come to the next piece of the puzzle. Adam was not just alone. He also needed help. The text says, “I will make a helper fit for him” (Genesis 2:18, emphasis mine). So what was it he needed help with? He only had two jobs that we know about. He was to have “dominion” over creation (1:26)—naming the animals would fall under this—and he was to work and keep the Garden of Eden (2:15). And even in his perfected state, he still needed help with these things! After God creates Eve, the directive shifts. Adam and Eve are to “be fruitful,” “multiply,” “fill the earth,” and “subdue it” (1:28). These directives imply the dominion that existed in the previous directives, but this time with the ability to succeed.

What do I mean by this?
At the advent of woman, the previous tasks are presented in a greater fullness. There is something softer and yet more driven in the commands after Eve.
“Working and keeping the garden” turns into “be fruitful” and “fill the earth.” Likewise, “dominion” turns into the gentler “subdue” alongside the “dominion.” These new tasks invite Adam and Eve to reflect God’s creative nature, as well as his ruling nature. Adam and Eve are told to create and to rule, and they need each other to do this well. Let me elaborate.
Prior to Eve, Adam was just to “work and keep” the Garden. You can “work and keep” something without any result. The addition of “be fruitful” and “fill the earth” is a fuller, more successful version of “working and keeping.” You are working and keeping with a purpose. The purpose of “being fruitful” and “filling the earth.”

Prior to Eve, Adam was to exercise “dominion” over creation. The exercising of dominion can often lead to a heavy-handed dictatorship. “Subduing” is a gentler, more successful form of “dominion.”
Indeed, these are the very things that are corrupted in the curse after the fall. Working and keeping becomes a struggle, and Eve will always be after Adam’s leadership (“dominion”) position (but more about that in chapter 6).
Ultimately, marriage is about companionship with a purpose. It is companionship that reflects the image of God (the imago Dei) through creating and ruling. This can only be fully realized (complete) in the two sexes that were formed uniquely apart from the rest of creation and complement each other in order to create a holistic unit.

The Unity of Marriage
The purpose and tasks of marriage, however, can only be accomplished through the unity of marriage. The last two verses of chapter 2 end with nakedness and the admonition to leave and cleave. Both are indicative of unity. Because of what the creation of woman represented—an equal partner who complements Adam by being both of the same stuff and uniquely separate—the writer of Genesis says that “therefore” (ESV) or “for this reason” (NASB) a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife.

For what reason?
To form a single unit that accomplishes companionship and completion.
Yet the tendency is to look outside of this relationship for companionship and completion.
One of the stronger bonds that we form is with our parents, because they spend so long with us and they have shaped so much of our lives. And so the tendency is to let them have undue influence in our marriages. The spousal relationship allows for a fresh start, a blank slate. This was so important to a successful marriage that God was careful to tell the man to “leave his father and mother” (Genesis 2:24) before there were even fathers and mothers on the scene.
We must leave our parents in every way. We must not allow them to have undue influence over us physically, socially, emotionally, financially, or psychologically; however, this does not mean that we are to be cold and distant. No, we still have the scriptural imperative to honor our father and mother.

But we need to care for our spouse more.
There are a lot of negative influence that our parents can bring into our marriages—without any sort of malicious intent—so we must learn to let our parents go. And it is the man’s responsibility to lead in that arena, as we shall see in chapter 6.

Conclusion
In chapter 3 of Genesis, the serpent convinces Eve to disobey God and eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Adam then eats the fruit from the tree as well. They both sinned. They both disobeyed. It is here that we see a very significant shift in their relationship with God. When they hear the Lord, they hide. Adam tells Him, “I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself” (v. 10).

As one unit who sinned together, they were not ashamed of their nakedness with one another. Yet their nakedness before God had been marred. Nakedness is a symbol. Tim Keller, in his sermon series on marriage, indicates that before we can ever be naked with each other physically, we must be able to be naked with each other socially and emotionally, and this can only happen within a covenant relationship, where we know that the other is completely committed, warts and all.[18]
But before we are ever going to be comfortable being exposed to one another, we must be comfortable being naked before God. Think about it. As soon as God begins to “undress” Adam and Eve concerning their sin, they begin to sacrifice each other instead of sacrificing for each other.

The knowledge that each has of the other becomes a weapon.
And their sin is not without consequence. It introduces disunity. Ultimately, it is our disunity with God that creates disunity and discord with one another. Cain, one of Adam and Eve’s children, experiences disunity with God, and that leads him to kill his brother Abel. The disunity that is a result of the curse that Adam and Eve experience due to their sin is passed along to all of humanity through their children.


Steven J. Halbert, The Relational God: What the Scriptural Commands for Children, Marriages, Siblings, and Parents Teach Us about God
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Scriptures says that the oneness Jesus has with God is identical to what believers have with God and share with each other.

John 17
21that all of them may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I am in You. May they also be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me.
22I have given them the glory You gave Me, so that they may be one as We are one— 23I in them and You in Me—that they may be perfectly united, so that the world may know that You sent Me and have loved them just as You have loved Me.

1 Corinthians 6
17But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with Him in spirit.
We are family.
 
I include the post on the Word just to keep the context in view.

The TDNT on logos and related words is 46 pages when copied to the wordprocessor -- just to show how extensive the concept is. But I got some ideas skimming over that and your post. It made me realize a some new interesting points.

First, an old thing was realizing that John is answering who the Word is in response to Philo's writing on the topic. John also appeals to the Greek interest in logos.

I generally have seen Jesus in the logos sense as being the message of God to humanity. He became flesh to be the message as the way that humanity would know for sure what God is doing. We similarly see in the Free in Christ's post that the Word of God came to the prophets. Jesus is shown to be the bridge between the unseen God and the God that is heard. In this fashion Jesus is not as the prophet but is the one who informs the prophet -- not to neglect that Jesus is the Prophet like unto Moses.

I will take a momentary liberty to say the logos in John 1 is not the name of the divine Son who became incarnate -- while keeping a finger on Rev 19:13 that shows him as that Word. This is a placeholder concept probably to identify the second person of the Trinity without having an identifiable name -- perhaps that the Son is a later designation or revelation.
I read John 1 differently then what this would suggest.

14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

I do not see this as "the Son is a later designation or revelation."

Also, the use of logos at creation can be anachronistic, since there was no one in creation to hear the message. On the other hand, the universe was created by the logos. So there is a tie in with Heb 11:3 regarding the "word of God." In a fashion then, it can be acceptable to recognize the logos in John 1 as the message or equivalent to the spoken word but only inasmuch as that is an identifier of the unnamed Son of God who then is incarnate among humanity.

In all this, Jesus is the Word behind creation and then is the message giver to the prophets of old. He became incarnate. He died bodily at the cross and was resurrected while continuing to be divine and body and flesh. Though, I'm not sure how that last point works since we do not see him physically among us. (I might have to think on that some more.)
 
Quite a faulty understanding of Rev 20:4.

No matter... now YOU are calling Jesus a thing.

For shame.

Have you removed John 1 from your bible? How can you allow such a thing ruin the rest of it?

Double For shame.

You have proof that John 1:14 from the NWT

So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father; and he was full of divine favor and truth.

Or at the very least type up your proof and place it at John 1 so anyone reading
will know John lied.
Jesus is a person, the Word is a thing, generally speaking. See John 1:1-14, 1John 1:1-3, etc.

So can you actually show where Jesus is directly call the Word?
 
I mean really???
You will use Rev 20:4 to deny Rev 19:13 as specifically showing Jesus is the Word of God?
Revelation 19:13 (NASB95)
13He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God.
Even Revelation 19:13 doesn't say the rider on the white horse is Jesus. Read more of the context...

The Lamb is on earth in Revelation 17:14-18

The rider on the white horse is in heaven in Revelation 19:11

Jesus and the rider on the white horse aren't even in the same place at the same time and Revelation 17:14-19:11 are completely chronological.
 
Even Revelation 19:13 doesn't say the rider on the white horse is Jesus. Read more of the context...

The Lamb is on earth in Revelation 17:14-18

The rider on the white horse is in heaven in Revelation 19:11

Jesus and the rider on the white horse aren't even in the same place at the same time and Revelation 17:14-19:11 are completely chronological.
Wow. you really twist things around severely. I get part of that error because of your eschatological view. But you end up making a pretzel out of prophecy. Any time we see the divinity of Christ expressed, you will say anything so you do not have to admit the divinity of Christ in the Godhead. So you will also have to examine your eschatological views and realize where you have gone wrong with those too.
 
Sure, you can say that, but oneness with God doesn't make someone God.
Take you pick.

Several cult leaders have claimed to be God, including Jim Jones, who claimed to be a manifestation of "Christ the Revolution" and Elijah the Prophet; Marshall Applewhite, who posted a message in 1995 stating, "I, Jesus—Son of God—acknowledge..."; Wayne Bent, who claimed that God told him in 2000, "You are Messiah"; and Amy Carlson, who was known by her followers as "Mother God" and believed she was a 19-billion-year-old being and a reincarnation of Jesus Christ.
 
Wow. you really twist things around severely. I get part of that error because of your eschatological view. But you end up making a pretzel out of prophecy. Any time we see the divinity of Christ expressed, you will say anything so you do not have to admit the divinity of Christ in the Godhead. So you will also have to examine your eschatological views and realize where you have gone wrong with those too.
I'm glad I'm not the only one that see's it.
 
Wow. you really twist things around severely. I get part of that error because of your eschatological view. But you end up making a pretzel out of prophecy. Any time we see the divinity of Christ expressed, you will say anything so you do not have to admit the divinity of Christ in the Godhead. So you will also have to examine your eschatological views and realize where you have gone wrong with those too.
Revelation 17-19 are Chronological. Jesus and the rider on the white horse are not even in the same place at the same time. Jesus isn't zipping around back forth between heaven and earth in end times prophecy.

Jesus is on earth, the rider is in heaven. Jesus isn't the rider on the white horse.

Revelation 17
14They will make war against the Lamb, and the Lamb will triumph over them...
15Then the angel said to me...

Revelation 18
1After this I saw another angel descending from heaven...
4Then I heard another voice from heaven...
9Then the kings of the earth who committed sexual immorality and lived in luxury with her will weep...
19Then they will throw dust on their heads...
21Then a mighty angel picked up a stone...

Revelation 19
1After this I heard a sound like the roar of a great multitude in heaven, shouting...
9Then the angel told me to write...
11Then I saw heaven standing open, and there before me was a white horse.
 
Take you pick.

Several cult leaders have claimed to be God, including Jim Jones, who claimed to be a manifestation of "Christ the Revolution" and Elijah the Prophet; Marshall Applewhite, who posted a message in 1995 stating, "I, Jesus—Son of God—acknowledge..."; Wayne Bent, who claimed that God told him in 2000, "You are Messiah"; and Amy Carlson, who was known by her followers as "Mother God" and believed she was a 19-billion-year-old being and a reincarnation of Jesus Christ.
Ok, I hope you aren't one of them or will at least won't say that oneness with God is equal to being God. It isn't. A surprising number of trinitarians claim it is.
 
Back
Top Bottom