Dungeon Crawl: John 17 and Jesus' Prayer
An introduction exploration to Jesus' deity and the Trinity mystery
This morning my Bible opened to John 17 and as I started to explore the short chapter found in one of the most Jewish books of the Bible I began to say things like, “Why haven’t I noticed this before?” and “Is this the most mystery filled chapter of the Bible?” and lastly, “Jesus why…”
If you’re a long time reader you may already know how I process things. If you’re knew, let me give you a quick synopsis. My ideal way to sort through varying questions and thoughts is to ask provoking or controversial questions to someone who is well-verses or trained in conventional (or orthodox) theological thinking. Thankfully, I have my pastor and friend, Joe.
Here is an excerpt from what is an incomplete conversation and I will expound on my thinking and current belief of this topic afterward and in coming articles.
I said, “Joe, John 17 is such an interesting chapter of the Bible.” To which he replied, “I agree. In all the time I have known you, this may be your least controversial take!” with a laughing emoji. So, you can see he’s well accustomed to my coming thoughts.
I asked: “Is there any biblical evidence that Christ wasn’t monogeneses [not begotten, but of] in such a way that the Father “by His own nature” willed Christ from His own substance? ie., not created but “of the Father” as Christ says “they are one”.
Then, I proceeded to fill in some thoughtful blanks. “The entire chapter reads as though Christ - having glory before creation - gave it up. But then, it also reads as though the Father has ordinance over Christ. Christ not being ‘created’ in the sense of begotten, but rather could allow for interpretation that Christ is of the Father, not just in essence and nature but also actual substance. Always having existed, as Christ says, “IN THE FATHER” as they are one but actually having, as our layman minds would imagine, spawning from the Father.”
Joe then responds by saying: “Theologians seem to have settled, at last within evangelicalism, on two terms to describe the reality you’re seeing while also maintaining the orthodox Trinitarian doctrine throughout history. Functional vs Ontological subordination. They uphold the first, while denying the second. In doing so they can maintain Christ’s eternal divinity, nature, and being.”
To which I respond (and this is the last text so far): “Interesting, because I can see eternal divinity, nature and being all upheld in either. Trinity, mystery it may be, doesn’t require belief that 3 distinct substance beings existed for all eternity in separation (physically).
What is the theory?
The theory being tested or presented is one that allows for the mystery of the trinity to be more properly concise in it’s explanation of itself using Scripture, logic, and a dash of philosophy. Now, to preface what is about to be written, I’d like it known that we fallen humans cannot fully know the extent of which some of these mysteries are upheld. We must accept our fallibility.
The presented theory states that Jesus was never created, eternally existed, the very Word of the Father, the only Son of the Father, the second part of the Trinity, and is ONE with the Father as John 17 states.
Before going any further with the nuances of the theory, because you’re probably affirming all of the above right now as they are orthodox views, I’m wanting to share the Greek manuscripts of “begotten” and why I believe it’s a bad translation later added using poor latin manuscripts.
Begotten?
In (Lk 7:12; 8:42; 9:38; Jn 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; Heb 11:17; 1Jn 4:9+; Jn 1:34) we find the word “monogenes” which means “unique; only one of it’s kind” in Greek. Now, no where else in the Greek usage of this word does it ever mean “begotten” which means — bring into existence.
How this ever came about in our translations shows that our English translators still have a long way to go before they really gather the meaning of the original manuscripts (see works on Genesis 1). The word begotten slipped in through the Latin Vulgate word: “uni-genitus” which means “one begotten”. The main two arguments I have for removing begotten entirely are: (1) The word begot never appears in the Greek usages elsewhere in Hesiod, Herodotus, Plato or Rhodes. (2) in Hebrew chapter 11 and Genesis chapter 22 we see that Isaac is called the “monogenes” son. But, we know that Isaac wasn’t his only child. As we see in other greek usages, it can mean “only legitimate child” “the only chosen child”. We know Isaac was chosen over his brother, therefore making him the only legitimate child of Abraham (both through his true wife and in the biblical arc).
Now why does this matter? It matters because improper translation can lead to improper theology which can lead to improper doctrine. The Gnostics and Arinus attempted to use improper translation to show Christ wasn’t deity.
The Theory Itself
Yeshua, Jesus, our Lord and Savior was not created. He wasn’t brought into existence (see John 1:1). He existed eternally within the Father, as did the Holy Spirit. When it came time for Christ to enter humanity, what occurred? Here is the theory itself which I believe to be sound.
Christ is the essence, nature, substance, kind, and presence of the Father not created but as the Angel of the LORD in the Old Testament is a form of YHWH, so is Christ yet not being a manifestation, rather pure in substance of the Father. This thought lends to the imagination the idea of “spawning” from something. Now, Christ wasn’t created, but eternally existing within the Father, having then been brought forth into the World physically. Eternally existing, now physically separate from the Father, existing in the substance, nature and essence of the Father.
In John 1:14-18 we read: 14 And the Word became flesh and took up residence among us, and we saw his glory, glory as of the one and only from the Father, full of grace and truth. 15 John testified about him and cried out, saying, “This one was he about whom I said, ‘The one who comes after me is ahead of me, because he existed before me.’ ” 16 For from his fullness we have all received, and grace after grace. 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came about through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has seen God at any time; the one and only God, the one who is in the bosom of the Father—that one has made him* known.
John portrays Jesus, eternally existing in the bosom of the Father, as the Word of God. The very words that are spoken of God, Christ was (and is). In verse 18, “No one has seen God at any time, the one and only God ( monogenes theos )…”
This very verse was under much debate in textual criticism on whether Jesus was being referred to as the unique and only Son, or God. The majority of modern scholars agree that it reads “monogenes theos”.
Yet, once again, we find that Jesus was not created but rather “of” the Father. He, without sounding like a Modalist, took a form that physically separated Himself from the Father but contains within Himself the essence, nature, and being of the Father.
The Holy Spirit
Ironically, this image of the theory only gets clearer when we look at how Jesus talked about the Holy Spirit and how the Old Testament spoke of the Holy Spirit. For example, in Matthew 10:20 we read “For it is not you who are speaking, but it is the Spirit of your Father who is speaking in you.”
Now, Galatians 4:6
And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!”
So now we read that the Spirit taking place in our hearts is the Son’s. Does this mean that there are different Spirit’s entering our hearts? Did Jesus mean in Matthew that it wasn’t a literal spirit? He was maybe saying “well in the spirit of Christmas” type of way?
All these questions and more will be answered in next weeks dungeon crawl! Stay tuned!