Should we rely on the so-called "church fathers" or on the Scriptures themselves? Should it really matter what the "church fathers" believed and taught? Today the American Constitution is more than 200 years old. Short as it is compared to the Bible, men have been wrangling these 2 centuries over how it ought to be interpreted. A variety of opinions have been published in newspapers and court records. Whose interpretations are correct? Whose interpretations will be viewed as correct 2000 years from the time the Constitution was written?
The same sort of questions can be asked about the Bible. Should we view as authoritative those opinions expressed by the "church fathers" during the 200 years after the Bible was written, or should we go to the Bible itself?
You wrote:
I have gone through the posts here, and not one of you has offered any alternative as to what the Word is, who it might refer to other than Christ. You say some render "Word" as "it": "it" what? Is "it" an animal, a plant, an alien?
Surely you're joking. I wonder how it's possible that we are reading from the same thread. And I'm starting to wonder how many times I'm going to need to repeat what I've written.
Do you know the meaning of the term "word"? Is the term "an animal, a plant, an alien"? If it isn't any of those, why is it so important to you that it be defined as such?
A "word" is a "word." It can be either spoken or written, but either way it is simply a "word."
John 1:1 says that the "word" was in the beginning. Genesis 1:1, 6, 7 shows that God spoke his "word" in the beginning when creation took place. When he spoke his "word," that "word" became something. Please note the following texts:
- "By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, and by the breath of His mouth all their host." (Ps 33:6)
- "The worlds were prepared by the word of God." (Heb 11:3)
- "By the word of God the heavens existed long ago." (2 Pe 3:5)
You wrote:
one still has to give account to the Word dwelling amongst us--meaning, the Word living and breathing among men
You will note that it is not the "word" that lived and breathed among men. What the "word" became or produced did that. Apparently you overlooked what I wrote about Abraham becoming a great nation. The nation was not Abraham and Abraham was not the nation. Abraham became or resulted in the nation. In the same way, the "word" and Jesus are not necessarily one and the same. The "word" was "with God and was God" as the very essence of God. But when God spoke that "word," it became something else. It was no longer a "word," just as the heavens and the earth are no longer "words" of God. Just as the "word" spoken by God produced the heavens and the earth, that same "word" produced for Him a Son in the flesh and blood person of Jesus Christ.
That is a biblical concept so simple that no one should naively state that it is "meaningless" or "ambiguous." As stated in Psalm 33:9: "He spoke, and it was done." (Ps 33:9)
As to your first question, the answer is in the affirmative. If one is going to make a case as to what the early Church believed in, and want to make a case that his church now is in consonance with early Christian belief, then it is necessary and indeed helpful to know and read what the early Church Fathers lived and taught. Early Christians regarded their writings in high regard as Scripture, and indeed saw it as Scripture (the letter of Pope St. Clement I to the Corinthians, for instance, was read in all the Christian communities' worship to as late as the early third century). It was only after the Council of Carthage, where the Books of the Bible as we know it today were compiled with decisive finality, that the writings of the early Fathers were not read in churches. But still, up until Protestantism, the writings of the Church Fathers were regarded highly by both East and West. Protestants are only now rediscovering the value of these writings.
Moving on...read again the article concerning the Logos. John never presupposed that the Word only meant the utterance of God; that would render meaningless the rest of his writing. John's purpose is to identify and indeed affirm the Divinity of Christ, and hence his identification of the Word as Christ. That early Christian writers affirm and understood this as to apply to Christ should also be noted--and these writers were the ante-Nicene Fathers. I clarified what "it" stands for, as it is already shown that John does not refer only to God's speaking when Word is used; it has become alive, in John's terms, and that this Word has indeed come among us.
Let us look again at what John wrote, to be clear:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.
Now wait a minute: who was the He if John was only referring to God's spoken word?
And again, we see:
And the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us, and we saw his glory, the glory as of the Father's only Son, full of grace and truth. Again, let us reflect on this passage. The Word became flesh, etc. We've discussed this at length. But what about "we saw His glory, etc."? One will further note at verse 15 John the Baptizer testifying on Jesus' behalf. It is striking that if verses 1-2 were about God's spoken word, then it render meaningless the rest of the chapter, as the flow would be inharmonious. Ditto for verse 14: it would be out of sync if it would mean only God's spoken word. But even a cursory reading of the passage, from 1-14, would not show that the writer went from one thought to another, and indeed when linked to verse 15 onwards, John gives a clear rendering that this Word is not merely God's utterance, but is one of flesh and blood. Furthermore, we see in Revelation 19:
Then I saw the heavens opened, and there was a white horse; its rider was (called) "Faithful and True." He judges and wages war in righteousness. His eyes were (like) a fiery flame, and on his head were many diadems. He had a name inscribed that no one knows except himself. He wore a cloak that had been dipped in blood, and his name was called the Word of God. The armies of heaven followed him, mounted on white horses and wearing clean white linen. Out of his mouth came a sharp sword to strike the nations. He will rule them with an iron rod, and he himself will tread out in the wine press the wine of the fury and wrath of God the almighty. He has a name written on his cloak and on his thigh, "King of kings and Lord of lords."
Bible scholars agree that this is Jesus. So then why does the writer here identify Jesus as "the Word of God" (as well as the other titles, "Faithful and True" and the oft used "King of kings and Lord of lords")?
