@peacefulpete
Your response raises some important and interesting points regarding the
development of the concept of the Logos and its treatment by Philo and
early Christians. However, I believe there are key differences between Philo's Logos
and Paul's Christ as the divine Logos that are essential for
understanding how the two are not the same. Philo’s Logos operates as a
conceptual, almost abstract, intermediary between God and the world. He draws heavily
from Greek philosophy, especially Stoicism and Platonism, using the Logos
as a way to explain the relationship between the divine and the material world
without compromising the absolute transcendence of God. Philo never understood
the Logos as an incarnate being or one that could die; rather, for him,
it is more like an emanation or aspect of God’s rational power and order.
Philo’s Logos has no personal identity as a being who could suffer or
die, which starkly contrasts with the Christian understanding of Jesus Christ.
Paul’s depiction of Christ, particularly in Colossians 1:16-17, goes far
beyond what Philo envisaged. Paul writes not merely about a cosmic principle
but about a personal being who is fully divine and fully human. In this
passage, Christ is portrayed as the agent of creation, through whom all things
were made and in whom all things hold together. This is not just a Logos
that orders the universe, but a personal, divine being intimately involved in
creation, sustaining it, and redeeming it through incarnation, death, and
resurrection.
Unlike Philo's Logos, which is an impersonal intermediary, Paul's
Christ is personal and relational, involved directly in the salvation of
humanity. Paul declares that Christ’s incarnation, death, and resurrection were
necessary for reconciling the world to God (Col. 1:20). This
"innovation" among Christians isn't just a theological novelty but
rather a unique claim about God’s intervention in history through the person of
Jesus.
Philo’s Logos mediates God’s power in a philosophical sense—an
ordering principle of the cosmos. In contrast, Paul's Christ is a mediator in
the personal sense, reconciling sinful humanity to God through his sacrificial
death. For Paul, the Logos is not merely a force but a person who
actively takes on human flesh (Phil. 2:6-8) and enters into human history in
order to restore creation.
You raise the question of whether a reader could understand Paul’s Christ
as an intermediary, creative, and pervasive force. While Paul certainly
presents Christ as the one in whom all things hold together, this is not in the
detached, philosophical sense of Philo’s Logos. For Paul, Christ is not
a distant intermediary but rather the incarnate Son of God who reconciles and
redeems the world through His death and resurrection (Col. 1:19-20). This
personal engagement in creation, redemption, and final reconciliation is what
makes Paul’s understanding of the Logos fundamentally different from
Philo’s.
You mentioned Philo's concept of God and His two powers appearing as a
triad. However, Philo's triad is not analogous to the Christian Trinity.
Philo's triadic concept reflects an allegorical interpretation of God's powers
(beneficence and rulership) rather than distinct persons in one divine essence.
Christian Trinitarian theology speaks of three distinct persons—Father, Son,
and Holy Spirit—who are consubstantial and co-eternal, sharing one divine
essence, but each is a distinct person with relational roles in creation and
redemption.
Philo’s allegorical framework never reaches the level of personal
relationships or roles within the Godhead that the Christian Trinity
articulates. While Philo might be seen as using triadic language, it lacks the
relational and incarnational dimensions central to Christian Trinitarian
thought. Thus, any parallels between Philo's triad and the Christian Trinity remain
superficial.
In Colossians 1:16-17, Paul describes Christ as not only the agent of
creation but also as pre-existent and eternally divine. The Amplified Bible
rightly emphasizes that Christ is "before all things" and that
"in Him all things hold together." This language goes beyond a simple
intermediary force; it ascribes to Christ the active, sustaining role in
creation, a role that only God can fulfill. This understanding of Christ as
divine is at the heart of Christian belief in His pre-existence and equality
with the Father.
So while Philo and early Christians both use the term Logos, they
diverge in profound ways. Philo's Logos is a philosophical concept, a
mediator in a more abstract sense. Paul's Christ is a personal, divine,
incarnate Logos—not just a cosmic force, but the Savior and Redeemer of
humanity. The Christian understanding of the Logos as fully divine and
personal was indeed a development beyond Philo, but it was grounded in the
revelation of Jesus Christ, not in appropriations of pagan or philosophical
myths.
@slimboyfat
While the authorship of Colossians is debated among some scholars, it is
not universally rejected. Many reputable scholars defend Pauline authorship,
citing stylistic and theological continuity with other undisputed letters of
Paul. But even if one were to grant, for the sake of argument, that Paul didn’t
write Colossians, this does not affect the interpretation of Philippians
2:5-11, which is universally accepted as Pauline. This means that the
discussion should focus on Philippians, not on disputed letters like
Colossians.
You argue that Philippians 2:5-11 shows Christ as a "heavenly
being" distinct from and subordinate to God. While it’s true that
Philippians 2 refers to Christ’s pre-existence, it does not support the
conclusion that Christ is a lesser heavenly being or an angel. In Philippians
2:6, Paul uses the phrase morphe theou, which refers to Christ being in
the "form of God." The word morphe does not merely mean
outward appearance but refers to the intrinsic nature of something. This has
been demonstrated by various scholars who argue that morphe refers to
Christ’s possession of divine attributes. Paul’s use of morphe theou
asserts that Jesus had divine status and nature before His incarnation, not
that He was a mere spirit or angelic being.
The passage states that Christ "did not regard equality with God as
something to be grasped" (harpagmon). This indicates that
Christ already possessed equality with God, yet chose not to cling to it for
His own advantage. The phrase "equality with God" points to Christ's
divine status, not to a subordinate or angelic status. The idea that Christ was
subordinate to God in essence contradicts this notion of equality, which Paul
affirms.
The term "emptied Himself" refers to the Incarnation, where
Christ, though fully divine, chose to take on human nature and become obedient
to death. This self-emptying involves the voluntary renunciation of divine
privileges, not the divine nature itself. The passage does not imply that
Christ was a lesser being who later received a higher status; rather, it speaks
of the eternal Son of God humbling Himself and becoming man for the sake of
humanity.
You assert that the JW interpretation of Philippians 2 makes the best sense
because it portrays Jesus as a subordinate heavenly being who is rewarded for
His humility. This interpretation, however, is deeply flawed. While Philippians
2 does describe Christ as pre-existent, the text does not support the notion
that He was merely a subordinate spirit or angelic being. The passage
explicitly emphasizes Christ's equality with God (isa theo), making it
clear that He possessed divine nature before the Incarnation. This equality is
not something Jesus sought to exploit but something He voluntarily set aside to
take on human form.
The exaltation of Christ in Philippians 2:9-11 is not an indication that He
was elevated from a lower status to a higher one in the divine hierarchy.
Instead, it reflects the glorification of Christ’s humanity after His death and
resurrection. The exaltation is the recognition of Christ’s lordship and the
public acknowledgment of His divine authority by all creation. This
glorification is given to Christ’s human nature, not His divine nature, which
He already possessed. The JW interpretation confuses the exaltation of Christ’s
humanity with a change in His divine status, which the passage does not
support.
Your argument relies heavily on the interpretation of harpagmos as
something that is seized, implying that Christ did not have equality with God
but refrained from trying to seize it. However, this is a misunderstanding of
the term. The word harpagmos can refer to something that is seized or
exploited for personal advantage. In the context of Philippians 2:6, it means
that Christ, although equal with God, did not consider His equality with God
something to be exploited for personal gain. This demonstrates Christ’s
humility, not His inferiority. He did not grasp at divine privileges but
emptied Himself by becoming human and humbling Himself to the point of death.
This shows Christ's willingness to forgo His rightful divine prerogatives for
the sake of humanity’s salvation, which aligns with Trinitarian theology.
You claim that Jesus was exalted to a higher position than He originally
had, implying that He was not fully divine before His exaltation. Philippians
2:9-11 speaks of God exalting Christ and giving Him the name above every name.
This exaltation does not mean that Christ was elevated to divinity after being
a lesser being. Rather, the exaltation refers to the glorification of Christ’s
human nature. Christ, as the eternal Son of God, always possessed divine
status, but in His incarnation, He took on human nature and, after His death
and resurrection, was exalted in His humanity. The exaltation is the
recognition and public acknowledgment of Christ’s universal lordship.
The "Name above every name" is the name "Lord"
(κύριος, kyrios), which is a divine title. This title signifies that
Christ is the ruler over all creation, which aligns with the Old Testament
title for God (YHWH). The exaltation of Christ as "Lord" is not a
sign of inferiority but an acknowledgment of His divine authority over all
creation, further confirming His divinity.
The argument that Philippians 2:5-11 supports a non-Trinitarian reading
where Christ is a subordinate heavenly being collapses under closer scrutiny.
The passage affirms Christ’s pre-existence, equality with God, and voluntary
humility in becoming human. The exaltation of Christ does not indicate that He
was inferior to God but rather highlights the glorification of His humanity
after His redemptive work.
The Trinitarian interpretation remains consistent with the broader witness
of Scripture, affirming that Christ, though fully divine, humbled Himself and
took on human nature for the sake of humanity’s salvation. Far from undermining
His divinity, Philippians 2:5-11 underscores both Christ’s divine status and
His extraordinary humility.
