Concerning 'another deity' and the 'word' - PART 2

Greetings ...

Hopefully from the first email you will grasp my point that from the Scriptures alone one cannot introduce another deity.

This concept is totally unknown in the Hebrew Bible which the prophets, the apostles, and Jesus Christ studied & preached from.

The other hurdle therefore is the prologue of John 1:1-14

(John 1:1-4) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. ... 14 And the Word was made 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.

A little history: From around the 2nd century onwards to this very day, John's prologue has been used to promote a Greek concept that the Logos was a personal being who created the universe; this development began by using Plato's concept of the Greek word Logos. The Greeks' concept of God was that God was both ineffable and unapproachable, therefore He could not have created this material universe. In the time of the Gnostics the Logos was one of many aeons/emanations (these aeons were some kind of divine, intermediary beings according to the Gnostics) sent by the ineffable, unapproachable God; this Logos became the Demiurge who created all things ... that is, the ineffable, unapproachable God had nothing to do with the creation ... it was God the Logos, the Demiurge, who did the actually creating. Irenaeus, the church fathers & other Hellenists who challenged the Gnostics; taught that God the Logos was in fact Jesus Christ the Creator (using John's prologue as their proof text). By the time of the Council of Nicaea, "Jesus, who is now God the Logos" became co-equal to the Father, the Logos was now presented as a pre-existent, co-equal God.

Hence, now in our time, Bible readers just assume that the opening verses especially seeing the word 'him' in our translations, is talking about Jesus the Son of GOD. However, as Colin Brown points out ...

"It is a common but patent misreading of the opening of John's Gospel to read it as if it said: 'In the beginning was the Son, and the Son was with God and the Son was God' (John 1:1). What has happened here is the substitution of Son for Word (Greek logos), and thereby the Son is made a member of the Godhead which existed from the beginning. But if we follow carefully the thought of John's prologue, it is the Word that pre-existed eternally with God and is God. The same Word that made all things and is the light that enlightens human kind 'became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father' (John 1:14; cf. vv. 3 and 8)." Colin Brown, "Trinity and Incarnation: In search of Contemporary Orthodoxy", Ex Auditu (7), 1991.

This patent misreading continues to this very day. Now a little testimony ...

Years ago, when by the grace of GOD, I came to the understanding of who Jesus truly is ... a human being who is GOD's only-begotten Son; and that he was not (a pre-existing) Almighty God or a member of a triune Godhead ... in praying to GOD I asked "how is it that John reads the way it does??" I was convinced by this time, that Jesus did not pre-exist! He was conceived in the womb of Mary howbeit by the supernatural power of GOD, yet he did not pre-exist his conception just as no human being pre-exists their conception; I was convinced that John was a monotheistic Jew ... I was convinced that GOD alone created all things [Isa 44.24], that He alone was the Creator; I was convinced that John would not contradict Matthew & Luke who have no knowledge of a pre-existing Messiah, but present him being conceived in the womb of Mary by the power of GOD. So why does John read the way it does????

I asked GOD about this apparent inconsistency to pure monotheism. Because the way John's prologue appears in our English Bibles, on first impression, it would appear that the Messiah may have been the Creator!! However, I knew by then, that this could not be. Jesus never said he was the Creator but quite the opposite, e.g. (Mark 10:6) But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. (Mark 13:19) For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be.

My question was answered!! I discovered shortly afterwards whilst surfing the Net, an article which presented the fact that the majority of the English Bibles before the KJV translation of 1611 beginning with Tyndale all translated John's prologue as follows ...

(John 1:1-4) In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by IT; and without IT was not any thing made that was made. 4 In IT was life; and the life was the light of men.

Did you see that? i.e. All things were made by IT ... that is exactly what 'a word' is! A word is an IT not a him! A word is not a person! A word is a ... a word!

Therefore Tyndale translated the Greek text in the sense of what John meant. GOD created all things by His word. GOD spoke and it was done. Compare: (Psa 33:6) By the word of YAHWEH were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. (Psa 33:9) For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

Anyways I was stunned. Of course, I did not take the article's word for it. I was Berean about it. I searched libraries and researched this matter, to see if these things were so. And sure enough, from what I could see ...
Tyndale 1525, Tyndale 1534, Matthew's Bible 1537, The Great Bible 1539, The Geneva Bible 1560, the Bishop's Bible (1568) ...
all had 'it' in John 1:3-4

Sadly after the Catholic Rheims NT was printed in 1582 with him in vv. 3-4; it appears that the KJV translators followed that trend ... placed 'him' in vv. 3-4; and thus, the patent misreading continues.

Nevertheless the majority of the English NTs all had 'it' ... thus the readers of Tyndale, Geneva bibles, etc (no doubt, the majority being trinitarian) would not automatically assume that John 1.3-4 was talking about Jesus, but rather, was talking about the word of GOD, which when spoken, all things came into existence. Granted, in Greek grammar, Greek words generally have a gender, logos being male. Thus a translator could indeed use 'him'. However, many words in Greek have genders & when speaking of attributes & genderless things such as ... light, wisdom (feminine in Greek), rock, tree, etc ... the translator ought to supply the appropriate pronoun i.e. IT. However, no doubt, influenced by their trinitarian theology that 'Jesus, God the Son' is the Creator, the translators chose 'him'. But from the beginning it was not so!!!

Personally, this answered my question, I could now see that Tyndale & others were true to the original sense of John. I realized that one could legitimately and being true to the Greek text, translate John 1:3 as All things were made by IT; and without IT; as shown by Tyndale and others. IT is the pronoun which corresponds to what a word is! The monotheist apostle John was not talking about another creator, he was not talking about the Messiah in his opening verses; he was talking about GOD's powerful spoken word through which GOD made all things. In the process of time, the word/logos of GOD was made flesh, resulting in the conception of Jesus the Messiah.

I quote Kuschel (Born Before All Time?, p. 382) ...

From this it may be concluded that he [Jesus] is the Logos in person, the wisdom of God in human form. ... We may therefore follow Leonhard Goppelt in seeing the focus of the content of the prologue as this: 'The logos of the prologue becomes Jesus; Jesus was the logos become flesh, not the logos as such.'

Anyways, here are some examples of the pre-KJV translations that I speak of ...

• Tyndale 1525: http://alleluya.com/TyNT/jn.htm#1:1 In the beginning was that word, and that word was with god: and god was that word. The same was in the beginning with god. All things were made by it, and without it, was made no thing, that made was. In it was life, And life was the light of men, And the light shineth in the darkness, and darkness comprehended it not.

• Tyndale 1530: http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Scriptures/WTT.htm In the beginnynge was the worde, and the worde was with God: and the worde was God. The same was in the beginnynge with God. All thinges were made by it, and with out it, was made nothinge, that was made. http://sbible.boom.ru/tyndale.jpg

• The Great (Cranmer's) Bible (1539-40) “In the begynnynge was the worde, and the worde was wyth God; and God was the worde. The same was in the begynnyng wyth God. All thinges were made by it, and wythout it, was made nothynge that was made. In it was lyfe, and the lyfe was the lyght of men, and the lyght shyneth in darcknes, and the darcknes comprehended it not” (Great Bible, The Byble in Englyshe, that is to saye the Content of al the holy Scrypture, both of the olde, and newe Testament, London: Edward Whitchurche, 1539).

• Coverdale 1540: http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/scriptures/TCB.htm In the begynnynge was the worde, and the worde was with God, and God was ye worde. The same was in the begynnynge wt God. All thinges were made by the same, and without the same was made nothinge that was made.

• Geneva 1560: http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Scriptures/TGB.htm In the beginning was the Worde, and the Worde was with God and that Worde was God. The same was in the beginning w God. All things were made by it, & without it was made nothing that was made

• Bishop's Bible 1568 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was that Word. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by it, and without it, was made nothing that was made. In it was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in the darknesse, and the darknesse comprehendeth it not” (Bishops’ Bible, The Holie Bible, London: Richard Jugge, 1568).

  

Fascinating huh!

Did you notice in the first few translations of the Gospel of John, "word" was not capitalized.

Showing that the trend of reading "the deity of the word/logos" into the text had not yet begun!

Well ... I covered a little history and a bit of my testimony ... Now, I would like to go into a little more of John's intent behind his prologue.

Logos is simply the Greek word for ... 'word' ... the Hebrew word being dabar

Every Scripture-believing Jew knows that GOD spoke and it was done. Everything came into being by GOD's word. As such, no pre-Christian-era Jew or 1st-century Christian would imagine that the 'word' was an actual living personal being. No! They believed in only ONE GOD, ONE deity, YAHWEH, who was the ONE Creator who created all things alone & by Himself. [Isa 44.24]

The Gnostics were the first "heretics" who were presenting an intermediary personal being called the Logos who created the material world; because of their erroneous concepts that GOD could have nothing to do with this material world; thus an intermediary was needed to do the creating!

John the Apostle may have had this in mind when he wrote God was the Logos (transl. the word was God; theos without a definite article in this phrase, is being used adjectivally, hence, describing the word) Showing that it was indeed GOD ... it was GOD Himself who created all things, it was GOD speaking ... the very word therefore, was GOD's Self-expression ... GOD Himself expressing Himself ... It was not the word of another! It was GOD's own word & not another's!

Again, the Gnostics taught that in the beginning, the ineffable, unapproachable GOD created the Logos-being and then this Logos-being created all things. Again, John the Apostle may have had this in mind when he wrote In the beginning was the Logos and the Logos was with God. It was in the beginning with GOD ... The Logos did not come into existence sometime after the beginning. No! GOD in the beginning created all things by His own word; His own word and not another's! So, John may well have been writing in this style in light of Gnostic tendencies prevalent in his time. He may well be counteracting the Gnostic tendency towards a dualistic or pluralistic idea of GOD.

James Dunn, Christology in the Making, p.243 ... consider his point very carefully :-

The conclusion which seems to emerge from our analysis thus far is that it is only with verse 14 that we can begin to speak of the personal Logos. ... Prior to verse 14 we are in the same realm as pre-Christian talk of Wisdom and Logos [Word], the same language and ideas that we find in the Wisdom tradition and in Philo, where, as we have seen, we are dealing with personifications rather than persons, personified actions of God rather than an individual divine being as such. The point is obscured by the fact that we have to translate the masculine Logos as 'he' throughout the poem. But if we translated logos as God's utterance instead, it would become clearer that the poem did not necessarily intend Logos in vv. 1-13 to be thought of as a personal divine being. In other words, the revolutionary significance of v. 14 may well be that it marks ... the transition from impersonal personification to actual person. This indeed is the astounding nature of the poem's claim. If it had asserted simply that an individual divine being had become man, that would have raised fewer eyebrows. It is the fact that the Logos poet has taken language which any thoughtful Jew would recognize to be the language of personification and has identified it with a particular person, as a particular person, that would be so astonishing: the manifestation of God become a man! God's utterance not merely come through a particular individual, but actually become that one person, Jesus of Nazareth!

I want to talk about the above personification. One could easily read John 1:1-14 adequately with 'him', that is, if you read it with John's intent: as personifying GOD's word from verses 1 through 13; whereby in verse 14 the personification becomes an actual person, however, not before verse 14. It was normal in Jewish writings, etc, to personify GOD's actions & attributes such as GOD's wisdom, GOD's word, GOD's power. Even the writers of the Targums, instead of saying that GOD appeared or GOD said or GOD did ... they would rather say the memra (word) of GOD appeared, the memra of GOD said, the memra of GOD did, etc. However, no reader of the Targums would understand the memra to be an actual person but rather GOD's action being personified. We see examples of this even in the OT. You are aware of Proverbs 8. Sadly Jehovah Witnesses (as well as other Arians) read it from verse 22 and suddenly arrive at the very false assertion that Jesus is being spoken of in that chapter!!! If only they would read from verse 1 (even from 1:20) they would see that Solomon is simply personifying "GOD's WISDOM" as a woman! And using this personification to describe how GOD made all things and therefore, seeing the grand importance of wisdom by which GOD made all things (Cp. Psa 104.24, Prov 3.19, Jer 10.10-12, 51.15, etc), all ought to seek after GOD's wisdom!

(Prov 1:20) Wisdom crieth without; she uttereth her voice in the streets: (Prov 8:1) Doth not wisdom cry? and understanding put forth her voice?

Thus, to emphasize the importance of wisdom, seeing that GOD used wisdom to create the universe; Solomon personifies wisdom as a woman beckoning all to come to her and learn of her; after all, she was present alongside the Creator at the creation, so she must know what she is talking about!! However, this literary device, this personification, that Solomon is using; is not meant to be taken literally! No! Solomon is building an image of a very knowledgeable woman whose wisdom was used to create the heavens and the earth; and thus anyone who seeks wisdom, esp. the youth, ought to come to her and learn of her. However, this woman does not literally exist. She is not for real! This literary device, this figure of speech, is being used, to make a point!! That is, seeing that GOD did not create anything without wisdom; therefore, if wisdom was important to the creation of all things, how much more, ought we to seek wisdom. Hence, Solomon's point, having Lady Wisdom beckoning the youth to seek after her.

However, Lady Wisdom is no more a literal woman, any more than Lady Prudence with whom she dwells!! [Prov 8.12] So Prov. 8 is not talking about the Messiah, besides the fact, that the Messiah is not a woman!! In fact, Messiah Jesus uses the very same literary device, that is, he personifies wisdom as a woman; in Matt 11.19, Luke 7.35. Again, compare (Psa 147:15) He sendeth forth his commandment upon earth: his word runneth very swiftly. Now is the psalmist depicting GOD's commandment as an actual person running upon the earth? Of course not. The psalmist is personifying GOD's commandment, GOD's word; and in describing GOD's word being performed upon the earth, he describes it as running swiftly to carry out GOD's will. Now I will quote from some intertestamental books that although not part of the canon, nevertheless shows us this literary device of personification in use; and therefore will aid in giving us the right understanding of what John meant and how 1st-century Christians would have understood him.

• Wisdom of Solomon (Apocrypha), chapter 9 1: O God of my fathers, and Lord of mercy, who hast made all things with thy word, 2: And ordained man through thy wisdom, that he should have dominion over the creatures which thou hast made, 3: And order the world according to equity and righteousness, and execute judgment with an upright heart: 4: Give me wisdom, that sitteth by thy throne; and reject me not from among thy children: ... 7: Thou hast chosen me to be a king of thy people, and a judge of thy sons and daughters: 8: Thou hast commanded me to build a temple upon thy holy mount, and an altar in the city wherein thou dwellest, a resemblance of the holy tabernacle, which thou hast prepared from the beginning. 9: And wisdom was with thee: which knoweth thy works, and was present when thou madest the world, and knew what was acceptable in thy sight, and right in thy commandments. 10: O send her out of thy holy heavens, and from the throne of thy glory, that being present she may labour with me, that I may know what is pleasing unto thee. 11: For she knoweth and understandeth all things, and she shall lead me soberly in my doings, and preserve me in her power. 12: So shall my works be acceptable, and then shall I judge thy people righteously, and be worthy to sit in my father's seat.

  • I guess you can see the parallel with John 1 how that the word (logos - masculine noun) was with GOD However, just as in the above quotation, GOD's attribute of wisdom is simply being personified as a woman and is not meant to be taken literally; the same is true for John. Solomon is simply asking GOD for wisdom to perform the task given him. (cp. 2 Chr 1:9-12)

• Wisdom of Solomon Chapter 7:22 - 8:4 7:22: For wisdom, which is the worker of all things, taught me: for in her is an understanding spirit holy, one only, manifold, subtil, lively, clear, undefiled, plain, not subject to hurt, loving the thing that is good quick, which cannot be letted, ready to do good, ... 25: For she is the breath of the power of God, and a pure influence flowing from the glory of the Almighty: therefore can no defiled thing fall into her. 26: For she is the brightness of the everlasting light, the unspotted mirror of the power of God, and the image of his goodness. 27: And being but one, she can do all things: and remaining in herself, she maketh all things new: and in all ages entering into holy souls, she maketh them friends of God, and prophets. 28: For God loveth none but him that dwelleth with wisdom. 8:1: Wisdom reacheth from one end to another mightily: and sweetly doth she order all things. 2: I loved her, and sought her out from my youth, I desired to make her my spouse, and I was a lover of her beauty. 3: In that she is conversant with God, she magnifieth her nobility: yea, the Lord of all things himself loved her. 4: For she is privy to the mysteries of the knowledge of God, and a lover of his works.

  • Especially seeing how wisdom is described in 7:26, and seeing that Jesus the Messiah is the wisdom of GOD embodied or made flesh [1 Cor 1.24]; we can now see why the man Jesus is described as (Heb 1:3) Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, ... because Christ is the wisdom of GOD made flesh ... he is literally the wisdom of GOD in person! ["Wisdom of Solomon" taken from http://etext.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/KjvSolo.html]

• Sirach, chapter 24 1: Wisdom will praise herself, and will glory in the midst of her people. 2: In the assembly of the Most High she will open her mouth, and in the presence of his host she will glory: 3: I came forth from the mouth of the Most High, and covered the earth like a mist. ... ... 8: Then the Creator of all things gave me a commandment, and the one who created me assigned a place for my tent. And he said, 'Make your dwelling in Jacob, and in Israel receive your inheritance.' 9: From eternity, in the beginning, he created me, and for eternity I shall not cease to exist. 10: In the holy tabernacle I ministered before him, and so I was established in Zion. 11: In the beloved city likewise he gave me a resting place, and in Jerusalem was my dominion. ... 19: Come to me, you who desire me, and eat your fill of my produce. 20: For the remembrance of me is sweeter than honey, and my inheritance sweeter than the honeycomb. 21: Those who eat me will hunger for more, and those who drink me will thirst for more. 22: Whoever obeys me will not be put to shame, and those who work with my help will not sin.

  • In John 1:14 Scripture says ... And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt [tabernacled] among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. Sirach 24:8 speaks of the wisdom of GOD being sent into the world and being assigned a tent! Again, you can see the mindset: i.e. The writer's desire for the wisdom of GOD by which all things were made, to come to its creation. John, tells us, in 1:14, that indeed, GOD's wisdom, GOD's word, was in fact assigned a tent ... the tent being the man Christ Jesus, the only begotten of GOD the Father! Nevertheless, Sirach is simply personifying the wisdom of GOD and not talking of a literal person alongside GOD.

• Sirach 1:1-4 1: All wisdom comes from the Lord and is with him for ever. 4: Wisdom was created before all things, and prudent understanding from eternity.

  • Compare Prov 8:22 [Sirach taken from http://etext.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/RsvSira.html]

So as you can see by the time of John's Gospel or the NT writings in general, this kind of personification especially in regards to GOD's wisdom was prevalent. And furthermore, Jews of this era, never interpreted these intertestamental books as stating that there was a literal being, whether female or male, alongside the Father, who created all things.

However, one can easily see that if the above were taken literally, such an erroneous concept could soon emerge. And that is exactly what happened when Greek/Hellenistic/Platonic-thinking philosophically-trained Gentiles began to study John (and Proverbs and these intertestamental books). Jesus instead of being viewed as "GOD's wisdom/word made flesh"; he became viewed as a pre-existing divine being, who in the process of time was made a co-equal God!

James Dunn makes the following observations:

It is clear therefore that the tradition of (pre-existent) Wisdom has been influential at many points in NT christology. ... The role that Proverbs, ben Sira [Sirach], etc. ascribe to Wisdom, these earliest Christians ascribe to Jesus. ... Jesus was being identified as Wisdom. Indeed, Paul seems to make the identification explicit in so many words when he proclaims 'Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God' (1 Cor. 1.24; also 1.30). ... [ben Sira] had no intention of giving Wisdom the status of an independent entity, far less a divine personality side by side with Yahweh. ... For ben Sira then, Wisdom is just a way of speaking about God's ordering of creation and design for man in the law. ... Similarly with the Wisdom of Solomon ... Once again the position is clear: for all that the author of the Wisdom of Solomon uses ... the vigour of his imagery, he has not the slightest thought of wisdom as an independent divine being. From start to finish the wisdom of which he speaks is the wisdom of God and signifies God's wise ordering of creation and of those who fear him. ... the Wisdom passages are simply ways of describing Yahweh's wise creation and purpose. ... for a Jew to say that Wisdom 'effects all things', that Wisdom 'delivered Israel from a nation of oppressors', that 'love of Wisdom is the keeping of the laws' (Wisd. 8:5; 10.15; 6.18), was simply to say in a picturesque way that God created all things wisely, that God's wise purpose is clearly evident in the exodus from Egypt and most fully expressed in the law he gave through Moses. ... Wisdom, like the name, the glory, the Spirit of Yahweh, was a way of asserting God's nearness, his involvement with the world, his concern for his people. All these words provided expressions of God's immanence, his active concern in creation, revelation and redemption, while at the same time protecting his holy transcendence and wholly otherness. ... thus we can say with confidence that it is very unlikely that pre-Christian Judaism ever understood Wisdom as a divine being in any sense independent of Yahweh. The language may be the language of the wider speculation of the time, but within Jewish monotheism and Hebraic literary idiom Wisdom never becomes more than a personification ... a personification rather of a function of Yahweh, a way of speaking about God himself, of expressing God's active involvement with his world and his people without compromising his transcendence. - Christology in the Making, p 167,172,173,174, 176.

Hence, my earlier points that John had to stress that God was the word, because the Greeks/Gnostics put a great distance between GOD and His creation, they never saw GOD as literally involved in His creation; Gnostics believed that intermediaries such as a Logos-being did it instead. A Gnostic Christian believed that the ineffable, unapproachable GOD, who was remote and distant from His creation, was mediated to His creation by lesser divine figures - "aeons" or a single lesser divine figure, the Logos (the various Gnostic systems differed on this point). John a typical monotheistic Jew is refuting this position. John was stating that it was indeed GOD involved in His creation; it was GOD's word, GOD's self-expression, GOD expressing Himself and not another, when all things came into existence. Dunn continues ... p.176-177, 178, 195

The obvious starting place is 1 Cor. Chs. 1-2 ... 1.22-24, 30. What is the meaning of this phrase 'Christ is the wisdom of God'? ... Paul probably takes up wisdom language because it was already being used by the Corinthians. ... In face of the Greeks seeking for wisdom Paul preached Christ, Christ crucified. ... Paul asserts that Christ is God's wisdom - Christ crucified. Divine wisdom is manifested in the cross and its proclamation. That is to say, Paul here emphatically sets forth Christ crucified as the measure of divine wisdom. The cross is the act of divine wisdom, and demonstrates and defines God's wisdom in a final way for the Christian. To be sure Paul talks of what might be called a 'pre-existent wisdom' (2.7); but it is a wisdom in the sense of 'God's predetermined plan of salvation'. Christ is God's wisdom, then, not as a pre-existent being, but as the one who fulfilled God's predetermined plan of salvation, as the one predetermined by God to be the means of man's salvation through his death and resurrection ... In short, in 1 Cor. Chs. 1-2 Christ is the fulfilment or embodiment of God's wise intention 'to bring us to glory' (2.7). Rather, when we set Paul against the background of pre-Christian Jewish talk of divine Wisdom, what he seems to be saying is this. The same divine wisdom which was active in creation we believe to have been active in Jesus; that is, the creator God was himself acting in and through Christ. ... We must grasp the fact that Paul was not seeking to win men to belief in a pre-existent being ... Nor was he arguing that Jesus is a particular pre-existent being; ... What he was saying is that Wisdom ... is now most fully expressed in Jesus - Jesus is the exhaustive embodiment of divine wisdom; all the divine wisdom dwelt in him.

---

Enough about the Wisdom of GOD, how about the Logos/Word of GOD?

• Wisdom of Solomon 18:14-16, concerning a description of the last of the ten plagues in Egypt. 14: For while all things were in quiet silence, and that night was in the midst of her swift course, 15: Thine Almighty word leaped down from heaven out of thy royal throne, as a fierce man of war into the midst of a land of destruction, 16: And brought thine unfeigned commandment as a sharp sword, and standing up filled all things with death; and it touched the heaven, but it stood upon the earth. 17: Then suddenly visions of horrible dreams troubled them sore, and terrors came upon them unlooked for. 18: And one thrown here, and another there, half dead, shewed the cause of his death.

• Wisdom of Solomon 9:1-2,17 1: O God of my fathers, and Lord of mercy, who hast made all things with thy word, 2: And ordained man through thy wisdom, that he should have dominion over the creatures which thou hast made, 17: And thy counsel who hath known, except thou give wisdom, and send thy Holy Spirit from above?

Thus, more examples of intertestamental personification. This time concerning the word of GOD, GOD's commandment; Dunn makes the following observations: p.218,219,244 ...

Both Psalmist [i.e. Ps. 33.6, 107.20, 147.15,18], prophet [Isaiah - Isa 9.8, 55.10f.] and teacher of Wisdom [Wisdom 18.14-16] are thinking of the word of Yahweh as Yahweh himself acting, acting decisively in creation, in judgment, in salvation. When a sovereign speaks his subjects obey; when he commands it is done. So the utterance and command of Yahweh are simply ways of saying that Yahweh brought his will to effect, that Yahweh achieved his purpose; when Yahweh speaks things happen. ... In short, I see no reason to dissent from G.F. Moore's judgment on Wisdom 18.15f.: 'It is an error to see in such personifications an approach to personalisation. Nowhere either in the Bible or in the extra-canonical literature of the Jews is the word of God a personal agent or on the way to become such'. Our conclusion here is borne out by what we learned above concerning the Spirit of God and the Wisdom of God in pre-Christian Judaism. As they were ways of speaking about Yahweh acting toward and in his creation, so too with the word of God. As they enabled the Jewish writers to speak of the immanence of God without threatening his transcendence, so with the Word. ... Wisd. 9:1-2,17 [see above] ... In short, all three expressions are simply alternative ways of speaking about the effective power of God in his active relationship with his world and its inhabitants. ... John ... used Wisdom and Logos language of Christ, identifying Christ as Wisdom, as the man that the Logos became, but did not seem to think of pre-existent Wisdom-Logos as a personal being or of Christ as one who had been pre-existent as such.

Therefore, in the context of pre-Christian Judaism leading on to 1st-century Christianity; I have attempted to show that Wisdom and Logos language of that time, was simply GOD's actions & attributes being personified.

John never intended his prologue to be interpreted as introducing a pre-existent being called the Logos being alongside the ONE GOD, the Creator. No Jew of his time would have interpreted him as doing so, since passages such as Prov 8, Isa 55.11, Wisdom 9:1-2, 18:14-18, Sirach 1:1-4, etc; would have already familiarized the Jewish reader with the concept of the ONE GOD's actions being personified. And as G.F. Moore rightly asserted: Nowhere either in the Bible or in the extra-canonical literature of the Jews is the word of God a personal agent or on the way to become such.

I have shown also that Tyndale as well as others did not read Jesus the Son of GOD into John 1:1-4 and as such used the pronoun 'it' when speaking of the word of GOD. (Plus in the earliest translations, 'word' wasn't even capitalized!)

Such is a legitimate translation being true to the Greek text and the intent of John.

And even if one wanted to read John 1:1-13 with him (as in v. 10); John is simply personifying GOD's word; describing how the word of GOD which caused all things to come into existence, came to its own [creation]; being made flesh and being tabernacled in the man Jesus of Nazareth the Messiah our Lord.

In studying these literary devices, Dunn sadly states "some exegetes have allowed themselves to be too impressed by the linguistic parallels between certain OT and LXX passages and the wider religious culture of the time, and have paid too little attention to the life-setting passages within the context of pre-Christian Judaism, particularly with respect to the idioms and style used by Israel's spokesmen." (p. 219) Sad but true. Readers of this article, let us not make the same mistake; let us understand that John was writing with such a style & idiom.

Concluding email to follow!

Concerning 'another deity' and the 'word' - PART 1

Greetings ...

 

I am going to emphasize on two main points made in your last posts.

I believe that these are the two main hurdles that need to be tackled.

 

It appears that you maybe inclined towards a binitarian point of view ...

because in one breath, you agree with me that there is solely ONE GOD who has no 'co-equal' ...
yet you insist that Jesus must be deity ...
hence we end up with 'two deities'!!

 

Now the point I will attempt to make is that this viewpoint cannot be based upon the Hebrew Bible.

That is, maybe from a Western mindset ... this conclusion can be arrived ... maybe also from a Gentile source ...

 

However, from the Scriptures that the OT saints, the patriarchs, the prophets, Jesus of Nazareth, the Apostles, quoted from, studied, and read ...

such a conclusion cannot be arrived ... that is, that there are two deities,
whether co-equal or otherwise!

 

You see, when one reads the Bible, one must read it with an Hebrew mindset.

Even the New Testament, although written in Greek, it was still written with a Hebrew mindset, a Hebrew viewpoint.

 

The theology had NOT changed. The Theology of the Old Testament was the very same in the New Testament.
The ONE GOD had not changed. He was the GOD of Abraham, Isaac, & Jacob; who spoke through Moses, that He was going to raise up a Prophet like Moses from the children of Israel; therefore in the NT, GOD kept His promise and the man Christ Jesus was conceived in the womb of Mary according to the flesh, of the seed of David
[Acts 13.32-33, Rom 1.3];
thus the ONE GOD was now not only the GOD of the fathers, He was also the GOD & Father of the Lord Jesus Christ;

Jesus called his Father,
the only true GOD [John 17.3] & the 'only' GOD [John 5.44].

 

The theology was the same. There was still solely ONE GOD, ONE Deity ... who had brought into existence, the man Messiah Jesus ...
thus ONE GOD, ONE Lord i.e. the ONE GOD and the ONE man whom the ONE GOD had made, alone, Lord & Christ.
YAHWEH GOD still is alone ... the only GOD ... OT Theology had not changed!

Jesus the Messiah, GOD's son ... is alone, Lord & Messiah [1 Cor 8.6]

 

 

Therefore, when one reads the Bible, one must try to read it without any preconceived notions (yeah, I know that is very difficult when one has been schooled beforehand in church) and with the mindset that the OT saints would read it.

 

Norman Snaith makes the following points concerning what we are up against when reading the Bible from 'the orthodox mainstream Christian' point of view ...

 

"Our position is that the reinterpretation of Biblical theology in terms of the ideas of the Greek philosophers has been widespread throughout the centuries and everywhere destructive to the essence of the Christian faith ... Neither Catholic nor Protestant theology is based on Biblical theology. In each case we have a dominion of Christian theology by Greek thought ... We hold that there can be no right (theology) until we have come to a clear view of the distinctive ideas of both Old and New Testaments and their difference from the pagan ideas which have so largely dominated "Christian" thought ..."

Snaith states that the confusing of Greek ideas with the pure Hebrew heritage of Scripture began as early as the 2nd century CE ...

"... it arose from the fact that these scholars [Clement of Alexandria & Origen] were Hellenists first and Christians second. It was furthered by the fact that all until Jerome tended to read the Greek Bible as a Greek book and with Hellenistic eyes. ... The result of this has been that from a very early stage, Christianity itself has tended to suffer from a translation out of the Prophets and into Plato."

(The above cited from N.H. Snaith, The Distinctive Ideas of the Old Testament, London: The Epworth Press, 1944, p.187-188, 161.)

 

Douglas Lockhart goes on to say ...

"Because a Church Council composed of people like Athanasius had said so, Jesus was no longer the Jewish Messiah, the Suffering Servant of Isaiah, the Archetypal man ... he was the alien Jewish God shoe-horned into a physical body and let loose as a refurbished pagan deity of monstrous proportions."

 

(Douglas Lockhart, Jesus the Heretic: Freedom and Bondage in a Religious World, Melbourne, Victoria: Element, p. 131)

 

Hmm! Strong words. But it does sum up what has happened & what we are up against.

However, I contend that the OT Scriptures prophesied that the Messiah would be the Archetypal man, a human being, supernaturally endowed by Almighty GOD, however, nonetheless a human being, a man not deity ... born of a human mother ... and that the NT Scriptures verify that Jesus of Nazareth is indeed that man! Who died, was raised from death, immortalized & exalted by the ONE GOD of the Scriptures, and is now at GOD's right hand; being made Lord & Christ & mediator between the ONE GOD, the ONE DEITY, and mankind.

My point is that Scripturally there cannot be any other deity except the ONE GOD, YAHWEH ... known in the NT as the Father ...

 

 

 

Deity means GOD ...

 

From www.dictionary.com :-

 

1. A god or goddess.

1. The essential nature or condition of being a god; divinity.
2. Deity God. Used with the.

From Webster's Dictionary, 1913 :-

 

http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/WEBSTER.sh?WORD=deity

1. The collection of attributes which make up the nature of a god; divinity; godhead; as, the deity of the Supreme Being is seen in his works.

2. A god or goddess; a heathen god.

 

 

Using the above definitions

Let us, begin with the Scriptures ...

 

• (Deu 4:35) Unto thee it was showed, that thou mightest know that YAHWEH he is God; there is none else beside him.
• (Deu 4:39) Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that YAHWEH he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else.
• (Deu 32:12) So YAHWEH alone did lead him, and there was no strange god with him.
• (Deu 32:39) See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: ...
• (1 Sam 2:2) There is none holy as YAHWEH: for there is none beside thee: neither is there any rock like our God.
• (1 Ki 8:60) That all the people of the earth may know that YAHWEH is God, and that there is none else.
• (Psa 83:18) That men may know that thou, whose name alone is YAHWEH, art the most high over all the earth.
• (Isa 37:16) O YAHWEH of hosts, God of Israel, that dwellest between the cherubims, thou art the God, even thou alone, ...
• (Isa 37:20) Now therefore, O YAHWEH our God, save us from his hand, that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that thou art YAHWEH, even thou only.
• (Isa 43:10-12) Ye are my witnesses, saith YAHWEH, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. 11 I, even I, am YAHWEH; and beside me there is no saviour. 12 I have declared, and have saved, and I have showed, when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith YAHWEH, that I am God.
• (Isa 44:8) ... Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.
• (Isa 44:24) Thus saith YAHWEH, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am YAHWEH that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;
• (Isa 45:5-6) I am YAHWEH, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: ... 6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am YAHWEH, and there is none else.
• (Isa 45:18) For thus saith YAHWEH that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am YAHWEH; and there is none else.
• (Isa 46:9) Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,
• (Mal 2:10) Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? ?

 

Remember, I desire you to look at these scriptures from a Hebrew point of view. To the Hebrews, there was solely ONE GOD, ONE deity! There was no other god, no other deity besides YAHWEH.

 

 

Can you see my point? The Hebrews/Jews simply had no concept of another deity besides (or alongside) YAHWEH.

To them there was simply ONE GOD, ONE deity, whose name alone was YAHWEH, who alone & by Himself had created everything; who alone was GOD in Heaven & earth; who knew no other god/deity besides Him; who neither formed one before Him neither was to form one after Him, etc., etc., ...

 

Therefore, if we Westerners, centuries after ... have derived a concept that there is yet another deity besides YAHWEH, whether co-equal or not, ... we did not derive this concept from the Scriptures.

NO! We have derived it from as Snaith suggested, Hellenistic/pagan sources!!

 

With an Hellenistic mind, it is easy to introduce another deity & read this meaning into the Bible; since, the Greeks had a pantheon of gods/deities i.e. deities who incarnated, deities who came down in the likeness of men, deities who died, deities who were resurrected, etc ...

And history shows that this is exactly what Hellenistic-minded philosopher-turned-christian men did; they introduced such ideas, such concepts; turning the Logos which is simply the Greek word for 'a word, a teaching, a statement, a thought expressed, etc' into a pre-existing person/deity alongside the ONE GOD of the OT; the council of Nicaea took this to the next level i.e. making this 'Jesus who is God the Logos' into a co-equal deity with GOD the Father; and then in the process of time, the Council of Constantinople introduced another deity, God the Holy Spirit; and yet somehow in their Greek minds
made all three, one???

 

Again, I must iterate, that such reasoning could not have been developed by taking the Scriptures literally; this second deity was introduced by reading pagan thoughts, (Neo-)Platonism and other Hellenistic-sourced concepts into Scripture.

 

 

Now, without a doubt the word 'god' in Hebrew, that is, the words elohim & el; are not used solely in regards to Almighty GOD!

These words are also used to denote the ONE GOD's agents, the ONE GOD's representatives,

i.e. angels [Exo 15.11, Ps. 86.8 (cp. 89.6), 97.7] and human judges [Exo 7.1, 21.6, 22.8,9,28; Psa 82] ... however these words are never used in Scripture to denote other deities except to point out that they are indeed false gods, false deities, idols!
Why? Because there is in reality, no other god/deity next to YAHWEH the ONE GOD!

 

Thus, elohim & el; are used to sometimes describe angelic & human beings.

And we know that Jesus is NOT an angelic being. [Heb 1.4-5, 13; 2.5] 

Leaving one class of being ... human.

Using Psalms 82 and the fact that the word 'god/elohim' is sometimes used to denote the ONE GOD's agents;
Jesus informs us and his audience, in what sense, the word 'god/elohim/theos' can be used to denote Christ!

 

Psalms 82 is about human beings, human judges, who although called gods by GOD Himself via His unbroken word; they have not been obedient to their calling ... they have not judged correctly with justice & equity.

 

Therefore, how much more he whom the ONE GOD has sanctified and commissioned to be the Judge of the Living & the Dead;

he whom GOD as foreordained to be the king of GOD's Coming Kingdom, how much more is such a man truly fitting especially after his total obedience to the death of cross; how much more fitting for him to be conferred the title 'god' ...
being truly the ultimate Representative of the Righteous GOD; he who is truly a righteous judge because he judges according to GOD's righteous will ... he is truly 'god' in the way that the men of Psalms 82 were meant to be. GOD's word cannot be broken!

 

This describes therefore the 'godhood' that Jesus indeed possesses ...

• however, in the same way that angels are sometimes called gods and are yet NOT deity
• in the same way that human judges are sometimes called gods and are yet NOT deity
• in like manner, the Messiah is at least twice called god in the NT; however he is NOT deity;
  just as Moses [Exo 4.16, 7.1] who was made god was NOT deity;
  GOD did indeed say he would raise up a Prophet like unto Moses.

Hence, Thomas's confession of John 20.28 ...

 

This testimony is bracketed between

1. (John 20:17) Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. ... and ...

2. (John 20:31) But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

This was the reason behind John's Gospel ... to convince the readers that Jesus of Nazareth was indeed the Messiah, GOD's Son.

Note he did not write esp. in light of v. 28 ... these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is GOD!

John was a monotheistic Jew. Like Jesus (Mark 12:29) and the rest of the GOD-fearing Jews he believed in solely ONE GOD, the ONE GOD of the Sh'ma ... YAHWEH.

He was not writing to convince his audience that the Messiah was indeed Deity; as later Hellenists tried to by reading these foreign ideas into his gospel.

No! John was writing to convince his readers that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah as promised in the OT writings.
(Always remember, throughout their exegesis, the Apostles used solely the OT [the Hebrew Bible] ... the NT was not compiled yet)

 

Before Thomas, was the risen Jesus. GOD had indeed raised him from the dead just like Jesus said GOD would!

Seeing the risen Messiah, Thomas therefore said ...
(John 20:28) And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

 

Now Jesus was indeed the Lord, the adoni spoken of in Psalms 110.1 (remember in all of its 195 instances including Psalms 110:1, the word adoni is never used to denote deity ... for ref., see http://focusonthekingdom.org/articles/adonai.htm)

 

What of the phrase, my God?

Well we have seen what GOD did to Moses ...

(Exo 4:16) And he [Aaron] shall be thy [Moses] spokesman unto the people: and he shall be, even he shall be to thee a mouth, and thou shalt be to him God.

(Exo 7:1) And YAHWEH said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.

 

Aaron was the spokesman & prophet of Moses; and in effect, Moses was God both to Aaron & Pharaoh!

Moses was Aaron's God!! Of course this is only correct in the context of the Jewish's law of agency; that is, Moses was Almighty GOD's agent in regards to Aaron & Pharaoh.

 

We have seen Jesus' usage of Psalms 82 where the judges are called gods (both Hebrew words, el & elohim are used). The judges being GOD's agents who were to judge in GOD's stead. Hence they are called elohim just as the judges in Exo. 7.1, 21.6, 22.8,9,28. (Compare 2 Chr 19.5-6)

 

And let us not forget Psalms 45.

(Psa 45) ... My heart is inditing a good matter: I speak of the things which I have made touching the king: my tongue is the pen of a ready writer. 2 Thou art fairer than the children of men: grace is poured into thy lips: therefore God hath blessed thee for ever. 3 Gird thy sword upon thy thigh, O most mighty [Heb. gibbor], with thy glory and thy majesty. ...
6 Thy throne, O God [Heb. elohim], is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre. 7 Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. 8 All thy garments smell of myrrh, and aloes, and cassia, out of the ivory palaces, whereby they have made thee glad. 9 Kings' daughters were among thy honourable women: upon thy right hand did stand the queen in gold of Ophir. 10 Hearken, O daughter, and consider, and incline thine ear; forget also thine own people, and thy father's house; 11 So shall the king greatly desire thy beauty: for he is thy Lord [Heb. adon]; and worship thou him. 12 And the daughter of Tyre shall be there with a gift; even the rich among the people shall entreat thy favour. ...

This Psalm is about a human king ... a Messianic king ...
The Jews who read this psalm never imagined at anytime that this psalm was speaking of a deity! NO! It is speaking of a great, highly exalted human king. A king who is called God/elohim by the ONE GOD, whom the ONE GOD would anoint with an anointing above all his fellows! A king whom the ONE GOD would establish his throne for ever
(sound familiar ... e.g. 2 Sam 7.16, Isa 9.7).

 

A king who would be exalted and made 'lord' i.e. 'adon' causing the people to worship him even as people did to the kings of Israel in times past (e.g. 1 Chr 29.20, 1 Kin 1.16, 23, 31, 53, etc. Same Hebrew word shachah used for worship translated worship, bow down, do reverence/obeisance, etc). They ought to show him such reverence/worship because this king is both lord [45.11] & god [45.6]. Even the writer of Hebrews quotes this psalm when showing the supremacy of Jesus as
the Lord Messiah denoting that he fulfils this psalm as the Messiah, GOD's Son. [Heb. 1.8-9]

In light of Psalms 45, John 20.28 becomes a Messianic confession. Because of his resurrection, Thomas finally believes that Jesus of Nazareth is indeed the Messiah, GOD's Son. Hence, he is Thomas' lord & god; just as the king spoken of in Psalms 45 is lord & god! ... yet never meaning deity.

There is solely ONE DEITY, YAHWEH ... the Messiah is YAHWEH's human son.

 

Part 2 concerning the word/logos to follow.

Concerning 'another deity' and the 'word'

Greetings Everyone

What follows is a 3-part extract from a series of emails representing a conversation that I had with a inquirer about 'Who Jesus Is'

The main points that I was addressing were ...

1. Whether Jesus was a 'deity' at all? That is, whether he was co-equally Almighty or 'an inferior deity' to the Father? Could be called 'a deity' at all?

2. What is the 'word' that John speaks of in John Chapter 1?

The Appendix addresses texts especially used to prove a 'so-called literal pre-existence of Christ'; esp. Hebrews Chapters 1 and 2

I hope the above 3 posts will be of some edification to someone!

Jesus is no Angel!

Its amazing how people who adhere to Trinitarian or Arian doctrines actually believe that Jesus is the Angel of the Lord, the Angel of YAHWEH in the Old Testament (OT)!

However, Jesus could not be the Angel of the Lord in the OT;
1) Because he is a human being NOT an angelic being
2) And as such he was not even conceived/begotten yet at the time of the OT
So ... Jesus cannot be an/the 'Angel of the Lord'

Now when I speak of an 'angel' I am speaking of the non-human kind i.e. the host of heaven ... angelic beings.
(Hence, I am not speaking of human messengers; since, in scripture the words angel and messenger are the same Hebrew/Greek word. So my context is angelic beings!)


Now if Jesus was an Angel of the Lord he could not qualify to be GOD's Only-Begotten Son!
Why? Because GOD said so, and it appears that the Early Church including the writer of Hebrews were fully aware of this fact and had no concept that Jesus was at anytime, an angelic being!

• (Heb 1:4-7)  Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. 5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? 6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. 7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
  
• (Heb 1:13)  But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?
  
• (Heb 2:5-9)  For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak. 6 But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him? 7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands: 8 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him. 9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

The writer of Hebrew is obviously refuting 'angel-christology' which appears was prevalent at his time; he is refuting it using the strongest possible terms.
He is showing that Jesus the Messiah, GOD's Son, was NOT an angelic being at any time!
How much clearer could the writer make his point?
The questions in Heb. 1:5, 13; are NOT rhetorical questions.
The answer therefore is:- TO NONE OF THE ANGELS, DID GOD AT ANYTIME SAY ...
Thus, Jesus the Messiah, GOD's only-begotten human son was NOT and is NOT an angelic being at anytime!


GOD never ever intended the world to come [Heb 2.5] to be put in subjection under any angel. It was always the will of GOD that the world be put under subjection to human beings, not angelic beings hence the terms, 'man and son of man'.
In chapter 2, the writer of Hebrews is equating Jesus, even the risen Jesus, as a bona fide human being, a man, a son of man, and not an angelic being!

Stephen [Acts 7] and Paul [Gal 3.19; cp. Heb 2.2] were fully aware of the OT and they stated that what spoke to the patriarchs were 'angels', angelic beings, plain and simple ... they never equate Jesus as an OT angel ... never!

There is simply no verse which equates the Messiah with the OT Angel of the Lord! No not one.

Therefore, in the OT, via what the Jews call, the law of agency, GOD spoke and acted via/through His angels.

• (Acts 7:30)  And when forty years were expired, there appeared to him in the wilderness of mount Sina an angel of the Lord in a flame of fire in a bush.
  
• (Acts 7:35)  This Moses whom they refused, saying, Who made thee a ruler and a judge? the same did God send to be a ruler and a deliverer by the hand of the angel which appeared to him in the bush.
  
• (Acts 7:38)  This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:
  
• (Acts 7:52-53)  Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which showed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers: 53 Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.
  
• (Acts 7:55-56)  But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, 56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.
  

Stephen mentions the well-known facts that it was 'angels' that appeared and spoke to the patriarchs, GOD working through them.
He finally begins to speak of the Messiah in verse 52ff ... he never says that it was the Messiah who spoke to the patriarchs; rather, Stephen states that it was Stephen's audience who were the betrayers and murderers of the Messiah in NT times! i.e. in their time! He does not depict the Messiah in OT times but rather depicts the Coming of the Messiah in their NT time! Not only did the Messiah come, but his audience were instrumental in his death!

And finally, if GOD had spoken through His Son in OT times via any means, the following verses would not make sense ...

• (Heb 1:1-2)  God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
  (Compare: (1 Pet 1:20)  Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, )
  

You see!
GOD did NOT speak via His Son in time past (simply because His Son was NOT conceived/begotten yet!)

It wasn't until Jesus came into being ... until he was begotten ... in the fulness of time, in these last days that GOD had an only-begotten Son to speak TO US through!!!

Rather, GOD's Son was foreordained even in OT times. He did not exist in OT times. He did not exist until he was conceived/begotten like every other human being

Jesus was and ever will be a human being
He was never at any time, an angelic being!

Plus to those who believe the Angel of the Lord is Jesus - 
If Jesus is 'the Angel of the Lord'
then who is the Angel of the Lord???
For example ...

(Mat 1:20-21)  But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

(Mat 1:24-25)  Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: 25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

(Mat 2:13)  And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.

(Mat 2:19-20)  But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, 20 Saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead which sought the young child's life.

(Mat 28:2-7)  And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. ... 5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. 6 He is not here: for he is risen ... 7 And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.

(Luke 2:9-11)  And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. 10 And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. 11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.

Do you see my point?

Now a little history ...

The so-called church fathers were Hellenistic-minded believers who 'lost the art' of reading the Scriptures with a Hebraic mindset.
Justin Martyr was the first to call Jesus, 'the Second God'; and also remember he was 'a philosopher turned "Christian" '!! That is, his mind was steeped in Greek Platonism and philosophy.
Remember Col 2.8!

Justin Martyr as well as the church fathers of his era, tried to marry their Greek philosophy with the Hebrew Scriptures with disastrous results. It was these men who introduced the Platonic notion of  'the immortality of the soul' and with this notion introduced the concept that Jesus the Messiah pre-existed as a personal being known as '[God] the Logos' who was alongside GOD before the foundation of the world.
Like I said, this notion of 'literal pre-existence' of the Messiah was based on their Hellenistic, Platonic philosophy.
Here is an account where Justin Martyr one of the earliest proponent of this notion, was trying to convince Trypho the Jew, of this :-

CHAPTER XLVIII [48] -- BEFORE THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST IS PROVED, HE [TRYPHO] DEMANDS THAT IT BE SETTLED THAT HE IS CHRIST.

Quote
• And Trypho said, "We have heard what you think of these matters. Resume the discourse where you left off, and bring it to an end. For some of it appears to me to be paradoxical, and wholly incapable of proof. For when you say that this Christ existed as God before the ages, then that He submitted to be born and become man, yet that He is not man of man, this [assertion] appears to me to be not merely paradoxical, but also foolish."
  And I replied [Justin] to this, "I know that the statement does appear to be paradoxical, especially to those of your race, who are ever unwilling to understand or to perform the [requirements] of God, but [ready to perform] those of your teachers, as God Himself declares. Now assuredly, Trypho," I continued," [the proof] that this man is the Christ of God does not fail, though I be unable to prove that He existed formerly as Son of the Maker of all things, being God, and was born a man by the Virgin. But since I have certainly proved that this man is the Christ of God, whoever He be, even if I do not prove that He pre-existed, and submitted to be born a man of like passions with us, having a body, according to the Father's will; in this last matter alone is it just to say that I have erred, and not to deny that He is the Christ, though it should appear that He was born man of men, and [nothing more] is proved [than this], that He has become Christ by election. For there are some, my friends," I said, "of our race, who admit that He is Christ, while holding Him to be man of men; with whom I do not agree, nor would I, even though most of those who have [now] the same opinions as myself should say so; since we were enjoined by Christ Himself to put no faith in human doctrines, but in those proclaimed by the blessed prophets and taught by Himself."

(Taken from: DIALOGUE OF TRYPHO, CHAPTER 48 )

So, Justin Martyr could not prove that Jesus pre-existed his birth! Justin also points out (as history proves) that it was the majority position among Christians of that time, that Jesus the Christ of GOD, was born man of men! Thus he did not pre-exist as someone or something else.
Sadly, this philosophical, Platonic notion of 'a literal pre-existence of a Logos-being' gained ground among the Hellenistic Christians, and we have the situation that we have today!!

However, we have no need to depend upon 'the so-called church fathers' for proof ... we simply need to go back to the Scriptures.
Jesus in John 5.46-47 was speaking of Deut 18:15-19; both disciples and believers alike perceived that Jesus of Nazareth was
'That Prophet'
[e.g. John 4.19,29,42-44; 6.14, 7.40, Acts 3.22ff, 7.37, etc]
Neither Jesus nor any of his apostles identified the Messiah as the Angel of the Lord.
And neither in any of the Jewish apocryphal writings do they ever identify the Messiah as the Angel of the Lord.

Thus, in closing ...

(1 Tim 2:5) For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;