Data on John 1:1

[brightfame52]

@Peterlag

There is no language anywhere in the world that says the son of God means God.

Yes it is biblical language which unfortunately you cant see.

 

[Peterlag]

@Peterlag



Yes it is biblical language which unfortunately you cant see.

It seems it would have been clearly stated in the Bible and in the earliest Christian creeds if the doctrine of the Trinity was genuine and central to Christian belief and especially if belief in it was necessary for salvation as many Trinitarians teach. God gave the Scriptures to the Jewish people, and the Jewish religion and worship that comes from that revelation does not contain any reference to or teachings about a triune God. Surely the Jewish people were qualified to read and understand it, but they never saw the doctrine of the Trinity, but rather just the opposite as all throughout their history they fiercely defended the fact that there was only one God. Jesus himself tied the greatest commandment in the Law together with there being only one God when an expert in Old Testament law asked him which of the commandments was the most important. Jesus said to him “The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God….” (Mark 12:29-30).

 

[synergy]

It seems it would have been clearly stated in the Bible and in the earliest Christian creeds if the doctrine of the Trinity was genuine and central to Christian belief and especially if belief in it was necessary for salvation as many Trinitarians teach. God gave the Scriptures to the Jewish people, and the Jewish religion and worship that comes from that revelation does not contain any reference to or teachings about a triune God. Surely the Jewish people were qualified to read and understand it, but they never saw the doctrine of the Trinity, but rather just the opposite as all throughout their history they fiercely defended the fact that there was only one God. Jesus himself tied the greatest commandment in the Law together with there being only one God when an expert in Old Testament law asked him which of the commandments was the most important. Jesus said to him “The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God….” (Mark 12:29-30).

The Theophanies of the OT clearly showed the presence of the PreIncarnate Christ as Deity. If you want to stay as blind as the Pharisees were then be my guest.

 

[Peterlag]

The Theophanies of the OT clearly showed the presence of the PreIncarnate Christ as Deity. If you want to stay as blind as the Pharisees were then be my guest.

There's no teaching on the trinity anywhere in the Bible. No whole paragraph or chapter teaching that we should believe or confess that Jesus is God.

 

[synergy]

There's no teaching on the trinity anywhere in the Bible. No whole paragraph or chapter teaching that we should believe or confess that Jesus is God.

Your love, admiration, and reverence of the Pharisees is making you toss away any acknowledgement of the multiple OT Deity Appearances (Theophanies) of the Preincarnate Jesus. Carry on with your love for the Judaizing Pharisees.

 

[Peterlag]

Your love, admiration, and reverence of the Pharisees is making you toss away any acknowledgement of the multiple OT Deity Appearances (Theophanies) of the Preincarnate Jesus. Carry on with your love for the Judaizing Pharisees.

And then there's the problem with the Holy Spirit. There are many descriptions, titles, and names for God in the Bible and I would like to add God’s proper name is “Yahweh” which occurs more than 6,000 times in the Hebrew Old Testament and is generally translated as “LORD.” But God is also referred to as Elohim, Adonai, El Shaddai, the Ancient of Days, the Holy One of Israel, Father, Shield, and by many more designations. Furthermore, God is holy (Leviticus 11:44), which is why He was called “the Holy One” (the Hebrew text uses the singular adjective “holy” to designate “the Holy One." He is also spirit (John 4:24). It makes perfect sense since God is holy and God is spirit that “Holy”and “Spirit” are sometimes combined and used as one of the many designations for God.

None of the dozens of descriptions, titles, or names of God are believed to be a separate, co-equal “Person”in a triune God except for the “HOLY SPIRIT” and there is no solid biblical reason to make the "Holy Spirit” into a separate “Person.” In other contexts the “HOLY SPIRIT” refers to the gift of God’s nature that He placed on people and the new birth to the Christian, and in those contexts it should be translated as the “holy spirit." God placed a form of His nature which is “holy spirit” upon people when He wanted to spiritually empower them because our natural fleshly human bodies do not have spirit power of their own. This holy spirit nature of God was a gift from God to humankind and we see this in the case of Acts 2:38 when the spirit is specifically called a "gift" when given to the Christian.

 

[brightfame52]

It seems it would have been clearly stated in the Bible and in the earliest Christian creeds if the doctrine of the Trinity was genuine and central to Christian belief and especially if belief in it was necessary for salvation as many Trinitarians teach. God gave the Scriptures to the Jewish people, and the Jewish religion and worship that comes from that revelation does not contain any reference to or teachings about a triune God. Surely the Jewish people were qualified to read and understand it, but they never saw the doctrine of the Trinity, but rather just the opposite as all throughout their history they fiercely defended the fact that there was only one God. Jesus himself tied the greatest commandment in the Law together with there being only one God when an expert in Old Testament law asked him which of the commandments was the most important. Jesus said to him “The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God….” (Mark 12:29-30).

Yes it is biblical language which unfortunately you cant see.

 

[mikesw]

It seems it would have been clearly stated in the Bible and in the earliest Christian creeds if the doctrine of the Trinity was genuine and central to Christian belief and especially if belief in it was necessary for salvation as many Trinitarians teach. God gave the Scriptures to the Jewish people, and the Jewish religion and worship that comes from that revelation does not contain any reference to or teachings about a triune God. Surely the Jewish people were qualified to read and understand it, but they never saw the doctrine of the Trinity, but rather just the opposite as all throughout their history they fiercely defended the fact that there was only one God. Jesus himself tied the greatest commandment in the Law together with there being only one God when an expert in Old Testament law asked him which of the commandments was the most important. Jesus said to him “The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God….” (Mark 12:29-30).

This keeps sounding so ignorant. Peterlag keeps repeating that Jews recognize there is only one God. It makes it seem that Peterlag is trying to confront a system of belief that says there are other gods. What bigger strawman could Peterlag create as the focus of his objections? No mystery lies with where his confusion lies. He also is confronting the Trinity as Catholic origin, like the Jehovah Witnesses do. Why does he promote this anachronistic designation? Maybe someone can answer this if Peterlag cannot explain that JW alignment.

 

[Peterlag]

This keeps sounding so ignorant. Peterlag keeps repeating that Jews recognize there is only one God. It makes it seem that Peterlag is trying to confront a system of belief that says there are other gods. What bigger strawman could Peterlag create as the focus of his objections? No mystery lies with where his confusion lies. He also is confronting the Trinity as Catholic origin, like the Jehovah Witnesses do. Why does he promote this anachronistic designation? Maybe someone can answer this if Peterlag cannot explain that JW alignment.

I promote what I do which is info on the trinity because there are many who believe that Jesus is God. The Bible teaches there is one God, the Father, and one Messiah and Lord, Jesus Christ, who is the divinely conceived Son of God. Jesus Christ is the fully human “Son of God” and not “God the Son.” For clarity’s sake, it's helpful to understand what the Trinity is. The orthodox doctrine of the Trinity is that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and the three of them are co-equal, co-eternal, and share the same essence and together those three individual “Persons” are one triune God. The doctrine of the Trinity that Jesus is both 100% God and 100% man and that both the divine nature and his human nature live together in his flesh body may be widely believed, but is never stated in the Bible.

Something that is openly admitted by theologians that is not known by many Christians is that the doctrine of the Trinity is not stated in the Bible, but is actually “built” by piecing together statements that are said to support it. Since most Christians believe the Trinity is a mystery and not to be understood is a huge reason why doctrinal discussions about it are often avoided or brushed aside and ignored. Worse, the teaching that the Trinity is a “mystery” has been used as a club to beat down doubters and dissenters, and those people are often branded as “heretics” and their role in Christianity minimized.

 

[mikesw]

I promote what I do which is info on the trinity because there are many who believe that Jesus is God. The Bible teaches there is one God, the Father, and one Messiah and Lord, Jesus Christ, who is the divinely conceived Son of God. Jesus Christ is the fully human “Son of God” and not “God the Son.” For clarity’s sake, it's helpful to understand what the Trinity is. The orthodox doctrine of the Trinity is that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and the three of them are co-equal, co-eternal, and share the same essence and together those three individual “Persons” are one triune God. The doctrine of the Trinity that Jesus is both 100% God and 100% man and that both the divine nature and his human nature live together in his flesh body may be widely believed, but is never stated in the Bible.

Something that is openly admitted by theologians that is not known by many Christians is that the doctrine of the Trinity is not stated in the Bible, but is actually “built” by piecing together statements that are said to support it. Since most Christians believe the Trinity is a mystery and not to be understood is a huge reason why doctrinal discussions about it are often avoided or brushed aside and ignored. Worse, the teaching that the Trinity is a “mystery” has been used as a club to beat down doubters and dissenters, and those people are often branded as “heretics” and their role in Christianity minimized.

Like I said. you make these anachronistic and strawman attacks but never defend your use of those tactics. Sure you have other interpretations to fit your view but this eisegetical approach is rather destructive. If you actually had found arguments against the Trinity, people might side with you. If it did not sound so Jehovah Witnessy, you would have done a tad better.
Just because you deny the evidence and put a requirement on God how he should have shown the Triune nature in scripture, that is not sufficient reason to deny God's essence. Nor has your discussion been denied here. Your argument just has been shown insufficient to deny God's Triune nature.
You then take the concept of God's Spirit in us and make it into some new spiritualism religion. So you apparently claim some sort of Christianity practice that denies Christian doctrine. Of course this website is designated for such discussion. Congratulations on finding this site.

 

[Peterlag]

Like I said. you make these anachronistic and strawman attacks but never defend your use of those tactics. Sure you have other interpretations to fit your view but this eisegetical approach is rather destructive. If you actually had found arguments against the Trinity, people might side with you. If it did not sound so Jehovah Witnessy, you would have done a tad better.
Just because you deny the evidence and put a requirement on God how he should have shown the Triune nature in scripture, that is not sufficient reason to deny God's essence. Nor has your discussion been denied here. Your argument just has been shown insufficient to deny God's Triune nature.
You then take the concept of God's Spirit in us and make it into some new spiritualism religion. So you apparently claim some sort of Christianity practice that denies Christian doctrine. Of course this website is designated for such discussion. Congratulations on finding this site.

 

[Peterlag]

Like I said. you make these anachronistic and strawman attacks but never defend your use of those tactics. Sure you have other interpretations to fit your view but this eisegetical approach is rather destructive. If you actually had found arguments against the Trinity, people might side with you. If it did not sound so Jehovah Witnessy, you would have done a tad better.
Just because you deny the evidence and put a requirement on God how he should have shown the Triune nature in scripture, that is not sufficient reason to deny God's essence. Nor has your discussion been denied here. Your argument just has been shown insufficient to deny God's Triune nature.
You then take the concept of God's Spirit in us and make it into some new spiritualism religion. So you apparently claim some sort of Christianity practice that denies Christian doctrine. Of course this website is designated for such discussion. Congratulations on finding this site.

There is nothing straw-man about the Bible saying in many verses that there is only one God and “God” does not have a God. We read in Isaiah 44:6 “…there is no God besides me” and Ephesians 4:6 says there is “one God and Father of all, who is over all.” Jesus has a God in contrast to “God” who alone is God and does not have a God. Jesus spoke about his God after the resurrection to Mary Magdalene, saying “…I ascend to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God” (John 20:17). Jesus still called God “my God” after his ascension into heaven when he was standing at the right hand of God.

There are also verses in the New Testament that clearly speak of “God” being the “God” of Jesus Christ. Romans 15:6 says “...you can, with one mouth, glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” 2 Corinthians 1:3, Ephesians 1:3, and 1 Peter 1:3 all say “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” So the “one God and Father” (Ephesians 4:6) is the God of Jesus Christ. The “one God” of the Bible never says He has a God because He is God, the Father, the Creator, “the Most High God” and He has no equals. Jesus is not “God” because he's a man, the last Adam, the created Son of God, and the God of Jesus is God the Father.

 

[101G]

What would you have left if Jesus was not God?

but he, is so your question is redundant.

101G

 

[Peterlag]

but he, is so your question is redundant.

101G

The belief that Jesus is God is completely 100 percent false and yet I have never been able to get even just one person to not believe such nonsense. How can something so totally false have so many that have dug their heels so tight into this belief? I have a theory that it's because their whole Christian system is based on the idea that Jesus is God. And so if I were to be able to take that away from them. Then they would have nothing left.

 

[dwight92070]

I don't really care if you place me on ignore, because you have pretty much ignored everything I have posted, you have refused to answer any of my questions or discuss any of the Scriptures I posted, and yet demand that I answer your questions, or you will place me on ignore.

This is the Hubris of which I speak.

It seems you have adopted and are a disciple of a religious sect of the Protestant religion called the "Berean Bible Society". You copy and paste sermons from their website.

You refuse to discuss Scriptures with Pancho, turning down his invitation to do so, then you turn right around, after refusing his invitation to debate what is actually written in Scriptures, and preach down to him with another copy and pasted sermon from some undisclosed preacher.

This is the hubris of which I speak.

You promote the religious philosophy of "many" who have transformed themselves into apostles of Christ, that Jesus ruled over His Flesh, not by faith or as Paul and the Scriptures teach, "Yielding Himself to God". You promote the popular religious philosophy that Jesus ruled over His flesh "BECAUSE" HE was immortal God from His Birth. He Never sinned, "Because" HE was immortal God from His youth. He wasn't really tempted "Because" HE was immortal God from His youth. He could die "Because" HE was immortal God from His youth.

This popular religious philosophy you have adopted and are now promoting to others, demeans His Labor, His Effort, His Devotion to His Father, His Love for His Father and most of all, His Love for me. And makes a mockery of His Life as a scam, an illusion, a deception because if Jesus was immortal God, then HE didn't risk His Life for anyone. He didn't do anything extraordinary; His Father gave HIM Nothing because HE is God, not sent by God. The amount of Scripture that I must erase from the Bible to promote this religious philosophy you have adopted and are now promoting to others is staggering.

Now don't get me wrong. You are free to adopt the religious philosophy of any religion you want. And Jesus said I will live in world filled with men who "Come in His Name" but reject His Commandments, His Sabbaths, His Judgments, and will create their own commandments, judgments and sabbaths, and promote "Their WAY" to others over the "Way of the Lord" that Jesus walked in. Am I so special that I cannot be influenced by these "many"? God knows I am not. This is why I have "Come out of her", the "her" being this world's religious system that "profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate".

If Jesus was a man who believed in and lived by "EVERY WORD" inspired by God, as HE instructed me to do.

Ecc. 12: 13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. 14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.

And HE lived with the Armor of God from His Youth, as HE instructs through the teachers His Father gave to Him.

Eph. 6: 11 Put on the whole Armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.

And through obedience to this Faith, overcame in this evil world, then if I choose to believe in Him enough to be a "Doer" of His sayings, and not a hearer only, shall I not also endure?

John 14: 12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

No Johann, I have come to understand your adopted religious philosophy, and although it is seductive, and very popular in this world's religions, it is not the Gospel of the Christ "of the bible".

There's those tell-tale phrases: "your adopted religious philosophy", "this world's religions" "you have adopted and are a disciple of a religious sect of the Protestant religion" What cult did you say you belong to again?

 

[Peterlag]

The reason you don't have a teaching on the trinity is because there is none. All you post are bits and pieces of words and half verses and all taken out of context or from bad translations or not understanding how the words were used at the time they were written. Thomas is a great example...

Jesus is God's messenger/agent/representative (Jewish Law of agency - shaliah). We can clearly see this Jewish principle through the entire gospel of John. Jesus was sent by God as His messenger and therefore Jesus was God’s representative on earth. God gave Jesus the right and authority to act in His name and that is why Jesus declared that whoever receives him automatically receives God the Father, that whoever sees him sees the Father, that whoever believes in him actually believes in the Father who sent him and whoever rejects him rejects the Father who sent him (John 12:44-45; 14:7; 1 John 2:23).

It's therefore true that whoever sees the Son sees God the Father. However, there is another dimension to this mutual relationship between them. In the New Testament we read that Jesus as the Son of God is the image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15) who is the radiance of his glory and the express image of his nature (Hebrews 1:3). That in the face of Jesus Christ the glory of God can be seen (2 Corinthians 4:6), that the Son came to reveal and show us God the Father who is spirit and whom no one has ever seen (John 1:18), and therefore it's in him that we can know God the Father and that he is the only "way" to the Father, that in his human body dwells the Father himself... "all the fullness of the Godhead bodily" (Colossians 2:9) who acts through him. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that whoever sees and believes in the Son automatically sees and believes in God the Father.

This was also understood by the apostle Thomas (John 20:28 compared with John 14:5-9) who finally realized and believed that in Jesus he saw the one true God... the Father, who dwelled in him and He is doing everything through His Son (including his resurrection). It's also our duty to realize that Jesus Christ is the visible image of the (otherwise) invisible God and that we can know the one true God and reach Him only through His Son Jesus Christ.

 

[civic]

This is all the data I could find on John 1:1. Enjoy...

“In the beginning.” There are elements of John 1:1 and other phrases in the introduction of John that remind us of God’s original creation while referring to the work of restoration done by Jesus Christ in the new administration and the new creation. Genesis 1 refers to God’s original creation; John 1 refers to the Restoration, not the original creation.

While we agree with the Catechism that the meaning of “beginning” in John 1:1 refers to the beginning of the Gospel and the restoration of mankind, we also need to point out that the word “beginning” was deliberately chosen by God to remind us of the original creation, and to set the stage for the sequence of events that follow; for example, the conflict between light and darkness. In the context of the Restoration, then “the Word” is the plan or purpose according to which God is restoring His creation.

So using “In the beginning” takes us both back to the beginning in Genesis 1:1, and sets us up for the “beginning” of the work of Christ and the Restoration of mankind.

Genesis 1. THE CREATION

• In the beginning—The creation
• Chaos and darkness
• God hovering over the water
• God spoke light and more into being
• Light overcoming the darkness
• God preparing a Garden of Delight for people and living among them
• THE FALL (then God lived in a tent (the “tabernacle”) and people gazed at its glory)

John 1. THE RESTORATION

• In the beginning—the plan
• All things were made in accordance with the plan
• In the plan was light and life
• The darkness could not understand or overcome it
• The plan became flesh and lived in a tent among us, and we gazed at its glory.

The “Word” is translated from the Greek word logos (λόγοc). It refers to God’s reason as played out in His plan and purpose. It is important that Christians have a basic understanding of logos, which is translated as “Word” in most versions of John 1:1. Most Trinitarians believe that logos refers directly to Jesus Christ, so in most Bibles logos is capitalized as “Word” (some versions even put “Jesus Christ” instead of “Word” in John 1:1). However, a study of the Greek word logos shows that it occurs more than 300 times in the New Testament, and in both the NIV and the KJV it is capitalized only 7 times (and even those versions disagree on exactly when to capitalize it). When a word that occurs more than 300 times is capitalized fewer than 10 times, it is obvious that when to capitalize and when not to capitalize is a translator’s decision based on their particular understanding of Scripture. Below are five points to consider.

In both Greek literature and Scripture, logos has a very wide semantic range that falls into two basic categories: one is the mind and products of the mind like “reason” (the word “logic” is ultimately from the root logos) and the other is the expression of that reason in language or life: thus, “word” “saying” “command” etc. The Bible itself demonstrates the wide range of meanings of logos. Some of the ways it is translated in English versions of the Bible are: account, appearance, book, command, conversation, eloquence, flattery, grievance, heard, instruction, matter, message, ministry, news, proposal, question, reason, reasonable, reply, report, rule, rumor, said, say, saying, sentence, speaker, speaking, speech, stories, story, talk, talking, teaching, testimony, thing, things, this, truths, what, why, word and words. Although the word logos appears over 300 times in the Greek text, it is only translated “word” about 175 times in the King James Version, and 125 times in the NIV.

Any good Greek lexicon will also show the wide lexical range of logos. The definitions below are from the BDAG Greek-English lexicon. The words in italics are translated from logos:

• (Rom. 15:18 NIV) “what I have said”
• (Luke 20:20 NASB) “they might catch him in some statement"
• (Matt. 21:24 NIV) “I will also ask you one question”
• (1 Tim. 5:17 NIV) “especially those whose work is preaching"
• (Gal. 5:14 NIV) “the entire law is summed up in a single command”
• (John 4:37 NIV) “thus the saying, One sows, and another reaps”
• (Luke 4:32 NIV84) “his message had authority”
• (John 6:60 NIV) “this is a hard teaching”
• (Acts 8:21 NIV) “you have no part or share in this ministry”
• (Acts 15:6 NASB) “And the apostles... came together to look into this matter”
• (Matt. 15:6 NIV) “you nullify the Word of God”
• (Heb. 13:7 NIV84) “leaders who spoke the Word of God”
• (Matt. 12:36 NIV84) “men will have to give account on the Day of Judgment"
• (Matt. 18:23 NIV) “A king who wanted to settle “accounts” with his servants”
• (Acts 10:29 NASB) “I ask for what reason you have sent for me”

The above list is not exhaustive, but it does show that logos has a very wide range of meanings. With all the ways logos can be translated, how can we decide which meaning of logos to choose for any one verse? How can it be determined what logos refers to in John 1:1? Any occurrence of logos has to be carefully studied in its context in order to get the proper meaning. We assert that the logos in John 1:1 cannot be Jesus. Please notice that “Jesus Christ” is not a lexical definition of logos. John 1:1 does not say, “In the beginning was Jesus.”

“The Word” is not synonymous with Jesus, or even “the Messiah.” The word logos in John 1:1 refers to God’s creative self-expression—His reason, purposes, and plans, especially as they are brought into action. It refers to God’s self-expression, or communication, of Himself. Thus the logos has been expressed through His creation (Rom. 1:19-20) and Psalm 19 tell us that the heavens declare the glory of God. The logos has also been made known through the spoken word of the prophets and through Scripture, which is the written “Word of God.” Most notably and finally, it has come into being through His Son (Heb. 1:1-2).

However, when we are studying John 1:1 and the use of logos in the Bible, and reading what the commentaries, systematic theologies, Bible dictionaries, etc., say about it, we must be very careful to discern where the writer is getting his information. We assert that John and his hearers thought of Jesus as the Son of God, not God. However, many commentators are Trinitarian and simply assume that the word logos in John 1:1 refers to Jesus, and then from that assumption ignore the way the Jews and Greeks of John’s time thought about the logos, and give it a meaning it had in later Christian history as the Trinity doctrine developed, and that new meaning is “Jesus Christ.”

For example, Edward Klink III writes: “Certainly the term [logos] might be recognizable [to John’s audience] but its direct connection to Jesus assumes that Jesus, not merely his [John’s] religious-philosophical context, determines its meaning. …John is not relying on a background but on a foreground. For it is Jesus who embodies the “Word” (logos) in the flesh." Klink is asserting that logos means Jesus in John 1:1 because later in John the logos became flesh. But to us that is an unwarranted assumption. There is no historical evidence that the people of Christ’s time who did not believe (John wrote to get people to believe that Jesus was the Christ, John 20:31) ever thought the logos was Jesus Christ, but they did believe that God’s logos was His plans and purposes, and that logos became flesh in Jesus Christ in much the same way that they came into concretion as the Word of God spoken by the apostles and especially as that word became written down as the written “Word [logos] of God.”

Many scholars identify logos with God’s wisdom and reason. Andrews Norton postulates that in John 1:1 perhaps “the Disposing Power of God” would be a good translation for logos. Anthony Buzzard sets forth “plan” “purpose” or “promise” as three acceptable translations. James Broughton and Peter Southgate say that logos was used “to describe the thoughts and plan of God being put into action."
The logos is the expression of God, and is His communication of Himself, just as a “word” is an outward expression of a person’s thoughts. This outward expression of God has now occurred through His Son, and thus it is perfectly understandable why Jesus is called the “Word.” Jesus is an outward expression of God’s reason, wisdom, purpose, and plan. For the same reason, we call the Bible the “Word” of God, and revelation “a word from God.”

If we understand that the logos is God’s expression—His plan, purposes, reason, and wisdom—it is clear that those things were indeed with Him “in the beginning.” Scripture says that God’s wisdom was “from the beginning” (Prov. 8:23). It was very common in Hebrew writing to personify a concept such as wisdom. The figure of speech personification occurs when something is given human characteristics to emphasize something. Psalm 35:10 portrays bones talking. Psalm 68:31 portrays Ethiopia as a woman with her hands outstretched to God. Isaiah 3:26 says the gates of Zion will lament and mourn. Isaiah 14:8 says the cypress trees will rejoice. 1 Corinthians 12:15 portrays the foot talking. The Bible has many examples of personification, and wisdom is personified in Proverbs. Nevertheless, no ancient Jew reading Proverbs would think that God’s wisdom was a separate person, even though it is portrayed as one in verses like Proverbs 8:29-30: “…when He marked out the foundations of the earth, I [wisdom] was the craftsman at His side.” Similarly, the logos was with God in the beginning, because God’s plan, purpose, and wisdom were with Him, but we should not think of these as a separate person.

The use of “word” in the prologue of John as the plan and purpose of God is unique in the book, something that was pointed out by the eminent scholar, F. F. Bruce: “…the term "Word" does not reappear in the body of the Gospel [of John] in the sense which it bears in the prologue.” That statement is true and is easy to confirm from any Greek concordance, furthermore, it makes perfect sense in the light of the goal of the Gospel of John, which is stated in John 20:31, “but these are written so that you believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and so that by believing you will have life in his name.” The plan and purpose of God, that the earth and people would be restored to Him, was with Him in the beginning, and the plan and purpose became flesh in Jesus Christ as John 1:14 says, and so from John 1:14 until the end of John, the flesh and blood Christ is the focus, not the “plan” the logos, of God.

Most Jewish readers of the Gospel of John would have been familiar with the concept of God’s “word” being with God as He worked to bring His creation into existence. There is an obvious working of God’s power in Genesis 1 as He brings His plan into concretion by speaking things into being. The Targums are well known for describing the wisdom and action of God as His “word.” This is especially important to note because the Targums are the Aramaic translations and paraphrases of the Old Testament, and Aramaic was the spoken language of many Jews at the time of Christ. Remembering that a Targum is usually a paraphrase of what the Hebrew text says, note how the following examples attribute action to the word.

• And the word of the Lord was Joseph’s helper (Gen. 39:2).
• And Moses brought the people to meet the word of the Lord (Exod. 19:17).
• And the word of the Lord accepted the face of Job (Job 42:9).
• And the word of the Lord shall laugh them to scorn (Ps. 2:4).
• They believed in the name of His word (Ps. 106:12).

The above examples demonstrate that the Jews were familiar with using the idea of God’s “Word” to refer to His wisdom and action. This is especially important to note because these Jews were fiercely monotheistic, and did not in any way believe in a “Triune God.” They were familiar with the idioms of their own language, and understood that the wisdom and power of God were being personified as “word.”

Like the Aramaic-speaking Jews, the Greek-speaking Jews were also familiar with God’s creative force being called “the word.” J. H. Bernard writes, “When we turn from Palestine to Alexandria [Egypt] from Hebrew sapiential [wisdom] literature to that which was written in Greek, we find this creative wisdom identified with the Divine logos, Hebraism and Hellenism thus coming into contact.”l

One example of this is in the Apocryphal book known as the Wisdom of Solomon, which says, “O God of my fathers and Lord of mercy who hast made all things by thy word (logos) and by thy wisdom hast formed man…” (9:1). In this verse, the “word” and “wisdom” are seen as the creative force of God, but without being a “person.”

The logos, that is, the plan, purpose, and wisdom of God, “became flesh” (came into concretion or physical existence) in Jesus Christ. Jesus is the “image of the invisible God” (Col. 1:15) and His chief emissary, representative, and agent. Because Jesus perfectly obeyed the Father, he represents everything that God could communicate about Himself in a human person. As such, Jesus could say, “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father” (John 14:9). The fact that the logos “became” flesh shows that it did not exist that way before. There is no preexistence of Jesus in this verse other than his figurative “existence” as the plan, purpose, or wisdom of God for the salvation of man. The same is true with the “word” in writing. It did not preexist in any form in the distant past, but it came into being as God gave the revelation to people and they wrote it down.

It is important to understand that the Bible was not written in a vacuum, but was recorded in the context of a culture and was understood by those who lived in that culture. Sometimes verses that seem superfluous or confusing to us were meaningful to the readers of the time because they were well aware of the culture and beliefs of those around them. In the first century, there were many competing beliefs in the world (and unfortunately, erroneous beliefs in Christendom) that were confusing believers about the identities of God and Christ. For centuries before Christ, and at the time the New Testament was written, the irrational beliefs about the gods of Greece had been handed down. This body of religious information was known by the word “muthos,” which we today call “myths” or “mythology.” These muthos, these myths, were often mystical and beyond rational explanation. The more familiar one is with the Greek myths, the better he will understand our emphasis on their irrationality. If one is unfamiliar with them, it would be valuable to read a little on the subject. Greek mythology is an important part of the cultural background of the New Testament.

The Facts on John 1:1


In the beginning was the Word.
en arche en ho logos
εν αρχη ην ο λογος

the phrase "in the beginning" is "en arche". Now if you look in the Septuagint at Genesis 1:1 we find this:
εν αρχη εποιησεν ο θεος

Now the question we need to ask ourselves is what does in the beginning mean ? One must always remember that context always determines the meaning of words and phrases. If we compare Genesis with John which is exactly what John is doing in his opening to his gospel we can clearly see his point. Moses and John both are discussing the creation of "all things". That makes the passages parallel. Here a some parallels to consider:

1- in the beginning
2- Theos( God) appears in both opening verses
3- Both talk about the creation of all things
4- both use egeneto εγενετο, came into being or existence
5- both use and contrast light and darkness

εν αρχη refers to the beginning of time. Now if John didn't mean the beginning of time he could of easily used another word that he often used which would be the word from"apo" instead of en. He could of also used the phrase came into being(egeneto) to refer to the Word in 1a but he did not. John made it very clear that the Word in his gospel is equal to the God in Genesis.

Now lets look at the verb was"en". This is in the imperfect tense meaning continuous existence. By its very definition it has the meaning of eternal, without beginning. Therefor the Words existence transcends time and is eternal. Here is Dr. Robertson below:



In the beginning (en arch). Arch is definite, though anarthrous like our at home, in town, and the similar Hebrew be reshith in Genesis 1:1 . But Westcott notes that here John carries our thoughts beyond the beginning of creation in time to eternity. There is no argument here to prove the existence of God any more than in Genesis. It is simply assumed. Either God exists and is the Creator of the universe as scientists like Eddington and Jeans assume or matter is eternal or it has come out of nothing. Was (hn). Three times in this sentence John uses this imperfect of eimi to be which conveys no idea of origin for God or for the Logos, simply continuous existence. Quite a different verb (egeneto, became) appears in verse Genesis 14 for the beginning of the Incarnation of the Logos. See the distinction sharply drawn in Genesis 8:58 "before Abraham came (genesqai) I am" (eimi, timeless existence).

From here we can now look to see who the Word is in John 1:1.



Now that we have established the meaning of the beginning in John 1:1a we can move on to the identity of the Word.

We can see that in both 1b and 1c John uses the word theos and theon for God. The Greek word for God can be spelled various ways depending on the grammer. It can be spelled theos, theou or theon.
theon- accusative case
theou-genative
theos-nominative


Whoever the Word is , He was alongside God (with Him) and was God. But how can the Word be with God and also be God? Lets examine 1b The Word was with God. John here is making a distinction between the Word and God. The Word existed eternally with God, for the Word (logos) ‎was in perfect fellowship with God. Pros ‎with the accusative shows equality and intimacy, face to face with each other. This clearly reveals a relationship between the logos and theon in 1b. In (Moulton and Milligan Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament)"the knowledge of our intimacy with one another" is used to speak of the relationship between the logos and God.

The Word was God- και θεος ην ο λογος . Theos here is without the article. It is predicative and describes the nature of the Word. The absence of the article indicates that the Word is God. If “o theos” had been written then it would mean that no divine being existed outside of the Word. Johns whole gospel comes forth from this verse. The Word is who his gospel is written about and as we will see the words and deeds of Jesus are the words and deeds of God.

John 1:14 and the Word became flesh- και ο λογος σαρξ εγενετο. Second aorist middle indicative of ginomai which means came into existence, He became flesh. The Word in one single event is history became man as opposed to “eimi” being or always existed. So we can clearly see the Word who is eternal came into existence in the flesh at a single point in time .

Now if we read further in John we can see that the Word dwelt among us (tabernacled).The Word entering a new mode of existence, became flesh, and lived in a tent (His physical body-a tabernacle) among us. And we beheld His glory.

This Word John the Baptist identifies as Jesus.
15 John testified about Him and cried out, saying, "This was He of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.

John 1:29-31
29The next day he saw Jesus coming to him and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! 30"This is He on behalf of whom I said, 'After me comes a Man who has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.

How was the "Word made flesh"? By the miracle of the Virgin Birth (Isaiah 7:14, Matthew 1:18-25, Luke 1:26-38). He took on Himself sinless human nature and identified with us in every aspect of our life from birth to death. "The Word" was not an abstract concept of philosophy, a thought or an idea but a real person who could be seen, touched, and heard. The gospel is Christ and Christ is God.

The revelation of God's glory is an important theme in Johns Gospel. Jesus revealed God's glory in His person, His works, and His words. Jesus works, words and deeds are Gods works, words and deeds. That is why He could say he who has seen me has seen the Father because they are one in essence. Jesus could say as well that before Abraham was “I Am” (the self existing One) and taking upon Himself the divine name that God gave to Moses. This is the same wording in the Septuagint.

Jesus also warns us that unless you believe that “I Am” you will die in your sins. We see later with the same audience they tried to kill Him for these very claims. You being a man make yourself to be God. There is no getting around the pre existence Son who created all things and is before all things. He truly is the Creator of Genesis 1 and John 1. Same God, same Creator, same Person.

Verse 1 describes the Word in three ways. The existence of the Word at the beginning is affirmed. The relationship of the Word to God is described. Finally, the actual character or nature of the Word is declared. The first affirmation is of the existence of the Word in the beginning. By doing this the gospel echoes almost exactly the opening words of Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning God . . . ." Thus Jesus is paced at God's side as far back in time as the Bible goes. The next phrase, however, refines the relationship between Jesus and God. "The Word was with God" does not pick up a significant implication of the Greek text. It might be better translated, "The Word was face to face with God." The relationship of Jesus and God was more than side-by-side; it was a face to face relationship indicating far more intimacy than that of simply being co-workers. This prepares for the final phrase, "The Word was God."

The affirmation that Jesus is God is not a startling or difficult thought for present day Christians. It may not have been for John's readers, but it was difficult for many first century Christians of Jewish heritage. Every Jew began every morning with these words in prayer, "Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God is one." To claim that Jesus was God would be a very difficult idea for Jews to assimilate. Perhaps the point that we should understand is not just that Jesus was (and is) God, but that when Jesus is seen, God is seen. The Logos provides us access and understanding into the very nature of God.

That does not mean that the Logos exhausts the being of God. John does not say God was the Logos. We struggle with the mystery of this verse. Jesus is said both to be with God and to be God. That speaks of Jesus being distinguishable and yet identical with God. Our minds cannot hold the ultimate logic of both statements together. We believe, but there is a limit to our understanding. John could have easily said as Paul did in Ephesians 5:32, "This is a great mystery."

Verses 2 and 3 return to the eternal existence of the Logos with God and the role of the "Word" in creation. "And apart from Him not even one thing was made." This emphasis on Christ as creator reflects an important insight from Jewish thought. To affirm that nothing was made apart from Christ is to affirm that His imprint is stamped on all creation. All creation owes a certain accountability to the Creator. As modern science pursues the mystery of life in physical and chemical terms, the Bible-believing Christian cannot evade the meaning of John 1:2-3. We are responsible for the life we live to Christ as our Creator. The meaning of our life will never be embraced by DNA studies. The imprint of Christ on our neighbor and our universe will always be a part of our pursuit of understanding. The creation can never be considered evil from a Christian standpoint, but we must be the people most concerned that evil does not corrupt it.

Verse 4 introduces the terms, "life" and "light," in relation to Jesus. Life was in the logos. The energy and vitality, the creativity and feeling that we call life has its source in Christ. If life has its existence in the logos then if there is no logos there is no life. John wants to make Christ absolutely the essence and meaning of life. No Christ - no life. We are too tempted to spiritualize this truth. No Christ - no spiritual life. For John the difference between life and mere existence is Christ. If we agree with John the way we spend our time and money, the things we think important and funny, and commitments of our energy and interest will all be changed. We have let the world define life for us too long. Life is in Christ.

Verse 4 goes on to declare that this Life was also the light of mankind. Verse 5 declares that Jesus is involved in a great struggle against darkness. Here is an example of John's black and white thinking that we may not be able to appreciate like the people of the first century did. The flick of a light switch has made light so easy for us that most of us do not really understand darkness. We do not have to deal with its terror, its unknown character, its evil-cloaking nature.

The Word was with God—The preposition translated "with" is pros. In Koine Greek pros (short for prosopon pros prosopon, "face to face") was used to show intimacy in personal relationships (see Matt. 13:56; 26:18; Mark 6:3; 14:49; 1 Cor. 13:12; 6:10; 2 Cor. 5:8; Gal. 1:18). Thus, for John to say "the Word was with God" was for him to mean "the Word was face to face with God" (see Williams’s translation) or "the Word was having intimate fellowship with God." This speaks of the preincarnate Son’s relationship with the Father prior to creation—in fact, prior to everything (see 1:18; 17:5, 24) (JFB).

With God (pros ton theon). Though existing eternally with God the Logos was in perfect fellowship with God. Pros with the accusative presents a plane of equality and intimacy, face to face with each other (RWP).

The preposition "with" in the phrase "the Word was with God" indicates both equality and distinction of identity along with association. The phrase can be rendered "face to face with." It may, therefore, imply personality, coexistence with the Creator, and yet be an expression of his creative being...The preposition ðñ’ò (pros) indicates both equality and distinction of identity. Robertson says, "The literal idea comes out well, ‘face to face with God’" (RHG, p. 623). Thus this implies personality and coexistence with God. Robertson says it bespeaks of "the fellowship between the Logos and God" (EBC).

Thus John’s statement is that the divine Word not only abode with the Father from all eternity, but was in the living, active relation of communion with Him (Vincent).

Of the character of this relationship to God no further details are given. [Apparently "with God" (pros + accusative) is intended as an indication not only of place but also of disposition and orientation. - note 23] The focus is entirely on the antecedent existence of the Word, that is, that it existed before all that is created, and on the Word's participation in the divine. This latter point is made in no uncertain terms by the emphatic positioning of the predicate noun: "And God was the Word" (Ridderbos).

What we notice about all these examples [of pros in the NT], however, is that in all but one or two peculiar constructions (e.g., 1 Pet. 3:15), prosmay mean 'with' only when a person is with a person, usually in some fairly intimate relationship. And that suggests that John may already be pointing out, rather subtly, that the 'Word' he is talking about is a person, with God and therefore distinguishable from God, and enjoying a personal relationship with him (Carson).

The Greek preposition translated with suggests the idea of communion. The thought is lit. 'towards God', which requires some distinctiveness between God and the Word. But the next phrase adds a further aspect, since it affirms that the Word was God...Since the Greek has no article before God, the term must be taken setting out a characteristic of the Word. Since God is a noun, John must be affirming the Godhead of the Word. It involves not only divinity but deity (NBC).

hope this helps !!!