Not very good of you to change the topic from the Son of God to sons of God.
Jesus denied being God
- Thread starter Runningman
- Start date
Runningman
Active Member
I suppose you are trying to make a point for your side. The passage highlights he deity, being God's Son. He is of the order of Melchizedek having no beginning and no end. This testifies to one who has preexistence. It is good of you to attest to that preexistence.
dwight92070
Active Member
I am so cruel when I speak the truth. Jesus was extremely cruel to the Pharisees, Sadduccees and the Scribes, wasn't He?
dwight92070
Active Member
Did you notice how Peterlag changes the topic here?
Runningman
Active Member
Just making a point for the Scripture side. Jesus is a Son of God or the Son of God depending on context. He is one of many of the sons of God. Adam is also the son of God. Depends on grammar and context.
Luke 3
38the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.
okay. I will let you follow Adam's path. But scripture shows Jesus is the prophetic Son of God or God's Son. A big difference is that Adam was never said to become incarnate from the Word who was God and was with God. But unitarians distort John 1. However, it becomes clearer and clearer how you will look for any and all reasons to deny who Jesus is.
AaronH
Active Member
That's a lot of pigeon holing for something Runningman said that was pretty straight forward. Might be a sign your position isn't the most well supported. Jesus is 100% not the only one in the bible given the title son of God and shouldn't be used as proof of Jesus' deity.
dwight92070
Active Member
Here's some of my teachers:
Matthew
Jesus
Matthew introduced me to the life and teachings of Jesus - His family tree, His miraculous birth, the story of the wise men, His wonderful Sermon on the Mount, His parables, teaching on the Kingdom of Heaven also called the Kingdom of God, introduced me to the 12 disciples which became the 12 apostles, and gave me a glimpse of the life of John the Baptist, telling us that Jesus would baptize us with the Holy Spirit and fire, telling us of His amazing miracles that no other man could do, or has done since, telling about the Mt. of Tranfiguration, showing us that the Jews were no longer under Moses or Elijah or the prophets, but only under Jesus, telling about Christ's final judgment at His 2nd coming, explaining to us the events prior to 70 A.D., and showing us that the kingdom of God was taken away from Israel and given to the church, and what it will be like just before He returns, and giving us an introduction to the Trinity - "baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." and so much more.
Mark
Luke
John
Paul
Peter
James
Jude
I cannot go into what each of these men have taught me - I would be here all day.
Other current and past teachers in my life
Steve Gregg
my pastor Dan Moriarity current pastor, loves and serves the body of Christ - an excellent teacher of the whole Bible
Previous pastors, Jerry Schoel and Lou Montecalvo -First pastors after being saved - learned the basics
Hank Hanegraaff - exposed the word of faith movement-Kenneth Hagin, Kenneth Copeland, Andrew Wommack, etc.
Walter Martin -exposed the cults
D.R. McConell - exposed Kenneth Hagin and E.W. Kenyon, the real father of the word of faith false teaching
Ron Rhodes-exposed the cults
Paul Little- Know What You Believe
George Bryson-The Dark Side of Calvinism
Chuck Smith- Good through the Bible teaching
Teachers from history
A.W. Tozer A powerful fireball for God
Philipp Mauro Exposed the errors of Dispensationalism
Last edited:
Maybe you have other figures who have the prophetic title Son of God. Runningman keeps avoiding that one.
John 3:16–18 (ESV)
16“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.
The problem of the unitarians is to apply a concept or verbiage in a flattened sense rather than recognizing specific context and usage that remains critical for proper reading of scripture. That is what i have to keep pointing out.
dwight92070
Active Member
The Bible tells us to "not forsake our own assembling together, as it the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near."
To disobey this command of Scripture is a huge stumbling block for many today. I believe that this, in itself, has been the cause of much misinterpretation of Scripture. Note Peterlag said: "I was never with any group." Obviously, going to a fellowship doesn't guarantee that what they teach is accurate. So if you know they are teaching error, you move on to another fellowship. From 1991 to 2001, we moved from one fellowship/church to another one, about ten times. Why? Because I saw things that were not Biblical going on, so I kept looking. I did not give up. We ended up at a homechurch in 2001 and we have been there ever since. Is the homechurch everything that I was looking for? No, but I realized that my expectations were, in some cases, not realistic. I was prepared to start a church and even tried a couple of times to do that, but that has not materialized, and I don't feel that I am gifted as a pastor. So we have stayed with the homechurch. The point is, that I will never "forsake our own assembling together."
Dan's teaching is very good. There are a few things that he and I do not agree on, but we disagree agreeably. These are peripheral issues, not the essentials. Consequently, we have developed close friendships and a loving, peaceful atmosphere, that always welcomes anyone to join us.
To disobey this command of Scripture is a huge stumbling block for many today. I believe that this, in itself, has been the cause of much misinterpretation of Scripture. Note Peterlag said: "I was never with any group." Obviously, going to a fellowship doesn't guarantee that what they teach is accurate. So if you know they are teaching error, you move on to another fellowship. From 1991 to 2001, we moved from one fellowship/church to another one, about ten times. Why? Because I saw things that were not Biblical going on, so I kept looking. I did not give up. We ended up at a homechurch in 2001 and we have been there ever since. Is the homechurch everything that I was looking for? No, but I realized that my expectations were, in some cases, not realistic. I was prepared to start a church and even tried a couple of times to do that, but that has not materialized, and I don't feel that I am gifted as a pastor. So we have stayed with the homechurch. The point is, that I will never "forsake our own assembling together."
Dan's teaching is very good. There are a few things that he and I do not agree on, but we disagree agreeably. These are peripheral issues, not the essentials. Consequently, we have developed close friendships and a loving, peaceful atmosphere, that always welcomes anyone to join us.
charismaticlady
Active Member
Unrepentant too.
charismaticlady
Active Member
Yes, God had to take drastic measures after Satan sinned in the Garden and tempted Eve to unintentionally disobey God and she caused Adam to willfully sin causing all mankind from then on to inherit a sin nature. However, God had foreknowledge and the plan of redemption was already thought out even before creation.
Because all mankind from then on sin and fall short of the glory of God, a perfect part of God, the Word, had to empty Himself of His supernatural glories and take on human form in order to destroy the works of Satan by shedding His human blood and dying for you and me. Because Adam was human and committed a sin unto death willfully, only another human man who was sinless could atone for mankind and save it. The blood of bulls and goats could only cover our sins, but could not take it away. But Jesus was still God so could remain sinless and his body suffered no corruption, but succeeded in being able to take away the sin nature out of all who accepted His sacrifice for us. This made it possible for any of us to be cleansed and have no desire to sin instead of being a slave to sin we were born as. The recreated new nature God puts in us was from the seed of the Father making us literally children of God who can partake of the divine nature of God through God's indwelling Spirit of Christ. But only Jesus was begotten from birth and has the birthright of being God. The rest of us have sinned and our body will see corruption unlike Jesus who is still part of our One Triune God.
How much of this do you know and believe as a Unitarian? Sorry, you are the first Unitarian I've had contact with to ask.
cc: @Peterlag for your information.
Last edited:
amazing grace
Active Member
I am responding as a Biblical Unitarian. Satan sinned before he tempted Eve in the garden. I don't believe Eve caused Adam to sin I believe he was there throughout the temptation 'she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate.' Humanity inherited the penalty of death ---- sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— [Romans 5:12] .... the wages of sin is death. [Romans 6:23] I agree that God, in his foreknowledge, had specific plans and purposes for humanity's redemption which included his Son.
Correct, all men have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
No part of God emptied himself of his supernatural glories ..... No part of God took on human form to destroy the works of the devil........ The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. [1 John 3:8b] Yes, Jesus died for you and me --- but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. [Romans 5:7]
Correct, only another human being could atone for mankind and Adam was a type of the one who was to come [Rom. 5:14b]
we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation......[Rom. 5:10,11] Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, [2 Cor. 5:17-19]. Jesus was not God. Jesus was/is the Son of God, the Messiah.
Yes, we are partakers of the divine nature and we have been given the gift of holy spirit.
When Jesus returns we will be raised from the dead and given an immortal spiritual body just as he was given when he was raised from the dead exalted to the right hand of God his Father.
Beloved, we are God's children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is. [1 John 3:2]
I don't know if each of us agree on each subject above but I'm pretty sure we do agree that Jesus was not God -- hence, Biblical Unitarian.
cc: @Peterlag; @Runningman
Last edited:
Runningman
Active Member
Jesus is the begotten Son of God, not the only Son of God. Jesus is still a Son of God no matter how you spin in, but it's good to see you seem to be catching on about Jesus being one of the sons of God.
Runningman
Active Member
I think it's possible to misunderstand that sin is not like a contagious virus. It might seem like sin is such since the Bible refers to sin as "coming through a man" and "spreading" around from person to person like a virus, but that is just rhetorical language. Sin is actually a voluntary transgression of the law of God. So it isn't as if people are born breaking the 10 Commandments or anything so they aren't born with inherited sin. Transgression of the law is sin. I believe the original sin doctrine is a little too Catholic/Protestant. Pretty much most of their doctrines are worth turning a critical eye toward.
Now what I will agree with you about is that people do have a predisposition toward sin unless God is their Father, but it is still ultimately a conscious choice that even Jesus had to make. The Bible says Jesus was tempted several times. Let the word "tempted" simmer for a moment. What does it mean? Temptation refers to a desire, desires we are all familiar with, and desires we don't want to have to live with, but we have no choice. So the desire to sin was present in Jesus, the Bible says so. It should be empowering to know that even though we have all sinned before, we can "go and sin no more." Jesus did believe people can stop sinning. Not just sin less, but literally never sin again. I also agree with you about the divine nature that the sons (and daughters) of God can have and it comes when we have escaped the corruption of the world that causes evil desires. Actually, Peter rants about this very topic for a few chapters beginning in 2 Peter 1.
Peterlag
Active Member
We all have learned under Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James. You are not the only one.
Peterlag
Active Member
I did not change a topic. It was a new Post. Not replied to anyone.
Peterlag
Active Member
I was never taught the Trinity. I don't know what that's like to believe in a Trinity which is why I ask so often.
Peterlag
Active Member
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)
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: 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 (Romans 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 (Hebrews 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” (Proverbs 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.
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” (Colossians 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.
- 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.
- (Romans 15:18 NIV) “what I have said”
- (Luke 20:20 NASB) “they might catch him in some statement"
- (Matthew 21:24 NIV) “I will also ask you one question”
- (1 Timothy 5:17 NIV) “especially those whose work is preaching"
- (Galatians 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”
- (Matthew 15:6 NIV) “you nullify the Word of God”
- (Hebrews 13:7 NIV84) “leaders who spoke the Word of God”
- (Matthew 12:36 NIV84) “men will have to give account on the Day of Judgment"
- (Matthew 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
- And the word of the Lord was Joseph’s helper (Genesis 39:2).
- And Moses brought the people to meet the word of the Lord (Exodus 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 (Psalms 2:4).
- They believed in the name of His word (Psalms 106:12).
Starting several centuries before Christ, certain Greek philosophers worked to replace the muthos with what they called the logos, a reasonable and rational explanation of reality. It is appropriate that, in the writing of the New Testament, God used the word logos, not muthos, to describe His wisdom, reason, and plan. God has not come to us in mystical experiences and irrational beliefs that cannot be understood; rather, He reveals Himself in ways that can be rationally understood and persuasively argued.
In addition to the cultural context that accepted the myths, at the time the Gospel of John was written, a belief system called Gnosticism was taking root in Christianity. Gnosticism had many ideas and words that are strange and confusing to us today, so, at the risk of oversimplifying, we will describe a few basic tenets of Gnosticism as simply as we can.
Gnosticism took many forms, but generally, Gnostics taught that there was a supreme and unknowable Being, which they designated as the “Monad.” The Monad produced various gods, who in turn produced other gods (these gods were called by different names, in part because of their power or position). One of these gods, called the “Demiurge” created the earth and then ruled over it as an angry, evil, and jealous god. This evil god, Gnostics believed, was the god of the Old Testament, called Elohim. The Monad sent another god, “Christ” to bring special gnosis (knowledge) to mankind and free them from the influence of the evil Elohim. Thus, a Gnostic Christian would agree that Elohim created the heavens and the earth, but he would not agree that He was the supreme God. Most Gnostics would also state that Elohim and Christ were at cross-purposes with each other. This is why it was so important for John 1:1 to say that the logos was with God, which at first glance seems to be a totally unnecessary statement.
The opening of the Gospel of John is a wonderful expression of God’s love. God “wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:4). He authored the opening of John in such a way that it reveals the truth about Him and His plan for all of mankind and, at the same time, refutes Gnostic teaching. It says that from the beginning there was the logos (the reason, plan, power), which was with God. There was not another “god” existing with God, especially not a god opposed to God. Furthermore, God’s plan was like God; it was divine. God’s plan became flesh when God impregnated Mary.
“and the word was with God.” This is strange language to us, so it is important to know that it was not strange to the Jews. While we would say a person “has wisdom” or “is wise” it was a common way of speaking among the Jewish people to say a word, or knowledge, or wisdom, was “with” a person. For example, the Hebrew text of Proverbs 2:1 speaks of the commandments being “with” a person, and so does Proverbs 7:1. Proverbs 11:2 speaks of wisdom being “with” the humble, not just the humble “having wisdom” or “being wise” and Proverbs 13:10 says wisdom is “with” people who take advice.
Job spoke to God about His actions, and spoke of what God hid in His heart, and then Job said, “I know that this [God’s secret plans and purposes] is with you” (Job 10:13; the Hebrew text says “with you” although it's not translated that way in many English versions). We would say “I know you have these things” but the Hebrews said “I know these things are with you.” Job also spoke of what God desired, and concluded that “many such things [that God desires and that are appointed] are with him” (Job 23:14). Job 27:11 also speaks of things being “with” God.
When God gave the Ten Commandments, Moses said that God had come to test the people and also so that the fear of God would be “with them” (as per the Hebrew text). We today would never say “so that the fear of God will be with you” as if the fear of God was another entity somehow together with the people, we today would simply say “so that you will fear God.” The Jews used the same “with” language in the Bible and in other writings as well.
Once we understand the logos in John 1:1 to be God’s purpose and plan, we can see that if John 1:1 was written in today’s English, we would likely say something like “In the beginning was the plan, and God had that plan, and what God was the plan was.” We would not say that the plan was “with God.” But the ancient Jews had said knowledge and wisdom were “with” people for millennia, and for them to speak that way was perfectly natural. However, if we today are going to understand the prologue of John (John 1:1-18), it is imperative that we understand that logos is a masculine noun and it is personified in the Prologue. Wisdom and the logos were personified in the literature of the Jews from long before the time that John wrote, and that influenced how he wrote the prologue of John. Personification was widely used in Jewish literature. For example, Proverbs portrays Wisdom as a woman helping God with His creation of the world (Proverbs 8:22-31). John 1:1 is not portraying a preincarnate Christ being with God. That would have been a nonsensical concept to the ancient unbelieving Jews and Greeks—remember, John was writing to get people to believe (John 20:30-31)—it was portraying that God used wisdom and a plan in restoring mankind to Himself, and that logos was a “plan” made perfect sense to those ancient unbelievers.
“and what God was, the word was.” This phrase is stating that the Word has the attributes of God, such as being true, trustworthy, etc. It makes perfect sense that if the Word is the expression of God, then it has attributes of God. Although almost every English Bible translates the last phrase of John 1:1 as “and the Word was God.” and it should not be translated that way. To understand that, we first should be aware of how the Greek text of the New Testament was written and how the Greeks used the word theos “God” or “god.”
Although we make a distinction between “God” with a capital “G” and “god” with a lowercase “g” the original text could not do that. The original text of both the Old and the New Testament was written in all capital letters, so in Greek, both “God” and “god” were “GOD” (ΘΕΟΣ; THEOS). This meant the person reading the Scripture had to pay close attention to the context. When our modern English versions mention “the god of this age” (2 Corinthians 4:4), one way we know that the word “god” refers to Satan is because it is spelled with a lowercase “g.” But if our versions read in all capitals like the ancient Greek text and said, “THE GOD OF THIS AGE” then how would we know who this “GOD” was? We would have to discover who he was from the context. The people reading the early Greek texts had to become very sensitive to the context to properly understand the Bible. An unintended consequence of modern capitalization, punctuation, and spacing in the text is that it has made the modern reader much less aware of and sensitive to the context.
What the word “GOD” referred to in any given context was further complicated by the fact that, as any good Greek lexicon will show, the Greek word theos (#2316 θεός) was used to refer to both gods and goddesses, or was a general name for any deity, or was used of a representative of God, and was even used of people of high authority such as rulers or judges. The Greeks did not use the word “GOD” like we do, to refer to just one single Supreme Being with no other being sharing the name. The Greeks were polytheistic and had many gods with different positions and authority, and rulers and judges who represented the gods or who were themselves of high authority, and theos was used of all of those. Some of the authorities in the Bible who are referred to as ΘΕΟΣ include the Devil (2 Corinthians 4:4), lesser gods (1 Corinthians 8:5), and men with great authority (John 10:34-35; Acts 12:22).
When we are trying to discover what GOD (ΘΕΟΣ; THEOS) is referring to in a verse, the context is always the final arbiter. However, we do get some help in that it is almost always the case in the New Testament that when “GOD” refers to the Father, the definite article appears in the Greek text (this article can be seen only in the Greek text, it is never translated into English). Translators are normally very sensitive to this. The difference between theos with and without the article occurs in John 1:1, which has two occurrences of theos: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the theos, and the Word was theos.” Since the definite article (“the”) is missing from the second occurrence of “theos” (“God”) the most natural meaning of the word would be that it referred to the quality of God, i.e., “divine” “god-like” or “like God.” The New English Bible gets the sense of this phrase by translating it “What God was, the Word was.” James Moffatt, who was a professor of Greek and New Testament Exegesis at Mansfield College in Oxford, England, and author of the well-known Moffatt Bible, translated the phrase “the logos was divine.”
As we said above, although the wording of the Greek text of John 1:1 certainly favors the translation “and what God was, the Word was” over the translation “the Word was God” the context and scope of Scripture must be the final arbiter. In this case, we have help from the verse itself in the phrase “the Word was with God.” The Word (logos) cannot both be “with” God and “be” God. That is nonsensical. It is similar to us being able to discern that Jesus Christ is not God from reading 2 Corinthians 4:4 and Colossians 1:15, which say that Jesus is the image of God. One cannot be both the image of the object and the object itself. We Christians must become aware of the difference between a genuine mystery and a contradiction. In his book, Against Calvinism, Roger Olson writes: “We must point out here the difference between mystery and contradiction; the former is something that cannot be fully explained to or comprehended by the human mind, whereas the latter is just nonsense—two concepts that cancel each other out and together make an absurdity.” The truth in the verse is actually simple: the logos, the plan, purpose, and wisdom of God, was with God, and what God was (i.e., holy, true, pure, righteous, etc.) his logos was too.
Similar threads
