God and the Word of God

[darinhouston]

Well, the perspicuity of scripture has been shown to be a false idea; The reformers were wrong.

There is nothing in the scriptures that can not be explained away, if you try hard enough. Some say we need someone to tell us what the scriptures mean. Looks like we need a Pope.

I guess that’s sarcasm. The reformers got a lot wrong but on this one they qualified this view appropriately to the core tenets of what it takes to be saved.

[dwight92070]

I need to correct myself again. There is, it appears, new information in John 1. We know from Revelation that Jesus is the Word, but we don't know when He was called that, or at least when He was first called that. John tells us: "In the beginning". We might ask, "When was that?" Well, since John tells us "and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.", we see that the Word is eternal, because God is eternal. Therefore, we can deduce that Jesus, the Word -God, has always existed. That is, at least, His Spirit, has always existed. But His body and His name, Jesus, it appears, only came into existence through Mary.
On the other hand, even that information could have been deduced from other verses, but, John "nails it down", so that there is no doubt, and even more confirmation.

Darin, since you have studied all the other information that you recommend, what is your conclusion concerning John 1, after looking at all those other sources?

I think "in the beginning" is the beginning of the subject of John. And the subject of Mark and John's Epistles and so forth - the gospels -- the subject is the Messiah and the ministry of Christ.

I have various views of what John 1 might mean and none of them is the origin story of Jesus' pre-existence as God.

"In the beginning" obviously does not refer to the beginning of the subject of John, because "in the beginning" is repeated in verse 2: "He (the Word) was in the beginning with God (that is in eternity past)." So that was LONG before John even existed or wrote the subject of John 1. So that "explanation" makes no sense whatsoever.

Regarding your various views of John 1, none of which refer to the pre-existence of Jesus as God - of course they don't. Since these verses are plain as the nose on your face, you must vehemently deny that they say exactly what they mean to say. You even acknowledged that there are verses that are that plain, so that it is obvious what they are saying. But you refuse to acknowledge that these verses fit perfectly into that category, because then you would have to abandon your belief that Jesus is not God. Once again, Jesus is not YOUR God. But He is the God of the Bible.

[darinhouston]

I need to correct myself again. There is, it appears, new information in John 1. We know from Revelation that Jesus is the Word, but we don't know when He was called that, or at least when He was first called that. John tells us: "In the beginning". We might ask, "When was that?" Well, since John tells us "and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.", we see that the Word is eternal, because God is eternal. Therefore, we can deduce that Jesus, the Word -God, has always existed. That is, at least, His Spirit, has always existed. But His body and His name, Jesus, it appears, only came into existence through Mary.
On the other hand, even that information could have been deduced from other verses, but, John "nails it down", so that there is no doubt, and even more confirmation.

Darin, since you have studied all the other information that you recommend, what is your conclusion concerning John 1, after looking at all those other sources?

I think "in the beginning" is the beginning of the subject of John. And the subject of Mark and John's Epistles and so forth - the gospels -- the subject is the Messiah and the ministry of Christ.

I have various views of what John 1 might mean and none of them is the origin story of Jesus' pre-existence as God.

"In the beginning" obviously does not refer to the beginning of the subject of John, because "in the beginning" is repeated in verse 2: "He (the Word) was in the beginning with God (that is in eternity past)." So that was LONG before John even existed or wrote the subject of John 1. So that "explanation" makes no sense whatsoever.

Regarding your various views of John 1, none of which refer to the pre-existence of Jesus as God - of course they don't. Since these verses are plain as the nose on your face, you must vehemently deny that they say exactly what they mean to say. You even acknowledged that there are verses that are that plain, so that it is obvious what they are saying. But you refuse to acknowledge that these verses fit perfectly into that category, because then you would have to abandon your belief that Jesus is not God. Once again, Jesus is not YOUR God. But He is the God of the Bible.

Put aside any other arguments you might have - if you can answer a simple question - aside from the phrase "in the beginning", what is it about that statement that requires it to be eternity past? You can't refer to the phrase "in the beginning" because that is exactly the issue we're trying to resolve.

[darinhouston]

While you're pondering that, consider this... basically, this can be taken like most other NT references to the "beginning" and it is a reference to the beginning of the Ministry of Christ and the Kingdom of God. Certainly, John is alluding to Genesis creation - but, it is just that -- a literary allusion, not a treatise on the existential creation of Jesus and the universe in eternity past. The gnostics were obsessed with the origin story of the spiritual realm and this would be consistent with grabbing their attention - as are the references to the light and so forth. So many of the themes in John are to gnostic ideas, but twisted perhaps to tell the truth about who they are "in the Christian context."

---------------------------

Does “beginning” in John 1:1 refer to Genesis and the old creation, or to Christ’s work and the new creation?

It is probably clear to anyone who has got as far as asking this question that “In the beginning was the word” does not mean “In Genesis 2:7 Jesus created Adam”. But what does it mean?

This is one of those questions where there are three possible answers: “old”, “new” and “both”. If the answer is “both” the reader than has to decide whether the author John is putting the new beginning, the new creation of new men and women, ahead of the old creation of mountains and animals.

It clearly does to some extent refer to the old creation because of the obvious echo of Genesis 1:1, “in the beginning”, and the use of word (Greek logos) like the Greek text of Psalm 33:6 “By the word (logos) of the Lord the heavens were made, their starry host by the breath of his mouth”. (Psalm 33:6, Septuagint Greek Old Testament)

On the other hand John 1:1 has parallels in earlier gospels.

The following text is excerpted from Harry Whittaker’s Studies in the Gospels. The entire chapter can be read here. Note particularly the way beginning (Greek arche) is used in 1 John, Mark 1:1, Luke 1:2 – the beginnings of three gospels and also the beginning in 1 John 1:1.

Finally, (and not part of the excerpt below) there is parallel in Matthew 1:1 in the way the Greek word ‘Genesis’ is used for ‘genealogy’ in the Greek text of Matthew 1:1. – in Greek “the Book of Genesis of Jesus Christ”:

“The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. (Matthew 1:1)


From Harry Whittaker – Studies in the Gospels, Chapter 14 (excerpt)

The Beginning

The identity of the expression: “In the beginning” with Genesis 1:1 has led many to assume that John 1:1 refers to the beginning of the visible creation. But a careful use of the concordance reveals that out of 16 other instances where John speaks of “the beginning”, in no single case does he allude to Genesis 1:1. Admittedly, in two of them he refers to Genesis, but in both instances (Jn. 8:44; 1 Jn. 3:8) the allusion is to the serpent. This, however, is Genesis 3 and not the beginning of creation, when all material things were made by the word of God: “And God said…”

It is impressive to observe that all other occurrences of “the beginning” in John’s writings have to do with the beginning of the ministry of Jesus or the beginning of discipleship or some related idea. A few examples:

“For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him” (Jn. 6:64).

‘Then said they unto him, Who art thou? And Jesus saith unto them, Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning” (Jn. 8:25).

“And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning” (Jn.15:27).

“And these things I said not unto you at the beginning, because I was with you” (Jn. 16:4).

“That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life; the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us” (1 John 1:1-2)

“Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning” (1 Jn. 2:7).

“For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another” (1 Jn. 3:11).

This list should be conclusive. 1 John 1:1 explains John 1:1 as speaking about the beginning of the ministry of Jesus. Hence, appropriately, the immediate reference to the Baptist: “There was a man sent from God whose name was John” (John 1:6), a reference which in the traditional exposition of the plan is badly out of place.

Mark’s gospel is now seen to have exactly the same approach: “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; as it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face” (Mk. 1:1,2). And in Luke’s introduction also: “Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses-and-ministers of the Word” (Lk. 1:1,2). Note here also, that, as in John, “the Word” must be Jesus; the phrase “eyewitnesses and ministers” requires this.

John 1 and Genesis 1

It may be urged that the very similarity between John 1:1 and Genesis 1:1 demands that they be allowed to interpret each other. Since Genesis 1:1 is about the beginning of this creation, ought not John 1:1 to be so read also?

There can, of course, be no doubt that John intended his allusion to Genesis to be recognized, but all the evidence already marshalled points to the conclusion that what he sought to stress was this: Jesus was the Beginning of a New Creation; and in the spiritual realm God has worked on similar principles to those which marked His earlier creative work in the material sphere. In other words, John intends his readers to trace a parallel between the material creation (of Genesis 1) and the spiritual creation consisting of men and women made new in Christ.

There can be no doubt that the same kind of thinking is traceable in other parts of the New Testament (Col. 1:15-18; 2 Cor. 5:17; 1 Pet. 1:23; Heb. 1:2,10-12). The same idea is very probably implicit in the way in which Luke introduces the Greek word for “making a beginning” (in ch. 3:23) in a way that is almost untranslatable and which may even be ungrammatical. And also in Acts 1:1, where Luke employs a phrase from Genesis 2:3 LXX.

[end of section from Harry Whittaker, Studies in the Gospels]

[dwight92070]

I think "in the beginning" is the beginning of the subject of John. And the subject of Mark and John's Epistles and so forth - the gospels -- the subject is the Messiah and the ministry of Christ.

I have various views of what John 1 might mean and none of them is the origin story of Jesus' pre-existence as God.

"In the beginning" obviously does not refer to the beginning of the subject of John, because "in the beginning" is repeated in verse 2: "He (the Word) was in the beginning with God (that is in eternity past)." So that was LONG before John even existed or wrote the subject of John 1. So that "explanation" makes no sense whatsoever.

Regarding your various views of John 1, none of which refer to the pre-existence of Jesus as God - of course they don't. Since these verses are plain as the nose on your face, you must vehemently deny that they say exactly what they mean to say. You even acknowledged that there are verses that are that plain, so that it is obvious what they are saying. But you refuse to acknowledge that these verses fit perfectly into that category, because then you would have to abandon your belief that Jesus is not God. Once again, Jesus is not YOUR God. But He is the God of the Bible.

Put aside any other arguments you might have - if you can answer a simple question - aside from the phrase "in the beginning", what is it about that statement that requires it to be eternity past? You can't refer to the phrase "in the beginning" because that is exactly the issue we're trying to resolve.

Actually, there's no need to determine exactly when "in the beginning" is, but it does appear that John is calling to mind "In the beginning God ..." from Genesis. It appears that "In the beginning" here in John 1 may have two possible meanings, but either way it is interpreted, the message of the passage does not change. If it means He was God and was with God at creation, then that also means He was God and with God in eternity past.

The point of the passage does not hinge on when "in the beginning" is. The point is that John loves to focus on the Deity of Jesus, here in chapter one and throughout his book. Jesus,the Word was both with God and He was God, the Creator, and God became flesh in Jesus. Isn't is obvious that the Deity of Jesus is one of the main themes of John's gospel? He refers to that many, many times.

That is why to think that John is referring to the beginning of the subject of his gospel, doesn't fit with John's purpose. Yes, I know what John 20:30-31 says about his purpose for writing the book -"that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.", but that really is the same as declaring His Deity. What better introduction to Jesus' Deity (in chapter one) than to declare Him God (verse 1) and the Creator (verse 3), the same One Who became flesh (verse 14), the One that John the Baptist said existed before him (verse 15) and the only One Who has seen God (verse 18). John also calls Jesus the Word (verses 1 and 14), identifying Him as the same One called The Word of God and King of Kings and Lord of Lords in Revelation 19, also written by John.

[darinhouston]

Actually, there's no need to determine exactly when "in the beginning" is, but it does appear that John is calling to mind "In the beginning God ..." from Genesis. It appears that "In the beginning" here in John 1 may have two possible meanings, but either way it is interpreted, the message of the passage does not change. If it means He was God and was with God at creation, then that also means He was God and with God in eternity past.

The point of the passage does not hinge on when "in the beginning" is. The point is that John loves to focus on the Deity of Jesus, here in chapter one and throughout his book. Jesus,the Word was both with God and He was God, the Creator, and God became flesh in Jesus. Isn't is obvious that the Deity of Jesus is one of the main themes of John's gospel? He refers to that many, many times.

That is why to think that John is referring to the beginning of the subject of his gospel, doesn't fit with John's purpose. Yes, I know what John 20:30-31 says about his purpose for writing the book -"that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.", but that really is the same as declaring His Deity. What better introduction to Jesus' Deity (in chapter one) than to declare Him God (verse 1) and the Creator (verse 3), the same One Who became flesh (verse 14), the One that John the Baptist said existed before him (verse 15) and the only One Who has seen God (verse 18). John also calls Jesus the Word (verses 1 and 14), identifying Him as the same One called The Word of God and King of Kings and Lord of Lords in Revelation 19, also written by John.

Thank you for a "reasonable" response. I can see how you see it that way - but I do see it differently and still don't think you see what I'm saying (even if you might still disagree once understanding). Even if I'm right, this passage doesn't negate the Trinity - it just makes it no longer a "proof-text" for pre-existent Christ (again, something that even Arius and most non-Trinitarians in history believed in some respects).

Alluding to the Genesis account to bring comparisons and contrasts to the original creation and the new creation (or Christ's ministry) and so forth in what you might consider a somewhat impressionistic or literary purpose is not the same thing as saying he was making claims about the Word (again, not Jesus per se) being WITH GOT at both times. Drawing from that very familiar creation story to open his gospel account can have literary purposes that aren't mean to make creation arguments about the beginning of time and the universe and so forth.

Isn't is obvious that the Deity of Jesus is one of the main themes of John's gospel? He refers to that many, many times.

Not to me - I see the main themes being his authority and power of the Holy Spirit to do things that attest to his being Messiah - the anointed chosen one to redeem Israel and so forth - the Son of God, yes, and even perhaps some aspect of "deity" but not necessarily being God (I've noted this before, but what I mean here is akin to saying a prince is royalty without being himself the King). John clearly sees Jesus more closely associated with God than any human being in history and is unique in being born of a virgin without an earthly father and filled with the fullness of the Holy Spirit and being raised in power and authority beyond any other - even to sit at the right hand of the Father (though not being equal to the Father).

Further, the Word is not Jesus. Whatever it is and whether it always existed (something I acknowledge is possible to be referred to in the preamble) it then BECAME enfleshed in Jesus. Whatever that means, it means that Jesus is not the same thing as the Word.

[dizerner]

it means that Jesus is not the same thing as the Word.

That doesn't logically follow. His name is still called the Word of God.

Do you fear by making Jesus divine we might love Jesus too much?

[darinhouston]

it means that Jesus is not the same thing as the Word.

That doesn't logically follow. His name is still called the Word of God.

Do you fear by making Jesus divine we might love Jesus too much?

Why do you have to talk like that? "Do you fear?" is loaded and you just seem to be provoking. I could easily say "do you fear John meaning something else here?"

If you want an honest dialogue, let's do that. I would love Jesus no less or more - but I do think it matters. I think Trinitarians have lost their reverence for and focus on the glory of the Father and tend to worship Jesus more than the Father. Jesus did not do this or even hint that we should do so - in fact, he did the opposite. For him, EVERYTHING was to glorify and point to the Father - not the so-called godhead or the HS or Son - but the Father alone.

(As one of many examples, and since we're talking about John, see John 8:54... Jesus answered, “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say, ‘He is our God.’). This just isn't how one would expect Jesus to talk if he wanted to convey that he is God.

Where do you see Scripture calling Jesus the Word of God ? I started this journey some 15 years ago trying to diagram John 1. At one point, to make sense of it, I even wondered if there weren't a "Quarternary" (the Word being a 4th person of the Godhead).

[Homer]

Darin,

You might be surprised to know I am heartily in agreement with you on this:

I think Trinitarians have lost their reverence for and focus on the glory of the Father it and tend to worship Jesus more than the Father.

Although where I have attended church prayer is directed to the Father (as is my own practice) it seems the "modern" singing in the church is more often directed to Jesus. And the songs that once fell into the "horizontal" category ("exhort one another with songs, hymns, and spiritual songs" have almost disappeared. They were commanded in the scripture.

Jesus taught us to pray to the Father; there are only a couple instances in the NT, as I recall, of prayer directed to Jesus, and none of which I am aware directed to the Holy Spirit, as is popular in some circles.

[dizerner]

Where do you see Scripture calling Jesus the Word of God ? I started this journey some 15 years ago trying to diagram John 1. At one point, to make sense of it, I even wondered if there weren't a "Quarternary" (the Word being a 4th person of the Godhead).

10 And I fell down at his feet, to do him homage; and he saith unto me--See! [thou do it] not! A fellow-servant, am I, of thee and of thy brethren who have the witness of Jesus: unto God, do homage! For, the witness of Jesus, is the spirit of the prophecy.
11 And I saw heaven, set open, and lo! a white horse, and, he that was sitting thereon, [[called]] Faithful, and True; and, in righteousness, doth he judge and make war;
12 and, his eyes, are a flame of fire, and, upon his head, are many diadems, having, a name, written, which, no one, knoweth, but himself,
13 and arrayed with a mantle sprinkled with blood, and his name hath been called--The Word of God.
14 And, the armies which were in heaven, were following him, upon white horses, clothed with fine linen, white, pure;
15 and, out of his mouth, is going forth a sharp sword, that, therewith, he may smite the nations,--and, he, shall shepherd them with a sceptre of iron, and, he, treadeth the wine-press of the wrath of the anger of God the Almighty.
16 And he hath, upon his mantle and upon his thigh, a name, written--King of kings, and Lord of lords. (Rev. 19:10-16 ROT)


I meant no offense—it's kind of a trap to just call every little thing offensive, and not conducive to constructive dialogue.

Instead of dealing with the actual point.