John 1:1

John 1:1 says the Word was God. Does that mean that Jesus is God because he is the Word?
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

a) In the beginning was the Word, (en arch hn o logoV)
b) and the Word was with God, (kai o logoV hn proV ton qeon)
c) and the Word was God. (kai qeoV hn o logoV).

John 1:1b says that the Word was with God and John 1:1c says that the Word was God, so how can the Word be God and be with God at the same time? Well part of the answer to discovering the meaning of this verse is found in 1 John 1:1-2

“That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life and the life was manifested, and we saw it, and testify to it, and proclaim to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was made manifest to us”.

First when we read 1John 1:2, it suggests to us that the God in John1:1b is the Father himself.

Secondly, we see In John 1:1c, the last word God is missing the definite article, (THE). The definite article is before all other instances of the word ‘God’ and ‘Logos’ in John 1:1. (e.g., the Word, The God.), yet is absent in the last mention of God. Read on because this can be significant as you are about to find out.

Greek sentence construction affirms that if a noun doesn’t have a preceding article, (THE) it can be read as an adjective (a predicate adjective); and if such a noun does have a preceding article it should be considered a noun (a predicate nominative). Understanding this is a game changer. Scholars see the benefit of the rule for affirming the deity of Christ in John 1:1, but haven’t made the difference clear regarding the difference between identity and nature or definite and qualitative. Don’t worry if this makes no sense to you. It will.

Look at the difference between these two sentences.

1) You are an angel
2) You are THE angel.

Notice how the first one is using the word angel in a qualitative way while the second is definite. Hence the term ‘definite article’.

In John 1:1, all instances of the word ‘God” are preceded by the definite article ‘THE’, except the last one.

So it literally says:

John1:1
a) In the beginning was THE God.
b) THE Word was with THE God
c) And THE Word was god.

Why is the last word not capitalised? Where Greek uses the definite article in English we capitalise the word. e.g., the god = God.

So it is grammatically correct to read John 1:1c with a qualitative sense rather reading it as identifying the Word as God himself. It is not only grammatically correct to read it this way, it is also theologically correct because if we read it as THE Theos, then that would be saying that the Logos is exclusively God even to the exclusion of the Father. Now we have two good reasons for reading the last word ‘god/theos’ as qualitative and not as THE God or God.

In rebuttal to this, some say that God in the New Testament doesn’t always have a preceding definite article which is true, however looking at the verse contextually, we understand that there is clearly two being spoken of, i.e., one God and one called the Word with is clearly another who is next to God and is not that God he is with.

Let’s look at Adam and Eve as an example of two beings that were with each other. Before I give an example, it is important for you at this point to understand that the Hebrew word for ‘man’ is ‘adam’. This means that qualitatively, Adam and Eve are both adam. This is similar to the word theos which is translated as the ‘God’ & god. The absence of the definite article can qualify just as the word adam qualifies. As I said before, in English we use capitals to denote when being definite. So the difference between ‘Adam’ and ‘adam’ is that Adam refers to a specific man called Adam while the latter could refer to him as well as Eve and any other member of mankind. This is clearly stated in scripture in Genesis 1:27:

So God created man (adam) in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

The word for man is adam, so it says: God created ‘adam’ male and female. So saying that ‘Eve is adam’ is a true saying.

In English, If I said “John is the man”, then I am identifying John as a definite and particular person of the human race. But if I omit the definite article and say “John is man,” then I do not identify him, I classify him. I say “John is human; he belongs to the sphere/nature of man.” Can you see the difference now?

To understand how the article can make a big difference to a piece of text, look at this example. Have a guess as to which one is correct.

a) In the beginning was THE woman
b) and THE woman was with THE man
c) and THE Woman was THE man

a) In the beginning was THE woman
b) and THE woman was with THE man
c) and THE Woman was man

The correct one is the second example because it is saying that the woman belongs to mankind or man. Look at the next example:

a) Tools were used by man.
b) Tools were used by the man.

See how the first example is talking about mankind whereas the second example is talking of a specific man.

In other words the word ‘man’ can be used as an attribute or to describe one’s nature. It is not always used to identify a particular person and it can even refer to more than one person.

Now let’s have a look at the above example, but using Adam and Eve instead. Notice in English that we do not have the definite article preceding Adam or Eve, because capitalising both Adam and Eve leads us to view these words in a definite sense, the same way that Greek requires the definite article. Essentially THE adam/man in Greek is the same as Adam in English.

a) In the beginning was Eve,
b) and Eve was with Adam
c) and Eve was Adam

a) In the beginning was Eve,
b) and Eve was with Adam
c) and Eve was adam

Notice that the second example is still the correct one.

To further understand the important difference between identity and nature, take a look at John 6:70. When speaking of his betrayer Judas Iscariot, Jesus said, “One of you is a devil.” Did Jesus mean that Judas is actually Satan the Devil? No! He merely meant to say that Judas is like (class) a devil, or that he had the qualities or nature of a/the devil. The word “devil” here has no article in the Greek as you have probably guessed, but most translators deem it necessary to add the indefinite article “a” to complete the thought in English even though it is not present in Greek or any Greek. Greek has no indefinite articles, (a,an).

So Judas wasn’t Satan himself, rather he was diabolical, like the Devil. He had the qualities of the Devil. But that doesn’t rule out the fact that Satan is the Devil because it is not actually saying that Judas was the Devil himself. Rather Judas thought as the Devil; and acted as the Devil. He was not the Devil (definite), (Satan is); he was not an actual devil or demon, he was a devil (qualitative). He was one who had the mental disposition, the nature, of the Devil, who is Satan. So it is with John 1:1c.

The Logos was God has no definite article. It is really saying, The Logos was god. This is why the New English Bible and the Revised English Bible translate John 1:1 as “what God was, the Word was.” The TEV (1976) translates it, “the Word was the same as God.” Goodspeed translates this, “the Word was divine.” And Moffatt translates this, “the logos was divine.”

So what kind of being is Jesus then if the Word was theos (without the definite article)? The answer according to John 1:1 is that he must be a divine being if Jesus is the Word of God that was with God. In other words he is a being with God’s nature. A son possessing the nature of his Father. Not just an image, but THE image of God. He is the prototype, the firstborn. He is the mystery that was hidden but has been revealed in our time. He is all these things, but he is not THE God that he is the son of. That God is exclusively the Father and there are many scriptures to prove that which we will look at later in this page.

Many think that the word ‘theos’ and ‘elohim’ always refer to YHWH. They take instances of their choosing to try and prove that Christ is YHWH. In their ignorance they cannot see that there are indeed many god (theos) and many lords, but for true believers there is one God (theos) the Father.

In fact, the word ‘theos’ and ‘elohim’ in scripture are used in reference to God (YHWH), Christ, Man, angels, Satan and idols. So when we see the word ‘theos’ or ‘elohim’, we should ask ourselves what kind of god is being referenced. The god of this age? The Most High God? The Almighty God? The mighty god? A false god? A human? An angel? We must also understand that the word ‘theos’ proceeded by the article (the) is talking of a noun and without the article, it can be an adjective or used to describe or qualify.

Let us now look at some quotes from scholars and writers that understand this. NOTE: this is not an endorsement with all that these authors have written, rather I am appealing to their view regarding John 1:1.

One prominent scholar called Origen is sometimes quoted by Trinitarians who appeal to his wisdom for other purposes. However, they avoid this particular quotation for obvious reasons. Origen wrote in the early 200’s A.D and was a noted expert in Koine Greek.

“We next notice John’s use of the article [“the”] in these sentences. He does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue. In some cases he uses the article, and in some he omits it. He adds the article to the Word, but to the name of theos he adds it sometimes only. He uses the article, when the name of theos refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Word is named theos. Does the same difference which we observe between theos with the article and theos without it prevail also between the Word with it and without it? We must enquire into this. As the theos who is over all is theos with the article not without it, so the Word is the source of that reason (Logos) which dwells in every reasonable creature; the reason which is in each creature is not, like the former called par excellence the Word. Now there are many who are sincerely concerned about religion, and who fall here into great perplexity. They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two theos [gods] and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked. Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides that of the Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be theos all but the name, or they deny divinity of the Son, giving Him a separate existence of His own, and making His sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father, so that they are separable from each other. To such persons we have to say that “the theos” on the one hand is Autotheos [God of himself] and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, “That they may know Thee the only true theos [God]; “but that all beyond the theos [God] is made theos by participation in His deity, and is not to be called simply “theos” but rather “the theos “. And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with the theos , and to attract to Himself deity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other theos [gods] beside Him, of which theos is the theos [God], as it is written, “The theos [God] of theos [gods], the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth.” It was by the offices of the first-born that they became theos [gods], for He drew from the theos [God] in generous measure that they should be made theos [gods], and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty. The true theos [God], then, is “the theos ,” [“the God” as opposed to “god”] and those who are formed after Him are theos [such as the Son of God], images, as it were, of Him the prototype. But the archetypal image, again, of all these images is the word of the theos [God], who was in the beginning, and who by being with the theos [God] is at all times deity, not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father, and not continuing to be theos , if we should think of this, except by remaining always in uninterrupted contemplation of the depths of the Father.”
(Origen’s Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book II, 2)

“Irenaeus [in the second century] could still interpret MK. Xiii, 32 in the following manner: the Son confessed not to know that which only the Father knew; hence ‘ we learn from himself that the Father is over all’, as he who is greater also than the Son. But the Nicene theologians had now suddenly to deny that Jesus could have said such a thing about the Son. In the long-recognized scriptural testimony for the Logos-doctrine provided by Prov. Viii, 22 ff. The exegetes of the second and third centuries had found the creation of the preexistent Logos-Christ set forth without dispute and equivocation. But now, when the Arians also interpreted the passage in this way, the interpretation was suddenly reckoned as false…. A theologian such as Tertullian by virtue of his Subordinationist manner of thinking, could confidently on occasion maintain that, before all creation, God the Father had been originally ‘alone’, and thus there was a time when ‘the Son was not’. When he did so, within the Church of his day such a statement did not inevitably provoke a controversy, and indeed there was none about it. But now, when Arius said the same thing in almost the same words, he raised thereby in the Church a mighty uproar, and such a view was condemned as heresy in the anathemas of Nicaea.” e.a.]
-pp. 155-8. The Formation of Christian Dogma, by Martin Werner, D.D.

When the writers of the New Testament speak of God they mean the God and Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ. When they speak of Jesus Christ, they do not speak of him, nor think of him as God. He is God’s Christ, God’s Son, God’s Wisdom, God’s Word. Even the prologue to St. John {John 1:1-18} which comes nearest to the Nicene Doctrine, must be read in the light of the pronounced subordinationism of the Gospel as a whole; and the Prologue is less explicit in Greek with the anarthrous theos [the word “god” at John 1:1c without the article] than it appears in English… The adoring exclamation of St. Thomas “my Lord and my god” (Joh. xx. 28) is still not quite the same as an address to Christ as being without qualification [limitation] God, and it must be balanced by the words of the risen Christ himself to Mary Magdalene (verse. 17) “Go unto my brethren and say to them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and my God and your God.” Jesus Christ is frequently spoken of in the Ignation Epistles as “our God”, “my God”, but probably never as “God” without qualification.
– John Martin Creed in The Divinity of Jesus Christ.

The word for “god” in Greek is QEOS. In John 1:1 the last occurrence of QEOS is called “a predicate noun” or, “a predicate nominative”. Such a noun tells us something about the subject, instead of telling what the subject is doing. This use of QEOS has reference to the subject, the Word, and does not have the article preceding it; it is anarthrous. This indicates that it is not definite. That is to say, it does not tell what position or office or rank the subject (the Word) occupies. The verb HN “was” follows the predicate noun QEOS; this is another factor in identifying QEOS here as qualitative. This discloses the quality or character of the Word. Of course, the gentleman up above disagrees with me, and he has used Moulton and Colwell to buttress his argument. But what have other Grammarians said about this same type of construction? There is no basis for regarding the predicate theos as definite. In John 1:1 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate [noun] is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite.
-Philip Harner, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 92:1, 1973, pp. 85, 7.

We must, then take Theos, without the article, in the indefinite [“qualitative” would have been a better word choice] sense of a divine nature or a divine being, as distinguished from the definite absolute God [the Father], ho Theos, the authotheos [selfgod] of Origen. Thus the Theos of John [1:1c] answers to “the image of God” of Paul, Col. 1:15.
-G. Lucke, “Dissertation on the Logos”, quoted by John Wilson in, Unitarian Principles Confirmed by Trinitarian Testimonies, p. 428.

As mentioned in the Note on 1c, the Prologue’s “The Word was God” offers a difficulty because there is no article before theos. Does this imply that “god” means less when predicated of the Word than it does when used as a name for the Father? Once again the reader must divest himself of a post-Nicene understanding of the vocabulary involved.
-Raymond E. Brown, The Anchor Bible, p. 25.

The most natural reading of John 1:1 shows that there are two being mentioned (not three): God and a second who was ‘theos’. They are not presented as two coequal persons in a Binity or Trinity. What we really have is one with the character of THEOS who is with TON THEOS (the God), thus he cannot be the God he is with! The LOGOS is unique however. He/it is identified further in the gospel as “a son from a father, begotten, as a visible being verses the unseen God, Now, without redefining the word THEOS we need to explain how we can have two who are both referred to as “theos.” Either there were two equal Gods or persons called God, or it is talking about a godlike one that is with the Almighty God. When we read all the scriptures we see that the scriptures including the Book of John backs up the last view, that the Father is greater than the Son; that the Father is the only God and the Son is the image of The God.

So what conclusion are we to draw from John 1:1 and the Book of John? In John’s own words he explains the conclusion for his Book. This conclusion is not the Trinity Doctrine. Read the verse below to see what the conclusion is.

John 20:30-31.
30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. “

So John wrote this gospel so that we may come to the conclusion that Jesus is truly the Christ and the Son of God. In addition to this important truth we are also told that we may receive life through his name. The Trinity Doctrine is not the conclusion that one should draw from this writing. Belief that Jesus is the Christ and the Son is the foundation of true faith and Jesus built his Church on this truth. The Trinity Doctrine is not that foundation, rather it is another foundation.

So why don’t translations of the bible translate John 1:1 as the Word was divine. Well first of all it is not incorrect to say that the Word was god, but Trinitarians translators say the Word was God which makes readers think that Jesus is the God (the person). However, in order to bring out the true meaning, some translations actually use the word ‘divine’. See below:

“In the beginning the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was divine.”
An American Translation, Edgar Goodspeed and J. M. Powis Smith, The University of Chicago Press, p. 173

“The Logos (word) existed in the very beginning, and the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine”
by Dr. James Moffatt

So the idea that Jesus Christ is God is often and supposedly supported by John 1:1. However the rest of John’s Gospel makes careful distinctions between Jesus and his Father as well as Jesus and God. This same distinction and separation is found throughout the rest of the New Testament too. The New Testament actually goes much further than merely distinguishing and separating the two. In John 17:3 Jesus, in prayer to his Father, refers to him as “the only true God”. In John 20:17 the resurrected Jesus refers to his Father as “my Father, and your Father; and… my God, and your God.” In I Corinthians 8:6 the Apostle Paul says of Christians, “to us there is but one God, the Father.” In I Timothy 2:5 Paul states, “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” In Ephesians 1:17 Paul refers to the Father as “the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory.” And in Revelation 3:12 the resurrected and glorified Jesus says, “Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.”

We must also remember that the judges of Israel were called gods/theos. This doesn’t mean that they were part of God or part of the Trinity, it just means that they had authority given to them by God. It is also written that we can partake of divine nature, so that could also make us divine just as partaking in flesh makes us man. It must be noted though, that being divine or partaking in divine nature is different to actually being the Divine himself.

Also see John 10:34-35:
34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, I have said you are gods” (theos).
35 If he called them gods (theos), to whom the word of God (ho theos) came, and the Scripture cannot be broken,

2 Peter 1:4
Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.

Also Jesus said that he was one with his Father and he also prayed that we would be one with them. See John 17:21
that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.

We humans were intended to share in the divine nature too, yet we are not the God. John 1:1 shows us that the Word was god (divine), not (the Word was/is the God, Yahweh) which many seem to think it says. The Word came from God, is of God, is like God, and this is consistent with the scriptures we have looked at thus far. 1 Corinthians 11:3 reinforces this statement because the word “head” in the Greek is translated “from”, source or authority. Remember that the woman came from Man and Man came from Christ and Christ came from God. This is the divine order.

Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

Jesus Christ is the Word of God, Jesus wasn’t created, rather the Word was born from God in eternity and that is why Jesus is called the Only Begotten of the Father. (John 1:14) (John 1:18) (John 3:16 ) (John 3:18 ) (1 John 4:9 ). The word begotten means (only child, single of its kind). Notice that our spirits are born from God, but through his Word, and our spirits will go back to God who gave it (Ecclesiastes 12:7) . But Jesus was not begotten through the Word because he is the Word, this is why Jesus is unique because he is the only one begotten of the Father and therefore he is the image of his Father. That is why he is called the Image of God and the Firstborn of all creation (Colossians 1:15) and it is also why the Bible says in (Hebrews 1:5) For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son; today I have become your Father” Or again, “I will be his Father, and he will be my Son”

Unlike his Father who is the invisible Spirit, Jesus does have a body and is visible. Jesus was born from God. We must remember that although his Father is greater than himself, he is also not just a man like us. Yes he partook of flesh and came as a man like us, but he also existed in the form of God as the Word or Logos. We are told that he resides between God and Man and as a man he is our mediator to God. It was indeed the Word that became flesh. God did not become flesh, instead God resided in Christ who came in the flesh. So just like us, God can be in us who are made of flesh, but God himself did not become flesh. God is not a man and never will be a man. It was the Word who came to us as a man and it was the Word that all things were created though. See John 1:3.
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

And to compliment the fact that God made all things through his Word, and that Jesus is the Word of God, even ignoring the fact that Jesus wears a title, “The Word of God” as recorded in the Book of Revelation, we are specifically told, that God created everything through Jesus Christ. See :Hebrews 1:2
but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.

So Jesus was begotten not created and again, this is why he is called God’s only begotten Son and this is why he is unique. He is seated at the right hand of God and situated between God & Man. This is also why he is the only mediator between God & Man and the only name under heaven whereby Man can be saved. God made creation through him and for him and God redeemed creation through him too. God cannot fellowship with sin that is why he sent his Son into the world, so he could bring us back to himself through his mediator. Jesus came from God and he was in the beginning with God. So what does it mean when it says ‘beginning’? The Greek word for beginning, in John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word” is ‘arche’ and this word means the following:

1) beginning, origin
2) the person or thing that commences, the first person or thing in a series, the leader
3) that by which anything begins to be, the origin, the active cause
4) the extremity of a thing
4a) of the corners of a sail
5) the first place, principality, rule, magistracy
5a) of angels and demons

Below I will show you a verse where the word “beginning” or ‘arche’ is also mentioned and I think you will agree that it is rather obvious from this verse that it does not mean eternity or eternal. The verse is John 8:44
You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him.

Just for good measure, I will also throw in the first verse in the bible, which also uses the word beginning (note that this a Hebrew word). I am sure we can all agree that the earth has not been in existence for all of eternity.

Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Certainly if we read John 1:1 correctly and in context with all scripture, we see that it is not teaching that God is a Trinity.

← Go back to ‘Supporting the Trinity Doctrine‘.

Discussion

This topic has 26,009 replies, 117 voices, and was last updated 1 month, 4 weeks ago by DesireTruth.

Viewing 20 posts - 8,861 through 8,880 (of 26,009 total)

←1 2 3…443444445…1,299 1,300 1,301 →

Author
Posts

July 23, 2012 at 2:56 am#306672

terraricca

Participant

charles

Quote

To remind you if therefore Jesus was created, He would have been a creature, not His direct Son, already perfect,and He would have never had the direct experience of the Father.

you really do not care of what scriptures are saying right

July 23, 2012 at 6:24 am#306684

carmel

Participant

so the book of JOB and Satan is a false book [/quote]

Quote

so the book of JOB and Satan is a false book

Terraricca,

AGAIN, clarify yourself please!!

July 23, 2012 at 6:27 am#306685

carmel

Participant

Quote (terraricca @ July 23 2012,13:54)

charles

Quote

The omnipotence of God's love is always to give all creatures total freedom to establish themselves the way they want to be, even the most imperfect,and work only through His unfathomable love, through their free will and without the least awareness of His work,to make them perfect.

so God is blind they say LOVE HIS BLIND ,

are you really understand what is GODS LOVE???

Quote

so God is blind they say LOVE HIS BLIND ,

Terraricca<

NEVER COMPERE GOD WITH US,

OUR LOVE IS NOT ONLY BLIND BUT ALSO CORRUPTED

July 23, 2012 at 6:32 am#306686

carmel

Participant

Quote

so God is blind they say LOVE HIS BLIND ,

Terraricca

NEVER COMPERE GOD WITH US,

OUR LOVE IS NOT ONLY BLIND BUT ALSO CORRUPTED

WE DO NOT KNOW HOW TO LOVE IN THE TRUTH ALTHOUGH WE ARE CONVINCED THAT WE ARE SO!!!

ON HEAVEN NET WE ARE SUPPOSE TO DO ALL THESE POSTS FOR THE LOVE OF JESUS.

ARE WE?

Peace and LOVE IN JESUS

CHARLES

July 23, 2012 at 6:41 am#306687

carmel

Participant

you really do not care of what scriptures are saying right [/quote]

Quote

you really do not care of what scriptures are saying right

Terraricca,

AGAIN for the love of Jesus.

If you keep on posting like that without being clear,we will never get somewhere.

I myself do not know if you did understand what I meant or not!!

So be more specific and clear.

Peace and love in Jesus

Charles

July 23, 2012 at 7:24 pm#306756

Frank4YAHWEH

Participant

Just Who Is — “The Alpha and the Omega”?

The old pagan doctrine of a “pre-existent savior,” kept alive and well by religious impostors through the mediums of radio, television and publishing, is much more dangerous than most people realize — because it was actually invented for the purpose of taking away the HEADSHIP and position of YEHOVAH God our Creator, and exalting the Messiah to a position that is not rightfully his! This article uncovers one such attempt to pervert the Scriptures and foist upon the unsuspecting reader the false doctrine of the pre-existence of Yeshua the Messiah.

John D. Keyser

In a letter we recently received from a man on our mailing list, the following comments were made:

“The following four verses claim that both YHVH and Jesus are both the Alpha and the Omega, which would suggest that Jesus is the Lord of the Old Testament and thus pre-existed according to William Dankenbring's understanding. John records in Revelation the words of God, saying, 'I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, THE ALMIGHTY' (Revelation 1:8). 'I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God. Who then is like me? Let him proclaim it' (Isaiah 44:6). 'I am the First and the Last. I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever!' (Rev. 1:17-18). Jesus says, 'And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. I AM ALPHA AND OMEGA, THE BEGINNING AND THE END, the first and the last….I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star' (Rev. 22:12-16).”

Things are not always what they seem — Dankenbring not withstanding! This article will explain the TRUE meaning of the above verses and show how error crept into the 1611 King James Version of the Bible!

The phrase “the Alpha and the Omega” can be found FOUR TIMES in the King James Version of the Bible. However, this phrase should only have been included TWO TIMES! Why? Because it was added to these scriptures in order to infer that it was also Yeshua who was “the Alpha and the Omega” — and not just YEHOVAH the Father!

The phrase “the Alpha and the Omega” is first found written in Revelation 1:8 in the King James Version. In this verse it refers to YEHOVAH — notice:

I am the ALPHA and the OMEGA, the Beginning and the End,” says the Lord, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.

This verse couldn't be any more clearer — this is YEHOVAH God speaking about Himself.

The fact that the title “the Alpha and the Omega” in this verse refers to only YEHOVAH God is found confirmed in the reference, Insight on the Scriptures —

While many commentators apply this title [the Alpha and the Omega] both to God and to Christ, a more careful examination of its use restricts its application to Jehovah God. The first verse of Revelation shows that the revelation was given originally by God and through Jesus Christ, hence the one speaking (though an angelic representation) at times is God himself, and at other times it is Christ Jesus. (Re. 22:8) Thus Revelation 1:8 (RS) says: “'I am the Alpha and the Omega,' says the Lord God [“Jehovah God,” NW], who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.” Although the preceding verse speaks of Christ Jesus, it is clear that in verse 8 the application of the title is to “the Almighty” God. In this regard Barnes' Notes on the New Testament (1974) observes: “It cannot be absolutely certain that the writer meant to refer to the Lord Jesus specifically here…There is no real incongruity in supposing, also, that the writer here meant to refer to God as such.” — Volume 1, page 81.

Then, in Revelation 1:11 (KJV), the phrase “the Alpha and the Omega” is again found —

…saying, “I am the ALPHA and the OMEGA, the First and the Last,” and, “What you see, write in a book and send it to the seven churches which are in Asia: to Ephesus, to Smyrna, to Pergamos, to Thyatira, to Sardis, to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea” (New King James Version).

After the apostle John heard this being spoken, he turned around to see WHO said it (verse 12) — but saw Yeshua the Messiah (verses 13-17). However, Yeshua here reassures John that he was NOT the Alpha and the Omega! We can see this for ourselves in Revelation 1:17-18, which states —

And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. But he laid his right hand on me, saying to me, “Do not be afraid; I AM THE FIRST AND THE LAST. I am he who lives and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, Amen. And I have the keys of Hades and of Death.”

In other words, Yeshua told John NOT to be afraid, for HE WAS NOT THE ALPHA AND THE OMEGA! Yeshua simply did NOT identify himself by that title! This is born out in other versions of the New Testament where the phrase “the Alpha and the Omega” in Revelation 1:11 is not even included — notice!

…saying, “Write down what you see on a scroll, and send it to the seven Messianic communities — Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea!” (Revelation 1:11, Jewish New Testament).

Absolutely no sign of the phrase “the Alpha and the Omega” here! In the New International Version — and even the Authorized Catholic Edition — not a trace of the phrase can be found in verse 11.

Similarly, The New Testament of the Jerusalem Bible also omits this phrase — notice!

“Write down all that you see in a book, and send it to the seven churches of Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea” (Revelation 1:11).

Mention of this is also found in the Bible dictionary Insight on the Scriptures — Volume 1, Page 80. Notice —

The additional occurrence of this phrase in the King James rendering of Revelation 1:11, however, does not receive support from some of the oldest Greek manuscripts, including the Alexandrine, Sinaitic, and Codex Ephraemi rescriptus. It is, therefore, omitted in many modern translations.

Moving forward to Revelation 21:6-7 the phrase “the Alpha and the Omega” can once again be found (in the KJV):

And he said to me, “It is done! I am the ALPHA and the OMEGA, the Beginning and the End. I will give of the fountain of the water of life freely to him who thirsts. He who overcomes shall inherit all things, and I will be his God and he shall be My son.”

Here it is YEHOVAH God the Father speaking and prophesying. All of this chapter is about the New Jerusalem descending from heaven with YEHOVAH God on the throne.

“The title [the Alpha and the Omega] occurs again,” states Insight on the Scriptures, “at Revelation 21:6, and the following verse identifies the speaker by saying: 'Anyone conquering will inherit these things, and I shall be his God and he will be my son.' Inasmuch as Jesus referred to those who are joint heirs with him in his Kingdom as 'brothers,' not 'sons,' the speaker must be Jesus' heavenly Father, Jehovah God. — Mt. 25:40; compare Heb. 2:10-12” (Volume 1, page 81).

Now we come to another scripture in which the phrase “the Alpha and the Omega” was ADDED — in order to foist upon the unwary reader the theory that Yeshua was also “the Alpha and the Omega”! This scripture is Revelation 22:13. And Revelation 22:16 undeniably states that these are Yeshua's words —

I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last (New King James Version)

In The Holy Bible, New King James Version, 1982, published by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Nashville, TN, there is a footnote to Revelation 22:13 which says —

117. NU-Text and M-Text read the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

This footnote (#117) shows that the Alexandrian (NU) and the Vatican (M) texts leave out the phrase “the Alpha and the Omega.”

While not mentioning that this verse is not to be found in the Alexandrian and Vatican texts, Insight on the Scriptures agrees that this verse refers to YEHOVAH God the Father. Notice!

The final occurrence of the title [the Alpha and the Omega] is at Revelation 22:13, which states: “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.” It is evident that a number of persons are represented as speaking in this chapter of Revelation; verses 8 and 9 show that the angel spoke to John, verse 16 obviously applies to Jesus, the first part of verse 17 is credited to “the spirit and the bride,” and the one speaking in the latter part of verse 20 is manifestly John himself. “The Alpha and the Omega” of verses 12-15, therefore, may properly be identified as the same one who bears the title in the other two occurrences: Jehovah God. The expression, “Look! I am coming quickly,” in verse 12, does not require that these aforementioned verses apply to Jesus, inasmuch as God also speaks of himself as “coming” to execute judgment. (Compare Isaiah 26:21.) Malachi 3:1-6 speaks of a joint coming for judgment on the part of Jehovah and his “messenger of the covenant.” — Volume 1, page 81.

Now, you might ask, what DIFFERENCE does it make that this phrase was added to this scripture (Revelation 22:13) — and also to Revelation 1:11? It makes a HUGE difference because it leads people to erroneously believe that Yeshua the Messiah pre-existed in the Godhead before his human birth; because NEVER BEFORE has there been a true understanding of what YEHOVAH God actually said when He identified Himself as “the ALPHA AND THE OMEGA”!

Aleph and Tau

Since we know that YEHOVAH God said He was “THE ALPHA AND OMEGA” in Revelation 1:8 and Revelation 21:6, let's thoroughly study these verses to learn the truth about each of them.

In Revelation 1:8, the Being Who is speaking identifies Himself as “THE ALMIGHTY” — Whom we all know is YEHOVAH. Almost all English versions of the Bible render this verse in the same way as the King James Version —

I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

By merely leaving this text as it is written, a tremendous understanding of WHO YEHOVAH is has been lost. All one would read into this translation is that YEHOVAH is “the Alpha and Omega” — or the Beginning and the End. However, if these two Greek letters are researched in detail, we can readily see that YEHOVAH God is revealing much more about Himself than just the “Beginning and the End.”

In the Greek alphabet the letter “ALPHA” is the first letter, while “OMEGA” is the last. But in the HEBREW language — in which the New Testament scriptures are now known to have been originally written — the letter “ALEPH” is the first letter, and the letter “TAU” is the last.

It is admitted by Bible scholars that Revelation 1:8 should say (in Hebrew):

I am the ALEPH and the TAU

instead of

I am the ALPHA and the OMEGA

This we find in a number of translations, including the Disciples' New Testament. Notice:

I am the ALAP and TAU, says the Lord God, the One who Is, and the One who Becomes and the One who Comes, the One and Only for all.

In a footnote to this verse, the Disciples' New Testament states: “To use 'Omega' here, that is the last letter of the Greek alphabet, is wrong, since the original utterance is in Aramaic and the title the Lord gives Himself must not be changed according to the alphabet of the language in which His title is translated; therefore, 'Tau' should be retained in all other languages. Incidentally, in Hebrew it is 'Tau' also (page 470).

The Anchor Bible, Revelation Volume 38, p. 379, gives us another explanation of this phrase, saying —

8. the Alpha and the Omega. The Hebrew would be aleph and taw, probably standing respectively for Urim and Thummin, the sacred lots of the high priest used to determine the will of God and also meaning “all encompassing.”

Adam Clarke, in his Commentary, Volume 6, p. 971, confirms that “ALPHA AND OMEGA” is indeed “ALEPH AND TAU” in Hebrew. Notice what he says —

[The beginning and the ending] That is, as aleph or alpha is the beginning of the alphabet, so am I the author and cause of all things; as tau or omega is the end or last letter of the alphabet, so am I the end of all things, the destroyer as well as the establisher of all things.

However, we would not be any better off if Revelation 1:8 is properly rendered, “I am the ALEPH and the TAU…” One still would not know what YEHOVAH means when He merely identifies Himself by the FIRST and the LAST letters of the Hebrew alphabet. We need to dig further into this subject. The letters ALEPH and TAU must be researched in depth to ascertain if they have a meaning, or message, to convey.

Unity and Perfection

What the translators of the Bible did not realize — or simply rejected — is that each individual Hebrew letter can be a word or phrase unto itself — with a specific meaning. This is clearly pointed out by Fabre d'Olivet in his intriguing book, The Hebraic Tongue Restored. Dr. d'Olivet shows clear, precise explanations for the meanings of each individual Hebrew letter — and to what they point out or declare. On page 98 of his book, Dr. d'Olivet explains that knowing that each Hebrew letter has a meaning of its own is the KEY to understanding the Bible —

Twenty-two signs: such are the simple bases upon which reposes the Hebraic tongue, upon which are raised the primitive or derivative tongue which are attached to the same origin. From the perfect understanding of these bases, depends the understanding of their genius: their possession is a key which unlocks the roots.

In discussing the letters ALEPH and TAU, Dr. d'Olivet presents clear proof that these two letters make statements in their own right. The FIRST letter in the Hebrew alphabet (ALEPH), according to Dr. d'Olivet, stands for UNITY. Notice:

A. — This first character of the alphabet, in nearly all known idioms, is the sign of power and of stability. The ideas that it expresses are those of unity and of the principle by which it is determined (The Hebraic Tongue Restored, p. 95).

Now, going to page 287, he states —

A. First character of the alphabet in nearly all known idioms. As a symbolic image it represents universal man, mankind, the ruling being of the earth. In its hieroglyphic acceptation, it characterizes unity, the central point, the abstract principle of a thing. As a sign, it expresses power, stability, continuity.

On both page 98 and page 465 of this book, Dr. d'Olivet succinctly points out that the letter “TAU,” — the LAST letter of the Hebrew alphabet — means and stands for PERFECTION:

TH. — Sign of reciprocity: image of that which is mutual and reciprocal. Sign of signs. Joining to the abundance of the character […], to the force of the resistance and protection of the character […], the idea of perfection and necessity of which it is the emblem.

Incredible as it may seem, both single letters: Aleph and Tau, are in themselves Hebrew words that have specific meanings. As we have just seen, Dr. d'Olivet clearly shows in his book that “Aleph” is a word or sign meaning UNITY, and that “TAU” is a word or sign indicating PERFECTION.

As Adam Clarke and the writers of The Anchor Bible, Revelation have shown, “the Alpha and the Omega” should have been written “The Aleph and the Tau.”

Now, with the true meanings of these Hebrew letters uncovered, we can see what YEHOVAH is actually saying in the scriptures we are studying. Let's look at Revelation 1:8:

I am the UNITY and PERFECTION, the beginning and the
end, says YEHOVAH, Who is, Who was, and Who is coming, the Almighty.

Other scriptures verify that YEHOVAH is Unity and Perfection — in Deuteronomy 6:4 YEHOVAH says that He is ONE (UNITY). Notice —

Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one.

Yeshua the Messiah — the only begotten Son of YEHOVAH — who was the savior selected and anointed by YEHOVAH — clearly taught that YEHOVAH is Perfection, saying in Matthew 19:17:

Why are you asking me about good [perfection]? There is One who is good [perfect]! But if you want to obtain eternal life, observe the mitzvot [commandments].

Then, in Matthew 5:48 —

Therefore, be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.

YEHOVAH God is revealing Himself to be Unity and Perfection. These scriptures that reveal “the Alpha and the Omega” and “the Aleph and the Tau” to be YEHOVAH Almighty (Revelation 1:8 and 21:6) DO NOT point to Yeshua — nor can Revelation 1:11 and 22:13 where this phrase was ADDED in some versions of the Bible to “claim” that Yeshua the Messiah pre-existed!

Yeshua the Messiah: First and Last, Beginning and End

Having proven that the words “Alpha and Omega” were added to Revelation 1:11 and 22:13, the latter verse should correctly read:

I am the FIRST and the LAST, the BEGINNING and the END.

We know that Yeshua said this; we know that it is no contradiction for him to call himself the “last” because he will live forever. We know it is no contradiction for him to call himself the “end” because he is the END RESULT of having kept his Father's laws perfectly. In Romans 10:4 we read —

Christ is the end [result] of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

Naturally, the translators tried to distort and misinterpret this verse to try and make you believe that Yeshua ended or “did away” with the law! If you research the meaning of the word translated “end” in this scripture you will find that it means ultimate, prophetic purpose or product — and not “end” as is universally understood in the English context. Religious deceivers also use Romans 10:4 to argue that the apostle Paul taught against YEHOVAH's laws! Nothing could be further from the truth! The apostle Paul NEVER once taught against the laws of YEHOVAH.

Now, in Revelation 22:13, Yeshua calls himself the “LAST” because he has been resurrected to eternal life and will never die again. He called himself the “END” because he is the END PRODUCT — the ultimate result of the law of YEHOVAH.

But what did he mean when he called himself the “FIRST” in Revelation 22:13? Did he mean that he was the first being to ever exist? Many would have you think so. Did he mean that he was “the Father of all the living”? There are many who would have you think so. Was Yeshua saying that he pre-existed? If you let scripture interpret scripture the meaning will be very clear. Notice, please, Revelation 1:5:

And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth…

So therefore, when Yeshua called himself the “FIRST” in Revelation 22:13 — he was not referring to “pre-existence” at all! Yeshua simply meant that he was the first begotten of the dead, which means that he was THE FIRST TO BE RAISED FROM THE DEAD! Because Yeshua is now raised from the dead, he is now immortal — he is the FIRST to be fully created in the whole image of YEHOVAH! This is what Yeshua meant when he said that he was the “FIRST” in Revelation 22:13.

What, then, did he mean when he called himself the “BEGINNING” in the same verse? Does this imply that he was in the beginning with YEHOVAH — as many would have you believe? The answer to these questions is found in Revelation 3:14, which says —

And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God [YEHOVAH]:

In this scripture Yeshua calls himself the “beginning of the creation of God [YEHOVAH].” Yes, of course! Man — in his present physical state — is only a HALF-CREATED being, because we, mankind, are still corruptible flesh, as Paul says in I Corinthians 15:53:

For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

The fact is, we are still dying in this world. If you do not believe me, just check the obituary section of your local newspaper. Man is only in the LIKENESS of YEHOVAH at this time — man was created to resemble YEHOVAH. Man has a form just like YEHOVAH's: a head, chest, arms, legs, feet, etc. — just as the Bible describes YEHOVAH as having.

However, Yeshua the Messiah — because he is the FIRST to be raised from the dead to eternal life — is NOW in the FULL IMAGE of YEHOVAH; he is PERFECTED. He has become the First, or the Beginning — AMONG MEN — to reach the state of PERFECT, completed, whole creation, as YEHOVAH's plan for mankind is.

Therefore, he was NOT referring to pre-existence in calling himself the “Beginning” in Revelation 22:13. Yeshua the Messiah simply means that HE was the “Beginning” — the FIRST PERFECTED of YEHOVAH's whole creation plan for mankind.

There is no evidence whatsoever that the phrase “the Alpha and the Omega” refers to the Messiah — in fact, the exact opposite is apparent when we carefully examine the occurrences of this phrase in the Book of Revelation.
SOURCE

July 23, 2012 at 8:02 pm#306758

terraricca

Participant

Quote (carmel @ July 24 2012,00:24)

so the book of JOB and Satan is a false book [/quote]

Quote

so the book of JOB and Satan is a false book

Terraricca,

AGAIN, clarify yourself please!!

charles
this is your quote ;

Quote

Quote
I said deadly because the most pure ceature ever created by God, could never possess the Father Spirit in Him directly, for the simple reason that God would eradicate this creature even with the least feeling of pride, which the Father expect even from such a creature so close to His purity,since he is created

well in the book of Job Satan when close to God within the assembly ,and he was in opposition they even talk to each other ?????

July 23, 2012 at 8:03 pm#306759

terraricca

Participant

can you delete the long post from Frank because it is spam ,thank you

July 23, 2012 at 8:31 pm#306760

Frank4YAHWEH

Participant

Quote (terraricca @ July 24 2012,07:03)

can you delete the long post from Frank because it is spam ,thank you

Pieear,

No, it is not spam! The article is directly in reference with the topic of pre-existence of Yahshua.

Did Yahshua Create Or Pre-exist His Birth?

“Jesus Is God!”?

…

July 23, 2012 at 9:36 pm#306769

Frank4YAHWEH

Participant

John 1:1 – But what about John 1:1?

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (NIV)

1. It is imperative that the serious student of the Bible come to a basic understanding of logos, which is translated as “Word” in John 1:1. Most Trinitarians believe that the word logos refers directly to Jesus Christ, so in most versions of John logos is capitalized and translated “Word” (some versions even write “Jesus Christ” 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 translators’ decision based on their particular understanding of Scripture.

As it is used throughout Scripture, logos has a very wide range of meanings along two basic lines of thought. One is the mind and products of the mind like “reason,” (thus “logic” is related to logos) and the other is the expression of that reason as a “word,” “saying,” “command” etc. The Bible itself demonstrates the wide range of meaning logos has, and some of the ways it is translated in Scripture 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.

Any good Greek lexicon will also show this wide range of meaning (the words in italics are translated from logos):

speaking; words you say (Rom. 15:18, “what I have said and done”).
a statement you make (Luke 20:20 – (NASB), “they might catch him in some statement).
a question (Matt. 21:24, “I will also ask you one question”).
preaching (1 Tim. 5:17, “especially those whose work is preaching and teaching).
command (Gal. 5:14, “the entire law is summed up in a single command”).
proverb; saying (John 4:37, “thus the saying, ‘One sows, and another reaps’”).
message; instruction; proclamation (Luke 4:32, “his message had authority”).
assertion; declaration; teaching (John 6:60, “this is a hard teaching”).
the subject under discussion; matter (Acts 8:21, “you have no part or share in this ministry.” Acts 15:6 (NASB), “And the apostles… came together to look into this matter”).
revelation from God (Matt. 15:6, “you nullify the Word of God ”).
God’s revelation spoken by His servants (Heb. 13:7, “leaders who spoke the Word of God”).
a reckoning, an account (Matt. 12:36, “men will have to give account” on the day of judgment).
an account or “matter” in a financial sense (Matt. 18:23, A king who wanted to settle “accounts” with his servants. Phil. 4:15, “the matter of giving and receiving”).
a reason; motive (Acts 10:29 – NASB), “I ask for what reason you have sent for me”). [1]

The above list is not exhaustive, but it does show that logos has a very wide range of meaning. With all the definitions and 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 the logos in John 1:1 is? 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. This verse 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. This has come to pass through His creation (Rom. 1:19 and 20), and especially the heavens (Ps. 19). It has come through the spoken word of the prophets and through Scripture, the written Word. Most notably and finally, it has come into being through His Son (Heb. 1:1 and 2).

The renowned Trinitarian scholar, John Lightfoot, writes:

The word logos then, denoting both “reason” and “speech,” was a philosophical term adopted by Alexandrian Judaism before St. Paul wrote, to express the manifestation of the Unseen God in the creation and government of the World. It included all modes by which God makes Himself known to man. As His reason, it denoted His purpose or design; as His speech, it implied His revelation. Christian teachers, when they adopted this term, exalted and fixed its meaning by attaching to it two precise and definite ideas: (1) “The Word is a Divine Person,” (2) “The Word became incarnate in Jesus Christ.” It is obvious that these two propositions must have altered materially the significance of all the subordinate terms connected with the idea of the logos. [2]

It is important to note that it was “Christian teachers” who attached the idea of a “divine person” to the word logos. It is certainly true that when the word logos came to be understood as being Jesus Christ, the understanding of John 1:1 was altered substantially. Lightfoot correctly understands that the early meaning of logos concerned reason and speech, not “Jesus Christ.” Norton develops the concept of logos as “reason” and writes:

There is no word in English answering to the Greek word logos, as used here [in John 1:1]. It was employed to denote a mode of conception concerning the Deity, familiar at the time when St. John wrote and intimately blended with the philosophy of his age, but long since obsolete, and so foreign from our habits of thinking that it is not easy for us to conform our minds to its apprehension. The Greek word logos, in one of its primary senses, answered nearly to our word Reason. The logos of God was regarded, not in its strictest sense, as merely the Reason of God; but, under certain aspects, as the Wisdom, the Mind, the Intellect of God (p. 307).

Norton postulates that perhaps “the power of God” would be a good translation for logos (p. 323). Buzzard sets forth “plan,” “purpose” or “promise” as three acceptable translations. Broughton and Southgate say “thoughts, plan or purpose of God, particularly in action.” Many scholars identify logos with God’s wisdom and reason.

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 revelation “a word from God” and the Bible “the Word of God.”

If we understand that the logos is God’s expression—His plan, purposes, reason and wisdom, it is clear that they 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. 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 and 30: “…when He marked out the foundations of the earth, I [wisdom] was the craftsman at His side.”

2. 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 (Ex. 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). [3]

The above examples demonstrate that the Jews were familiar with the idea of God’s Word referring 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.”

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.” [4] 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.”

3. 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 pre-existence for 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 had no literal pre-existence as a “spirit-book” somewhere in eternity past, but it came into being as God gave the revelation to people and they wrote it down.

4. The last phrase in the verse, which most versions translate as “and the Word was God,” should not be translated that way. The Greek language uses the word “God” (Greek = theos) to refer to the Father as well as to other authorities. These include the Devil (2 Cor. 4:4), lesser gods (1 Cor. 8:5) and men with great authority (John 10:34 and 35; Acts 12:22). At the time the New Testament was written, Greek manuscripts were written in all capital letters. The upper and lower case letters were not blended as we do today. Thus, the distinction that we today make between “God” and “god” could not be made, and the context became the judge in determining to whom “THEOS” referred.

Although context is the final arbiter, 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 (see John 10:33). The difference between theos with and without the article occurs in John 1:1: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with “the theos,” and the Word was “theos.” Since the definite article is missing from the second occurrence of “theos” (“God,”) the usual meaning would be “god” or “divine.” 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.”

A very clear explanation of how to translate theos without the definite article can be found in Jesus As They Knew Him, by William Barclay, a professor at Trinity College in Glasgow:

In a case like this we cannot do other than go to the Greek, which is theos en ho logos. Ho is the definite article, the, and it can be seen that there is a definite article with logos, but not with theos. When in Greek two nouns are joined by the verb “to be,” and when both have the definite article, then the one is fully intended to be identified with the other; but when one of them is without the article, it becomes more an adjective than a noun, and describes rather the class or sphere to which the other belongs.

An illustration from English will make this clear. If I say, “The preacher is the man,” I use the definite article before both preacher and man, and I thereby identify the preacher with some quite definite individual man whom I have in mind. But, if I say, “The preacher is man,” I have omitted the definite article before man, and what I mean is that the preacher must be classified as a man, he is in the sphere of manhood, he is a human being.

[In the last clause of John 1:1] John has no article before theos, God. The logos, therefore, is not identified as God or with God; the word theos has become adjectival and describes the sphere to which the logos belongs. We would, therefore, have to say that this means that the logos belongs to the same sphere as God; without being identified with God, the logos has the same kind of life and being as God. Here the NEB [New English Bible] finds the perfect translation: “What God was, the Word was.” [5]

5. 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 being propounded by 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.” This muthos, these myths, were often irrational, mystical and beyond understanding or 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 myths were often incomprehensible, but nevertheless, they had been widely accepted as the “revelation of the gods.” The pervasiveness of the muthos in the Greco-Roman world of the New Testament can be seen sticking up out of the New Testament like the tip of an iceberg above the water. When Paul and Barnabas healed a cripple in Lystra, the people assumed that the gods had come down in human form, and the priest of Zeus came to offer sacrifices to them. While Paul was in Athens, he became disturbed because of the large number of idols there that were statues to the various gods. In Ephesus, Paul’s teaching actually s
tarted a riot. When some of the locals realized that if his doctrine spread, “the temple of the great goddess Artemis will be discredited, and the goddess herself, who is worshiped throughout the province of Asia and the world, will be robbed of her divine majesty” (Acts 19:27). There are many other examples that show that there was a muthos, i.e., a body of religious knowledge that was in large part incomprehensible to the human mind, firmly established in the minds of some of the common people in New Testament times.

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.

6. In addition to the cultural context that accepted the myths, at the time 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 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 Tim. 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.

7. There are elements of John 1:1 and other phrases in the introduction of John that not only refer back in time to God’s work in the original creation, but also foreshadow the work of Christ in the new administration and the new creation. Noted Bible commentator F.F. Bruce argues for this interpretation:

It is not by accident that the Gospel begins with the same phrase as the book of Genesis. In Genesis 1:1, ‘In the beginning’ introduces the story of the old creation; here it introduces the story of the new creation. In both works of creation the agent is the Word of God. [6]

The Racovian Catechism, one of the great doctrinal works of the Unitarian movement of the 14th and 15th centuries, states that the word “beginning” in John 1:1 refers to the beginning of the new dispensation and thus is similar to Mark 1:1, which starts, “The beginning of the Gospel about Jesus Christ.”

In the cited passage (John 1:1) wherein the Word is said to have been in the beginning, there is no reference to an antecedent eternity, without commencement; because mention is made here of a beginning, which is opposed to that eternity. But the word beginning, used absolutely, is to be understood of the subject matter under consideration. Thus, Daniel 8:1, “In the third year of the reign of king Belshazzar a vision appeared to me, even unto me Daniel, after that which appeared unto me AT THE FIRST.” John 15:27, “And ye also shall bear witness because ye have been with me FROM the beginning.” John 16:4, “These things I said not unto you AT the beginning because I was with you. And Acts 11:15, “And as I began to speak the Holy Spirit fell on them, as on us AT the beginning.” As then the matter of which John is treating is the Gospel, or the things transacted under the Gospel, nothing else ought to be understood here beside the beginning of the Gospel; a matter clearly known to the Christians whom he addressed, namely, the advent and preaching of John the Baptist, according to the testimony of all the evangelists [i.e., Matthew, Mark, Luke and John], each of whom begins his history with the coming and preaching of the Baptist. Mark indeed (Chapter 1:1) expressly states that this was the beginning of the Gospel. In like manner, John himself employs the word beginning, placed thus absolutely, in the introduction to his First Epistle, at which beginning he uses the same term (logos) Word, as if he meant to be his own interpreter [“That which is from the beginning…concerning the Word (logos) of life.” 1 John 1:1]. [7]

While we do not agree with the Catechism that the only meaning of beginning in John 1:1 is the beginning of the new creation, we certainly see how the word beginning is a double entendre. In the context of the new creation, then, “the Word” is the plan or purpose according to which God is restoring His creation.

8. To fully understand any passage of Scripture, it is imperative to study the context. To fully understand John 1:1, the rest of the chapter needs to be understood as well, and the rest of the chapter adds more understanding to John 1:1. We believe that these notes on John 1:1, read together with the rest of John 1 and our notes on John 1:3, John 1:10, John 1:14, John 1:15, and John 1:18 will help make the entire first chapter of John more understandable.
SOURCE

July 23, 2012 at 10:00 pm#306771

Wakeup

Participant

Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ July 24 2012,06:24)