John Part 1
Notes
Transcript
Text
Text
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The Gospel of John is facinating to say the least.
I use the word facinating because it means
Extremely interesting
And the word interesting means
holding or catching the attention
There is no single verse in the Bible that has held so much attention.
I have spent countless hours studying each word of this verse
and I have read dozens of words from those who have
spent countless hours more than me studying each word of this verse.
Why is this verse so facinating?
The most facinating thing about it
Is that two opposing views can read this single verse
and walk away with two opposing interpretations
and both interpreters believe without a doubt
that their interpretation is 100% solid.
Maybe that doesn’t fascinate you,
but it sure holds my attention.
It would be like me writing 2+2 on the screen
and one person walks away sure that I meant to say 4.
And another person walks away certain that I meant to say 5.
And then both of those persons are dumbfounded that their view is not seen.
This is what happens with John chapter 1.1.
The Question is simple.
Who or what is the “word”.
The answer is seemingly simple
As simple as 2+2=4
But what is the whole world thinks that 2+2=5?
It is not so simple to convince them that it should be 4.
The Prologue
The Prologue
Now, the verse 18 verses of the book of John
Are considered the Prologue.
A prologue is what you write before you write.
It is an introduction.
It tends to work as an outline for the rest of the book.
If I spent as much time as I want to
It would takes us about 18 weeks to cover these 18 verses
For your sakes, I will try to shorten that a little.
I have written papers on these 18 verses
and am planning to write a book about it
But I will do my best to keep my lessons simple
and easy to follow.
If I get too technical,
I promise I will slow down and explain it in a way
that you can understand it.
What we have in verse 1 is a marker of time.
The word “beginning” takes us back to the first verse of the Bible.
This is the same word that starts off the book of Genesis.
In the Beginning God Created…
John is certainly drawing our attention to the Genesis
The Beginning of time.
The next couple of verses deal with creation
and then we come to a mention of John the Baptist in verse 6.
We find out later that he is the one who would come before the Messiah.
And then we have the Son of God in verse 14.
And then we see his purpose in verse 18,
Which is to make God the Father Known.
So, John is showing us here what he wants to talk about
Since the beginning of time God had a plan in motion
His people the Jews were anticipating this plan
John the Baptist foreshadows the plan
And then the plan becomes flesh and dwells among us.
While He dwelt among us,
his purpose was to make His Father known.
And we will see just how He does this thought the entire book of Jn.
So, let’s dive into John 1.1
John 1.1
John 1.1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
In this verse we find 3 clauses
They are separated by the two commas.
The first clause tells us when
The second clause tells us where
And the 3rd clause tell us who.
Gen 1.1 does the same thing.
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
When = In the beginning
Who = God the Father
Where = heavens and earth
The What is creation.
That was the purpose.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Here we have:
When = In the Beginning
Where = with God
Who = God himself
The “what” this time is “the Word”.
This is what God planned to do since the beginning.
To find out what the word is,
we must truly keep reading the entire book
Because the word is God’s plan in action.
And Jesus reveals that plan to us in this book.
We will talk about it a bit more when we get to verse 18.
What I’ve done is give you the simple reading of this verse.
I’ve given you the 2+2=4 version.
I would rather not even discuss why 2=2 does not equal 5,
but there is another way people understand this verse.
When we come down to verse 14,
We can see that the it saws the Word became flesh.
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.
So, it is very tempting to come down to verse 14
and borrow the word “Son” from this verse
And then come back up to verse 1 and swap out the word “word”
With the word “Son”.
And this is a very common mistake.
We know that eventually the word becomes flesh
and the word dwells among us
So, the Word must be the Son.
Therefore, we can go back to the beginning and just read it like this:
In the Beginning was the Son,
And the Son was with God.
But, there is a reason John is using these markers of Time.
He doesn’t say In the Beginning was the Son.
He says, in the Beginning was the Word.
It isn’t until we get to verse 14 that we find that the Word
Becomes flesh
and the word dwells among us
and then, we see the Glory of God as the only begotten Son.
But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law,
We’ve got to wait until the fullness of time comes
To see the Son.
But in the beginning it was the Word
Not the Son, but the Word.
He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you
He, here is talking about the Son.
Lest you be uncertain of that,
Let’s read the two versions prior
Because, they are together,
3 of my favorite verses
knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold,
but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot.
He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
We cannot read this as:
In the beginning was the Son, and the Son was with God…
Because, the Son was not manifested until these last times
Until the fulness of time was come.
Until the Word became flesh.
Why is it that some people want to interject the word “Son” into verse 1.
instead of waiting for his appearance in verse 14?
The reason is due to tradition.
Tradition says that the Son eternally existed as a separate person from God the Father.
So, tradition forces many to read what is not here in verse 1
Nor is it mentioned anywhere else in the entire Bible.
There is no verse that says the Son is eternally existing as a separate person.
This is not truth, it is tradition.
Truth is based on the words of the Bible.
And if we add words to the Bible
we can make our traditions square up with the Bible
or so it seems
but we have only altered the Bible to a place where it matches our traditions
when we should be matching our traditions to the Bible.
There is a huge problem looming with this interpretation.
on the screen…
One that is awkward as saying that 2+2=5
The last clause says, “The word was God”.
Now, what does that do to our interpretation…
In the beginning was the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was God.
If we are to be logically consistent,
And we decide we want to replace the word “Word”
with the word “Son”
Then we must do it 3 times in verse 1.
Now, this causing an issue.
We now have 2+2=5 on the screen.
And there are mental gymnasitics involved to turn that 5 into a 4.
Or at least try to turn the 5 into a 4.
So, the issue is that in the second clause,
Tradition wants it to say:
The Son was with God (the Father)
This aligns perfectly with the idea that
the Son eternally exists as a separate person from the Father.
But then we must say:
The Son was God (the Father).
Altogether is would be read as:
In the beginning was the Son, and the Son was with God the Father, and the Son was God the Father.
This of course is not true
and no one believe this is true.
Especially those who believe that
The Son eternally exists as a separate person from the Father.
But this is the logical conclusion of substituting the Word word
with the word Son in verse 1.
But this clearly looks more like 2+2=5
So, how do people attempt to fix this?
Well, if it was me, I would put the verse back like it was.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Verse 1 clearly says that THE WORD WAS GOD
Not THE WORD WAS THE SON.
So, this is our first clue that we shouldn’t go down to verse 14
borrow the word Son
and then place it into verse 1.
But, people still do it
and then to fix it,
they have to do 1 of 3 things.
Redefine the word God:
So, let me put back up the 2+2=5 version of John 1.1:
In the beginning was the Son, and the Son was with God the Father, and the Son was God the Father.
In the beginning was the Son, and the Son was with God the Father, and the Son was divine.
Here, we have redefined the word God
To simply mean,
Divine.
Now, without getting too technical
The Greek word here does not
and cannot mean “divine”
First of all it is a noun
Not an adjective.
Secondly, John could have used the word that actually means “divine”
Finally, we have this word already in the same sentence…
What sense does it make to have God mean God in one part of a sentence
but the God means divine in another part of a sentence.
JFB, who spent nearly 140 words in their commentary on the first two clauses,
sums up the third clause in 15 words by redefining
“Theos”, the Greek word for God,
to simply mean “divine”.
They say, the phrase “was God— [means] in substance and
essence GOD;
or was possessed of essential or proper divinity.”
For JFB, the third clause could be rewritten to say,
“The Word was divine.”,
which effectively redefines “Theos” to mean “divine”.
And this is done in the middle of a sentence that contains the word “God” twice.
The second mistake is to keep the word God, but add some other words.
In the beginning was the Son, and the Son was with God the Father, and the Son was like God the Father in every way.
Colin Kruse says this about the third clause in his commentary,
“when the Prologue says ‘the Word was God’ it is
not saying that the Word and God constitute an undifferentiated unity,
but rather it is saying,
in words aptly coined by Moloney, ‘what God was the Word also was’.”18
Kruse, and Moloney, are essentially saying, “The Word is ‘like’ God” in every way.
This is the mistake of adding additional words to the third clause.
Kruse must add these words in his mind to prevent “the Word and God
[constituting] an undifferentiated unity”.
meaning, there is no separation, no second person,
just God, who is the Word…
This essentially admits that, left as is,
the third clause is inherently Oneness.
The final mistake is to add words, and change the meaning of words.
In the beginning was the Son, and the Son was with God the Father, and the Son was a member of the Godhead.
D. A. Carson, a respected theologian,
begins by contradicting many theologians when he says,
“This cannot be understood in an adjectival sense (the Word was divine),
which would weaken the statement.”
It appears as if Carson is going to do the right thing and avoid changing the meaning of “θεός” to an adjective like “divine” midsentence.
However, Carson continues, “Since God is a noun, John must be affirming the Godhead of the Word.
It involves not only divinity but deity.”
It is assumed that Carson
means for the third clause to say,
“the Word was a member of the Godhead”.
This not only adds words,
but also redefines “Theos” to mean “Godhead”.
It should be noted that the word “Theos” means God,
and only God.
This is how Carson and all others define Theos
in the second clause.
In fact, they need the word Theos to mean God the Father
in the second clause to show distinction with the Word.
This is the equivalent of a Theological house of cards.
So much of this interpretation is riding on the word “with”
indicating personhood,
and the word “Theos”
selectively meaning “God the Father” in place
or “Not God the Father” in another place.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
So, how can something or someone be “with” God
and also BE God?
First, we must determine if the word “Word” is a person or a thing.
We have a major clue in John’s other letter
which starts out very similar to this one.
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—
We will look at verse 2 in a second
but first, I want you to notice the similarities to John 1.1
We see the Beginning being mentioned
but instead of “The Word”
We see “THAT WHICH”.
Why does it say “THAT WHICH”
Instead of “HE”?
Because, the underlying Greek is clearly indicating a thing.
A what, not a who.
The word is a what in the beginning
and becomes a who later on…
when does the word become a who?
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—
If we really want to know what John thought
We can compare these 2 verses with John 1.1
and we find that the word was a “what” or a “that”
Not a who, or a him, or a he.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
So, the word here is meant to be a thing,
What is this thing?
It is a thought, a plan, or an idea.
So, basically, God is saying
I had a plan since the beginning, and I am the plan.
And as we will see as we navigate through this book
It is God the Father who is being revealed to us in the flesh.
She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.”
All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet:
“Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” (which means, God with us).
So, Jn 1.1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Then we have Jn 1.2
He was in the beginning with God.
First, we have to address the word “He”
The Greek word can mean he or it
and it depends on the context.
Because most people believe the Word is the eternal Son
They translate this word as “he”
However, if we look at 1 Jn 1.1
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—
We see clearly that John intended for the Word to not be a person
but to be a thing
So, when we come back to Johns other letter
It would only make sense to me
that if we are given the choice between he or it
we should use it.
This is what the KJV does…
The same was in the beginning with God.
The KJV is not alone is this rendering
There are a few other translations that see it as a mistake to add gender where it is was not intended.
It is soley from a tradition of personifying the word in verse 1
that caused translators to start personifiying the word in verse 2 and 3.
by using “he” instead of “it”
This is also why you see the word “word” capitalized.
This capitalization is not in the Greek text
It is only due to the personification of the word Word
through years of tradition.
John indicated that the word was a what
not a who
and I think it is incorrect to go against that.
John is trying to show us this plan,
which is a think
was with God all along
and that God was the plan.
The verses were not in the original book
They were added later
and there is this thing called a Chiasm
In Verse 1 and 2
It is a litterary device that is very common
in the Bible.
A Chiasm has a repetition or two
and the repetition is often a reversal
So, it is usually written as ABBA
Meaning, the outer lines match
and then the inner lines match
But it can be much longer
and be ABCCBA, for example
Or ABCDCBA
And usually, if you have an odd number
the middle line will be the focus of the entire thing.
A} In the beginning was the word
B} And the word was with God
B} and God was the Word
A} It was in the beginning with God
I should probably mention
That the 3rd clause of verse one
Is usually written as
And The Word was God
But the underlying Greek word order is:
And God was the Word.
So, to me, the focal point of this Chiasm
Is God and The Word
Which is pretty obvious
and easy to pick out
Even if you didn’t see it formatted like a classic Chaism
But the point, as obvious as it is,
can still be missed when we try to incorporate the Son
Into verse one. Because…
In the Beginning,
there was only God the Father
And his word.
Nothing more.
nothing less.
