A New Exposition of John 1: 1-12

[Asyncritus]

[FONT=&quot]JOHN 1: 1 –12 in its proper context[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

The context dictates the meaning of every passage: we ignore it at our peril. So making the assumption that John wasn’t unwell when he wrote this, we have to think that the first section of this chapter has some connection with the rest of it.

But what?

This is the start of John’s gospel. What was his object in writing it? He summarises the gospel thus:

“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.” (John 20:31 AV)

Therefore, whatever this unusual prologue means, IT IS WRITTEN TO ESTABLISH THE FACT THAT JESUS IS THE CHRIST, THE SON OF GOD.

If this was intended to establish the concept that Jesus was God - something which would really take some establishing in the minds of Jews! - then the 20:31 statement is completely up the creek. Any interpretation which flies in the face of John’s stated purpose must, of necessity be completely wrong, and a denial of his intention.

[/FONT]

 

[Asyncritus]

Part 2

[FONT=&quot]So what is the context of John 1: 1-14? Why, the rest of the chapter, of course (vv15 – 51). So what’s that all about? Here’s a brief summary:

1 John bears witness to Him (v15)

2 John (the writer’s) parenthesis (vv16 –18)

3 John bears further witness to Him (vv19 – 28)

4 Jesus appears, is baptised, and declared to be the Lamb of God (vv29 –36)

5 Jesus calls His first 5 disciples (vv37 –51)

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]It is impossible for anyone to explain why a large chunk dealing with the creation in Genesis 1 leads off this particular context. There is no connection at all.

Why begin the gospel with a discussion of facts relating to the Creation of the planet, when that had already been done so thoroughly, so long before, and was so well known to his readership? Why would he choose to be so far out of line with the other gospel writers who make no reference to Genesis1 at all?[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

Why don’t they?


[/FONT]

 

[Asyncritus]

Part 3

[FONT=&quot]The only sensible reason for his allusions that makes any sense – and I am quite open to any better suggestions here – is that he is introducing the Beginning of the New Creation of God in Christ. Nothing else makes contextual sense.

Furthermore, the introduction is not really about the creation of the planet, but the[/FONT]separation of light from darkness. Why does he not mention the creation of trees, dry land and all the other things mentioned in Genesis 1?

Because the separation of light and darkness is the only point relevant to the theme of his gospel, and he sticks rigidly to it.

And so too do the other gospel writers! Matthew writes:

[FONT=&quot]
“ The land of Zabulon, and the land of Nephthalim, by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles; The people which sat in darkness saw great light; and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up.” (Matthew 4:15-16 AV)

Mark makes no reference to light and darkness, but kicks off with a quotation from Isaiah 40 – which, strikingly enough comes only a handful of verses after Hezekiah has been typically ‘raised from the dead’ i.e. emerged from darkness into light.
Luke records this beautiful early prophecy:

“… through the tender mercy of our God; whereby the dayspring from on high hath visited us, To give light to them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace.” (Luke 1:78-79 AV)

As you can now see, the darkness John refers to, in line with the other gospel writers, is the darkness of death.

This is an exceedingly important point: because we can now place John’s gospel prologue firmly in the contextual company of the other gospels. He is no longer out on his own little limb.


[/FONT]

 

[Asyncritus]

Part 4

[FONT=&quot]“ And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.” (John 1:5-8 AV)

John the Baptist is a very clear time indicator – a most important one - in this prologue. What time, in verse 5 remember, does he identify categorically for us? Answer: the Beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. In this, John the writer is very much in step with Mark:

“ The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;” (Mark 1:1 AV)

Therefore, the previous 4 verses are extremely likely to be speaking of the same time. Not about the dawn of Creation.

[/FONT]

 

[Asyncritus]

Part 5

[FONT=&quot]John very consistently uses ‘the beginning’ not to mean Genesis 1, but the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, and/or the beginning in Acts 2. Here are examples, all taken from the gospel and his epistles:

“ This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.” (John 2:11 AV)

“ But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.” (John 6:64 AV)

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

“ That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;” (1 John 1:1 AV)

“ 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 John 2:7 AV)

“ I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I write unto you, young men, because ye have overcome the wicked one. I write unto you, little children, because ye have known the Father.” (1 John 2:13 AV)

“ Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.” (1 John 2:24 AV)

“ And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it.” (2 John 1:6 AV)

You can see from the above, especially in the Epistles of John, that the elders ‘heard the word from the beginning’. That they couldn’t have been there in Genesis 1 is axiomatic – therefore, ‘the beginning’ refers to the beginning of the Lord’s ministry, or even later, Acts 2.

The only exception to this general rule is the remark by the Lord regarding ‘your father’ Adam.

Let us make that assumption – with good cause, as shown above – and see where it gets us. The result? Complete harmony with the context.[/FONT]

 

[Asyncritus]

Part 6

[FONT=&quot]“ In the beginning (Greek ‘in a beginning’)[/FONT] [FONT=&quot].

The definite article is absent from the word ‘beginning’.

Therefore, this does not necessarily refer to Genesis 1. It is certainly an allusion to it, and the reason is quite simple: this is the beginning of The New Creation of God, the beginning (of the preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ), This is a beginning – not the one described in Genesis 1.

was the Word

Is it significant, or not, that John chooses to say ‘the Word’ and not ‘Jesus’? It must be, and the reason for his choice is that one of the great TITLES of the Lord Jesus, is ‘The Word Of God’ “ And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.” (Revelation 19:13 AV)

The context of that unique use of the title is frightening. The blood on His vesture is the blood of the enemies of God, who have destroyed His holy apostles and prophets, chief among whom is the High Priest who delivered Him up to death.

This is contextually consistent with the comments by John a few verses along: ‘he came unto his own, and his own received him not’, and later ‘the world knew him not.’ It is on these people that the rod of iron, the sharp sword and the winepress of the wrath of God will fall first. Judgment will begin at the house of God, says Peter.

[/FONT]

 

[Asyncritus]

Part 7

[FONT=&quot].. and the Word was with God[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

Wuest, trinitarian of trinitarians, along with other commentators picks up the fact that the Greek for ‘with’ is ‘pros.’ ‘Pros’ with the accusative case, as here, has a number of possible meanings, and I summarise the Grimm-Thayer Lexicon entry on this point. It can mean, say they,

1 to, toward

a. of the goal
b. of a time drawing toward a given time
c. metaphorically of mental direction, with words denoting desires and emotions of the mind
d. of the issue or end to which anything tends or leads

2 It is used of close proximity – the idea of direction, though not entirely lost, being more or less weakened

a. at, or by
b. with after verbs of remaining, dwelling, tarrying etc.

3 of relation, or reference to any person or thing

a. of fitness
b. of the relation or close association entered (or to be entered) into by
one person with another
c. with regard to (any person or thing)
d. pertaining to
e. in comparison
f. agreeably to, according to
g. akin to

They quite clearly state that with ‘the Dative case, at, near, hard by, denoting close local proximity are the valid meanings’. If John intended to say that the Lord Jesus was 'geographically' next to God in heaven, this is the construction he would have had to use: ie ‘pros’ with the dative case. He doesn’t.

He therefore means one of the above three, and has chosen a construction which permits several of the meanings listed in 1 –3 above.

He could not have intended to say that the Lord Jesus was with God in creation (Gen 1), because of the impossibility created by the Lord’s statement: “I am the beginning of the creation of God” (Rev.3: 14) There is also the point that this meaning bears absolutely no relation to the context of Jesus coming to the Jews who rejected Him.

Since John is the arch-exponent of gospel metaphor, it is very likely that one or all of the following was intended.

1 c. ‘metaphorically of mental direction, with words denoting desires and emotions of the mind’ is a serious contender. All of the Lord’s mind was one way. Towards the Father and His will.

2b ‘with’ God in the sense of remaining focused upon Him

3b ‘of the relation or close association entered (or to be entered) into by one person with another’ is also an excellent possibility, since the Lord’s relation and close association with his Father were very much in John’s mind.

The context must decide, and since the context contains so much about Jesus’ rejection by His people the Jews, on the ground that he made Himself God (their false accusation), then 3b seems the most likely to be John’s intention. There was a close association between Father and Son: of which, the leaders at least, were fiercely jealous and resentful.

Hence, I suggest that the meaning of the phrase is quite simply, and the word (Jesus) was in a close association with God.


[/FONT]

 

[Asyncritus]

Part 8

[FONT=&quot]and the Word was God.[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]

As even Wuest recognizes, the definite article is absent from before the word ‘God’. The significance of that fact is that it describes a quality, rather than a person. Moffatt, recognizing this, translates ‘and the word was divine’. It is a description of Jesus’ character.

Hence, the meaning of the phrase is : the word was divine – and that could mean, of divine origin, since God was His Father, or, in character i.e. the Lord’s behaviour pattern was divine. Or both. There is no necessity to overlay this with heavy trinitarian doctrine. The first is preferable, because of the stated intention of the gospel which was to establish that Jesus was the Son of God.

The same was in the beginning with God.

This is a re-statement of v1 for emphasis.
It is also worth noting that John the Baptist was sent from the side of (para) God. This cannot be literal either.


[/FONT]

 

[mcgyver]

Is this your own work, or a copy/paste thingy?

 

[Asyncritus]

Part 9

[FONT=&quot]All things were made by him[/FONT] [FONT=&quot];

There is very severe restriction on the meaning of ‘all things’ in this verse. The Lord Himself states

“ 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;” (Revelation 3:14 AV) He Himself is therefore excluded from the ‘all things’, and so is the Father.

Note the implications of the emboldened phrase:

1 Creation demands that there be a Creator.

2 Therefore, God created Jesus. Therefore there can be no further nonsense about His being ‘uncreated’.

3 He, Jesus, is the Beginning, He is Number One in the New Creation – but the Creator Himself exceeds Him. Therefore there can be no question of ‘equality’ or ‘identity’ with the Creator. (“It is manifest that He is excepted which did put all things under him…..THEN SHALL THE SON ALSO HIMSELF BE SUBJECT TO HIM that put all things under him” 1 Cor.15 28)

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]As Adam was once the Beginning, and the Head, or Number One of the Old Creation, (“Let them have dominion…”) having been given this position by God, and therefore being inferior to God, so it is now. The Lord Jesus is the last Adam, He is the Beginning, and the Head of the New Creation. God has raised Him from the dead, super-exalted Him, and given him the name that is above every name….to the glory of God the Father.

Therefore, to say that this passage (vv1 –4) is referring to the Old Creation i.e. to Genesis 1, completely destroys the reason for its existence. Jesus is not the Head of the Old Creation – Adam was. Adam dwelt in darkness. Jesus is the Light of the World – in the New Creation. The Old Creation became covered in ‘darkness’ into which Christ, the true Light of the New Creation, was coming. Note that this is another powerful contextual link[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

‘All things’ cannot refer to every single thing that was created, because we then have a nonsensical statement: If Jesus created every single thing, then He created Himself, and the Father too, along with everything else: a clear nonsense. Wuest correctly notes this point.

[/FONT]

 

[Asyncritus]

Part 10

Digression

Paul gives the identifying parameters of the ‘all things’ in this 'difficult'passage. He leaves no room for doubt about what he means, because as soon as he uses a term, he explains it in the next breath.

“ And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.” (Colossians 1:18 AV)

HE is: Q. Who is? A: Jesus

the HEAD : Q. Head of what? A. The body, which is the church.

the BEGINNING: Q. The Beginning of what? A. The beginning of the church’s procession out of the grave, hence, 'the firstborn from the dead'.

ALL THINGS: Q. Which ‘all things’? A. The church. In which He has the pre-eminence. The Head of anything has the pre-eminence in it.

“ FOR IN HIM (en autw) WERE ALL THINGS CREATED, THAT ARE IN HEAVEN,
Q. What is in heaven? A. The Church – He has made us to sit together with him ‘in the heavenly places’ in Christ ( as it says in Eph.1: 3). That this cannot possibly be everything that is literally in heaven, is clear from the fact the God is in heaven and cannot conceivably be included in this group. Therefore this means certain things that are, spiritually speaking, in heaven.

As a bit of additional support for the IN HIM translation I advocate in line with the RV, here is some evidence which clinches that rendering:

[FONT=&quot]Col[/FONT][FONT=&quot] 1:19 [/FONT]oti en autw eudokhsen pan to plhrwma katoikhsai
[FONT=&quot]Col[/FONT][FONT=&quot] 1:19 For it pleased the Father that [/FONT][FONT=&quot]in[/FONT][FONT=&quot]him[/FONT][FONT=&quot] should all fulness dwell;[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Col[/FONT][FONT=&quot] 2:6 [/FONT]wv oun parelabete ton criston ihsoun ton kurion en autw peripateite
[FONT=&quot]Col[/FONT][FONT=&quot] 2:6 As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye [/FONT][FONT=&quot]in[/FONT][FONT=&quot]him[/FONT][FONT=&quot]:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Col[/FONT][FONT=&quot] 2:7 [/FONT]errizwmenoi kai epoikodomoumenoi en autw kai bebaioumenoi en th pistei kaywv edidacyhte perisseuontev en auth en eucaristia
[FONT=&quot]Col[/FONT][FONT=&quot] 2:7 Rooted and built up [/FONT][FONT=&quot]in[/FONT][FONT=&quot]him[/FONT][FONT=&quot], and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]Col[/FONT][FONT=&quot] 2:9 [/FONT]oti en autw katoikei pan to plhrwma thv yeothtov swmatikwv
[FONT=&quot]Col[/FONT][FONT=&quot] 2:9 For [/FONT][FONT=&quot]in[/FONT][FONT=&quot]him[/FONT][FONT=&quot] dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]Col[/FONT][FONT=&quot] 2:10 [/FONT]kai este en autw peplhrwmenoi ov estin h kefalh pashv archv kai exousiav
[FONT=&quot]Col[/FONT][FONT=&quot] 2:10 And ye are complete [/FONT][FONT=&quot]in[/FONT][FONT=&quot]him[/FONT][FONT=&quot], which is the head of all principality and power:[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]16 [/FONT]oti en autw ektisyh ta panta ta en toiv ouranoiv kai ta epi thv ghv ta orata kai ta aorata eite yronoi eite kuriothtev eite arcai eite exousiai ta panta di autou kai eiv auton ektistai

[FONT=&quot]16 For [/FONT][FONT=&quot]by Him [/FONT][FONT=&quot]all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him.[/FONT]

Revised Version:
16: for IN HIM were all things created.

There is, as you can see, plenty of support in Colossians itself, for the IN HIM rendering, which places a completely different light on the understanding of the verse.

 

[Asyncritus]

Part 11

[FONT=&quot]AND THAT ARE IN [/FONT] [FONT=&quot](GK.ON) EARTH,

Q. What is on the earth that is created in Him? A. The living saints. That this cannot possibly mean the whole planet is clear from the fact that there are huge evils in the earth, and mighty evildoers. The Lord Jesus certainly did not create these. He is going to destroy them. Therefore this means certain things that are, spiritually speaking, on earth. The saints.

VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE, i.e. living (visible) or dead (invisible because they are under the earth or in the sea which is to give up her dead). Not gases or microbes.

WHETHER THEY BE believers who sit on THRONES, or believers who rule DOMINIONS, or believers who are princes and therefore rule PRINCIPALITIES, or believers who wield high political or civil POWERS: ALL THINGSWERE CREATED BY HIM [we are created in Christ Jesus Eph.2 : 4,5] – we are new creations {2 Cor. 5.17) , AND we FOR HIM:”

It is very noticeable that he does not include worms, fish and the mountains, for example. To take the words literally is to make nonsense of them: Christ did not create chairs (thrones), for instance. This refers to the people who sit on the thrones who were ‘created by Christ’

It is highly important to observe that ‘all things’ were created IN HIM. This completely removes the whole verse from the physical realm, and identifies the ALL THINGS as people who are IN CHRIST. “If any man be IN CHRIST he is a new CREATION.”

It is not too difficult, then, to follow the apostle’s thinking – the sum total of all the believers in Christ is a New World, with a new Sun of Righteousness, with new stars in the firmament, with new fruit being produced (Col.1 is very strong on this particular description) – a whole New Creation, in other words. (i.e. all these believers)
[/FONT]

 

[Drew]

[FONT=&quot]Therefore, whatever this unusual prologue means, IT IS WRITTEN TO ESTABLISH THE FACT THAT JESUS IS THE CHRIST, THE SON OF GOD. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]If this was intended to establish the concept that Jesus was God - something which would really take some establishing in the minds of Jews! - then the 20:31 statement is completely up the creek. Any interpretation which flies in the face of John’s stated purpose must, of necessity be completely wrong, and a denial of his intention. [/FONT]

I hope you are not making the following argument:

1. The stated intent of this book is to establish that Jesus is the Son of God;
2. Therefore, it cannot be the case that Jesus is "God" in substance.

That would beg the question of Jesus divine status, of course, be presuming that Jesus cannot be, in some sense, a "son" to the Father, and yet still be divine.

 

[Asyncritus]

Part 12

[FONT=&quot]Back to John 1.[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]

AND WITHOUT HIM WAS NOT ANY THING MADE THAT WAS MADE.

This is the logical extension of the previous words. Without Christ, nothing in the New Creation can be made. Without Christ, no one who ‘was made’ i.e. in the flesh, was ‘really made’ at all. They were dead burying their dead.

IN HIM WAS LIFE; AND THE LIFE WAS THE LIGHT OF MEN.

To explain ‘being made’ he now points out that Life, eternal life, is only available ‘in Him’. So someone who 'is made', is 'in Christ', in the realm of 'light', in the dominion of 'life'.

AND THE LIGHT SHINETH IN DARKNESS; AND THE DARKNESS COMPREHENDED IT NOT.

The light is shining in darkness even now. The darkness of death did not win, not even for a moment.


[/FONT]

 

[Asyncritus]

Part 13

[FONT=&quot]THERE WAS A MAN SENT FROM GOD, WHOSE NAME WAS JOHN. THE SAME CAME FOR A WITNESS, TO BEAR WITNESS OF THE LIGHT, THAT ALL MEN THROUGH HIM MIGHT BELIEVE. [/FONT] [FONT=&quot]

This verse is not arbitrarily dropped in here at this point.

John has dealt with the fact that Jesus was ready to start His ministry, but hadn’t done so as yet, because He was waiting for this signal from His Father. John the Baptist’s authority is derived from the fact that he was sent from God. That authority justified Jesus’ entering the world with bang that he did.

The Light was ready, prepared, to enter the world, but had not done so in vv 1 –4. Therefore, CONTEXTUALLY SPEAKING, the previous verses refer to the state of the Lord’s mind and readiness to do the will of God. Not to His ‘deity’ or any other such meaning.

‘FROM’ GOD: Greek para, which means ‘alongside.’

How could John the Baptist ever have been ‘alongside’ God? Not literally, that’s for certain. Maybe this refers to Gabriel, sent from standing in the presence of God, to announce the birth of John.

If therefore, this preposition 'from' is to be regarded figuratively, then what is to stop the ‘pros’ of v1 from requiring a figurative application too? Answer, nothing. If ‘pros’ MAY legitimately be regarded as being figurative, then the case for the literality of verse 1 also vanishes in smoke..

[/FONT]

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

So A, (hope you don't mind me shortening your handle), are you under the impression that the beginning of John COULD NOT say that Jesus was divine based on John's purpose for the writing or are you saying that it simply DOES NOT convey that message?

 

[Asyncritus]

Part 14

[FONT=&quot]HE WAS NOT THAT LIGHT, BUT WAS SENT TO BEAR WITNESS OF THAT LIGHT. THAT WAS THE TRUE LIGHT, WHICH LIGHTETH EVERY MAN THAT COMETH INTO THE WORLD.[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]

The complete non-literality of the whole prologue is demonstrated by this single verse.

Physical light, what we would call ‘real light’ is not, in John’s mind, ‘true light’. The Lord Jesus is the ‘true light’. Grimm-Thayer translate this adjective (alethinos) as REAL. We are about as far removed as we can be from physical experience. Therefore, the trinitarian has vanishing reason to suppose that any part of this prologue is to be regarded as a literal statement. Why?

The expressions ‘in the beginning’, ‘with God’, ‘was God’, ‘all things’, ‘world’ are all to be taken, in the name of CONTEXTUAL CONSISTENCY, as non-literal statements. They are to be viewed as non-physical, figurative, metaphorical, or spiritual descriptions. And with that realization, support for the doctrine of the trinity evaporates into thin air.

HE WAS IN THE WORLD, AND THE WORLD WAS MADE BY HIM, AND THE WORLD KNEW HIM NOT.

The metaphors, with their severely restricted and limited literality continue.

The ‘world’ now appears not to be planet earth. How could planet earth ‘know’ him? Do animals, vegetables and minerals have the intelligence to ‘know him’? Answer: absolutely not. Therefore the word ‘world’ has another significance. What is it? John’s next words give us the answer.

Let’s review where we have got to regarding the ‘world’. It is surely obvious by now that John is not writing about planet earth for reasons given above. He is writing about the Jewish world. If we now say the Jewish world was made by Jesus, and take the words ‘was made by him’ , literally, we have a problem. On the other hand, if we make the fairly sensible assumption that the words mean that ‘the (Jewish) world was made (something) by him’, then the problem vanishes.

What could that (something) be? Looking into the gospel, we find ‘was made’ is accompanied by ‘whole’ in 5.9.

The verse means, or could mean, ‘the world was made (whole) by him, and the world knew (acknowledged) him not.’ Which makes total sense. Many of them were made physically and spiritually whole by him, and yet the leaders ‘knew' (acknowledged) him not.


[/FONT]

 

[Asyncritus]

Part 15

[FONT=&quot]“ HE CAME UNTO HIS OWN, AND HIS OWN RECEIVED HIM NOT.” (JOHN 1:11 AV)[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]

HIS OWN, refers of course, to his own people, the Jewish nation. They, as a nation, rejected him. The Jewish ‘world’ is what John is writing about here, not planet earth.

BUT AS MANY AS RECEIVED HIM, TO THEM GAVE HE POWER TO BECOME THE SONS OF GOD, EVEN TO THEM THAT BELIEVE ON HIS NAME:

This is fairly straightforward, and needs no explanation.

WHICH WERE BORN, NOT OF BLOOD, NOR OF THE WILL OF THE FLESH, NOR OF THE WILL OF MAN, BUT OF GOD.

Back to spiritual metaphors. This is no literal ‘birth’, but a spiritual one. The Lord explains this in chapter 3.


[/FONT]

 

[Asyncritus]

Part 16

[FONT=&quot]AND THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH, AND DWELT AMONG US, (AND WE BEHELD HIS GLORY, THE GLORY AS OF THE ONLY BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER,) FULL OF GRACE AND TRUTH.” [/FONT] [FONT=&quot](JOHN 1:1-14 AV)

The above exposition completely, and effortlessly, demystifies John 1: 1 in particular. There is no need for convoluted explanations, no invoking of mystical Logos-es, nothing that the veriest babe in Christ cannot comprehend. The only readers John intended to confuse were the opposition: and he, like his Lord, did so vigorously.

To summarise, then. The whole of the prologue is riddled with non-literal figures.

Born, sons of God, the world, the light, the darkness, the ‘all things’, the beginning, the Word are all non-literal.

On what grounds, therefore, can anyone maintain that the prologue’s meaning is a literal one?

Answer: None.[/FONT]

 

[Vic C.]

Is this your own work, or a copy/paste thingy?

This is the Apologetics Forum. By it's very nature, communication is essential between posters.

You haven't addressed this question by mcgyver and and the other questions either.

It is most important that we know the source of what you have posted.

Thanks.