Data on John 1:1

[Peterlag7]

This is all the data I could find on John 1:1. Enjoy...

“In the beginning.” There are elements of John 1:1 and other phrases in the introduction of John that remind us of God’s original creation while referring to the work of restoration done by Jesus Christ in the new administration and the new creation. Genesis 1 refers to God’s original creation; John 1 refers to the Restoration, not the original creation.

While we agree with the Catechism that the meaning of “beginning” in John 1:1 refers to the beginning of the Gospel and the restoration of mankind, we also need to point out that the word “beginning” was deliberately chosen by God to remind us of the original creation, and to set the stage for the sequence of events that follow; for example, the conflict between light and darkness. In the context of the Restoration, then “the Word” is the plan or purpose according to which God is restoring His creation.
So using “In the beginning” takes us both back to the beginning in Genesis 1:1, and sets us up for the “beginning” of the work of Christ and the Restoration of mankind.

Genesis 1. THE CREATION

• In the beginning—The creation
• Chaos and darkness
• God hovering over the water
• God spoke light and more into being
• Light overcoming the darkness
• God preparing a Garden of Delight for people and living among them
• THE FALL (then God lived in a tent (the “tabernacle”) and people gazed at its glory)

John 1. THE RESTORATION

• In the beginning—the plan
• All things were made in accordance with the plan
• In the plan was light and life
• The darkness could not understand or overcome it
• The plan became flesh and lived in a tent among us, and we gazed at its glory.

The “Word” is translated from the Greek word logos (λόγοc). It refers to God’s reason as played out in His plan and purpose. It is important that Christians have a basic understanding of logos, which is translated as “Word” in most versions of John 1:1. Most Trinitarians believe that logos refers directly to Jesus Christ, so in most Bibles logos is capitalized as “Word” (some versions even put “Jesus Christ” instead of “Word” in John 1:1). However, a study of the Greek word logos shows that it occurs more than 300 times in the New Testament, and in both the NIV and the KJV it is capitalized only 7 times (and even those versions disagree on exactly when to capitalize it). When a word that occurs more than 300 times is capitalized fewer than 10 times, it is obvious that when to capitalize and when not to capitalize is a translator’s decision based on their particular understanding of Scripture. Below are five points to consider.

In both Greek literature and Scripture, logos has a very wide semantic range that falls into two basic categories: one is the mind and products of the mind like “reason” (the word “logic” is ultimately from the root logos) and the other is the expression of that reason in language or life: thus, “word” “saying” “command” etc. The Bible itself demonstrates the wide range of meanings of logos. Some of the ways it is translated in English versions of the Bible are: account, appearance, book, command, conversation, eloquence, flattery, grievance, heard, instruction, matter, message, ministry, news, proposal, question, reason, reasonable, reply, report, rule, rumor, said, say, saying, sentence, speaker, speaking, speech, stories, story, talk, talking, teaching, testimony, thing, things, this, truths, what, why, word and words. Although the word logos appears over 300 times in the Greek text, it is only translated “word” about 175 times in the King James Version, and 125 times in the NIV.

Any good Greek lexicon will also show the wide lexical range of logos. The definitions below are from the BDAG Greek-English lexicon. The words in italics are translated from logos:

• (Rom. 15:18 NIV) “what I have said”
• (Luke 20:20 NASB) “they might catch him in some statement"
• (Matt. 21:24 NIV) “I will also ask you one question”
• (1 Tim. 5:17 NIV) “especially those whose work is preaching"
• (Gal. 5:14 NIV) “the entire law is summed up in a single command”
• (John 4:37 NIV) “thus the saying, One sows, and another reaps”
• (Luke 4:32 NIV84) “his message had authority”
• (John 6:60 NIV) “this is a hard teaching”
• (Acts 8:21 NIV) “you have no part or share in this ministry”
• (Acts 15:6 NASB) “And the apostles... came together to look into this matter”
• (Matt. 15:6 NIV) “you nullify the Word of God”
• (Heb. 13:7 NIV84) “leaders who spoke the Word of God”
• (Matt. 12:36 NIV84) “men will have to give account on the Day of Judgment"
• (Matt. 18:23 NIV) “A king who wanted to settle “accounts” with his servants”
• (Acts 10:29 NASB) “I ask for what reason you have sent for me”

The above list is not exhaustive, but it does show that logos has a very wide range of meanings. With all the ways logos can be translated, how can we decide which meaning of logos to choose for any one verse? How can it be determined what logos refers to in John 1:1? Any occurrence of logos has to be carefully studied in its context in order to get the proper meaning. We assert that the logos in John 1:1 cannot be Jesus. Please notice that “Jesus Christ” is not a lexical definition of logos. John 1:1 does not say, “In the beginning was Jesus.”

“The Word” is not synonymous with Jesus, or even “the Messiah.” The word logos in John 1:1 refers to God’s creative self-expression—His reason, purposes, and plans, especially as they are brought into action. It refers to God’s self-expression, or communication, of Himself. Thus the logos has been expressed through His creation (Rom. 1:19-20) and Psalm 19 tell us that the heavens declare the glory of God. The logos has also been made known through the spoken word of the prophets and through Scripture, which is the written “Word of God.” Most notably and finally, it has come into being through His Son (Heb. 1:1-2).

However, when we are studying John 1:1 and the use of logos in the Bible, and reading what the commentaries, systematic theologies, Bible dictionaries, etc., say about it, we must be very careful to discern where the writer is getting his information. We assert that John and his hearers thought of Jesus as the Son of God, not God. However, many commentators are Trinitarian and simply assume that the word logos in John 1:1 refers to Jesus, and then from that assumption ignore the way the Jews and Greeks of John’s time thought about the logos, and give it a meaning it had in later Christian history as the Trinity doctrine developed, and that new meaning is “Jesus Christ.”

For example, Edward Klink III writes: “Certainly the term [logos] might be recognizable [to John’s audience] but its direct connection to Jesus assumes that Jesus, not merely his [John’s] religious-philosophical context, determines its meaning. …John is not relying on a background but on a foreground. For it is Jesus who embodies the “Word” (logos) in the flesh." Klink is asserting that logos means Jesus in John 1:1 because later in John the logos became flesh. But to us that is an unwarranted assumption. There is no historical evidence that the people of Christ’s time who did not believe (John wrote to get people to believe that Jesus was the Christ, John 20:31) ever thought the logos was Jesus Christ, but they did believe that God’s logos was His plans and purposes, and that logos became flesh in Jesus Christ in much the same way that they came into concretion as the Word of God spoken by the apostles and especially as that word became written down as the written “Word [logos] of God.”

Many scholars identify logos with God’s wisdom and reason. Andrews Norton postulates that in John 1:1 perhaps “the Disposing Power of God” would be a good translation for logos. Anthony Buzzard sets forth “plan” “purpose” or “promise” as three acceptable translations. James Broughton and Peter Southgate say that logos was used “to describe the thoughts and plan of God being put into action."

 

[Peterlag7]

The logos is the expression of God, and is His communication of Himself, just as a “word” is an outward expression of a person’s thoughts. This outward expression of God has now occurred through His Son, and thus it is perfectly understandable why Jesus is called the “Word.” Jesus is an outward expression of God’s reason, wisdom, purpose, and plan. For the same reason, we call the Bible the “Word” of God, and revelation “a word from God.”

If we understand that the logos is God’s expression—His plan, purposes, reason, and wisdom—it is clear that those things were indeed with Him “in the beginning.” Scripture says that God’s wisdom was “from the beginning” (Prov. 8:23). It was very common in Hebrew writing to personify a concept such as wisdom. The figure of speech personification occurs when something is given human characteristics to emphasize something. Psalm 35:10 portrays bones talking. Psalm 68:31 portrays Ethiopia as a woman with her hands outstretched to God. Isaiah 3:26 says the gates of Zion will lament and mourn. Isaiah 14:8 says the cypress trees will rejoice. 1 Corinthians 12:15 portrays the foot talking. The Bible has many examples of personification, and wisdom is personified in Proverbs. Nevertheless, no ancient Jew reading Proverbs would think that God’s wisdom was a separate person, even though it is portrayed as one in verses like Proverbs 8:29-30: “…when He marked out the foundations of the earth, I [wisdom] was the craftsman at His side.” Similarly, the logos was with God in the beginning, because God’s plan, purpose, and wisdom were with Him, but we should not think of these as a separate person.

The use of “word” in the prologue of John as the plan and purpose of God is unique in the book, something that was pointed out by the eminent scholar, F. F. Bruce: “…the term "Word" does not reappear in the body of the Gospel [of John] in the sense which it bears in the prologue.” That statement is true and is easy to confirm from any Greek concordance, furthermore, it makes perfect sense in the light of the goal of the Gospel of John, which is stated in John 20:31, “but these are written so that you believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and so that by believing you will have life in his name.” The plan and purpose of God, that the earth and people would be restored to Him, was with Him in the beginning, and the plan and purpose became flesh in Jesus Christ as John 1:14 says, and so from John 1:14 until the end of John, the flesh and blood Christ is the focus, not the “plan” the logos, of God.

Most Jewish readers of the Gospel of John would have been familiar with the concept of God’s “word” being with God as He worked to bring His creation into existence. There is an obvious working of God’s power in Genesis 1 as He brings His plan into concretion by speaking things into being. The Targums are well known for describing the wisdom and action of God as His “word.” This is especially important to note because the Targums are the Aramaic translations and paraphrases of the Old Testament, and Aramaic was the spoken language of many Jews at the time of Christ. Remembering that a Targum is usually a paraphrase of what the Hebrew text says, note how the following examples attribute action to the word.

• 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 (Exod. 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).

The above examples demonstrate that the Jews were familiar with using the idea of God’s “Word” to refer to His wisdom and action. This is especially important to note because these Jews were fiercely monotheistic, and did not in any way believe in a “Triune God.” They were familiar with the idioms of their own language, and understood that the wisdom and power of God were being personified as “word.”
Like the Aramaic-speaking Jews, the Greek-speaking Jews were also familiar with God’s creative force being called “the word.” J. H. Bernard writes, “When we turn from Palestine to Alexandria [Egypt] from Hebrew sapiential [wisdom] literature to that which was written in Greek, we find this creative wisdom identified with the Divine logos, Hebraism and Hellenism thus coming into contact.”l

One example of this is in the Apocryphal book known as the Wisdom of Solomon, which says, “O God of my fathers and Lord of mercy who hast made all things by thy word (logos) and by thy wisdom hast formed man…” (9:1). In this verse, the “word” and “wisdom” are seen as the creative force of God, but without being a “person.”

The logos, that is, the plan, purpose, and wisdom of God, “became flesh” (came into concretion or physical existence) in Jesus Christ. Jesus is the “image of the invisible God” (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 preexistence of Jesus in this verse other than his figurative “existence” as the plan, purpose, or wisdom of God for the salvation of man. The same is true with the “word” in writing. It did not preexist in any form in the distant past, but it came into being as God gave the revelation to people and they wrote it down.

It is important to understand that the Bible was not written in a vacuum, but was recorded in the context of a culture and was understood by those who lived in that culture. Sometimes verses that seem superfluous or confusing to us were meaningful to the readers of the time because they were well aware of the culture and beliefs of those around them. In the first century, there were many competing beliefs in the world (and unfortunately, erroneous beliefs in Christendom) that were confusing believers about the identities of God and Christ. For centuries before Christ, and at the time the New Testament was written, the irrational beliefs about the gods of Greece had been handed down. This body of religious information was known by the word “muthos,” which we today call “myths” or “mythology.” These muthos, these myths, were often mystical and beyond rational explanation. The more familiar one is with the Greek myths, the better he will understand our emphasis on their irrationality. If one is unfamiliar with them, it would be valuable to read a little on the subject. Greek mythology is an important part of the cultural background of the New Testament.
Written by: John W Schoenheit
Edited by: me

John 1:1, REV Bible and Commentary

 

[Peterlag7]

Although the myths were often irrational, they nevertheless 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, and archaeology confirms the widespread presence of the gods in the everyday life of the Greek and Roman people of New Testament times. The average Greek or Roman was as familiar with the teachings about the adventures of the gods as the average school child in the United States is familiar with Goldilocks and the Three Bears or Snoopy and Charlie Brown. Thus, when Paul and Barnabas healed a cripple in Lystra, the people assumed that the gods had come down in human form (Acts 14:11), and no doubt they based their assumption on the legend that Zeus and Hermes had once come to that area in human form.

While Paul was in Athens, he became disturbed because of the large number of idols there that were statues to the various gods (Acts 17:16). In Ephesus, Paul’s teaching actually started 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.

In addition to the cultural context that accepted the myths, at the time the Gospel of John was written, a belief system called Gnosticism was taking root in Christianity. Gnosticism had many ideas and words that are strange and confusing to us today, so, at the risk of oversimplifying, we will describe a few basic tenets of Gnosticism as simply as we can.

Gnosticism took many forms, but generally, Gnostics taught that there was a supreme and unknowable Being, which they designated as the “Monad.” The Monad produced various gods, who in turn produced other gods (these gods were called by different names, in part because of their power or position). One of these gods, called the “Demiurge” created the earth and then ruled over it as an angry, evil, and jealous god. This evil god, Gnostics believed, was the god of the Old Testament, called Elohim. The Monad sent another god, “Christ” to bring special gnosis (knowledge) to mankind and free them from the influence of the evil Elohim. Thus, a Gnostic Christian would agree that Elohim created the heavens and the earth, but he would not agree that He was the supreme God. Most Gnostics would also state that Elohim and Christ were at cross-purposes with each other. This is why it was so important for John 1:1 to say that the logos was with God, which at first glance seems to be a totally unnecessary statement.

The opening of the Gospel of John is a wonderful expression of God’s love. God “wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth” (1 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.

“and the word was with God.” This is strange language to us, so it is important to know that it was not strange to the Jews. While we would say a person “has wisdom” or “is wise” it was a common way of speaking among the Jewish people to say a word, or knowledge, or wisdom, was “with” a person. For example, the Hebrew text of Proverbs 2:1 speaks of the commandments being “with” a person, and so does Proverbs 7:1. Proverbs 11:2 speaks of wisdom being “with” the humble, not just the humble “having wisdom” or “being wise” and Proverbs 13:10 says wisdom is “with” people who take advice.

Job spoke to God about His actions, and spoke of what God hid in His heart, and then Job said, “I know that this [God’s secret plans and purposes] is with you” (Job 10:13; the Hebrew text says “with you” although it's not translated that way in many English versions). We would say “I know you have these things” but the Hebrews said “I know these things are with you.” Job also spoke of what God desired, and concluded that “many such things [that God desires and that are appointed] are with him” (Job 23:14). Job 27:11 also speaks of things being “with” God.

When God gave the Ten Commandments, Moses said that God had come to test the people and also so that the fear of God would be “with them” (as per the Hebrew text). We today would never say “so that the fear of God will be with you” as if the fear of God was another entity somehow together with the people, we today would simply say “so that you will fear God.” The Jews used the same “with” language in the Bible and in other writings as well.

Once we understand the logos in John 1:1 to be God’s purpose and plan, we can see that if John 1:1 was written in today’s English, we would likely say something like “In the beginning was the plan, and God had that plan, and what God was the plan was.” We would not say that the plan was “with God.” But the ancient Jews had said knowledge and wisdom were “with” people for millennia, and for them to speak that way was perfectly natural. However, if we today are going to understand the prologue of John (John 1:1-18), it is imperative that we understand that logos is a masculine noun and it is personified in the Prologue. Wisdom and the logos were personified in the literature of the Jews from long before the time that John wrote, and that influenced how he wrote the prologue of John. Personification was widely used in Jewish literature. For example, Proverbs portrays Wisdom as a woman helping God with His creation of the world (Prov. 8:22-31). John 1:1 is not portraying a preincarnate Christ being with God. That would have been a nonsensical concept to the ancient unbelieving Jews and Greeks—remember, John was writing to get people to believe (John 20:30-31)—it was portraying that God used wisdom and a plan in restoring mankind to Himself, and that logos was a “plan” made perfect sense to those ancient unbelievers.
Written by: John W Schoenheit
Edited by: me

John 1:1, REV Bible and Commentary

 

[Peterlag7]

“and what God was, the word was.” This phrase is stating that the Word has the attributes of God, such as being true, trustworthy, etc. It makes perfect sense that if the Word is the expression of God, then it has attributes of God. Although almost every English Bible translates the last phrase of John 1:1 as “and the Word was God.” and it should not be translated that way. To understand that, we first should be aware of how the Greek text of the New Testament was written and how the Greeks used the word theos “God” or “god.”

Although we make a distinction between “God” with a capital “G” and “god” with a lowercase “g” the original text could not do that. The original text of both the Old and the New Testament was written in all capital letters, so in Greek, both “God” and “god” were “GOD” (ΘΕΟΣ; THEOS). This meant the person reading the Scripture had to pay close attention to the context. When our modern English versions mention “the god of this age” (2 Cor. 4:4), one way we know that the word “god” refers to Satan is because it is spelled with a lowercase “g.” But if our versions read in all capitals like the ancient Greek text and said, “THE GOD OF THIS AGE” then how would we know who this “GOD” was? We would have to discover who he was from the context. The people reading the early Greek texts had to become very sensitive to the context to properly understand the Bible. An unintended consequence of modern capitalization, punctuation, and spacing in the text is that it has made the modern reader much less aware of and sensitive to the context.

What the word “GOD” referred to in any given context was further complicated by the fact that, as any good Greek lexicon will show, the Greek word theos (#2316 θεός) was used to refer to both gods and goddesses, or was a general name for any deity, or was used of a representative of God, and was even used of people of high authority such as rulers or judges. The Greeks did not use the word “GOD” like we do, to refer to just one single Supreme Being with no other being sharing the name. The Greeks were polytheistic and had many gods with different positions and authority, and rulers and judges who represented the gods or who were themselves of high authority, and theos was used of all of those. Some of the authorities in the Bible who are referred to as ΘΕΟΣ include the Devil (2 Cor. 4:4), lesser gods (1 Cor. 8:5), and men with great authority (John 10:34-35; Acts 12:22).

When we are trying to discover what GOD (ΘΕΟΣ; THEOS) is referring to in a verse, the context is always the final arbiter. However, we do get some help in that it is almost always the case in the New Testament that when “GOD” refers to the Father, the definite article appears in the Greek text (this article can be seen only in the Greek text, it is never translated into English). Translators are normally very sensitive to this. The difference between theos with and without the article occurs in John 1:1, which has two occurrences of theos: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the theos, and the Word was theos.” Since the definite article (“the”) is missing from the second occurrence of “theos” (“God”) the most natural meaning of the word would be that it referred to the quality of God, i.e., “divine” “god-like” or “like God.” The New English Bible gets the sense of this phrase by translating it “What God was, the Word was.” James Moffatt, who was a professor of Greek and New Testament Exegesis at Mansfield College in Oxford, England, and author of the well-known Moffatt Bible, translated the phrase “the logos was divine.”

As we said above, although the wording of the Greek text of John 1:1 certainly favors the translation “and what God was, the Word was” over the translation “the Word was God” the context and scope of Scripture must be the final arbiter. In this case, we have help from the verse itself in the phrase “the Word was with God.” The Word (logos) cannot both be “with” God and “be” God. That is nonsensical. It is similar to us being able to discern that Jesus Christ is not God from reading 2 Corinthians 4:4 and Colossians 1:15, which say that Jesus is the image of God. One cannot be both the image of the object and the object itself. We Christians must become aware of the difference between a genuine mystery and a contradiction. In his book, Against Calvinism, Roger Olson writes: “We must point out here the difference between mystery and contradiction; the former is something that cannot be fully explained to or comprehended by the human mind, whereas the latter is just nonsense—two concepts that cancel each other out and together make an absurdity.” The truth in the verse is actually simple: the logos, the plan, purpose, and wisdom of God, was with God, and what God was (i.e., holy, true, pure, righteous, etc.) his logos was too.
Written by: John W Schoenheit
Edited by: me

John 1:1, REV Bible and Commentary

 

[LeviR]

The logos is the expression of God, and is His communication of Himself, just as a “word” is an outward expression of a person’s thoughts. This outward expression of God has now occurred through His Son, and thus it is perfectly understandable why Jesus is called the “Word.” Jesus is an outward expression of God’s reason, wisdom, purpose, and plan. For the same reason, we call the Bible the “Word” of God, and revelation “a word from God.”

If we understand that the logos is God’s expression—His plan, purposes, reason, and wisdom—it is clear that those things were indeed with Him “in the beginning.” Scripture says that God’s wisdom was “from the beginning” (Prov. 8:23). It was very common in Hebrew writing to personify a concept such as wisdom. The figure of speech personification occurs when something is given human characteristics to emphasize something. Psalm 35:10 portrays bones talking. Psalm 68:31 portrays Ethiopia as a woman with her hands outstretched to God. Isaiah 3:26 says the gates of Zion will lament and mourn. Isaiah 14:8 says the cypress trees will rejoice. 1 Corinthians 12:15 portrays the foot talking. The Bible has many examples of personification, and wisdom is personified in Proverbs. Nevertheless, no ancient Jew reading Proverbs would think that God’s wisdom was a separate person, even though it is portrayed as one in verses like Proverbs 8:29-30: “…when He marked out the foundations of the earth, I [wisdom] was the craftsman at His side.” Similarly, the logos was with God in the beginning, because God’s plan, purpose, and wisdom were with Him, but we should not think of these as a separate person.

The use of “word” in the prologue of John as the plan and purpose of God is unique in the book, something that was pointed out by the eminent scholar, F. F. Bruce: “…the term "Word" does not reappear in the body of the Gospel [of John] in the sense which it bears in the prologue.” That statement is true and is easy to confirm from any Greek concordance, furthermore, it makes perfect sense in the light of the goal of the Gospel of John, which is stated in John 20:31, “but these are written so that you believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and so that by believing you will have life in his name.” The plan and purpose of God, that the earth and people would be restored to Him, was with Him in the beginning, and the plan and purpose became flesh in Jesus Christ as John 1:14 says, and so from John 1:14 until the end of John, the flesh and blood Christ is the focus, not the “plan” the logos, of God.

Most Jewish readers of the Gospel of John would have been familiar with the concept of God’s “word” being with God as He worked to bring His creation into existence. There is an obvious working of God’s power in Genesis 1 as He brings His plan into concretion by speaking things into being. The Targums are well known for describing the wisdom and action of God as His “word.” This is especially important to note because the Targums are the Aramaic translations and paraphrases of the Old Testament, and Aramaic was the spoken language of many Jews at the time of Christ. Remembering that a Targum is usually a paraphrase of what the Hebrew text says, note how the following examples attribute action to the word.

• 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 (Exod. 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).

The above examples demonstrate that the Jews were familiar with using the idea of God’s “Word” to refer to His wisdom and action. This is especially important to note because these Jews were fiercely monotheistic, and did not in any way believe in a “Triune God.” They were familiar with the idioms of their own language, and understood that the wisdom and power of God were being personified as “word.”
Like the Aramaic-speaking Jews, the Greek-speaking Jews were also familiar with God’s creative force being called “the word.” J. H. Bernard writes, “When we turn from Palestine to Alexandria [Egypt] from Hebrew sapiential [wisdom] literature to that which was written in Greek, we find this creative wisdom identified with the Divine logos, Hebraism and Hellenism thus coming into contact.”l

One example of this is in the Apocryphal book known as the Wisdom of Solomon, which says, “O God of my fathers and Lord of mercy who hast made all things by thy word (logos) and by thy wisdom hast formed man…” (9:1). In this verse, the “word” and “wisdom” are seen as the creative force of God, but without being a “person.”

The logos, that is, the plan, purpose, and wisdom of God, “became flesh” (came into concretion or physical existence) in Jesus Christ. Jesus is the “image of the invisible God” (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 preexistence of Jesus in this verse other than his figurative “existence” as the plan, purpose, or wisdom of God for the salvation of man. The same is true with the “word” in writing. It did not preexist in any form in the distant past, but it came into being as God gave the revelation to people and they wrote it down.

It is important to understand that the Bible was not written in a vacuum, but was recorded in the context of a culture and was understood by those who lived in that culture. Sometimes verses that seem superfluous or confusing to us were meaningful to the readers of the time because they were well aware of the culture and beliefs of those around them. In the first century, there were many competing beliefs in the world (and unfortunately, erroneous beliefs in Christendom) that were confusing believers about the identities of God and Christ. For centuries before Christ, and at the time the New Testament was written, the irrational beliefs about the gods of Greece had been handed down. This body of religious information was known by the word “muthos,” which we today call “myths” or “mythology.” These muthos, these myths, were often mystical and beyond rational explanation. The more familiar one is with the Greek myths, the better he will understand our emphasis on their irrationality. If one is unfamiliar with them, it would be valuable to read a little on the subject. Greek mythology is an important part of the cultural background of the New Testament.

Personification is used widely throughout the scriptures. But yet you rarely hear of its use in the churches.
So many things are personified.

Sin is personified
Death is personified
Trees are personified
Roots, wheat, tares,
Animals are personified
Mountains and hills are personified
Valleys and grass, personified
Bulls, sheep, lions, snakes, all personified.
Holy Spirit, personified
Wisdom, truth, love.
Door, altar, bread,
Satan, devil, demons…all personification

And the list goes on….

So important to understanding scripture.

 

[LeviR]

A classic example of failure to recognize personification or figurative language is that of the false doctrine of “transubstantiation”.
This is just one example of failure by churches to understand the language properly.
Their doctrines are not only against proper interpretation but also absurd and against all sound reasoning.

 

[LeviR]

Then with all their great wisdom and knowledge they say, “it’s not meant to be comprehended”

More than laughable.

 

[Peterlag7]

Then with all their great wisdom and knowledge they say, “it’s not meant to be comprehended”

More than laughable.

You will never hear me say it's a mystery and not to be understood.

 

[LeviR]

You will never hear me say it's a mystery and not to be understood.

The entire Bible is meant to be understood…reasonably comprehended. Even the book of Revelation….it say so itself.

“blessed is he who understands the words of this prophecy”

 

[Peterlag7]

The entire Bible is meant to be understood…reasonably comprehended. Even the book of Revelation….it say so itself.

“blessed is he who understands the words of this prophecy”

Even a child can understand the Bible. You have to go to school for many years to be educated into it to be able to not understand it.

 

[LeviR]

Even a child can understand the Bible. You have to go to school for many years to be educated into it to be able to not understand it.

If you want to understand it incorrectly, join the RCC.

 

[Peterlag7]

If you want to understand it incorrectly, join the RCC.

Boy you got that right.

 

[Peterlag7]

Some data on Thomas...

Jesus is God's messenger/agent/representative (Jewish Law of agency - shaliah). We can clearly see this Jewish principle through the entire gospel of John. Jesus was sent by God (the Father) as God's messenger. Jesus was God’s representative on earth. God gave Jesus the right and authority to act in His name. And that is why Jesus declared that whoever receives him automatically receives God the Father, that whoever sees him sees the Father, that whoever believes in him actually believes in the Father who sent him and conversely, whoever rejects him rejects the Father who sent him (John 12:44-45; 14:7; 1 John 2:23).

It's therefore true that whoever sees the Son sees God the Father. However, there is another dimension to this mutual relationship between them. In the NT we read that Jesus as the Son of God is the image of the invisible God (Col. 1:15), he is the radiance of his glory and the express image of his nature/person (Hebrews 1:3), that in the face of Jesus Christ the glory of God can be seen (2 Cor. 4:6), that the Son came to reveal and show us God the Father (who is spirit and whom no one has ever seen - John 1:18), and therefore that it's in him that we can know God the Father and that he is the only "way" to the Father, that in his human body dwells the Father himself (Col. 2:9 - "all the fullness of the Godhead bodily") who acts through him. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that whoever sees and believes in the Son automatically sees and believes in God the Father.

This was also understood by the apostle Thomas (John 20:28 compared with John 14:5-9) who finally realized and believed that in Jesus he saw the one true God - the Father, who dwells in him and He is doing everything through His Son (including his resurrection). It's also our duty to realize that Jesus Christ is the visible image of the (otherwise) invisible God and that we can know the one true God - the Father and reach him only through His Son Jesus Christ, as the only way leading to God.

 

[tigger II]

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/09/john-11c-primer_21.html

This a shortened version of my much longer personal study of John's grammar as found in John 1:1c. It examines the usage in John 1:1c and compares it with all other uses by John of the same P.N. - Verb - Subj. usage. When KJV, NRSV, NASB, etc. are examined, all of these are translated as indefinite Predicate Nouns ("a man"; "a goat"; "a prophet"; etc.)

Following the example of all John's other uses of this usage, we should see "And the Word was a god" at John 1:1c.



















n

 

[Peterlag7]

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/09/john-11c-primer_21.html

This a shortened version of my much longer personal study of John's grammar as found in John 1:1c. It examines the usage in John 1:1c and compares it with all other uses by John of the same P.N. - Verb - Subj. usage. When KJV, NRSV, NASB, etc. are examined, all of these are translated as indefinite Predicate Nouns ("a man"; "a goat"; "a prophet"; etc.)

Following the example of all John's other uses of this usage, we should see "And the Word was a god" at John 1:1c.



















n

My teachers put it this way...

The Semitic languages “God” can refer to things besides the Most High God. Any good Greek-English lexicon will give examples of the Greek word theos, often translated “God” also referring to a pagan “god” or “goddess” (Acts 19:37), the Devil or a demon (2 Cor. 4:4), or of people who represent God in some way (John 10:34). The fact that Thomas called Jesus “God” does not mean he thought Jesus was part of the Triune God, but he did think of him as God’s highest representative and worthy to be called “god.”

It's also important to know that the early manuscripts of the Bible were written in all capital letters. That means that technically, both Elohim in Hebrew and Theos in Greek should always be translated “GOD” in all capital letters. Since the biblical languages used the word “GOD” to refer to God, lesser divinities such as the Devil, angels, and demons, and also to rulers, judges, and people who represented God in some way, Bible readers are forced to use the context and scope of Scripture to determine whether the modern English translation should be “God” “god” or “gods.”

It's helpful in understanding the Bible to know that the Hebrew word Elohim (“God”) is a plural form—Elohim is always plural. It is a uniplural noun like the English word “deer” or “fish” and so it has to be translated according to the context and can mean “God” “a god” or “gods.” When we see the word “fish” we must determine from the context if it is singular or plural. In a sentence like “did you eat the fish?” There may not be enough context to determine whether the person ate one fish or more than one. This problem can occur in the Hebrew text as well, although we sometimes get help in the Hebrew from the accompanying verb.

Elohim is not the only uniplural noun in Hebrew. Two others are “water” and “heaven.” Trinitarians assert that the reason Elohim is plural is that it refers to the plurality in the Trinity, but even if there was a Trinity, and we do not believe there is, that would not be likely. For one thing, God gave the Hebrew language to the Jews, so they should be the experts in their own language, and they have never believed Elohim referred to any plurality in God. Just as “water” and “heaven” are plural in part because they are so vast, Elohim seems to be plural because of the vastness and greatness of God.

The majority of the times Elohim occurs in the Bible, it refers to the true God. However, even a brief glance through a Hebrew concordance will show that many times it refers to false gods. Dozens of verses could be cited as examples, but a few are: “You must not have any other gods [Elohim] besides me” (Exod. 20:3); “You must not bow down to their gods [Elohim]” (Exod. 23:24); “Israel chose new gods [Elohim]” (Judg. 5:8); and, “[Solomon’s] wives turned away his heart after other gods [Elohim]” (1 Kings 11:4).

There are times when Elohim is used to refer to a specific pagan god: for example, Dagon (Judg. 16:23; 1 Sam. 5:7), Chemosh (Judg. 11:24), and Baal (1 Kings 18:24-27).

Elohim, “God” can also refer to angels or other spirit beings. One example is Psalm 8:5, which says God made mankind a little lower than Elohim. Given the flexible meaning of Elohim, the verse could be saying that God made mankind a little lower than He Himself, or it could be saying that He made mankind a little lower than his representatives in the spirit world, i.e., angels. Thankfully, the interpretation is not in doubt because the verse is quoted in Hebrews 2:7, which says “angels,” letting us know that in Psalm 8:5, Elohim refers to God’s representatives, the angels. Thus Psalm 8:5 is an excellent example of how the New Testament clarifies our understanding of the Old Testament. Another example is Judges 13:22, where Manoah and his wife saw an angel, but exclaimed, “We have seen God [Elohim].” Their statement made perfect sense in the biblical culture because they saw God’s representative.

There are times when God’s representatives are called “God” (Elohim and even Yahweh) when they represent God and speak on His behalf. This is referred to as “agency.” The essence of the principle of agency is: “a person’s agent is regarded as the person himself.” The principle of agency is well-attested by scholars and occurs quite a few times in the Bible. For example, in Genesis 16:13, even though Hagar was speaking to an angel, she referred to him as Yahweh and El (God). In Genesis 31:11 an angel speaks to Jacob, but in Gen. 31:13 he says, “I am the God [El] of Bethel.” In Genesis 32:28, 30 it seems Jacob is wrestling with God [Elohim], but we learn from Hosea 12:3-4 that it was an angel representing God. Another example is that Exodus 13:21 says “Yahweh” went before Israel in the pillar of fire, but Exodus 14:19 and 23:20-23 let us know it was an angel, a representative of God. So “Yahweh” did go in front of Israel as represented by his angel protector. Similarly, if you read Judges 2:1-4, an angel speaks to the Israelites, but his speech is in the first person as if he were God Himself.

Elohim, “God” can also refer to human rulers, kings, prophets, and people who represent God in some way. Thus Exodus 21:6; 22:8-9, almost certainly refer to God’s representatives as Elohim, “God” (Exod. 22:28 likely does too. In those verses, the accompanying verb is plural, not singular, so the traditional teaching of the Rabbis, that the meaning is “judges.” Psalm 82:1 is noteworthy because it uses Elohim twice; at the beginning of the verse to refer to the true God, and at the end of the verse to refer to rulers and people who represent him. The verse says, “Elohim [God] takes his stand in his own assembly. He judges in the midst of the Elohim [gods].” Furthermore, Ps. 82:6 says “You are Elohim [gods], all of you are children of the Most High.” As sons of the Most High, these rulers are qualified to be called Elohim, [gods]. Psalm 97:7 also calls rulers Elohim.

There are times when specific individuals are called Elohim “God.” One example is Moses. In Exodus 7:1, God is speaking to Moses and says, “See, I have made thee God [Elohim] to Pharaoh” (Darby). Given the uniplural nature of Elohim, another translation is “See, I have made you a god [Elohim] to Pharaoh” (BBE, KJV), but the fact is that Moses, who represents Elohim (“God”) can legitimately be called Elohim (“God”) in the biblical culture. Another example is when King Saul wanted to speak to the dead prophet Samuel and went to a woman who was a medium and necromancer (1 Sam. 28:7-15). When she conjured up “Samuel” (actually a demon impersonating Samuel) the woman said, “I see Elohim coming up from the ground” (1 Sam. 28:13). This is a good example of a person being called Elohim, and we could translate it “God” and understand the custom of God’s representatives being called “God” or a more easily understood translation for the English reader is simply “a god” the woman saw “a god” coming up who she thought was Samuel.

 

[LeviR]

My teachers put it this way...

The Semitic languages “God” can refer to things besides the Most High God. Any good Greek-English lexicon will give examples of the Greek word theos, often translated “God” also referring to a pagan “god” or “goddess” (Acts 19:37), the Devil or a demon (2 Cor. 4:4), or of people who represent God in some way (John 10:34). The fact that Thomas called Jesus “God” does not mean he thought Jesus was part of the Triune God, but he did think of him as God’s highest representative and worthy to be called “god.”

It's also important to know that the early manuscripts of the Bible were written in all capital letters. That means that technically, both Elohim in Hebrew and Theos in Greek should always be translated “GOD” in all capital letters. Since the biblical languages used the word “GOD” to refer to God, lesser divinities such as the Devil, angels, and demons, and also to rulers, judges, and people who represented God in some way, Bible readers are forced to use the context and scope of Scripture to determine whether the modern English translation should be “God” “god” or “gods.”

It's helpful in understanding the Bible to know that the Hebrew word Elohim (“God”) is a plural form—Elohim is always plural. It is a uniplural noun like the English word “deer” or “fish” and so it has to be translated according to the context and can mean “God” “a god” or “gods.” When we see the word “fish” we must determine from the context if it is singular or plural. In a sentence like “did you eat the fish?” There may not be enough context to determine whether the person ate one fish or more than one. This problem can occur in the Hebrew text as well, although we sometimes get help in the Hebrew from the accompanying verb.

Elohim is not the only uniplural noun in Hebrew. Two others are “water” and “heaven.” Trinitarians assert that the reason Elohim is plural is that it refers to the plurality in the Trinity, but even if there was a Trinity, and we do not believe there is, that would not be likely. For one thing, God gave the Hebrew language to the Jews, so they should be the experts in their own language, and they have never believed Elohim referred to any plurality in God. Just as “water” and “heaven” are plural in part because they are so vast, Elohim seems to be plural because of the vastness and greatness of God.

The majority of the times Elohim occurs in the Bible, it refers to the true God. However, even a brief glance through a Hebrew concordance will show that many times it refers to false gods. Dozens of verses could be cited as examples, but a few are: “You must not have any other gods [Elohim] besides me” (Exod. 20:3); “You must not bow down to their gods [Elohim]” (Exod. 23:24); “Israel chose new gods [Elohim]” (Judg. 5:8); and, “[Solomon’s] wives turned away his heart after other gods [Elohim]” (1 Kings 11:4).

There are times when Elohim is used to refer to a specific pagan god: for example, Dagon (Judg. 16:23; 1 Sam. 5:7), Chemosh (Judg. 11:24), and Baal (1 Kings 18:24-27).

Elohim, “God” can also refer to angels or other spirit beings. One example is Psalm 8:5, which says God made mankind a little lower than Elohim. Given the flexible meaning of Elohim, the verse could be saying that God made mankind a little lower than He Himself, or it could be saying that He made mankind a little lower than his representatives in the spirit world, i.e., angels. Thankfully, the interpretation is not in doubt because the verse is quoted in Hebrews 2:7, which says “angels,” letting us know that in Psalm 8:5, Elohim refers to God’s representatives, the angels. Thus Psalm 8:5 is an excellent example of how the New Testament clarifies our understanding of the Old Testament. Another example is Judges 13:22, where Manoah and his wife saw an angel, but exclaimed, “We have seen God [Elohim].” Their statement made perfect sense in the biblical culture because they saw God’s representative.

There are times when God’s representatives are called “God” (Elohim and even Yahweh) when they represent God and speak on His behalf. This is referred to as “agency.” The essence of the principle of agency is: “a person’s agent is regarded as the person himself.” The principle of agency is well-attested by scholars and occurs quite a few times in the Bible. For example, in Genesis 16:13, even though Hagar was speaking to an angel, she referred to him as Yahweh and El (God). In Genesis 31:11 an angel speaks to Jacob, but in Gen. 31:13 he says, “I am the God [El] of Bethel.” In Genesis 32:28, 30 it seems Jacob is wrestling with God [Elohim], but we learn from Hosea 12:3-4 that it was an angel representing God. Another example is that Exodus 13:21 says “Yahweh” went before Israel in the pillar of fire, but Exodus 14:19 and 23:20-23 let us know it was an angel, a representative of God. So “Yahweh” did go in front of Israel as represented by his angel protector. Similarly, if you read Judges 2:1-4, an angel speaks to the Israelites, but his speech is in the first person as if he were God Himself.

Elohim, “God” can also refer to human rulers, kings, prophets, and people who represent God in some way. Thus Exodus 21:6; 22:8-9, almost certainly refer to God’s representatives as Elohim, “God” (Exod. 22:28 likely does too. In those verses, the accompanying verb is plural, not singular, so the traditional teaching of the Rabbis, that the meaning is “judges.” Psalm 82:1 is noteworthy because it uses Elohim twice; at the beginning of the verse to refer to the true God, and at the end of the verse to refer to rulers and people who represent him. The verse says, “Elohim [God] takes his stand in his own assembly. He judges in the midst of the Elohim [gods].” Furthermore, Ps. 82:6 says “You are Elohim [gods], all of you are children of the Most High.” As sons of the Most High, these rulers are qualified to be called Elohim, [gods]. Psalm 97:7 also calls rulers Elohim.

There are times when specific individuals are called Elohim “God.” One example is Moses. In Exodus 7:1, God is speaking to Moses and says, “See, I have made thee God [Elohim] to Pharaoh” (Darby). Given the uniplural nature of Elohim, another translation is “See, I have made you a god [Elohim] to Pharaoh” (BBE, KJV), but the fact is that Moses, who represents Elohim (“God”) can legitimately be called Elohim (“God”) in the biblical culture. Another example is when King Saul wanted to speak to the dead prophet Samuel and went to a woman who was a medium and necromancer (1 Sam. 28:7-15). When she conjured up “Samuel” (actually a demon impersonating Samuel) the woman said, “I see Elohim coming up from the ground” (1 Sam. 28:13). This is a good example of a person being called Elohim, and we could translate it “God” and understand the custom of God’s representatives being called “God” or a more easily understood translation for the English reader is simply “a god” the woman saw “a god” coming up who she thought was Samuel.

As far as the word “fish” being plural, if you were in the Italian mafia, you might be “sleeping with the fishes”.

You make excellent points in your posts. Most Trinitarian and JW’s believe Jesus was the Angel of the Lord in the OT.
There is absolutely no evidence for this. They assume the Angel was LORD and God because he was referred to as such.
However, I believe the Angel was as you point out, representing the LORD God to the people.
It is said that God was sending His Angel and that “My name is in Him”, meaning God was sending the Angel to carry God’s own name, YHVH. To be His representative on earth.
Jesus has also come in the name of the Father.

And besides, no man has ever seen the one true God. His face that is.

 

[Peterlag7]

As far as the word “fish” being plural, if you were in the Italian mafia, you might be “sleeping with the fishes”.

You make excellent points in your posts. Most Trinitarian and JW’s believe Jesus was the Angel of the Lord in the OT.
There is absolutely no evidence for this. They assume the Angel was LORD and God because he was referred to as such.
However, I believe the Angel was as you point out, representing the LORD God to the people.
It is said that God was sending His Angel and that “My name is in Him”, meaning God was sending the Angel to carry God’s own name, YHVH. To be His representative on earth.
Jesus has also come in the name of the Father.

And besides, no man has ever seen the one true God. His face that is.

If you enjoy looking at data on the trinity then perhaps you will enjoy this... https://www.carb-fat.com/trinity.html

 

[Free]

Most Trinitarian and JW’s believe Jesus was the Angel of the Lord in the OT.

JWs do; Trinitarians don't. Please stop setting up straw men and learn what has been taught historically regarding the doctrine of the Trinity.

 

[Free]

Some data on Thomas...

Jesus is God's messenger/agent/representative (Jewish Law of agency - shaliah). We can clearly see this Jewish principle through the entire gospel of John. Jesus was sent by God (the Father) as God's messenger. Jesus was God’s representative on earth. God gave Jesus the right and authority to act in His name. And that is why Jesus declared that whoever receives him automatically receives God the Father, that whoever sees him sees the Father, that whoever believes in him actually believes in the Father who sent him and conversely, whoever rejects him rejects the Father who sent him (John 12:44-45; 14:7; 1 John 2:23).

It's therefore true that whoever sees the Son sees God the Father. However, there is another dimension to this mutual relationship between them. In the NT we read that Jesus as the Son of God is the image of the invisible God (Col. 1:15), he is the radiance of his glory and the express image of his nature/person (Hebrews 1:3), that in the face of Jesus Christ the glory of God can be seen (2 Cor. 4:6), that the Son came to reveal and show us God the Father (who is spirit and whom no one has ever seen - John 1:18), and therefore that it's in him that we can know God the Father and that he is the only "way" to the Father, that in his human body dwells the Father himself (Col. 2:9 - "all the fullness of the Godhead bodily") who acts through him. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that whoever sees and believes in the Son automatically sees and believes in God the Father.

So much relevant context left out. Jesus being God's representative does not preclude him from also being God.

This was also understood by the apostle Thomas (John 20:28 compared with John 14:5-9) who finally realized and believed that in Jesus he saw the one true God - the Father, who dwells in him and He is doing everything through His Son (including his resurrection). It's also our duty to realize that Jesus Christ is the visible image of the (otherwise) invisible God and that we can know the one true God - the Father and reach him only through His Son Jesus Christ, as the only way leading to God.

Thomas's declaration, said to Jesus was, "the Lord of me and the God of me." There is nothing to indicate that he saw the Father in Jesus and that is what he meant. That goes against a plain reading of the verse and the context. It is a clear indication that he and the disciples believed Jesus has had a divine nature.

John's gospel, from beginning to end, can only be properly understood in the light of the true deity (and humanity) of Jesus.

 

[LeviR]

JWs do; Trinitarians don't. Please stop setting up straw men and learn what has been taught historically regarding the doctrine of the Trinity.

Well, since Trinitarians are in disagreement with each other, I am only going by what I’ve mostly heard. And most of what I heard is that the Angel, because he was called both LORD and God had to be someone other than just one person.
In order to for an “us” to apply, it must recognize more than one person. And since it is said that man was made in the image of “us” it requires that more than one person is involved in the creation of man.
Now, the “us” can refer to multiple persons who are the one God, or to persons who are considered to be the one God but not actually the one God who is actually one person. That person being the Father only.