Questions on John 1
April 21st, 2008 by JohnO
Often times we receive emails on the site asking very specific questions. I’ve been replying with a fellow biblical unitarian named Geert in France about John 1. He asked some very pointed questions, and he granted me permission to post them here. So here goes our email conversation. On an editing note, I’ve updated parts of my response where I made references to Greek pronoun gender that were incorrect (thank you Sean). I’ve also added the Geneva translation from 1560. Geert’s portions are in quotations.
The main line of argument in all the Unitarian comments that I have read thus far is that the logos in John’s Prologue is on itself an impersonal reality, not a second person in or alongside God. Only in :14, it is said, the logos acquires personality, in the event of becoming human (or “flesh”) in Jesus Christ.
Generally I agree as well. We must remember one crucial fact, that the writer of John is writing backwards, especially in the prologue. He is writing post-Christianity about the times before Christianity. And throughout the his gospel routinely interjects present commentary into past events. We could expect that the prologue, as a whole, is exactly that.
I sympathize with this [ed: our] view because it seems to fit with the subordinationist Christology in the remainder of John’s Gospel, and with NT teaching in general concerning Jesus Christ as the human Son of God (not: God the Son). Yet I doubt whether it is possible to read the Prologue as a whole on this basis, and the first clue to this difficulty is found in :12. There we meet the phrase: “…them that believe on his name”. It seems unavoidable that the referent of “his” in this verse must be a person. It cannot be an impersonal reality, an “it”. The question is now, where is that person to be found in the text of John?
I think the person is to be found precisely at v10, and identified in v14. We can witness the debate among translations. The question is all around the word ‘Logos’. Certainly it is not a person by any traditional definition in all Greek works. If you have access check old english translations (pre-KJV) like the Geneva bible for 1-9, and you will see “it”, and not “him”. This I think is where our position is won and the crux of the matter is.
- In the beginning was that Word, and that Word was with God, and that Word was God.
- This same was in the beginning with God.
- All things were made by it, and without it was made nothing that was made.
- In it was life, and that life was the light of men.
- And that light shineth in the darkenesse, and the darkenesse comprehended it not.
- ¶ There was a man sent from God, whose name was Iohn.
- This same came for a witnesse, to beare witnesse of that light, that all men through him might beleeue.
- He was not that light, but was sent to beare witnesse of that light.
- ¶ This was that true light, which lighteth euery man that commeth into the world.
- He was in the world, and the worlde was made by him: and the worlde knewe him not.
- He came vnto his owne, and his owne receiued him not.
- But as many as receiued him, to them he gaue prerogatiue to be the sonnes of God, euen to them that beleeue in his Name.
- Which are borne not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of ye wil of man, but of God.
- ¶ And that Word was made flesh, and dwelt among vs, (and we sawe the glorie thereof, as the glorie of the onely begotten Sonne of the Father) full of grace and trueth.
Geneva Bible
That the text cannot be read smoothly when “the word” in the opening verses of the Prologue is treated as an impersonal “it” is something that rather disturbs me. It is in my opinion a threat to the sustainability of the Unitarian view, that is so apparent throughout the remainder of the NT. There seems to be a real difficulty here.”
In the beginning is clearly a throw back to Genesis. We’re talking about God’s plan, nothing came to be aside from his plan. That is to say, God does not just arbitrarily do things, everything he did had a reason according to his plan. God’s plan was life.. and I wonder if it could read “life in the human race was this light” ? My Greek is not up to par let me tell you. That is to say, that in the beginning the pinnacle of God’s plan, life, was the human race, Adam and Eve as the pinnacle of creation. Then perhaps the next verse could be read as “the fall”. There is still light there waiting to overcome the darkness, though darkness is clearly evident.
Or still, another option is that in v3-5 is John talking in the present. This light, which is now present because Jesus has done his work is the light and the darkness is now losing.
In verse 6, we are certainly back to talking within history… John testifies that the true light is going to come into the world, which makes me lean on the second opinion stated above. That v3-5 is talking about the light as presently active at this writing, whereas v6-9 is looking from the Baptist’s point of view - the light is coming and I’m here to tell you all about it. Clearly the impression from all the accounts of John the Baptist’s preaching is “someone is coming after me”, surely even v8 suggests that line of thinking here.
And all the accounts show John as not knowing just who it is. It allows the one who is coming to remain anonymous until v14 when it is declared that the one coming is in fact God’s Son. Everyone agrees that the thrust of the passage is that Jesus is the physical manifestation of God’s ultimate plan. In Jesus, God’s plan is personified. Jesus embodies all that God wishes to accomplish: a perfect human, living in harmony with God, other humans, and creation. He acts to restore fallen creation and people throughout his entire ministry giving them the life of the age to come (the Kingdom) presently in a small dosage. Furthermore, Jesus is still working at this new creation, restoring us more and more as we come closer to him and to God. Ultimately Jesus and God will finish this new creation, and remove the old.
I think the author intends us to see the progression: God’s divine plan, his perogative, starting out in Genesis as impersonal. Then God’s plan being heralded by John the Baptist in a specific person, though we wait to find out exactly who it is. In the larger narrative, we wait until John identifies Jesus as God’s Son and the one he has been talking about. In the prologue, we see the writer to an anonymous “he”. Only then in v14 is the personal embodient of God’s perogatives and plan show to be God’s Son, the King of the Jews (John 1.49), the Messiah, who the Baptist tells us is his cousin Jesus. I don’t think that we can push a person backwards onto Logos - God’s plan. We can not make God’s plan embodied in a person until God does, and until the writer does in v10,14.
I don’t know if you’ve run into this either, but many will make the claim that “dwelt among us” is a clear reference to Exodus 25.8 where God “dwells among them”. I’m not sure how clear this would have been. The “dwell” used in Exodus is used very, very generically. It is used of Israel as a whole, individuals either good or evil, and metaphorically in the psalms. So in my view, the writer of the prologue has not made a sufficient case that we look for the God of Israel himself dwelling in the humanity of Jesus. Furthermore, the idea that “God is with us” can be entirely understood from a representative perspective. Jesus is God’s representative on the earth, just as the King of old was. Therefore what the King does in God’s name, God does. I don’t think that is far-fetched at all. I think is has much support in the OT.
Howdy, I am studying this verse in my work Bible study. I am Unitarian and my friends are not.
They point to Revelation 19 specifically
“19:13 And he was clothed (5772) with a vesture dipped (5772) in blood: and his name is called (5743) The Word of God. ”
taken from http://www.studylight.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=re+19§ion=0&it=kjv&oq=rev%252019%3A13&ot=bhs&nt=byz&new=1&nb=re&ng=19&ncc=19
This would seem to be the 1 to 1 correlation to John 1, but I am reluctant to see the connection (however it seems rather direct). I feel as if I would be splitting hairs to say that the name is “The WOrd of God” and not just the “word”. Any thoughts?
Jesus is what the word of God became. Once the word became flesh one could call Jesus the word of God.
Thanks for your reply Sean. As I agree with your statement, what (outside of logic or reason) would make me think that the Revelation definition of Jesus does not directly translate to John 1? The same author wrote it, so he could be making the 1 to 1 correlation. However I would be inclined to say that “The Word of God” (as in Revelation) is a title or name, and the word (as is in John 1) is not. It would make logical sense in that John 1 states that the word was God. If I made that assumption then I would have to conclude that Jesus was God and now is not since the rest of John 1 does not seem to support the Word = God statement.
So the question would be, if I were attempting to look at this without and preconcieved notions on the Bible and read John 1 and Rev 19 would I conclude that Jesus is the word, or not? Is there any scripture that would support your statement “Once the word became flesh one could call Jesus the word of God”?
thanks,
I think Rev 19.13 is 1 to 1 with John 1.14. Jesus is called the word of God. He embodied God’s word at every step: he spoke the words of God, he did the actions God would have him do, etc. Jesus is the word of God. This does not mean that the word of God was Jesus before Jesus was born. When in John 1.1 it says the word was God, this is not a problem because we are dealing with a metaphor. (You are your word, etc.) It is not that the word of God was a distinct God from the Father, but the expression or index of the mind of the one God. This expression, plan, intent, etc. became a living breathing human being in Jesus of Nazareth when God’s spirit overshadowed Mary and generated the only begotten son. I think it is impossible to maintain a distinction between John 1.14 and Rev. 19.13.
I agree with Sean’s response, but would add one other thing: the element of time is very important with respect to Jesus’ titles, etc. For this reason, I do not have a problem with Thomas’ confession; given that it was after the resurrection when Jesus was given the name above all names.
The resurrection was a pretty big deal for a lot of reasons! I sometimes think that in the trinitarian worldview that it is all about the “incarnation”, while the resurrection is kind of a “ho hum” deal. I see it the other way around. (NOTE: in no way am I implying that anyone one this list holds this view; this is my personal observation based on readings and conversations outside this forum.)
It is pretty obvious that in Revelation, the “Word of God” is a “person”; whereas in John 1:1 it is not so clear. The reason being that there is a clear statement (in Revelation) that this is who the risen Jesus is right now.
Thanks to you both. I agree and it is not an issue for me as I have a simliar conclusion/understanding. It seems obvious to me, but received a lot of flack over this today and did my best to convey thier views. As it seems clear to me, it seems unlikley that I will get any agreement. Thanks again,
Good one, Sean. Very succinct!
Perhaps an analogy will help. You could call me a married man today but 6 years ago that same statement would be false. In the same way you could call Jesus the word of God after he was born but before that it would have been a false statement. Even trinitarians assent to this in a way because they likewise would not say that Jesus was the word before the incarnation. They would say the son of God was the word before the incarnation. Then when the son of God became human he was given the name Jesus.
Hi Sean,
you wrote above:
As for your status if being married and not married 6 years ago, your analogy is true and applicable.
But concerning your application to Jesus, I would consider that to be incorrect. As a matter of fact, I would think that one could say (in accordance with John 1 !! ) that BEFORE Jesus was born, he existed as “word” … after his conception and birth, he existed as the human being of “flesh and blood”
Cheers,
Wolfgang
It seems to me that the fundamental difficulty mentioned in the post above is still not solved. In John 1:10 the “true light (of :9) which lighteth every man that cometh into the world” is clearly identified as a person: “He was in the world, and the world was made through him, and the world knew him not”. Now, if that true light was a person, as is seen even more clearly in the following verses (::11-12), then how can it be that this same light was not a person in ::4-5, where the light is introduced? If John came to be a witness of that light (:7), and if the person of John himself was not that light (:8), it is evident that another person is hinted at. “The true light” is thus a person in :10 and I don’t see why it is not a person in :5 already. Moreover, in :10 it is said that “the world was made through him”, the same thing that is said of the word in :3: “All things were made through it”. What sense does it make to say in :10 that “the world was made through him”, thus clearly referring at a person, and to deny that the word in :3, whereby all things were made is identical with this person? The world was made through the person who is the light. Therefore, this person must be the same entity as the word in :3. The word in :3 may appear as impersonal in a first reading, before it is identified as the person who is the light in ::9-10 and following. But once identified as a person, this identification has repercussions for our reading of the first verses. Then suddenly it becomes clear, that the word mentioned in the earlier verses of John’s Prologue must be a person.
I think this difficulty for a Unitarian reading of the Prologue is the reason why James Dunn in his “Christology in the Making” says that John here surpasses the limits of the earlier christological utterances in the NT, and tends to identify Jesus with God. Although Dunn acknowledges that the earlier redactions of the Prologue can be read on an Unitarian basis, he is reluctant to affirm this for the final redaction, the redaction that is in our Bibles. Nearly all the verses of the NT can be explained in a Unitarian sense without great difficulty. It seems however that the Prologue of John confronts us with an obstacle that cannot be overcome so easily.
I am not sure that I see the difficulty. I remind us all that our view of Scripture does not let John contradict the OT and the synoptics– and I am sure he does not. The light is neuter in v. 5 and beautifully, it has become a masculine person (auton) in v. 10. At that point we have heard that the Son is in the world and so he is a person. This is the historical Jesus. (v. 14 resumes the same point).
The transition from neuter (the actual gender of light) to the person, the light, Jesus, is exquisitely managed by John. John as we know is absolutely rigidly monotheistic as John 17:3 and 5:44 show, never to be forgotten.
Does this help?
Anthony.
I think the difficulty gets raised because the light (i.e. Jesus) who came to his own, etc. is doing this before v14 when the word becomes flesh (i.e. before his birth). Perhaps the difficulty can be resolved if we consider v14 to be a flashback. Certainly Jesus did not come to his own and give them the authority to become the sons of God before his incarnation!
Although I agree that, generally spoken, the christology of John’s Gospel seems to fit the framework of subordinationism, as indeed is clear from John 17:3 and other texts, yet in my eyes it is unsatisfactory to explain the Prologue by referring to these texts. The Prologue should be read on its own merits and explained in its own terms. One of the strange results of the Unitarian reading seems to be that in :3, when it is said that all things were made through (Gr. dia, cas. gen.) the word, dia has the sense “by means of”. But it is clear that in :10, when it is said that the world was made through (Gr. dia, cas. gen.) the true light, — that, as you admitted, was already identified as the person of Jesus — dia cannot have the sense of “by means of”. The world was not made by means of Jesus, because on the Unitarian supposition the person of Jesus didn’t exist when the world was created. So dia in :10 must have the sense of “on account of” or “for the sake of”. The expressions in :3 and in :10 however are exactly the same. In both cases we have the genitive case of dia. It seems not reasonable to attach two different meanings to this expression in the two instances we have before us, that are so intimately interrelated. Besides, there is the possibility in Greek to use dia in the accusative case to get the meaning “for the sake of”. Now, if John had wanted to make clear that the person of Jesus wasn’t involved in the creation of the world, why didn’t he use dia in the accusative case in :10?
To be plain, I do not say that the traditional Trinitarian reading is without difficulties, but what strikes me is how many Unitarian explanations of the Prologue only treat ::1-3 or ::1-5, and then suddenly jump to :14, without treating the intermediate verses at all. I never have read a real verse by verse commentary on the Prologue of John from a unitarian viewpoint. I would be completely convinced if there existed one that was able to connect all the verses of the Prologue elegantly and smoothly.
Sean wrote (post no. 12) that Jesus did not come to his own and give them the authority to become the sons of God before his incarnation. I must say I don’t understand this. All the saints in all the times, including the times before Jesus, could only obtain everlasting life by means of Jesus. Jesus thus surely gave the people in OT times the power to become the children of God before his incarnation.
Further, a short explanation for own posts above (no’s 10 & 13): I find it very conspicuous and puzzling that in the major recent works of Unitarianism, for example in Sir Anthony Buzzard’s book “The Doctrine of the Trinity”, some crucial verses of St. John’s Prologue, especially the verses 9 and 10, are not treated at all. In another recent work: “The Trinity, True or False” (authors: Broughton & Southgate) the same omission occurs. In this work John 1:10 is mentioned, but not explained. In the well-known popular work of Graeser, Lynn and Schoenheit: “One Lord & One God”, John 1:10 is treated, but an exposition is given that cannot be sustained at all. In this book the sentence: “He was in the world and the world was made through him, and the world knew him not” is explained as if the “he” and “him” are referring to God the Father. This cannot be true, however, for the following sentences (in ::11-12) make clear that the person referred to is Jesus Christ. Other sources that I consulted, mainly Unitarian websites, exhibit the same pattern of being nearly silent on John 1:9-10. Only the first three or four verses of the Prologue are really treated.
This state of affairs has caused me to develop some suspicion against the Unitarian viewpoint. It may be that the major part of the christological utterances of the NT can be explained within the framework of the Unitarian hypothesis, but I have serious doubts whether this is can be done with the Prologue of St. John. Of course I would very much prefer the Prologue to fit the Unitarian framework, because so many other texts can be satisfactory explained by it. It can not be excluded beforehand, however, that the this framework is broken asunder by the unique and exceptional text of the Prologue.
Hi Geert. It is good at times to ask some of the hard questions. Here is my take:
First, we need to look at the origins of Jesus; seed of Eve (Gen 3:15), seed of Abraham (Gen 12:3), prophets from among the people of Israel (Deut 18:18), son of David (2 Sam. 7:14), begotten in Mary (Matt. 1:18,20, Luke 1:35), and the often neglected… uniquely begotten son (John 3:16, parallels).
With that in mind, it would be strange that John would write something completely different. Saying that the world was made through Jesus, clearly, removes him from being the creator. He is either a mediator in action or in purpose. Isa. 44:24 says God created the earth all alone and by himself, without a personal mediator (therefore the logos/wisdom must be a personification). I doubt that it would be difficult for a 2nd Temple Jew to say that the world was created with the Messiah in mind. The rabbis had no trouble saying that God made the world with Moses/Torah in mind. 4 Ezra speaks of God creating the cosmos for the sake of Israel.
This is quite simular to Heb 1:2, where God created the ages through the Messiah. Dia can be taken as the attendant circumstances, which best makes sense of the story as a whole.
My point is that we need to look for the path of least resistance. The 4th Evangelist has a lot of Hebrew overtones in his Gospel and therefore should be read as a Jew, not as a Greek philosopher.
Hope I helped. If you can read Greek, check the variant in 1:13 for a possible corruption of a clear “created Jesus” text.
Dustin
Dustin,
Excellent comments.
Geert,
After I read your comments I tried to write clearly an answer as concise as Dustin has, but, I felt my answers were at best still vague. So I emailed Anthony Buzzard that you had mentioned in your question and asked him for help. Here is his answer:
“In this case I suppose John is thinking of “the light which dwells with God” (Daniel has that phrase).
That light is the light of God’s mind and spirit.
There is obviously are ref to Gen, the light, which is a type of the new creation.
Then John says that the light is a person in v. 10.
That is to say he now used the masculine pronoun to describe light which is neuter in v. 5.
This is subtle: the light which is the light of God becomes a man in Jesus.
Jesus had come to his own property. Jesus came into the world, meaning he was born.
The light was then enfleshed.”
Some further comments from a previous message:
“Jesus is the light and the world was made for the sake of Jesus.
John has nicely described the light (phos) as IT in v. 5 and then as HIM in v. 10. Because once the Messiah is born, is in the world, then the light is the person with us. As he is also the Logos with us in Rev 19. Jesus is walking Wisdom too.”
Geert, I am not quite 2 years into understanding the truth revealed in the Bible, I came from a trinitarian background and asking questions for me has greatly helped me in my personal growth and walk with God. My experience has been once I surrendered the traditions I had been taught since childhood the Scriptures opened up and the things I couldn’t understand became clear as glass.
So keep asking!
Mark D.
Geert,
I’m glad you’ve responded. I think there is one question I’d like you to answer, that I stated in my post:
Would you agree?
John is working in a chronological fashion, even though he bounces around a lot. He starts with Word, echoing Genesis. He moves on to light (vs darkness). That is clearly a reference to God’s active fight against choas and satan. This can be seen from other apocalyptic works in judaism from the same period in history, the war scroll not least among them. “Light” is not a distant reference used to mark the time from Genesis up until the point of the writer.
Verse 10 marks the start of Jesus, v14 is how Jesus came into being, and identifies him from the anonymous pronoun “he” used from 10 onward. As I asked above, only in 10/14, in the very present time is “he” used. And to push that backwards is to go against the authorial intent:
So would you all say that v10-13 all refer to the post-incarnate Jesus of Nazareth and v14 is a flashback of sorts (or perhaps a parenthetical insertion)? If this is the case then we have to explain what it means when it says “the world was made through him” in v10. What does this mean? How can we honestly drive a wedge between v10 and v3 which uses the same language, “all things were made through him”? Here is the Greek:
v3: παντα δι’ αυτου εγενετο
v10: ο κοσμος δι’ αυτου εγενετο
Notice the only difference is substituting kosmos (world) for panta (all things).
I don’t think it is a wedge. Clearly there is a progression. The logos becomes the light in the next stage. And the logos/light comes into existence as Jesus in the next stage. The light is not “in the beginning” because there are no men to enlighten. Without function, there is no existence (in the ancient near east). Therefore Jesus is the extension/manifestation/continuation of something that already exists/ed. He “is” the logos/word not because he existed in a non-physical/spiritual way in the beginning, but rather because he is the extension of the word/logos/light in the present time. Just like John was not that light, not that extension.
So would you all say that v10-13 all refer to the post-incarnate Jesus?
Yea, it’s John talking in his present, 90AD, tense, looking backward on Jesus’ birth. We often see commentary by John thrown right into the middle of the narrative, and I think that is what is happening here…
John said (post no. 17): “Verse 10 marks the start of Jesus, v14 is how Jesus came into being, and identifies him from the anonymous pronoun “he”, used from 10 onward. As I asked above, only in 10/14 in the present time is “he” used. And to push that backwards is to go against the authorial intent.”
A I pointed out, the Greek preposition dia is used in verse 10 with the genetive case. It is well known that dia can be used in the accusative case as well as in the genetive case. Used in the genetive case this preposition signifies the means whereby or the medium through which the end of an action is reached, and it thus presupposes the real existence of this means or this medium. Used in the accusative case this preposition signifies the reason or the motive for which sake the action proceeds, and it thus only presupposes the ideal existence, or the existence in the mind, of this motive or reason.
Now, in John 1:10 we have: “He was in the world, and the world was made [through/by means of] him, and the world knew him not”. This verse thus clearly says that the world came into existence through, or by means of, the person referred to. Clearly a person is refferred to, because exactly in this verse the neuter for phos (light) is changed into the masculine. There seems only one way open to interpret this verse, and I propose the following paraphrase: “He was in the world, and although the world was made by means of his own activity, yet the world didn’t recognize him when he came into it”. The contrast in this verse is about a world being made through the agency of a person and yet not recognizing that same person.
Now, when was the world made by means of or, as it is said, “through” that person? How can the person of Christ after having come into the world be the agent through whom the world came into being? I don’t see any possibility here. For the only way in which the concrete historical person of Jesus could be the one “through” (dia) whom the world was made, would be that the world was made, as it is often said, “with Jesus in mind”, or: “for the sake of Jesus”. But that explanation would suppose the use of dia in the accusative case, while we here clearly have the use of this preposition in the genetive case, which can only have the sense of “by means of” or “through the agency of”. Therefore it seems, alas, unavoidable to accept that the Evangelist is referring back to before Jesus’ coming into the world. That would imply that what John really says here is something like this: “He was in the world, and although the world in the beginning was made by means of his own activity, yet the world didn’t recognize him when he came into it”. And that meaning of the verse is surely a challenge for the Unitarian position.
Upon those who nevertheless stress that verse 10 is strictly about Jesus after his coming in the flesh rests the task of giving a reasonable sense to this verse that clearly says that the world came into being by means of “him”.
Geert,
And this idea of continuation is how I understand it. The writer, throughout the gospel is jumping from narrative in the time of Jesus’ ministry, to commentary after his ascension.
The word/logos is what made the creation, even as this chapter tells us with its reference to Genesis. Jesus is the extension/manifestation/continuation of the word. I feel that you’re being overly technical and mechanic. The text says he was in the world before he made it, which doesn’t make much sense. As I suggested before John is writing backwards, importing what he knows about the success of Jesus into the prologue.
Therefore, the writer can say that the world did not recognize the extension of the logos, now personified in, Jesus.
If Jesus is the “he” in v10 then Jesus is the one through whom the world (kosmos) was made. You have already stated that v10-13 refers to Jesus in his post-incarnate existence. Thus, you are saying that this occurred during his human life. This is obviously absurd, so we are back to saying that v10 is not talking about the creation of the world, but then we drive a wedge between v10 and v3 the latter of which we all agree refers to the Genesis creation.
The “he” (autos) can still be translated as “it”. Have we considered this option yet?
Dustin
I am new to this forum and actually stumbled upon it quite by accident just a few days ago. I have been following this discussion of John 1 with great interest and concern as a Biblical Unitarian. I think the concerns presented by Mr. ter Horst are valid and important.
In reading through the discussions so far I also wondered about reading the entire prologue (through v.13) with “autos” as neuter (it) instead of the traditional reading which changes the neuter to masculine at v.10.
The one thing that strikes me in considering the prologue of John1 is the fact that there seems to be a distinction made between “word” and “light”. The “word” (logos) is understood to be the wisdom, plan and purposes of God which includes “life” and this “life” was “the light” of men. Though it has been suggested that the “light” referred to in verse 3 is the light of Genesis 1 which dispelled the chaos. The light mentioned here is the “light of men” not the “light of creation”. This “light” seems to be something which is manifested through human life, or has the potential to be manifested through human beings (cmp v. 4 & 9).
In Scripture, particularly in the Psalms and Proverbs “light” is a metaphor for righteousness (Psalm 37:6) and more specifically for God’s commandments and instructions (Psalm 119:105, 130, Proverbs 6:23). If we consider “light” in John’s prologue in these metaphoric terms then verses 4-13 is speaking of “light” as righteousness manifested through human life via means of Gods commandments, in which case “autos” could be used in the neuter form of “it” throughout these verses (instead of “he”).
Verse 4 is explaining that according to God’s purpose (logos) “life” is defined as “the light of men” (i.e. mankind perfectly manifesting the righteousness of God on earth). After the fall, the righteousness of God continues to manifest itself (shines) but is not comprehended due to evil or unrighteousness that block it from view (darkness) (v.5) (cmp Romans 1:17-19).
In v. 6, John is introduced as a witness of the “light” (God’s righteousness, commandments) which is the channel through which belief is expressed (v7). Yet he (John) was not the true light (the perfect manifestation of righteousness) but simply a witness of man’s higher but unattainable purpose to perfectly manifest God’s righteousness on earth (v.8-9). This is demonstrated in the fact that John’s ministry was one of repentance, calling Israel to repent and prepare for the Kingdom of Heaven which was near. Mankind, who has not perfectly manifested God’s righteousness, inevitably must repent.
Though the entire physical creation was made via the commandments/instructions or “word” of God and functions via the principles and laws therein, the creation is incapable of comprehending this (v.10). Therefore the commandments and instructions of God came to “its own” (to mankind who was created to receive the light and manifest the righteousness of God) but man in general did not receive it (beginning with Adam and Eve who disobeyed the one command they were given) (v.11). However throughout history there were those who received the commandments/instructions of God (Seth, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Israel at Sinai etc.) and were given the privilege to be called the Children of God which is true of all who believe “in his (its) name (authority)”, i.e. all who believe in the authority of Gods commandments and instructions. Yet, verse 13 explains that such belief (in God and the authority of His commandments/instructions) is a gift of grace and not due to lineage, parentage or the personal choice of man, because man inevitably is unable to perfectly or freely manifest the “light” or righteousness of God as originally intended.
So, from verse 4-13 we see that although it was God’s perfect purpose (logos) that life was the “light” (perfect righteousness) of men, this ideal was not realized until Jesus, the Word (logos) made flesh.
The concepts I am presenting are based on rabbinic understanding in the Talmud (Pesachim 54a) that seven things were created prior to the creation of the world, among them Torah and the name of Messiah. This is a metaphoric way of saying that both were ideas conceived by God prior to the physical creation of the world. Because God’s mind is infinite and perfect His thoughts are not just conceptions but are reality even prior to being manifest in a way that mankind can comprehend.
In rabbinic teaching Torah (God’s instructions/commands) is the wisdom through which God created the world and includes the principles by which the world is sustained and holds together. God’s instructions/commands are also called “life” in the Scripture (Deuteronomy 30:19). Man alone was given God’s commandments and instructions because we alone of all creation can understand and carry out these commands and thereby shine forth or display the righteousness and/or ways of God (light) in the physical creation.
Perhaps this thinking holds the key to unlocking the prologue of John 1 that Logos (wisdom/mind of God) includes God’s instructions/commandments which are life. This “life” (Torah or God’s commands/instructions) is manifested (comes to light) through man, and is only manifested perfectly through the person of Jesus.
These are merely my humble conjectures; feel free to comment as you will.
John, I do not understand everything you said in your last post, but does it essentially amount to the following?
If Jesus is the continuation and extension of the logos/light, then John 1:10 essentially says: “He [= the logos/light] was in the world; the world was even made by means of him [= the logos/light]; and yet the world failed to recognize him when he [= the logos/light] appeared in the person of Jesus”.
Thus the masculine form in :10 is introduced to connect the more general logos/light with its specific extension and continuation in the person of Jesus. That at least sounds sensible to me.
The masculine form would in this wise not only introduce the person of Jesus, but also strongly connect the light (which grammatically is neuter) to the (grammatically masculine) logos it belongs to.
The phrase “the world was made by him” would thus refer back to the original creation mentioned in :3: “all things were made by [him/it]”, without implying or suggesting a personal pre-existence of that specific extension of the logos which is Jesus Christ, who in :14 appears as the logos made flesh.
This sounds logical and consistent to me. Thanks for your help. I try not to be overly technical or mechanical, but, as a philosopher, I always pursue a precise reading.
This is the option of choice in my mind, then we are still refering to the “logos”. We are told in the book of Genesis that God spoke everything into existence. It fits the information that the Jews already had and understood. The book is directly written to the Jews. It must be understood from this perspective.
I was talking with Gene Stilson, he pointed out that the narrative was given in a condensed version and expounded on in larger panoramic version in the later verses of the chapter.
Geert,
That is exactly what I was trying to say
A brief history of John 1.18.
Manuscript Evidence:
Manuscript Common Name Date Text
p66 Bodmer Papyri c. 200 monogenes theos
p75 Bodmer Papyri c. 250 monogenes theos
B Codex Vaticanus c. 325 monogenes theos
Aleph Codex Sinaiticus c. 350 monogenes theos
A Codex Alexandrinus c. 450 monogenes theos
Origin
p66, p 75: Near Nag Hammadi, Egypt
B, Aleph, A: Alexandrian
Quotations of John 1:18 in Early Christian Writings:
Ignatius: Bishop of Antioch, Syria; in Phillipians 2, c. 110: “monogenes huios” [Long recession only].
Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons, Gaul; in Against Heresies 3.2.6; 4.20.6, c. 180: “monogenes huios”. Aga. Here. 4.20.11: “monogenes theos”.
Clement: Alexandria: Pedagogue 1.3; Stromata 1.26, c. 200: “monogenes huios”; Stromata 5.12: “monogenes theos”.
Hippolytus Rome: Against Noetus 5, c. 205: “monogenes huios”.
Tertullian Africa: Agaisnt Praxeas 8; 15, c. 212: “monogenes huios”.
Origen Alexandria: Commentary on John 2.24, c. 230: “monogenes theos”; Against Celsus 121, c. 248: “monogenes huios”; Letter of Hymenaeus (Letter of the Six Bishops), c. 268: “monogenes huios”.
Archelaus Bishop, Mesopotamia: Disputation with Manes 32, c. 280: “monogenes huios” [Syriac].
Alexander Bishop Alexandria [Arius’ initial chief rival]: Deposition of Arius 1,4, c. 324: “monogenes huios”,
Athanasius Alexandria: De Decretis Defense of the Nicene Definition, date unknown: “monogenes huios”; Four Discourses Against the Arians Discourse 2, 357AD: “monogenes huios” [Athanasius obviously does not wish to appeal to the unbegotten God text]; Four Discourses Against the Arians Discourse 4: “monogenes huios”.
Arian Bishops, Antioch: Second Arian Confession, 341AD: “monogenes theos”.
Hilary Poitiers: On the Trinity Book 4-6, 359AD: “monogenes huios”.
Basil Bishop of Caesarea: On the Holy Spirit 6, 11, c. 375: “monogenes theos”.
Gregory of Nyssa: Letter 8 to Flavian, date unknown: “monogenes huios”.
Gregory Nazianzus: Letters, date unknown: “only begotten God
“he declares that the Only-begotten God, the Judge of all, the Prince of Life, the Destroyer of Death, is mortal, and underwent the Passion in His proper Godhead” [Numerous references to “only begotten God”].
Chrysostom: Homilies on John 15, c. 389: “monogenes huios”.
Ambrose Bishop of Milan, Italy: The Patriarchs (The Fathers) 11, 51, c. 389: “monogenes huios”.
Augustine Bishop of Hippo, Africa: Gospel of John 48, 3, 430AD: “monogenes huios”.
NOTE: Both renderings are prevalent from around 200 A.D. The “only begotten God” version seems to be restricted to the Alexandrian region which could indicate a locally circulated corruption.
We have ample clear evidence the rendering “only begotten Son” was in use in the early church well before 200 A.D.. The “only begotten God” text seems to first show up around 200 A.D. in Egypt and these are the earliest manuscripts we have in our possession at this time. However, the evidence merely suggests such a date and this reading may have been in circulation at an earlier time. We must also be reminded that Gnostics were amiable to the “only begotten god” rendering. And for the Arians, it afforded them the same idea they advocated in John 1:1. The Arians believed Jesus was “a god”, a begotten God of the unbegotten God. This is likely why we do not find the Athanasians clamouring to use John 1:18 to support their argument.
Johannine Tradition Evidence:
Verse Consistency
John 1:14 monogenes tou patros
John 1:18 monogenes huios
John 3:16 monogenes huios
John 3:18 monogenes huios
1 John 4:9 monogenes huios
The “only begotten God” version is inconsistently out of place in John’s writings. Christ is always portrayed by John as someone of God, Lamb of God, Son of God, Love of God, Glory of God, Word of God, Bread of God, and and begotten of God. Secondly, “only-begotten God” goes against John’s immediate message. He previously has said, “the Word was theos in John 1:1 to refer to pre-existent divine nature and then says, “the Word became flesh” to refer to his present human nature.
The Likely Origin of the Corruption
The historical evidence powerfully suggests the “only begotten God” version is a Gnostic corruption designed to offset the force of John 1:14. The Gnostics were infamous for altering Scriptural texts. In Gnosticism, gods begat other gods. The Gnostics did have a god they called “Only-begotten” (Monogenes). Irenaeus tells us that Ptolemy, a Valentinian Gnostic, used a translation which seems to have referred to an only-begotten god, (monogenes), which was a time period when serious corruptions had been occurring. This is also about the time period when the “only begotten God/god” rendering first shows up in history. The texts which contain the error seem to be confined to Alexandrian origin, a hotbed of Platonism and Gnosticism.
Summation of the Facts
There are two manuscript traditions. Each of them were widely attested in the early church. The authenticity of the “only begotten God” text is therefore highly questionable on these grounds alone. Are we expected to rest our faith upon such suspicious evidence?
The earliest Christians attest to the “only begotten Son” version except in the Alexandria region.
The “only begotten God” version absurdly results in a visible begotten God everyone can see declaring/revealing the unbegotten invisible God no one can see.
The “only begotten Son” version is the one which is consistent with John’s terminology
During the Arian controversy, the “only begotten God” was not used by the Athanasians but was used by the Arians.
The manuscript to which Trinitarians appeal, was found in near Nag Hammadi where the Nag Hammadi gnostic collection was found.
Evidence shows the Gnostics preferred the “only begotten God” version and since they loved to tamper with Scripture, they likely corrupted this passage to say just that. Trinitarians opt for the version that puts them into company with the Gnostics.
The evidence at hand is inconclusive at best. It would be quite easy to make a choice based on a theological bias. However, this would not be honorable to truth and it would be quite mad to rest our faith upon a highly doubtful text. Both readings are strongly attested in the early church. The weight of the evidence, indicates the passage should say “only begotten Son.” It is consistent with John’s terminology in all his writings. And it seems highly likely the passage is a Gnostic corruption designed to offset the force of John 1:14.
Compiled by The Trinity on Trial.
Thank you Xavier. So are you suggesting that the reason our modern translations tend to go with “begotten God” is because of editor bias alone?
1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.( a mans word is the man)
1:2 The same was in the beginning with God. 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
1:6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 1:7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. 1:8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.(This just means Johns authority was less than Jesus)
1:9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.( this is the authority God gave Jesus that John seen in Jesus) 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.(this is God’s Word which Adam ignored) 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.(this is Adams sin)
1:12 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 the Salvation God has offered to all men before Jesus and thru Jesus)
1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. 1:14 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.( this was the appointing of that great authority given to Jesus by His father who is the only God).
this is simular to a power of attorney which gives certain rights for someone to act on your behalf.
so if a man was 46 and gave his 16 year old son the power to act as him that wouldnt make the son 46 years old or make the son the father.
this means exactly whats written and supports God being only one, and Jesus being God’s son.
Victor: …are you suggesting that the reason our modern translations tend to go with “begotten God” is because of editor bias alone?
A combination of the two Victor, theological bias and priority to earliest mss. which, as we know, does not always mean earliest is best.
Ehrman points out: “…it would have been the easiest [change] to create out of the original text, simply by changing theos to uios, the change of a single letter (since these would have been abbreviated as nomina sacra: ΘΣ / ΥΣ), without deleting the article.
“It cannot be replied that because the text even with the article differentiates between the Father and the Son who dwells in his bosom, orthodox scribes would not have felt impelled to make the change. We know that the Fourth Gospel was a real battleground [even today] between Patripassianists [the Father suffered and died] and the orthodox: the folowers of Neotus appealed specifically to this Gospel to support their notion that Christ was God the Father, the only God (cf., eg., Hippolytus, Ref. 6 and 7)” Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, p 271.
this version of Xavier’s comment #30 is easier to read:
http://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/trinity/verses/Jn1_18.html
Ehrman’s method of criticism is widely criticized in the guild. It might sound good, but dreaming up possibilities in which it is “easier” to change something from the perspective of a scribe is dangerous. We can barely reconstruct some of the details of a society - but we’re going to project into the mind of the scribe who changed something? Really?
Assessing the direction of a textual corruption is exactly what text critics do. Ehrman’s method is criticized because he places John’s theology at a higher level than the manuscript evidence.
A direction based on timeline’s and evidence is fine. But a direction based on a psychological reconstruction about “what is easier to modify” I’m not sure.
the more difficult reading is one of the text critic’s standard tools for determining which was more likely to be original. the harder reading is to be preferred because a scribe would more likely smooth out the meaning than create a difficult one.
begotten God is impossible to understand….of course if monogenes is “one of a kind” it makes it much easier (as Grudem and most modern translations believe)
but even then there are problems, as our mysterious “Trinity on Trial” friend has pointed out….if no one has seen God, yet the one and only God in his bosom has declared him, then of course that makes two Gods, which is silly since the second God is the one and only (ow…my head hurts).
I believe early Christianity very quickly turned binitarian, for some reason they had to contruct a “3rd person”. Don’t really know why if either form is heretical to Jewish Christianity.
I can understand a binitarian interpretation of NT more than a trinitarian one, which seems to be what the early [Gentile] Church Fathers believed in:
“The Son is God because he is Son of God, just as he is man becuase he is Son of Man. [Christ is] the only begotten Son of God therefore God [or] a divine being [since] what is begotten of God must be God or divine.” [Dem. Evang. Book 5, c. 4, p 227; De Eccles. Theol. Book 2, c. 14, p 123]
Xavier (Carlos),
would you like to write up a blog post on John 1.18, summarizing your findings and recommending which variant is best as well as how it should be interpreted?
i thought i just did that…or do you mean sumthing else Sean?
you copied and pasted from Trinity on Trial…which was very techinical…I was asking for YOUR summary of the data in an easy to read manner
Like i said i thought i had just done that but…
Well, from the evidence at hand, just because the earlist mss. [p66, 75] we have read ‘monogenes theos’, does not mean this was how the original [autographs] had it.
I say this not only because of the geographical origin [Egypt, near Nag Hammadi, a Gnostic ‘community’] but also because of the variant [monogenes huios] reading attested by Ignatius and Irenaeus in the early 100s, almost 100 years before the mss. attestation.
As to who perpetrated the corruption? Again, because of the geographical [historical] markers, those that were part of the Nag Hammadi ‘community’ are my main suspects. This group tended to combine pagan, Christian and Greek philosophical texts in creating their Gnostic library.
This is highlighted by the fact that the Bodmer Papyri [p66], from which we get the exihibited text [of Jn 1.18], “appears to have been copied and corrected with relative care as compared, for example, with some evident [grammatical] errors in [others]”. Encountering New Testament Manuscripts: A Working Introduction to Textual Criticism, Jack Finegan, Eerdmans, p 112, 1980.
Finally, as to why modern translators are adding it to certain bible versions? A combination of misguided theological bias and the over-reliance on early mss. texts regardless of textual validity. It must be noted that the monogenes theos reading would not have helped either the early [proto]orthodox brigade nor those so-called early heretical groups like the Adoptionists and Ebionites since it fosters a different theological perspective than the one they were teaching.