What did John mean?

[marco]

John's famous opening: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God� has caused much controversy. Some have suggested God should not have a second capital. Given John was a human, writing for humans, perhaps we should not excavate his words for meanings accessible only to a few men and angels.


Let's go with the text, including capitals. We've already discussed the non-capital interpretation.

Does this opening inevitably lead to Christ's being God?
Can we make sense of Word that allows us to see Jesus as human messenger, without discrediting John's authority?

[JehovahsWitness]

Jesus was the incarnation of this word; he walked around disseminating truth and saw himself as the metaphorical Truth in that his speech reflected what God prescribed; he obtained all power and authority from God, though he wasn't God of course, just the conveyor of the logos.

.

So would It be fair that the theological conclusion you verbalize in the quoted portion above harmonizes with the view held by Jehovah's Witnesses (who I can here inform you) do not believe Jesus to be God but someone that he obtained all power and authority from God) ?

[marco]

So would It be fair that the theological conclusion you verbalize in the quoted portion above harmonizes with the view held by Jehovah's Witnesses (who I can here inform you) do not believe Jesus to be God but someone that he obtained all power and authority from God) ?

Odd though it may seem, JW, the conclusion I reach is yours. I'm always suspicious of coming to a view based on a past participle, an article, a present tense, a subjunctive or a departure from a normal case ending. We may have taken different paths through the wood but we come to the same point. But please don't sign me up yet! Go well.

[ttruscott]

In the “Beginning. � Thus there was a time when he did not exist, since there was a beginning not an eternity.

Ummm, these worlds also make logical sense if He was co-eternal with the Father at the beginning of the creation of the physical universe, not His creation...you know, on or about Gen 1:1. As for who else was / might have been there let's consider first the record of the creation of the physical universe: Job 38:7 when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy? Much debate about who these people are, right but perhaps the meaning of beginning in Isaiah 40:21 Do YOU not know? Have YOU not heard? Has it not been told YOU from the beginning? Have YOU not understood since the earth was founded? gives us the answer: the beginning is the founding of the earth and we, the legitimate Sons of GOD Heb 12:8, were there.

And if we were there how much more so was HE who created the universe? Colossians 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And if He did the creating then He existed before the creation.

[William]

[Replying to post 20 by marco]

But please don't sign me up yet!

*Chuckles*


Have to work out which is 'the word of GOD' Jesus or the bible.

One could argue I suppose, that the bible existed as a potential right there before the beginning, but then one would also have to include everything else.

Perhaps an experiment of sorts could be done - assuming Jesus as the WoG and in that making the words attributed to him the authority and anything else in the bible which obviously goes against/contradicts his words, can be discarded.

Then see what might be left over...

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 22 by William]

Very interesting test. Might be a fun exercise. I imagine the book would be much shorter, though.

[polonius]

In the “Beginning. � Thus there was a time when he did not exist, since there was a beginning not an eternity.

Ummm, these worlds also make logical sense if He was co-eternal with the Father at the beginning of the creation of the physical universe, not His creation...you know, on or about Gen 1:1. As for who else was / might have been there let's consider first the record of the creation of the physical universe: Job 38:7 when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy? Much debate about who these people are, right but perhaps the meaning of beginning in Isaiah 40:21 Do YOU not know? Have YOU not heard? Has it not been told YOU from the beginning? Have YOU not understood since the earth was founded? gives us the answer: the beginning is the founding of the earth and we, the legitimate Sons of GOD Heb 12:8, were there.

And if we were there how much more so was HE who created the universe? Colossians 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And if He did the creating then He existed before the creation.

RESPONSE: Going by the plain meaning of word , the "beginning" means

Merriam-Webster Definition of beginning
1 : the point at which something begins : start It was clear from the beginning that she would win.

Something that "begins" is not eternal. (God had no beginning).

[marco]

Something that "begins" is not eternal. (God had no beginning).

You may be misreading the text, Polonius. When it said: "In the beginning was the Word it need not, and probably does not, mean that God started then; rather it means that when all things began, there was the Word, existent for all time. You are taking the meaning to be "the beginning of the Word."


When it is said: In the beginning God made the Earth, the temporal phrase does not refer to God, who was there already at the beginning of things material..

[bjs]

[Replying to marco]

I understand that idea of the Word as God being figurative in some way, though there are at least three problems with this view to be overcome.

The first is grammatical. When the Bible says “God is love,� we have a description of God as being love in a way that a synecdoche, a part representing the whole, would make grammatical sense. If John’s introduction said, “God was the Word� then we might apply the same logic. However, when the grammatical structure is changed so that the Word is the subject and God is the predicate – i.e. “The Word was God� – that becomes less plausible.*

Second, the figurative understanding becomes more problematic as we continue reading John’s prologue. John claims that the Word became flesh. The figurative understanding gets much more difficult here. Was John still being figurate? He certainly seems to indicate that Jesus, whom the Word clearly refers to, was literally a man. This sudden and unmentioned switch from the figurate to the literal would certainly be confusing. Does the figurative even make sense at that point? To take the “God is love� example, could we meaningfully say that the abstract concept of love literally became human?

Finally, the figurate interpretation requires us to take the prologue in isolation from the rest of this Gospel. The idea that Jesus is God probably the most common theme in John’s Gospel. John keeps coming back to this idea that to know Jesus is to know the Father, and to not to know Jesus is to not know the Father. This connected oneness, unlike any other unity or oneness in John’s Gospel, makes a figurate understanding of “The Word was God� unlikely.

[marco]

The first is grammatical. When the Bible says “God is love,� we have a description of God as being love in a way that a synecdoche, a part representing the whole, would make grammatical sense. If John’s introduction said, “God was the Word� then we might apply the same logic. However, when the grammatical structure is changed so that the Word is the subject and God is the predicate – i.e. “The Word was God� – that becomes less plausible.

Thanks for your thoughtful suggestions. They present a pleasing challenge.

Word order matters less in inflected languages than in English but you're right in observing this. However, the actual Greek is:

"καὶ Θεὸς ἦν � Λόγος."


This is: God was the word; so your objection doesn't hold in the original nor in the Vulgate: et deus erat verbum.

Poetically God was the very power of reason.



(b)

Second, the figurative understanding becomes more problematic as we continue reading John’s prologue. John claims that the Word became flesh. The figurative understanding gets much more difficult here. Was John still being figurate? He certainly seems to indicate that Jesus, whom the Word clearly refers to, was literally a man. This sudden and unmentioned switch from the figurate to the literal would certainly be confusing. Does the figurative even make sense at that point? To take the “God is love� example, could we meaningfully say that the abstract concept of love literally became human?

Well reasoned. The divine power that was to be revealed had somehow to be presented to man. Jesus is the carnal representation of that power. All he says about himself finds explanation here. I am not too concerned that John did not fully grasp the language he employs, under inspiration, but then neither did many poets. Truth, Eternal Life and Direction are communicated through Christ, enabling him truthfully to say " I am the Way, the Truth and the Life." A man became God's word.

(c)

Finally, the figurate interpretation requires us to take the prologue in isolation from the rest of this Gospel. The idea that Jesus is God probably the most common theme in John’s Gospel. John keeps coming back to this idea that to know Jesus is to know the Father, and to not to know Jesus is to not know the Father. This connected oneness, unlike any other unity or oneness in John’s Gospel, makes a figurate understanding of “The Word was God� unlikely.

Well in a sense he IS God; he is the incarnate vector of God's will, his word. All that he has is given to him by the Father; the power he has to create wonders he NEVER attributes to himself, but to God. But of course he is NOT God; just God's messenger. His suffering is effectively God's suffering, and his renewal God's move away from humanity, his mission consummated.

I think all Christ's words fit my interpretation pretty neatly. I confess I never intended to embark on this with a positive view!!!

[marco]

[Replying to post 27 by marco]



As a footnote to the above there is a reconciliation between those who adore Jesus and those who say Jesus is NOT God. In a way both are correct.


Jesus is the incarnation of divine power and majesty; in him is light, salvation, direction to grace. So in honouring that, one is honouring God without saying a man is a god. Jesus is the incarnate manifestation of God.

Those who say that the man who walked round lake and mountain is not God are correct too; they are the temporary clothes God chose, so one would not worship a coat or hat.

If there's a parish in need of a pastor, Marco is ready on Monday! Good grief what has happened to my cynicism?