Along with Colossians 1:15-16 and Phil. 2:5-7, one of the main passages from the Greek Scriptures to which Arians most often appeal in support of their belief that Christ pre-existed his life on earth is John 1:1-14. Here’s how verses 1-5 read in the CLNT:
“In the beginning was the word, and the word was toward God, and God was the word. This was in the beginning toward God. All came into being through it, and apart from it not even one thing came into being which has come into being. In it was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light is appearing in the darkness, and the darkness grasped it not.”
In the expression translated above as “the word was toward God,” the being to whom the title “God” (ton theon) refers is Yahweh – i.e., the God and Father of Jesus Christ (see John 3:16, 34; 4:24; 6:46; 11:22; 14:1; 17:3). But what is “the word” that John said “was in the beginning toward God?”
According to Arian members of the body of Christ, “the word” was a pre-existent celestial being who was later transformed into a human (i.e., Jesus Christ). However, no one who isn’t already presupposing the Arian view would think that Christ is the exception to the “all” that came into being through the word of God (and apart from which “not even one thing came into being which has come into being”). If one believes the scriptural truth that Christ came into being – and isn’t presupposing the Arian view of when Christ came into being – then one would logically conclude from John 1:3 that Christ isn’t “the word” through which all came into being. Rather, one would (correctly) conclude that Christ is the one who, after coming into being, came to represent “the word” through which all came into being (i.e., when, as we later read in John 1:14, “the word became flesh”).
When the Arian reads John 1:1-3, he understands it as follows (and I’m quoting Stephen J. here):
“Everything else came into being through the Word, not Christ Himself.”
But no one who isn’t already presupposing the Arian view would even be inclined to think (let alone conclude) that, when John wrote what he did in John 1:1-3, he was excepting a certain created being that didn’t come into being through the word “in the beginning.” One has to already be assuming that “the word” is, itself, a created being who came into being before everything else came into being in order to conclude that this created being is the one exception to what John wrote. The Arian interpretation of John 1:1-3 is based entirely on the assumption-based belief that Christ existed as a celestial being before the six days of creation.
Stephen J. has attempted to defend the Arian interpretation of “the word” in John 1:1-3 by appealing to the grammar John used. He claims that, because the second use of “God” in v. 1 lacks the definite article (i.e., it’s anarthrous) and is in the nominative case, it should be translated as “a God” (or “a Subjector”), such that we’re being told that “a Subjector was the word.” However, this particular translation endorsed by Stephen (“a Subjector was the word”) is not only not necessitated by the grammatical construction John used, but it’s arguably not even the most likely meaning of what John wrote.
With regard to Stephen’s point that the second use of “God” in John 1:1 lacks the definite article, it should be noted that, although the most common way of referring to the Father in the Greek Scriptures was by the use of the title “God” with the definite article (“the God”), we also find the title “God” used to refer to the Father without the use of the definite article (see, for example, John 1:6, 12, 13, 18a, 3:2 and 13:3).
But more importantly, according to “Colwell’s Rule,” definite predicate nouns which precede the verb usually lack the article (or to put it another way, anarthrous predicate nouns preceding a verb are often definite, not indefinite).[i] Thus, instead of implying “a [noun]” (indefinite), the grammatical structure that conforms to Coldwell’s Rule frequently emphasizes the character, nature, or identity of the subject (qualitative or definite). This grammatical structure commonly highlights the quality or essence of the subject or a specific identity. Thus, a predicate noun preceding the verb cannot be assumed to be indefinite just because it lacks a definite article.
According to this grammatical principle, if the second occurrence of theos in John 1:1 is definite, then the grammatical structure of the sentence in which it’s found means it would probably lack the article (and it does). This doesn’t mean that lacking the article in this construction makes the noun definite. It just means that, in this particular grammatical construction, we would expect theos to not have the definite article if it were referring to the being previously referred to as “the God” (i.e., the Father). So if John intended a definite “God” (i.e., the God previously referred to in v. 1) and he wanted to emphasize the word “God,” then he would have expressed this idea exactly as he did.
Thus, while Colwell’s Rule does not prove a definite theos, it does support it. Grammatically, it’s possible and cannot be “ruled out.” In fact, Daniel Wallace – who is widely considered a leading expert in New Testament Greek – concedes this point in his Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (see page 268). Wallace argues that, in the Greek Scriptures, “an anarthrous pre-verbal PN (predicate nominative) is normally qualitative, sometimes definite, and only rarely indefinite.”
Since I doubt that Stephen is more of an expert in New Testament Greek than Wallace, I think it’s reasonable to conclude that the most likely understanding of John 1:1 is that the words translated “and God was the word” in the CLNT either means that (1) the word to which John was referring was qualitatively divine, or (2) that “God” refers to the Father. For partly theological reasons, Wallace opts for the former understanding. This is also the view that I defended in my original article on John 1:1-3. After proposing that the term “God” refers to what “the word” is in a qualitative sense (i.e., it’s divine, since it’s the word of the Father himself), I then quoted the New English Translation Bible notes on John 1:1 in support of this understanding.[ii]
However, I think it’s interesting that what Knoch wrote in his commentary on the words “and God was the word” presupposes the second view (i.e., that in the words, “and God was the word,” “God” refers to the Father). Concerning the expression, “and God was the word,” Knoch wrote the following:
It is impossible for the mind to entertain the two thoughts that the Word was toward (or with) God, and the Word was God. Nothing which is toward (or with) an object can actually be that object. The difficulty lies in the difference between English and Greek idiom. “Was” and “is” are usually omitted in Greek, unless they are used in a figurative sense. Thus “This is my body” does not mean that the bread of the communion actually is the Lord’s body but represents it. As the bread stands for the Lord’s body, so the Word took the place of God. The God of the Hebrew Scriptures spoke: it was an oral revelation. He was revealed as Elohim, Jehovah, Adonai, etc., by means of utterances which came to the fathers through the prophets, while His essence was concealed. As at Sinai, His voice was heard, but He was hid.
According to Knoch, the sense in which “the word was God” (which is what “God was the word” means) is that the word represented God. I think this understanding is possible (and from a grammatical standpoint, it’s certainly more likely than the view proposed by Stephen). But the point that needs to be emphasized here is that the grammar used by John simply does not necessitate the view that Stephen is proposing (nor does it make it more likely than other views).
Although Knoch went on to identify “the word” of John 1:1-3 with Christ himself, the remarks by him that I’ve quoted above are completely consistent with the view that John was referring to the spoken/audible communication of God through which he created everything in the “beginning” referred to in Genesis 1. Notice how, according to Knoch, the “word” referred to by John 1:1-3 is an “it,” and is “the revelation of God through sound.” In other words, it’s the spoken communication of God’s thoughts and intention. According to Knoch, this word was “toward” God in the sense that it “pointed the creature in the direction of God.” Knoch went on to imply that this word that was “toward God” represented God by being the spoken, “oral revelation” of God. And Knoch’s example of this God-directed spoken word is “every ‘thus saith the Lord’ in the Hebrew Scriptures.” As Knoch rightly notes, all such declarations of God “point us to God, and reveal some attribute of the divine character.”
Stephen also thinks “the Greek disagrees with [me], again” because “the term ‘it,’ used in John 1:3, is actually autos, a pronoun, in the masculine case. Sounds a lot like an identifiable Being.”
In the version of my articles that was published by BSN, I actually responded to this objection as follows:
Some believe that, since the word logos and its definite article (ho) are in the masculine gender, the pro noun outos should be translated as “he” in v. 2 (rather than “this,” as it’s translated in the CLNT). However, the same definite masculine article (ho) precedes the same masculine noun (logos) in John 6:60 as well, and yet no one believes that the logos being referred to in this verse is a male person. In this verse we read the following:
“Many of His disciples, then, hearing it [autou], said, ‘Hard is this [outos] saying [logos]! Who can hear it [autou]?”
Here is John 1:1-2 and 6:60 in the Greek:
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. Οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν (John 1:1-2).
Πολλοὶ οὖν ἀκούσαντες ἐκ τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ εἶπαν Σκληρός ἐστιν ὁ λόγος οὗτος τίς δύναται αὐτοῦ ἀκούειν (John 6:60).
Thus, it’s not the grammar that justifies the translational decision to render outos as “he” rather than “this” in v. 2. Neither the word outos nor the word autos tell us whether the subject is or isn’t a person. Rather, the translator already has to believe that the logos in view in John 1:1-5 is a person (or is at least being personified by the writer) before they can have any reason to translate outos in v. 2 with the personal pronoun “he.” If one isn’t presupposing that the logos is a person, then there’s no good reason to translate outos as something other than “this” (which, again, is the case in John 6:60 and elsewhere).
So no, “the Greek” doesn’t disagree with me. One must already be assuming that the word of God referred to in John 1:1-3 is a person to think that the pronoun translated “it” in the CLNT should be translated “he.” And even if it were translated “he,” one would still have to be assuming that the word of God is literally a person (and that John wasn’t using personification).
Stephen also thinks that the Arian view is also supported by the fact that, in v. 4, we’re told that “in it [the word] was life.” But this doesn’t mean “the word” was a living being distinct from the Father. Consider, for example, Knoch’s explanation of the words “in [the word] was life”:
“The Word of God is presented as the channel of life in both the physical (Gen.1:11, 20, 24, 27) and spiritual spheres (Ps.119:25); as well as a light in the prevailing darkness (Ps.119:105).”
In other words, it was through God’s word – the “channel of life” – that life (which inherently belongs to, and originates in, God) was communicated to that which God created. Consider the first three verses from Genesis referenced by Knoch:
And saying is the Elohim, “Verdant shall become the land with verdure; with herbage seeding seed for its from-kind and for its likeness. And with the fruit tree whose seed is in it yielding fruit for its from-kind on the land.” And coming is it to be so.
And saying is the Elohim, “Roam shall the water with the roaming, living soul, and the flyer shall fly over the earth on the face of the atmosphere of the heavens.” And coming is it to be so.
And saying is the Elohim, “Bring forth shall the earth the living soul for its from-kind, beast and moving animal and land life for its from-kind.” And coming is it to be so.
If we include Gen. 1:26 with verse 27, each of the verses referenced by Knoch begins with the words, “And saying is the Elohim…” In other words, the “word” that was “the channel of life” in the beginning was the word that God spoke.
Moreover, we know that God’s word is inseparable from his spirit. God’s spoken word is simply one way in which his spirit is manifested. And since life is inherent in (and an essential quality of) God’s spirit, it follows that life is in God’s word as well. In accord with this fact, Christ – who not only spoke the declarations of God (John 3:34; 12:49-50) but is the human representation and embodiment of God’s word (John 1:14) – declared that the words he spoke were “spirit and life” (John 6:63; cf. 68). If Christ could refer to his words as “spirit and life,” how much more could it be said that life was “in” the word by which God spoke all living souls into existence in the beginning?
The Arian interpretation of what John had in mind when he wrote what he did in the prologue of his account is contrary to the fact that God’s word is not literally a person (although it is sometimes personified). Rather, “the word” of John 1:1-3 is what God spoke when he created the world. Consider the meaning of the word translated “word” in these verses (i.e., logos). In the Greek-English Keyword Concordance for the CLNT, the word logos is defined as follows:
“the complete expression of a thought, not a grammatical but a logical word, referring to a whole account, a saying, a suit at law or a legal case.”
Keeping in mind this definition of logos, let’s now consider the following question: through whose word did all come into being in the beginning? Answer: the word through which the world came into being in the beginning is the spoken word of the one whose voice was heard when Christ was baptized and transfigured. But did God speak when all came into being in the beginning? Yes.
We know from Genesis 1 and elsewhere that, when God created the heavens and the earth, it was through his spoken word that everything came into being. The words, “And God said” (or “And saying is the Elohim”) occur ten times in the first chapter of Genesis alone. What’s being revealed by the use of these words is that everything God created in the beginning was spoken into existence by him. That is, everything that we’re told came into being did so when God declared that it come to be. God didn’t ask or tell anyone else to create the world. He did it himself simply by declaring that it exist. Thus, God alone was the personal cause of which creation was the effect, and it was by means of (or through) his spoken word that this creative work was accomplished.
We can therefore conclude that, when John wrote what he did concerning the “word” in the opening verses of his Gospel Account, he had in mind the spoken word or declaration by which God created the world.
In accord with this understanding of what John had in mind when he referred to “the word” in John 1:1-3 are the following remarks by A.E. Knoch on John 1:1 (as found on page 140 of his Concordant Commentary on the New Testament):
The Logos, or Saying, or Expression, or Word, brings before us the revelation of God through sound, which appeals to the ears of His creatures. It is inferior to and in contrast with the revelation in which Christ is presented to sight, as the Image of God. Paul was saved by a sight of His transcendent glory. John was called by His word. Sound is slow and confined to the earth. Sight is swift and searches the heavens. This suggests the limited sphere of John's ministry.
Concerning John’s use of the expression “the word was toward God,” Knoch went on to write the following:
“Toward” indicates that the revealed Word pointed the creature in the direction of God. Take every “thus saith the Lord” in the Hebrew Scriptures and they all point us to God, and reveal some attribute of the divine character.
The only point I would add to these remarks is that the preposition that’s translated above as “toward” (pros) can also mean “with.” For some examples in which this same word is translated “with” in the CLNT (and would make no sense if it was translated “toward”), see Mark 6:3, Matt 13:56, Mark 9:19, Gal 1:18. According to either understanding, God’s word is being personified here. Similar examples in which the word of God is personified in Scripture are as follows:
Psalm 107:20
“He sent out his word and healed them, and delivered them from their destruction.”
Psalm 147:15, 18-19
“He sends out his command to the earth; his word runs swiftly...He sends out his word, and melts them; he makes his wind blow and the waters flow...He declares his word to Jacob, his statutes and rules to Israel.”
Isaiah 55:10-11
“For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven and do not return there but water the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it.”
Although personified in these (and other) passages, the word of God is not literally a person. By referring to God’s word as being “with” God, John was expressing the fact that God’s word is intimately associated with God. It is a means by which God reveals himself and makes known and accomplishes his purpose. As Knoch noted, every declaration of God points us to God and reveals some attribute of the divine character. It is “the revelation of God through sound.”
In accord with this point are the words of Psalm 33:6-9:
By the word of Yahweh the heavens were made, and by the breath of his mouth all their host. He gathers the waters of the sea as a heap; he puts the deeps in storehouses. Let all the earth fear Yahweh; let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him! For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood firm.
Similarly, in 2 Peter 3:5, 7 we read the following:
“By the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water…by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire…”
From these verses it’s clear that the world was made “by the word of God” (i.e., by the spoken word of Yahweh). That is, God created everything referred to in Genesis 1 by declaring that it come into being. These verses are teaching the same truth found in John 1:1-3. Everything that was created “in the beginning” was created through the word that God spoke when he created everything. God spoke, and it came into being.
In fact, when commenting on Psalm 33:6, 9 (in a response to what I wrote in defense of my view), Martin Zender wrote the following:
“Yahweh gives the word and breathes—and the world is created through His appointed channel (1 Corinthians 8:6) and through His appointed Image (2 Corinthians 4:4), and through the personified Word (John 1:3).”
Notice how Martin makes it clear that he believes the “word” referred to in Psalm 33:6 was, in fact, Yahweh’s (spoken) word. Martin also correctly concludes that Christ couldn’t have been this word of Yahweh. Thus, in order to get John 1:1-3 to support his position, he has to believe that John wasn’t referring to the word that God actually spoke in the beginning, and through which he created the world. However, Martin doesn’t provide any proof for his assertion that Christ was the word to which John was referring in these three verses. He simply asserts (or rather implies) that Christ was “the personified Word” referred to in John 1:3. But that’s not what John wrote (in fact, it doesn’t even make sense to say that “the personified Word” of John 1:3 was an actual person; if the word of God was being personified by John in John 1:1-3, then it wasn’t an actual person).
That the “word” of which we read in Psalm 33:6 is what God spoke is the most natural and common-sense reading. Not even Martin attempted to identify a pre-existent Christ with this word of Yahweh. Instead, Martin has to interpret this verse as saying that, after God “gave the word,” the world was then created through the pre-existent Christ. In other words, rather than understanding the way in which God created world in the simple, straightforward way that is revealed in Psalm 33 (i.e., God speaks and the world is created), he has to interpret the verse as follows:
1. Yahweh “gives the word” and declares that the world be created.
2. The pre-existent Christ hears and obediently responds to Yahweh’s spoken command by willing that the world come into existence.
3. The world is created.
According to his scenario, the world was created as a result of a pre-existent celestial being that Arians believe was the “word of God” referred to in John 1:1-3 willing (but not speaking) the world into existence in response to the actual “word of God” that was God’s spoken word.
If the world was created in the way that MZ thinks it was created, then – according to the above scenario – the only “word of God” that was actually involved in the creation of the world was God’s spoken word (i.e., when “Yahweh gives the word”). Or, if MZ thinks that, after God “gave the word,” Christ then declared that the world come into existence, then we’d have the following scenario:
1. Yahweh “gives the word” and declares that the world be created.
2. The pre-existent Christ hears and obediently responds to Yahweh’s spoken command by declaring that the world come into existence.
3. The world is created.
According to his scenario, the world was created as a result of a pre-existent celestial being that Arians believe was the “word of God” referred to in John 1:1-3 speaking the world into existence in response to the literal “word of God” that was God’s spoken word.
Regardless of which scenario the Arian thinks reflects how God created the world through a pre-existent Christ, both scenarios are clearly an example of reading into the text what’s not there because one’s doctrine requires that one read into the text what’s not there. The fact is that the world was either made by the spoken word of Yahweh, or it wasn’t. One cannot believe that the world was made by the spoken word of Yahweh and also believe that the world was made by a created being who was carrying out a spoken command from God to create.
With these points in mind, let’s now compare Psalm 33:6, 9, John 1:3 and 2 Peter 3:5:
Psalm 33:6, 9
“By the word of Yahweh the heavens were made, and by the breath of his mouth all their host...For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood firm…”
John 1:3
“All came into being through [the word], and apart from it not even one thing came into being which has come into being.”
2 Peter 3:5
“By the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water…”
Scripture interprets Scripture. And in light of this fact, it should be clear (and, I think, will be clear to those reading these verses with the Arian bias) that John and Peter had in mind the same divine word of which we read in Psalm 33:6. In confirmation of this fact, we know that, in the ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (the Septuagint) – a translation with which John and Peter would’ve been very familiar – the Greek word used to translate the Hebrew word for “word” in Psalm 33:6 is logos. It is, in other words, the same word used by John and Peter in the above verses. Literally, God’s word is what we’re told God spoke when he created all things “in the beginning” – i.e., it’s what we’re told “God said” in Genesis 1 (for example, “Become light!”). But of course, Christ is not what God spoke when he created all in the beginning. And we have no reason to think that anyone other than God himself spoke the world-creating words we find recorded in Genesis 1 and elsewhere.
In one of his responses to me, Stephen J. argued that the use of the word translated “enjoined” or “commanded” in Psalm 33:8-9 implies that, instead of creating the world by means of his spoken word, Yahweh “enjoined” or “commanded” someone else to create the world. Evidently, Stephen later conceded that this was not a valid point. However, because he’s probably not the first (and likely won’t be the last) Arian to think that the word “enjoined”/“commanded” in Psalm 33:8-9 supports the Arian view, I think it would be worth reviewing the evidence against such an interpretation. In these verses we read the following:
By the word of Yahweh the heavens were made, and by the breath of his mouth all their host. He gathers the waters of the sea as a heap; he puts the deeps in storehouses. Let all the earth fear Yahweh; let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him! For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood firm.
The Arian interpretation of these verses would mean that the creation of the world was performed directly by someone other than God, and that it was an act of obedience to God’s spoken word/command (presumably performed by willing – and not by declaring – that the world exist, since there’s no indication that anyone other than Yahweh himself actually spoke at the time of creation). However, this understanding is contradicted by the fact that the world was made “by the word of Yahweh,” and that God created everything referred to in Genesis 1 by declaring that it be (with no mention of anyone else doing the creative work that God accomplished by his word).
The fact is that the use of the word translated “enjoined” or “commanded” in Psalm 33:9 is perfectly consistent with the understanding that God alone created the world by declaring that it come to be. For that which God is said to have “commanded” in Psalm 33:9 (and which, in response to his command, “stood firm”) is simply a personification of what was created by God.
We find this same figure of speech (i.e., personification) – as well as the same Hebrew verb translated “commanded” in Psalm 33:9 (tsavah) – used in Job 38:8-12 as well. Here’s how these verses read in the ESV:
Or who shut in the sea with doors when it burst out from the womb, when I made clouds its garment and thick darkness its swaddling band, and prescribed limits for it and set bars and doors,
and said, ‘Thus far shall you come, and no farther, and here shall your proud waves be stayed’?Have you commanded the morning since your days began, and caused the dawn to know its place…?
Just like the Psalms, the book of Job is highly poetic and abounds with figures of speech (including personification). Notice how God speaks to the sea as if it were a living, intelligent being capable of understanding him. God then implies that he (and not Job or any other man) “commanded the morning.” Obviously, the morning is not literally capable of obeying commands. It’s being personified.
Consider also Job 37:11-12:
Indeed, He encumbers the thick cloud with soaking moisture; He scatters His lightning cloud, and He directs them round about, turning according to His strategies, that their deeds be all that He instructs them on the face of the earth's habitation.
The verb translated “instructs” here is the same word used in Ps. 33:9 (tsavah). And what is it that God is said to be instructing (or “commanding”)? Answer: the clouds.
With this in mind, let’s again consider Psalm 33:9:
By the word of Yahweh the heavens were made, and by the breath of his mouth all their host. He gathers the waters of the sea as a heap; he puts the deeps in storehouses. Let all the earth fear Yahweh; let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him! For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood firm.
Just as the morning is being personified in Job 38:12, so in Ps. 33:9, all that God spoke into existence is being personified. That which is said to have “stood firm” is that which God “commanded.” In other words, creation is being depicted as standing firm in response to the command of Yahweh.
Similar figurative imagery can be found in Isaiah 48:13:
“Indeed, My hand founded the earth, and My right handbreadth measured the heavens. I am calling to them, and they are standing together.”
That to which Yahweh is “calling” (and in response to which they are “standing together”) are the earth and the heavens. Obviously, neither the heavens nor the earth can hear and respond to Yahweh’s call (just as the earth cannot hear and respond to his command). They’re being personified.
Consider also Psalm 78:23-24:
“Yet He enjoined the skies above, and He opened the double doors of the heavens. He rained on them manna to eat, and He gave them grain of the heavens.”
The verb translated “enjoined” in v. 23 is, once again, the same word used in Psalm 33:9 (tsavah). Only here, it’s the “skies above” that are being “enjoined” (or “commanded”) rather than the earth. Another good example from the Psalms in which impersonal things are being personified (and are said to have been “commanded”) is Psalm 148:4-12:
Praise him, heavens of heavens, and the waters that are above the heavens! Let them praise the name of Yahweh, for he commanded and they were created. He caused them to stand forever and ever; he gave a statute and it will never pass away.
Just as the “heavens of heavens” and the “waters that are above the heavens” are being personified in v. 4 (when they’re told to “praise the name of Yahweh”), so they’re being personified again in v. 5 (where they’re commanded to come into being).
As should be evident from these examples, the use of the verb tsavah in Psalm 33:9 in no way implies that God was commanding a created being to do anything. Instead, this verse is simply communicating a fact that is expressed elsewhere in less figurative language: Yahweh himself directly created the heavens and the earth by speaking them into existence. Or, to put it another way, it was “by the word of Yahweh” that the heavens and the earth were made. That which originally had no existence was brought into existence by God by his declaring that it come into being (as we read throughout the opening chapter of Genesis).
We go on to read the following in John 1:6-13:
There came to be a man, commissioned by God. His name was John. This one came for a testimony, that he should be testifying concerning the light, that all should be believing through it. Not he was the light, but he came that he should be testifying concerning the light. It was the true light -- which is enlightening every man -- coming into the world. In the world He was, and the world came into being through Him, and the world knew Him not. To His own He came, and those who are His own accepted Him not. Yet whoever obtained Him, to them He gives the right to become children of God, to those who are believing in His name, who were begotten, not of bloods, neither of the will of the flesh, neither of the will of a man, but of God.
As I’ve argued in more depth elsewhere (https://studyshelf.com/BSN/Issues/bsn714.pdf), the one referred to as “He” in these verses is God, the Father. Jesus, the Son of God, does not directly come into view until v. 14 (where we read that “the Word became flesh and tabernacles among us…”).
Stephen objects that “’representation’ is not the same thing as the Father literally entering the world.” But I never said that the Father “literally entered the world.” The Father was “in the world” in the sense that his representative – Christ – was in the world. What is true of the representative can be said of the one represented. Does Stephen think that the Father (i.e., Yahweh God) was literally in the Garden of Eden, and “walking in the garden in the windy part of the day” (Gen. 3:8-9), or that the Father was literally standing “among the oaks of Mamre,” and appeared to Abraham from this location (Gen. 18:1)? No, he doesn’t. So Stephen’s objection that John 1:10 can’t refer to the Father because the Father wasn’t “literally” in the world is contrary to what he himself believes concerning verses like Gen. 3:8-9 and 18:1. Stephen is simply being inconsistent here.
Since Christ “entered the world” and was “in the world” as the Father’s ultimate representative, the Father himself (i.e., Yahweh God) can be said to have entered the world and to have been in the world (in the same way that he can be said to have walked in the garden of Eden, or stood among the oaks of Mamre). And not only this, but – as I noted in my original article – Christ even spoke of the Father as being/remaining in Him and as working in and through Him during His ministry on Earth (John 10:32, 37-38; 14:9-11; 16:32). So there’s no good reason why John 1:10 can’t be understood as a reference to the Father.
Stephen’s next objection is even worse. According to Stephen, my interpretation “implies that it is Christ that brings the Father into the world, which not only leans back into free will, but is inconsistent with the initial claim that this verse is still referencing the Father.” This is an absurd objection. Does Stephen think that the appointed representative of the Father who was walking in the garden of Eden and who appeared to Abraham among the oaks of Mamre brought the Father into the world by his own “free will,” and was “above God?” No. Stephen would agree with me that the one representing the Father on these occasions was only present in these locations and doing what we’re told he did because it was the Father’s will that he be there and do what he did. Stephen’s objection makes no sense.
Regarding my reference to 2 Cor. 5:19, Stephen writes that this verse “displays that God, through Christ, conciliates the world to Himself,” and then added that this is “a very difficult task to accomplish if Christ isn’t even around for the majority of the wicked eons.”
Christ didn’t have to exist “for the majority of the wicked eons” in order to be the one through whom God conciliates the world to himself.
In response to my remarks on John 1:11, Stephen writes that “we read time and time again in the Old Testament that Israel belongs to and awaits their Messiah…”
While there are undoubtedly verses in the OT in which the Messiah’s coming is referred to as an anticipated event (and in which it’s evident that the Messiah will reign over Israel and that the people of Israel will be his people), it’s just as clear – and there are far more verses that support the fact – that the people of Israel are Yahweh’s people, and have been Yahweh’s people ever since the time that he began to form the nation. Can Stephen refute this fact? No.
As I noted in my original article, Israel is a nation that originated and belongs to God in a way that cannot be said of any other nation on earth (Exodus 19:5; Deuteronomy 7:6-8; 14:2; 2 Samuel 7:23-24; 1 Chronicles 17:20-21; Romans 11:1-2; etc.). Israel is the only nation of which God is figuratively both the “Father” (Malachi 2:10) as well as the “Husband” (Jeremiah 31:32; Isaiah 54:5; 62:4-5; Ezekiel 16:32-34; Hosea 2:7). Despite the unique sense in which Israel could be considered God’s “own,” the unbelieving Israelites to whom Christ spoke did not know God (John 8:19; 16:3), and Christ even rebuked them for being “children of the Adversary” rather than being children of God (John 8:38-44). So what, exactly, is Stephen’s objection to the view that the words “to His own He came, and those who are His own accepted Him not” refer to the Father? Stephen can’t deny that the people of Israel are (and could be referred to as) the Father’s “own.” And he can’t deny that what’s said of the Father’s representative can be said of the Father (such as “to His own He came”). So Stephen has no real argument here.
Regarding the words of v. 12 (“Yet whoever obtained Him, to them He gives the right to become children of God”), we know there were a few within Israel who, at the time John wrote, had “obtained” the Father. How did they obtain Him? Answer: by receiving Christ (his visible representative on the earth). As Christ himself declared, “Whoever is taking anyone I shall be sending, is taking Me; yet he who is taking Me is taking Him Who sends Me” (John 13:20; cf. Matthew 10:40; John 12:44). Those who obtained the Father by believing in his name (having believed in Christ, who represented him) were given the right to become children of God. For it is God himself who ultimately gives people the right to become his children.
In response to what I wrote about God’s own people not accepting him, Stephen replied, “So what?? What does this have to do with the immediate argument? How does this conclusively write Christ’s glory out of John 1:10-13?”
1. It has to do with the immediate argument because John wrote that “those who are His own accepted Him not,” and I’m demonstrating that the pronouns “His” and “Him” can validly be understood as referring to the Father (i.e., the one whom Christ visibly represented).
2. It doesn’t “write Christ’s glory out of John 1:10-13,” because Christ is the one through whom the Father was in the world, seen by Israel, and “obtained” by those among God’s covenant people who obtained him.
Stephen went on to state, “This is a terrestrial introduction that we’re moving into, in relation to the Son of God, because the entire book that follows is directly related to His ministry!!”
I don’t know how this point is supposed to support Stephen interpretation of John 1:10-13, or undermine anything I’ve written in support of the view that the personal pronouns in these verses refer to the Father (who was represented by his Son).
Stephen went on to claim that John 1:10-13 “must be heavily strained in order to read” as I think it should be read. But that’s just Stephen’s opinion. There’s nothing “strained” about it at all. The only reason Stephen holds to this opinion is that he’s already convinced that Christ pre-existed his life on earth, and that the pronouns are referring to Christ.
Stephen went on to object that understanding the personal pronouns as referring to the Father makes the passage “a big ol’ mess when you consider Rom. 11:36, stating that all is out of Him.” As I pointed out in the original article, there is nothing problematic about understanding the words “and the world came into being through Him” as referring to the Father. It’s just as grammatically and theologically valid to say that the world came into being “through” God as it is to say that the world is “out of” God. Nevertheless, Stephen goes on to ask, “How was [God] in the world, then in the next sentence go into the world, when the world is out of Him?”
We’ve already established the fact that God – the one out of whom/through whom the world came into being – was “in the world” in the sense that his appointed, visible representative (Christ) was in the world (just as Yahweh Elohim could be referred to as having been in the garden of Eden or among the oaks of Mamre because his representative was in these locations). So there’s no reason why the pronouns “He” and “Him” in John 1:10 can’t be referring to the Father.
Stephen went on to write, “Israel belongs to God, which is why He’s sending a Messiah at all.”
Correct.
“It’s why they and they alone are promised a thousand-year kingdom, and why they receive such terrestrial glories that go along with it.”
Correct.
“But that’s not covered in this passage! It’s covered in succeeding passages, as well as the previous accounts!”
These assertions merely express Stephen’s opinion. But Stephen attempts to back up his opinion as follows:
Why on earth would John be relaying this information, either to Israel or the reader, in relation to God, like this, when the Old Testament has already clarified Israel’s allotment, at least twice per book, as well as God’s authority and power in relation to them? If this were all John were saying, his account would be an unnecessary addition to the New Testament.
According to the understanding of verses 10-13 that I’ve been defending against Stephen’s underwhelming (and, in some cases, perplexing) objections, John wasn’t clarifying Israel’s allotment or God’s authority and power in relation to them. Rather, John was simply emphasizing the theological nature and goal of Jesus’ ministry to Israel, and putting the focus on the One whom Jesus represented, and on whose behalf Jesus spoke and acted, during his earthly ministry. Understanding verses 10-13 as a reference to the Father in no way makes this section of John’s prologue superfluous. The exact opposite is the case. When correctly understood as emphasizing the One whom Christ represented, these verses are essential to understanding everything that John went on to write concerning the purpose and goal of Jesus’ ministry to Israel.
We go on to read the following in John 1:14:
And the Word became flesh and tabernacles among us, and we gaze at His glory, a glory as of an only-begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.
The Arian is assuming that the “the word” refers to a pre-existent, created celestial being. Only if that’s the case can the words “the word became flesh” in John 1:14 refer to a pre-existent celestial being becoming “flesh.” But that’s not said in the text. The Arian is importing this view into the text.
One has to disregard the literal meaning of the word translated “word” in John 1:1-3 and assume that John was referring to a pre-existent celestial being in order to think that the words “And the Word became flesh” refer to a pre-existent celestial being becoming human. Otherwise, one would reasonably conclude that Christ isn’t “the word” through which all came into being, but rather is the being composed of the “flesh” that we’re told the word “became.” Christ is the human manifestation of God’s word, representing that which – like God’s wisdom (Proverbs 1, 8, 9) – had previously only been personified (e.g., in Psalm 107:20; 145:15, 18-19; Isaiah 55:10-11). And it’s when this state of affairs became true – i.e., when God’s word came to be manifested in the flesh of God’s Son (cf. 1 Tim. 3:16) – that “the word became flesh.”
What we read in 1 John 1:1-3 supports this understanding of what it means for God’s word to have become flesh. In these verses we read the following:
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, and which we gaze and our hands handle, is concerned with the word of life. And the life was manifested, and we have seen and our testifying and reporting to you the life eonian which was toward the Father and was manifested to us.
In this passage, “that which was from the beginning” and “which was toward the Father” (and which is “concerned with the word of life”) is “the life eonian.” For it is this that John says was “manifested” and “seen,” and “which was toward the Father and was manifested to us.” “The life eonian” is said to have been “from the beginning” because it was promised by God “from the beginning.” As John went on to write, “And this is the promise which He promises us: the life eonian” (1 John 2:25). But when was the life eonian promised by God?
Answer: Insofar as the names of John and all who comprise “the Israel of God” were “written on the scroll of life from the disruption of the world” (Rev. 17:8), we can conclude that their life eonian were promised by God “from the disruption of the world.” And since “the beginning” includes “the disruption of the world” (Gen. 1:1-31; cf. 2:1-4), it follows that the life eonian God promised to them was promised “from the beginning.” Similarly, we read in Titus 1:2-3 that God promised life eonian to those in the body of Christ “before times eonian, yet manifests His word in its own eras by heralding” (notice, especially, how Paul identifies God’s promise of life eonian to believers with “[God’s] word,” which God later “manifests” through the heralding of Paul).
But how was the life eonian “manifested” to John and the other disciples? How did John and others hear and see and handle “the life eonian” that was “from the beginning” and “toward the Father”? Answer: Just like “the word of life” with which it’s “concerned,” the eonian life was manifested by Christ. That is, John was able to “see” (as well as hear and handle) the “life eonian” that was “from the beginning” and “toward the Father” because it – the life eonian – was manifested by a certain human being. And just as the life eonian – which was promised by God in his word – came to be manifested by a human (Christ), so we’re told that God’s word “became flesh” – i.e., it came to be manifested in the flesh of a certain human (i.e., Christ).
In accord with this understanding of how God’s word “became flesh,” Paul wrote in 1 Timothy 3:16 that “the secret of devoutness” (which, contextually, can be understood as a reference to “the truth” of which the ecclesia of the living God is “the pillar and base”) “was manifested in flesh.” In whose flesh was it manifested? Answer: It was manifested in the flesh of Christ (who, in John 14:6, declared himself to be “the truth”). So the truth of God was manifested in the flesh of Christ (such that the truth can be said to have “become flesh”). We also know that God’s word is truth (John 17:17). Thus, to say that God’s truth was manifested in the flesh of Christ is to say that God’s word was manifested in the flesh of Christ (and that the word therefore “became flesh”).
The Arian will no doubt object that, according to this understanding, God’s word didn’t literally become flesh. But the fact is that the Arian interpretation is no more literal than the non-Arian understanding. Throughout John’s account, the word “flesh” (sarx) is used literally to refer to the tissues of the human body that cover the bones and organs (and which includes the visible, outer layer of the body that we refer to as the skin). The only exception to this usage is found in John 17:2. But there, the word is being used as part of a Hebrew idiom (i.e., “all flesh”). In other words, the only time that the word “flesh” is being used figuratively in John’s account is when it’s part of a known Hebrew idiom. In every other occurrence, it’s being used literally. So there’s no good reason to think it’s not being used literally in John 1:14. So does the Arian believe that it’s literally true that a celestial spirit-being “became flesh”? If so, did the entirety of this celestial spirit-being “become flesh,” or just part of him (and if only part of him “became flesh,” how much of him remained spirit)?
The fact is that, according to the Arian interpretation of John 1:14, it would be more accurate and literal to say that no part of a pre-existent celestial being actually “became flesh.” Instead, the pre-existent celestial being that Arians equate with “the word” simply received a fleshly body (or, as Christians often put it, this being was “incarnated”). In other words, according to the Arian interpretation, flesh isn’t what the word literally became; rather, it’s what the word was united with, or joined to.
Now, it must be emphasized Christ is not literally God’s word. Even when John referred to Christ as “the Word of God” in Rev. 19:13, it’s not literally true that Christ is God’s word. When understood literally, the expression “the word of God” does not refer to a person (whether celestial or human); rather, it refers to what God has spoken/declared (and which, in many cases, has been written down by an inspired writer); see, for example, Mark 7:13 (cf. Matt. 4:4); Luke 3:2; 5:1; 8:21; John 10:35; Acts 4:31; Acts 6:2, Acts 6:7; Acts 11:1; Acts 12:24; 13:5, 7; 1 Cor. 14:36; 2 Cor. 2:17; 4:2; Col. 1:25; 1 Thess. 2:13; 2 Tim. 2:9; 1 John 2:14; Rev. 1:2, 9; 6:9; 20:4.
It should be noted that Stephen has claimed that, when we read of Jewish believers who were “executed because of the testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God,” (Rev. 6:9, 20:4), “Jesus” refers to “an earthly Man” and “the word of God” refers to “the celestial Subjector.” There are at least two main reasons for why this understanding is mistaken.
First, the martyrdom of the saints that’s in view in these verses is, of course, future. And Jesus hasn’t been “an earthly Man” since his death and resurrection. When Jesus was roused, he was roused as a celestial man (indeed, the event of which we read in Rev. 19 will involve Jesus returning to earth after having ascended to heaven nearly 2,000 years prior). So when John referred to “the testimony of Jesus,” he wasn’t referring to the testimony of “an earthly Man.” No, John was referring to the testimony of a man who had previously ascended to heaven to sit at God’s right hand. He was referring to the testimony of a man who, in an earlier vision, had appeared to him in a glorious form that he never had on earth (Rev. 1:12-16), and a man who John later saw symbolically depicted in the heavenly throne room (Rev. 5:1-7). Thus, for Stephen to say that John was trying to distinguish between “an earthly Man” and a celestial being when he referred to Jewish believers being “executed because of the testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God” is not in accord with what John himself understood to be true of Jesus at the time he wrote.
Second, for Stephen to understand “the word of God” in Rev. 6:9 or 20:4 as referring to Christ as a “celestial Subjector” is contrary to the literal-if-possible principle of interpretation that Stephen himself believes the student of Scripture ought to use when trying to understand any word or statement in Scripture (in fact, when objecting to my understanding of a certain word used by Paul in Colossians 1, Stephen pointed out that “the simple grammatical rule is, ‘literal, if possible’”). So Stephen is simply not being consistent here. It is Stephen’s doctrinal bias – and not a consistently-applied principle of interpretation – that is guiding his interpretation of the expression “the word of God” in Rev. 6:9 and 20:5.
The first time we find the expressions “the word of God” and “the testimony of Jesus” used together is in Revelation is 1:1-2:
“The Unveiling of Jesus Christ, which God gives to Him, to show to His slaves what must occur swiftly; and He signifies it, dispatching through His messenger to His slave John, who testifies to the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ, whatever he perceived.”
And As E.W. Bullinger notes in his commentary, the expression “the word of God” here refers to the “word which comes from God” – i.e., a prophetic message, or direct prophetic communication from God (see, for example, 1 Sam. 9:27). And in his comments on Rev. 1:9, Bullinger went on to state that it was “on account of (i.e., to receive) ‘the word of God,’ i.e., the prophetic message,” that John “came to be in the island called Patmos.” While “the word of God” can be personified, it is not literally a living, intelligent being/person (whether a celestial being or a human being). When Jesus is referred to as “the Word of God” in Rev. 19:14 it’s because he represents God’s literal word.
Both the Arian and the non-Arian are in agreement that Jesus can, at the present time (and in the future), be referred to as “the Word of God.” But when we read that Christ is called “the Word of God,” we’re reading about a certain human being who died and was roused from among the dead (and not a pre-existent celestial being). It is a certain human being – and not a preexistent celestial being – who is the personal manifestation of God’s word. And it’s when this state of affairs became true that “the word [i.e., the word of God] became flesh” – i.e., the word of God came to be manifested by a flesh-composed human being.
When the Arian objects that John 1:14 can’t mean that the word of God came to be manifested by a human (and that it must instead mean that a pre-existent celestial being received a human body), he’s presupposing that the word “word” in John 1:1-3 doesn’t mean what it literally means. But the same point I made concerning Stephen’s understanding of the expression “the word of God” in Rev. 20:4 can be made here as well: To understand the word “word” in John 1:1-3 and 14 as meaning something other than what this word literally means is contrary to the literal-if-possible principle of interpretation that every student of Scripture ought to use when trying to understand any word or statement in Scripture (as Stephen himself states, “the simple grammatical rule is, ‘literal, if possible’”). It is the Arian’s own doctrinal bias – and not a consistently-applied principle of interpretation – that is governing his interpretation of the word “word” in both John 1:1-3 and John 1:14. When we understand the word “word” literally, it necessarily follows that this word did not literally “become flesh.” It simply came to be manifested by a fleshly being (i.e., Jesus).
Part eleven: That Happy Expectation: An Antidote to Arianism: Part eleven
[i] E. C. Colwell, A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament, p. 20
When a predicate noun that is anarthrous precedes the copula in NT Greek, the (definite) article may have been omitted. The clearest example of this rule can be seen in two semantically identical sentences in John 8:12 and 9:5:
Ἐγώ εἰµι τὸ φῶς τοῦ κόσµου – φῶς εἰµι τοῦ κόσµου
In both cases, Jesus says “I am the light of the world,” but in the second quotation the predicate noun precedes the copula and the article is omitted. In reference to the Father as Theos in the nominative case, John always expresses the article when it functions as subject. In 8:54, the only instance in which it is a predicate noun, it precedes the copula and is anarthrous, just as in 1:1c:
ὁ πατήρ…, ὃν ὑµεῖς λέγετε ὅτι θεὸς ἡµῶν ἐστιν
The Father…whom you say is the God of ours.
[ii] “…the anarthrous predicate noun may have more of a qualitative nuance when placed ahead of the verb. A definite meaning for the term is reflected in the traditional rendering “the word was God.” From a technical standpoint, though, it is preferable to see a qualitative aspect to anarthrous θεός in John 1:1c (ExSyn 266-69). Translations like the NEB, REB, and Moffatt are helpful in capturing the sense in John 1:1c, that the Word was fully deity in essence (just as much God as God the Father). However, in contemporary English “the Word was divine” (Moffatt) does not quite catch the meaning since “divine” as a descriptive term is not used in contemporary English exclusively of God. The translation “what God was the Word was” is perhaps the most nuanced rendering, conveying that everything God was in essence, the Word was too.”
No comments:
Post a Comment