-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Re: LET " US " MAKE MAN<<< IN OUR IMAGE AfTER OUR LIKENESS, GEN 1:26...
Proverbs personification of wisdom is used sometimes in attempt to argue that the Word of John 1 is nothing more that the wisdom of God. This theory will not hold up for a number of reasons, one of which is that linguistically, the wisdom in Proverbs 8 is in the feminine spelling and the Word of John 1 is in the masculine. No, they are not the same.
Proverbs personification of wisdom is used sometimes in attempt to argue that the Word of John 1 is nothing more that the wisdom of God. This theory will not hold up for a number of reasons, one of which is that linguistically, the wisdom in Proverbs 8 is in the feminine spelling and the Word of John 1 is in the masculine. No, they are not the same.
C
Re: LET " US " MAKE MAN<<< IN OUR IMAGE AfTER OUR LIKENESS, GEN 1:26...
So
a. What WORD was John 1 referring to?
b. Was the Wisdom merely a characteristic in Proverbs 8?
Does feminine or masculine matter when Proverbs 8 and John 1 were written in different languages?
I'm just asking.
It seems the French must have a hard time translating the Bible in their language
So
a. What WORD was John 1 referring to?
b. Was the Wisdom merely a characteristic in Proverbs 8?
Does feminine or masculine matter when Proverbs 8 and John 1 were written in different languages?
I'm just asking.
It seems the French must have a hard time translating the Bible in their language
N
Re: LET " US " MAKE MAN<<< IN OUR IMAGE AfTER OUR LIKENESS, GEN 1:26...
First Of ALL I Did Not Say Jesus Is Not God, But If You Like To Know, The Scriptures Are Saying That Jesus Is NOT GOD THE FATHER, And Farther More The Scriptures Are Saying That Jesus Is The Image Of GOD,The First BORN Of ALL Creation. Col 1:15 , An Image Never Is The Original. As For Your Confusion Of Rev 22:13, Try To Explain ,Who Say So That He Is The
Alpha And Omega, The Beginning And The Ending,Rev 1:8 The ALMIGHTY/? Which Is , WAS, And Is To Come, In V,4
Answer That Very Carefuly Before You Call Any Heretic,. God Bless...
First Of ALL I Did Not Say Jesus Is Not God, But If You Like To Know, The Scriptures Are Saying That Jesus Is NOT GOD THE FATHER, And Farther More The Scriptures Are Saying That Jesus Is The Image Of GOD,The First BORN Of ALL Creation. Col 1:15 , An Image Never Is The Original. As For Your Confusion Of Rev 22:13, Try To Explain ,Who Say So That He Is The
Alpha And Omega, The Beginning And The Ending,Rev 1:8 The ALMIGHTY/? Which Is , WAS, And Is To Come, In V,4
Answer That Very Carefuly Before You Call Any Heretic,. God Bless...
Re: LET " US " MAKE MAN<<< IN OUR IMAGE AfTER OUR LIKENESS, GEN 1:26...
Here is my part of my teaching outline in John 1. Perhaps this will help answer your question.
Chapter One
I. The Theology of John Chapter One
In John’s prologue, it seems that the Holy Spirit is more interested in dealing with the function of the Second Position than with the question of his identity. Although his identity is well established in the first two verses, it does not seem to be the primary focus. When we consider the language of this text, it is imperative that we do not allow history to define terms for us. It is not important that we understand how Plato, Philo or any other historian or philosopher of antiquity used the word Logos so I will not be wasting anyone’s time by offering their perspectives of the term Logos nor should we concern ourselves with how this word was used in the culture of the time in which John penned this gospel. It is very important, that we allow the Holy Spirit to elevate the language to explain a concept beyond what the words alone can express. This is the nature of all revelation. Remember, the Holy Spirit is the author, not John.
The Logos of John’s prologue is not just some benign abstract of ideas or reason. It is the personification of an eternal function of deity. The Logos functions as part of a linguistic triad who links the will of God to the mind of man. Since man does not have the capacity to reach beyond the boundaries of the natural world and look into the unseen dimension of God he must rely upon God to supply him with information. The Logos connects man to an unseen world that transcends the scope of human observation by functioning as the conduit for divine communication. What man will learn about God will come only through the function of the Logos. This is true not just in the incarnation of the Word. It is true in every instance in scripture where God communicates directly with man. The Logos is the avenue of communication between two parties in two dimensions. That which will be communicated is of course the will of God. The incarnation collapses the distance between the two worlds and brings man into direct contact with God in a very personal way.
II. Critical Linguistic Analysis of Verse One
εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος . This is the most concise theological statement ever made and it is the way in which John arranges this given set of words in verse one that makes it so.
A. The use of the article in verse one.
NT Greek normally drops the article in a prepositional phrase so the absence of the article in a prepositional phrase is normal and doesn't mean anything. It is when we find examples such as John 1:1 were the article is included in a prepositional phrase that is unusual and should therefore grab our attention. It is the inclusion of the article that is significant. For example, the prepositional phrase "εν αρχη" (in the beginning) doesn't contain an article in the Greek, but is still properly translated "in the beginning." The prepositional phrase "προς τον θεον," (with God) however, does include the definite article (τον). Since it was proper NOT to include it, the inclusion here means something. Generally speaking, the inclusion of an article when one is not expected means you are being specific, in this case a particular individual who is God. In order to fully understand how that affects this verse, we need to go to the last clause. To understand the implications of the last clause, one needs to understand Greek syntax. Greek distinguishes the role a noun plays in a sentence by changing the case. Generally, if the noun is the subject, it is in the nominative spelling. If it is the direct object, it is in the accusative spelling. However, there is a strange class of verbs that do not take a direct object, they take a predicate. There are three verbs that do this in NT Greek. This means that you have two nouns that are in the nominative case, where one is the subject, and one is the predicate nominative. So if both are in the same case, how do you know which is the subject, and which is the predicate? Here are the rules:
1. If BOTH nouns have the article attached then, the first is the subject and the second is the predicate.
2. If NEITHER noun has the article attached, then the first is the subject and the second is the predicate.
3. If ONE has an article but the other does not, then the one with the article is the subject, and the one without the article is the predicate. So, in the phrase "και θεος ην ο λογος" (and the Word was God), we see that λογος has an article (o) and θεος does not. Thus “o λογος” is the subject, while θεος is the predicate. The Word was God. So, in the phrase "και θεος ην ο λογος", we see that λογος has an article (o) and θεος does not. Thus, o λογος is the subject, while θεος is the predicate. The Word was God. θεος as the predicate, describes what the λογος is. Who he is, is the Word. What he is, is God. When translated into English, because λογος is the subject, we have to put it first, so this is properly translated "And the word was God." There are three things this could mean depending on the construction.
a. The word was a lesser god than the Father (τον θεον in the previous clause).
b. The word was the father.
c. The word was fully God, but was NOT the Father.
So, how do we determine which is the meaning of the text?
B. Understanding the implications of this syntax.
1. If John had written the clause: και ο λογος ην θεος, it would mean "the word was A god." That is, the word was a lesser god than the father. The reason is that since both nouns contain the article, λογος is the subject, and is first, there is no grammatical reason to leave the article off of θεος, thus its absence must mean something since even if we gave it the article, it would still be the predicate. Therefore, the absence of the article would mean "A" god. In other words, since the inclusion of the article would not change the grammatical function of θεος, the exclusion of the article must therefore change the meaning of θεος. The absence of the article in a position where the inclusion of the article would not change the word's grammatical function would tell us there is a difference in specificity: the λογος is not the same individual as the Father. Further, if it does not have an article, the position of θεος at the end of the sentence would tell us there is a difference in emphasis (θεος is being “deemphasized”): λογος is less of a god than the Father. Thus, "και ο λογος ην θεος" can only mean "the Word was a god." John did NOT use this construction.
2. If John had written the clause: και ο λογος ην ο θεος , it would mean "the word was THE God." That is, the word was exactly the same person as the Father. Meaning there is only ONE person, not two and would then stand as a solid case against the idea of a trinity. The Father and the Son would then be nothing more than manifestations of the same God and NOT separate individuals. This would support the case for monotheism. The construction "και ο λογος ην θεος" then would demand that there is one God who simply appears at times in different forms. The inclusion of the article with θεος would make it specific: the λογος was exactly the same individual as the Father (the exact same θεος just mentioned in the previous clause). Since both nouns have the article, θεος is grammatically locked into occurring after λογος. If it moved in front of λογος, it would change its grammatical function, and become the subject. Thus, in this construction, the position of θεος would not mean anything. It must appear there. Thus, the clause "και ο λογος ην ο θεος" can only mean "Jesus was THE God (the exact same individual as the Father)." John did NOT use this construction.
3. By writing it: και θεος ην ο λογος, John does two critical and clearly indicated things.
a. He leaves the article off of θεος indicating that the Word is not the same individual as the father.
b. He places θεος to the front of the clause, giving extra emphasis to that word. By doing that, he makes it clear by the increase in emphasis that the absence of the article does not mean "lesser." Since the absence of the article does not mean "lesser god," it leaves us only one choice as to what it can mean: Not exactly the same individual as the "τον θεον" (the God) of the second clause, but every bit as much God as the "τον θεον" of the second clause. Thus, the absence of the article tells us the θεος of the third clause is not the same individual as the τον θεον of the second clause. The position tells us that the absence of the article does not mean "lesser." By placing θεος in a position of emphasis, John is doing the equivalent of bolding it, underlining it, and adding an exclamation point: "The Word was God!" Now, we see why John included the article in the prepositional phrase "προς τον θεον." He was being very specific. The Word is with a specific being called "The God" (τον θεον). In the next clause, he then lets us know that the Word was completely equal with "The God" in divinity, but through the careful use of the articles, has shown us that the Word is not the same individual as "The God" of the second clause.
Here is my part of my teaching outline in John 1. Perhaps this will help answer your question.
Chapter One
I. The Theology of John Chapter One
In John’s prologue, it seems that the Holy Spirit is more interested in dealing with the function of the Second Position than with the question of his identity. Although his identity is well established in the first two verses, it does not seem to be the primary focus. When we consider the language of this text, it is imperative that we do not allow history to define terms for us. It is not important that we understand how Plato, Philo or any other historian or philosopher of antiquity used the word Logos so I will not be wasting anyone’s time by offering their perspectives of the term Logos nor should we concern ourselves with how this word was used in the culture of the time in which John penned this gospel. It is very important, that we allow the Holy Spirit to elevate the language to explain a concept beyond what the words alone can express. This is the nature of all revelation. Remember, the Holy Spirit is the author, not John.
The Logos of John’s prologue is not just some benign abstract of ideas or reason. It is the personification of an eternal function of deity. The Logos functions as part of a linguistic triad who links the will of God to the mind of man. Since man does not have the capacity to reach beyond the boundaries of the natural world and look into the unseen dimension of God he must rely upon God to supply him with information. The Logos connects man to an unseen world that transcends the scope of human observation by functioning as the conduit for divine communication. What man will learn about God will come only through the function of the Logos. This is true not just in the incarnation of the Word. It is true in every instance in scripture where God communicates directly with man. The Logos is the avenue of communication between two parties in two dimensions. That which will be communicated is of course the will of God. The incarnation collapses the distance between the two worlds and brings man into direct contact with God in a very personal way.
II. Critical Linguistic Analysis of Verse One
εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος . This is the most concise theological statement ever made and it is the way in which John arranges this given set of words in verse one that makes it so.
A. The use of the article in verse one.
NT Greek normally drops the article in a prepositional phrase so the absence of the article in a prepositional phrase is normal and doesn't mean anything. It is when we find examples such as John 1:1 were the article is included in a prepositional phrase that is unusual and should therefore grab our attention. It is the inclusion of the article that is significant. For example, the prepositional phrase "εν αρχη" (in the beginning) doesn't contain an article in the Greek, but is still properly translated "in the beginning." The prepositional phrase "προς τον θεον," (with God) however, does include the definite article (τον). Since it was proper NOT to include it, the inclusion here means something. Generally speaking, the inclusion of an article when one is not expected means you are being specific, in this case a particular individual who is God. In order to fully understand how that affects this verse, we need to go to the last clause. To understand the implications of the last clause, one needs to understand Greek syntax. Greek distinguishes the role a noun plays in a sentence by changing the case. Generally, if the noun is the subject, it is in the nominative spelling. If it is the direct object, it is in the accusative spelling. However, there is a strange class of verbs that do not take a direct object, they take a predicate. There are three verbs that do this in NT Greek. This means that you have two nouns that are in the nominative case, where one is the subject, and one is the predicate nominative. So if both are in the same case, how do you know which is the subject, and which is the predicate? Here are the rules:
1. If BOTH nouns have the article attached then, the first is the subject and the second is the predicate.
2. If NEITHER noun has the article attached, then the first is the subject and the second is the predicate.
3. If ONE has an article but the other does not, then the one with the article is the subject, and the one without the article is the predicate. So, in the phrase "και θεος ην ο λογος" (and the Word was God), we see that λογος has an article (o) and θεος does not. Thus “o λογος” is the subject, while θεος is the predicate. The Word was God. So, in the phrase "και θεος ην ο λογος", we see that λογος has an article (o) and θεος does not. Thus, o λογος is the subject, while θεος is the predicate. The Word was God. θεος as the predicate, describes what the λογος is. Who he is, is the Word. What he is, is God. When translated into English, because λογος is the subject, we have to put it first, so this is properly translated "And the word was God." There are three things this could mean depending on the construction.
a. The word was a lesser god than the Father (τον θεον in the previous clause).
b. The word was the father.
c. The word was fully God, but was NOT the Father.
So, how do we determine which is the meaning of the text?
B. Understanding the implications of this syntax.
1. If John had written the clause: και ο λογος ην θεος, it would mean "the word was A god." That is, the word was a lesser god than the father. The reason is that since both nouns contain the article, λογος is the subject, and is first, there is no grammatical reason to leave the article off of θεος, thus its absence must mean something since even if we gave it the article, it would still be the predicate. Therefore, the absence of the article would mean "A" god. In other words, since the inclusion of the article would not change the grammatical function of θεος, the exclusion of the article must therefore change the meaning of θεος. The absence of the article in a position where the inclusion of the article would not change the word's grammatical function would tell us there is a difference in specificity: the λογος is not the same individual as the Father. Further, if it does not have an article, the position of θεος at the end of the sentence would tell us there is a difference in emphasis (θεος is being “deemphasized”): λογος is less of a god than the Father. Thus, "και ο λογος ην θεος" can only mean "the Word was a god." John did NOT use this construction.
2. If John had written the clause: και ο λογος ην ο θεος , it would mean "the word was THE God." That is, the word was exactly the same person as the Father. Meaning there is only ONE person, not two and would then stand as a solid case against the idea of a trinity. The Father and the Son would then be nothing more than manifestations of the same God and NOT separate individuals. This would support the case for monotheism. The construction "και ο λογος ην θεος" then would demand that there is one God who simply appears at times in different forms. The inclusion of the article with θεος would make it specific: the λογος was exactly the same individual as the Father (the exact same θεος just mentioned in the previous clause). Since both nouns have the article, θεος is grammatically locked into occurring after λογος. If it moved in front of λογος, it would change its grammatical function, and become the subject. Thus, in this construction, the position of θεος would not mean anything. It must appear there. Thus, the clause "και ο λογος ην ο θεος" can only mean "Jesus was THE God (the exact same individual as the Father)." John did NOT use this construction.
3. By writing it: και θεος ην ο λογος, John does two critical and clearly indicated things.
a. He leaves the article off of θεος indicating that the Word is not the same individual as the father.
b. He places θεος to the front of the clause, giving extra emphasis to that word. By doing that, he makes it clear by the increase in emphasis that the absence of the article does not mean "lesser." Since the absence of the article does not mean "lesser god," it leaves us only one choice as to what it can mean: Not exactly the same individual as the "τον θεον" (the God) of the second clause, but every bit as much God as the "τον θεον" of the second clause. Thus, the absence of the article tells us the θεος of the third clause is not the same individual as the τον θεον of the second clause. The position tells us that the absence of the article does not mean "lesser." By placing θεος in a position of emphasis, John is doing the equivalent of bolding it, underlining it, and adding an exclamation point: "The Word was God!" Now, we see why John included the article in the prepositional phrase "προς τον θεον." He was being very specific. The Word is with a specific being called "The God" (τον θεον). In the next clause, he then lets us know that the Word was completely equal with "The God" in divinity, but through the careful use of the articles, has shown us that the Word is not the same individual as "The God" of the second clause.
Last edited:
Re: LET " US " MAKE MAN<<< IN OUR IMAGE AfTER OUR LIKENESS, GEN 1:26...
III. What Does the Term Λόγος Suggest?
A. One of the objections raised to the divinity of Jesus is that Λογος simply refers to the mind, wisdom, intelligence, or plan of God and nothing more. Λογος is not an individual, it is just a way of describing the “mind” or “wisdom” of God. This was a championed philosophy of the Gnostics. Clearly, Gnosticism is still alive and well. This approach to the term λογος is intended to deny the individuality of the “Word” by suggesting that the λογος was nothing more that the wisdom of God. So, Jesus was not a “God” made flesh, but the wisdom of God or the mind of God, made flesh. That would mean He did not exist prior to His birth (as God). He only existed as an idea in the mind of God. Prior to his physical birth, He was simply an idea, a plan in the mind of God and that 'idea' became a man.
III. What Does the Term Λόγος Suggest?
A. One of the objections raised to the divinity of Jesus is that Λογος simply refers to the mind, wisdom, intelligence, or plan of God and nothing more. Λογος is not an individual, it is just a way of describing the “mind” or “wisdom” of God. This was a championed philosophy of the Gnostics. Clearly, Gnosticism is still alive and well. This approach to the term λογος is intended to deny the individuality of the “Word” by suggesting that the λογος was nothing more that the wisdom of God. So, Jesus was not a “God” made flesh, but the wisdom of God or the mind of God, made flesh. That would mean He did not exist prior to His birth (as God). He only existed as an idea in the mind of God. Prior to his physical birth, He was simply an idea, a plan in the mind of God and that 'idea' became a man.
- 1. John makes this interpretation absurd with the statement “ο λογος ην προς
τον θεον” - the Word was WITH God. Προς emphasizes agreement
with, not necessarily location or proximity. If the λογος is just the
mind, intelligence, wisdom or plan of God, it can’t be anything other than
with Him. If the λογος is the intelligence of God, then by definition it has to
be with Him, which makes “the Word was WITH God” a completely pointless
statement. It is equivalent to saying, “My brain is with me today.” Since, if you
are alive, they can’t be anything other than with you. Not only have you given
no information, you have implied something that is not true. By making that
statement, you are implying that there might be a situation in which it could
be somewhere else other than with you. John makes it very clear that his
choice of words was no accident. He places extra emphasis on the fact that
the λογος was WITH God by stating it yet again in the second verse: “And
this one (οὗτος - singular masculine pronoun 'he') was in the beginning
WITH God.”
2. The words ουτος refers to the subject of the previous sentence, which was
λογος in all three clauses. Thus, John is making a statement that can only be
interpreted as meaning the λογος is an individual who is somehow the
ultimate summation of the wisdom of God. By stating twice that the λογος
was WITH God, John makes it clear that the Word is WITH God as a choice.
It takes a real, living individual to make a choice. Not only is this individual
with God, He is also God Himself. That means Jesus DID exist prior to His
birth (as He reveals Himself in John 17:5: “Father, glorify me with thine own
self, with the glory I had with you the world was.”). John's construction is so
carefully crafted that verse one is the most concise theological statement ever
made. With these seventeen words of verse one, John has constructed such a
sentence that took me all of this space to explain. The syntax employed by
John leaves us no other alternative but to see Jesus as completely and totally
God in every way that the Father is God but, NOT the same individual as the
Father. Incredible! No one writes like the Holy Spirit!
- Verse 2 - οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ - HE was in the beginning.
V3 - πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο - all things came into being through HIM.
V3 - χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἓν ὃ γέγονεν - Through HIM came into being nothing that came into being.
V4 - ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, - In HIM life was.
V10 - ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἦν - HE was in the world
V10 - καὶ ὁ κόσμος δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο - And the world was made through HIM.
V10 - καὶ ὁ κόσμος αὐτὸν οὐκ ἔγνω. - And the world knew HIM not.
V11 - εἰς τὰ ἴδια ἦλθεν - HE came to His own
V11 - καὶ οἱ ἴδιοι αὐτὸν οὐ παρέλαβον. - And his own received HIM not.
V12 - ὅσοι δὲ ἔλαβον αὐτὸν - As many as however received HIM.
V12 - τοῖς πιστεύουσιν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα αυτοῦ, - To those believing on the name of HIM.
V14 - καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, - And we beheld the glory of HIM.
It is quite clear from these fourteen verses that the “Word” is not a thing but a person of God who assumed fleshly form. There can be no stronger passage confirming the deity of Jesus than John 1:1. Simply diagramming the sentence renders this fact incontrovertible. θεὸς is the predicate nominative that defines the subject λόγος. THE WORD WAS GOD! What ever else one may or may not understand about Jesus, it is undeniably confirmed by John that Jesus is the Word who was from the beginning. Jesus is the Word who was with God,. Jesus is the Word who is the Creator of the world. Jesus is the Word who became flesh. Jesus is the Word who explained God to man, and Jesus is the Word who IS God.
Re: LET " US " MAKE MAN<<< IN OUR IMAGE AfTER OUR LIKENESS, GEN 1:26...
IV. John’s Presentation of the Word, 1-18
A. Overview of Credentials
The Holy Spirit gives us a catalog of five distinct divine attributes that serve as credentials of the Word as the absolute spokesman of deity and legitimize his message.
1. The Logos himself is God
2. He is eternal.
3. He is the creator (Estranged Creator, verse 10).
4. He is the giver and the sustainer of life.
5. He is the source of grace and truth. Truth represents the mind of God as the ultimate reality. Grace is the channel for divine acceptance. As the revealer of God, he explained God to us. These credentials stand in contrast to all others who through history, have spoken on behalf of God. While they were only men, this spokesman is God.
With such a resume as this, it would behoove us to do as the Hebrew writer commands and “give the more earnest heed…to the things we have heard” Hebrews 2:1, NKJV.
B. A divine ontology, 1
1. “In the beginning was the Word.” The word ‘beginning’ is defined in the text as the coming into being of all things, 3 and “the world was made through him,” 9. The beginning then does not suggest a point of origin for the Word but, presents the Word as the active cause of all things that exist.
2. “And the Word was God!” Through this craftily constructed syntax of the subject and the predicate John emphasis the nature of the Word. Who this person is, is the WORD. What this person is, is God!
C. “He was in the beginning with God,” 2. John is establishing the unity between God and the Word in the creation of all things in the beginning.
D. “All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being,” 3. Since John is introducing us to the Word, it is only the role of the Word in creation that John focuses on. The Word is the active cause. As the one who occupies the second position within the tradic unity He is the one who gives substance to the idea. He brings his power to bear on the natural world and matter is formed. He is responsible for the existence of all things. Through HIM everything came into being.
IV. John’s Presentation of the Word, 1-18
A. Overview of Credentials
The Holy Spirit gives us a catalog of five distinct divine attributes that serve as credentials of the Word as the absolute spokesman of deity and legitimize his message.
1. The Logos himself is God
2. He is eternal.
3. He is the creator (Estranged Creator, verse 10).
4. He is the giver and the sustainer of life.
5. He is the source of grace and truth. Truth represents the mind of God as the ultimate reality. Grace is the channel for divine acceptance. As the revealer of God, he explained God to us. These credentials stand in contrast to all others who through history, have spoken on behalf of God. While they were only men, this spokesman is God.
With such a resume as this, it would behoove us to do as the Hebrew writer commands and “give the more earnest heed…to the things we have heard” Hebrews 2:1, NKJV.
B. A divine ontology, 1
1. “In the beginning was the Word.” The word ‘beginning’ is defined in the text as the coming into being of all things, 3 and “the world was made through him,” 9. The beginning then does not suggest a point of origin for the Word but, presents the Word as the active cause of all things that exist.
2. “And the Word was God!” Through this craftily constructed syntax of the subject and the predicate John emphasis the nature of the Word. Who this person is, is the WORD. What this person is, is God!
C. “He was in the beginning with God,” 2. John is establishing the unity between God and the Word in the creation of all things in the beginning.
D. “All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being,” 3. Since John is introducing us to the Word, it is only the role of the Word in creation that John focuses on. The Word is the active cause. As the one who occupies the second position within the tradic unity He is the one who gives substance to the idea. He brings his power to bear on the natural world and matter is formed. He is responsible for the existence of all things. Through HIM everything came into being.