THE CHRISTOLOGY OF JOHN 1:1 AND LATTER-DAY SAINTS
Formerly "Jesus, the Trinity, and John 1:1"; Revised
Abstract:
This paper aims to explain the Theology of the Johainne prologue from a
Latter-day Saint perspective. This paper goals to explain the Theology and
History of John 1:1 that will cover its significance and interpretation among
the members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its leaders;
the history of the Logos in Classical and Jewish thought; and the translation
issues of the third clause that will be taken in light of Greek grammar and
syntax. This paper does not aim to present a comprehensive explanation of the
Theology and History of John 1:1, but would rather give foundational data on
its message from a Latter-day Saint perspective.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was
with God, and the Word was God." (Jn. 1:1)
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν
ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν
πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν
ὁ λόγος.
Opening the gospel of John, the author wants to tell us
something about the person who is the center of the story in the record that he
wrote. The gospel of John is a distinctive record in the four gospels because
of its unique stories, narratives, discourses and Christology. The author
structured the record with a prologue and an epilogue: the prologue of the
gospel of John starts with John 1:1-18 and the author conclude with John 20:30
to chapter 21. The prologue's purpose is to answer necessary Christological
questions: e.g what is Jesus’s purpose here? And the epilogue's purpose is to
show the purpose of why the author wrote these things for the reader which is
that we “. . .might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and
that believing ye might have life through his name.” (Jn. 20:31; cf. Jn.
1:4-5; 3:16-17): summarizing the message of the Gospel of John about the person
of Jesus Christ. Much is also disputed about some of the content of the gospel
on the detail that it contains concerning the nature of Jesus Christ and his
relationship with his Father in heaven; which is essential for our
understanding about the nature of the Godhead.
The contents of the gospel of
John are often used to support one's own view on the nature of God like
Trinitarians, Unitarians, and Arians. The purpose of the article that I will
present is to show what John meant and what Latter-day Saints believe also on
the nature of the Godhead. This will particularly be dealing with the prologue
of John, and the first verse of the gospel, John 1:1, that is one of the most
famous verses from the Greek New Testament. It reads “In the beginning was
the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God [alt. and the Word
was Divine; what God was, the Word was” (Ἐν
ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. - en arche en ho
Logos, kai ho Logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en ho Logos); and we see
here the title “Word” (λόγος/logos; Heb. דָּבָר/davar) being applied to person of Jesus
Christ. The application of the Greek word can be seen also in Revelations
19:11-13 where John the Revelator saw Christ “. . . clothed in a robe dipped
in blood, and his name is called The Word of God.” (Rev. 19:13)[1].
It will seem strange to readers who are unfamiliar of the contents and the
language of the gospel of John because why would you apply something to a
person? But the reason and backround behind these has something to do with how
we express ourselves and how God expresses Himself.
THE
THEOLOGY OF JOHN 1:1 AND LATTER-DAY SAINTS
Latter-day Saint writings did not have that much comment sa
on the usage of “Word” (λόγος - logos) to Jesus Christ, but we have
several passages in the Latter-day Saint scriptures that would recall the idea
of the Logos in John 1:1. Latter-day Saints when it comes to Jesus and the Logos,
has this Christology that we call in the term “Messenger-Message Christology”;
as have written by Dr. Matthew Bowen in The Interpreter Journal on the nature
of Latter-day Saint Christology[2].
The same Christology also recalls the “Angel of the Lord” (Malakh
Adonai) of the Old Testament; where Yahweh’s Messenger bears the Divine name
and has the authority to exercise Divine prerogatives. This idea plays an
important role in the early revelations given to the Prophet Joseph Smith.
On the nature of the Logos, Dr.
Bowen says that “Logos” in John 1:1 is John’s development of previous
ideas of personified wisdom and intelligence in the Old Testament. President
Russell M. Nelson in April 2000 comments on the verse, where this very same
comment is used in several church materials, e.g the manuals used for Seminary
and Institute classes. He comments on John 1:1 with expanding the title “Word”
and its Christological significance:
". . . In the
Greek language of the New Testament, that Word was Logos, or ‘expression.’ It
was another name for the Master. That terminology may seem strange, but it is
appropriate. We use words to convey our expression to others. So Jesus was the
Word, or expression, of His Father to the world.”[3]
Elder Bruce R. McConkie together with how the prophet Joseph
Smith renders the verse in the JST that:
“Christ is the Word
or Messenger of Salvation. Thus John’s meaning is: ‘In pre-existence was
Christ, and Christ was with the Father, and he, the Son, had himself also
attained godhood.’ I. V. John 1:1–2; D&C 93:7–8. Further, the gospel
itself is the word, and it is because the gospel or word of salvation is in
Christ that he, on the principle of personification’ . . . becomes the Word.”[4]
Elder James E. Talmage in his chapter about the Pre-existent
divinity ni Jesus Christ wrote:
“As heretofore shown
in another connection, the Father operated in the work of creation through the
Son, who thus became the executive through whom the will, commandment, or word
of the Father was put into effect. It is with incisive appropriateness
therefore, that the Son, Jesus Christ, is designated by the apostle John as the
Word; or as declared by the Father “the word of my power.”The part taken by
Jesus Christ in the creation, a part so prominent as to justify our calling Him
the Creator, is set forth in many scriptures. The author of the Epistle to the
Hebrews refers in this wise distinctively to the Father and the Son as separate
though associated Beings: “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake
in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken
unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he
made the worlds.” Paul is even more explicit in his letter to the Colossians,
wherein, speaking of Jesus the Son, he says: “For by him were all things
created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible,
whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things
were created by him, and for him: and he is before all things, and by him all things
consist.” And here let be repeated the testimony of John, that by the Word, who
was with God, and who was God even in the beginning, all things were made; “and
without him was not anything made that was made.” That the Christ who was to
come was in reality God the Creator was revealed in plainness to the prophets
on the western hemisphere. Samuel, the converted Lamanite, in preaching to the
unbelieving Nephites justified his testimony as follows: “And also that ye
might know of the coming of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven
and of earth, the Creator of all things, from the beginning; and that ye might
know of the signs of his coming, to the intent that ye might believe on his
name.”” [5]
Since the Greek word λόγος (logos) shows one’s expression of
one’s self or “a communication whereby the mind finds expression” (BDAG)[6],
this is applied to Jesus Christ to tell us why did he came here, what is his
mission, what is his purpose, and who is he. We express ourselves through our
words and in the same way, God the Father expresses Himself to us through His
beloved Son, Jesus Christ. Doctrine and Covenants 93:7-8 tells us that Jesus
Christ is the “Messenger of Salvation” for in him, grace and truth came,
and we see this in verse 14 ng prologue of John 1 that “. . . the Word
became flesh and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the
only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth” (Jn. 1:14). It is
Jesus Christ that perfectly represents the Father in every way, for he is the “.
. . exact representation of his being” (Heb. 1:3) and that he is “the
image of God” (Jn. 14:9; 2Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15-20). the Father also spoken “.
. . unto us through his Son” (Heb. 1:1) and John also says in verse 18 that
it is through Jesus Christ that the Father was revealed (Jn. 1:18), for it is
Christ who knows Him perfectly capable of revealing Him unto us perfectly (Mt.
11:2-27; Jn. 5:37; 6:38-46; 8:19-29; 17:20-26) and the will of his Father, thus
he alone knows and shows how an individual can go back to his Father in heaven
(Jn. 14:5-6); for he is our mediator that makes intercession between God and
men (Rom. 8:27-39; 1Cor. 8:6; 2Cor. 5:21; Gal. 3:20; 1Tim. 2:5-6; Heb. 8:6;
9:15; 12:24).
THE HISTORY OF THE LOGOS IN CLASSICAL ANDJEWISH THOUGHT
In here, the question is that how did John came up with the
use of λόγος (Logos) for Jesus Christ? where did these ideas came from
from a historical and cultural context? The concept of the personification of
the Logos is by Jewish thought and how it plays a role in the creation of the
universe. λόγος as we see sa Gospel of John was through “him”, all things were
created (πάντα διʼ
αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο - panta di auto
egeneto: Jn. 1:3; cf. Col. 1:15-18; Heb. 1:3). People from different groups
disagree on how this should be interpreted but we know that the Logos is the
agent of creation that the world was made through, that it is the divine reason
that puts the universe in order. People view this as the Logos as they say, is
the divine decree or the master plan of God and not a person; that is exactly
what Socinians, Christadelphians, and other Biblical Unitarian groups say (e.g
Sir Anthony Buzzard, Dale Tuggy). They say that the Logos is the agent of
creation but was not eternal and say that it is a creation, that is exactly
what the Jehovah’s Witnesses believe. Others say that the Logos is one to one
equivalent to the being of God; that is what Nicene Trinitarians hold; but is
these what John really meant when he wrote this? What did he have in mind?
As stated earlier on its
historical and cultural background, it has its origins from Jewish thought; but
the concept of the Logos also is present in the Hellenistic world but Jewish
and Hellenistic views of the Logos differ from one another. The first use of
Logos is possibly from Heraclitus (born c. 550 BCE) where he used “Logos”
to refer to “an underlying cosmic principle of order”[7].
For him, the Logos can also mean “discourse, teaching, word, reputation,
relation, proportion, meaning, and truth”; where there’s a lot of meaning for
the Logos according to him; but it depends on the individual meaning ng Logos,[8]
in which here we see also that he believes that the Logos is not personal; but
for the wide range of the use of Logos for him, it is obscure how Heraclitus used
the Logos on each of his use of this term.
Greeks believe that the Logos is
the universal reason that orders the universe and is basic to all things that
exist and which gives the word “logic” its meaning; but Jews believed more than
just that. The Jews also believe that the Logos provides order to the universe;
but they also believe that the Logos is God’s very expression of Himself to us.
Greeks however view the Logos as an abstract idea rather than a person. On the
role that the Logos plays in creation, we in the Bible that through the word of
God were things created (Ps. 33:6; 147:15). λόγος, logos/דָּבָר,
is used in the Bible for God’s utterances (Gen. 1:3-9; 3:9,11; Ps. 32:9), and
for God’s actions (Ps. 106:20; 147:15; Zech. 5:1-4), and the message of the
prophets, through whom God communicates to his people (Jer. 1:4-19, 2:1-7;
Ezek. 1:3; Amos 3:1-7). In the creation accounts, it says always in the Old
Testament that “when God said”, at “and God said” (Gen. 1:3-6;
2Cor. 4:6), and John identifies Jesus as the agent present in the Genesis
creation.
The Logos of John 1:1 is
pre-existent as we can see in its grammar, Theology, and background.
Unitarianism claims a notional pre-existence and deny the personhood of the
Logos, but they appeal to the Targum readings of the creation accounts (where
it uses the Aramaic word מימר “Memra”);
despite the dating problems in the Aramaic Targum[9].
Unitarians argue that John cannot source from prevailing Greco-Roman ideas[10]but
such arguments is not consistent with New Testament data of several authors and
figures quoting from Greco-Roman works: e.g, Paul quoting Aratus Phaenomena in
Acts 17:28-29 is one example of using works outside Christian circles. It is
only argued on whether these ideas are true or consistent with the Gospel that
they preach.
John has a more Jewish view of
the Logos and John gave divine qualities to the Logos and identified who is the
Logos is, as a starting point for his gospel account. He wanted to point out
the involvement of Jesus Christ on everything that we see and on us for it is
he himself who created the world under the omnipotence of Heavenly Father (Col.
1:15-20; Heb. 1:1-3). The Logos is said was involved in creation that it is
through Him (δι αυτού - di autou), the word was created, which the
Gospel of John uses the genitive rather than the dative λογω (logō); where
the Logos is a mediating figure in the Genesis creation. Jesus Christ himself is
the agent of creation. One Jewish Philosopher, Philo of Alexandria (20 BCE - c.
50 CE); who possibly influenced the apostle John’s view of the Logos—views the
Logos in ways that are the same as they do like the Logos as the one who holds
everything in order [11].
Philo believes that the Logos existed with God as a second separate God; and is
also the firstborn son of God[12];
and the “eldest son of God”[13].
Philo also holds that the Logos is the image bearer of God. Philo also views
the Logos as a designated high priest who intersects God and man; i.e serves as
a mediator between humanity and the Divine[14];
in the same way that a high priest exercises his duties in the Old Testament;
particularly the Jewish feast day of Yom Kippur, i.e the Day of Atonement (cf.
1Tim. 2:5-6; Heb. 5:8-9; 7:24). The Logos and God as shown in Philo's writings,
are separate entities and the Logos as a secondary Deity. Alan Segal wrote that
" Philo’s
concept of the logos is a combination of divine intermediation and the Stoic
world spirit. Logos is equivalent with the intelligible world; but because it
can be hypostasized [that is, it can become an individual being], the logos can
be viewed as a separate agent and called a god.”[15]
Theologian and scholar Dr. Norman Russell wrote the
following in his book on the doctrine of Deification:
“[To Philo,] In
relation to the ‘first God’ he [the Logos (Word)] is the ‘second God’, the
first-born son of God, the wisdom and image of God (QG 2.62; Agr. 51; Fuga 109;
Conf. 147). In relation to humankind he is the Archetype, the heavenly Adam,
into whom God ‘breathed a share of his own deity’ (Det. 86) (Philo takes the
two descriptions of the creation of man in Gen. 1:27 and 2:7 to refer to two
distinct events). Other beings also mediate between God and humanity. The
heavenly bodies are said to be visible gods because they are the purest of
corporeal things (Gig. 8; Opif. 27, 55). Between the heavens and the earth the
air is inhabited by its own incorporeal beings. Some of these descend into
human bodies and become souls; Philo equates the remainder with the daemons of
the Greeks and the angels of the Bible (Gig. 6, 16). (Like many of the Rabbis,
he believed in the pre-existence of souls, but not in the cycle of
reincarnation.)”[16]
Philo furthermore used “Adam” to refer to the Logos[17]
as shown above by Dr. Russell and scholar of Religion Dr. Alan F. Segal adds
more on these as he wrote that:
“The doctrine of the logos
is relevant in two further ways to Philo’s conception of creation. First, Philo
maintains that the logos was God’s partner in creation. To this effect, he
calls the logos, ‘The Beginning’, ‘The Ruler of the Angels’, and significantly,
‘the Name of God’. But because the logos is an emanation of God, Philo
can also talk about him as God’s offspring, or the first-born son of God. As
such, he is a kind of immortal, heavenly man or the true father of men. For
this reason, Philo seems to say in places that God actually put two men into
Eden. We remember, of course, that the rabbis opposed ideas that there was more
than one Adam, that God had a partner in creation or even that angels helped
him. They objected to the idea that there could be more than one Adam, on the
grounds that men would begin to boast of their differing lineage, some claiming
to have descended from a better man. Of course, most sectarian groups believed
themselves better than the common variety of men. But Philo also claims that
the virtuous had a better father in that they were descended from the higher
Adam. This provides us with a good example of a predecessor to the unstated
argument which the tannaim would eventually call heresy, the same argument
which was supplied by the amoraim.”[18]
To add, on the influence of Philo to the apostle John on the
Logos, Urban C. Von Wahlde wrote the following on the similarities and
differences between John and Philo’s views of the Logos of God:
John 1.1-2 - First,
the context of the discussion of ‘the Word’ is similar in both Philo and John.
Both employ the term Word while commenting on the Genesis account of creation:
John in the opening words of the Hymn and Philo in De Op. 7-25. While Wisdom is
said to exist before creation it is not said to be involved in the act of
creation itself.
Second, in both John (1.1) and Philo (Som. 1.228-230) the
Logos is said to be θεος, ‘divine’—(without an article). This designation is
regularly understood to attribute divinity to the Logos but in such a way as
not to be a challenge to the unicity of God.
John 1.3 - In John and in Philo, creation is said to
take place δι’ αυτου (i.e., ‘through the Word’) rather than by the dative
(λογω), which would be simply an ‘instrumental dative’ as in the Wisdom
literature. For the author of the Hymn, for Philo, and for authors elsewhere in
the NT, the choice of such expressions was not haphazard but was intended to
reflect the existence of and activity of a mediating figure in creation. This
mediating figure was understood to be the Word. This is not present in the Wisdom
literature.
John 1.4-5 - . . . In Philo, there is an association of life
with the Logos. However, within the works of Philo this association is less
direct. . . . in Philo’s view the first day of creation is when the
intelligible world is created and on the remainder of the days, the various
parts of the world perceptible by the senses are created. The breath of God is
the cause of life and becomes breath (πνευμα) is part of the intelligible,
non-corporeal creation, it is part of the creative activity of the Logos.
Therefore it can be said that the Logos is connected with the giving of life.
John 1.12 - In Philo and in John, the believer is said to be
a ‘child of God’. But again there are differences. In Jn 1.12, we are told that
Jesus, the Word, gave all who believed in him ‘the power to become children of
God’. In Philo, the process is more complex. The Individual first becomes a son
of the Word, and then a son of God (Conf. 147).
John 1.14 - In the Gospel and in Philo, the Logos is
said to have a special filial relation to God. Again, this is not to say that
the filial relation is precisely the same in both. There can be no doubt that
Jesus is understood as ‘son’ in the Gospel; but in the Hymn, the issue is
somewhat more complex. Tobin points to the similarity of μονογενης in Jn 1.14
to Philo’s use of προτογονος (Conf. 63 and Conf. 146) in reference to the
Logos. While there can be no doubt that the Hymn understands the Word to be a
‘son’ of God, I do not believe this is expressed by the term μονογενης.
Following D. Moody and others, I would hold that μονογενης does not mean ‘only
begotten’ bur rather ‘unique’. Moreover, the description of Jesus as μονογενης
has a polemical purpose, namely to distinguish the sonship of Jesus from that
of the believer who is given the power to become a child of God (v. 12). Yet
there is some similarity cannot be denied.[19]
JOHN
1:1 AND THE PRE-EXISTENCE OF CHRIST
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν
ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος
ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν
. . . (En arche en ho logos, kai ho logos en pros ton Theon)
Proponents of Unitarian Christology argue that the Logos of
John 1:1 is not a personal being but is simply “a word” or “an utterance”. One
famous “Biblical Unitarian” scholar and Theologian, Sir Anthony Buzzard, argue
that John 1:1 must be translated “In the beginning, God said”; and
therefore, λόγος is
not a person but God speaking in his command. We have taken a look at the
historical and cultural background of the New Testament use of Logos: where the
Johainne Logos is an elaboration of other circulating ideas about the Logos and
the role that it plays with humanity and the universe. One way to deny the
Deity of Jesus Christ is to deny his pre-existence. Buzzard and other “Biblical
Unitarians” also the same argue that if Jesus pre-existed, then he is not
human. Unitarian apologetics get to a lot of mental gymnastics, like arguing
that John 17:5 says that the glory that Jesus ask the Father is in prospect;
when the text even in the Greek does not show such.
Proponents
of Unitarianism argue that the Logos in John 1:1 is the same as lady Sophia in
Proverbs 8; that is personified wisdom, and that the personified Wisdom of
Proverbs 8 is created, and therefore necessitates that Jesus as well is a
created being (that is viewed both by Arians and Unitarians). When Jews
personify abstract ideas, then maybe it is the same with John 1:1. Unitarians
also argue that “memra” (מימר) in the Aramaic Targum parallels John 1:1
and therefore the Logos is not a person, but is a way of personification. They
argue that מימר
calls the wisdom and action of God as “word”. However, that is not the
case with the Christology of the Old Testament and the New Testament.
John starts with Ἐν ἀρχῇ
ἦν ὁ λόγος (en arche en ho logos). John uses
the imperfect form of εἰμί (eimi) that is ἦν (en); and the
imperfect shows continuous action to the past with no starting point. This
shows that the Logos has always been in existence. The same form is how the
translators of the Greek Septuagint have translated the Hebrew of Genesis 1:1.
The Hebrew of Genesis 1:1 shows no absolute starting point of time; where in
John 1:1, it only shows that someone or something is at that period of time.
Not necessarily that that period of time ontologically affects the subject.
“Beginning” refers not to the beginning of the Logos, but that the Logos is in
the beginning. We can also see in the following passages the instrumentality of
the Logos in the creation of the world; that it is “by him” that the world was
created. This is something that Unitarians would hardly accept with the Logos
as a personal creator and not simply an abstract idea.
Though the discussion covers John
1:1, the whole chapter of John 1 and the words of John the Baptist shows that
Jesus Christ has existed prior to his birth, where John said in John 1:30, “After
me comes a man who ranks ahead of me because he was before me.” (NRSV; ὀπίσω
μου ἔρχεται ἀνὴρ ὃς ἔμπροσθέν μου γέγονεν ὅτι πρῶτός μου ἦν.). Commentators
wrote on it’s implications of the pre-existence of Christ:
After me (ὀπισω
μου [opisō mou]). See also 1:27. Later in time John means. He described “the
Coming One” (ὁ ἐρχομενος [ho erchomenos]) before he saw Jesus. The language of
John here is precisely that in Matt. 3:11 ὁ ὀπισω μου ἐρχομενος [ho opisō mou
erchomenos] (cf. Mark 1:7). The Beloved Disciple had heard the Baptist say
these very words, but he also had the Synoptic Gospels. Is
become (γεγονεν [gegonen]). Second perfect active indicative of γινομαι
[ginomai]. It is already an actual fact when the Baptist is
speaking. Before me (ἐμπροσθεν μου [emprosthen mou]). In rank and dignity,
the Baptist means, ὁ ἰσχυροτερος μου [ho ischuroteros mou] “the one mightier
than I” (Mark 1:7) and ἰσχυροτερος μου [ischuroteros mou] “mightier than I”
(Matt. 3:11). In John 3:28 ἐμπροσθεν ἐκεινου [emprosthen ekeinou] (before him,
the Christ) does mean priority in time, but not here. This superior dignity of
the Messiah John proudly recognizes always (John 3:25–30). For he was
before me (ὁτι πρωτος μου ἠν [hoti prōtos mou ēn]). Paradox, but clear. He
had always been (ἠν [ēn] imperfect) before John in his Pre-incarnate state, but
“after” John in time of the Incarnation, but always ahead of John in rank
immediately on his Incarnation. Πρωτος μου [Prōtos mou] (superlative with
ablative) occurs here when only two are compared as is common in the vernacular
Koiné. So the Beloved Disciple came first (πρωτος [prōtos]) to the tomb, ahead
of Peter (20:4). So also πρωτον ὑμων [prōton humōn] in 15:18 means “before you”
as if it were προτερον ὑμων [proteron humōn]. Verse 30 repeats these words
almost exactly. John 1:16[20]
He [John] compares him
to himself with respect to dignity when he says, he ranks ahead of me [ante me
factus est, literally, he “was made before me”]. It should be noted that it is
from this text that the Arians took occasion for their error. For they said
that “He who comes after me,” is to be understood of Christ as to the flesh he
assumed, but what follows, “was made before me,” can only be understood of the
Word of God, who existed before the flesh; and for this reason Christ as the
Word was made, and was not coeternal with the Father.
According to
Chrysostom, however, this exposition is stupid, because if it were true, the
Baptist would not have said, he “was made before me, because he existed before
me,” since no one is unaware that if he was before him, he was made before him.
He rather would have said the opposite: “He was before me, because he was made
before me.” And so, according to Chrysostom, these words should be taken as
referring to his [Christ’s] dignity, that is, he was preferred to me and placed
ahead of me. It is as though he said: Although Jesus came to preach after me,
he was made more worthy than I both in eminence of authority and in the repute
of men: “Gold will not be equal to it” (Jb 28:17). Or alternatively: he is
preferred ahead of me, that is, before my eyes, as the Gloss says and as the
Greek text reads. As if to say: Before my eyes, i.e., in my sight, because he
came into my view and was recognized.
He compares him to
himself with respect to their duration, saying, because he existed before me.
As if to say: He was God from all eternity, I am a frail man of time. And
therefore, even though I came to preach ahead of him, yet it was fitting that
he rank before me in the reputation and opinion of men, because he preceded all
things by his eternity: “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and
forever” (Heb 13:8). “Before Abraham came to be, I am,” as we read below
(8:58).
If we understand this
passage as saying that he “was made before me,” it can be explained as
referring to the order of time according to the flesh. For in the instant of
his conception Christ was perfect God and perfect man, having a rational soul
perfected by the virtues, and a body possessed of all its distinctive features,
except that it lacked perfect size: “A woman shall enclose a man,” i.e., a
perfect man (Jer 31:22). Now it is evident that Christ was conceived as a
perfect man before John was born; consequently he says that he “was made before
me,” because he was a perfect man before I came forth from the womb. (Thomas
Aquinas, Commentary on the Gospel of John: Chapters 1–21, F. Larcher & J.
A. Weisheipl, Trans.; Vol. 1, [The Catholic University of America Press, 2010],
80–81.)[21]
1:15. Because v. 16
would follow nicely on v. 14, some have seen v. 15 as an interpolation. It
would be fairer to conclude that v. 15 is a planned parenthetical remark. The
earlier mention of the witness of John the Baptist (vv. 6–8) dealt with the
coming of the pre-existent light into the world; this verse abandons that theme
and grounds the glory of the incarnate Word in a concrete individual, a
concrete ‘he’ attested by another individual. Thus it prepares the way for the
detailed account of the Baptist’s witness, which immediately succeeds the
Prologue.
The present tense (John
testifies concerning him) followed immediately by the perfect tense (lit. ‘he
has cried out’) combine to suggest the Evangelist is presenting John the
Baptist’s witness both vividly, as if it were in progress, and comprehensively,
summing it up as a set-piece. Before the Baptist was able to point to a
specific individual (cf. v. 33), he was able to announce in general terms the
advent of the long-awaited Coming One: He who comes after me has surpassed me
because he was before me. In all four Gospels, Jesus entered public ministry
after John. In a society where age and precedence bestowed peculiar honour,
that might have been taken by superficial observers to mean John the Baptist
was greater than Jesus. Not so, insists the Baptist: Jesus has surpassed him
(lit., ‘became before me’), precisely because he was before him. The peculiar
expression means ‘because he was first with respect to me’. It includes not
only temporal priority (cf. NEB, ‘before I was born, he already was’), which
picks up the pre-existence emphasized at the beginning of the chapter, but also
absolute primacy. That was the Baptist’s proclamation before he knew of whom he
spoke. Then, after identifying him, he could say, This was he of whom I said,
etc. And by placing this summary of the Baptist’s witness here, the Evangelist
by anticipation is identifying Jesus with the Word-made-flesh: ‘This was he of
whom I spoke.’[22]
THE TRANSLATION OF JOHN 1:1C
The way that the third clause of John 1:1 is translated has
also been a subject of debate. One rendition would favor one's own Christology
and Christ’s relationship with God the Father and the Holy Ghost. Joseph
Smith's rendition of John 1:1 in the JST received a lot of criticism from
Trinitarians; saying that Joseph Smith is altering the text to fit his own
worldview and that he denies the Divinity of Christ. This comes out of a
misunderstanding of the main purpose and nature of the Joseph Smith Translation:
where Joseph Smith does not necessarily always give a claim of an “accurate
translation” of the Greek of John 1:1. Joseph Smith expands the meaning of
John 1:1 and some places in the Joseph Smith Translation is commentarial and
not literal[23].
Latter-day Saint scholars Robert Boylan and Jennifer Roach commented that the
Joseph Smith Translation's rendition of John 1:1 does not give a textual
restoration of the text; but is rather a midrash-like commentary on John 1:1
and an expansion of the Greek word λόγος
(Logos) that was possibly influenced by Adam Clarke's commentary on the text[24].
The Joseph Smith Translation's rendition also offers a new layer of meaning
that is largely lost to the modern readers; that with this rendition, “. . .
all of the sudden it has a whole new depth of meaning . . . “[25].
The translation also of John 1:1
gives us further understanding on how this should be understood. particularly
on the third clause, John 1:1c in the Greek and a rendition in the English
reads:
Ἐν ἀρχῇ
ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ
ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς
τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν
ὁ λόγος. (En arche en ho logos,
kai ho Logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en ho Logos, my transliteration)
" In the beginning
was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was Divine [or
Deity]." (Personal rendition)
The major consensus of Bibles including the King James
Version, renders the third clause as” and the Word was God”: which
renders the word θεὸς
(Theos - God) as a definite rather than an indefinite (a God). The consensus
of translations on John 1:1c causes confusion to the readers of the Gospel of
John on whether the Logos and the God that he was with are the same person: which
shows Modalism; or the Word and the God that he was with are one-to-one
equivalent persons which shows Creedal Trinitarianism. Phillip Harner wrote
that “. . . The problem with all these translations is that they could
represent [the idea that word and God are interchangeable] “.[26]
Since English translations render
it as a definite “and the Word was God”; the question is, does it follow
how the Greek language identify what a definite is and what is not definite?
The Word is distinguished as an individual from God by the use of the article
in terms that modify them which is θεός (Theos). In the Greek language,
every time the God of Israel is being referred to, they add the definite
article ό (ho) to θεός: which shows something that is specific, in the
same way of saying “the cat of mine” (definite); which is different in
saying “a cat” (indefinite). But what we see in John 1:1 is that it
lacks the definite article (i.e anarthrous). In English, if we refer to someone
or something indefinitely, we will use the article “a” (e.g a cat); but
the Greek language does not have any indefinite article, but however it refers
to something indefinitely in a different way where it does not include the
definite article.
In John 1:1, the Greek word θεός
is used in different ways and we can see the difference by their case endings
and the use of the definite article. in the second clause, the Greek word θεός
(Theos) is in the accusative case, θεόν (Theon): which shows that
it is the direct object; but in the third clause, θεός is in the nominative
case: which shows that it is not the direct object. The word endings identify
which of them is the direct object in the sentence. The direct object θεόν has
the article in John 1:1b, and the nominative θεός lacks the definite article.
Th subject in the third clause is λόγος (logos) where the Greek word
θεός modifies the subject and is therefore a predicate and descriptive of the
subject (και θεός ην ό λόγος - kai Theos en ho Logos).
We see here that in the Greek
language, the definite nominative predicate does not have the article if it
precedes the verb as like we see in John 1:1[27];
where θεός is placed before λόγος: where we can also see here that the subject
has the definite article (ό λόγος - ho Logos), while the predicate does
not (cf. Xenophon, Anabasis 1:4:6)[28].
If it precedes the verb, it stresses the quality of the subject and this can be
therefore translated as "and the Word was Divine"[29]
or “what God was, the Word was”[30];
and this can also rightfully rendered as “and the Word was a God”[31];
which Trinitarians falsely associate with Arianism because of the Jehovah's
Witnesses' infamous “New World Translation” (NWT) where it renders θεός
the same but as "a god" with a lowercase “g” (Note: I do not hold
to Arian views on Christology); and ignoring however that some Trinitarians
rendered it the same (see. note for above).
It is also arguable for the
translation “a God” as even Trinitarian Bibles translate the anarthrous
predicate nouns that precede the verb with the indefinite “a”: e.g “a prophet”
(ὅτι προφήτης ἦν, ὅτι προφήτης εἶ σύ: Mk. 11:32; Jn. 4:19);
“a devil” (καὶ
ἐξ ὑμῶν εἷς διάβολός ἐστιν.: Jn. 6:70); “a
murderer”, “a liar” (ἐκεῖνος ἀνθρωποκτόνος ἦν, ὅτι ψεύστης ἐστὶν: Jn. 8:44); “a king”
(οὐκοῦν βασιλεὺς εἶ σύ: Jn. 18:37). And
furthermore, Edgar Godspeed's and James Moffat's translation, the Iglesia Ni
Cristo falsely understand “Divine” as “holy” when in the context
of John 1:1, it is understood as Christ participating in the Divine nature (cf.
Jn. 1:18, p75, א,
Β, et. al[32];
Col. 1:15-20; 2:7-10; Phil. 2:5-11; Heb. 1:1-12; 2:7-10). No serious scholar
would equate θεός to something lower as “holy”. The text and the synthax
definitely does not show the anarthrous noun being lowered to a lower level of
divinity as "holy"; and of no grammatical grounds in Biblical
Greek does anarthrous predicate nouns equate θεός to the level of άγιος (hagios:
holy). They appeal to this translation but does not understand what it says
thereof. Moreover, Phillip Harner wrote in his article in the Journal of
Biblical Literature (JBL) on John 1:1 and related passages that:
“. . . with an anarthrous predicate
preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that
the logos has the nature of theos. There is no basis for regarding the
predicate theos as definite."[33].
Harner also rejects the so called “rule” (Colwell's rule)[34]
of Trinitarians to justify their definite translation of the anarthrous θεός sa
John 1:1c. Colwell’s writings however, are severely misused; where Colwell
merely asserts a probability for θεός in John 1:1c. The rule claims that if the
definite predicate precedes the verb, it doesn’t include the article. Greg
Stafford argues that a qualitative take doesn’t work with θεός being a count
noun rather than an abstract noun[35].
The rule does not necessarily have something to know if it’s definite. D.A
Carson said that it is “. . . it is a fallacy to argue, on the basis of the
fact that a predicate noun preceding a copulative verb is anarthrous, that it
is highly likely to be definite.” and that “Statistically this is no
more likely than the conclusion it is indefinite.”It has value “. . . almost
exclusively for textual criticism”[36].
Paul Dixon wrote on Colwell’s rule in his Th.M thesis:
“The only other conceivable value of Colwell’s rule [that is,
other than for textual criticism] is to say it is possible to have an
anarthrous predicate nominative preceding the verb that is definite (but, did
we not already know that?), and that because Colwell apparently found some.
Yet, it is most important to see that the rule says nothing about the
probability of definiteness (contrary to what Colwell and Blum would have us
believe), nor can it, as Colwell has not considered both definite and
non-definite nouns. Because Colwell considered only definite predicate
nominatives then his rule applies only when definiteness has already been
determined, then, the probability of articularity may be ascertained. ... Assuming
the rule is valid, its value is almost exclusively for textual criticism. The
rule may not be valid, however, as its underlying assumptions are highly
questionable.”[37]
Evangelical New Testament Scholar and grammarian Dr. Daniel
Wallace admitted that "Divine" can be a rendition of John 1:1c[38];
but also says that Divine can be acceptable if it is applied to true Deity[39].
We believe that Jesus is Deity according to this verse but as an individual and
not how Trinitarians define the term to mean “one ousia”. Even a
qualitative take on John 1:1c does not indicate equality with the Father, contrary
to what Trinitarians teach. It is debated on what “deity” means; as Nicene
Creedal Trinitarians define “deity” as the Trinity; and therefore, the Father
and the Son are of the same substance and being. Furthermore, scholars and
translators Eugene Nida and Barclay M. Newman Jr. in the Translator's Handbook
ng United Bible Societies (UBS) on the Gospel of John says the following on how
John 1:1c should be translated:
“Many languages have
two quite different types of equation sentences. One type indicates complete
identity in such a sentence as “My husband is John Smith” or “John Smith is my
husband,” that is, the two parts of the sentence are completely equivalent. In
the second type, however, one may say “John Smith is a teacher” but cannot say
“A teacher is John Smith.” “A teacher” merely qualifies “John Smith” and
indicates the class of person to which he belongs. The latter is precisely the
type of equational sentence which occurs in this verse. “God” completely
characterizes “the Word,” and all this is true of God is true of the Word. This
does not mean, however, that the two elements can be inverted, and that one can
translated “God was the Word...”[40]
More scholars wrote the following:
C.K Barrett: "The
absence of the article indicates that the Word is God, but is not the only
being of whom this is true; if ho theos had been written it would have implied
that no divine being existed outside the second person of the Trinity."
(C.K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, [S.P.C.K., 1955], 76.).
Philip B. Harner: "Perhaps
the clause could be translated, 'the Word had the same nature as God."
This would be one way of representing John's thought, which is, as I understand
it, that ho logos, no less than ho theos, had the nature of theos.”[41]
Kenneth Wuest: "The
Word was God. Here the word "God" is without the article in the
original. When it is used in this way, it refers to the divine essence.
Emphasis is upon the quality or character. Thus, John teaches us here that our
Lord is essentially Deity. He possesses the same essence as God the Father, is
one with Him in nature and attributes.”[42]
"In the beginning the Word was existing. And the Word
was in fellowship with God the Father. And the Word was as to His essence
absolute deity”.[43]
"The structure of the third clause in verse 1, theos en
ho logos, demands the translation "The Word was God." Since logos has
the article preceding it, it is marked out as the subject. The fact that theos
is the first word after the conjunction kai (and) shows that the main emphasis
of the clause lies on it. Had theos as well as logos been preceded by the
article the meaning would have been that the Word was completely identical with
God, which is impossible if the Word was also "with God". What is
meant is that the Word shared the nature and being of God, or (to use a piece
of modern jargon) was an extension of the personality of God. The NEB
paraphrase "what God was, the Word was", brings out the meaning of
the clause as successfully as a paraphrase can...So, when heaven and earth were
created, there was the Word of God, already existing in the closest association
with God and partaking of the essence of God. No matter how far back we may try
to push our imagination, we can never reach a point at which we could say of
the Divine Word, as Arius did, "There was once when he was not”.[44]
W. Robertson takes a much more theological approach on John
1:1 rather than a grammatical approach:
"The Word is distinguishable from God and yet Theos en
ho logos, the Word was God, of Divine nature; not "a God," which to a
Jewish ear would have been abominable; nor yet identical with all that can be
called God, for then the article would have been inserted..."[45]
Of course, they want to insist the idea of strict monotheism
to the text when the Shema (Dt. 6:4; cf. Mk. 12:28) that defines the Jewish
faith on what they teach about God says a different approach where the Shema
does not talk about Yahweh's quantity but his quality. This is simply a
Theological bias for Trinitarians and other holders of strict monotheism [46].
The Israelite religion and Old Testament monotheism does not necessarily view
the God of Israel as the only ontologically existing deity and denies the
existence of other Deities. This must be something clear about Biblical
Monotheism that it is not strange that other deities beside the God of Israel
exist. This is confirmed by Trinitarian Old Testament Scholars like Michael
Heiser, and his work on the Old Testament and the Divine council.[47]
"Finally John says that
"The Word was God". There is no doubt that this is a difficult saying
for us to understand, and it is difficult because Greek, in which John wrote,
had a different way of saying things from the way in which English speaks. When
the Greek uses a noun it almost always uses the definite article with it. The
Greek for God is 'theos', and the definite article is 'ho'. When Greek speaks
about God it does not simply say 'theos'; it says 'ho theos'. Now, when Greek
does not use the definite article with a noun that noun becomes much more like
an adjective; it describes the character, the quality of the person. John did
not say that the Word was 'ho theos'; that would have been to say that the Word
was identical with God; he says that the Word was 'theos'- without the definite
article- which means that the Word was, as we might say, of the very same
charactor and quality and essence and being as God. When John said 'The Word
was God' he was not saying that Jesus is identical with God, he was saying that
Jesus is so perfectly the same as God in mind, in heart, in being that in Jesus
we perfectly see what God is like."[48]
“In a case like this we cannot do
other than go to the Greek, which is theos en ho logos. Ho is the definite
article, the, and it can be seen that there is a definite article with logos,
but not with theos. When in Greek two nouns are joined by the verb “to be,” and
when both have the definite article, then the one is fully intended to be
identified with the other; but when one of them is without the article, it
becomes more an adjective than a noun, and describes rather the class or sphere
to which the other belongs. An illustration from English will make this clear.
If I say, “The preacher is the man,” I use the definite article before both
preacher and man, and I thereby identify the preacher with some quite definite
individual man whom I have in mind. But, if I say, “The preacher is man,” I
have omitted the definite article before man, and what I mean is that the
preacher must be classified as a man, he is in the sphere of manhood, he is a
human being. [In the last clause of John 1:1] John has no article before theos,
God. The logos, therefore, is not identified as God or with God; the word theos
has become adjectival and describes the sphere to which the logos belongs. We
would, therefore, have to say that this means that the logos belongs to the
same sphere as God; without being identified with God, the logos has the same
kind of life and being as God. Here the NEB [New English Bible] finds the
perfect translation: “What God was, the Word was.” [49]
With the Greek of John 1:1c being rendered correctly, we see
here that the author draws a distinction between the Logos and God (the Father
in this context) where we see that he is not the same person with the God he
was with or the same being that he was with (depends on how someone defines
what a person is). this does not show Trinitarian dogmas na ang Logos (Jesus)
at ang Diyos are of the same entities but they are both of the same nature.
Jesus Christ however is a participant ng divine nature so therefore he is God
in nature but not the same entity that he was with, who is the Father, who
alone is the only true God (Jn. 17:3). Jesus is the reflection and the exact
imprint of God's being (Heb. 1:1-3) and therefore he is like Heavenly Father,
who is Divine and is rightfully called a God (Titus 2:13; Heb. 1:8-9; 2Pt. 1:1)
but is subordinate and is a different individual (Jn. 14:28; 1Cor. 8:5-6; 11:3;
Heb. 1:9; 3:1). this also does not show polytheism as Trinitarians and other
strict monotheist accuse for, we see the Father as the only true God, the only
one who is worthy of glory, worship, and service and Jesus Christ as the Divine
Son wherein through him, we worship the Father, and we glorify the Father
(Phil. 2:5-11).
CONCLUSION
The heart of the record that the apostle John wrote is that
Jesus is the Christ and only through him that we will find eternal life. John
gave descriptions of the qualities of Jesus Christ and his relationship with
God the Father and people often misunderstand what he is trying to point
out.
Jesus and God, the Father, are
ontologically distinct entities. I did my best to explain the meaning of the
nature of God and Christ in the prologue of the Gospel of John and I hope that
you became patient in reading and learned something from the learnings that I
have shared. Jesus and Heavenly Father is not like what people think and keep
in mind that as Jesus said in his prayer to the Father in the gospel of John
that " . . . this is life eternal, that they might know you, the only true
God, and Jesus Christ whom thou has sent."(Jn. 17:3; cf. 1Cor. 8:5-6;
1Tim. 2:5-6).
Bibliography
BOWEN, MATTHEW L., “The Messenger of Salvation”: The
Messenger-Message Christology of D&C 93:8 and Its Implications for
Latter-day Saint Missionary Work and Temple Worship, Interpreter: A Journal
of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 51 (2022): 1-28.
----------The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version, NRSV
(Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of
Christ of America, 1989).
NELSON, RUSSEL M. “Jesus the Christ: Our Master and More,” Ensign,
Apr. 2000 (Salt Lake City UT: Intellectual Reserve Inc. 2000)
----------New Testament, Student Manual, Religion 211-212
(Intellectual Reserve Inc., 2014)
MCCONKIE, BRUCE R.: Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, vol.
1 The Gospels (Salt Lake City, UT: Bookcraft)
TALMAGE, JAMES E., Jesus the Christ (Salt Lake City UT:
Intellectual Reserve Inc., 1973)
BAUER, ARDNT, GINGRINCH, BDAG, A Greek-English Lexicon of the
New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd Edition
(Chicago IL: Chicago University Press, 2000)
TOBIN, THOMAS H., Anchor Bible Dictionary 4 (New York, NY:
Doubleday, 1992)
BULTMAN, R., The Gospel of John, trans. G.R. Beasley-Murray
(Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1971)
KITTEL, GERHARD; BROMILEY, GEOFFREY, Theological Dictionary of
The New Testament, vol. 4 (Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 1967), cited as TDNT
FRIES G., New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology
vol. 3 (Grand Rapids Mi.: Zondervan, 1978) cited as NIDNT
LEVEY, SAMSON H., “The Date of Targum Jonathan to the Prophets” Vetus
Testamentum 21, no. 2, April 1971 (Leiden: Brill 1971.),
BUZZARD, ANTHONY F., Jesus is not Trinitarian (Restoration
Fellowship, 2007)
BUZZARD, ANTHONY F., HUNTING, CHARLES, The Doctrine of the
Trinity: Christianity's Self-Inflicted Wound (University Press of America,
International Scholars Publication, 1998)
PHILO, -De Profugis
- Quaestiones in Genesim
- De Agricultura
- De Fuga et Inventione
- De Confusione Linguarum
- Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres
Sit
COPLESTON, FREDERICK, A History of Philosophy: Volume 1,
Continuum, (2003)
BOER, H.R, A Short History of the Early Church (1976)
SEGAL, ALAN, Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports About
Christianity and Gnosticism (Leiden: Brill, 1977)
VON WAHLDE, URBAN C., Gnosticism, Docetism, and the Judaisms of the
First Century: The Search for the Wider Context of the Johannine Literature and
Why It Matters, Library of New Testament Studies 517 (London: T&T
Clark, 2015, 2016)
STRATHEARN, GAYE; FREDERICK, NICHOLAS J.; HILTON, JOHN, III,
“Teaching the Four Gospels: Five Considerations”, Learn of Me: History and
Teachings of the New Testament, ed. John Hilton III and Nicholas J.
Frederick (Provo, Utah: BYU Religious Studies Center; Salt Lake City: Deseret
Book, 2022)
HARNER, PHILIP, “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39
and John 1: 1,” Journal of Biblical Literature 92 (Atlanta GA: Society
of Biblical Literature, 1973)
NESTLE, EBERHAND AND ERWIN; ALAND, KURT; ALAND, BARBARA et. al, Novum
Testamentum Graece, 28th Edition (Stuttgart Germany: Deutsche
Bibelgesellschaft, 2012), in collaboration with the Institut fur
Nuetestamentlische Textforschung
COLWELL, E.C., “A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the
Greek New Testament,” JBL- Journal of Biblical Literature 52 (Society of
Biblical Literature, 1933)
STAFFORD, GREGORY, Jehovah’s Witnesses Defended: An Answer to
Scholars and Critics, 3rd Edition (Murrieta CA.: Elihu Books LLC., 2009).
CARSON, D.A, Exegetical Fallacies (Grand Rapids: Baker,
1984)
DIXON, PAUL S., “The Significance of the Anarthrous Predicate
Nominative in John” Th.M. thesis (Dallas Texas: Dallas Theological
Seminary, 1975)
WALLACE, DANIEL, Selected Notes on the Syntax of the New
Testament (1981)
-
Greek Grammar Beyond
the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids MI:
Zondervan, 1996.).
NIDA, EUGENE A.; NEWMAN, BARCLAY A. JR., A Translator's Handbook
on the Gospel of John (United Bible Societies, 1993), 9.
XENOPHON, Anabasis 1
GODSPEED, EDGAR, The New Testament: An American Translation
(Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press, 1935)
MOFFAT, JAMES, The Bible: A New Translation (Chicago IL:
University of Chicago Press, 1935).
--------The Holy Bible, NEB – The New English Bible; REB – The
Revised English Bible (Oxford University Press, 1989.);
--------The Holy Bible, REV – The Revised English Version (Spirit
and Truth Fellowship International, 2014)
NEWCOME, WILLIAM, The New Testament, An Improved Version
(1808)
BECKER, JURGEN, Das Evangelium nach Johannes: Ökumenischer
Taschenbuchkommentar zum Neuen Testament, Kapitel 1-10 (Gütersloh:
Gütersloher Verlagshaus Mohn, 1979.);
Das Evangelium nach Johannes
(Göttingen Germany, 1975);
THOMPSON, JOHN S., The Monotessaron/The Gospel History,
According to the Four Evangelist (Baltimore, 1829)
WUEST, KENNETH, Word Studies in the Greek New Testament,
vol. 3, “Golden Nuggets”
BRUCE, F.F, The Gospel of John, (Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans,
1983)
NICOLL, W. ROBERTSON, ed., The Expositor's Greek Testament,
5 vols, (Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 1983)
HEISER, MICHAEL, Monotheism, Polytheism, Monolatry, or Henotheism?
Toward an Assessment of Divine Plurality in the Hebrew Bible, Bulletin of
Biblical Research 18.1 (Bulletin of Biblical Research, 2008)
BARCLAY, WILLIAM, W. The Gospel of John, vol.1, The Daily
Study Bible Series (Saint Andrew Press, 1963)
--Jesus as They Saw Him (Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 1978)
[1]
Quoted from the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
[2]
Matthew L. Bowen, “The Messenger of
Salvation”: The Messenger-Message Christology of D&C 93:8 and Its
Implications for Latter-day Saint Missionary Work and Temple Worship, Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith
and Scholarship 51 (2022):
1-28.
[3] “Jesus
the Christ: Our Master and More,” Ensign, Apr. 2000 (Salt Lake City UT: Intellectual
Reserve Inc. 2000), 4.; cf. New Testament Religion 211-212 Student Manual (Intellectual
Reserve Inc., 2014), 197.
[4] Bruce
R. McConkie: Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, vol. 1, The Gospels (Salt
Lake City, UT: Bookcraft), 1:71.
[5] James E. Talmage, Jesus the Christ (Salt Lake City
UT: Intellectual Reserve Inc., 1973), 33.
[6]
BDAG, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature, 3rd Edition (Chicago IL: Chicago University Press,
2000).
[7] Thomas
H. Tobin, “Logos,” Anchor Bible Dictionary 4 (New York: Doubleday, 1992),
348.; cf. R. Bultmann, The Gospel of John, trans. G.R. Beasley-Murray (Philadelphia:
Westminster Press, 1971), 24.; H. Kleinknecht, “λόγος”, TDNT - Theological
Dictionary of The New Testament, vol. 4 (Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 1967),
80-81.; G. Fries, “λόγος”,” New International Dictionary of New Testament
Theology vol. 3 (Grand Rapids Mi.: Zondervan, 1978), 1081.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Samson
H. Levey, “The Date of Targum Jonathan to the Prophets”, Vetus Testamentum
21, no. 2, April 1971 (Leiden: Brill 1971.): 186-96.
[10] E.g Buzzard and Hunting: The
Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity's Self-Inflicted Wound (University
Press of America, International Scholars Publication, 1998); Anthony Buzzard, Jesus
is not Trinitarian (Restoration Fellowship, 2007).
[11] De
Profugis
[12] Quaestiones
in Genesim 2.62; De Agricultura 51; De Fuga et Inventione
109; De Confusione Linguarum 147; Frederick Copleston, A History of
Philosophy: Volume 1, Continuum, (2003), 458–462.
[13] The
New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Vol. 3, (Grand
Rapids MI: Zondervan, 1986), 639.; cf. Vol.1, 178.
[14] Quis
Rerum Divinarum Heres Sit, § 42 (i. 501); H.R Boer, A Short History of the
Early Church (1976), 12.
[15] Alan
Segal, Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports About Christianity and
Gnosticism (Leiden: Brill, 1977), 23.
[16] Norman
Russell, The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition, Oxford
Early Christian Studies (New York NY: Oxford University Press, 2004, 2006)
59.
[17] Quod
Deterius Potiori Insidiari Soeat 18.
[18] Alan
Segal, Two Powers in Heaven (Baylor University Press, 1977, 2002) 173.
[19] Urban
C. Von Wahlde, Gnosticism, Docetism, and the Judaisms of the First Century:
The Search for the Wider Context of the Johannine Literature and Why It Matters
(Library of New Testament Studies 517; London: T&T Clark, 2015, 2016),
173-75.
[20]
A.T Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, John 1:15-16,
(Broadman Press, 1933)
[21] Thomas Aquinas, Commentary
on the Gospel of John: Chapters 1–21, trans. F. Larcher & J. A.
Weisheipl, Vol. 1, (Washington D.C: The Catholic University of America Press,
2010), 80–81.
[22] D. A Carson, The
Gospel according to John (Leichester Eng, Grand Rapids MI: Inter-Varsity
Press; W.B. Eerdmans, 1991), 130–131.
[23]
Gaye Strathearn, “Teaching the Four Gospels: Five
Considerations,” in Learn of Me: History and Teachings of the New
Testament, ed. John Hilton III and Nicholas J. Frederick (Provo, UT: BYU
Religious Studies Center; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2022), 78-80.
[24]
Robert Boylan, The JST of John 1:1c (Scriptural Mormonism, 2019), blogpost
[25]
Jennifer Roach in Evangelical Questions: Why did Joseph Smith change the
meaning to some passages in the Bible? In Come Follow Me with FAIR:
Faithfull Answers to New Testament Questions video series (FAIR, 2023).
[26] Philip
Harner: “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1: 1”, Journal
of Biblical Literature 92. (Society of Biblical Literature, 1973), 87.
[27]
Similarly argued by Robert S. Boylan in “The Grammar of John 1:1c”
(Scriptural Mormonism, May 17, 2015), blogpost
[28]
“Thence Cyrus marched one stage, five parasangs,
to Myriandus, a city on the sea coast, inhabited by Phoenicians; it was a
trading place, and many merchant ships were lying at anchor there. There he
remained seven days; [ἐντεῦθεν ἐξελαύνει διὰ Συρίας σταθμὸν ἕνα παρασάγγας πέντε εἰς Μυρίανδον, πόλιν οἰκουμένην ὑπὸ Φοινίκων ἐπὶ τῇ θαλάττῃ: ἐμπόριον δ᾽ ἦν τὸ χωρίον καὶ ὥρμουν αὐτόθι ὁλκάδες πολλαί. ἐνταῦθ᾽ ἔμεινεν ἡμέρας ἑπτά:]” (Xenophon, Anabasis 1:4:6).
[29]
Edgar Godspeed, The New Testament: An American Translation (Chicago IL:
University of Chicago Press, 1935); James Moffatt, The Bible: A New
Translation (Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press, 1935).
[30]
The Holy Bible, NEB - The New English Bible; REB – The Revised
English Bible (Oxford University Press, 1989.); The Holy Bible, REV –
The Revised English Version (Spirit and Truth Fellowship International, 2014).
[31] William Newcome: The New
Testament, An Improved Version (1808); Jürgen Becker: Das Evangelium nach
Johannes: Ökumenischer Taschenbuchkommentar zum Neuen Testament,
Kapitel 1-10 (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Mohn, 1979.); Das
Evangelium nach Johannes (Göttingen Germany, 1975); John S. Thompson, The
Monotessaron/The Gospel History, According to the Four Evangelist
(Baltimore, 1829) cf. Sahidic Coptic versions; Justin Martyr also calls Jesus
with the indefinite “a God” in Apologies 16.63.15 (96 C).
[32]
See. Apparatus Criticus J 1:18, Eberhand and Erwin Nestle, Kurt and Barbara Aland
et. al: Nestle-Aland, Novum Testamentum Graece, 28th Edition
(Stuttgart Germany: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012).
[33] Phillip
Harner, “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns, Mark 15:39 and John 1:1”, JBL
- Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 2 (Society of Biblical Literature, 1
March 1973), 85.
[34]
E.C. Colwell, “A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New
Testament,” JBL- Journal of Biblical Literature 52 (Society of Biblical
Literature, 1933), 12-21.
[35]
Greg Stafford, Jehovah’s Witnesses Defended: An Answer to Scholars and
Critics, 3rd Edition (Murieta CA.: Elihu Books LLC., 2009).
[36]
D.A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), pages
86-87.
[37]
Paul S. Dixon, “The Significance of the Anarthrous Predicate Nominative in
John” Th.M. thesis (Dallas Texas: Dallas Theological Seminary, 1975), 18,
23.
[38] Dan Wallace,
Selected Notes on the Syntax of the New Testament (1981), 96.
[39]
Dan Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the
New Testament (Grand Rapids MI: Zondervan, 1996.).
[40] Eugene
A. Nida, Barclay M. Newman Jr, A Translator's Handbook on the Gospel of John
(United Bible Societies, 1993), 9.
[41] Philip
B. Harner, Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John
1:1," Journal of Biblical Literature, 92, 1, March 1973 (Society of
Biblical Literature, 1973), 87.
[42] Kenneth
Wuest, Word Studies in the Greek New Testament, vol. 3, “Golden
Nuggets” 52.
[43] Kenneth
Wuest, Word Studies, vol. 4, 209.
[44] F.
F. Bruce, The Gospel of John, (Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 1983), 31.
[45] W. Robertson Nicoll, ed., The
Expositor's Greek Testament, 5 vols, (Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 1983),
1:684.
[46] “Many modern readers regard the
Shema as an assertion of monotheism, a view that is anachronistic. In the
context of ancient Israelite religion, it served as a public proclamation of
exclusive loyalty to YHWH as the sole Lord of Israel . . . the v. makes not a
quantitative argument (about the number of deities) but a qualitative one,
about the nature of the relationship between God and Israel. Almost certainly,
the original force of the v., as the medieval Jewish exegetes [noted], was to
demand that Israel show exclusive loyalty to our God, YHWH--but not thereby to
deny the existence of other gods. In this way, it assumes the same perspective
as the first commandment of the Decalogue, which, by prohibiting the worship of
other gods, presupposes their existence.” (The Jewish Study Bible
[2d ed.; New York: Oxford University Press, 2014], 361)
[47]
Michael Heiser, “Monotheism, Polytheism, Monolatry, or Henotheism? Toward an
Assessment of Divine Plurality in the Hebrew Bible”, Bulletin of Biblical
Research 18.1 (Bulletin of Biblical Research, 2008), 9-15.
[48]
William Barclay, The Gospel of John, vol.1, The Daily Study Bible Series
[Saint Andrew Press], 39.
[49] William
Barclay, Jesus as They Saw Him, 21-22.
