0% found this document useful (0 votes)
375 views43 pages

John 1 in The Begining of The Word

This document summarizes Bart Ehrman's analysis of differences between John's Gospel and the Synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Ehrman notes that John's Gospel contains very different stories and portrayals of Jesus than the Synoptics. Key differences include John being the last Gospel written decades after the others, having a high Christology depicting Jesus' preexistence and divinity, and including different events and teachings of Jesus not present in the Synoptics. The document examines several passages from John that present a unique vision of Jesus compared to the earlier Gospels.

Uploaded by

Zahoor Basha
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
375 views43 pages

John 1 in The Begining of The Word

This document summarizes Bart Ehrman's analysis of differences between John's Gospel and the Synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Ehrman notes that John's Gospel contains very different stories and portrayals of Jesus than the Synoptics. Key differences include John being the last Gospel written decades after the others, having a high Christology depicting Jesus' preexistence and divinity, and including different events and teachings of Jesus not present in the Synoptics. The document examines several passages from John that present a unique vision of Jesus compared to the earlier Gospels.

Uploaded by

Zahoor Basha
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 43

Bart Ehrman - Jesus Interrupted - The Difference Between John's Gospel and the

Synoptic Gospels
From an extract of Bart Ehrman's book titled
Jesus Interrupted
I heard in a talk recently from Brother Shabir Ally that the Gospels had evolved over time especially John's. I
see what he meant when I read Bart Ehrman's interpretation of what actually happened. As John was the last
of the Gospels to be written (scholars set a range of maybe 90 to 100 A.D.) i.e. 70 odd years after Jesus's
departure. It is not difficult to understand that how stories would have circulated and then reached the epic
proportions that are visible in John's Gospel.

The gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are referred to specifically as the Synoptic Gospels because they
include many of the same stories, often in the same sequence, and similar wording.

John is considered out of the synoptics because of the very same reason as above - that is has different
content then the other 3 gospels.

John's Gospel Different to the Synoptics


"Although many casual readers of the New Testament have not noticed it, the Gospel of John is a different
kettle of fish altogether. With the exception of the Passion Narratives, most of the stories found in John are
not found in the Synoptics, and most of the stories in the Synoptic Gospels are not found in John. And when
they do cover similar territory, John’s stories are strikingly different from the others. This can be seen by
doing a kind of global comparison of John and the Synoptics." (Page 70)

"Much more could be said about the unique features of John; my point is not simply that there are
discrepancies between John and the Synoptics but that the portrayals of Jesus are very different. Certainly
the three Synoptics are not identical, but the differences between any one of the Synoptics and John are
especially striking, as can be seen by considering some of their various thematic emphases." (Page 73)

Some of the items that make John's Gospel different

"It is striking that virtually none of these stories that form the skeleton of the narratives of the Synoptics can be
found in John. There is no reference to Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem and no mention of his mother being a
virgin. He is not explicitly said to be baptized and does not undergo his temptations in the wilderness. Jesus
does not preach the coming kingdom of God, and he never tells a parable. He never casts out a demon.
There is no account of the Transfiguration. He does not cleanse the Temple when coming to Jerusalem (he
did that already in John 2). He does not institute the Lord’s supper (instead he washes the disciples feet), and
he does not have any kind of official trial before the Jewish council." (Page 72)

Jesus divinity only in John's Gospel

"John starts with a prologue that mysteriously describes the Word of God that was in the very beginning with
God, that was itself God, and through which God created the universe. This Word, we are told, became a
human being, and that’s who Jesus Christ is: the Word of God made flesh. There is nothing like that in the
Synoptics." (Page 72)

"In John, Jesus usually speaks in long discourses rather than in memorable aphoristic sayings as in the other
Gospels. There is the long speech to Nicodemus in chapter 3, the speech to the Samaritan woman in chapter
4, and the very long speech to his disciples that covers four entire chapters (13–16), before he launches into a
prayer that takes the entire next chapter. None of these discourses or any of the “I am” sayings can be
found in the Synoptics." (Page 73)

Jesus Being a Pre-Existent Divine Being


"The orthodox Christian doctrine about Christ’s coming into the world that has been accepted for centuries
is that he was a preexistent divine being, equal with but not identical to God the Father, and that he
became “incarnate,” became a human being, through the Virgin Mary. But this doctrine is not set forth in any
of the Gospels of the New Testament. The idea that Jesus preexisted his birth and that he was a divine
being who became human is found only in the Gospel of John." (Page 73)

"So Matthew and Luke appear to have different interpretations of why Jesus was born of a virgin, but, more
important, in neither Matthew nor Luke is there any sense that this one born to the virgin existed prior to his
birth. For these authors, Jesus came into existence when he was born. There is not a word in either
Gospel about the preexistence of Jesus. That idea comes from John, and only from John." (Page 75)

"The prologue to John’s Gospel (1:1–18) is one of the most elevated and powerful passages of the entire
Bible. It is also one of the most discussed, controverted, and differently interpreted. Page 75
Examining John 1:1
http://www.answering‐christianity.com/sami_zaatri/the_word_1.htm 

One of the most commonly used passages in the Bible to try and affirm that Jesus
is God, and there is a trinity is John 1:1. Christians often quote this verse when
asked about the Trinity, or the divinity of Jesus Christ, the Christian does not only
quote John 1:1, the Christian quotes from John 1 verse 1 all the way to verse 18 to
prove the divinity of Jesus. The passages read like this:

1 Inthe beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The
same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not
any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. 6 There was a man
sent from God, whose name was John. 7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the
Light, that all men through him might believe. 8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear
witness of that Light. 9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the
world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. 11
He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 12 But as many as received him, to them
gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were
born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. 14 And the
Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only
begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh
after me is preferred before me: for he was before me. 16 And of his fulness have all we received,
and grace for grace. 17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus
Christ. 18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the
Father, he hath declared him.

Basically the Trinitarian Christian concludes that Jesus is God from these verses.

In this article of mine we shall examine whether these verses do really prove that
Jesus is God or a Trinity, by doing this I shall in fact quote a Christian source
showing that these verses do not prove that Jesus is God, nor do they show a
Trinity, along with the Christian information that I shall post I shall also add some
of my own points as we go on. Let me make one thing clear though, I am not
quoting a Jehovah witness, what I will be quoting will be from a Unitarian
Christian, not a Jehovah witness whom Christian's regard as non-Christians and
deviants.
This article will be pretty long since I will be quoting a lot, so therefore I hope you
the reader will bear with us and appreciate the information that will be presented to
you, since it is very interesting and will be very helpful to use against many
Christians who always bring John 1:1-18 to prove that Jesus is God.
 

 
 

About whose scholars based I will refute the posts and Credentials‐part 2 

With all that said we now proceed to the information regarding these passages.

Before I quote these Christians, let me first post who they are and what their
credentials are:

Spirit & Truth Fellowship International <http://www.stfonline.org> is a worldwide community


of Christians who desire to make known the written Word of God so as to proclaim the Good
News <http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=508> of
the Lord Jesus Christ. As a legal entity, we are a non-profit, tax-exempt United States (Indiana)
corporation.

The fellowship and community arm of the ministry, including our events
<http://www.stfonline.org/events/calendar.html> and the infrastructure (support services and
finances) operates under the banner of Spirit & Truth Fellowship International. At the same time,
Christian Educational Services is the publication and production arm of our ministry. Thus, the
organization, like a human body, has two arms with which to reach out.

Our Vision Statement is: “A global community of committed Christians living the truth in love.”

Our Mission Statement is: “To provide sound, biblically-based teaching and build a spiritually-
empowered fellowship community so that all people may have the opportunity to be saved and
come to a knowledge of the truth, enter into a transforming relationship with Jesus Christ, and
become established in faithful and fruitful Christian living.”

Spirit & Truth Fellowship International is accomplishing its overall mission by way of live
speakers, audio
<http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=418> and
videotapes <http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=567>,
books <http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=News&new_topic=13>, and
literature, as well as many different kinds of camps and conferences
<http://www.stfonline.org/events/calendar.html> for all ages. Our biblically based teachings
point people towards having the Lord Jesus Christ as Lord of their lives. The materials produced
by Spirit & Truth Fellowship International are designed to assist individual spiritual growth as
well as to support local fellowships and churches in the Fellowship Community. We encourage
Christians to apply these teachings in their local areas in community with other likeminded
believers.

Spirit & Truth Fellowship is composed of an International Headquarters and an international


network of independent local groups of Christians. This “Fellowship Community
<http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=202>” is made
up of believers who freely affiliate themselves with us because they are in agreement with our
Statement of Beliefs
<http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=113>,
Statement of Values
<http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=248>, Code of
Conduct <http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=249>,
and have seen the quality of their lives improve by their association with us and what we have to
offer. Our goal is to be a “full service” ministry where people can come and find wholeness for
themselves, as well as an arena in which to exercise their own unique callings in the Body of
Christ.

Our name is partially derived from Jesus' statement in John 4:23 that God is seeking people to
worship <http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=215>
Him “in spirit and in truth.” As that is the only thing stated in Scripture that God seeks, we
believe it is imperative that our ministry is oriented to that way of honoring our God. We are a
community of worshipers, knit together by the love of God and a common belief of His Word
(“the truth
<http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=376>”). We seek
to empower each believer involved in our ministry to exercise his own unique giftings in
accordance with his personal relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ.

The basis for all our efforts is the Bible


<http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=43>, which we
believe to be the Word of God, perfect in its original writing. So-called errors, contradictions, or
discrepancies are the result of man's subsequent interference in the transmission of the text,
mistranslations, or failure to understand what is written. Spirit & Truth Fellowship International
draws from all relevant sources that shed light on the integrity of Scripture, whether in the field
of geography, customs, language, history, or principles governing Bible interpretation. Our goal
is to seek the truth without respect to tradition or “orthodoxy.” [For further study, read “22
Principles of Biblical Interpretation
<http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=168>”.]

 
 

Part 3 

Let us now proceed to what these Christians have to say regarding John 1:1-18, we
first start with John 1:1

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (NIV)

1. It is imperative that the serious student of the Bible come to a basic understanding of logos,
which is translated as “Word” in John 1:1. Most Trinitarians believe that the word logos refers
directly to Jesus Christ, so in most versions of John logos is capitalized and translated “Word”
(some versions even write “Jesus Christ” in John 1:1). However, a study of the Greek word logos
shows that it occurs more than 300 times in the New Testament, and in both the NIV and the KJV
it is capitalized only 7 times (and even those versions disagree on exactly when to capitalize it).
When a word that occurs more than 300 times is capitalized fewer than 10 times, it is obvious
that when to capitalize and when not to capitalize is a translators’ decision based on their
particular understanding of Scripture.

As it is used throughout Scripture, logos has a very wide range of meanings along two basic
lines of thought. One is the mind and products of the mind like “reason,” (thus “logic” is
related to logos) and the other is the expression of that reason as a “word,” “saying,”
“command” etc. The Bible itself demonstrates the wide range of meaning logos has, and some
of the ways it is translated in Scripture are: account, appearance, book, command, conversation,
eloquence, flattery, grievance, heard, instruction, matter, message, ministry, news, proposal,
question, reason, reasonable, reply, report, rule, rumor, said, say, saying, sentence, speaker,
speaking, speech, stories, story, talk, talking, teaching, testimony, thing, things, this, truths, what,
why, word and words.

Any good Greek lexicon will also show this wide range of meaning (the words in italics are
translated from logos):
 speaking; words you say (Rom. 15:18, “what I have said and done”).
 a statement you make (Luke 20:20 - (NASB), “they might catch him in some statement).
 a question (Matt. 21:24, “I will also ask you one question”).
 preaching (1 Tim. 5:17, “especially those whose work is preaching and teaching).
 command (Gal. 5:14, “the entire law is summed up in a single command”).
 proverb; saying (John 4:37, “thus the saying, ‘One sows, and another reaps’”).
 message; instruction; proclamation (Luke 4:32, “his message had authority”).
 assertion; declaration; teaching (John 6:60, “this is a hard teaching”).
 the subject under discussion; matter (Acts 8:21, “you have no part or share in this
ministry.” Acts 15:6 (NASB), “And the apostles... came together to look into this
matter”).
 revelation from God (Matt. 15:6, “you nullify the Word of God ”).
 God’s revelation spoken by His servants (Heb. 13:7, “leaders who spoke the Word of
God”).
 a reckoning, an account (Matt. 12:36, “men will have to give account” on the day of
judgment).
 an account or “matter” in a financial sense (Matt. 18:23, A king who wanted to settle
“accounts” with his servants. Phil. 4:15, “the matter of giving and receiving”).
 a reason; motive (Acts 10:29 - NASB), “I ask for what reason you have sent for me”).
[16]

The above list is not exhaustive, but it does show that logos has a very wide range of meaning.
With all the definitions and ways logos can be translated, how can we decide which meaning of
logos to choose for any one verse? How can it be determined what the logos in John 1:1 is? Any
occurrence of logos has to be carefully studied in its context in order to get the proper meaning.
We assert that the logos in John 1:1 cannot be Jesus. Please notice that “Jesus Christ” is not a
lexical definition of logos. This verse does not say, “In the beginning was Jesus.” “The Word” is
not synonymous with Jesus, or even “the Messiah.” The word logos in John 1:1 refers to God’s
creative self-expression-His reason, purposes and plans, especially as they are brought into
action. It refers to God’s self-expression, or communication, of Himself. This has come to pass
through His creation (Rom. 1:19 and 20), and especially the heavens (Ps. 19). It has come
through the spoken word of the prophets
<http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=372> and
through Scripture, the written Word. Most notably and finally, it has come into being through
His Son (Heb. 1:1 and 2).
  

 
PART 4 

The renowned Trinitarian scholar, John Lightfoot, writes:

The word logos then, denoting both “reason” and “speech,” was a philosophical term
adopted by Alexandrian Judaism before St. Paul wrote, to express the manifestation of
the Unseen God in the creation and government of the World. It included all modes by
which God makes Himself known to man. As His reason, it denoted His purpose or
design; as His speech, it implied His revelation. Christian teachers, when they adopted
this term, exalted and fixed its meaning by attaching to it two precise and definite
ideas: (1) “The Word is a Divine Person,” (2) “The Word became incarnate in Jesus
Christ.” It is obvious that these two propositions must have altered materially the
significance of all the subordinate terms connected with the idea of the logos. [17]

It is important to note that it was “Christian teachers” who attached the idea of a “divine
person” to the word logos. It is certainly true that when the word logos came to be
understood as being Jesus Christ, the understanding of John 1:1 was altered substantially.
Lightfoot correctly understands that the early meaning of logos concerned reason and
speech, not “Jesus Christ.” Norton develops the concept of logos as “reason” and writes:

There is no word in English answering to the Greek word logos, as used here [in John
1:1]. It was employed to denote a mode of conception concerning the Deity, familiar at
the time when St. John wrote and intimately blended with the philosophy of his age, but
long since obsolete, and so foreign from our habits of thinking that it is not easy for us to
conform our minds to its apprehension. The Greek word logos, in one of its primary
senses, answered nearly to our word Reason. The logos of God was regarded, not in its
strictest sense, as merely the Reason of God; but, under certain aspects, as the Wisdom,
the Mind, the Intellect of God (p. 307).

Norton postulates that perhaps “the power of God” would be a good translation for logos (p.
323). Buzzard sets forth “plan,” “purpose” or “promise” as three acceptable translations.
Broughton and Southgate say “thoughts, plan or purpose of God, particularly in action.” Many
scholars identify logos with God’s wisdom and reason.
T
he logos is the expression of God, and is His communication of Himself, just as a “word” is an
outward expression of a person’s thoughts. This outward expression of God has now occurred
through His Son, and thus it is perfectly understandable why Jesus is called the “Word.” Jesus is
an outward expression of God’s reason, wisdom, purpose and plan. For the same reason, we
call revelation
<http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=561> “a word
from God” and the Bible “the Word of God.”
If we understand that the logos is God’s expression-His plan, purposes, reason and wisdom, it is
clear that they were indeed with Him “in the beginning.” Scripture says that God’s wisdom was
“from the beginning” (Prov. 8:23). It was very common in Hebrew writing to personify a
concept such as wisdom. No ancient Jew reading Proverbs would think that God’s wisdom was a
separate person, even though it is portrayed as one in verses like Proverbs 8:29 and 30: “…when
He marked out the foundations of the earth, I [wisdom] was the craftsman at His side.”
2. Most Jewish readers of the Gospel of John
<http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=230> would
have been familiar with the concept of God’s “word” being with God as He worked to bring His
creation into existence. There is an obvious working of God’s power in Genesis 1 as He brings
His plan into concretion by speaking things into being. The Targums are well known for
describing the wisdom and action of God as His “word.” This is especially important to note
because the Targums are the Aramaic translations and paraphrases of the Old Testament, and
Aramaic was the spoken language of many Jews at the time of Christ. Remembering that a
Targum is usually a paraphrase of what the Hebrew text says, note how the following examples
attribute action to the word:
* And the word of the Lord was Joseph’s helper (Gen. 39:2).
* And Moses brought the people to meet the word of the Lord (Ex. 19:17).
* And the word of the Lord accepted the face of Job (Job 42:9).
* And the word of the Lord shall laugh them to scorn (Ps. 2:4).
* They believed in the name of His word (Ps. 106:12). [18]

The above examples demonstrate that the Jews were familiar with the idea of God’s Word
referring to His wisdom and action. This is especially important to note because these Jews
were fiercely monotheistic, and did not in any way believe in a “Triune God.” They were
familiar with the idioms
<http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=604> of their
own language, and understood that the wisdom and power of God were being personified as
“word.”

The Greek-speaking Jews were also familiar with God’s creative force being called “the word.”
J. H. Bernard writes, “When we turn from Palestine to Alexandria [Egypt], from Hebrew
sapiential [wisdom] literature to that which was written in Greek, we find this creative wisdom
identified with the Divine logos, Hebraism and Hellenism thus coming into contact.” [19] One
example of this is in the Apocryphal book known as the Wisdom of Solomon, which says, “O
God of my fathers and Lord of mercy who hast made all things by thy word (logos), and by thy
wisdom hast formed man…” (9:1). In this verse, the “word” and “wisdom” are seen as the
creative force of God, but without being a “person.”

 
PART 5 

The logos, that is, the plan, purpose and wisdom of God, “became flesh” (came into
concretion or physical existence) in Jesus Christ. Jesus is the “image of the invisible God” (Col.
1:15 <http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=128>)
and His chief emissary, representative and agent. Because Jesus perfectly obeyed the Father, he
represents everything that God could communicate about Himself in a human person. As such,
Jesus could say, “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father” (John 14:9). The fact that the
logos “became” flesh shows that it did not exist that way before. There is no pre-existence for
Jesus in this verse other than his figurative “existence” as the plan, purpose or wisdom of God
for the salvation of man. The same is true with the “word” in writing. It had no literal pre-
existence as a “spirit-book” somewhere in eternity past, but it came into being as God gave the
revelation to people and they wrote it down.

4. The last phrase in the verse, which most versions translate as “and the Word was God,” should
not be translated that way. The Greek language uses the word “God” (Greek = theos) to refer to
the Father as well as to other authorities. These include the Devil
<http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=18> (2 Cor. 4:4),
lesser gods (1 Cor. 8:5) and men with great authority (John 10:34 and 35; Acts 12:22). At the
time the New Testament was written, Greek manuscripts were written in all capital letters. The
upper and lower case letters were not blended as we do today. Thus, the distinction that we today
make between “God” and “god” could not be made, and the context became the judge in
determining to whom “THEOS” referred.
Although context is the final arbiter, it is almost always the case in the New Testament that when

“God” refers to the Father, the definite article appears in the Greek text (this article can be seen
only in the Greek text, it is never translated into English). Translators are normally very sensitive
to this (see John 10:33
<http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=72>). The
difference between theos with and without the article occurs in John 1:1: “In the beginning
was the Word, and the Word was with “the theos,” and the Word was “theos.” Since the
definite article is missing from the second occurrence of “theos” (“God,”) the usual
meaning would be “god” or “divine.” The New English Bible gets the sense of this phrase by
translating it, “What God was, the Word was.” James Moffatt who was a professor of Greek and
New Testament Exegesis at Mansfield College in Oxford, England, and author of the well-
known Moffatt Bible, translated the phrase, “the logos was divine.”
 

 
PART 6 

The Meaning of Logos in Greek

It is a challenge for the modern translator to even translate the word logos into a single English
word. [1] Logos is derived from lego, “to say or speak,” and its root, leg, means “to gather or
arrange.” For the Greeks, to speak is to utter the arrangement or gathering of one’s thoughts.
This is reflected in English, as in “I gather that you are not coming this morning.” This meaning
then developed into “speak, reckon, think” then into “word” and finally into “reason.”
The logos is God’s expression, His communication of Himself, just as a spoken word is the
expression of the inner and unseen thoughts of a person. Thus, logos includes the idea of
“plan,” “purpose,” “wisdom” and even “power.” Logos is the term that God uses to
represent His purpose for this new creation, which was eventually realized in the person of
Jesus. The translation of logos as “word” is a good one-word translation of its meaning, but it
falls short of illuminating the richness of “logos” in its Greek usage, a richness that sheds light
on both the purpose of God and the person of Jesus.

Logos expressed the essential unity of language and thought, both of which consist, in their most
advanced forms, of words. When we think, we are talking to ourselves; when we talk, we are
thinking out loud. English words such as “dialogue” and “monologue” signify the connection of
logos with language, while words like “logic” and “logistics” signify its connection with thought.
Logos, in its earliest usage, did not have to do with words per se, but rather with words that made
sense out of and gave meaning to human existence and experience.

In addition to its connection to language and thought, logos was also associated with the reality
of things. To think and speak, in other words, is to think and speak about something. To have and
give a logos was, in ancient Greece, to have and give a rational account, a reasonable
explanation, of something in the world of human experience, whether an object (of nature or
human nature) or an event (an act of God or man). The English suffix “-ology” signifies the
connection of logos with the world of things, things that have become the objects of human
interest and study, e.g., biology, physiology, sociology, psychology and theology.

Another defining point of logos was its practical connection to human life. Every logos, or
reasonable explanation of a human experience, was intended to lead to a wise course of action, a
rational approach to handling similar experiences in the future. Logos, in other words, implied a
purposefulness to life based on a reasonable explanation and a rational understanding of human
existence.

Logos, then, in its original Greek usage, encompassed human language and thought in its relation
to the things of human experience and the purpose of human existence. The biblical usage of
logos runs parallel to this concept in that “the Word” is God’s purpose or plan, His
reasonable explanation of, and His rationale for, His creation of all things before they became
corrupted in human experience. His rationale constitutes wisdom, that is, a rational
understanding of and approach to human life. Sir Anthony Buzzard waxes eloquent:

Recent commentaries on John admit that despite the long-standing tradition to the
contrary, the term “word” in the famous prologue of John need not refer to the Son of
God before he was born. Our translations imply belief in the traditional doctrine of
incarnation
<http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=213> by
capitalizing “Word.” But what was it that became flesh in John 1:14? Was it a pre-
existing person? Or was it the self-expressive activity of God, the Father, His eternal
plan? A plan may take flesh, for example, when the design in the architect’s mind finally
takes shape as a house. What pre-existed the visible bricks and mortar was the intention
in the mind of the architect. Thus, it is quite in order to read John 1:1-3a: “In the
beginning was the creative purpose of God. It was with God and was fully expressive of
God [just as wisdom was with God before creation]. All things came into being through
it.” This rendering suits the Old Testament use of “word” admirably: “So shall My word
be that goes forth out of My mouth; it shall not return to Me empty, without
accomplishing what I desire and without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it.” [2]

We are now in a better position to see why Jesus is known as “the word (logos) in the flesh.”
Jesus was the ultimate expression of God. God’s plan, wisdom and purpose was the logos, and
when we speak of the Bible, it is called “the Word” because it also is God’s expression of
Himself. When we speak of a prophecy
<http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=557>, we say, it
is “the word of the Lord,” both because it is in the form of words and because it is God’s
expression of Himself. Jesus was the logos in the most complete sense. He was the ultimate
expression of God and the essence of His plan and purpose. Thus, it is quite correct to say that
Jesus was the logos, but he was not all of the logos. “Jesus” does not equal “the logos,” he was
part of and the ultimate expression of the logos. If we see Jesus, we see the Father, but it is also
true that if we study the Bible, God’s Word, God’s expression of Himself in writing, we will see
the Father. More dimly, to be sure, because the written Word is not the clear and ultimate
expression of God that the Living Word is, but it is the logos just the same.

 
PART 7 

The Hebrew Word for “Word”

As is true with all genuine study of the Bible, the real question is not what we today think of
these words in John’s prologue, but how the readers in the first century would have understood
them, especially those who had a Semitic understanding. [3] One scholar made the following
insightful comment about the Hebrew view of “word” not emphasizing the rationale or the plan
of God, but His power to bring His will to pass upon the earth:

All over the ancient Orient, in Assyria and Babylon as well as in Egypt, the word, especially
the Word of God, was not only nor even primarily an expression of thought; it was a mighty
and dynamic force. The Hebrew conception of “the divine word” had an express dynamic
character and possessed a tremendous power.” [4]

The Hebrew conception of “word” (dabhar) was more dynamic than the Greek conception,
which is characteristic of the language as a whole. One basic meaning of the root of dabhar is
“to be behind” and thus be able to drive forward from behind. This is consistent with the Semitic
idea expressed by Jesus in Luke 6:45 that “out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks.” In
other words, what is in the heart drives the mind, then the mouth and finally the actions. Thus,
the meaning of dabhar developed along a line defined by three points: “speak,” “word” and
finally “deed.” [5] Boman shows that in the Hebrew mind, words were equivalent to deeds, and
this fact is integrated into the very construction of the language itself:

Dabhar means not only “word,” but also “deed.” Abraham’s servant recounted to Isaac all
the ‘words’ that he had done (Gen. 24:66) [seen in the literal Hebrew rendering of this verse].
The word is the highest and noblest function of man and is, for that reason, identical with his
action. “Word” and “deed” are thus not two different meanings of dabhar, but the “deed” is
the consequence of the basic meaning inhering in dabhar. Our term ‘word’ is thus a poor
translation for the Hebrew dabhar, because for us, ‘word’ never includes the deed within it.
The commentators understand as a contrived witticism Goethe’s translation of John 1:1… “In
the beginning was the deed.” [6] Actually, Goethe is on solid linguistic ground because he
goes back to the Hebrew (Aramaic) original and translates its deepest meaning; for if dabhar
forms a unity of word and deed, in our thinking the deed is the higher concept in the unity.
[7]
 

 
PART 8 

F. F. Bruce is another scholar who recognizes that the key to understanding the significance of
the concept of “logos” is by tracing its Old Testament roots:

The true background to John’s thought and language is found not in Greek philosophy
but in Hebrew revelation. The “Word of God” in the Old Testament denotes God in
action, especially in creation, revelation and deliverance. [8]

The Word of God is repeatedly portrayed in the Old Testament as the agent of God’s creative
power, as the following verses show:

Psalm33:6a(NASB)
By the word of the Lord the heavens were made.

Psalms107:20(KJV)
He sent his word, and healed them, and delivered them from their destruction.

In Isaiah, the “word” of God is spoken of as an agent independent of, but fully in the service of,
God:

Isaiah55:11(NRSV)
So shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; It shall not return to me empty, but it
shall accomplish that which I purpose, and succeed in the thing for which I sent it.

This is reminiscent of the personification of wisdom in Proverbs, where “she” is portrayed as


God’s helper in creation:

Proverbs8:22,23,and30
(22) The Lord brought me [wisdom] forth as the first of his works, before his deeds of
old;
(23) I was appointed from eternity, from the beginning, before the world began.
(30) Then I was his craftsman at his side. I was filled with delight day after day, rejoicing
always in his presence.

Broughton and Southgate argue that “Word,” “Spirit” and “Wisdom” are all personified because
they are intimately connected to how God has related to the world as its Creator, and that John’s
use of logos is consistent with this biblical usage.

We can see how John draws on all the Old Testament teaching…Wisdom is personified in
Proverbs 8 as saying that she was in the beginning, that she was with God, and that she was His
instrument in creation. The Word of God created the heavens (Ps. 33:6), and so did the Spirit as
described in Job 26:13 (KJV) [and Gen. 1:2]. The language clearly is of figure and metaphor, of
personification, not actual personality. And John is saying exactly the same of the logos or Word.
No Jewish reader brought up on the writings of the prophets
<http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=372> would have
deduced from John’s introduction that he was alluding to a person who had existed with God
from all time. They would see it instead as a continuation of the imagery by which the Word or
Wisdom or the Spirit-those manifestations of God which are inseparable from Him-are described
as putting God’s intentions into effect
 

 
PART 9 

Barclay, a respected Greek scholar, also recognizes that the logos is intimately connected to both
power and wisdom.

First, God’s Word is not only speech; it is power. Second, it is impossible to separate the
ideas of Word and Wisdom; and it was God’s Wisdom, which created and permeated the
world, which God made. [10]

There is still more evidence for connecting the Semitic understanding of logos with “power.”
The Targums are Aramaic paraphrases of the Hebrew text, and they are well known for
describing the wisdom and action of God as His “Word.” This is especially important to note
because Aramaic was the spoken language of many Jews at the time of Christ, including Christ
himself, and thus the people at the time of Christ would have been very familiar with them.
Remembering that a Targum is usually a paraphrase of what the Hebrew text says, note how the
following examples attribute action to the “word” of the Lord:

Genesis39:2
And the word of the Lord was Joseph’s helper (Hebrew text: “The Lord was with
Joseph”).

Exodus19:17
And Moses brought the people “to meet the word of the Lord” (Hebrew text: “And
Moses brought the people out of the camp to meet God”).

Job42:9
And the word of the Lord accepted the face of Job (Hebrew text: “And the Lord accepted
thefaceofJob”).

Psalm2:4
And the word of the Lord shall laugh them to scorn (Hebrew text: “The Lord shall laugh
at them”). [11]

The contrast between the Hebrew text and the Aramaic paraphrases in the verses above show
that the Jews had no problem personifying the “Word” of God such that it could act on God’s
behalf. They also prove that the Jews were familiar with the idea of the “Word” referring
to His wisdom and action. This is especially important to note because these Jews were fiercely
monotheistic, and did not in any way believe in a “Triune God
<http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=203>.” They
were familiar with the idioms
<http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=604> of their
own language, and understood that the wisdom and power of God were being personified and did
not represent actual “persons” in any way.
Thus, “the Word” in John 1:1 represents an intersection of the two differing Hebrew and Greek
lines of thought. [12] Although there are similarities, the Hebrew and the Greek languages reflect
profound differences in the way the world was perceived. Boman observes:
According to the Israelite conception, everything is in eternal movement: God and man,
nature and the world. The totality of existence, olam, is time, history, life. The history of
heaven and earth (Gen. 2:4) is of the same form as the history of Adam (5:1), Noah (6:9),
and Shem (11:10); it is referred to in each case by the same word, toledhoth
[generations]. The fact that God created the world and man once and for all implies that
God makes history and brings forth life and that he continues them until they achieve
their goal…As space was the given thought-form for the Greeks, so for the Hebrews it
was time…For the Hebrew, the decisive reality of the world of experience was the word;
for the Greek it was the thing. Yet the word had a great significance for the Greek on
account of its meaning; on the whole, however, the meaning of the word is independent
of the word as spoken or dynamic reality. [13]

 
PART 10 

As we read the Gospel of John with a true understanding of the concept of logos, the wonderful
love of our heavenly Father is clearly shown. From the very beginning God had a purpose, a
plan that He brought to pass in the world in a way that reveals His love and wisdom and
clearly expresses Himself. It should be apparent, then, that the use of logos in the prologue of
John reflects the richness of the biblical usage of the term “Word” when it is used in relation to
God and His creative purpose and activity.

While in John 1:1 the logos is God’s self expression and His wisdom, plan and power, many
times in the New Testament the logos is the message of the coming, the life, the death, the
resurrection, the ascension, the exaltation, the lordship and the coming again of Jesus the
Messiah. If the logos that was “in the beginning” is understood in these terms, then it becomes
clear that God had this very series of events in mind when He created the cosmos. “The Word
was God” (John 1:1) in that it is God’s self-revelation, the account that God chose to give of
Himself and His will to all nations. [14]

The logos or message of God, as it has been revealed in Jesus, includes the following account of
the meaning and purpose of creation: Jesus’ coming was prophesied throughout the Hebrew
Scriptures; he was finally born a man, and by his free will lived a sinless life; Jesus died on the
Cross <http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=613> to
mark the beginning of the end of the present age of sin and death, revealing that it is only a
matter of time until this age and fallen humanity as it now exists come to an end; Jesus was
raised from the dead
<http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=207> to reveal
that death (the experience that all humans since Adam have held in common) is contrary to
God’s will and will ultimately be abolished by resurrection; Jesus was exalted as Lord to the
right hand of God
<http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=44> where he
presently exercises this authority; after he comes to gather together the Church, Jesus will come
again at the end of this age in judgment
<http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=311>, bringing
destruction on the unbelieving world and salvation to the community of faith; he will rule for one
thousand years on this earth
<http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=313>; finally he
will destroy Satan
<http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=18> and all evil,
end the heavens and earth of the present age and begin the new heavens and earth of the age to
come, a “new creation.”

Now off course I do not agree with the Christian saying that God's purpose and
plan for Jesus the word of God was him dying for us and so on, but it is good that
the Christian does say that lest any Trinitarian Christian wants to try and argue that
the people I am quoting are not 'real' Christians and are a bunch of heretics.
Now to these Christians they believe that God's purpose and plan with Jesus the
word of God was for him dying, as a Muslim I off course do not believe that, rather
God's purpose and will was for Jesus to teach the Gospel and bring the children of
Israel back to God, and God's purpose was to also save Jesus from death and make
him come back during the last days to kill the anti-Christ.

This brings us to the end of part one. We shall now examine the other verses in this
chapter which Christians also often use, such as 1:3, 1:4, 1:5 and so on.
 

 
 

 
PART 11 

We resume our discussion John chapter one, we have already taken care of John
1:1, we shall now proceed to the next verses that come after John 1:1.

Let us deal with John 1:3 which reads:

All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made. (KJV)

Christians who believe in the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus conclude from this
verse that all things were made by Jesus, and nothing was made without him,
meaning he is the creator of all which makes him God. This interpretation stems
from the Christian's first miss-interpretation of John 1:1, Christians first wrongly
assume in John 1:1 that the word is solely referring to Jesus, and the Christians
then also rely on a wrong translation.

Due to those problems the Christians are then left with the wrong interpretation of
John 1:3. However so here is the correct response:

1. Trinitarians use this verse to show that Christ made the world and its contents. However, that
is not the case. What we have learned from the study of John 1:1 above will be helpful in
properly interpreting this verse.

John1:1-3
(1) In the beginning was the Word [the wisdom, plan or purpose of God], and the Word
waswithGod,and
theWordwasdivine.
(2)ThesamewasInthebeginningwithGod.
(3) All things were made by it [the Word]; and without it was not anything made that was
made.

2. The pronoun in verse 3 can legitimately be translated as “it.” It does not have to be translated
as “him,” and it does not have to refer to a “person” in any way. A primary reason why people
get the idea that “the Word” is a person is that the pronoun “he” is used with it. The Greek text
does, of course, have the masculine pronoun, because like many languages, including Spanish,
French, German, Latin, Hebrew, etc., the Greek language assigns a gender to all nouns, and the
gender of the pronoun must agree with the gender of the noun. In French, for example, a table is
feminine, la table, while a desk is masculine, le bureau, and feminine and masculine pronouns
are required to agree with the gender of the noun. In translating from French to English,
however, we would never translate “the table, she,” or “the desk, he.” And we would never insist
that a table or desk was somehow a person just because it had a masculine or feminine pronoun.
We would use the English designation “it” for the table and the desk, in spite of the fact that in
the original language the table and desk have a masculine or feminine gender.
This is true in the translation of any language that assigns a gender to nouns. In Spanish, a car is
masculine, el carro, while a bicycle is feminine, la bicicleta. Again, no English translator would
translate “the car, he,” or “the bicycle, she.” People translating Spanish into English use the word
“it” when referring to a car or bicycle. For another example, a Greek feminine noun is “anchor”
(agkura), and literally it would demand a feminine pronoun. Yet no English translator would
write “I accidentally dropped the anchor, and she fell through the bottom of the boat.” We would
write, “it” fell through the bottom of the boat. In Greek, “wind” (anemos) is masculine, but we
would not translate it into English that way. We would say, “The wind was blowing so hard it
blew the trash cans over,” not “the wind, he blew the trash cans over.” When translating from
another language into English, we have to use the English language properly. Students who are
studying Greek, Hebrew, Spanish, French, German, etc., quickly discover that one of the difficult
things about learning the language is memorizing the gender of each noun—something we do not
have in the English language.

Greek is a language that assigns gender to nouns. For example, in Greek, “word” is masculine
while “spirit” is neuter. All languages that assign gender to nouns demand that pronouns
referring to the noun have the same gender as the noun. Once we clearly understand that the
gender of a pronoun is determined by the gender of the noun, we can see why one cannot build a
doctrine on the gender of a noun and its agreeing pronoun. No student of the Bible should take
the position that “the Word” is somehow a masculine person based on its pronoun any more than
he would take the position that a book was a feminine person or a desk was a masculine person
because that is the gender assigned to those nouns in French. Indeed, if one tried to build a
theology based on the gender of the noun in the language, great confusion would result.
In doctrinal discussions about the holy spirit some people assert that it is a person because the
Bible has “he” and “him” in verses that refer to it. So, for example, John 14:16,17 reads:
 

 
PART 12 

John14:16and17
(16) And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you
forever—
(17) the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor
knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.

In the Greek language, “spirit” is neuter and thus is associated with the neuter pronoun, “it.” So,
for example, verse 17 above should be literally translated as: “The world cannot accept it (the
spirit), because it neither sees it nor knows it. But you know it, for it lives with you and will be in
you.” Any Analytical Lexicon will confirm that the pronouns in this verse that refer to spirit are
neuter, not masculine.

If the pronouns in the Greek text are neuter, why do the translators translate them as “he” and
“him?” The answer to that question is that translators realize that when you are dealing with a
language that assigns genders to nouns, it is the context and general understanding of the subject
at hand that determines how the pronouns are to be translated into English as we have seen in the
above examples (desk, bicycle, car, wind, etc.). It is amazing to us that Trinitarian translators
know that the same neuter pronoun can be converted to an English masculine pronoun (e.g., “it”
becomes “he”) but are evidently not as willing to see that a Greek masculine pronoun could be
translated as an English neuter pronoun (e.g., “he becomes “it”), if the subject matter and context
warrant it. Linguistically, both conversions could be completely legitimate. But any change
depends, not on the gender assigned by the Greek language, but rather on the subject matter
being discussed. For example, the logos is God’s plan and should be an it,” and “holy spirit,”
when used as God’s gift, should also be translated into English as an “it.” To the un-
indoctrinated mind, plans and gifts are obviously not “persons.”

Trinitarian Christians believe “the Holy Spirit” is a masculine being and translate the pronouns
that refer to it as “he” in spite of the fact that the noun is neuter and call for an “it,” not a “he” in
Greek. Similarly, even though the masculine noun calls for the masculine pronoun in the Greek
language, it would still not be translated into English as the masculine pronoun, “he,” unless it
could be shown from the context that the subject was actually a male; i.e., a man, a male animal,
or God (who represents Himself as masculine in the Bible). So the question to answer when
dealing with “the Word,” “the Comforter” and “the holy spirit” is not, “What gender are the noun
and associated pronoun in the Greek language?” Rather, we need to ask, “Do those words refer
to a masculine person that would require a “he” in English, or do they refer to a “thing” that
would require the pronoun “it”?” When “holy spirit” is referring to the power of God in action or
God’s gift, it is properly an “it.” The same is true for the “comforter.” (For a much more
exhaustive treatment of the subject of holy spirit see, The Gift of Holy Spirit
<http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=46> available
fromChristianEducationalServices
<http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=201>.
In Hebrew, “spirit” is feminine and must have feminine pronouns, while in Greek, “spirit” is
neuter and takes neuter pronouns. Thus, a person trying to build a theology on the basis of the
gender of the noun and pronoun would find himself in an interesting situation trying to explain
how it could be that “the spirit” of God somehow changed genders as the New Testament was
written.

Because the translators of the Bible have almost always been Trinitarians, and since “the Word”
has almost always been erroneously identified with the person of Christ, the pronouns referring
to the logos in verse 3 have almost always been translated as “him.” However, if in fact the logos
is the plan, purpose, wisdom and reason of God, then the Greek pronoun should be translated
into the English as “it.” To demand that “the Word” is a masculine person and therefore a third
part of a three-part Godhead because the pronouns used when referring to it are masculine, is
poor scholarship.
 

 
PART 13 

Viewed in light of the above translation, the opening of the Gospel of John reveals wonderful
truth, and is also a powerful polemic against primary heresies of the day. We have already seen
(underJohn1:1
<http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=85>) that
Gnostics were teaching that, in the hierarchy of gods, the god Elohim and the god Christ were
actually opposed to each other. Also active at the time John was written were the Docetists, who
were teaching that Christ was a spirit being and only appeared to be flesh. The opening of John’s
Gospel shows that in the beginning there was only one God, not many gods. It also shows that
this God had reason, wisdom, a plan or purpose within Himself, which became flesh in Jesus
Christ. Thus, God and Christ are not at cross purposes as some were saying, and Christ was not a
spirit being as others were saying.

The opening of John reveals this simple truth in a beautiful way: “In the beginning there
was one God, who had reason, purpose and a plan, which was, by its very nature and
origin, divine. It was through and on account of this reason, plan and purpose that
everything was made. Nothing was made outside its scope. Then, this plan became flesh in
the person of Jesus Christ and tabernacled among us.” Understanding the opening of John
this way fits with the whole of Scripture and is entirely acceptable from a translation
standpoint.

 
PART 14 

John1:1-3(KJV)
(1) In the beginning was the word [logos], and the word was with God, and the word was God.
(2)ThesamewasinthebeginningwithGod.
(3) All things were made by [dia] him, and without him was not anything made that was made.

In the beginning was the word, which is God's word, his plan will and action, and
through his word he created Jesus, and his will and plan for Jesus was to be a
prophet to the children of Israel, and to kill the dajjal.

The word was a god, not THE GOD, this simply means that the word Jesus was a
great man, a leader and a prophet, to the Jews men of high honor were called god's
but not in the literal sense. Moses was called a god to the Pharoh in the Torah.

The word of God was with God since the beginning, which is true, since God
always knows what he will do, he does not get new ideas, he is all-knowing. This
is what Muslims say the Quran is Allah's eternal speech; Allah's words are not
created.

And finally from John 1:3, all things are made through God's word, he says be and
it is.

So so far everything is simple and very easy to understand.

John 1:10 is also brought up to support Jesus' divinity, here is the explanation:

John 1:10
He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. (KJV)

1. This verse is a reference to the Father, not to Christ. A study of the context reveals that this
section opens in verse 6 by telling us, “There came a man who was sent by God.” We are told,
“God is light,” and that God’s light shown through Jesus Christ and made him “the light of the
world.” Though God was in the world in many ways, including through His Son, the world did
not recognize him. He came unto his own by sending his exact image, Jesus Christ, to them, but
even then they did not receive God, in that they rejected His emissary. The fact that the world did
not receive Him is made more profound in the context as Scripture reveals how earnestly God
reached out to them—He made his plan and purpose flesh and shined His light through Christ to
reach the world—but they did not receive Him, even though He was offering them the “right to
become children of God” (v. 12).
2. Some scholars make the phrase, “the world was made by him,” a reference to the new creation
only(seeCol.1:15-20
<http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=128>,
Heb.1:2
<http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=137>, and
Heb.1:10
<http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=139>), but
we see it as a double entendre referring to both the original and the new creations (see #7 under
John1:1
<http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=85>, and
Chapter 9 <http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=61>).

 
PART 15 

Also John 1:14 :

John 1:14a
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. (NIV)

1. The “Word” is the wisdom, plan or purpose of God (see John 1:1) and the Word “became
flesh” as Jesus Christ. Thus, Jesus Christ was “the Word in the flesh,” which is shortened to “the
Word” for ease of speaking. Scripture is also the Word, but it is the Word in writing. Everyone
agrees that the “Word” in writing had a beginning. So did the “Word” in the flesh. In fact, the
Greek text of Matthew 1:18 says that very clearly: “Now the beginning of Jesus Christ was in
this manner.” Some ancient scribes were so uncomfortable with the idea of Jesus having a
“beginning” that they tried to alter the Greek text to read “birth” and not “beginning,” but they
were unsuccessful. The modern Greek texts all read “beginning” (genesis) in Matthew 1:18.
“Birth” is considered an acceptable translation of “genesis,” since the beginning of some things
is birth, and so most translations read “birth” in Matthew 1:18. Nevertheless, the proper
understanding of Matthew 1:18 is the “beginning” (genesis) of Jesus Christ.

In the beginning, God had a plan, a purpose, which “became flesh” when Jesus was conceived.
To make John 1:14 support the Trinity, there must first be proof that Jesus existed before he was
born and was called “the Word.” We do not believe that such proof exists. There is a large body
of evidence, however, that Jesus was foreknown by God, and that the “the Word” refers to God’s
plan or purpose. We contend that the meaning of the verse is straightforward. God had a plan
(the Word) and that plan became flesh when Jesus was conceived. Thus, Jesus became “the
Word in the flesh.”

2. It is quite fair to ask why John would say, “the Word became flesh,” a statement that seems so
obvious to us. Of course Jesus Christ was flesh. He was born, grew, ate and slept, and Scripture
calls him a man. However, what is clear to us now was not at all clear in the early centuries of
the Christian era. In our notes on John 1:1
<http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=85>, we
explain that the Bible must be understood in the context of the culture in which it was written. At
the time of John’s writing, the “Docetic” movement was gaining disciples inside Christianity
(“Docetic” comes from the Greek word for “to seem” or “to appear”). Docetic Christians
believed Jesus was actually a spirit being, or god, who only “appeared” to be human. Some
Docetists did not believe Jesus even actually ate or drank, but only pretended to do so.
Furthermore, some Jews thought that Jesus was an angel. In theological literature, theologians
today call this “angel-Christology.” John 1:14 was not written to show that Jesus was somehow
pre-existent and then became flesh. It was to show that God’s plan for salvation “became flesh,”
i.e., Jesus was not a spirit, god or angelic being, but rather a flesh-and-blood man. A very similar
thing is said in 1 John 4:2, that if you do not believe Jesus has come in the flesh, you are not of
God.
John 1:15 is also used to support the Trinity and Divinity of Christ, here is the
explanation:

John 1:15
John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes
after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’ “ (NIV)

This verse is occasionally used to support the Trinity because it is assumed that for Jesus to come
“before” John he would have had to exist before John. While it is true that the Greek word
“before” (protos) can mean “before in time,” it can just as easily be “first,” “chief,” “leader,” etc.
The “first” and great commandment was not the first given in time, but the first in rank. There
are many examples of this in Scripture, including: Matt. 20:27; 22:38; Mark 6:21; 10:44; Luke
11:26. John the Baptist recognized that Jesus was above him in rank, and said so plainly.

 
PART 16 

And finally John 1:18 :

“The glory of the only begotten one”


This term “only begotten” in the phrase “only begotten Son” in John 1:18 (KJV) is traditionally
understood to refer to his virgin birth, when he was first “begotten.” [37] However, it is widely
recognized in scholarly circles that “only begotten” is a mistranslation of the Greek word
monogenes. [38] “Unique” is a profoundly appropriate term to characterize Jesus Christ, the Son
of God. His uniqueness begins with the voluminous prophetic utterances about his coming. No
other human being has ever been so specifically described and anticipated. Then his virgin birth
is indeed another aspect of his uniqueness. Adam was created directly by God, not through the
agency of a woman. Others received a child by God’s promise, but through the normal process of
sexual intercourse. No other human being, even Adam, was ever directly conceived by God
Himself, yet carried in a woman’s body.

No man ever walked the earth with such commanding presence and authority, nor did as many
miracles. No man walked in such moral perfection nor was treated so unjustly. No man showed
so much compassion for his fellow man, nor risked his own life and reputation more for the sake
of helping those who were downcast and troubled. No man ever represented God so perfectly,
and yet died in a manner that seemed to say that he had been cursed of God. Men have been
miraculously raised from the dead, but only one has died and been raised with an entirely new
andimmortalbody
<http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=310>. And,
finally, no man has ever sat where he sits, presiding over the angels
<http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=438> at the right
hand oGod <http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=44>
Himself.
Jesus Christ was the only begotten Son of God, and, as we have already seen, that sonship was
clearly declared when he was “born” from the dead
<http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=233>. That
monogenes also reflects the post-resurrection glory of Jesus Christ is evident from the qualifying
phrase of John 1:18—“who is at the Father’s side.” In other words, Jesus is pictured as being at
the Father’s side, providing a capstone to the prologue and sealing it with the stamp of his
exalted glory. This leads us to the conclusion that from the very first verse the prologue of John
has overtones of Christ’s present state of being at the right hand of God. Thus, the prologue of
John fits with the remainder of the New Testament, including those passages that describe Christ
in his post-resurrection glory.

To show the relationship of the language of John, and especially the prologue, to other passages
in the New Testament that define the post-resurrection identity of Jesus Christ, we have created
the following table <http://www.truthortradition.com/bu/butwhataboutjohn1-1table.html>. In it
we have attempted to correlate the appropriate phrases that address a similar idea. Though it may
be incomplete, the general affinity of the themes of these passages can be easily seen, and helps
us to harmonize some of the language which, taken by itself, might lead to the erroneous
conclusion that Jesus Christ is God, an eternal being, “essential deity,” etc., as Trinitarians
propose.
 

 
PART 17 

John 1:18
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father,
he hath declared him. (KJV)

1. As it is written in the KJV, there is no Trinitarian inference in the verse.

2. There are versions such as the NIV and NASB, however, that are translated from a different
textual family than the King James Version, and they read “God” instead of “Son.”

NIV: “No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has
made him known.”

NASB: “No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the
Father, He has explained Him.”

The NIV and NASB represent theologians who believe that the original text read “ho monogenes
theos” = “the unique, or only begotten God,” while the KJV is representative of theologians who
believe that the original text was “ho monogenes huios” = “the only begotten Son.” The Greek
texts vary, but there are good reasons for believing that the original reading is represented in
versions such as the KJV. Although it is true that the earliest Greek manuscripts contain the
reading “theos,” every one of those texts is of the Alexandrian text type. Virtually every other
reading of the other textual traditions, including the Western, Byzantine, Caesarean and
secondary Alexandrian texts, read huios, “Son.” The two famous textual scholars, Westcott and
Hort, known for their defense of the Alexandrian text type, consider John 1:18 to be one of the
few places in the New Testament where it is not correct.

A large number of the Church Fathers, such as Irenaeus, Clement and Tertullian, quoted the
verse with “Son,” and not “God.” This is especially weighty when one considers that Tertullian
argued aggressively for the incarnation and is credited with being the one who developed the
concept of “one God in three persons.” If Tertullian had had a text that read “God” in John 1:18,
he certainly would have quoted it, but instead he always quoted texts that read “Son.”

It is difficult to conceive of what “only begotten God” would have meant in the Jewish culture.
There is no use of the phrase anywhere else in the Bible. In contrast, the phrase “only begotten
Son” is used three other times by John (3:16 and 18; 1 John 4:9 - KJV). To a Jew, any reference
to a “unique God” would have usually referred to the Father. Although the Jews of John’s day
would have had a problem with “only begotten God,” Christians of the second century and
beyond, with their increasingly paradoxical understanding of Christology and the nature of God,
would have been much more easily able to accept such a doctrine.

The reason that the text was changed from “Son” to “God” was to provide “extra evidence” for
the existence of the Trinity. By the second century, an intense debate about whether or not Jesus
was God raged in Alexandria, Egypt, the place where all the texts that read “God” originated.
The stakes were high in these debates, and excommunication, banishment or worse could be the
lot of the “loser.” Changing a text or two to in order to “help” in a debate was a tactic proven to
have occurred. An examination of all the evidence shows that it is probable that “the only
begotten son” is the original reading of John 1:18. For a much more detailed accounting of why
the word “Son” should be favored over the word “God,” see The Orthodox Corruption of
Scripture, by Bart Ehrman (Oxford University Press, New York, 1993, pp. 78-82).

3. Even if the original text reads “God” and not “Son,” that still does not prove the Trinity. The
word “God” has a wider application in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek than it does in English. It
can be used of men who have divine authority (See John 10:33
<http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=103> and
Heb. 1:8
<http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=138>).
There is no “Trinitarian Formula” in this verse that forces a Trinitarian interpretation.

In light of all these explanations, we can conclude that John 1:1-18 does not prove
a Trinity, nor does it show a divinity of Christ, the verses actually once again show
the opposite that Jesus is not God, rather he is a creation and that all things are
created by God through his word.

I have quoted well known Christians, who know their material, and are not know
as heretics, so therefore to attack the credibility of these explanations would be
desperate and weak.

In conclusion I say that Trinitarians should stop believing in a Trinity, and they
stop believing that Jesus is God.

 
Different Christians Website refuting John 1:1 and refuting the Trinitarians 

Click on any link to view much more information concerning John 1:1:

Was the Word “God” or “a god”? (w08 11/1 pp. 24-25; Watchtower Online Library)

"The Word Was God" (bh p. 201-p. 204 par. 2; Watchtower Online Library)

“Those Who Are Called ‘Gods’” (g05 4/22 pp. 8-9; Watchtower Online Library)

Why Do Jehovah's Witnesses Understand John 1:1 to Read, "...and the Word Was a god"? (Defend Jehovah's
Witnesses)

In Defense of the New World Translation. John 1:1 files

John 1:1 - A Number of Trinitaran Translations and Scholars Admit "a god" (Defending the NWT)

Defending the charge that the NWT translators made up a rule for the word for "God/god" (theos). (Defending
the NWT)

How does the Coptic text render John 1:1? (VIDEO AT BOTTOM OF POST; SFBT)

The Coptic Language and John 1:1 (Search For Bible Truths)

John 1:1c - English translation: "The Word was a god." (Search For Bible Truths)

John 1:1 "and the Word was" (Pastor Russell)

"and the Word was divine." (Pastor Russell)

Should John 1:1 read: "And the Word was divine"? (Jehovah's Witnesses Questions and Answers)

"and the word was with (pros) God." (Jehovah's Witnesses Questions and Answers)

John 1:1c Primer (Examining the Trinity)

DEFinite John 1:1c (Examining the Trinity)

Harner's JBL 'Qualitative' Article (Examining the Trinity)

HARNER: JBL 'Qualitative' Article Refuted (Examining the Trinity)

QUAL ("Qualitative" John 1:1c) (Examining the Trinity)

SEPTGOD (John 1:1c and the Septuagint) (Examining the Trinity)

Logos (The 'Word') (Examining the Trinity)

In Defense of the New World Translation. John 1:1 files (In Defense of the New World Translation)

VIDEO: John 1:1 Part 1 and Part 2 (Search For Bible Truths)
John 1:1 was examined by Origen in his "Commentary on John." (Jehovah's Witnesses Questions and
Answers)

IF God is a trinity, then how is it that “the Word (Jesus) was WITH God”? (John 1:1) (Search For Bible Truths)

Is the New World Translation the only Bible to phrase John 1:1c as "the Word was A God"? (Search For Bible
Truths)

NWT - John 1:1 (Defending the NWT)

"Was" and "Beginning" in John 1:1 (Examining the Trinity)

If Jesus is not God, how can he be a god? (Search For Bible Truths)

God and gods - What is a god and who have been called 'gods'? (Search For Bible Truths)

Video: "Early Jewish and Christian Monotheism - The Early use of "God" and the Christological Implications"
(Search For Bible Truths)

God and gods (from BOWGOD study) (Examining the Trinity)

Was the Word “God” or “a god”? (Pastor Russell)

If the Father is the "only true God" (John 17:3), does that mean that Jesus is a false god? (Search For Bible
Truths)

Why is Jesus called "Mighty God" at Isa. 9:6? (Search For Bible Truths)

The Holy Trinity (Pastor Russell)

They call me Trinity (Pastor Russell) 

 
Why Do Jehovah's Witnesses Understand John 1:1 to Read, "...and the Word Was a god"?

http://defendingjehovahswitnesses.blogspot.ae/2012/11/why-do-jehovahs-witnesses-understand.html

This Bible verse is often misused. In the King James Version, this Scripture reads: “In the beginning was the
Word, and the Word was with God [Greek, ton the·on′], and the Word was God [the·os′].” This verse contains
two forms of the Greek noun the·os′ (god). The first is preceded by ton (the), a form of the Greek definite
article, and in this case the word the·on′ refers to Almighty God. In the second instance, however, the·os′ has
no definite article.

In the New World Translation Bible (produced by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society - a legal
organization in use by Jehovah’s Witnesses), John 1:1 reads: “In the beginning the Word was, and the
Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” Some other translations render the last part of the verse to
convey the thought that the Word was “divine,” or something similar. (A New Translation of the Bible, by
James Moffatt; The New English Bible) Many translations, however, render the last part of John 1:1: “And
the Word was God.”—The Holy Bible—New International Version; The Jerusalem Bible. So which is
the correct translation of this verse?

Greek Grammar and Context Provide the Answer

Greek grammar and the context strongly indicate that the New World Translation rendering is correct and
that “the Word” should not be identified as the “God” referred to earlier in the verse. (See John 1:1c Primer
(Examining the Trinity). Also see the w09 4/1 pp. 18-19 article: A Text That Teaches the Trinity?)

Bible verses in the Greek language that have a construction similar to that of John 1:1 use the expression “a
god.” For example, when referring to Herod Agrippa I, the crowds shouted: ‘It is a god speaking.’ And when
Paul survived a bite by a poisonous snake, the people said: “He is a god.” (Acts 12:22; 28:3-6) It is in harmony
with both Greek grammar and Bible teaching to speak of the Word as, not God, but “a god.”—John 1:1.

For instance, consider that John states that the Word was “with God.” But how can an individual be with
someone and at the same time be that person? John 1:1 clearly phrases God as a separate person from the
Word (Jesus). And since Jesus is written and identified in John 1:1 as a separate person from God (not just the
Father), then that would positively exclude him as being God!

Commenting on this, Count Leo Tolstoy, the famous Russian novelist and religious philosopher, said:

"If it says that in the beginning was the...Word, and that the Word was...WITH God, it is impossible to go on
and say that it was God. If it was God, it could stand in no relation to God." - The Four Gospels
Harmonized and Translated, p. 30.

Moreover, as recorded at John 17:3, Jesus makes a clear distinction between himself and his heavenly Father.
He calls his Father “the only true God.” And toward the end of his Gospel, John sums up matters by saying:
“These have been written down that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God.” (John 20:31)
Notice that Jesus is called, not God, but the Son of God. This additional information provided in the Gospel of
John shows how John 1:1 should be understood. Jesus, the Word, is “a god” in the sense that he has a high
position but is not the same as Almighty God.

Other Bibles That Render John 1:1c "a god"

The NWT is not the only Bible to render John 1:1c as "a god". Actually, there are many Bibles that render John
1:1 as "a God" or it's equivalent:
1808: “and the word was a god.” The New Testament in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of
Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text.

1864: “and a god was the word.” The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson.

1928: “and the Word was a divine being.” La Bible du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice
Goguel.

1935: “and the Word was divine.” The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J.
Goodspeed.

1946: “and of a divine kind was the Word.” Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme.

1958: “and the Word was a God.” The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek.

1975: “and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried
Schulz.

1978: “and godlike kind was the Logos.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider.

Trinitarian Scholars Have Even Admitted That "the Word was *a* god"

Even a number of respected trinitarian scholars have admitted that "the Word was *a* god" is the literal
translation at John 1:1c.

In addition to their comments below, W. E. Vine, Prof. C. H. Dodd (Director of the New English Bible project),
and Murray J. Harris admit that this ("the Word was a god") is the literal translation, but, being trinitarians, they
insist that it be interpreted and translated as "and the Word was God." Why? Because of a trinitarian bias
only!

W. E. Vine - "a god was the Word" - p. 490, An Expository Dictionary of the New Testament.

C. H. Dodd - "The Word was a god" - Technical Papers for the Bible Translator, Jan., 1977.

Murray J. Harris - "the Word was a god" - p. 60, Jesus as God, Baker Book House, 1992.

Robert Young - "and a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word" - Young's Concise Critical Bible
Commentary.

Even Origen, the most knowledgeable of the early Christian Greek-speaking scholars, tells us that John 1:1c
actually means "the Word [logos] was a god". - "Origen's Commentary on John," Book I, ch. 42 - Bk II,
ch.3.

Origen's Commentary on John is "the first great work of Christian interpretation." Origen was certainly the
most knowledgeable about NT (koine) Greek of any scholar. He studied it from early childhood and even taught
it professionally from his teens onward. And this was during a time when it was a living language and, of
course, well understood. - The Ante-Nicene Fathers, pp. 291-294, vol. X, Eerdmans Publ., 1990 printing.

The Sahidic Coptic Translation Reads John 1:1 as, "And the Word was *a* god." 
It is also interesting to note that the Coptic language was spoken in Egypt in the centuries immediately
following Jesus' earthly ministry, and the Sahidic dialect was an early literary form of the language. A significant
fact concerning the Coptic language is that, unlike the Greek, it used an indefinite article ("a" or "an" in English).

The Sahidic Coptic translation DOES USE an indefinite article with the word 'god' in the final part of John 1:1
and when rendered into modern English, the translation reads: 'And the Word was a god.' (Coptic Translation
of John 1:1-14)

The fact is that the New World Translation is not wrong in translating John 1:1 the way it does as some
critics propose. In fact, these critics have it completely turned around. The absence of the indefinite article (a)
at John 1:1c has been purposely mistranslated in most Trinitarian-produced Bibles to fit THEIR doctrine that
Jesus is God.

For much more, see:

Was the Word “God” or “a god”? (w08 11/1 pp. 24-25; Watchtower Online Library)

"The Word Was God" (bh p. 201-p. 204 par. 2; Watchtower Online Library)

“Those Who Are Called ‘Gods’” (g05 4/22 pp. 8-9; Watchtower Online Library)

John 1:1 - Links to Information (Defend Jehovah's Witnesses

http://youtu.be/IdMV3PIEUco The real truth about John1:1 

Explanation of John 1:1 by other Christians themselves 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpAR713liYw 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9oAinONAWo 

http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/videos/but‐what‐about‐john‐1‐1 

RE Jerald derricks shows up the lies of James white  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uV54Mm1j04A 

 
 

John 1:1 in English versions[edit]‐ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_1:1

Other variations of rendering John 1:1 also exist:

 1822 "and the Word was a god." ‐ The New Testament in Greek and English (A. Kneeland, 
1822.); 
 1863 "and the Word was a god." ‐ A Literal Translation Of The New Testament (Herman 
Heinfetter [Pseudonym of Frederick Parker], 1863); 
 1885 "and the Word was a god." ‐ Concise Commentary On The Holy Bible (R. Young, 1885); 
 1879 "and the Word was a god." ‐ Das Evangelium nach Johannes (J. Becker, 1979); 
 1911 "and the Word was a god." ‐ The Coptic Version of the N.T. (G. W. Horner, 1911); 
 1958 "and the Word was a god." ‐ The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Anointed" 
(J. L. Tomanec, 1958); 
 1829 "and the Word was a god." ‐ The Monotessaron; or, The Gospel History According to the 
Four Evangelists (J. S. Thompson, 1829); 
 1975 "and the Word was a god." ‐ Das Evangelium nach Johannes (S. Schulz, 1975); 
 1962, 1979 "'the word was God.' Or, more literally, 'God was the word.'" The Four Gospels and 
the Revelation (R. Lattimore, 1979) 
 1975 "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word" Das Evangelium nach Johnnes, by Siegfried 
Schulz, Göttingen, Germany  

For a complete list of 70 non traditional translations of John 1:1 see this reference[-AMA

John 1:1 translation It is an early church heresy 

The text of John 1:1 has a sordid past and a myriad of interpretations. With the Greek alone, we can 
create empathic, orthodox, creed‐like statements, or we can commit pure and unadulterated heresy. 
From the point of view of early church history, heresy develops when a misunderstanding arises 
concerning Greek articles, the predicate nominative, and grammatical word order. The early church 
heresy of Sabellianism understood John 1:1c to read, "and the Word was the God." The early church 
heresy of Arianism understood it to read, "and the word was a God." David A. Reed. "How Semetic Was 
John? Rethinking the Hellenistic Background to John 1:1." Anglican Theological Review, Fall 2003, Vol. 85 Issue 4, 
p709 

 
 

The rendering as "a god" is justified by some non‐Trinitarians by comparing it with Acts 28:6 which they 
claim has a similar grammatical construction'[25] "The people expected him to swell up or suddenly fall 
dead; but after waiting a long time and seeing nothing unusual happen to him, they changed their minds 
and said he was a god."[Ac. 28:6 NIV]. However, it was noted that the Hebrew words El, HaElohim and Yahweh 
(all referring to God) were rendered as anarthrous theos in the Septuagint at Nahum 1:2, Isaiah 37:16, 
41:4, Jeremiah 23:23 and Ezekiel 45:9 among many other locations. Moreover, in the New Testament 
anarthrous theos was used to refer to God in locations including John 1:18a, Romans 8:33, 2 Corinthians 
5:19, 6:16 and Hebrews 11:16 (although the last two references do have an adjective aspect to them). 
Therefore anarthrous or arthrous constructions by themselves, without context, cannot determine how 
to render it into a target language 

The Greek word λόγος or logos is a word with various meanings. It is often translated into English as 
"Word" but can also mean thought, speech, account, meaning, reason, proportion, principle, standard, 
or logic, among other things. It has varied use in the fields of philosophy, analytical psychology, rhetoric 
and religion. 

 
 

 
 

You might also like