Question on the Word in John

[Harel13]

John opens up with: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

I don't quite understand this. Clearly the author of the book is trying to parallel this with the opening of Genesis "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." However, Genesis opens up with stating that first time itself began/came into being - i.e. there was a beginning ("In the beginning"). Next, the verse makes mention of God. Where did God come from? That's not stated, but as God was already there at the beginning and we don't know where He came from, it's inferred that He was there before the beginning.

In John, however, things appear to be different:
First there's a beginning - much like in Genesis ("In the beginning") - but then says "was the Word" - as I understand, "was" is a word that denotes coming into existence - that is, the Word came into being after time began. Yet then we are told "...and the Word was God." - if in Genesis we are made to infer that God was before time began, and here the Word was - came into being - after time began, how then can the Word be God? And how then can it be said in the next verse "He was with God in the beginning."? One entity was pre-time and the other post-time.

I hope this makes sense...

 

[Jimmy]

 

[Vouthon]

An excellent question about the syntax, implied logical order and theological import of the first line of the Johannine prologue @Harel13 You have encapsulated a very difficult concept really well!

I'll respond as best as I can.

You're right that he was conducting a creative exegesis on Genesis 1:1, a bit like the Targumim did (only from his own sectarian point-of-view, with his presuppositions as a Jewish Christian being read into the scripture to 'elucidate' it, as he interpreted).

To answer your query, it might be a good idea to take a look at the original Koine Greek to get a sense for what the author was trying to get at, before attempting to 'contextualize' his words with parallels in other texts:

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος

In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God​

John uses the verb "ἦν ēn" from eimi "to be". In the latter case, this simply means "am" as in ego eimi "I am" (i.e. its making an ontological statement of identity) which is used in this tense throughout the text of John by Jesus and infers his 'ontic' identity with God as His pre-existent Wisdom/Word:


Ego eimi - Wikipedia


In this instance in John 1:1, the author is using 'ἦν' as a contrast to his parallel use of 'egeneto' ἐγένετο (literally "came into existence", made) which the LXX translation of Genesis 1:1 utilises to refer to God's "making" (ἐποίησεν) of the heavens and earth.

The imperfect tense form of the verb eimi ("I am"), thus in our text en, signifies continuous action in the past.

So in the Greek it doesn't actually infer a 'coming into existence' but rather more of an 'always existing' i.e. that He was eternally pre-existing / already in being from before the beginning of time. If the author had wanted to imply that the 'Word' came into being after the beginning of time or at the beginning of time, then he would have used the verb ginomai "became", from which egeneto comes. An example from elsewhere in the NT corpus:

Luke 24 : 15 And it came to pass, [ἐγένετο - egeneto] that, while they communed and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near, and went with them. ​

John uses "was" (ēn) to denote a "supertemporal reality" as opposed to the competing egeneto which denotes something that has taken place or come to pass. So, the evangelist is here stating or desiring it to be inferred that there was no 'time' when the Word was not in existence and in relationship with God as God. 'In the beginning' the Word was already there in existence, with God and as God.

When placed in parallel with one another, eimi /ginomai the meaning is to me: 'creation' came to be in the beginning but the Word already was this uncreated / un-becoming / un-made ism.

Later in the text, John switches the verbs and writes literally: "the Word became [ginomai] flesh and tabernacled among us" (John 1:14), to contend that the eternally, continually, unending 'in-existence' Word assumed a human nature that 'came to be' in time, that is Jesus.

Here's the LXX rendering of Genesis 1:1:

ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν
​

And in Genesis 2:4 we find the specific form "ἐγένετο":

αὕτη ἡ βίβλος γενέσεως οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς ὅτε ἐγένετο ᾗ ἡμέρᾳ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν Genesis 2:4​

The author ascribes this role to the pre-incarnate Word, "through whom" God (the Father) brought all things into existence and apart from whom nothing could exist at all:

All things came-into-being (ἐγένετο) through Him, and apart from Him not even one thing came into being (ἐγένετο)​

 

[exchemist]

John opens up with: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

I don't quite understand this. Clearly the author of the book is trying to parallel this with the opening of Genesis "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." However, Genesis opens up with stating that first time itself began/came into being - i.e. there was a beginning ("In the beginning"). Next, the verse makes mention of God. Where did God come from? That's not stated, but as God was already there at the beginning and we don't know where He came from, it's inferred that He was there before the beginning.

In John, however, things appear to be different:
First there's a beginning - much like in Genesis ("In the beginning") - but then says "was the Word" - as I understand, "was" is a word that denotes coming into existence - that is, the Word came into being after time began. Yet then we are told "...and the Word was God." - if in Genesis we are made to infer that God was before time began, and here the Word was - came into being - after time began, how then can the Word be God? And how then can it be said in the next verse "He was with God in the beginning."? One entity was pre-time and the other post-time.

I hope this makes sense...

I'm not sure why you say "was" implies coming into existence. Can you explain the rationale for that?

 

[Harel13]

Thank you @Vouthon!

Later in the text, John switches the verbs and writes literally: "the Word became [ginomai] flesh and tabernacled among us" (John 1:14)

As a side-note, I assume this verse is a throwback to Exodus 25:8 "And let them make Me a sanctuary, that I may dwell among them." (in your version, tabernacled, in the KJV dwelt, both coming from Shachan which shares its root with Mishkan or Tabernacle)?

 

[Nimos]

John opens up with: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

I don't quite understand this. Clearly the author of the book is trying to parallel this with the opening of Genesis "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." However, Genesis opens up with stating that first time itself began/came into being - i.e. there was a beginning ("In the beginning"). Next, the verse makes mention of God. Where did God come from? That's not stated, but as God was already there at the beginning and we don't know where He came from, it's inferred that He was there before the beginning.

In John, however, things appear to be different:
First there's a beginning - much like in Genesis ("In the beginning") - but then says "was the Word" - as I understand, "was" is a word that denotes coming into existence - that is, the Word came into being after time began. Yet then we are told "...and the Word was God." - if in Genesis we are made to infer that God was before time began, and here the Word was - came into being - after time began, how then can the Word be God? And how then can it be said in the next verse "He was with God in the beginning."? One entity was pre-time and the other post-time.

I hope this makes sense...

I would strongly suggest watching this lecture from Yale, I think you will find a good answer here. It starts straight away with what you are asking about.

http://openmedia.yale.edu/projects/courses/spring09/rlst152/embed/rlst152_11_021609_emb.mp4

 

[Harel13]

I'm not sure why you say "was" implies coming into existence. Can you explain the rationale for that?

It seems obvious to me. I'll try to think how I can put it into words.

 

[Vouthon]

As a side-note, I assume this verse is a throwback to Exodus 25:8 "And let them make Me a sanctuary, that I may dwell among them." (in your version, tabernacled, in the KJV dwelt, both coming from Shachan which shares its root with Mishkan or Tabernacle)?

Precisely.

The Koine Greek is literally the LXX word for “tabernacled,” σκηνόω (such as also in Xenophon or Demosthenes: "to fix one's tabernacle, have one's tabernacle, abide (or live) in a tabernacle (or tent), tabernacle"). So, there's an implication here of 'dwelling' in one's tabernacle but it literally means tabernacled.

So yep, John is here alluding to the Tabernacle that the Israelites constructed in the wilderness as precursor of the Jerusalem Temple in Exodus 25:8-9 and likely also to the Hebrew “shekhinah”, which in some texts, such as Targum Onkelos at Deuteronomy 12:5 is employed as a technical term for the divine presence.

 

[exchemist]

It seems obvious to me. I'll try to think how I can put it into words.

Actually post 3 from @Vouthon sheds some light on this. "was" in this context is evidently from the imperfect, so it is past continuous, denoting an enduring state in the past. I've forgotten my Greek but I am familiar with this from French, where the imperfect conveys this sense of a state of being.

 

[Windwalker]

John opens up with: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

I don't quite understand this. Clearly the author of the book is trying to parallel this with the opening of Genesis "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

Yes, in order to speak to both a Jewish and Greek audience, which is why he then brings in the Greek idea of the Logos into the Jewish scriptures.

However, Genesis opens up with stating that first time itself began/came into being - i.e. there was a beginning ("In the beginning"). Next, the verse makes mention of God. Where did God come from? That's not stated, but as God was already there at the beginning and we don't know where He came from, it's inferred that He was there before the beginning.

In John, however, things appear to be different:
First there's a beginning - much like in Genesis ("In the beginning") - but then says "was the Word" - as I understand, "was" is a word that denotes coming into existence - that is, the Word came into being after time began.

No, not quite. "In the beginning was the Logos. The Greek word means "already was". In other words, In the beginning the Logos already was. That is saying exactly what you caught about about the Genesis implication that God was already there at the beginning. John intends exactly the same thing here.

Yet then we are told "...and the Word was God." - if in Genesis we are made to infer that God was before time began, and here the Word was - came into being - after time began, how then can the Word be God? And how then can it be said in the next verse "He was with God in the beginning."? One entity was pre-time and the other post-time.

Yes, The Word was God, is saying the God in Genesis, is the Logos itself, as Logos, and all that word entails, as Manifestor of the Divine. Logos and God are one and the same nature, but manifests through Logos into creation itself. It's quite profound.

I hope this makes sense...

I hope what I just said does too. It makes a difference how you understand the usage. I love that passage in John. There's a great deal of profound depths to wade in there.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

John opens up with: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

I don't quite understand this. Clearly the author of the book is trying to parallel this with the opening of Genesis "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." However, Genesis opens up with stating that first time itself began/came into being - i.e. there was a beginning ("In the beginning"). Next, the verse makes mention of God. Where did God come from? That's not stated, but as God was already there at the beginning and we don't know where He came from, it's inferred that He was there before the beginning.

In John, however, things appear to be different:
First there's a beginning - much like in Genesis ("In the beginning") - but then says "was the Word" - as I understand, "was" is a word that denotes coming into existence - that is, the Word came into being after time began. Yet then we are told "...and the Word was God." - if in Genesis we are made to infer that God was before time began, and here the Word was - came into being - after time began, how then can the Word be God? And how then can it be said in the next verse "He was with God in the beginning."? One entity was pre-time and the other post-time.

I hope this makes sense...

Except we do. God is eternal. Eternal is to say, there is no "before."

eternal
[ ih-tur-nl ]
adjective
without beginning or end; lasting forever; always existing (opposed to temporal)

Where did God come from, is not really a good question because it's asked and answered, as soon as we mention that God is an eternal being.

No. We are explicitly told that Jesus is of the same substance as God.
John 1:1
(and John 10:30, Isaiah 7:14 (Emmanuel means "God with us"), Luke 7:16, Mark 14:61-62, Colossians 1:14-17, Titus 2:13)

We've discussed this. Jesus is not made, but begotten from a union with Mary. Jesus before this was with God in the beginning.

You do not understand this because you insist upon seeing Jesus as a created being, who came about 2 to 6 BC. Jesus was incarnate at that time. But he existed since the beginning!

 

[Terry Sampson]

@Harel13
Send me your size and I'll look into ordering a deep-wader suit for you.

 

[Vouthon]

Yes, in order to speak to both a Jewish and Greek audience, which is why he then brings in the Greek idea of the Logos into the Jewish scriptures.

On the Hebraic side of the equation, one should probably consider how the so-called "Fragment Targum" - one of the oldest Palestinian targumim on the Torah - renders the verse Genesis 1:1 be-resh-it bara Elohim not literally as “in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” but instead paraphrasing as “through/by means of wisdom (be-hokhmah) God created and perfected the heaven and the earth."

The 'pre-existence' theme - in both contexts in John 1:1 and the Targum on Genesis 1:1 - is intended to evoke Wisdom from Proverbs: "Ages ago I was set up, at the first, before the beginning of the earth...When he established the heavens, I was there..." (Proverbs 8:22 - 27).

Wisdom says of herself in Proverbs 8 that she is the beginning (resh-it) of his way/work— which the Targumic fragment appears to interpret as His act, creative power or tool of creation, such that it reads 'beginning' as implying that God created everything through wisdom. So these interpreters found a skilfull way of seeing Wisdom implied in Genesis 1:1, by associating her with the word “beginning.”

The Johannine author adopts a similar conceptual framework using the Philonic-Hellenistic technical term "Logos" (Word).

As one Jewish scholar, Adele Reinhartz, commenting on this first verse in John's prologue noted:

"In the beginning, echoing the opening of Genesis. The Word signifies God’s power of creation and redemption; as a means of expression, reason (or truth), and grace it is identified with Jesus (vv. 9,14,17). It suggests Wisdom terminology (Ps 33.6; Prov 8.7–30; Wis 9.1,9; 18.15; Sir 24.9; 43.26).

For the Alexandrian Jewish philosopher Philo, God’s Logos was the very first fruit of creation; Leg. all. 3.175. In the Wisdom of Ben Sirach, Wisdom is strongly associated and even identified with the divine commandment, that is, the Torah (Sir 24.22–23), This identification persists well into the rabbinic period, as attested by its presence in Gen. Rab. 1.10, probably redacted no earlier than the fifth century.

See also the use of “memra” (“word”) in the Aramaic Targumim to Genesis. With God, as in Prov 8.22–31, “I [Wisdom] was there … I was beside him [the Lord].”

​

Thus we find the Hellenistic Jewish philosopher Philo (20 B.C. to A.D. 50) writing in his scriptural exegeses:

"By using different names for it, Moses indicates that the exalted, heavenly wisdom has many names: he calls it "beginning", "image" and "appearence of God""

(Philo, Allegorical Interpretations 1:43)

"And who is to be considered the daughter of God but Wisdom, who is the firstborn mother of all things" (Questions in Genesis 4:97).​

John continues the line of the personified but now grammatically male Logos, referring it to Jesus

 

[Terry Sampson]

You do not understand this because you insist upon seeing Jesus as a created being, who came about 2 to 6 BC. Jesus was incarnate at that time. But he existed since the beginning!

Harel hasn't even gotten to that hurdle. Read his OP again. He's asking when and where the Word came from.

 

[Terry Sampson]

I would strongly suggest watching this lecture from Yale, I think you will find a good answer here. It starts straight away with what you are asking about.

Your link is well-intentioned, but I've listened to all 49:50 minutes of it, and I can guarantee you that it does not, at any point, address Harel's OP.
@Harel13

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Think of the word "family". Family is singular. One family. But in that one family there can be several people. A husband, a wife, children. All separate people but still one family. When we say the word God that is also a singular word. One God. Most people believe in one God and that is correct. But why can't that one God be made up of more than one "person" or Being" or whatever word you want to use. Many people believe there is a father and a son and a holy spirit that are all God. When the Bible says the "Word" was with God and the "Word" was God, it is talking about two separate "persons" or "beings" that were both part of this one God. The Bible later says the "Word" was made flesh and dwelt among us. This "person" called the Word was the very same "person" that became Jesus. This "thing" we call God is really a family that contains the Father and his Son. But the important thing is that God wants to adopt more children. So some day God may be a family of thousands or millions. One God, many members. One family, many members. Few people will believe this but all the parts fit. You just need to open your mind and think about it.

 

[Kenny]

John opens up with: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

I don't quite understand this. Clearly the author of the book is trying to parallel this with the opening of Genesis "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." However, Genesis opens up with stating that first time itself began/came into being - i.e. there was a beginning ("In the beginning"). Next, the verse makes mention of God. Where did God come from? That's not stated, but as God was already there at the beginning and we don't know where He came from, it's inferred that He was there before the beginning.

In John, however, things appear to be different:
First there's a beginning - much like in Genesis ("In the beginning") - but then says "was the Word" - as I understand, "was" is a word that denotes coming into existence - that is, the Word came into being after time began. Yet then we are told "...and the Word was God." - if in Genesis we are made to infer that God was before time began, and here the Word was - came into being - after time began, how then can the Word be God? And how then can it be said in the next verse "He was with God in the beginning."? One entity was pre-time and the other post-time.

I hope this makes sense...

I'm not sure of this portion:

"but then says "was the Word" - as I understand, "was" is a word that denotes coming into existence"

If in Genesis. "In the beginning" and God "was there"... it doesn't come across as being created but that He "was there".

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

I'm not sure of this portion:

"but then says "was the Word" - as I understand, "was" is a word that denotes coming into existence"

If in Genesis. "In the beginning" and God "was there"... it doesn't come across as being created but that He "was there".

Yes, the Father and the Word were both there. Both are eternal beings with no beginning or end. People mistakenly use the word God when they are really talking about the Father. In the beginning was the word and the word was with the Father and they were God.

 

[Nimos]

Your link is well-intentioned, but I've listened to all 49:50 minutes of it, and I can guarantee you that it does not, at any point, address Harel's OP.
@Harel13

Not sure I agree, it might not be explained extremely well, I agree. But in the very first few minutes, he explains the difference between "coming into being" and simply "being".

And that the Gospel of John is written very differently than the rest and that he seems to enjoy riddles, which could explain why it is written the way it is.

So at least as I understand it, this is simply John writing that God have always existed in a riddly way, as he is simply "being" and not "coming into being" as everything else.

The "word" as I understand it, is John's way of explaining the authority of God, which is why it is with God and he is the word. Which is basically the same as we see in this verse:

John 1:4
4 - In him was life, and the life was the light of men.

Which sort of follows the same idea I think, God is life and the authority over that as well. Which most likely include Jesus as we will see later.

John 1:5
5 - The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

This is then followed with Life/Light/Good/God/Jesus vs Death/Darkness/Evil/Satan and that God or Jesus is more powerful or the authority over that as well.

John 1:6-8
6 - There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7 - He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him.
8 - He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light.

Which is followed up by John bearing witness of Jesus/God (light)... and so on.

So to me, its just a way for John to write it in a philosophical way, at least as I see it, most likely because it is written later than the rest and writing have evolved to be more sophisticated and the style were very cool at the time

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You might find this — a discussion of John 1:1 grammar — interesting. Notice John’s use of the definite article in the first part of the verse, and lack of it in the last part.

John 1:1 - Wikipedia

It makes a world of difference.
Note the bullet points, regarding other translations.