На основании Вашего запроса эти примеры могут содержать грубую лексику.
На основании Вашего запроса эти примеры могут содержать разговорную лексику.
Most important word God told me this week
Другие результаты
In other words, God told them what to write.
In other words, God told Paul what to write and Paul sat down and wrote it.
It is the same word used when God told Adam to keep the garden.
«Очень важно вспоминать слова Господа Бога, когда Он говорил Адаму, чтобы тот заботился о земле.
Once, when she was 4 years old, she asked her mom to write down a poem that, according to her words, God told her.
С четырёх лет, во время этих бессонниц, просила записывать мать и бабушку стихи, которые, по её словам, ей говорил Бог…
This is also the word when God told Moses, I am (hȃyȃ) that I am (hȃyȃ).
(Это напоминает нам о словах, которые Бог сказал Моисею: «Я есмь Сущий» (Исх.
Once, when she was 4 years old, she asked her mom to write down a poem that, according to her words, God told her.
В одну из бессонных ночей, когда малышке было 4 годика, она попросила маму записать стихотворение, которое, по ее словам, надиктовал ей Бог.
Because the word of God told me, «Don’t eat bread, drink water, or turn around to go the way that you came.»
ибо словом Господним сказано мне: «не ешь хлеба и не пей там воды и не возвращайся тою дорогою, которою ты шел»
In other words, God has told us what to believe and how to live.
Бог открыл нам, как следует жить и во что верить.
God‘s Word told us that we have been saved by the grace of God.
God‘s words told me that my job, my marriage-everything in my life-was all in His hands.
Слова Божьи сказали мне, что моя работа, мой брак — все в моей жизни — все было в Его руках.
In another conversation, another woman, married not just years, but decades, to a man who proved to be pathological, slipped in the same sigh and words, «But God told me to marry him.»
Во время другого разговора женщина, бывшая уже не первый десяток лет замужем за человеком, который оказался душевнобольным, тоже со вздохом сказала: «Но ведь это Бог сказал мне выйти за него».
God and the special angel who wrote this after God told her the words.
С любовью, Бог и специальный ангел, который записывал всё с его слов .
The president of the Philippines says God told him not to use swear words again.
Sometimes God told the Bible writers the exact words to say (Jer.
When Moses was afraid to talk to Pharaoh and free the people of Israel, God told him that he would put the words into Moses’ mouth.
Когда Муса возмужал, случилось так, что он убил человека из народа фараона, и, опасаясь мести, бежал в город Мадиан.
God told me, once, that he created the sky with words.
Бог сказал — и появилось небо, но ведь человека Он создал не словом.
In the end, God told them that they were obscuring revelation by «words without knowledge» (Job 38:2).
В конце концов Бог сказал, что они омрачают откровение «словами без смысла» (Иова 38:2).
God told Ezekiel: Get thee unto the House of Israel, and speak my words unto them.
И говорил Всевышний Моше: «Скажи сынам Израиля, пусть возьмут приношение для Меня».
God told Ezekiel to eat the scroll of His Word and he said, «When I did, it was as sweet as honey».
Иезекиилю дается свиток книжный, и он съедает то, что должен был говорить: «и было», говорит он, «в устах моих сладко, как мед» (Иез.
Результатов: 1355. Точных совпадений: 1. Затраченное время: 490 мс
Documents
Корпоративные решения
Спряжение
Синонимы
Корректор
Справка и о нас
Индекс слова: 1-300, 301-600, 601-900
Индекс выражения: 1-400, 401-800, 801-1200
Индекс фразы: 1-400, 401-800, 801-1200
Иоанн начал свое евангелие, говоря:» В начале
было Слово,
и Слово было у Бога,
и Слово было
Бог»( Евангелие от Иоанна 1: 1).
According to Christian theology,
Согласно христианскому богословию, Сам
Бог
являет Себя как Слово:« В начале
было Слово,
и Слово было у Бога,
и Слово был
Бог».
Первая строка Евангелия от Иоанна гласит:« В начале
было Слово,
и Слово было у Бога,
и Слово было
Бог».
Первая глава Евангелия от Иоанна гласит:« В начале
было Слово,
и Слово было у Бога,
и Слово было Бог.
In this way,
the
Biblical quotation referring to Jesus
is
В соответствии с христианскими
и
иудейскими верованиями самым первым ономатетом являлся Бог:« В начале
было Слово,
и Слово было у Бога,
и Слово было
Бог».
В качестве веского аргумента
рассматривается начало Евангелия от Иоанна:« Вначале
было Слово,
и Слово было у Бога,
и Слово было
Бог».
Он процитировал стих в ОТ ИОАННА 1: 1- 3, 14:» Вначале
было Слово,
и Слово было у Бога,
и Слово было Бог.
through
the
prism of understanding a
word
as“home”, where language
is the
reflection of divinity.
Библейское выражение“ в начале
было Слово,
и Слово было у Бога,
и Слово было
Бог” 18 рассматривается
через призму понимания
слова
как“ дома”, где язык- проявление божественности.
As already seen in John 1:3
Как мы уже видели в Иоанна 1: 1- 3,
Писание ясно говорит об участии Иисуса в процессе творения:« В начале
было Слово,
и Слово было у Бога,
и Слово было Бог.
Had
the
New Testament writer referred to
the
Eternal Son,
he would have uttered
the
truth when he wrote:“In
the
beginning
was the Word,
and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God.
Если бы автор Нового Завета имел в виду
Вечного Сына, он изрек бы истину, когда написал:« Вначале
было Слово,
и Слово было у Бога,
и Слово было Бог.
who
is,
after all,
the
father.
который, в конце концов, отец ее ребенка в Евангелии от Иоанна« слово»-
Бог
Отец.
Through him all things were made; without him nothing
was
made that has
been
made. 4 In him
was
life,
and
that life
was the
light of all mankind.
без Него ничто не начало быть, что начало
быть
4 В Нем
была
жизнь,
и
жизнь
была
свет человеков 5
И
свет во тьме светит,
и
тьма не объяла его.
object or subject of creation,
объект или предмет созидания, творения, венец деяний.
To fully understand
the
power of
words
we must go back to
the
book of Genesis
Чтобы полностью понять силу
слов,
мы должны вернуться к книге Бытия
и посмотрим, что« первоначальное намерение» Бог было со словами, которые он использовал.
All Christians described in this passage had received
the
Holy Spirit long before, but then again they were filled
with the
Holy Spirit
and that
was
manifested by
the
way they
were
preaching the Word of God with boldness, without
being
intimidated by
the
enemies of
the
Gospel.
Все христиане, описанные в этом отрывке,
уже ранее получили Духа Святого, но сейчас они еще раз исполнились Духа Святого и это выразилось в том, что они с дерзновением говорили Слово Божье, не позволяя противникам Евангелия постыдить их.
By enriching
and
guiding
the
mind with the word of God,
with
prayer and deeds in
the
name of Jesus Christ, humans
are
able to attain love
and
peace.
Обогащая
и
направляя ум словом Божием, молитвой и делами во имя Иисуса Христа, человек способен достичь любви
и
мира.
And when they had prayed,
the
place in which they
were
assembled
И после их горячей молитвы место, где они собрались,
поколебалось и все до одного исполнились святого духа
и
говорили слово Бога со смелостью.
And when they had prayed,
the
place where they had gathered together
was
shaken,
and they
were
all filled
with the
Holy Spirit
and
began to speak the word of God with boldness.
И, по молитве их, поколебалось место, где они
были собраны, и исполнились все Духа Святаго,
и
говорили слово Божие с дерзновением.
Таким образом,
твои поиски корня всех зол привели тебя к ограблению банка, и ты был вознагражден словом Божьим.
Alm1:20 yea, they did persecute them,
and
afflict them
with
all manner of words, and this because of their humility; because they were not proud in their own eyes,
and
because they did impart the word of
God,
one
with
another, without money
and
without price.
Да, они преследовали их, оскорбляя их всевозможными словами за их смирение и за то, что они у себя в глазах не были горды
и
за то, что они учили друг друга слову Божию без денег
и
без награды.
Говорите слово, но оно несостоится: ибо с нами Бог!
So, your search for
the
root of all
Итак, ты искал корень зла,
что привело к ограблению банка и было вознаграждено словом Господа?
Take counsel together,
and
it shall come to nought; speak the word,
and
it shall not stand: for God
is
with us!
Замышляйте замыслы, но они рушатся; говорите слово, но оно несостоится: ибо с нами Бог!
Parallel Verses
King James Version
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Holman Bible
In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God.
Amplified
In the beginning [before all time] was the Word (Christ), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God Himself.
An Understandable Version
The Word [already] existed in the beginning [of time]. [Note: This is a reference to the preexistence of Jesus. See verse 14]. And the Word was with God and the Word was [what] God [was].
Common New Testament
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Darby Translation
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Godbey New Testament
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
King James 2000
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Moffatt New Testament
THE Logos existed in the very beginning, the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine.
NET Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God.
Noyes New Testament
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Sawyer New Testament
IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The Emphasized Bible
Originally, was, the Word, and, the Word, was, with God; and, the Word, was, God.
Webster
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Williams New Testament
In the beginning the Word existed; and the Word was face to face with God; yea, the Word was God Himself.
World English Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Topics
Interlinear
English(KJV)
Strong’s
Root Form
Definition
Usage
En
En
En
was, were, had been, had, taught , stood , , vr was
was, were, had been, had, taught , stood , , vr was
was, were, had been, had, taught , stood , , vr was
Usage: 410
Usage: 410
Usage: 410
Logos
Logos
Logos
word, saying, account, speech, Word , thing, not tr,
word, saying, account, speech, Word , thing, not tr,
word, saying, account, speech, Word , thing, not tr,
Usage: 256
Usage: 256
Usage: 256
and
and, also, even, both, then, so, likewise, not tr., , vr and
and, also, even, both, then, so, likewise, not tr., , vr and
Usage: 0
Usage: 0
Devotionals
Devotionals about John 1:1
Devotionals containing John 1:1
References
American
Easton
Fausets
Hastings
Morish
Smith
Watsons
Word Count of 37 Translations in John 1:1
Prayers for John 1:1
Verse Info
- Bible Rank: 16
- John Rank: 4
- 35 Topics
- 23 Themes
- 36 Cross References
- 1 Reading
- Interlinear
- 4 Devotionals
- 5 Phrases
- 3 Names
- 24 References
- 1 Prayers
Share This Verse:
Context Readings
Cross References
John 17:5
Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.
1 John 1:1-2
What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life—
Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Philippians 2:6
who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Colossians 1:17
He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
Revelation 1:8
“I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”
Revelation 19:13
He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God.
Proverbs 8:22-31
“The Lord possessed me at the beginning of His way,
Before His works of old.
Isaiah 9:6
For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us;
And the government will rest on His shoulders;
And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
Matthew 1:23
“Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which translated means, “God with us.”
John 1:14
And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.
Revelation 22:13
I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.”
Isaiah 7:14
Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.
John 1:2
He was in the beginning with God.
John 1:18
No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
John 20:28
Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”
Romans 9:5
whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.
1 Timothy 3:16
By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness:
He who was revealed in the flesh,
Was vindicated in the Spirit,
Seen by angels,
Proclaimed among the nations,
Believed on in the world,
Taken up in glory.
Titus 2:13
looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus,
Hebrews 13:8
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.
2 Peter 1:1
Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ,To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ:
1 John 5:20
And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.
Revelation 21:6
Then He said to me, “It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give to the one who thirsts from the spring of the water of life without cost.
Psalm 45:6
Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
A scepter of uprightness is the scepter of Your kingdom.
Isaiah 40:9-11
Get yourself up on a high mountain,
O Zion, bearer of good news,
Lift up your voice mightily,
O Jerusalem, bearer of good news;
Lift it up, do not fear.
Say to the cities of Judah,
“Here is your God!”
Ephesians 3:9
and to bring to light what is the administration of the mystery which for ages has been hidden in God who created all things;
Hebrews 1:8-13
But of the Son He says,
“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,
And the righteous scepter is the scepter of His kingdom.
Hebrews 7:3
Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, he remains a priest perpetually.
Revelation 1:2
who testified to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw.
Revelation 1:11
saying, “Write in a book what you see, and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Pergamum and to Thyatira and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to Laodicea.”
Revelation 1:17
When I saw Him, I fell at His feet like a dead man. And He placed His right hand on me, saying, “Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last,
Revelation 2:8
“And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write:The first and the last, who was dead, and has come to life, says this:
Revelation 3:14
“To the angel of the church in Laodicea write:The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God, says this:
John 16:28
I came forth from the Father and have come into the world; I am leaving the world again and going to the Father.”
Jump To Previous
Jump To Next
Word Concordance
King James Version Public Domain
Holman Christian Standard Bible®, Copyright © 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2009 by Holman Bible Publishers.
International Standard Version Copyright © 1996-2008 by the ISV Foundation.
New American Standard Bible Copyright ©1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation, La Habra, Calif. All rights reserved. For Permission to Quote Information visit http://www.lockman.org
American Standard Version Public Domain
NET Bible copyright © 1996-2006 by Biblical Studies Press, L.L.C. NetBible
Basic English, produced by Mr C. K. Ogden of the Orthological Institute — public domain
The Bible is the story of God’s plan to redeem His people. It reveals who He is and who we truly are in Him.
The whole of Scripture tells the story of Jesus Christ, the ultimate expression of God’s love for us. When John refers to Jesus as “the Word,” he speaks of the Word that was made flesh, and came to live among us (John 1:14). This Word, manifested in the person of Jesus Christ, is the fulfillment of the covenant God made with His people, giving them and all who believe the promise of life with Him.
God is not a God of coincidence or chaos, and Jesus was no coincidence. John’s words show us that Jesus was with God in the beginning. He is God, one with God, and the life He came to live on this earth was a part of a glorious plan from the beginning.
What Was The «The Beginning»?
The Greek word John used here means “the first to do something, to begin.” This teaches us that God is the great initiator of all we know. As the Creator of the World, God was there in the beginning, making a way for us.
“Then He poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples’ feet and to wipe them with the towel that was wrapped around Him.” (John 13:5)
Another understanding of the Greek origin of the word ‘beginning’ is “to be chief, to lead, or to rule.” Jesus flipped preconceived notions of leadership when He, the teacher, knelt to wash His followers’ feet. The daily accumulation of dust on the soles of our feet is rinsed and removed by the tender care of Christ. From the beginning, God planned to renew and restore us through His Word, Jesus. The most important cleansing, the war for our souls, required a spotless sacrifice.
Jesus Christ alone lived a spotless, sinless life. To be lifted high by the Father, He bent low. John the Baptist humbly baptized the one he had been preparing the way for! Jesus led with an assertive humility, confident in who He was.
From the beginning, God went before us. He aims to gather each precious sheep, shepherding us home to heaven—a path we could never pave for ourselves.
What was «The Word»? (and how was it «with God»?)
“For the LORD God is a sun and shield…” (Psalm 84:11a)
God spoke the world into existence. “Let there be light” was His first command (Genesis 1:3). It separated light from darkness.
“Philosophers employed logos, or ‘word,’ for the divine reason that orders the universe” (NIV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible).Jesus is the light of the world (John 8:12), forever removed from the shadows.
The Greek translation of ‘word’ is logos, meaning word, message, or report. “According to John, this logos was in the beginning, was with God, and was God himself” (Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary).
The Spirit of God hovered over the waters (Genesis 1:2), and “the Word was with God”(John 1:1). The triune God, from the very beginning, was present at Creation. The NIV Study Bible Notes say this of Genesis 1:1-6: “God’s ‘separating’ and ‘gathering’ on days 1-3 gave form, and his ‘making’ and ‘filling’ on days 4-6 removed the emptiness.”
He who made us fills us, removing our emptiness through salvation in Christ. Every note of creation reflects God’s love for us.
Jesus, the ultimate expression of that love, is evident from the very beginning. Matthew Henry’s Commentary states that “The plainest reason why the Son of God is called the Word, seems to be, that as our words explain our minds to others, so was the Son of God sent in order to reveal his Father’s mind to the world.”
“Light is necessary for making God’s creative works visible and life possible.”(NIV Study Bible Notes, Genesis 1:3)
“Light has come into the world.” (John 3:19)
Jesus, the Word, illuminates the Truth of Scripture, by which we learn the character of God. Jesus, Himself, said, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life” (John 8:12). The Holy Spirit, available to us through Jesus’ death on the cross, allows a brightened perspective, enlightened by the Word of God—Jesus.
“For God, who said, ‘Let light shine out of the darkness,’ has shone in our hearts to give the light of knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.” (2 Corinthians 4:6) Through us, the light of life shines to others! We stand out, shine bright, and illuminate. Each life is purposed for work in the furthering of the gospel. The gifts written on our hearts by the Word bring God’s love and light to the world. All we are and all we do is to honor Him.
«The Word was God»
“He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.” (Colossians 1:17)
God is omnipotent and sovereign, two characteristics addressed in the cross-reference in John 1:1. The Word, Logos, Jesus Christ, is before all things and holds all things together. The Son of God is the fulfillment of God’s covenant with His people:
“For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be by people. And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and his brother, saying ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.” (Jeremiah 31:33-34)
The law within us, written on our hearts, is the Word of God—Jesus Christ. By Him, through the Holy Spirit who dwells in us from salvation, we interpret God’s law. Through our Christ-centered lives, the Great Commission to spread the gospel truth (Matthew 28:16-20) illuminates the world. The Word is before all things, holding all things together.
John 1:1 powerfully inaugurates John’s eyewitness and Holy Spirit-inspired account of Christ’s life. “In the beginning” is “a deliberate echo of Genesis 1:1 to link God’s action on behalf of the world through Jesus Christ with his first work, the creation of the world” (NIV Study Bible Notes).John’s testimony is especially tender, because of his friendship with Christ. He was the only one left at the foot of the cross with Mary and Christ’s best friend on this earth. John’s kinship with the one, triune God seeped into his bones and leapt out of his heart. Though omnipotent and sovereign, our God is a personal God.
In the words of John Piper, “Christ was not made. That is what it means to be God. And the Word was God.”
“Megs” writes about everyday life within the love of Christ. She stepped out of her comfort zone, and her Marketing career, to obey God’s call to stay home and be “Mom” in 2011. From that step of obedience her blog, Sunny&80, was born, a way to retain the funny everyday moments of motherhood. Meg is also a freelance writer and author of Friends with Everyone. She loves teaching God’s Word and leading her Monday morning Bible study, being a mom, distance running, and photography. Meg resides in Northern Ohio with her husband, two daughters, and Golden-Doodle—all avid Cleveland Browns fans.
This article is part of our larger resource library of popular Bible verse phrases and quotes. We want to provide easy to read articles that answer your questions about the meaning, origin and history of specific verses within Scripture context. It is our hope that these will help you better understand the meaning and purpose of God’s Word in relation to your life today.
«Be Still and Know that I Am God»
«Pray Without Ceasing»
«Fearfully and Wonderfully Made»
«Faith Without Works is Dead»
«Trust in the Lord with All Your Heart»
«All Things Work Together for Good»
«Be Strong and Courageous»
Photo Credit: Unsplash/Denis Degioanni
«In the beginning was the Word» redirects here. For the part of Catholic liturgy, see Last Gospel.
| John 1:1 | |
|---|---|
|
← Luke 24 1:2 → |
|
First page of John’s Gospel from the Coronation Gospels, c. 10th century. |
|
| Book | Gospel of John |
| Christian Bible part | New Testament |
John 1:1 is the first verse in the opening chapter of the Gospel of John in the New Testament of the Christian Bible. The traditional and majority translation of this verse reads:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.[1][2][3][4]
The verse has been a source of much debate among Bible scholars and translators.
«The Word,» a translation of the Greek λόγος (logos), is widely interpreted as referring to Jesus, as indicated in other verses later in the same chapter.[5] For example, “the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us” (John 1:14; cf. 1:15, 17).
This and other concepts in the Johannine literature set the stage for the Logos-Christology in which the Apologists of the second and third centuries connected the divine Word of John 1:1-5 to the Hebrew Wisdom literature and to the divine Logos of contemporary Greek philosophy.[6]
On the basis of John 1:1, Tertullian, early in the third century, argued for two Persons that are distinct but the substance is undivided, of the same substance.
In John 1:1c, logos has the article but theos does not. Origen of Alexandria, a teacher in Greek grammar of the third century, argued that John uses the article when theos refers to «the uncreated cause of all things.» But the Logos is named theos without the article because He participates in the divinity of the Father because of “His being with the Father.”
The main dispute with respect to this verse relates to John 1:1c (“the Word was God”). One minority translation is «the Word was divine.» This is based on the argument that the grammatical structure of the Greek does not identify the Word as the Person of God but indicates a qualitative sense. The point being made is that the Logos is of the same uncreated nature or essence as God the Father. In that case, “the Word was God” may be misleading because, in normal English, «God» is a proper noun, referring to the person of the Father or corporately to the three persons of the Godhead.
With respect to John 1:1, Ernest Cadman Colwell writes:
The absence of the article does not make the predicate indefinite or qualitative when it precedes the verb, it is indefinite in this position only when the context demands it.
So, whether the predicate (theos) is definite, indefinite or qualitative depends on the context. Consequently, this article raises the concern that uncertainty with respect to the grammar may result in translations based on the theology of the translator. The commonly held theology that Jesus is God naturally leads to a corresponding translation. But a theology in which Jesus is subordinate to God leads to the conclusion that «… a god» or «… divine» is the proper rendering.
Source text and translations[edit]
| Language | John 1:1 text |
|---|---|
| Koine Greek | Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.[7][8] |
| Greek transliteration | En arkhêi ên ho lógos, kaì ho lógos ên pròs tòn theón, kaì theòs ên ho lógos. |
| Syriac Peshitta | ܒ݁ܪܺܫܺܝܬ݂ ܐܺܝܬ݂ܰܘܗ݈ܝ ܗ݈ܘܳܐ ܡܶܠܬ݂ܳܐ ܘܗܽܘ ܡܶܠܬ݂ܳܐ ܐܺܝܬ݂ܰܘܗ݈ܝ ܗ݈ܘܳܐ ܠܘܳܬ݂ ܐܰܠܳܗܳܐ ܘܰܐܠܳܗܳܐ ܐܺܝܬ݂ܰܘܗ݈ܝ ܗ݈ܘܳܐ ܗܽܘ ܡܶܠܬ݂ܳܐ ܀ |
| Syriac transliteration | brīšīṯ ʾiṯauhi hwā milṯā, whu milṯā ʾiṯauhi hwā luaṯ ʾalāhā; wʾalāhā iṯauhi hwā hu milṯā |
| Sahidic Coptic | ϨΝ ΤЄϨΟΥЄΙΤЄ ΝЄϤϢΟΟΠ ΝϬΙΠϢΑϪЄ, ΑΥШ ΠϢΑϪЄ ΝЄϤϢΟΟΠ ΝΝΑϨΡΜ ΠΝΟΥΤЄ. ΑΥШ ΝЄΥΝΟΥΤЄ ΠЄ ΠϢΑϪЄ |
| Sahidic Coptic transliteration | Hn teHoueite neFSoop nCi pSaJe auw pSaJe neFSoop nnaHrm pnoute auw neunoute pe pSaJe.[9] |
| Sahidic Coptic to English | In the beginning existed the Word, and the Word existed with the God, and a God was the Word.[10][11][12] |
| Latin Vulgate | In principio erat Verbum, et Verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat Verbum. |
-
Codex Vaticanus (300–325), The end of Gospel of Luke and the beginning of Gospel of John
John 1:1 in English versions[edit]
The traditional rendering in English is:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Other variations of rendering, both in translation or paraphrase, John 1:1c also exist:
- 14th century: «and God was the word» – Wycliffe’s Bible (translated from the 4th-century Latin Vulgate)
- 1808: «and the Word was a god» – Thomas Belsham The New Testament, in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London.
- 1822: «and the Word was a god» – The New Testament in Greek and English (A. Kneeland, 1822.)
- 1829: «and the Word was a god» – The Monotessaron; or, The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists (J. S. Thompson, 1829)
- 1863: «and the Word was a god» – A Literal Translation of the New Testament (Herman Heinfetter [Pseudonym of Frederick Parker], 1863)
- 1864: «the LOGOS was God» – A New Emphatic Version (right hand column)
- 1864: «and a god was the Word» – The Emphatic Diaglott by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London (left hand column interlinear reading)
- 1867: «and the Son was of God» – The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible
- 1879: «and the Word was a god» – Das Evangelium nach Johannes (J. Becker, 1979)
- 1885: «and the Word was a god» – Concise Commentary on The Holy Bible (R. Young, 1885)
- 1911: «and [a] God was the word» – The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Southern Dialect, by George William Horner.[13]
- 1924: «the Logos was divine» – The Bible: James Moffatt Translation, by James Moffatt.[14]
- 1935: «and the Word was divine» – The Bible: An American Translation, by John M. P. Smith and Edgar J. Goodspeed, Chicago.[15]
- 1955: «so the Word was divine» – The Authentic New Testament, by Hugh J. Schonfield, Aberdeen.[16]
- 1956: «And the Word was as to His essence absolute deity» – The Wuest Expanded Translation[17]
- 1958: «and the Word was a god» – The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Anointed (J. L. Tomanec, 1958);
- 1962, 1979: «‘the word was God.’ Or, more literally, ‘God was the word.'» – The Four Gospels and the Revelation (R. Lattimore, 1979)
- 1966, 2001: «and he was the same as God» – The Good News Bible.
- 1970, 1989: «and what God was, the Word was» – The New English Bible and The Revised English Bible.
- 1975 «and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word» – Das Evangelium nach Johnnes, by Siegfried Schulz, Göttingen, Germany
- 1975: «and the Word was a god» – Das Evangelium nach Johannes (S. Schulz, 1975);
- 1978: «and godlike sort was the Logos» – Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider, Berlin
- 1985: “So the Word was divine” — The Original New Testament, by Hugh J. Schonfield.[18]
- 1993: «The Word was God, in readiness for God from day one.» — The Message, by Eugene H. Peterson.[19]
- 1998: «and what God was the Word also was» – This translation follows Professor Francis J. Moloney, The Gospel of John, ed. Daniel J. Harrington.[20]
- 2017: “and the Logos was god” — The New Testament: A Translation, by David Bentley Hart.[21]
Difficulties[edit]
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[22]
There are two issues affecting the translating of the verse, 1) theology and 2) proper application of grammatical rules. The commonly held theology that Jesus is God naturally leads one to believe that the proper way to render the verse is the one which is most popular.[23] The opposing theology that Jesus is subordinate to God as his Chief agent leads to the conclusion that «… a god» or «… divine» is the proper rendering.[24]
The Greek Article[edit]
The Greek article is often translated the, which is the English definite article, but it can have a range of meanings that can be quite different from those found in English, and require context to interpret.[25] Ancient Greek does not have an indefinite article like the English word a, and nominatives without articles also have a range of meanings that require context to interpret.
Colwell’s Rule[edit]
In interpreting this verse, Colwell’s rule should be taken into consideration, which says that a definite predicate which is before the verb «to be» usually does not have the definite article. Ernest Cadman Colwell writes:
The opening verse of John’s Gospel contains one of the many passages where this rule suggests the translation of a predicate as a definite noun. Καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος [Kaì theòs ên ho lógos] looks much more like «And the Word was God» than «And the Word was divine» when viewed with reference to this rule. The absence of the article does not make the predicate indefinite or qualitative when it precedes the verb, it is indefinite in this position only when the context demands it. The context makes no such demand in the Gospel of John, for this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas [Footnote: John 20,28].»[26]
Jason David BeDuhn (Professor of Religious Studies at Northern Arizona University) criticizes Colwell’s Rule as methodologically unsound and «not a valid rule of Greek grammar.»[27]
The Word was divine[edit]
The main dispute with respect to this verse relates to John 1:1c (“the Word was God”). One minority translation is «the Word was divine.» The following support this type of translation:
Tertullian[edit]
Tertullian in the early third century wrote:
Now if this one [the Word] is God according to John («the Word was God»), then you have two: one who speaks that it may be, and another who carries it out. However, how you should accept this as «another» I have explained: as concerning person, not substance, and as distinction, not division. (Against Praxeus 12)[28]
In other words, the Persons are distinct but the substance is undivided. As Tertullian states in Against Praxeus 9 and 26, He is “so far God as He is of the same substance as God Himself … and as a portion of the Whole … as He Himself acknowledges: «My Father is greater than I.”[29]
At the beginning of chapter 13 of against Praxeus, Tertullian uses various Scriptures to argue for “two Gods,” including:[30]
“One God spoke and another created” (cf. John 1:3).
“God, even Thy God, hath anointed Thee or made Thee His Christ” (cf. Psm 45).
«’In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.’ There was One ‘who was,’ and there was another ‘with whom’”.
Origen[edit]
In John 1:1c, logos has the article but theos does not. Literally, “god was the word”.[31] Origen of Alexandria, a teacher in Greek grammar of the third century, discusses the presence or absence of the article in Commentary on John, Book II, chap, 2.[32] He states:
He (John) uses the article, when the name of God refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Logos is named God. […]
God on the one hand is Very God (Autotheos, God of Himself); and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, “That they may know Thee the only true God;” (cf. John 17:3) but that all beyond the Very God is made God by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply God (with the article), but rather God (without article).
Origen then continues to explain that the Son — the first-born of all creation – was the first to be “with God” (cf. John 1:1), attracted to Himself divinity from God, and gave that divinity to the other “gods:”
And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him, of whom God is the God […] It was by the offices of the first-born that they became gods, for He drew from God in generous measure that they should be made gods, and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty.
As R.P.C. Hanson stated in discussing the Apologists, «There were many different types and grades of deity in popular thought and religion and even in philosophical thought.»[33] Origen concludes that “the Word of God” is not “God … of Himself” but because of “His being with the Father” (cf. John 1:1):
The true God, then, is “The God,” and those who are formed after Him are gods, images, as it were, of Him the prototype. But the archetypal image, again, of all these images is the Word of God, who was in the beginning, and who by being with God is at all times God, not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father, and not continuing to be God, if we should think of this, except by remaining always in uninterrupted contemplation of the depths of the Father.
Translations[edit]
Translations by James Moffatt, Edgar J. Goodspeed and Hugh J. Schonfield render part of the verse as «…the Word [Logos] was divine».
Murray J. Harris writes,
[It] is clear that in the translation «the Word was God», the term God is being used to denote his nature or essence, and not his person. But in normal English usage «God» is a proper noun, referring to the person of the Father or corporately to the three persons of the Godhead. Moreover, «the Word was God» suggests that «the Word» and «God» are convertible terms, that the proposition is reciprocating. But the Word is neither the Father nor the Trinity … The rendering cannot stand without explanation.»[34]
An Eastern/Greek Orthodox Bible commentary notes:
This second theos could also be translated ‘divine’ as the construction indicates «a qualitative sense for theos». The Word is not God in the sense that he is the same person as the theos mentioned in 1:1a; he is not God the Father (God absolutely as in common NT usage) or the Trinity. The point being made is that the Logos is of the same uncreated nature or essence as God the Father, with whom he eternally exists. This verse is echoed in the Nicene Creed: «God (qualitative or derivative) from God (personal, the Father), Light from Light, True God from True God… homoousion with the Father.»[35]
Daniel B. Wallace (Professor of New Testament at Dallas Theological Seminary) argues that:
The use of the anarthrous theos (the lack of the definite article before the second theos) is due to its use as a qualitative noun, describing the nature or essence of the Word, sharing the essence of the Father, though they differed in person: he stresses: «The construction the evangelist chose to express this idea was the most precise way he could have stated that the Word was God and yet was distinct from the Father».[36] He questions whether Colwell’s rule helps in interpreting John 1:1. It has been said[by whom?] that Colwell’s rule has been misapplied as its converse, as though it implied definiteness.[37]
Murray J. Harris (Emeritus Professor of NT Exegesis and Theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School) discusses «grammatical, theological, historical, literary and other issues that affect the interpretation of θεὸς» and conclude that, among other uses, «is a christological title that is primarily ontological in nature» and adds that «the application of θεὸς to Jesus Christ asserts that Jesus is … God-by-nature.[38][39][40]
John L. McKenzie (Catholic Biblical scholar) wrote that ho Theos is God the Father, and adds that John 1:1 should be translated «the word was with the God [=the Father], and the word was a divine being.»[41][42]
In a 1973 Journal of Biblical Literature article, Philip B. Harner, Professor Emeritus of Religion at Heidelberg College, claimed that the traditional translation of John 1:1c (“and the Word was God”) is incorrect. He endorses the New English Bible translation of John 1:1c, “and what God was, the Word was.”[43] However, Harner’s claim has been criticized.[44]
Philip B. Harner (Professor Emeritus of Religion at Heidelberg College) says:
Perhaps the clause could be translated, ‘the Word had the same nature as God.” This would be one way of representing John’s thought, which is, as I understand it, that ho logos, no less than ho theos, had the nature of theos.[45]
B. F. Westcott is quoted by C. F. D. Moule (Lady Margaret’s Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge):
The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in 4:24. ‘It is necessarily without the article (theós not ho theós) inasmuch as it describes the nature of the Word and does not identify His Person. It would be pure Sabellianism to say “the Word was ho theós”. No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true deity of the Word. Compare the converse statement of the true humanity of Christ five 27 (hóti huiòs anthrópou estín . . . ).’[46]
James D. G. Dunn (Emeritus Lightfoot Professor at University of Durham) states:
Philo demonstrates that a distinction between ho theos and theos such as we find in John 1.1b-c, would be deliberate by the author and significant for the Greek reader. Not only so, Philo shows that he could happily call the Logos ‘God/god’ without infringing his monotheism (or even ‘the second God’ – Qu.Gen. II.62). Bearing in mind our findings with regard to the Logos in Philo, this cannot but be significant: the Logos for Philo is ‘God’ not as a being independent of ‘the God’ but as ‘the God’ in his knowability – the Logos standing for that limited apprehension of the one God which is all that the rational man, even the mystic may attain to.”[47]
In summary, scholars and grammarians indicate that the grammatical structure of the Greek does not identify the Word as the Person of God but indicates a qualitative sense. The point being made is that the Logos is of the same nature or essence as God the Father. In that case, “the Word was God” may be misleading because, in normal English, «God» is a proper noun, referring to the person of the Father or corporately to the three persons of the Godhead.
The Word as a god.[edit]
Some scholars oppose the translation …a god,[48][49][50][51] while other scholars believe it is possible or even preferable.[52][53][54]
The rendering as «a god» is justified by some non-Trinitarians by comparing it with Acts 28:6 which has a similar grammatical construction’[55]
«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].
«Howbeit they looked when he should have swollen, or fallen down dead suddenly: but after they had looked a great while, and saw no harm come to him, they changed their minds, and said that he was a god (theón).» (KJV)[56]
«But they were expecting that he was going to swell up or suddenly drop dead. So after they had waited a long time and had seen nothing unusual happen to him, they changed their minds and said he was a god (theón).» (NET)[57]
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. In Deuteronomy 31:27 the septuagint text, «supported by all MSS… reads πρὸς τὸν θεόν for the Hebrew עִם־ יְהֹוָ֔ה»,[58] but the oldest Greek text in Papyrus Fouad 266 has written πρὸς יהוה τὸν θεόν.[58]
In the October 2011 Journal of Theological Studies, Brian J. Wright and Tim Ricchuiti[59] reason that the indefinite article in the Coptic translation, of John 1:1, has a qualitative meaning. Many such occurrences for qualitative nouns are identified in the Coptic New Testament, including 1 John 1:5 and 1 John 4:8. Moreover, the indefinite article is used to refer to God in Deuteronomy 4:31 and Malachi 2:10.
In the Beginning[edit]
«In the beginning (archē) was the Word (logos)» may be compared with:
- Genesis 1:1: «In the beginning God created heaven, and earth.»[60] The opening words of the Old Testament are also «In the beginning». Theologian Charles Ellicott wrote:
«The reference to the opening words of the Old Testament is obvious, and is the more striking when we remember that a Jew would constantly speak of and quote from the book of Genesis as «Berēshîth» («in the beginning»). It is quite in harmony with the Hebrew tone of this Gospel to do so, and it can hardly be that St. John wrote his Berēshîth without having that of Moses present to his mind, and without being guided by its meaning.[61]
- Mark 1:1: «The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.»[62]
- Luke 1:2: «According as they have delivered them unto us, who from the beginning (archē) were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word (logos).[63][64]
- 1 John 1:1: «That which was from the beginning (archē), which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the word (logos) of life».[65][66]
[edit]
- Chrysostom: «While all the other Evangelists begin with the Incarnation, John, passing over the Conception, Nativity, education, and growth, speaks immediately of the Eternal Generation, saying, In the beginning was the Word.»
- Augustine: «The Greek word “logos” signifies both Word and Reason. But in this passage it is better to interpret it Word; as referring not only to the Father, but to the creation of things by the operative power of the Word; whereas Reason, though it produce nothing, is still rightly called Reason.»
- Augustine: «Words by their daily use, sound, and passage out of us, have become common things. But there is a word which remaineth inward, in the very man himself; distinct from the sound which proceedeth out of the mouth. There is a word, which is truly and spiritually that, which you understand by the sound, not being the actual sound. Now whoever can conceive the notion of word, as existing not only before its sound, but even before the idea of its sound is formed, may see enigmatically, and as it were in a glass, some similitude of that Word of Which it is said, In the beginning was the Word. For when we give expression to something which we know, the word used is necessarily derived from the knowledge thus retained in the memory, and must be of the same quality with that knowledge. For a word is a thought formed from a thing which we know; which word is spoken in the heart, being neither Greek nor Latin, nor of any language, though, when we want to communicate it to others, some sign is assumed by which to express it. […] Wherefore the word which sounds externally, is a sign of the word which lies hid within, to which the name of word more truly appertains. For that which is uttered by the mouth of our flesh, is the voice of the word; and is in fact called word, with reference to that from which it is taken, when it is developed externally.»
- Basil of Caesarea: «This Word is not a human word. For how was there a human word in the beginning, when man received his being last of all? There was not then any word of man in the beginning, nor yet of Angels; for every creature is within the limits of time, having its beginning of existence from the Creator. But what says the Gospel? It calls the Only-Begotten Himself the Word.»
- Chrysostom: «But why omitting the Father, does he proceed at once to speak of the Son? Because the Father was known to all; though not as the Father, yet as God; whereas the Only-Begotten was not known. As was meet then, he endeavours first of all to inculcate the knowledge of the Son on those who knew Him not; though neither in discoursing on Him, is he altogether silent on the Father. And inasmuch as he was about to teach that the Word was the Only-Begotten Son of God, that no one might think this a passible (παθητὴν) generation, he makes mention of the Word in the first place, in order to destroy the dangerous suspicion, and show that the Son was from God impassibly. And a second reason is, that He was to declare unto us the things of the Father. (John. 15:15) But he does not speak of the Word simply, but with the addition of the article, in order to distinguish It from other words. For Scripture calls God’s laws and commandments words; but this Word is a certain Substance, or Person, an Essence, coming forth impassibly from the Father Himself.»
- Basil of Caesarea: «Wherefore then Word? Because born impassibly, the Image of Him that begat, manifesting all the Father in Himself; abstracting from Him nothing, but existing perfect in Himself.»
- Augustine: «Now the Word of God is a Form, not a formation, but the Form of all forms, a Form unchangeable, removed from accident, from failure, from time, from space, surpassing all things, and existing in all things as a kind of foundation underneath, and summit above them.»
- Basil of Caesarea: «Yet has our outward word some similarity to the Divine Word. For our word declares the whole conception of the mind; since what we conceive in the mind we bring out in word. Indeed our heart is as it were the source, and the uttered word the stream which flows therefrom.»
- Chrysostom: «Observe the spiritual wisdom of the Evangelist. He knew that men honoured most what was most ancient, and that honouring what is before everything else, they conceived of it as God. On this account he mentions first the beginning, saying, In the beginning was the Word.»
- Augustine: «Or, In the beginning, as if it were said, before all things.»
- Basil of Caesarea: «The Holy Ghost foresaw that men would arise, who should envy the glory of the Only-Begotten, subverting their hearers by sophistry; as if because He were begotten, He was not; and before He was begotten, He was not. That none might presume then to babble such things, the Holy Ghost saith, In the beginning was the Word.»
- Hilary of Poitiers: «Years, centuries, ages, are passed over, place what beginning thou wilt in thy imagining, thou graspest it not in time, for He, from Whom it is derived, still was.»
- Chrysostom: «As then when our ship is near shore, cities and port pass in survey before us, which on the open sea vanish, and leave nothing whereon to fix the eye; so the Evangelist here, taking us with him in his flight above the created world, leaves the eye to gaze in vacancy on an illimitable expanse. For the words, was in the beginning, are significative of eternal and infinite essence.»
- Council of Ephesus: «Wherefore in one place divine Scripture calls Him the Son, in another the Word, in another the Brightness of the Father; names severally meant to guard against blasphemy. For, forasmuch as thy son is of the same nature with thyself, the Scripture wishing to show that the Substance of the Father and the Son is one, sets forth the Son of the Father, born of the Father, the Only-Begotten. Next, since the terms birth and son, convey the idea of passibleness, therefore it calls the Son the Word, declaring by that name the impassibility of His Nativity. But inasmuch as a father with us is necessarily older than his son, lest thou shouldest think that this applied to the Divine nature as well, it calls the Only-Begotten the Brightness of the Father; for brightness, though arising from the sun, is not posterior to it. Understand then that Brightness, as revealing the coeternity of the Son with the Father; Word as proving the impassibility of His birth, and Son as conveying His consubstantiality.»
- Chrysostom: «But they say that In the beginning does not absolutely express eternity: for that the same is said of the heaven and the earth: In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth. (Gen. 1:1) But are not made and was, altogether different? For in like manner as the word is, when spoken of man, signifies the present only, but when applied to God, that which always and eternally is; so too was, predicated of our nature, signifies the past, but predicated of God, eternity.»
- Origen: «The verb to be, has a double signification, sometimes expressing the motions which take place in time, as other verbs do; sometimes the substance of that one thing of which it is predicated, without reference to time. Hence it is also called a substantive verb.»
- Hilary of Poitiers: «Consider then the world, understand what is written of it. In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth. Whatever therefore is created is made in the beginning, and thou wouldest contain in time, what, as being to be made, is contained in the beginning. But, lo, for me, an illiterate unlearned fisherman is independent of time, unconfined by ages, advanceth beyond all beginnings. For the Word was, what it is, and is not bounded by any time, nor commenced therein, seeing It was not made in the beginning, but was.»
- Alcuin: » To refute those who inferred from Christ’s Birth in time, that He had not been from everlasting, the Evangelist begins with the eternity of the Word, saying, In the beginning was the Word.»
- Chrysostom: «Because it is an especial attribute of God, to be eternal and without a beginning, he laid this down first: then, lest any one on hearing in the beginning was the Word, should suppose the Word Unbegotten, he instantly guarded against this; saying, And the Word was with God.»
- Hilary of Poitiers: «From the beginning, He is with God: and though independent of time, is not independent of an Author.»
- Basil of Caesarea: «Again he repeats this, was, because of men blasphemously saying, that there was a time when He was not. Where then was the Word? Illimitable things are not contained in space. Where was He then? With God. For neither is the Father bounded by place, nor the Son by aught circumscribing.»
- Origen: «It is worth while noting, that, whereas the Word is said to come [be made] to some, as to Hosea, Isaiah, Jeremiah, with God it is not made, as though it were not with Him before. But, the Word having been always with Him, it is said, and the Word was with God: for from the beginning it was not separate from the Father.»
- Chrysostom: «He has not said, was in God, but was with God: exhibiting to us that eternity which He had in accordance with His Person.»
- Theophylact of Ohrid: «Sabellius is overthrown by this text. For he asserts that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one Person, Who sometimes appeared as the Father, sometimes as the Son, sometimes as the Holy Ghost. But he is manifestly confounded by this text, and the Word was with God; for here the Evangelist declares that the Son is one Person, God the Father another.»
- Hilary of Poitiers: «But the title is absolute, and free from the offence of an extraneous subject. To Moses it is said, I have given thee for a god to Pharaoh: (Exod. 7:1) but is not the reason for the name added, when it is said, to Pharaoh? Moses is given for a god to Pharaoh, when he is feared, when he is entreated, when he punishes, when he heals. And it is one thing to be given for a God, another thing to be God. I remember too another application of the name in the Psalms, I have said, ye are gods. But there too it is implied that the title was but bestowed; and the introduction of, I said, makes it rather the phrase of the Speaker, than the name of the thing. But when I hear the Word was God, I not only hear the Word said to be, but perceive It proved to be, God.»
- Basil of Caesarea: «Thus cutting off the cavils of blasphemers, and those who ask what the Word is, he replies, and the Word was God.»
- Theophylact of Ohrid: » Or combine it thus. From the Word being with God, it follows plainly that there are two Persons. But these two are of one Nature; and therefore it proceeds, In the Word was God: to show that Father and Son are of One Nature, being of One Godhead.»
- Origen: «We must add too, that the Word illuminates the Prophets with Divine wisdom, in that He cometh to them; but that with God He ever is, because He is God. For which reason he placed and the Word was with God, before and the Word was God.»
- Chrysostom: «Not asserting, as Plato does, one to be intelligence, the other soul; for the Divine Nature is very different from this. […] But you say, the Father is called God with the addition of the article, the Son without it. What say you then, when the Apostle. writes, The great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; (Tit. 2:13) and again, Who is over all, God; (Rom. 9:5) and Grace be unto you and peace from God our Father; (Rom. 1:7) without the article? Besides, too, it were superfluous here, to affix what had been affixed just before. So that it does not follow, though the article is not affixed to the Son, that He is therefore an inferior God.
References[edit]
- ^ John 1:1, Douay-Rheims
- ^ John 1:1, KJV
- ^ John 1:1, RSV
- ^ John 1:1, NIV
- ^ See verses 14-17: «And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John bore witness about him, and cried out, «This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.'»)… For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.»
- ^ Kennerson, Robert (2012-03-12). «Logos Christology — Philosophical Theology». Wilmington For Christ. Retrieved 2022-01-29.
- ^ The Greek English New Testament. Christianity Today. 1975
- ^ Nestle Aland Novum Testamentum Graece Read NA28 online
- ^ Sahidica 2.01. J. Warren Wells. 2007.January.28 http://www.biblical-data.org/coptic/Sahidic_NT.pdf
- ^ The Trustees of the Chester Beatty Library, Dublin/CBL Cpt 813, ff. 147v-148r/www.cbl.ie. «Sahidic Coptic Translation of John 1:1». Republished by Watchtower. Retrieved 20 October 2018.
- ^ The Coptic version of the New Testament in the southern dialect : otherwise called Sahidic and Thebaic ; with critical apparatus, literal English translation, register of fragments and estimate of the version. 3, The gospel of S. John, register of fragments, etc., facsimiles. Vol. 3. Horner, George, 1849-1930. [Raleigh, NC]: [Lulu Enterprises]. 2014. ISBN 9780557302406. OCLC 881290216.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link) - ^ «Translating Sahidic Coptic John 1:1 | Gospel Of John | Translations». Scribd. Retrieved 2018-10-21.
- ^ Horner, George William (1911). The Coptic version of the New Testament in the Southern dialect : otherwise called Sahidic and Thebaic ; with critical apparatus, literal English translation, register of fragments and estimate of the version. Robarts — University of Toronto. Oxford : The Clarendon Press. ISBN 978-0557302406.
- ^ The Bible : James Moffatt translation : with concordance. Moffatt, James, 1870-1944. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Classics. 1994. ISBN 9780825432286. OCLC 149166602.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link) - ^ «John 1 In the beginning the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was divine». studybible.info. Retrieved 2018-10-21.
- ^ Schonfield, Hugh J. (1958). The Authentic New Testament. UK (1955), USA (1958): Panther, Signet. ISBN 9780451602152.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (link) - ^ S. Wuest, Kenneth (1956). New Testament: An Expanded Translation. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. p. 209. ISBN 0-8028-1229-5.
- ^ Zulfiqar Ali Shah (2012). Anthropomorphic Depictions of God: The Concept of God in Judaic, Christian and Islamic Traditions : Representing the Unrepresentable. International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT). p. 300. ISBN 9781565645752.
- ^ For a complete list of 70 non traditional translations of John 1:1, see http://simplebibletruths.net/70-John-1-1-Truths.htm
- ^ Mary L. Coloe, ed. (2013). Creation is Groaning: Biblical and Theological Perspectives (Reprinted ed.). Liturgical Press. p. 92. ISBN 9780814680650.
- ^ Hart, David (2017). The New Testament: A Translation.
- ^ David A. Reed. «How Semitic Was John? Rethinking the Hellenistic Background to John 1:1.» Anglican Theological Review, Fall 2003, Vol. 85 Issue 4, p709
- ^ William Arnold III, Colwell’s Rule and John 1:1 Archived 2007-04-04 at the Wayback Machine at apostolic.net: «You could only derive a Trinitarian interpretation from John 1:1 if you come to this passage with an already developed Trinitarian theology. If you approached it with a strict Monotheism (which is what I believe John held to) then this passage would definitely support such a view.»
- ^ Beduhn in Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament chapter 11 states:
«Translators of the KJV, NRSV, NIV, NAB, New American Standard Bible, AB, Good News Bible and LB all approached the text at John 1:1 already believing certain things about the Word…and made sure that the translations came out in accordance with their beliefs…. Ironically, some of these same scholars are quick to charge the NW translation with «doctrinal bias» for translating the verse literally, free of KJV influence, following the sense of the Greek. It may very well be that the NW translators came to the task of translating John 1:1 with as much bias as the other translators did. It just so happens that their bias corresponds in this case to a more accurate translation of the Greek.» - ^ «The Article». A section heading in Robert W. Funk, A Beginning-Intermediate Grammar of Hellenistic Greek. Volume I. Second Corrected Edition. Scholars Press.
- ^ Ernest Cadman Colwell (1933). «A definite rule for the use of the article in the Greek New Testament» (PDF). Journal of Biblical Literature. 52 (1): 12–21. doi:10.2307/3259477. JSTOR 3259477. Archived (PDF) from the original on February 21, 2016.
- ^ Jason BeDuhn (2003). Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament. University Press of America. pp. 117–120. ISBN 9780761825562.
- ^ «Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. III : Against Praxeas». www.tertullian.org. Retrieved 2022-01-29.
- ^ «Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. III : Against Praxeas». www.tertullian.org. Retrieved 2022-01-29.
- ^ «Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. III : Against Praxeas». www.tertullian.org. Retrieved 2022-01-29.
- ^ «John 1:1 Interlinear: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;». biblehub.com. Retrieved 2022-01-29.
- ^ «Philip Schaff: ANF09. The Gospel of Peter, The Diatessaron of Tatian, The Apocalypse of Peter, the Vision of Paul, The Apocalypse of the Virgin and Sedrach, The Testament of Abraham, The Acts of Xanthippe and Polyxena, The Narrative of Zosimus, The Apology of Aristid — Christian Classics Ethereal Library». ccel.org. Retrieved 2022-01-29.
- ^ «RPC Hanson — A lecture on the Arian Controversy». From Daniel to Revelation. 2021-11-26. Retrieved 2022-01-29.
- ^ Harris, Murray J., Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus, 1992, Baker Books, pub. SBN 0801021952, p. 69
- ^ Eastern / Greek Orthodox Bible, New Testament, 2009, p231.
- ^ Daniel B. Wallace (1997). Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. p. 269. ISBN 9780310218951.
- ^ Wallace, ibid., p. 257
- ^ Panayotis Coutsoumpos. Book Reviews Murray J. Harris. Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books House, 1992. Berrier Springs. MI 49103
- ^ Murray J. Harris. (1992). Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books House.
- ^ Murray J. Harris (2008). Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus (Reprinted ed.). Wipf and Stock Publishers. ISBN 9781606081082.
- ^ McKenzie, John L. (1965). Dictionary of the Bible. Milwaukee, WI: Bruce.
- ^ John L. Mckenzie (1995). The Dictionary Of The Bible (reprinted ed.). Touchstone, New York: Simon and Schuster. p. 317. ISBN 9780684819136.
- ^ Philip B. Harner, “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,” Journal of Biblical Literature 92, 1 (March 1973),
- ^ Hartley, Donald. «Revisiting the Colwell Construction in Light of Mass/Count Nouns». bible.org. Retrieved November 1, 2022.
- ^ Philip B. Harner (March 1973). «Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1». Journal of Biblical Literature. The Society of Biblical Literature. 92 (1): 75–87. doi:10.2307/3262756. JSTOR 3262756.
- ^ C. F. D. Moule (1953). An Idiom-Book of New Testament Greek. Cambridge: University Press. p. 116. ISBN 9780521057745.
- ^ James D. G. Dunn (1989). Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry Into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation (Second ed.). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
- ^ Dr. J. R. Mantey: «It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 ‘The Word was a god.'»
- ^ Dr. Bruce M. Metzger of Princeton (Professor of New Testament Language and Literature): «As a matter of solid fact, however, such a rendering is a frightful mistranslation. It overlooks entirely an established rule of Greek grammar which necessitates the rendering «…and the Word was God.» http://www.bible-researcher.com/metzger.jw.html—see chapter IV point 1.
- ^ Dr. Samuel J. Mikolaski of Zurich, Switzerland: «It is monstrous to translate the phrase ‘the Word was a god.'»
- ^ Witherington, Ben (2007). The Living Word of God: Rethinking the Theology of the Bible. Baylor University Press. pp. 211–213. ISBN 978-1-60258-017-6.
- ^ Dr. Jason BeDuhn (of Northern Arizona University) in regard to the Kingdom Interlinear’s appendix that gives the reason why the NWT favoured a translation of John 1:1 as saying the Word was not «God» but «a god» said: «In fact the KIT [Appendix 2A, p.1139] explanation is perfectly correct according to the best scholarship done on this subject..»
- ^ Murray J. Harris has written: «Accordingly, from the point of view of grammar alone, [QEOS HN hO LOGOS] could be rendered «the Word was a god,….» —Jesus As God, 1992, p. 60.
- ^ C. H. Dodd says: «If a translation were a matter of substituting words, a possible translation of [QEOS EN hO LOGOS]; would be, «The Word was a god». As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted.»
- ^ David Barron (an anti-Trinitarian Seventh-day Adventist) (2011). John 1:1 Non-Trinitarian — The Nature and Deity of Christ. Archived from the original on 2012-05-01. Retrieved 2011-10-05.
- ^ Acts 28:6
- ^ Acts 28:6
- ^ a b Albert Pietersma (1984). Albert Pietersma and Claude Cox (ed.). KYRIOS OR TETRAGRAM: A RENEWED QUEST FOR THE ORIGINAL LXX (PDF). DE SEPTUAGINTA. Studies in Honour of John William Wevers on his sixty-fifth birthday. Mississauga: Benben Publications. p. 90.
- ^ Wright, B. J.; Ricchuiti, T. (2011-10-01). «From ‘God’ (θεός) to ‘God’ (Noute): A New Discussion and Proposal Regarding John 1:1C and the Sahidic Coptic Version of the New Testament». The Journal of Theological Studies. 62 (2): 494–512. doi:10.1093/jts/flr080. ISSN 0022-5185.
- ^ Genesis 1:1
- ^ Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers on John 1, accessed 22 January 2016
- ^ Mark 1:1
- ^ Luke 1:2
- ^ David L. Jeffrey A Dictionary of biblical tradition in English literature 1992 Page 460 «…in his reference to ‘eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word’ (Luke 1:2) he is certainly speaking of the person as well as the words and actions of Jesus»
- ^ 1 John 1:1
- ^ Dwight Moody Smith First, Second, and Third John 1991 Page 48 «Of course, were it not for the Gospel, it would not be so obvious to us that «the word of life» in 1 John 1:1 is Jesus Christ. Strikingly, only in the prologue of each is the logos to be identified with Jesus.»
External links[edit]
- Another God in the Gospel of John? A Linguistic Analysis of John 1:1 and 1:18
1 Kings 13 – The Man of God from Judah
Audio for 1 Kings 13:
A. A prophecy from a man of God.
1. (1-2) The coming destruction of the altar in Bethel.
And behold, a man of God went from Judah to Bethel by the word of the LORD, and Jeroboam stood by the altar to burn incense. Then he cried out against the altar by the word of the LORD, and said, “O altar, altar! Thus says the LORD: ‘Behold, a child, Josiah by name, shall be born to the house of David; and on you he shall sacrifice the priests of the high places who burn incense on you, and men’s bones shall be burned on you.’”
a. A man of God went from Judah to Bethel: Apparently, there were no qualified messengers within the northern kingdom of Israel. This is a sad commentary on the spiritual state of Jeroboam’s kingdom.
i. This anonymous man of God was used in an important way. He demonstrates that one does not need to be famous to be significantly used by God.
b. Behold, a child, Josiah by name, shall be born to the house of David; and on you he shall sacrifice the priests of the high places who burn incense on you: This is a remarkable prophecy that would be precisely fulfilled 340 years later. 2 Kings 23:15 documents the fulfillment of this prophecy in the days of Josiah, King of Judah: Moreover the altar that was at Bethel, and the high place which Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel sin, had made, both that altar and the high place he broke down; and he burned the high place and crushed it to powder, and burned the wooden image.
i. This was more than a pronouncement of judgment against the altar; it also announced that the judgment would come through a ruler of Judah (the house of David). This was a special rebuke and source of concern to Jeroboam, who was always aware of the threat from his neighbor to the south (as in 1 Kings 12:27).
ii. We know that this didn’t happen for some 350 years, but Jeroboam didn’t know that in advance. He went to his grave worried about the fulfillment of this prophecy, which was a sort of immediate judgment on Jeroboam.
2. (3-5) Signs to confirm the prophet’s words.
And he gave a sign the same day, saying, “This is the sign which the LORD has spoken: Surely the altar shall split apart, and the ashes on it shall be poured out.” So it came to pass when King Jeroboam heard the saying of the man of God, who cried out against the altar in Bethel, that he stretched out his hand from the altar, saying, “Arrest him!” Then his hand, which he stretched out toward him, withered, so that he could not pull it back to himself. The altar also was split apart, and the ashes poured out from the altar, according to the sign which the man of God had given by the word of the LORD.
a. He gave a sign the same day: The prophecy of the man of God would not be fulfilled for hundreds of years, so an immediate sign was given to confirm the word to the present-day hearers.
b. Surely the altar shall split apart, and the ashes on it shall be poured out: This would be a convincing sign, and a direct rebuke to the idolatrous worship at that altar.
c. Arrest him: Jeroboam’s reaction was immediate – he sought to silence the messenger rather than respond to the message. The prophecy from the man of God was like most every message of coming judgment – an implicit invitation to repentance. Jeroboam obviously did not accept this invitation.
i. “If Jeroboam would not have Jehovah’s priests, God sends His prophet into his land.” (Knapp)
d. His hand, which he stretched out toward him, withered, so that he could not pull it back to himself: God confirmed His word of judgment in two ways. First, He judged the disobedient king at the precise point of his most glaring sin (the outstretched hand against the man of God). Second, He fulfilled the immediate word against the altar (the altar also was split apart).
i. “This God did, partly, to chastise Jeroboam for offering violence to the Lord’s prophet; partly, to secure the prophet against further violence; and partly, that in this example God might show how highly he resents the injuries done to his ministers in and for the faithful discharge of their office.” (Poole)
3. (6) Jeroboam’s plea.
Then the king answered and said to the man of God, “Please entreat the favor of the LORD your God, and pray for me, that my hand may be restored to me.” So the man of God entreated the LORD, and the king’s hand was restored to him, and became as before.
a. Please entreat the favor of the LORD your God, and pray for me, that my hand may be restored: Under the evident judgment of God, Jeroboam had no use for golden calves or their altars. He knew that his only hope was in the LORD and in His representative.
i. As the subsequent chapters will show, Jeroboam didn’t really repent here; or if he did, it was only for a moment. Wanting to receive something from God is not the same as repentance.
b. So the man of God entreated the LORD, and the king’s hand was restored to him: To his credit, the man of God showed great grace to Jeroboam. He quickly moved from being under arrest to being an intercessor for his persecutor. This was great mercy from the man of God, and especially from God, who answered his prayer.
i. God did this, “Partly, to assure him that the stroke was from God; partly, because he repented of that violence which he intended against the prophet, for which God inflicted it; and partly, that the goodness of God to him might have led him to repentance; or if he continued impenitent, leave him without all excuse” (Poole).
4. (7-10) The man of God declines Jeroboam’s invitation.
Then the king said to the man of God, “Come home with me and refresh yourself, and I will give you a reward.” But the man of God said to the king, “If you were to give me half your house, I would not go in with you; nor would I eat bread nor drink water in this place. For so it was commanded me by the word of the LORD, saying, ‘You shall not eat bread, nor drink water, nor return by the same way you came.’” So he went another way and did not return by the way he came to Bethel.
a. I will give you a reward: Jeroboam quickly – and naturally, given the circumstances – embraced the man of God as a friend. He wanted to refresh and reward him, without any repentance from the sin the man of God had denounced.
b. If you were to give me half your house, I would not go in with you; nor would I eat bread nor drink water in this place: The man of God refused the invitation, based on a prior warning from God. To accept Jeroboam’s invitation would demonstrate fellowship with his idolatry.
B. The man of God’s disobedience and death.
1. (11-17) An old prophet in Bethel invites the man of God to dinner.
Now an old prophet dwelt in Bethel, and his sons came and told him all the works that the man of God had done that day in Bethel; they also told their father the words which he had spoken to the king. And their father said to them, “Which way did he go?” For his sons had seen which way the man of God went who came from Judah. Then he said to his sons, “Saddle the donkey for me.” So they saddled the donkey for him; and he rode on it, and went after the man of God, and found him sitting under an oak. Then he said to him, “Are you the man of God who came from Judah?” And he said, “I am.” Then he said to him, “Come home with me and eat bread.” And he said, “I cannot return with you nor go in with you; neither can I eat bread nor drink water with you in this place. For I have been told by the word of the LORD, ‘You shall not eat bread nor drink water there, nor return by going the way you came.’”
a. Now an old prophet dwelt in Bethel: It seems that this was a faithful prophet to the LORD. This demonstrates that not every godly person left Israel for Judah; some still remained behind.
i. “Probably once a prophet of the Lord, who had fallen from his steadfastness, and yet not so deeply as to lose the knowledge of the true God, and join with Jeroboam with his idolatries.” (Clarke)
b. Come home with me and eat bread: This prophet from Bethel invited the unnamed man of God to his home, as Jeroboam had invited him. The man of God refused, under the same reason he refused Jeroboam – that God had specifically told him to return to Judah without accepting hospitality, and to return a different way (also in 1 Kings 13:10).
2. (18-19) The prophet from Bethel lies to the man of God from Judah.
He said to him, “I too am a prophet as you are, and an angel spoke to me by the word of the LORD, saying, ‘Bring him back with you to your house, that he may eat bread and drink water.’” (He was lying to him.) So he went back with him, and ate bread in his house, and drank water.
a. He was lying to him: The prophet from Bethel gave a false word from God, trying to persuade the man of God from Judah to change his course from doing exactly what God told him.
i. “As he found the man of God sitting under an oak, probably faint with fatigue and fasting, for he had no refreshment, his humanity might have led him to practise this deception, in order to persuade him to take some refreshment.” (Clarke)
ii. “But his sin was great; for he did not only tell a premeditated lie, but also made God a liar, and to contradict himself, and all this without any pretence of necessity, or benefit to himself.” (Poole)
b. An angel spoke to me: Perhaps this was true, and perhaps it was a deceiving angel. Satan and his messengers can appear as angels of light (2 Corinthians 11:14-15).
c. So he went back with him, and ate bread in his house, and drank water: The man of God from Judah listened to the lie from the prophet of Bethel. He did this for several reasons:
· The prophet from Bethel was probably older (an old prophet, 1 Kings 13:11) and had the respect of the man of God.
· The prophet from Bethel identified with the man of God (I too am a prophet as you are).
· The prophet from Bethel claimed a spectacular experience (an angel spoke to me).
· The prophet from Bethel claimed to speak for the LORD (by the word of the LORD).
· The prophet from Bethel did not seem to be an idolater who should be shunned (Bring him back with you to your house).
· The prophet from Bethel offered no reward, other than simple food (he may eat bread and drink water).
i. No matter how natural and seductive this enticement was, it was the duty of the man of God to resist it. He had a word from God to guide his actions, and should receive no other word except through dramatic and direct confirmation by God’s Spirit. His failure at this point ended his usefulness as a man of God.
ii. “When we have received a direct command fresh from the lips of Christ, we must act on it, and not be turned aside by a different suggestion, made to us through the lips of professing Christians… Deal with God at first-hand.” (Meyer)
iii. “God never contradicts Himself in His dealings with His servants. Let us be true to His commands, refusing to be deflected from the path of obedience, even by an angel from heaven.” (Morgan)
3. (20-22) The prophet from Bethel prophesies the doom of the man of God.
Now it happened, as they sat at the table, that the word of the LORD came to the prophet who had brought him back; and he cried out to the man of God who came from Judah, saying, “Thus says the LORD: ‘Because you have disobeyed the word of the LORD, and have not kept the commandment which the LORD your God commanded you, but you came back, ate bread, and drank water in the place of which the LORD said to you, “Eat no bread and drink no water,” your corpse shall not come to the tomb of your fathers.’”
a. The word of the LORD came to the prophet who had brought him back: This prophet from Bethel spoke a lie in the name of the LORD in 1 Kings 13:18. Now he received a true prophecy while the man of God from Judah ate at his table.
b. Because you have disobeyed the word of the LORD: God promised great judgment against the man of God from Judah for his disobedience. This was a hard test, but he failed it. He should have kept the commandment which the LORD your God commanded, no matter how subtle and innocent the temptation was to disobey.
c. Your corpse shall not come to the tomb of your fathers: God judged the man of God from Judah far more strictly than He judged Jeroboam or the prophet from Bethel. It would seem that they were guilty of worse sins (leading national idolatry and a deliberate lying prophecy), yet the man of God received worse judgment.
i. “For a body to lie unburied was a curse, hence the emphasis on detail of the place of burial. It was a disgrace to be buried away from the family among strangers.” (Wiseman)
ii. This is an example of an important principle of the way God works. We think that strict judgment should begin among the most ungodly, but often God begins strict judgment among His own people (1 Peter 4:17). Usually this is because God knows that the world will not be reached when His people live in compromise and disobedience.
iii. “By permitting himself to be seduced by the old prophet, when he should have acted only on the expressly declared counsel of God, he committed the sin unto death [1 John 5:16-17]; that is, such a sin as God will punish with the death of the body, while he extends mercy to his soul.” (Clarke)
4. (23-25a) The word of the prophet from Bethel is fulfilled.
So it was, after he had eaten bread and after he had drunk, that he saddled the donkey for him, the prophet whom he had brought back. When he was gone, a lion met him on the road and killed him. And his corpse was thrown on the road, and the donkey stood by it. The lion also stood by the corpse. And there, men passed by and saw the corpse thrown on the road, and the lion standing by the corpse.
a. A lion met him on the road and killed him: The word – the second word – of the prophet from Bethel was fulfilled. He didn’t say that the man of God would perish by a lion, but that he would not be buried in the tomb of his fathers.
i. “Lions were attested in Palestine until at least the thirteenth century a.d.” (Wiseman)
b. And there, men passed by and saw the corpse thrown on the road, and the lion standing by the corpse: This demonstrates that this was no mere accident, but something unique from God. The lion did not attack the donkey (the donkey stood by it), nor did he attack the men who passed by. This lion was on a special mission of judgment from God, and seems to be more obedient than the man of God from Judah was.
5. (25b-32) The man of God is given a decent burial and the prophet from Bethel testifies to his prophecy.
Then they went and told it in the city where the old prophet dwelt. Now when the prophet who had brought him back from the way heard it, he said, “It is the man of God who was disobedient to the word of the LORD. Therefore the LORD has delivered him to the lion, which has torn him and killed him, according to the word of the LORD which He spoke to him.” And he spoke to his sons, saying, “Saddle the donkey for me.” So they saddled it. Then he went and found his corpse thrown on the road, and the donkey and the lion standing by the corpse. The lion had not eaten the corpse nor torn the donkey. And the prophet took up the corpse of the man of God, laid it on the donkey, and brought it back. So the old prophet came to the city to mourn, and to bury him. Then he laid the corpse in his own tomb; and they mourned over him, saying, “Alas, my brother!” So it was, after he had buried him, that he spoke to his sons, saying, “When I am dead, then bury me in the tomb where the man of God is buried; lay my bones beside his bones. For the saying which he cried out by the word of the LORD against the altar in Bethel, and against all the shrines on the high places which are in the cities of Samaria, will surely come to pass.”
a. So the old prophet came to the city to mourn, and to bury him: The old prophet from Bethel was sympathetic to the man of God from Judah, even in his disobedience and resulting judgment. The prophet from Bethel was not a particularly righteous man or good prophet, having used a lying prophecy to lead the man of God into sin and judgment. He recognized the common weakness of this fellow servant of God.
i. How strange it was for the old prophet to look upon the carcass of the dead prophet, and to realize: “My sin was worse than his.” The ways of God’s judgment are sometimes past finding out, and only understandable from eternity.
b. He laid the corpse in his own tomb: Not in the tomb of the man of God from Judah’s fathers, in fulfillment of the previous prophecy.
c. When I am dead, then bury me in the tomb where the man of God is buried; lay my bones beside his bones: Though he lied to him, led him into sin, and prophesied judgment against him, the prophet from Bethel still respected the man of God from Judah. Perhaps he understood that the word he spoke against Jeroboam required a courage he did not have; therefore he confirmed the word of the man of God against Jeroboam and the altar at Bethel.
6. (33-34) No repentance from Jeroboam.
After this event Jeroboam did not turn from his evil way, but again he made priests from every class of people for the high places; whoever wished, he consecrated him, and he became one of the priests of the high places. And this thing was the sin of the house of Jeroboam, so as to exterminate and destroy it from the face of the earth.
a. After this event Jeroboam did not turn from his evil way: He should have turned, but he did not. God’s dealing with the man of God from Judah was warning enough to Jeroboam, but it was a warning he ignored.
i. “All these wonderful accidents, as God’s hammers, did but beat upon cold iron.” (Trapp)
b. He became one of the priests of the high places: In ancient Israel, God commanded a strict separation between the office of king and priest. Jeroboam blurred this separation and this thing was the sin of the house of Jeroboam.
i. Jeroboam had great opportunity, especially in light of the promise of God through Ahijah recorded in 1 Kings 11:38: Then it shall be, if you heed all that I command you, walk in My ways, and do what is right in My sight, to keep My statutes and My commandments, as My servant David did, then I will be with you and build for you an enduring house, as I built for David, and will give Israel to you. Jeroboam did not obey God and honor His commandments, and he never fulfilled his potential or promise.
ii. The same principle works in servants of God today. We are not called because of obedience, or used out of merit; but our disobedience hinders our potential for full use. Paul put it this way in 2 Timothy 2:21: Therefore if anyone cleanses himself from the latter [works of dishonor], he will be a vessel for honor, sanctified and useful for the Master, prepared for every good work. God uses vessels of honor, separation, usefulness, and preparation to their fullest potential.
iii. In his failure, Jeroboam became the prototype of the disobedient kings of Israel. The phrase He did evil in the sight of the LORD, and walked in the way of Jeroboam, and in his sin by which he had made Israel sin was used of many subsequent kings of Israel. These include:
· Baasha (1 Kings 15:33-34).
· Omri (1 Kings 16:25-26).
· Ahaziah (1 Kings 22:51-52).
· Jehoram (2 Kings 3:1-3).
· Jehu (2 Kings 10:29-31).
· Jehoahaz (2 Kings 13:1-2).
· Jehoash (2 Kings 13:10-11).
· Jeroboam II (2 Kings 14:23-24).
· Zechariah (2 Kings 15:8-9).
· Menahim (2 Kings 15:17-18).
· Pekahiah (2 Kings 15:23-24).
· Pekah (2 Kings 15:27-28).
iv. One curious exception was Ahab, who was noted as worse than Jeroboam (1 Kings 16:30-31).
v. Jeroboam had great opportunity, but instead became a great curse to every generation of the northern kingdom after that. Even at the end of the Kingdom of Israel, Jeroboam’s sin was remembered: For He tore Israel from the house of David, and they made Jeroboam the son of Nebat king. Then Jeroboam drove Israel from following the LORD, and made them commit a great sin. For the children of Israel walked in all the sins of Jeroboam which he did; they did not depart from them, until the LORD removed Israel out of His sight, as He had said by all His servants the prophets. So Israel was carried away from their own land to Assyria, as it is to this day (2 Kings 17:21-23).
vi. All in all, Jeroboam is an example of sinful failure.
· He failed despite great blessing and favor from God.
· He failed for the sake of mere political advantage.
· He failed and led an entire nation into idolatry.
· He failed despite specific warnings to repent.
· He failed despite specific judgment and deliverance from that judgment.
· He failed despite a clear message and example of integrity.
©2018 David Guzik – No distribution beyond personal use without permission