JWs and LDS are Wrong About Jesus

And, in the same way, when we look at the prologue of John, I was saying, well, verses 1 and 2, that's an artificial division. What is the proper breakdown of the thought from the author? And so, in John 1, 1, we have, in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

This One, the Logos, the Word, was in the beginning with God. Then you go to verse 18. No one has seen God at any time. I'm just going to give you the Greek, and then we'll talk about the translation of it.

Monogenes theos, unique God, the One being in the bosom of the Father, this One has explained or exegeted Him. Now, these are your bookends, and there's all sorts of vitally important stuff in between.

For example, verse 14, and the Word became flesh and dwelt amongst us, and we beheld His glory, glories of the unique One from the Father, full of grace and truth. Yeah, there's really important stuff in between.

But what I want us to see is the bookends, and how verse 18 sheds so much light on verses 1 and 2, but of necessity, how verses 1 and 2 first shed light upon verse 18. You can't expect things to go backwards overly well, obviously.

So, there are three clauses in John 1 .1. So normally they're called 1 .1 .a, 1 .1 .b, and 1 .1 .c. Anarche Einhalagus, in the beginning was the Word. Now, in the Greek language, you have things called tenses, and tenses refer to aspect and time.

Aspect is first, time is second. Aspect talks about the kind of action, time talks about the when of action. And it's fascinating, and I will credit my father and beyond him to Kenneth Wiest, longtime professor of Greek at Moody Bible Institute back in the 40s and 50s, under whom my dad studied.

For pointing this out to me for the first time. But when you look at the prologue of John, John will use two forms of the verb of being. In English, is, was, am are verbs of being. These are being verbs.

And it's primarily, I, me, and again, it's all in the aorist form in the Greek language. And so, in the Greek language, when speaking of the logos, John uses the word ein, which is the imperfect form of I mean, why is that relevant to you?

The imperfect form refers to continuous action in the past, continuous action in the past over against an aorist. That is an undefined action, normally a point action, but it's, it's, it's undefined. It's a much more basic means of expressing the aspect of a verb.

So when referring to, for example, John in verse six, John the Baptist, John uses the term agenita, he uses the aorist. And so there was a man sent from God, whose name was John. But when he refers to the logos, he uses the imperfect form of I mean, which simply talks about continuous action in the past.

It does not have an emphasis upon, or even contain the element of the beginning of that.

Action.

This is what's very important because in John 1, 1, in the beginning was the word does not mean in the beginning, the word was created. If he used agenita, that would imply that, but he didn't use agenita, he uses ein.

So as far back as you want to push N-R-K, the logos is already in existence. This is a mechanism of communicating to us the eternal nature of the logos, the word. The word was already in existence prior to the R-K, the beginning.

So what does 1, 1, A tell us that the word's eternal. Then, and the word was with God, again, same word was, now you have the word being in the presence of having personal relationship with God. God is not defined here.

The only consistent way in context to define this is God the father, but we're not told that yet. That will basically come, especially in light of verse 18. This is where the bookend really helps us to understand this.

And so the word was prostantheon. So the word has eternal relationship and personal existence, relationship with the father and personal existence in of himself. The word's eternal. The word's an eternal relationship with the father.

Third phrase, kai theos ein ha logos. Here of course is where you have the argumentation with Jehovah's witnesses and with some others that follow after them. And a God was the word. Well, it is a truism amongst everyone who teaches Greek that one of the struggles you have is that the Greek article, the word the is so much richer and so different than the English article, the, and the tendency of the English speaking person is to bring that background in and hence misinterpret the, a, the indefinite article, which leads to how Jehovah's witnesses argue about John 1.

Whether a noun has an article or not does not determine whether that noun should be translated as a or the. Names can have articles and we would never, why would a name have an article? We don't even think that way.

Sometimes the presence of the article will actually influence the translation of the word and what it's referring to and what it's called. It's semantic domain, it's range of meaning. In this instance, if the third clause said kai ha theos, putting the article in front of God, ein ha logos, we would have heresy.

If both nouns had the article, then they become interchangeable. And so everything theos is, the logos is, everything the logos is, theos is, they become interchangeable. The distinction, which was introduced in the previous clause that the word was with God.

Is destroyed.

So John couldn't put the article there or communicate the wrong thing, but by placing it before the verb, basically what he's emphasizing is the nature, not the identity of the logos. He's not saying the logos is the God with whom he just said he was.

He's saying the logos is as to his nature, deity, theos. And always has been, because again, he uses that verb that he used before. Then he sort of, in verse two, in essence, what he does here is he restates the primary emphasis of verse one.

This one was in the beginning with God. So this one, the logos was, again, the imperfect form of I, me, continuous action of the past, in the beginning with God. So really, he summarizes the first two clauses primarily in a repetitious way to emphasize this one was in the beginning, eternally, in relationship with Tantheon, God, with God.

Now, if you've seen the debate that I did about a year and a half ago now with a representative Iglesia Ni Cristo, a cult group in the Philippines, you know that they think that the form of theos changes the meaning.

They don't read the original languages and have scholars in the original languages. And so, ha-theos and Tantheon to them would be, there's a great difference between the two. Those who read the languages know that's the difference between the nominative and accusative form is the exact same word.

And all that tells you is how it's functioning in a sentence. It doesn't change the meaning. It's just simply nominative subject form and accusative, normally the direct object form. And Prost takes the accusative.

And so, in verse two, this one was with God, hence it could be in the accusative. They get all excited about what Tantheon is over in John chapter 17, not really knowing anything about the original languages.

Now, keeping in mind what we just learned about verses one and two, let's look at the bookend in verse 18. Now, interesting here, at the end of verse two, it's Tantheon. Here it's just simply Theon. No one has seen God at any time.

Now, is that true? Well, there are places in the Old Testament, I mean, Abram walked with God. Isaiah saw Yahweh sitting upon his throne, lofty and lifted up. There are a number of places that you could make a fair argument that people saw God.

And yet, John says no one has seen God at any time. Well, I would argue that John 118 would be contradictory with the rest of Scripture, if you don't interpret John 118 correctly. If you do not have a Trinitarian exegesis of this text, yeah, I would say it would be contradictory.

But it's not, if you really understand what John is saying. And that's what's going to give you the key to seeing everything else in John in a consistent.

Fashion.

Let's say that God, the God who has not been seen, is the Father. Let's keep that in mind and see if John substantiates this. No one has seen God at any time. Then you have this very interesting phrase that has once again become exceptionally controversial in our day again, only over the past year and a half, two years.

It became controversial again because of an interesting perspective on the part of a minority of Christian scholars that promotes what's called the eternal subordination of the Son. It's the idea that there is a definitional element of subordination between the person of the Father and the person of the Son.

And not a voluntary subordination, but an ontological or on the level of being subordination. And what it ended up casting light on is the relationship of the Father and the Son and what those words mean when you take them out of what we might call human language use.

And the term monogamous, as a result, has come in for some further analysis. It had been generally accepted, and I have yet to see a really strong rejection of this. I know what the arguments are, but I don't know that a survey of related forms in patristic literature can overcome the specific Johannine use of this term, the use in Gospel of John.

Monogamous theos is translated in the King James Version only begotten. It's translated in most modern versions as unique or one of a kind. So what is it? Which is it? Only begotten, I find to be a less adequate theological translation for a couple of reasons.

First of all, it is our tendency to hear the phrase begotten and to temporalize it. We put it in time. We don't have any way of really avoiding that because that's how our language works. The problem is when applying it to God and putting it outside of temporal categories, outside of time categories, what does it mean to be begotten outside of time?

Because for you and I, begettal is a time category. It's a time event. It's a singular event. Also, because of the fact that the spelling of monogamous tells us that when you hear that phrase monogamous, generation in our language comes from the Greek.

Genao to beget and genos kind or type. The problem is genao has two news in it. Kind or type, genos has one and monogamous has one. So, it's drawing from the kind or type aspect, not from the begetting aspect.

And so, the word itself in its formation, monogamous, one kind, would have more of an emphasis upon uniqueness than monogamous if it had two news, because that would be monos and then genao, hence more only begotten.

Now, monogamous can be used of an only begotten child. So, if you put it in a particular context that shoves the meaning to that side of the semantic domain, the range of meanings that the term has, that's fine, but you don't have that here.

Instead, you have monogamous the os. How can you have an only begotten God? Is that not a contradiction? Unless you recognize it's talking about the unique God, then you have haon aiston kalpon tupatras, the one being by the side or the bosom of the father.

So, here I think you have John identifying the God that he's been talking about, who is, who's never been seen, the God with whom the word was, is the father. And now we have this unique God who is in the bosom of the father, who is the logos.

And this one is the monogamous the os, unique God. So, it's important to keep these distinctions in mind and to remember, and we're going to see this a little bit later on, unless I stop. Well, I need to talk faster, I guess.

But the phrase haon, the one being, monogamous the os, haon, the unique God, the one being in the bosom of the father, that again is a present participle. And so, it's emphasizing continuous action. And so, it's not the one who came into existence by the father's side, or who was created by the father to give him company or something like that.

No, this monogamous the os is the one being. And what's interesting is, again, I mentioned at the beginning of all this, beginning of my rambling, that in the Greek Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, there's a fascinating phrase that you've undoubtedly heard of back in Exodus 3 .14, I am that I am.

How Yahweh identifies himself to Moses in the burning bush, I am that I am. And a lot of people, mistakenly, I think, but honest motives, will grab hold of the use of I am in the Gospel of John, and just run straight back to Exodus 3 .14 and say, see, I am that I am.

Jesus is claiming to be the I am. It's a pretty weak argument. And Unitarians can tear it apart fairly easily. It is a valid teaching, but a weak argument. You say, how can you have a valid teaching with a weak argument?

It misses something. One of the things that it misses is that in the Greek Septuagint, when it says, I am that I am, I don't have the Hebrew in front of me, but the Greek is Ego, I, Me, Ha, On. Ego, I, Me, Ha, On.

And so, I, myself, am the one being. And so, the real strong affirmation part is Ha, On. Ego, I, Me, is not as strong as Ha, On is in that phrase. Now, we're going to see Ego, I, Me, is still a divine name.

It's just, you don't go to Exodus 3 to prove that. You go to Isaiah 43 and places like that instead. But it is significant to me, and should be to all of us, that the same Greek phrase that is used in Exodus 3 .14, Ha, On, of the very being of God, is used here.

Ha, On, the unique God, the one being in the bosom of the Father, this one has made him known. And so, what John 1 .18 is telling us is that no one has seen the Father in any time, but the unique God, the one who's in the bosom of the Father, this one has made him known, has explained him, has exegeted him.

Now, once you put 18 and 1 and 2 together, it's a pretty full teaching about the eternal nature of the Logos. Logos is not created. What we know of the Father, we can have confidence in, because the one who has revealed these things about the Father has eternally been in the presence of the Father, is not just a highly exalted, created being, but has eternally existed in the very presence of the Father.

This one has exegeted him, this one has explained him. Could you ask for a better means of explanation than one such as this? But, don't forget the rest. Because, in verse 14 then, and the word became flesh and tabernacled, it's literally the term to live in a tent, tabernacled amongst us, and we beheld his glory, the glories of the monogamous parapatras, the unique one from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Now, what is interesting is that at verse 14, John reverses or changes purposefully the use of verbs that he has been using up to this point. Because remember, we had emphasized that, speaking of the Logos, he uses the imperfect to refer to the ongoing action in the past, the eternal nature of the Logos.

And then, of everything else, he uses agenita, the heiress, just came into existence. But, in verse 14, Kaiha Logos sarks agenita. So, now he switches verbs and applies agenita to what? Not to the creation of the Logos, but to the point in time when the Logos enters into flesh.

He enters into flesh at a point in time. The Logos has not eternally been enfleshed. The Logos has not eternally been incarnated. There was a point in time when that embryo began to grow by divine power, and nine months later, Jesus is born in Bethlehem.

And so, the word became flesh and tabernacled amongst us, dwelt amongst us, as living in a tent. And so, this Logos, who has eternally existed, took on flesh. This is the incarnation. That's a Latin word.

It'd be nice if we used a Greek version of it or something like that, but that's the way our language has developed. So, here's the incarnation. And yet, he's still the Logos. He's still the Logos because it says, we saw his glory, the glories of the unique one from the Father, full of grace and truth.