Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
Click to get our FREE MOBILE APP and stay connected
| PentecostalTheology.com
Much debate has been had over the use of ‘the word’ in John’s prologue. Many early English translations translated the relevant pronoun in John 1:2-4 as ‘it’ instead of ‘he’, suggesting the referent to not be a male person but a thing.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through Him all things
were made, and without Him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In
Him was life, and that life was the light of men. (Berean Study Bible)
Contrast that with the Tyndale Bible (published in 1535)
In the beginnynge was the worde and the worde was with God: and the
worde was God. 2 The same was in the beginnynge with God. 3 All
thinges were made by it and with out it was made nothinge that was
made. 4 In it was lyfe and the lyfe was ye lyght of men
Going beyond pronoun use are theologies which interpret the referent of ‘the word’ in the prologue differently. Some view it as a subordinate logos being, some as a co-equal ‘person’ of a bi-personal or tri-personal God, some as an active power of God, some as the wholly man Jesus, and so on.
If ‘the word’ in John’s prologue is meant to refer to a person, one might expect to see the term used in a similar way in the rest of John’s Gospel, or in other texts by John.
How does John use the term ‘the word’ (or similar terms) in his texts? In particular, how is ‘the word’ (or similar terms) used in the rest of the Gospel of John? Can we shed any light on the intended referent of ‘the word’ in the prologue by looking at other usages by John?
Anonymous
Are you speaking of the Gospel of John or the whole of the Johannine corpus?
Anonymous
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Contrast that with the Tyndale Bible (published in 1535) Some view it as a subordinate logos being, some as a co-equal ‘person’ of a bi-personal or tri-personal God, some as an active power of God, some as the wholly man Jesus, and so on. If ‘the word’ in John’s prologue is meant to refer to a person, one might expect to see the term used in a similar way in the rest of John’s Gospel, or in other texts by John. Philip Williams John Mushenhouse
Anonymous
Troy Day the Logos as a name for the Messiah wasn’t unique to John, for example, Philo. John is simple referencing him to Jesus of Nazareth.
Anonymous
Philip Williams how is this even possible? John Mushenhouse
Anonymous
Troy Day as Alan Segal discovered, the Second Temple Jews recognized two powers in Heaven.
Anonymous
Troy Day when I picked up Stephen Pfann at the Vatican Library, the first thing he said to me was that the Targum Neophiti refers to the Son of God as Creator.
Anonymous
Philip Williams A non-Christian Jewish source affirms that God has a Son by whom he created the heavens and the earth! – charles mccallum first said this “In the beginning, the firstborn son of God created the heavens and the earth…” Genesis 1:1 from Targum Neofiti (a pre-Christian Aramaic … Targum Neofiti is attempting to reconcile the natural question of precisely what was actually created first: wisdom (Prov. 8 ) One of the striking things these Targums show is that first century Jews had come to understand the phrase “the Word of God” as referring to a divine entity
Anonymous
Troy Day the OT Jews definitely recognized a lot of Heavenly beings and not just in Daniel 7. Deu 32 distinguishes the Most High God the Father from the Lord Jehovah. I think the first time he distinguishes himself to his people as different from the Most High was to Moses at the burning bush.