3Scriptures.com
Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth

2nd Timothy 2:15



  3Scriptures.com is a scripture study website. It contains reference materials and research aids to help you delve deeply in to the three scriptures of the gospel as restored in these latter days.
  If you have a desire to study every verse, the meaning of each word in the verse, and look for correlations to related verses, then here is a place to assist you in better understanding the word of God. This is a work in progress, the framework for a lifetime of study. Some is done, much more is planned...



Article


The Word of the Lord
Table of Contents
Poetic Structure
The book of John begins with these two verses:
1 εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος
2 ουτος ην εν αρχη προς τον θεον
Now, if you look at that and say to yourself, "It's all greek to me!" Well, you'd be absolutley correct. It is all greek. So let's have a short lesson in greek.
You can click on each word in the greek paragraph. The pronunciation, Strong's definition and morphology will appear.
Briefly, in a word-for-word translation of the greek, it says:
1 In beginning was the word and the word was toward the God and God was the word.
2 He was in beginning toward the God
Let's take a moment to look deeper into what is being translated. John is Greek in his language, but Hebrew in his thought. By thinking about these two lines with a more Hebrew mindset, I submit for consideration that John is beginning his book by describing the word of God in what is almost chiastic poetry.
Generally the structure of a chiasm has a number of points, a centerpoint, and the points given in reverse order. Although it does not appear so if you simply divide these two sentences into their respective four clauses:
  • εν αρχη ην ο λογος
    In beginning was the word
  • ο λογος ην προς τον θεον
    The word was toward the God
  • θεος ην ο λογος
    God was the word
  • ουτος ην εν αρχη προς τον θεον
    He was in beginning toward the God
Examining the fourth clause however, we can see that it actually contains two points:
  • He was in beginning...
  • He was... toward the God
Then, if you divide the language into points and counterpoints, you see there is a remaining point. Then we begin to see something deeper.
  • First verse point:
    The word was in the beginning
    • Fourth verse counterpoint:
      He was in the beginning
  • Second verse point:
    The word was toward the God
    • Fourth verse counterpoint:
      He was toward the God
  • Remaining point:
    God was the word
In a chaism, the central point is the focus of what the writer is trying to convey. Notice the remaining point is in the center. By arranging the clauses into points, the central point and counterpoints, you can see the nearly chaistic nature of John's introduction.
  • εν αρχη ην ο λογος
    In beginning was the word
    • ο λογος ην προς τον θεον
      The word was toward the God
      • θεος ην ο λογος
        God was the word
    • ουτος ην εν αρχη
      He was in beginning...
  • ουτος ην... προς τον θεον
    He was... toward the God
It would only take a flipping the final points to become a chiasm.
  • The word was in beginning
    • The word was toward the God
      • God was the word
    • He was... toward the God
  • He was in beginning...
So, admittedly, these lines are not specifically chiastic. However, I submit they are some form of Hebrew poetry. When parsed they form a grammatical structure of two repeated points which relate to each other, pointing to a central focus.
Proof
With these lines, John is beginning to write a comparative logical proof. John begins his proof by describing two aspects of "the word."
  • First, "the word" was with the God in the beginning.
  • Second, "the word" was toward the God.
In the Beginning
The first clause of John:
εν αρχη ην ο λογος
In beginning was the word
is a clear reference to Genesis, the account of creation. The Septuagint, the greek version of the scriptures which were standard in Jesus' day, begins with
εν ρρχη εποιησεν ο θεοσ τον ουρανον και την γην
In beginning created the God the heavens and the earth
So John uses the common language of the day to draw the reader back to the beginning of the Hebrew scriptures.
We find in Genesis 1, that for many of the six days of creation, it is repeated "And I, God, said,..." and, as it was said, it was so.
  • 6 And I, God, said, Let there be light, and there was light.
  • 9 And again, I, God, said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters; and it was so, even as I spake. And I said, Let it divide the waters from the waters; and it was done.
  • 12 And I, God, said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place; and it was so. And I, God, said, Let there be dry land [appear]; and it was so.
  • 15 And I, God, said, Let the earth bring forth grass; the herb yielding seed; the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed should be in itself, upon the earth; and it was so, even as I spake.
  • 18 And I, God, said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven, to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and for years, and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven, to give light upon the earth; and it was so.
  • 25 And I, God, said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature, after his kind; cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, after their kind; and it was so.
Elohim
In these verses we find a clue to what John is speaking about, the duality of being "with" God and also "being" God. Throughout these verses in every english translation I am aware of "God" is translated singular. Even the greek Septuagint, although it was translated by jewish scholars and greek is reputed as one of the most specific languages for conveying meaning, translates "God" in its various cases to the singular.
In Hebrew the word is "elohim." This is the word for "gods" plural. It is followed by the hebrew word for "said" in the singular form. So the Hebrew language literally says "Gods said," alluding to more than one participating in creation.
John is pointing to the creation account in Genesis as a proof text. He is pointing to the original Hebrew text because this understanding is not present in translations.
John is offering an explanation of how "Gods said" by equating "the word" with the "He" that was in the beginning "toward the God" and focusing on the point that "God was the word." John is addressing this duality of how "He" can "be with" and yet "be one" by saying it was "the word" of God that was with God in the beginning.
This very same idea is found in another, pivotal scripture. Moses, who received the account of creation from the Lord Gods himself, in Deuteronomy 6:4, declares:
Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord;
With these words Moses, in english, unambiguously declares God to be one. Yet looking at the transliterated hebrew, translated word-for-word, we see:
Shama Ysrael YHVH elohim YHVH echad
literally translates to:
Hear Israel LORD Gods LORD one
We see in Deuteronomy the hebrew word for LORD is
יְהוָ֞ה
the proper name of God. Whereas Gods refers to "elohim" the plural form. This singular declaration, in english, when examined in it's original language, defines this dualistic description of God who is both plural and singular.
Toward the God
Being "toward the God" is describing a face-to-face relationship with God. By describing Gods relationship with "the word" as being "toward the God", it separates out the communicative aspect of God, in a sense separating it from God, yet maintaining the intimate relationship with God. In that way, although "the word" may always go forth from God's presence, yet it is constantly with God. It is then a relationship that is, for all practical purposes, indistinguishable from God.
  • The word was in beginning
    • The word was toward the God
      • God was the word
It is the same with mankind. A man's word may go forth from him in whatever form, whether oral, written and in these days even audio and video. Although it has gone forth from him, yet it is still with him. Likewise, a man's word is indistinguishable from himself. It acts in his behalf and whether in or out of his presence, it is the same as if he were there.
John then associates "the word" with a person by describing that "He" was "in beginning" and "toward the God". John is associating that "He" has the same indistinguishable, face-to-face relationship with God as "the word."
      • God was the word.
    • He was in beginning...
  • He was... toward the God
Looking at John's statement through a more hebrew lens we can more easily understand the incredible statement John is making to his reader.
  • If "the word" was in the beginning, and "He" was in the beginning
  • If "the word" was toward the God, and "He" was toward the God
  • If God was "the word,"
  • Then "He" was "the word" in the beginning toward the God
The opening two lines of John's book have implications that, when viewed from the perspective that "the word" is a "He," reverberate throughout the whole of scripture. Really integrating this thesis into every applicable statement of "the word" of the Lord in the Old Testament clarifies the understanding.
If you consider it, God has the ability to do anything that may come into his mind and through his will. But anything coming from the mind and through the will has to have a means of communication, otherwise it is unintelligible to anything outside. John is defining "the word" as the aspect of communication from God to his creation.
In this way, "the word" was:
  • "In the beginning" with God, because God inherently posesses a means of communicating outside of himself,
  • "toward the God" because "the word" was with God as the intermediary between God and his creation as the means of communication.
  • "God was the word" because the only connection creation has with God is through the intermediation of "the word" and thus, from the perspective of creation, "the word" was the God that produced it.
  • "Gods said" because "the word" itself is a God in the sense that "the word" itself is the creative and controlling language communicating with the full force and authority of God's will.
  • "One Lord" because "the word", although it is the intermediary - the communicating, creating and controlling means between God and creation - it is integral to and indistinguishable from God.
John's argument is to point out these attributes of "the word" in order to say that "He" had these same attributes, although John does not say who "He" is... yet.
Referencing Creation
In the next verse, John shows yet another attribute that belongs solely to God, ascribing it to whomever "He" is.
παντα δι αυτου εγενετο και χωρις αυτου εγενετο ουδε εν ο γεγονεν
Again, you may click on each greek word to see their pronunciation, definition and morphology. The translation of the greek is:
All through him came into being and apart from him came into being not one that come into being
Yeah, it is a bit confusing. So John 1:3 reads:
All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made which was made.
John is again making quite the statement. To add the claim that all things were made by "Him" seems a contradiction, for we read in Isaiah 42:8:
I am the Lord; that is my name; and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.
In Genesis 1, the description of creation includes:
Polemic
This is a pretty inclusive list of things God created. In fact, taken with the verse in Isaiah, the list is a comprehensive polemic against any of the creation accounts of other supposed gods, that is, gods who were worshipped at the time the creation account was given to Moses. God alone claims to have created all and he will not give his glory to another.
Another Character
However, the english takes a turn in Genesis 1:27 by saying:
...Let us make man in our image, after our likeness;...
Until this point, in english, the Genesis account language is singular. It is repeatedly stated "And I, God, said,... and it was so." However in this verse, God makes reference to another by saying "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness;..."
God himself, in his account to Moses, explicitly introduces another character into the creation account, but does so without explanation.
I submit John 1:1 is drawing a parallel between "the word":
In beginning was the word and the word was toward the God and God was the word.
and the character God introduces in Genesis 1 through:
The useage of elohim, or "Gods", the plural form where the english says "And God said" or even "and I God, said..."
And also this verse:
Let us make man in our image, after our likeness;...
God doesn't name this second character. In the Genesis account given to Moses, there is no description at all, save these oblique references God makes that something else was there.
"Own" Inserted
Then, two sentences down, after defining the dominion of man, Moses narrates the creation of man. In the King James Version, Genesis 1:27 reads:
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Notice how the word "own" is italicized. It means that word has been added to the translation. It is not that a hebrew word has been translated that way, but the word "own" has been added to "clarify" the translators understanding of what is being said. Point being that the underlying Hebrew does not support the adding of the word "own" into a literal translation.
Re-reading the King James english without the additional word:
So God created man in his image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Think about this this verse without the added translational "clarity," and it changes the meaning. God has introduced another character into the account; first by using "elohim" - God in the plural form - and then saying "Let us make man in our image..." God defines the dominion of "man." Then the narrator states "So God created man in his image, in the image of God created he him;..."
Without the translational "clarifying", You understand that God created man, not in his "own" image, but in "his" image, the image of the character to whom God said "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness;..." The addition of "own" obfuscates the meaning, changing it from creating in "his" image to God's image. It isn't technically wrong because the following clause says "in the image of God created he him," but it loses the focus, the connnection to the additional character God has introduced.
Let me put the verses together for you to consider:
Let us make man in our image, after our likeness;...

So God created man in his image, in the image of God created he him;...
In the Hebrew, God is creating man in "his" image, yet in the image of God. This is the same προς τον θεον [pros ton theh-on], the "toward the God" concept that John is alluding to.
The word was toward the God
God was the word
He was... toward the God
Summary
The Bible, in Hebrew, begins with "In the beginning God created..." The english translates it as a single God, yet the hebrew implies more than one. Gods spoke, and it came to pass, until the creation of mankind.
At that point, God explicitly states another character by saying "Let us make man in our image..." Then, just a couple lines later, the hebrew text says "So God created man in his image..." By these two lines. God created man in "our image" and in "his image," the image of the character God has implied in the previous verse, which is God's image.
John 1:1, describes this by saying, "In beginning was the word..." and "He was in the beginning..." These two statements associate the "He" that was in the beginning as "the word."
John is in this way connecting "the word" to the character God introduces in the creation process throught the useage of "elohim" and through the phrase "Let us make man in our image,..." by saying "The word was toward the God" and "He was... toward the God" pointing out the same indistinguishable relationship described in the words "God created man in his image, in the image of God created he him;..."
In short, John is saying "the word" is "his image" which mankind is made in. Or, in other words, incorporating Johns' statement
The word was in beginning
The word was toward the God
God was the word
He was... toward the God
He was in beginning...
into Genesis:
So God created man in his image, in the image of God created he him;...
John is saying:
So God created man in the image of his word, in the image of The Word created he him;...
Let that sit for a bit, or as David says in the Psalms:
Selah

Postscript: The intent of this article is to deal with what the original greek and hebrew languages say about these scriptures, pointing out the differences between those languages and the english. This is to show the deeper meanings that can be found in studying the original sources and how some things are lost in translation.
The Inspired Version, in John 1:1-2 reads:
1 In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God and the Son was of God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
The translation of the Inspired Version defines "the word" as "the gospel." It then progressivley describes the interrelationship between the word, the Son and God. However, the last phrase of the first verse, in greek, "και θεος ην ο λογος" translated "and God was the Word" has no correlation. The Inspired Version interpolates what John wrote, transmitting the relationship, but obscuring the chiastic language and leaving out the center point that "God was the Word."
In Genesis 1:27, the Inspired Version is again more specific in it's language, saying the Only Begotten was with the father. This shows the relatonship of another being with the father. However, the intent of this article is to show the connection to what John says. The two descriptions "Only Begotten" and "the word" are not mutually exclusive, each describing different aspects of the relationship.

Archived News

Disclaimer: The basis for word definitions come from the King James Version of the Bible and Strong's Concordance. There are many differences between the King James Version and the Inspired Version. Because much of the work of linking is done automatically, there may be words that have been defined which cannot be compared to the King James. As work continues, these errors will be corrected.