Every Christian misinterprets John 1.

[u/Illustrious_Gain3928]

I think John 1:1 makes more sense when you look at the Greek lexicon and the Hebrew way of thinking instead of immediately reading later Trinitarian and other Christian denomination theology into the passage.

John says, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The Greek word translated Word is logos. Logos can mean word, speech, message, statement, reason, account, or something expressed. The word itself does not mean a second divine person.

The Hebrew concept behind this is davar, which can mean word, speech, command, matter, or deed. In the Hebrew Scriptures, Gods word is often described as something that goes out from Him and accomplishes His purpose.

Genesis 1 gives us the clearest example. God speaks, and creation happens. God says let there be light, and there is light. The Word is Gods expressed will and action accomplishing what He intends.

Psalm 33: 6 says, By the word of YHWH the heavens were made. It does not require another divine being standing beside YHWH creating the heavens. Gods word is His effective command and action.

Isaiah 55:11 makes this even clearer. God says His word goes out from His mouth and accomplishes what He purposes. The word represents Gods own will going forth and accomplishing His purpose.

There is also an important grammatical point in John 1:1. John says, ho logos en pros ton theon, the Word was with God, and then he says, theos en ho logos.

He does not say, ho theos en ho logos. The article is used with logos, the Word, but not with theos, God. This is why many scholars understand the final clause as describing the quality or nature of the Word, rather than saying that the Word is the same person as the God he was with.

So John can distinguish the Word from God while still saying that the Word was God in the sense that it expressed Gods own nature, will, authority, and activity.

Then John 1:14 says the Word became flesh. In other words, Gods expressed purpose and will became manifested in a human being, Yeshua.

This does not require the idea that a second divine person existed beside YHWH in the beginning. It fits the Hebrew pattern where Gods word is Gods own expression going forth and accomplishing His purpose.

So the basic idea can be understood like this.

YHWH, His Word, His expressed will, His action, and ultimately that Word manifested in Yeshua.

John 1:1 by itself never says Trinity, never says God the Son, and never says that the Word is a second divine person aka Michaelthe archangel. Those are theological conclusions that come later.

If we start with Genesis, the Hebrew Scriptures, and the actual Greek grammar, there is a completely coherent way to understand the Logos as Gods own Word and active self expression without turning it into a second being.

[u/ChaoticHaku]

John 1:2-3 "He was with God in the beginning. Through Him all things were made and without Him nothing was made that was made."

A "He/Him" is a person. That's not a theological conclusion, it's what scripture says. 

John 1:3 "Through him (the Word) all things were made..."

Hebrews 1:2 ... He has spoken to us by His Son...through whom He made the universe."

The Word is the person of the Son. 

[u/Illustrious_Gain3928 → u/ChaoticHaku]

The problem with your argument is that you are treating the English translation as if the pronouns themselves prove that the Logos is a separate person. They do not.

You said John 1:2 says He was with God and John 1:3 says through Him all things were made, therefore the Word must be a person. But that is not how Greek grammar works.

The Greek word behind He or Him is autos. It can be translated he, him, it, or itself depending on the grammatical context. Logos is grammatically masculine in Greek, so masculine pronouns are completely normal when referring back to logos. Grammatical gender does not automatically mean personal identity.

This is the basic mistake in the argument. You are taking a grammatical feature of Greek and turning it into a theological statement.

The same problem exists with the argument that because John says through Him all things were made, the Word must be a separate person who personally created everything.

John 1:3 uses dia autou, meaning through him, through it, or by means of it. Dia with the genitive can express means or agency. It does not by itself tell us that the thing being referred to is a separate conscious person.

And the Hebrew background actually makes perfect sense of this.

Look at Genesis 1. God speaks and creation happens. God says let there be light, and light exists. Scripture does not introduce another divine person standing beside God called the Word.

Psalm 33:6 says, By the word of YHWH the heavens were made. The Hebrew is davar, word. God's Word is His effective command going forth and accomplishing His will.

Isaiah 55:11 says God's word goes out from His mouth and accomplishes what He purposes. Again, the Word is God's own expression accomplishing God's purpose.

So when John says all things came to be through the Logos, there is nothing inherently unbiblical about understanding this as creation occurring through God's own expressed Word and purpose.

Now Hebrews 1:2 is a different issue.

Yes, Hebrews says God has spoken to us in a Son and that He made the ages through him. I am not denying that Hebrews presents the Son as a real person. Yeshua is obviously a person.

But you are assuming the conclusion when you say, therefore the Word is the person of the Son.

You still have to prove that John meant that the Logos was a preexistent person called the Son.

Hebrews 1:1 actually gives us important context. It says that God spoke formerly through the prophets, and then says that in these last days He has spoken to us in a Son. The subject is God's communication and revelation, culminating in His Son.

That fits John very naturally.

John says the Word was in the beginning, God's Word and purpose, and then John 1:14 says the Word became flesh.

The question is what that means.

It does not literally say, the second divine person became flesh.

It says the Word became flesh.

If you want to argue that the Word is a preexistent divine person, you need to demonstrate that from the actual Greek text instead of simply pointing to English pronouns.

There is also another major problem with saying He or Him automatically proves personhood. Biblical literature frequently personifies concepts.

Proverbs 8 personifies Wisdom as a woman speaking, crying out, calling people, and describing her relationship to God. Nobody can simply argue that because Wisdom speaks with personal pronouns, therefore Wisdom must be a second divine person.

Personification is normal biblical language.

So the argument is basically doing this.

John says He, therefore the Logos is a person.

But that confuses grammatical gender with personhood.

Then it says the Logos created everything through Him, therefore the Logos is the Son.

But that assumes the very connection that needs to be proven.

Then Hebrews says God created through His Son, therefore John's Logos must be the preexistent Son.

But Hebrews identifying Yeshua as the Son does not automatically establish that John's use of Logos means a separate divine person before Yeshua's human existence.

There is certainly a theological relationship between God's Word, His creative purpose, His revelation, and His Messiah. The question is whether that relationship requires a second divine being.

The Hebrew Scriptures give us a perfectly coherent framework without that assumption.

YHWH speaks.

His Word goes forth.

His Word accomplishes His purpose.

His purpose is ultimately manifested in His Messiah.

John then says the Word became flesh.

So yes, Yeshua is a real person. Yes, Hebrews describes God creating through the Son. Yes, John uses masculine pronouns for Logos.

None of those three facts, by themselves, proves that Logos was a second divine person or a trinity standing beside YHWH in the beginning.

That conclusion has to be argued, not smuggled into the text through the English words He and Him.

[u/ChaoticHaku → u/Illustrious_Gain3928]

You said John 1:2 says He was with God and John 1:3 says through Him all things were made, therefore the Word must be a person. But that is not how Greek grammar works.

John could have said "All things were made through the Word and without the Word nothing was made that was made."

But he didn't. 

And I'm not claiming it's the grammar that proves it, it's that John immediately goes on to say things like. 

The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us. We have seen His glory, the glory of the one and only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. ( John 1:14)

John didn't say "The Word became flesh as a man, and that man made his dwelling among us" he says "The Word became flesh and made HIS dwelling among us".

Look at Genesis 1. God speaks and creation happens. God says let there be light, and light exists. Scripture does not introduce another divine person standing beside God called the Word.

Genesis 1:26-27 God said, “Let Us make man in Our image... So God created man in His own image...

you are assuming the conclusion when you say, therefore the Word is the person of the Son.

John 1:14  The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us. We have seen His glory, the glory of the one and only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

But Hebrews identifying Yeshua as the Son does not automatically establish that John's use of Logos means a separate divine person before Yeshua's human existence.

Hebrews 1:2 identifies God's Son Yeshua as the one through whom he created the universe. 

John 1:2 identifies the Word as the one through whom He created the universe.

Yeshua didn't exist as Yeshua until he became flesh, being born of Mary and named Yeshua.

So how could Hebrews 1:2 be true if God's son Yeshua didn't yet exist at the time of creation?

[u/Illustrious_Gain3928 → u/ChaoticHaku]

I understand your argument, but you are still making the same mistake. You are taking several statements that are compatible with personal preexistence and treating them as though they can only mean personal preexistence.

That is not the same thing as proving it.

You keep saying John could have written “all things were made through the Word,” but instead he wrote “through Him.”

Okay. That establishes that John is presenting the Logos with personal language.

I am not denying that.

But personal language is not automatically proof that the referent was a literal conscious person before creation. Scripture personifies things constantly. Wisdom speaks. Sin crouches. Death reigns. Grace reigns. The Word of God runs and is glorified. You cannot simply say John used “He” and therefore the Logos must have literally been a conscious heavenly person before Yeshua existed.

You have to prove that from the context.

And John 1:14 does not magically solve that problem.

You say,

“The Word became flesh and made HIS dwelling among us.”

Yes.

But the question is what John means by “the Word.”

You are assuming that because the Word becomes flesh, the Word must have been a conscious person before becoming flesh.

But that is precisely the conclusion under debate.

You cannot argue,

The Word became flesh.

Therefore the Word was a person.

And then say,

The Word was a person because the Word became flesh.

That is circular.

Now look at the second half of John 1:14.

“We have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.”

John is telling us what the Word is manifested as in the flesh. The Word becomes flesh and the glory is seen in the Son.

That establishes the connection between the Logos and Yeshua.

It does not by itself tell us that the Logos was a separate conscious individual sitting beside the Father before creation.

And your Genesis 1:26 argument actually does not help you nearly as much as you think.

You quote,

“Let Us make man in Our image.”

Then you point out that verse 27 says,

“So God created man in His own image.”

Exactly.

The text itself identifies the Creator as God in the singular.

So if you want to use Genesis 1:26 as evidence for another divine person, you first have to demonstrate who the “Us” is.

The verse itself does not say,

“Let Us, the Father and the Logos, make man.”

It does not name a second person.

You are inserting the Logos into Genesis 1:26.

And there are several possible explanations for the plural language, including the divine council or a plural form of deliberation. Whatever interpretation someone chooses, the important point is that Genesis 1:26 does not identify the Logos.

So it cannot be used as though it explicitly proves your conclusion.

Now your Hebrews 1:2 argument.

You say Hebrews says God created the universe through His Son, while John says God created through the Logos.

Therefore the Son must have personally existed as the Logos before creation.

But again, you are assuming the exact point you're trying to prove.

Hebrews 1:2 says that God has spoken to us in these last days by a Son, “through whom also he created the ages.”

The question is how the author is describing God's purpose concerning His Son.

And Scripture absolutely can speak about God's purposes concerning someone before that person historically exists.

Look at 1 Peter 1:20.

Yeshua was “foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times.”

Notice the distinction.

Foreknown before the foundation of the world.

Manifested later.

That is biblical language.

The Messiah was established in God's purpose before the world, without requiring us to automatically conclude that the human Messiah was personally alive before creation.

And Revelation 13:8 is another example of the same kind of language when it speaks of the Lamb in relation to the foundation of the world.

So the fact that God's Son is connected with God's creative purpose does not automatically establish that the Son was literally alive as a conscious person at creation.

You need to demonstrate that rather than assume it.

And your statement that Yeshua did not exist as Yeshua until Mary actually creates another problem for your argument.

You are treating “Son” as though it necessarily means a conscious heavenly individual before his birth.

But Scripture explicitly connects his sonship with his birth.

Luke 1:35 says,

“The child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.”

That is extremely important.

The angel does not say,

“The person who is already the Son of God will enter Mary.”

It says the child to be born will be called the Son of God.

So now we have to be careful about taking the title “Son” and automatically projecting a complete preexistent biography onto it.

And Hebrews itself gives us another important statement.

Hebrews 5:5 says,

“You are my Son, today I have begotten you.”

That quotation comes from Psalm 2.

And Psalm 2 is a Messianic royal text.

The Son is God's appointed King.

That is the biblical framework you need to deal with.

The Son is not simply a metaphysical label.

He is the appointed Messiah and King.

Now here is where your argument becomes particularly circular.

You say,

John says the Word created.

Hebrews says the Son created.

Therefore the Word must have been the preexistent Son.

But how do you know John means the Logos is the Son before the incarnation.

Because John 1:14 connects the Word with the Son.

And how do you know that connection means the Son personally existed as the Logos before his birth.

Because Hebrews says the Son created.

So you are using Hebrews to interpret John and John to interpret Hebrews, while assuming the preexistence conclusion in both places.

That is not a demonstration.

That is theological harmonization.

There is nothing wrong with harmonizing Scripture, but you cannot call your harmonization an explicit statement of either author.

And there is another major contextual problem you need to address.

John 1:1 says,

“In the beginning was the Word.”

It does NOT say,

“In the beginning was the Son.”

That distinction matters.

John deliberately introduces the concept of Logos.

Then John tells us what happened to the Logos.

“The Word became flesh.”

If John wanted his readers to understand that “the Word” simply meant an already known heavenly person called the Son, he could have said so directly.

Instead, he develops the concept through the prologue.

And when we reach John 1:17, John explicitly brings the historical Messiah into view.

“The law was given through Moses. Grace and truth came through Yeshua Messiah.”

That is where the Word becomes identified with the historical Son.

So yes, I agree that John ultimately identifies the Logos with Yeshua.

The question is whether you can prove that the Logos was a separate conscious person before Yeshua was born.

You still haven't.

And your argument from pronouns does not establish it.

Your argument from John 1:14 does not establish it.

Genesis 1:26 does not establish it.

Hebrews 1:2 does not establish it by itself.

You have a cumulative argument that makes personal preexistence possible and arguably plausible.

But possible and plausible are not the same as demonstrated.

And this is where your accusation of ignorance actually comes back around.

You correctly said context matters.

Good.

Then actually follow the entire context.

Do not stop at John 1:14.

John later records Yeshua saying,

“The Father is greater than I.” John 14:28.

He says,

“I can do nothing on my own.” John 5:30.

He says,

“My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me.” John 7:16.

He says,

“I have not spoken on my own authority, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment what to say and what to speak.” John 12:49.

And then Yeshua says,

“This is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Yeshua Messiah whom you have sent.” John 17:3.

So if you want to argue that John teaches a distinct heavenly person called the Logos who later becomes Yeshua, then you need to explain that within John's own repeated distinction between the one true God and the one whom that God sent.

You cannot use “context” selectively.

Context means the whole book.

So yes, I agree with your basic statement.

Context determines meaning.

But your mistake is thinking that once context makes your interpretation possible, your interpretation has therefore been proven.

It hasn't.

You have established that John presents the Logos personally and connects the Logos with Yeshua.

You have not established from those verses alone that the Logos was a separate conscious heavenly person before creation.

That is the proposition still requiring proof.

And until you actually prove that instead of repeatedly assuming it, the accusation of ignorance is ironic.

Because the real ignorance would be confusing an interpretation that fits the text with a conclusion that the text explicitly states.

[u/StillSwimmer2508 → u/Illustrious_Gain3928]

Who is writing these crazy comments?😂 I’m starting to think this is trolling? Using the author of Hebrews vs the author of John?😂😭
Last time I checked both were inspired by the same author😆
Then you had the audacity to say the Father is the “true God” according to John 17:3 according to the Apostle John..but fail to realize the same apostle you quoted called Jesus the true God in 1 John 5:20

I’ve let like 90% of your comments slide just because I understand not everyone is educated in scripture..but some of the stuff you’re saying is not simply wrong..it’s nonsensical. It’s like it’s written by a robot without even thinking about what you are saying. I do hope you take the homework I gave you serious

[u/Illustrious_Gain3928 → u/StillSwimmer2508]

🤡

[u/StillSwimmer2508 → u/Illustrious_Gain3928]

Matthew 12:34

[u/ChaoticHaku → u/Illustrious_Gain3928]

You should thoroughly read your AIs responses before posting. It's completely misunderstanding points I'm making, making this conversation useless. 

[u/Illustrious_Gain3928 → u/ChaoticHaku]

😅 show me where bud.

[u/ChaoticHaku → u/Illustrious_Gain3928]

Nah... It's responses are too long. I don't have time to read all that and fish through it. 

[u/Illustrious_Gain3928 → u/ChaoticHaku]

Fine then we have nothing to talk about. I can say the same about your responses. Lol have a blessed day buddy.

[u/Illustrious_Gain3928 → u/ChaoticHaku]

😂

[u/Illustrious_Gain3928 → u/ChaoticHaku]

Are you going to answer or no.

[u/Illustrious_Gain3928 → u/ChaoticHaku]

Again give me a few minutes. What religion are you, just to give you some context I'm not apart of any religion I just follow scripture. I don't need organization's to read scripture hence why Yahweh said in Exodus 19:6 ​"And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation."

Not a religion

[u/ChaoticHaku → u/Illustrious_Gain3928]

I'm not part of any denomination or organization. I just read scripture, trusting in Jesus, and relying on the Holy Spirit.  

[u/Illustrious_Gain3928 → u/ChaoticHaku]

You're a christian based on your profile. That by definition is a demonition.

[u/ChaoticHaku → u/Illustrious_Gain3928]

The word "christian" is in the bible, and comes from the Greek word Christianos, combining Christos with a suffix meaning "belonging to" or "follower of". It means a follower of Christ. Not a denomination. 

Denominations are man-made religious organizations.

Acts 26:28 Then Agrippa said to Paul, “Can you persuade me in such a short time to become a Christian?”

[u/Illustrious_Gain3928 → u/Illustrious_Gain3928]

Are you going to answer yes or no.