[B-Greek] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?

winsco at hotmail.co.uk winsco at hotmail.co.uk
Thu Oct 5 21:01:27 EDT 2006


En arxh hn o logov, kai o logov hn prov ton qeon, kai qeov hn o logov.

It does not seem that anyone responded to my question as to whether TON QEON 
is better understood “the God” (John 1:1b “with the God”) so may I add this 
to what I have said already (hope this is not too long for the list).

When we say ‘person’ we normally think in terms of an individual. In this 
(individual) sense we understand God and the Word as being two separate 
persons (two individuals). This I believe is what John meant when he wrote 
“and the Word was WITH (the) God”. Obviously, in this (individual) sense, 
one ‘person’ (individual) cannot be the same ‘person’ (individual) as he is 
with (another individual).

John says though (unequivocally I think) that the Word is God (not ‘a God’ 
neither ‘a god’). In this particular sense I think that the ‘person’ is 
exactly the same in “the God” and in “the Word”. Allow me to explain by 
using Hebrews 1:1-3.

As the KJV puts this verse (I use capitals by way of highlighting only)

“GOD, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the 
fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us BY HIS SON, 
whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; 
Who being the brightness of his glory, and the EXPRESS IMAGE OF HIS PERSON 
(gr. Hupostasis), and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he 
had BY HIMSELF purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of THE MAJESTY ON 
HIGH” Hebrews 1:1-3

Here we have the writer of Hebrews differentiating between God (the majesty 
on high) and His Son therefore again as in John 1:1 we see two persons as in 
individuals. Note though the use of the word ‘person’ in verse 3 (“the 
express image of His [God’s] person”). Obviously, the image – the Son - is 
another individual of whom He is an image – in this case God (the majesty on 
high).

The word ‘person’ here though (in verse 3 KJV) is from ‘hupostasis’ which 
has the meaning of: - that which is the foundation or under-girding of 
something, its sub-structure or substance, its very cause of being, its 
state, its standing (everything that makes it what it is).

Thus according to the writer of Hebrews the Son, being the express image of 
God’s ‘hupostasis’, is the very image of the ‘foundation’ or ‘under-girding’ 
of God - God’s sub-structure or substance - His very cause of being, His 
state, His standing, (everything that makes God what He is) yet He is, as an 
individual ‘person’, separate from God (the majesty on high).

As the NEB excellently puts it (I think) “and what God was, the word was.”

Thus we have two usages of the word ‘person’.

(a)	 An individual
(b)	 What makes an individual (person) what they are (the sub-structure, 
substance or very foundation). Perhaps as we might say today a person’s 
genes.

As John 1:1 says “… and the Word was with God (an individual) and the Word 
was God (God’s sub-structure, foundation, very substance, everything that 
God is)”

It is very interesting to note that William Tyndale translated Hebrews 1:3 
as saying (using capitals again as highlighting only)

“Which sonne beynge the brightnes of his glory and VERY IMAGE OF HIS 
SUBSTANCE bearinge vp all thinges with the worde of his power hath in his 
AWNE PERSON pourged oure synnes and is sitten on the right honde of the 
maiestie an hye”

Tyndale (I believe) captured what the writer of Hebrews was saying (note he 
said ‘very image of his substance’ not ‘person’ as KJV). Not that the Son is 
an express image of God in person (in outward appearance) but as an express 
image of God’s inner being - substance, under-girding, foundation, what 
makes God what He is. Thus we have as in John 1:18, God the only begotten. 
Both John and the writer of Hebrews say that the Word (the Son who became 
flesh) was God essentially.

Note that Tyndale said “in his awne person” (KJV “himself”) thus denoting as 
John said that the Word became flesh (and bore our sins) and not that the 
God (the majesty on high) from whom He was a separate person (individual) 
was made flesh.

My apologies for the length of this post but it was the only way to explain 
what I believe that John (1:1) was saying. I know it bordered very closely 
on theology but I hope I stayed within the parameters of this list. My 
apologies if I did not.

Regards

Walter Schofield

_________________________________________________________________
The new Windows Live Toolbar helps you guard against viruses 
http://toolbar.live.com/?mkt=en-gb




More information about the B-Greek mailing list