Was John Mistaken?

[Homer]

John 1:1-3 (Greek words in parenthesis) New American Standard Bible

1 In the beginning was (en) the Word, and the Word was (en) with God, and the Word was (en) God. 2 He was(en) in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being (egeneto) through Him, and apart from Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being.

The Greek word en points to continuous existence, timelessness. If John did not believe in the eternality of Jesus he should have used a form of the Greek word genomai #1096, which refers to "came into being" or "a change". This was pointed out long ago by Origen. John was certainly familiar with egeneto, having used the word nearly fifty times in his gospel.

(edited, I had "change" linked to wrong Greek word.)

[dizerner]

Was John Mistaken?

No.

[darinhouston]

John 1:1-3 (Greek words in parenthesis) New American Standard Bible

1 In the beginning was (en) the Word, and the Word was (en) with God, and the Word was (en) God. 2 He was(en) in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being (egeneto) through Him, and apart from Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being.

The Greek word en points to continuous existence, timelessness. If John did not believe in the eternality of Jesus he should have used a form of the Greek word genomai #1096, which refers to "came into being" or "a change". This was pointed out long ago by Origen. John was certainly familiar with egeneto, having used the word nearly fifty times in his gospel.

(edited, I had "change" linked to wrong Greek word.)

I have no idea what you're talking about - first, it's not really "en" - it's "ane" (ην) not to be confused with "en" (εν). But, even given that slight correction, this is one of the most common words in greek (or English). It's the ordinary word for "was" - I'm not aware of (and I don't think biblical usage supports) any argument that it implies any sort of timelessness. It's a bit ambiguous other than relating to something in the past. It is an "imperfect" form of ειμι (I am) and implies some continuous situation, not a discrete completed action, but not timeless origin.

And εγενετο actually is itself a form of γενομαι. (third-person singular aorist middle indicative of γενομαι).

Do you have a cite to Origen's discussion?

One thing I find interesting is that εγενετο is translated as "fulfilled" 9 times and is not necessarily "came into being." In light of the reference back to Genesis creation, though, it definitely has creation of some sort in view, but it may be somewhat a play on words?


TOOLS
Unchecked Copy Box Mat 1:22
Now all this was done, G1096 that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
TOOLS
Unchecked Copy Box Mat 5:18
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. G1096
TOOLS
Unchecked Copy Box Mat 21:4
All this was done, G1096 that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying,
TOOLS
Unchecked Copy Box Mat 24:34
Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. G1096
TOOLS
Unchecked Copy Box Mat 26:54
But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be? G1096
TOOLS
Unchecked Copy Box Mat 26:56
But all this was done, G1096 that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples forsook him, and fled.
TOOLS
Unchecked Copy Box Luk 1:20
And, behold, thou shalt be dumb, and not able to speak, until the day that these things shall be performed, G1096 because thou believest not my words, which shall be fulfilled in their season.
TOOLS
Unchecked Copy Box Luk 21:32
Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. G1096
TOOLS
Unchecked Copy Box Jhn 19:36
For these things were done, G1096 that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken.

[dizerner]

Lol, yes it's the "in" that is en.

But it's still there.

THE WORD DOES NOT COME TO BE. Origen: The same verb, “was,” is predicated of the Word when he “was in the beginning” and when he “was with God.” He is neither separated from the beginning, nor does he depart from the Father. And again, he does not “come to be” “in the beginning” from not being “in the beginning,” nor does he pass from not being “with God” to coming to be “with God,” for before all time and eternity “the Word was in the beginning,” and “the Word was with God.” … Perhaps John, seeing some such order in the argument, did not place “the Word was God” before “the Word was with God,” so that we might not be hindered in seeing the individual meaning of each proposition in the affirmation of the series. COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 2.9, 11. John 1:1

[darinhouston]

Lol, yes it's the "in" that is en.

But it's still there.

THE WORD DOES NOT COME TO BE. Origen: The same verb, “was,” is predicated of the Word when he “was in the beginning” and when he “was with God.” He is neither separated from the beginning, nor does he depart from the Father. And again, he does not “come to be” “in the beginning” from not being “in the beginning,” nor does he pass from not being “with God” to coming to be “with God,” for before all time and eternity “the Word was in the beginning,” and “the Word was with God.” … Perhaps John, seeing some such order in the argument, did not place “the Word was God” before “the Word was with God,” so that we might not be hindered in seeing the individual meaning of each proposition in the affirmation of the series. COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 2.9, 11. John 1:1

I have no idea what your LOL means - neither the word "en" nor "in" are in that passage and neither has anything to do with the point Origen is making. I think he's starting from assumptions that lead to error but the use of the same verb "ην" to refer to both the beginning and "with-ness" with God doesn't lead one to eternity unless you assume προσ refers to "there alongside with" instead of "aligned towards/with" or "in agreement with." It also assumes λογοσ to be a person, the person of the Son rather than a metaphysical aspect of wisdom/thought/expression/plan. It also assumes the beginning being in eternity past - his logic isn't sound even on those assumptions, however, since the "beginning of Creation" is not eternity past, so his very simple verb point isn't aligned with his point. But, it doesn't really matter to his belief because I don't think ην has such a narrow temporal meaning or that the use of the same verb with very little temporal meaning implies temporal overlap. His later point about the order of propositions only points out how difficult it is to justify both propositions being so - being "with" God really makes no sense if you're really trying to make the point that the Logos "just is" the self-same being as God as modern Trinitarians consider the verse.

Origen is a real mixed bag - much of what he believed is nutso - some things brilliant - others simply misguided or confused. Much of it not "orthodox" evangelical understanding.

[dizerner]

I have no idea what your LOL means

I apologize, I thought it was obvious.

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος (Jn. 1:1 BGT)

[dizerner]

It also assumes λογοσ to be a person, the person of the Son rather than a metaphysical aspect of wisdom/thought/expression/plan.

I do understand depersonalizing the Word is literally your only way out.

But clearly, Jesus has always born the name Word, and a non-person does not become a person.

[Homer]

Lets try this and see if it makes sense:

In the beginning the logos came to be, and the logos came to be with God, and the logos came to be God.

[dizerner]

and the logos came to be God.

As if anything can "come to be" God, right.

[darinhouston]

It also assumes λογοσ to be a person, the person of the Son rather than a metaphysical aspect of wisdom/thought/expression/plan.

I do understand depersonalizing the Word is literally your only way out.

But clearly, Jesus has always born the name Word, and a non-person does not become a person.

It's not my "only way out" by any means - many non-trinitarians see this text as being about a pre-incarnate Christ, and other theories, but I do think it's the best rendering. I'm not looking for a "way out" - I'm trying to make sense of a very difficult passage that I believe is largely misunderstood and mis-used. Whether you think so or not, it's truth I'm seeking, not a "win."

Consider this not perfect analogy but similar thought process.... A mechanical design can "become embodied in" a tool. An architect's life work and dreams and renderings and plans can become embodied in a building.

That is the context here. It is a very metaphysical point that John is making to a gnostic and hellenized Jewish audience that had its own cosmology about things like Platonic ideals and such and the main point here is that the Messiah is not just a spiritual ideal but flesh and blood - that ideal was manifest in a man, Jesus. That was a very strong "apologetic" to the ideas he was correcting - while at the same time appealing to those Jews in the audience that would resonate with the Creation prose.

The language does not clearly require or even strongly suggest that the Logos is a "person." That is tradition and inference. One thing "becoming" another does not mean they are categorically the same before and after the becoming. The word "BECAME" flesh. So, the word was something before becoming flesh. Was it a person? Not necessarily? The historical understanding of λογοσ was in no means a "person" any more than Σοφια was.