Thanks for the work you put into presentation…makes a lot of sense to me; that is, this new-beginning-life in the life & ministry of Jesus was an on-going, progressive reality that “apexed” in the event of life from the grave. And the impact of these events upon Believers is termed, “the light of men”.
He was begotten in John 1.14 from the dead and therefore the word became flesh. The word was in the world by the instruction of the Torah, and Jesus fulfillment of it, but the world did not receive him. But as many as received the fulfillment of Gods will (justification unto life) he gave power to become sons of God (for on the day of Pentecost). That is the what the entirety of the book is about: so that ye might believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God, and believing ye shall have life in his name! Love you bill! Will listen more later
Very well done, brother. I have come to the same conclusion; after seeing the problems with traditional interpretations of this passage. Once we accept the subject is the Father's 'happenings' or 'works' that happened through His Christ, who came in the flesh...I find this more coherent. The unity of God dwelling in His human Christ, whom God sent into the world to do God's will... is what "The Word became flesh means to me. I discussed this passage with a Trinitarian pastor, and when I asked him, "Who is the SOURCE of the Word of the Kingdom?"......he didn't have a clue of what I was asking....even though Lord Jesus clearly proclaims His Father as the source of ALL that was said and happened through Jesus.
So I watched half of this presentation and was glad for much of Bill Schlegel's distinctive understanding that supports the biblical unitarian perspective. Years ago, I was blessed with much of this understanding of the prologue already and have since enshrined it in my book published in 2021, "Israel's Messiah--Restoring Jewish Christology" (Michael Tupek). Some things I agree with Bill Schlegel: [1] The "beginning" is not the eternal past nor the event of the material universe. [2] The "Logos" is the person of Jesus the Messiah. [3] The introduction (not merely contrast of) both the Messiah and John the baptizer in vv 1 and 7 respectively. However, I do not agree that "all things" designates the new spiritual things that Messiah inaugurates. Rather it does mean the material universe and sometimes a portion of humanity in that material world. John is crediting the glory of creation to the Messiah Jesus (in his own language in verse 3, along with other apostles) because God the Creator became embodied in the birth of the Messiah (John 2:21; Phil 2:5-6; Col 2:9; 1 Tim 3:16).
I agree with your first couple of points as well. However, I don't see the plausibility of your explanation of John 1:3 (pertaining to Genesis creation) or your concept of "God the Creator became embodied in Jesus." What kind of "creation" work did Jesus claim to doing anywhere in the 4th Gospel? Do you think "became flesh" means "embodiment" in Greek? How would you arrive at that conclusion? How was Jesus "going to the Father" when he ascended (John 20:17) if the Father supposedly already "embodied" him?
@@riversofeden3929 My texts listed above for embodiment did not refer to John 1:14, did it? Verse 14 does not mean incarnation but only asserts the real humanity of the Messiah (the Logos). I suggest you read my post again carefully. Otherwise, my book answers many objections already. Jesus nowhere is said to create directly but is credited with the glory of creation, just as other apostles do (I Cor 8:6; Col 1:15-19, 2:9; Heb 1:6-12).
@@michaeltupek3584 ... where do you get the "embodiment" idea then? I don't see that kind of language anywhere in the 4th Gospel and that is why I assumed you were trying to get it out of John 1:14 like others do. The verses you cite about "the glory of creation" aren't found in the context of the 4th Gospel. There is no "creation" motif in the book. Where are you getting it from? I don't want to read your book unless I can see that you have a valid methodological approach :)
@@riversofeden3929 Verses 3 and 10 speak of "all things coming into being" or "the world having occurred through him," that is the creation topic. This crediting of creation glory to the Lord Jesus is said similarly by Paul in 1 Corinthians 8:6.
@@michaeltupek3584 ... why do you think "world" (KOSMOS) means "creation" in the 4th Gospel? Jesus and the people used it in a limited sense to refer to the nation of the Jews (John 12:19; John 18:20). It seems to be limited to "his own" in John 1:11. Why would any of the numerous uses of KOSMOS throughout the 4th Gospel need to have any wider scope? I think "come into being" is an only an interpretation of GINOMAI which is a term with a very wide semantic range and doesn't require a "come into being" connotation in John 1:10 or anywhere else. As Bill did in his lecture, I would suggest that EGENETO most often simply refers to something that "happens" with what has already come into being. The passage actually says that Jesus was "in the world" before "the world became through him." This follows from "coming into the world" in John 1:9.
It is crucial to understand that, apart from John 1, the term "logos" is not used in the New Testament to describe a preincarnate human being. Many Unitarians who hold this perspective often make the same mistake we point out in Trinitarians concerning the phrase "Ego eimi." They argue, "It applies here, but not elsewhere." This approach reflects poor hermeneutics. One other important aspect to consider in the context of John 1 is that the primary focus is not solely on Jesus, but rather on God's living and active word, hence the Genesis summation. John is presenting the concept of new covenant regeneration, emphasizing the significance of God's creative word dwelling within all believers making them anew with the very same power that created the universe. We often fall into the same trap as trinitarians by hyper focusing on the person of Jesus, rather than understanding the broader implications of God's word in our lives. Last point to consider is that when we examine John 1:1c in its original Greek, it translates directly to "and God was the word." This clear wording eliminates any ambiguity regarding the notion of "God" representing two distinct persons. In every other occurrence within John 1, the term "God" clearly denotes the Father. Therefore, it would be illogical for the author to refer to the Word being Jesus being God in 1:1bc, as this would create unnecessary confusion for his audience. In my view, Bill's interpretation continues to carry an excess of Trinitarian taint.
Well said. Your points about logos not referring to a preexistent human being and about the focus on God’s creative word in John 1 align closely with my understanding. Thanks for sharing your insights-they add clarity to this discussion!
Hi. Thanks for having a listen. I'm not sure what you mean by "preincarnate human being". I agree, there is no such thing. I don't know of any biblical unitarians who hold that Jesus was a preincarnate human being. The focus of this presentation was John 1:3-4. I'd prefer keeping the discussion to those verses. In other places I've discussed John 1:1 at length. My summary of John 1:1-2 was only to give some context. The key points in this presentation are: 1) the meaning of the word panta (all) in John 1:3 and other places in John's Gospel. The word does not communicate physical, material things. 2) the meaning of the word egeneto in John 1:3 and other places in John's Gospel. The word does not mean created ex nihilo, but focuses on things/events happening or coming to be. 3) how John 1:3 is actually an introductory statement to John's Gospel which aligns with the authors own purpose for writing statement. As to carrying an excess of Trinitarian taint, to me, the shoe is on the other foot. The "wisdom/plan" personified view, maintains John's opening sentences describe directly the Genesis creation (as Trinitarians think) and proport some kind of trans-nature "incarnation" (again, as Trinitarians). Some BUs have tried to soften the trans-nature incarnation with a word like "embodied", but it's still a deity of Christ leftover.
@@billschlegel1 I could have phrased it instead as a "preincarnate Christ", but when I mentioned a "preincarnate human being," I was simply indicating someone who existed prior to their incarnation as God's logos of which you argue. It seems you're intentionally missing the point here. Most people would easily grasp what I was trying to convey. The key issue is that Jesus is not directly identified as the logos anywhere in the New Testament (in Revelation it's his "name" but not a direct 1:1 or preincarnate identity), which means there's no justification for inserting him into John 1:1. My point was that you are building off of a similar presupposition as trinitarians. Setting that aside, to address your first two points: 1. Why confine your argument solely to the Gospel of John? Seems a bit to convenient to me. A comprehensive approach to New Testament hermeneutics should encompass the entirety of the New Testament. The term "panta" may not pertain to material possessions, possibly because John does not provide the necessary context to support such an interpretation. Limiting your understanding in this way is an inadequate approach to engaging with the Scriptures, suggesting an attempt to validate preconceived notions rather than engaging with the text as a whole. 2. My argument is that the central theme of John 1 revolves around the Father's mediating word, which represents His active power rather than a seperate person. This is why the term "egeneto" is chosen over "ktizo," for instance. If John intended to refer directly to the Father in the context of creating ex-nihilo, he would likely have opted for "ktizo," as it is more direct person-centric. In contrast, "egeneto" is not directly used in context of a distinct individual creating, hence why it is used in the context of the Father's word mediating. Regarding the concept of a trans-nature "incarnation," I completely disagree. I believe that Christ is not mentioned in John 1 until verse 14. Trinitarians, including yourself, place Jesus in John 1:1, interpreting God's logos as a distinct person, which I do not accept. I find that your theological perspective is a confusing blend of ideas that complicates what should just be a straightforward and inuitive interpretation. I personally believe the issue lies in the fact that individuals are often driven by misguided ambitions to introduce flashy new interpretations, and it genuinely frustrates me. If you sense my irritation in my posts, this is the reason behind it.
Hi again. Thanks for the interaction. I was not trying to deliberately miss your point. Yes, “preincarnate Christ” is a better way to discuss the issue. I do not believe that Jesus Christ had a literal pre-incarnate existence. No human being has a literal pre-incarnate existence. This interpretation of John 1 is not a flashy new interpretation. As mentioned in the presentation, this was the view of the 16-17th century Socinian reformers. It is good you are able to determine where you think the man Christ Jesus or his ministry are first mentioned in John’s prologue (you say vs. 14). You may be interested to know that among modern biblical unitarians who hold a Genesis creation wisdom/plan personified approach to John 1, there is no consensus about where the man Jesus (or his ministry) are first mentioned. This suggests to me that there is something wrong with that approach. You might be interested in the link I’ll post below. Do you see how I can think that this statement is about the man Jesus: “that which came to be in him, it was life, and the life was the light of men” (John 1:3b-4)? Cf. John 8:12. th-cam.com/video/YRGdggUGG3Q/w-d-xo.html
@@billschlegel1 Biblical Unitarianism has always been perceived as a "new" concept by Trinitarians, even today. Historically, this is because BU has been an extreme minority view within the church, which is why I referred to your Socinian view as a new interpretation. I had assumed this context would be clear, but I recognize the need for more precise language with you at this point. My concern stems from the fact that modern Biblical Unitarians have largely reached a consensus regarding John 1:1 as a reference to Genesis. I mean, the text structure speaks for itself. You don't have to be a Trinitarian or Unitarian to see that. It's intuitive on purpose. While I understand your viewpoint, I believe that the solution to this dilemma does not lie in dismissing established interpretations entirely by introducing highly esoteric and non-intuitive interpretations that attack common sense. It just seems like a step backward, not forward. When it comes to the debate over where Jesus is first clearly and explicitly mentioned in John 1, I believe all unitarians can find common ground in verse 14. This serves as my foundation. The verses leading up to it utilize metaphorical and figurative language, a technique that has long been employed to illustrate God's creative force in the Old Testament. Considering John 1 framing Jesus as the vessel for God's word makes complete sense to me. However, I think many individuals have been so influenced by trinitarian beliefs that it becomes challenging for them to step outside of that frame.
Does John 1,:3/4 refer to Adam (creation)......or Yahushua haMasiach......the beginning of Life.....Freedom from Adams SIN. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. Yochanon (John) 1:3-4.........same writer also explained further in 1 John 1:1/2..... That את which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (For the Life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and show unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) Yochanon Ri'shon (1 John) 1:1-2
Bill, I respect the depth of your study. Still, I fundamentally disagree with your interpretation of logos in John 1:1. I believe logos-and its Hebrew counterpart, dabar-means a spoken statement or command, and nowhere in Scripture does logos suggest personification. You've interpreted logos metaphorically as Jesus, yet Scripture consistently uses logos and dabar as literal statements or commands from God, not as representations of people or events. Let's examine John 1:3. The Greek pronoun "autos" here should be translated as "it," as William Tyndale rendered "it," not "he." Autos refers to verse one to logos, which is not a person but God's spoken word-the creative command that brought "all things" into existence. This keeps logos in line with Genesis, where the English words "God said" are mentioned nine times and initiate each creative act. John 1 echoes this by showing that creation came into being through God's spoken word, not through another person. Your assertion that John 1 isn't referring to Genesis but to a new beginning in Jesus's ministry disrupts John's prologue's continuity and purpose, which is meant to evoke Genesis creation language. Scripture shows that God alone created the heavens and the earth. When we interpret logos as God's direct command, we preserve the Father's unique role as Creator, ensuring no glory is shared or diverted. The idea of metaphorical logos tied exclusively to Jesus's ministry misinterprets John's intent. Instead, understanding logos as the Father's spoken word upholds both linguistic consistency and theological accuracy, tying John's prologue directly to Genesis and affirming the Father's glory in creation alone.
Interesting opinion, and i have read it carefully. But the message I picked up, which ties into what I have learned since looking outside the trinity tradition, is that Johns intention is to outline how Jesus began as the promised messiah to Israel, and in being rejected is raised and glorified at Gods right hand. If we look to Johns letters and those of Peter and Paul especially, we see that the context the apostles lead to is the new creation. The body who look forward to being raised with Jesus, with Jesus being the first up from the dead, of that group the body who are anointed with the same spirit that raised christ from the dead. Therefore seeing Johns prologue pointing out Genesis creation breaks from context. Holding to genesis creation in Johns prologue has traditional teaching as a strong point, but it makes more logical sense to see John leading into the same context that he and the other apostles were writing about in the same time period. After all scripture is quite clear that we of the body are neither jew nor gentile, but are one new man (new creation) and the events John describes is the "beginning" of that new creation. So creation talk more contextually fits this "new thing" that according to Eph3:3 and numerous other epistle teachings is a revealed secret (mystery) that God had kept hidden and unsearchable in OT. It ties in with the "beginning of all this" that Luke begins his gospel, and Acts. Beginning of the group who are "in christ."
@@ken440 Thank you for engaging with my perspective. I want to clarify that my primary focus is on how logos in John 1 should be interpreted-not as a person or metaphor, but as God's direct spoken word or command, in line with how logos and its Hebrew counterpart, dabar, are consistently used throughout Scripture. Consider this: logos and dabar appear over 2,000 times across both the Old and New Testaments, and in every instance, they refer to a statement, command, or message from God-never a person. When John uses logos in his prologue, he echoes the Genesis creation narrative, where God speaks each act of creation into being with phrases like "God said." This context indicates that logos in John 1 is God's creative word, bringing "all things" into existence by His command. Historically, the personification of logos emerged not from Scripture but through later allegorical interpretations. Origen in the second century, known as the "Father of Allegory," introduced symbolic readings that deviated from the text's literal meaning. Then, in the fourth century, Jerome followed this allegorical approach when translating the Latin Vulgate. He was the first to render autos in John 1:3 as "he" instead of "it," personifying logos to fit a Trinitarian framework. This translation choice has influenced many later versions, introducing a personified interpretation of logos that doesn't align with the original scriptural usage. John's prologue, therefore, does not introduce a new beginning in Jesus's ministry or a "new creation" in the sense of a reimagined logos. Instead, it parallels Genesis intentionally, emphasizing the Father's unique role as Creator. By understanding logos as God's spoken word, we preserve the textual and theological continuity of Scripture, focusing on the Father's direct creative action without suggesting later theological constructs. In summary, interpreting logos as God's direct command aligns with its consistent use across the Bible and avoids the influence of later allegorical interpretations. This approach keeps the focus on God's word made flesh in Jesus as the fulfillment of divine promises, grounded in the Genesis creation narrative.
@@geraldhancock6208 And thank you Gerald for the detailed and well reasoned reply. I have to say that I agree with you completely, and I will have to run through Bills presentation again to see if he does imply personification. I thought I heard him say to the effect that personification of Gods word was one way this is presented in unitarian understanding. I think I have heard Bill in the past lessen this approach of pure personification as Wisdom is personified in Prov8 and move towards the pure spoken word of promise from God throughout the heb scriptures. e.g. two that I use being Gen3:15 and Deut18:18. This that you have stated as taken overall, but not drilling in to Genesis creation specifically, is what I have come to grasp in the last 4 years and was what I heard Bill saying in this presentation. This you have pointed out, Johns intentional use of Gen creation wording to show this word of promised redemption being a creative act of the one God most high, is what I have taken on board. I hope I have understood you correctly, and thanks for the distillation. Words can be tricky in these comments and we often talk past each other. Edit: what you present here is the way John Lynn presents the issue of Johns prologue as I heard it from him in his "One day with the creator" 24 hr teaching series. And if apostle Johns use of using the creation "logos" is intended to be as you state above, then it is intentional contrast with the three synoptic gospels written by Johns fellow apostles. As they each use an "in the beginning" statement which is contextually referencing the new position they find themselves in, the body called out. The new creation. As outlined in Heb1:1-2. in the past God spoke in various ways BUT NOW He speaks to us in a son.... its a new ball game, but is solidly grounded in Gods previous promise.
and if...if apostle John has used this "beginning" contrast with his fellow apostolic writers, then it adds strength to the concept voiced by some commentators, that Johns gospel, coming later, was aimed at hebrew born christian converts, possibly those of the diaspora where christianity was growing, and that because of the heavy opposition in Judea (back home) and the "judaisers" that Paul speaks of.
@@ken440 Thank you for your response and for engaging thoughtfully with these points. I’m glad we share an understanding of logos in John 1 as God’s direct spoken word rather than a personification or preexistent being. To clarify a key aspect of my interpretation: logos in John’s prologue directly reflects the Genesis creation account, where God’s spoken word brings “all things” into existence. John’s use of phrases like “In the beginning” and “all things were made” clearly echoes Genesis, affirming that logos here is God’s creative command-the same word that brought the universe into being. I understand that you also see logos as containing God’s redemptive promises, like those in Genesis 3:15 and Deuteronomy 18:18, which speak of a future Messiah. These promises do indeed foreshadow Jesus. But in John 1, the focus remains specifically on creation, establishing the continuity between Genesis and Jesus as the fulfillment of God’s word. The idea that John’s gospel could have addressed Hebrew-born believers, perhaps to reaffirm the foundational role of God’s word, is interesting. By showing Jesus as the embodiment of God’s logos, John reinforces the Father’s direct role in creation and redemption. Thanks again for the thoughtful discussion. I hope this explanation is clearer.
Enlightening.Thank you,Unitarian Christian Alliance and sir Bill Schegel.God bless.
Thanks for the work you put into presentation…makes a lot of sense to me; that is, this new-beginning-life in the life & ministry of Jesus was an on-going, progressive reality that “apexed” in the event of life from the grave. And the impact of these events upon Believers is termed, “the light of
men”.
He was begotten in John 1.14 from the dead and therefore the word became flesh. The word was in the world by the instruction of the Torah, and Jesus fulfillment of it, but the world did not receive him. But as many as received the fulfillment of Gods will (justification unto life) he gave power to become sons of God (for on the day of Pentecost). That is the what the entirety of the book is about: so that ye might believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God, and believing ye shall have life in his name!
Love you bill! Will listen more later
Very well done, brother. I have come to the same conclusion; after seeing the problems with traditional interpretations of this passage. Once we accept the subject is the Father's 'happenings' or 'works' that happened through His Christ, who came in the flesh...I find this more coherent. The unity of God dwelling in His human Christ, whom God sent into the world to do God's will... is what "The Word became flesh means to me. I discussed this passage with a Trinitarian pastor, and when I asked him, "Who is the SOURCE of the Word of the Kingdom?"......he didn't have a clue of what I was asking....even though Lord Jesus clearly proclaims His Father as the source of ALL that was said and happened through Jesus.
So I watched half of this presentation and was glad for much of Bill Schlegel's distinctive understanding that supports the biblical unitarian perspective. Years ago, I was blessed with much of this understanding of the prologue already and have since enshrined it in my book published in 2021, "Israel's Messiah--Restoring Jewish Christology" (Michael Tupek). Some things I agree with Bill Schlegel: [1] The "beginning" is not the eternal past nor the event of the material universe. [2] The "Logos" is the person of Jesus the Messiah. [3] The introduction (not merely contrast of) both the Messiah and John the baptizer in vv 1 and 7 respectively. However, I do not agree that "all things" designates the new spiritual things that Messiah inaugurates. Rather it does mean the material universe and sometimes a portion of humanity in that material world. John is crediting the glory of creation to the Messiah Jesus (in his own language in verse 3, along with other apostles) because God the Creator became embodied in the birth of the Messiah (John 2:21; Phil 2:5-6; Col 2:9; 1 Tim 3:16).
I agree with your first couple of points as well. However, I don't see the plausibility of your explanation of John 1:3 (pertaining to Genesis creation) or your concept of "God the Creator became embodied in Jesus." What kind of "creation" work did Jesus claim to doing anywhere in the 4th Gospel?
Do you think "became flesh" means "embodiment" in Greek? How would you arrive at that conclusion? How was Jesus "going to the Father" when he ascended (John 20:17) if the Father supposedly already "embodied" him?
@@riversofeden3929 My texts listed above for embodiment did not refer to John 1:14, did it? Verse 14 does not mean incarnation but only asserts the real humanity of the Messiah (the Logos). I suggest you read my post again carefully. Otherwise, my book answers many objections already. Jesus nowhere is said to create directly but is credited with the glory of creation, just as other apostles do (I Cor 8:6; Col 1:15-19, 2:9; Heb 1:6-12).
@@michaeltupek3584 ... where do you get the "embodiment" idea then? I don't see that kind of language anywhere in the 4th Gospel and that is why I assumed you were trying to get it out of John 1:14 like others do.
The verses you cite about "the glory of creation" aren't found in the context of the 4th Gospel. There is no "creation" motif in the book. Where are you getting it from? I don't want to read your book unless I can see that you have a valid methodological approach :)
@@riversofeden3929 Verses 3 and 10 speak of "all things coming into being" or "the world having occurred through him," that is the creation topic. This crediting of creation glory to the Lord Jesus is said similarly by Paul in 1 Corinthians 8:6.
@@michaeltupek3584 ... why do you think "world" (KOSMOS) means "creation" in the 4th Gospel? Jesus and the people used it in a limited sense to refer to the nation of the Jews (John 12:19; John 18:20). It seems to be limited to "his own" in John 1:11. Why would any of the numerous uses of KOSMOS throughout the 4th Gospel need to have any wider scope?
I think "come into being" is an only an interpretation of GINOMAI which is a term with a very wide semantic range and doesn't require a "come into being" connotation in John 1:10 or anywhere else.
As Bill did in his lecture, I would suggest that EGENETO most often simply refers to something that "happens" with what has already come into being. The passage actually says that Jesus was "in the world" before "the world became through him." This follows from "coming into the world" in John 1:9.
It is crucial to understand that, apart from John 1, the term "logos" is not used in the New Testament to describe a preincarnate human being. Many Unitarians who hold this perspective often make the same mistake we point out in Trinitarians concerning the phrase "Ego eimi." They argue, "It applies here, but not elsewhere." This approach reflects poor hermeneutics.
One other important aspect to consider in the context of John 1 is that the primary focus is not solely on Jesus, but rather on God's living and active word, hence the Genesis summation. John is presenting the concept of new covenant regeneration, emphasizing the significance of God's creative word dwelling within all believers making them anew with the very same power that created the universe. We often fall into the same trap as trinitarians by hyper focusing on the person of Jesus, rather than understanding the broader implications of God's word in our lives.
Last point to consider is that when we examine John 1:1c in its original Greek, it translates directly to "and God was the word." This clear wording eliminates any ambiguity regarding the notion of "God" representing two distinct persons. In every other occurrence within John 1, the term "God" clearly denotes the Father. Therefore, it would be illogical for the author to refer to the Word being Jesus being God in 1:1bc, as this would create unnecessary confusion for his audience.
In my view, Bill's interpretation continues to carry an excess of Trinitarian taint.
Well said. Your points about logos not referring to a preexistent human being and about the focus on God’s creative word in John 1 align closely with my understanding. Thanks for sharing your insights-they add clarity to this discussion!
Hi. Thanks for having a listen. I'm not sure what you mean by "preincarnate human being". I agree, there is no such thing. I don't know of any biblical unitarians who hold that Jesus was a preincarnate human being.
The focus of this presentation was John 1:3-4. I'd prefer keeping the discussion to those verses. In other places I've discussed John 1:1 at length. My summary of John 1:1-2 was only to give some context.
The key points in this presentation are:
1) the meaning of the word panta (all) in John 1:3 and other places in John's Gospel. The word does not communicate physical, material things.
2) the meaning of the word egeneto in John 1:3 and other places in John's Gospel. The word does not mean created ex nihilo, but focuses on things/events happening or coming to be.
3) how John 1:3 is actually an introductory statement to John's Gospel which aligns with the authors own purpose for writing statement.
As to carrying an excess of Trinitarian taint, to me, the shoe is on the other foot. The "wisdom/plan" personified view, maintains John's opening sentences describe directly the Genesis creation (as Trinitarians think) and proport some kind of trans-nature "incarnation" (again, as Trinitarians). Some BUs have tried to soften the trans-nature incarnation with a word like "embodied", but it's still a deity of Christ leftover.
@@billschlegel1 I could have phrased it instead as a "preincarnate Christ", but when I mentioned a "preincarnate human being," I was simply indicating someone who existed prior to their incarnation as God's logos of which you argue. It seems you're intentionally missing the point here. Most people would easily grasp what I was trying to convey. The key issue is that Jesus is not directly identified as the logos anywhere in the New Testament (in Revelation it's his "name" but not a direct 1:1 or preincarnate identity), which means there's no justification for inserting him into John 1:1. My point was that you are building off of a similar presupposition as trinitarians.
Setting that aside, to address your first two points:
1. Why confine your argument solely to the Gospel of John? Seems a bit to convenient to me. A comprehensive approach to New Testament hermeneutics should encompass the entirety of the New Testament. The term "panta" may not pertain to material possessions, possibly because John does not provide the necessary context to support such an interpretation. Limiting your understanding in this way is an inadequate approach to engaging with the Scriptures, suggesting an attempt to validate preconceived notions rather than engaging with the text as a whole.
2. My argument is that the central theme of John 1 revolves around the Father's mediating word, which represents His active power rather than a seperate person. This is why the term "egeneto" is chosen over "ktizo," for instance. If John intended to refer directly to the Father in the context of creating ex-nihilo, he would likely have opted for "ktizo," as it is more direct person-centric. In contrast, "egeneto" is not directly used in context of a distinct individual creating, hence why it is used in the context of the Father's word mediating.
Regarding the concept of a trans-nature "incarnation," I completely disagree. I believe that Christ is not mentioned in John 1 until verse 14. Trinitarians, including yourself, place Jesus in John 1:1, interpreting God's logos as a distinct person, which I do not accept. I find that your theological perspective is a confusing blend of ideas that complicates what should just be a straightforward and inuitive interpretation. I personally believe the issue lies in the fact that individuals are often driven by misguided ambitions to introduce flashy new interpretations, and it genuinely frustrates me. If you sense my irritation in my posts, this is the reason behind it.
Hi again. Thanks for the interaction. I was not trying to deliberately miss your point. Yes, “preincarnate Christ” is a better way to discuss the issue.
I do not believe that Jesus Christ had a literal pre-incarnate existence. No human being has a literal pre-incarnate existence.
This interpretation of John 1 is not a flashy new interpretation. As mentioned in the presentation, this was the view of the 16-17th century Socinian reformers.
It is good you are able to determine where you think the man Christ Jesus or his ministry are first mentioned in John’s prologue (you say vs. 14). You may be interested to know that among modern biblical unitarians who hold a Genesis creation wisdom/plan personified approach to John 1, there is no consensus about where the man Jesus (or his ministry) are first mentioned. This suggests to me that there is something wrong with that approach. You might be interested in the link I’ll post below.
Do you see how I can think that this statement is about the man Jesus: “that which came to be in him, it was life, and the life was the light of men” (John 1:3b-4)? Cf. John 8:12.
th-cam.com/video/YRGdggUGG3Q/w-d-xo.html
@@billschlegel1 Biblical Unitarianism has always been perceived as a "new" concept by Trinitarians, even today. Historically, this is because BU has been an extreme minority view within the church, which is why I referred to your Socinian view as a new interpretation. I had assumed this context would be clear, but I recognize the need for more precise language with you at this point.
My concern stems from the fact that modern Biblical Unitarians have largely reached a consensus regarding John 1:1 as a reference to Genesis. I mean, the text structure speaks for itself. You don't have to be a Trinitarian or Unitarian to see that. It's intuitive on purpose. While I understand your viewpoint, I believe that the solution to this dilemma does not lie in dismissing established interpretations entirely by introducing highly esoteric and non-intuitive interpretations that attack common sense. It just seems like a step backward, not forward.
When it comes to the debate over where Jesus is first clearly and explicitly mentioned in John 1, I believe all unitarians can find common ground in verse 14. This serves as my foundation. The verses leading up to it utilize metaphorical and figurative language, a technique that has long been employed to illustrate God's creative force in the Old Testament. Considering John 1 framing Jesus as the vessel for God's word makes complete sense to me. However, I think many individuals have been so influenced by trinitarian beliefs that it becomes challenging for them to step outside of that frame.
Excellent presentation.
Wow... Very enlightening. 😳
Jesus is the Son of God. Read the bible.
Very good break down Bill. Thank you.
Does John 1,:3/4 refer to Adam (creation)......or Yahushua haMasiach......the beginning of Life.....Freedom from Adams SIN.
All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. Yochanon (John) 1:3-4.........same writer also explained further in 1 John 1:1/2.....
That את which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (For the Life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and show unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) Yochanon Ri'shon (1 John) 1:1-2
None of those referred to witnesses were at creation......its about Yahushua's birth, Testimony, evidence..... ministry and completion of ALL
Bill, I respect the depth of your study. Still, I fundamentally disagree with your interpretation of logos in John 1:1. I believe logos-and its Hebrew counterpart, dabar-means a spoken statement or command, and nowhere in Scripture does logos suggest personification.
You've interpreted logos metaphorically as Jesus, yet Scripture consistently uses logos and dabar as literal statements or commands from God, not as representations of people or events.
Let's examine John 1:3. The Greek pronoun "autos" here should be translated as "it," as William Tyndale rendered "it," not "he." Autos refers to verse one to logos, which is not a person but God's spoken word-the creative command that brought "all things" into existence. This keeps logos in line with Genesis, where the English words "God said" are mentioned nine times and initiate each creative act. John 1 echoes this by showing that creation came into being through God's spoken word, not through another person.
Your assertion that John 1 isn't referring to Genesis but to a new beginning in Jesus's ministry disrupts John's prologue's continuity and purpose, which is meant to evoke Genesis creation language. Scripture shows that God alone created the heavens and the earth. When we interpret logos as God's direct command, we preserve the Father's unique role as Creator, ensuring no glory is shared or diverted.
The idea of metaphorical logos tied exclusively to Jesus's ministry misinterprets John's intent. Instead, understanding logos as the Father's spoken word upholds both linguistic consistency and theological accuracy, tying John's prologue directly to Genesis and affirming the Father's glory in creation alone.
Interesting opinion, and i have read it carefully.
But the message I picked up, which ties into what I have learned since looking outside the trinity tradition, is that Johns intention is to outline how Jesus began as the promised messiah to Israel, and in being rejected is raised and glorified at Gods right hand. If we look to Johns letters and those of Peter and Paul especially, we see that the context the apostles lead to is the new creation. The body who look forward to being raised with Jesus, with Jesus being the first up from the dead, of that group the body who are anointed with the same spirit that raised christ from the dead.
Therefore seeing Johns prologue pointing out Genesis creation breaks from context.
Holding to genesis creation in Johns prologue has traditional teaching as a strong point, but it makes more logical sense to see John leading into the same context that he and the other apostles were writing about in the same time period.
After all scripture is quite clear that we of the body are neither jew nor gentile, but are one new man (new creation) and the events John describes is the "beginning" of that new creation. So creation talk more contextually fits this "new thing" that according to Eph3:3 and numerous other epistle teachings is a revealed secret (mystery) that God had kept hidden and unsearchable in OT.
It ties in with the "beginning of all this" that Luke begins his gospel, and Acts. Beginning of the group who are "in christ."
@@ken440 Thank you for engaging with my perspective. I want to clarify that my primary focus is on how logos in John 1 should be interpreted-not as a person or metaphor, but as God's direct spoken word or command, in line with how logos and its Hebrew counterpart, dabar, are consistently used throughout Scripture.
Consider this: logos and dabar appear over 2,000 times across both the Old and New Testaments, and in every instance, they refer to a statement, command, or message from God-never a person. When John uses logos in his prologue, he echoes the Genesis creation narrative, where God speaks each act of creation into being with phrases like "God said." This context indicates that logos in John 1 is God's creative word, bringing "all things" into existence by His command.
Historically, the personification of logos emerged not from Scripture but through later allegorical interpretations. Origen in the second century, known as the "Father of Allegory," introduced symbolic readings that deviated from the text's literal meaning. Then, in the fourth century, Jerome followed this allegorical approach when translating the Latin Vulgate. He was the first to render autos in John 1:3 as "he" instead of "it," personifying logos to fit a Trinitarian framework. This translation choice has influenced many later versions, introducing a personified interpretation of logos that doesn't align with the original scriptural usage.
John's prologue, therefore, does not introduce a new beginning in Jesus's ministry or a "new creation" in the sense of a reimagined logos. Instead, it parallels Genesis intentionally, emphasizing the Father's unique role as Creator. By understanding logos as God's spoken word, we preserve the textual and theological continuity of Scripture, focusing on the Father's direct creative action without suggesting later theological constructs.
In summary, interpreting logos as God's direct command aligns with its consistent use across the Bible and avoids the influence of later allegorical interpretations. This approach keeps the focus on God's word made flesh in Jesus as the fulfillment of divine promises, grounded in the Genesis creation narrative.
@@geraldhancock6208 And thank you Gerald for the detailed and well reasoned reply.
I have to say that I agree with you completely, and I will have to run through Bills presentation again to see if he does imply personification. I thought I heard him say to the effect that personification of Gods word was one way this is presented in unitarian understanding.
I think I have heard Bill in the past lessen this approach of pure personification as Wisdom is personified in Prov8 and move towards the pure spoken word of promise from God throughout the heb scriptures. e.g. two that I use being Gen3:15 and Deut18:18.
This that you have stated as taken overall, but not drilling in to Genesis creation specifically, is what I have come to grasp in the last 4 years and was what I heard Bill saying in this presentation.
This you have pointed out, Johns intentional use of Gen creation wording to show this word of promised redemption being a creative act of the one God most high, is what I have taken on board.
I hope I have understood you correctly, and thanks for the distillation.
Words can be tricky in these comments and we often talk past each other.
Edit: what you present here is the way John Lynn presents the issue of Johns prologue as I heard it from him in his "One day with the creator" 24 hr teaching series. And if apostle Johns use of using the creation "logos" is intended to be as you state above, then it is intentional contrast with the three synoptic gospels written by Johns fellow apostles. As they each use an "in the beginning" statement which is contextually referencing the new position they find themselves in, the body called out. The new creation. As outlined in Heb1:1-2. in the past God spoke in various ways BUT NOW He speaks to us in a son.... its a new ball game, but is solidly grounded in Gods previous promise.
and if...if apostle John has used this "beginning" contrast with his fellow apostolic writers, then it adds strength to the concept voiced by some commentators, that Johns gospel, coming later, was aimed at hebrew born christian converts, possibly those of the diaspora where christianity was growing, and that because of the heavy opposition in Judea (back home) and the "judaisers" that Paul speaks of.
@@ken440 Thank you for your response and for engaging thoughtfully with these points. I’m glad we share an understanding of logos in John 1 as God’s direct spoken word rather than a personification or preexistent being.
To clarify a key aspect of my interpretation: logos in John’s prologue directly reflects the Genesis creation account, where God’s spoken word brings “all things” into existence. John’s use of phrases like “In the beginning” and “all things were made” clearly echoes Genesis, affirming that logos here is God’s creative command-the same word that brought the universe into being.
I understand that you also see logos as containing God’s redemptive promises, like those in Genesis 3:15 and Deuteronomy 18:18, which speak of a future Messiah. These promises do indeed foreshadow Jesus. But in John 1, the focus remains specifically on creation, establishing the continuity between Genesis and Jesus as the fulfillment of God’s word.
The idea that John’s gospel could have addressed Hebrew-born believers, perhaps to reaffirm the foundational role of God’s word, is interesting. By showing Jesus as the embodiment of God’s logos, John reinforces the Father’s direct role in creation and redemption.
Thanks again for the thoughtful discussion. I hope this explanation is clearer.