{"id":37532,"date":"2016-04-24T21:29:24","date_gmt":"2016-04-24T19:29:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kernbeisser.ch\/in-the-beginning-was-the-word\/"},"modified":"2023-08-24T11:49:06","modified_gmt":"2023-08-24T09:49:06","slug":"in-the-beginning-was-the-word","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/kernbeisser.ch\/en\/in-the-beginning-was-the-word\/","title":{"rendered":"In the beginning was the word"},"content":{"rendered":"

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text uncode_shortcode_id=”562294″]<\/p>\n

Like God was the Word<\/h3>\n

The famous opening verses of John’s Gospel read:<\/p>\n

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was turned to God, and like God was the Word. This was turned to God in the beginning”.<\/em>
\nJohn 1:1-2 (KNT)<\/p>\n

With this introduction John speaks of Jesus as the Word. He wants to make it clear right from the beginning that here we are not just talking about a man, but this word was already there before everything else (John 1:3). So He is not a creature and part of the creation, but everything was created through Him. This “word” (gr. logos<\/em>) is used as an expression for a greatly expanded understanding of Jesus Christ, almost identical to what Paul describes later in his letter to the Colossians:<\/p>\n

“[der Sohn Seiner Liebe]… He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn before any creation. For in Him<\/strong> the universe is created: that in the heavens and that on earth … the universe is created through<\/strong> Him and to Him<\/strong>, and He is before all,<\/strong> and the universe exists together in Him”<\/strong><\/em>
\nCol 1:15-17<\/p>\n

[\/vc_column_text][vc_column_text uncode_shortcode_id=”178025″]<\/p>\n

The Word became flesh<\/h3>\n

This Word, says John, became flesh in this world: “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, a glory as of the only-begotten Son from the Father, full of grace and truth”<\/em> (John 1:14). Paul later describes it as follows:<\/p>\n

“Christ Jesus … who, when He was in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be like God; but emptied Himself, took the form of a slave, was made like men, and in the manner invented like a man; He humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.”<\/em>
\nPhil 2:5-8<\/p>\n

He then writes: “No one has ever seen God; the only begotten God*, who is now in the bosom of the Father, the same one has portrayed Him”<\/em> (John 1:18). Almost at the end of his account, John once again describes the purpose of his remarks: “But these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through faith you may have life in his name”<\/em> (John 20:31).<\/p>\n

So far, so good.<\/p>\n

This is about a good news. It is broadly measured by John, yet clearly focused. But let us linger a little longer on the first verses of the Gospel. Here we are talking specifically about the Word. The passage has great significance for the doctrine of the Trinity. The Concordant rendering of the New Testament reads slightly differently here than many other translations. There is a good reason for this.<\/p>\n

In the controversy over the Trinity<\/strong>, it is a concern to understand this and similar biblical passages correctly. Because the discussion is often argued from the dogmas and less from the biblical text, this passage is often not really up for discussion. It is the merit of the concordants’ rendering to be able to take a look at the basic text, to be able to look through the translation, so to speak, in order to trace the basic text.[\/vc_column_text][vc_column_text uncode_shortcode_id=”418913″]<\/p>\n

From disunity to trinity<\/h3>\n

In the doctrine of the Trinity<\/strong>, emphasis is placed on the fact that Jesus is not only God, but Deity, that is, equal to the Most High. He is part of the Godhead – in an unknown way. The fact that a better differentiation is necessary here will be pursued as an idea later on.<\/p>\n

The doctrine of the Trinity emerged as a theological and political<\/em> standpoint in the Arian controversy<\/a>. Was Jesus man or God Himself? Many views get tangled up in the problems of this polemical account. Are there only these two extremes, or does the Bible portray something else? This question requires an examination of the person of Jesus Christ as the Bible tells us about him, and of the meaning and use of the word “God.”<\/p>\n

An important point to understand the doctrine of the Trinity is the historical context. It is often assumed that the doctrine of the Trinity is taught directly in the Bible or is even mentioned there. However, this is not true. Rather, there was versatility in understanding until the current dogmatic determination<\/em>. The doctrine of the Trinity is not mentioned in the Bible, but only formulated in this way by the later churches. Or in other words: There is only an inferred reason (dogmatics) for the doctrine of the Trinity, no direct biblical statement.<\/p>\n

There is only an inferred reason (dogmatics) for the doctrine of the Trinity, no direct biblical statement.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

It is also helpful in understanding the origin of the doctrine of the Trinity that some claimed that Jesus was only<\/strong> one man<\/em>.
\n Against this<\/strong>
\n<\/em> the official church resisted. The definition of the so-called Trinity was worked out over several councils. However, opinions went from one extreme to the other when the councils defined that Jesus is part of the Godhead.<\/p>\n

Against the assertion that Jesus was simply a man, now came the assertion that He was equal to the Godhead. This, however, is not directly attested anywhere<\/em> in the Bible. The result of these decisions is – despite all regret about the inner contradictions – a splitting or multiplication of the Godhead: God, the Father, becomes with the Son two and still much later with the Holy Spirit as a person even three “persons” of the Godhead.<\/p>\n

To consider: In the absolute sense (so to speak as “Godhead”) only the Father Himself is called God in the Bible. The contradiction with the biblical understanding of the One God – as witnessed throughout the Tenach and the New Testament – is obvious (Deut. 6:4, 1 Co. 8:6, etc.).[\/vc_column_text][vc_column_text uncode_shortcode_id=”887625″]<\/p>\n

The translation<\/h3>\n

The dogmatic determination of<\/em> a Trinity now reflected back to the translation. God and the Word should be one. A differentiation of the term is missing. In this sense, John 1 translates:<\/p>\n

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word<\/strong>. The same was in the beginning with God.”<\/em>
\n(Luther 1984)<\/p>\n

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God<\/strong>. This was in the beginning with God.”<\/em>
\n(Rev. Elberfelder, Schlachter 2000)<\/p>\n

The councils had already indicated that any view that deviated from the Trinity was to be called a heresy. This makes it difficult to this day to have a serious conversation about the biblical text. Could this perhaps be called dogma-belief, which prevents a critical examination of the biblical testimony?<\/p>\n

The councils had already indicated that any view that deviated from the Trinity was to be called a heresy. This makes it difficult to this day to have a serious conversation about the biblical text.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

However that may be, it came from the historical disunity not to unity, but to trinity. If we are aware that these are interpretations – and not direct statements of the Bible – then perhaps we can think about the text in a new way.<\/p>\n

Let us return once again to John’s original statement:<\/p>\n

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was[turned<\/strong>] toward God <\/strong>,<\/strong> and[like<\/strong>] God was<\/strong> the Word. This was[facing<\/strong>] God <\/strong> in the beginning.“<\/strong><\/em>
\nJohn 1:1-2 (KNT)<\/p>\n

\u1f18\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1fc7 \u1f26\u03bd \u1f41 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f26\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03bd,<\/strong> \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f26\u03bd<\/strong> \u1f41 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2. <\/span> \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\u1f26\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1fc7<\/span>\u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03bd.<\/strong>
\n<\/span>John 1:1-2 (NA28).<\/p>\n

Two expressions are striking here and will be considered in more detail below:<\/p>\n