A Different View Of An Old Classic (concluded)

Now, we would like to share one more substitution.  With this substitution, we would like to combine all that we have discovered thus far.

In the beginning was the Word (the Logos, the Son, and the one called Jesus), and the Word (the Logos, the Son, and the one called Jesus) was with God (the Father), and the Word (the Logos, the Son, and the one called Jesus) was God (the Father).  The same (the Word, the Logos, the Son, and the one called Jesus) was in the beginning with God (the Father).

As you can see, this substitution makes for a very complex interpretation of the Word, who has been label the Logos, the Son, and the one called Jesus.  While the Trinitarians are not the only ones who have made this passage the cornerstone of their belief system, the substitutions appear to present more questions than answers.  It would appear that we are no closer to solving the mystery than before.

According to the Strong’s Complete Greek and Hebrew Lexicon, one of the definitions for the Greek word logos was solely based on the gospel according to John which denotes the logos as the essential creative word of God which was personified and made flesh in person of Jesus the Christ, who is purported to be the second person of the Godhead.  Also called the Word according to the prologue found in John’s gospel, Jesus is also purported to be the personal wisdom and power in union with God, his minister in creation and in the government of the universe, and who is the cause of all life, both physical and ethical.  And for the salvation of man, which he purchased, he took on a human form in the person of Jesus the Messiah.  We have substituted this basic definition, also called the son of God, in for the phrase the Word.  We have examined several combinations of substitutions and have found some very interesting results.  But we have to ask, are any of these variations in the interpretation of these passages the correct ones?  Or, are we heading in the wrong direction?  While it is conceivable for the Son to be in the presence of the Father in the beginning, is it possible for the Son to be called the Father at the same time the Son was supposed to be with the Father?  Someone believes that it is possible.  This was just one of three definitions listed for the word logos, therefore let us examine another of Strong’s definitions in the same manner. 

The next definition appears to be used in respect to the mind of God that being, his wisdom and power; the first cause of all things; and his innermost thoughts.  This was considered to be some sort of divine plan, which he expressed externally in words and other methods of communication.  This divine plan was God’s plan of salvation through Christ.  Called the logos, this divine plan was about the Christ rather than it being the Christ himself.  With this definition, we must include another verse in John so that we will have a better understanding of its interpretation.  According to John 1:14; the Word was made flesh, which suggests that when Christ was born, the Word was turned into flesh and blood in the form of Jesus the Christ.  Again, Jesus personally was the Word made flesh through his birth by Mary and not the Word itself.  Jesus the Christ was the logos of God or basically God’s redemptive plan of salvation, rather than the logos himself.  It cannot be emphasized enough that Christ in person was not the Word but the divine plan was.  This divine plan, which was about the Christ, was with God in the beginning.

In the beginning was the divine plan (the Word), and the divine plan (the Word) was with God (the Father), and the divine plan (the Word) was God (the Father).  The same (the divine plan) was in the beginning with God (the Father).

This makes for an interesting interpretation of this passage, where in the beginning was this divine plan.  It goes on to suggest that this divine plan, which was with God in the beginning, was also God.  Although it is possible in the beginning for there to be a plan and it is possible for a plan to be with someone in the beginning, but is it possible for the plan to be that someone?

In the beginning was God’s plan of salvation through Christ (the Logos), and God’s plan of salvation through Christ (the Logos) was with God (the Father), and God’s plan of salvation through Christ (the Logos) was God.  The same (God’s plan of salvation through Christ) was in the beginning with God (the Father).

Again, while it is possible for God’s plan of salvation through Christ to be in the beginning with God; is it possible for God’s plan of salvation through Christ to be God?  Someone believes that it is possible.

According to the Strong’s Complete Greek and Hebrew Lexicon, the last definition defines the Greek word logos as being a part of speech, more importantly, a word uttered by a living voice.  More impressive than that, the logos is defined as what someone has said, namely the saying of God.  The logos is the spoken word of God.  Let us make several more substitutions.

In the beginning was the word uttered by a living voice (the logos), and the word uttered by a living voice (the logos) was with God (the Father), and the word uttered by a living voice (the logos) was God (the Father).  The same (the word uttered by a living voice) was in the beginning with God (the Father).

This makes for a different type of interpretation, where in the beginning was the word uttered by a living voice.  We first need to give the living voice an identity.  Let us use God in place of the living voice to see if it has any noticeable affect on the meaning.  We now have this uttered word by God in the beginning.  This interpretation goes on to suggest that this uttered word by God, which was with God in the beginning, was also itself God.  This is saying that this uttered word by God is God, which creates similar questions to those asked before.  Although it is possible for the uttered word to be in the beginning, can the uttered word by God to be with God?  Is it possible for the uttered word by God to be God?  Let us try another substitution.

In the beginning was the saying of God (the Word), and the saying of God (the Word) was with God (the Father), and the saying of God (the Word) was God (the Father).  The same (the saying of God) was in the beginning with God (the Father).

This is very much like the previous substitution with very similar questions.  This interpretation goes on to suggest that this saying of God, which was with God in the beginning, was also itself God.  This interpretation suggests that the saying of God is God.  Although it is possible for the saying of God, whatever it may be, to be in the beginning, can the saying of God to be with God?  Is it possible for the saying of God to be God?  Let us try one last substitution.

In the beginning was the spoken word of God (the Word), and the spoken word of God (the Word) was with God (the Father), and spoken word of God (the Word) was God (the Father).  The same (the spoken word of God) was in the beginning with God (the Father).

This is very much like the previous substitution with very similar questions.  This makes for an interesting interpretation of this passage, where in the beginning was the spoken word of God.  This particular interpretation goes on to suggest that this spoken word of God, which was with God in the beginning, was also itself God.  This is saying that the spoken word of God is God.  We think you know what questions are forthcoming, but we will ask them anyway.  Although it is possible for the spoken word of God to be in the beginning, is it possible for the spoken word of God to be with God?  Is it possible for the spoken word of God to be God?

We think by now you can see where this is heading.  We have the uttered word of God, the saying of God, and the spoken word of God, all saying pretty much the same thing.  There is very little deviation amongst the three.  They all imply that the uttered word of God, the saying of God, and the spoken word of God was in the beginning.  They all suggest that the uttered word of God, the saying of God, and the spoken word of God was with God, in the beginning.  And finally, yet most importantly, they all somewhat conclude that the uttered word of God, the saying of God, and the spoken word of God was God.  Is it possible that this substitution is the correct one?  Someone believes that it is.

Are any of the substitutions that we have examined correct?  Or are all of them wrong?  Again, someone believes that at least one of them is correct.  Is there some other possible substitution that we have not considered?  Are we heading in the right direction with our thinking?  Or are you heading in the wrong direction?  Is any of this factual?  Or, is it all fiction?  So many questions and not enough answers.  Do we continue this journey?  Or do we stop and continue with the status quo?  We trust that we have given you cause to examine and to question the interpretation of that old classic passage that has created more controversy than any other passage in the Bible.  In all of this, we know what we believe and what we have decided to do.  Now, the decision is yours, what will you decide? 

Enjoy your blessings and remember to be a blessing to others – KW