God! The Only Begotten Son. by R. K. Phillips and R. N. Phillips (B.Sc.)

Transcription

1 God! The Only Begotten Son by R. K. Phillips and R. N. Phillips (B.Sc.) Printed: 19th December 1992; Updated: 10th January 1993; Reformatted: December 2001 i

2 Table of Contents 1. THE ONLY BEGOTTEN GOD THE PROLOGUE JOHN 1: The Number: JOHN 1: JOHN 1: JOHN 1: JOHN 1: Virgin Birth and The Spirit JOHN 1: SOME CHARACTERISTICS OF JOHN'S GOSPEL THE LIVING WORD THE ADVOCATE...22 i

3 1. The Only Begotten God It is evident from many quarters that in these last days of the Age the fundamental beliefs of sincere Christians are coming under massive attack from inside and outside the Churches. For example, it is said that: a. When people die they have instant conscious communion with the Lord in the Heavens. This is widely taught and accepted, but is quite contrary to Scripture. b. The Laws of Deuteronomy are no longer relevant. It is claimed and accepted that Christians are no longer under those Laws but under "Grace". This is not supported by Scripture. c. The doctrine of the Trinity is a fundamental tenet of the Christian faith yet its foundations are under massive attack, especially from within the Church, despite the evidence of Scripture. The Bishop of Durham's pronouncements against the Divinity of Jesus are good examples. With regard to (a), we are taught throughout all Scripture that the dead (in Israel) sleep with their fathers, that in the grave there is no knowledge, no perception, no conscious speech or understanding. The notion that when Christians die their spirit or soul has immediate contact with the Risen Lord arises from religious misinterpretation of Phil 1:23 (... a desire to depart and to be with Christ) 1. With regard to (b), the Grace which Paul says we are under (Rom 6:14,15) does not refer to the Laws of Deuteronomy, every one of which still applies to every Christian today (Matt 5:18). Nor does the `cleansed' of Acts 10:15 refer to any so-called `cleansing' of the unclean creatures of verses 12 to With regard to (c), concerning the attacks on the concept of the Trinity, we can thank the translators of our modern Bibles that such attacks have arisen. Unfortunately, not even those in the churches with sufficient knowledge of Greek and Hebrew and the ability to translate it correctly, have ever found the information God has provided to refute those attacks. For example, as we shall see in John 1:18, John speaks of the Only Begotten God, not the Only Begotten Son. This paper will try to bring to light what John has revealed and to prove, beyond question, that the Christian concept of a Trinity consisting of three separate personalities in a single, but Triune Godhead, is correct. It is not an attempt to explain what is beyond the finite mind of man to conceive but to restore much of the information that has been lost to our knowledge since John wrote it down. Most of this material comes direct from John's Gospel because he was closest of all to Jesus during His ministry on the Earth. It was John's privilege to present Jesus as our God in terms that we can understand quite readily, if every "translator" would simply translate God's words in accordance with Greek Grammar. 1 This verse is a simple parenthesis by which Paul explains there was a third and better option to his problem, namely, that the Resurrection take place so that he, together with the anointed people, would be transfigured. That is, being resurrected they would have their eternal life and would be in Jesus' presence. 2 In Rom 6 Paul continues his discussion on the changed condition of the Israelite (who was subject to the sacrificial laws of Leviticus) when that Israelite becomes a Christian. The Sacrificial Law could not save the sinner from eternal death. The laws of Leviticus could only suspend execution of that death sentence until a Kinsman-Redeemer could be found who would take that sentence of death upon Himself and so save the real sinner from paying the penalty. The death of Jesus won for the sinner that Grace of God which removed that sentence of death if God accepts the sinner's conversion as genuine. The word `cleansed' in Acts 10:15 should have been translated as cleansed from sin. Unclean animals cannot commit sin. Only Israelites can commit sin in God's sight for only Israelites were given the Law of Deuteronomy and then sinned by breaking it. The unclean creatures of verses 12 to 14 were therefore symbols for those cast-off Israelites whom Jesus had also cleansed from sin by His death, as Paul is explaining to the Israelites in Rome. 1

4 Paul states in 1Cor 2:12 that we, the Israelites, have (already) received (without having to ask for it) enough of The Spirit out of The God to start knowing the things of the Spirit which God has given freely for us to understand. Just how much we learn of those things of the Spirit is entirely up to us. On the other hand, the Scribes and Pharisees, who were mainly Edomites, were the descendants of mixed marriages between Esau and other races. Therefore, the Spirit of God that was in Esau had disappeared from the line long ago 3. Consequently, most of the Scribes and Pharisees were unable to comprehend and believe what Jesus told them. They understood His words at face value because they knew He was claiming to be God, which is why they tried to stone Him, John 8:59. Furthermore they understood Him when He kept telling them they were not going to be in the Kingdom of God, even though they were descendants of Abraham. These things antagonised and belittled them so much that they had to put Him to death in order to maintain their own status with the Romans and with the Judean population. On the other hand, all 12 of Jesus' Disciples were Benjamites, except Judas. All the time that Jesus was with them, He did things which surprised them; He said things which astonished them and He performed miracles that astounded them. Being Israelites and thereby having the innate ability to understand the things of the Spirit, they began to perceive in their minds that these things could not be done by a mere man. A prophet might have power to raise the dead and Peter had walked a few hesitant steps on water, but who, except God Himself, could do so many of these things and so effortlessly? Not to mention having power over the wind and sea and material things power to make a few loaves and fishes feed a multitude of 5,000! So, little by little, they began to apply to Him the title of "Lord" which, formerly, they had only associated with Jehovah in the Old Covenant. Their understanding and perception grew gradually and as it did so, Jesus showed them greater and deeper insights into the nature of the Father and into those secrets of The Kingdom that He had been sent to reveal. But none of these things make it clear to us today how Jesus could do those things without being The God Himself (which Jesus consistently denied) or being part of a composite Godhead which is barely hinted at here and there in the Old Covenant. When studying the New Covenant we find that the first Gospel presents Jesus as Israel's King; the second, as the King's servant and the third as the ideal Israelite man. Thus these first three synoptic gospels present the Lord in the light of His humanity. But in John's Gospel it is the person of The Lord Himself that is being presented. Hence John is saying, in effect, "Behold your God". And he emphasises the absolute Deity of Jesus right throughout his Gospel. Therefore, in order to discredit the doctrine of the Trinity, it would first be necessary to destroy all of John's Gospel. On the other hand, to explain the Trinitarian case, it is essential that we understand precisely what God caused to be written down for our specific instruction. The word `Trinity' does not appear in the Bible nor is the subject discussed in so many words. That concept is one that can grow only with increasing insight and understanding through the unfolding of God's Word. John begins that task in the first chapter of his Gospel. 3 The descendants of Judah and Benjamin who returned from Babylon were in danger of losing the Spirit in the same manner, Ezr 9:2 2

5 1.1. The Prologue The Gospels were written some time after the events which they describe. Consequently, John starts his Gospel by encapsulating in the first 18 verses all that Jesus is and what He is doing for His people. In the Authorised Version, John's words are not easy to follow and theologians have been arguing about the meaning of his statements for the past 2000 years. The arguments derive from faulty translation and misinterpretation of the Greek text. Some of those translations were the best that could be produced at that time considering their knowledge of the colloquial Greek in which the New Covenant is written. The past failure to understand all that John reveals arises largely from the simple fact that of the 49 verbs in the first 18 verses, 25 are in the Aorist tense. Virtually all the Greek grammar books claim the Aorist tense is a form of Past tense. However, Knoch (A), for instance, proves that the Aorist is really the Indefinite Tense that is, it is concerned with actions that are true, correct and applicable actions, irrespective of when they occur in time. For example, it is incorrect to say for God so loved the `world'... the verb is in the Aorist and therefore it should read for God so loves the `world'. That is, God loved it in the past, He loves it now and He will continue to love it in the future. The actions that are described by verbs in the Aorist Tense are true for all time 4. Because of the general failure to recognise the true function of the Aorist verbs, every English translation of the Bible gives the impression that John is describing only the First Advent a single event that happened in the past. Whereas John is really describing all that Jesus is (past, present and future) and what He is doing (past, present and future) for His people during the whole of this Age John 1:1 The AV of John 1:1 commences In the beginning was the Word (a parallel AV-Greek translation is provided at the end of this paper). The translators of our English Bibles have copied the Vulgate which translated logos as verbum which means a word in Latin. But it embraces a great deal more than that in Greek. For example, there is a gadget which in English we call a propelling pencil. But if we were to use logos in association with the existence of that pencil, it would cover the intelligent inspiration which first conceived the need for a propelling pencil and it would include: a. All the thought, design and engineering principles needed to create the mechanical system to protect and hold the lead while allowing it to be moved in and out at will b. The knowledge necessary to devise or conceive the materials from which to make the pencil c. The methods by which it would be manufactured d. The details required to convey these principles to the artisans who were to create it e. The marketing and distribution arrangements. 4 There is no functional difference in meaning between the Aorist 1 form and Aorist 2 form. The Aorist 1 form shows that action as always applicable whereas the Aorist 2 shows that although the action happened in the past, the action is true irrespective of when it actually occurred. That is, the action is the appropriate action for that particular circumstance, no matter when that circumstance occurs. If the Aorist 2 is translated as the Past tense, it makes the true Past tense redundant and fails to reveal the correct English meaning. In this paper, the Aorist 2 is translated using the Indefinite and it is left to logic to dictate if it is an action that occurred in the past. The only other major distinction between the two forms is that the Aorist 1 is formed regularly (hence is classified as a weak verb) and the Aorist 2 is formed irregularly (hence is classified as a strong verb). 3

6 Thus our English expression, the word, not only fails to convey any idea of the vast essential wisdom implicit in the Greek term ho logos, it does not even hint at the intrinsic complexity and precision of the design processes or powers of thought behind it. If we apply all this thought, reasoning, logic and creative energy, not just to a propelling pencil but to the concept of a living planet, we are embracing a world and its solar system + all its created fauna and flora + the forces that control its place in the Universe + the factors which govern its climate + the whole intricate balance of natural life and of its reproduction down to the minutest detail + the perfection of its natural self cleansing and refreshment processes. Then and only then do we get some small idea of the depth of wisdom involved in the word logos. Paul presents a brief summary of what The Logos covers in Col 1:15-17 and a brief summary of Bishop Ellicott's (B) comments on Paul's statements may help to further illustrate the immensity of this term: Verses change the subject from Jesus as our Mediator to Jesus as He is from Eternity. All the wisdom, design and logical sequence of `creation' came from within Him plus the timing of the stages plus the life-force to sustain it. The totality of everything in the Universe with its orders, systems, levels, functions, habitats, life-cycles and times of existence on the Earth came from The Logos. Thus The Logos is not just The Word of God but a full creative reality and dynamic Presence. Paul sums it up concisely in 1Cor 1:24 and Eph 3:10,11 where he states that Jesus embodies the whole treasury of the wisdom and thought of God. In Scripture the term is never used of human beings in this sense nor confined simply to a single aspect of God. Therefore, due to the lack of a suitable English word, the term The Logos will be used as a title so as to remind us of its scope rather than `interpreting' it as `The Word'. The verb was in John 1:1 points to the pre-existence of The Logos. Ellicott states: The reference to the opening words of the Old Testament is obvious, and is the more striking when we remember that a Jew 5 would constantly speak of and quote from the book of Genesis as Bereshith ("in the beginning").... The Mosaic conception of "beginning" is marked by the first creative act. St John places himself at the same starting point of time, but before he speaks of any creation he asserts the pre-existence of the Creator. The actual Greek clause states The Logos was in the beginning and Nicoll (C) explains it very clearly: In the beginning, place it where you may, the Word already existed. In other words, The Logos is before time, eternal. Therefore, when it is necessary to emphasise or remind ourselves of such pre-existence, it will be written as was (already in existence) or similar. 5 Most people consider that the term Jew is a synonym for an Israelite. This is wrong. The New Covenant Scriptures refer to Judeans or Judahites but not Jews. Strictly speaking, a Jew is someone who practices Judaism a religion based on distortion of the Mosaic Law. In Ellicott's comment he is referring to either a Jew or an occupant of the Holy Land (up until AD70). If he is referring to the former, his comment can stand unamended but if he means the latter, the comment has to be amended to "an Edomite (who were Jewish proselytes), a Hivite (Jos 9:7, who were also Jewish Proselytes) or an Israelite (many of whom practiced Judaism until the Advent of Jesus)." 4

7 The second clause in the AV reads and the Word was with God. Ellicott, together with Liddell and Scott (D) (L&S), says that the preposition with (pros) covers all forms of personal intercourse and communion. John uses this preposition specifically to assert, from the start, the distinction of person between The Logos and God. Nicoll states that it is regularly employed in expressing the presence of one person with another. Furthermore, this distinction is repeated for emphasis in the next clause. Hence The Logos is not just in company with, but was, and is, in the most intimate communion and unity, with The God. Jesus testifies to this Himself in John 17:5: Glorify Thou me with the glory which I had with Thee before the kosmos was. And Ellicott states that Jesus: claimed this (the divine glory) in personality distinct from, but in essence, one with God. Thus John 1:1 becomes, The Logos was (already in existence) in (the) beginning, and The Logos was (in unity) with The God and The Logos was God The last clause is very interesting because although the AV translates it correctly, the Greek text has it the other way round... and God was the Logos. This construction is important because of where it places the emphasis. Even though it is written back to front in the Greek text it would never be spoken that way in Greek. Vine (H) states that writing the clause in this manner places a double stress on the word, God, first because there is no Definite Article with it and second by placing God in the emphatic position at the beginning of the clause. Writing it that way in the Greek emphasises the fact that while The Logos is God, He is not The God referred to in the previous clause 6. Thus the purpose was, and still is, to draw attention to what is being explained and its importance relative to what follows. At this point it becomes clear that The God and The Logos are separate entities but in some way linked in substance. This concept should not be new to us because we have encountered it before in Gen 2 and Gen 17:5. We all know that Eve was made from a cell taken from Adam's body. Therefore she was bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh. She was also his wife and we are told (Gen 2:24) that, in His sight, God regarded the pair as being one flesh one substance 7. So here we have an example of two human beings, each of whom has an entirely separate body, with individual basic physical differences, individual personalities and each one having quite separate functions, yet God regards them (once united in marriage) as being one flesh. Therefore there is no reason why The Logos could not be a distinct part of the Godhead with His own separate individuality and manifestations while still being part of a heavenly Unity. But that is not the end of the matter. The one flesh of Adam and Eve contained a third entity, the invisible Spirit of God. 6 The way that God Himself caused these words to be written tells us that we must not translate God (Greek: theos) as indicating any lower or lesser status such as "The Logos was deistic" or "The Logos was divine" or "The Logos was a god". Thus it is not religious bias but the Greek grammar God uses which determines that the correct translation is and The Logos was God and the Indefinite Article is not permitted. 7 The Hebrew word translated one is echad which means one of a compound unity or one made up of others of the same kind or status. For example, in Gen 1:5 we have Day One, of six similar days of creation. In Gen 2:24 we have one flesh of two people of the one race, man and wife, equal in their married status, but each with different functions. In Gen 49:16 we have one tribe of twelve tribes of Israel, each of the same kindred and status. With regard to God Himself, He is revealed to us in several ways. In Gen 17 He is spoken of as Almighty God. In Exo 6 He is introduced to us as the Eternal God. In Deut 6 as one God of a compound unity this latter title hints at the Trinity, which could not be fully revealed to Israel until the time of the Advent of the Messiah. 5

8 Gen 2:7 states that God breathed into Adam's nostrils the breath of abundant life. It became an integral part of Adam's body and was inherited by his descendants. When the Flood came we are told in Gen 7:22 (in the Hebrew text), all those in whose nostrils was the breath of abundant life, of all that were on the dry land, died. It does not say that all men died. It was only those in whom was found that breath of abundant life all of Adam's descendants died, with the exception of Noah and his family. In Gen 17:5, God changed Abram's name to Abraham by inserting the 5th letter of the Hebrew alphabet. The number 5 signifies the Spirit of God and the permanent change of name signifies the permanent presence of that Spirit in him. In Gen 17:15, He made the same change to Sarai's name. Subsequent to the name changes, God told Abraham that he and Sarah would have a son named Isaac (son of laughter). At this news, verse 17 states that Abraham fell on the ground laughing because, by human reckoning, both he and Sarah were far too old to have children. But the reason God had waited so long before His declaration was to establish that they were both incapable of producing another child of the Adamic race 8. The change in names marked the resurgence of their ability to have a child. One who would be the first of a new race, separated to God's service by the presence of His Spirit in each member. Isaac was begotten by or through the power of that Spirit and for this reason Paul states Isaac was different from Abraham's seven other sons (Gal 4:29). Adam's descendants received their spirit as an inheritance that came down from the Spirit breathed into Adam but from Isaac onwards the Spirit was begotten fresh and undiluted at conception. This is the reason that Isaac, together with those of his seed who believe, are regarded as being anointed by that Spirit, Gal 3:16 9. For the same reason Abraham is described as a father of all The (ones) believing, Rom 4:11,16. The presence of God's Spirit, begotten in His people, is a powerful fact of life. Paul speaks of the mind as being the abode of this spirit (Rom 7:23-25) and of the conflict ever present within our body between the Law of God and the Rule of Sin 10. However, our body is not the Temple of The Holy Spirit or the Temple of God nor does The Holy Spirit dwell within or in us, as the RSV and AV translations of 1Cor 6:19 and 2Cor 6:16 appear to state. The pronoun ye in those two verses is plural but body is singular and refers to the whole assembly of which each person is a member. Thus the Spirit dwells among us. Consequently, each member can affect the whole assembly as Paul states in Rom 12:4,5. Thus the basic unit of God's first human family on the Earth was formed as a trinity consisting of a man and his wife and, in them, the invisible but active Spirit from The God. The same kind of trinity existed in Abram and Sarai but even more so when their names were changed. What then is so strange about the idea of a triune Spirit-Godhead in which each member can still have His own individuality 8 Gen 25:1 does NOT state that Abraham married Keturah after the death of Sarah. Keturah was a concubine as stated in verse 6 and again in 1Ch 1:32. Her children were contemporary with Ishmael and all of them were older than Isaac. 9 The clause that is translated and to thy seed which is Christ in the AV, should read and to thy seed which is anointed for Paul is stating that the promises of verse 16 were confirmed by the covenant of verse 17 which refers to Exo 24:8-11 where that Covenant between God and His anointed (consecrated) people was ratified. To be anointed is to be consecrated, separated to God and therefore, His possession. 10 God gives us free will to obey or disobey just as He did with Adam and Eve. The conflict is literally a war between our desire to do that which is right in God's sight and our desire for the lusts of the flesh. The battle is for control of our will. For it is the Will that implements our desires and directs our limbs to put the dominant thoughts of our minds into deeds. Our behaviour at any point in time shows which choice we made and therefore which force is controlling our will. That is, the will which we think is our own is not really ours but the will of the victor of that battle. Jesus told the Pharisees (John 8:44) that they followed the will of their father, Satan, from whom it came. Jesus also said (John 5:36) that He came not to do His own will, but the will of the Father who sent Him. Paul said (Rom 7:15-25) that he often failed to act in accordance with his inmost wishes. That Spirit of God we receive at conception is therefore a potent entity in our being and one that we cannot dismiss as we might wish. 6

9 and His own separate functions? It is the perfect form of which the spirit-human trinity is but a reflection The Number: 3 The number three runs right through Scripture and appears frequently in connection with the Godhead and with God's dealings with Israel. It is the number of Divine completion (E) and in the Bible, nothing of importance can be complete without it. For example: a. God has three attributes omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence b. Jesus declares He is three things The Way, The Truth and The Life c. Time has three phases past, present and future d. Israel's Exodus was completed after three days journey e. Jesus: i. Was three days and nights in the `heart of the earth', ii. iii. iv. He was crucified in the third hour, There was darkness over the land from the sixth to the ninth hour, He died in the ninth hour, v. He rose from amongst the dead on the third day. f. Israel as a nation was formed to produce the fruits or results of carrying out God's Law. But Israel itself always consisted of two parts the Sanctuary and the Dominion (Ps 114:2). Therefore a trinity is essential for Israel to bring forth the fruits of the Kingdom: the Sanctuary, the Dominion and the Law. And in the secular sphere, for example: a. Three persons are required to complete our grammar first, second and third; b. Three actions are needed to complete human relations thought, word and deed. In summary to this point, the Old Covenant introduces us to the idea of a trinity consisting of a man and his wife with the Spirit of God in them. God uses the word echad (one) in reference to the one flesh to point to the fact that the flesh was a unity made up of others of a similar level or kind or substance not something entirely singular or unique. Adam and Eve required a third component, the invisible Spirit of God within them to provide the complete, living one flesh hence we find the number 3 as the number of completion in Scripture. 11 We must not let ourselves be confused by Mark 12:29 Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy Creator is one Lord. This is a quote from Deu 6:4 and the Greek word for one, heis, translates the equivalent Hebrew word, echad. Echad is also used in Gen 2:24 in reference to the one (echad) flesh. Neither of these Greek or Hebrew words mean singular or unique. The Hebrew word for singular or unique is yahid; in Greek it is monos. 7

10 1.3. John 1:2-5 In the AV, verse 2 reads the same was in the beginning with God. But the Greek text of verse 2 not only summarises, in one clause, all three statements made in verse 1, but expresses it far more forcibly than the Authorised Version's translation. It starts off with the emphatic demonstrative pronoun This (Logos) was (in unity) with The God in the beginning. Thus the meaning is that The Logos, whose eternal existence is asserted by the verb was, is still distinct but not alone. John reiterates the fact that The Logos and The God exist contemporaneously. He emphasises this relationship because of what he is about to tell us. John shows us the power and position of The Logos. We have to grasp this point fully if we are to have any real appreciation of the grace and love He must hold for His people. He was willing to leave that position of majesty to sojourn with them and die for them so that they may have eternal life. So, in effect, verse 2 maintains the distinction of separate Personality or manifestation but at the same time it asserts the oneness of substance of The Logos with The God from Whom all life comes into being. He (The Logos) was not `created', because without Him nothing was created. He had to be in existence before creation could begin. The AV translation of verse 3 is an extremely inadequate version of what is expressed in the Greek text, which reads, Through Him all things come into existence and apart from Him, (there) comes into existence not one thing which has come into existence. All things come into being through Jesus this does not require that they be physically or individually created by Him personally. It is simply a statement of truth (that is the function of the Aorist Tense). All that creative work of Genesis 1 was done by the Elohim who were the Heavenly Artisans assigned to do that work for Him. It is within the compass of His intellect as The Logos that the whole order of the Heavens and of the Earth, the visible and the invisible was conceived. This whole order through Him and to Him was brought into existence. He only, is before all things (all other things were created) and the whole order or system is sustained by Him 12. Verse 4 of John's prologue states in the AV in Him was life and the life was the light of men. But let us read that again in the Greek text: Abundant life was (already in existence) in Him, and The abundant life was The Light belonging to The men. In John's Gospel, the word zoe (abundant life) generally refers to eternal or spirit life. Hence, while The Logos is the fountain of all life, that life was especially for The Men. To understand what this means, we have to go back to Adam. The Greek word zoe is used of the abundant life that Adam had (1Cor 15:45 and the LXX (J) of Gen 2:7) and it is the life that Jesus bestows on those who believe Him. It is the energising force of the Spirit and hence the sought-for life source of spirit-containing men. We gain access to abundant life in the Resurrection as a consequence of believing Jesus, that is, believing The Truth. Hence The Light, to phos, in this context, is a metaphor for the truth. (This is confirmed in John 1:7.) 12 It is a fact of history that Jesus appeared on the Earth nearly 2000 years ago and the majorit y of His people rejected Him. But it is also a fact that Jesus confronts every single one of us today yet the majority still reject Him, just as they did 2000 years ago. Man cannot find out how life began yet Scripture asserts that through Him (all creation) comes into being and by Him all things are held together in their present state Col 1:16,17. Although men reject that concept, they cannot prove otherwise. 8

11 Two more things are brought to our notice in this verse first, that The Light was for THE men, not just for men generally; second, that something will have to occur for The Men to acquire The Light which is theirs either it has to be given to them gratis or they have to do something to earn it. The Greek text of verse 5 reads: The light is shining in The darkness (absence of spirit) and The darkness does not perceive it (is unable to use what the light reveals). This verse tells us that the light does not banish the darkness nor does the darkness banish the light. To understand what it is saying, we have to look at the Greek text more closely. There are two Greek words translated darkness skotos (neuter) and skotia (feminine). Skotos has the literal meaning of pitch black as found in the LXX version of Gen 1:2-5, before the Sun, Moon and stars where created. The same blackness is described in the LXX of Deut 5:22 where it refers to the events of Ex 20 where the voice of the Elohim came from the blackness and spoke to the people 13. Skotos is used of physical blindness. Metaphorically, skotos refers to a state where the rule of God is rejected. This meaning is well illustrated in Matt 8:12, 22:13, 25:30 the weeping and gnashing of teeth takes place there in the outer darkness. The word there is from the emphatic pronoun, ekeinos. It emphasises where the weeping and gnashing takes place outside the Kingdom, in the outer darkness. Skotia is used literally of the darkness that occurs at night time (that is, darkness that is due to the absence of the Sun but relieved by the Moon and starlight). Metaphorically skotia refers to the condition where there is an absence of truth, where lies and that which is fundamentally false prevails. These things are characteristic of those who do not contain the Spirit of God within them. In John 1:5, the word is skotia. In conjunction with phos having the metaphorical meaning of truth, John is saying that when the truth is presented to those who do not contain the Spirit of God they do not perceive what it is. Once again, the Aorist Tense is telling us that this is true of all time. Those who do not contain the Spirit of God never have and never will perceive The Truth. The Greek verb translated perceive is in the Middle Voice 14 which means that although those who live in the darkness can see the light, they are unable to make any use of the light or what it reveals to raise themselves out of that darkness. John repeats this in John 3:19 (which refers to spiritual illumination) and in John 8:43,47. Conversely, it is the use made of the light by those who are capable of perceiving it which determines their place in the Resurrection. Paul tells us bluntly in 1Cor 2:12-14 that natural man is unable to perceive the things of God, but that Israelites have received (at conception) the Spirit out of The God by which they can perceive and understand the things of God. Therefore this light, which is only for The Men, is for those particular men who have the capacity to receive and perceive what that light reveals. In John 8:12 Jesus said I am The Light of The Kosmos (the Order of Israel). Again (John 12:35) He said to the Apostles Yet a little while is The Light with you, walk according as ye have The Light... that is, walk as men who are conscious that The Light is among you and use your opportunities. In verse 36 He says while ye have The Light, believe towards The Light (or in the light) so that ye may become sons of light. He tells them they will become sons of light not just because they have received 13 In Exo 20:21 the Hebrew uses a word that means thick clouds. 14 Voice is a grammatical term that describes the relationship between the subject and the action of the verb. English has two distinct types of Voice the Active Voice where the subject of the verb is carrying out the action (The dog bites the man) and the Passive Voice where the subject receives the action (The man was bitten by the dog). The Greek has a third, distinct Voice, the Middle Voice, that is present in English but not with the same prominence as the Active and Passive Voices. The Middle Voice is where the subject performs the action and receives the action (The man washed himself). There are some other variations on the Middle Voice but they are outside the scope of this footnote. 9

12 from Him a new revelation from God but because, having been begotten from above, they have received that Spirit out of The God which gives them the capacity to see and understand that light. So while The Light itself was with them they should believe what it revealed and learn how to work in harmony with it and the Source of it. These verses confirm that the darkness of John 1:5 refers to all those who are not of Israel, who have not received the Spirit of God in them and, therefore, cannot perceive (comprehend) that light John 1:6-11 Verse 6 in the AV reads There was a man sent from God whose name (was) John. The Greek text reads: A man named John, commissioned by God, came into existence (in his own right). In this verse, the Aorist verb translated comes into existence is in the Middle Voice. This means the subject is either acting on himself (which is not possible in John the Baptist's case) or the action is being performed for the subject (the Mediate use Winer (F) ). Coming into existence for one's own self is to come into one's own existence that is, he was born. The AV does not reveal the tremendous contrast in the Greek text between John the Baptist and The Logos. The Logos has existence from eternity (verse 1) and is the very source of life itself (verse 4) but John was not with God. Therefore, John could not be `sent' from God. The verb translated commissioned comes from the same root that we get the word apostle. The AV translated it as `sent' because it only translated the prefix, apo, which means sent off. However, the remainder of the word, stollos means office or duty of one sent as a messenger or agent; an official, authoritative position. The Concordant Version translates apostle as commissioner one sent off as an official messenger, charged with a commission. So, verse 5 refers to The Logos (who) was God; verse 6 refers to a man whose commission was from God; verse 7 describes the commission. Through his witnessing, all (to whom he testified) might be persuaded to believe and put their trust in The Light and the things revealed by The Light. It was not just to be a witness (that is a different word altogether) but to bear witness to, for, and about The Light which was coming. Verse 8 stresses the fact that John himself was not that Light but the Godappointed witness-bearer concerning that Light. Thus verses 6, 7 and 8 confirm that John the Baptist had the authority and commission foretold in Mal 4:5,6 and they confirm that The Light of John 1:7,8 is Jehovah of the Old Covenant. Jesus Himself testifies in Matt 11:14 that if ye (Israelites) will accept it, John the Baptist was indeed that prophet which was destined (in Malachi) to come. Verse 9 declares the Advent of that True Light but, again, the AV disagrees with the Greek text. The Greek text states: The True Light was (the one) which is shining on every man coming into The Order (of Israel). The Greek word for coming is a masculine participle which, used as an adjective, cannot be modifying The True Light, which is all neuter. It can only refer to every man. However, the participle is in the Middle Voice, which means it refers to a man who can describe himself as coming by his own actions. In this context it is the description of a man who is responding to The Light and, consequently, is studying God's Word. In other words, The Light shines on those who are actively responding to the witness of John the Baptist (verse 7) or, these days, anyone who is actively studying the Word of God. 10

13 Verse 10 summarises one of the key outcomes of the First Advent, but to understand it we have to be aware of the social and political structure of the Holy Land at that time. Approximately 600 years prior to the Advent, the House of Israel was in captivity as a consequence of its continued rejection of the Law. The House of Judah was in an even worse state and soon went into captivity also. By the time a remnant of Judah returned to re-build Jerusalem, they still remembered much of the Levitical Law (Ezra 3:1-6) but they had forgotten a great deal of the Mosaic Law as shown by their reactions to being told of the Law brought by Ezra (Ezra 7:6, 9:1-15, Neh 8:2, 10:28-32). At this time Idumeans (Edomites) and others in the region began to infiltrate the upper levels of society and in later years the Rulers and Priests were drawn from this class 15. By the time of the First Advent, the Edomite rulers, especially in the Temple, had so perverted the application of the Law and the message of the old Scriptures, that few people knew fact from fiction as far as the coming Messiah was concerned. All religious activity was subject to the Tradition of the Elders (the Talmud version). Across the nation all centres of power (Roman, Herodian and Priestly) were oppressive; there was no justice for the poor. Military might was the accepted order of the day. Those outside the Temple who knew anything of the Scriptures were looking for a Messiah who they expected would restore Israel's former glory using His great power to sweep these oppressors away. But when Jesus began His Ministry without even a personal bodyguard, not even John the Baptist recognised Him as the coming Messiah (John 1:31, Matt 11:2-6, Luke 7:19-23). The end result was that even though the Son of God was present in the very midst of Israel, the people did not know enough to recognise Him. Because Jesus had grown up in Nazareth, the Scribes and Pharisees assumed He was born there and hence proclaimed that no prophet ever arose out of Galilee (John 7:52). If it was generally known that He was born in Bethlehem, more people might have been inclined to listen more closely. Hence John summarises the matter in verse 10 which states: In The Kosmos (in the official Israel Order) He was, and The Order, through Him, came into being, and yet The Order does not recognise Him. This statement is still true today and will remain so until the Second Advent when all Israel will recognise Him willingly John 1:11-13 Verse 11 is almost completely misunderstood by the whole of Christendom today and the AV translation is the main cause of this misunderstanding. It states He came unto His own and His own received Him not. That is quite wrong. The word own appears twice in this verse but in the first clause it is neuter gender while in the second it is masculine. Therefore John is referring to two different things. The first clause states that Jesus came to His own possessions (neuter gender) His land, His Kingdom, His city, His temple. In the second clause, the term His own is the Greek term oi idios (masculine gender) which means, literally, the members of one's own household. In this case it refers only to those who had authority over His kingdom, city and Temple. (The vast majority of Israel were scattered abroad in the Dispersion and, at that time, were still classified as not My people.) Before we can complete the translation of verse 11 we have to look at the beginning of verse 12. The Greek text of verse 12 begins but to those who did receive Him. In this clause and the last clause of verse 11, we have another instance of the AV translating two different Greek words as one English word in this case, received. The last clause of verse 11 states, in effect, that those who were ruling over His possessions neither received nor accepted Him (as the owner). It points to outright rejection, 15 Judea and Galilee were only provinces of Herod's larger Kingdom. 11

14 not through ignorance (which is covered by the phrase does not recognise Him in verse 10), but by wilful refusal to accept Him as the rightful owner. However, in the first sentence of verse 12 the word received has the meaning of to welcome or to accept willingly. Hence, while the Judean Nation rejected Him at a national level, there were individuals in that Nation who did both recognise and receive Him gladly. Verses 11 and 12 read in the Greek text: 11 He comes unto His Own (possessions) but The People (ruling over His possessions) refuse to accept Him (as the rightful owner). 12 but to those who welcome Him, to The ones believing in His name, to them He gives authority to (make themselves) become (because of their belief) children of God (again). Thus up to this point we see that The Logos: a. Has brought about all Creation b. Is the source of all life including that of mankind c. Is that Perfect Light which enlightens every man in that Kingdom who is seeking to obey Him d. Had arrived in that Kingdom Himself but: i. The people who did not contain the Spirit of God did not understand Him ii. iii. The majority of the people in the Kingdom did not recognise Him The majority of the leaders of that Kingdom rejected and despised Him. The phrase translated the Sons of God in verse 12 of the AV is quite wrong. The Greek phrase is tekna theou which means children of God. Immature children, no doubt, but it does not mean sonship; for sonship points to growth and ultimate maturity 16. Nor does it have anything to do with the false doctrine of "adoption". On the contrary, the phrase forcefully asserts: a. The natural genetic relationship of a child with its true father and, hence, b. Those children of God are the biological descendants of God Himself. The right to become Children of God (again) was given only to the ones believing in His Name. Paul tells us (Rom 4:11) that Abraham was given the sign of circumcision so that he might be the father of all the ones believing. Thus this restoration of their former status as children of God was being given only to those Israelite descendants of Abraham who accepted and believed Jesus. However, John 1:12 should never be quoted without also quoting verse 13 because that verse confirms, beyond question, not only who those believing ones are, but more importantly, who they are not. Verse 13 states that those who were given the right to become children of God (again) were those (begotten): a. Not out of bloods which is ordinary human descent b. Nor out of (the) will of flesh which was Sarah's demand of Abraham to have children by Hagar and Keturah c. Nor out of (the) will of a man which was Abraham's desire for an heir d. But out of God are begotten. 16 The expression Sons of God is used only in association with resurrected Israelites. 12

15 The Greek verb begotten is plural in this verse and so cannot be limited to the birth of Jesus. In Gal 4:29, Paul confirms there is a distinction between children of the flesh and children of the Spirit. He states that even as it was then (in Abraham's day) the one begotten according to the flesh (which was Ishmael) persecuted the one (Isaac, who was begotten) according to the Spirit, so also now. That is, even in Paul's day, the descendants of Ishmael were still persecuting those descendants of Isaac (through Jacob), who possessed the Spirit of God as part of their birthright. This is why, Jesus states (John 3:3) that unless anyone is begotten from above he cannot perceive (comprehend) the Kingdom of God. And this is the reason why Jesus states (John 1:13) that the gift of authority to become Children of God (again) is only to those who are so begotten of God John 1:14 Verse 14 in the AV states: and The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the Only Begotten of the Father) full of grace and truth. That translation is only a half-truth. To understand the verse properly, we need to examine several of the words and phrases: a. was made In the Greek text the verb translated was made is in the Middle Voice of the Aorist Tense and it means comes into existence (through His own actions). This form of the verb expresses the endresult of an act of free will. That is, the `becoming' flesh was an entirely voluntary act performed by The Logos Himself. The Middle Voice is used to emphasise that He became incarnate as a result of action which He took Himself that culminated in that change. It is exactly the same verb form that is used twice (verse 3) to state that all Creation came into existence also because of action The Logos took which brought it about. Therefore there was no act of "begetting" as we understand that term. b. flesh The term flesh stands for the spirit, soul and body (it is a figure of speech, Synecdoche of Part, where a part is put for the whole). c. tabernacled amongst us The second sentence states and He tabernacled amongst us. This is a reminder of the former manifestation of Jehovah in the form of the Shekinah Glory in the Temple in the Wilderness when Jehovah tabernacled with Israel. But now His presence was in a new mode. It was in His humanity that He now tabernacled among His people. d. beheld The Greek word translated as beheld in the AV does not mean to gaze passively like a spectator at a scene in a theatre. It refers to the person doing the gazing as one who gazes with a purpose to see or to regard with awe, admiration and the desire to emulate. All of which has come about by the person actively trying to improve. e. glory The term glory primarily signifies an opinion or estimate, hence the honour resulting from a good opinion when used in respect of human beings. But in the prologue John is presenting Jesus as our God, so he immediately qualifies his meaning by adding, in the Greek text, (the) glory of an Only Begotten from beside a father. 13

16 f. begotten of A vast amount of information is encapsulated within this sentence. Unlike the AV, the Greek text does not have the Definite Article before only begotten or before father. The absence of the Definite Article, concentrates our attention on the characteristics and importance of the other terms used. For example, the preposition mistranslated of (the Father) in the AV, is the Greek preposition para. When used with a noun in the Genitive Case, as in this sentence, para points to motion of (the) only begotten from beside a father. This confirms the fact that (the) only begotten was already in existence beside The Father (as previously stated in verse 1). The word begotten does not imply the beginning of His "Sonship". The word means to come into being within one's own kindred a fact which is confirmed in Heb 2:11. This `begetting' which John has recorded in his prologue was, indeed, an event in time but it was The Logos who brought Himself into being in human form. Furthermore, He had to bring this about through the womb of a Princess of Israel's Royal Line. This action was necessary for three reasons: i. To fulfil the legal requirement for Him to be born as a kinsman of Israel before He could redeem a single one of them. ii. To hold the legal regal right to take the Royal Crown of Israel which Joseph held but could not wear because of the prohibition on Solomon's line that God stated in Jer 22: iii. To have the natural regal right to take the Crown and the Throne of Israel in the fullness of time because, as the son of Mary, He is a descendant of David's son, Nathan, who was older than Solomon. As such He outranks Solomon's right and is not subject to the ban mentioned above because He is not the physical descendant of Joseph. The Logos, therefore, did not `become' the Son by His action. That title was already His from Eternity because it was foreknown He would take that action when the time was ripe. He became incarnate in the flesh by His action which is quite a different thing. Men of Israel can be sons of God because The Son of God became a man of Israel. Although the authority to carry out that action originated from the Father, The Logos always held the right either to implement it in accordance with the Father's will or to reject it. Paul confirms this in Phil 2:6,7 where he states that although subsisting in the essential form of God (being of the same form spirit as God), Jesus did not count equality with God a prize and a treasure to be held fast. He was willing to strip Himself of that co-equal glory (emptied Himself in the AV) and take on the form of a servant by coming into being in the likeness of an Israelite. Thus The Logos brought about the fulfilment of His own Title, Son of God, of His own free will, while still possessing every attribute of the Godhead. Hence the glory John refers to in his prologue is the honour which accrued to Jesus as a result of: a. The Apostles' witness of the scene on the Mount b. The Apostles' witness of His ascension c. His teaching and His miracles d. John the Baptist's witness of the dove descending on Jesus (John 1:32), e. The witness of those who heard the voice out of heaven (John 12:28). 14