The Gospel of John begins with: “In the beginning…” but what is meant by that phrase? Is the author of the Gospel of John referring to Genesis 1:1? The word of God mentions several beginnings. For example, we are told about the beginning of the Gospel (Mark 1:1; Philippians 4:15; Hebrews 2:3). There is also the beginning of the miracles of Jesus (John 2:11), and the beginning or the first principles of the oracles of God (Hebrews 5:12). Even Jesus, himself, is referred to as the Beginning (Colossians 1:18; Revelation 3:14). So, what does the Gospel writer mean by: in the beginning? The Greek word arche (G746) means the “beginning” or the “origin” of something; it is the first of something, meaning its leader or its head. The term often refers to those in authority (Luke 12:11; 20:20; Romans 13:3 and Titus 3:1). Therefore, if we are to understand the beginning of the Gospel of John, we must first come to understand what he means by the phrase in the beginning.
Many scholarly commentators of the Bible have used this phrase to point to Genesis 1:1, and thereby used it to show the preexistence of Jesus before creation itself. Nevertheless, I don’t believe in the beginning at John 1:1 does that, at least not primarily. The problem comes with viewing in the beginning as a reference for time. The fact is that arche (G746; beginning) isn’t always a reference to time. It is often used as a reference to position and authority (translated in the KJV as: principality, magistrate, power, principles, rule). Therefore, I believe we need to be careful, if we are to perfectly understand what the Gospel writer is actually saying, that we consider how the word is used, before we determine what it refers to.
For example, as I said above many, probably most, Biblical commentators apply John 1:1 to the Genesis 1:1 beginning of creation, in an effort to show the deity and eternal existence of the Word, who became Jesus. Nevertheless, the scriptures refer to two other creations of which the Word, who became Jesus, is the magisterial Head or supreme Authority. Paul speaks of a new creation (Galatians 6:15; 2Corinthians 5:17), which has to do with those who have received Jesus as the Christ (Messiah) or the Anointed One of God. Paul would later go on to say: “For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to good works, which God has before ordained that we should walk in them” (Ephesians 2:10). Notice that believers are in Christ, and in him we are the workmanship of God. In other words, God is making believers into something new, and what he is doing is called the new creation. Nevertheless, believers still have human bodies, and we still grow old and our bodies will fall in death. So, is the new creation a “new physical creation”? No, apparently the new creation isn’t physical, so there must be some other creation, other than that mentioned in Genesis 1:1, which makes believers new and something else old, for the word of God states “old things are passed away, behold all things are become new” (2Corinthians 5:17). Obviously, the creation of Genesis 1:1 hasn’t passed away, but apparently some other creation has, because it became old when believers began receiving Jesus as their Christ or Messiah.
Peter mentions the argument of the scoffers in the last days was: “Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation” (2 Peter 3:4). Obviously, the scoffers aren’t pointing to the creation of Genesis 1:1, because they point to a time after the fathers, vis-à-vis Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, fell asleep. The word creation (G2937; ktisis) is the same as that of the new creation (G2937), but, obviously the scoffers are speaking against it and in favor of another, which the New Covenant text defines as old (2Corinthians 5:17). Paul mentions in Hebrews: “But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation” (Hebrews 9:11). Therefore, the scoffers’ argument in 2Peter 3:4 is “all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation” vis-à-vis the beginning of the Old Covenant. The Temple still stands; sacrifices are offered daily; the Levites still officiate in worship. This was their argument.
In other words, the Old Covenant is the old creation and the New Covenant represents the new creation in Christ. Thus, we have one physical creation (Genesis 1:1), and the Lord has not made it old by creating a new physical creation. However, there are two spiritual creations, and one had become old, when the Lord began creating the new, and this is what I believe the Gospel writer is speaking of in the first chapter of the Gospel of John. “In the beginning was the Word…” In other words, “In Authority was the Word…” He is the responsible party, vis-à-vis God (third phrase of John 1:1) for what follows (the new creation), and so is God, our Father, who was/is with him (John 1:2). Both the Word and the Father are God over what follows.
Smoodock's Blog 
14 responses to “In the Beginning Was the Word…”
Even if the Gospels are eyewitness accounts, should we trust them? If you are a Christian, I am interested in your answer to this question. Please respond on my blog here::
Thanks!
Greetings Gary and thank you for reading my post and for your invitation to comment/debate you (?) on your website. Things like this used to be important to me, maybe even fun, but I’m not into that at this time. I read what you had to say in your blog, but I’m not convinced by your argument. You are welcome to believe as you wish. It is your God-given right. It would be ludicrous for me to attempt to change your mind. No doubt you believe it would be wise to believe as you do, why else would you say the things you say in your argument? Anyway, thanks for dropping by, and have a good day.
Hi Eddie. Thank you for your polite response.
The bigger question is: Is there any good evidence that the supernatural operates in our universe? Much of the sectarianism, violence, and war in our world is based on religion (belief in the supernatural). If the supernatural is not active in our world, shouldn’t the people of the world know this? Wouldn’t such information be extremely useful for how we treat our fellow human beings?
Your beliefs may be very comforting for you, Eddie. Most religious people, of all religions, find great comfort and security in their “faith”. But what is the trade off for your fellow human beings for your personal comfort and sense of security?
Bottom line: Humanity needs to know, one way or the other, if the supernatural operates in our world. Christianity says it does. Christianity says they have eyewitness evidence to supernatural events. I say that if one looks at the Christian evidence using good critical thinking skills, the evidence for these claims is very, very poor.
I hope that you and your readers will at least keep an open mind to the possibility that eyewitness testimony is not always reliable.
Greetings, Gary, and welcome. Thank you for your interest in truth, however you seek it, and for your comment. You said:
In what context is the ‘supernatural’ supposed to be operating, and what would you accept as ‘evidence’?
Man has always been violent. We have no history of a non-volent era, whether that violence is based upon a religious goal or a sectarian one. I fail to see your point.
According to Christian understanding, God is always active in our world. Our very existence, whether we are righteous or unrighteous depends upon his keeping us alive and here. If God is **not** active as you suggest above. No one would know, because no one would exist. If God **is** active, unless he causes us to ‘know’ it, by what power of our natural senses could we sense the spiritual? The Spirit cannot be seen, heard, felt, smelled or tasted. How would we know, unless God made himself known, vis-à-vis through our natural senses?
Concerning its usefulness, God is not a tool that could be used. According to Christianity, loving one’s fellow man has to do with obedience to God. It is not something that is done, because we’ve picked up on the Presence of the spiritual. If Christians are violent, they are disobedient. If other folks are violent, they are simply living out their rebellion against the God they’ve only heard about.
If I am obedient to the Lord, and if that translates to comfort and security for me, then I suppose the ‘trade off’ would be others would be able to feel comfort and feel secure in my presence, because I would do them no harm. But, once again, it is a matter of my obedience to the Lord. My sense of comfort and security is not a tool I could use to cause others to sense the Presence of the Spirit.
The only way I know that one could reasonably use to know truth is to be obedient to what Jesus said in John 7:16-17 “My doctrine isn’t mine but his who sent me. If a man would do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God or whether I speak of myself.”
In secular terms that would be the scientific method. You have an idea, which you believe is true. Next, you predict what would occur, if you applied your idea. Then you test your idea in a ‘laboratory’ (wherever the test can be made). If the result is according to your prediction, you know the truth, if not, then its back to square one, or at least square two and make a different prediction! 😊
Well, you are offering a mixed bag here, aren’t you? According to the YouTube video I watched on your site, some folks who claimed to be Christian also claimed to have had special ‘appearances’ of angels or Mary etc. From where I sit, that’s like someone telling me they saw Sasquatch or the Lock Nest Monster. Did they? Well, I hate to call anyone a liar, and I suppose it is possible it occurred in accordance with their claim, but ‘saying’ something is true isn’t evidence.
On the other hand, the evidence of eye-witness reports in the Gospels and Acts is closer to what one finds used to define the truth in the legal systems we use throughout the world. Unless you are willing to throw out eye-witness testimony everywhere and in all cases, then what we find in the New Covenant text is valid, at least valid enough to consider further, just like any jury who must decide, if the ‘eye-witness’ testimony they heard was the truth or a tale.
I do understand that all eye-witness testimony isn’t truth, after all, the Gospel records, themselves, record the eye-witness testimony of liars who thought to offer evidence against Jesus, but their testimonies couldn’t be used to agree with one another. They had to have contradicted one another, or their testimonies were about different matters that couldn’t be used to support one another.
As I said previously, Gary, I’m not disposed to debating with you, which is why I didn’t comment on your website. On the other hand, I have no control over you being the aggressor and commenting on my blog. I will reply to you here, but only so far. There will come a point, when further commentary would be pointless. For now, there is value in this for others who might read. If you wish to continue, fine; if not, that’s also fine with me. Have a good evening.
-Let’s define a supernatural event as any event which defies the laws of physics.
-If you do not see belief in the supernatural as a problem, then this is a moot point, although I will bet that you would agree that the world would be much better off without the supernatural beliefs of Islam, Hinduism, and the traditional religions of Africa and South American indigenous peoples.
-You said, “Our very existence, whether we are righteous or unrighteous depends upon his keeping us alive and here. If God is **not** active as you suggest above. No one would know, because no one would exist.” I don’t think you can provide any good evidence for this claim. I am not an atheist. So there is no need for us to debate the evidence for the origin of the universe. I believe our universe was most likely created by an intelligent being. But isn’t it entirely possible that our creator is dead? That is what the evidence indicates to me. Getting to the point: I believe our universe most probably had a creator but the evidence that Yahweh/Jesus the Christ is that creator is very, very poor. Christian apologists assume that evidence for a creator is evidence for their god. This is a logical fallacy.
–You said, “How would we know, unless God made himself known, vis-à-vis through our natural senses?” I’m not sure what you are referring to. Are you speaking about the testimony of the Holy Spirit? Do you perceive the presence of the Holy Spirit, Eddie? If so, through which of your five senses?
-You said, “The only way I know that one could reasonably use to know truth is to be obedient to what Jesus said in John 7:16-17 “My doctrine isn’t mine but his who sent me. If a man would do His will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God or whether I speak of myself.” In secular terms that would be the scientific method. I strongly disagree. The scientific method is the most accurate method of determining universal truths ever known to humanity. There is no Baptist scientific method. There is no Lutheran scientific method. No Roman Catholic scientific method. No evangelical scientific method. No Muslim scientific method. Baptist, Lutheran, Catholic, evangelical, and Muslim scientists all eventually come to the same conclusion using the scientific method. Not so with determining “God’s doctrine”!
-You said, “The evidence of eye-witness reports in the Gospels and Acts is closer to what one finds used to define the truth in the legal systems we use throughout the world.” False. The four Gospels do not expressly state their authorship. They are written in the third person. And, the eyewitness/associate of eyewitness authorship of the Gospels is disputed among the experts, even among Christian scholars (many Roman Catholic scholars, who believe in the literal bodily resurrection of Jesus, doubt the eyewitness/associate of eyewitness authorship of the Gospels.) So I must disagree, this is NOT the type of eyewitness testimony we find in our legal systems. In what court would a judge allow eyewitness statements to be entered into evidence when the eyewitness status of the statements is disputed by the experts; the documents are not signed by the authors; and the statements continuously refer to “they” and “them” and never to “I” or “we”! No way would a judge admit these statements into evidence. Mormonism, on the other hand, has eyewitnesses with signed affidavits claiming to have seen an angel/golden plates. THAT is the type of evidence we see in our legal systems. So why do you reject these eyewitness statements, Eddie??
-You said, “I do understand that all eye-witness testimony isn’t truth, after all, the Gospel records, themselves, record the eye-witness testimony of liars who thought to offer evidence against Jesus, but their testimonies couldn’t be used to agree with one another. They had to have contradicted one another, or their testimonies were about different matters that couldn’t be used to support one another.” Please present ONE resurrected Jesus appearance sighting described by all three Synoptic Gospels. You can’t. The original Gospel of Mark has no appearance stories. The appearances in Matthew all occur in Galilee, except the appearance to the women in the Garden in which they touch his feet. The appearances in Luke all occur in the vicinity of Jerusalem and Bethany, and there is no mention of an appearance to women. Yes, we have numerous dead person sightings, but no dead person sighting with multiple sources attesting to that particular event. That is a problem, my friend. You do NOT have multiple eyewitnesses attesting to the same event! (The Gospel of John was written several decades after the Synoptics. It is therefore possible that the author of this Gospel had access to the appearance stories in Matthew and Luke.)