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…”
Greetings Gary. It’s game day! Do you follow the NFL? Any favorites?
Okay, but to be fair, I’m not a Christian who believes in evil spirits (devil, demons etc.), so I pretty much believe the only sentient spirit is God and any angel he created. While I’m open to change what I believe about such things, I am not personally aware of anything spiritual beyond God that cannot be explained in physical terminology.
We are better off with anything that cannot be placed into the Garden of Eden, and that includes much of organized Christianity. However, God permits it all to exist as is, so I have no real complaint about any of it.
I said:
You said,
My source is Hebrews 1:3. Speaking of Jesus the author says the glorified Jesus “upholds all things by the word of his power…” Also Colossians 1:17, which says… “he (i.e. Jesus) is before all things, and in him all things hold together.” I realize this isn’t ‘evidence’ from where you sit, but, since I’ve never found anyone who was able to refute what the Bible claims, I consider it evidence.
Mankind has presumed many gods, but the Jews and Christians have one, and it isn’t possible that he is dead, if the scriptures about him are true, and I have found no one who has been able to give a logical alternative to what they claim.
I’m not certain that you could make good on your claim to it being a ‘logical fallacy.’ According to my own understanding, it is not only ‘possible’ it is the truth, and anything less than that disproves my faith.
I said:
You said:
You assume I believe in the Trinity; I do not. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Christ. Long-story-short. We were created in Eden with a living spirit which was made a part of us that enabled perception of the Lord’s presence and gave us the ability to knowingly and understandably communicate with him. When Adam rebelled (not sinned—there is a difference) the spirit died. What Jesus did on the Day of Pentecost was replace that spirit with part of himself. Peter calls it being a partaker of divine nature (2Peter 1:4).
I said:
You said:
You missed my point altogether. Did I say anything about denominations of Christianity? What did I say? Didn’t I quote Jesus saying that his doctrine (the idea in the s/m example) wasn’t his own, it was his Father’s. Anyone could prove whether or not Jesus told the truth about his doctrine being his Father’s if they **applied** the doctrine (the laboratory in the s/m example). If they **applied** the doctrine but nothing happened to convince them that the doctrine was divine, then Jesus lied or was delusional (going back to square 1 or 2 in the s/m example).
I’m not going to try to support organized Christianity, Gary. They will stand or fall on their own or they’ll stand or fall by the judgment of the Lord. We began this debate with the understanding that I was a Christian, not a Lutheran, Presbyterian, Catholic or whatever. I’m a simple Christian, who is simple enough to believe the word of God, as recorded in our Bibles.
I said:
You said:
I beg to differ, my friend. Not all eye-witness testimony testifies in the first person, especially when they are testifying of several people or several groups of people. There is plentiful use of the third person in their testimony before the courts (“we” did this or “they” did that etc.). Much of the record about Jesus personally is given in the first person, as though the author was quoting him. Moreover, the Gospel narratives and Acts were written by men, whom the people in the first century knew. For example John 21:24 the author tells his readers that “This is the disciple who is bearing witness about these things, and who has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true.” It makes no difference if critics today say they don’t know the authors of the Gospel narratives. The first century folks, to whom the Gospel narratives, Acts and the epistles were written—THEY knew. The witness was for them, and for us, if we choose to believe what has been handed down. However, what we have is valid eye-witness testimony offered to folks 2000 years ago. We believe what was said back then to a group of people back then, or we don’t. It really can’t get any simpler than that!
Concerning Mormonism, nothing was said or done before both believers and non-believers. No one who isn’t a Mormon could legitimately object to what they claim, because no one witnessed it with them to enable a contradiction. The Pharisees knew what Jesus said and did, as did the Sadducees, Zealots and others who opposed him. Yet, they couldn’t find fault with what was said about the works of Jesus or about what he said. Nothing like this exists in Mormonism. Let them believe what they want, but beyond hearsay, there is nothing there.
I said:
You said:
I’ve heard this before. All you do here is present what you’ve been told by others or read in a book someone else has written. On its face, the argument doesn’t hold water. Witnesses in a court of law do not have to witness the same event to collaborate each others’ testimony. One person could have witnessed a murder, while another could say the murder told him what he had done. Other supporting evidence could be presented by other witnesses, such as the murder weapon with the fingerprints of the accused on it, there might be clothes with bloodstains on them etc. Witnesses offer evidence that may differ in content but collaborate what was said by the others. Moreover, if Mary Magdalene says she saw the Savior at the site of the tomb, but two men tell the apostles they walked and talked with Jesus on the way to Emmaus, how could their testimonies be useless? The two couldn’t have seen Jesus, if he didn’t arise from the dead. The same would be true of his appearance to Mary Magdalene and the other women. Moreover, how could the apostles object to their testimonies, if Jesus also appeared to them? It makes no difference that everyone doesn’t speak of the same event. The fact remains that Jesus was seen by a great many people, people who were not looking for him to arise from the dead. In fact, Mary Magdalene and the two walking to Emmaus didn’t recognize Jesus in the beginning, because they simply weren’t looking for something to change their worldview.
Concerning Mark, you are quoting what someone else said about Mark, but he or she left out the fact there is a large empty space at the end of the scroll that could fit the rest of Mark in. Moreover, the fact that there are other “Marks” with the additional information doesn’t demand that the additions at the end weren’t in the original. There is evidence in 2nd and 3rd century writings that parts of the New Covenant text were being deleted by enemies for their own gain, and that comparing their newer documents with the older ones proved the accusations were true. The funny thing about these things that we read today is, we believe what we want to believe—whatever supports our worldview.
Have a good day! :-)
Do you perceive the presence of the resurrected Jesus within you, Eddie?
I have the Spirit of the living Christ within me. I am aware of the Presence of God in the same manner that I am aware that I can speak, hear, taste smell and feel. It is not so much that feel or sense something extra, as it is that a blind man who could suddenly “see” is aware of things he had never known before.
So you do not hear the “still, small voice” of God? You do not feel a presence within you? The only reason you know that Jesus Christ “dwells” within you is that you now posses secret knowledge that no non-Christian could know? Such as what?
You’re asking me to describe something that you don’t believe exists. While I may be able to describe it feebly in physical terms, I could never do justice to such a thing. So, what end would that serve? I already offered you a way you could know, but you don’t believe anything would happen, if you would experiment with the idea that Jesus spoke the truth. You want something explained to you in the same manner that you attain all the knowledge you have gotten and believe. You require me to explain what has occurred in my life in physical terms, which could enter one or more of your five gates. Such a thing, can’t happen without one permitting the possibility of truth, and acting accordingly, vis-à-vis the ‘scientific method’ – which you claim is the supreme method of obtaining truth.
While ‘hearing’ the still small voice is necessary for one to be in the Kingdom of God, the term ‘hearing’ falls short of describing that event. At the same time ‘feeling’ the Presence of the Lord within me is also a reality, but the term ‘feeling’ falls far short of describing what has occurred. No one understood Jesus, when he spoke of the Kingdom of God, while he was in the flesh—no one, not even his disciples. Folks simply believed he was the Messiah and would reign in Jerusalem as King and would destroy the Jews’ enemies. Everyone put his words in physical terms, because they had no context of the spiritual. Some rejected him outright, but others believed he was the Messiah who was to come. Nevertheless, no one, not even believers, understood what all that meant. At Pentecost the believing community was given the Spirit of Christ, and they were able to ‘see, hear, taste, touch and smell’ what was before that time impossible for a physical being witness. Put in physical terms (however feebly), one simply doesn’t ‘see’ the spirit physically. You can’t take a picture of it. One doesn’t ‘hear’ the spirit physically. You can’t record what it says on a machine. One doesn’t physically ‘smell’ the spirit because odor is a property of the physical realm, and the spirit isn’t a part of that realm. …and so on with the other physical senses.
What you believe is true is entirely up to you. However, you cannot objectively prove my subjective experience isn’t real, unless you subject yourself to the experiment I describe earlier. You simply can’t go to the library or to your favorite teacher and find a good argument that would categorically disprove what I’m telling you. Belief is a one on one thing, so proving it one way or another has to be a one on one thing.