If all that is important is to show the Word is eternal, then we’ve missed the point of the first few verses of the fourth Gospel narrative. If all that is important is that the One who became Jesus is eternal, what is there in the text that would show he is anything more than an ambassador from the Father? Doesn’t an ambassador have authority in that he represents or images the real authority? Later in this narrative, Jesus would say of men ye are gods (John 10:34) in reference to men who are in authority over other men (Psalm 82:6; cp. Psalm 82:1-4, 7). Therefore, if in the beginning refers to the beginning of time (making the Word eternal by saying he preexisted the beginning of time), then there is nothing in John 1:1 that would prove the Word is anything more than an uncreated ambassador in John 1:14 sent by and with the authority of **the** God (the Father)!
As I mentioned in a previous study, the Greek word beginning (G746; arche) doesn’t always refer to time. Other definitions include principality (Ephesians 1:21), magistrate (Luke 12:11) power (Luke 20:20) rule (1Corinthians 15:24). It can also mean first, or began (Hebrews 2:3) and corners (Acts 10:11; meaning where the sheet began). The Greek word is often used to refer to the start of something (John 8:44). The idea that in the beginning (John 1:1) refers to the beginning of time is a meaning Bible interpreters attach to the word. The word, itself, doesn’t convey that meaning. In other words, In the beginning… (John 1:1, 2) refers to the beginning of time, only because that is what we say it means. If all one wanted to do was say the Word preexisted time, a better way to say that would be as Paul wrote in Hebrews 1:2, where he claimed God (the Father) created the ages, or time, through his Son (the Word). There, the Son is both before and beyond time, and if that is the most important thing, Paul says it clearer than the Gospel writer.
In John 1:1 the Gospel narrator claimed the Word was with God, but in John 1:2 the text says: “he (the Word) was in the beginning with God. This is not the same thing; it is not a repetition of the second clause in verse-1. No matter how we wish to interpret the beginning (G746 – arche), both the Word and the God, or the Father, were there, and both were fully present there. Neither the God nor the Word was more present in the beginning than the other. Both were with one another in the beginning. Therefore, if time, itself, was created by God through his Son (the Word), then neither God nor his Son were **in** time. If neither were **in** time, and, if the beginning refers to time, neither the Father nor the Son could be **in** the beginning. So, in what manner can we say both the Father and the Son (God and the Word) were **in** the beginning (G746 – arche)?
If we allow the beginning to refer to power or authority (legitimate definitions that refer to the taking of responsibility) instead of time, then we have both the Father and the Son (God and the Word) taking equal responsibility for all succeeding occurrences that take place in what they do. When someone never admits culpability, we say he is irresponsible. Here in John 1:1-2 we have both the Word and the God taking responsibility for everything they do. It is what the Lord did in his covenant with Abraham (Genesis 15:9-18), when he walked through the animal sacrifices alone. He took sole responsibility for the covenant he made with Abraham. Neither Abraham nor any of his descendants could invalidate that covenant. God and God alone was responsible, because he made himself solely responsible.
Therefore, by saying the Word “was in the beginning with the God” the text is saying that the Word was God (John 1:1; cp. Psalm 82:6). That is to say, the Word was equally responsible for the activity that was about to take place, which both he and the God/the Father did. It refers to a covenant, and a covenant is a creation, as understood in Hebrews 9:11. So, whether we speak of the Old Covenant or the New Covenant, we are speaking of creations made by the God and the Word, and both have taken equal responsibility for both covenants. This is why the Word had to become man (John 1:14). He had to die, if mankind were to live (according to the Old Covenant). Mankind couldn’t hold up their part in the Old Covenant agreement. Therefore, if God took sole responsibility for the covenant, he had to die for mankind’s sin/rebellion. The same would be true of Genesis 1:1, but there the text speaks of the physical creation. Nevertheless, In the beginning… (Genesis 1:1) refers to God’s covenant with his creation, not with the beginning of time. Nevertheless, time was a part of that creation, as understood in Hebrews 1:2.
Smoodock's Blog 