Satan had failed to defeat Christ. He could not undo what Christ, through His life and death on earth, had accomplished, so he attempted to pervert it. This he purposed to do through these and other false teachers. Since then he has continued to pursue his objective.
5
It can now be seen why John began his Gospel by saying that the Word was God (1:1); that from the beginning the Word had been with God (1:2); that the Word had created all things (1:3); that the Word had become flesh (1:14). It can also be seen why John wrote that the divine Son of God was the One who knew God and had declared Him (1:18). It is hardly surprising that almost one half of John‘s Gospel is taken up with the events of the Passion Week - which culminated of course with the death of Christ at Calvary (John 12:1-19:42).
It is also said that the first two of John‘s little letters (1 and 2 John) were written to combat these false teachings. Certainly there is a striking resemblance between the prologue of John‘s Gospel (John 1:1-18) and these letters. In his letters, John emphasised that Christ had come ―in the flesh‖. The importance John places on this can be seen in these words
―And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.‖ 1 John 4:3
―For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.‖ 2 John 1:7
John is the only Bible writer who uses the word ―antichrist‖. We can see from the above how he makes the application (see also 1 John 2:18 and 4:3). He also wrote (regarding antichrist)
―Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.‖ 1 John 2:22
From the above we can see very clearly the problem that John was addressing. It was the same problem as he was addressing at the opening of his Gospel (see John 1:1, 14)
John also emphasised that as Christians ―we know‖ (see 1 John 2:3, 2:10, 3:2, 3:14, 3:19, 3:24). This was an experiential knowledge This was in contrast to the philosophical knowledge of the Gnostics. This is why John could say
―That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;‖ 1 John 1:1
This is very similar to the opening of his Gospel (John 1:1). Notice that John says ―our hands‖ have ―handled‖ the Word. John was identifying himself with all the others who had actually been with Christ during His time on earth. These had been the eyewitnesses to Christ‘s life, death and resurrection..
More thoughts on John 1:1
―In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.‖ John 1:1
The words of John 1:1 are probably the most debated in Scripture. Volumes have been written attempting to explain them. Most of the discussions concern what John meant by the phrase ―and the Word was God‖. Some have said that John meant to say that Christ was divine or had a divine nature but the fact is if this is what he wanted to say then other Greek words were available to Him. One of these, amongst others, is θεῖορ (theios). The beloved physician Luke wrote (note the difference in the three translations of this same verse)
―Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead [θεῖορ – theios] is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.‖ Acts 17:29 KJV
"Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature [θεῖορ – theios] is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man.‖ Acts 17:29) NASB
―So, since we are children of God, we shouldn't suppose that God's essence [θεῖορ – theios] resembles gold, silver or stone shaped by human technique and imagination.‖ Acts 17:29 The Complete Jewish Bible
In order to translate θεῖορ, both the New American Standard Bible and the Complete Jewish Bible, like other modern translations, do not use the word Godhead. Instead they say ―Divine Nature‖ and ―God‘s essence‖ etc. The word θεῖορ therefore, if John had wanted to use it, was available to him. In fact it is quite possible that John had read what Luke had written. It is also possible he had read the other Gospels, also what Paul and Peter had written. Remember, John‘s Gospel was written around the end of the 1st century. Notice how this same Greek word (θεῖορ) is translated here
―According as his divine [θεῖορ] power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature [θεῖορ], having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.:‖ 2 Peter 1:3-4
As we can see, Peter refers to ―divine nature [θεῖορ]‖. If at John 1:1c John had only meant to say that Christ had a divine nature then this is the way he could have written it. As it was he used theos. This is the same word, although without the definite article, that he used at John 1b. Even if John had written that Christ was divine (or had a divine nature etc.), it would still mean that He is God. Someone cannot have a divine nature and not be God. Pertaining to personal beings we are only aware of three classes of nature. This is divine nature, the
55
nature of angels, and human nature. In His pre-existence, Christ was none of the latter two therefore He could only be divine. In personality though, He was not the Father. He was the Son of God.
Some have maintained that because John said ―the Word was with God (ηὸν Θεόν – ton theon), which can be translated as ‗the Word was with the God‘, that when He wrote, ―the Word was God (Θεὸρ - theos)‖ (without the definite article), he is saying that ―the Word‖ is not actually God. This I believe is a misunderstanding of the thought that the Holy Spirit was leading John to convey. I believe that John was ensuring that his readers would take him to mean that the Word was God but not the same person as the Father. To put it another way: John was delineating between God the Father (whom the Word was with) and the Word (who became flesh) yet saying at the same time they were both God.
Quite recently I came across a study of John 1:1 that I found very interesting. It pointed out that in John‘s writings alone (John, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John and the Revelation), there are a total of 252 usages of theos. The study also noted that 22 of these are without the definite article (John 1:1c, 1:6, 12, 13, 18, 3:2, 21, 6:45, 8:54, 9:16, 33, 13:3, 16:30, 19:7, 20:17(2), 1 John 3:2, 4:12, 2 John 3, 9 and Revelation 21:7) yet all are translated God. Four of the instances (not counting John 1:1) are in the prologue to John‘s Gospel (verses 1:1-18). Never though would we think of any of these as referring to anyone except God Himself: neither would we say any should be understood in a qualitative sense. The conclusion is therefore that the absence of the article does not necessarily mean that it has to be preceded by an indefinite article (in English), neither does it necessitate the word simply being regarded as qualitative. Many other factors, far beyond the scope of this article, need to be taken into consideration.
There is another very important point to consider here. This is that because of the context in which a word is used it can change in meaning. A word does not mean exactly the same every time it is used. This applies to any language. This is certainly the case in English. When determining what an author means by the use of a particular word, context is the all-important factor.
John was the only Gospel writer to use the word ‗theos‘ with respect to Jesus. As we noted above, John‘s Gospel is a divine theology. Concerning the identity of Christ it was amongst the final revelations that God, through the Bible writers, would give to man. In this respect it should be studied with eager anticipation.
