No, John 1:3 Does Not Say Jesus Created the Universe (commentary on John 1:2-3)
To hear a podcast of this post click here.
A Brief Summary of John 1:1
In previous One God Report podcasts we have seen that “In the beginning”
is not a direct reference to the Genesis creation, but refers to the new
beginning in the life and ministry of Jesus. The human Jesus is called the Word
because it is through him that God has now spoken.
“the Word was with God” means that while on the earth the human
Jesus had a unique and special relationship with God.
“and the Word was God” means that God was at work and speaking
through this man Jesus.
Now we move on to verse 2, which already begins a contrast between
Jesus, the Word, and John the Baptist.
Jesus Christ (the Word) and John the Baptist
John 1:2
This one (he, the same) was in the beginning with God.
This one (ou-toj, some translations have he, the same) is the near demonstrative
pronoun, “this” (masculine singular).
There is a direct contrast between the beginning of verse 2 and
verse 7, where John the Baptizer is introduced with the same word:
1:2 This one ou-toj was in the beginning with God...in him was life, and the life was
the light of men.
1:7 This one ou-toj came for a testimony, to bear witness about the light…but he was
not the light.
The same word (“this one” ou-toj) begins verse 2 and verse 7. It is a little harder to see this direct contrast in English translations. Most English translations just start verse 2 and verse 7 with “he”. But note KJV “the same” and Young’s literal “this one”. In the Greek the contrast stands out. “This one” in verse 2 compared to “this one” in vs. 7. The Baptizer in verse 7 is being contrasted with another person already introduced here in verse 2, the Word, the man Jesus.
A main emphasis in the Prologue of the Gospel of John and in the early
chapters of John’s Gospel is the relationship between Jesus and John the Baptizer.
Why would the relationship between the two men be such an important issue?
Because John the Baptizer was a very significant individual at the time. Many
Jews in 1st century Israel believed John to be a prophet sent by God
(John 1:6, Matt. 21:6 “all held John to be a prophet”). We know from the Gospels and also from the 1st
century Jewish historian Josephus Flavius that John the Baptizer had thousands,
probably tens of thousands of followers. Some people thought John the Baptizer
might even be the Messiah.
John’s Gospel specifically introduces the ministry of John the Baptizer
already with three verses beginning the sixth verse in the
Prologue (1:6-8), and then again in verse 15 (and then also 1:19-35 and 3:25-30).
The appearance of John the Baptizer early in the Prologue, again, the sixth
verse of the Gospel, is evidence that “the beginning” of John 1:1, and all of
these verses at the beginning of John’s Gospel, refer not to the Genesis
creation but to the same beginning that the Gospel of Mark describes, “the beginning
of the Gospel of Jesus Christ”.
In other words, John the Baptizer is so quickly and prominently
introduced at the beginning of John’s Gospel because John has a key role
in that beginning. It goes without saying that John the Baptizer was
not involved in the Genesis creation, but in the ministry of Jesus the Christ.
Since the Prologue introduces the ministry of Jesus the Messiah,
and because the witness of John the Baptizer played an important role
introducing the Jesus the Messiah, the Baptizer is quickly and prominently
introduced in the prologue (John 1:6-8, 15).
John the Baptizer really has no business being in verses 6-8 of the
Prologue if John 1:1 is about the Genesis creation.
On the other hand, it is fitting that John the Baptizer is
in John 1:6-8 and 15, if John 1:1 is referring to the new beginning in the life
and ministry of the human being Jesus the Messiah, who is called the Word (of
God).
To put it
another way: In the Prologue, John the Baptizer is not
being distinguished from and not testifying about:
1.
an
eternal, pre-incarnate divine Logos (like 2nd century Gentile Logos
theorists and modern deity of Christ proponents would have us believe).
Rather, John the Baptizer is given a prominent place in the Prologue because the author is making a distinction between the two men who were ministering and making disciples at the same time. Among other reasons, the author draws the contrast in order to establish which of the two men God intended to have priority.
Note also that John the Baptizer is already described as testifying
about who Jesus is (vs. 6-8) before the statement in John 1:14
that “the Word was (became) flesh”.
So now let’s come back and compare again the beginning of verse 2
with verse 7. Already in verse 2 the author begins to show that Jesus has
priority over John the Baptizer. Using
the same Greek word, OUTOS "this one", the author says of the Word,
Jesus in verse 2:
1:2 This one
ou-toj was in the beginning with God...in him was life, and the life was the light of
men.
But then of
John the Baptizer in verse 7 the author says:
1:7 This one ou-toj came for testimony, to bear witness about the light…but he
was not the light.
The clarification of the relationship between John the Baptizer and
Jesus is a constant theme throughout the first part of the Gospel of John.
The contrast the author makes in his Prologue is between two human persons,
John the Baptizer and the Word, Jesus Christ. The contrast is not between the
Baptizer and a pre-incarnate Logos. The contrast is between two human persons.
One called the Word, who is the person Jesus the Messiah (here in vs. 2), and another
person in vs 7, a man sent from God, John the Baptizer.
Look how the contrast between Jesus and John the Baptizer, which starts
in verses 2 and 7, continues in the Gospel of John with the words of John the
Baptizer himself. In testifying about Jesus we hear consistently from the mouth
of the Baptizer the very same pronoun, “this one”.
In the Prologue, chapter 1: 15 “John bore witness of him, and cried out,
saying, "This one (OUTOS ou-toj)
was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has a higher rank
than I…”
That same testimony is repeated again by the Baptizer in chapter
1:30 "This one (OUTOS) is he of whom I said, 'After me comes a
man who has a higher rank than I...'"
The Baptizer was not testifying about a pre-incarnate Logos, but
about a man who had a higher rank than he.
In John 1:33 again, in contrast to himself, the Baptizer says, "This
one (OUTOS) baptizes with holy spirit"
John 1:34 " And I have seen and have borne witness that this one
(OUTOS) is the Son of God.
So in verse 2, the author of John’s Gospel is already distinguishing
between “This one” (OUTOS) who is Jesus, the Word of God, and “this one”,
who is John the Baptizer (1:7). Then four more times in the first chapter of
the Gospel the Baptizer himself distinguishes between himself and “this one”,
referring to Jesus.
The Gospel of John repeatedly emphasizes the Baptizer’s testimony contrasting the Baptizer's own identity with the identity of Jesus the
Messiah. The Baptizer testified in chapter 1:20, “I am not the Messiah” and the
last words of testimony we heard from the Baptizer in this Gospel are, “That
one (that is, Jesus) must increase, but I must decrease” (3:30).
was in the beginning with God.
The second part of vs. 2 repeats and emphasizes what has been
stated in vs. 1. But as we have seen, “this one was in the beginning with
God” highlights the contrast between the Word, Jesus, and the Baptizer who
will soon be mentioned in vs 6. This one (the Word, Jesus) has precedence
over John because in the beginning, at the start of God’s new beginning, Jesus
was with God, that is, he had a close and unique relationship with God.
Note, again, that “God” in verse 2, as in verse 1, is the Father,
not the Trinity, and not abstract “deity”.
John 1:3
all things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be
Most deity of Christ readers see this verse as declaring that somehow Jesus was involved in the creation of the physical universe. I suggest that interpreting this verse to be about the Genesis creation misses what the Gospel of John is all about.
All that happened was
through him, and without him nothing happened.
That is, this verse is talking about events described in the Gospel
- and I’ll suggest later – the most important of those events being resurrection
life and people, coming to be through Jesus. The verse is not describing the creation of
the material universe.
There are several reasons why it is much better to understand this
verse as relating to the events associated with the life of Jesus, rather than seeing some second god figure present at and involved in the Genesis creation.
By the way, a second god-figure involved in creation is an idea which totally
contradicts sacred Old Testament Scripture (see Deut. 13).
First, let’s take a look at the word which is translated “all things”.
In the original Greek, the word “things” does not appear. It’s just the
word “all”, (neuter, plural adjective, pas/panta). But the adjective is
functioning as a noun, meaning all something. The
reader has to decide what the something of the all is. All
what? All the universe? All things? All people? All events? All powers? There
are many options. We use the word all in English sometimes in a similar
fashion. “Now I’ve seen it all” doesn’t mean I’ve seen every tree, animal and
galaxy.
In English we sort of use the word “everything” similarly to how “all”
is used in Greek. To say “He lost everything” doesn’t mean a person used to
have every galaxy in the universe.
.
We need context to interpret the word “all”. The same word “all” is
used three more times in the Prologue, in each case it refers to all
people:
1:7 “This one came for testimony, to bear witness to the light, that
all (masc. plural) might believe through him”
1:9 “The true light that gives light to all human beings”
(in this case the noun “men, human beings” is supplied).
1:16 “from his fullness we have all received”
The main use of all in the Gospel of John is “all”
kinds of people, sometimes those who believe, sometimes those who don’t believe.
Sometimes those who hear, sometimes those who see. Sometimes “all” in John
means all authority or power (13:3, the Father had given all into his
hands), or truths (14:26, 15:15). But here is the point:
of the 65 (or so) occurrences of the word “all” in the Gospel of John (sometimes
with a noun supplied), I don’t see one other occurrence where it means all the
physical, created universe.
Let me say that again? Of the 65 (or so) occurrences of this word “all”
in the Gospel of John, I don’t see one other occurrence where it means all
the physical, created universe.
The famous John 3:16 is a good example of the use of all meaning people.
“that all who believe in him, should not perish”;
John 3:26, “all are coming to him”
John 3:35, the Father loves the Son, and has given all (things,
people, powers) into his hand.”
John 5:20, the Father shows him all things that He does…
John 6:37, all that the Father gives me will come to me;
Note this verse
as an example where “all” means the events associated with life of Jesus: John
19:28 “After this Jesus, knowing that all was now finished, said (to
fulfil the scripture), ‘I thirst.’"
So, rather than take the “all things” of John 1:3 to be a reference
to everything in the created universe, a way in which the word is never used
anywhere else in the Gospel of John or for that matter rarely if ever in all of
the New Testament, the word all is better understood in John 1:3 as all the
events that the Gospel of John is about to describe.
Later we will suggest that the chief event that is included in the all
things that happened in John’s Gospel is the resurrection of Jesus
Christ from the dead. That is, “life” came through Jesus, to himself and then
as a guarantee for others. All people,
that is, all resurrection human life is through Jesus.
Interpreting the “all” as the events that the Gospel is about to
describe also aligns with the contrast that the prologue makes between Jesus
and John the Baptizer. It is through Jesus, the Word, not through John the
Baptizer, that all events that the Gospel of John is about to describe,
including resurrection life, the new beginning, came to be.
all “were made” or “all happened”?
Another word that needs to be in examined in John 1:3 is the Greek word
(egeneto, from ginomai) that is often translated in John 1:3 “was
made”, in the sense of “was created”.
For instance, the ESV, RSV have, “All things were made
through him, and without him was not any thing made …”
And the NAS: “All things came into being by Him, and
apart from Him nothing came into being…”
The NET Bible even has: “All things were created by
him, and apart from him not one thing was created that has been
created.
These are very theologically biased translations that have caused many
readers to think that the Genesis creation is what is being discussed.
But the Greek word in question (egeneto,
from ginomai) has a wide range of meanings, most of which have little or absolutely
nothing to do with “create”. In fact, the Greek word in its various forms
occurs almost seven hundred times in the New Testament but nowhere else does it
mean to “create” out of nothing. The
word occurs over 50 times in the Gospel of John and it does not mean “to create
out of nothing”. It means simply “was, happened, came to pass, occurred, was
done, came on the scene”. In English this word is more or less the equivalent
to "to become", or what we call the “to be” verb. The “forms of be” are: “am, are, is, was,
were”.
This “to become, to be” Greek word does not connote anything about ontological
change, either “out of nothing” ex nihilo, or a of material transformation
from one substance to another. The word refers to something that happened or
became historical fact. Something that “was”.
This same word (egeneto) that Trinitarian translators have translated
as “was made” as if to mean “was created” in John 1:3, and in John 1:10 (“and
the world was made through him” (cf. John 1:14 where they translate it
differently “the Word became flesh”) – this same word also occurs,
for instance, in John 1:6:
“There was (egeneto) a man sent from God, whose name
was John.”
Translations don’t say “there was made a man, sent
from God”? No, egeneto simply means that John the Baptizer “came on the
scene”, “there was a man”.
The word also occurs in John 1:17:
“For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came
(egeneto) through Jesus Christ.”
No one translates this as, “grace and truth were made
through Jesus Christ”
John 1:28 “This happened (egeneto) in
Bethany beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing.”
“This was made in Bethany beyond the Jordan?” No,
this “happened” or simply “was” in Bethany beyond the Jordan.
Again, the word does not mean to create or make ex nihilo, “out
of nothing”.
In the same way that John 1:6 says that there was a
man sent from God, and that John 1:17 tells us that grace and truth came/were
through Jesus Christ, so John 1:3 tells us that “all things that the Gospel is
about to describe came about, or happened or were
through him”.
So, a lot depends on how one chooses to translate these words. A
curious person who believes in the deity of Christ should ask why the same word
is translated so differently in the same chapter. Is there a translation bias that
injects a theological presupposition into the text in places like John 1:3?
Gone are the days when a person has to take a priest’s or pastor’s
word for it. Maybe even 50 years ago a priest or pastor could show his
parishioners a translation of John 1:3 and declare, “See, Jesus made everything!
John 1:3 says Jesus created the universe!”.
Folks, those days are passing away. Bible computer programs are available
to everyone now. We need to be like the Bereans and “examine the Scriptures to
see if these things are so” (Acts 17:11).
It is important to keep in mind that in the original Greek texts of
the New Testament the words for “create” or “make” are not in
John’s prologue. Let me say that again. The Genesis words for “create” and
“make” are not in John 1.
However, the word that we are talking about (egeneto, from ginomai),
the “to be” verb which in past tense means simply “was, or happened” is
in the Greek translation of the Genesis creation account. This is not the word in
Genesis for “create” or “make”, but simply “and it was”. I believe the author
of the Gospel of John used this word, as he used other vocabulary in his Gospel
that parallels Genesis language (“in the beginning, light, darkness), not
because John is describing the Genesis creation, but because the same God who created
in Genesis 1 is beginning the New Creation in and through
the one called the Word in John 1:1, Jesus the Messiah. In and through Jesus
the Messiah we have life, the down-payment, the guarantee of the promised
regeneration life of the age to come. All comes through the resurrected-from-the-dead
Jesus, the firstborn of the God’s New Creation.
But again, the absence of the active “creation” words in John’s
prologue is evidence that the Gospel of John is not commenting directly on
the Genesis creation. The author did not refer to the creation of the sea and
dry land, the sun and moon, rocks, plants, birds or animals. The author of the
Gospel of John mentions nothing of such things because that is not his topic.
His topic is the new beginning in the life and ministry of Jesus the Messiah.
So, instead of theologically biased English translations like “All
things were made through him, or all things were created
through him”, which make a reader think the Genesis creation is being discussed,
read John 1:3 as “All things happened through him”, or
simply “all things were through him”. This would mean that
all things that John is about to describe in his Gospel occurred through
the Word, Jesus the Messiah.
Be honest. Does it not make sense that John’s introduction (John
1:1-18) would be introducing the rest of his gospel and not Genesis creation?
One other comment before we move on to the rest of verse 3. The
deity of Christ interpretation of John 1:3 fails for another reason. Deity of
Christ interpreters read verses like John 1:3, and Colossians 1:16, and Hebrews
1:2, and think they see Jesus as the active creator. But in each case, they are
ignoring a very important word. They ignore the word “through”.
As in the New Creation that Colossians 1:16 and Hebrews 1:2 describe as being “through”
Jesus Christ, so here in John 1:3, all things came about or happened “through”
the Word, Jesus Christ.
Not only is Jesus Christ not creating in John 1:3,
but Jesus Christ is not the main source for the things that happened
in his ministry (John 5:30). Yes, things came about through Jesus,
and God granted to Jesus the authority to give life to others (John 5:26). But
the main source for what happened is outside of Jesus Christ. The main source for
what happened is God, who is also called the Father in this Gospel. The Father,
God, brought about these things that happened through His Word,
Jesus Christ.
When the New Testament describes God bringing about anything
through Jesus Christ, it is the resurrection life of New Creation that is
involved. The Bible draws the parallel between Adam and Jesus. Jesus is the
second Adam, not the second God. As through the first Adam came life, also
through the second Adam, Jesus, the firstborn from the dead, comes life in the
age to come.
Why do typical “deity of Christ” interpreters ignore or fail to see
the New Creation that God is bringing about, described in passages like John 1,
Colossians 1 and Hebrews 1? They’ve been distracted and blinded by pagan and
Greek philosophy that claimed some kind of secondary lesser god, the Logos, was
involved in the creation of the material world. But this kind of thinking is
nowhere in the Bible and in fact directly contradicts the Bible. The Bible
declares that the One God created all, and that the One God, the Father, brings
about the New Creation through the man, the Lord Jesus the
Messiah (1 Cor. 8:6, Romans 5:12-17, Col. 1:15-18, Heb. 1:1-3).
An unbelieved truth can hurt a person just as much as a lie. To not
see Jesus Christ as the beginning and origin of God’s new creation prevents a
person from understanding the hope to which a true Christian has been called.
Resurrection life in the age to come.
“that which came to be through him was life”
There is another grammatical or punctuation and translation question
at the end of John 1:3. The phrase “that which came to be” is sort of dangling
at the end of verse 3 in the Greek text, and it is difficult to know if it should
go with what precedes it, or with what comes after it.
There was no punctuation in the oldest Greek texts, and the verse
divisions were added much later in history (in the 16th century).
Most English translations join this “to be” verb at the end of
verse 3 with what comes before it: “and without him nothing came to be that
came to be” (they with bias use the words “was made” or “was created”).
This seems somewhat redundant. Rather, it seems better to take “came
to be” verb with what follows in the beginning of verse 4. Then it would mean:
“That which came to be in him was life”.
Some Greek manuscripts are punctuated this way and Greek grammarians acknowledge the possibility. See for instance Bruce Metzger’s A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (p. 167) and the note in the RSV translation.
“that which came to be in him was life…” Wow. This means that we have here a clarification or emphasis of what the author meant in the first part of verse 3, “all things were through him and without him was nothing. That which came to be in him was life”. That is, the most significant thing of the “all” that came through him was human life.
Another Parallel to Genesis?
“that which came to be in him was life”
The Gospel of John, including the prologue, contains many parallels,
or to use the theological term, typology from the Old Testament; especially
from the Book of Genesis (e.g., creation, Abraham and Isaac) and the Book of
Exodus (e.g., Moses, tabernacle).
The word “life” in Greek is Zoe, zwh. , which is also the name for Eve (who was the mother of all living) in LXX in Genesis
3:20 (the name given to her by Adam). “Life/Eve” coming from Adam may be
another Genesis parallel or antitype. That is, the Jesus of John’s Gospel is parallel
or an antitype to Adam (“the Word was flesh” is John’s way of saying Jesus is a
human being, a second Adam). Just like all human life (Zoe, Eve) in the present
age has come through Adam, even so all human life in the next age comes through
Jesus Christ. Eve/Life) came
to be through Adam, and through Jesus. Cf. 1 John 4:9 “…God has sent
His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through him.”
Review:
First:
Already in John 1:2, “This one was in the beginning with
God” begins the contrast between Jesus, the Word, and John the Baptist. The
author of the Gospel of John early and often contrasts or compares John the Baptizer
with Jesus and the titles used for Jesus (Word, light). This is evidence that Baptizer
is being contrasted with the human person Jesus, not a pre-incarnate god-figure
or abstract Logos. “This one”, Jesus, the Word was the light. But “this
one” John the Baptizer was not the light. “This one”, said the Baptizer,
“is whom I spoke about. He is greater than I”. “This one baptizes with
the holy spirit”. “This one is the
Son of God”.
Secondly:
John 1:3 is not saying that Jesus was involved in the creation of
all the material universe. “All things” never means the entire universe in the
Gospel of John. Neither are the words “create” or “make” in this
verse or anywhere else in John’s prologue. Rather, John 1:3 is introducing all
the things that came about, everything that happened through the life and
ministry of Jesus. And the main “everything” is the resurrection life of the
Messiah Jesus of Nazareth, and the promise of life in the next age his
resurrection holds for all.
Comments