Session 2: June 11, 2022
Scripture Reading: John 1:1-5
It’s only session 2 and we already fell behind! I intended to cover John’s prologue in the first session, but I planned too much material and didn’t get to it. (Apologies!) The questions I posed in the first blog post will still be our guide to discussing the text. So, if you haven’t read that post, you might do so. I will try to post some additional notes on this second blog post. There’s a small catch though: I have limited time every night. I will have to update this blog post several times throughout the week. Hopefully by Saturday there is a complete set of notes.
Chiastic Structure in John 1:1-2
I don’t know about you, but other than some vague recollection about Shakespeare’s iambic pentameter, I do not remember a lot of literary structures. Well, we need to refresh our memories just a bit.
A chiasm is a figure of speech in which the grammar of one phrase is inverted in the following phrase, such that two key concepts from the original phrase reappear in the second phrase in inverted order. Here’s an example:
She is the most beautiful woman, my eyes cannot stop staring. My sight won’t leave her, she is such a gorgeous girl.
Notice (other than my awful poetry):
A She is the most beautiful woman,
B my eyes cannot stop staring.
B’ My sight won’t leave her,
A’ she is such a gorgeous girl.
Now, notice that John 1:1-2 has a chiastic structure as well:
A In the beginning
B was
C the word
D and the word
E was
F with God
F’ and God
E’ was
D’ the word (this seems out of order, but think in Greek)
C’ This one
B’ was
A’ in the beginning with God.
The chiastic structure is not exact, but neither were the parallelisms of the Psalms and other Semitic poetry.
What does a chiastic structure suggest? Scholars will sometimes consider whether John adapted a song or poem that was popular at the time (“borrowing” in the ancient world was not frowned upon like today). Regardless of whether that is the case, I think what is more important is how deliberate the first two verses are. The literary structure gives them beauty and depth, while making them easy to remember. These verses are masterful in content and structure and should be taken seriously (and probably memorized).
In the Beginning
Genesis 1:1. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
John 1:1-3. In the beginning was the Word . . . . All things were created by Him . . . .
The allusion to Genesis 1:1 is unmistakable, particularly since John 1:3 goes on to talk about creation.
John’s point is groundbreaking: remember all that creation talk in the Torah? Well, none of that happened without Jesus. Moreover, in the beginning God is there. He does not come into existence, he is not born, he is not made, He Is.
Exodus 3:11-14. Moses said to God, “Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh, or that I should bring the Israelites out of Egypt?” He replied, “Surely I will be with you, and this will be the sign to you that I have sent you: When you bring the people out of Egypt, you and they will serve God at this mountain.” Moses said to God, “If I go to the Israelites and tell them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’—what should I say to them?” God said to Moses, “I AM that I AM.” And he said, “You must say this to the Israelites, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’”
There are some astounding conclusions: God exists “asei.” Indeed, God is necessary.
Asseity (from gotquestions.org): The aseity of God is His attribute of independent self-existence. God is the uncaused Cause, the uncreated Creator. He is the source of all things, the One who originated everything and who sustains everything that exists. The aseity of God means that He is the One in whom all other things find their source, existence, and continuance.
Necessity (from reasonablefaith.org): When we say that God is metaphysically necessary, we mean that it is impossible that He fail to exist.
These attributes of God are also evident from natural theology.
Consider Leibniz’ question: Why is there something rather than nothing?
This is a good introductory video to the contingency argument (which the video calls a cosmological argument). Not only can you go into much further depth into the argument, but some versions of it do not rely on the principle of sufficient reason or at least use a more modest version.
Also consider modern cosmology: The universe seems to have a beginning.
The following argument can be made:
(1) Anything that begins to exist has a cause.
(2) The universe began to exist.
(3) The universe has a cause.
Wisdom (Sofia), Torah (Nomos), or even Better—the Word (Logos)
Why did John use the word Logos? Sometimes considering the alternatives can be enlightening.
John could have used the word Wisdom (Sofia). Nearly everything John says about the Logos, Jewish literature said about divine Wisdom. John and his readers would have shared a common understanding of this background. Using Wisdom, however, may have caused some issues.
(1) Sofia is feminine. Although the gender of a word is nothing more than an accident, switching from feminine wisdom to an incarnate male could be awkward.
(2) The fact that Wisdom was already being personified, both in the Old Testament and contemporary Jewish writings, provided a common understanding—but what if that understanding is not completely correct when applied to Jesus. Consider Proverbs 8.
Proverbs 8:1-7
Does not wisdom call out?
Does not understanding raise her voice?
At the top of the prominent places along the way,
at the intersection of the paths she has taken her stand;
beside the gates opening into the city,
at the entrance of the doorways she cries out:
“To you, O people, I call out,
and my voice calls to all mankind.
You who are naive, discern wisdom!
And you fools, understand discernment!
Listen, for I will speak excellent things,
and my lips will utter what is right.
For my mouth speaks truth,
and my lips hate wickedness.
Sounds pretty good, right? But then comes verse 22:
The Lord created me as the beginning of his works,
before his deeds of long ago.
By the way, I believe the entire Bible is good. I am not saying that verse 22 is bad—it just doesn’t apply to Jesus. Calling Jesus the Sofia could have caused confusion.
John could have used the word Law (Nomos). Nomos was the Greek word used by Hellenistic Jews to refer to the Torah. Torah, like Wisdom, was commonly personified. Torah was spoken of as being involved in creation, as either being the first creation or eternal, and as being associated with life, light, and truth. So why not use Nomos:
(1) Nomos may not be the best translation of Torah into Greek. Many scholars agree that the word limited the understanding of Torah only to law and not to the greater concept of revelation.
(2) The personification of wisdom was more common than of Torah. By choosing neither Sofia nor Nomos, John’s audience could pull from the personification of both.
(3) Logos refers not only to the Torah, but to the Word that the Torah talks about. An example would be Isaiah 40:8. “The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God endures forever.” (NIV)
Truly, using the word Logos is brilliant. Consider how much the Pharisees cared for the Torah:
As Craig Keener points out: The relatively popular Pharisees and their successors were particularly known for their study of the Law. Tannaim emphasized lifelong study of Torah. A Torah scroll could be said to be "beyond price." Some declared study of Torah the Bible's point in saying "serve the Lord with all one's heart and soul"; other Tannaitic texts attribute the exile to neglect of Torah, or declare it better never to have been born than to be unable to recite words of Torah, or declare one who does not study worthy of death; or declare that Torah study is a greater role than priesthood or kingship.
By using Logos, John makes Christ greater than Moses, greater than Torah, greater than all—Jesus is the supreme revelation. Hence those who claimed to love Torah but hated Jesus were blind or hypocrites. That is a recurring theme of John’s gospel.
The Word as Life and Light
John 1:4-5. In him was life, and the life was the light of mankind. And the light shines on in the darkness, but the darkness has not mastered it.
Life
Translators’ Note 8 in the NET Bible explains in part: John uses ζωή (zōē) 36 times: 17 times it occurs with αἰώνιος (aiōnios), and in the remaining occurrences outside the prologue it is clear from context that “eternal” life is meant. The two uses in 1:4, if they do not refer to “eternal” life, would be the only exceptions. (Also 1 John uses ζωή 13 times, always of “eternal” life.)
Light
A figurative use of light is frequent in the Old Testament (e.g., Ps 119:105), and it was common in Jewish sources. However, it was the Dead Sea Scrolls that finally convinced scholars that John’s use of light and darkness was not gnostic in origin.
Craig Keener points out: [Verse 5] introduces the light/darkness dualism of the rest of the Gospel. Both light (1:4, 5, 7, 8, 9; 3:19, 20, 21; 5:35; 8:12; 9:5; 11:9, 10; 12:35, 36, 46) and day (9:4), darkness (1:5; 3:19; 8:12; 12:35, 46) and night (9:4; 11:10) appear regularly throughout the Gospel, sometimes even with symbolic significance in the narratives (e.g., 3:2; 13:30; 19:39; perhaps 6:19).
Darkness
Did the darkness not overcome or not comprehend light? The Greek word katelaben in verse 5 could be translated either way.
Consider Cyril of Alexandria: Darkness he calls the nature that lacks illumination, i. e. the whole originate nature. . . . For this, I suppose, is the meaning of The darkness comprehended it not. For the Word of God shineth upon all things that are receptive of His Irradiance, and illumineth without exception things that have a nature receptive of illumining. But He is unknown of the darkness. For that which is the rational nature upon earth, I mean man, served the creature more than the Creator: it comprehended not the Light, for it knew not the Creator, the Fountain of wisdom, the beginning of understanding, the root of sense. (https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/cyril_on_john_01_book1.htm)
But also consider Origen and other Greek church fathers who understood katelaben as overtake.
My personal view is that this is an intentional and profound double entendre. Imagine I liked a girl and her best friend told me, “Forget it. She doesn’t like you, in any sense of the word.” In that sentence, the word “like” means she does not like me romantically or as a friend, at the same time. In the same sense, katelaben can mean the darkness neither understood nor overcame the light, at the same time.
God is Fully Revealed
In the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Chapter Two, Article I, Subsection III:
III. Christ Jesus—“Mediator and Fullness of All Revelation”
God has said everything in his Word
“In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son.” (Heb 1:1-2) Christ, the Son of God made man, is the Father's one, perfect, and unsurpassable Word. In him he has said everything; there will be no other word than this one. St. John of the Cross, among others, commented strikingly on Hebrews 1:1-2:
In giving us his Son, his only Word (for he possesses no other), he spoke everything to us at once in this sole Word—and he has no more to say... because what he spoke before to the prophets in parts, he has now spoken all at once by giving us the All Who is His Son. Any person questioning God or desiring some vision or revelation would be guilty not only of foolish behavior but also of offending him, by not fixing his eyes upon Christ and by living with the desire for some other novelty.
There will be no further Revelation
Session Recording