John 1:1

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dan_Parker
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dan_Parker said:
From what I have been reading in the literature, Justin was seeing the implement of Christ’s death in all sorts of OT events. In many cases these were highly allegorical and forced or relied on double meaning of certain words. Evidently this sort of analysis was quite popular then.
Click to expand...
Not just in OT events but, as we have seen, in objects readily known to those he was addressing.
The illustration of the nose would fit the sedila or seat which is mentioned in the New Shaff encyclopedia. That is because it would protrude out the front of the stake to form a seat and not at each side where arms could be affixed in the shape of a cross.
Click to expand...
Of course the nose would fit the sedile, but a man’s body also has two arms which quite normally stretch outward. And, as we know (well, you may not) from the testimony of others along with St. Justin, that is precisely how the Lord was crucified. Archaeology is no less kind to your position than is Justin or the other Fathers:
“The first century catacomb uncovered by archaeologist P. Bagatti on the Mount of Olives contains inscriptions clearly indicating its use, ‘by the very first Christians in Jerusalem.’ A ‘head stone’, found near the entrance to the first century catacomb, is inscribed with the sign of the cross… Both archaeologists found evidence clearly dating the two catacombs to the first century AD, with the later finding coins minted by Governor Varius Gratus at the turn of the millenium (up to 15/16 AD). Evidence in both catacombs indicated their use for burial until the middle part of the first century AD, several years before the New Testament was written.”
Click to expand...
leaderu.com/theology/burialcave.html

See also: bible.ca/d-history-archeology-crucifixion-cross.htm

And other Fathers understood perfectly what St. Justin was describing, even using some of his same language to describe its true form:

St. Ireaneus:
“The very form of the cross, too, has five extremities, two in length, two in breadth, and one in the middle, on which [last] the person rests who is fixed by the nails.”
Click to expand...
“And since He is the Word of God Almighty, who invisibly pervades the whole creation, and encompasses its length, breadth, height, and depth - for by the Word of God everything is administered - so too was the Son of God crucified in these fourfold dimensions…that He might demonstrate, by His visible form on the cross, His activity which is on the invisible level, for it is He who illumines the ‘heights’, that is, the things in heaven, and holds the ‘deeps’, which is beneath the earth, and stretches the ‘length’ from the East to the West, and who navigates the ‘breadth’ of the northern and southern regions, inviting the dispersed from all sides to the knowledge of the Father.”
Click to expand...
“And again, concerning His cross, Isaiah says, ‘I stretched out my hands all the day to a disbelieving and contrary people,’ for this is a sign of the cross.”
Click to expand...
Octavius of Minucius Felix (210 C.E.):
“Crosses, moreover, we neither worship nor wish for. You, indeed, who consecrate gods of wood, adore wooden crosses perhaps as parts of your gods. For your very standards, as well as your banners; and flags of your camp, what else are they but crosses glided and adorned? Your victorious trophies not only imitate the appearance of a simple cross, but also that of a man affixed to it. We assuredly see the sign of a cross, naturally, in the ship when it is carried along with swelling sails, when it glides forward with expanded oars; and when the military yoke is lifted up, it is the sign of a cross; and when a man adores God with a pure mind, with hands outstretched. Thus the sign of the cross either is sustained by a natural reason, or your own religion is formed with respect to it.” (Octavius, Chapter 29)
Click to expand...
Tertullian (died 230 C.E.):
“…it might be no slight solace to us in all our punishments, suffering as we do because of these same gods, that in their making they suffer as we do themselves. You put Christians on crosses and stakes: what image is not formed from the clay in the first instance, set on cross and stake? The body of your god is first consecrated on the gibbet.” (Apology, Chapter 12)
Click to expand...
“Every stake fixed in an upright position is a portion of the cross; we render our adoration, if you will have it so, to a god entire and complete. We have shown before that your deities are derived from shapes modelled from the cross. But you also worship victories, for in your trophies the cross is the heart of the trophy. The camp religion of the Romans is all through a worship of the standards, a setting the standards above all gods. Well, as those images decking out the standards are ornaments of crosses. All those hangings of your standards and banners are robes of crosses. I praise your zeal: you would not consecrate crosses unclothed and unadorned.” (Apology, Chapter 16)
Click to expand...
continued. . .
 
The vexilla is in your quote a form of the trophy which I have already addressed is a description of the pole for a sail or flag and not a description of cloth or cross-beam portion of these items.
Click to expand...
Actually, the vexilla is also identified as the Roman standard which was topped by the Roman eagle with SPQR displayed below that on the cross-piece:

globalsecurity.org/military/intro/spqr.htm
As for the horns, please see the picture of the animal many consider to have been the source of the horns at "http://www.geocities.com/magicgoatman/aurochs.html geocities.com/magicgoatman/aurochs.html
Click to expand...
They are curved upwards and look like they would may a seat which protrudes out the front of the stake and not cross-beams for the hands.
Click to expand...
Who comprises this “many”? Certainly not your Awake! magazine which presented the “horns” quote from St. Justin as an erroneous depiction of the cross’s form.

You try, but you don’t have an explanation for that description which gives FOUR horns: "For the one beam is placed upright, from which the highest extremity is raised up into a horn horn 1], when the other beam is fitted on to it, and the ends appear on both sides as horns horns 2 and 3] joined on to the one horn. And the part which is fixed in the centre, on which are suspended those who are crucified, also stands out like a horn horn 4], the sedile.
You don’t have an example of how to BBQ a lamb on a spit as Justin describes tht fits the profile of a modern day cross.
Click to expand...
What’s interesting about this is that Justin includes TWO pieces, not just a pole through the body but the piece through the legs; he is describing something other than a single pole.
Here is my conclusion. Justin clearly uses examples that don’t fit the cross and he also uses other examples in his zeal to find the cross in all sorts of unlikely places in the OT. In this he takes all sorts of liberties to make his point and is quite inventive.
Click to expand...
Therefore the most that can be said is that he never presents the modern cross and that he does not always present a single pole for the implement either. All of the examples I have seen fit the sedile.
Click to expand...
Well, as we have seen, your conclusion doesn’t fit either the Fathers or archaeology which both testify to the accuracy of the known tradition of Christ’s Church. The only inventive ones around here are the JWs, Dan.
 
Tomster said:
:coffeeread::coffeeread:
John 1:1 - “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

By this first sentence, John shows plainly that he has set out to prove that Jesus, the Man of Galilee is Christ, the Son of God. Now as Sonship of God could be taken in different senses, John exponds the natural incommunicable eternal sonship of Christ. Diverging opinions exist concerning the sense of the ev apxn. Cyril and Origen understand by this apxn the Eternal Father, and they believe that John wished to convey by such expression the primal source in the Father whence sprang the Son. Such exegesis is also favored by later Thomists. I believe such opinion to be erroneous and subversive of the plan of the Evangelist. In the first place, if John wished to convey such an idea, he would not have used such a harsh expression. God is the apxn of all things; but to designate God thus, without any explanation, is a harsh, difficult expression. We believe that, had he wished to convey such a thought, he would have said ev Oew or ev tw IIatpi was the Word. Again, certainly he uses ev apxn in the second verse in the same sense as in the first. Now, if we give to it in this second verse the sense set down by Origen, it would be equivalent to saying: “This was in God with God,” which is a plain absurdity. We place, then as a certain opinion that the ev apxn refers to duration. The Gnostic heresy asserted that Jesus was not before his incarnation. To refute their position, John goes back to the beginning of things, and sets forth the existence of the Word before time was. John’s intention is to proclaimby this first clause the eternity of the Word. Now, eternity can neither be adequately conceived nor described by a finite intelligence. This being so, John makes the best effort that human speech will permit to describe the infinite, preexisting life of the Word. That apxn does not mark a definite point taken as a terminus a quo from which time the Word which had not existed before began to exist. It is simply the projecting of the existence of the Word back into the boundless duration of Eternity. It is not the position of a point where existence began, but the negation of any point where non-existence could be predicated. This concept is strengthened by the use of the imperfect nv which signifies continuance of duration. Now the Word had a beginning, but not a temporal beginning. The Word had a beginning of origin in being begotten of the Father, but this genesis was coeternal with the essence of God, hence John rightly refutes any position of a point when the Word was not.

More later. Need :coffeeread:
Click to expand...
Thank you for this, Tomster - definitely a keeper; I’m looking forward to reading more of your study.

I’m presently reading John Paul II’s catechetical work, God: Father and Creator. He writes this which goes so well from what you’ve presented:
“According to John’s Gospel, the Son who is the Word was in the beginning with God (cf. Jn. 1:1-2). We find the same concept in the apostolic teaching. We read in the Letter to the Hebrews that God appointed the Son 'heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He reflects th glory of God and bears that very stamp of his nature, upholding the universe by his word of power ’ (Heb. 1:2-3). Paul in his Letter fo the Colossians wrote: 'He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation” (1:15).
Click to expand...
“Therefore, according to the apostolic teaching, the Son is of the same substance as the Father since the Son is the God-Word. Everything has been made, the universe crated, in this Word and through him. Before creation, before the beginning of ‘all things visible and invisible,’ the Word has eternal Being and divine life in common with the Father, since he 'reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature (Heb. 1:3). In this principle without beginning the Word is the Son, since he is eternally begotten by the Father. The New Testament reveals this mystery, imcomprehensible to us, of a God who is One and Three. So, in the ontologically absolute unity of his essence, God is eternally and without beginning the Father who begets the Word, and he is the Son, begotten as the Word of the Father.” p. 189.
Click to expand...
I’ll join you for that :coffeeread:
 
LionHeart777 said:
Hey all,

been away a while and I noticed the conversation about the roasted lamb. I just happen to catch an episode of “Man vs. Wild” over the weekend where Bear pit roasts a rabbit.

Dan,
please notice how he pins the legs w/ a “crossbar” (immediately after the 2:00 marker I think.)

here is the link to the clip:
youtube.com/watch?v=8iYYfFBk5J4&feature=PlayList&p=ACFAAE3AA3B4E4AB&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=3

hope this helps.

Nick
Click to expand...
Thanks for that video. If you notice, the support was placed through the hind legs while the front legs were left to dangle. That works fine for a rabbit but not for a larger animal like a lamb. The examples for lambs required two additional skewers, one for the front and one for the hind legs.

Also what Justin wrote was the the second was inserted in the back in a similar way to the first one which was lengthwise. Your video of the rabbit has the second skewer piercing the hind legs.

So your example would not fit Justin’s description or the anatomy of a lamb.
 
FCEGM:
]Actually, the vexilla is also identified as the Roman standard which was topped by the Roman eagle with SPQR displayed below that on the cross-piece:

globalsecurity.org/military/intro/spqr.htm

Dan:
The Greek word used is the same one for tree or post. What is affixed to that tree or post is not what Justin is describing.

FCEGM:
Who comprises this “many”? Certainly not your Awake! magazine which presented the “horns” quote from St. Justin as an erroneous depiction of the cross’s form.

Dan:
That was a picture of a wild ox. The many include Catholic bibles:
KJV Numbers 23:22 God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.

LXE Numbers 23:22 It was God who brought him out of Egypt; he has as it were the glory of a unicorn.
NAB Numbers 23:22 It is God who brought him out of Egypt, a** wild bull** of towering might.
NJB Numbers 23:22 God has brought him out of Egypt, is like the wild ox’s horns to him.

FCEGM:
You try, but you don’t have an explanation for that description which gives FOUR horns: "For the one beam is placed upright, from which the highest extremity is raised up into a horn horn 1], when the other beam is fitted on to it, and the ends appear on both sides as horns horns 2 and 3] joined on to the one horn. And the part which is fixed in the centre, on which are suspended those who are crucified, also stands out like a horn horn 4], the sedile.

Dan:
It is hard to say for sure, but I would also point out that each of these horns would be the same length and therefore if they were all connected it would not create a modern day cross. I believe Justin is looking very hard for examples of the cross in the OT and they all don’t look the same. Which is it, two pieces like the lamb on a spit or four pieces like two sets of Wild Ox horns? It did not matter much to Justin so long as he got his illustration.

FCEGM:
What’s interesting about this is that Justin includes TWO pieces, not just a pole through the body but the piece through the legs; he is describing something other than a single pole.

Dan:
Two pieces, yes, but two parallel pieces. In fact with one though the cavity and one through the back lengthwise, the final product would look very much like one piece as they would be very close to each other.

FCEGM:
Well, as we have seen, your conclusion doesn’t fit either the Fathers or archaeology which both testify to the accuracy of the known tradition of Christ’s Church. The only inventive ones around here are the JWs, Dan.

Dan:
Like I said, I don’t have a horse in this race. It is more like a mule. Justin’s theology was a hybrid of the truth of the apostles and later theological speculation and Greek philosophy. Even so, he was closer on many issues to JWs than to modern day Catholics.

Justin taught that the Son was not the Creator, that the Father had a different sort of nature than did the Son because the Father could not possibly have come to earth and Justin was a Millenarian.
 
Dan_Parker said:
Actually the McKenzie quote is much worse for your position that you realize. Trinitarians believe that there is only one Being who is God and that this one Being is three persons. To say that the Word is a divine being all by himself would make him a different divine being than his Father and that would be polytheism.

Yes, McKenzie is a Trinitarian and he gives examples right after that where the definite article is used where he believes it refers to the Son as God, but that does not mean he agrees with you on John 1:1, and that is the text we are discussing. If you read what I posted I did address this already. Dan
Click to expand...
JL: Yes the Word is a divine being, his being is God. The Father is a divine being, his being is God, the Holy Spirit is a divine being, his being is God. There is only ONE DIVINE BEING the Holy Trinity, Yahweh. JW’s however have two gods one a mighty and another the almighty. There is no such thing as a mighty god and an almighty god. There is only ONE GOD. Just as there is only ONE NAME GIVEN UNDER HEAVEN BY WHICH MEN CAN BE SAVED, [Acts4:10 then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by THE NAME JESUS CHRIST of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. 11 He is " 'the stone you builders rejected, which has become the capstone. 12 SALVATION IS FOUND IN NO ONE ELSE, for THERE IS NO OTHER NAME under heaven given to men BY WHICH WE MUST BE SAVED." ]

McKenzie’s comment on page 899, makes his meaning crystal clear: “He knows the Father and reveals Him. HE THEREFORE BELONGS TO THE DIVINE LEVEL OF BEING; and there is no question at all about the Spirit belonging to the divine level of being.” (Dictionary of the Bible, John L. McKenzie, Trinity, p899) When McKenzie says Jn 1:1 should be translated “and the word was a divine being”, he is classing Jesus with the Father as uncreated God. Its just that simple!

GOD: NT. The word theos is used to designate the gods of paganism. NORMALLY THE WORD WITH OR WITHOUT THE ARTICLE DESIGNATES THE GOD OF THE OLD TESTAMENT and of Judaism, the God of Israel: YAHWEH. But THE CHARACTER OF GOD IS REVEALED IN AN ORIGINAL WAY IN THE NT; the originality is perhaps best summed up by saying that God reveals Himself in and through Jesus Christ. The revelation of God in Jesus Christ does not consist merely in the prophetic word* as in the OT, BUT IN AN IDENTITY BETWEEN GOD AND JESUS CHRIST. JN 1:1’-18 EXPRESSES THIS by contrasting the word spoken by the prophets with the word incarnate in Jesus. IN JESUS THE PERSONAL REALITY OF GOD IS MANIFESTED IN VISIBLE AND TANGIBLE FORM. In the words of Jesus and in much of the rest of the NT the God of Israel (Gk. ho theos) is the Father* of Jesus Christ. It is for this reason that the title ho theos, which now designates the Father as a personal reality, is not applied in the NT to Jesus Himself; Jesus is the Son of God (of ho theos). This is a matter of usage and not of rule, and the noun is applied to Jesus a few times. Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated “the word was with the God = the Father], and the word was a divine being.” Thomas invokes Jesus with the titles which belong to the *Father, “My Lord and my God” (Jn 20:28). “The glory of our great God and Savior” which is to appear CAN BE THE GLORY OF NO OTHER THAN JESUS (Tt 2:13) * And THE IDENTITY OF JESUS AND THE FATHER IS EXPRESSED CLEARLY without the title in Jn 10:30, “1 and the Father are one.” The application of the noun is less certain in Rm. 9:5; Paul’s normal usage is to restrict the noun to designate the Father (cf I Co 8:6), and in Rm 9:5 it is very probable that the concluding words are a doxology, “Blessed is the God who is above all.” 2 Pt 1:1 is slightly more ambiguous than Tt 2:13, to which it is not strictly parallel; it may be rendered “our God and Jesus Christ savior.” The pronoun “this” in I Jn 5:20 is easily referred to God, who is implicit in Jn 5:19, although “Jesus Christ” is the nearest noun. It should be understood that this usage of ho theos touches the personal distinction of the Father and the Son and not the divinity i.e., the divine sonship of Jesus Christ. – [Caps added by me] bible.ca/trinity/trinity-McKenzie.htm

How many English translations of the Bible say the WORD WAS GOD? Do you suppose all those scholars today and throughout the centuries got it wrong? I think this is a good example of out of context quotes to make it appear to say what it does not say.
 
Dan_Parker said:
Thanks for the quote. It is helpful and I mean that sincerely. Would you mind identifying the writer and also giving a link for it to an online source?

What this anonymous quote shows is that it is not out of the question that ARXH is a reference to the beginning of the LOGOS, in the Father. As for the description of the force of the imperfect HN, I have already shown that in the prologue itself in verse 10 the word has an inceptive force. We know that the Word was not always in the Word, but that he came to be in the World. Thus the verbal aspect of the imperfect HN is continuous at the point in time being discussed (in the beginning) but not unbounded to the past.
Click to expand...
I do not concede that the Word was not always in the the world. That the Word was not always in the flesh is certain, but He was in the world through His sustaining power - “witrhout Him was made nothing that has been made.” “Behold! I make all things new.”(Rev. 21:5)
 
Danno2281 said:
I do not concede that the Word was not always in the the world. That the Word was not always in the flesh is certain, but He was in the world through His sustaining power - “witrhout Him was made nothing that has been made.” “Behold! I make all things new.”(Rev. 21:5)
Click to expand...
In the context of the prologue of John the Word was coming into the world, and then he was = HN in the world.

NAB John 1:8 He was not the light, but came to testify to the light. 9 The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. 10 He was = HN in the world, and the world came to be through him, but the world did not know him.

It is irrelevant if you can rationalize that somehow the Word was always in the World in some other context. What is clear here is that in John 1:10 the word HN is being used inceptively… that he came to be in the World. That should be used to inform our view of the use of HN at the beginning of the prologue.
 
Dan_Parker said:
In the context of the prologue of John the Word was coming into the world, and then he was = HN in the world.

NAB John 1:8 He was not the light, but came to testify to the light. 9 The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. 10 He was = HN in the world, and the world came to be through him, but the world did not know him.

It is irrelevant if you can rationalize that somehow the Word was always in the World in some other context. What is clear here is that in John 1:10 the word HN is being used inceptively… that he came to be in the World. That should be used to inform our view of the use of HN at the beginning of the prologue.
Click to expand...
You neglect to note that “coming” in v. 9 (erchomenon) more likely modfies anthropon than phos, which makes Douai the better translation (and supports my contention that He always was (HN) in the world).
 
Danno2281 said:
You neglect to note that “coming” in v. 9 (erchomenon) more likely modfies anthropon than phos, which makes Douai the better translation (and supports my contention that He always was (HN) in the world).
Click to expand...
The NAB and the NJB give the better translation and also a contextual one because this Greek phrase (EIS TON KOSMON) is a common one used by John to describe the Son.

NAB John 1:9 The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world.
NJB John 1:9 **The Word **was the real **light **that gives light to everyone; he was coming into the world.
o the world.


  1. ]NAB John 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn (1 )the world, but that the world might be saved through him.
    ]NAB John 3:19 And this is the verdict, that the light came into the world, but people preferred darkness to light, because their works were evil.
    ]NAB John 6:14 When the people saw the sign he had done, they said, “This is truly the Prophet, the one who is to come into the world.”
    ]NAB John 9:39 Then Jesus said, “I came into this world for judgment, so that those who do not see might see, and those who do see might become blind.”
    ]NAB John 10:36 can you say that the one whom the Father has consecrated and sent into the world blasphemes because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?
    ]NAB John 11:27 She said to him, "Yes, Lord. I have come to believe that you are the Messiah, the Son of God, the one who is coming     into the world    ."
    ]NAB John 12:46 I came     into the world    * as light, so that everyone who believes in me might not remain in darkness.
    ]NAB John 16:28 I came from the Father and have come* into the world**. Now I am leaving the world and going back to the Father."
    *]NAB John 17:18 As you sent me into the world, so I sent them into the world.
    *]NAB John 18:37 So Pilate said to him, “Then you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say I am a king. For this I was born and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice.”

    These are all allusions to the prologue of John which begins this book. note that the fact that it is **light **that comes into the world also in these passages clinches the rendering in the NJB and NAB.
 
Dan_Parker said:
Dan:
I reply as did Peter. Jesus is the Messiah of God, the Son of Man and the Son of the living God.
NAB Luke 9:20 Then he said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter said in reply, “The Messiah of God.” 21 He rebuked them and directed them not to tell this to anyone. 22 He said, “The Son of Man must suffer greatly and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed and on the third day be raised.”
NAB Matthew 16:15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” 17 Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. 20 Then he strictly ordered his disciples to tell no one that he was the Messiah.
Click to expand...
So was He God as He said? If not, why then would you honor someone who was deceitful Dan? Who was He then before taking on human form as the Messiah? We know He “was” then… If one were to say a mini god that would still recognize more than one God…
 
Thanks for that video. If you notice, the support was placed through the hind legs while the front legs were left to dangle. That works fine for a rabbit but not for a larger animal like a lamb. The examples for lambs required two additional skewers, one for the front and one for the hind legs.
Click to expand...
Also what Justin wrote was the the second was inserted in the back in a similar way to the first one which was lengthwise. Your video of the rabbit has the second skewer piercing the hind legs.
Click to expand...
So your example would not fit Justin’s description or the anatomy of a lamb.
Click to expand...
I honestly don’t know how lambs were pit roasted back then.🤷
 
FCEGM said:
Thank you for this, Tomster - definitely a keeper; I’m looking forward to reading more of your study.

I’m presently reading John Paul II’s catechetical work, God: Father and Creator. He writes this which goes so well from what you’ve presented:

I’ll join you for that :coffeeread:
Click to expand...
Thanks for your reply Frances. Ah, the beauty and consistency of Sacred Tradition. It is something the JW’s only wish they had. 👍
 
John 1:2 - “The same was in the beginning with God.”

This verse is a resume of the three propositions of the first verse. In it he says in substance: "this being that I have characterized as the Aoyos of God the Father, and whom I assert to be the essential Deity was from all eternity with the Father.

Maldonatus believes that this verse contains a sort of conclusion confirmatory of the first two propositions of the first verse, deduced from the third proposition of the same verse. That is, from the fact that the Word was God, it follows that from the beginning it was with God. That such a deduction is legitimate we do not deny, but it is highly probable that such particular syllogism never entered John’s mind. As we are apt to recapitulate important truths for more complete effect, so John sums up the data of the first verse in this concise proposition.
 
John 1:3 - “All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made.”

The "nihil"of the Vulgate weakly renders the ovde ev of the Greek. The Syriac has it: “Sine ipso ne unum quidem fuit quidquid fuit.” The Ethiopian: “Absque illo non fuit quidquam quod factum est.”

The IIavra comprises the universe of creatures. The Macedonians extended this term to include the Holy Spirit also, because John speaks without restriction. Such position is frivolous, for, by such reasoning, the Father also could be included, which is absurd; also the IIavra is limited in the succeeding words to all created things.

John does not say that the Word created all things, but that the Father created all things through him. The Eternal Father by that infinite intellectual conception generated the Word. In the Word, he conceived all the ideas which are the essences of things as they preexist in the mind of God. The Word, then, is the ratio per quam Deus creat. The Word does not operate as a mere instrumental cause, but as a formal, efficient cause. The Son is the actuating principal of the divine intellect, and through the personality of the Son the essence of God formed the archtypal ideas, which, by receiving being from the omnipotent will working in harmony with the divine intellect, became the ectypal world. As the spiritual soul of man understands through the faculty of intellect, so analogically the essence of God created through the Word. We can perform no human act without conceiving in the mind the ideal exemplar of that act; so the divine nature formed the ideal essences of things in his eternal Word, and then gave them being by his almighty fiat.

The creative power coming from the divine nature, one and the same in all three persons, and acting through the Word made all things.

The second clause is exclusive in sense, and intensifies the absolute part held by the Word in the production of things. A great diversity of opinion exists in regard to the punctuation of this passage. A celebrated mode of punctuation is that of St. Augustine, which is followed by many Thomists, especially by those who affect to follow the old systems of the scholmen. They place the period after the ovde ev, the “nihil” of the Vulgate, and join the other words to the following verse, so that it becomes: “what was made was life in him.” This theory seems to have been adopted by Tertullian, St. Ambrose, Clement of Alexandria, St. Cyril and others; it is adopted by Patrizi in his book “De Evangeliis Libri Tres.”

Chrysostom terms this mode of punctuation heretical, and he declares it to have been induced by those who wished to make the Holy Spirit a created thing. Thus they said that the life which was in the Son being created became the Holy Spirit. It is evident that that such interpretation would not result necessarily from such mode of punctuation, hence we can not so severely condemn this opinion. We could with the Fathers benignantly interpet that the eternal archetypal ideas of things were life as they existed in the Son. It is evident that such opinion is far fetched and languid, but still it could be termed a possible benignant interpetation.

cont.
 
The best and most numerous Greek Codices and the Versions place the full stop after o yeyovev, and we deem this a certain reading. The punctuation of the Scriptures is purely the work of man, and is subject to the uncertainty that attends human works. Our argument for our reading is that it has the best extrinsic authority, and, moreover, makes a fuller sense than the opposite opinion. The Manicheans based upon a heretical exegesis of this verse their error of the two opposed creative principles. They understood by “nihil” corruptible things composed of matter, which according to them are essentially evil, which tend to chaos where they arose, and which were created not by the Word but by the demon. Their erroneous exegesis of this verse is clearly refuted by the Greek text, where for “nihil” we have ovde ev, “non unum.”

St. Augustine, while rejecting the error the of the Manicheans, falls into a similar error. He interprets “nihil” to be sin, which is not an ens but a negation of entity, and therefore, “to nihil” is not created by the Word but by the bad will of man. This opinion is evidently false, and is also overthrown by the Greek text. The proper mode of punctuation also prevents these false opinions; for the “nihil” is a weak translation of the ovde ev, in which the ev is the antecedent of the o yeyovev which completes the sentence.
 
Dan_Parker said:
The NAB and the NJB give the better translation and also a contextual one because this Greek phrase (EIS TON KOSMON) is a common one used by John to describe the Son.

NAB John 1:9 The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world.
NJB John 1:9 **The Word **was the real **light **that gives light to everyone; he was coming into the world.
o the world.


  1. ]NAB John 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn (1 )the world, but that the world might be saved through him.
    ]NAB John 3:19 And this is the verdict, that the light came into the world, but people preferred darkness to light, because their works were evil.
    ]NAB John 6:14 When the people saw the sign he had done, they said, “This is truly the Prophet, the one who is to come into the world.”
    ]NAB John 9:39 Then Jesus said, “I came into this world for judgment, so that those who do not see might see, and those who do see might become blind.”
    ]NAB John 10:36 can you say that the one whom the Father has consecrated and sent into the world blasphemes because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?
    ]NAB John 11:27 She said to him, "Yes, Lord. I have come to believe that you are the Messiah, the Son of God, the one who is coming     into the world    ."
    ]NAB John 12:46 I came     into the world    * as light, so that everyone who believes in me might not remain in darkness.
    ]NAB John 16:28 I came from the Father and have come* into the world**. Now I am leaving the world and going back to the Father."
    *]NAB John 17:18 As you sent me into the world, so I sent them into the world.
    *]NAB John 18:37 So Pilate said to him, “Then you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say I am a king. For this I was born and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice.”

    These are all allusions to the prologue of John which begins this book. note that the fact that it is **light **that comes into the world also in these passages clinches the rendering in the NJB and NAB.
Click to expand...

  1. First of all, you make no effort to convince that coming should be applied to phos rather than to anthropon; Jerome applies it to anthropon rather than to phos, and I believe rightly so. Secondly, you examples of “into the world” fail to address the grammatical question. No one questions that at some point Jesus came into the world in the flesh. I assert only that He was always in the world (certainly in virtute)**that was made through Him, and Justin is consistent in this. He was, in fact, the rock from which the Israelites in the desert drank prior to His coming in the flesh, and that is not open to question.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top