The Confession of 1 John 4:2 Is That Christ Did Not Preexist

The Confession of 1 John 4:2

Is That Christ Did Not Preexist

By

Wayne Atcheson

 

In John 4:2 God provides His children with a test. We are to use this test to make a very serious judgment. The test tells how to discern between the spirit of God and the spirit of antichrist. Even without assigning condemnation, this is a very serious accusation to make against someone. Certainly such an accusation must be backed up by a very clear test. Quoting the King James Bible:

"Hereby, know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: 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."

This test seems to be simple enough. Certainly all Christians can pass this test. But the trouble is that this test is too simple. Many people of other religions can also pass this test. Even those of the other religions accept that Jesus lived as a man, that he was a great prophet, even a messiah, just like Mohammed and Buddha.

Grammatically, this verse forms a confession so serious, that the first reaction of most Christians is, "This cannot be true." In this test is the affirmation that Christ is not a spirit being.

The Trinity and other dualistic views of Jesus are directly refuted by this Biblical confession, "We confess 'Jesus' and we confess 'Christ in flesh has come.'" First, this confession affirms allegiance to the man Jesus, without a title. Without including a title like "Christ," the focus of the confession is on the attributes of Jesus the man, and what he did as a man: his life, what he taught, and what he did during his ministry.

It is he, Jesus, who has the qualities of being the only begotten Son of God, who lived, died, and was raised from the dead. It is he, Jesus, who now lives, and it is he who will return to rule the earth. All of these thoughts are in our confession of Jesus.

Secondly, this test confesses belief that Jesus is the Messiah. But more, this confession denies the teachings about "The Christ" being a separate Divine Spiritual Being, preexisting, and sent from heaven to manifest itself as Jesus. In this test the word "Christ" is a title attributed to Jesus, and is not a separate being. Christ is not "The Divine God," but Christ is fleshly. This test confesses that the promised Messiah has most assuredly come, is fleshly rather than spiritual, and is one of the qualities of Jesus.

The Biblical confession is the giving of our allegiance to: "The Man Jesus," who is: "The Promised Messiah, In Fleshly Characteristics, Has Come and is Still Here." You cannot say, "Christ became Jesus," you must say, "Jesus is the Christ."

The Biblical Confession Is That Christ Did Not Preexist

In our society it is not politically correct to use the Bible to make judgments against people. Nevertheless, it is our duty to make judgements so that we may know the difference between right and wrong. We must make judgments, but only God has the right to make final condemnations.

In I John 4:2 God provides His children with a test. We are to use this test to make a very serious judgment. The test tells how to discern between the spirit of God and the spirit of antichrist. Even without assigning condemnation, this is a very serious accusation to make against someone. Those that pass the test can be called very nice things. But those that do not pass the test are called antichrists. Certainly such an accusation must be backed up by a very clear test. Quoting the King James Bible:

"Hereby, know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: 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."

This test seems to be simple enough. Certainly all Christians can pass this test. But the trouble is that this test is too simple. Many people of other religions can also pass this test. Many Jews do not deny that Jesus lived and was anointed as a messiah, but only in the sense that King David was also an anointed messiah. So many Jews can pass this test. The Moslems do not deny that Jesus lived as a prophet, a messiah to the Jews, so Moslems can pass this test. Many of the eastern religions also accept that Jesus lived as a man, that he was a great prophet, even a messiah, just like Buddha. So even those in the eastern religions can pass this test. It seems that this test is very easy to pass.

In this test the confessor affirms that the vast majority of modern Christianity is in serious doctrinal error.

The following Grammatical Analysis of the Greek Text of 1 John 4:2 is taken from:

1. "The Complete Word Study New Testament with Parallel Greek" 1992 Spiros Zodhiates and AMG International, Inc. AMG Publishers.
2. "Analytical Greek New Testament" 1981 Baker Book House Company.
3. "Net Bible, New Testament Clarified and Explained in 15,950 Footnotes" 1998 Biblical Studies Press, L.L.C.
4. "Thayer Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament" (Lexicon) 1977 Baker Book House Company, twelfth printing March 1986.

I John 4:2 [whoever] Confesses That:

"Jesus + Christ + in + flesh + has-come"

It is hard to remember, but the word "Christ" is not the last name of Jesus. The word "Christ" is a title, a designation, a concept. The word means: "the one who has been anointed." We confess: "Jesus, the one who has been anointed, in flesh, has come."

The Greek word #2064 ("has come") is in the "perfect participle active." This means that the condition of "come" is both being stressed and has ongoing effect. i.e. "most emphatically has come and is still here now."

The Greek grammar "Anarthrous" is very important to understand. It makes a noun into an adjective being used as a noun. Anarthrous is similar to the difference between "the President" and "the Presidency." One is talking about a person; the other is talking about the office and duties of a person. For example, the Greek word for God, when written in the anarthrous form, is not talking about the deity God, but is talking about "God's qualities," the "God-class," everything that God stands for. In the anarthrous you do not translate the Greek word for "God" as "God," but translate it as "Divine" or "God-like."

Likewise, in this verse there are three nouns written in the anarthrous: "Jesus," "Christ," and "flesh." These words are therefore descriptives being used as nouns. The sentence is not talking about the noun "Jesus (as a person)," but about the qualities of "Jesus (what he did and stands for)." The sentence is not talking about the noun "Christ (as being a person, place, or thing)," but about the qualities of "Christ (the promised Messiah and what that means)." The sentence is not talking about the noun "flesh (as a body)," but about the qualities of "flesh (as being fleshly in type and what that means)." Thus, we confess: "Jesus (what he did and stands for)" [is the adjective] "Christ (the promised Messiah and what that means)" "in" [the adjective] "flesh (as being fleshly in type)" "has come" [most assuredly and is still here today].

Three Equally Valid Constructs:

Grammatically, the entire phrase, "Confesses + Jesus + Christ + in + flesh + has-come," has three equally valid constructs as shown below. It is the translator who makes the choice about which construct to use. There is no grammatical reason to choose one construct over the other. Each of the following three constructs has equal translation validity:

1. The entire phrase is a single object of the verb "to confess." We confess "Jesus Christ in flesh has come."

2. The verb "to confess" may be followed by a double accusative, so that both "Jesus Christ" and "in flesh has come" are objects of the verb. We confess "Jesus Christ" and we confess "in flesh has come."

3. The same double accusative as #2, except that the objects are "Jesus" and "Christ has come in flesh." We confess "Jesus" and we confess "Christ in flesh has come. "

Each of these three choices is equally valid, each derived directly from the text's grammatical structure. So the question is--which translation option forms a serious test?

For each translation choice, consider what is being confessed, and ask if the confession is really a serious test. Which of these three choices can be decidedly used to discern between God's and the deceiver's spirit? It is a very serious charge to accuse someone of teaching in the spirit of antichrist. Likewise, the translation construct chosen must be a very serious test that can truly separate between God's Spirit and the deceiving spirit.

Option 1. Confessing that: "Jesus Christ in flesh has come"; only asserts belief that Jesus Christ was a person that lived as a man. This test does not even discriminate those of the New Age movement, who allow that Jesus was a man, even a great prophet, even "a Messiah or Christ," but only in the sense of also allowing Mohammed and Buddha to be similar examples. This grammatical choice does not provide a serious test.

Option 2. Confessing that: "Jesus Christ" and "in flesh has come"; likewise only asserts belief that Jesus Christ existed as a man. This grammatical choice allows people of other religious to pass, and does not discern anything controversial about the confessor. This choice likewise does not construct a serious test.

Option 3. Confessing that: "Jesus" and "Christ in flesh has come"; is a serious test. This confession makes important and controversial assertions.

First, this confession affirms the qualities of Jesus, without a title, what Jesus stands for. Without including a title like "Christ," the focus of the confession is on the attributes of Jesus the man, and what he did as a man: his life, what he taught, and what he did during his ministry. This test confesses an allegiance to the man Jesus. It is he, Jesus, who has the qualities of being the only begotten Son of God, that lived, died, and was raised from the dead. It is he, Jesus, that now lives, and it is he that will return to rule the earth. All of these thoughts are in our confession of Jesus.

Secondly, this test confesses belief that Jesus is the Messiah. But more, this confession denies the Gnostic teachings about "The Christ" being a separate Divine Spiritual Being, preexisting, and sent from heaven to manifest itself as Jesus. In this test the word "Christ" is a title attributed to Jesus, and is not a "last name" or a separate being. This test confesses that the qualities of Christ includes being fleshly in type. Christ is not "The Divine God," but Christ's characteristics are fleshly. This test confesses that the promised Messiah has most assuredly come, is fleshly rather than spiritual, and is one of the adjectives given to the man Jesus.

The confession does not say, "Christ (a noun) became flesh" as in "The Divine Christ came and dwelt among us." The confessions says, "the qualities of Christ are fleshly in classification" as in "Christ's characteristics are not spirit, but are flesh and blood."

The Biblical test is a confession which forces the confessor to deny that Christ is a spiritual entity, neither separate nor preexistent. The confessor must affirm that Christ's characteristics are of the flesh and blood category, and are an adjective attributed to the man Jesus. You cannot say, "Christ became Jesus,'" you must say, Jesus is the Christ.

Option #3 is the only translation choice that actually provides a serious test. This test identifies the deceivers that the Biblical author was berating, as being the Gnostic heretics having the spirit of Satan. Please notice, and with great concern, that these deceivers are called the antichrists (plural). This means that the antichrists have been working their doctrinal deceit ever since the book of I John was written. Now, which teaching, "Christ is the Divine God" or "Christ is the resurrected man Jesus" has been taught as being Christian since about 100 AD?

Observe that the Trinitarian doctrine does not pass this Biblical test. The Trinitarian doctrine is Gnostic. The Nicean Creed asserts that:

". . . And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, Only begotten of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father . ....

The Gnostic teaching is that Jesus was a man of flesh, and that "The Christ" is not a title, but is a preexistent and Divine Being come from heaven, and is made of the exact same substance as "The Divine Father." It teaches that Christ only used Jesus' body, and somehow never actually touched Jesus' sinful flesh. The Gnostic teaching is that Jesus, the flesh, died on the cross, but The Christ, being eternal and divine, and was raised from Jesus' body just prior to death. In this manner "The Christ was raised from the dead [Jesus]." Therefore, "The Christ" was not flesh, never touched sin, and being eternal only "seemed to die. .." The words "seemed to die" is a key Gnostic phrase found in history.

The Gnostic teaching is that Jesus was dead in the grave, but The Christ was not dead. The Gnostic teaching allows that The Christ performed other tasks during the three days that Jesus' body was in the grave. For example, The Christ visited fallen spirits in hell, or announced himself to the Indians in America.

The Gnostic teaching will not allow that The Christ really did actually die. This would mean, to them, that God died. The Gnostic teaching will not allow that The Christ could become the same substance as a man's sinful flesh. This would mean, to them, that The Christ sinned.

Only the third option is a fully discerning test. Its confession denies the world's popular Christian teaching that Jesus Christ was a being that (somehow) lived as both "fully Man and fully Divine."

Historically we know that those bishops that left the School of John (the apostle) eventually became the bishops that formed the Roman Catholic Church. In 325 AD the Roman bishops expelled the bishops who still adhered to the theology taught by the apostle John. Although expelled from the Roman Church, the bishops of John, usually referred to as "Arian, continued to thrive so that entire empires became "Arian" in their confession. Meanwhile the Roman bishops adopted the Nicean Creed, which declared the Trinitarian confession to be the only test for true Christians.

Today, most of wider Christianity uses the Nicean Creed as their test for Christians. For example, in 1999 the Church of God 7th Day was denied radio time in Bend, Oregon, solely because the denomination is not trinitarian. The Christian radio station did not consider anyone who did not confess the Trinity to be a real Christian.

It is interesting that it seems to be acceptable for wider Christianity to use the man-devised Trinitarian doctrine as the only test for a true Christian, but I John 4:2 effectively identifies wider Christianity as being those that are seriously deceived.

More Evidence

And there is more. This same test is repeated in two other places: I John 4:3 and II John 7.

In I John 4:3 the same test of the previous sentence is repeated, but negated with the words "confesses not." In the Greek the confession words are exactly the same words as used in verse 2, with the single exception that the word "Jesus" is not in the anarthrous. This time in verse 3 the word "Jesus" is a normal noun in the sentence. This sentence unambiguously identifies "Jesus" as the person having the adjectives "Christ in flesh has come." The man Jesus is being directly identified as the confessed noun having all of the other confessed attributes as described above. This confirms that translation option #3 is the grammatical construct intended by the author.

In II John 7 the Greek words are again exactly the same words as used in verse 2, with two exceptions. The word "has come" is listed in front of "in flesh," and is in the Present tense. Verse 7 confesses: "Jesus" and confesses "Christ's qualities, IS NOW HERE, in flesh's qualities."

The Biblical confession of I John 4:2 identifies the Gnostic teachings about the nature of Christ as being the emphatically condemned doctrines of Anti-Christ. Our confession is not to the Gnostic Christ. Our confession is our allegiance to our living hero, Jesus.

The Biblical confession is the giving of our allegiance to: "The Man Jesus," who is:

  • "The Promised Messiah"
  • "In Fleshly Characteristics"
  • "Has Come and is Still Here."

No, We Are Not Idiots

John 1:1 is offered as the proof text every time someone wants to defend the Trinity or the preexistence of Christ. The King James Bible is quoted, always with an authoritative tone to quiet the unbeliever. Rarely do the defenders read Acts 3:13-16. Instead they focus on the obvious inference that the Word was Christ and was God. To most defenders it seems that only an idiot would read John 1 and not understand that the Word is the Christ that preexisted with God from the beginning of time.

But is the King James Bible the real authority? No, the real authority is the older manuscripts written in Greek. The question about the Trinity or the preexistence of Christ cannot be answered by reading the King James Bible. It can only be answered by reading the Greek text.

When the grammar of the Greek text is analyzed the scripture turns against the defenders. The grammar of the Greek text shows that the King James text was translated incorrectly. Conversely, the Greek text has no implied inference that  Christ preexisted as "the Word" Instead, Christ is created in verse 14. Without a preexistent Christ the Trinity doctrine is defeated. As it turns out, it is the defenders who are quoting the very scripture which defeats their most favored doctrine.

Here is what the Greek text actually says: "In the beginning was and is the plan. And the plan was and is pertaining to God, and God's deity was and is in the plan. In the beginning the plan was and is directed towards God. Everything through the plancame to be, and without the plan not even one thing came to be. The plan being implemented, through the plan was and is life-itself, and that life was and is the light emitter of all mankind"

This is not a matter of opposing Greek scholars arguing with one another. It is not a matter of one man's interpretation versus another. And it does not require a Greek scholar to understand that this translation fully captures the meaning of the Greek text.

Ask, "How would the Greek scholars translate John 1 if they encountered the text outside of the Bible, and did not fear losing one of their favorite doctrines?" The answer is found by letting the Greek scholars themselves translate the text using their own neutral reference books. Their own reference books give the grammar rules and definitions without bias or doctrinal agendas. Their own reference books impartially explain how each sentence's grammar is broken down and translated. Their own reference books impartially provide the correct translation.

John 1:1-4 Translated Grammatically

The Grammatical Analysis of the Greek Text is taken from:

1. "The Complete Word Study New Testament with Parallel Greek" 1992 Spiros Zodhiates and AMG International, Inc. AMG Publishers.

2. "Analytical Greek New Testament" 1981 Baker Book House Company.

3. "Net Bible, New Testament Clarified and Explained in 15,950 Footnotes" 1998 Biblical Studies Press, L.L.C.

4. "Thayer Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament" (Lexicon) 1977 Baker Book House Company, twelfth printing March 1986.

5. Internet: Herbert Weir Smyth, A Greek Grammar for Colleges, http://.perseus.tufts.edu/

Perseus Lookup Tool: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/vor?lookup=1474+ff&collection=Perseus%3Acollection%3AGreco-Roman&group=typecat .

The Indicative Mood: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3AI999.04.oo52&query=head%3D%2319

The Imperfect Tense: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3AI999.04.0007&query=head%3D%23521

Middle Voice : http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0052&query=form%3D%2314&layout--&loc=act

Pronoun, Nominative : http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3aabo%3asec%2c00001%3a939

Pronoun, Dative : http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0007&query=subsub%3D%2344&layout=&loc=

6. Internet: Colwell's Rule, by Robert Nguyen Cramer: Http:// www.bibletexts.com/qa/qa0029.htm

Technical Notes

Strong's No. 1722: en ("and"): preposition, dative: "In, On, At, During, With, By, Among."

No. 746: a-ro-x-ee ([a] "beginning"): Noun. dative, feminine, singular: "Beginning, or, Origin."

No. 2258 (from 1510): ee-n ("[it) [in fact) was and is "): Verb, indicative, imperfect, active, third person, singular: "To exist, To be present, To be."

Technical : "The Indicative mood is used to express a fact or to ask a question anticipating a fact." "The Imperfect represents an action as still going on, or a state as still existing from the past. The imperfect often has a dramatic or panoramic force: it enables the reader to follow the course of events as they occurred, as if he were a spectator of the scene depicted"

Explained : The verb is a fact, expressing action in the past that is still happening today. "(it) was and is (something)." This same word (ee-n) is used throughout verses 1 to 14.

0' ("the"): Definite article, nominative, masculine, singular.

No. 3056: logos ("spoken concepts [spoken plan'): Noun. nominative, masculine, singular. "A word; in the sense of meaningful language."

Technical : "Spoken human language expressing thoughts and concepts."

Explained : "logos" is singular, similar to Ps. 33:8-9, "God spoke, and it was done." Implied is not just the uttering of a single word, but many words spoken to accomplish a single plan.

kai ("And"): Conjunction, coordinating.

0' ("the"): Definite article, nominative, masculine, singular.

No. 3056: logos ("spoken concepts"): Noun. nominative, masculine, singular.

No. 4314: pi-ro-os ("pertaining [to]"): Preposition, accusative: "Towards" as expressing the direction of movement "With regard to, Pertaining to."

Technical : The KJV translation "with God" is derived from interpreting this as a Greek idiom, "to be very close to someone." Thus, "with God" is to imply being "side-by-side" with God. However, the real translation, without forcing the idiom-interpretation, is that the spoken word "pertains to God" and is in motion. [from Net Bible].

Explained : The Greek text does not have the word "with = meta." The word "with" is not in this sentence. Instead it has the word "towards." The spoken concept was and is "towards" the destination (which is God). The word was and is directed towards God.

to 'n ("the"): Definite article, accusative, masculine, singular.

No. 2316: the-eon ("God [the deity']: Noun. accusative, masculine, singular.

kai ("And"): Conjunction, coordinating.

No. 2316: the-eos ("God's every attribute [the divinity of the Deity]"): Noun, nominative, masculine, singular, anarthrous.

Technical : The controversy is if this word, "God," is a "predicative nominative (definite)" or a "predicate adjective (indefinite)." Colwell's Rule (created in 1933) is cited as support for "predicate nominative," "Word was God." The Greek grammar is cited as support for "predicate adjective," "Word was Divine." Neither side disputes that the Greek text is "predicate adjective," but Trinitarian translators believe the author intended to say "predicate nominative." [from] Colwell's Rule)

Explained : The absence of a definite article means that the noun is anarthrous. This means that the sentence is not talking about "God the deity," but is talking about the "qualities" or "attributes" of God. Thus, "the word" is not the same as "the deity God," but "the word" was and is "God's every attribute and Deity."

No.2258: ee-n ("was and is"): Verb, indicative, imperfect, active, third person, singular.

Technical : Regardless of Colwell's Rule, it is a misinterpretation to imply that this Greek sentence forms an equivalency between "logos" and "God," the Word is not the same as the Being, God. [from Colwell's Rule]

Explained : Trinitarian translators believe the author intended to say "word equals God" so they render "the Word was God." However, this verb is not an equivalency, it does not say "word equals God" or "God equals word." This word, 2258, is the exact same word as in all the other sentences.

0' ("the"): Definite article, nominative, masculine, singular.

No. 3056: logos ("spoken concepts"): Noun, nominative, masculine, singular.

No. 3778: outos ("It [the spoken concepts]"): Adjective, pronominal, demonstrative, nominative, masculine, singular: "This or That" referring to the subject just mentioned.

Technical : This word's gender follows the gender of the subject. In this case the subject (3056) has masculine gender, so then does this word. But for English translations, to use the word "he" is improper, as in English "he" is used to reference a male person. The English reader will get a false impression.

In Greek masculine gender does not imply a person, so in English the pronoun should be rendered "it " Thus, translators have a choice which will slant the meaning to the English reader: "He" if they want the reader to believe the subject is referring to Christ, and, "it" if they want to adhere to the subject, which is "logos."

Explained : The Greek text is not talking about a person. The subject is "logos," a thing. For the English reader the proper translation is "it"

No. 2258: ee-n ("was and is"): Verb, indicative, imperfect, active, third person, singular.

No. 1722: en ("in"): Preposition, dative: "In, On, At, During, With, By, Among."

No. 746: a-ro-x-ee ("[a) beginning"): Noun, dative, feminine, singular: "Beginning,or, Origin."

No. 4314: pi-ro-os ("pertaining [to)"): Preposition, accusative: "Towards, Pertaining to."

to 'n ("the").

No. 2316: the-eon ("God [the deity)"): Noun. accusative, masculine, singular.

No. 3956: pi-anta ("All"): Adjective, pronominal, nominative, neuter, plural: "Any  and Every, All."

No. 1223: di ("through"): Preposition, genitive: "Through" expressing both motion and action.

No. 846: autou ("it [spoken concepts)"): Noun, pronoun. genitive, masculine, third person,singular: "Again," as in making reference again to the subject.

Technical : The subject may be either the subject just mentioned, or the greater subject of the general discourse.

Explained : In this case, both the previous subject and the discourse subject is "logos." There is no ambiguity.

No. 1096: egeneto ("came to be [because of participation]"): Verb, indicative, aorist (past-tense), middle deponent. third person, singular: "To come into existence, to come to pass, happen, to appear, to be made, done, performed, wrought, finished."

Technical : The indicative aorist means it happened sometime in the past The middle deponent means that the subject did this verb to themselves.

Explained : The things created in the past were created because those things created themselves. This concept is hard to understand. Consider a seed that grows into a tree, which grows fruit, which provides energy to a bird, which drops a new seed to the ground. The seed, tree, fruit, and bird were all participating in the creating process.

kai ("and"): Conjunction, coordinating.

No. 5565: x-oo-ro-is ("without"): Preposition, genitive: "Separately, Apart from, Without"

No. 846: autou ("it [spoken concepts)"): Noun, pronoun. genitive, masculine, third person,singular: "Again," as in making reference again to the subject.

No. 1096: egeneto ("came to be [because of participation)"): Verb, indicative, aorist (past-tense), middle deponent, third person, singular: "To come into existence, to come to pass, happen, to appear, to be made, done performed, finished"

No. 3761: oude ("not [without it)"): Adjective, adverb: "But not" as in continuing a negation, in this case the word "without" (5565).

No. 1520: 'en ("one [1]"): Adjective, pronominal, cardinal, nominative, neuter, singular: "The Numeral1."

History : At this point in the Greek text there is a major punctuation problem. Ancient manuscripts did not have punctuation, not even spaces between words. So, the next two words can grammatically go as either the last two words of verse 3, or as the first two words of verse 4. Many of the older manuscripts having punctuation placed these two words as starting verse 4. It was not until the 4th century that manuscripts of the eastern Greek church appear with these two words as the last words of verse 3. This change was unknown in the western churches unti11ater. This change probably resulted from the controversy, the Greek Church wanted to safeguard their Trinity doctrine. [from Net Bible]

The reason : If these two words end verse 3, then Arian they can become "lost" in the translation, as verse 3 is rendered about the same way with or without these two words. Also this allows the pronoun (846) of verse 4 to be unattached, allowing the translator to introduce a new subject change, so that "it" can be translated as "Him" to refer to Christ. In doing this the reader is given a direct relationship between "the Word" and  "the Christ," thus establishing that Christ preexisted. However, with these two words in verse 4 the pronoun (846) is directly tied to the subject "logos," and should be translated as "it," so that "logos" is the light emitter, and verses 1-13 have no implied link between "the Word" and "the Christ" In verse 14 Jesus the promised Messiah is created.

No. 3739: 0' ("The one that"; "The thing that"): Adjective, pronominal, relative or demonstrative, nominative, neuter, singular. "This thing, that one."

Technical: The Nominative Pronoun: "A sentence may begin with the nominative as the subject of the thought in place of an oblique case." The Relative Pronoun: "Replaces a substantive mentioned in a previous main clause." "It may refer to a more remote noun, where the antecedent is not the nearest noun." In this sentence both the implied thought and the previously mentioned substantive is "logos" and what it is doing. The indirect object is the previous subject which is currently actively making things exist. This word (3739) is used 34 other times in the book of John, and each time it refers back to either the previous noun or the general subject of the discourse.

Explained: This word references the previous sentence's main subject, which is "logos" and what "logos" is doing. It is not used to introduce a new subject, like "Him" to imply a relationship between "the Word" and "Christ"

No. 1096: gegonen ("[him or it] now wrought"): Verb, indicative, perfect, active, third person, singular. "To come into existence, to come to pass, happen, to appear, to be made, done, performed, wrought, finished."

Technical: "[Indicative] The perfect denotes a completed action in the present time." Mt 21:4 uses the same form of 1096, "All this being done. . ." The action is completed, so "being done (completed)" can be rendered as "now wrought"

Explained: The action is completed in the present tense. To be a previous action it must be "imperfect." Also, this action is not middle deponent as in the previous sentence. Thus, the writer is referencing to all of the action of the previous sentence as being completed.

No. 1722: en ("in"): Preposition, dative: "In, On, At, During, With, By, Among."

No. 846: auto-oo ("[via] him or it [the him or it that is now doing]"): Noun, pronoun, dative, masculine, third person, singular: "Again," as in making reference again to the subject.

Technical: "[1474] The dative proper denotes that to or for which something is or is done" "[1506] The dative denotes instrument or means, manner, and cause." Dative points to the indirect object, the implied entity being spoken of. The verb is also third-person and singular.

Explained: The dative refers to the implied subject which is doing the action, which is a singular entity. It cannot refer back to the entities that were created in verse 3, as that would be a plural subject. "Logos" is the only singular subject of the previous sentence; it is also the main subject of the discourse.

No. 2222: z-oo-ee ("life-itself'): Noun, nominative, feminine, singular, anarthrous: "To be alive, Have life vitality, To be animate."

Technical: Anarthrous means it is not referring to "life" as a noun, a thing that has life, but to the qualities of life, what it means to be alive, the whole meaning of having life, life-itself.

Explained: Because the context is God, His word, and that which was and is created through His word, "the qualities of life" would refer to the greater purpose behind creating life.

No. 2258: ee-n ("was and is"): Verb, indicative, imperfect, active, third person, singular.

kai ("and"): Conjunction, coordinating.

ee' ("the [that life]"): Definite article, nominative, feminine, singular. Nominative is when the speaker is addressing the noun, life.

No. 2222: z-oo-ee ("life [a living entity]"): Noun, nominative, feminine, singular: Note that it is not anarthrous: "To be alive, have life vitality, To be animate."

No. 2258: ee-n ("was and is"): Verb, indicative, imperfect, active, third person, singular.

to' ("the"): Definite article, nominative, neuter, singular.

No. 5457: phi-oo-s ("light [emitter]"): Noun, nominative, neuter, singular: "Light" or the thing emitting the light (fire, star, torch).

t-oo-n ("the [all]"): Definite article, genitive, masculine, plural

No. 444: an-the-ro-oo-pi-oo-n ("of [all] mankind"): Noun, genitive, masculine, plural: "Human being, male or female." Genitive makes this "of the human being class."

Less Rough Translation of verses 1 through 4:

"In beginning was and is the spoken word. And the spoken word was and is pertaining to God. And God(s)( qualities) was and is (in) the spoken word. The spoken word was and is in beginning pertained to God.

"Everyone through (the) spoken word became them self; and without (the) spoken word became them self not (without the spoken word even) one.

"[OR]

"All (things) through (the) spoken word became itself, and without

(the) spoken word became itself not (without the spoken word even) one.

"That (the spoken words work) now wrought, in it (via the spoken

word) was and is life-itself; and that life was and is the light emitter of all mankind."

Verses 5 through 13 keep the same subject, God's word. The King James' use of "He" throughout these verses is improper. The subject never changes from "logos," which should be translated as "it."

In verse 14 the subject, "logos," creates the man Jesus, who is the only begotten son of the Father, the promised Messiah through God's word.

John 1:14 Translated Grammatically

kai ("and"): Conjunction, coordinating

0' ("the"): Definite article, nominative, masculine, singular.

No. 3056: logos ("spoken concepts [spoken plan]"): Noun, nominative, masculine, singular. "A word; in the sense of meaningful language."

No. 4561: sa-ro-s ("fleshly"): Noun, nominative, feminine, singular, anarthrous. "Flesh, the body, living creature, human nature."

Technical: Anarthrous means it is not referring to "flesh" or to a "living creature" as a noun, a thing that has life, but to the qualities of flesh, what it means to be flesh, the whole meaning of living in the flesh.

Explained : The Messiah was created and embodied all that it means to live in the flesh.

No. 1096: egeneto ("came to be [because of participation]"): Verb, indicative, aorist (past-tense), middle deponent, third person, singular: "To come into existence, to come to pass, happen, to appear, to be made, done, performed, wrought, finished."

Technical : The indicative aorist means it happened sometime in the past. The middle deponent means that the subject did this verb to themselves. In this sentence the subject is "logos," so the word participated in the process and became fleshly.

Explained : Just as in verse 3, through the word things created themselves because of participation in the process. So the word, through itself; made itself in fleshly form, which is the man Jesus. Jesus the Christ was created in verse 14.

Less Rough translation of verse 14:

"And the plan fleshly became itself, and dwelt among us."

"And the plan made itself into fleshly form, and dwelt among  us." The Greek text of John 1:1-14 defeats the doctrine of the preexistence of Christ.

Top of Page