Who Is the Word in John 1? | Episode 159

Debates about the nature of the Godhead often reference the opening verses of the Gospel of John. In this episode, Dr. David K. Bernard explains the significance of this passage and what the apostle John intended to communicate to his readers, including us.

If you enjoy this video, keep in touch with Dr. Bernard on social media and make sure to subscribe to this channel for upcoming episodes.

============================
Connect With Dr. David K. Bernard:
============================

=====================================
Listen to Apostolic Life in the 21st Century on:
=====================================

#theology #bible #biblestudy #bibleteaching #pentecostal #upci #doctrine

[CHURCHINTHEWILDERNESS]

Micah 5:2

“But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.”

[donaldperea]

Amen! Truth i came out of the trinitarian doctrine 40 years ago... Thank you, Jesus, for leading me to the truth of who you truly are. Trinitarians use 1 John 5:7 where it says, "For there are three that bear witness in heaven : the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; As proof they say of the trinity But The LORD is ONE! Not Three! That verse concludes that these three are ONE NAMELY JESUS CHRIST!

[teodoradraper]

Excellent, clear and insightful explanation! The Word - God in expression! THANK you Dr. Bernard!

[mt]

Thank Your own personal 'expression' of the Logos always adds more understanding. Every time you 'speak', more truth is 'revealed'. Every 'word' spoken together 'manifests' into a clearer image of the one God. Showing that (in the beginning) God's singular 'personality' was only with God. Until it was made/formed/conceived into flesh as Jesus the Christ. God's unknown personality finally revealed through the As you say "God' in self-revelation".... We could also say.... God in 'self-expression'.... (that's one of my personal favorites).

May the spirit of the one God (revealed, expressed, and manifest in Jesus the Christ) unify us, lead us, and guide us into all truth!

[David-qzgy]

By the grace of God I was brought out of the upc. I’m currently trying to minister Gods real truth to my family that’s still in it. Y’all pray for me saints!

[ElaineHodges-ee]

You are so loved and appreciated Bro Bernard! Thank you for your many years of studying His Word and sharing it with the world....the world needs Bible Truth and God uses you to deliver it!!!

[corneliofamily]

Thank you Dr. Bernard. You are such a blessing to all. God bless you. 🙏

[bretmavrick-phip]

🙏God bless this brother, , , "Great Mystery" Oneness, , , Isaiah, 9:6 and 1Tim, 3:16 and Acts, 2:38, , , Obey, Acts, 2:38 from your Heart❤And GOD keeps his word, You will Biblically receive his Spirit evidence🙏Your spirit man will praise GOD in supernatural Language❤🙏

[SharingTheBreadofLife]

The Lord Jesus Christ!!! 🙏🏼🙌🏼
All glory to God through Jesus Christ His Son 🙌🏼

[rickypineda]

I do admire Bro. David Bernard for uplifting our LORD God Jesus Christ as the one true God of the Bible. The only one that he is lacking is remembering the Sabbath day since our LORD God Jesus Christ is LORD of the Sabbath and the Sabbath is the Seal of His Kingdom in Heaven.

[cantusfirmuscody]

Many NT scholars have argued that John's use of logos is best understood in its Greek pagan context, but more have been noticing its Jewish background in relation to the concepts of Wisdom and the Word of God (particularly the "memra" as it appears in the Aramaic Targums). In these contexts, the Word is God's self-revelation--the mediator between God and creation. Bernard covers this to some extent, but leaves out some relevant info that hurts his case.

In the Targums, when God walks in the Garden, it is actually the Word (Memra) of God who walks in the garden. When God created man in His likeness, the Targums tell us that is actually the Word of God who created man in his likeness. In second temple Judaism, rooted in what they found in the Hebrew Bible, the idea of two powers in heaven can be found in lots of places.

In sum, Bernard is simply wrong when he says that Jews would have never understood John to be saying that Jesus is "the second person."

But let's say John was stating a new idea that no one had yet believed. That's possible, right? Bernard asserting that John couldn't have been saying that because Jews didn't think that way (apart form being incorrect) is just begging the question. You can't just say, "you're wrong because Jews didn't think that way so let's make the text say something else" is just a bad faith argument. If we assume that John *could* be trying to say this, we should ask what words he would use if he was trying to communicate this idea. To me it's quite obvious that he would distinguish the Son from the Father while also identifying them as sharing in the same divine nature (John 1:1). He would say that the person of Jesus shared in God's glory before creation (John 17:5). He would say "in the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God and the Word was God."

I don't want to get bogged down with Greek since there are likely lots of laymen in the comments, but I think we have to because Bernard hangs some major points on what he claims about it. Bernard mentions the phrase "pros ton theon" occurs in Hebrews where it means, roughly, "pertaining to God." In the accusative sense, pros has to do with something being toward a thing or intimate with a thing. A more literal translation of John 1:1 might be "the Word was toward God." There are places in the LXX and NT where this phrase has to do with something said to God (Gen 14:22), prayer made to God (Gen 20:17, Acts 12:5), prayers that rise up to God (Exod 2:23), being gathered against God (Numbers 16:11), a good conscience toward God (Acts 24:16), peace toward God (5:1), and Jesus returning to God (John 13:3). The sense of something pertaining to God is unusual. It occurs in Romans 15:17 and Hebrews 2:17. In both occurences, it is preceded by another word: a neuter accusative definite article (we only have on definitive article in English--"the") "ta." A more literal translation here would be "the toward the God." The word "things" is implied, so translators go with "the things pertaining to God." This article is missing in John 1:1.

It's also missing in John 1:2 where the phrase "pros ton theon" also occurs: "he was in the beginning with God." Would Bernard translate this verse, which occurs immediately after the one he's trying to rewrite, as "he was in the beginning pertaining to God?" Perhaps to be consistent he might try, but I suspect even he knows this would be incoherent.

Speaking of articles, he left out that the article appears before the first use of God, but not the second. This is important because it challenges his assertion that the Trinitarian reading uses equivocal definitions of "theos" (God). The lack of article following the verb for "was" suggests that John has a qualitative sense in mind: that Jesus was God in nature. If the article had been there, this might suggest what Bernard is arguing--that Jesus exhausted who God was. But it isn't. That's why Greek expert Daniel Wallace concludes from the language of this verse: "although the person of Christ is not the person of the Father, their essence is identical."

Bernard's reading that the Word is God's plan, and God's plan was there with Him, is such a tortured reading of the text to be incoherent--mere play and not serious exegesis.

[GearheadModding]

David K. Bernard makes the assertion that since the word "pros" can be also translated as "pertaining to" like in Hebrews 2:17 and 5:1, that it can also be applied to John 1:1 (example: The Word pertained to God and the Word was God, ” or “The Word belonged to God and was God.)
However, Hebrews 2:17 and 5:1 word structure is different than John 1:1. In Hebrews the word pros is rightly translated "pertaining to" because it is preceded by the neuter article (τὰ) which functions as an accusative of reference. Hence, the syntax (arrangement of words) present in both Hebrews 2:17 and 5:1 are quite unlike John 1:1.

[AmericanWolf]

Trinitarians do love the english wording of "with God" and "was God", because they can fit that into their narrative. But they also love to overlook two things about this verse. First, they overlook that if this is a description of the trinity, why is there zero mention of a 3rd person? Why is the Holy Spirit left out? Second, they overlook that there is no context in which the Greek "logos" can be used that would fit the trinitarian narrative.

[nicomettler]

Thank you for the argument against the trinity, and unexplainable believe.

[davidcrenshawphysicaltherapy]

Was with God from the beginning and has appeared from age to age to educate humanity according to the needs of the times.

[princeplayzytp]

The word is simple . A God of his word meaning anything God says it must happen

[florcapati]

In 1 Cor 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in HIM; and One LORD Jesus Christ,
By whom are all things and we by HIM. We must not break some scriptures by driving out own ideas rather than abiding on every word for every area or topic that we discuss.

[jasonsanders]

A action of God, just as “God’s breath”

[marilyncook]

As humans, we run into a problem when we try to use our human intellect and ignore what the Holy Spirit reveals about the Word.

[KittyGoesMeow]

I am curious, in your theory of Oneness, how do you explain John 8:18 where Jesus is using the father as a 2nd witness, for the law of having 2 witnesses for a testimony to be true? This would indicate 2 separate beings (although still one entity, as both Jesus and the Father are God).