Explaining John 1:1

Dear friends and neighbors, and those that need help in understanding John 1 from a Jewish perspective,

Thank you for coming to this page to find the answer to this often asked question. This paper, in and of itself, can be used to explain to trinitarians, heretics, and others that don't really know Biblical Jewish theology why Yehoshua/Jesus is not the God of Israel, but rather, he is His faithful servant and His only begotten son.

When a non-Jew that does not know the doctrines that were taught and handed down to us by the prophets of Israel will take those same scriptures and redefine them, (in order to make them fit their false notions), they and others who believe what they preach become deceived. They end up believing lies and make Yehoshua/Jesus

into someone whom he is not, someone who is completely unrecognizeable to his own people.

These people will say, "You [Maregaal] say Jews do not believe, nor teach that the messiah/christ is God; yet, if that is the case what about John 1:1? How do you resolve that, or get around that statement?"

With that, I will say, "Well, let's take an honest look at it."

First off, what do I say about the messiah/moshiach/christ?

I teach that he is the first of all creation; thus, in order to be the first he had to be brought forth before the heavens and the earth. Does it not say in Proverbs 8:

Yehowah 'brought me forth'/'bore me'/'brought me into existence' as the first/head of His works,

before His deeds of old;

I was appointed/made/set up/'brought into being' during/from eternity,

from the beginning, before the world began.

When there were no oceans, I was given birth,

When there were no springs abounding with water;

before the mountains were settled in place,

before the hills, I was given birth...

I also say, as any son - of any specie - has similar attributes as his parents - meaning a bear cub does or will do what bears do; a human child will do what humans do. In like manner, because Yehoshua was 'made' and 'begotten' from the essence of God; thus, being His very own son, he then has similar attributes to Him. And, because Yehoshua is His only begotten son, there are only two of those kind of spirits; thus, defining the plural word of 'elohim' once again - as I do throughout this website - vs. how modern Jews define the word, "plentitude of might." Because then - the son is more powerful then all else, except for the One that brought him into existence. The son was the one that made the heavens and the earth, and it was he that sat down on the seventh day and SOOO rested and got refreshed. For the scripture says in many places things like this:

"Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made (John 1:3)."

"He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him (John 1:10)."

Notice this word, "through": according to what the prophets have taught and said, the Father - the only God - commanded him what to do; and therefore, he did so. Thus, the Father had the heavens and earth made by His son.

In simultude, if I had a lot of money and I would like to build a house, I could hire a contractor to build it for me. When he [the contractor] is done, not only can he finally go home and rest and get refreshed, it is clear that he

----------------PAGE 1 WHEN PRINTED--------------

did the actual hands-on work; yet, I am the one who built the house or had it built. I did so through the contractor. This is what the Father did. In proverbs 8 the scripture calls the son, the 'architect' or 'craftsman' at Yehowah's 'side,' depending on which version you have.

Again, here is one more example: "For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things (Col 1:16-17)."

Please realize that one cannot speak in the name of Yehowah and say that the Christ is "before all things" if he never had a beginning point. This is because if he were eternal, then it would be 'without mention' that he is "before all things." However, Paul, being an Israelite, knows that the messiah is the first of all of creation. This is the real reason behind what he is saying in this passage. Likewise, you also cannot say, "....and for him" if he were 'God.' For if that were the case, it would be obvious that all things were made for himself, if he were "God." Yet, Paul is making a point here because these things were given to Yehoshua, not that he owned them all along because there was no one over him.

So, let's look at John 1, now that we know what I teach and what the Tanach teaches about who the messiah really is. He is an 'el,' a class of spirits where there are only two of them, as we just pointed out with the word, 'elohim' and with other sources.

If we look at John 1:1 along with the WHOLE chapter, we can see that John is saying something quite different than what the King James Version renders, as well as the ESV, ASV, NIV versions, and also as well as 99% of the other versions out there. This is because the Greek Text was NOT translated into English by Jews who know their Judaic faith. Rather, it was translated by non-Jews that teach something totally foreign to Judaism, that being the awful doctrine of the false "trinity."

Here is what John wrote:

Even if a person may not understand the Greek language one can still see that the two words I circled are different.

Now, Trinitarian scholars will say that this is actually the same word, just in a different form. A crude example of this in English would be saying something like this: "I am going to the store," vs. "I'm heading to the store," or "I'm off to the store." Thus, these two words mean the same thing - according to these so-called scholars; which are no scholars at all.

You have to remember that man was made in the image of God; therefore, not unless 99% of all mankind and the

God of Israel Himself look like these Siamese twins, is it possible to be "with" somebody

and to be that "same" somebody at the same time." According to the rendering of the King

James Version, as well as most English versions of John Chapter 1, this is exactly what the

King James Version proclaims by also saying, "...was God."

Let's look at exactly what the KJV says:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

On a side note: the most important thing you must realize is that John [or 'Yonathan'

because he is an Israelite] is speaking from a Jewish standpoint, NOT a secular, worldly,

or non-torah observant standpoint.

For if people, and/or "scholars" honestly think Yonathan was truly "godifying" Yehoshua/Jesus here, or is honestly proclaiming him as 'God' in verse one, then John sure did trip over his own theology later on in the very same chapter. For if we were to still use the King James edition or translation of the Greek manuscripts, a Trinitarian translation by such ignorant 'scholars,' you can see these obvious errors, discrepancies, or trip-ups. Let me point them out by just hitting the highlights; here are the quotes from the KJV:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.........And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us...........No man hath seen God at any time."

Do you see the order of things? If Jesus were God and then walked among us, you then cannot proclaim that "no man has ever seen God," if Yehoshua were God!!!!

----------------PAGE 2 WHEN PRINTED--------------

Thus, in the truth of the real context of the whole chapter, John never claimed Jesus is 'God,' but he claimed him to be someone other than God.

The truth of the matter is that when your doctrine is all wrong the translation is going to be tainted, and so the sayings are not going to fit, nor do they flow. This is why the 'scholars' trip all over themselves in their rendering. This is also why Trinitarian preachers have trouble explaining a doctrine that is not even there, nor true. Yonathan never proclaimed Yehoshua is "God," nor that he was divine. Thus, if this chapter was translated in the truth of Judaism, everything written in this chapter would flow very smoothly - without any hangups. Just hitting the same highlights above, this is how these things should be translated:

In the Beginning was the Word and the Word was with EL and the Word was also an el....the Word became flesh....no man hath seen EL at any time; however, the only begotten son, who is in the bosom of the Father has made Him known.

So, what does the latter quote in this big quote say? Let's look at who the main subject is. Is it not EL (God)? Who else is described as 'God' in this quote? Only the 'Father' is known as 'God' in this verse, not the 'begotten son.' So, we see in this verse that ONLY ONE person or subject is "God" and that alone is the Father, not the son. Thus, Jesus, according to the apostle John himself, is NOT God at all. Thus, proving that the KJV is totally out of context and that the so-called scholars that made these type of English versions don't know how to read. This is because their theology [or 'sight'] is clouded by the false doctrines that were handed down to them from Gentiles who never knew or learned the ways and doctrines of Judaism.

Thus, if you read John chapter 1 in its full context, we can clearly see that Yehoshua/Jesus is a far cry from being called "God" by John. Likewise, what else do we see in all of this chapter? We see that there are only two main individuals being talked about, the Father and His son. As I say in several places on this website, all children of any specie take on the exact same attributes of their parents. Meaning: a bear cub will do what his parents can do because he is a bear specie. A snail cannot do what a bear can do, and a bear cannot do what a human can do. A human child can do what his human parents can do, because he is their son; thus, being of the same "rank and file" or specie. Therefore, so the same with Yehoshua, he is the very son of 'God,' so guess what? He can do what the God of Israel can do, just in a lesser degree because he is a made being, as all sons are younger than their parents or come later. For the God of Israel never had a beginning, and so He can never have an end since He is eternal. Now because the son is like his Father, we can then understand how it is possible for verse 3 of John 1 to be true that says:

"All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." Because, like his Father, he has the power to create.

Now on a deeper level what else does this verse say? What it says is this: If "all" things were created by Yehoshua then nothing is left if you were to take all that away, except for he and his Father. Yet, scripture says that Yehoshua himself is made. Thus, this verse is also telling us that Yehoshua is the firstborn of all creation and this is why the word "elohim" is used in Genesis 1:1, because he is there before anything else came into existence. For at the "beginning" it was he that was creating everything. With this insight it should be very clear to you now that it was really Yehoshua that rested and was refreshed on the seventh day, not his Father/God.

This is the truth of John 1. Thus, this is what I tell people when they ask me about John 1.

Now for reference only, here is a break down of John 1:1,

εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος

17 total words in this verse

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. εν preposition

en en: in, at, (up-)on, by, etc.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. αρχη noun - dative singular feminine

arche ar-khay': beginning, corner, (at the, the) first, head, top (estate), magistrate, power, principality, principle, rule.

----------------PAGE 3 WHEN PRINTED--------------

3. ην verb - imperfect indicative - third person singular

en ane: I (thou, etc.) was (wast or were) -- + agree, be, have (+ charge of), hold, use, was(-t), were.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. ο definite article - nominative singular masculine

ho ho: the definite article; the (sometimes to be supplied, at others omitted, in English idiom) -- the, this, that,

one, he, she, it, etc.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. λογος noun - nominative singular masculine

logos log'-os: something said (including the thought); by implication, a topic (subject of discourse), also

reasoning (the mental faculty) or motive; by extension, a computation; specially, account, cause,

communication, concerning, doctrine, fame, have to do, intent, matter, mouth, preaching, question, reason,

+ reckon, remove, say(-ing), shew, speaker, speech, talk, thing, + none of these things move me, tidings,

treatise, utterance, word, work.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. και conjunction

kai kahee: and, also, even, so then, too, etc.; often used in connection (or composition) with other particles

or small words

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. ο definite article - nominative singular masculine

ho ho: the definite article; the (sometimes to be supplied, at others omitted, in English idiom) -- the, this, that,

one, he, she, it, etc.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8. λογος noun - nominative singular masculine

logos log'-os: something said (including the thought); by implication, a topic (subject of discourse), also

reasoning (the mental faculty) or motive; by extension, a computation; specially, account, cause, communication,

concerning, doctrine, fame, have to do, intent, matter, mouth, preaching, question, reason, + reckon, remove,

say(-ing), shew, speaker, speech, talk, thing, + none of these things move me, tidings, treatise, utterance, word,

work.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9. ην verb - imperfect indicative - third person singular

en ane: I (thou, etc.) was (wast or were) -- + agree, be, have (+ charge of), hold, use, was(-t), were.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10. προς preposition

pros pros: a preposition of direction; forward to, i.e. toward, before, with, along side of

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

11. τον definite article - accusative singular masculine

ho ho: the definite article; the (sometimes to be supplied, at others omitted, in English idiom) -- the, this, that,

one, he, she, it, etc.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

12. θεον noun - accusative singular masculine

theon theh'-on: a deity; figuratively, a magistrate; by Hebraism, very -- exceeding, God, god(-ly, -ward).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

13. και conjunction

kai kahee: and, also, even, so then, too, etc.; often used in connection (or composition) with other particles or

small words

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

14. θεος noun - nominative singular masculine

theos theh'-os: a deity; figuratively, a magistrate; by Hebraism, very -- exceeding, God, god(-ly, -ward).

My commentary for this word in this whole chapter is not based on the Greek language, but on

the doctrine that is derived from the prophets and the Jewish Sages, (ancient or modern), and from the Hebrew culture.

They taught and teach that the messiah is not the God of Israel; yet, according to the prophets he himself made the heavens and the earth by Yehowah's command; thus, he is not "GOD", nor a god, but an el. Therefore, the definition of this word is strictly based on the doctrine that has been laid out by the prophets of Judaism, not on some scholar's knowledge of the Greek language and how it should or ought to be used!!!! Likewise, one must understand that John was limited to the Greek language when trying to explain the Hebrew faith and religion.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

15. ην verb - imperfect indicative - third person singular

en ane: I (thou, etc.) was (wast or were) -- + agree, be, have (+ charge of), hold, use, was(-t), were.

----------------PAGE 4 WHEN PRINTED--------------

16. ο definite article - nominative singular masculine

ho ho: the definite article; the (sometimes to be supplied, at others omitted, in English idiom) -- the, this, that,

one, he, she, it, etc.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

17. λογος noun - nominative singular masculine

logos log'-os: something said (including the thought); by implication, a topic (subject of discourse), also

reasoning (the mental faculty) or motive; by extension, a computation; specially, account, cause,

communication, concerning, doctrine, fame, have to do, intent, matter, mouth, preaching, question,

reason, + reckon, remove, say(-ing), shew, speaker, speech, talk, thing, + none of these things move

me, tidings, treatise, utterance, word, work.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In -[the] - beginning/start - was - the - word/speaker, - and - this - word/speaker - was - toward/before/along side of - the -

Theon (EL); - also/likewise - a magistrate/great one (el) - was - this - speaker.

If you look at the whole chapter of John 1, the word "θεος" is only used one time in the whole chapter. Twelve times in chapter 1, however, when using the ASV, the English word "GOD" is used. In truth, however, "Theon" is used 11 times in this chapter in the actual Greek, while the word "theos" is used only once. That one time is only referring to Jesus himself in John 1:1.

Remember, the Hebrew faith and religion must be viewed by its own culture, not through the eyes of non-Jews. Moses and the prophets never taught that there is a trinity, nor that the moshiach is 'God,' but that the moshiach is a made being; one cannot escape this fact, for it is also a historical fact.

Likewise, just on a mere footnote: In pagan Greek culture, they had their "GODS" that they worshipped, some of those "GODS" had sons and daughters, they are known as "lesser gods." Yet, in the mythologies they still say "so and so is the "GOD" of so and so," not "so and so is the lesser god of whatever." Thus, John was limited to the Greek language and that is all he had to play with. Similarly to these limitations, John does it again with something else. For Greeks taught that when a person dies that person still lives on in a spirit form as a ghost in a place they called "Hades." However, Hebrews or Scripture doesn't teach such things, we teach that when one dies his body turns back to dust and his/her spirit sleeps until the resurrection; thus, one is spiritually unconscious knowing nothing, as Solomon mentioned and dozens of others in the Tanakh. Yet, guess what, because John is limited to the Greek language, he uses the very word "Hades" in Revelation in Rev 20:13, "And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell (Hades) delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works."

Thus, do not let trinitarians fool you, nor so-called 'scholars,' for they are interpreting things by the Greek language alone and/or by their Trinitarian beliefs and not by the doctrines handed down to us Jews by the holy prophets that actually heard the words of Yehowah. Remember, Yehowah does not lie, but man does and they also have their own biases and agendas.

Maregaal

For more truth, go to HeShallGovern.com

or for further insight into what is discussed here, CLICK HERE