3

Ancient Greek Lexicons appear to define two overarching categories of definition for λόγος (logos (word)) as in John's Gospel:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. - John 1:1

From Abbott-Smith:

I. Of that by which the inward thought is expressed, Lat. oratio, sermo, vox, verbum.

II. Of the inward thought itself, Lat. ratio.

From Thayers Greek Lexicon

properly, a collecting, collection (see λέγω) — and that, as well of those things which are put together in thought, as of those which, having been thought i. e. gathered together in the mind, are expressed in words. Accordingly, a twofold use of the term is to be distinguished: one which relates to speaking, and one which relates to thinking.

The Thayers entry seems to be saying that the thinking and speaking aspects are distinguishable but the very next line where the definition of the speaking aspect begins contains

I. As respects speech: 1. a word, yet not in the grammatical sense (equivalent to vocabulum, the mere name of an object), but language, vox, i. e. a word which, uttered by the living voice, embodies a conception or idea;

The idea seems to be that logos can be thinking or the expression that is born of thinking, so that logos can be thinking without speech but can never be speech apart from the thought behind it.

If logos in John is thought of as Divine Expression in Christ in any of it's aspects; in creation, in flesh/redemption, in judgement/consummation does logos in John ever allow for the utterance or expression by God to be divorced from the thoughts of God?

18
  • 1
    @MikeBorden It may just be me in the way I am reading your question but : are you missing the point that God was the Logos ? And in Him was Life. And the Life (not knowledge) was the light of men.All that can be communicated - sensibly and reasonably - was already in existence in the beginning. And God was that Logos. And the rest of the book is about believing (not knowledge) in his name : the name of one come in flesh, but who is also Son of God, from the beginning. By faith in the name of Him - is eternal Life. – Nigel J Feb 13 '20 at 0:39
  • 1
    @NigelJ I'm not missing that point and am with you there. I am trying to solidify a definition because of comments on a question I asked in the Christianity Stack. I have fine tuned the question here a little based upon your input. Thanks. – Mike Borden Feb 13 '20 at 1:01
  • 1
    @MikeBorden What I find more fundamental is that the Son is being divorced from the Father. By asserting that the "Logos" is a created thing, assertions are made that the Son is not begotten of the Father. Thus the perfection of Divine Unity (the relationship) is being severed. A son is not 'created'. Nor was Logos 'created'. A Son is begotten : it is a living process, not a creative process. And He who is the only begotten : He who is the Living Word - is the Son of God. In him is Life. And by his manifestation (through faith in his name) is eternal life to men. – Nigel J Feb 13 '20 at 1:33
  • 1
    @ThomasPearne There are sons of God by creation, their spirit-beings receiving their existence from him. God is seen as a father to Israel (as well as an husband). There are sons of God by redemption and by birth in Spirit. And God has one begotten Son, 'very God of very God' as says the Nicene Creed. This is a matter of eternal generation. See Athanasius for a full account. Also Charles Lee Irons for recent stress on the importance of the eternal begetting. All of the documentation is available freely to yourself as much as it is available to myself. – Nigel J Feb 13 '20 at 8:24
  • 1
    @MikeBorden There is also another related question. How can a 'created Saviour' give eternal Life if he has not eternal Life himself (only a 'created life' which began at a point of time) ? – Nigel J Feb 13 '20 at 8:41
1

A very interesting question (by Mike Borden [upvote +1]) about the term λογος (logos) of the Gospel of John of Zebedee.

Regrettably, this bungler situation – described by Mike - about the specific meaning of λογος, is real.

Why this situation exists? Substantially, for a couple of grounds.

An amount of translators:

(1) believe that the Bible writers utilized terms without correctness of speech;

(2) neglect to carefully examining always the Bible context.

First point: the importance to vest correctness of speech to the Bible writers

Ask ourselves: is it possible the NT writers did not distinguish properly between all the Greek verbs linked with the general concept of ‘to speak’? For an example, did they lump everything together the verbs λαλεω (laleō), λεγω (legō), and φωνεω (phōneō)? Instead to choose logos for describe the character in his prologue, could he choose the term ρημα (rēma), or also ονοηα (onoma), indifferently? Did John think, ‘I now will utilize one of these several Greek terms - at random - since it makes no difference, at all’?

To understand Bible message we have to start with the conviction that Bible writers did not write ungrammatically – such some Greek scholars again believe, unfortunately - especially about the John’s Greek language of Revelation. If I were convinced that Bible writers utilized terms without correctness of speech, I will not waste my time examining the babbling of ungrammatical people. This isn’t my case (I leave everybody free to do differently, very obviously).

Personally, I am convinced of the correctness of speech of the Bible writers. These ones were able to distinguishing between relative synonyms. Warning: I am fully aware that the Bible message must pass through the methods of textual criticism (including proved instances of copyists mistakes) – and other Bible-related disciplines - before we will able to understand it fully.

But, what have to do this with our discussion?

Thayer (yet mentioned by Mike Borden), and other lexicographers (as NAS Exhaustive Concordance, Parkhurst, Schenkl-Brunetti, Strong, and many others) derived λογος from λεγω. What means this verb (λεγω)? Basically, ‘to collect, gather’ > ‘to choose, enumerate, to count among one’s set’. These meanings exclude that λογος is linked with ‘to speak without thinking’, ‘to rave’. Moreover, according the relatively latest linguistic researches, the etymology of λεγω can be traced from some Semitic origins (to present here all the set of proofs of this would be too wearisome for many forumers, so, I always hope that I will able to present them in the SE Semitic Languages, when it will open – I hope - in the future…). In fact, through a commutation between K and G (that was common both in Akkadian [ADAKURRU > ADAGURRU, and other terms] as in Greek [Shekelesh, in ancient Egyptian > Σαγαλασσος, transliterated in Sagalassos]), along with a permutation of the group K-L in L-K > L-G, we found, in Akkadian language, the term KULLUMU, that means ‘to show, to point out, to reveal (something hidden), to disclose, explain, advise, teach, instruct’ (Chicago Assyrian Dictionary, VIII:519-525).

More similar to the Greek term at issue, we also found, in Hebrew language, the verb לקח, that means ‘to take hold (of)’, as well as the derivative noun means, ‘doctrine, instruction’.

In this manner, the Greek term λογος would be linked not only to a generic meanings of ‘word’, ‘talk’, but it is more near to the concept of ‘instruction’

But even if we does not take into account the Semitic languages, we cannot skip the linguistic fact that λογος, in addition to the generic meanings of ‘word, talk’ (and so on), possesses – by itself - also some meanings like 'doctrine', 'order', 'command', 'decision to enforce', 'teaching', 'oracle', and so on.

Furthermore, what about the comparison of this Greek term with the others synonyms of it? Are these just-listed meanings shared with the relative Greek synonyms of λογος? Avoiding to weigh down the matter, I focus – as an emblematic example – on the comparison between λογος and λαλια, only. Granted, both terms have in common the meaning of ‘word’, or ‘narration’. So, are they absolute synonyms? Of course, not.

Read, please, what Richard Chenevix Trench (in his Synonyms of the New Testament, 1901 edition, London; I have omitted the Greek diacritical signs, p. 269) asserted (bold is mine):

“[…] a λαλειν may be ascribed to grasshoppers (Theocritus, Idyl. v. 34), and to pipes and flutes (Idyl. xx. 28, 29); yet inasmuch as there is nothing behind these sounds, they could never be said λεγειν: for in the λεγειν lies ever the εννοια, or thought of the mind (Heb. iv. 12), as the correlative to the words on the lips, and as the necessary condition of them; it is colligere verba in sententiam; even as λογος is by Aristotle defined (Poët. 20) […] Plutarch affirms that […] λαλειν could, be predicated of monkeys and dogs (λαλουσι γαρ ου φραζουσι δε, De Plac. Phil. V. 20)”.

So, λεγειν cannot possess a meaning linked with a just-to-say-something mood, meaning that λαλειν are able to back, instead. But, is this (“the thought of the mind”) the real discriminating factor between λεγειν and the other to-speak-related Greek verbs? We will answer it later.

Well, it is clear that this two terms (λογος and λαλια) are only relative synonyms, not absolute ones.

But I’d like, now, leave the NT speaks – by itself - to ascertain the full difference between them.

In Mark 6:50 we found an occasion when Jesus (or, the writer of this Gospel) used both the terms in the same micro-context: “for they all saw him and were terrified. But immediately he spoke [ελαλησε] to them and said [λεγει], ‘Take heart; it is I. Do not be afraid’” [ESV]. It is clear that what Jesus spoke (ελαλησε, from λαλεω) was a directive, a teaching to enforce (λεγει, from λεγω).

Read, now, how Trench carry on his argument, confirming our following conclusions (bold is mine): “Λαλια and λογος in the N. T. are true to the distinction here traced. How completely λαλια, no less than λαλειν, has put off every slighting sense, is abundantly evident from the fact that on one occasion our Lord claims λαλια as well as λογος for Himself: ‘Why do ye not understand my speech (λαλιαν)? even because ye cannot hear my word’ (λογον, John viii.43) Λαλια and λογος are set in a certain antithesis to one another here, and in the seizing of the point of this must lie the right understanding of the verse. […] It is clear that, as the inability to understand his speech (λαλια) is traced up as a consequence to a refusing to hear his word (λογος), this last, as the root and ground of the mischief, must be the deeper and anterior thing. To hear his ‘word’ can be nothing else than to give room to his truth in the heart. They who will not do this must fail to understand his speech, the outward form and utterance which his word assumes.” (ibid, pages 269-270)

You see how Trench links the term λογος to the basic concept of ‘a directive, an instruction, a teaching to enforce’. In other words, the teacher/master/oracle hopes that the person is talking to will enforce the listened instruction. The same argument we may use to well understand the passage of Rom 3:19, where the two verbs are again utilized next to each other.

Sorry, but – in this instance - a translation like KJV doesn’t make much sense (“Now we know that what things soever the law saith [legei], it saith [lalei] to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God”), translating two different Greek verbal forms (from two different Greek verbs) with the same English verbal form (and the same English verb), implying that the Bible writer here utilized – unnecessarily – two graphically different verbs when they were semantically identical! Not in the least. Paul did know how to spoke and write in Greek very well, and so he did know the difference between those relative synonyms, here utilizing them accordingly.

So, a better (though loose) translation of Rom 3:19 would be (bold is mine): “Now we know that whatever the things the law instructs [legei], it speaks [lalei] to those under the Law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world be under judgment to God.

A final example could be Joh 8:43 (yet mentioned by Trench), where we will be able to discern the semantic discrimination between λογος and λαλια (bold is mine): “Why you do not know my saying [lalian]? Because you are not able to hear (namely, ‘to enforce’, ‘to obey’ [as in Mat 18:15; Joh 9:31; 11:41, et al.]) my instruction [logon]!”

By the way, we can find the same concept of ‘not be able to do [what is right]’ in 2 Tim 3:7, even if here is utilized a different wording.

Second (and last) point: the importance of the context

Is the John’s λογος a God quality, a prerogative of Him? Or, we have to consider the λογος in other way? We all acknowledge (from the Bible) that God is eternal, with an eternity that sweeps from the past to the future (Jude 1:25). The Bible global context teaches us that since God did not have a beginning also his qualities and prerogatives did not have a beginning. His love, majesty, justice (fore some examples) are eternal like He is eternal. Differently, the John’s prologue assigned a beginning to the λογος. At this point, we are able to resolve the dilemma ‘Is the John’s λογος a God quality, a prerogative of Him? Or, we have to consider the λογος in other way?’

Since we have yet seen that the λογος had a beginning (Joh 1:1), this term cannot be assigned to God, nor to some quality/prerogative of Him, but to a different individual – that we Christians correctly believe is the Messiah Jesus. The context – also in this instance – is a powerful factor to sustain this conclusion. In fact, passages like John 1:2-4 (‘through the λογος all the things came into existence’); 1:9 (‘the λογος was about to come into the world’); 1:11 (the refusal of the λογος by his own people’s side). Afterwards, the verse 18 completes the argument linking the term λογος to the Son of God.

To return to your final question: ‘If logos in John is thought of as Divine Expression in Christ in any of it’s aspects; in creation, in flesh/redemption, in judgement/consummation does logos in John ever allow for the utterance or expression by God to be divorced from the thoughts of God?’, we may say that this question has little sense, because "God was pleased to have all His fullness [namely, any divine prerogatives we treat here, including thoughts and instructions] dwell in Him [namely, the Messiah Jesus]." (Colossians 1:19, Tree of Life Version)

I hope these information proved to be useful for you.

5
  • Even without incorporating Divine thought into the definition of λογος, can we say that the λογος had a beginning (Joh 1:1) without intimating that God had a beginning (Genesis 1:1)? Didn't John begin his prologue in such a way for the very purpose of linking the two in eternity? – Mike Borden Apr 7 '20 at 16:55
  • This is another keen question. 'Eternity' in the Bible deserves an articulate answer. You may compose an apt question about this topic, and I will happy to answer you. To give you a hypersynthetic answer to your first question: 'Yes, we may say so." – Saro Fedele Apr 7 '20 at 19:31
  • (continuation) Moreover, the comparison between Gen 1:1 and Joh 1:1 shows us that the 'beginning' (בראשית /λογος) must be understood - in the two texts - in a different ways. In fact, Genesis enhanced the fact that the physical universe ('heavens and earth') had a beginning. – Saro Fedele Apr 28 '20 at 12:01
  • (continuation) That's why the term בראשית is connected with the divine action of to create. Differently, the λογος of John 1:1 speaks about the existence of the individual (the Son of God) behind the title. So, while Gen 1:1 does not invalidate the God's eternity, that sweeps from the past to the future, Joh 1:1 - on the other hand - does not bar the possibility the Logos had a beginning, then, possessing an eternity from a time point onward. – Saro Fedele Apr 28 '20 at 12:02
  • Doesn't the divine action to create also incorporate (in fact spring from) the mental activity, the thought, that precedes the creative act. In this way λογος of John 1:1 makes the connection to Genesis 1:1 prior to the creative act since λογος is not just the word as expressed but it is the word as conceived in the mind. I don't want to draw near the notion that at some point in eternity God began to think, whereas He hadn't thought before. – Mike Borden Apr 28 '20 at 13:06
1

Summary
To summarize: no, the utterance or expression by God is never divorced from the thoughts of God. This is also the simple understanding of John's introduction which gives the Word in time, in relationship to God, and in its God essence:

In the beginning was the Word
                 and the Word was with God
                 and the Word was God
This was in the beginning with God

Looking outside the Gospel, Hebrews says Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever (13:8). Whatever the Word was, it still is, and will be forever. Yet, as the Word became flesh, this action must have been conceived in thought in the beginning. Thus the Word is not an idea or concept. It is "planned" action:

All things were done with him and without him nothing was done

As Cullman says, "...it is God's very nature to reveal himself, and that this his revelation, his "Word," is an action: "Without this Word nothing was done" (John 1:3)"1 John says the Logos became human for the sole purpose of making salvation a reality. Then to the extent one believes salvation was not an "after thought" for God but known from the beginning, quite simply, the Word can never be divorced from God in either thought or action.

The Word is Active
Since the Word was in the beginning, the Greek is secondary and must function in support of, and be consistent with that which has been revealed in the Old Testament:

8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD. 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. 10 “For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven and do not return there but water the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, 11 so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it. (Isaiah 55) [ESV]

John begins the Gospel giving the history of the Word: it was with God (1:1); it was sent into the world (1:10); it accomplished its purpose (1:12); it returned (1:18). He described the Word using the Old Testament. The Word is not an idea or something intellectual. Nor does the Word only create; it is actively shaping history (...without Him nothing was done).

The Prologue ends at the point the Word returns. What was in the beginning with God returns to the bosom of the Father, and a purpose, to ἐξηγήσατο is given. According to the Greek Lexicon (BDAG) the meaning is "to relate in detail, tell, report, describe; or to set forth in great detail, expound."2 In addition to "Father" which is used extensively and so expounded, the Gospel in general agrees with this meaning:

The goal of the Gospel is the readers' eternal life (20.31), and eternal life is to know (γινώσκειν) God (17.3) and Jesus does make him known (14.7, 9).3

At the same time, John's description of the impact of the Word goes beyond what is found in the Lexicon: grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. This he contrasts with the Law which came through Moses. John also personalizes the Word. It is μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν, "(the) only-begotten God, the one being..." in doing so John presents a text with two references to the Exodus, Moses and ὁ ὢν (the Name of God).

Now the primary meaning of ἐξηγέομαι is to lead;4 John could be saying the Word leads into the bosom of the Father. This too is found in the Gospel. The Baptist's disciples follow Jesus (1:37); Jesus' sheep will follow His voice (10:27); all who serve must follow (12:26); Peter is to follow (21:19, 22). In particular, Peter cannot follow immediately, but will later:

Simon Peter said to him, “Lord, where are you going?” Jesus answered him, “Where I am going you cannot follow me now, but you will follow afterward.” (13:36)

Peter will follow afterward, after Jesus has gone to the Father. Despite references to the Exodus and the obvious requirement to follow (which is also given in Matthew, Mark, and Luke), the Lexicon asserts ἐξηγήσατο is never used to mean "lead" in the New Testament.5

This disconnect highlights the need to reconcile the Logos with the Old Testament which states the Word is an active force of history. Isaiah says the word ...shall not not return to me empty...." The Hebrew רֵיקָם usually means empty-handed:

If the God of my father, the God of Abraham and the Fear of Isaac, had not been on my side, surely now you would have sent me away empty-handed. God saw my affliction and the labor of my hands and rebuked you last night.” (Genesis 31:42)

John's "personalized" Word is μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν, the "only-begotten God, THE ONE WHO IS."6 He does not return to the Father "empty-handed." Rather He led Peter and those who followed and will lead all His sheep who hear His voice into the bosom of the Father.

The Word is Purpose
The passage in Isaiah describes an interrelationship between the LORD's thoughts and ways:

55:8 My thoughts [are not your thoughts]
  55:8 My ways [are not your ways]
  55:9 My ways [are higher than your ways]
55:8 My thoughts [are higher than your thoughts]

Thoughts and ways are always together. Thoughts are not ideas: they result in action. For the LORD thoughts and ways are inseparable. The LORD cannot have a thought which does not result in His way and His way can be none other than His thought. To illustrate in human terms, plans include the ways in which those plans will be accomplished, or simply, the LORD's ways always demonstrate His thoughts: the Word will become flesh.

This thought-way sequence is used of the word and purpose:

My thoughts - My word
   My ways  -    My word goes forth
   My ways  -    My word accomplishes the purpose
My thoughts - My word returns to me

Where the word leaves and returns, the thought "remains in place." Yet, as the word returns only after accomplishing its purpose, so the thought is not "complete" until the action is completed. A simple example is the passage in Isaiah which is known because it came from the LORD:

Thought ---> Way ---> Word spoken to Isaiah ---> Word is written

What was spoken was the thought to reveal what is written and both the utterance and the record of it were "in the mind" of God, or "with" God from the beginning. Yet it is only when it is written that the thought has been brought to fruition. A thought for the LORD is always completed action. Humanly speaking, the completion proves the thought which was in the beginning.

The Logos in the World
Thoughts and ways are higher than mans and so beyond reason and/or wisdom, but they can be revealed. This is the essence of the Prologue. The Word was with God and was God, and then the Word comes into the world in human form. This is a revelation of both way and purpose:

In the beginning was the Word...
  My thoughts 
     My ways  -> The Word
                    The Word comes into the world
                    The Word is raised in glory
     My ways  <- The Word returns to me   
  My thoughts
[In the end is the Word]

The Word which comes into the world in human form is a singular event. Yet the Word was already in the beginning and already with God and already God. The Word’s role in salvation was necessarily present in the beginning in order for Him to create all things in such a way as to accomplish the specific purpose in the specific way which was planned in the beginning. Thus there is a unity of thought and action from beginning to completion, all of which were "present" in the beginning and of necessity, must be the same throughout.

From the Gospel we see the focal point of history is not the beginning or the end: it is the middle. The Word comes to the world is crucified. Then glorified and He becomes flesh which dwells among His followers and He is the only one in the flesh who has seen God. So in understanding the entire action, there is additional illumination of in the beginning...

In the beginning was the Word not only recalls Genesis 1, it does so in a way which calls on the Old Testament to add what is missing: God. That is, where the Greek mind could see this as a mechanism to elevate the Word as intelligence, or wisdom, or simply divine thought, Isaiah calls on one to look for the Word to become active: ...the Word was with God..." Here the Greek describes a type of action because the Word is specifically "with" πρὸς not ἐν, not παρά, not μετά, and not σύν. πρὸς "expresses direction...'in the direction of'...marker of movement or orientation toward someone/something..."7 Some say the phrase could be rendered "...the Word was turned toward God..."8 With the entire Prologue in view one could say, "face-to-face" with God (cf. 1:18); not like Moses (1:17) who could see only the backside (Exodus 33:23).

The language conveys unity between the Word and God and does so in a manner which shows the unity of action throughout the Prologue (and also the Gospel). The choice of πρὸς to describe the particular way the Word was with God is also consistent with Genesis 1:26: "Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness..." Not only does the face-to-face imagery in the Gospel fit; it is man's initial state of likeness to the Word which foretells the Word which was with God and Himself God, Himself becoming man.

Conclusion
The beginning and end of the Word are the same and it is impossible for the Word to be divorced from the thoughts of God. Divorce and marriage offer a good way to illustrate this more completely, because it is also clear the Word is sent and "leaves" and is separated temporarily.

The typical Jewish marriage at that time would begin with eyrusin, the betrothal, followed by, kiddushin meaning set apart.9 The eyrusin was considered so binding, it required a divorce to be annulled.10 The separation was a time of preparation to live in unity once the separation ends. So while it is true the Word leaves and will in fact be found "apart" from the Father, the Word's ways and purpose from the beginning are to return.

The Word was not sent away divorced. It was temporarily separated for a purpose. Not like a man who leaves to build a home in which his new family may live. The Word left to build (1:12) a new family to bring to live in the place which was already prepared (cf. John 14:2) because in every way there was and is unity between the Word and God, having been conceived in the beginning.

Finally, this "delayed" result, or "now and then" action is first given in Isaiah, *...for as the rain and snow come down from heaven..." Life giving water comes from heaven in two forms, both having exactly the same make up. As the snow will eventually melt and bring the same result as the rain, so the Word which delivered a message in person, left an immediate "family member" behind:

When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home. (John 19:26-27)

This first "family" member would be the last to join, but not before leaving the same message the Word Himself left behind:

But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water. He who saw it has borne witness—his testimony is true, and he knows that he is telling the truth—that you also may believe. (John 19:26-27, 34-35)

The Word which became flesh left behind His own blood and water from His own body to cleanse and water the earth making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, leading all who believe in His name as children of God, into the bosom of the Father.


Notes:
1. Oscar Cullman, Christ in Time, SCM Press LTD, 1967, p. 27
2. Fredrick William Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, The University Chicago Press, 2000, p. 349
3. Robert G. Hall, "The Reader as Apocalyptist", John's Gospel and Intimations of the Apocalyptic, Eds. Catrin H. Williams and Christopher Rowland, Bloomsbury Publishing, 2013, p. 268
4. Danker, p. 349
5. Ibid.
6. Hall
7. Danker, pp. 873-874
8. Francis J. Moloney, Beginning the Good News: A Narrative Approach, Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1992, p. 138
9. Barney Kasdan, God's Appointed Customs, Lederer Books, 1996, p. 50
10. Ibid.

-1

John 1 1:9

1 In the beginning was the Light, and the Light was with God, and the Light was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.

8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.

9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

1
  • What translation is that from? – Mike Borden May 2 '20 at 11:46

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.