The Creation of the Universe by the Word: John 1:3-5

By David J. MacLeod

David J. MacLeod is Chairman of the Division of Biblical Studies, Emmaus Bible College, Dubuque, Iowa, and Associate Editor of The Emmaus Journal.

This is article two in a six-part series, “The Living Word in John 1:1–18.”

The doctrine of creatio ex nihilo, that is, the creation of the universe from nothing, sets the biblical worldview against virtually all other philosophical systems, ancient and modern.[1] Nonbiblical systems have tended to view creation in one of the following ways: (a) the universe is the result of self-origination; (b) the universe is the unfolding or emanation of a divine being; (c) there is some form of eternally existing chaos, which an intermediate “creator” or prime mover fashioned into a cosmos; or (d) the universe is an illusion.[2] The biblical assertion of an absolute creation by a transcendent God was a scandal to the pagan mind and a threat to the worldview of ancient civilizations.

Galen, the great medical authority and philosopher of the second century after Christ, wrote, “Moses’ opinion greatly differs from our own and from that of Plato and all the others who among the Greeks have rightly handled the investigation into nature. To Moses, it seems enough that God willed to create a cosmos, and presently it was created; for he believes that for God everything is possible…. We however do not hold such an opinion; for we maintain, on the contrary, that certain things are impossible by nature, and these God would not even attempt to do.”[3]

The biblical account of creation differs in three crucial respects from the views of all ancient philosophies.[4] First, the world had a beginning and is therefore not eternal. Second, the universe is utterly dependent on God, but He is not dependent on it. God is transcendent and absolutely sovereign over creation. Third, God made the universe out of nothing, not out of preexistent material.[5]

The New Testament writers affirmed that creation was through Christ. Brunner wrote, “The Christian belief in Creation arises at the point where all Christian faith arises, namely, in the revelation of God in Jesus Christ.”[6] The classic texts on Christ’s role in creation link His creative work to His redemptive work, that is, to the great events of His incarnation, life, death, resurrection, and ascension.[7]

In John 1 Christ is the means of creation, and His creative work is linked to His incarnation, life, and redemptive work (vv. 3, 10, 12, 14). In Hebrews 1 the Son’s work of creation is linked to His death, ascension, and eschatological inheritance (vv. 2–3). In Colossians 1 He is the means of creation but also its reason or purpose; He is the Creator of the universe and also its Sustainer. He is the one who in the beginning created the universe, and He is the one who in the end will reconcile the universe (vv. 16–20). As Jensen says, Jesus Christ is “creation’s past, present, and future.”[8]

In John’s prologue (John 1:1–18), the creative work of Christ points forward to His incarnation and earthly life, but it also points back. Christ could be the Creator because He is the eternal Logos, the preexistent Son of God.[9] “The Word was God.” In fact in the second strophe of his “Logos hymn,” immediately following his assertions about the preexistence, eternality, and deity of the Logos, the apostle John expressed the claim of the early Christians, “All things came into being through Him” (v. 3). One of the major planks in the structure of the Christian worldview is that the universe was created by Jesus Christ, the Word.[10]

The Word’s Relationship to the Universe in General (vv. 3-4a)

He is the Agent of Creation (v. 3)

From the Word’s relationship to God in John 1:1-2 John turned to the Word’s relationship to creation, affirming that all created things were brought into existence through Him.[11] One of the medieval symbols of the Trinity is the triangle. At each of the points of the triangle is one of the persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Along each line, in one contemporary version of the symbol, is the word “loves,” that is, the Father loves the Son and the Son loves the Father. The Son loves the Spirit and the Spirit loves the Son. The Father loves the Spirit and the Spirit loves the Father. This ancient symbol is true, for “God is love” (1 John 4:7–8, 16).

“Out of the unique communion of love between ‘God’ and the ‘Word’ [λόγος] (or between ‘the Father’ and ‘the Son’), the universe sprang into existence.”[12] John wrote, “All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being” (πάντα δι αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν). John’s point is that while God is the Creator,[13] the λόγος was His agent (“through Him”).[14] The sentence falls into two parts. First, a positive assertion is made (“All things came into being through Him”), and then for emphasis the same truth is stated negatively (“apart from Him nothing came into being”).

John’s assertion in verse 3 has three implications. First, the verse emphasizes the greatness of Jesus Christ. Though John did not describe the origin of the universe scientifically, He did state that the greatness of Christ is seen by His being the creative Mediator of the observable universe.

Cambridge University physicist Stephen Hawking has said, “The eventual goal of science is to provide a single theory that describes the whole universe.”[15] Hawking’s naturalism provides no answer, of course. The Bible, on the other hand, does provide the unifying element of all human knowledge. From the biblical perspective the unifying explanation of the universe is a person, the λόγος, the Son of God, who became man and walked the earth as Jesus Christ.[16] This is the one who created the universe,[17] who sustains the universe, and for whom the universe exists (John 1:3; Col. 1:16–17; Heb. 1:2–3).

The biblical doctrine of creation is a fundamental truth.[18] Everything in the universe was made and put there by God. God has made it all, and He has made it through Jesus Christ. Because Jesus Christ is the Creator God of all things (Col. 1:16), we “can trust such a God with everything. Because He is Creator,” says Hughes, “He knows just what His creation, His people, need.”[19] Hughes writes further,

It was said of Charles Steinmetz, the mechanical genius and friend of Henry Ford, that he could build a motor in his mind, and if it broke down he could fix it in his mind. So when he designed it and actually built it, it ran with precision. One day the assembly line in the Ford plant broke down. None of Ford’s men could fix it, so they called in Steinmetz. He tinkered for a few minutes, threw the switch, and it started running again. A few days later Ford received a bill from Steinmetz for $10,000. Ford wrote back, ‘Charlie, don’t you think your bill is a little high for just a little tinkering?’ Steinmetz sent back a revised bill: ‘Tinkering—$10. Knowing where to tinker—$9,990.’ Only [the Creator, the Lord] Jesus knows where the tinkering should be done in our lives to keep us in perfect running order. Christ always knows which screw to turn, which belt to loosen, and the most beneficial octane [for each of His creatures].[20]

Second, verse 3 counters the false worldview of incipient Gnosticism. Within a century of John’s writing his Gospel, there developed a philosophy or worldview called Gnosticism (from γνῶσις, “knowledge”). Some of the elements of that philosophy were already being taught in John’s day.[21] One of the beliefs of this philosophy was that matter is as eternal as God. When God created the universe, He made it out of preexisting primeval matter. Furthermore this matter was flawed and imperfect, which explains the presence of evil in the world.

The Gnostic view went further. God is pure spirit, and pure spirit can never touch matter, which is imperfect. So God put out from Himself a series of emanations or intermediaries. As the emanations got farther and farther away from God, they knew less and less about Him. At last an emanation was so distant from God that it was hostile to Him. It was powerful enough to create and yet foolish enough not to know that it would be a mistake. This creator “god” was hostile to the true God. Some Gnostics later said that this creator “god” was the God of the Old Testament.[22]

John strongly opposed this idea that matter is eternal. The material universe, he wrote, was made out of nothing. And by alluding to Genesis 1, John made it clear that the God of the Old Testament and the Jesus of the New Testament are one. The implication, of course, is that what was originally created was good and not flawed or evil (Gen. 1:31).

Later Gnosticism taught that Christ was an emanation, an intermediary being of a higher level.[23] In John 1:1, however, the λόγος is not some Gnostic emanation or intermediary between God and creation. He is not some sort of demiurge doing what God would not do.[24] No, He is God Himself, a member of the Trinity, who is the Mediator of creation. God the Father acted through God the Son to do what He wanted done.[25]

John’s teaching that the λόγος, Christ, is God and Creator also runs counter to ideas found in New Age writings, in which Jesus is one of a series of spiritual masters (a Gnostic revealer, a mystical Magus, an Essene initiate, or a Christ-conscious master), who have been sent to bring enlightenment at different stages of human spiritual development.[26] John’s point is that through Jesus alone all things exist, whether physical planets or spiritual beings. Since He is truly God, He cannot be reduced to a mere intermediary.[27]

Third, the biblical doctrine of creation in verse 3 suggests that this is God’s world. Rather that being detached from it and having nothing to do with it, God is intimately involved with it. Barclay tells of a little girl from the inner city who was taken on a day trip into the country. She was in awe of the trees and the beautiful bluebell flowers. She asked, “Do you think God would mind if I picked some of His flowers?” This is God’s world.[28]

He Is the Ground of Life (v. 4a)

The precise connection between verses 3 and 4 is a translation problem. Most English versions (including the AV, NIV, and NKJV) reflect the same translation as the NASB, in which verse 4 begins with the phrase, “in Him.” However, this does not reflect the flow of the Greek text.[29] The New English Bible is closer to John’s intent with the rendering, “All that came to be was alive with His life.” The phrase “that has come into being” (ὃ γέγονεν) does not belong at the end of verse 3. It actually belongs to verse 4. The first part of verse 4 then reads, literally, “As for that which is in being (ὃ γέγονεν), in it (ἐν αὐτῷ) He was [its] life (ζωὴ ἦν).”[30] The point is that the λόγος is the basis of all created life[31] in the universe. He sustains it in its existence as the force or agent of life within it.[32] Because there is life in the λόγος there is life on earth.[33] Life does not exist on its own; it exists because of Him. Because of this life of His all created beings have life.[34]

Non-Christian evolutionists[35] believe that life arose from nonliving matter. They may think their view is reasonable, but it is a faith position. Christians, on the other hand, believe all life has come from life. This too is a faith position, and Christians believe it is reasonable. They do not believe faith and reason are opposed. All worldviews have adopted certain “first principles” that cannot be proved scientifically. A naturalistic scientist cannot prove his first principles, for no scientist has ever seen life coming from nonliving matter. Life comes from living things. This fits well with the Christian set of first principles. Christians believe that life, namely, the living God, is the source of all life.

Summary

Verses 3 and 4 teach that the λόγος is the Creator and the life-giving force behind “an irreducibly contingent universe.” This means that the universe is “utterly dependent upon God.” It also means that it is “fundamentally distinct from Him.”[36]

This is a crucial truth today when New Age thinking is so prevalent in Western thought. The New Age movement has been defined as “an extremely large, loosely structured network of organizations and individuals bound together by common values (based in mysticism and monism—the world view that ‘all is one’) and a common vision (a coming new age of peace and mass enlightenment, the ‘Age of Aquarius’).”[37] New Age thinking is influenced by Hinduism and Buddhism, both of which obliterate the distinction between God and the world. This leads to the deifying of nature and the claim that God can be experienced directly through nature. By contrast, biblical “creation out of nothing” means that God is distinct from the world.

Pantheism, another modern worldview, is the belief that all is God. One of the leading proponents of pantheism is actress Shirley MacLaine. She has written that God “is a subatomic force, the intelligent energy that energizes life. It is part of every cell, it is part of DNA, it is in us, and of us, and the whole of it—everywhere—is what we call God.”[38] According to pantheists God is not simply in the universe; He is the universe, including man. As MacLaine says, “You are everything…. You are the universe.”[39] However, according to the Bible God is distinct from the universe.[40]

The Word’s Relationship to Humankind in Particular (vv. 4b-5)

Divine Revelation Came During the Time of Humanity’s Innocence (v. 4b)

Turning his attention to humankind in particular, in the latter part of verse 4 John wrote, “The life was the Light of men.” The λόγος is not only the Life-giver. He is also the Light-bearer.[41]

An overture in an orchestral composition often forms the pre-lude to an oratorio or opera. In it the composer introduces the principal themes or motifs that he will develop throughout the work.

Many students of John have likened his prologue to an overture in which he touched on major themes that he developed later in the Gospel.[42] For example he used the terms “witness” (v. 7), “true” (in the sense of genuine or ultimate, v. 9), “world” (v. 10), “glory” and “truth” (v. 14), and in verses 4–5 he spoke of “life” and “light.”[43]

Yet there is a difference between this passage and the rest of the Gospel. Later in the book John was primarily interested in “life” and “light” as they relate to salvation. “Light” is revelation that people may receive and be delivered from spiritual darkness. “Life” is the cleansing from sin and the impartation of spiritual life that takes place when one believes in Christ, and it holds the promise of resurrection from the dead that all believers will experience.

In verses 3 and 4, however, the life and light that inhere in the λόγος are related to creation, not salvation.[44] When Adam and Eve were created, the λόγος provided light, that is, the light “signified the communication of the knowledge of God.”[45] For John “light” is akin to the λόγος. Both are titles of Christ. He is the λόγος (the “Word”), and He is φῶς (the “light,” 8:12). And both terms present Him as the revelation of God.[46]

John 1:4 suggests a number of things. First, John was speaking of the fact that Adam and Eve were created in the image of God. The λόγος implanted the knowledge of God in their souls—“the life was the Light of men” (cf. Gen. 1:27; Col. 3:10).[47] Second, John was speaking of the reflection of God that may be seen in the created universe, what theologians call natural or general revelation (Rom. 1:20).[48] Third, he was speaking of the direct communication that the Lord enjoyed with Adam and Eve before sin entered the world when He came to the garden and walked with them in the cool of the day (Gen. 3:8).

Divine Revelation Continues in Spite of Humanity’s Rebellion (v. 5)

Verse 5 alludes to the tragedy in the Garden of Eden.[49] Adam and Eve rebelled against God and began to walk in darkness.[50] In John’s Gospel, darkness does not describe so much the people as it does their evil environment, the satanic world system.[51] Since the fall of man the λόγος has become God’s agent to shine in the spiritual darkness, to oppose it and to dispel it. This conflict between light and darkness pervades John’s Gospel. It is another of the motifs introduced in his “overture.” The darkness in John’s Gospel is not merely the absence of light; it is positive evil (cf. 3:19; 8:12; 12:35, 46).

In 1:5 John wrote that “the Light shines [present tense] in the darkness” [τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει].” The light of the λόγος shone in the primal darkness of creation, and it continued to shine in the darkness of fallen humanity.[52]

Although John did not write specifically of the Incarnation until verse 14, in verse 5 he anticipated that great miracle with his use of the present tense “shines.” The Light shone, and it continues to shine even today.[53] John would have rejected the dualistic worldviews of his time, which envisioned light and darkness as equally and eternally opposed to each other. Now that the λόγος has become flesh and died for His people, “the darkness is passing away, and the true Light is already shining” (1 John 2:8).[54]

“The darkness,” he wrote, “did not overpower it.” Some translations have “comprehend” (KJV, NASB) or “understood” (NIV) for the verb κατέλαβεν. However, this makes little sense in this passage. Darkness does not seek to understand the light. It might make sense if “darkness” was the equivalent of “people.” As noted above, however, in the Gospel of John darkness is more often a reference to the environment of lost people. The better translation is “overcome” (RSV) or “overpower.”

The tense (aorist) of the verb “overpower” suggests that John had a specific event in mind. Most likely he was thinking of Calvary. The strongest attack against the Light came at Calvary, but even then the darkness could not overwhelm it.[55]

Three things come to mind, Barclay wrote, when one thinks of light and darkness.[56] First, the light that Jesus brings puts chaos to flight. He can save one’s life from becoming chaos. When Jesus enters a life, light comes. A child stayed overnight in a strange house while his parents were away. The lady who took him in offered to leave the light on when he went to bed. Politely he declined the offer. “I thought,” said the hostess, “that you might be afraid of the dark.” “Oh, no,” said the boy, “it’s God’s dark.” With Christ in our lives the darkness is dispelled.

Second, the light that Jesus brings is a revealing light. Later John wrote, “The Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil” (John 3:19). Light shows what is going on in the dark. It strips away all disguises, and shows things as they really are. People never see themselves truly until they see themselves through the eyes of Jesus. He drives people to God by revealing them to themselves.

Third, the light that Jesus brings is a guiding light. When someone walks in darkness, he “does not know where he goes” (12:35). When he receives the light and believes the light, however, he no longer walks in darkness (v. 36). When Jesus comes into a life, guessing and groping about the meaning of life are ended.

Conclusion

In the second strophe of his Logos hymn John asserted that the λόγος or “word” is (a) the Creator of every single, solitary thing in the universe, (b) the ground, giver, and sustainer of all life, (c) the medium of all divine self-disclosure, that is, the agent of revelation, and (d) the nemesis of Satan and all the forces of evil in this world.[57]

John 1:3–5 suggests three things.[58] First, the universe proclaims the greatness of Christ. As the psalmist wrote, “The heavens are telling of the glory of God; and their expanse is declaring the work of His hands” (Ps. 19:1). Second, the darkness (sin and evil) does not detract from Christ’s rule over the universe. The presence of evil in a world created by the λόγος is a mystery to which the Cross alone is the answer, but no understanding of evil is acceptable that diminishes Christ’s ultimate sovereignty as Lord.

Third, Christianity offers a distinct alternative to various pagan understandings (both ancient and modern) of the natural world. Sadly, Western culture has forgotten or marginalized the Christian doctrine of creation, a doctrine that for so long had been foundational to that culture. This has led to terrible confusion. One of the “tragic themes of modern history,” Jensen writes, is the “problematic and ambivalent relationship of human beings to the created world. Postmodern and post-industrial global culture is caught between worship and waste, between loathing and loving matter. We seem unable to choose between consumption or devotion, strict control or fearful chaos, between the natural and the manufactured. What … is the nature of nature?”[59]

The New Testament assertion that Jesus Christ is the Creator of all things points to the answer. Christians can agree with a biblically informed environmentalism that affirms that this earth is Christ’s creation, and that therefore people should not willfully denude forests, erode soil, and pollute rivers and streams.[60] Yet such a biblically informed environmentalism also affirms that while nature is to be cared for and respected, it is not to be deified and worshiped as in various New Age and feminist ideologies. Jesus Christ is God, and He alone is to be worshiped. Only through Him can anyone come to know God.

In the opening verses of his Gospel John set in place the first planks in the framework of a Christian worldview. Jesus Christ is God, and He has created all things. To reject the Christian worldview is to choose darkness—false worldviews invented by people who do not want Him as their Creator and Sovereign. The message of the New Testament is, “Be reconciled to God,” for in Him is light (2 Cor. 5:20). Jesus Christ said, “I am the Light of the world; he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light of life” (John 8:12).

Notes

1. In modern times the ex nihilo doctrine has been rejected on the basis that it was a patristic invention to counteract Gnostic dualism (Ian Barbour, Issues in Science and Religion [New York: Harper and Row, 1971], 384; Gerhard May, Creatio ex Nihilo: The Doctrine of “Creation out of Nothing” in Early Christian Thought [Edinburgh: Clark, 1994], 2, 180). For an analysis of this thesis with convincing evidence that the Bible does support the doctrine (Gen. 1:1; Isa. 40:21; John 1:3; Rom. 4:17; 11:36; 1 Cor. 8:6; Eph. 3:9; Col. 1:16; Heb. 11:2–3), see Paul Copan, “Is Creatio ex Nihilo a Post-Biblical Invention? An Examination of Gerhard May’s Proposal,” Trinity Journal 17 (spring 1996): 77-93. Walther Eichrodt considered the doctrine to be “incontestable” (“In the Beginning: A Contribution to the Interpretation of the First Word of the Bible,” in Creation in the Old Testament, ed. Bernhard W. Anderson [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984], 72).
2. See the summaries in Harold B. Kuhn, “Creation,” in Basic Christian Doctrines, ed. Carl F. H. Henry (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1962), 57; O. Zöckler, “Creation and Preservation of the World,” in The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, 3:298–301; and Michael P. Jensen, “The Gospel of Creation,” Reformed Theological Review 59 (December 2000): 138-40.
3. Galen, De Usu Partium 11.14, ed. Georgius Helmreich (Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1909; reprint, Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert, 1968), 2:158–59. The translation used here is that found in Kuhn, “Creation,” 57.
4. Diogenes Allen made the bold statement that “the biblical view of creation is … the foundation of all Christian theology” (Philosophy for Understanding Theology [Atlanta: John Knox, 1985], 1).
5. Alternatives to the biblical view did not end in antiquity. Benedict de Spinoza argued for a form of pantheism in which the cosmos and God are undifferentiated. “God is the indwelling [immanent] and not the transient [transcendent] cause of all things. All things which are, are in God, and must be conceived through God, therefore God is the cause of those things which are in him…. Besides God there can be no substance, that is nothing in itself external to God” (“Ethics, Part 1: Concerning God,” in The Chief Works of Benedict de Spinoza, trans. R. H. M. Elwes [1883; reprint, New York: Dover, 1955], 2:62). Twentieth-century process theologians have denied that God exercises full control over the world. Lewis S. Ford wrote, “God creates by persuading the world to create itself” (“Biblical Recital and Process Philosophy,” Interpretation 26 [1972]: 202). Monism’s growing influence is seen in the ecofeminist theology of Sallie McFague, who argues that the transcendent and patriarchal God of orthodox theology is “idolatrous and irrelevant” (Models of God: Theology for an Ecological, Nuclear Age [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987], ix-xv; and idem, The Body of God [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993], vii-xii). Instead of what she calls a “distant” model of orthodoxy of God as Father, she opts for the metaphors of “mother, lover, and friend.” Her God is so immanent that he/she loses personal identity. Salvation is not due to God’s love for the individual; rather “we participate in God’s love not as individuals but as members of an organic whole” (Models of God, 84–86). She speaks of the universe as God’s body (The Body of God, 134). See the helpful summaries in Jensen, “The Gospel of Creation,” 138–40, and the devastating critique of these theologies in Loren Wilkinson, “The New Story of Creation: A Trinitarian Perspective,” Crux 20 (December 1994): 26-36.
6. Emil Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of Creation and Redemption, vol. 2 of Dogmatics, trans. Olive Wyon (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1952), 8. “Although theologians like Colin Gunton would like to begin with the Trinity, seeing with Irenaeus Christ and the Spirit as God’s ‘two hands’ in creation, it is more reflective of the biblical emphasis to build from the foundation-stone of Christology. A Trinitarian analysis of creation, like the doctrine of the Trinity itself in the early church, blossoms out of an understanding of Christ” (Jensen, “The Gospel of Creation,” 131). See Colin Gunton, “The Doctrine of Creation,” in The Cambridge Companion to Christian Doctrine, ed. Colin E. Gunton (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 141, 148.
7. Jensen, “The Gospel of Creation,” 131.
8. Ibid. Jürgen Moltmann wrote, “This messianic doctrine of creation therefore sees creation together with its future—the future for which it was made and in which it will be perfected” (God in Creation—A New Doctrine of Creation and the Spirit of God, trans. Margaret Kohl [San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985], 5). “There is then an eschatology of creation, an understanding of a destiny which is something more than a return to its beginnings” (Gunton, “The Doctrine of Creation,” 143). John taught that the world had a beginning (“from the foundation of the world,” Rev. 13:8; 17:8), and it has an end (“the world is passing away,” 1 John 2:17). See Paul R. Raabe, “A Dynamic Tension: God and World in John,” Concordia Journal 21 (April 1995): 133.
9. “The world had a beginning unlike God and the Logos. To revise Arius: There was once when the world was not” (Raabe, “A Dynamic Tension: God and World in John,” 133).
10. “The most important statement in Scripture about creation is not contained in Genesis but in the opening verses of the Gospel of John…. This statement plainly says that creation was by a force that was (and is) intelligent and personal” (Phillip E. Johnson, Reason in the Balance [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1995], 107).
11. Leon Morris, The Gospel according to John, New International Commentary on the New Testament, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 71.
12. Bruce Milne, The Message of John, The Bible Speaks Today (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1993), 37. “It does not follow that creation was an arbitrary act upon the part of God. It was, rather, purposive, and in two senses: that it derives from the love of God, not simply His will; and that it exists for a purpose—to go somewhere, we might say. Rather like a work of art, creation is a project, something God wills for its own sake and not because He has need of it” (Gunton, “The Doctrine of Creation,” 142).
13. The New Testament uses three words for creation: κτίζειν (“to create”) conveys the ideas of design, plan, and purpose (Col. 1:16; Rev. 4:11); ποιεῖν (“to make”) suggests the idea of the actual result or object produced (cf. Eph. 2:10); and γίνεσθαι speaks of the actual process of coming into being (John 1:3). Cf. B. F. Westcott, The Gospel according to St. John: The Greek Text with Introduction and Notes (London: John Murray, 1908), 1:7.
14. F. F. Bruce notes that creation is also ascribed to the preexistent Christ in Colossians 1:16–17 and Hebrews 1:2 (The Gospel of John [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983], 32). Since there is no literary dependence between these books, the teaching that they convey is antecedent to them all and therefore is impressively primitive.
15. Ibid., 10.
16. Milne, The Message of John, 37.
17. “What ultimately shapes the Christian doctrine of creation is Christ Himself. Having observed creation through the lens of Christ, it is impossible not to notice the eschatological landscape. Creation and redemption alike are acts of a purposing and purposeful God. Building on Christology, the distinctively Christian doctrine of the Trinity teaches much about the nature and action of creation. It is in the Gospel of Christ that we hear proclaimed the destiny of the cosmos” (Jensen, “The Gospel of Creation,” 140).
18. Brian J. Walsh and Richard Middleton, The Transforming Vision: Shaping a Christian World View (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1984), 43–59.
19. R. Kent Hughes, John: That You May Believe (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1999), 18.
20. Ibid.
21. Morris, The Gospel according to John, 71–72.
22. William Barclay, The Gospel of John, rev. ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975), 1:40–41.
23. Douglas Groothuis, Revealing the New Age Jesus (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1990), 80.
24. The demiurge (δημιοεργός, from δῆμος [“people”] and ἔργω [“to work”]), is literally “one who works for the people,” hence “a skilled workman.” In Platonic thought the demiurge was “the artificer of the world.” In Gnostic thought the demiurge was a supernatural being who fashioned the world in subordination to the supreme Being (Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, rev. Henry Stuart Jones [Oxford: Clarendon, 1968], 386; cf. Random House Dictionary of the English Language, ed. Stuart Berg Flexner [New York: Random House, 1973], 384). The Logos “is the Mediator, not some intermediary who performs a function which God, being sublime above all matter, cannot perform Himself. The emphasis on mediatorship, as opposed to any notion of a demiurge or intermediary, differentiates St. John’s Logos-concept from that of Philo or of Greek philosophy” (T. E. Pollard, Johannine Christology and the Early Church [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970], 20).
25. Cf. George R. Beasley-Murray, John, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, TX: Word, 1987), 11.
26. Groothuis, Revealing the New Age Jesus, 221–45.
27. Milne, The Message of John, 39.
28. Barclay, The Gospel of John, 1:42.
29. The fourth edition (1993) of The Greek New Testament (United Bible Societies) adopts the punctuation followed in this article and gives it a “B” rating. The oldest manuscripts have no punctuation, and when punctuation began to appear it reflected current exegetical understanding. Impressive, nevertheless, is the fact that all ante-Nicene writers (orthodox and heretical alike) adopted this punctuation. In the fourth century the Arians began to appeal to this passage to prove that the Holy Spirit is to be regarded as a created being. Then orthodox writers began to prefer to take ὃ γέγονεν with the preceding sentence in verse 3. If “all things” came through the λόγος, then this implied, the Arians said, that the Holy Spirit was a creature. To exclude this interpretation it was necessary to show that verse 3 applied only to what has been made, as opposed to what is uncreated. It was felt that moving ὃ γέγονεν to verse 3 proved the point. Hence the ancient consensus was generally abandoned. See Barnabas Lindars, The Gospel of John, New Century Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 85. In the rhythmic balance of the opening verses of the prologue, the climactic or “staircase” parallelism seems to demand that the end of one line should match the beginning of the next (Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament [New York: United Bible Societies, 1971], 195–96). The strophe looks like this: πάντα δι ᾿ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν. ὃ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων. This structure is followed by several modern-day commentators: Westcott, The Gospel according to St. John, 1:59–63; J. H. Bernard, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John, International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: Clark, 1928), 1:4; Edwyn Clement Hoskyns, The Fourth Gospel, ed. Francis Noel Davey (London: Faber and Faber, 1947), 142–43; Rudolf Bultmann, The Gospel of John, trans. George R. Beasley-Murray (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971), 39 n. 2; J. N. Sanders, A Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John, ed. B. A. Mastin, Harper New Testament Commentaries (New York: Harper & Row, 1968), 71–72; and Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel according to John, vol. 1, Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1966), 6. It should be noted that an equally impressive number of scholars defend the punctuation found in most English versions: Frederick Louis Godet, Commentary on the Gospel of John, trans. Timothy Dwight, 3d ed. (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1893; reprint, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1969), 1:249–50; C. K. Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John, 2d ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978), 156–57; Bruce, The Gospel of John, 32–33; Ernst Haenchen, John, trans. Robert W. Funk, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 1:113; Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to St. John, trans. Kevin Smyth (New York: Crossroad, 1987), 1:239–40; D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 137–38; and Morris, The Gospel according to John, 72–73.
30. This is the translation of Sanders, A Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John, 72; cf. Bultmann, The Gospel of John, 39.
31. John 1:4 speaks of natural life, not of the spiritual, eternal life offered to people by the incarnate Christ. John employed the term ζωή thirty-six times in his Gospel. (1) In seventeen places the adjective αἰώνιος (“eternal”) is affixed. (2) Three times ζωή is used anarthrously in a context where eternal life is referred to (3:36; 5:40; 6:53). (3) In six places it is articular and seems to refer either to eternal life or the source of life (5:24; 6:35, 48; 8:12; 11:25; 14:6). (4) Once it is used of resurrection life (5:29). (5) Once it refers to the life of the world (6:51). (6) Eight other times it is anarthrous. Three of these refer to life possessed in the individual (once of the Father, 5:26; once of the Son, 5:26; and once negatively of the Jews, 6:53). The other five speak of spiritual, eternal life, which is available through Jesus (5:40; 6:33, 63; 10:10; 20:31). One important factor in deciding that 1:4 speaks of natural life and not spiritual life is that John was not speaking of the incarnate Christ in verses 1–5. There seems to be a chronological order in the prologue, moving from Creation, to John the Baptist’s witness of the Messiah, to the Incarnation (Paul O. Wright, “Except through Me” [unpublished manuscript, 1982], 51–53).
32. John’s statement, “in it He was the life” probably implies, Bruce says, “a life-giving agency on the part of the Word” (The Gospel of John, 33).
33. Morris, The Gospel according to John, 73.
34. Later in 5:26 John wrote that the Son “shares by the Father’s good pleasure that self-existent life which belongs to the Creator as distinct from the creature…. (The relation God/Word in the prologue corresponds to the relation Father/Son in the discourses of the Gospel)…. In John 5:19–29 it is because the Son shares this self-existent life with the Father that He is able to impart life to others” (Bruce, The Gospel of John, 33). The life He imparts is twofold. In 1:4 it is physical life, and later in the Gospel it is spiritual life, in regeneration and resurrection (3:16; 5:21; 11:25). Cf. Bernard, The Gospel according to St. John, 1:4; and Carson, The Gospel according to John, 119.
35. While it is true that some evolutionists are Christians, they are inconsistent in their worldview.
36. Milne, The Message of John, 38.
37. Elliot Miller, A Crash Course on the New Age Movement (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989), 15.
38. Shirley MacLaine, Out on a Limb (New York: Bantam, 1983), 326.
39. Ibid., 87.
40. Cf. Norman L. Geisler and William D. Watkins, Worlds Apart, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989), 94–98. Contrary to the view of the pantheists, God did not create the universe out of Himself (creatio ex Deo); He created it out of nothing (creatio ex nihilo; cf. Rom. 4:17; Heb. 11:3).
41. Morris, The Gospel according to John, 74.
42. For example Godet, Commentary on the Gospel of John, 1:243; Clayton R. Bowen, “The Fourth Gospel as Dramatic Material,” Journal of Biblical Literature 49 (1930): 298; Brown, The Gospel according to John, 1:18; Bultmann, The Gospel of John, 13; Haenchen, John, 1:123; and Beasley-Murray, John, 5. Carson says the prologue “is a foyer to the rest of the Fourth Gospel … simultaneously drawing the reader in and introducing the major themes” (The Gospel according to John, 111).
43. Carson, The Gospel according to John, 111.
44. Ibid., 119.
45. Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John, 158.
46. All three terms in verses 4–5 (“Word,” “Light,” “Life”) are titles of Christ in the Gospel of John (1:1; 8:12; 14:6).
47. The imperfect ἦν refers to the creation period indicated in verse 3 (Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Hand-Book to the Gospel of John, 6th ed. [New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1884; reprint, Winona Lake, IN: Alpha, 1979], 51). Godet, however, disagrees (Commentary on the Gospel of John, 1:251–52).
48. Cf. Carson, The Gospel according to John, 119.
49. Westcott, The Gospel according to St. John, 1:9. “John does not explicitly mention the fall into sin but he assumes it…. The fact that Jesus is the Savior of the world implies that the world needs salvation” (Raabe, “A Dynamic Tension: God and World in John,” 134).
50. “Because all that God creates is good, evil must be something extraneous to or parasitic upon creation as a whole…. Evil is attributed not to a fault in God’s creating activity or in the created order as such, but to something which subverts it and must be overcome” (Gunton, “The Doctrine of Creation,” 143).
51. Morris, The Gospel according to John, 76.
52. Beasley-Murray, John, 11.
53. Bultmann, The Gospel of John, 46. He suggests that the present has been changed from an original imperfect, but there is no textual support for this assertion (ibid., 45 n.4).
54. Bruce, The Gospel of John, 34.
55. J. O. F. Murray, Jesus according to S. John (London: Longmans, Green, 1936), 34.
56. Barclay, The Gospel of John, 1:45–46.
57. Wright, “Except through Me,” 49, 56.
58. Milne, The Message of John, 40–41.
59. Jensen, “The Gospel of Creation,” 130.
60. Gunton warns that recent concerns about the environment may lead some to a truncated view of ethics. “It must be remembered that sexual relations, abortion, genetic engineering and war are also among the human activities that involve the doctrine of creation because they concern relationships between created persons and between them and the material world. If God’s purpose is for the redemption and perfection of the creation, all human action will in some way or other involve the human response to God that is ethics” (“The Doctrine of Creation,” 144).