Main menu:
John 1.1
En archē ēn ho Logos kai ho Logos ēn pros ton Theon kai Theos ēn ho Logos
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος , καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν , καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος .
In [the] beginning was the Word and the Word was with -
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
With this verse, we are reminded of one obvious point of contrast between the four gospels -
In John’s Gospel, by contrast, we seem to touch another dimension. The context of Christ’s coming is set not in history but in eternity. Whereas Matthew sets the clock at zero (from his viewpoint), John dispenses with the clock altogether. The implication of the opening words, ‘In the beginning was the Word’ (a deliberate reference to the opening verse of Genesis) reaches back into eternity: in the NEB, the sentence is translated, ‘When all things began, the Word already was.’
Up to this point, there is almost complete agreement in understanding between all our versions. But the next sentence confronts us with the ‘Divine Paradox’ which we first encounter at the end of Chapter One of But is he God:
And the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Those holding to a unitarian view of God have always found the paradox implied here very difficult to accept. Christadelphians, for example, maintain that the ‘Word’ was simply a plan or an idea in the mind of God, and that there is no hint of the existence of the Son until verse 14, where ‘the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.’ Others, notably the Jehovah’s Witnesses, opt for a different solution, replacing the apparently nonsensical idea that God can be ‘with’ God by the old Arian notion that the Word was a god: that is, a created being.
The main argument that the Witnesses advance here is that the first mention of ‘God’ is preceded by the definite article in Greek (ho theos), implying ‘Godness’ in the fullest sense of the word, whereas the second (theos) has no article, suggesting merely a quality or attribute of deity. This is used to justify the New World Translation’s reading that ‘the Word was with God and the Word was a god.’ There are certainly precedents for this line of thought in the writings of both Philo and Origen, figures much closer both in time and culture to the passage under discussion than we are.
a) John observes no clear distinction between the use or lack of use of the article anywhere in his Gospel. He frequently refers to God the Father without the article (indeed, after verse 2, all the references to God the Father in the Prologue to the Gospel [1.1-
b) Even if we concede here that theos without the definite article might emphasize an attribute or quality of deity, we should not assume that John was implying that the Word possessed a lesser degree of divinity. Had he intended this, he had a much clearer word available to him in Greek -
c) The possibility of a created, lesser ‘god’ is further undermined by the use of the imperfect tense ‘was’ three times in verse 1, suggesting in Greek an unending state of being, which contrasts sharply with the definite ‘becoming’ in time of verse 14. Murray Harris observes here that
He who existed “in the beginning” before creation was himself without a beginning and therefore uncreated. There was no time when he did not exist. John is hinting that all speculation about the origin of the Logos is pointless.<2>
d) The Old Testament is emphatic that there is no God or god (in any rightful sense of the word) apart from Yahweh. Deuteronomy 32.39, for example, states quite categorically that
‘See now that I myself am He!
There is no god besides me.’
For John to have indicated otherwise would have marked an extraordinary break from his Jewish heritage. On the contrary, as Oscar Cullmann points out,
the author’s purpose is specifically to nip in the bud the doctrine of two gods, as if the Logos were a god apart from the highest God. The ‘Word’ which God speaks is not to be separated from God himself.<3>
By contrast, as we see in But is he God?, there are plenty of Old Testament precedents for John’s description of a divine being identified with God but also existing alongside God, indicating a fundamental distinction within Yahweh’s own nature. John is adding nothing new to what the Old Testament says about God, even if he states the ‘Divine Paradox’ more forcefully.
In short, whatever the shades of meaning that John intended to convey by his use or non-