And the word was god greek

«In the beginning was the Word» redirects here. For the part of Catholic liturgy, see Last Gospel.

John 1:1
← Luke 24 1:2 →
First page of John’s Gospel from the Coronation Gospels, c. 10th century.
Book	Gospel of John
Christian Bible part	New Testament

John 1:1 is the first verse in the opening chapter of the Gospel of John in the New Testament of the Christian Bible. The traditional and majority translation of this verse reads:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.^[1][2][3][4]

The verse has been a source of much debate among Bible scholars and translators.

«The Word,» a translation of the Greek λόγος (logos), is widely interpreted as referring to Jesus, as indicated in other verses later in the same chapter.^[5] For example, “the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us” (John 1:14; cf. 1:15, 17).

This and other concepts in the Johannine literature set the stage for the Logos-Christology in which the Apologists of the second and third centuries connected the divine Word of John 1:1-5 to the Hebrew Wisdom literature and to the divine Logos of contemporary Greek philosophy.^[6]

On the basis of John 1:1, Tertullian, early in the third century, argued for two Persons that are distinct but the substance is undivided, of the same substance.

In John 1:1c, logos has the article but theos does not. Origen of Alexandria, a teacher in Greek grammar of the third century, argued that John uses the article when theos refers to «the uncreated cause of all things.» But the Logos is named theos without the article because He participates in the divinity of the Father because of “His being with the Father.”

The main dispute with respect to this verse relates to John 1:1c (“the Word was God”). One minority translation is «the Word was divine.» This is based on the argument that the grammatical structure of the Greek does not identify the Word as the Person of God but indicates a qualitative sense. The point being made is that the Logos is of the same uncreated nature or essence as God the Father. In that case, “the Word was God” may be misleading because, in normal English, «God» is a proper noun, referring to the person of the Father or corporately to the three persons of the Godhead.

With respect to John 1:1, Ernest Cadman Colwell writes:

The absence of the article does not make the predicate indefinite or qualitative when it precedes the verb, it is indefinite in this position only when the context demands it.

So, whether the predicate (theos) is definite, indefinite or qualitative depends on the context. Consequently, this article raises the concern that uncertainty with respect to the grammar may result in translations based on the theology of the translator. The commonly held theology that Jesus is God naturally leads to a corresponding translation. But a theology in which Jesus is subordinate to God leads to the conclusion that «… a god» or «… divine» is the proper rendering.

Source text and translations[edit]

Language	John 1:1 text
Koine Greek	Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.[7][8]
Greek transliteration	En arkhêi ên ho lógos, kaì ho lógos ên pròs tòn theón, kaì theòs ên ho lógos.
Syriac Peshitta	ܒ݁ܪܺܫܺܝܬ݂ ܐܺܝܬ݂ܰܘܗ݈ܝ ܗ݈ܘܳܐ ܡܶܠܬ݂ܳܐ ܘܗܽܘ ܡܶܠܬ݂ܳܐ ܐܺܝܬ݂ܰܘܗ݈ܝ ܗ݈ܘܳܐ ܠܘܳܬ݂ ܐܰܠܳܗܳܐ ܘܰܐܠܳܗܳܐ ܐܺܝܬ݂ܰܘܗ݈ܝ ܗ݈ܘܳܐ ܗܽܘ ܡܶܠܬ݂ܳܐ ܀
Syriac transliteration	brīšīṯ ʾiṯauhi hwā milṯā, whu milṯā ʾiṯauhi hwā luaṯ ʾalāhā; wʾalāhā iṯauhi hwā hu milṯā
Sahidic Coptic	ϨΝ ΤЄϨΟΥЄΙΤЄ ΝЄϤϢΟΟΠ ΝϬΙΠϢΑϪЄ, ΑΥШ ΠϢΑϪЄ ΝЄϤϢΟΟΠ ΝΝΑϨΡΜ ΠΝΟΥΤЄ. ΑΥШ ΝЄΥΝΟΥΤЄ ΠЄ ΠϢΑϪЄ
Sahidic Coptic transliteration	Hn teHoueite neFSoop nCi pSaJe auw pSaJe neFSoop nnaHrm pnoute auw neunoute pe pSaJe.[9]
Sahidic Coptic to English	In the beginning existed the Word, and the Word existed with the God, and a God was the Word.[10][11][12]
Latin Vulgate	In principio erat Verbum, et Verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat Verbum.

• 

  Codex Vaticanus (300–325), The end of Gospel of Luke and the beginning of Gospel of John

John 1:1 in English versions[edit]

The traditional rendering in English is:

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

Other variations of rendering, both in translation or paraphrase, John 1:1c also exist:

• 14th century: «and God was the word» – Wycliffe’s Bible (translated from the 4th-century Latin Vulgate)
• 1808: «and the Word was a god» – Thomas Belsham The New Testament, in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London.
• 1822: «and the Word was a god» – The New Testament in Greek and English (A. Kneeland, 1822.)
• 1829: «and the Word was a god» – The Monotessaron; or, The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists (J. S. Thompson, 1829)
• 1863: «and the Word was a god» – A Literal Translation of the New Testament (Herman Heinfetter [Pseudonym of Frederick Parker], 1863)
• 1864: «the LOGOS was God» – A New Emphatic Version (right hand column)
• 1864: «and a god was the Word» – The Emphatic Diaglott by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London (left hand column interlinear reading)
• 1867: «and the Son was of God» – The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible
• 1879: «and the Word was a god» – Das Evangelium nach Johannes (J. Becker, 1979)
• 1885: «and the Word was a god» – Concise Commentary on The Holy Bible (R. Young, 1885)
• 1911: «and [a] God was the word» – The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Southern Dialect, by George William Horner.^[13]
• 1924: «the Logos was divine» – The Bible: James Moffatt Translation, by James Moffatt.^[14]
• 1935: «and the Word was divine» – The Bible: An American Translation, by John M. P. Smith and Edgar J. Goodspeed, Chicago.^[15]
• 1955: «so the Word was divine» – The Authentic New Testament, by Hugh J. Schonfield, Aberdeen.^[16]
• 1956: «And the Word was as to His essence absolute deity» – The Wuest Expanded Translation^[17]
• 1958: «and the Word was a god» – The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Anointed (J. L. Tomanec, 1958);
• 1962, 1979: «‘the word was God.’ Or, more literally, ‘God was the word.'» – The Four Gospels and the Revelation (R. Lattimore, 1979)
• 1966, 2001: «and he was the same as God» – The Good News Bible.
• 1970, 1989: «and what God was, the Word was» – The New English Bible and The Revised English Bible.
• 1975 «and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word» – Das Evangelium nach Johnnes, by Siegfried Schulz, Göttingen, Germany
• 1975: «and the Word was a god» – Das Evangelium nach Johannes (S. Schulz, 1975);
• 1978: «and godlike sort was the Logos» – Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider, Berlin
• 1985: “So the Word was divine” — The Original New Testament, by Hugh J. Schonfield.^[18]
• 1993: «The Word was God, in readiness for God from day one.» — The Message, by Eugene H. Peterson.^[19]
• 1998: «and what God was the Word also was» – This translation follows Professor Francis J. Moloney, The Gospel of John, ed. Daniel J. Harrington.^[20]
• 2017: “and the Logos was god” — The New Testament: A Translation, by David Bentley Hart.^[21]

Difficulties[edit]

The text of John 1:1 has a sordid past and a myriad of interpretations. With the Greek alone, we can create empathic, orthodox, creed-like statements, or we can commit pure and unadulterated heresy. From the point of view of early church history, heresy develops when a misunderstanding arises concerning Greek articles, the predicate nominative, and grammatical word order. The early church heresy of Sabellianism understood John 1:1c to read, «and the Word was the God.» The early church heresy of Arianism understood it to read, «and the word was a God.»

— David A. Reed^[22]

There are two issues affecting the translating of the verse, 1) theology and 2) proper application of grammatical rules. The commonly held theology that Jesus is God naturally leads one to believe that the proper way to render the verse is the one which is most popular.^[23] The opposing theology that Jesus is subordinate to God as his Chief agent leads to the conclusion that «… a god» or «… divine» is the proper rendering.^[24]

The Greek Article[edit]

The Greek article is often translated the, which is the English definite article, but it can have a range of meanings that can be quite different from those found in English, and require context to interpret.^[25] Ancient Greek does not have an indefinite article like the English word a, and nominatives without articles also have a range of meanings that require context to interpret.

Colwell’s Rule[edit]

In interpreting this verse, Colwell’s rule should be taken into consideration, which says that a definite predicate which is before the verb «to be» usually does not have the definite article. Ernest Cadman Colwell writes:

The opening verse of John’s Gospel contains one of the many passages where this rule suggests the translation of a predicate as a definite noun. Καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος [Kaì theòs ên ho lógos] looks much more like «And the Word was God» than «And the Word was divine» when viewed with reference to this rule. The absence of the article does not make the predicate indefinite or qualitative when it precedes the verb, it is indefinite in this position only when the context demands it. The context makes no such demand in the Gospel of John, for this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas [Footnote: John 20,28].»^[26]

Jason David BeDuhn (Professor of Religious Studies at Northern Arizona University) criticizes Colwell’s Rule as methodologically unsound and «not a valid rule of Greek grammar.»^[27]

The Word was divine[edit]

The main dispute with respect to this verse relates to John 1:1c (“the Word was God”). One minority translation is «the Word was divine.» The following support this type of translation:

Tertullian[edit]

Tertullian in the early third century wrote:

Now if this one [the Word] is God according to John («the Word was God»), then you have two: one who speaks that it may be, and another who carries it out. However, how you should accept this as «another» I have explained: as concerning person, not substance, and as distinction, not division. (Against Praxeus 12)^[28]

In other words, the Persons are distinct but the substance is undivided. As Tertullian states in Against Praxeus 9 and 26, He is “so far God as He is of the same substance as God Himself … and as a portion of the Whole … as He Himself acknowledges: «My Father is greater than I.”^[29]

At the beginning of chapter 13 of against Praxeus, Tertullian uses various Scriptures to argue for “two Gods,” including:^[30]

“One God spoke and another created” (cf. John 1:3).

“God, even Thy God, hath anointed Thee or made Thee His Christ” (cf. Psm 45).

«’In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.’ There was One ‘who was,’ and there was another ‘with whom’”.

Origen[edit]

In John 1:1c, logos has the article but theos does not. Literally, “god was the word”.^[31] Origen of Alexandria, a teacher in Greek grammar of the third century, discusses the presence or absence of the article in Commentary on John, Book II, chap, 2.^[32] He states:

He (John) uses the article, when the name of God refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Logos is named God. […]
God on the one hand is Very God (Autotheos, God of Himself); and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, “That they may know Thee the only true God;” (cf. John 17:3) but that all beyond the Very God is made God by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply God (with the article), but rather God (without article).

Origen then continues to explain that the Son — the first-born of all creation – was the first to be “with God” (cf. John 1:1), attracted to Himself divinity from God, and gave that divinity to the other “gods:”

And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him, of whom God is the God […] It was by the offices of the first-born that they became gods, for He drew from God in generous measure that they should be made gods, and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty.

As R.P.C. Hanson stated in discussing the Apologists, «There were many different types and grades of deity in popular thought and religion and even in philosophical thought.»^[33] Origen concludes that “the Word of God” is not “God … of Himself” but because of “His being with the Father” (cf. John 1:1):

The true God, then, is “The God,” and those who are formed after Him are gods, images, as it were, of Him the prototype.  But the archetypal image, again, of all these images is the Word of God, who was in the beginning, and who by being with God is at all times God, not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father, and not continuing to be God, if we should think of this, except by remaining always in uninterrupted contemplation of the depths of the Father.

Translations[edit]

Translations by James Moffatt, Edgar J. Goodspeed and Hugh J. Schonfield render part of the verse as «…the Word [Logos] was divine».

Murray J. Harris writes,

[It] is clear that in the translation «the Word was God», the term God is being used to denote his nature or essence, and not his person. But in normal English usage «God» is a proper noun, referring to the person of the Father or corporately to the three persons of the Godhead. Moreover, «the Word was God» suggests that «the Word» and «God» are convertible terms, that the proposition is reciprocating. But the Word is neither the Father nor the Trinity … The rendering cannot stand without explanation.»^[34]

An Eastern/Greek Orthodox Bible commentary notes:

This second theos could also be translated ‘divine’ as the construction indicates «a qualitative sense for theos». The Word is not God in the sense that he is the same person as the theos mentioned in 1:1a; he is not God the Father (God absolutely as in common NT usage) or the Trinity. The point being made is that the Logos is of the same uncreated nature or essence as God the Father, with whom he eternally exists. This verse is echoed in the Nicene Creed: «God (qualitative or derivative) from God (personal, the Father), Light from Light, True God from True God… homoousion with the Father.»^[35]

Daniel B. Wallace (Professor of New Testament at Dallas Theological Seminary) argues that:

The use of the anarthrous theos (the lack of the definite article before the second theos) is due to its use as a qualitative noun, describing the nature or essence of the Word, sharing the essence of the Father, though they differed in person: he stresses: «The construction the evangelist chose to express this idea was the most precise way he could have stated that the Word was God and yet was distinct from the Father».^[36] He questions whether Colwell’s rule helps in interpreting John 1:1. It has been said^{[by whom?]} that Colwell’s rule has been misapplied as its converse, as though it implied definiteness.^[37]

Murray J. Harris (Emeritus Professor of NT Exegesis and Theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School) discusses «grammatical, theological, historical, literary and other issues that affect the interpretation of θεὸς» and conclude that, among other uses, «is a christological title that is primarily ontological in nature» and adds that «the application of θεὸς to Jesus Christ asserts that Jesus is … God-by-nature.^[38][39][40]

John L. McKenzie (Catholic Biblical scholar) wrote that ho Theos is God the Father, and adds that John 1:1 should be translated «the word was with the God [=the Father], and the word was a divine being.»^[41][42]

In a 1973 Journal of Biblical Literature article, Philip B. Harner, Professor Emeritus of Religion at Heidelberg College, claimed that the traditional translation of John 1:1c (“and the Word was God”) is incorrect. He endorses the New English Bible translation of John 1:1c, “and what God was, the Word was.”^[43] However, Harner’s claim has been criticized.^[44]

Philip B. Harner (Professor Emeritus of Religion at Heidelberg College) says:

Perhaps the clause could be translated, ‘the Word had the same nature as God.” This would be one way of representing John’s thought, which is, as I understand it, that ho logos, no less than ho theos, had the nature of theos.^[45]

B. F. Westcott is quoted by C. F. D. Moule (Lady Margaret’s Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge):

The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in 4:24. ‘It is necessarily without the article (theós not ho theós) inasmuch as it describes the nature of the Word and does not identify His Person. It would be pure Sabellianism to say “the Word was ho theós”. No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true deity of the Word. Compare the converse statement of the true humanity of Christ five 27 (hóti huiòs anthrópou estín . . . ).’^[46]

James D. G. Dunn (Emeritus Lightfoot Professor at University of Durham) states:

Philo demonstrates that a distinction between ho theos and theos such as we find in John 1.1b-c, would be deliberate by the author and significant for the Greek reader. Not only so, Philo shows that he could happily call the Logos ‘God/god’ without infringing his monotheism (or even ‘the second God’ – Qu.Gen. II.62). Bearing in mind our findings with regard to the Logos in Philo, this cannot but be significant: the Logos for Philo is ‘God’ not as a being independent of ‘the God’ but as ‘the God’ in his knowability – the Logos standing for that limited apprehension of the one God which is all that the rational man, even the mystic may attain to.”^[47]

In summary, scholars and grammarians indicate that the grammatical structure of the Greek does not identify the Word as the Person of God but indicates a qualitative sense. The point being made is that the Logos is of the same nature or essence as God the Father. In that case, “the Word was God” may be misleading because, in normal English, «God» is a proper noun, referring to the person of the Father or corporately to the three persons of the Godhead.

The Word as a god.[edit]

Some scholars oppose the translation …a god,^{[48][49][50][51]} while other scholars believe it is possible or even preferable.^[52][53][54]

The rendering as «a god» is justified by some non-Trinitarians by comparing it with Acts 28:6 which has a similar grammatical construction’^[55]

«The people expected him to swell up or suddenly fall dead; but after waiting a long time and seeing nothing unusual happen to him, they changed their minds and said he was a god.»^{[Ac. 28:6 NIV]}.

«Howbeit they looked when he should have swollen, or fallen down dead suddenly: but after they had looked a great while, and saw no harm come to him, they changed their minds, and said that he was a god (theón).» (KJV)^[56]

«But they were expecting that he was going to swell up or suddenly drop dead. So after they had waited a long time and had seen nothing unusual happen to him, they changed their minds and said he was a god (theón).» (NET)^[57]

However, it was noted that the Hebrew words El, HaElohim and Yahweh (all referring to God) were rendered as anarthrous theos in the Septuagint at Nahum 1:2, Isaiah 37:16, 41:4, Jeremiah 23:23 and Ezekiel 45:9 among many other locations. Moreover, in the New Testament anarthrous theos was used to refer to God in locations including John 1:18a, Romans 8:33, 2 Corinthians 5:19, 6:16 and Hebrews 11:16 (although the last two references do have an adjective aspect to them). Therefore, anarthrous or arthrous constructions by themselves, without context, cannot determine how to render it into a target language. In Deuteronomy 31:27 the septuagint text, «supported by all MSS… reads πρὸς τὸν θεόν for the Hebrew עִם־ יְהֹוָ֔ה»,^[58] but the oldest Greek text in Papyrus Fouad 266 has written πρὸς יהוה τὸν θεόν.^[58]

In the October 2011 Journal of Theological Studies, Brian J. Wright and Tim Ricchuiti^[59] reason that the indefinite article in the Coptic translation, of John 1:1, has a qualitative meaning. Many such occurrences for qualitative nouns are identified in the Coptic New Testament, including 1 John 1:5 and 1 John 4:8. Moreover, the indefinite article is used to refer to God in Deuteronomy 4:31 and Malachi 2:10.

In the Beginning[edit]

«In the beginning (archē) was the Word (logos)» may be compared with:

• Genesis 1:1: «In the beginning God created heaven, and earth.»^[60] The opening words of the Old Testament are also «In the beginning». Theologian Charles Ellicott wrote:

«The reference to the opening words of the Old Testament is obvious, and is the more striking when we remember that a Jew would constantly speak of and quote from the book of Genesis as «Berēshîth» («in the beginning»). It is quite in harmony with the Hebrew tone of this Gospel to do so, and it can hardly be that St. John wrote his Berēshîth without having that of Moses present to his mind, and without being guided by its meaning.^[61]

• Mark 1:1: «The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.»^[62]
• Luke 1:2: «According as they have delivered them unto us, who from the beginning (archē) were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word (logos).^[63][64]
• 1 John 1:1: «That which was from the beginning (archē), which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the word (logos) of life».^[65][66]

[edit]

• Chrysostom: «While all the other Evangelists begin with the Incarnation, John, passing over the Conception, Nativity, education, and growth, speaks immediately of the Eternal Generation, saying, In the beginning was the Word.»

• Augustine: «The Greek word “logos” signifies both Word and Reason. But in this passage it is better to interpret it Word; as referring not only to the Father, but to the creation of things by the operative power of the Word; whereas Reason, though it produce nothing, is still rightly called Reason.»

• Augustine: «Words by their daily use, sound, and passage out of us, have become common things. But there is a word which remaineth inward, in the very man himself; distinct from the sound which proceedeth out of the mouth. There is a word, which is truly and spiritually that, which you understand by the sound, not being the actual sound. Now whoever can conceive the notion of word, as existing not only before its sound, but even before the idea of its sound is formed, may see enigmatically, and as it were in a glass, some similitude of that Word of Which it is said, In the beginning was the Word. For when we give expression to something which we know, the word used is necessarily derived from the knowledge thus retained in the memory, and must be of the same quality with that knowledge. For a word is a thought formed from a thing which we know; which word is spoken in the heart, being neither Greek nor Latin, nor of any language, though, when we want to communicate it to others, some sign is assumed by which to express it. […] Wherefore the word which sounds externally, is a sign of the word which lies hid within, to which the name of word more truly appertains. For that which is uttered by the mouth of our flesh, is the voice of the word; and is in fact called word, with reference to that from which it is taken, when it is developed externally.»

• Basil of Caesarea: «This Word is not a human word. For how was there a human word in the beginning, when man received his being last of all? There was not then any word of man in the beginning, nor yet of Angels; for every creature is within the limits of time, having its beginning of existence from the Creator. But what says the Gospel? It calls the Only-Begotten Himself the Word.»

• Chrysostom: «But why omitting the Father, does he proceed at once to speak of the Son? Because the Father was known to all; though not as the Father, yet as God; whereas the Only-Begotten was not known. As was meet then, he endeavours first of all to inculcate the knowledge of the Son on those who knew Him not; though neither in discoursing on Him, is he altogether silent on the Father. And inasmuch as he was about to teach that the Word was the Only-Begotten Son of God, that no one might think this a passible (παθητὴν) generation, he makes mention of the Word in the first place, in order to destroy the dangerous suspicion, and show that the Son was from God impassibly. And a second reason is, that He was to declare unto us the things of the Father. (John. 15:15) But he does not speak of the Word simply, but with the addition of the article, in order to distinguish It from other words. For Scripture calls God’s laws and commandments words; but this Word is a certain Substance, or Person, an Essence, coming forth impassibly from the Father Himself.»

• Basil of Caesarea: «Wherefore then Word? Because born impassibly, the Image of Him that begat, manifesting all the Father in Himself; abstracting from Him nothing, but existing perfect in Himself.»

• Augustine: «Now the Word of God is a Form, not a formation, but the Form of all forms, a Form unchangeable, removed from accident, from failure, from time, from space, surpassing all things, and existing in all things as a kind of foundation underneath, and summit above them.»

• Basil of Caesarea: «Yet has our outward word some similarity to the Divine Word. For our word declares the whole conception of the mind; since what we conceive in the mind we bring out in word. Indeed our heart is as it were the source, and the uttered word the stream which flows therefrom.»

• Chrysostom: «Observe the spiritual wisdom of the Evangelist. He knew that men honoured most what was most ancient, and that honouring what is before everything else, they conceived of it as God. On this account he mentions first the beginning, saying, In the beginning was the Word.»

• Augustine: «Or, In the beginning, as if it were said, before all things.»

• Basil of Caesarea: «The Holy Ghost foresaw that men would arise, who should envy the glory of the Only-Begotten, subverting their hearers by sophistry; as if because He were begotten, He was not; and before He was begotten, He was not. That none might presume then to babble such things, the Holy Ghost saith, In the beginning was the Word.»

• Hilary of Poitiers: «Years, centuries, ages, are passed over, place what beginning thou wilt in thy imagining, thou graspest it not in time, for He, from Whom it is derived, still was.»

• Chrysostom: «As then when our ship is near shore, cities and port pass in survey before us, which on the open sea vanish, and leave nothing whereon to fix the eye; so the Evangelist here, taking us with him in his flight above the created world, leaves the eye to gaze in vacancy on an illimitable expanse. For the words, was in the beginning, are significative of eternal and infinite essence.»

• Council of Ephesus: «Wherefore in one place divine Scripture calls Him the Son, in another the Word, in another the Brightness of the Father; names severally meant to guard against blasphemy. For, forasmuch as thy son is of the same nature with thyself, the Scripture wishing to show that the Substance of the Father and the Son is one, sets forth the Son of the Father, born of the Father, the Only-Begotten. Next, since the terms birth and son, convey the idea of passibleness, therefore it calls the Son the Word, declaring by that name the impassibility of His Nativity. But inasmuch as a father with us is necessarily older than his son, lest thou shouldest think that this applied to the Divine nature as well, it calls the Only-Begotten the Brightness of the Father; for brightness, though arising from the sun, is not posterior to it. Understand then that Brightness, as revealing the coeternity of the Son with the Father; Word as proving the impassibility of His birth, and Son as conveying His consubstantiality.»

• Chrysostom: «But they say that In the beginning does not absolutely express eternity: for that the same is said of the heaven and the earth: In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth. (Gen. 1:1) But are not made and was, altogether different? For in like manner as the word is, when spoken of man, signifies the present only, but when applied to God, that which always and eternally is; so too was, predicated of our nature, signifies the past, but predicated of God, eternity.»

• Origen: «The verb to be, has a double signification, sometimes expressing the motions which take place in time, as other verbs do; sometimes the substance of that one thing of which it is predicated, without reference to time. Hence it is also called a substantive verb.»

• Hilary of Poitiers: «Consider then the world, understand what is written of it. In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth. Whatever therefore is created is made in the beginning, and thou wouldest contain in time, what, as being to be made, is contained in the beginning. But, lo, for me, an illiterate unlearned fisherman is independent of time, unconfined by ages, advanceth beyond all beginnings. For the Word was, what it is, and is not bounded by any time, nor commenced therein, seeing It was not made in the beginning, but was.»

• Alcuin: » To refute those who inferred from Christ’s Birth in time, that He had not been from everlasting, the Evangelist begins with the eternity of the Word, saying, In the beginning was the Word.»

• Chrysostom: «Because it is an especial attribute of God, to be eternal and without a beginning, he laid this down first: then, lest any one on hearing in the beginning was the Word, should suppose the Word Unbegotten, he instantly guarded against this; saying, And the Word was with God.»

• Hilary of Poitiers: «From the beginning, He is with God: and though independent of time, is not independent of an Author.»

• Basil of Caesarea: «Again he repeats this, was, because of men blasphemously saying, that there was a time when He was not. Where then was the Word? Illimitable things are not contained in space. Where was He then? With God. For neither is the Father bounded by place, nor the Son by aught circumscribing.»

• Origen: «It is worth while noting, that, whereas the Word is said to come [be made] to some, as to Hosea, Isaiah, Jeremiah, with God it is not made, as though it were not with Him before. But, the Word having been always with Him, it is said, and the Word was with God: for from the beginning it was not separate from the Father.»

• Chrysostom: «He has not said, was in God, but was with God: exhibiting to us that eternity which He had in accordance with His Person.»

• Theophylact of Ohrid: «Sabellius is overthrown by this text. For he asserts that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one Person, Who sometimes appeared as the Father, sometimes as the Son, sometimes as the Holy Ghost. But he is manifestly confounded by this text, and the Word was with God; for here the Evangelist declares that the Son is one Person, God the Father another.»

• Hilary of Poitiers: «But the title is absolute, and free from the offence of an extraneous subject. To Moses it is said, I have given thee for a god to Pharaoh: (Exod. 7:1) but is not the reason for the name added, when it is said, to Pharaoh? Moses is given for a god to Pharaoh, when he is feared, when he is entreated, when he punishes, when he heals. And it is one thing to be given for a God, another thing to be God. I remember too another application of the name in the Psalms, I have said, ye are gods. But there too it is implied that the title was but bestowed; and the introduction of, I said, makes it rather the phrase of the Speaker, than the name of the thing. But when I hear the Word was God, I not only hear the Word said to be, but perceive It proved to be, God.»

• Basil of Caesarea: «Thus cutting off the cavils of blasphemers, and those who ask what the Word is, he replies, and the Word was God.»

• Theophylact of Ohrid: » Or combine it thus. From the Word being with God, it follows plainly that there are two Persons. But these two are of one Nature; and therefore it proceeds, In the Word was God: to show that Father and Son are of One Nature, being of One Godhead.»

• Origen: «We must add too, that the Word illuminates the Prophets with Divine wisdom, in that He cometh to them; but that with God He ever is, because He is God. For which reason he placed and the Word was with God, before and the Word was God.»

• Chrysostom: «Not asserting, as Plato does, one to be intelligence, the other soul; for the Divine Nature is very different from this. […] But you say, the Father is called God with the addition of the article, the Son without it. What say you then, when the Apostle. writes, The great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; (Tit. 2:13) and again, Who is over all, God; (Rom. 9:5) and Grace be unto you and peace from God our Father; (Rom. 1:7) without the article? Besides, too, it were superfluous here, to affix what had been affixed just before. So that it does not follow, though the article is not affixed to the Son, that He is therefore an inferior God.

References[edit]

External links[edit]

• Another God in the Gospel of John? A Linguistic Analysis of John 1:1 and 1:18

---

Some people ask how to understand John 1:1, since some people claim that this verse should read that the Word was “a God”—or “a god.” This claim is based on the fact that in the original Greek text the word theos in the last clause of John 1:1 does not have the definite article, as it does in the second clause, which refers to the Father. This argument comes from a lack of understanding of Greek grammar and syntax.

It is not true that John 1:1 could be translated: “and the Word was a God.” This translation may be possible in a pagan Greek work, but impossible in a Christian or Jewish writing. The reason is that the Bible teaches there is only one God. The Jewish and Christian religions have always taught this. The translation “a God” implies polytheism and denies one of the most fundamental teachings of the Bible.

The clause “and the Word was God” is translated from the Greek “theos ēn ho logos.” In this clause, ho logos is the subject, and theos is a predicate nominative. In Greek it is not necessary to use the definite article with a predicate nominative in this kind of sentence. In fact, doing so would change the meaning in a way that would confuse what John was saying. Using the definite article in this case would make the clause mean that the Word was the same person as the Father. However, John wanted to point out that the Word was God, but not the same person as the Father, who is the one commonly referred to when we just use the word God.

The word theos in this clause is a predicate nominative coupled to the subject by a form of the verb “to be.” An eminent scholar, C. H. Dodd, commenting on John 1:1 explains:

The general rule is that in a sentence containing the verb “to be” as a copula the subject has the article and a predicate noun is anarthrous, even though it be definite. Hence, if theos was to be used predicatively it would be anarthrous, without any necessary change of meaning from the ho theos of the preceding clause. (“New Testament Translation Problems II,” The Bible Translator 28, 1[January 1977]:103).

There are a number of biblical texts where Christ is referred to as God where the definite article does appear—though with other qualifiers that distinguish Christ from the Father (John 20:28 and 1 John 5:20, and in most Greek texts, Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1).

Nonetheless, some argue that Jesus was not God, but a creation of God. This is based on the fact that John 1:1 does not have the definite article with God (Greek theos) in the clause “the Word was God.” At least one group of Bible students believes that this indicates the Word is a lesser god. They then speculate that the Word was created. This notion is dispelled, however, by a proper analysis of the Greek. We quote a brief statement by a scholar on this point:

A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb…. The opening verse of John’s Gospel contains one of the many passages where this rule suggests the translation of a predicate as a definite noun. The absence of the article [before theos] does not make the predicate indefinite or qualitative when it precedes the verb; it is indefinite in this position only when the context demands it. The context makes no such demand in the Gospel of John, for this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas [John 20:28, “My Lord and my God”]. (E. C. Colwell, “A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament,” Journal of Biblical Literature, 52 (1933), 12-21. See also B. M. Metzger, “On the Translation of John 1:1,” Expository Times, LXIII (1951-52), 125 f., and C. F. D. Moule, The Language of the New Testament, pp. 12-14.)

John 1:1-3 explicitly states that both the Word and God are divine, and the vast majority of major translations have: “and the Word was God.” Greek scholars are in general agreement that the wording “The Word was God” or “the Word was divine” is the correct way to understand the last clause of John 1:1.

Competent scholarship does not support the argument that the lack of a definite article in a predicate nominative indicates an indefinite reference. “To say that the absence of the article bespeaks of the nonabsolute deity of the Word is sheer folly. There are many places in this Gospel where the anarthrous [used without the article] theos appears (e.g., 1:6, 12, 13, 18), and not once is the implication that this is referring to just ‘a god’” [Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Frank E. Gaebelein, editor, volume 9, page 30].

If it were true, as the heretic Arius taught in the fourth century, that Jesus Christ is a god but not the God, that he was created and not God from eternity, then Christianity would be a polytheistic religion. However, polytheism is condemned in the Bible. Scripture says there is one God (Deuteronomy 6:4; Mark 12:29; Ephesians 4:6; 1 Timothy 1:17; 1 John 4:8; 5:20; Matthew 28:1; 2 Corinthians 13:14; 1 Corinthians 8:6).

Here briefly are some of the reasons we believe that Jesus Christ was “God the Son”: he is called “God” (Hebrews 1:8-9) and “Mighty God” (Isaiah 9:6); we are told that “in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form” (Colossians 2:9-10). Also, the disciples worshiped him as God (Matthew 14:33; John 20:28).

In the New International Version (and most other translations are equally clear on this point), there are a number of clear statements about the deity of Christ. See for example John 1:3, 10, 14, 18; 5:18; Revelation 1:13-18; 22:13.

What about Revelation 3:14, however? Is there evidence here that Jesus could have been created? In this verse, the word “beginning” is translated from the Greek archē, which means “chief” (that from which the beginning is generated and flows). Christ is the originating instrument of creation (Colossians 1:15-17). He is the Chief—the Head and Governor of creation. Revelation 3:14, therefore, does not even hint that Christ was created by the Father sometime before the beginning. He has always existed.

Author: Paul Kroll

God is not a God of coincidence or chaos, and Jesus was no coincidence. John’s words show us that Jesus was with God in the beginning. He is God, one with God, and the life He came to live on this earth was a part of a glorious plan from the beginning.

What Was The «The Beginning»?

The Greek word John used here means “the first to do something, to begin.” This teaches us that God is the great initiator of all we know. As the Creator of the World, God was there in the beginning, making a way for us.

“Then He poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples’ feet and to wipe them with the towel that was wrapped around Him.” (John 13:5)

Another understanding of the Greek origin of the word ‘beginning’ is “to be chief, to lead, or to rule.” Jesus flipped preconceived notions of leadership when He, the teacher, knelt to wash His followers’ feet. The daily accumulation of dust on the soles of our feet is rinsed and removed by the tender care of Christ. From the beginning, God planned to renew and restore us through His Word, Jesus. The most important cleansing, the war for our souls, required a spotless sacrifice.

Jesus Christ alone lived a spotless, sinless life. To be lifted high by the Father, He bent low. John the Baptist humbly baptized the one he had been preparing the way for! Jesus led with an assertive humility, confident in who He was.

From the beginning, God went before us. He aims to gather each precious sheep, shepherding us home to heaven—a path we could never pave for ourselves.

What was «The Word»? (and how was it «with God»?)

“For the LORD God is a sun and shield…” (Psalm 84:11a)

God spoke the world into existence. “Let there be light” was His first command (Genesis 1:3). It separated light from darkness.

“Philosophers employed logos, or ‘word,’ for the divine reason that orders the universe” (NIV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible).Jesus is the light of the world (John 8:12), forever removed from the shadows.       

The Greek translation of ‘word’ is logos, meaning word, message, or report. “According to John, this logos was in the beginning, was with God, and was God himself” (Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary).

The Spirit of God hovered over the waters (Genesis 1:2), and “the Word was with God”(John 1:1). The triune God, from the very beginning, was present at Creation. The NIV Study Bible Notes say this of Genesis 1:1-6: “God’s ‘separating’ and ‘gathering’ on days 1-3 gave form, and his ‘making’ and ‘filling’ on days 4-6 removed the emptiness.”

He who made us fills us, removing our emptiness through salvation in Christ. Every note of creation reflects God’s love for us.

Jesus, the ultimate expression of that love, is evident from the very beginning. Matthew Henry’s Commentary states that “The plainest reason why the Son of God is called the Word, seems to be, that as our words explain our minds to others, so was the Son of God sent in order to reveal his Father’s mind to the world.”

“Light is necessary for making God’s creative works visible and life possible.”(NIV Study Bible Notes, Genesis 1:3)

“Light has come into the world.” (John 3:19)

Jesus, the Word, illuminates the Truth of Scripture, by which we learn the character of God. Jesus, Himself, said, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life” (John 8:12). The Holy Spirit, available to us through Jesus’ death on the cross, allows a brightened perspective, enlightened by the Word of God—Jesus.

“For God, who said, ‘Let light shine out of the darkness,’ has shone in our hearts to give the light of knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.” (2 Corinthians 4:6) Through us, the light of life shines to others! We stand out, shine bright, and illuminate. Each life is purposed for work in the furthering of the gospel. The gifts written on our hearts by the Word bring God’s love and light to the world. All we are and all we do is to honor Him.

«The Word was God»

“He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.” (Colossians 1:17)

God is omnipotent and sovereign, two characteristics addressed in the cross-reference in John 1:1. The Word, Logos, Jesus Christ, is before all things and holds all things together. The Son of God is the fulfillment of God’s covenant with His people:

“For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be by people. And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and his brother, saying ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.” (Jeremiah 31:33-34)

The law within us, written on our hearts, is the Word of God—Jesus Christ. By Him, through the Holy Spirit who dwells in us from salvation, we interpret God’s law. Through our Christ-centered lives, the Great Commission to spread the gospel truth (Matthew 28:16-20) illuminates the world. The Word is before all things, holding all things together.

John 1:1 powerfully inaugurates John’s eyewitness and Holy Spirit-inspired account of Christ’s life. “In the beginning” is “a deliberate echo of Genesis 1:1 to link God’s action on behalf of the world through Jesus Christ with his first work, the creation of the world” (NIV Study Bible Notes).John’s testimony is especially tender, because of his friendship with Christ. He was the only one left at the foot of the cross with Mary and Christ’s best friend on this earth. John’s kinship with the one, triune God seeped into his bones and leapt out of his heart. Though omnipotent and sovereign, our God is a personal God.

In the words of John Piper, “Christ was not made. That is what it means to be God. And the Word was God.”

“Megs” writes about everyday life within the love of Christ. She stepped out of her comfort zone, and her Marketing career, to obey God’s call to stay home and be “Mom” in 2011. From that step of obedience her blog, Sunny&80, was born, a way to retain the funny everyday moments of motherhood. Meg is also a freelance writer and author of Friends with Everyone. She loves teaching God’s Word and leading her Monday morning Bible study, being a mom, distance running, and photography. Meg resides in Northern Ohio with her husband, two daughters, and Golden-Doodle—all avid Cleveland Browns fans. 

---

This article is part of our larger resource library of popular Bible verse phrases and quotes. We want to provide easy to read articles that answer your questions about the meaning, origin and history of specific verses within Scripture context. It is our hope that these will help you better understand the meaning and purpose of God’s Word in relation to your life today.

«Be Still and Know that I Am God»
«Pray Without Ceasing» 
«Fearfully and Wonderfully Made»
«Faith Without Works is Dead»
«Trust in the Lord with All Your Heart»
«All Things Work Together for Good»
«Be Strong and Courageous» 

Photo Credit: Unsplash/Denis Degioanni

The apostle John opens his account of the life of Jesus Christ with this declaration: «In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made . . . And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth» (John 1:1-3, 14).

Thus, this «Word»—the Greek term here is Logos—became the flesh-and-blood human being Jesus Christ. And He still bears the name «The Word of God» (Revelation 19:13).

How are we to understand this? God created the universe through this preexistent Word who became Christ. The Word was with God and, at the same time, was Himself God. Many use this to advance a Trinitarian argument, claiming that two divine persons here are said to be one single being. But is that what is meant?

Note that in the original Greek, the Word was with «the God» and was Himself «God» (no «the» in this case). The Word was not the God, as They were not the same entity. But He was still God.

We should understand «God» here as a kind of being—the divine, holy and eternally living God kind—as well as the name for that kind of being. The apostle Paul says the whole divine family is named after the Father, including Christ and others later added to the family (Ephesians 3:14-15).

Thus, in the beginning was the Word (Christ), and the Word was with the God (the Father) and the Word was also named God Himself! Of course, the Word would not be named God unless He was like the Father as well. That is to say, God is who He was as well as what He was (and is).

We have here, then, two divine Beings—not a single being of three persons as the Trinity teaches. Yet why was the divine Being who became Christ called «the Word»? Just what does this signify?

The Angel of God’s Presence

Of the many Old Testament references to angels of God, there are a few (Genesis 16:10-13; Genesis 22:11-12; Exodus 3:2-6; Judges 13:3-22) where One called «the Angel of the Lord» is also identified as «the Lord.» But how can an angel of God be God Himself? This is evidently the same figure referred to as «the Angel of His Presence» in Isaiah 63:9, as well as the «Angel» God sent to lead the Israelites through the wilderness to the Promised Land (Exodus 14:19; Exodus 23:20).

The word «Angel» here can cause confusion, as it is typically used to refer to created spirit beings who are lesser than God. However, the Old Testament Hebrew word from which the word «angel» is translated, malak, simply means «messenger,» as does the New Testament Greek equivalent angelos (from which the English word angel is derived).

In Hebrew and Greek, those words can mean either a human or spirit messenger. We must look at the context to determine which is meant. In this case, we have the Messenger of God who is also God. Clearly, there is only one entity fitting this description. It is an exact parallel to the Word of God who is also God.

Consider an Old Testament prophecy declared in the New Testament to refer to John the Baptist and Jesus Christ. God said: «Behold, I send My messenger [malak, here John the Baptist], and he will prepare the way before Me. And the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple, even the Messenger [malak] of the covenant [that is, Jesus Christ, Mediator of the New Covenant], in whom you delight. Behold, He is coming» (Malachi 3:1; compare Matthew 11:9-11; Mark 1:1-2; Hebrews 12:24).

The «Lord» here is God, for He comes to «His temple.» Yet He is also a Messenger—a malak, the term elsewhere rendered angel. Jesus is thus the Lord God. Yet He is also the Messenger of God the Father. And Christ’s role as Messenger has great bearing on His distinction as the Word of God.

The Spokesman and the literal meaning of Logos

As God’s Messenger, Jesus spoke on God’s behalf. He did so when He came to earth as a man. And He did so at the creation of the universe. The declaration of John 1:3, that God made everything through the Word who became Christ, is proclaimed in other Scriptures as well (see Ephesians 3:9; Colossians 1:16-17).

This fits perfectly with earlier biblical passages: «By the word of the Lord the heavens were made . . . For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast» (Psalms 33:6-9). Who did the actual speaking? From these references, it is abundantly plain that God the Father did the actual work of creating by, or through, the Word who became Jesus.

Jesus Christ is the One who spoke the universe into existence—but only at the Father’s behest. Jesus explained this in John 8:28: «I do nothing of Myself; but as My Father taught Me, I speak these things.» And John 12:49-50: «For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave a command, what I should say and what I should speak . . . Therefore, whatever I speak, just as the Father has told Me, so I speak.»

Jesus is thus the Father’s Spokesman, a role some have equated with the name Logos. This is quite legitimate, but the matter requires some explanation since logos literally refers not to a speaker but to what is spoken.

What does the Greek term logos actually mean? The Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon (1992) offers the following meanings among others: «A word, uttered by a living voice . . . what someone has said . . . a continuous speaking discourse . . . doctrine, teaching . . . reason, the mental faculty of thinking.»

The HCSB Study Bible notes: «Like the related verb lego [to speak],the noun logos most often refers to either oral or written communication. It means statement or report in some contexts» (2010, p. 1801, «Logos,» emphasis in original).

Some first-century Jewish usage of the term may relate to the usage in John 1. But this question remains: How are we to understand Christ as what is spoken, the literal meaning of Logos, when we know He is the One who speaks for God?

Both Messenger and Message

By way of answering, let us ask: Should all of Christ’s other titles be understood this way? What about «the Alpha and the Omega» in Revelation 1:8? Is Christ really two letters of the Greek alphabet? What about «the Lamb of God» in John 1:36? Is Christ literally a young sheep? It should be easy to see that titles in the Bible often have figurative meanings.

Consider for a moment that figures of speech must still follow a certain logic. What do you think it would mean if you called someone your «Word»? It would, no doubt, be very similar to what Paul meant when he wrote to the Corinthian congregation, «You are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read by all men» (2 Corinthians 3:2).

The church members in Corinth were not a literal epistle or written letter. Paul was using abstract language with an underlying concrete meaning. When you write a letter, you communicate your thoughts to others. The Corinthians, Paul was saying, acted in representation of his ideas. They expressed, through their conduct and words, all that he had taught them and stood for. Isn’t this exactly what you would mean if you called someone your «Word»?

The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary sheds further light on the matter, pointing out: «Words are the vehicle for the revelation of the thoughts and intents of the mind to others. In the Person of the incarnate Logos, God made Himself fully known to man. Nothing knowable by man concerning God is undisclosed by incarnate deity. Christ as the Word constitutes the complete and ultimate divine revelation» (1988, p. 780, «Logos»).

Let’s consider again Christ’s role as God’s Messenger. Christ represented the Father exactly. He lived everything the Father commanded and conveyed His Father’s thoughts to human beings. He spoke on His Father’s behalf as God’s Spokesman. But the message Christ brought entailed not only speaking. Rather, His whole life itself conveyed a message.

Indeed, Jesus Himself is both Messenger and Message. The way He lived taught us how to live. His humbling of Himself to come in the flesh and give His life in sacrifice speaks volumes about the unfathomable love of God. Jesus Christ is the Word of God. Everything He said, everything He did, everything He went through is God’s Word to us.

‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.’ These are among the most famous lines in the New Testament: they begin the Gospel of St. John. But what does ‘In the beginning was the Word’ mean? Let’s take a closer look at the meaning of this famous opening sentence.

It’s perhaps helpful to begin by setting out the difference between the Gospel of John and the three other gospels: Matthew, Mark, and Luke. The Gospel of Mark is thought to have been composed the earliest of the four gospels, with Matthew and Luke basing their own accounts on it. The gospel of John was written later still, and of the four, has the strongest claim to actually having been written by one of Jesus’ apostles. (It’s been speculated, though we cannot know for sure, that John may have written his account in the late first century AD, when he was an old man of nearly 90.)

Matthew, Mark, and Luke are grouped together as the ‘Synoptic’ gospels, from a word meaning ‘seeing together’. These three accounts all reflect each other to varying degrees. But the Gospel of John is quite different. Right from those opening words, ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God’, John is signalling that his account of Jesus’ life will be treating Jesus as much more than a human being.

This is not to say that the other gospel writers don’t also acknowledge that Jesus is the Messiah (as well as a human being), but that John’s Jesus is supernatural and ethereal – otherworldly, almost – right from the beginning.

‘In the beginning was the Word.’ But what does John mean by ‘the Word’? The original Greek text has Logos, for which ‘the Word’ is our English translation. But Logos is a word that comes with a lot of meanings packed into it, and ‘the Word’ is only a partial reflection of this densely significant word. This term, ‘the Word’, is not found in the Old Testament, and its use in the New Testament is down entirely to John.

In his endlessly informative Asimov’s Guide to the Bible: The New Testament: 002, the author and all-round polymath Isaac Asimov links John’s ‘In the beginning was the Word’ to the Greek philosophy of Thales of Miletus, who lived in the seventh century BC.

Thales argued that, contrary to the idea that the world was largely erratic and unpredictable in its operations, it was actually subject to rigid laws of nature, and that these laws could be discovered using reason and observation. This is the beginnings of both rationalism and empiricism, if you will.

This meant that God – or, depending on which belief system you subscribed to, a whole pantheon of gods – created the world upon some clear and knowable principle, and that this principle is constant rather than changeable and arbitrary. One of Thales’ followers, Heraclitus, used the term ‘Logos’ to refer to this rational principle. ‘Logos’ means ‘word’ but it also denotes the entire rational structure of knowledge as Thales and Heraclitus had theorised it.

And as the term ‘Logos’ was taken up by more and more philosophers, it came to refer not to some abstract entity but to a thing, even a person: the person who had created this orderly system of knowledge and principle in the world. Logos, if you will, became personified. This tradition spread beyond the Greek world, and was taken up by the Jewish followers of Yahweh, or the Old Testament God. In Jesus’ time, a man named Philo the Jew popularised the term Logos as a reference to the rational aspect of Yahweh.

So when John begins his gospel by taking us back to the very beginning – of time and of the world and the universe – he is using the term Logos in light of this thinking. So ‘In the beginning was the Word’ means ‘In the beginning was Logos’ which means ‘at the beginning of everything, there was the entity we know as God, who embodied, and created, the rational principle on which everything is founded’.

So much for ‘In the beginning was the Word’; but what about the next part of John’s sentence? How was ‘the Word’ with God as well as being God?

Well, as Asimov explains, at the time John was writing there were some philosophers who tried to keep God and Logos separate. Logos was not synonymous with God, but merely one power that he possessed, if you will. God, being spiritual, was removed from the rational and scientific processes of the world: he could not be associated with material things, as an elision of ‘God’ with ‘Logos’ would imply. These philosophers and mystics were known as ‘Gnostics’, from the Greek meaning ‘to know’.

For these Gnostics, because the world is material, God could not have been directly responsible for creating it. Instead, they believed some sub-divine and more malevolent entity had done that. Because the world is full of evil, the Gnostics reasoned, an evil being must have had a hand in its creation. Plato famously called this being the ‘Demiurge’. And for Gnostics, Yahweh – the Old Testament version of God – was really the Demiurge, this inferior being to the true God, and the Demiurge was the one who had brought the (flawed) world into being.

For the Gnostics, Jesus was the true God, as opposed to Yahweh, the creator and Demiurge. And the Gospel of John, and those opening lines, set themselves against such a Gnostic interpretation of God and Creation. God and Jesus, God and Logos, Logos and Jesus: all are one and the same.

Or, as John more poetically (but obscurely) puts it: ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.’ That is, at the beginning of all things there was Logos, the creator of everything. And Logos was not only with God, but Logos was God. As the succeeding two verses of the Gospel of John make clear, Logos and God are the same being:

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

1:2 The same [i.e., Logos, the Word] was in the beginning with God.

1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

That is, Logos was God, and Logos made ‘all things’. God made all things, but God was Logos, or the Word.