Word of god john

John 1:1

In the beginning was the word
That this is said not of the written word, but of the essential word of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, is clear, from all that is said from hence, to ( John 1:14 ) as that this word was in the beginning, was with God, and is God; from the creation of all things being ascribed to him, and his being said to be the life and light of men; from his coming into the world, and usage in it; from his bestowing the privilege of adoption on believers; and from his incarnation; and also there is a particular application of all this to Christ, ( John 1:15-18 ) . And likewise from what this evangelist elsewhere says of him, when he calls him the word of life, and places him between the Father and the Holy Ghost; and speaks of the record of the word of God, and the testimony of Jesus, as the same thing; and represents him as a warrior and conqueror, ( 1 John 1:1 1 John 1:2 1 John 1:7 ) ( Revelation 1:2 Revelation 1:9 ) ( 19:11-16 ) . Moreover this appears to be spoken of Christ, from what other inspired writers have said of him, under the same character; as the Evangelist Luke, ( Luke 1:2 ) , the Apostle Paul, ( Acts 20:32 ) ( Hebrews 4:12 ) and the Apostle Peter, ( 2 Peter 3:5 ) . And who is called the word, not as man; for as man he was not in the beginning with God, but became so in the fulness of time; nor is the man God; besides, as such, he is a creature, and not the Creator, nor is he the life and light of men; moreover, he was the word, before he was man, and therefore not as such: nor can any part of the human nature be so called; not the flesh, for the word was made flesh; nor his human soul, for self-subsistence, deity, eternity, and the creation of all things, can never be ascribed to that; but he is the word as the Son of God, as is evident from what is here attributed to him, and from the word being said to be so, as in ( John 1:14 John 1:18 ) and from those places, where the word is explained by the Son, compare ( 1 John 5:5 1 John 5:7 ) ( Matthew 28:19 ) . And is so called from his nature, being begotten of the Father; for as the word, whether silent or expressed, is the birth of the mind, the image of it, equal to it, and distinct from it; so Christ is the only begotten of the Father, the express image of his person, in all things equal to him, and a distinct person from him: and he may be so called, from some action, or actions, said of him, or ascribed to him; as that he spoke for, and on the behalf of the elect of God, in the eternal council and covenant of grace and peace; and spoke all things out of nothing, in creation; for with regard to those words so often mentioned in the history of the creation, and God said, may Jehovah the Son be called the word; also he was spoken of as the promised Messiah, throughout the whole Old Testament dispensation; and is the interpreter of his Father’s mind, as he was in Eden’s garden, as well as in the days of his flesh; and now speaks in heaven for the saints. The phrase, (yyd armym) , «the word of the Lord», so frequently used by the Targumists, is well known: and it is to be observed, that the same things which John here says of the word, they say likewise, as will be observed on the several clauses; from whence it is more likely, that John should take this phrase, since the paraphrases of Onkelos and Jonathan ben Uzziel were written before his time, than that he should borrow it from the writings of Plato, or his followers, as some have thought; with whose philosophy, Ebion and Cerinthus are said to be acquainted; wherefore John, the more easily to gain upon them, uses this phrase, when that of the Son of God would have been disagreeable to them: that there is some likeness between the Evangelist John and Plato in their sentiments concerning the word, will not be denied. Amelius ^F6, a Platonic philosopher, who lived after the times of John, manifestly refers to these words of his, in agreement with his master’s doctrine: his words are these;

«and this was truly «Logos», or the word, by whom always existing, the things that are made, were made, as also Heraclitus thought; and who, likewise that Barbarian (meaning the Evangelist John) reckons was in the order and dignity of the beginning, constituted with God, and was God, by whom all things are entirely made; in whom, whatsoever is made, lives, and has life, and being; and who entered into bodies, and was clothed with flesh, and appeared a man; so notwithstanding, that he showed forth the majesty of his nature; and after his dissolution, he was again deified, and was God, as he was before he descended into a body, flesh and man.»

In which words it is easy to observe plain traces of what the evangelist says in the first four verses, and in the fourteenth verse of this chapter; yet it is much more probable, that Plato had his notion of the Logos, or word, out of the writings of the Old Testament, than that John should take this phrase, or what he says concerning the word, from him; since it is a matter of fact not disputed, that Plato went into Egypt to get knowledge: not only Clemens Alexandrinus a Christian writer says, that he was a philosopher of the Hebrews ^F7, and understood prophecy ^F8, and stirred up the fire of the Hebrew philosophy ^F9; but it is affirmed by Heathen writers, that he went into Egypt to learn of the priests {k}, and to understand the rites of the prophets ^F12; and Aristobulus, a Jew, affirms ^F13, he studied their law; and Numenius, a Pythagoric philosopher ^F14, charges him with stealing what he wrote, concerning God and the world, out of the books of Moses; and used to say to him, what is Plato, but Moses «Atticising?» or Moses speaking Greek: and Eusebius ^F15, an ancient Christian writer, points at the very places, from whence Plato took his hints: wherefore it is more probable, that the evangelist received this phrase of the word, as a divine person, from the Targums, where there is such frequent mention made of it; or however, there is a very great agreement between what he and these ancient writings of the Jews say of the word, as will be hereafter shown. Moreover, the phrase is frequently used in like manner, in the writings of Philo the Jew; from whence it is manifest, that the name was well known to the Jews, and may be the reason of the evangelist’s using it. This word, he says, was in the beginning; by which is meant, not the Father of Christ; for he is never called the beginning, but the Son only; and was he, he must be such a beginning as is without one; nor can he be said to be so, with respect to the Son or Spirit, who are as eternal as himself; only with respect to the creatures, of whom he is the author and efficient cause: Christ is indeed in the Father, and the Father in him, but this cannot be meant here; nor is the beginning of the Gospel of Christ, by the preaching of John the Baptist, intended here: John’s ministry was an evangelical one, and the Gospel was more clearly preached by him, and after him, by Christ and his apostles, than before; but it did not then begin; it was preached before by the angel to the shepherds, at the birth of Christ; and before that, by the prophets under the former dispensation, as by Isaiah, and others; it was preached before unto Abraham, and to our first parents, in the garden of Eden: nor did Christ begin to be, when John began to preach; for John’s preaching and baptism were for the manifestation of him: yea, Christ existed as man, before John began to preach; and though he was born after him as man, yet as the Word and Son of God, he existed before John was born; he was in being in the times of the prophets, which were before John; and in the times of Moses, and before Abraham, and in the days of Noah: but by the beginning is here meant, the beginning of the world, or the creation of all things; and which is expressive of the eternity of Christ, he was in the beginning, as the Maker of all creatures, and therefore must be before them all: and it is to be observed, that it is said of him, that in the beginning he was; not made, as the heavens and earth, and the things in them were; nor was he merely in the purpose and predestination of God, but really existed as a divine person, as he did from all eternity; as appears from his being set up in office from everlasting; from all the elect being chosen in him, and given to him before the foundation of the world; from the covenant of grace, which is from eternity, being made with him; and from the blessings and promises of grace, being as early put into his hands; and from his nature as God, and his relation to his Father: so Philo the Jew often calls the Logos, or word, the eternal word, the most ancient word, and more ancient than any thing that is made ^F16. The eternity of the Messiah is acknowledged by the ancient Jews: ( Micah 5:2 ) is a full proof of it; which by them ^F17 is thus paraphrased;

«out of thee, before me, shall come forth the Messiah, that he may exercise dominion over Israel; whose name is said from eternity, from the days of old.»

Jarchi upon it only mentions ( Psalms 72:17 ) which is rendered by the Targum on the place, before the sun his name was prepared; it may be translated, «before the sun his name was Yinnon»; that is, the Son, namely the Son of God; and Aben Ezra interprets it, (Nb arqy) , «he shall be called the son»; and to this agrees what the Talmudisis say {r}, that the name of the Messiah was before the world was created; in proof of which they produce the same passage. And the word was with God;
not with men or angels; for he was before either of these; but with God, not essentially, but personally considered; with God his Father: not in the Socinian sense, that he was only known to him, and to no other before the ministry of John the Baptist; for he was known and spoken of by the angel Gabriel before; and was known to Mary and to Joseph; and to Zacharias and Elisabeth; to the shepherds, and to the wise men; to Simeon and Anna, who saw him in the temple; and to the prophets and patriarchs in all ages, from the beginning of the world: but this phrase denotes the existence of the word with the Father, his relation and nearness to him, his equality with him, and particularly the distinction of his person from him, as well as his eternal being with him; for he was always with him, and is, and ever will be; he was with him in the council and covenant of grace, and in the creation of the universe, and is with him in the providential government of the world; he was with him as the word and Son of God in heaven, whilst he as man, was here on earth; and he is now with him, and ever will be: and as John here speaks of the word, as a distinct person from God the Father, so do the Targums, or Chaldee paraphrases; ( Psalms 110:1 ) «the Lord said to my Lord», is rendered, «the Lord said to his word»; where he is manifestly distinguished from Jehovah, that speaks to him; and in ( Hosea 1:7 ) the Lord promises to «have mercy on the house of Judah», and «save them by the Lord their God». The Targum is, «I will redeem them by the word of the Lord their God»; where the word of the Lord, who is spoken of as a Redeemer and Saviour, is distinguished from the Lord, who promises to save by him. This distinction of Jehovah and his word, may be observed in multitudes of places, in the Chaldee paraphrases, and in the writings of Philo the Jew; and this phrase, of «the word» being «with God», is in the Targums expressed by, (Mdq Nm rmym) , «the word from before the Lord», or «which is before the Lord»: being always in his presence, and the angel of it; so Onkelos paraphrases ( Genesis 31:22 ) «and the word from before the Lord, came to Laban» and ( Exodus 20:19 ) thus, «and let not the word from before the Lord speak with us, lest we die»; for so it is read in the King of Spain’s Bible; and wisdom, which is the same with the word of God, is said to be by him, or with him, in ( Proverbs 8:1-36 ) ( 30:1-33 ) agreeably to which John here speaks. John makes use of the word God, rather than Father, because the word is commonly called the word of God, and because of what follows; and the word was God;
not made a God, as he is said here after to be made flesh; nor constituted or appointed a God, or a God by office; but truly and properly God, in the highest sense of the word, as appears from the names by which he is called; as Jehovah, God, our, your, their, and my God, God with us, the mighty God, God over all, the great God, the living God, the true God, and eternal life; and from his perfections, and the whole fulness of the Godhead that dwells in him, as independence, eternity, immutability, omnipresence, omniscience, and omnipotence; and from his works of creation and providence, his miracles, the work of redemption, his forgiving sins, the resurrection of himself and others from the dead, and the administration of the last judgment; and from the worship given him, as prayer to him, faith in him, and the performance of baptism in his name: nor is it any objection to the proper deity of Christ, that the article is here wanting; since when the word is applied to the Father, it is not always used, and even in this chapter, ( John 1:6 John 1:13 John 1:18 ) and which shows, that the word «God», is not the subject, but the predicate of this proposition, as we render it: so the Jews often use the word of the Lord for Jehovah, and call him God. Thus the words in ( Genesis 28:20 Genesis 28:21 ) are paraphrased by Onkelos;

«if «the word of the Lord» will be my help, and will keep me then «the word of the Lord» shall be, (ahlal yl) , «my God»:»

again, ( Leviticus 26:12 ) is paraphrased, by the Targum ascribed to Jonathan Ben Uzziel, thus;

«I will cause the glory of my Shekinah to dwell among you, and my word shall «be your God», the Redeemer;»

once more, ( Deuteronomy 26:17 ) is rendered by the Jerusalem Targum after this manner;

«ye have made «the word of the Lord» king over you this day, that he may be your God:»

and this is frequent with Philo the Jew, who says, the name of God is his word, and calls him, my Lord, the divine word; and affirms, that the most ancient word is God ^F19.

---

FOOTNOTES:

F6 Apud Euseb. Prepar. Evangel. l. 11. c. 19.
F7 Stromat. l. 1. p. 274.
F8 Ib. p. 303.
F9 Ib. Paedagog. l. 2. c. 1. p. 150.
F11 Valer. Maxim. l. 8. c. 7.
F12 Apuleius de dogmate Platonis, l. 1. in principio.
F13 Apud. Euseb. Prepar. Evangel. l. 13. c. 12.
F14 Hesych. Miles. de Philosophis. p. 50.
F15 Prepar. Evangel. l. 11. c. 9.
F16 De Leg. Alleg. l. 2. p. 93. de Plant. Noe, p. 217. de Migrat. Abraham, p. 389. de Profugis, p. 466. quis. rer. divin. Haeres. p. 509.
F17 Targum Jon. in loc.
F18 T. Bab. Pesachim, fol. 54. 1. & Nedarim, fol. 39. 2. Pirke Eliezer, c. 3.
F19 De Allegor. l. 2. p. 99, 101. & de Somniis, p. 599.

«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

Have you ever thought about this question? What if God wasn’t a communicator? 

God is not silent! 

A phrase that captured my attention is in verse 2 is; the word of God came to John. What does that mean? 

• When I pick up the Bible, does that mean the ‘the word of God’ came to me? 
• When I hear a sermon, does that mean the ‘the word of God’ came to me? 
• When I pray and I sense the whisper of God, does that mean ‘the word of God’ came to me? 

An important part of our time in the Word of reading, reflecting and writing involves asking questions during the reflection time. What does it mean here regarding John the Baptist and that the word of God came to him? Our questions provide us the opportunity to search the Bible with intent for answers. The Bible interprets the Bible. 

Therefore, I believe the answer to our question this morning lies in the following verses: what does it mean that the word of God came to John? 

Now the word of the Lord came to me saying, ‘Go and proclaim in the ears of Jerusalem, saying, thus says the Lord’... Jeremiah 2.1 

The word of the Lord came expressly to Ezekiel the priest… Ezekiel 1.3 

When the Lord first spoke through Hosea…Hosea 1.2 

The word of the Lord which came to Zephaniah… Zephaniah 1.1 

Additionally, Amos, Habakkuk and Micah describe the word of God as coming to them as something that they SAW. It came as a vision. 

The phrase the word of God came to John is a phrase that is reserved for the Prophets of God. When John appears on the scene, God had not spoken through a prophet for over 400 years. (Not since Malachi). 

This experience of the word of God coming to John was a unique experience that happened to the prophets only. It happened at particular times history-past, John 1.33. The prophets were used by God for a special purpose and a specific message was needed at the time. The messages of the prophets carry themes and principles that we can use and apply to our lives, but these were messages specifically for the times they were given. 

That was then and this is now 

Today we have the complete Word of God. Yes, it doesn’t reveal EVERYTHING about God, but it gives us everything we need. 2 Peter 1.3; Jude 1.3. If God were to disclose everything about Himself, the world could not contain all the books, John 21.25. But what He has given is considered complete, Jude 3.1, and is sufficient for all that we need. 

I get concerned when I hear the phrase, ‘I have a new word from the Lord.’ Sometimes people search for something ‘new’ when the fullness of what God says to us is right in front of us. We don’t need a ‘new’ word from God until we have fully learned and applied what we already have in the Bible. 

What we have is much better 

The word of God doesn’t come to us the same way it came to the Prophets. But what we have is much better. We have the full compilation of God’s Word available to us to read, study and reflect upon. What a treasure and what a gift. 

The ‘Word of God’ comes to us when we go to the Word, dive in and allow the Word come to us.

Fortunately, God isn’t distant and removed from us. He has spoken divine and fully inspired words that when combined, Old and New testaments, form the complete, ‘once for all’ delivered Word of God. This Word provides us with everything we need for life.  

Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord; seeing that His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who calls us by His own glory and excellence. 2 Peter 1.3. 

Listen to Hillsong Worship’s song “Your Word” to reflect on the amazing grace found in the Word of God.

Father God, You have spoken! Your Word created everything out of nothing. There is no greater power than Your Word. Your Word, though I was dead, made me alive. You created life in me out of nothing, through Your Word. And now that I am alive, Your Word gives me the fullness of life and gives me everything I need. I am forever grateful and forever surrendered to you, my great loving and precious God. You have spoken! Amen. 

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 was not any thing made that was made.

The Gospel of John is a portrait of Jesus Christ and his saving work. It focuses on the last three years of Jesus’s life and especially on his death and resurrection. It’s purpose is clear in John 20:30–31: “Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” The book is written to help people believe on Christ and have eternal life.

Written for Non-Christians — and Christians

But don’t get it in your head that the book is therefore only for unbelievers. Believers in Jesus must go on believing in Jesus in order to be saved in the end. Jesus said in John 15:6, “If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned.” And in John 8:31, he said, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples”

“Believers in Jesus must go on believing in Jesus in order to be saved in the end.”

So when John says, “These are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name,” he meant that he was writing to awaken faith in unbelievers and sustain faith in believers — and in that way lead both to eternal life. And there may be no better book in the Bible to help you keep on trusting and treasuring Christ above all.

An Eyewitness Account

This portrait of Jesus is written by an eyewitness who was part of these infinitely important events. Five times in this Gospel we find the unusual words “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (John 13:23; 19:26; 20:2, 7; 21:20).

For example, at the very end it says in John 21:20, “Peter turned and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them.” Then four verses later (John 21:24), it says, “This is the disciple who is bearing witness about these things and who has written these things.” So the one called “the disciple whom Jesus loved” — who was there leaning on his shoulder at the Last Supper (John 13:23) — wrote this book as his divinely inspired witness to the events of Jesus’s life and what they meant for us.

Divinely Inspired

One of the reasons that I say it is divinely inspired is that this is what Jesus promised to do. He said in John 14:26, “The Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.” And in John 16:13, he said, “When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak.”

In other words, Jesus chose his apostles as his representatives, saved them, taught them, sent them, and then gave them, through the Holy Spirit, divine guidance in the writing of Scripture for the foundation of the church (Ephesians 2:20). We believe that John’s Gospel is, therefore, the inspired word of God.

John’s First Three Verses

Those words — “word of God”— bring us to the first words of John’s Gospel. John 1:1–3: “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 was not any thing made that was made.” These are the verses we focus on today.

‘The Word’: Jesus

First, we focus on the term word. “In the beginning was the Word.” The most important thing to know about this Word is found in verse 14: “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.” The Word refers to Jesus Christ.

John knows what he’s about to write in these 21 chapters. He is going to tell us the story of what Jesus Christ did and what he taught. This is a book about the life and work of the man Jesus Christ — the man that John knew and saw and heard and touched with his hands (1 John 1:1). He had flesh and blood. He was not a ghost or an apparition appearing and vanishing. He ate and drank and got tired, and John knew him very closely. Jesus’s mother lived with John in the last part of her life (John 19:26).

Therefore, what John is doing in John 1:1–3 is telling us the most ultimate things about Jesus that he can. It took John more than three years to figure out the fullness of who Jesus was. But he does not want his readers to take more than three verses to find out what took him so long to know. He wants us to have in our minds, fixed and clear, from the beginning of his Gospel, the eternal majesty and deity and Creator rights of Jesus Christ.

Jesus in His Infinite Majesty

That’s the point of verses 1–3. He means for us to read this Gospel worshipfully, humbly, submissively, awestruck that the man at the wedding and at the well and on the mountain is Creator of the universe. Do you see this and feel this? This is not my design. This is not the structure of my sermon. This is the structure of the book. This is the way John wrote — the way God meant for him to put it together. You or I might have written it in a way that subtly lets Jesus’s identity grow on the readers so that they wonder, Who is this man?

But John says no. John says, “In the very first words out of the end of my pen, I will stun you and blow you away with the identity of this man who became flesh and dwelt among us. So there is no mistaking.” John means for us to read every word of this Gospel with the clear, solid, amazed knowledge that Jesus Christ was with God and was God and that the one who laid down his life for us (John 15:13) created the universe. John wants you to know and believe in a magnificent Savior. Whatever else you may enjoy about Jesus, John wants you to know and treasure Jesus in his infinite majesty.

Why ‘Word’?

But still, we should ask, Why did he choose to call Jesus “the Word?” “In the beginning was the Word.” My answer to that question is this: John calls Jesus the Word because he had come to see the words of Jesus as the truth of God and the person of Jesus as the truth of God in such a unified way that Jesus himself — in his coming, and working, and teaching, and dying and rising — was the final and decisive message of God. Or to put it more simply: what God had to say to us was not only or mainly what Jesus said, but who Jesus was and what he did. His words clarified himself and his work. But his self and his work were the main truth God was revealing. “I am the truth,” Jesus said (John 14:6).

“What God had to say to us was not only or mainly what Jesus said, but who Jesus was and what he did.”

He came to witness to the truth (John 18:37) and he was the truth (John 14:6). His witness and his person were the Word of truth. He said, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples” (John 8:31), and he said, “Abide in me” (John 15:7). When we abide in him we are abiding in the word. He said that his works were a “witness” about him (John 5:36; 10:25). In other words, in his working he was the Word.

Jesus: God’s Decisive, Final Message

In Revelation 19:13 (by the same author as the Gospel), he describes Jesus’s glorious return: “He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is the Word of God.” Jesus is called The Word of God, as he returns to earth. Two verses later John says, “From his mouth comes a sharp sword” (Revelation 19:15). In other words, Jesus strikes the nations in the power of the word of God that he speaks — the sword of the Spirit (Ephesians 6:17). But the power of this word is so united with Jesus himself that John says that he doesn’t just have a sword of God’s word coming out of his mouth, but he is the Word of God.

So as John begins his Gospel, he has in view all the revelation, all the truth, all the witness, all the glory, all the light, all the words that come out of Jesus in his living and teaching and dying and rising, and he sums up all that revelation of God with the name: he is “the Word” — the first, final, ultimate, decisive, absolutely true and reliable Word. The meaning is the same as Hebrews 1:1–2: “Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son.” The Son of God incarnate is God’s climactic and decisive Word to the world.

Four Observations About Jesus

Now what does John want to tell us first about this man Jesus Christ whose deeds and words fill the pages of this Gospel? He wants to tell us four things about Jesus Christ: (1) the time of his existence, (2) the essence of his identity, (3) his relationship to God, and (4) his relationship to the world.

1. The Time of His Existence

Verse 1: “In the beginning was the Word.” The words “in the beginning” are identical in Greek to the first two words in the Greek Old Testament: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” That’s not an accident, because the first thing John is going to tell us about what Jesus did is that he created the universe. That’s what he says in verse 3. So the words “in the beginning” mean: before there was any created matter, there was the Word, the Son of God.

Remember: “These are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God” (John 20:31). John begins his Gospel by locating Jesus, the Christ, the Son of God, in relation to time, namely, before time. Jude exults in this truth with his great doxology: “To the only God, our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen” (Jude 1:25). Paul says in 2 Timothy 1:9 that God gave us grace in Christ Jesus “before the times of the ages.” So before there was any time or any matter, there was the Word, Jesus Christ, the Son of God. That is who we will meet in this Gospel.

2. The Essence of His Identity

Verse 1, at the end: “The Word was God.” One of the marks of this Gospel is that the weightiest doctrines are often delivered in the simplest words. This could not get simpler — and it could not get weightier. The Word, who became flesh and dwelt among us, Jesus Christ, was and is God.

Let this be known loud and clear that at Bethlehem — indeed, at all true Christian churches — we worship Jesus Christ as God. We fall down with Thomas before Jesus in John 20:28 and confess with joy and wonder, “My Lord and my God!”

When we hear the Jewish leaders say in John 10:33, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God,” we cry out, “No, this is not blasphemy. This is who he is our Savior, our Lord, our God.”

Do you see what this means for our series on the Gospel of John? It means that we are going to spend week after week getting to know God, as we get to know Jesus. Do you want to know God? Come with us, and invite others, to come and meet God as we meet Jesus.

If a Jehovah’s Witness or a Muslim ever says to you: “This is a mistranslation. It should not read, ‘The Word was God.’ It should read, ‘The Word was a god.’” There is a way right here from the context that you can know that’s wrong even if you don’t know Greek. I’ll show it to you in just a moment in the last point. But first, let’s look at his relationship to God.

3. His Relationship to God

Verse 1, the middle of the verse: “The Word was with God.” “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” This is the heart of the great historic doctrine of the Trinity. Someday I may preach a message just on this doctrine from the rest of John and the other Scriptures.

But for now simply let this straightforward statement stand in your mind and sink into your heart: The Word, Jesus Christ was with God, and he was God. He is God, and he has a relationship with God. He is God, and he is the image of God, perfectly reflecting all that God is and standing forth from all eternity as the fullness of deity in a distinct Person. There is one divine essence and three persons. Two of them are mentioned here. The Father and the Son. We learn those names later on in the book. The Holy Spirit will be introduced later.

Since we see in a mirror dimly and we know only in partial ways (1 Corinthians 13:9, 12), do not be surprised that this remains to us a mystery. But don’t throw it away. If Jesus Christ is not God, he could not accomplish your salvation (Hebrews 2:14–15). And his glory would not be sufficient to satisfy your everlasting longing for new discoveries of beauty. If you throw away the deity of Jesus Christ, you throw away your soul and with it all your joy in the age to come.

So we have seen (1) the time of his existence (before all time), (2) the essence of his identity (“the Word was God”), and (3) his relationship to God (“the Word was with God”). And now we close with his relationship to the world.

4. His Relationship to the World

Verses 2–3: “He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.” The Word who became flesh and dwelt among us, taught us, healed us, rebuked us, protected us, loved us, and died for us created the universe. Remember to retain the mystery of the Trinity from verse 1. Don’t leave it as soon as you get to verse 3. “All things were made through him.” Yes, another was acting through the Word. God was. But the Word is God. Therefore, don’t let yourself diminish the majesty of the work of Christ as Creator. He was the Father’s agent, or Word, in the creation of all things. But in doing it, he was God. God, the Word, created the world. Your Savior, your Lord, your Friend — Jesus is your Maker.

Jesus Was Not Made

Now, suppose a Muslim or a Jehovah’s Witness or someone from any brand of Arianism (the ancient heresy from the fourth century) says, “Jesus was not God, was not eternal —not eternally begotten — but rather Jesus was created. He was the first of creation. The highest of the high angels.” Or as the Arians said it, “There was when he was not.” John has written verse 3 precisely in a way that makes that impossible.

“Christ was not made. That is what it means to be God.”

He did not just say, “All things were made through him.” You might think that is enough to settle it. He is not a creature; he created creatures. But someone could conceivably say, “Yes, but ‘all things’ does not include himself.” It includes everything but himself. So he was created by the Father, but then with the Father created all other things.

But John did not leave it at that. He said, in addition (the last part of verse 3), “and without him was not any thing made that was made.” What do the final words “that was made” add to the meaning of “without him was not any thing made”? “Without him was not any thing made that was made.” They add this: they make explicit and emphatic and crystal clear that anything in the category of made, Christ made it. Therefore, Christ was not made. Because before you exist, you can’t bring yourself into being.

Christ was not made. That is what it means to be God. And the Word was God.

May the Lord help us to see his glory. And worship him. Amen.