Perhaps John 1:1 is the most controversial verse in the entire Bible. It is particularly significant in the theology of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Biblical Unitarians. Not only so, it is of great interest to many who do not claim to be Christian. John’s Prologue is certainly a portion of Scripture that attracts the attention of many people, and for good reason. Its meaning gives definition to the Deity and presents a worldview that is inconsistent with all other worldviews. I recently offered a study on John’s Prologue, which can be found in the HERE . I wrote it with a bent toward answering the objections of the Biblical Unitarians. This time I wish to simply read through it for what I see there.
Let’s look at the first three verses 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 (2) The same was in the beginning with God (3) All things were made by him and without him was not any thing made that was made.
The context of the beginning is the time of creation. What the text tells us is that whoever the Word is, everything that came into existence did so through him. He participated in bringing all things into existence. In Genesis 1:1 we are told that in the beginning God created… everything in existence. What does this mean?
First of all, what I see here in John’s Gospel is that the Creator is taking responsibility for all that is. Notice that John refers to the Creator as God. What does it mean to be God of anything? Psalm 82 seems to be saying that god (small “g”) can be a ruler of any kind. God calls mere men who rule gods. Jesus, himself, refers to this Scripture later in the book of John. If we apply this idea to John 1:1, what is the implication? It seems to me that John in referring to the Creator as God is saying he is the Ruler, but the Ruler of what? There was, as yet, nothing in existence! What I see occurring is that the Creator instituted first his office as Ruler – God, if you will – over what he is about to do. So, before anything is brought into existence, the Player is defined. The office of God or Ruler (LORD) comes into existence at the moment of the first creative act. It is like the moment my first daughter was born. I wasn’t a father until she came into existence. Whatever I was before that moment, I was not a father. However, at the precise moment my daughter was born, I became her father—I was responsible. I initiated her coming into existence.
So, in the beginning (of creation) was the Word. That is, whoever the Word is, he was at the beginning. He preceded whatever the beginning might be. John continues to say that this Word was “with” (the) God [i.e. the article “the” is present in the Greek, which is at the heart of controversy among those who deny the deity of Jesus]. The Greek then reads: “the Word was with the God.” The only point I perceive being made here is that whoever the Word is, he was there in the beginning – before anything was created – together “with” the God. A distinction between the two is being made, but we must not be too quick to read anything into this distinction. On the contrary, we need to let the text, itself, tell us what it has to say.
Next, John writes that “the Word was God.” The article is absent before the word God, and this, viewed with the previous clause where the article is present with God, proves to be very controversial within the doctrine, teaching Jesus is truly God. The argument is: “God cannot be with God. This would be illogical.” Well, I believe there is more to all this than what some are trying to read into this verse. For example, what if the article were present in both clauses, wouldn’t this be an error saying God is beside himself? How, then, should John have expressed the idea that would show the Word is truly God, if this is what he meant?
I believe John’s choice to use the term, the Word, to describe Jesus, before he became man, expresses emphatically that Jesus was truly God come in the flesh. John was working with a Hebrew tradition, but most folks like to say he is drawing upon the Greek philosophical tradition of the Logos – the Greek for the Word. In the Jewish Targums, the writers often replace the name YHWH in the Hebrew with Memra, which is Aramaic for the Word, when the targumist interprets that YHWH in the text takes on a personal form. I believe that John brought this Jewish tradition into the New Testament. In fact, the targumist translates Genesis 1:27 into:
“And the Word of the Lord created man in His likeness, in the likeness of the presence of the Lord He created him, the male and his yoke-fellow He created them” (Jerusalem Targum).
Another writes:
“And the Word of YHWH created man in his likeness, in the likeness of YHWH, YHWH created, male and female created He them (Targum Jonathan, Genesis 1:27).
What does this mean? It seems to me that John sought to bring into the New Testament the Jewish idea of God. He is ONE, but God is more complex than what we would term a singularity. In fact, it takes two—male and female—to express God’s image properly for our understanding. I could say that I brought my daughter into this world through my wife, and without my wife no child of mine had been brought into this world. This, in a sense, would reflect what we see in John 1:1-3 and Genesis, chapter 1. God, the Father, spoke or willed the creative act and the Word brought the will of the Father into physical existence. I don’t mean to imply that God is male or female. He has no gender, but humanity, as male and female, is the image God created to point to himself. So, just as in my analogy above, my wife is no less a parent than I am and no less human than I am, so too the Word is GOD just like the God (the Father) in the third clause of John 1:1. John is saying that the Word is no less GOD than the Father is. Both share equal responsibility for and authority over creation.
Smoodock's Blog 
27 responses to “Is Jesus Truly God?”
I will agree that “beginning” indicates the commencement of something. As far as “creating or bringing all things into existence,” I would not put a narrow “creation” definition to that.
I, too, would agree that the “beginning” would have to be the commencement of something. Such is the meaning of the word. John seems to state it in a “matter of fact” sort of way, as though everyone who reads should be able to understand. I, therefore, would not look far and wide for what this “beginning” refers to—it must be something obvious.
If we permit the Scriptures to interpret themselves as much as possible, wouldn’t that put a “narrow” interpretation of the text? Letting someone or something tell us what the meaning is keeps us from using any meaning willy-nilly. If John 1:3 does not put John 1:1-2 in the context of creation, why is verse-3 there? If John doesn’t elaborate about the beginning, implying that we should know what it is, wouldn’t verse-3 be out of place if “creation” is not the context of the “beginning”?
Another meaning of ‘ginomai’ is “come to pass.” The beginning may be the new creation, or even the beginning of Jesus’ life. Through Jesus, all things written in the Scriptures came to pass. As he himself taught, he came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets (Matthew 5:17, Luke 24:27, Luke 24:44).
The tense of the verb would be wrong for the “new creation”. What was made (ginomai-G.1096) was completed once and for all sometime in the past and does not have to be repeated. The verb tense is the same for Jesus saying “It is finished” from the Cross. What Jesus did, does not have to be repeated.
Concerning “through Jesus, all things written in the Scriptures came to pass”, this sounds a lot like the “plan” of the Biblical Unitarians. Again, one runs into verb tense problems in verse one, if this line of interpretation is perused.
John 1:5 speaks of the Light that shines in the darkness, of which John the Baptist came to testify.
John was sent to testify of the one who is the Light—that he was coming into the world. The one, through whom all things were made, was coming into the world. John’s message implied the coming of someone who was already in existence.
Remember the words of Simeon when he took the child Jesus in his arms in the temple (Luke 2:29-32), “… for my eyes have seen your salvation … a light of revelation to the Gentiles …”
The Holy Spirit had revealed to Simeon that he wouldn’t die without seeing the Messiah (Luke 2:26). The coming of the Messiah was thought to mean salvation from Israel’s enemies (cp. John 12:34), but the prophet included the Gentiles (Isaiah 42:6). To see the Messiah was to see the salvation of God, because he was the Savior who was sent into the world. Nevertheless, all this was to be accomplished at the cross, not at his coming into the world. The tense of the verbs in the first three verses of John point to the Word existing before the “beginning” and that the “beginning” marked an event in the past that didn’t have to be repeated—it wasn’t continually occurring. John 1:3 declares this event was creation. It cannot refer to the “new creation” because its “beginning” didn’t occur until the resurrection of Jesus.
and Paul’s words in Acts 26:23, “… by reason of His resurrection from the dead He would be the first to proclaim light both to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles.”
Yes, Paul is referring to the “new creation” that began in and through Jesus’ resurrection. We become “new creatures” (born again) through faith in his death and resurrection. The problem is that John is speaking of a past event in the first chapter of his Gospel. In the timeline of the Gospel, the crucifixion and resurrection had yet to occur.
The beginning marking an event in the past is one of the reasons I had also mentioned the beginning of Jesus’ life (i.e., his birth), because he was fulfilling the Law and the Prophets even at his birth.
The pattern used in the other texts which include the “beginning,” the “word,” and the “baptism’ (or John the Baptist), two of which are other gospel records, weighs heavily (to me, anyway) that the opening verses of John’s gospel should be viewed in light of those scriptures.
We can disagree; I’m fine with that.
Greetings Beverly,
The problem with this interpretation, as I see it, is that it does not agree with the tense of the verb in John 1:1 where the Word is said to be existing before the “beginning”. Moreover, John 1:3 would have to be contrived to mean what Jesus was fulfilling rather than what he created or brought into being. The verb in this verse as well points to an occurrence in the past that needs no repeating, but Jesus kept fulfilling prophecy throughout his ministry. Finally, since John does not explain what the “beginning” is, it is implied that it is obvious. The most obvious context of the “beginning” in John 1:1 would be creation, which is the most obvious meaning of John 1:3.
“We can disagree; I’m fine with that.”
Of course, this is merely a discussion between a brother and sister in Christ. There is no arm-twisting on your part or mine. We can both walk away unchanged personally, but with a greater knowledge of what the other believes, and no hard feelings. I am not here to “evangelize” you, and I haven’t felt that from you. We are okay here. :-)
Eddie, it finally clicked what you mean by John not explaining what the “beginning” is. However, I think that supports either view (or neither). There are places in the NT where “the beginning” is explained as “of creation” and as “of the gospel.” And there are places where “the beginning” is not explicitly explained, such as in Luke 1:2. Therefore, I don’t believe that John not explaining it is a very strong argument for either of us.
In Mark 13:19, Jesus states that “God” (as someone other than himself) created. And in Matthew 19:4-6, Jesus states that God “who created them from the beginning made them male and female.” He never refers to himself as the Genesis Creator. And Jesus, in John 17:3, identifies the Father as the “only true God.” Such plain statements should make it clear that, even if John 1:3 was speaking about the Genesis creation, it does not refer to Jesus as that creator.
Also, the Word existing before the “beginning” is true in any respect, since God spoke heaven and earth into existence. So no matter what “beginning” we’re talking about, the Logos already existed with God because the Logos (THAT logos; since logos is not a word limited to use only with God) is His thought, His reasoning, His word.
Eddie, it finally clicked what you mean by John not explaining what the “beginning” is.
Hi Beverly! I’m sorry, I probably could have been clearer. I know I have a problem with assuming folks know what I am talking about. Before I say more, let me thank you for this discussion. I don’t remember when I’ve enjoyed just speaking about God with someone other than my wife and folks in my Sunday school class. You are just about the most pleasant person I’ve ever disagreed with! :-)
However, I think that supports either view (or neither). There are places in the NT where “the beginning” is explained as “of creation” and as “of the gospel.” And there are places where “the beginning” is not explicitly explained, such as in Luke 1:2. Therefore, I don’t believe that John not explaining it is a very strong argument for either of us.
Well, if it is as vague as you claim here, John has a problem. Why would he begin his Gospel, which he later claims is to show Jesus is the Christ, in a manner that causes his reader to question what he means? I believe Luke’s “beginning” is quite clear: “Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;” The context puts this “beginning” with the apostles witnessing the ministry of Jesus. I don’t think we can get away from the fact that John 1:3 is out of place in John’s Prologue, if the “beginning” is not creation. Why does John refer to the Word as bringing all things into existence, if he isn’t referring to the creation? Everything must fit, if we are to discover the proper meaning. Wouldn’t you agree?
In Mark 13:19, Jesus states that “God” (as someone other than himself) created. And in Matthew 19:4-6, Jesus states that God “who created them from the beginning made them male and female.” He never refers to himself as the Genesis Creator.
Speaking of God in the third person is not proof that Jesus couldn’t also be including himself, when he was in the form of God (Philippians 2:6). Just a quick check of the context of Mark 13 has Jesus warning the disciples not to believe it, if someone says Christ is present here or there (v. 21). In v. 26 he tells them of his coming judgment upon Jerusalem, but he refers to himself as the “Son of man” in the third person. This is just a way of speaking. We all do it from time to time.
Concerning Jesus never referring to himself as the Genesis Creator, if Jesus refers to himself as God at any time in his ministry (and he does), then it can be assumed he sees himself as the Genesis Creator.
And Jesus, in John 17:3, identifies the Father as the “only true God.” Such plain statements should make it clear that, even if John 1:3 was speaking about the Genesis creation, it does not refer to Jesus as that creator.
This is one of those “yes and no” statements in Scripture. If we understand that Jesus, as man, is no longer “equal” to God, as he had been before he became man (Philippians 2:6), then we can see Jesus’ meaning. Jesus, in his present form is no longer omniscient, omnipresent or omnipotent. That’s the “I agree with your statement” part. But Jesus also claims in this very verse that eternal life is obtained by having a relationship—not only with the Father (the only true God)—but also with Jesus whom the Father sent. That is quite arrogant, if Jesus is not equal in essence with the Father. Furthermore, two verses later in v.5, Jesus asks God to glorify him (Jesus) with himself (the Father)—the glory he once had before the world was (cp. 1Timothy 6:16)! Now we are back to John 1:1 and creation!
Also, the Word existing before the “beginning” is true in any respect, since God spoke heaven and earth into existence. So no matter what “beginning” we’re talking about, the Logos already existed with God because the Logos (THAT logos; since logos is not a word limited to use only with God) is His thought, His reasoning, His word.
Yes, this is the sense in which many people put the Logos or the Word of John’s Prologue. This comes from the Greek philosophers. However, this is clearly wrong. Why would John borrow from the Greek philosophers—never mentioning it, mind you—when he could draw from his own Jewish background in the Jewish Targums. They are Aramaic translations / paraphrases of the Old Testament Scriptures. The Word—Memra in the Aramaic—was indeed the Creator. He was the one who spoke with Abraham and Moses. It was in his Name which Abraham trusted—so says the Targum.