ScripturalTruths- John 1:1 - And the Word was?

“In the beginning was the Word.” Five simple Greek words and the apostle John began the prologue to his Gospel. We can reasonably speculate that he never anticipated the amount controversy that surrounds these words today, yet the meaning of the first verse of his Gospel has arguably proven to be more disputed than that of any other passage in recent history.

Three issues are raised within the first verse of this Gospel. Who is the Word? Is the Word Eternal? How is the Word identified with the word Θεός (god)? Throughout the remaining portions of this article we will attempt to provide a legitimate answer to each of these questions.

The identity of the Word is not explicitly stated but strongly implied within the prologue. It is observed that the Word is identified as the one who “became flesh” and that he had the glory of a “son from the Father.” (Joh. 1:14) Considering who the primary character of John’s Gospel is it is only logical that Jesus Christ is the Word.

Further evidence of this is found within the book of Revelation. Specifically, it grants Jesus the name, “The Word of God.” (Rev. 19:12) Careful readers will note that this is a “name” or title that is given to Jesus, so as not to confuse Jesus with God’s literal speech. It is found clear that he is not this when we note Jesus’ baptism, where God speaks from heaven with Christ on the Earth (Mat. 3:17).

The Word that Was
Knowing that Jesus is the Word, we must consider a point raised by Trinitarian apologists on the text’s grammar. When we read the words “In the beginning was the Word,” they will argue that this denotes the Word as being eternal Is this an accurate view?

Looking to the Greek text, we find the imperfect form of the word ‘to be,’ translated into English as “was.” The imperfect verb shows an action that continues into the past, with the action of existing serving as the item of discussion. The position taken is that Jesus is said to have already have been existing at a time called “the beginning,” supposedly demanding that he be eternal. As there is no time discussed before the beginning where Jesus is said to have not existed, it is assumed that he always existed.

Indeed it is possible that Jesus eternally existed, and if such were the case that Jesus “was” in the beginning would be an appropriate statement. Nevertheless, if Jesus were only alive for one hour before the beginning, it would also be appropriate. We are simply not told how long before the beginning Jesus existed, so to make an argument on the A clause of this verse is to argue from silence.

We should note the observations held by Trinitarian Greek Scholar A.T. Robertson. Discussing the imperfect verb and John 1:1, he observes the following: "They are sometimes called 'aoristic' imperfects... The same root was used for both forms, as only one form exists and it is hard to tell which tense the form is... We see this difficulty in hn, efhn, elegon, etc., particularly in verbs of saying, commanding, etc.... Hence we need not insist that hn (jo. 1:1) is strictly durative always (imperfect). It may be sometimes actually aorist also. So as to efn (Mt. 4:7); elegen (mk. 4:21, 24, 26, 30, etc.), etc.”[1] [emphasis added]

Taking the imperfect verb as aoristic, we learn that John 1:1 may only be telling us that the Word existed at the time called “the beginning,” telling us nothing about his state before this time. Indeed, paralleling this with the first epistle of John we learn that Jesus is said to be “from the beginning,” with the Greek preposition possibly denoting Jesus’ point of origin. If this be the case, Jesus did exist at the time called “the beginning,” but it also happens to be that he came to exist at this time as well. In other words, it was at this point that Jesus was created.[2]

What the Word Was
The most widely discussed portion of John 1:1 is undoubtedly the C clause, where we read that the Word was something. This something depends on how we translate the Greek word Θεός. Often translated as “God,” it can also be rendered “a god” when contextually necessary (c.f. Acts 12:22; 28:6). To understand this text it is necessary to determine both the proper translation and the meaning that should be derived from the translation.

John 1:1c contains a construction that is known as a predicate nominative. Understanding this construction requires an understanding of certain principles of Greek grammar. There are various word cases that show the function of a word within a sentence. The nominative case defines the subject, the accusative tells us the predicate (specifically, the direct object). In the use of the predicate nominative, we are presented with the subject through the use of the nominative case and then we are told further information about that subject, again by means of the nominative case. Often the thought conveyed is the class to which the subject belongs.

Numerous statistical studies have been made on John 1:1 and this predicate nominative construction. Significant efforts have been made to determine the appropriate translation, be it definite, indefinite, or, as some have argued, purely qualitative. The problem with these studies is that they have been based upon the authors’ interpretation of the texts examined. Therefore we cannot consider these valid. To determine the appropriate translation we must look both to the context and the grammar.

The B Clause of the verse is essential to determining the appropriate translation. From this portion of the text we learn that the Word was with one that is identified as ό Θεός. This is essential because it rules out a definite meaning for 1:1c. How so? Obviously Jesus cannot be the one whom he is with, and that one is the God. If we were to take John 1:1c as definite, it would be equating Jesus with that one, an impossibility. Daniel Wallace explains: “Further, calling Θεός in John 1:1c definite is the same as saying that if it had followed the verb it would have had the article… The problem of this argument is that the Θεός in 1:1b is the Father. Thus to say that the Θεός in John 1:1c is the same person is to say that ‘the Word was the Father.’”[3]

This point is further brought out in verse 2 of the text, where it is again emphasized that Jesus was with the God in the beginning. Modalists will claim that Jesus is the Father, but the fact that he is with this one refutes such a notion, as do texts where we read of “the Father and the Son” (1Joh. 2:22) and where we read of Jesus having glory with the Father before the creation of the world (Joh. 17:5).

How do we understand John 1:1c? Trinitarians have argued that Θεός is a purely qualitative noun, where there is no indefinite or definite sense. They view the text as only an expression of Jesus' nature. Nevertheless, these ones have been unsuccessful in demonstration that Θεός even carries with it the function that they argue for, which could only be done through providing an example where the noun is used in such a sense. As a result their claims have come up rather empty..[4]

In the Trinitarian view the use of Θεός for Jesus has been argued then to show that Jesus is not the same person as the Father, but still all that God is. To them, any other view that might be advocated is considered Modalism or Polytheism. We must disregard such a notion though, for it is well established within scripture that both angels and men are rightfully called gods (Ex. 7:1 LXX, Psa. 8:5; Psa 82:6). To identify Jesus as Θεός would no more necessitate polytheism than the identification of these others such does.

How then is Jesus Θεός? Recognizing that angels are identified as gods (Psa. 8:5; c.f. LXX) and that these were created through Christ in his role "as the intermediate agent"[5] (Joh. 1:3), we can certainly see how he would rightly be called a god! He was so much greater than these, and yet in their position they were still identified as gods. Jesus served as the intermediate in creation for us all, and so it would be proper for us all to identify him as Θεός, though not in the sense of the Almighty who is the source of our existence (1Cor. 8:6).

Many will be inclined to note the numerous grammarians who have argued for a qualitative aspect to John 1:1c, and we do not object to this outright. In our given understanding Jesus has numerous qualities and attributes that would befit one identified as Θεός. The text contains a qualitative notion, but there is nothing to indicate that it is purely qualitative. In other words Jesus is defined as Θεός because of his highly exalted stated and because of what he does and what he has been ordained to do.

Those that demand Jesus be God in every sense of the word (thus to equate him the with Almighty) fail to recognize a similar example in John 6:70 in which Judas is defined as "a devil." More recently some have argued that this should be rendered as "the devil," but not only has such a rendering not been justified, it should be dismissed that groups of individuals are defined as such within the New Testament (c.f.1Tim. 3:11; Ti. 2:3). Further we note that the New Testament typically makes use of the article when speaking of Satan the Devil, and this is consistently true throughout the Gospels. The simple point is that Judas was not a devil in every sense that Satan is the Devil. He was not the father of the lie , a spirit or a fallen angel. There were numerous differences, and so we understand that it is not necessary to take the predicate nominative construction to demand a complete equation, which in the case of John 1:1c would mean that we need not demand that Jesus be God in every sense of the word. .

What objections are made to translating the text indefinitely? Most were once raised by a rule produced be E.C. Colwell. Colwell’s rule tells us that definite predicate nominatives that precede the verb usually lack the article. What many scholars would do is argue for the converse of the rule, stating that predicate nominatives that precede the verb are usually definite. By the very use of the term “usually” one could not make use of the converse of the rule as an absolute. Of greatest significance found in the rule never express the converse, finding the rule lacking in relevance for determining the appropriate translation of the text.

Having abandon such a view, the primary objection to an indefinite rendering is theology. Trinitarians cannot grasp how Jesus could possibly be identified as Θεός in a sense other than the Almighty without resulting in a type of polytheism. Between this article and our discussion on monotheism we have soundly demonstrated that polytheism does not result. Then is an indefinite rendering then grammatically sound? Indeed it is. Such an indefinite use is not uncommon for predicate nominatives within the Gospel of John as the following examples demonstrate.

What does all of this mean for us? If Jesus were not the God, would it not make him a false god? Would not calling Jesus a god other than the Almighty make us polytheists? Considering what we have demonstrated about Biblical Monotheism, to answer such questions in the affirmative would be extremely inaccurate. Scripture grants that others be called gods in a sense that is not in opposition to the Almighty, which would make it a title that Jesus is certainly deserving of. Indeed, Jesus served as God’s agent as the one through whom all were created (Joh.1:3) and thus he is truly a god to us all.

A future article will discuss the issue of mass and count nouns and the details of grammar that further lead to the conclusion that an indefinite rendering is the most appropriate for this text.

[1] Robertson, A. T. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Grammar). (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934.), 882-3.
[2] For a consideration of whether or not Jesus is the creator, please see this discussion.
[3] Wallace, D. B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (GGBB). (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 268.
[4] Some studies have been done on count nouns in the Gospel of John, with it necessary to make specific reference to Donald Hartley's paper Revisiting the Colwell Construction in Light of Mass/Count Nouns. In his study Hartley concludes that a purely qualitative rendering in John 1:1c is probable based upon his statistical analysis of similar count nouns in the Gospel of John. The issue with his conclusion is that it is based upon statistics and these statistics are based upon his own interpretation of the count nouns studied. As he is a Trinitarian of Dallas Theological Seminary he has his own view assumed a priori on the meaning of John 1:1c. In the first sentence of his paper, Hartley states: "Increasingly Colwell is cited as evidence of a determinate semantic reading of John 1:1c." As this very first sentence demonstrates, Hartley began with a view toward providing evidence in support of his theology for the translation of John 1:1c. From his background we cannot reasonably conclude that he was looking to make an honest examination of the text without a heavy theology disposition, for DTS requires that all students and faculty agree to a statement of faith that includes the doctrine of a Triune God. Therefore, we cannot reasonably consider his conclusions valid.
[5] Dana, H.E. and Mantey, Julius R. A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (Dana and Mantey), Printing with new index to Scripture References, (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1957.), 162.

The Word that Was Knowing that Jesus is the Word, we must consider a point raised by Trinitarian apologists on the text’s grammar. When we read the words “In the beginning was the Word,” they will argue that this denotes the Word as being eternal Is this an accurate view?

The Word that Was
Knowing that Jesus is the Word, we must consider a point raised by Trinitarian apologists on the text’s grammar. When we read the words “In the beginning was the Word,” they will argue that this denotes the Word as being eternal Is this an accurate view?