1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. This one was in the beginning with God. All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence. What has come into existence by means of him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light is shining in the darkness, but the darkness has not overpowered it.
''and the Word was with God,'' we know who the Word is , he is Jesus .
Not Jesus, but the pre-incarnate Son. Jesus in the incarnate Son of God.
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Looking at the first clause, "In the beginning" is clearly a reference to Gen 1:1. John’s readers would have expected “God” next, but instead see “was the Word.” It is significant that God created by speaking and here John says that the Word was in the beginning “with God” yet also, in some way, “was God.” He then states in verse 3 that the Word was involved in the creation of all that came into being. The word "was" is the Greek,
en, which is a form of
eimi (I Am), and speaks of continuous action in the past; that is, absolute preexistence before any creation. What that means is that when the beginning began, the Word was
already in existence, and hence, there was never a time when he did not exist. The very same applies to the Father, who has absolute preexistence.
In the second clause, "and the Word was with God," it is the Greek
pros that is translated as "with." But it isn't merely speaking of being together or near. It is in the accusative and expresses “direction towards,” as in relationship and communion, implying intimacy. It is important to note here that in the Greek the article is present, so it literally reads, "the Word was with [the] God." So, God is a reference to someone other than the Word, at a minimum it is a reference to the Father.
When it comes to the last clause, "the Word was God," it is significant that "God"
doesn't have the article in the Greek, as it did in the preceding clause. If the article had been present then "Word" and "God" become interchangeable— they would be one and the same—which is the error of Modalism/Oneness theology. But this whole passage is about the
logos, who the
logos is, not who God is, so John purposely doesn't use the article to avoid equating the two words. It also
cannot be "a god," since God himself says he is the only one and there never will be another. Therefore, it can only have a qualitative meaning, that is, that the Word was divine in nature, or deity. However, since there is only one God, it is rightly translated as "the Word was God."
As part of the context we must also consider verses 2 and 3:
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
We see a repeat of verse 1 with the use of
en,
pros, and God with the article, reaffirming the timeless preexistence of the Word who was in active, close communion with the Father.
Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Simple, straightforward logic tells us that since "all things were made through" the Word, and that "without him was not any thing made that was made," it necessarily follows that the Word is not something that was made (see also 1 Cor 8:6 and Col 1:16-17). That is, there never was a time when the Word did not exist, which clearly affirms what was said in the two preceding verses.
Further, if we look at what God says about creation, we see that he alone created everything:
Isa 42:5 Thus says God, the LORD,
who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread out the earth and what comes from it, who gives breath to the people on it and spirit to those who walk in it:
Isa 44:24 Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, who formed you from the womb: "I am the LORD,
who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself,
Isa 45:12
I made the earth and created man on it; it was my hands that stretched out the heavens, and I commanded all their host.
...
Isa 45:18 For thus says the LORD,
who created the heavens (he is God!), who formed the earth and made it (he established it; he did not create it empty, he formed it to be inhabited!): “I am the LORD, and there is no other.
Isa 48:13
My hand laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand spread out the heavens; when I call to them, they stand forth together.
Jer 10:12
But God made the earth by his power; he founded the world by his wisdom and stretched out the heavens by his understanding.
(All ESV.)
Yahweh says that he "alone stretched out the heavens" and "spread out the earth by [himself]." Yet, John and Paul both say that everything that ever was created, came into being through the Son. More than that, we need to look at what the writer of Hebrews says:
8 But about the Son, he says . . .
...
10 And: “At the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the works of your hands. 11 They will perish, but you will remain; and just like a garment, they will all wear out, 12 and you will wrap them up just as a cloak, as a garment, and they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will never come to an end.” (NWT)
The Father says that
the Son was the one who did it all. More than that, the Father calls him "Lord"! And still more than that, this is a quote from Psalm 102:25-27:
25 Long ago you laid the foundations of the earth,
And the heavens are the work of your hands.
26 They will perish, but you will remain;
Just like a garment they will all wear out.
Just like clothing you will replace them, and they will pass away.
27 But you are the same, and your years will never end. (NWT)
But we know that this is a Psalm speaking to and of God.
Why does the NWT contradict itself on a core issue? First, as I pointed out previously, "other" is falsely inserted four times into Col. 1:16-17, changing the meaning of what is said and contradicting John 1:3 and 1 Cor. 8:6. Now, we not only see that God says he alone created everything, which contradicts John 1:3, 1 Cor. 8:6, and Col. 1:16-17, we see the Father saying that it was the Son who is referred to in Psalm 102:25-27.
What does this all tell us? It can only mean that the Son is also Yahweh, that he is also truly God, but that he isn't the Father.
something of what we know of him is that he is the son of God. he ,Jesus being the ''son '' is something that should be burned into your psyche to then know that a son , be it created or even procreated, was not, could not decide if he could come into existence. that was in fact an act of God the Father.
why it is that it can't be Comprehended ?
What is easy to comprehend is that we
know that sons are
always of the same nature as their fathers. It
cannot be otherwise. If the Father is truly God and has existed for all eternity, then the Son, being of the same nature, must also have necessarily existed for all eternity. It
cannot be otherwise. And that is precisely what John is getting at in 1:1-18.
Jehovah God so long ,long ,long ago took it a Upon himself to make another much like himself .
Except that he didn't, because he said there wasn't another and that there wouldn't be.
