Data on John 1:1

[Free]

This is all the data I could find on John 1:1. Enjoy...

“In the beginning.” There are elements of John 1:1 and other phrases in the introduction of John that remind us of God’s original creation while referring to the work of restoration done by Jesus Christ in the new administration and the new creation. Genesis 1 refers to God’s original creation; John 1 refers to the Restoration, not the original creation.


Genesis 1. THE CREATION

John 1. THE RESTORATION

• In the beginning—the plan
• All things were made in accordance with the plan
• In the plan was light and life
• The darkness could not understand or overcome it
• The plan became flesh and lived in a tent among us, and we gazed at its glory.

"In the beginning," in John 1:1a, refers to the beginning of all creation. The context clearly indicates that. John is telling us who the Son is; that is the whole point of his prologue which sets up our understanding of Jesus for the rest of his gospel.

Since I don't know Greek, I must lean on other sources.

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (ESV)

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. 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, 3, 10, and 14:

Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God. (ESV)

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. (ESV)

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.

Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. (ESV)

Here we see that "the world was made through him," which clearly is speaking of the Son, who became Jesus. This can only mean that he was in existence when the creation began and is, therefore, eternal. Otherwise, it's a false claim on the part of John and undermines the inspiration of what he wrote.

John then makes it clear in verse 14 that "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us." That is, the Word, not the Father, entered into time--Greek for "become" is egeneto (same as "made" in verse 3)--and took on human flesh. This is precisely what Paul is speaking of and expands on in Phil 2:5-8.

Joh 1:18 No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known. (ESV)

This is pretty self-explanatory.

The Son was involved in creation, and so was the Holy Spirit, but the Father is the originator. There is very much a reason why Gen 1 says that God created by speaking and why John 1:1 says that the divine logos was in the beginning "with God." As Vern S. Poythress says:

"Logos in the Greek has a range of meaning, including reason, law, word, speaking, declaration. The meaning "reason" explains why the study of reasoning came to be called logic. The meanings related to communication and discourse are mot pertinent to understanding the word logos in John 1:1. In John 1:1 the phrase "In the beginning" alludes to Genesis 1:1. And John 1:3 explicitly says that "all things were made through him," alluding to God's work of creation in Genesis 1.
. . .
John 1:1-3, by reflecting back on Genesis 1, indicates that the particular speeches of God in Genesis 1 have an organic relation to a deeper reality in God himself. The particular speeches derive from the One who is uniquely the Word, who is the eternal speech of God. God has an eternal speaking, namely, the Word who was with God and who was God. Then he has also a particular speaking in acts of creation in Genesis 1. This particular speaking harmonizes with and expresses his eternal speaking."

It is very interesting and seems to be very purposeful that John 1:1 speaks of plurality within the one God, just as Gen 1:26-27 do so as well. John was not only very specific in his grammar, as I have pointed out, he was intentional in bringing Genesis 1 to bear on his description of who the Word is.

 

[Free]

The above list is not exhaustive, but it does show that logos has a very wide range of meanings. With all the ways logos can be translated, how can we decide which meaning of logos to choose for any one verse? How can it be determined what logos refers to in John 1:1? Any occurrence of logos has to be carefully studied in its context in order to get the proper meaning. We assert that the logos in John 1:1 cannot be Jesus. Please notice that “Jesus Christ” is not a lexical definition of logos. John 1:1 does not say, “In the beginning was Jesus.”

“The Word” is not synonymous with Jesus, or even “the Messiah.”

This is to state the obvious as well as miss the obvious. Jesus is the name given to the incarnate Son of God, but Logos refers to the Son of God in his preincarnate state. Note again that in John 1:10-11, John is clearly talking about Jesus:

Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him.
Joh 1:11 He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. (ESV)

Yet, he also states that "the world was made through him." This clearly shows that John considered the Logos a person, namely, the preincarnate Son. That is, he is simply calling the Son, ho Logos. Those are essentially synonymous.

The word logos in John 1:1 refers to God’s creative self-expression—His reason, purposes, and plans, especially as they are brought into action. It refers to God’s self-expression, or communication, of Himself. Thus the logos has been expressed through His creation (Rom. 1:19-20) and Psalm 19 tell us that the heavens declare the glory of God. The logos has also been made known through the spoken word of the prophets and through Scripture, which is the written “Word of God.” Most notably and finally, it has come into being through His Son (Heb. 1:1-2).

Whatever meaning one wants to attach to logos in John 1, it is clearly a "person" and God in nature. It is no accident that only John uses logos of the Son, not only here, but in Rev.:

Rev 19:11 Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war.
Rev 19:12 His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows but himself.
Rev 19:13 He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. (ESV)

 

[Free]

Well, since Trinitarians are in disagreement with each other, I am only going by what I’ve mostly heard. And most of what I heard is that the Angel, because he was called both LORD and God had to be someone other than just one person.
In order to for an “us” to apply, it must recognize more than one person. And since it is said that man was made in the image of “us” it requires that more than one person is involved in the creation of man.
Now, the “us” can refer to multiple persons who are the one God, or to persons who are considered to be the one God but not actually the one God who is actually one person. That person being the Father only.

So, you were and are just committing the fallacy of equivocation, then, with saying that "Most Trinitarian and JW’s believe Jesus was the Angel of the Lord in the OT." JWs believe that Jesus literally preexisted as the archangel Micheal, and so they might believe that in his preincarnate state he was "the Angel of the LORD." His name Michael and position as archangel simply refer to "his heavenly role," including post-ascension.

https://www.jw.org/en/library/books/bible-teach/who-is-michael-the-archangel-jesus/

Trinitarians who believe that "Jesus" (properly the Son) was the Angel of the LORD, it isn't because he was literally an angel, but that was just a title as God's messenger. It couldn't actually be Jesus, since Jesus is the name of the incarnate Son.

 

[Free]

As we said above, although the wording of the Greek text of John 1:1 certainly favors the translation “and what God was, the Word was” over the translation “the Word was God” the context and scope of Scripture must be the final arbiter.

Which is to essentially say the same thing. John is showing us who the Word is, not who God is. To say that "what God was, the Word was," is to ascribe deity or divinity to the Word, but since only God is deity, it is proper to say "the Word was God."

In this case, we have help from the verse itself in the phrase “the Word was with God.” The Word (logos) cannot both be “with” God and “be” God. That is nonsensical.

This is just poor reasoning that is fallaciously begging the question by first assuming that the Word is not a distinct person from the Father. It ignores the rest of the context of John's prologue, the rest of John's gospel, and the rest of the NT.

The Word can indeed be both with God and God if the Word is a divine person that is true deity, of the same substance as the one God, yet distinct from the Father. There is no contradiction there.

It is similar to us being able to discern that Jesus Christ is not God from reading 2 Corinthians 4:4 and Colossians 1:15, which say that Jesus is the image of God. One cannot be both the image of the object and the object itself.

Again, fallaciously begging the question. That one would argue to Col. 1:15 to say that "Jesus Christ is not God," is to completely ignore the two verses that follow:

Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. (ESV)

Verses 16 and 17 are in complete agreement with John 1:1-3, 10, 1 Cor. 8:6, and Heb. 1:2, 10-12. The logical argument Paul makes here is identical to that of John 1:3 and 1 Cor. 8:6. If, by the Son, "all things were created," then it necessarily follows that the Son cannot be something that was created. Put another way, if the Son was created, then it is logically impossible that "by him all things were created." There is simply no way around this.

One cannot be both created and the means of creation of everything that has been created.

 

[Peterlag7]

Which is to essentially say the same thing. John is showing us who the Word is, not who God is. To say that "what God was, the Word was," is to ascribe deity or divinity to the Word, but since only God is deity, it is proper to say "the Word was God."


This is just poor reasoning that is fallaciously begging the question by first assuming that the Word is not a distinct person from the Father. It ignores the rest of the context of John's prologue, the rest of John's gospel, and the rest of the NT.

The Word can indeed be both with God and God if the Word is a divine person that is true deity, of the same substance as the one God, yet distinct from the Father. There is no contradiction there.


Again, fallaciously begging the question. That one would argue to Col. 1:15 to say that "Jesus Christ is not God," is to completely ignore the two verses that follow:

Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. (ESV)

Verses 16 and 17 are in complete agreement with John 1:1-3, 10, 1 Cor. 8:6, and Heb. 1:2, 10-12. The logical argument Paul makes here is identical to that of John 1:3 and 1 Cor. 8:6. If, by the Son, "all things were created," then it necessarily follows that the Son cannot be something that was created. Put another way, if the Son was created, then it is logically impossible that "by him all things were created." There is simply no way around this.

One cannot be both created and the means of creation of everything that has been created.

The all things created in Colossians 1:16 are not planets, stars, and oceans that God created. What the Lord created is listed right there in the verse. They are thrones, dominions, and authorities that he will need to govern his new administration after he returns.

 

[Peterlag7]

So much relevant context left out. Jesus being God's representative does not preclude him from also being God.


Thomas's declaration, said to Jesus was, "the Lord of me and the God of me." There is nothing to indicate that he saw the Father in Jesus and that is what he meant. That goes against a plain reading of the verse and the context. It is a clear indication that he and the disciples believed Jesus has had a divine nature.

John's gospel, from beginning to end, can only be properly understood in the light of the true deity (and humanity) of Jesus.

“My Lord and my God.” A very likely way to understand John 20:28 is that Thomas had realized the power of God working in Jesus, and in saying “my Lord and my God” he was pointing out that Jesus did reveal God in a unique and powerful way. In seeing the resurrected Jesus, Thomas clearly saw both the Lord Jesus, and the God who raised Jesus from the dead. Jesus always taught that he only did what God guided him to do, and said that if you had seen him you had seen the Father. In that light, there is good evidence that “doubting Thomas” was saying that in seeing Jesus he was also seeing the Father.

We have to remember that Thomas’ statement occurred in a moment of surprise and even perhaps shock. Only eight days earlier, Thomas had vehemently denied Jesus’ resurrection. Thomas could no longer deny that Jesus was alive and that God had raised him from the dead. Thomas, looking at the living Jesus, saw both Jesus and the God who raised him from the dead. When Thomas saw the resurrected Christ, he became immediately convinced that Jesus was raised from the dead. But did he suddenly have a revelation that Jesus was God? That would be totally outside of Thomas’ knowledge and belief. Jesus had never claimed to be God despite Trinitarian claims that he had.

In other places in the Bible where the apostles speak about the resurrection of Jesus, they do not declare “This proves Jesus is God!” Rather, they declare that God raised the Lord Jesus from the dead. The confession of the two disciples walking along the road to Emmaus demonstrated the thoughts of Jesus’ followers at the time. Speaking to the resurrected Christ, whom they mistook as just a traveler, they talked about Jesus. They said Jesus “was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and they crucified him." The disciples thought Jesus was the Messiah, a “Prophet” and the Son of God, but not God Himself.

Are we to believe that somehow Jesus taught the Trinity, something that went against everything the disciples were taught and believed, but there is no mention of Jesus ever teaching it anywhere, and yet the disciples somehow got that teaching? That seems too incredible to believe. There is no evidence from the gospel accounts that Jesus’ disciples believed him to be God, and Thomas upon seeing the resurrected Christ was not birthing a new theology in a moment of surprise.