How do later Gentile views of "the Word" in John 1 differ from the original Jewish-Christian understanding, and what are the theological implications?

[My Rock]

The interpretation of “the Word” in John 1 holds significant theological implications, especially when examined through the lens of first-century Jewish-Christian understanding versus later Gentile interpretations. In John’s Gospel, the Logos or “Word” is presented as both with God and as God, culminating in its embodiment in Jesus. However, early Jewish monotheism, which deeply shaped John's perspective, would not have implied a separate, divine person within God but rather God’s own self-revelation made accessible in human form. This raises a critical question: Did John intend to introduce a complex, multi-personal deity, or was he conveying the profound mystery of one God expressing His presence and purpose through Jesus? If the latter, then how might later Gentile theological frameworks have shifted or even misunderstood John's original meaning? Engaging with these questions opens up a vital discussion about the foundations of Christian theology and the development of our understanding of God.

 

[Free]

The interpretation of “the Word” in John 1 holds significant theological implications, especially when examined through the lens of first-century Jewish-Christian understanding versus later Gentile interpretations. In John’s Gospel, the Logos or “Word” is presented as both with God and as God, culminating in its embodiment in Jesus. However, early Jewish monotheism, which deeply shaped John's perspective, would not have implied a separate, divine person within God but rather God’s own self-revelation made accessible in human form. This raises a critical question: Did John intend to introduce a complex, multi-personal deity, or was he conveying the profound mystery of one God expressing His presence and purpose through Jesus? If the latter, then how might later Gentile theological frameworks have shifted or even misunderstood John's original meaning? Engaging with these questions opens up a vital discussion about the foundations of Christian theology and the development of our understanding of God.

You're completely ignoring the fact that John spent about three years with Jesus and then wrote his gospel around 90 A.D., giving him around 55-60 years to think about everything Jesus did and said. Do you really think his views couldn't have changed, especially when they clearly changed regarding what the Messiah came to accomplish on his first visit?

The grammar of John 1:1 is such that the Word wasn't merely "with" the Father, but in an intimate, interpersonal relationship with the Father. How could that be if the Word wasn't a "person" distinct from the Father?

Joh 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.
...
Joh 17:24 Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world. (ESV)

Everything about John's gospel, from beginning to end, shows that there has always been and will be only one God, but that the Son of God preexisted eternally with the Father, precluding the idea that he is the Father. That's what his gospel reveals and what we have to make sense of.

 

[My Rock]

You're completely ignoring the fact that John spent about three years with Jesus and then wrote his gospel around 90 A.D., giving him around 55-60 years to think about everything Jesus did and said. Do you really think his views couldn't have changed, especially when they clearly changed regarding what the Messiah came to accomplish on his first visit?

This idea—that John’s perspective might have changed over time—is an interesting one, but it’s not one that would support the idea of a preexistent Son in John’s writings. In fact, if we accept that John had decades to reflect on his experience with Jesus, it would make his words in the Gospel even more deliberate and purposeful. John, guided by the Spirit, used careful language to convey profound truths about Jesus’ identity as God manifest in flesh (John 1:1,14). His choice to open with “In the beginning was the Word” rather than “In the beginning was the Son” points to a clear emphasis: God’s eternal self-expression, His divine plan, was fully embodied in Jesus Christ. John’s careful language doesn’t support a preexistent, separate “Son,” but rather reveals that Jesus was the fulfillment of God’s eternal purpose—the Word made flesh. The depth of his understanding, matured by years of reflection, reinforces rather than reinterprets his unwavering belief in the oneness of God, revealed through Christ.

 

[Free]

This idea—that John’s perspective might have changed over time—is an interesting one, but it’s not one that would support the idea of a preexistent Son in John’s writings. In fact, if we accept that John had decades to reflect on his experience with Jesus, it would make his words in the Gospel even more deliberate and purposeful. John, guided by the Spirit, used careful language to convey profound truths about Jesus’ identity as God manifest in flesh (John 1:1,14). His choice to open with “In the beginning was the Word” rather than “In the beginning was the Son” points to a clear emphasis: God’s eternal self-expression, His divine plan, was fully embodied in Jesus Christ. John’s careful language doesn’t support a preexistent, separate “Son,” but rather reveals that Jesus was the fulfillment of God’s eternal purpose—the Word made flesh. The depth of his understanding, matured by years of reflection, reinforces rather than reinterprets his unwavering belief in the oneness of God, revealed through Christ.

Except that that completely leaves out "with God"--in intimate interpersonal relationship with God--in verses 1 and 2. John certainly chose Logos for a reason, but he also shows the Logos has "personhood." That is undeniable. And that is also why it completely agrees with John 1:10 and the numerous other passages I have given elsewhere that unequivocally show that the Son has eternal preexistence with the Father.

 

[My Rock]

Except that that completely leaves out "with God"--in intimate interpersonal relationship with God--in verses 1 and 2. John certainly chose Logos for a reason, but he also shows the Logos has "personhood." That is undeniable. And that is also why it completely agrees with John 1:10 and the numerous other passages I have given elsewhere that unequivocally show that the Son has eternal preexistence with the Father.

The Oneness understanding emphasizes that the Logos, or "Word," in John 1 is not a distinct person from God but rather God’s divine self-expression. John uses "Logos" to convey God's own self-revelation, existing from the beginning as God's voice and plan. The phrase "the Word was with God" does not inherently imply a separate, personal entity in relationship with God, but rather indicates the Word as being in the presence of, and intrinsically one with, God’s essence. This perspective aligns with how God has always communicated His will—His Word was always with Him as His internal thought, purpose, and plan, ultimately manifesting in the incarnation of Jesus Christ (John 1:14).

When John speaks of the Logos being "with God" (pros ton Theon), he doesn’t imply interpersonal distinction but rather the closeness of God’s Word to Himself, revealing His own nature to humanity. Just as the Hebrew Scriptures convey God’s Word as His power in action (Genesis 1:3, Psalm 33:6), John’s Gospel portrays the Word made flesh, not as a second person, but as God Himself entering human history for redemption (Colossians 2:9). This is a divine revelation of God’s love and purpose—God in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:19), fulfilling the promise to dwell with His people.

Ultimately, John’s depiction of the Logos aligns with the oneness of God, showing God’s Word as the means by which He created, not as a separate preexistent Son, but as God’s self-expression taking on flesh in Jesus. Thus, the Logos is eternally part of God, not a separate person alongside Him.

 

[JLB]

Thus, the Logos is eternally part of God, not a separate person alongside Him.

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 nothing was made that was made. John 1:1-3

• All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.

Let’s look at other scriptures pertaining to His role in creation of all things.

• For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth

For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. Colossians 1:16


again



But to the Son He says:
“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.
You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;
Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.”
And:
“You, LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth,
And the heavens are the work of Your hands.

• You, LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands.

The Son, the Word created the heavens and the earth according to the will of the Father.


For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. 1 John 5:7

• and these three are one.

These three are one is biblical.


This One is three is unbiblical.

 

[Dyonisius the Areopagite]

The Oneness understanding emphasizes that the Logos, or "Word," in John 1 is not a distinct person from God but rather God’s divine self-expression. John uses "Logos" to convey God's own self-revelation, existing from the beginning as God's voice and plan. The phrase "the Word was with God" does not inherently imply a separate, personal entity in relationship with God, but rather indicates the Word as being in the presence of, and intrinsically one with, God’s essence. This perspective aligns with how God has always communicated His will—His Word was always with Him as His internal thought, purpose, and plan, ultimately manifesting in the incarnation of Jesus Christ (John 1:14).

When John speaks of the Logos being "with God" (pros ton Theon), he doesn’t imply interpersonal distinction but rather the closeness of God’s Word to Himself, revealing His own nature to humanity. Just as the Hebrew Scriptures convey God’s Word as His power in action (Genesis 1:3, Psalm 33:6), John’s Gospel portrays the Word made flesh, not as a second person, but as God Himself entering human history for redemption (Colossians 2:9). This is a divine revelation of God’s love and purpose—God in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:19), fulfilling the promise to dwell with His people.

Ultimately, John’s depiction of the Logos aligns with the oneness of God, showing God’s Word as the means by which He created, not as a separate preexistent Son, but as God’s self-expression taking on flesh in Jesus. Thus, the Logos is eternally part of God, not a separate person alongside Him.

This is a great topic of conversation so thanks for bringing it up.
I will, at the outset, have to disagree with Free in the aspect that John's theology did not "develop" or "change". Revelation does not change and the ancient Fathers were emphatic that the Apostles, having spent 40 days with the Risen Lord, attained perfect spiritual knowledge of the Gospel from the Lord and thus their "Kerygma" (their spoken preaching and teaching to the Church) was perfect Dogma and as such unchangeable.
That said, what I must point out to you here is that you have failed to put John's Gospel, especially John 1, into proper historical context.
John wrote his Gospel towards the end of his life and by the time he did so all of the other Apostles were reposed in the Lord having been matured years earlier. At the time, John lived in what is now modern day Turkey and oversaw the Churches there, directly. The Church was largely Gentile by this time, comprised of Greeks and Romans and other nationalities but mostly Geeek and Greek speaking people.
Already, the Church had been infiltrated by Pagan Geeek philosophy in the form of Docetic Gnosticism and other Gnostic philosophies which all denied the Incarnation in one form or another.
So John wrote his Gospel within that culture to address the heresy that had been cropping up in the Church.
By using the term "Logos" and applying it to Christ, John was showing the Greeks that the very Mind and Reason of God whereby the Infinite God had actually created the Cosmos had taken Flesh. I will comment more on this later. But I am pointing this out to you because the concept of the Logos was not a "separate person" from the Deity. Nor was it the Deity itself. But rather, the Logos was the Mind of God Spoken forth from within God. You see this in modalistic terms, but I will show you later why that is not the case from within that cultural context

 

[Dyonisius the Areopagite]

Except that that completely leaves out "with God"--in intimate interpersonal relationship with God--in verses 1 and 2. John certainly chose Logos for a reason, but he also shows the Logos has "personhood." That is undeniable. And that is also why it completely agrees with John 1:10 and the numerous other passages I have given elsewhere that unequivocally show that the Son has eternal preexistence with the Father.

Please see post 7

 

[Hopeful 2]

You're completely ignoring the fact that John spent about three years with Jesus and then wrote his gospel around 90 A.D., giving him around 55-60 years to think about everything Jesus did and said. Do you really think his views couldn't have changed, especially when they clearly changed regarding what the Messiah came to accomplish on his first visit?

The grammar of John 1:1 is such that the Word wasn't merely "with" the Father, but in an intimate, interpersonal relationship with the Father. How could that be if the Word wasn't a "person" distinct from the Father?

Joh 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.
...
Joh 17:24 Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world. (ESV)

Everything about John's gospel, from beginning to end, shows that there has always been and will be only one God, but that the Son of God preexisted eternally with the Father, precluding the idea that he is the Father. That's what his gospel reveals and what we have to make sense of.

It was the Word that pre-existed with the Father, and would eventually take on flesh and be named Jesus.

 

[Free]

It was the Word that pre-existed with the Father, and would eventually take on flesh and be named Jesus.

Yes, I know. I haven't said anything different. The Word is the preexistent Son; the Son didn't come into being in the man Jesus.

 

[Hopeful 2]

Yes, I know. I haven't said anything different. The Word is the preexistent Son; the Son didn't come into being in the man Jesus.

Why not call Jesus the post-existent Word ?
We could be calling the Word the pre-birth Son.

How can one be a son, before he is born ?

 

[Dyonisius the Areopagite]

Why not call Jesus the post-existent Word ?
We could be calling the Word the pre-birth Son.

How can one be a son, before he is born ?

Because the Son of God is the eternally begotten Word of God. The Son of Man is the Word Incarnated.

 

[JLB]

The Word is the preexistent Son; the Son didn't come into being in the man Jesus.

Amen.

 

[Hopeful 2]

Because the Son of God is the eternally begotten Word of God. The Son of Man is the Word Incarnated.

Jesus was no son, until He was born of a woman.
That is when the Word took on flesh.

 

[My Rock]

Because the Son of God is the eternally begotten Word of God. The Son of Man is the Word Incarnated.

From a oneness perspective, it is essential to distinguish between the concepts of the "Word" and the "Son." The Word (Greek: Logos) in John 1:1 refers to God’s eternal self-expression, which was with God and was indeed God. However, this Word does not refer to a separate, preexistent “Son” as though there were a distinct, second divine person existing alongside the Father in eternity. Instead, the "Word" is understood as God’s own mind, thought, and purpose, present within God Himself from all eternity and not yet manifest in any tangible form. The “Word” only became the “Son” when it took on flesh in the person of Jesus Christ.

The Bible makes it clear that the Son of God refers to God’s entrance into human history through the miraculous conception and birth of Jesus. Galatians 4:4 says, "But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law.” Here, Paul clarifies that the Son was "made of a woman"—indicating that the Sonship began in time, at the incarnation. The title "Son" therefore specifically refers to God’s relationship with humanity in the incarnation, where He took on human nature for the purpose of redemption.

Hebrews 1:5 reinforces this point by quoting God’s words about the Son: “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.” This passage speaks of a particular day, a moment in time, when the Son was begotten. If the Son were eternally preexistent, there would be no “day” of His begetting; it would contradict the scriptural assertion of the Son’s beginning in time.

Thus, the oneness of God understanding is that the Word was indeed God’s own self-expression, eternally existent within Him. But the Word only became the “Son” at a specific point in time—when God manifested in flesh as Jesus Christ, who is both fully divine and fully human. Jesus is the Word made flesh, not a second divine person but God the Father Himself, entering our world in the role of “The Son” to accomplish our salvation. Isaiah 43:11, "I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour." This revelation emphasizes the fullness of God’s redemptive work in Christ, consistent with strict monotheism and a deeply relational understanding of God’s love for humanity.

 

[Free]

Why not call Jesus the post-existent Word ?
We could be calling the Word the pre-birth Son.

How can one be a son, before he is born ?

He has always been the Son. It's the doctrine of eternal generation.

Isa 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Joh 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
Joh 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.

Gal 4:4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law,

Col 1:13 He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son,
Col 1:14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
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.

1Ti 1:15 The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost.

1Ti 3:16 Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.

Heb 1:2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.
...
Heb 1:8 But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.
Heb 1:9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.”
Heb 1:10 And, “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands;
Heb 1:11 they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment,
Heb 1:12 like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will have no end.”
Heb 1:13 And to which of the angels has he ever said, “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet”?

1Jn 3:5 You know that he appeared [was manifested] in order to take away sins, and in him there is no sin.
...
1Jn 3:8 Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared [was manifested] was to destroy the works of the devil.

1Jn 4:9 In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him.
1Jn 4:10 In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
...
1Jn 4:14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world.

(All ESV.)

While some of the language is ambiguous and could refer simply to the Son being sent as the man Jesus into the world at the start of his ministry, it could also mean being sent into the world from heaven, which some of the language is more clear about. Given that John is the only one that uses Logos of Jesus, it seems clear that he used the word for a specific reason to refer to the Son; the other NT writers only used "the Son" (or Jesus Christ, who is the Son) when speaking of evidence of his eternal preexistence.

If the Son hasn't always been the Son, then that creates problems for the Trinity. It means the Father hasn't always been the Father. It means we can only talk about the Trinity as the First Person, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, or the First Person, the Second Person, and the Third Person. There is no concept of relationship between them, that is, if there is one, we cannot know what it entails.

It also makes it difficult to distinguish between Christ's Sonship and our sonship in which we are adopted. Him being the Son of God would relate only to his humanity, so in what true sense is he the one and only Son of God? It means he is the Son for all eternity, but that means the Second Person’s relationship with the First Person, if there was one, has changed forever.

Jesus’s Sonship makes the most sense of the text when we understand that it has always been and the Father has always been the Father.

 

[Hopeful 2]

He has always been the Son. It's the doctrine of eternal generation.

Isa 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Joh 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
Joh 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.

Gal 4:4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law,

Col 1:13 He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son,
Col 1:14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
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.

1Ti 1:15 The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost.

1Ti 3:16 Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.

Heb 1:2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.
...
Heb 1:8 But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.
Heb 1:9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.”
Heb 1:10 And, “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands;
Heb 1:11 they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment,
Heb 1:12 like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will have no end.”
Heb 1:13 And to which of the angels has he ever said, “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet”?

1Jn 3:5 You know that he appeared [was manifested] in order to take away sins, and in him there is no sin.
...
1Jn 3:8 Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared [was manifested] was to destroy the works of the devil.

1Jn 4:9 In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him.
1Jn 4:10 In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
...
1Jn 4:14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world.

(All ESV.)

While some of the language is ambiguous and could refer simply to the Son being sent as the man Jesus into the world at the start of his ministry, it could also mean being sent into the world from heaven, which some of the language is more clear about. Given that John is the only one that uses Logos of Jesus, it seems clear that he used the word for a specific reason to refer to the Son; the other NT writers only used "the Son" (or Jesus Christ, who is the Son) when speaking of evidence of his eternal preexistence.

If the Son hasn't always been the Son, then that creates problems for the Trinity. It means the Father hasn't always been the Father. It means we can only talk about the Trinity as the First Person, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, or the First Person, the Second Person, and the Third Person. There is no concept of relationship between them, that is, if there is one, we cannot know what it entails.

It also makes it difficult to distinguish between Christ's Sonship and our sonship in which we are adopted. Him being the Son of God would relate only to his humanity, so in what true sense is he the one and only Son of God? It means he is the Son for all eternity, but that means the Second Person’s relationship with the First Person, if there was one, has changed forever.

Jesus’s Sonship makes the most sense of the text when we understand that it has always been and the Father has always been the Father.

I disagree with your understanding of when the Word became the Son.

 

[JLB]

I disagree with your understanding of when the Word became the Son.

Now Moses was tending the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian. And he led the flock to the back of the desert, and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. And the Angel of the LORD appeared to him in a flame of fire from the midst of a bush. So he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, but the bush was not consumed. Then Moses said, “I will now turn aside and see this great sight, why the bush does not burn.”
So when the LORD saw that he turned aside to look, God called to him from the midst of the bush and said, “Moses, Moses!”
And he said, “Here I am.”
Then He said, “Do not draw near this place. Take your sandals off your feet, for the place where you stand is holy ground.” Moreover He said, “I am the God of your father—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon God. Exodus 3:1-6

• And the Angel of the LORD appeared to him in a flame of fire
• And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon God.

Do you believe the Angel of the LORD is the Father or the Son?


Hint: No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him. John 1:18

 

[Free]

I disagree with your understanding of when the Word became the Son.

Of course you do, because the Word never became the Son. The Word is just what John called the Son in the epilogue to his gospel for a specific reason. Some have said that “In the beginning” would be something the Jews understood, bringing to mind Gen. 1:1, and “the Word” would be something the Gentiles understood, although it has much more meaning than it has in Greek philosophy. John is showing is the nature of the Son.

But, also notice that Jesus never claimed to be the Logos, only the Son. And, as the Son of God, he claimed to have come from heaven, that the Father was his Father, and that he was God. It was John, some 60 years later that referred to the pre-incarnate Christ as the Logos. So, at least some of Jesus’s original listeners would have believed that he was the Son of God come down from heaven. But, that would be misleading on Jesus’s part if he had not actually been the Son prior to the incarnation.

Everything points to the Son having always existed as the Son, which is why even the Nicene Creed states such.

 

[Hopeful 2]

Of course you do, because the Word never became the Son. The Word is just what John called the Son in the epilogue to his gospel for a specific reason. Some have said that “In the beginning” would be something the Jews understood, bringing to mind Gen. 1:1, and “the Word” would be something the Gentiles understood, although it has much more meaning than it has in Greek philosophy. John is showing is the nature of the Son.

But, also notice that Jesus never claimed to be the Logos, only the Son. And, as the Son of God, he claimed to have come from heaven, that the Father was his Father, and that he was God. It was John, some 60 years later that referred to the pre-incarnate Christ as the Logos. So, at least some of Jesus’s original listeners would have believed that he was the Son of God come down from heaven. But, that would be misleading on Jesus’s part if he had not actually been the Son prior to the incarnation.

Everything points to the Son having always existed as the Son, which is why even the Nicene Creed states such.

I know Jesus was born of a woman, but who was the Word born of ?
If the Word was always a Son of God, who was His mother ?