I've read John 1:1-3 many times and in many different Bibles. Not all Bibles translate these scriptures the same way. The “beginning” referred to in this verse cannot mean “the beginning” of God, because God had no beginning. YHWH God is “from everlasting to everlasting.” (
Psalm 90:1, 2) However, the Word, Jesus Christ, did have a beginning. He is “the beginning of the creation by God.”(
Revelation 3:14)
I noticed that the text itself shows that the Word was "with God," so could not
be God, that is, be the Almighty God. I also note verse 2 of John chapter 1 which would be unnecessary if verse
1 actually showed the Word to be God. So the Word who is the only begotten Son of God, was with God in the beginning. It was through the Word who is the only begotten Son of God that God created the heavens and the earth. Additionally, I find it interesting that the word for “god” (Gr.,
theosʹ) in its second occurrence in the verse is significantly without the definite article “the” (Gr.,
ho). Regarding this fact, Ernst Haenchen, in a commentary on the Gospel of
John (John chapters 1-6), stated: “[
theosʹ] and [
ho theosʹ] (‘god, divine’ and ‘the God’) were not the same thing in this period. . . . In fact, for the . . . Evangelist, only the Father was ‘God’ ([
ho theosʹ]; compare John 17:3); ‘the Son’ was subordinate to him (John 14:28)
Ernst Haenchen gives as a translation of John 1:1c “and divine (of the category divinity) was the Word,” Haenchen goes on to state: “In this instance, the verb ‘was’ ([
en]) simply expresses predication. And the predicate noun must accordingly be more carefully observed: [
theosʹ] is not the same thing as [
ho theosʹ] (‘divine’ is not the same thing as ‘God’).” (pp. 110, 111) Elaborating on this point, Philip B. Harner brought out that the grammatical construction in
John 1:1 involves an anarthrous predicate, that is, a predicate noun without the definite article “the,” preceding the verb, which construction is primarily qualitative in meaning and indicates that “the
logos has the nature of
theos.” He further stated: “In
John 1:1 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun [
theosʹ] cannot be regarded as definite.” (
Journal of Biblical Literature, 1973, pp. 85, 87) Other translators, also recognizing that the Greek term has qualitative force and describes the nature of the Word, renders the phrase: “the Word was divine.”—The Bible- An American
Translation(1935) J.M.Powis Smith and Edgar J.Goodspeed; The Authentic New Testament(1958), Hugh J. Schonfield; A New Translation of the Bible(1934) James Moffatt
John 1:14 says, "the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father; and he was full of divine favor and truth. John 1:18 says, "No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is at the Father’s side is the one who has explained Him.
So John 1:14 says the Word became flesh. Basically that means the Word became human. The scriptures are very clear that it was the only begotten son who was sent to mankind, so it was the only begotten Son of God who became flesh/human. (John 3:16, 1John 4:9) John 1:18 says that no one has ever seen God at anytime. This would include the time that The Word who is the only begotten Son of God became flesh/human and came to mankind.
Also at John 1:18 is teaching us regarding the Word, the only begotten god(monogenes theos) who is at the Father's side is the one who has explained God. I know there are a few translations, in support of the Trinitarian “God the Son” concept, that invert the phrase, monogenes theos and translate it as “God only begotten.” But W. J. Hickie in his
Greek-English Lexicon to the New Testament (1956, p. 123) says it is hard to see why these translators render monogenes huios as “the only begotten Son,” but at the same time translate monogenes theos as “God only begotten,” instead of “the only begotten God.”
