John 1:1
(Did God Become a man in Jesus Christ?)
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (John 1:1 NKJV, Emphasis mine)
THE OPENING STATEMENT of the Gospel of John 1:1, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,” then in Verse 14 of the same chapter, “the Word was made flesh,” is a frequently cited by the proponents of Christ-is-God. They claim these passages undisputedly prove the divinity of Jesus Christ or God’s incarnation as a human in our Lord Jesus Christ as the God-Man. However, the question arises―can this belief truly be substantiated by the Holy Scriptures? In this regard, it is imperative to meticulously scrutinize each of the three clauses in John 1:1 and allow the Bible to speak for itself. Such an approach would help to elucidate the true meaning of this particular verse and, in turn, contribute to a better understanding of the biblical text. So the main question is, was God that “Word” which was made flesh or man?
It is crucial to note that the verse itself is not flawed. The problem lies in how Trinitarians interpret and understand the verse. Their belief that God is the God-Man in Jesus Christ influences their interpretation. Therefore, examining the original Greek text is essential to understanding the context of John’s unusual syntax. Let’s first analyze the text by each clause:
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
“Clause (a): In the beginning was the Word,
“Clause (b): and the Word was with God,
“Clause (c): and the Word was God.”
(Reference: Jn. 1:1 NKJV, Emphasis Mine)
Before we proceed to the Greek Scriptures, let’s identify the various problems that Trinitarians encounter when they insist that God is the “Word” Himself, and analyze the passage clause by clause. By doing so, we can confidently expose the contradictory implications that arise as a result of their interpretation.
A
1st Clause, (John 1:a): “In the beginning was the Word,”
If the “Word” is God Himself, then the very first problem that would arise in their interpretation is that it would appear that God has a beginning, for the opening of John 1:1(a) states, “in the beginning was the Word,” But what does the Holy Scripture have to say about Gods existence? Let us read:
“Before the mountains were formed or the earth and the world were brought forth, you are God from eternity to eternity.”
(Reference: Psa. 90:2 ISV, Emphasis Mine)
Therefore, it is evident that since the “Word” had a beginning in the first clause of John 1:1(a): “In the beginning.” This could not possibly refer to God as the “Word,” for God has no beginning or end. He exists from “eternity to eternity,” so to say that the “Word” is God Himself would imply that God had a beginning. This would be the first line of several contradictions and problems Trinitarians face that arise with such an erroneous interpretation.
B
2nd Clause, (John 1:1b): “and the Word was with God,”
Once again when Trinitarians maintain that God is the “Word,” this assertion engenders a second inherent unavoidable contradiction. Specifically, if we accept the premise that the “Word” is God Himself as inferred from their interpretation that God is the “Word,” then we are forced to acknowledge, as John 1:1(b) states, that “the Word was with God” ― one “God” (the Word) who is with another God (the God who the Word was with). Consequently, their interpretation leaves us with two Gods. This would be unacceptable with the monotheistic people to whom Apostle John was writing. Apostle John would never contradict what he wrote in John 17:3:
“And this is the real and eternal life: That they know you, The ONE and ONLY TRUE GOD, And Jesus Christ, whom you sent.”
(Reference: The Message Bible, Emphasis Mine)
Thus, in his writing, Apostle John could never mean that the “Word” is God Himself when he said “and the Word was with God.” John would not contradict himself by insinuating in one part of his writing that the “Word” is God Himself and writing in another part that the “Word” who is supposedly God is with another God who is the “Word.” John would never contradict his statement that the Father of Jesus Christ is the “one and only true God.” Furthermore, based on the above problematic TWO God outcome that the Trinitarians have created for themselves in their interpretation of John 1:1, it would further contradict the declaration of God:
“For I am the Lord God, and there is no other God beside me…”
(Reference: Is. 45:5 Brenton Septuagint Translation, Emphasis Mine)
“I, and I alone, am God…”
(Reference: Deuteronomy 32:39 GNT, Emphasis Mine)
Now let’s analyze the final clause.
C
3rd Clause, (John 1:1c): “and the Word was God.”
“…and the Word was God,” “God” is predicative and has the significance of an adjective describing the characteristic of the “Word,” the “Word” being the subject. Hence, describing the quality of God’s words as being “divine” and having power and fulfillment, e.g., “Time is Gold.” Now we know time is not literally gold but merely describes how precious time is, for one cannot turn back the hands of time, just as “the Word was God” describes the authority of God’s Word/Plan having power and fulfillment when He speaks. Because whatever God has spoken has fulfillment. Let us read:
“…Truly I have spoken; truly I will bring it to pass. I have planned it, I will certainly do it.”
(Reference: Is. 46:11 NASB, Emphasis Mine)
“For no word from God shall be void of power.”
(Reference: Lk 1:37 ASV, Emphasis Mine)
But can it be proven that in the 3rd clause of John 1:1, God is predicative and the “Word” is the subject, thus John 1:1(c) being employed as an adjective? Are there any biblical translations that support this position?
Absolutely!
First, let us cite the original Greek text of John 1:1:
“Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος.”
(Reference: Koine Greek)
“En archē ēn ho Lógos, kaì ho Lógos ēn pròs tòn Theón, kaì Theòs ēn ho Lógos.”
(Reference: Greek transliteration)
Now, let us see how James Moffat’s Translation interprets the original Greek text of John 1:1, Clause (C):
“THE Logos existed in the very beginning, the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine.”
(Reference: Jn. 1:1 James Moffatt Translation, Emphasis Mine)
In case our readers have an issue with the Moffat Translation, let us cite another two translations that support this; “Goodspeed’s An American Translation, 1939,” and “The Authentic New Testament, 1958, by Hugh J. Schonfield” which employs the third clause as “divine”:
“In the beginning the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was divine.”
(Reference: GAAT 1939, Emphasis Mine)
“In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God. So the Word was divine.”
(Reference: TANT 1958, Emphasis Mine)
Therefore, in the third clause of John 1:1(c), the word employed was divine, describing the quality and power of God’s word.
But are there biblical scholars who agree that God is predicative and the Word is the subject functioning as an adjective as being “divine?” Professor Bruce Vawter, a Catholic biblical scholar, and a trinitarian, in his commentary on “The Gospel According to John,” agrees with the “Simple copula of predication”:
“Here ‘God’ without the article is predicative. The Word is DIVINE …”
(Reference: The Gospel According to John: The Jerome Biblical Commentary, p. 422, Emphasis Mine)
This Trinitarian holds that “‘God’ without the article is predicative.” The word “Theòn/Theòs” (God) is mentioned in the last two clauses of John 1:1. But, please take note of the differences:
“En archē ēn ho Lógos, kaì ho Lógos ēn pròs TÒN THEÓN, kaì THEÒS ēn ho Lógos.”
The second clause mentioned the word “Theòn” (“God”) but with the definite article “tòn” (“the”), but take note that in the third clause, the word “Theòs” (“God”) is mentioned without the definite article, “kaì THEÒS ēn ho Lógos.” However, the word “Lógos” is mentioned in all three clauses, and all mentions of “Lógos” there is a definite article before it (“ho Lógos”). Because of this, Vawter concluded here that “‘Theòs’ (‘God’) without the article is predicative, functioning as an adjective describing the Word or Logos as — DIVINE.”
Furthermore, Professor Millard J. Erickson, author of many books on Christian theology, says that we must employ logical analysis “to determine what prompted John’s fairly unusual syntax” in his book “The Word Became Flesh.” This is what he had to say about the simple copula of predication:
“…One is the ‘is’ of predication or attribution, where a particular quality is predicated of the subject using an adjective. The final use is the ‘is’ of identity, where the subject is equivalent with the predicate. This is, in the terminology of logic, a double A-type proposition where ‘All X is Y‘ and ‘All Y is X.’ Such propositions are invertible: in other words, there really is no subject and predicate, only nouns in the first and second position.”
(Reference: The Word Became Flesh. Grand Rapid, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1991. p.460, Emphasis Mine)
Professor Millars J. Erickson said, “there really is no subject and predicate, only nouns in the first and second position.” But, in the third clause of John 1:1, the absence of a definite article confirms that the term Theòs (God) functions not as a noun but as a predicate, and the term ho Lógos (the Word) is the subject, thus employed as an adjective.
Those who interpret this (“kaì Theòs ēn ho Lógos” ― “and the Word was God”) to mean that Jesus Christ is God accuse those who hold the opposite view for placing so much importance on the absence of the definite article “ho” (Greek for “the”) before Theòs (Greek for “God”). The implication of such criticism is that the omission (absence) of “ho” before “Theòs” is not that important.
However, those critics easily dismiss the importance of the article before “Theòs” would not only have to answer why the article is “omitted” but also face those thoughtful and sincere trinitarian scholars who, although not entirely certain why the article was “omitted,” cannot deny the importance of this “omission.” According to the admission of Professor Harris, a Trinitarian, the absence of the article before the term Theòs:
“…show[s] that the statement ‘the Word was God’ is not convertible position. John thereby denies that ‘God was the Word.”
(Reference: Murray J. Harris. “Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus.” Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1992. p. 63, Emphasis Mine)
Had there been an article with both nouns, the proposition would have been true in both directions (“the Word was God”; “God was the Word”). But John did not say that. With the absence of a definite article, “the statement ‘the Word was God’ is not convertible position.” Indeed, JOHN DENIES THAT “GOD WAS THE WORD.”
It is like the statement used earlier: “Time is Gold.” But, certainly, it is not in a convertible position, as (“Time is Gold”; “Gold is Time.”) Indeed, “Time is Gold,” but “Gold is not Time.” Thus, with THE ABSENCE OF A DEFINITE ARTICLE, “THE WORD WAS GOD” BUT “GOD IS NOT THE WORD.”
Without the definite article, Theòs (God) is predicative and has the significance of an adjective describing the characteristic of the Logos (Word). As Professor Bruce Vawter said, “Here ‘God’ without the article is predicative. The Word is divine…” Thus, the reason why some Bible scholars and translators translated John 1:1(c) as:
Moffat Translation
“…the Logos was divine.”
Goodspeed’s Translation
“…and the Word was divine.”
J. Schonfield Translation
“…the Word was divine.”
In the statement, “the Word was God,” the term Theòs (God) is not used as the subject but as an adjective. John used the term Theòs (God) to describe the characteristics of the Lógos (Word). So, why does the text say θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (the Word was God)? As we clarified earlier, whatever God has spoken has fulfillment and is not void of Power (Is. 46:11, NASB), (Lk 1:37, ASV). And God’s Lógos was fulfilled when the “Lógos was made flesh” (“Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο”) in (John 1:14).
BELIEVERS IN THE DEITY OF CHRIST WRESTLE WITH THE VERSE
How do the believers in the deity of Christ explain the absence of a definite article before the term Theòs? The proponents of the belief that Christ is God greatly wrestle with the verse and try to twist it around to force out the meaning that they want it to yield. Here is one of the many convoluted examples, and this particular one by Murray J. Harris, Professor Emeritus of Bible and Theology:
“Why, then, is θεὸς [Theòs] anarthrous in John 1:1c? Although it is inappropriate to speak of John’s “omission” of the article, one may justifiably speak of his purpose in writing θεὸς [Theòs] rather than, say, ὸ θεὸς [ho Theòs] or θεὶὸς [Theíos] or θεὸv [Theón].. Having distinguished the Logos from the Father (τὸν θεόν, [tón Theón] 1:1b), John wished to point to their commonality, not merely in purpose but in being (θεὸς [Theòs]). Like the Father, and equally with him, the Logos may be included within the category of Deity as a partaker in the divine essence. If, then, a single reason is to be given for the anarthrous state of θεὸς [Theòs], it is that this noun is qualitative, emphasizing nature rather than personal identity. In an incidental manner, this anarthrous θεὸς [Theòs] also confirms that the articular λόγος [Lógos] is the subject of the clause and excludes the inference that the Word exhausts the category of Deity or that the Son was the Father.”
(Reference: Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus p.67, Greek Transliteration & Emphasis Mine)
So far, we can see how convoluted, complicated, and involved the interpretations given to John 1:1(c) by the proponents of the deity of Christ and the simple dismissal of John’s omission of the article by claiming “it is inappropriate to speak of John’s “omission”. They made their interpretations more complicated, believing that they could lure the innocents into believing that their interpretations answer the difficulty given by John’s omission of the article ὸ before the term θεὸς. But, no matter how twisted and complicated their interpretations are, these are only their interpretations based on their own bias. The fact remains that the absence of the article ὸ before the term θεὸς shows that θεὸς is predicative and the articular λόγος (Lógos) is the subject; thus, it shows that the statement ‘the Word was God’ is not a convertible position. John thereby denies that “God was the Word.” Without the definite article, Theòs (God) is predicative and has the significance of an adjective describing the characteristic of the subject Lógos (Word).
THE MEANING OF λόγος (Lógos)
Now let’s dive deeper into this and establish the actual meaning of λόγος (Lógos) to tie everything together in the proper biblical understanding of all three clauses of John 1:1, which later in the passage the λόγος (Lógos) was made flesh in verse 14 of the same epistle of John. First, we must understand if “Lógos” means God or something else. The whole argument of Trinitarians or the proponents of the deity of Christ also hinges on this argument. So, what does Lógos actually mean? Let us read:
“LÓGOS
“Greek: ‘reason,’ or ‘plan’.” (Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica)
“LÓGOS
“its use as respect to the MIND alone; reason, the mental faculty of thinking, meditating, reasoning, calculating. (The NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon)
“A Greek philosopher named Heraclitus first used the term Lógos around 600 B.C. to designate the divine reason or plan… (Ibid.)
“Word (Greek: lógos). Lógos means word, thought, concept, and the expressions thereof.” (Ryrie Study Bible, p. 1599)
(Reference: Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica; The NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon; Ryrie Study Bible, p. 1599, Emphasis Mine)
Therefore, it is concretely clear and proven that “Lógos” does NOT MEAN God AT ALL, but instead means THOUGHT, CONCEPT, AND THE EXPRESSIONS THEREOF, DIVINE REASON, CALCULATING, or PLAN of God.
In the English translation of the Bible the Greek term LÓGOS was translated as WORD in John 1:1. However, that is the preference of Bible translators since the term LÓGOS has several meanings in the New Testament. Here are also some other meanings:
“a word, a thing uttered, speech, language, talk, converse, mere talk, wordy show, language, mode of discourse, style of speaking, a saying, a speech, an expression, form of words, formula, a saying, a thing propounded in discourse, a message, announcement, a prophetic announcement, an account, statement, a story, report, a written narrative, a treatise, a set discourse, doctrine, subject-matter, account, a plea, a motive, reason, the word of God, the divine WORD.”
(Reference: The Analytical Greek Lexicon by Wesley J. Perschbacher, Pub: 1990., pp. 259-260, Emphasis Mine)
As you can see from the list above, there are so many additional meanings of the Greek term LÓGOS. Therefore, it is evident that “Lógos” does NOT MEAN God AT ALL, but instead, as we mentioned above, it is applied to the THOUGHT, CONCEPT, DIVINE REASON, CALCULATING, or PLAN of God. Hence, if we were Bible translators, we would render John 1:1 this way, and nobody could question the translation since there is no law that would prohibit us from doing such a thing. We are confident that our translation of John 1:1 is a rendition that would not compromise the doctrine of the absolute oneness of God. Here’s how we would translate it:
“In the beginning was the idea [concept, plan] and the idea [concept, plan] was with God, and the idea [concept, plan] was divine.”
(Reference: Emphasis Added)
But what was so “divine” about God’s LÓGOS or PLAN? Let us Read:
GREEK (Λογος – Lógos)
“και o λογος σαρξ εγενετο και εσκηνωσεν εν ημιν”
(Reference: Greek, John 1:14, Emphasis Mine)
“And the Logos was made flesh, and dwelt among us.”
(Reference: John 1:14, English Translation, Emphasis Mine)
Note that the doer of the action is ― GOD, who spoke the word and MADE His DIVINE Plan or Lógos become flesh. And the receiver of the action is ― Christ, who was MADE flesh by God when Christ was born of a woman. (Lk. 1:27, 31 ) (Lk. 2:7,11).
So nowhere in John 1:1 should one conclude that God became a man. What was made flesh/man/human (John 1:14) was the LÓGOS/PLAN that was with God, meaning in ― God’s mind (John 1:1b) about Christ from the beginning before the foundation of the world as the predetermined PLAN and foreknowledge of God (Acts 2:23 NASB 1977), thus, “The Logos (Plan) existed in the very beginning” (John 1:1a).
Hence, the notion that God became a man and altered His state of being would be a direct conflict and violation of His statements about Himself. God has unequivocally declared that He is not human, nor is He a man or the Son of Man. It is, therefore, impossible for God to have undergone such a transformation without violating His own words. To validate this, let us turn to the holy scriptures:
“God is not a HUMAN MALE — he doesn’t lie, nor is he a HUMAN BEING…”
(Reference: Num. 23:19 ISV, Emphasis Mine)
“‘God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man…”
(Reference: Num. 23:19 NKJV, Emphasis Mine)
And Christ is a man and the SON OF MAN! Christ Himself declared:
“When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, ‘Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am’?“
(Reference: Mathew 16:13 NKJV, Emphasis Mine)
“But now you seek to kill Me, a Man who has told you the truth which I heard from God…”
(Reference: Jn. 8:40 NKJV, Emphasis Mine)
Moreover, the true God does not change His nature or form is also evidence that God did not alter His state of being to take on a human form in Jesus Christ. This becomes incredibly problematic for Trinitarians to explain if Christ is part of the Godhead and supposedly one in essence, in
nature, and 100% equal with one another. Based on the True definition of the “Trinity,” acknowledging any alteration in the form or nature of God has created significant theological difficulties for Trinitarians to reconcile. Additionally, any assertion that any part of God has undergone a change in nature or form would constitute a considerable biblical contradiction for Trinitarians to openly admit when consulting the book of James regarding the true God. Let us read:
“Every gift which is good, and every perfect boon, is from above, and comes down from the Father, who is the source of all Light. In Him there is no variation nor the slightest suggestion of change.
(Reference: James 1:17 WNT, Emphasis Mine)
“…Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning.”
(Reference: NKJV, Emphasis Mine)
Therefore, “THE Logos (Plan) existed in the very beginning,” (John 1:1a) means Christ was the PLAN in the beginning before all creation. This is why Christ was foreknown before the foundation of the world:
“this Man, delivered up by the predetermined PLAN and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.”
(Reference: Acts 2:23 NASB 1977, Emphasis Mine)
“FOREKNOWN, certainly, before the foundation of the world, and made manifest in these latter times for your sake.”
(Reference: 1 Peter 1:20 CPDV, Emphasis Mine)
Christ being foreknown before the foundation of the world brings clear evidence that Christ was the Plan/Lógos of God and was made manifested or flesh in these later times (Jn.1:14).
IN CONCLUSION
1
We must employ logical analysis and consult the truth written in the Bible, and not resort to twisted opinions or complicated, convoluted interpretations “to determine what prompted John’s fairly unusual syntax.”
2
The English translation “and the Word was God” comes from the Greek “kaì Theòs ēn ho Lógos.” Note that in the Greek text, the term “Theòs” (“God”) comes before the subject of the clause, “ho Lógos” (the Word). Thus, the key to learning what John might mean is to determine how John used the simple copula (the verb “ἦν”[was]) in θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (the Word WAS God) ― to determine the copular relationship of “Theòs” (“God”) and “ho Lógos” (“the Word”).
3
There is no subject and predicate, only nouns in the first and second positions. But, in the third clause of John 1:1(c), the word “Theòs” is mentioned without a definite article ― “kaì THEÒS ēn ho Lógos.” The absence of the definite article before the term “Theòs” proves the following 3:
① The term Theòs (God) functions not as a noun but as a predicate, and the term ho Lógos (the Word) is the subject;
② Without the definite article, Theòs (God) is predicative and has the significance of an adjective describing the characteristic of the Lógos (Word) as the subject – the “Word was divine” (John 1:1(c) Goodspeed).
③ It shows that the statement “the Word was God” is not a convertible position; John thereby denies that “God was the Word.” Thus, with the absence of a definite article, “the Word was God,” but “God is not the Word.”
4
God has no beginning or end; thus, the opening statement of John 1:1(a) would contradict Ps. 90:2 if we were to accept the interpretation of the proponents of the Christ-is-God with their twisted and convoluted explanation of John 1:1.
5
John 1:1(b) would create TWO Gods if the “Word” is interpreted as God Himself. One “God” as the “Word” who is with another God (the God who the Word is with)
6
The true God does not recognize any other God besides Himself ( Is. 45:5), (Deut. 32:39). Thus, John 1:1(b) is a major problem for Trinitarians. Therefore they go to great lengths with their twisted and forced interpretations in order to not only justify their position but to make it appear that their convoluted explanation yields their position.
7
The Greek word “Lógos” for “Word” is defined as thought, the mental faculty of thinking, concepts, divine reason, calculating, or plan of God. The “Word” is NOT God Himself.
8
God made His plan manifest when Christ was born of a woman (Mary). Thus, God’s plan was fulfilled. (Lk. 1:27, 31 ) (Lk. 2:7,11).
9
God will never change His state of being. (James 1:17, WNT)
10
God is not a man nor the Son of man. (Num. 23:19)
11
WE KINDLY EXTEND our visitors an invitation to explore the pristine, unadulterated teachings of Christ and His apostles as they were taught in the first-century Church Of Christ:
Does John 1:1 Teach That Jesus Christ Is True God? (A deeper dive Part 2)
THIS ARTICLE further aims to expound on the common misunderstandings surrounding John 1:1 and the subsequent issues that emerge for those who assert that this passage supports the notion of Jesus Christ as God.
The Truth about God and Jesus Christ
SUPPORTERS OF THE BELIEF in the divinity of Christ, also known as the Christ-is-God or the God-man doctrine, assert that God exists as a trinity consisting of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Although they are three in nature and considered distinct beings, proponents maintain that they form a single God. The concept of the Trinity lacks explicit biblical endorsement; thus, proponents often argue that it represents a profound mystery beyond human comprehension and should be accepted by faith alone.
Reach Out
If you wish to acquire a deeper understanding of our Church Doctrines and have any questions, please do not hesitate to reach out to us. We would be delighted to direct you to one of our local resident ministers in your vicinity. Kindly include any queries you may have so that we may forward your inquiry in advance. Thank you.
Please note, we only read and respond to messages that do not contain hate speech or insults...
“Do not let unwholesome [foul, profane, worthless, vulgar] words ever come out of your mouth, but only such speech as is good for building up others, according to the need and the occasion, so that it will be a blessing to those who hear [you speak].”
(Eph. 4:29, Amplified Bible)
“Love endures with patience and serenity, love is kind and thoughtful, and is not jealous or envious; love does not brag and is not proud or arrogant. It is not rude; it is not self-seeking, it is not provoked [nor overly sensitive and easily angered]; it does not take into account a wrong endured.”
(1 Corinthians 13:4-5, Amplified Bible)