A friend on X asked me to help explain the Greek of John 1:1.
The Greek for John 1:1 is “Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος.” I will do my best to address this with the assumption that the majority of readers will not understand the Greek. The English translation of this Greek is “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
There are three clauses in John 1:1:
1. “Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος” – “In the beginning was the Word”
2. “καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν” – “and the Word was with God”
3. “καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος” – “and the Word was God”
The first clause breaks down this way: “Ἐν ἀρχῇ” means “in the beginning”. This is similar to the Septuagint’s wording of Genesis 1:1. “ἦν ὁ Λόγος” means “was the Word”. The Logos here, Christ, is connected to Creation as in Genesis 1:1. “ἦν” is the imperfect tense of “to be” which is speaks to the eternality of the Logos. He did not begin to exist. The Greek word would be different as it is found later in John 1 when John begins to address the incarnation. The Logos is without origin. The term Logos is found in Ancient Greek philosophy. It is used first by Heraclitus and later by Plato and Aristotle to describe the principle order of the cosmos and later reason. Stoics would associate it with God. The Jewish philosopher Philo used the term to denote the agent through which God interacts with Creation. John is taking this development of the Logos and identifying it with the God of the Bible.
In the second clause, we see “καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν” (and the Word was with God). This is the point of contention in your discussion above. “καὶ” is the conjunction “and”. Again, we have the Logos and the imperfect form of “to be”. But now we see “πρὸς τὸν Θεόν”. The preposition “πρὸς” (pros) can mean toward, but since “τὸν Θεόν” is in the accusative form, the preposition takes on the meaning of intimacy or being face-to-face with God. In the first clause, we see that the Logos eternally existed. In the second clause, we see that the Logos is face-to-face with God in relationship. This means that the Logos (the Son) is face-to-face with the Father (“τὸν Θεόν” or God).
In the third and final clause of John 1:1, we read “καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος” (and the Word was God). The imperfect form of “to be” is used again in this clause to reiterate the eternal nature of the Logos (Son). This clause identifies the Logos as God. Now, let me be perfectly clear. It is not telling us that the Logos (Son) is the Father. It is telling us that the Logos (Son) is divine. It is a qualitative statement that identifies the Logos (Son) as God, but yet distinct from the Father.
Before we go, let me add a word of clarity on the third clause. Some, like Jehovah’s Witnesses, will wrongly assert that the third clause means that Jesus is a lesser god. But that is not what the text is saying. I have repeatedly emphasized the verse’s use of the imperfect form of “to be” (ἦν) to denote the eternality of the Logos (Son). Thus, he cannot be a lesser god if he is eternal. Secondly, the fact that “Θεὸς” (God) does not have a definite article does not contradict this position. It supports it. If “Θεὸς” (God) had the definite article here, it would assert that the Logos is the same as the Father. The presence of the definite article would make it a Modalistic statement and would contradict the second clause where we see the Logos face-to-face with the Father.
In summary, we have the eternality of the Logos (Son) established in the first clause, the eternal relationship of the Logos (Son) with the Father in the second clause, and the divinity of the Logos (Son) established in the third clause, so as to present one God in essence and yet two distinct persons.
No responses yet