Introduction
Christianity over many centuries has defended its doctrines from many heretics that brought controversies to the church. One of the hottest issues that are being confronted with many questions is the doctrine of the trinity. Bible scholars have tried to explain through the different scriptural texts, in which one of those is John 1:1, to give an answer; however even in understanding the text many ended up with a wrong teaching. The proponents of Modalism claim that God is one being who revealed himself through the Son (Unitarianism). Bowman mentions that, “in some sense Jesus is God the Father.”1 On the contrary, the Jehovah’s witnesses believe that the “Word” was only created by the Father. Thus the word is not eternal. Orthodox Christianity understands the text precisely. The passage supports the truth that the “Word” is eternal and that it existed alongside with the Father.
This study will provide an exegetical analysis of John 1:1 to determine the nature of God regarding the traditional view of the trinity in its grammatical-historical context.
Understanding the Context of John 1:1
The historical-religious background of the authorship and writing of the book is not clearly stated by John; however it is observable that his audience were Gentile believers, because he frequently explains the Jewish customs he mentions in the book. The author was addressing a certain condition which involved a community of believers of Christ and the religious leaders in Palestine. The prominent religion of the people was Judaism which was based on the “Torah,” and belief in Jesus was a deviation from the practices of their faith. As an “orthodox-monotheistic” group the rabbis were challenging the faith of Jesus’ followers.2 In this gospel, John, addresses the issue by showing the truth about the Torah which is evident and revealed in the way he wrote the three different clauses of the passage.
John expresses, in three short phrases in a single sentence, a very significant idea about God. This thought reveals the reality of Christ’s deity and the implication of the Triune God. There are few noticeable things that can be of help to the current day readers in understanding the intent of the author and avoiding the misconceptions made by the heretics.
A - The Flow of Thought
The clauses are evidently connected to each other conveying the flow of thought which starts from the word “beginning” and culminating in the last phrase “the word was God.” The logical flow suggests that the author is striking the fact of the matter that the “word” is a pre-existent being, who, coexisted with God (Father). Therefore, the text should be translated as “the word was God.” The passage begins with the expression, “in the beginning” which echoes back to the first verse of the book of Genesis. John may not have intended to show a relation between the creation account and the prologue of his gospel, but he pertains to the origin of all things. When there was nothing yet, the Father, the source of everything, has already existed and the Word co-existed with Him.
B - The Absence of the Article
The first two clauses are usually acceptable to many scholars, but opinions vary regarding the third clause. These four words containing two nouns, in which one is articular while the other is anarthrous and a copulative verb are critical in relation to the doctrine of Christ and the Trinity. What could it mean when both nouns are preceded by an article? The clause will become “the word was the God.” The two nouns will have the same value.3 If this is the case, then there will be inconsistence with the second clause for the article “with” will imply togetherness but not oneness in terms of personality. Furthermore, with THEOS appearing first in the clause, if both nouns are articular, then the subject will be “God.” John’s statement will mean “God is the word” which will contradict with the second clause and will create a modalistic impression. If “God” is indefinite, then the clause will be “the word was a god;” on the other hand, if it is definite, within the context of the passage, it will somehow deny the Trinitarian view of the unity and relation between Jesus and the Father. So what is the significance of the absence of the article before the word THEOS? In Greek when the noun is anarthrous it can either be indefinite or qualitative.4 In this passage, John intended it to be qualitative, for when it is, it would mean that the noun shares the quality and essence of God. The “word” has all that “God” has. The absence of an article stresses the idea that the “word” is not the “God” mentioned in the second clause, but they share common attributes.
The Key Terms of John 1:1
To have a better framework of understanding, it will be necessary to consider a closer look into the key terms used by the author in conveying his intended message to his readers. There are three significant words that must be clarified. They are the “word” (logos), “God” (theos), and the copulative verb “was.” Determining the exact meaning and the function of each word will give clarity to the intention John.
A - The Meaning of the Word "logos" in John 1:1
There are many different usage of logos Louw and Nida gave the ranges of meaning of the word. It can mean a “statement” (a word saying);5 “speech” (the act of speaking);6 “gospel” (the content of what is preached about Christ);7 “treatise” (relatively formal and systematic treatment);8 and “Word” (a title for Jesus in the gospel of John [1:14] as a reference to the content of God’s revelation).9 Based on the context the best definition for the word logos is “Word.” It is consistent with the emphasis of the absence of an article in the last clause. Jesus, who is the “Word,” has the content of God’s revelation and as the ultimate revelation of the Father He has the very nature of the Father.
The meaning cannot simply be a statement or speech, because of the second clause (Ho logos ein pros ton theon), which implies a person. The third given meaning is “gospel.” Some might insist that this word pertains to the teaching that is spread about Christ; however it cannot be the sense of the statement. The gospel pertains to the works of Christ in relation the salvation of humankind. The passage is the beginning of the prologue in which it introduces Jesus Christ’s deity. Though it is a part of the content of the preaching about Christ yet its focus is on the nature of the very person of Christ in relation to the Father. The implication of this is that that Jesus does not only share the nature of the Father, but it supports the idea that there is more than one person in the Godhead.
B - The Meaning of the Word "Theos" in John 1:1
Theos could probably mean “God” (the one supreme supernatural being as creator and sustainer of the universe);10 and “god” (any one of the many different supernatural beings).11 Based on the context the best definition for the word Theos is “God.” The explanation for this meaning supports the phrase “in the beginning” which is related to the idea of a creator. Theos in this passage could not mean any other supernatural beings, or a goddess. The text suggests that God is the ultimate source and the main cause of all existence. Heretics would claim that there are discrepancies with the English translations of the Bible. Sheikh Ahmed Deedat of Islam said,
The Greek is HOTHEOS (the same exact word given to Satan as God in 2 Corinthians 4:4. The NIV
Bible Author wrote "god" for Satan instead of "God"), which means The God. The second time the
word God is used,"....and the word was God," the word for God is TONTHEOS, which means "a
god."12
This common controversy based on the case of the initial letter of “God” has been used by many false teachers to attack the deity of Christ. It is true that “god” is one of the given ranges of meaning for theos, but the context of the passage will not agree if the meaning of the word is only a “god.”
C - The Meaning of the Word "ein" in John 1:1
There are many given possible ranges of meaning for the word eimi (the lexical form of ein). One of those is “be” (to possess a certain characteristics);13 another is “identical;”1
“exist;”15 and “belong” (to belong to a particular class).16 The best meaning based on the context of the passage is “belong.” The definition of the meaning suggests the idea of distinction in the person of Jesus and the Father, but also implies their unity in a certain class, the Godhead. Though almost all given ranges of meaning would seem to fit with the context; yet “belong” is the most precise to convey the intention of John which is to show the deity of Jesus Christ and the nature of God.
Conclusion
John 1:1 was carefully crafted by the author to convey a very important truth about the deity of Christ and the nature of God. Each word was written just exactly where they should be. When an article is added to the anarthrous noun, it will become Unitarian in its essence; if logos is place at the beginning of the clause, the deity of Christ is at stake.17 John carefully chose the exact words and placed them in their exact position.
Based on the exegetical analysis of the passage, it is reasonable to say that the “Word,” then, who is Jesus Christ, is eternal and that He existed alongside with the Father having the same nature, essence and attributes.
1 Robert M. Bowman, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jesus Christ & the Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989), 17.
2 Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, vol. 1, (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003), 364.
3 Philip B. Harner, “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,” Journal of Biblical Literature 92, no. 1 (1973): 85.
4 James L. Huculak, “A Manual for New Testament Greek,” Zeta edition (class manual, International Graduate School of Leadership, Quezon City, Philippines, Trimester 2, SY 2010-11).
5Johannes P. Louw and Eugene E. Nida, eds., Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains, vol. 1, (New York: United Bible Societies, 1989), 390.
6 Ibid., 400.
7 Ibid., 417.
8 Ibid., 395.
9 Ibid., 400
10 Louw and Nida, Greek-English Lexicon, 137.
11 Ibid., 143.
12 Free Minds.org: Discover True Islam, “Ho Theos (God) and Ton Theos (god): Mistranslation in the Bible,” http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9834.0 (accessed 26 January 2012).
13 Louw and Nida, Greek-English Lexicon, 149.
14 Ibid., 150.
15 Ibid., 157
16 Ibid., 593.
17 William D. Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003), 28.
_______________________________
Bibliography
Bowman, Robert M. Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jesus Christ & the Gospel of John. Grand Rapids: Baker Book
House, 1989.
Free Minds.org: Discover True Islam, “Ho Theos (God) and Ton Theos (god): Mistranslation in the Bible.”http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9834.0 (accessed 26 January 2012).
Harner, Philip B. “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,” Journal of Biblical
Literature 92, no. 1 (1973): 85.
Huculak, James L. “A Manual for New Testament Greek”, Zeta edition, in NT600: Elements of Biblical
Greek. Quezon City, Philippines: International Graduate School of Leadership; Term 2, SY 2010-11.
Keener, Craig S. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. Vol. 1. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003.
Louw, Johannes P. and Eugene E. Nida, eds., Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on
Semantic Domains. Vol. 1. New York: United Bible Societies, 1989.
Mounce, William D. Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar, 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003.
