In the previous post, we got an overview of the Gospel according to John. And toward the end of the post, I stated that I would deal with the various themes and contrasts developed in the Gospel as we encounter them. We are now ready to step into John’s world and tackle the text of the Gospel.

Greek Text:

1 Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

Transliteration:

1 en  archē ēn  o logos, kai  o logos ēn pros  ton theon, kai theos  ēn o logos.

NTE:

1 In the beginning was the Word. The Word was close beside God, and the Word was God.

Study:

The Gospel according to John opens hauntingly with the words Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος (en  archē ēn o logos), rendered by the NTE as “In the beginning was the Word.” With the reference to ‘the beginning’ John evocatively alludes to the beginning of Genesis and the first account of creation. But whereas Genesis says, “In the beginning God…” John opens his Gospel with, “In the beginning was the Word.” If a reader familiar with the Old Testament were to start reading John’s Gospel, he or she may expect the word ‘God’ after ‘In the beginning’. And John plays with that expectation and introduces ‘the Word’ where one would expect ‘God’.

The second clause of the verse states that “the Word was close beside God.” The Greek word that the NTE translates as ‘close beside’ is πρὸς (pros), a preposition that is derived from the preposition πρὸ (pro), which means ‘before’. While the Greek lexicons indicate that πρὸς (pros) could mean “to the advantage of, at, near, by, to, towards, with, with regard to,” it should be noted that the Septuagint uses πρὸ (pro) primarily to translate לִפְנֵי (lip-neh), which means ‘in front of’ with the implication that the two involved persons or things are facing each other. I think the NTE has weakened John’s intended meaning by choosing to render πρὸς (pros) as ‘close beside’. Of course, English does not have an appropriate word that could function in this place. So I would choose to render πρὸς (pros) as ‘emulating’ in this context. So the second clause would read, “And the Word was emulating God.” 

It is clear, through his use of πρὸς (pros), that John intends a distinction between God and the Word in the second clause. But the third clause obscures that distinction and I think the word ‘emulating’ allows for both a distinction between God and the Word as well as the connection required by the third clause.

The third clause of the NTE reads, “And the Word was God.” Most Christian translations render it the same way. However, the New World Translation produced by the Jehovah’s Witnesses renders the third clause with, “And the Word was a god.” (John 1.1 (NWT)).¹ It is true that the word for God in the third clause in Greek appears without an article. It is also true that Greek does not have an indefinite article but does have a definite article. And the argument is that an anarthrous (i.e. without the definite article) noun in Greek should be translated with the indefinite article in English. This is utter nonsense and the NWT breaks this principle in the same verse. The Greek text for ‘In the beginning’ is Ἐν ἀρχῇ (en  archē), where the noun is anarthrous. Yet, the NWT uses the definite article! The NWT repeats this in John 1.18a. The reverse is also true. In verses like 2 Corinthians 4.4, the definite article is present even though the reference clearly is not to the true God.

But there is a reason why θεὸς (theos) is anarthrous in the third clause. John is not establishing an identity of the Word with God but if giving the reader a quality to ascribe to the Word. The Word has all the qualities that one would ascribe to God. In other words, if John had used the article it would have been nonsensical because it would mean that two entities that were described relating to each other with πρὸς (pros) would be identical. 

John is just getting started. He has opened his Gospel with a bold allusion to the first creation account and we will see that there is a clear purpose for this. He intends not to identify Jesus as God, but to have the reader re-define his/her understanding of God with reference to Jesus. He will do this shortly in the prologue. But in this opening verse he establishes a qualitative identity between God and the Word while maintaining a distinction between God and the Word by indicating a dynamic mirroring between God and the Word.

Prayer:

Our heavenly Father. We are grateful that you inspired John by your Spirit to write this Gospel. We understand from this opening verse that the Word – your Word – is eternal like you are and that your Word is qualitatively the same as you. We pray that this understanding would not be simply academic in nature. Rather, we want to develop into people who are deeply in love with Jesus. We want to be those whose lives brim with his love and whose deeds win over the world. And we know you will grant this request. For we ask this in the name of Jesus. Amen.

---

^{1. See also Was the Word “God” or “a god”? (Accessed on 2 February 2020) and note that the article simply claims that the NWT has the correct translation without any explanation.↩}