John 1:1 says:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." -KJV
The Greek says:
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
How do Unitarians (those that deny a preexisting Messiah) interpret this verse? If there is more than one, please provide an overview of the various interpretations.
The word (λόγος) of John 1 is not a person but the Gospel of eternal life as the Apostle John says in the opening of his first Epistle: "What (ὅ) was from the beginning (cf. John 1:1), what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have beheld, and our hands have reached out for concerning the word (λόγος) of life (cf. John 1:4). And the life was revealed, and we have seen and bear witness and proclaim to you the eternal life which was with the Father (cf. John 1:2) and was revealed unto us." Regarding the word being called "theos," it could also be understood as being qualitative here (i.e. the word was "God-like" or "godly"). The idea is that the word is expressive of God.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
A summary of the interpretation I think is most plausible is
"In the [new] beginning [i.e., Jesus' ministry] was the Word [a title for the Christ, because he reflects God's word], and the Word was with [as Moses was with, 'pros ton theon'] God [i.e., the Father], and the Word was [in the sense of agency and image] God [where God again = the Father]."
What are our main interpretive questions?
1. Which 'beginning' (arche)?
2. Who or what is the Word (logos)?
3. What does it mean for the Word to be 'with' God (pros ton theon)?
4. What does the first use of 'God' (theon) mean? Is this just the Father? Or is it God inclusive of 3 persons?
5. What is meant by 'was' (en) in 'the Word was God'?
6. What does the second use of 'God' (theos) mean? Is it the same as the first use?
Each of these points is open to contention, among both Unitarians and Trinitarians.
Here I want to argue for an interpretation which has been given recently by Bill Schlegel, and which is broadly Socinian.
1. Which 'beginning' (arche)?
The phrase 'in the beginning' is not unique in the NT to John's prologue. It is used 2 other times, in one case referring to the beginning of Paul's missionary work, in the other the beginning of the Church at Pentecost. Similarly, 2 other Gospels use 'beginning' (arche) at the very beginning of their Gospels (Mark 1:1, Luke 1:2), and in each case refer to the beginning of Jesus' human life or ministry.
So it is obvious that simply noting the similarity to Genesis 1:1 is not enough to mean that the beginning referred to is primordial spacetime, or something like that.
If we use our cue from the other Gospels, the obvious candidate for the 'beginning' here is the beginning of Jesus' ministry.
Whether 'beginning' is understood as the new beginning (related to Jesus' human life, ministry, and ascension, say) or the old beginning (related to Genesis 1:1) greatly affects the rest of the reading of John's prologue.
On the interpretation I am following here, the beginning is the new beginning, and that lends itself to understanding the 'Word' as the human, Jesus, although that is not necessary.
This is explored in depth in an answer to the question What are the arguments in favour of the 'beginning' at John 1:1 being the new beginning?.
2. Who or what is the Word?
Taken in a void, this is not very clear.
Although John's Gospel doesn't directly give Jesus the title of 'the Word' (outside of possibly John 1:1), unlike 'the Light', 'the Bread of Life', and so on, Revelation 19:13 does.
"His name is The Word of God."
The identity of the Word is contentious within Unitarian circles, but I think the development of the passage from 1:1 to 1:14, and in particular 1:10 and 1:14b, leads to the most straightforward answer grammatically being that 'the Word' = a title for Jesus.
Many Unitarians don't like this, because they believe that if the Word = Jesus and 'the Word was God', then it would mean Jesus is God in the same sense the Father is God. So they resist, because of broad contextual reasons (i.e., scriptural reasons to think Jesus is not God in the sense the Father is God). If, though, there's another more plausible reading of 'the Word was God', then many of the broad contextual reasons Unitarians have for denying the Word = Jesus fall away. We will discuss this later, but briefly, the Word is God in the sense of agency (similar to how Moses 'was' God to Aaron and Pharaoh in the OT).
So, on this interpretation, the Word = a title for Jesus, due to his being a perfect conduit for God's word, a theme repeated again and again in the Gospel of John.
3. What does it mean for the Word to be 'with' God (pros ton theon)?
The understanding of 'with' here will depend to a large degree on our understanding of what the Word is. Is the word a power of God? Or is the word a title for a person?
We go with the second option at 2. above. So when we talk about 'with', it is about this person being 'with' God. How so?
The Greek phrase 'pros ton theon' is used repeatedly to describe Moses' relationship with God in the Septuagint (Exodus 8:29, 8:30, 10:17, 10:18, 18:19, 19:8, 24:2, 32:30), the Greek translation of the OT. As Bill Schlegel discusses in depth in his article John 1:1 is parallel to the man Moses?,
Moses made mediatorial supplication pros ton Theon. Moses represented the people pros ton Theon. Moses only came consistently into unique spatial proximity pros ton Theon. For a Greek Old Testament reader, the coming into or being in the position pros ton Theon described neither a second divine figure nor an abstract attribute like Wisdom. It was the human being, the man Moses, who was pros ton Theon.
So John 1:1's 'with' means that Jesus, like Moses but to a far greater extent, is in a mediating or interceding role and in relational proximity to God (a point reiterated at John 1:18, the final verse of the prologue, which despite having textual variants and semantic debates, is clear about Jesus being very close to God and making God known).
Not surprisingly given this interpretation of John 1:1's 'with' as relating to Moses, Moses is one of the 2 other humans mentioned in John's prologue (the other being John the Baptist). In particular, Jesus is contrasted with Moses in the prologue, as Jesus is like Moses but greater, at John 1:17.
For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
This contrast to Moses (Jesus > Moses) occurs repeatedly through John's Gospel, and is a major theme. So it makes sense that in his first sentence of his prologue, John uses a phrase that would be associated with Moses for Jesus, the new Moses.
4. What does the first use of 'God' (theon) mean?
This is quite straightforward. God = the Father = Yahweh.
There is no difficult-to-understand theology involving multiple persons in one substance or essence that needs to be posited on this understanding, and therefore no question about the target.
This is also how John seems to use 'God' in the rest of his Gospel (20:28 is discussed below), and explains why Jesus says the Father is the only true God (17:3), and that Jesus himself is a man who has heard things from God (8:40).
5. What is meant by 'was' (en) in 'the Word was God'?
It would be odd if John dropped a theological bomb in 1:1 only to never revisit it in the rest of his Gospel. What is the most obvious correlate to 1:1 in the rest of John's Gospel?
The answer is John 20:28.
Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!"
Thomas here is saying to Jesus "my God." What does Thomas mean? The key to understanding Thomas' statement is in John 14, the previous time Jesus speaks to Thomas. Jesus says "When you see me, you see the Father". When Thomas says 'God' here, he is saying he sees the Father 'through' Jesus. This isn't an ontological identity claim, but an agency identity claim.
This is explored at depth in option 5. in the answer here to the question How do Biblical Unitarians contextually explain Thomas' exclamation at John 20:28?
Just as Jesus is God to Thomas at 20:28, so the Word is God at 1:1c. Similarly, Jesus is God because when you see him, you see the Father (John 14:9). The ontological basis of this that John presents isn't a convoluted Trinitarian theory that John had never heard of, but rather the simpler notion of co-inherence (Jesus is in the Father and the Father in him, John 10:30, 14:11), which is also the relationship between the disciples and Jesus. No Trinitarian thinks that therefore the disciples are God in the same sense that the Father is God.
So, given our answer at 4. above re Moses as 'with God' ('pros ton theon'), do we find that Moses also 'was' God in the OT? That would then link 1:1b and 1:1c together.
Yes, Moses 'was' God to both Aaron (Exodus 4:16, 'shall be God', same verb as 1:1c, 'to be') and Pharaoh (Exodus 7:1, 'made you God') in the OT. These are sometimes glossed in translations with 'as' or 'like' ('as God'), but the 'as' is not in the original. Bill Schlegel discusses this in depth as well in his article John 1:1 is parallel to the man Moses?. Similarly, see also Schlegel's answer regarding Ex. 4:16 in particular, and note the discussion of Keil and Delitzsch in the question.
There is no big metaphysical mystery with Moses - there is no need to add another co-equal person to the 'essence' of God. Instead, it is obvious what is meant - Moses, like Jesus, is a man who 'is' God in the sense that he represents God - to Aaron and Pharaoh. Jesus 'is' God similarly to how Moses 'is' God - but moreso, because Jesus is the new Moses who is even greater than Moses.
This strong sense of agency is applied again and again to Jesus in John's Gospel - as with the other major points above, it is a major theme in the Gospel. Indeed, 'Christ' means one who is appointed by God and rules with God's authority - in other words, is God's agent.
6. What does the second use of 'God' (theos) mean?
It is the same as the first. God = the Father = Yahweh. So Jesus 'is' the Father in the sense of agency or image.
Note that unlike Unitarians, there doesn't seem to be a straightforward way Trinitarians can have a stable assignment of meaning to 'God' in John 1:1.
Conclusion
John' prologue uses condensed, poetic language. Any interpretation of it should be buttressed by larger themes in John's Gospel, and its coherence with the NT more generally. Understanding the material John is drawing on, and his audience would be familiar with, requires looking at the OT first and foremost.
For 1:1 we find a plausible target and sense for key terms in the OT (Moses), this target is buttressed by the prologue itself (1:17 in particular), and repeatedly in the rest of the Gospel.
Jesus, a man chosen by God like Moses, is leading the new exodus. Instead of Moses' leading the ancient Israelites from physical bondage to the geographical promised land, Jesus is leading the new Israelites from spiritual bondage to the much more important promised land of the Kingdom. Jesus is the new Moses, the one Moses himself prophesied about. As John 1:45 makes clear,
“We have found the One Moses wrote about in the Law, the One the prophets foretold—Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.”
The text says:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."- KJV
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.
ὁ λόγος
The traditional interpretation of this verse states that the logos is God the Son- the second person of the triune god, who was both with God, and is God.
Unitarians do not believe that the λόγος (logos) was a preexisting person called "the Word". Logos is a Greek philosophical term which John's audience would have been well aware of. With regards to that aspect, logos means:
- reason, the mental faculty of thinking, meditating, reasoning, calculating, etc.: once so in the phrase ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ, of the divine mind, pervading and noting all things by its proper force, Hebrews 4:12
Unitarians believe that this reason was with God in the beginning. It is His very reason for preparing all things.
The idea that a preexisting entity called "the logos" was the son of God first came from Philo of Alexandria. Philo mixed Platonism and Stoic philosophy with the Hebrews Scriptures, and Justin Martyr expanded on his idea of a preexisting logos- believing Jesus to be this entity.
For this reason, in the verses after John 1:1, Unitarians would translate the masculine pronoun οὗτος as "it":
οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν Θεόν
it was in beginning with the God
According to the KJV, "the Word was God". What is interesting here is that prior to this, John says the logos was "with ton theon", or "the God". However, when John says "the logos was theos", there is no definite article. Various Arian groups interpret this to mean "a god", or "a mighty one" because of its association with the word אֱלֹהִים (elohim). This would mean that a god or preexisting angel (usually believed to be Michael) was "incarnated" into flesh to become a man.
Laymen trinitarians believe that the missing article is irrelevant, and that John is explicitly saying "the logos was God".
Neither of these interpretations make sense to Unitarians. First, nothing in the Scriptures indicate that a preexisting "god" helped YHVH prepare the universe. God says:
Thus saith YHVH, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am YHVH that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself" Isaiah 44:24
Unitarians have the same problem with the trinitarian interpretation, but also because the text says "the logos was theos". Why would it be said that the logos "was" God, if he supposedly is God?
Trinitarian scholars admit that the missing article is significant. They say that had the article been there, this would be Sabellianism. According to trinitarian scholar James Moffatt:
"'The Word was God...And the Word became flesh,' simply means "the word was divine...And the Word became human.' The Nicene faith, in the Chalcedon definition, was intended to conserve both of these truths against theories that failed to present Jesus as truly God and truly man..." (Jesus Christ the Same, Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1945, p.61).
Trinitarian scholar B.F. Westcott agrees, saying:
"The predicate [theos) stands emphatically first, as in v.24. It is necessarily without the article (theos not ho theos) inasmuch as it describes the nature of the Word and does not identify His Person... No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true deity of the Word." (The Gospel According to St. John, Eerdmans, 1958 reprint, p. 3.)
William Barclay also wrote about this, stating that John was not describing "who" the logos was, but "what" the logos was:
Finally John says that "The Word was God". There is no doubt that this is a difficult saying for us to understand, and it is difficult because Greek, in which John wrote, had a different way of saying things from the way in which English speaks. When the Greek uses a noun it almost always uses the definite article with it. The Greek for God is 'theos', and the definite article is 'ho'. When Greek speaks about God it does not simply say 'theos'; it says 'ho theos'. Now, when Greek does not use the definite article with a noun that noun becomes much more like an adjective; it describes the character, the quality of the person. John did not say that the Word was 'ho theos'; that would have been to say that the Word was identical with God; he says that the Word was 'theos'- without the definite article- which means that the Word was, as we might say, of the very same charactor and quality and essence and being as God. When John said 'The Word was God' he was not saying that Jesus is identical with God, he was saying that Jesus is so perfectly the same as God in mind, in heart, in being that in Jesus we perfectly see what God is like." (The Gospel of John, vol.1, The Dailey Study Bible Series, Saint Andrew Press, p. 39)
This means that as far as John 1:1 is concerned, the logos is not the one true God. The logos is the reason of God, and the reason was of a divine nature, because it was God's reason. Just as John says God is Love, God is Light, God is True...God is Reason.
καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν, καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός, πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας.
"And the reason flesh became, and dwelt among us. And we beheld the glory of it- a glory like of an only-begotten of a father- full of grace and of truth" John 1:14
God's reason became a man, because mankind is God's reason for preparing all things. After God prepared all things, He gave it to Adam, who was made in His image. God's reason was to make Adam/mankind perfect, and this was accomplished through Yeshua...the perfect man.
Firstly, those who do NOT believe in the pre-existence of Jesus Christ form only a subset of the Unitarians. “Unitarianism can be described as the belief that God is just one person” (Simple English Wikipedia). As such, the Logos-Christology of the second to fourth centuries also was Unitarian, for it defined the Father alone as “the uncreated cause of all things,” to use Origen’s words. For them, the Son was the Word of God that always existed inside God, but who became a separate Being through whom the high God created all things. (For a discussion, see, The Real Issue at Nicaea)
The belief that Jesus was merely a great man filled with the Holy Spirit is sometimes called Socinianism. I just call it the “mere man”-view. Then we all know what we are talking about.
Perhaps the Modalism of the third century may also be classified as Unitarianism.
Mere-man-Christology explains John 1:1 as that “the Word” refers to a personification of God’s Wisdom and Plan, which became manifested in the person of Jesus Christ. Some objections to this view:
Mere-man-Christology refers to 1 John 1:1-4 for support. In those verses, John refers to “the Word” as “the Word of Life” and “the eternal life, which was with the Father” “from the beginning.” So, what does it mean to refer to the Son as “the eternal life?” I think it means that “God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son” (1 John 5:11). In other words, 1 John emphasizes a different aspect of “the Word,” namely the concept also stated in John 1:4, “In Him was life.” In John 1, the emphasis is more on creation: “All things came into being through Him.” Consequently, I fail to see what support 1 John 1 provides to mere-man-Christology. 1 John 1 also says that the Word “was with the Father” “from the beginning.” Again, the implication is two distinct Beings existing side-by-side. The one is identified as “God” (John 1:1-2) and as “the Father” (1 John 1:2). The other is “the Word.”
I am intrigued by the superficial similarity between Mere-man-Christology and the Logos-Christology.” In both, the Logos existed inside God – (an aspect of) God’s reason - and later became a distinct being.
One difference is that, in Logos-Christology, “the Word” became a separate being before “all things” were created while, in Mere man-Christology, God created through His internal “Word,” and His Word only became a separate being when Jesus was conceived or born.
Another difference is that Logos-Christology described “the Word” as being part of the substance of God. (For a discussion, see, The Real Issue at Nicaea). In Mere-man-Christology, the Son is merely an expression of God’s principles and thoughts.
Scholars ask where John got the concept of “the Word.” Is it impossible that he obtained it from Greek philosophy through the theology of Philo of Alexandria? (Philo mixed Platonism and Stoic philosophy with the Hebrews Scriptures, resulting in the idea of a Being called "the logos" who was the son of God.) The Bible is the thoughts of inspired men expressed in their own language. Would John not express his thoughts in the thought-forms of his day? If that is true, then perhaps we must understand “the Word” as in Greek philosophy as the “wisdom” of God that became a separate Being before God created all things. Then, He did exist as a separate Being before His incarnation and all things were created through Him.
Perhaps not an answer; but I asked Sir Anthony Buzzard (a Unitarian theologian and founder of www.restorationfellowship.org) this very question via email which I have copied below; His reply is short but gives one a taste of His thoughts on the much-disputed verse of John 1:1.
My email:
Good morning Sir Anthony!
Hope you and your family are well.
As I continue my study; I have now reached the much disputed John 1:1 verse.
John 1
The Word Became Flesh
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.I must say I haven’t found anything Trinitarians may use fairly for their doctrine; but this verse does strike me as a difficult one to grasp.
At first I thought the translations these days are wrong?...but the below link proves that nearly all of the published translations agree with the above from the NIV.
I know the witnesses NWT use a varied translation changing the context to “a god”...but that doesn’t really help either.
My thoughts are thus {by breaking the verse into chunks};
“In the beginning was the Word”- the beginning of what? Creation? Or simply the life of Jesus?...with the gospel of John in mind it would make sense that this alludes to the beginning of Jesus’ life?
“and the Word was with God”- absolutely...as a Father present with His Son.
“and the Word was God”- oh dear; now it gets messy. The word we know to mean Jesus as is evident in the context of John 1:14. So taken literally; The word is Jesus; Jesus is God...hmmm. “He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made”- oh dear, its getting more concrete; the word, Jesus was some how present with the Father in the beginning of what seems to be of creation and was “one” with His Father in the process of creating everything. This leans me towards the view of Arius now.
May I please ask; What is your understanding of this much disputed verse?
Thank you very much.
Sir Anthony's reply:
David, thanks, I wrote extensively on all this in two books and more at our site.
Why in the world would one accept the W (capital W) on word!
The beginning reflects Gen 1:1 of course
Jesus was not a Trinitarian and never said he was GOD!
Jn 17:3 and thousands of singular pronouns make the point,
And Mk 12:29 of course
in hope,
Anthony
"No responsible NT scholar would claim that the doctrine of the Trinity was taught by Jesus, or preached by the earliest Christians, or consciously held by any writer in the NT" (A.T. Hanson, The Image of the Invisible God).
Visit our website at www.restorationfellowship.org
