John 1:1

In the beginning ¹  was the Word, and the Word was with God, ²  and the Word was fully God. ³ 

biblegateway Joh 1:1

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

biblegateway Joh 1:1

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

biblegateway Joh 1:1

In the beginning the Word already existed. He was with God, and he was God.

biblegateway Joh 1:1

The Word was first, the Word present to God, God present to the Word. The Word was God,

SABDAweb Joh 1:1

From the first he was the Word, and the Word was in relation with God and was God.

bibleoremusJoh 1:1

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

biblegateway Joh 1:1

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

biblegateway Joh 1:1

In the beginning ¹  was the Word, and the Word was with God, ²  and the Word was fully God. ³ 

¹ sn In the beginning. The search for the basic “stuff” out of which things are made was the earliest one in Greek philosophy. It was attended by the related question of “What is the process by which the secondary things came out of the primary one (or ones)?,” or in Aristotelian terminology, “What is the ‘beginning’ (same Greek word as beginning, 1:1">John 1:1) and what is the origin of the things that are made?” In the New Testament the word usually has a temporal sense, but even BDAG 138 s.v. ἀρχή 3 lists a major category of meaning as “the first cause.” For John, the words “In the beginning” are most likely a conscious allusion to the opening words of Genesis – “In the beginning.” Other concepts which occur prominently in Gen 1 are also found in John’s prologue: “life” (1:4" context="true">1:4) “light” (1:4" context="true">1:4) and “darkness” (1:5" context="true">1:5). Gen 1 describes the first (physical) creation; John 1 describes the new (spiritual) creation. But this is not to play off a false dichotomy between “physical” and “spiritual”; the first creation was both physical and spiritual. The new creation is really a re-creation, of the spiritual (first) but also the physical. (In spite of the common understanding of John’s “spiritual” emphasis, the “physical” re-creation should not be overlooked; this occurs in John 2 with the changing of water into wine, in John 11 with the resurrection of Lazarus, and the emphasis of John 20-21 on the aftermath of Jesus’ own resurrection.)

² tn The preposition πρός (pros) implies not just proximity, but intimate personal relationship. M. Dods stated, “Πρός …means more than μετά or παρά, and is regularly employed in expressing the presence of one person with another” (“The Gospel of St. John,” The Expositor’s Greek Testament, 1:684). See also 6:3">Mark 6:3, 13:56">Matt 13:56, 9:19">Mark 9:19, 1:18">Gal 1:18, 1:12">2 John 12.

³ tn Or “and what God was the Word was.” Colwell’s Rule is often invoked to support the translation of θεός (qeos) as definite (“God”) rather than indefinite (“a god”) here. However, Colwell’s Rule merely permits, but does not demand, that a predicate nominative ahead of an equative verb be translated as definite rather than indefinite. Furthermore, Colwell’s Rule did not deal with a third possibility, that the anarthrous predicate noun may have more of a qualitative nuance when placed ahead of the verb. A definite meaning for the term is reflected in the traditional rendering “the word was God.” From a technical standpoint, though, it is preferable to see a qualitative aspect to anarthrous θεός in 1:1">John 1:1c (ExSyn 266-69). Translations like the NEB, REB, and Moffatt are helpful in capturing the sense in 1:1">John 1:1c, that the Word was fully deity in essence (just as much God as God the Father). However, in contemporary English “the Word was divine” (Moffatt) does not quite catch the meaning since “divine” as a descriptive term is not used in contemporary English exclusively of God. The translation “what God was the Word was” is perhaps the most nuanced rendering, conveying that everything God was in essence, the Word was too. This points to unity of essence between the Father and the Son without equating the persons. However, in surveying a number of native speakers of English, some of whom had formal theological training and some of whom did not, the editors concluded that the fine distinctions indicated by “what God was the Word was” would not be understood by many contemporary readers. Thus the translation “the Word was fully God” was chosen because it is more likely to convey the meaning to the average English reader that the Logos (which “became flesh and took up residence among us” in 1:14">John 1:14 and is thereafter identified in the Fourth Gospel as Jesus) is one in essence with God the Father. The previous phrase, “the Word was with God,” shows that the Logos is distinct in person from God the Father.

sn And the Word was fully God. John’s theology consistently drives toward the conclusion that Jesus, the incarnate Word, is just as much God as God the Father. This can be seen, for example, in texts like 10:30">John 10:30 (“The Father and I are one”), 17:11 (“so that they may be one just as we are one”), and 8:58" context="true">8:58 (“before Abraham came into existence, I am”). The construction in 1:1">John 1:1c does not equate the Word with the person of God (this is ruled out by 1:1" context="true">1:1b, “the Word was with God”); rather it affirms that the Word and God are one in essence.