Introduction
The prologue of John stands among the texts of Scripture as one of the greatest—and most beautiful—treatises on the divinity of Jesus and Trinitarian theology. In it, John provides a glorious exposition of who Jesus is, what He has come to do, and what we stand to gain from His work. By reading through this short study, I hope that you find a greater understanding of and appreciation for who Jesus truly is: the incarnate Son of God, come to bring redemption to all who believe in Him.
John 1:1
We begin in verse one: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Anyone who is familiar with the text of Scripture, or who has opened up the Bible, should immediately recognize the reference that John is making in this verse. John is clearly calling back to Genesis. In fact, the words are the same. “In the beginning…” This is clearly a call backward to the time of Genesis chapter one. He opens with “In the beginning…” and the Greek which John wrote his gospel in reads, /Ἐν ἀρχῇ/. This is the same construction as found in the Greek Septuagint, which was the common collection of the Scriptures in the first century AD. John, of course, does this on purpose. John is a Jew who understands the Old Testament, and he is writing to Jews who understand the Old Testament. In his decision to parrot (or at least, strongly allude to) the text of Genesis 1:1, the Apostle accomplishes two things:
First, he establishes that his gospel is canonical in the same manner as Genesis; that his gospel ought to be read and understood with the same respect that one would have been inclined to treat Genesis—as the word of God.
Second, he sets the parameters for understanding the Word. What John asserts by his reference to Genesis is that the Word, which was “in the beginning,” was present in the same beginning that God occupied before creation. As far backwards as one might be willing to push “the beginning,” the Word is already present, the Word already “was.” This makes the Word eternal. Furthermore, the chosen verb /ἦν/ (meaning ‘was’) denotes ongoing existence. It is not that in the beginning the Word began to exist, and it’s not that in the beginning the Word was existing and then stopped existing, but rather that in the beginning the Word was already present, already in existence from all eternity. The Word had always been existing, even in “the beginning.” This beginning is the beginning of creation, as it is in the beginning that “God created the heavens and the earth” [Genesis 1:1]. This creation is a specific moment, the first moment in time, and thus the Word—which exists before this moment of creation—exists outside of time and is eternal.
Next, the Apostle states that the Word “was with God.” This again shows that the Word is eternal, as Scripture speaks of nothing being with God before the creation took place—even the angels are created beings, spiritual as they are. But more than that, the Word is “with God” in a relational sense. The Greek text reads literally that the Word /ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν/: ‘was towards God’ or perhaps interpreted ‘was face-to-face with God.’ This speaks to the relationship that the Word and God had. The Word then is eternal, but is eternally in relationship with God. The Word is not ‘back-to-back’ with God, but rather ‘face-to-face’ with God; the Word is in intimate relationship with God.
Lastly, the Word “was God.” And here is the central mystery of the passage; what does it mean that the Word was with God and was God? This being the opening of John’s gospel—the first verse no less—invites the reader immediately to wrestle with the complexity of Jesus Christ and the ontological nature of God as a Trinity. Essentially, John’s statement that “the Word was with God, and the Word was God” is meant to force the reader—if they read the text carefully and handle it honestly—into believing the Trinity (or some version of, with the inclusion of the Spirit being clarified later in the gospel). John is laying the framework for the reader to understand that there is one God, and that God is one [see Deuteronomy 6:4], yet there are multiple persons rightly identified as God. This is not a peculiar teaching of John, but John’s expression is unique in its directness; whereas other authors choose to use Old Testament language to explain the Trinity—and John will as well, see John 1:23, 8:58, and 12:41—the Apostle chooses to state it outright here in his prologue. Certainly the whole testimony of Scripture is that God is Triune, but the Holy Spirit saw fit to use John’s writings to explain that testimony most clearly—and what a blessing that is for the Church! Now, the doctrine of the Trinity, carefully defined, is this:
There is one God, Yahweh, and the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all Yahweh; the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit co-equally and co-eternally share in the one essence of God. The three are equal in all the qualities that pertain to being God, namely, being equal in their eternality, their power, and their glory, etc. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have always been and will always be Yahweh—God. The three persons are inseparable from each other, since to divide the persons would be to divide the one essence of God which is indivisible; the divine essence is inseparable from the person, because it is not that the divine essence exists outside of the person, nor the the person exists outside of the essence, but that God is God and must be God as He is and always will be.
Now, John’s point in saying “the Word was with God, and the Word was God” is understandable enough in English, but is far more clear in its original language. The key to understanding John’s statement is to pay attention to articles. In the Greek text, the definite/nominative article is /ὁ/, meaning ‘the.’ The accusative article is /τὸν/. /ὁ/ indicates the subject of a sentence or phrase, whereas /τὸν/ indicates the object. So in the passage, /ὁ λόγος/ ‘the Word’ is the subject of the sentence and /τὸν θεόν/ ‘the God’ is the object. The verse then is:
/Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος/ “in the beginning was the Word (subject)” /καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν/ “and the Word (still the subject) was with [the] God (object)” /καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος/ “and [...] God (notice the lack of a preceding article) was the Word (still the subject).”
The presence of /τὸν/ in this verse does two things. First, it makes God the object of the sentence, as we’ve already seen, and second, it indicates monotheism. A more wooden translation of John 1:1 would read,
“and the Word was with the God.” John’s use of /τὸν/ says that there is no other God. And again, John is a Jew preaching the Jewish Messiah—anything more than monotheism would be outside orthodoxy… and squarely within the condemnation of the Old Testament. This makes it even more confusing when he states that “the Word was God.” So in clause two (“and the Word was with God”) we have the Word with the God; the Word and God are distinct. But the third clause says that the Word was God. However, notice the missing article in front of /θεόν/ in clause three! The lack of an article indicates that John is no longer talking about the person of God—that is, the Father (as it is the Father often called /θεόν/ or /θεὸς/ in the New Testament)—but now John is talking about the essence of God. So John is stating that the Word is of the same essence as God; the Word is everything that God (the Father) is, yet the Word is distinct from the Father in that they are distinct persons. Notice also the word order of the Greek. /θεὸς/ comes before /λόγος/. This is to emphasize the deity of the Word. John is intending that the reader see /θεὸς/ and think of all that God is—His glory and holiness and majesty, etc—only then for him to say ‘and such was the Word.’ This ascribes all the glory of God (who does not share His glory, [see Isaiah 42:8]) to the Word, making the Word “God.”
As a note, I would be remiss if I didn’t address the false teachers who insist on the translation, “and the Word was a God.” They do this because they, like we have, note the absence of the definite article /τὸν/ in clause three. They argue, however, that because ‘the’ is not present, we should insert ‘a’. Greek does not have a word of ‘a,’ since it does not have an indefinite article. Such a translation, though, is not in accordance with the text. The lack of a definite article does not substantiate the inclusion of an indefinite article, and the rest of John’s prologue demonstrates that the true meaning of John 1:1 is what we have already examined. The translation ‘a God’ is a self-serving lie meant to justify false religion (poorly) in its following of a false Christ. No, “the Word was God,” not ‘a’ god among a pantheon, not ‘a’ god among the spiritual host, not ‘a’ god among created beings; the Word is Yahweh, eternally uncreated and eternally divine, partaking of the same nature as the Father and in co-equal standing with His glory.
Thus concludes John’s first verse—perhaps the richest verse in all of Scripture. The Word is eternal; the Word is eternally distinct and in relationship with God (the Father); the Word is in its nature God—fully divine, just as the Father and Holy Spirit are.
John 1:2 - 3
Moving forward to the second and third verses of John: the Apostle restates clause two, and further applies it to creation, identifying the Word as creator. So not only is the Word with God and of the same nature as God, He is also in the same role as God as creator. What does this do? This leaves out any question of who the Word is. Remember, John is calling back to Genesis. Now, what is it that God did in Genesis? He “created the heavens and the earth,” that is, “all things.” Everything was made by God in Genesis, and so by John saying “all things came into being through Him (the Word being the subject of the last two verses),” this Word is now with God and is the same God who in Genesis created everything. To the Jewish people, John is saying, ‘This is your God.’ And as he will explain in v. 14, ‘This is your God become a man to die for you.’
We might be interested in focusing on John’s choice of words “through Him” to articulate the particular function of the Word. Such language is not particular to John, but is actually the common way to include the pre-incarnate Christ in the act of creation, saying that creation occurred “through” Him [see also Colossians 1:16 - 17; Hebrews 1:2]. Think of Genesis when God said, “Let there be light,” and it was so. It was speech that enabled creation, the spoken Word. And so the Word was present even in the subtext of Genesis, being the means by which the Father created the world: “through” speech, “through” His Word.
John 1:4 - 5
Next, we turn to John 1:4 - 5. What does it mean that “in Him was life”?
First, it means that the Word is self-existent. In order to be eternal and to be a ‘living thing’ (as we would—I hope—say that God is alive [see Job 19:25]) your life must be within you and from you only. As human beings we ultimately receive our life from God who “breathed the breath of life” into our father Adam and who ‘forms our inward parts’ as David testifies [Genesis 2:7; Psalm 139:13]; we receive our life more immediately from our parents. Nevertheless, our life comes from outside ourselves. But the Word (because He is God) is not like human beings—the Word is not finite but infinite; not beginning or created, but eternal. Therefore the life of the Word must be from Himself. This is called ‘aseity,’ the self-existence of God. This is a property that only God can rightfully claim… it is not the universe that is self-existent (as some are forced—by their naturalism—to believe), but it is God.
Second, life—in a spiritual sense—means salvation. We have been given new life by Christ, raised to life by Christ. And this is the latter meaning of the verse, “And the life was the light of men.” This life—spiritual and salvific—is our light; it is our hope. And it is the life of Jesus, that is, the life of the Son of God, given on that tree that is our light, our hope, and it is the light of all mankind. Everyone is to look upon the light of Jesus Christ, see His glory, and be saved.
And the good news (turning to v. 5) is that “the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overtake it.” Some have understood the passage to mean “the darkness did not comprehend it” (the word /κατέλαβεν/ is unclear), and it seems that John is being intentionally ambiguous, wanting the reader to wrestle with both possible meanings, because both are true. The darkness does not understand the light. The Adversary does not understand the need for Jesus to be crucified, or else he would not have been so instrumental in His death. Satan does not comprehend the ways that God is working to bring about salvation, and because of this, cannot overtake or conquer the light. How important is it, then, that we understand God and the message of The Gospel?
John 1:6 - 8
Here we have the advent of John. This John is not the John who wrote this gospel, but John the Baptist. He was sent as a witness, called to testify to the coming Light, who is Christ the Savior. Now, the Apostle goes to great lengths to show that John is not the Light, instead having come to testify about the Light, but why is that? Consider first the primary intention of the prologue, that is, to explain the person and nature of Jesus Christ. As of yet, the Apostle has not named Jesus as his subject, yet he has created this expectation of the coming Light. John, being the very next subject of the prologue, might be understood to have been that Light, but the Apostle makes it clear that he is not. To confuse John the Baptist with the Light would be a catastrophic error, as salvation is found only in the person and teaching of Jesus Christ (who is the Light) and not in any other, great as John the Baptist may have been. This error, it seems, was committed by at least some people in the first century, of whom John the Apostle would have been aware, and it would be of great importance to him to correct their misunderstanding [see Acts 19:1 - 10].
John 1:9 - 11
The Apostle then goes further to clarify that the Word/Light is not John the Baptist by further explaining what the Word/Light is.
First, John the Apostle reestablishes that the Light is the Creator. Yet the tragedy of the Incarnation is this: that even though Christ was truly God in human flesh, “the world did not know Him.” Because of their sin, the world did not recognize He who created them. And that—as further unpacked in John 3:19—is the judgment. The world rejected its Creator, even as He stood right in front of them… Oh how sinful we really are! And more than having come to the world, the Light “came to His own.” While “the world” stands in for all of mankind (and therefore condemns all of mankind), “His own” refers to Israel, God’s chosen people. Christ came as a Jew, “born under the law” [Galatians 4:4], to Jews, who were His own people, and yet even they rejected Him. Jesus—the Word—who is the same God of the Genesis creation narrative, is also the same God who made the covenant with Abraham, and who raised up Isaac, and Jacob, and Joseph, etc. But when He comes to His people, they say, ‘We don’t know you.’
John 1:12 - 13
But the good news is, that though the world as a whole rejected Jesus, “as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God.” This is the Apostle’s first description of The Gospel proper. The Gospel is this: as many as receive Jesus Christ will be made children of God by believing in His name. John says here that faith in Christ makes us children of God, a recurring theme of his New Testament contributions. It seems that John was particularly struck by this reality of being children of God, which explains its early entry into his Gospel exposition [see 1 John 3:1]. This must not be lost on us Christians… we are children of God! Often we fall—especially in America—into the false notion that everyone is a child of God, but that’s not biblically accurate. What Scripture tells us is that everyone who has faith in Jesus is a child of God. ‘Child of God’ is a privileged and unique title, only obtained by faith in Jesus Christ; Christ is the only Son of God, and so only by being in Him and having Him in us can we relate to God as His children. Because of our ‘inclusive’ view of who is a child of God (everyone, mistakenly) we lose sight of how blessed we are to be sons and daughters of God.
And even then, it is not just that we are children of God but that we have “the right to be.” And should we not take ownership of that fact? Consider if you owned a car: you have a right to that car, and would you not defend it as your own? Would you not stand and say that you have a right to that car that no one may infringe? So it should be with our sonship to God. We have a right to our inheritance because Christ has merited it by His death and resurrection, and so we ought to defend our right to being children of God and let no one try to take it from us. And yet, this right is bestowed not by merit or works, but is given “even to those who believe.” God’s grace is so great that it grants us the highest benefit—that of adoption—by the simplest measure, faith.
Furthermore, this faith that leads to adoption is of God, specifically, by regeneration [see John 3:5 - 8]. If we understand verse 13 to be a continuation of John’s explanation of The Gospel (as, I think, we ought to), then we have that salvation is “not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” “Not of blood” speaks to our natural birth. We are not, by nature, children of God but children of Adam and children of wrath [see 1st Corinthians 15:22 and Ephesians 2:1 - 4]. It’s a common falsehood that everyone is born innocent—we are not.
“Nor of the flesh” speaks to our ancestry. We cannot be saved by the faith of our parents, or grandparents, or anyone who came before us. Similarly, the Jews were not saved merely by being Jews—“for they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel,” as Paul says [Romans 9:6]. “Nor the will of man” speaks to our own works and desires. One is not born again because of their own extension of effort, nor is someone born again because they did great works, nor even will one be born again by laboring in prayer—we become born again by God’s work. If it is not by nature, nor ancestry, nor works, it must be only of God. Regeneration is the sovereign extension of God’s grace and the way He makes us His children.
John 1:14
We turn now to perhaps the most important verse of John’s prologue, at least, in relation to The Gospel. Here in verse 14, John again turns our attention to the Word (though yes, the whole passage is about the Word) to outline perhaps the most important doctrine of the Word—that He became flesh. This is the Incarnation. This Word, the eternal creator—God—has become flesh and lived on earth. This is the center of the New Testament’s teaching; God, Yahweh, has become a man for us so that He could redeem us.
When we consider the incarnation, we might first be inclined to turn to the gospels of Matthew and Luke. We think of the Christmas narrative: the manger, the angels, the wisemen, etc. But John records only the most important message of Christmas, which is Advent—the coming of Christ. He does this sharply and succinctly: “the Word became flesh.” This baby (as we would say if we were to read Matthew or Luke) who sits in vulnerability and weakness is the Word! The same Word that is God, and who created the world and everything in it, and who is the hope of every man, He has become flesh! That is John’s point. The Word is God. The Word is truly God. And yet the Word is truly man. He has become a man by taking on flesh. We must understand this; for we cannot understand Jesus’s humility and great sacrifice until we first understand where He was before the manger… and who He was even while still in it.
And John says that “we have seen His glory, glory as the only begotten1 of the Father.” This is, for all intents and purposes, the first time that John calls Jesus the Son of God. To be begotten is to be a child, a son; to be begotten of God is to be the Son of God. And here lies a mystery: how is it that the Word is begotten and still eternal? The answer, of course, is that He is. Scripture teaches clearly and beyond doubt that Jesus is both eternally existent and also begotten of God the Father. This means, then, that the 'begottenness' of the Word is not a reality that occurred in time, but rather an inherent and eternal facet of God’s nature (a necessary, as intra operation, we might say)—that God has always been and will always be the Father begetting the Son (and the Holy Spirit proceeding forth from the two). This is what makes the Son the Son: that He is begotten from the Father. And this is what makes the Father the Father: that He begets the Son. How else could God be rightly called ‘Father’ unless He also has a Son? Furthermore, how else can we rightly be called God’s children unless His Son becomes like us, and takes our place, and presents us before His Father as fellow heirs?
And if there were any question still of the deity of the Word, we have again two proofs: first, that the Word has glory. Who aside from God is to be glorified? No one [see Isaiah 42:8]. Yet the Word has a glory that can be seen and beheld [see John 12:41, 17:5]. Second, the Word is begotten of God. For the Word to be begotten of God means that the Word shares the nature of God. The Word is not like Man who bears the image of God, but instead has within Himself the nature of God and is God.
John 1:15
Here the Apostle further elaborates on John the Baptist, and how amazing a vocation was given to him! Here he again is privileged to bear witness to the Word and give Him glory, testifying again to His deity. John powerfully proclaims about Jesus, “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has been ahead of me, for He existed before me.’” Now, we know by the testimony of The Gospel of Luke that John was conceived and born before Jesus. So, in what sense has Jesus existed before John? In the sense that Jesus is eternal. Jesus, although in His incarnation younger than John the Baptist, is eternally older and preexistent to John the Baptist. This is how ingrained the deity of Lord Jesus is in John—and the rest of the New Testament—-that even in these passing remarks He is revealed as eternally God.
John 1:16 - 17
And this is what the Apostle has been building towards in the whole of his prologue. First, that he names his subject, the ultimate subject of the Scriptures: Jesus Christ. And second, that he summarizes the message of The Gospel: “The Law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.” Through Moses the Holy Spirit had revealed the depravity of man, the penalty of sin, the warning of judgment, and the wrath of God. The Law (specifically the moral law contained in the Torah) is God’s preferred instrument to show—by the work of the Holy Spirit—man’s need for the Savior. The Law is a mirror, not intended to show our beauty, but designed to show how much filth has covered our beauty, designed to illustrate how sin has utterly corrupted the image of God in which we are made. And yet, not in contrast but in fulfillment, grace and truth are brought by Jesus Christ. In Jesus God has revealed—in a fuller way than ever accomplishable through words—His love and desire to save mankind. This light that shines in the darkness, which Jesus is, is the ultimate grace and truth of God. And it is in Christ that we have experienced “grace upon grace.” Not only do we experience some grace, or a single moment of grace, but an abundance of grace, sufficient to cover all sin and imperfection.
John 1:18
And finally, we turn to the last verse of John’s amazing prologue. If there had been any question of the deity of Christ until this moment, the Apostle has thoroughly squashed the possibility of any other option. Now, consider if you were a Jew in the first century, and were reading for the first time the Apostle’s words, in John 1:18, “No one has seen God at any time…” What would you respond with? You may very well cry, ‘Blasphemy!’ Saying, ‘Did not Abraham meet with the LORD on multiple occasions? Did not Jacob wrestle with God and then was renamed Israel? Or what of Moses, who saw Yahweh descend on the mountain? Or of the prophets, like Isaiah, who saw the glory of the Almighty? Have not countless men seen God?’
Yet John continues. “The only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has made Him known.” Yes indeed: Abraham met with the LORD, and Jacob wrestled with God, and Moses saw Yahweh, and the prophets witnessed the glory of the Almighty; countless have seen God—and the God whom they witnessed was Jesus Christ. It was Jesus (or rather, the pre-incarnate Son) who made known the glory, nature, and presence of God in the Old Testament. Jesus is so God that He is the very God who revealed Himself to the Jews in days long past.
John’s statement in verse 18 is seen as the latter ‘bookend’ to his prologue, corresponding thematically with verse one. Verse one introduces the core mystery of the Word being with God and God; verse 18 restates what was in verse one with more clarity and depth. Verse 18 directly calls Jesus “the only… God,” and identifies that one whom the Word was with as “the Father.” We also find here the description of their relationship—“who is in the bosom of the Father”—the intimate, inseparable relationship that we hinted at in verse one. Lastly, we are told what the purpose of the Son is: to make the Father known. Jesus has come to reveal the nature of God to us by being God among us. May there be no doubt or question: Jesus Christ is the incarnate Son of God—the same God who we read of in the Old Testament scriptures, having come to accomplish all that He had promised to do.
Footnote:
John 1:14 (1) I feel it important to mention that “only begotten” is a now contentious translation. The underlying Greek word /μονογενὴς/ is a compound of /μονο/ (meaning ‘one,’ ‘only,’ or ‘unique’) and /γενὴς/. The traditional view is that /γενὴς/ is derived from the Greek verb /γενναω/ (‘to beget’), so that /μονογενὴς/ means ‘only begotten’. But the more recent view is that /γενὴς/ is derived from /γενος/, meaning ‘class’, ‘sort’, ‘kind’, so that /μονογενὴς/ must mean ‘one of a kind’ or ‘unique’. I prefer the translation of “only begotten” for two reasons. First, it makes the most sense (in my opinion) of John’s point in vv. 14 & 18. Second, it preserves the traditional theological point of eternal begetting, a doctrine which, personally, I am not ready to depart from. Though, while I prefer the translation of “only begotten,” I recognize the validity of ‘one and only’ and do not consider it an errant translation as much as an unhelpful one.
After having read this section of John’s gospel, consider these questions:
- Why is it fundamental that John includes this exhaustive explanation of who Jesus is?
- Why is it significant that—according to John—Christians are born "of God" and not of blood, flesh, or the will of men [v. 13]? How should this truth affect the broader Christian lie?
- With the prologue in mind, what themes should we expect to see throughout John's gospel? How does the prologue inform our reading of The Gospel of John and the New Testament as a whole?
.JPG)
.jpg)
