Previously, we looked at John 1:1 on its own. But, from the desire to seek truth, decided to study the chapter of John 1 carefully; testing what it actually says, not what is often assumed.
The goal: To examine whether this chapter is applicable to support the trinitarian framework it’s commonly used to defend, or if that idea has been read into the text.
1 In [the] beginning was the word, and the word was with God and divine was the word.
The Greek: En archē ēn ho logos, kai ho logos ēn pros ton theon, kai theos ēn ho logos.
A literal breakdown
- En archē – In [the] beginning; of a Kingly or Magisterial Rule
- ēn – was / existed
- kai ho logos – And the Word; an embodiment of speech; a statement
- pros ton theon – with God; toward God; denoting local proximity; “pros” does not simply mean “beside” or “next to.”; its core meaning is “toward,” “facing,” “in relation to,” or “in the presence of.”
- kai theos ēn ho logos – And God was the Word / Divine was the Word*
*In the final phrase, there is no definite article preceding Theon as before (“ho“), which led to some translations saying “And the word was divine.” Others have stipulated it means “and what theos was the logos was.”
In Hebrew thought, a “word” is something that happens, not just something that is said-
Dabar (דבר) is a nuanced term that means spoken communication, a thing/ matter of subject or something that accomplishes an action.
“Word” is often read in a philosophical way. But from a Hebrew perspective its
- YHVH expressing Himself in action
- His will, command, power and manifestation
Then it’s more accurate to say that from the beginning of God’s rule over the universe, He had a purpose– an expression of His will that would one day be revealed in Yeshua, guiding creation and humanity according to His covenant and instructions.
2 This one was in [the] beginning with – God
Houtos ēn archē pros ton theon
- houtos – “this one” / “this” (a demonstrative pronoun, pointing back to what was just mentioned; “the word”
- houtos is gender neutral and can describe he, she, it, them, these; a thing, a concept or person.
“pros ton theon” does not necessarily imply equality or identity, but relationship; as stated above- toward, with, in relation to – God
The verse is essentially reinforcing verse 1, not adding a new claim, but restating the same idea for emphasis.
3 All things through it came into being, and without it came into being not even one that has come into being.
panta di’ autou egeneto, kai chōris autou egeneto oude hen ho gegonen
- panta – “all things” (neuter plural)
- dia – “through,” “by means of” (instrumentality)
- autou – “of it” (genitive singular; can be “him” or “it” depending on context)
- egeneto – “came into being,” “came to be,” “happened”
- kai chōris autou – and “apart from/ without it”
- egeneto – “came into being”
- oude hen – “not even one”
- ho gegonen – “that has come into being” (perfect tense-emphasizing a completed result that continues into the future)
Grammatically, autou can be translated either “him” or “it”– the deciding factor comes from context and what the pronoun is referring back to. In this case, it’s what was just said: the word
4 In it life was and the life was the light of men.
en auto zoe en, kai he zoe en to phos ton anthropon
- en auto – “in it”
- zoe en – “was/ existed life”
- kai he zoe en – “and the life was”
- to phos ton anthropon – “the light of humanity”
So the emphasis is consistent:
- God as the source
- The logos as the means/vehicle
- Life originating from logos
- Life is the light extending to mankind
Nothing in the grammar forces a shift in subject – it’s a continuation of the same idea being expanded.
5 And the light in the darkness shines and the darkness it not overcame
kai to phos en te skotia phainei, kai he skotia auto ou katelaben
- kai to phos – “and the light”
- en te skotia – “in the darkness”
- phainei – “shines” (present tense – ongoing action)
- kai he skotia – “and the darkness”
- auto ou katelaben – “it (the light) did not overcome” / comprehend / grasp”; katalambano can mean:
- to seize or overpower
- to grasp or understand
So we have been told that the light, coming out of life (from out of the word) shines (continuously) and that darkness can neither understand it nor overcome it.
6 There came a man having been sent from God; his name [was] John
egeneto anthropos apestalmenos para theou, onoma auto Ioannes
- egeneto – “there came” / “there was” / “came into being”; often used to introduce someone onto the scene
- anthropos – “a man”
- apestalmenos – “having been sent”
- para theou – “from God
- onoma auto Ioannes – “his name John ” (auto now clearly masculine in reference because it’s tied to a man)
(And just in case it caught your eye like it did ours- the use of “theon” vs “theou” is a grammatical case )
- theon = God as the object of “toward” or direct relation (pros ton theon)
- theou = God as the source; when describing something from God (used here para theou)
This is the first time where the chapter goes from symbolic and abstract wording into direct language that introduces a real person- John.
7 This one came as a witness, that he might testify concerning the light that all might trust by means of him.
houtos ēlthen eis marturian, hina marturēsei peri tou phōtos, hina pantes pisteusōsin di’ autou
- houtos – “this one”; refers back to John
- ēlthen – “came” (aorist tense – completed action)
- eis marturian – “for testimony/ witness; evidence”
- hina marturēsei – “in order that he might testify”
- peri tou phōtos – “concerning/ about the light”
- hina pantes pisteusōsin – “in order that all might trust in/ rely on”
- di’ autou – “through/ by means of him” (referring back to John)
John is the witness of the light (which comes from life; out from the word); his purpose was to testify about the light, in order that all come to trust in and rely on the light.
8 Not was that one the light, but that he might witness concerning the light.
ouk ēn ekeinos to phōs, all’ hina marturēsē peri tou phōtos
- ouk ēn – “was not”
- ekeinos – “that one / he” (emphatic pronoun referring back to John)
- to phōs – “the light”
- all’ – “but” (contrast)
- hina marturēsē – “in order that he might testify”
- peri tou phōtos – “concerning the light”
John is defined by what he is not– he is not himself the light
He is then immediately identified by what he is for – witnessing about the light
9 Was the light true which enlightens every man coming into the world
ēn to phōs to alēthinon ho phōtizei panta anthrōpon erchomenon eis ton kosmon
- ēn – “was”; ongoing existence
- to phōs to alēthinon – “the light true/genuine/real ”
- ho phōtizei – “which/that enlightens / gives light to/ give understanding to” (ongoing action)
- panta anthrōpon – “all humanity/ every person”
- erchomenon eis ton kosmon – “coming into the world”
Now the light (noun) is described as “true”- real or genuine- and is given a function; to bring understanding to every person.
Notice- grammatically, the “light” is still a symbolic or abstract object; the article ho does not force personhood.
So translators must decide how to render it:
- “that enlightens” is strictly grammatical / literal
- “who enlightens” is interpretive, assuming a personal subject- but no person subject has been given at this point.
10 In the world [it] was, and the world through [it] came into being, and the world not knew it.
en tō kosmō ēn, kai ho kosmos di’ autou egeneto, kai ho kosmos auton ou egnō
- en tō kosmō ēn – “[it] existed in the world” (it being the pronoun describing the light)
- kai ho kosmos di’ autou egeneto – “and the world came into being through [it]”
- kai ho kosmos auton ou egnō – “and the world it not knew/ recognized”
The Greek doesn’t explicitly repeat pronouns because the subject is already understood from context; auton, as before, refers back to the same subject previously discussed (either the light or the word)
So the structure is:
- implied subject (word / light being discussed)
- existed (ēn)
- in the world (en tō kosmō)
Important note: “En” does not describe identity (who/what it is); it describes the subjects location or sphere of where it exists
The verse repeats a three-part structure:
- the subject is present in the world
- the subject has agency in creation of the world
- the subject is not–recognized by the world
11 To [its] own [it] came and [its] own it not was received
eis ta idia ēlthen, kai hoi idioi auton ou parelabon
- eis ta idia – “into/towards own things/ place” (marking possession)
- ēlthen – “came” (third person singular- he/she/ it came)
- kai hoi idioi – “and his own people / his own ones”; same root as idia, but now referring to persons, community of people
- auton – “it” (referring back to the same subject as before)
- ou parelabon – “did not receive / accept / welcome”
Again- where the English adds in a subject “He”, the Greek gives no identifier beyond auton, continuously referring back to the subject stated before.
So the flow of this verse states
- the subject belonging to a domain
- Comes into that domain
- and the subject is not received by those belonging to that domain
12 But as many as received it, it gave to them authority, children of God to be to those trusting in the name of it
hosoi de elabon auton, edōken autois exousian tekna theou genesthai, tois pisteuousin eis to onoma autou
- hosoi de – “but as many as / however many”
- elabon auton – “received/ took it”
- edōken autois – “it gave to them”
- exousian – “authority / right / power”
- tekna theou genesthai – “children of God to become”
- tois pisteuousin – “to the ones trusting/ believing/ relying on” (present participle – ongoing)
- eis to onoma autou – “into it’s name/ identity/ reputation”
The flow is receiving the subject, leads to being given authority by the subject, leads to becoming children of God through trust/ reliance on the subject.
13 those who not of bloodlines nor of will of flesh nor of will of man; but from God were born.
hoi ouk ex haimatōn oude ek thelēmatos sarkos oude ek thelēmatos andros all’ ek theou egennēthēsan
- hoi – “who” / “those who” (those who received/ trusted)
- ouk ex haimatōn – “not of bloods/ lineage”
- oude ek thelēmatos sarkos – “nor of the will of flesh/ human nature”
- oude ek thelēmatos andros – “nor of the will of a mankind”
- all’ ek theou – “but out of/ from God”
- egennēthēsan – “were born” (passive verb – they are acted upon- they do not birth themselves)
The subject here hoi refers to people (plural). This verse has no ambiguity- this is explicitly about human recipients. There is no continuation of the earlier “it” pronoun chain.
14 And the word flesh became, and dwelt among us. And we beheld the glory of it; a glory as unique from [the] Father, full of grace and truth.
kai ho logos sarx egeneto kai eskēnōsen en hēmin, kai etheasametha tēn doxan autou, doxan hōs monogenous para patros, plērēs charitos kai alētheias
- kai ho logos – “and the word” (subject from verse 1)
- sarx egeneto – “became flesh”
- kai eskēnōsen en hēmin – “and dwelled/ resided/ tabernacled among us”
- kai etheasametha – “and we beheld / observed”
- tēn doxan autou – “the glory/ honor/ splendor of it” (The word having become flesh)
- doxan hōs monogenous para patros – “glory as a unique/ one of a kind/ only from [a] father”
- plērēs charitos kai alētheias – “full of grace/ favor and truth/ real”
Now notice- the word (it) has now become flesh; before it was simply an abstract idea,a literal embodiment of speech or idea. But now- it has become something else. The next verse gives further clarification.
15 John witnessed concerning it, and he cried out saying, “This was the One of whom I was saying. The [one] coming after me has come in front of me, because before me He was.
Ioannes marturei peri autou kai kekragen legōn, houtos ēn hon eipon, ho opisō mou erchomenos emprosthen mou gegonen, hoti prōtos mou ēn
- Ioannes – “John”
- marturei peri autou – “testifies/ bears witness concerning it” (present tense; ongoing)
- kai kekragen legōn – “and has cried out, saying” (perfect – ongoing result)
- houtos ēn hon eipon – “this was the one whom I said” (now clearly personal/ masculine reference)
- ho opisō mou erchomenos – “the- after me coming”
- emprosthen mou gegonen – “ before me becomes”
- hoti prōtos mou ēn – “because before/ prior-to/ first-to me he was”
Here, John is clearly speaks about a person: hon and erchomenos are both masculine personal forms
This is comparative/ priority language, not chronology:
- after him in appearance
- but before him in rank/ priority or origin
16 For out of the fullness of Him we all have received, and grace upon grace.
kai ek tou plērōmatos autou hēmeis pantes elabomen, kai charin anti charitos
- kai ek tou plērōmatos autou – “and out of his fullness” (of grace and truth)
- hēmeis pantes – “we all”
- elabomen – “received” (aorist tense – completed action)
- kai charin anti charitos – “and grace/favor in exchange of/ upon grace/ favor
The word anti is a preposition which can mean:
- replacement: “instead of”
- exchange: “in place of”
- correspondence: “in return for”
- sequence: “one after another”
In this instance, the most accepted understanding is an ongoing, overflowing experience of grace flowing from fullness. But other versions can depict
- “grace corresponding to grace” (reciprocal flow); grace given and grace received in ongoing exchange.
- “grace in place of grace” (replacement idea)
a progression from one stage to another
17 For the Law through Moses was given; the grace and the truth through Yeshua Messiah came.
hoti ho nomos dia Mōuseōs edothē, hē charis kai hē alētheia dia Iēsou Christou egeneto
- hoti – “for / because”
- ho nomos dia Mōuseōs edothē – “the law (Torah) through [the agency of] Moses was given”
- hē charis kai hē alētheia – “grace/favor and truth”
- dia Iēsou Christou egeneto – “through [agency of] Yeshua the Messiah came to be”
The word dia is consistent to both halves:
- Moses = the instrument through whom Law was given
- Yeshua = the instrument through whom grace and truth came into existence
Grammatically, both are described as mediators of something greater than themselves; the source, as with verse 1, is still God.
18 God no one has seen at any time. Only one divine – the one being in the bosom of the Father, that one made known.
theon oudeis heōraken pōpote; monogenēs theos ho ōn eis ton kolpon tou patros ekeinos exēgēsato
- theon oudeis heōraken pōpote – “God no on has seen (perfect tense – completed action with ongoing result)
- pōpote– “ever/ at any time”
- monogenēs theos – “only one, God” or “unique divine one”
- ho ōn – “the one being / who is” (present participle – continuous existence)
- eis ton kolpon tou patros – “in the bosom of the Father”
- ekeinos exēgēsato – “that one explained / made known/ revealed”
The phrase “monogenēs theos” is one of the most debated phrases in this text:
Grammatically, it’s two nouns placed together:
- “unique/only one” (often translated as only-begotten)
- and “God”; or “divine one” as in the first verse where there is no article proceeding theos
So now the flow is:
- God is unseen by anyone
- A uniquely described figure exists in close relation with the Father
- That one is the agent who reveals
- He makes the unseen God known
19 And this is the testimony of John when sent to him the Judeans from Jerusalem priests and Levites that they might ask him “You- who are you?”
kai hautē estin hē marturia tou Iōannou, hote apesteilan hoi Ioudaioi ex Ierousalēm hiereis kai Leuitas hina erōtēsōsin auton, su tis ei
- kai hautē estin hē marturia tou Iōannou – “and this (which follows) is the testimony of John”
- hote apesteilan hoi Ioudaioi ex Ierousalēm – “when the Jews sent from Jerusalem”
- hiereis kai Leuitas – “priests and Levites; (temple servants)”
- hina erōtēsōsin auton – “in order to question him”
- su tis ei – “you, who are you?”
This is where the narrative transitions from the prologue (verses 1–18) into historical testimony structure:
- named groups
- sent representatives
- direct questioning
Final Thoughts
What we see in John’s prologue is a consistent unfolding:
- the word is present in the beginning, in the presence of God
- all things come into being through it, and within it is life
- That life is light, which enlightens/ brings understanding to humanity
- yet the world does not recognize it or receive it
- even so, those who do receive are brought into a new identity as children of God
John presents a pattern of divine revelation moving through history:
The literal word- Torah– Gods instructions-given from the beginning brings life, light, and guidance for righteous living (Deuteronomy 6:25, 11:26–28, 30:19)
Yet it is repeatedly rejected by His people. Even so, a remnant receives it and are brought into the family of God (Deuteronomy 14:1; Isaiah 10:20-22, Hoshea 1:10)
This same pattern is then seen in the contrast drawn between what was given through Moses (Torah) and what is prophesized and later comes through Messiah- grace and truth (Isaiah 42:1-3, Jeremiah 31:33-34)
Across the narrative, the response of humanity divides between rejection and reception; but the faithful remnant remains those who receive what God has established as light (Torah, Messiah) and react by walking in that light.
Leave a Reply