The whole verse reads “In [the] beginning was
the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:
1). Firstly, a little on the grammatical structure of the verse.
Greek has no indefinite article, no equivalent of the English word
a. Accordingly, some would translate the last clause of John 1: 1 as
‘and the Word was
a God’ arguing that
because there is no definite article in the Greek before the word
God, then an indefinite article must be supplied in English. The
only other grammatical alternative would be if both “Word” and “God”
each had the definite article, making the clause “and the Word was
the God”. This cannot be so—for if each of the nouns (Word
and God) had the definite
article, it would change that clause into what is called a
reciprocal expression in Greek allowing it be translated as either
‘and the Word was God’ or equally ‘and God was the Word’. The latter
translation is clearly wrong as it implies that the Word was God
to the exclusion of the Father and the Holy Spirit. Thus “In
[the] beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the
Word was God” (John 1: 1), as given, is the correct translation.
However, this verse still presents a problem to
some minds. How can the Word be said to be
with God and at the
same time said to
be God—“with God”
clearly indicating distinction, “was God” being a matter of
identity? Surely distinction and identity are mutually exclusive
concepts? To answer this let us take a simple example.
I have two ball bearings. They weigh the same,
they are both perfectly round, they are the same size, they have the
same colour, their chemical composition is the same and they have
the same magnetic properties. If this is the case, then you cannot
distinguish one from the other—they are identical. Thus, in man’s
world, the concepts of identity and distinction are mutually
exclusive. Now the argument has been made for John 1: 1 that if the
Word was with God and thus distinct from God, then He cannot also be
God in the simple sense of the statement and thus the expression
“the Word was God” must be limited in some way to ‘God in His
nature’, ‘God in character’, or some other similar restriction
applied. The error here is a simple one, but one that is repeated
again and again regarding the Godhead. It assumes that human logic,
which states that identity and distinction are mutually exclusive
concepts, can be applied to the Godhead—that God Himself can be
fitted into man’s reasonings. It assumes that the infinite can be
comprehended by the finite. God is thus reduced to the level of man.
Let us be clear: God can never be
fully understood by
man. If He could, then man would be equal to or greater than God.
God has been pleased to reveal much of Himself in the Bible, but we
must not let our minds take us beyond that revelation.
I might just mention here that the use of human
logic to determine divine truths is used by both Romanists and
Jehovah’s Witnesses. The Romanist demands a straight yes or no
answer to two questions: ‘Is Jesus God?’ and ‘Was Mary the mother of
Jesus?’ As the answer to both questions is ‘Yes’ he then reasons
that it is right to speak of the Mary as ‘the mother of God’. Of
course Mary was only the mother of the “man
Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2: 5, my emphasis). Likewise the Jehovah’s
Witness demands similar straight answers to two questions: ‘Is Jesus
Man?’ and ‘Is man a creature?’ As the answer to both questions again
is ‘Yes’ he then reasons ‘If Jesus is Man and man is a creature,
then Jesus must also be a creature’. The Lord of course was God
manifest in flesh (see 1 Tim 3: 16).
Many of the truths of Scripture come in pairs.
For example, we speak of God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility.
These are apparently mutually exclusive but parallel truths that run
throughout the Bible like the two lines of a railway track. Maintain
the gauge that God has set for the lines and the engine of divine
truth will run smoothly. Alter the gauge and the train will be
derailed. This is true also of the concepts of identity and
distinction. What comes out from John 1: 1 is that there is
distinction as well as identity in the Godhead. Hence when I read
that the “Father has sent the Son” (1 John 4: 14), that is
distinction; but when I read “I and the Father are one” (John 10:
30), that is identity. Again, “The Father loves the Son” (John 3:
35) is on the line of distinction; but “He that has seen me has seen
the Father” (John 14: 9) is on the line of identity. The reader can
find many other examples for himself, with the vast majority given
being on the line of distinction. Accordingly (perhaps), John 1: 2
repeats the distinction of John 1: 1 by saying “He
was in the beginning with God”. The God–given human mind may
apprehend what is infinite, but it can never comprehend it.
