The Beginning and the Beholding

Below is a rough translation and some preliminary (perhaps muddled would be a better modifier) comments on John 1:1-18, the Revised Common Lectionary reading for the second Sunday after Christmas in Year C. (You'll enjoy this. Dave Swinton posted on Facebook that we are four weeks into the new year and he's still writing "Year B" on his checks. That guy.) 

I must admit that I ran out of gas and time on this text, so I will return to the latter verses soon.

 

¹  Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. 

In beginning was the word, and the word was to the God, and God was the word (or, the word was God – both nominative).  

ἦν: IAI 3s, εἰμί, 1) to be, to exist, to happen, to be present

1. The phrase  Ἐν ἀρχῇ seems to be a deliberate echo of the creation story of Genesis 1. If that is the case, we could treat John 1 as another creation story/motif, along with Genesis 1, Genesis 2, Psalm 104, Proverbs 8, Job 38-39, Philippians 2, and Colossians 3, and more. It seems that biblical writers were endlessly fascinated with creation myths as a way of signifying that we inhabit a purposive and God-filled world.

2. εἰμί is one of a few verbs that can take its subject and its predicate in the nominative case, so it’s not always clear which is which. Most refined translations interpret “the word” as the subject of both the second and third clauses here. My rough translation is following the word order. 

3. It is not clear whether the use of the definite article in the first instance of God (τὸν θεόν) and not in the second (θεὸς) has significance. Sometimes, without a definite article, a translator will supply an indefinite article. In this instance, the last clause could be “and the word was a god.” See v.2 n.3 for an argument that the use and then non-use of the definite article here is significant. 

4. When we hold the two phrases together – ‘the word was with God’ and ‘the word was God’ – it suggests that a synthesis of difference (was with) and sameness (was) between the Word and the God. To wit: Jesus is not and Jesus is God. It strikes me that to say one of these without the other is to miss the point. Having to say both of them together completely alters what we mean when we say “Jesus is not God” and when we say “Jesus is God.” I find that people usually say one of these claims and views the other as a separate, opposing idea. Imagine standing in between two people arguing this matter and when one says, “Jesus is God” responding, “Yes!” And when the other says, “Jesus is not God” responding, “Yes!” The key is that they both get to have their say and they need each other. (Just FYI, some philosophers call this “the identity of identity and difference.” I prefer “the synthesis of identity and difference.”)  

 

² οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν. 

This one was in beginning to the God.

ἦν: IAI 3s, εἰμί, 1) to be, to exist, to happen, to be present

1. Isn’t this redundant? Yes, but since gospel writers are not stupid, the question is what the redundancy signifies. 

2. This verse holds together the 1^st and 2^nd clauses of v.1, repeating the ‘ἀρχῇ ’ and the ‘πρὸς. ’

3. Regarding προς, which I have put in italics. One expects a different preposition here, since προς typically is translated “to” and there are other prepositions for “with,” which is how almost every version of the Bible translates this verse. 

Herman Waetjen argues, “The usual English translation of προς as "with" is completely inadequate in conveying the nature of the relationship that the Logos has with τον θεόν. For προς, when it governs the accusative case, as Bo Reicke states in his article on προς in TWNT, denotes movement ‘towards’ and is almost parallel to είς ("into"). At the same time, ‘the movement of προς breaks off on the frontier of the object sought, whereas with εις it is continued right on into the object.’ … More immediately, the sense of προς in this second clause of John 1:1, and what it intimates about the relationship between the Logos and τον θεόν, is determined by the third and final clause that follows. For if the Logos is also θεός, not ό θεός but θεός, the motion of προς τον θεόν must culminate in a union with God the Creator that results in the Logos participating in God's essence. Moreover, the sense of relationship that προς conveys is evidently considered to be such a vitally significant reality that the clause of 1:1b is repeated in 1:2: οΰτος ην έν άρχη προς τον θεόν. In its differentiation from ‘the God,’ the essential attribute of the Logos is not guardianship or merely differentiating activity, but movement that culminates in union with its Originator. There is no resulting fusion of identity.  In its oscillating interaction between differentiation and union the Logos retains its independence of being.” (Herman C. Waetjen, “Logos προς τον θεόν and the objectification of truth in the prologue of the Fourth Gospel,” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 63 no. 2 April, 2001, pp. 268-9.) 

4. It’s easy to get lost in the weeds here, but I hear Waetjen arguing that προς suggests ‘movement ultimately culminating in union’ between the Word and God. I think, textually, that is also what I’m perceiving in vv. 1-2. An interpretive question that textual analysis raises for me relates to the relationship between time and movement. To argue movement suggests that there is a point in time at which the λόγος and the θεόν were not in union. Since v.1 begins with “in beginning,” is John saying that this movement toward union of the Word to the God, in fact, the beginning of creation? Even the beginning of time? 

I think …  

- One could argue that the point of the repeated έν άρχη is precisely to say that there was no point in time when the Word was not both προς τον θεόν and θεόν. 

- One could argue that the movement and union/but not identity of the Word and the God are, in fact, the beginning of everything, even the beginning of time itself. 

- One could argue that the movement of λόγος toward θεόν as well as the identity of λόγος and θεόν are always true and have always been true. I.e., the of λόγος is ever moving toward θεόν, ever in union without losing its particularity.

 

³ πάντα δι' αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν.  ὃ γέγονεν

All things through him came into being, and apart from him nothing [not anything] came into being.  That which has come into being …

ἐγένετο: AMI 3s, γίνομαι, 1) to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being 2) to become, i.e. to come to pass, happen 

γέγονεν: PerfAI 3s, γίνομαι, 1) to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being 2) to become, i.e. to come to pass, happen 

1. It is not easy to arrive at a solid and smooth translation for γίνομαι. The KJV “It came to pass,” which they use often for γίνομαι but not in these verses, is accurate enough but sounds quaint. The KJV, along with the NIV and ESV, use “made” while YLT uses “did happen” and the NRSV uses “came into being.” I have to wonder if the choice of “made” is influenced by later theological issues, such as the “begotten, not made” distinction of Jesus from the rest of creation in the Nicene Creed.

2. My sense of γίνομαι is that it is one of those words that does not easily fit into either an‘active’ or a ‘passive’ voice.  To say “made” implies intention and asserted action, while “happened” or “came into being” leaves the agency of making it happen or bringing it into being in question. That seems to be how γίνομαι functions by itself. That would be why the narrator goes to pains to say that it was through the logos and all things came into being, that they did not do so apart from the logos. 

 

⁴ ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων: 

… in him was life, and the life was the light of humanity;  

ἦν: IAI 3s, εἰμί, 1) to be, to exist, to happen, to be present

1. The phrase “In him was life” as the beginning of this sentence has enormous rhetorical power. But, the punctuation of the Greek text suggests that the final phrase of v.3 (ὃ γέγονεν: “That which came into being”) should be the beginning of this sentence. Similar to the relationship between vv. 15 and 16 of Matthew 25, there is a dispute between whoever imposed the verses and whoever imposed the punctuation. If we go with the punctuator, this sentence reads, “That which has come into being in him is life, and the life was the light of humanity.” The NRSV follows the punctuator. If we go with the versifier, this sentence reads, “In him was life, and the life was the light of humanity.” The KJV, NIV, and ESV follow the versifier. Personally, I just like the terms “punctuator” and “versifier.” 

 

⁵καὶ τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει, καὶ ἡ σκοτία αὐτὸ οὐ κατέλαβεν. 

And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it. 

φαίνει: PAI 3s, φαίνω, 1) to bring forth into the light, cause to shine, shed light   2) shine   2a) to shine, be bright or resplendent 

κατέλαβεν: AAI 3s, καταλαμβάνω, 1) to lay hold of, 1a) to lay hold of so as to make one's own, to obtain, attain to,  to make one's own, to take into one's self, appropriate

1. I’m noticing the tenses as play in the two verbs of this verse. “Shines” is present tense and “overcome” is past tense. Might that suggest that the light of the life of the logos is eternal or absolute, while the opposition of the darkness to the light is not? 

2. The verb καταλαμβάνω is translated by the KJV as “comprehend,” while the NIV, ESV, and NRSV go with “overcome.” YLT uses “perceive.” The root of κατα/λαμβάνω is λαμβάνω, a common verb meaning “to take.” The prefix κατα can mean a number of things as a prefix or a preposition. Together, they seem to mean “take ahold” or “overtake.” There is the sense that to “comprehend” is to “overcome” something, such as we might say “to master a topic.” Or, think of how “apprehend” can mean to understand something or to catch a criminal. What the wide meaning of καταλαμβάνω suggests is that the relationship between the light and the darkness is not simply a matter of intellectual understanding, but a matter of contending forces. 
3. I have some difficulty using the metaphor of “darkness” as an image of evil, because of the way that metaphor has been employed as a racist metaphor over the years. See my comment below – “On Darkness and Light” – about a very helpful resource for how to hold this metaphor, particularly in this context. 

4. While the contrast of “darkness and light” seems to imply a dualistic structure to the world, see my note in v.10, n.2.  

 

⁶  Ἐγένετο ἄνθρωπος ἀπεσταλμένος παρὰ θεοῦ, ὄνομα αὐτῷ Ἰωάννης:

A man came into being who was sent from God, his name John; 

ἐγένετο: AMI 3s, γίνομαι, 1) to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being  2) to become, i.e. to come to pass, happen 

ἀπεσταλμένος: PPPart nms, ἀποστέλλω, 1) to order (one) to go to a place appointed  

1. Here is where the verb γίνομαι becomes curious for translators. Whereas the uses in v.3 seem to point to the grandness of all created things, the verb is used here to introduce an individual person, John. Translators tone down from “made” or “came into being” into “there was” (KJV, NIV, ESV, NRSV), while YLT goes with “there came.” I am trying – in this rough stage of translation – to keep consistent language – came into being – but it seems flourish-y here when applied to one person. 

2. John gets the additional modifier, “who was sent from God.” 

 

⁷οὗτος ἦλθεν εἰς μαρτυρίαν, ἵνα μαρτυρήσῃ περὶ τοῦ φωτός, ἵνα πάντες 

πιστεύσωσιν δι' αὐτοῦ. 

This one came into a witness, in order that he might witness concerning the light, in order that all might believe through him.  

ἦλθεν  AAI 3s ἔρχομαι, 1) to come  1a) of persons  1a1) to come from one place to another, and used both of  persons arriving and of those returning 

μαρτυρήσῃ: AASubj 3s, μαρτυρέω, 1) to be a witness, to bear witness, i.e. to affirm that one has  seen or heard or experienced something, or that he knows it  because taught by divine revelation or inspiration

πιστεύσωσιν: AASubj 3p, πιστεύω, 1) to think to be true, to be persuaded of, to credit, place  confidence in

1. The double use of ἵνα is interesting. I’ve always found that asking “to what end?” allows me to dig down below the surface to the root purpose of something. That is how I hear this succession moving. 

2. “that all might believe” - Throughout John’s gospel, to “believe” is keenly significant, whether one thinks of the ever-popular John 3:16 or the “Doubting Thomas” story. Elaine Pagels, in Beyond Belief, argues that the selection of the Gospel of John as the companion gospel to the synoptics – as opposed to or as in addition to the Gospel of Thomas – was part of the church’s evolution from a charismatic movement to an orthodox religion. (I hope I said that well enough.) However one feels about Pagel’s argument, the point in this verse is that “believe” is the end game, which I would say is consistent throughout the gospel. The next question for me would be whether “believe” is a static adherence to a set of propositions or whether to “believe” in one – who is described as the Logos of creation, or the Resurrection and the Life, etc. – is a different kind of “believing.”  

3. Another question arises over who is the precedent implied by the pronoun of the last phrase δι' αὐτοῦ (“through him”). Is it John? Or, it is the light? Did God send John so that, through John, all might believe what John testifies about the light?  Or, did God send John in order to witness to the light, so that all might believe through the light? 

 

⁸οὐκ ἦν ἐκεῖνος τὸ φῶς, ἀλλ' ἵνα μαρτυρήσῃ περὶ τοῦ φωτός. 

He himself was not the light, but in order to witness concerning the light. 

μαρτυρήσῃ: AASubj 3s, μαρτυρέω, 1) to be a witness, to bear witness, 

1. What is the point of this clarification?  The flow of the text itself does not seem to require it. The context of John’s audience might need the clarification, given the enormous popularity of John and implications elsewhere in the Scriptures that some thought perhaps John was the Coming One. 

 

⁹ ην τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινόν, ὃ φωτίζει πάντα ἄνθρωπον, ἐρχόμενον εἰς 

τὸν κόσμον. 

The true light, which illumines all humanity, was coming into the world. 

Or 

The light was the truth, which illumines all humanity that comes into the world.

ἦν: IAI 3s, εἰμί, 1) to be, to exist, to happen, to be present

φωτίζει: PAI 3s, φωτίζω, 1) to give light, to shine   2) to enlighten, light up, illumine

ἐρχόμενον: PMPart ams, ἔρχομαι, 1) to come  1a) of persons  1a1) to come from one place to another, and used both of  persons arriving and of those returning  

1. Within my small understanding of Greek syntax, this verse could be translated several ways, because, once again, εἰμί is one of a few verbs that can take its subject and its predicate in the nominative case. So … 

a. The first phrase is composed of a verb ην, then two nouns with definite articles in the nominative case, τὸ φῶς and τὸ ἀληθινόν. The purple phrase, “The true light,” interprets τὸ φῶς as a noun and τὸ ἀληθινόν as a modifier/adjective. In that case, the verb ην becomes something like a helping verb to the participle of the second phrase, “which comes,” and puts it in the past tense in the phrase “was coming.” The NIV, ESV, and NRSV seem to go with this option. 
b. The second possibility is to keep the verb ην in the first clause and to take the two nouns as the subject and predicate of the verb ‘was.’ The green translation takes this route, which allows the verb to remain in the first phrase and the participle to be in the present tense, “comes.” Sadly, none of the translations on which I depend agree with my green option. Alas.

c. A third option is in the KJV and YLT, “That/He was the true light …” They keep the verb in the first phrase, but instead of making “light” the subject of the verb, they supply a subject because the verb is in the 3^rd person singular. Then, they interpret “true” and “light” the adjective and predicate of the verb.  

2. In vv.10-13, the pronouns “he” and “him” are used repeatedly. It seems to me that “the true light” is the antecedent for each of them. 

 

¹⁰ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἦν, καὶ ὁ κόσμος δι'αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ ὁ κόσμος αὐτὸν οὐκ 

ἔγνω. 

He was in the world, and the world came into being through him, and the world did not know him. 

ἐγένετο: AMI 3s, γίνομαι, 1) to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being  2) to become, i.e. to come to pass, happen 

ἔγνω:AAI 3s, γινώσκω, 1) to learn to know, come to know, get a knowledge of perceive, feel 

1. This is quite the summary statement, drawing together both the “coming into the world” of the light and the creative role of the Logos. 

2. It seems to me that the ignorance of “the world” enhances the statement about darkness and light in v.5. It would be easy to see light and darkness as a dual structure to the universe, with humanity as those who observe, or even choose between them. If we interpret “the world” as including humanity, we are not neutral observers, but those who did not know the light/logos. I don’t think we are spectators as much as participants in the darkness.

3. Verses 9-10 have the first uses of the term “world” κόσμος in John’s gospel. 21:25 is the last. By my count, there are approximately 693,317,426,045 other uses in between.

 

¹¹ εἰς τὰ ἴδια ἦλθεν, καὶ οἱ ἴδιοι αὐτὸνοὐ παρέλαβον. 

He came into [his own] the idia, and the idia [his own] did not receive him. 

ἦλθεν AAI 3s ἔρχομαι, 1) to come  1a) of persons  1a1) to come from one place to another, and used both of  persons arriving and of those returning 

παρέλαβον AAI 3p, παραλαμβάνω, 1) to take to, to take with one's self, to join to one's self  1a) an associate, a companion  1b) metaph.  1b1) to accept or acknowledge one to be such as he professes to be. 

1. τὰ ἴδια Twice John uses this substantive adjective, based on the word that means “one’s own” or “personal and particular” (i.e. idiom) rather than those qualities about us that we share universally. 

2. That said, perhaps τὰ ἴδια is a more specific statement than “the world” who did not know him in v.10. It may be, “The world did not receive him, not even his own people.”

 

¹² ὅσοι δὲ ἔλαβον αὐτόν, ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς ἐξουσίαν τέκνα θεοῦγενέσθαι, τοῖςπιστεύουσιν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ, 

Yet whoever received him, he gave them authority to become children of God, to those who believe in his name, 

ὅσοι  nmp, ὅσος 1) as great as, as far as, how much, how many, whoever 

ἔλαβον  AAI 3p, λαμβάνω, 1) to take  1a) to take with the hand, lay hold of, any person or thing in order to use it  1a1) to take up a thing to be carried 

ἔδωκεν  AAI 3p, δίδωμι, 1) to give  2) to give something to someone  2a) of one's own accord to give one something, to his advantage  2a1) to bestow a gift  2b) to grant, give to one asking, let have

θεοῦγενέσθαι

πιστεύουσιν  PAPart dmp, πιστεύω, 1) to think to be true, to be persuaded of, to credit, place  confidence in  1a) of the thing believed  1a1) to credit, have confidence

1. V.11 uses παραλαμβάνω and v.12 uses λαμβάνω, so I am using “receive” in both cases to show the relationship. I’m not clear what the prefix παρα adds to the verb λαμβάνω. 

2. One question this verse raises - Who are “τὰ ἴδια” in v.11, who did not receive him, as compared to those who did receive him in v.12? Is this a Jewish/Christian thing? If so, would Christians in John’s community be Gentile, or perhaps Jewish persons who no longer considered themselves as such? John’s language regarding “the Jews” is easily employed for anti-Semitic purposes, so I am asking this with many reservations. 

 

¹³ οἳ οὐκ ἐξ αἱμάτων οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος σαρκὸς οὐδὲ ἐκθελήματος ἀνδρὸς 

ἀλλ' ἐκ θεοῦ ἐγεννήθησαν. 

those who were born, not out of blood nor out of the will of the flesh nor out of the will of humans, but out of God.  

ἐγεννήθησαν API 3p, γεννάω, 1) of men who fathered children  1a) to be born  1b) to be begotten  1b1) of women giving birth to children  2) metaph. 

ἐκθελήματος 

1. We now have a three-fold description of 

- those who received him

- who believed in his name 

- who were born out of God (and not all the other ways of being born.) 

2. Likewise, we have a description of the true light’s activity of granting authority to become children of God; and of God’s activity of giving birth. 

3. When we get around to the conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus in c.3, it will be wise to circle back to this verse to help interpret what “born again” or better “born from above,” means. 

 

¹⁴ 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 word became flesh and dwelt [tented] in us, and we beheld his glory, glory as an only begotten of the father, full of grace and truth. 

ἐσκήνωσεν  AAI 3s, σκηνόω, 1) to fix one's tabernacle, have one's tabernacle, abide (or live) in  a tabernacle (or tent), tabernacle  2) to dwell.   Cf. Rev.7:15, 12:12, 13:6, 21:3.  

ἐθεασάμεθα  AMI 1p, θεάομαι, 1) to behold, look upon, view attentively, contemplate (often  used of public shows)  1a) of important persons that are looked on with admiration  2) to view, take a view of  

1. Bultmann says this: “This is the paradox, which runs through the whole gospel: the δόξα [glory] is not to be seen alongside the σαρξ [flesh], nor through the σαρξ, as through a window; it is to be seen in the σαρξ and nowhere else. If a man wishes to see the δόξα, then it is on the σαρξ that he must concentrate his attention, without allowing himself to fall a victim to appearances. The revelation is present in a peculiar hiddenness” (Bultmann, The Gospel of John, 63). The word δόξα is used 280 times in the canonical books of the Septuagint. (Kittel, "δόξα," 2:242). 

2. I’m trying to find the best way to translate the verb θεάομαι. It is usually translated “have seen,” for which there is a very popular verb βλέπω that John does not use, or “beheld,” for which there is a very popular verb ἰδοὺ that John does not use, or “witnessed,” for which there is a very popular verb μαρτυρέω that John does use, but to signify telling more than seeing. θεάομαι – the origin of the English word “theater,” can carry the connotation of contemplation, fixation, perceiving, watching – with one expositor arguing that it puts the emphasis on the one doing the watching, rather than the watched object itself. 

 

¹⁵Ἰωάννης μαρτυρεῖ περὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ κέκραγεν λέγων, Οὗτος ἦν ὃν εἶπον, Ὁ ὀπίσω μουἐρχόμενος ἔμπροσθέν μου γέγονεν, ὅτι πρῶτός μου ἦν.

John witnesses concerning him and preached saying, “This was the one of whom I spoke, ‘One who is coming after me has come into being, because/that he was before me.’

μαρτυρεῖ: PAI 3s, μαρτυρέω, 1) to be a witness, to bear witness, i.e. to affirm that one has  seen or heard or experienced 

κέκραγεν: PerfAI 3s, κράζω, 1) to croak  1a) of the cry of a raven  1b) hence, to cry out, cry aloud, vociferate  1c) to cry or pray for vengeance  2) to cry  2a) cry out aloud, speak with a loud voice

εἶπον: AAI 1s, λέγω, 1) to say, to speak 

ἐρχόμενος: PMPart nms, ἔρχομαι, 1) to come  1a) of persons  1a1) to come from one place to another, and used both of  persons arriving and of those returning 

γέγονεν: PerfAI 3s, γίνομαι, 1) to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being

 

¹⁶ ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ πληρώματος αὐτοῦ ἡμεῖς πάντες ἐλάβομεν, καὶ χάριν ἀντὶ χάριτος:

Because/that out of his fullness we have received all, and grace upon grace; 

ἐλάβομεν: AAI 1p, λαμβάνω, 1) to take  1a) to take with the hand, lay hold of, any person or thing  in order to use it  1a1) to take up a thing to be carried 

Prednom with λαμβάνω?)

 

¹⁷ὅτι ὁ νόμος διὰ Μωϋσέως ἐδόθη, ἡ χάρις καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐγένετο.

Because/that the law through was given Moses, the grace and the truth came into being through Jesus Christ. 

ἐδόθη: API 3s, δίδωμι, 1) to give  2) to give something to someone  2a) of one's own accord to give one something, to his advantage 

ἐγένετο: AMI 3s, γίνομαι, 1) to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being  2) to become, i.e. to come to pass, happen 

 

¹⁸θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε: μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνοςἐξηγήσατο.  

No one has ever seen God; only the son, who is in the bosom of the father has disclosed him.  

ἑώρακεν: PerfAI 3s, ὁράω, 1) to see with the eyes  2) to see with the mind, to perceive, know  3) to see, i.e. become acquainted with by experience, to experience

μονογενὴς: nms, μονογενής 1. only the only begotten, that is to say only child.

ἐξηγήσατο: AMI 3s, ἐξηγέομαι, 1) to lead out, be leader, go before  2) metaph., to draw out in narrative, unfold a teaching