# John 1:1

{% embed url="<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8tEFvRwYbw>" %}

#### 1. **Grammar of John 1:1**

* The second use of *theos* (“the Word was God”) lacks the **definite article** (it is *anarthrous*).
* In Greek, this construction is qualitative, meaning *“the Word was divine”* rather than *“the Word was the God (of Israel).”*

***

#### 2. **Contemporary Understanding in the 1st Century**

* In the late 1st century CE, “divinity” could be **participated in** without making someone identical to the one true God.
* Saying the Word is *theos* without the article meant “divine,” not “the very God of Israel.”

***

#### 3. **Philo’s Writings**

* Jewish philosopher Philo explicitly said:
  * Only God with the article (*ho theos*) is the **true God of Israel.**
  * Others (like the Logos) can be called *theos* **without the article**, meaning they share in divinity but are not the Most High God.
* Philo even calls the Logos a **“second god.”**

***

#### 4. **Parallel in John 10**

* Jesus’ opponents accuse him: *“You, being a man (anthropos, anarthrous), make yourself theos (without the article).”*
* Proper translation: “You make yourself **divine**,” not “You make yourself **God**.”
* The same qualitative grammar shows *theos* ≠ *the God of Israel.*

***

#### 5. **Early Christian Writers Noticed This**

* **Origen (3rd century):** Commented that John omits the article for the Logos, showing Jesus is not the true God, but **shares in divinity.**
* **Justin Martyr (2nd century):** Used *theos* without the article for the Logos, but with the article for “the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.”
* This shows a consistent interpretive tradition: the Logos is divine but **not identical with the God of Israel.**

***

#### 6. **Broader Implication**

* According to John’s Gospel, this divinization (sharing in God’s life) is extended to Jesus’ followers too: just as Jesus is one with God, his disciples also can become one with God and share in divinity.
* Thus, the Logos being “divine” is about **participation in God’s nature**, not identity with God.

***

#### ✅ **Conclusion**

John 1:1 should be translated as:

> **“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was divine.”**

The grammar, contemporary Jewish/Christian thought, and early church interpretations all support this — the Logos shares in divinity but is **not the same being as the one true God.**