A dramatic biblical illustration exploring the mystery of John 1:1 and the question: “What beginning was John talking about?” On the left, the Earth, stars and brilliant heavenly light represent God's original creation described in Genesis 1:1. On the right, Jesus Christ is shown teaching his followers, representing the beginning of his Gospel ministry. An ancient parchment scroll in the centre displays John 1:1: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” The image highlights two different Biblical Unitarian interpretations: whether John's opening words refer to God's creative Word at the beginning of Genesis or the beginning of Jesus' ministry and God's new creation. Part 1 of an in-depth biblical investigation by Simon Brown, Real Discoveries, examining Scripture from Genesis to Revelation. https://wwwrealdiscoveriesorg-simon.blogspot.com
JOHN 1:1 — GOD'S WORD, OR THE BEGINNING OF JESUS' MINISTRY?
An In-Depth Biblical Investigation of Two Different Unitarian Interpretations — Examining the Evidence from Genesis to Revelation
By Simon Brown
Real Discoveries
https://wwwrealdiscoveriesorg-simon.blogspot.com
PART 1 — THE GREAT QUESTION: WHAT BEGINNING WAS JOHN TALKING ABOUT?
INTRODUCTION — ONE VERSE, TWO VERY DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS
Few passages in the Bible have generated as much debate about the identity and origin of Jesus Christ as the opening words of John's Gospel.
John begins with a statement that has shaped Christian theology for centuries:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." — John 1:1
But what exactly did John mean?
What was this Word?
Was John describing a divine person who existed alongside God before the creation of the universe? Was he describing God's own Word, wisdom and purpose? Or was he introducing the beginning of the Gospel message and the new creation that God would bring about through Jesus Christ?
These are not minor questions. They influence how we understand the identity of Jesus, his relationship with God the Father, his origin, and the meaning of his ministry.
Most discussions of John 1:1 concentrate on disagreements between Trinitarians and Biblical Unitarians.
However, something particularly interesting is often overlooked.
Even among Biblical Unitarians, there are two substantially different interpretations of John's opening words.
Both understand the Father alone to be the one true God. Both distinguish God from His human Messiah, Jesus Christ. Yet they disagree about something fundamental:
What does John mean by "In the beginning"?
One interpretation takes us all the way back to the original creation in Genesis.
The other takes us to the beginning of the Gospel, the public ministry of Jesus, and the inauguration of God's new creation.
Both interpretations deserve serious investigation.
This article will examine their arguments, their biblical foundations, and the difficulties each must answer.
We will also consider the principal Trinitarian, Modalist or Oneness, and Jehovah's Witness interpretations, including the belief that Jesus existed as Michael the archangel before his human birth.
But our purpose is not to defend a religious denomination, a theological tradition or a conclusion already decided in advance.
Our purpose is to discover which interpretation best agrees with the complete Word of God, from Genesis to Revelation.
1. THE TWO MAIN BIBLICAL UNITARIAN INTERPRETATIONS
VIEW ONE — JOHN WAS SPEAKING ABOUT THE ORIGINAL GENESIS CREATION
According to the first interpretation, John's opening words deliberately take the reader back to Genesis 1:1:
"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." — Genesis 1:1
Compare this with John:
"In the beginning was the Word..." — John 1:1
The similarity is unmistakable.
Both passages begin with the same expression, and both are associated with creation, life and light.
In Genesis, God brings things into existence by speaking:
"God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light." — Genesis 1:3
Psalm 33:6 provides another important connection:
"By Yahweh's word, the heavens were made; all their army by the breath of his mouth." — Psalm 33:6 (WEB)
And Psalm 33:9 explains:
"For he spoke, and it was done. He commanded, and it stood firm." — Psalm 33:9 (WEB)
These passages identify God as the Creator and His Word as the means by which He accomplishes His purposes.
From this perspective, the Word in John 1:1 does not have to be another conscious person living alongside God.
Rather, the Word can be understood as God's own creative expression, wisdom, command and purpose.
God possessed His Word from the beginning because it belonged to Him.
Just as a person's words express that person's thoughts, God's Word expresses His own mind, wisdom and will.
This interpretation understands John 1:14 as the decisive development:
"The Word became flesh and lived among us." — John 1:14 (WEB)
God's Word, which had operated throughout creation and history, became embodied in the historical human being Jesus Christ.
This does not mean that an abstract idea physically transformed itself into human tissue.
It means that God brought His Word, wisdom and saving purpose into living human reality through Jesus Christ.
Jesus was the living expression of what God had purposed and promised.
Researchers who support this approach
Sir Anthony Buzzard argues that John's Word should be understood against the background of God's creative speech and purpose, rather than automatically identified with a second divine person before Jesus' birth.
Dr Dustin R. Smith likewise identifies John's opening reference as an allusion to Genesis creation. His research places particular emphasis on Jewish Wisdom traditions and the embodiment of divine Wisdom in Jesus.
Both understand John's Gospel as connecting God's original creative activity with His later revelation through Jesus Christ.
Their explanations are not identical in every detail, but they agree on this important point:
John's "beginning" refers to Genesis, not merely the beginning of Jesus' public ministry.
This will become particularly significant when we investigate the Greek expressions in John 1:1–3.
VIEW TWO — JOHN WAS SPEAKING ABOUT THE BEGINNING OF JESUS' GOSPEL MINISTRY
A different approach places greater emphasis on the beginning of the Gospel proclamation, the revelation of God's saving message, and the new creation inaugurated through Jesus Christ.
Supporters of this approach ask an important question:
Must every New Testament reference to "the beginning" refer to the original creation of the universe?
The answer is no.
Consider how Mark opens his Gospel:
"The beginning of the Good News of Jesus Christ, the Son of God." — Mark 1:1 (WEB)
Here, the beginning clearly concerns the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Luke also introduces his Gospel by referring to events handed down by those who were eyewitnesses and servants of the Word from the beginning (Luke 1:1–2).
And John himself uses the language of beginnings elsewhere.
For example:
"That which was from the beginning, that which we have heard, that which we have seen with our eyes..." — 1 John 1:1 (WEB)
These passages raise a legitimate interpretive question.
Could John 1:1 concern the beginning of God's revelation through Jesus rather than the beginning of the physical universe?
According to the Gospel-beginning interpretation, John's emphasis is on God's Word being made known in Jesus and bringing about a new spiritual reality.
This approach draws attention to John 1:12–13, where those who receive the light are given authority to become children of God and are described as born of God.
It also finds support in the wider New Testament theme of new creation:
"Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old things have passed away. Behold, all things have become new." — 2 Corinthians 5:17 (WEB)
In this reading, the coming of Jesus marks the beginning of a new order in God's relationship with humanity.
The Gospel is proclaimed. People receive God's Word. They become God's children. A new creation begins.
Researchers associated with this approach
Brother Kel, associated with The Trinity Delusion, emphasizes the Father's Word being expressed through the human Jesus, alongside the themes of Gospel revelation and new creation.
Don Smith has also explored John's Prologue in terms of the Gospel beginning and the new creation, paying particular attention to the meanings of John's Greek verbs.
These interpretations are not necessarily identical. Each writer's arguments must be considered individually rather than treating every new-creation reading as one uniform position.
Nevertheless, the shared question remains:
Was John primarily describing the original creation, or the new beginning brought about through Jesus Christ?
2. AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION — BOTH VIEWS RECOGNISE GOD'S WORD
It would be a mistake to suggest that the first interpretation believes in God's Word while the second does not.
Both recognise that God's Word belongs to God and that Jesus reveals God's purposes.
The disagreement concerns the starting point and development of John's argument.
The Genesis interpretation understands John as beginning with God's creative Word before moving forward to Jesus Christ.
The Gospel-beginning interpretation understands John's opening more directly in relation to the saving message revealed through Jesus and the new creation.
This distinction matters because the same words may be interpreted differently depending on the context.
For example, John 1:3 declares:
"All things were made through him. Without him, nothing was made that has been made." — John 1:3 (WEB)
Does "all things" refer to everything in the original creation?
Or does it refer to everything brought about through God's new covenant and Gospel revelation?
Likewise, John 1:10 says:
"He was in the world, and the world was made through him, and the world didn't recognize him." — John 1:10 (WEB)
What does John mean by "the world"?
The physical universe?
Human society?
Or a new order associated with God's saving purposes?
These questions cannot be settled merely by choosing whichever interpretation sounds most attractive.
We must investigate John's language, the surrounding verses, the Old Testament background and the way the same expressions are used elsewhere in Scripture.
3. THE GREEK WORD THAT WILL BECOME CENTRAL TO OUR INVESTIGATION
One of the most important discoveries in our research concerns the Greek verb:
ἐγένετο — egeneto
Strong's Greek number: G1096
From the verb γίνομαι — ginomai
Depending on context, this verb can express coming into existence, becoming, happening or coming about.
John uses it repeatedly throughout his Prologue.
In John 1:3, it describes all things coming into being through the Word.
In John 1:10, it describes the world coming into being through the Word.
In John 1:14, it describes the Word becoming flesh.
And in John 1:17, we find something particularly interesting:
"For the law was given through Moses. Grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ." — John 1:17 (BLB)
Here, egeneto describes grace and truth coming about through Jesus Christ.
Clearly, God's grace and truth are not physical objects manufactured by Jesus.
God was gracious and truthful long before Jesus was born.
Exodus 34:6 already describes God's compassionate and gracious character.
John 1:17 therefore describes the historical realization of God's grace and truth through Jesus Christ.
This raises a question that deserves careful examination:
Could John also be describing God's purposes coming to fulfilment through His Word elsewhere in the Prologue?
The possibility is worth investigating.
However, we must not assume that egeneto means exactly the same thing in every sentence.
The subject of John 1:10 is "the world," whereas the subjects of John 1:17 are "grace and truth."
The verb alone cannot decide whether John 1:10 describes original creation, new creation or some combination of both.
We will examine this evidence carefully in a later part of the article, including examples from Matthew 1:22 and Luke 17:11.
4. WHY WE MUST EXAMINE MORE THAN JOHN 1:1
A correct interpretation of John's opening verse must also explain the remainder of the Prologue.
It is not enough to provide an attractive explanation of the first sentence while overlooking the verses that follow.
For example:
John 1:3: How did all things come into being through the Word?
John 1:4–5: Why does John connect the Word with life, light and darkness?
John 1:10: What world came into being through the Word, and why did that world fail to recognise him?
John 1:11–13: Why does John immediately discuss rejection, belief and becoming children of God?
John 1:14: What exactly happened when the Word became flesh?
John 1:15: Why did John the Baptist say that Jesus was before him, even though John was born first?
John 1:17: What does it mean that grace and truth came through Jesus Christ?
John 1:18: How does Jesus reveal the God whom no one has seen?
Each interpretation must explain these statements as part of one coherent passage.
An interpretation that appears convincing in John 1:1 but struggles with John 1:10 or John 1:14 may need reconsideration.
Equally, an interpretation that explains the Gospel ministry well but cannot adequately account for John's apparent references to Genesis creation must also be questioned.
The entire passage must be allowed to speak.
5. OUR METHOD — SCRIPTURE MUST BE THE FINAL TEST
This investigation will not be restricted to two modern Biblical Unitarian interpretations.
We will eventually compare them with the principal Trinitarian, Modalist or Oneness, and Jehovah's Witness explanations.
We will examine the arguments offered for the eternal divine Son, the manifestation of the one God, and the Jehovah's Witness identification of the preexistent Word with Michael the archangel.
But we will not judge any interpretation simply by its religious label.
Instead, each must answer the same fundamental questions:
Does it agree with Genesis and the Old Testament presentation of God as Creator?
Does it agree with the accounts of Jesus' conception and birth in Matthew and Luke?
Does it agree with Jesus' own identification of the Father as the only true God in John 17:3?
Does it explain the passages that appear to describe Jesus' preexistence?
Does it agree with the teaching of the apostles concerning the relationship between God and His Messiah?
And does it provide a consistent explanation of the identity of Jesus throughout the New Testament, including Revelation?
We must also distinguish between what the biblical text explicitly states and what interpreters infer from it.
An inference may be reasonable, but it must not be presented as though Scripture had stated it directly.
The interpretation we prefer must face exactly the same scrutiny as every competing interpretation.
If the Genesis interpretation best explains the evidence, we should accept it.
If the Gospel-beginning interpretation proves stronger, we should be prepared to acknowledge that.
And if the evidence points towards a more nuanced understanding that incorporates elements of both, we must remain open to that possibility.
The goal is not to win an argument.
The goal is to understand what John actually wrote and intended his readers to understand.
6. THE QUESTION WE MUST ANSWER FIRST
Before we can decide what the Word was, or how it became flesh, we must establish what John meant by his opening expression:
"IN THE BEGINNING."
John could have opened his Gospel by immediately introducing Jesus' birth, his baptism or his public ministry.
Instead, he chose words that closely resemble the opening of Genesis.
Was that a deliberate invitation to look back to God's original creation?
Or was John using the language of creation to announce a new beginning through Jesus Christ?
Could both themes be present, with Genesis supplying the background and the Gospel supplying the ultimate fulfilment?
These are the questions that will guide our next investigation.
END OF PART 1
Coming in Part 2: "IN THE BEGINNING" — GENESIS 1:1 OR THE BEGINNING OF THE GOSPEL?
We will examine the Greek expression en archē, compare its use in Genesis, John, Mark, Luke and 1 John, and investigate the arguments offered by Sir Anthony Buzzard, Dr Dustin R. Smith, Brother Kel and Don Smith.
Only after examining the evidence will we begin deciding which interpretation best explains John's opening words.
JOHN 1:1 — GOD'S WORD, OR THE BEGINNING OF JESUS' MINISTRY?
PART 2 — “IN THE BEGINNING”: GENESIS CREATION OR THE BEGINNING OF THE GOSPEL?
By Simon Brown — Real Discoveries
1. TWO WORDS THAT COULD CHANGE HOW WE UNDERSTAND JOHN'S GOSPEL
Our investigation begins with the very first words of John's Gospel:
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” — John 1:1
At first glance, the expression “In the beginning” seems straightforward.
But which beginning?
The beginning of the universe, when God created the heavens and the earth?
Or the beginning of the Gospel, when God's Word was proclaimed and His saving purpose was revealed through Jesus Christ?
These are the two principal Biblical Unitarian interpretations we are investigating.
The question matters because our understanding of the beginning influences how we interpret everything that follows.
If John begins with Genesis creation, then the Word was already present as God's creative Word before Jesus was born.
If John begins with the Gospel ministry, then the Word may refer primarily to God's saving message, revealed through the ministry of His Messiah.
Both interpretations can distinguish God the Father from His Son, Jesus Christ.
But both must explain why John chose this particular opening.
Let us begin with the Greek.
2. WHAT DOES THE GREEK EXPRESSION “EN ARCHĒ” MEAN?
The opening words are:
Ἐν ἀρχῇ — En archē
ἐν (en) — in
ἀρχῇ (archē) — beginning
Together, they mean:
“In the beginning.”
The Greek noun archē can refer to a beginning, starting point, origin or, in other contexts, a position of rule or authority.
However, in John 1:1, the expression is naturally understood in a temporal sense.
It refers to a beginning.
The crucial question is not whether archē means “beginning.”
It does.
The question is which beginning John intended his readers to recognise.
The words themselves do not explicitly say “the beginning of the universe” or “the beginning of Jesus' ministry.”
We must therefore examine the context.
And the first important clue takes us back to the opening words of Genesis.
3. THE STRIKING CONNECTION BETWEEN GENESIS 1:1 AND JOHN 1:1
The Hebrew Scriptures were translated into Greek centuries before John's Gospel was written. That translation is commonly called the Septuagint.
Compare the opening words:
Genesis 1:1 — Greek Septuagint
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν.
En archē epoiēsen ho theos ton ouranon kai tēn gēn.
“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”
John 1:1 — Greek New Testament
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος.
En archē ēn ho logos.
“In the beginning was the Word.”
Both begin with exactly the same Greek expression:
ἘΝ ἈΡΧῇ — IN THE BEGINNING.
This is a substantial piece of evidence for the Genesis interpretation.
John's readers who knew the Greek Scriptures could naturally recognise the opening of Genesis.
And the resemblance does not stop with the first two words.
Genesis describes God creating through His spoken commands.
John describes all things coming into being through the Word.
Genesis introduces light overcoming darkness.
John immediately introduces life, light and darkness.
The parallels are too important to ignore.
But there is still a question:
Was John referring to the original creation itself, or deliberately borrowing Genesis language to introduce a new creation?
An author can allude to an earlier passage while developing a new theme.
Therefore, the Genesis connection is strong evidence, but we must examine what John does with that connection.
4. GOD CREATED THROUGH HIS OWN WORD
Genesis repeatedly describes God bringing creation into existence by speaking.
Genesis 1:3:
“God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light.” — WEB
Genesis 1:6:
“God said, ‘Let there be an expanse in the middle of the waters...’” — WEB
Genesis 1:9:
“God said, ‘Let the waters under the sky be gathered together to one place...’” — WEB
The repeated expression is:
“GOD SAID.”
God speaks, and His command accomplishes His purpose.
Psalm 33:6 makes this connection explicit:
“By Yahweh's word, the heavens were made; all their army by the breath of his mouth.” — WEB
Psalm 33:9 adds:
“For he spoke, and it was done. He commanded, and it stood firm.” — WEB
Notice carefully what these passages actually say.
They identify Yahweh as the Creator.
His Word is the means by which His creative purpose is accomplished.
They do not explicitly describe God's Word as another divine person standing beside Him.
This observation is central to the Genesis Word interpretation.
When John says that the Word was with God, could he be speaking about God's own Word, which belonged to Him from the beginning?
That is certainly a possibility worth examining.
However, we must also recognise that John's language goes beyond the simple statements in Genesis.
John says the Word was “with God,” was “God,” and later “became flesh.”
The interpretation must explain all these statements, not merely the first one.
We will investigate the meaning of “with God” and “the Word was God” separately in the next part.
For now, the connection between God's creative speech in Genesis and the Word in John provides a substantial foundation for the first interpretation.
5. DR DUSTIN R. SMITH — JOHN'S BEGINNING REFERS TO GENESIS
Dr Dustin R. Smith has devoted considerable research to John's Prologue and its relationship with Jewish Wisdom literature.
His position is especially relevant because he distinguishes God's preexistent Word and Wisdom from the personal preexistence of Jesus Christ.
In his published notes on John 1:1, Smith identifies the opening expression as a deliberate reference to Genesis creation.
He points to several connections:
First: John uses the same opening words as Genesis 1:1 in the Greek Scriptures.
Second: John 1:3 and John 1:10 describe creation through the Word, recalling God's repeated commands in Genesis.
Third: John 1:4–5 introduces life, light and darkness, themes prominent in the creation account.
Fourth: God's creative Word brings order and life, and John develops these themes throughout the Prologue.
Smith also connects John's Word with the personified Wisdom found in Jewish Scripture and literature.
Consider Proverbs 8, where Wisdom is portrayed as speaking and as being present in relation to God's creative activity.
The question is whether this literary personification requires Wisdom to be a separate conscious being.
Smith's interpretation argues that it does not.
The Word and Wisdom can be described in personal language without necessarily being independent persons.
On this reading, John draws upon familiar Jewish ways of describing God's Wisdom and applies their significance to Jesus Christ.
The Word existed in the beginning as God's own Word. Jesus later embodied that Word in human life.
This is not the same as saying that the person Jesus was already alive before Genesis creation.
It is a distinction we must preserve throughout our investigation.
Research source: Dr Dustin R. Smith, Notes on John 1:1, BiblicalUnitarian.com; Wisdom Christology in the Gospel of John.
6. SIR ANTHONY BUZZARD — GOD'S WORD AND PURPOSE BEFORE JESUS
Sir Anthony Buzzard also argues against automatically identifying the Word of John 1:1 with a personally preexistent Jesus.
His approach emphasises the Jewish background of God's Word.
Throughout the Old Testament, God's Word expresses His will, promise, command and purpose.
Consider Isaiah 55:11:
“So is my word that goes out of my mouth: it will not return to me void, but it will accomplish that which I please, and it will prosper in the thing I sent it to do.” — WEB
Here God's Word is described as going out from Him and accomplishing His purpose.
The Word acts effectively because it is God's own powerful expression.
Yet the passage does not require the Word to be a separate person.
This provides a useful comparison with John 1:1.
God's Word can be described as active and powerful without necessarily implying that it possesses an independent personal consciousness.
Buzzard's interpretation sees the Word as belonging to God from the beginning, with God's messianic purpose ultimately becoming reality in Jesus Christ.
This interpretation gives particular importance to John 1:14:
“The Word became flesh.”
It does not say, in those exact words, “God the Son became flesh.”
That distinction is worth noting.
However, the absence of the expression “God the Son” does not, by itself, establish that the Word was impersonal. The wider context must decide how the Word is being portrayed.
The central question remains whether John's Word should be understood first as God's own expression or as a personally existing Son.
Research source: Anthony Buzzard, Word-Person or the Word of God?
7. THE SECOND VIEW — COULD JOHN BE DESCRIBING THE BEGINNING OF THE GOSPEL?
Now we must examine the competing Biblical Unitarian interpretation fairly.
Its central argument is that the expression “in the beginning” does not always refer to Genesis creation.
This is demonstrably true.
Consider Mark 1:1:
“The beginning of the Good News of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” — WEB
Here, the beginning refers to the Gospel.
It does not refer to the creation of the physical universe.
Luke also uses beginning-language in connection with the Gospel tradition.
Luke 1:2 refers to those who were eyewitnesses and servants of the Word “from the beginning.”
The context concerns the events associated with Jesus and their proclamation.
These examples establish an important principle:
The Greek word archē can refer to the beginning of a ministry, message or historical development.
It does not always refer to Genesis 1:1.
Therefore, it would be incorrect to argue that the mere presence of en archē automatically proves that John was speaking about the original creation.
But there is an equally important distinction.
Mark specifies “the beginning of the Good News.”
John simply says “in the beginning” and immediately introduces creation, life and light.
That makes John's opening context different from Mark's.
The Gospel-beginning interpretation must explain why John uses language so closely associated with Genesis.
8. BROTHER KEL — THE WORD PROCLAIMED THROUGH JESUS' MINISTRY
Brother Kel, associated with The Trinity Delusion, offers a particularly distinctive interpretation.
He argues that the Word in John's Prologue should be understood in relation to God's Gospel message, which was proclaimed through Jesus Christ.
In this approach, John's opening words introduce the divine message and its revelation in the ministry of God's Messiah.
A major supporting passage is 1 John 1:1:
“That which was from the beginning, that which we have heard, that which we have seen with our eyes, that which we saw, and our hands touched, concerning the Word of life.” — WEB
Notice the expressions:
From the beginning
Heard
Seen
Touched
Word of life
The letter introduces something the apostles experienced directly.
Brother Kel argues that this helps explain the Gospel's opening language.
He places emphasis on the Word as God's message made known through Jesus, rather than treating the Word as the personal name of an eternal second divine person.
This raises a significant question.
If John's first letter uses “from the beginning” in connection with the revelation of life through Jesus, might his Gospel also begin with that revelation?
The argument deserves consideration.
However, we must be careful.
The phrase in 1 John 1:1 does not, by itself, establish that John 1:1 refers to the beginning of Jesus' ministry.
The two writings have related vocabulary, but their immediate contexts are not identical.
Furthermore, 1 John 1:2 speaks of eternal life being with the Father and being manifested.
That statement itself requires interpretation.
It may support the idea of God's life being revealed through Jesus, but other interpreters understand it as referring to the personal preexistence of the Son.
We therefore cannot settle the issue merely by quoting 1 John 1:1.
Nevertheless, Brother Kel has identified an important line of investigation:
How does John use the language of beginnings, the Word and life throughout his writings?
That question must be answered before we dismiss the Gospel-beginning interpretation.
Research source: Brother Kel, The Trinity Delusion, studies on John 1:1–18.
9. DON SMITH — THE BEGINNING OF A NEW CREATION
Don Smith's interpretation also places emphasis on the new-creation dimension of John's Prologue.
The New Testament repeatedly describes the work of Jesus in terms of new life, new birth and new creation.
John 1:12–13 declares that those who receive the light are given authority to become children of God.
They are described as being born of God.
This is not a description of the original formation of the physical universe.
It concerns a new spiritual relationship between God and humanity.
Consider 2 Corinthians 5:17:
“Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation.” — WEB
And Ephesians 2:10:
“For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works...” — WEB
These passages demonstrate that the New Testament can use creation-language for God's saving activity through Jesus Christ.
Don Smith's approach invites us to examine whether John's creation terminology can also describe the emergence of the Gospel order.
This brings us to an important Greek verb:
ἐγένετο — egeneto
The verb occurs in John 1:3, John 1:10, John 1:14 and John 1:17.
It can mean “came into being,” “became” or “came about,” depending on context.
For example, John 1:17 says that grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
Grace and truth were not physical objects created out of nothing.
They were realised in history through Jesus.
Could the same broader sense of “coming about” contribute to the meaning of John 1:3 or John 1:10?
Possibly.
But we must not overlook the subjects of those sentences.
In John 1:3, the subject is “all things.”
In John 1:10, it is “the world.”
In John 1:17, it is “grace and truth.”
The same verb can describe different kinds of events.
Consequently, the fact that egeneto can mean “came about” does not establish that John 1:3 or John 1:10 refers exclusively to the new creation.
The Gospel-beginning interpretation must establish its meaning from the entire passage.
Research source: Don Smith, An Exegetical Commentary on John's Prologue, Logos Prime.
10. AN IMPORTANT HISTORICAL OBSERVATION — THIS DEBATE IS NOT NEW
The idea that John 1:1 concerns the beginning of the Gospel is not simply a modern invention.
Earlier Socinian and Unitarian writers also proposed interpretations connecting John's beginning with the new Gospel dispensation.
The Racovian Catechism, an important early seventeenth-century Socinian work, is among the historical sources associated with this approach.
This is worth remembering.
Biblical Unitarian interpretations have never been completely uniform.
Some writers have interpreted the Word primarily against the background of Genesis creation.
Others have emphasised the beginning of the Gospel, spiritual creation or the revelation of God's purpose through Jesus.
There have also been attempts to combine the two themes.
We should not assume that one modern researcher represents every historical Unitarian interpretation.
Nor should we judge an interpretation merely by its age.
A historical interpretation may be old and still be mistaken.
A more recent interpretation may offer useful insights.
The deciding question must always be whether it explains Scripture accurately.
11. COULD JOHN BE SPEAKING ABOUT BOTH CREATIONS?
We now reach one of the most interesting possibilities in this investigation.
Perhaps the two principal interpretations are not completely opposed in every respect.
Consider the progression of John's Prologue.
John 1:1–3: The Word is introduced in connection with the beginning and the coming into being of all things.
John 1:4–5: The Word is associated with life and light.
John 1:6–9: John the Baptist appears as a witness to the light.
John 1:10–11: The world does not recognise or receive him.
John 1:12–13: Those who receive him become children of God.
John 1:14: The Word becomes flesh and dwells among humanity.
John 1:17: God's grace and truth come through Jesus Christ.
Could John deliberately begin with the original creative Word of Genesis and then describe the new spiritual creation that God brings about through Jesus?
This would explain why the opening verses contain such strong Genesis language while the later verses concentrate on faith, salvation and becoming God's children.
In this interpretation, the Word is not limited to a single event.
God's Word was active in the original creation.
God's Word was expressed throughout the history of Israel.
And God's Word ultimately became flesh in Jesus Christ.
The same God who brought light into the original darkness now brings spiritual light to humanity through His Son.
This reading does not require us to deny either creation.
Instead, it asks whether John intentionally connects them.
But there is a crucial distinction:
Recognising both creation themes does not automatically mean that John 1:1 refers to the beginning of Jesus' ministry.
John may begin with Genesis and develop the theme of new creation as the Prologue unfolds.
That is different from claiming that the opening words refer exclusively to the Gospel beginning.
We must keep these possibilities separate.
12. WHICH INTERPRETATION CURRENTLY HAS THE STRONGER EVIDENCE?
At this stage, we can make a preliminary comparison without reaching our final conclusion.
Evidence favouring the Genesis beginning:
The identical Greek opening of Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1 is significant.
The references to creation, life, light and darkness strengthen the connection.
Psalm 33:6 provides a clear Old Testament precedent for God creating through His Word.
The Genesis interpretation therefore has strong literary and contextual support.
Evidence favouring the Gospel beginning:
The New Testament certainly uses beginning-language for the Gospel and Jesus' ministry.
John's Prologue develops themes of revelation, belief, new birth and salvation.
The Gospel-beginning interpretation also draws attention to the language of the Word and life in 1 John 1:1–2.
These observations are relevant, particularly when explaining the later verses of the Prologue.
The main difficulty for the Gospel-beginning interpretation is explaining why John opens with such an unmistakable echo of Genesis and immediately speaks of all things coming into being.
The main difficulty for the Genesis interpretation is explaining how the original creative Word relates to the personal language of John 1:10–14, especially the statement that the Word became flesh.
Neither difficulty should be ignored.
At present, the direct literary connection with Genesis gives the Genesis-beginning interpretation a stronger initial case.
But this is only a provisional assessment.
We have not yet examined all the relevant Greek expressions or the difficult passages that each interpretation must explain.
And we have not yet completed our comparison with the Trinitarian, Modalist and Jehovah's Witness interpretations.
It would therefore be premature to announce a final verdict.
13. THE NEXT QUESTION — WHAT EXACTLY WAS THE WORD?
We have established that the expression “in the beginning” has a clear connection with Genesis.
We have also seen that the New Testament uses beginning-language in relation to the Gospel and new creation.
But we now face an even more important question.
What was the Word that John says existed in the beginning?
Was it God's own speech, wisdom and purpose?
Was it a personified expression of God's creative power?
Was it the personally preexistent Son?
Or was John describing the Gospel message that would later be revealed through Jesus Christ?
To answer these questions, we must examine the next two statements:
“And the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” — John 1:1
What does WITH GOD mean?
Does it require two conscious persons?
And what does THE WORD WAS GOD mean in the original Greek?
These are the questions we will examine next.
END OF PART 2
Coming in Part 3: “THE WORD WAS WITH GOD” — DOES THIS MEAN TWO PERSONS, OR GOD'S OWN WORD?
We will investigate the Greek expression pros ton theon, examine the Old Testament understanding of God's Word and Wisdom, and compare how the different interpretations explain John's statement.
Our investigation will continue without assuming the conclusion in advance.
JOHN 1:1 — GOD'S WORD, OR THE BEGINNING OF JESUS' MINISTRY?
PART 3 — “THE WORD WAS WITH GOD”: DOES THIS MEAN TWO PERSONS, OR GOD'S OWN WORD?
By Simon Brown — Real Discoveries
1. INTRODUCTION — WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE “WITH GOD”?
In Part 2, we examined two different Biblical Unitarian interpretations of John's opening words:
“In the beginning.”
We discovered that John's language strongly echoes Genesis 1:1, where God created the heavens and the earth.
However, we also established that the New Testament can use the language of beginnings to describe the Gospel, Jesus' ministry and God's new creation.
Now we must investigate another statement that has divided biblical interpreters for centuries:
“And the Word was with God.” — John 1:1
At first glance, this might sound like a straightforward description of two persons.
If someone says that Peter was with John, we naturally understand that Peter and John were two individuals.
But does the same reasoning necessarily apply when John says that the Word was with God?
What if the Word was God's own speech, wisdom, thought and purpose?
Can someone's own word be described as being with that person?
And if John intended to describe a second conscious person, why did he call that person the Word rather than immediately identifying him as Jesus Christ?
These questions take us directly into the Greek language, the Old Testament and the different ways Scripture describes God's Word.
We must investigate them without assuming that the Word was either personal or impersonal before examining the evidence.
2. WHAT DOES THE ORIGINAL GREEK ACTUALLY SAY?
The Greek text of John 1:1 reads:
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.
Transliteration:
En archē ēn ho logos, kai ho logos ēn pros ton theon, kai theos ēn ho logos.
A conventional English translation is:
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
Let us concentrate on the middle statement:
καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν
Kai ho logos ēn pros ton theon.
| Greek | Transliteration | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| καὶ | kai | And |
| ὁ λόγος | ho logos | The Word |
| ἦν | ēn | Was |
| πρὸς | pros | With, toward, in relation to |
| τὸν θεόν | ton theon | God |
The central expression is:
ΠΡΟΣ ΤΟΝ ΘΕΟΝ — PROS TON THEON
Usually translated:
“WITH GOD.”
The preposition pros can express movement toward someone, orientation toward something, or association with someone, depending on the construction and context.
When used with a verb describing a continuing state, as in John 1:1, it can convey being with someone in a relationship or association.
But an important distinction must be made.
The preposition pros does not, by itself, tell us whether its subject is a conscious person.
That depends on what the subject is and how the wider passage describes it.
We must therefore investigate both the grammar and the identity of the Word.
3. DOES “WITH GOD” AUTOMATICALLY MEAN TWO PERSONS?
Trinitarian interpreters commonly understand John 1:1 as describing a personal relationship between the eternal Son and God the Father.
On this reading, the Word is not merely God's speech or an abstract attribute.
The Word is a personally existing divine Son who was in fellowship with the Father before creation.
The expression pros ton theon is understood as indicating close personal communion.
This interpretation gains support from the way John later describes Jesus' relationship with the Father.
For example:
“Father, glorify me with your own self with the glory which I had with you before the world existed.” — John 17:5 (WEB)
Trinitarian interpreters connect this statement with John 1:1 and understand both as referring to the Son's personal preexistence.
This is a serious argument that deserves examination.
However, John 17:5 is itself a disputed passage.
Some Biblical Unitarians interpret the glory as existing in God's foreordained purpose before Jesus' birth.
Others understand the verse as indicating personal preexistence.
We cannot settle John 1:1 simply by appealing to another verse whose meaning is also under debate.
We must first establish what the expression “the Word” would have communicated within its Jewish biblical setting.
4. GOD'S OWN WORD — WAS IT SOMETHING SEPARATE FROM HIM?
Consider the creation account.
Genesis 1:3 says:
“God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light.” — WEB
God speaks, and His command accomplishes His will.
Psalm 33:6 explains:
“By Yahweh's word, the heavens were made; all their army by the breath of his mouth.” — WEB
And Psalm 33:9 declares:
“For he spoke, and it was done. He commanded, and it stood firm.” — WEB
These verses establish that God's Word is the means by which He creates.
But they do not explicitly identify His Word as another conscious person alongside Him.
Instead, they describe God's own powerful speech.
Now consider Isaiah 55:11:
“So is my word that goes out of my mouth: it will not return to me void, but it will accomplish that which I please...” — WEB
Here, God's Word is described as going out, accomplishing a task and returning.
These are actions that could be described in personal terms.
Yet the natural understanding is that God is describing the effectiveness of His own spoken purpose.
His Word accomplishes what He intends.
It does not follow that the Word is a separate divine person.
This is particularly relevant to John 1:1.
Could John be describing God's own Word as existing with Him from the beginning because it belonged to God Himself?
That is the central argument of the Genesis Word interpretation.
5. AN EVERYDAY EXAMPLE — MY WORD BELONGS TO ME
Consider a simple illustration.
A person can say:
“My word is my promise.”
Or:
“My plans were with me long before I carried them out.”
The person's words and plans are not separate conscious beings.
They belong to that person.
They express the person's mind, intentions and character.
Likewise, God's Word can be understood as belonging to God and expressing His wisdom, will and purpose.
Under this interpretation, the statement:
“The Word was with God”
means that God's Word existed in relation to Him because it was His own Word.
It was not independent of God.
It originated with Him.
And it expressed what God intended to accomplish.
This illustration helps explain the Biblical Unitarian proposal.
However, we must acknowledge its limitation.
An everyday analogy cannot establish the meaning of a Greek sentence.
John's expression pros ton theon may communicate more than simply saying that God possessed His own thoughts.
The surrounding context must determine whether John is describing personified divine speech or a personal relationship.
Our analogy makes one interpretation understandable; it does not prove that interpretation.
6. SIR ANTHONY BUZZARD — THE WORD AS GOD'S OWN PURPOSE
Sir Anthony Buzzard argues that John 1:1 should be understood within the Jewish biblical concept of God's Word.
For Buzzard, the Word is God's own expression, promise and creative purpose.
He does not understand John to be introducing a second divine person who existed alongside God before Jesus' birth.
One of his important comparisons comes from the opening of John's first letter.
1 John 1:2:
“For the life was revealed, and we have seen, and testify, and declare to you the eternal life, which was with the Father, and was revealed to us.” — WEB
The Greek expression translated “with the Father” is:
πρὸς τὸν πατέρα — pros ton patera
Notice the similarity:
John 1:1: The Word was pros ton theon — with God.
1 John 1:2: Eternal life was pros ton patera — with the Father.
This is an important parallel.
In 1 John, eternal life is described as being with the Father and subsequently being revealed.
Buzzard understands this as referring to the life of the coming age, which existed in God's promise and purpose before being manifested through Jesus Christ.
Under that interpretation, something described as being “with” God need not be a second divine person.
The eternal life promised by God was with Him before being revealed.
Similarly, God's Word was with Him before becoming flesh in Jesus.
This is one of the stronger arguments offered for the non-personal Word interpretation.
But it also has a difficulty.
Other interpreters understand “the eternal life” in 1 John 1:2 as a personal reference to the preexistent Son.
Therefore, the parallel establishes that John uses remarkably similar language in both passages.
It does not independently settle whether the Word and eternal life are personal or personified.
That question still requires further investigation.
7. DR DUSTIN R. SMITH — THE WORD AND PERSONIFIED WISDOM
Dr Dustin R. Smith approaches John's Prologue through the Jewish Wisdom tradition.
His research highlights how the Old Testament sometimes describes God's Wisdom using language that sounds personal.
One of the most important examples is Proverbs 8.
In this chapter, Wisdom speaks as though she were a person.
She calls out to humanity, describes her relationship with God and speaks of being present in connection with creation.
Consider Proverbs 8:22–23, where Wisdom describes her ancient origin in relation to God's works.
The passage has been interpreted in different ways, including as poetic personification and as language referring to a preexistent heavenly being.
The literary context is important.
Proverbs also personifies Folly as a woman who calls out to people.
We would not ordinarily conclude that Folly is therefore an independently existing supernatural person.
The use of personal language can be a literary device.
Smith argues that the Wisdom tradition provides an important background for understanding John's Word.
God's Word and Wisdom can be portrayed as acting, speaking and existing in relationship with God without necessarily being separate conscious beings.
On this interpretation, John's statement that the Word was with God is consistent with Jewish personification of divine Wisdom.
The Word belongs to God and expresses His creative and saving purposes.
John 1:14 then describes the remarkable fulfilment of that Word in the historical Jesus Christ.
The Word becomes flesh.
In other words, God's Word and Wisdom become embodied in the human Messiah.
But we must still investigate whether John's language goes beyond personification and identifies the Word as a personally preexistent individual.
That question cannot be answered from Proverbs 8 alone.
8. AN IMPORTANT OLD TESTAMENT PASSAGE — GOD CREATED BY HIMSELF
Isaiah 44:24 provides an especially important statement about creation:
“I am Yahweh, who makes all things; who alone stretches out the heavens; who spreads out the earth by myself.” — WEB
God declares that He alone stretched out the heavens and spread out the earth.
This raises a significant question for interpretations that place another conscious being alongside God during creation.
If God created alone, how should we understand the Word through which creation occurred?
The Genesis Word interpretation answers that God's Word was not another creator.
It was God's own creative expression.
Therefore, God could create alone while creating through His Word.
Trinitarian interpreters answer differently.
They maintain that the Son is not a second independent God working alongside Yahweh.
Rather, the Father and Son share the one divine nature, so creation through the Son remains the work of the one God.
Jehovah's Witnesses offer another explanation, teaching that Jehovah is the ultimate source of creation and that the preexistent Son, identified by them as Michael the archangel, served as His agent.
These explanations differ considerably.
Isaiah 44:24 is therefore an important passage, but it does not settle the controversy without examining what each interpretation means by God's acting alone.
We must ask whether the Bible itself identifies another personally existing agent in the original creation, and whether the proposed explanation agrees with the wider testimony of Scripture.
That investigation will become particularly important when we reach John 1:3 and Colossians 1:15–17.
9. THE TRINITARIAN OBJECTION — WHY DID JOHN SAY “WITH GOD”?
We must now consider one of the strongest objections to the non-personal Word interpretation.
If John merely intended to describe God's own thoughts or speech, why did he use the expression:
“The Word was with God”?
Why not simply say that God possessed His Word?
Trinitarian interpreters argue that the phrase suggests relationship and distinction.
The Word is presented as being with God, not merely as an attribute belonging to God.
Furthermore, John 1:2 repeats the statement:
“The same was in the beginning with God.” — WEB
The repetition appears deliberate.
John then uses personal-sounding language in the following verses and ultimately declares that the Word became flesh.
From a Trinitarian perspective, the simplest explanation is that John is describing the eternal Son before his incarnation.
This argument should not be dismissed.
The wording genuinely permits a personal interpretation, and many scholars understand it that way.
However, the argument has a limitation.
A grammatical expression of relationship does not always establish that both things in the relationship are independent conscious persons.
The identity of the Word must still be established.
The Old Testament frequently describes divine attributes and activities using vivid personal language.
Consequently, the question is not merely whether pros can express personal fellowship.
It can.
The question is whether John intended that meaning when describing the Word.
That is precisely what our investigation must determine.
10. THE MODALIST OR ONENESS INTERPRETATION
Modalist and Oneness interpretations also deserve careful attention.
They should not automatically be treated as identical in every historical and theological detail.
In contemporary Oneness theology, the Word is commonly understood as God's own self-expression, thought or revelation, rather than a second eternal divine person.
This may initially sound similar to the Biblical Unitarian Genesis Word interpretation.
Both can reject the idea of a second eternal divine person alongside God.
But a major difference emerges when the Word becomes flesh.
Biblical Unitarians generally distinguish the one God, the Father, from Jesus Christ, His human Son and Messiah.
Oneness theology understands Jesus as the manifestation of the one God Himself, commonly identifying the deity of Jesus with the Father rather than accepting an eternal distinction of divine persons.
Thus, although both interpretations may use similar language about God's Word, their conclusions concerning Jesus' identity are different.
We must examine those differences carefully when comparing the wider biblical evidence.
For the moment, the important observation is that understanding the Word as God's own expression does not automatically lead to one particular doctrine of Jesus.
The identity of Jesus must be established from the whole of Scripture.
11. THE JEHOVAH'S WITNESS INTERPRETATION
Jehovah's Witnesses understand the Word as a personally existing heavenly being.
They identify this preexistent Son with Michael the archangel.
According to their teaching, Jehovah created the Son before all other creation and subsequently used him as the agent through whom everything else was brought into existence.
They therefore understand:
“The Word was with God”
as describing two distinct conscious individuals.
The Word was personally with Jehovah before becoming human as Jesus Christ.
Their New World Translation renders the final clause of John 1:1 as:
“And the Word was a god.”
That translation belongs to the next major question in our investigation.
For now, we should distinguish two claims:
First, that the Word was a personally existing heavenly being.
Second, that this being was Michael the archangel.
Even if the first claim were established, the second would still require independent biblical evidence.
John 1:1 does not name Michael.
Therefore, identifying the Word with Michael requires arguments from other passages, including Daniel 10:13, Daniel 12:1, Jude 9 and 1 Thessalonians 4:16.
We will examine those arguments later rather than assuming that the identification is correct.
12. WHAT ABOUT THE BEGINNING-OF-THE-GOSPEL INTERPRETATION?
So far, much of our discussion has concentrated on the Genesis Word interpretation.
But we must not forget the second major Biblical Unitarian position.
Brother Kel and other proponents of a Gospel-beginning interpretation understand John's opening in relation to the revelation of God's Word through Jesus Christ.
In this approach, the Word is God's message, truth and saving purpose.
The expression “with God” can be understood as describing the divine origin of that message.
God's Word belonged to Him before it was communicated to humanity through His Messiah.
A related comparison is Luke 3:2, where the Word of God comes to John the Baptist.
The Word originates with God and is communicated through His appointed messenger.
However, Luke 3:2 does not use the same Greek construction as John 1:1.
It therefore illustrates the biblical concept of God's Word being communicated, but it does not prove the meaning of pros ton theon.
The Gospel-beginning interpretation must still explain why John's opening resembles Genesis and why John immediately speaks of all things coming into being through the Word.
This remains one of its central challenges.
13. DOES THE GREEK PREPOSITION “PROS” SETTLE THE QUESTION?
We can now summarise the linguistic evidence.
The expression:
ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν
is conventionally and reasonably translated:
“The Word was with God.”
The preposition pros can express association, relationship and orientation.
In some contexts, it clearly describes personal relationships.
In others, it can be used in expressions involving things that are not independent persons.
For example, Galatians 2:5 speaks of the truth of the Gospel remaining “with you,” using pros.
That shows the preposition can occur with an abstract subject such as truth.
But there is a difference between a phrase describing truth remaining with believers and John's statement that the Word was with God in the beginning.
The constructions and contexts are not identical.
We should therefore avoid two opposite mistakes.
Mistake one: Claiming that pros automatically proves that the Word was a separate conscious person.
Mistake two: Claiming that pros cannot describe personal fellowship and therefore proves the Word was impersonal.
Neither conclusion follows from the preposition alone.
The Greek gives us an important relationship between the Word and God.
The nature of that relationship must be determined from John's wider argument.
14. THE IMPORTANCE OF JOHN 1:14
There is another reason why we must be cautious about reaching a conclusion too early.
John 1:14 declares:
“The Word became flesh and lived among us.” — WEB
This is the turning point of the Prologue.
The Word introduced in John 1:1 is now described as becoming flesh.
The Genesis Word interpretation understands this as God's own Word, wisdom and purpose becoming embodied in Jesus Christ.
The Trinitarian interpretation understands it as the eternal Son assuming human nature.
The Jehovah's Witness interpretation understands it as the preexistent heavenly Son becoming human.
Oneness theology understands it as the one God's Word becoming manifested in genuine human life.
The Gospel-beginning interpretation places particular emphasis on God's message and saving revelation becoming a living reality in Jesus.
Each interpretation must explain the same statement.
But we should notice something important.
John does not explicitly identify the Word as “Jesus Christ” in John 1:1.
The name Jesus Christ appears explicitly in John 1:17.
This is a literary observation, not proof that the Word was impersonal.
John may be introducing someone whom he identifies more fully later.
Or he may be describing God's Word before explaining its embodiment in Jesus.
Both possibilities must be examined.
The progression from John 1:1 to John 1:17 is therefore crucial.
15. OUR PRELIMINARY FINDINGS
We can now identify what the evidence establishes and what remains disputed.
First: The Greek phrase pros ton theon is properly translated “with God,” although the preposition has a broader range of uses.
Second: The expression can naturally be understood as describing a personal relationship, but the preposition alone does not prove the Word was a conscious person.
Third: The Old Testament provides strong evidence that God's Word and Wisdom can be described as active, powerful and even personified without necessarily being separate divine persons.
Fourth: John 1:1–2 presents the Word in a relationship with God that must be explained by every interpretation.
Fifth: The parallel between John 1:1 and 1 John 1:2 deserves particular attention because both use pros to describe something being with God or the Father before its manifestation.
Sixth: The Genesis Word interpretation offers a coherent explanation of God's own Word existing with Him from the beginning, but it must still account for the personal language that follows.
Seventh: The personal-preexistence interpretations have a natural explanation for the relational language, but they must establish from Scripture that the Word was a personally existing Son before Jesus' human birth.
Eighth: The Gospel-beginning interpretation can explain the Word as God's saving message, but it must account for John's strong Genesis connections.
At this stage, the evidence does not justify claiming that pros ton theon alone settles the identity of the Word.
The wider biblical context remains decisive.
16. THE NEXT GREAT QUESTION — “AND THE WORD WAS GOD”
We have now investigated the second statement of John 1:1:
“The Word was with God.”
But John immediately adds something even more controversial:
“And the Word was God.”
The Greek reads:
καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
Kai theos ēn ho logos.
Notice that John does not write the Greek words in the same order as the conventional English translation.
He places theos before the verb.
Furthermore, theos appears without the definite article, whereas ho logos has the article.
This grammatical construction has produced several interpretations:
“The Word was God.”
“The Word was divine.”
“The Word was a god.”
“The Word was fully expressive of God.”
These expressions are not interchangeable, and they do not all represent equally direct translations of the Greek.
Some are proposed translations; others are theological explanations of what the statement might mean.
We must distinguish them carefully.
We will also investigate why the Greek does not simply read:
“The Word was the God.”
What significance, if any, does the absence of the article before theos have?
Does John identify the Word as the same person as God?
Does he describe the Word as possessing God's nature?
Or does he mean that God's own Word fully expressed the character and identity of the God from whom it came?
These are the questions that will guide our next investigation.
END OF PART 3
Coming in Part 4: “AND THE WORD WAS GOD” — WHAT DOES THE ORIGINAL GREEK REALLY MEAN?
We will investigate theos ēn ho logos, the significance of the Greek definite article, qualitative descriptions, and the different translations proposed by Biblical Unitarians, Trinitarians, Oneness interpreters and Jehovah's Witnesses.
We will also examine why grammatical possibilities must not be confused with theological conclusions.
Our guiding principle remains unchanged:
We are not searching for the interpretation that best supports our existing beliefs.
We are searching for the interpretation that best agrees with the complete testimony of God's Word, from Genesis to Revelation.
JOHN 1:1 — GOD'S WORD, OR THE BEGINNING OF JESUS' MINISTRY?
PART 4 — “AND THE WORD WAS GOD”: WHAT DOES THE ORIGINAL GREEK REALLY MEAN?
By Simon Brown — Real Discoveries
1. INTRODUCTION — ONE STATEMENT, SEVERAL DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS
In the previous three parts of our investigation, we examined the opening words of John's Gospel and the relationship between the Word and God.
We discovered that John's expression “In the beginning” closely resembles Genesis 1:1.
We also examined the statement:
“And the Word was with God.” — John 1:1
Our investigation established that the Greek expression pros ton theon describes a relationship between the Word and God, but does not independently establish whether the Word was another conscious person or God's own Word, wisdom and purpose.
Now we arrive at the third statement:
“And the Word was God.” — John 1:1
These five English words have been central to centuries of theological controversy.
Trinitarians understand them as affirming the full deity of the eternally existing Son.
Jehovah's Witnesses translate them as “the Word was a god.”
Oneness interpreters understand them as affirming that God's own Word was truly God Himself, rather than a separate divine person.
Biblical Unitarians offer several explanations, often understanding the Word as God's own divine speech, wisdom, purpose or revelation.
But which interpretation does the Greek actually support?
Before accepting any theological explanation, we must investigate the original language.
And there is something particularly important about the way John constructed this sentence.
John did not write the Greek words in the same order as our conventional English translation.
That observation leads us to the heart of the controversy.
2. THE ORIGINAL GREEK — WHAT DID JOHN ACTUALLY WRITE?
The complete opening verse reads:
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.
Transliteration:
En archē ēn ho logos, kai ho logos ēn pros ton theon, kai theos ēn ho logos.
Conventional translation:
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
Now isolate the final clause:
καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
Kai theos ēn ho logos.
A word-by-word examination gives us:
| Greek | Transliteration | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| καὶ | kai | And |
| θεὸς | theos | God, god or divine designation, according to context |
| ἦν | ēn | Was |
| ὁ | ho | The |
| λόγος | logos | Word |
The Greek word order is:
“And God was the Word.”
However, this is not necessarily the correct way to express the meaning in English.
Greek word order is more flexible than English word order.
In this construction, the definite article helps identify the grammatical subject.
ὁ λόγος — the Word is the subject.
θεὸς — God is the predicate noun, telling us something about the Word.
Therefore, the conventional English translation is:
“And the Word was God.”
But the next question is crucial.
What exactly does John mean by describing the Word as theos?
Does he mean that the Word was the same person as the God mentioned in the preceding clause?
Does he mean that the Word possessed divine nature?
Or does he mean that God's own Word fully expressed what God is?
To answer that, we must investigate the Greek definite article.
3. WHY DID JOHN WRITE “THE WORD” BUT NOT “THE GOD”?
Look carefully at the two references to God in John 1:1.
The second clause reads:
ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν
Ho logos ēn pros ton theon.
“The Word was with God.”
Here, theon is preceded by the definite article:
τὸν — ton
But the final clause reads:
θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
Theos ēn ho logos.
Here, theos appears without the definite article.
This is known as an anarthrous noun.
Anarthrous simply means that a noun appears without the definite article.
The distinction is important, but it is frequently misunderstood.
English speakers often assume that if a noun has no definite article, it must be indefinite.
For example:
“The king” versus “a king.”
But Greek does not have an indefinite article corresponding directly to the English word “a.”
Furthermore, Greek regularly uses nouns without the definite article even when they refer to someone or something definite.
Therefore:
The absence of the article before theos does not automatically mean “a god.”
Equally, the absence of the article does not automatically establish that John meant “divine” rather than “God.”
The construction must be understood in context.
This is one of the most important grammatical principles in our investigation.
4. THREE POSSIBLE FUNCTIONS OF THE GREEK WORD “THEOS”
Greek predicate nouns can function in different ways.
For our investigation, three categories are particularly relevant.
A. Definite — Identifying someone or something
A definite predicate identifies a particular person or thing.
If theos were functioning strictly as a definite identification, the clause could be understood as identifying the Word with God.
However, the relationship between the Word and God in the preceding clause must then be explained.
If the Word was “with God,” in what sense was the Word also “God”?
Trinitarians answer by distinguishing personal identity from divine nature.
Oneness interpreters answer differently, understanding the Word as God's own self-expression.
B. Qualitative — Describing nature or character
A qualitative predicate describes what something is by nature or character.
Under this understanding, John's statement emphasises the divine quality or nature of the Word.
This is why many scholars argue that theos in John 1:1 has a strongly qualitative force.
The Word is described in terms of what God is.
However, an important caution is necessary.
A qualitative meaning does not automatically mean that the Word was impersonal.
Trinitarians can interpret a qualitative theos as affirming that the personally existing Son possesses the divine nature.
Biblical Unitarians can understand the same construction as describing God's own Word as divine because it belongs to and expresses God.
The grammatical category does not decide between those theological explanations.
C. Indefinite — Describing one member of a class
An indefinite predicate can describe someone or something as belonging to a category.
This is the kind of meaning expressed by “a god.”
Jehovah's Witnesses favour this understanding in their translation.
But the question is whether John's context actually introduces the Word as a lesser divine being distinct from the one God.
The absence of the article alone does not establish that conclusion.
We must therefore distinguish grammatical possibility from contextual probability.
5. WHAT DOES “QUALITATIVE” REALLY MEAN?
The word qualitative can sound unnecessarily complicated.
But the idea is straightforward.
Imagine someone saying:
“He is a true gentleman.”
The statement is not necessarily identifying him with one particular gentleman.
It describes his character.
Similarly, when Greek uses a qualitative predicate, the emphasis can fall on the nature or character of the subject.
Applied to John 1:1, this raises the possibility that John is describing the Word as possessing or expressing divine qualities.
But we must be careful not to simplify the Greek too far.
The Greek noun theos means “God” or “god,” according to context. It is not the ordinary Greek adjective for “divine.”
That adjective is θεῖος — theios.
John did not use theios in John 1:1.
He used theos.
Consequently, translating the clause “the Word was divine” is an interpretive rendering, not a direct reproduction of the noun John selected.
It may communicate an aspect of a qualitative interpretation, but it may also weaken the force of the original statement.
This distinction matters.
We must not assume that “qualitative” automatically means merely “godlike.”
Nor should we assume that it necessarily identifies the Word as a second divine person.
The meaning depends on the entire construction and context.
6. WHAT DID GREEK SCHOLARS SAY?
Two grammatical discussions are particularly important.
E. C. Colwell and the definite article
In 1933, E. C. Colwell published a study of definite predicate nouns in the Greek New Testament.
He observed that definite predicate nouns appearing before the verb frequently lack the definite article.
This observation helps explain why the absence of the article does not automatically make theos indefinite.
However, Colwell's findings have sometimes been overstated.
They do not establish that every anarthrous predicate noun preceding a verb must be definite.
That would reverse the logic of the observation.
A noun may be definite and lack the article, but the absence of the article does not prove that it is definite.
Philip B. Harner and qualitative predicates
In 1973, Philip B. Harner examined anarthrous predicate nouns appearing before the verb.
His study argued that such constructions frequently emphasise qualitative characteristics.
He considered John 1:1 an important example.
This helped shape subsequent discussions of whether John's emphasis was on the nature of the Word rather than a simple identification of the Word with the person mentioned in the preceding clause.
But again, the grammatical finding does not settle whether the Word was a conscious person.
Grammar can help establish what John says about the Word without independently establishing what kind of entity the Word was.
That distinction is essential to our investigation.
7. DR DUSTIN R. SMITH — THE WORD WAS FULLY EXPRESSIVE OF GOD
Dr Dustin R. Smith offers a particularly interesting explanation of the final clause of John 1:1.
His interpretation understands the Word as God's own creative and revelatory expression.
The Word belongs to God and communicates His character, wisdom and purpose.
Smith has explained the clause in terms of the Word being fully expressive of God.
This is important because it distinguishes a proposed explanation of the Greek from a strictly word-for-word translation.
“Fully expressive of God” is not a literal translation of the individual Greek words.
Rather, it is an attempt to communicate what the qualitative description may mean within the Jewish context of God's Word.
Consider the Old Testament.
God's Word expresses His will.
God's Word accomplishes His purposes.
God's Word reveals His truth.
God's Word carries His authority.
Under this interpretation, the Word can be described as theos because it is God's own self-expression.
It is not a rival deity.
It is not an independent source of divine power.
It belongs to the one God and expresses His nature and purposes.
This understanding also connects with the personification of divine Wisdom in Proverbs 8.
However, the interpretation must still explain why John uses such a strong predicate and why the Word is subsequently described in personal terms.
It cannot simply assume that because God's Word is His own expression, John's Logos must therefore be impersonal.
That conclusion requires contextual support.
8. SIR ANTHONY BUZZARD — GOD'S WORD WAS DIVINE BECAUSE IT BELONGED TO GOD
Sir Anthony Buzzard similarly understands the Word against the background of God's speech, wisdom, intention and promise.
For Buzzard, John does not begin by introducing a second divine person who existed alongside God.
Instead, the Word is God's own expression.
This approach places particular emphasis on the distinction between God's Word and the human Jesus who later embodies that Word.
Consider Isaiah 55:11:
“So is my word that goes out of my mouth: it will not return to me void, but it will accomplish that which I please...” — WEB
God's Word possesses authority because it is His Word.
Its effectiveness comes from God.
It communicates what God intends.
In the Genesis Word interpretation, this provides an explanation of why John could describe the Word in divine terms.
The Word was God's own creative and revelatory activity.
It expressed God Himself.
But here is an important qualification.
John 1:1 does not explicitly say:
“The Word was God's plan.”
Nor does it explicitly say:
“The Word was God's thoughts.”
Those are proposed explanations of what logos means in its biblical setting.
They may be justified by the wider evidence, but they must not be confused with the literal wording of the verse.
9. THE TRINITARIAN INTERPRETATION — THE WORD SHARED GOD'S DIVINE NATURE
Trinitarian interpreters commonly understand John 1:1 as making three related statements.
First:
“In the beginning was the Word.”
The Word already existed at the beginning.
Second:
“The Word was with God.”
The Word was personally distinct from God the Father.
Third:
“The Word was God.”
The Word possessed the same divine nature as the Father.
Under this interpretation, John distinguishes the persons without dividing the divine nature.
Trinitarians therefore reject the idea that the Word was merely a lesser god.
They also reject the idea that the Word was simply another name for the Father.
They understand the Word as the eternal Son who later became human as Jesus Christ.
This interpretation has a significant grammatical strength.
It takes the qualitative force of theos seriously while also accounting for the relational language of the preceding clause.
However, grammar alone cannot establish the entire doctrine of the Trinity.
John 1:1 does not explicitly mention three divine persons.
Nor does it explicitly define the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as one divine essence.
Those conclusions depend on a wider theological synthesis.
Therefore, we must distinguish between what the verse says and the larger doctrine constructed from multiple passages.
The Trinitarian interpretation must ultimately be tested against the whole Bible, including passages identifying the Father as the one God.
10. THE JEHOVAH'S WITNESS INTERPRETATION — “THE WORD WAS A GOD”
The Jehovah's Witness New World Translation renders John 1:1:
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.”
Their interpretation identifies the Word as the preexistent Son, whom they also identify as Michael the archangel.
They believe Jehovah created this Son before all other things and subsequently used him in the creation of everything else.
The expression “a god” reflects their understanding that the Word was divine or godlike but not Almighty God.
Their argument frequently appeals to the absence of the definite article before theos.
But as we have already established, Greek grammar does not support the rule that an anarthrous theos must be translated “a god.”
That is a serious weakness in any argument relying solely on the missing article.
Nevertheless, an indefinite interpretation must be evaluated by context rather than dismissed merely because it is associated with Jehovah's Witnesses.
The key question is whether John intended to describe the Word as a lesser divine being.
There are several difficulties to investigate.
First, the Gospel's Jewish monotheistic background must be considered.
Second, John 1:3 describes all things coming into being through the Word.
Third, John 1:1 itself does not identify the Word as a created being.
Fourth, it does not identify the Word as Michael.
Therefore, even if someone defended the translation “a god,” that would not establish the Jehovah's Witness doctrine concerning Michael or the Word's creation.
Those claims require additional biblical evidence.
We will examine them later.
11. THE MODALIST AND ONENESS INTERPRETATION — GOD'S OWN WORD WAS GOD
Oneness interpreters generally understand the Word as God's own self-expression rather than a second eternal divine person.
They may therefore explain the statement “the Word was God” as affirming that God's own Word was fully divine because it belonged to God Himself.
At first glance, this resembles the Genesis Word interpretation found among some Biblical Unitarians.
Both can understand the Word as God's own expression rather than another person alongside Him.
But their understanding of Jesus differs.
Biblical Unitarians generally identify the Father alone as the one true God and Jesus as His human Son and Messiah.
Oneness theology understands the one God as manifested in Jesus, with the divine identity of Jesus understood differently from Biblical Unitarianism.
Therefore, agreement about the Word's relationship to God does not necessarily produce agreement about the identity of Jesus Christ.
This is an important lesson for our investigation.
John 1:1 cannot be interpreted in isolation from John 1:14, John 1:17 and the rest of Scripture.
12. WHAT ABOUT THE BEGINNING-OF-THE-GOSPEL INTERPRETATION?
We must now return to our second principal Biblical Unitarian view.
The Gospel-beginning interpretation associated with Brother Kel and other researchers understands the Word primarily in relation to God's Gospel revelation through Jesus Christ.
Under this approach, the Word is God's message, truth and saving purpose.
Because the Word originates with God and expresses His own mind and will, it can be described in divine terms.
The statement “the Word was God” would therefore concern the divine identity, origin or character of God's message, not the existence of a second divine person.
This explanation has something in common with the Genesis Word interpretation.
Both understand the Word as God's own expression.
But the difference remains important.
The Genesis interpretation begins with God's creative Word in Genesis.
The Gospel-beginning interpretation places greater emphasis on the Word associated with the Gospel and the new creation.
The challenge for the Gospel-beginning interpretation is that John 1:1–3 contains language strongly reminiscent of Genesis creation.
If the Word is specifically the Gospel message, we must ask how all things came into being through that message.
Does John mean all created things?
Or everything brought about through the new covenant and God's saving revelation?
That question cannot be settled by John 1:1c alone.
It requires careful examination of John 1:3 and John 1:10.
We must therefore resist the temptation to decide the entire debate from one clause.
13. DOES JOHN 1:1 SAY THAT THE WORD WAS THE FATHER?
There is another important distinction.
John writes:
“The Word was with God.”
Then:
“The Word was God.”
But he does not write:
“The Word was the Father.”
Nor does he write:
“The Word was Jesus Christ.”
These are observations about the wording, not automatic proofs of any particular doctrine.
If the Word is understood as God's own expression, then it belongs to the Father and reveals Him.
If the Word is understood as the personally preexistent Son, then the Word is distinct from the Father while being described as divine.
Both interpretations attempt to explain the wording.
But we should remember something John himself later says.
John 1:18 describes the Son as making the unseen God known.
John 17:3 records Jesus addressing the Father as:
“The only true God.” — WEB
And John 20:31 explains the purpose of the Gospel:
“But these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God...” — WEB
These passages are essential to understanding John's theology.
However, they must be interpreted together with John 1:1 rather than used to dismiss it.
If we conclude that John 1:1 describes God's own Word, that conclusion must fit the Gospel's presentation of Jesus.
If we conclude that it describes a personally preexistent Son, that interpretation must also fit John's statements about the Father.
Every interpretation must account for all the evidence.
14. AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION — TRANSLATION VERSUS INTERPRETATION
Before proceeding, we should distinguish four commonly discussed renderings.
| Wording | Assessment |
|---|---|
| “The Word was God” | Conventional and grammatically well-supported translation |
| “The Word was divine” | Interpretive rendering that may communicate qualitative meaning, but can weaken the force of theos |
| “The Word was a god” | Grammatically debated and contextually disputed; not established by the missing article |
| “The Word was fully expressive of God” | Theological explanation of the Word's relationship to God, not a literal translation |
This distinction is especially important for readers who are unfamiliar with Greek.
We should not present an interpretive paraphrase as though it were a direct translation.
Nor should we assume that a conventional translation automatically proves one theological system.
For example, a Biblical Unitarian can accept the translation “the Word was God” while understanding the Word as God's own divine self-expression.
A Trinitarian can accept the same translation while understanding the Word as the personally preexistent Son.
The English wording alone does not settle that disagreement.
The question is what John meant by logos and how the entire Prologue develops that meaning.
15. WHAT DOES THE GRAMMAR ACTUALLY ESTABLISH?
We can now draw several conclusions from the Greek.
First: The Word is the grammatical subject of the final clause.
Second: Theos is the predicate noun, describing the Word.
Third: The absence of the definite article before theos does not automatically mean “a god.”
Fourth: The construction can carry a strong qualitative emphasis, describing what the Word is by nature or character.
Fifth: A qualitative understanding does not, by itself, determine whether the Word was a conscious person.
Sixth: The conventional translation “the Word was God” is grammatically defensible and should not be rejected merely because it has been used in support of Trinitarian doctrine.
Seventh: The theological identity of the Word must be established through the wider context.
These findings are important because they prevent us from making the Greek say more than it actually establishes.
We must also acknowledge what the grammar does not establish.
It does not independently prove the Trinity.
It does not independently prove Oneness theology.
It does not prove that the Word was Michael the archangel.
And it does not independently prove that the Word was an impersonal plan.
Those are theological conclusions requiring additional evidence.
16. A PRELIMINARY COMPARISON OF THE DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS
Let us now compare the explanations we have examined.
Biblical Unitarian — Genesis Word interpretation
Strength: Fits the Old Testament presentation of God's creative Word and Wisdom and can explain why the Word expresses God's own nature.
Difficulty: Must explain the strong personal language of John's Prologue, particularly John 1:10–14.
Biblical Unitarian — Gospel-beginning interpretation
Strength: Emphasises the revelation of God's Word through Jesus and the new-creation themes found throughout the New Testament.
Difficulty: Must explain the strong Genesis connections and the creation language of John 1:1–3.
Trinitarian interpretation
Strength: Provides a coherent explanation of the Word being with God while possessing divine nature.
Difficulty: Must demonstrate that the wider biblical evidence supports the personally preexistent Son and the Trinitarian understanding of divine identity.
Modalist or Oneness interpretation
Strength: Understands the Word as God's own self-expression and strongly emphasises divine unity.
Difficulty: Must explain the distinction between Jesus and the Father throughout John's Gospel.
Jehovah's Witness interpretation
Strength: Takes seriously the distinction between the Word and God in the second clause.
Difficulty: Must establish the translation “a god,” the Word's created status and the identification with Michael from the biblical evidence.
These are preliminary assessments, not final verdicts.
We will revisit them after examining the complete Prologue and the wider Scriptures.
17. OUR CONCLUSION SO FAR — WHAT CAN WE SAFELY SAY?
After examining the Greek construction, one conclusion is especially important.
John 1:1c strongly associates the Word with God, but the grammar alone does not establish whether the Word was another conscious person or God's own self-expression.
The missing article before theos cannot simply be converted into the English word “a.”
The qualitative force of the construction is significant.
But a qualitative description can be interpreted differently depending on what the Word is understood to be.
The Genesis Word interpretation has substantial support from the Old Testament background of God's speech and Wisdom.
The Gospel-beginning interpretation draws attention to God's saving message and the new creation.
The personal-preexistence interpretations emphasise the relationship between the Word and God and the personal language that follows.
At this stage, the Greek evidence does not justify declaring the entire controversy settled.
Instead, it directs us to the next verse.
Because John does not stop after describing the Word.
He immediately tells us what happened through the Word.
And that statement may provide one of the most important clues in the entire investigation.
18. THE NEXT QUESTION — WHAT CAME INTO BEING THROUGH THE WORD?
John 1:3 declares:
“All things were made through him. Without him, nothing was made that has been made.” — WEB
The Greek reads:
πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο
Panta di’ autou egeneto.
Literally:
“All things came into being through him/it.”
This brings us back to the Greek verb we have already been investigating:
ἐγένετο — egeneto.
What does John mean by “all things”?
Does he mean the heavens, the earth and everything in the original creation?
Or does he mean the new order brought about through God's Gospel revelation?
And what about the pronoun autou?
Does the masculine grammatical form prove that the Word was a conscious male person?
Or does it agree grammatically with the masculine noun logos, without independently establishing personhood?
These questions are central to the debate between the two Biblical Unitarian interpretations.
They also directly affect the Trinitarian and Jehovah's Witness claims concerning Jesus' role in creation.
END OF PART 4
Coming in Part 5: “ALL THINGS CAME INTO BEING THROUGH THE WORD” — ORIGINAL CREATION OR NEW CREATION?
We will examine John 1:3 in its original Greek, compare Genesis 1 and Psalm 33, investigate egeneto and dia, and evaluate the arguments of Anthony Buzzard, Dr Dustin R. Smith, Brother Kel and Don Smith.
We will also examine whether the Greek pronouns translated “him” can refer to God's personified Word without proving personal preexistence.
And we will test whether the expression “all things” must refer to the original universe or can be understood in a more limited context.
Our guiding principle remains unchanged:
We must follow the evidence wherever it leads, even when it challenges our preferred interpretation.
The goal is not to prove what we already believe.
The goal is to discover what John actually meant, in harmony with the complete Word of God from Genesis to Revelation.
JOHN 1:1 — GOD'S WORD, OR THE BEGINNING OF JESUS' MINISTRY?
PART 5 — “ALL THINGS CAME INTO BEING THROUGH THE WORD”: ORIGINAL CREATION OR NEW CREATION?
By Simon Brown — Real Discoveries
1. INTRODUCTION — WHAT EXACTLY CAME INTO BEING?
In Part 4, we examined the controversial statement:
“And the Word was God.” — John 1:1
We discovered that the Greek grammar does not, by itself, establish whether the Word was a second conscious divine person or God's own Word, wisdom and purpose.
Now we reach John 1:3:
“All things were made through him. Without him, nothing was made that has been made.” — John 1:3, WEB
This verse is frequently used to support the belief that Jesus personally existed before the creation of the universe.
But there are important questions we must investigate.
Was John describing the original creation in Genesis?
Was he describing the new creation brought about through Jesus Christ?
Or was he deliberately connecting both?
And perhaps most importantly:
Does the statement that everything came into being through the Word establish that Jesus personally existed before his human birth?
We must not confuse two different questions:
What creation is John describing?
What was the Word through which that creation occurred?
A passage could refer to Genesis creation without necessarily identifying the Word as a personally preexistent Jesus.
Likewise, a passage could describe new creation without denying that the original universe was created through God's Word.
These distinctions will guide our investigation.
2. THE ORIGINAL GREEK OF JOHN 1:3
John writes:
πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν ὃ γέγονεν.
Transliteration:
Panta di' autou egeneto, kai chōris autou egeneto oude hen ho gegonen.
A close English rendering is:
“All things came into being through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into being that has come into being.”
Let us examine the important words.
| Greek | Transliteration | Basic meaning |
|---|---|---|
| πάντα | panta | All things |
| δι’ | di’ | Through |
| αὐτοῦ | autou | Him/it, depending on the referent and English rendering |
| ἐγένετο | egeneto | Came into being, happened, became |
| χωρὶς | chōris | Apart from, without |
| οὐδὲ ἕν | oude hen | Not even one thing |
| γέγονεν | gegonen | Has come into being |
Three expressions are especially important:
PANTA — ALL THINGS
DI' AUTOU — THROUGH HIM/IT
EGENETO — CAME INTO BEING
Our interpretation depends on understanding these words within John's argument.
3. DOES “ALL THINGS” NECESSARILY MEAN THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE?
The Greek word panta means “all things.”
But like the English expression, its scope depends on context.
For example, someone might say:
“Everything was prepared for the wedding.”
We would not understand that statement to mean that the entire universe had been prepared.
We would understand “everything” in relation to the wedding.
Likewise, Scripture sometimes uses comprehensive language within a particular subject.
Consider 2 Corinthians 5:17:
“Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old things have passed away. Behold, all things have become new.” — WEB
Here, “all things” concerns the transformation associated with being in Christ.
It does not mean that every mountain, ocean and star has physically been recreated.
This demonstrates an important linguistic principle:
The expression “all things” does not automatically identify which things are included.
However, John 1:3 adds something particularly emphatic:
“Apart from him not even one thing came into being.”
This reinforces the comprehensiveness of the statement.
It makes the Genesis creation interpretation particularly natural.
The new-creation interpretation must therefore identify a contextual boundary for “all things,” rather than simply assuming one.
If John meant all things belonging to the new creation, where does the passage establish that limitation?
That is a question we must keep in mind.
4. THE GENESIS INTERPRETATION — GOD CREATED THROUGH HIS WORD
Return to Genesis 1.
The account repeatedly declares:
“GOD SAID.”
Genesis 1:3:
“God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light.” — WEB
Genesis 1:6:
“God said, ‘Let there be an expanse in the middle of the waters...’” — WEB
Genesis 1:9:
“God said, ‘Let the waters under the sky be gathered together to one place...’” — WEB
Creation takes place through God's commands.
Psalm 33:6 explains:
“By Yahweh's word, the heavens were made; all their army by the breath of his mouth.” — WEB
And Psalm 33:9:
“For he spoke, and it was done. He commanded, and it stood firm.” — WEB
These passages establish an unmistakable Old Testament pattern.
God is the Creator.
His Word is the means by which His creative purpose is accomplished.
When John says that all things came into being through the Word, this language naturally recalls Genesis and Psalm 33.
It also follows immediately after John's opening words:
“In the beginning.”
The cumulative evidence is substantial.
The Genesis interpretation does not depend on one isolated similarity.
It draws on several connected features:
The opening expression of Genesis 1:1
God's creative Word
All things coming into being
Life
Light
Darkness
Together, these features strongly support a deliberate connection with the original creation.
But does that mean John identifies the Word as a second person who assisted God?
Not necessarily.
That is a separate question.
5. DR DUSTIN R. SMITH — ORIGINAL CREATION THROUGH THE PERSONIFIED WORD
Dr Dustin R. Smith offers a particularly clear distinction.
He interprets John 1:3 as referring to the original creation, while understanding the Logos as God's personified creative speech.
In his published notes on John 1:3, Smith describes the Logos as the creative speech of Yahweh presented through personification.
He argues that the masculine pronouns can preserve that literary personification without requiring the Word to be an independently existing person.
This is important because it challenges an assumption often made in debates about John 1:3.
Some readers believe that if John refers to the original creation, he must therefore be describing Jesus as a conscious person who existed before Genesis.
But those are not the same conclusion.
Under Smith's interpretation:
God created the original universe through His Word.
That Word was God's own creative expression.
John later describes the Word becoming flesh in Jesus Christ.
Thus, the Word existed before Jesus' birth, but the human person Jesus did not necessarily exist before his conception.
This approach gives full weight to the Genesis connection without requiring personal preexistence.
It must still explain how John's personification develops into the statement that the Word became flesh.
But it provides an important alternative to the claim that John 1:3 automatically proves Jesus personally participated in Genesis creation.
6. SIR ANTHONY BUZZARD — GOD'S CREATIVE WORD AND HIS MESSIANIC PURPOSE
Sir Anthony Buzzard similarly distinguishes God's preexistent Word from a personally preexistent Son.
His approach emphasises that God's Word expresses His wisdom, intention and promise.
The Old Testament describes God creating through His speech without explicitly introducing a second conscious creator.
Consider Isaiah 44:24:
“I am Yahweh, who makes all things; who alone stretches out the heavens; who spreads out the earth by myself.” — WEB
God declares that He alone made the heavens and the earth.
Buzzard's approach understands creation through the Word as fully consistent with this statement.
God created by His own command.
His Word was not another independent creator standing beside Him.
But we must make an important distinction.
Isaiah 44:24 establishes that Yahweh is the Creator who acts alone.
It does not, by itself, decide whether God's Word is personal or personified.
Trinitarian interpreters understand the Son as sharing the identity of the one Creator rather than being a second independent deity.
Therefore, Isaiah 44:24 is significant evidence, but it cannot settle the whole debate without examining the wider biblical account of creation and divine agency.
Our task is to discover which explanation fits all the passages most consistently.
7. WHAT DOES THE GREEK PREPOSITION “DIA” MEAN?
John writes:
δι’ αὐτοῦ — di' autou
Usually translated:
“Through him.”
The preposition dia, when followed by the genitive case as here, commonly expresses means, mediation or agency.
It can describe something being accomplished through someone or something.
This distinction matters.
John does not write that the Word was the ultimate source of creation.
He writes that all things came into being through the Word.
But what does “through” establish?
Consider these possibilities.
God can accomplish something through His spoken command.
God can accomplish something through a human messenger.
God can accomplish something through a personal agent.
The preposition dia is compatible with different kinds of mediation.
It does not independently identify the mediator as a conscious person.
Therefore, the statement:
“All things came into being through the Word”
does not, by grammar alone, establish that the Word was another person alongside God.
But neither does the preposition exclude a personal agent.
Once again, the identity of the Word must be determined by the context.
8. DOES THE MASCULINE PRONOUN “AUTOU” PROVE THAT THE WORD WAS A PERSON?
This is one of the most frequently overlooked questions in the discussion.
The Greek word logos is grammatically masculine.
The pronoun autou in John 1:3 is also masculine.
English translations commonly render it:
“Through him.”
Some interpreters argue that the masculine pronoun proves John was speaking about a male person.
But Greek grammatical gender does not work that way.
A noun can be grammatically masculine without referring to a conscious male individual.
For example, Greek has masculine nouns referring to inanimate things and abstract concepts.
A pronoun referring back to a masculine noun will ordinarily agree with that noun's grammatical gender.
Therefore:
The masculine form of autou does not, by itself, prove that the Word was a person.
However, there is another important consideration.
John's Prologue uses increasingly personal language, particularly in verses 10–14.
A translator may reasonably choose “him” because the Word is being personified or understood personally.
Dr Dustin R. Smith makes this point in his notes on John 1:3.
He retains masculine personal language while explaining it as literary personification.
This is a useful distinction.
Personification can use personal pronouns without requiring the subject to be a separate conscious being.
But the fact that personification is possible does not establish that John intended it.
We must continue examining the passage.
9. WHAT DOES “EGENETO” ACTUALLY MEAN?
The Greek verb is:
ἐγένετο — egeneto
It comes from:
γίνομαι — ginomai (Strong's G1096).
Depending on context, it can mean:
To become
To come into being
To happen
To occur
To come about
To come to pass
The verb does not always refer to the physical creation of material objects.
This is important because some interpretations assume that whenever John uses egeneto, he must be describing the creation of the universe.
That is incorrect.
The verb has a broader range of meanings.
But we must also avoid the opposite mistake.
The fact that egeneto can mean “happened” does not mean that it always refers to events, prophecies or spiritual developments.
The subject and context determine what came into being.
Let us examine several examples.
10. “EGENETO” — COMPARING DIFFERENT NEW TESTAMENT USES
John 1:3
“All things were made through him.” — WEB
Here egeneto describes all things coming into being.
The scope is disputed.
John 1:6
“There came a man, sent from God, whose name was John.” — WEB
Here a form of ginomai introduces the appearance of John the Baptist in the narrative.
It does not mean that John the Baptist was created from nothing at that moment.
John 1:14
“The Word became flesh and lived among us.” — WEB
Here egeneto describes the Word becoming flesh.
The interpretation depends on what the Word was before this event.
John 1:17
“For the law was given through Moses. Grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ.” — WEB
The Greek uses egeneto for grace and truth coming through Jesus Christ.
Grace and truth were not physical objects created out of nothing.
They were realised or came about through Jesus' ministry.
This provides a particularly important comparison because it occurs within the same Prologue.
John uses the same verb in different contexts.
But the subjects differ.
In verse 3, the subject is all things.
In verse 14, the subject is the Word.
In verse 17, the subjects are grace and truth.
Therefore, we cannot automatically assign the same specific meaning to every occurrence.
The verb tells us that something came into being or came about. The context tells us what that something was.
11. DOES “EGENETO” MEAN THAT PROPHECIES WERE FULFILLED?
Another interpretation deserves investigation.
Could John be describing God's prophetic promises coming to pass through Jesus?
This is an interesting possibility because the New Testament repeatedly presents Jesus as the fulfilment of God's promises.
Matthew 1:22, for example, says that events occurred so that what the Lord had spoken through the prophet might be fulfilled.
But the Greek distinguishes between an event happening and a prophecy being fulfilled.
The verb ginomai can describe an event taking place.
The verb plēroō commonly expresses fulfilment.
Therefore, egeneto does not itself mean “prophecy fulfilled.”
If John intended to say that God's promises came to fulfilment through Jesus, that meaning must be established from the context.
John 1:3 does not explicitly mention prophecies.
It says:
“All things came into being through the Word.”
A prophetic-fulfilment interpretation would therefore need to explain why “all things” refers to fulfilled promises rather than created things or the new creation.
The verb alone cannot establish that explanation.
12. THE GOSPEL-BEGINNING INTERPRETATION — WHAT IF JOHN MEANT NEW CREATION?
Now we must give the competing Biblical Unitarian interpretation its proper consideration.
The New Testament frequently describes salvation through Jesus as a new creation.
Consider 2 Corinthians 5:17:
“Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation.” — WEB
Ephesians 2:10 says:
“For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works...” — WEB
And Ephesians 2:15 speaks of Christ creating one new humanity.
These passages clearly use creation-language for God's saving work.
They establish that the New Testament can describe the Gospel as bringing something new into existence.
Brother Kel's Gospel-centred interpretation and Don Smith's new-creation approach invite us to consider this background when reading John 1.
Under such readings, the things coming into being through the Word may be understood in relation to God's saving revelation, the new covenant and the new humanity formed through Christ.
This would connect John 1:3 with the later statements about becoming children of God.
John 1:12–13 describes those who receive the light being born of God.
That is unmistakably new-creation language.
But an important question remains.
Does the presence of new-creation language later in the Prologue mean that “all things” in verse 3 refers exclusively to the new creation?
Not necessarily.
John could begin with original creation and then develop the theme of new creation.
The new-creation interpretation must show why verse 3 should be limited to the Gospel order.
This is a significant interpretive challenge.
13. THE STRONGEST ARGUMENT FOR ORIGINAL CREATION
Let us consider the cumulative evidence.
John begins:
“In the beginning.”
This echoes Genesis 1:1.
He introduces the Word.
Genesis describes God creating through His speech.
He says that all things came into being through the Word.
Psalm 33:6 describes the heavens being made through Yahweh's Word.
He then introduces life, light and darkness.
Genesis begins with the creation of light and the distinction between light and darkness.
These connections form a coherent literary pattern.
They are not merely isolated words that happen to resemble Genesis.
They appear together at the beginning of John's Gospel.
This is the strongest argument for understanding John 1:3 as referring to the original creation.
And it deserves considerable weight.
However, this conclusion would not automatically establish that Jesus personally existed before his birth.
The Genesis Word interpretation distinguishes God's preexistent creative Word from the human Jesus in whom that Word later became flesh.
That remains a possible reading requiring further examination.
14. THE STRONGEST ARGUMENT FOR NEW CREATION
The new-creation interpretation draws its greatest strength from the developing narrative of John's Prologue.
John does not remain in Genesis.
He moves toward the revelation of Jesus Christ.
The Word is associated with life.
The light shines in darkness.
John the Baptist bears witness.
People are invited to believe.
Those who receive the light become children of God.
The Word becomes flesh.
Grace and truth come through Jesus Christ.
These themes are deeply connected with the Gospel and God's saving purpose.
The new-creation interpretation therefore asks whether the entire Prologue is describing the new world inaugurated through Jesus.
This is a serious question.
But there is an important distinction between two claims.
Claim one: John's Prologue contains new-creation themes.
This is strongly supported.
Claim two: John 1:3 refers exclusively to new creation rather than original creation.
This is more difficult to establish.
The first claim does not automatically prove the second.
John may intentionally connect the two creations.
And that possibility deserves careful attention.
15. JOHN 1:3 AND THE QUESTION OF PUNCTUATION
There is another issue that many English readers never encounter.
The earliest Greek manuscripts did not contain the modern punctuation used in our printed Bibles.
The words at the end of John 1:3 are:
ὃ γέγονεν — ho gegonen
Meaning:
“What has come into being.”
These words can be connected with the preceding sentence, as in many English translations:
“Without him nothing came into being that has come into being.”
But they can also be connected with the following sentence:
“What has come into being in him was life.”
The second punctuation places a different emphasis on the relationship between coming into being and life.
This is a genuine textual interpretation issue involving punctuation rather than a different set of Greek words.
It does not remove the creation-language from the passage.
Nor does it independently prove the new-creation interpretation.
But it reminds us that punctuation choices can influence how readers understand John's argument.
We should not treat every feature of modern English punctuation as though it came directly from John's original manuscript.
16. WHAT ABOUT THE TRINITARIAN INTERPRETATION?
Trinitarians generally understand John 1:3 as referring to the original creation.
They identify the Word as the eternally existing Son.
Under this interpretation, all created things came into existence through the Son.
The verse is then connected with passages such as Colossians 1:16 and Hebrews 1:2.
This reading has an important contextual strength.
It takes the Genesis allusion and comprehensive creation-language seriously.
But the question of the Word's identity remains.
Does John 1:3 itself identify the Word as the eternal Son?
Or does that identification depend on interpreting John 1:14 as the incarnation of a personally preexistent Son?
The distinction matters.
A verse can refer to original creation without independently proving the personal preexistence of Jesus.
We must establish both conclusions separately.
The Trinitarian interpretation also has to be considered alongside Isaiah 44:24, which declares that Yahweh created alone.
Trinitarians reconcile these statements through their understanding of the one divine being shared by Father and Son.
Whether that explanation is supported by the whole Bible remains part of our larger investigation.
17. THE JEHOVAH'S WITNESS INTERPRETATION
Jehovah's Witnesses also understand John 1:3 as referring to the original creation.
However, they identify the Word as a created heavenly Son.
They believe Jehovah brought the Son into existence first and subsequently created everything else through him.
Their interpretation therefore differs from both Trinitarianism and the Biblical Unitarian Genesis Word reading.
But John 1:3 raises an important difficulty for this view.
John says:
“Apart from him not even one thing came into being.”
If the Word himself was created, how does that fit the statement?
Jehovah's Witnesses distinguish the Son's own creation from the subsequent things made through him.
But John 1:3 does not explicitly state that exception.
Nor does it explicitly say that the Word was the first created being.
This does not, by itself, settle every argument concerning the Son's origin.
But it means the doctrine cannot simply be read directly from John 1:3.
Additional evidence would be required.
18. THE MODALIST OR ONENESS INTERPRETATION
Oneness interpreters commonly understand the Word as God's own self-expression.
They therefore interpret creation through the Word as God creating through His own divine speech and power.
This aspect resembles the Biblical Unitarian Genesis Word interpretation.
But the interpretations diverge when identifying Jesus Christ.
Oneness theology understands Jesus as the manifestation of the one God Himself.
Biblical Unitarians distinguish Jesus, the human Messiah and Son of God, from the one God, the Father.
Therefore, even if both interpretations agree that God's Word was active in Genesis creation, they do not necessarily agree about what John means when the Word becomes flesh.
That question remains central to the later parts of our investigation.
19. JOHN 1:10 — A PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT TEST
John 1:10 declares:
“He was in the world, and the world was made through him, and the world didn't recognize him.” — WEB
This verse contains a striking repetition.
THE WORLD
THE WORLD
THE WORLD
But does kosmos mean exactly the same thing in every occurrence?
The Greek reads:
ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἦν, καὶ ὁ κόσμος δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ ὁ κόσμος αὐτὸν οὐκ ἔγνω.
En tō kosmō ēn, kai ho kosmos di' autou egeneto, kai ho kosmos auton ouk egnō.
John says that the world came into being through him.
He then says that the world did not recognise him.
The final reference clearly involves humanity, because recognition is a human response.
But the middle reference could point to the created world, or, according to some interpretations, the human order associated with God's revelation.
This is an important question.
The same noun can carry related but distinguishable senses within a passage.
However, we should not assume that the second occurrence refers to a new spiritual world simply because the third concerns unbelieving humanity.
The Genesis interpretation naturally understands the second statement as referring to the original creation.
The new-creation interpretation must explain why kosmos should be understood differently.
John 1:10 therefore provides a major test for both readings.
We will return to it in greater detail.
20. COULD JOHN BE DESCRIBING TWO CREATIONS IN ONE PROLOGUE?
We now reach what may be one of the most promising possibilities.
Consider the following progression:
Genesis 1: God creates the physical world through His Word.
John 1:1–3: John recalls God's creative Word and the coming into being of all things.
John 1:4–5: The Word is associated with life and light.
John 1:6–9: John the Baptist appears as a witness to the light.
John 1:10–11: The world fails to recognise or receive the revelation.
John 1:12–13: Those who receive it become children of God.
John 1:14: The Word becomes flesh.
John 1:17: Grace and truth are realised through Jesus Christ.
This progression could indicate that John deliberately moves from original creation to new creation.
The God who created light in Genesis now brings spiritual light through Jesus Christ.
The God who gave life in the beginning now offers eternal life through His Son.
The God who spoke the world into existence now reveals His Word in human flesh.
This interpretation has an important advantage.
It allows the strong Genesis evidence to retain its full force while also recognising the Gospel's new-creation themes.
But we must still ask whether John intended this double connection.
A plausible literary pattern is not automatically the author's intended meaning.
The complete Prologue must be examined before reaching a final conclusion.
21. OUR PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF JOHN 1:3
We can now evaluate the evidence more carefully.
What the Greek establishes:
John says that all things came into being through the Word and that nothing came into being apart from it/him.
The preposition dia expresses mediation or means.
The verb egeneto describes coming into being or coming about.
The masculine pronoun agrees grammatically with the masculine noun logos, but grammatical gender alone does not prove personhood.
What the context strongly suggests:
The opening of John's Gospel deliberately recalls Genesis creation.
The combination of beginning, Word, all things, life, light and darkness gives the original-creation interpretation substantial contextual support.
What remains possible but requires further evidence:
That John 1:3 refers exclusively to the new creation.
That the Word was a personally existing Son before Genesis.
That the Word was solely an impersonal plan.
That the Word was a created heavenly being.
None of those conclusions follows from the grammar alone.
At this stage, the original-creation interpretation has the stronger immediate literary case.
But that finding does not decide the personal-preexistence question.
Indeed, it makes that question even more important.
If John was describing original creation, was the Word God's own creative speech, or a second conscious person through whom God created?
We must continue investigating.
22. THE NEXT QUESTION — LIFE, LIGHT AND DARKNESS
John 1:4–5 declares:
“In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness hasn't overcome it.” — WEB
These verses introduce three important concepts:
LIFE
LIGHT
DARKNESS
All three appear in the wider biblical account of creation and salvation.
Genesis describes God bringing light into the darkness.
John describes the light shining in darkness and illuminating humanity.
But what exactly is the light?
Is it God's creative wisdom?
Is it the revelation of His Gospel?
Is it Jesus Christ personally?
Or does John develop the imagery from God's original creation into the new spiritual creation brought about through Jesus?
The answer may help us understand how the Word of John 1:1 becomes the flesh of John 1:14.
It may also help us determine whether the Prologue is describing one creation, two creations, or a deliberate connection between them.
END OF PART 5
Coming in Part 6: “IN HIM WAS LIFE, AND THE LIFE WAS THE LIGHT OF MEN” — GENESIS LIGHT OR THE LIGHT OF THE GOSPEL?
We will examine John 1:4–9, compare Genesis 1, Psalm 36, Isaiah's prophecies of light, and Jesus' statements about being the light of the world.
We will also investigate whether John is using the imagery of original creation to explain the spiritual life revealed through Jesus Christ.
Our guiding principle remains unchanged:
We must not choose an interpretation merely because it supports our preferred doctrine.
We must examine the Greek, the Jewish biblical background, the literary context and the testimony of Scripture from Genesis to Revelation.
Only then can we reach a conclusion that deserves our confidence.
JOHN 1:1 — GOD'S WORD, OR THE BEGINNING OF JESUS' MINISTRY?
PART 6 — “IN HIM WAS LIFE, AND THE LIFE WAS THE LIGHT OF MEN”: GENESIS LIGHT OR THE LIGHT OF THE GOSPEL?
By Simon Brown — Real Discoveries
1. INTRODUCTION — WHAT WAS THE LIGHT THAT JOHN DESCRIBED?
In Part 5, we investigated John 1:3:
“All things were made through him. Without him, nothing was made that has been made.” — WEB
Our examination revealed strong connections between John's opening words and the original creation described in Genesis.
But we also discovered something important.
Even if John 1:3 refers to the original creation, that does not automatically establish that Jesus personally existed before his birth.
The Word could be understood as God's own creative speech, wisdom and purpose, later embodied in Jesus Christ.
Alternatively, John could be describing a personally preexistent Son.
And the competing Gospel-beginning interpretation argues that John is concerned primarily with God's new creation through the ministry of Jesus.
Now we reach John 1:4–5:
“In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness hasn't overcome it.” — WEB
These verses introduce three powerful biblical themes:
LIFE — LIGHT — DARKNESS
But what did John mean?
Was he recalling the physical light created in Genesis?
Was he describing God's wisdom and truth illuminating humanity?
Or was he introducing Jesus Christ as the light of the world?
Perhaps the answer involves more than one of these ideas.
We must investigate the evidence carefully.
2. THE ORIGINAL GREEK OF JOHN 1:4–5
John 1:4 reads:
ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων.
En autō zōē ēn, kai hē zōē ēn to phōs tōn anthrōpōn.
A close translation is:
“In him was life, and the life was the light of humanity.”
John 1:5 continues:
καὶ τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει, καὶ ἡ σκοτία αὐτὸ οὐ κατέλαβεν.
Kai to phōs en tē skotia phainei, kai hē skotia auto ou katelaben.
“And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it.”
Let us examine the important words.
| Greek | Transliteration | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| ζωή | zōē | Life |
| φῶς | phōs | Light |
| ἄνθρωποι | anthrōpoi | Human beings, humanity |
| σκοτία | skotia | Darkness |
| φαίνει | phainei | Shines |
| κατέλαβεν | katelaben | Seized, grasped, comprehended or overcame, according to context |
Two details deserve immediate attention.
First, John does not merely say that the Word produced life.
He says:
“IN HIM WAS LIFE.”
Second, John describes that life as:
“THE LIGHT OF HUMANITY.”
The connection is not simply between light and the physical universe.
It is between life, light and human beings.
That observation becomes important when we examine the Gospel's wider message.
3. THE FIRST CONNECTION — GENESIS 1:3
Genesis declares:
“God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light.” — Genesis 1:3, WEB
Before God created the sun, moon and stars as described later in the creation account, Genesis records His command for light to appear.
Light becomes one of the first great features of the ordered creation.
Genesis 1:4 then says that God separated the light from the darkness.
Compare the two passages.
GENESIS 1
God speaks.
Light appears.
Light is distinguished from darkness.
JOHN 1
The Word is introduced.
Life and light are associated with the Word.
The light shines in darkness.
The resemblance is striking.
Dr Dustin R. Smith argues that these connections are deliberate.
In his Genesis-centred interpretation, John recalls God's creative Word, which brought light and life into the original creation.
This provides a natural continuation of John 1:1–3.
The same divine Word through which all things came into being is associated with life and light.
But we must notice an important difference.
Genesis 1:3 describes the appearance of light in the created world.
John 1:4 describes life as the light of humanity.
This suggests that John is doing more than simply repeating the creation account.
He is developing its meaning.
4. WAS JOHN SPEAKING ABOUT PHYSICAL LIGHT?
We should ask a straightforward question.
If John was describing Genesis creation, was the light of John 1:4–5 simply the physical light created on the first day?
There are reasons to doubt that this exhausts his meaning.
John says:
“The life was the light of men.”
Physical sunlight certainly supports life on earth.
But throughout John's Gospel, light frequently represents divine revelation, truth, salvation and the life offered through Jesus Christ.
Consider John 3:19:
“This is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their works were evil.” — WEB
Here, light and darkness clearly involve humanity's moral and spiritual response.
Likewise, John 12:46 records Jesus saying:
“I have come as a light into the world, that whoever believes in me may not remain in the darkness.” — WEB
The darkness in these passages is not merely the absence of sunlight.
It represents the condition of those who reject God's revelation.
Therefore, John 1:4–5 may deliberately use the physical creation of light as the background for a greater spiritual theme.
The God who created physical light is also the source of spiritual illumination and eternal life.
This interpretation connects Genesis creation with the Gospel without requiring us to deny either.
5. PSALM 36:9 — AN IMPORTANT OLD TESTAMENT CONNECTION
There is another Old Testament passage that may be even more directly relevant to John 1:4.
Psalm 36:9 declares:
“For with you is the spring of life. In your light we will see light.” — WEB
Notice the connection:
LIFE — LIGHT — GOD
The psalm identifies God as the source of life.
And it declares that people receive light through His light.
This is remarkably close to the conceptual relationship found in John 1:4.
John writes:
“In him was life, and the life was the light of men.”
Psalm 36 does not introduce another divine person as the ultimate source of life.
It directs the reader to Yahweh.
This supports an important biblical principle:
God Himself is the original source of life and light.
The question then becomes how John understands that divine life and light being communicated through the Word and ultimately through Jesus Christ.
A Biblical Unitarian may understand God's life and wisdom as revealed through His Son.
A Trinitarian may understand the Son as sharing the divine life possessed by the Father.
Both interpretations recognise the importance of Psalm 36, but they explain the relationship differently.
The psalm provides the Old Testament foundation.
It does not independently settle the identity of the Word.
6. THE WORD AS THE SOURCE OF LIFE — ORIGINAL CREATION
In Genesis, God's Word does more than bring physical light into existence.
God also speaks living creatures into being.
Genesis 1:20 records God's command for the waters to abound with living creatures.
Genesis 1:24 records His command for the earth to bring forth living creatures.
Genesis 1:26–27 describes the creation of humanity.
Psalm 33:6 attributes the creation of the heavens to Yahweh's Word.
Therefore, it is reasonable to connect God's Word with the existence of life.
Under the Genesis Word interpretation, John 1:4 continues this biblical pattern.
God's creative Word was the means through which life came into existence.
But the statement that this life was “the light of humanity” introduces a broader dimension.
God's Word not only gives existence.
It also communicates truth, wisdom and knowledge of God.
This connection becomes particularly clear in the wisdom literature.
7. GOD'S WISDOM — LIFE FOR THOSE WHO FIND IT
Consider Proverbs 8.
In this chapter, Wisdom speaks as though she were a person.
She calls to humanity and invites people to receive understanding.
Proverbs 8:35 declares:
“For whoever finds me finds life, and will obtain favor from Yahweh.” — WEB
Notice the expression:
“WHOEVER FINDS ME FINDS LIFE.”
Wisdom is associated with life.
But does that mean Wisdom is a separate conscious divine person?
Not necessarily.
Proverbs uses poetic personification.
Wisdom speaks, calls, teaches and invites.
Yet the literary presentation does not, by itself, establish that Wisdom exists as another divine being alongside God.
Now compare John 1:4:
“In him was life.”
If John's Word draws upon the Jewish Wisdom tradition, then the connection between the Word and life becomes understandable.
God's Wisdom brings life to those who receive it.
God's Word communicates the knowledge that leads to life.
And in John's Gospel, that divine revelation reaches its fullest expression through Jesus Christ.
This is an important element of Dr Dustin R. Smith's interpretation.
It allows John's life-language to be understood against the background of God's personified Wisdom rather than requiring an independently existing second divine person.
However, the interpretation must still explain why John later identifies Jesus so closely with the life and light.
That brings us to the Gospel itself.
8. JESUS CHRIST — “I AM THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD”
John 8:12 records Jesus saying:
“I am the light of the world. He who follows me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the light of life.” — WEB
This statement is particularly important.
Jesus identifies himself as:
“THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD.”
And he connects that light with:
“THE LIGHT OF LIFE.”
Compare John 1:4:
“The life was the light of men.”
The similarity is unmistakable.
John's Gospel repeatedly identifies Jesus as the one through whom God's life and light are revealed to humanity.
But does this mean that Jesus personally existed as the light before his birth?
Not necessarily.
That depends on how the relationship between the Word and Jesus is understood.
Under the Genesis Word interpretation, God's life-giving Word existed from the beginning and later became embodied in Jesus.
Jesus could therefore be called the light of the world because God's truth, wisdom and saving purpose were fully revealed through him.
Under the Trinitarian interpretation, the eternal Son was already the divine light before becoming human.
Under the Gospel-beginning interpretation, the light is particularly associated with God's saving message revealed through Jesus' ministry.
All three approaches can recognise Jesus as the light of the world.
The disagreement concerns how that light existed before Jesus' human life and how it came to be revealed through him.
9. ISAIAH — THE PROMISED LIGHT TO HUMANITY
John's language also recalls important prophetic passages.
Isaiah 9:2 declares:
“The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light. Those who lived in the land of the shadow of death, on them the light has shined.” — WEB
The passage describes people in darkness receiving light.
Matthew 4:14–16 connects this prophecy with the beginning of Jesus' public ministry in Galilee.
This is significant.
The New Testament explicitly understands the promised light of Isaiah as being revealed through Jesus' ministry.
Isaiah 42:6 also describes God's appointed servant as a light to the nations.
Isaiah 49:6 develops this theme, presenting God's servant as the means by which His salvation reaches the ends of the earth.
These passages establish that the Messiah's mission includes bringing divine light to humanity.
The light is associated with God's salvation.
It is not merely a physical phenomenon.
Therefore, John's description of the light shining in darkness fits the prophetic expectation of God's salvation being revealed through His appointed servant.
This provides strong support for understanding the later development of John's light-language in relation to Jesus' ministry.
But we must distinguish that observation from the claim that John 1:4–5 refers exclusively to the Gospel beginning.
The prophetic application does not eliminate the Genesis background.
Both may be present.
10. THE GOSPEL-BEGINNING INTERPRETATION — LIGHT AS THE REVELATION OF GOD'S MESSAGE
We must now examine the second principal Biblical Unitarian interpretation.
Brother Kel and other advocates of a Gospel-centred reading understand the Word primarily as God's message and saving revelation.
Within this framework, the life and light described by John are closely associated with the Gospel.
God's Word brings the knowledge of salvation.
Jesus proclaims that Word.
Those who receive it are brought into a new relationship with God.
Consider John 5:24:
“Most certainly I tell you, he who hears my word, and believes him who sent me, has eternal life...” — WEB
Jesus connects hearing his word with receiving eternal life.
This is highly relevant.
Life is communicated through the message Jesus brings from God.
John 6:63 records Jesus saying:
“The words that I speak to you are spirit, and are life.” — WEB
Again, words are associated with life.
Under the Gospel-beginning interpretation, John 1:4 can be understood in relation to this life-giving message.
The Word contains or communicates the life that God offers through Jesus Christ.
The light is the revelation of God's truth.
The darkness represents humanity's ignorance, sin and unbelief.
This reading fits several major themes in John's Gospel.
But it must still explain why the Prologue begins with language so closely associated with Genesis.
The Gospel-centred interpretation has considerable explanatory value for the later verses.
Its greater challenge is explaining the opening creation-language without reducing it to a secondary allusion.
11. DR DUSTIN R. SMITH — FROM GENESIS LIGHT TO HUMAN ENLIGHTENMENT
Dr Dustin R. Smith's interpretation deserves separate consideration because it is not identical to the Gospel-beginning view.
Smith understands the opening of John's Prologue as deliberately recalling Genesis creation.
He identifies the Word with God's creative speech and connects it with the Jewish Wisdom tradition.
In his approach, the light of Genesis provides the literary background for John's discussion of illumination.
The Word that brought order and light to creation also communicates divine understanding to humanity.
This interpretation allows John to move from the original creation toward the revelation of God's wisdom in Jesus Christ.
It does not require John 1:1 to refer to the beginning of Jesus' ministry.
Instead, it understands the Prologue as tracing the significance of God's Word from creation toward its embodiment in the Messiah.
This is a substantial difference between Smith's interpretation and the Gospel-beginning approach.
We must preserve that distinction.
The fact that both interpretations reject the automatic identification of the Word with a personally preexistent Jesus does not mean that they agree about every verse.
12. SIR ANTHONY BUZZARD — GOD'S WORD AS THE SOURCE OF TRUTH AND LIFE
Sir Anthony Buzzard likewise emphasises the biblical understanding of God's Word as His expression, promise and saving purpose.
Under this approach, the life and light associated with the Word belong ultimately to God.
The Word communicates God's truth and His promise of life.
When Jesus appears, that Word is revealed in a uniquely complete way through the Messiah.
This interpretation connects naturally with John 17:3:
“This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Jesus Christ.” — WEB
Here, Jesus connects eternal life with knowing the Father and the one whom the Father sent.
The Father is identified as the only true God.
Jesus is identified as the one sent by Him.
This is important for the wider Biblical Unitarian argument.
The Gospel's understanding of life must be consistent with Jesus' own statements about the Father.
However, John 17:3 does not by itself decide the meaning of John 1:4.
Trinitarian interpreters understand Jesus' words differently within their wider theology.
We must therefore examine the passages together rather than treating one as an automatic dismissal of the other.
13. DON SMITH — THE LIGHT OF THE NEW CREATION
Don Smith's new-creation approach directs attention to the transforming work of God's revelation through Jesus.
The New Testament repeatedly connects light with the Gospel.
One particularly important passage is 2 Corinthians 4:6:
“Seeing it is God who said, ‘Light will shine out of darkness,’ who has shone in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.” — WEB
This verse is remarkable.
Paul explicitly connects God's original command for light with the spiritual illumination experienced through Jesus Christ.
The God who commanded light to shine in Genesis now shines in human hearts.
The connection is not merely a modern theological suggestion.
It is made directly within the New Testament.
This provides strong evidence that early Christian writers understood the original creation of light as a pattern for God's saving revelation.
Don Smith's emphasis on new creation therefore has a genuine biblical foundation.
But an important distinction remains.
2 Corinthians 4:6 establishes a connection between original creation and spiritual illumination. It does not establish that John 1:1–3 refers exclusively to the new creation.
Indeed, it demonstrates how both themes can be connected without confusing them.
That observation may become increasingly important as our investigation continues.
14. THE TRINITARIAN INTERPRETATION — THE ETERNAL SON AS LIFE AND LIGHT
Trinitarian interpreters commonly understand John 1:4–5 as describing the eternal Word, identified with the Son.
Under this interpretation, life belongs to the Word because the Son shares the divine nature.
The Word is therefore the source of life and light, not merely a messenger communicating something received from another.
John 5:26 is particularly important:
“For as the Father has life in himself, even so he gave to the Son also to have life in himself.” — WEB
Trinitarians understand this statement within their doctrine of the relationship between Father and Son.
Biblical Unitarians emphasise the fact that the Father gave the Son authority and life.
The verse must be examined carefully because it contains both similarity and distinction.
The Father has life in Himself.
The Son is given to have life in himself.
Does this describe an eternal relationship within the Godhead?
Or does it describe authority and life granted by God to His human Messiah?
John 5:26 is an important passage for our wider investigation.
But it cannot be settled by John 1:4 alone.
15. THE JEHOVAH'S WITNESS INTERPRETATION
Jehovah's Witnesses understand the Word as a personally preexistent heavenly Son.
They identify this Son with Michael the archangel.
According to their interpretation, Jehovah created the Son and used him as the agent of subsequent creation.
The life and light described in John 1:4 are therefore associated with the preexistent Son and his later role in revealing God's truth to humanity.
But John 1:4–5 does not mention Michael.
Nor does it say that the Word was created.
The passage associates the Word with life and light.
It does not independently establish the Jehovah's Witness identification of the Word with a created archangel.
That claim must be tested using other biblical passages.
16. THE MODALIST OR ONENESS INTERPRETATION
Oneness interpreters generally understand the Word as God's own self-expression.
They therefore associate the life and light of John 1:4–5 with God's own divine life and revelation.
When the Word becomes flesh, they understand God's self-revelation as being manifested in Jesus Christ.
This interpretation has some similarities with the Biblical Unitarian Genesis Word reading.
Both can understand the Word as God's own expression rather than another eternal divine person.
But the difference becomes clear when identifying Jesus.
Biblical Unitarians distinguish the one God, the Father, from His Son.
Oneness theology understands Jesus as the manifestation of the one God Himself.
The question of Jesus' relationship with the Father therefore remains essential.
The language of life and light alone does not settle that distinction.
17. WHAT DOES “THE DARKNESS DID NOT OVERCOME IT” MEAN?
John 1:5 contains an important Greek verb:
κατέλαβεν — katelaben
It comes from:
καταλαμβάνω — katalambanō.
The verb can express grasping, seizing, overtaking or comprehending.
This has produced different English translations.
Some translations say:
“The darkness did not overcome it.”
Others say:
“The darkness did not comprehend it.”
The difference is significant.
If John means “overcome,” the emphasis is on darkness failing to defeat the light.
If John means “comprehend,” the emphasis is on darkness failing to understand or recognise the light.
Both ideas have connections with John's Gospel.
John 3:19 describes people loving darkness rather than light.
John 1:10 says that the world did not recognise the one through whom it came into being.
John 12:35 warns that darkness can overtake those who do not walk in the light.
The Greek verb permits discussion of both conquest and comprehension, although translators must choose how best to communicate the meaning.
It is possible that John's wording intentionally evokes more than one aspect of the contrast.
But we should not assert a deliberate double meaning as a certainty.
The immediate context suggests that darkness cannot extinguish or master the light, while the following verses develop humanity's failure to recognise and receive God's revelation.
This fits the wider theme of light confronting spiritual darkness.
18. JOHN THE BAPTIST — WHY DOES HE APPEAR HERE?
John 1:6 introduces a historical figure:
“There came a man, sent from God, whose name was John.” — WEB
John 1:7 explains:
“The same came as a witness, that he might testify about the light, that all might believe through him.” — WEB
John 1:8 adds:
“He was not the light, but was sent that he might testify about the light.” — WEB
This is an important turning point.
The Prologue moves from the Word, creation, life and light to the historical ministry of John the Baptist.
Why?
Because John was sent to bear witness to the light.
He was not himself the light.
His mission was to direct people toward the one through whom God's revelation would be made known.
This provides strong support for understanding the light in its Gospel setting as associated with Jesus Christ.
John the Baptist did not come to testify about the physical light created in Genesis.
He came to testify about the Messiah.
But again, this does not necessarily mean that the earlier references to light had no Genesis significance.
John may be showing how the divine light associated with God's Word is now revealed in a new and decisive way through Jesus.
This transition is central to the structure of the Prologue.
19. JOHN 1:9 — THE TRUE LIGHT COMING INTO THE WORLD
John 1:9 declares:
“The true light that enlightens everyone was coming into the world.” — WEB
The Greek expression is:
ἦν τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινόν
Ēn to phōs to alēthinon.
“There was the true light.”
The adjective alēthinon means true, genuine or real.
John is not merely describing ordinary physical light.
He is introducing the genuine light that illuminates humanity.
But the verse contains a grammatical question.
The phrase “coming into the world” can be understood as referring to the true light.
That is the usual interpretation in many modern translations.
Alternatively, it has been understood as referring to every person coming into the world.
The first reading fits the immediate movement toward the revelation of the light in Jesus Christ.
But the grammatical question deserves recognition.
Under the usual reading, the true light was coming into the world.
This prepares the reader for John 1:10–14, where the Word is associated with the world and ultimately becomes flesh.
The passage is moving toward the historical revelation of Jesus.
The question is how that revelation relates to the Word described at the beginning.
20. DOES THE LIGHT EXIST BEFORE JESUS, OR BEGIN WITH HIS MINISTRY?
We can now compare the two principal Biblical Unitarian interpretations more directly.
THE GENESIS WORD INTERPRETATION
God's Word existed from the beginning.
That Word was associated with creation, life and light.
God's Word and Wisdom illuminated humanity throughout biblical history.
In Jesus Christ, the Word became flesh and God's light was revealed in a uniquely complete way.
Under this reading, the light has a history before Jesus' birth, but this does not necessarily require Jesus himself to have existed personally before his conception.
THE GOSPEL-BEGINNING INTERPRETATION
The Word is understood primarily in relation to God's Gospel message and saving revelation.
The life and light are associated with the message brought through Jesus Christ.
John the Baptist appears as a witness to the light.
Those who receive the revelation become children of God.
Under this reading, the Prologue focuses on the beginning of the Gospel and the new creation.
Both interpretations can explain why Jesus is called the light of the world.
But they differ in how they explain the opening verses.
The Genesis interpretation has stronger direct connections with the creation account.
The Gospel-beginning interpretation has a particularly natural connection with the historical ministry and salvation themes developed in verses 6–13.
A third possibility is that John intentionally connects the original creation with the new creation.
We must continue testing these explanations.
21. A CRUCIAL COMPARISON — 2 CORINTHIANS 4:6
We should return to Paul's remarkable statement:
“Seeing it is God who said, ‘Light will shine out of darkness,’ who has shone in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.” — 2 Corinthians 4:6, WEB
This passage brings together the major themes of our investigation.
God is the one who originally commanded light to shine.
God is also the one who shines in human hearts.
Jesus Christ is the one in whose face the knowledge of God's glory is revealed.
Paul does not confuse the original creation of light with the spiritual illumination of believers.
He deliberately connects them.
The original creation provides the pattern.
The Gospel brings the new revelation.
This is especially relevant to John's Prologue.
Could John be doing something similar?
Could he begin with God's creative Word in Genesis and then explain how God's life-giving light is revealed through Jesus Christ?
This interpretation preserves the strength of the Genesis parallels while explaining the movement toward the Gospel.
It is not yet a final conclusion.
But it deserves serious consideration.
22. WHAT DOES JOHN'S GOSPEL SAY ABOUT THE SOURCE OF LIFE?
We should now compare several statements from Jesus himself.
John 5:26
The Father has life in Himself and gives the Son to have life in himself.
John 6:57
Jesus declares that he lives because of the living Father.
John 6:63
Jesus says that his words are spirit and life.
John 17:3
Jesus identifies eternal life with knowing the Father, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom He sent.
John 20:31
John explains that his Gospel was written so that readers might believe Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and have life through his name.
These statements establish a consistent emphasis.
The Father is the ultimate source of the saving mission.
Jesus is the Messiah through whom God's life is made available to humanity.
But the passages also raise questions about the precise nature of Jesus' relationship with the Father.
A Biblical Unitarian understands the Son's life and authority as given by the Father.
A Trinitarian understands the same statements within the eternal relationship of Father and Son.
We must examine the wider evidence before deciding between these interpretations.
For now, it is significant that John's Gospel repeatedly connects life with faith in Jesus as God's appointed Messiah.
That connection is essential to understanding John 1:4.
23. OUR PRELIMINARY FINDINGS
We can now draw several conclusions from John 1:4–9.
First: The themes of life, light and darkness strongly recall Genesis 1.
Second: Psalm 36:9 provides an important Old Testament connection between God, life and light.
Third: Proverbs 8 associates divine Wisdom with life, supporting the relevance of Jewish Wisdom literature.
Fourth: Isaiah's prophecies connect the coming Messiah with light and salvation.
Fifth: John's Gospel explicitly identifies Jesus as the light of the world.
Sixth: John the Baptist's appearance in verses 6–8 moves the Prologue into the historical setting of the Gospel.
Seventh: The language of light and darkness is not limited to physical creation. It also concerns divine revelation, faith, sin and salvation.
Eighth: The Greek verb katelaben in John 1:5 can convey overcoming or comprehending, and both ideas are relevant to the wider context.
Ninth: The Genesis Word interpretation can explain the movement from God's creative Word to the revelation of His light through Jesus.
Tenth: The Gospel-beginning interpretation can explain the life and light as central features of the new creation, but must still account for the strong Genesis background.
The evidence therefore suggests that John is using creation imagery to communicate something profound about God's revelation through Jesus Christ.
But whether the opening verses refer primarily to original creation, new creation or a deliberate combination remains the central question.
24. OUR CURRENT ASSESSMENT — IS THE EVIDENCE BEGINNING TO POINT IN ONE DIRECTION?
After six parts of our investigation, a pattern is beginning to emerge.
The opening of John's Gospel contains strong literary connections with Genesis.
The Word is associated with God's creative activity.
Life and light continue the Genesis imagery.
But the Prologue progressively introduces the Gospel, John the Baptist, faith, new birth and the revelation of Jesus Christ.
This progression makes it increasingly plausible that John is connecting God's original creation with His new creation through Jesus.
However, we must distinguish two questions.
Which beginning does John initially evoke?
The direct literary evidence continues to favour Genesis.
What is John's ultimate purpose in using that beginning?
The developing context points toward the revelation of God's life and light through Jesus Christ.
These observations are compatible.
John can begin with Genesis while ultimately presenting the Messiah and the new creation.
But this still does not establish whether the Word was a personally preexistent Son or God's own Word later embodied in Jesus.
That remains unresolved.
We must now investigate the verses where the Word's relationship to the world becomes increasingly personal.
25. THE NEXT QUESTION — “THE WORLD WAS MADE THROUGH HIM, YET THE WORLD DID NOT KNOW HIM”
John 1:10 declares:
“He was in the world, and the world was made through him, and the world didn't recognize him.” — WEB
This verse is particularly important because John uses the word:
κόσμος — kosmos.
Three times.
But does the word mean exactly the same thing in each occurrence?
Does “the world was made through him” refer to the original physical creation?
Could it refer to the new order brought about through God's Gospel revelation?
And when John says that the world did not recognise him, is he describing God's personified Word or the historical Jesus Christ?
We must also examine the transition between the Word, the light and the person of Jesus.
This may be one of the decisive stages of our investigation.
END OF PART 6
Coming in Part 7: “THE WORLD WAS MADE THROUGH HIM” — WHAT DOES JOHN 1:10 REALLY MEAN?
We will investigate all three occurrences of kosmos, examine the Greek expression di' autou egeneto, and compare the Genesis creation, Gospel-beginning and new-creation interpretations.
We will also consider whether the world that failed to recognise Jesus is necessarily the same “world” that came into being through the Word.
Our guiding principle remains unchanged:
We must allow Scripture to explain Scripture.
We must distinguish what the Greek establishes from what each theological interpretation proposes.
And we must be willing to reconsider our conclusions whenever the evidence requires it.
The goal is not to defend a predetermined doctrine.
The goal is to discover what John actually meant, in harmony with the complete biblical testimony from Genesis to Revelation.
JOHN 1:1 — GOD'S WORD, OR THE BEGINNING OF JESUS' MINISTRY?
PART 7 — “THE WORLD WAS MADE THROUGH HIM”: WHAT DOES JOHN 1:10 REALLY MEAN?
By Simon Brown — Real Discoveries
1. INTRODUCTION — THREE REFERENCES TO THE WORLD IN ONE VERSE
Our investigation has reached one of the most important verses in John's Prologue.
John 1:10 declares:
“He was in the world, and the world was made through him, and the world didn't recognize him.” — WEB
This verse presents a fascinating problem.
John uses the word WORLD three times in a single sentence.
Yet the final statement clearly concerns people who failed to recognise God's revelation.
The question is whether the other two references have exactly the same meaning.
Does John mean that the physical universe was created through the Word?
Does he mean that a new spiritual world came into existence through Jesus Christ?
Or is he deliberately moving between the original creation and humanity's response to God's saving revelation?
We must also investigate a question that is sometimes overlooked:
Who exactly is the “him” in John 1:10?
Is John referring directly to Jesus Christ?
Is he continuing his description of God's personified Word?
Or could the verse be referring to God the Father, whose Word and light were revealed through Jesus?
These are different interpretations, and we must examine them separately.
2. THE ORIGINAL GREEK OF JOHN 1:10
The Greek reads:
ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἦν, καὶ ὁ κόσμος δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ ὁ κόσμος αὐτὸν οὐκ ἔγνω.
Transliteration:
En tō kosmō ēn, kai ho kosmos di' autou egeneto, kai ho kosmos auton ouk egnō.
A close English rendering is:
“He was in the world, and the world came into being through him, and the world did not recognise him.”
The important expressions are:
| Greek | Transliteration | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| κόσμος | kosmos | World, ordered universe, humanity or human society, depending on context |
| δι’ αὐτοῦ | di' autou | Through him |
| ἐγένετο | egeneto | Came into being, came about |
| αὐτὸν | auton | Him |
| οὐκ ἔγνω | ouk egnō | Did not know or recognise |
The Greek wording is well established. <Cite ref="turn823133search0"/>
The issue is not primarily a dispute about the text.
It is a dispute about its meaning.
John has placed three references to the world together, creating a contrast between the world's existence and its failure to recognise the one through whom it came into being.
The effect is striking.
The world owed its existence to him, yet failed to recognise him.
That is the natural reading of the conventional translation.
But we must investigate whether John's language allows a different understanding.
3. WHAT DOES THE GREEK WORD “KOSMOS” MEAN?
The Greek noun is:
κόσμος — kosmos (Strong's G2889).
Its meanings include an ordered arrangement, the world, the created universe, and humanity considered collectively.
In John's Gospel, the word frequently refers to human society, especially humanity in its relationship to God.
Consider John 3:16:
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his one and only Son...” — WEB
Here, God loves the world.
The emphasis is on humanity, not on mountains, oceans or stars.
John 7:7 records Jesus saying:
“The world can't hate you, but it hates me, because I testify about it, that its works are evil.” — WEB
Again, the world means human society.
The physical universe cannot morally hate Jesus.
John 15:19 also describes the world as a community from which Jesus' disciples have been chosen.
These examples establish that kosmos does not always mean the physical universe.
But the word can also refer to the created world.
John 17:5 speaks of the world existing before Jesus' earthly ministry.
John 17:24 similarly refers to the foundation of the world.
Therefore, we cannot assign one fixed meaning to kosmos throughout John's Gospel.
Context determines whether John is referring to the created universe, humanity or the human order opposed to God.
That principle is essential when examining John 1:10.
4. THE FIRST “WORLD” — “HE WAS IN THE WORLD”
John begins:
ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἦν
En tō kosmō ēn.
“He was in the world.”
What does this mean?
The most immediate interpretation is that the light was present among humanity.
John 1:9 has just introduced the true light coming into the world.
John 1:10 then describes its presence and humanity's failure to recognise it.
This naturally points toward the historical revelation of Jesus Christ.
John the Baptist has already been introduced as a witness to the light.
The narrative is moving toward the Messiah.
But the Genesis Word interpretation raises another possibility.
God's Word and Wisdom had been active in the world long before Jesus' ministry.
God revealed Himself through creation, His commands, His prophets and His dealings with Israel.
Under this reading, God's Word was present in the world before its fullest embodiment in Jesus.
That is a possible broader theological explanation.
However, the immediate literary movement from John the Baptist to the true light coming into the world makes the historical revelation of Jesus particularly prominent.
We should not overlook that context.
5. THE SECOND “WORLD” — “THE WORLD CAME INTO BEING THROUGH HIM”
Now we reach the most controversial statement:
καὶ ὁ κόσμος δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο
Kai ho kosmos di' autou egeneto.
“And the world came into being through him.”
Notice the similarity with John 1:3:
John 1:3
Panta di' autou egeneto.
“All things came into being through him.”
John 1:10
Ho kosmos di' autou egeneto.
“The world came into being through him.”
The same key expression appears:
δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο — di' autou egeneto.
This is a particularly strong connection.
John 1:10 appears to recall the earlier statement in verse 3.
If verse 3 refers to the original creation, the natural interpretation is that verse 10 also recalls the original creation.
That is an important argument in favour of the Genesis interpretation.
But advocates of a new-creation reading ask whether both statements could instead describe the new order brought about through the Gospel.
We must examine that proposal carefully.
6. THE THIRD “WORLD” — “THE WORLD DID NOT RECOGNISE HIM”
John concludes:
καὶ ὁ κόσμος αὐτὸν οὐκ ἔγνω
Kai ho kosmos auton ouk egnō.
“And the world did not recognise him.”
Here, the meaning of kosmos is clearer.
The world is described as failing to know or recognise someone.
That is a human response.
The physical universe does not exercise moral judgment or choose whether to accept God's revelation.
Therefore, the third occurrence refers to humanity or human society.
This creates an important distinction.
The same Greek word can have related but different meanings within one sentence.
John may refer to the created world in the second clause and to its human inhabitants in the third.
There is nothing inherently contradictory about that.
For example, in English we might say:
“The world was created by God, but the world has forgotten its Creator.”
The first reference naturally concerns creation.
The second concerns humanity.
The repetition produces a deliberate contrast.
This is a strong explanation of John 1:10.
But we must still investigate whether the second occurrence could instead refer to the new creation.
7. DOES THE REPETITION OF “WORLD” REQUIRE ONE MEANING?
Some readers may assume that because John repeats kosmos three times, the meaning must remain identical.
That assumption is not justified.
Words can be repeated with different but related senses.
This is especially common in literary writing.
John's Gospel frequently uses words with more than one level of meaning.
For example, Jesus speaks about being born again or from above in John 3.
Nicodemus initially understands the statement in terms of physical birth.
Jesus develops its spiritual significance.
In John 4, Jesus speaks about living water.
The Samaritan woman initially thinks about ordinary water.
Jesus is speaking about something greater.
John regularly uses familiar language to introduce deeper theological meaning.
Therefore, it is entirely possible that kosmos in John 1:10 carries more than one related sense.
But this does not mean we may assign whichever meaning best suits our preferred interpretation.
The context must justify the distinction.
The strongest contextual reading is that the created world is mentioned in the second clause, while the human world is emphasised in the third.
This interpretation also preserves the deliberate contrast between creation and rejection.
8. THE GENESIS WORD INTERPRETATION — THE WORLD CREATED THROUGH GOD'S WORD
Under the Genesis Word interpretation, John 1:10 recalls the original creation.
God created the world through His own Word.
Genesis repeatedly declares:
“GOD SAID.”
Psalm 33:6 explains:
“By Yahweh's word, the heavens were made; all their army by the breath of his mouth.” — WEB
Isaiah 44:24 declares:
“I am Yahweh, who makes all things; who alone stretches out the heavens; who spreads out the earth by myself.” — WEB
These passages identify Yahweh as the Creator.
His Word is the means by which creation occurs.
Therefore, the statement that the world came into being through the Word fits the Old Testament account.
But we must distinguish this from the question of personal preexistence.
God creating through His Word does not automatically mean that Jesus personally existed before his birth.
That conclusion depends on whether John's Word was a conscious person or God's own creative expression.
Dr Dustin R. Smith's Genesis-centred interpretation is especially relevant here.
He understands the original creation through God's personified Word without requiring a personally preexistent Jesus.
The Word later becomes flesh in the Messiah.
This allows the creation-language to retain its natural meaning while preserving the distinction between God's Word and the historical person of Jesus.
However, John 1:10 introduces a new difficulty.
The Word is now described as being unrecognised.
Can an impersonal Word be described in that way?
We must examine the possibility of personification and the transition toward Jesus Christ.
9. CAN GOD'S WORD BE DESCRIBED AS UNRECOGNISED?
The Old Testament frequently describes God's Word and Wisdom in personal language.
Proverbs 8 portrays Wisdom as calling out to humanity.
Proverbs 1:20–33 similarly depicts Wisdom publicly warning people who refuse to listen.
Wisdom is rejected.
Wisdom calls.
Wisdom rebukes.
Wisdom invites.
Yet these descriptions do not necessarily establish that Wisdom is an independently existing conscious person.
They can be understood as poetic personification.
Could John be using similar language?
Under the Genesis Word interpretation, humanity's failure to recognise the Word could describe humanity's failure to recognise God's wisdom, truth and revelation.
This is possible.
But there is an important contextual consideration.
John 1:11 continues:
“He came to his own, and those who were his own didn't receive him.”
And John 1:12 speaks of those who received him and believed in his name.
The language is increasingly personal.
It points naturally toward Jesus Christ.
Therefore, if John begins with God's personified Word, the interpretation must explain how the narrative moves from personification to the historical Messiah.
That transition may be intentional.
But it should not be assumed without examining the text.
10. THE GOSPEL-BEGINNING INTERPRETATION — WAS A NEW WORLD BROUGHT INTO BEING?
Now we must consider the competing Biblical Unitarian view.
Brother Kel and other advocates of a Gospel-centred interpretation emphasise the new creation brought about through God's revelation in Jesus Christ.
The New Testament certainly describes salvation in creation-language.
Consider 2 Corinthians 5:17:
“Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation.” — WEB
And Ephesians 2:15, which describes Christ creating one new humanity.
These passages establish that the Gospel brings something genuinely new into existence.
Could John 1:10 be describing this new world?
The argument would be that God's saving message, revealed through Jesus, brought about a new spiritual order.
However, there is a difficulty.
John 1:10 says that the world came into being through him, yet the world did not recognise him.
If the world means the community of believers created through the Gospel, why would that same community be described as failing to recognise Jesus?
The new-creation interpretation must therefore distinguish between the world brought about and the world that rejected the revelation.
But if it introduces different meanings for kosmos, it must explain why the second occurrence should refer to the new creation rather than the original creation.
This is a substantial challenge.
The presence of new-creation themes elsewhere in the Gospel does not automatically establish that John 1:10 refers to a newly created spiritual world.
The immediate repetition of di' autou egeneto from John 1:3 gives the original-creation interpretation a particularly strong contextual argument.
11. DON SMITH — THE WORLD AND THE NEW GOSPEL ORDER
Don Smith's new-creation approach invites us to examine the possibility that John is describing the new order associated with God's revelation through Jesus.
The broader New Testament provides material for this interpretation.
Through Jesus Christ, God establishes a new covenant.
People become children of God.
A new humanity is formed.
Believers receive eternal life.
These themes are clearly present in John's Prologue.
John 1:12–13 declares that those who receive the light are given authority to become children of God.
This is a spiritual transformation.
It is not the original creation of the physical universe.
But we must distinguish the theological significance of the Gospel from the precise meaning of John 1:10.
The fact that Jesus brings a new spiritual order does not establish that the world described as coming into being in verse 10 is that new order.
That remains an interpretive proposal.
It must be tested against the Greek, the repetition of creation-language and the wider literary structure.
12. A DISTINCT BIBLICAL UNITARIAN VIEW — DOES JOHN 1:10 REFER TO THE FATHER?
There is another interpretation that deserves particular attention.
BiblicalUnitarian.com presents an explanation of John 1:10 in which the primary referent is God the Father, rather than Jesus Christ.
This view argues that God was present in the world through His activity and revelation, particularly through His Son.
God created the world.
Yet humanity failed to recognise Him, even when His light was revealed through Jesus.
This is not identical to the Genesis Word interpretation of Dr Dustin R. Smith.
Nor is it identical to the Gospel-beginning interpretation associated with Brother Kel.
It is a distinct proposal.
The same commentary also suggests that the creation-language may function as a double reference to original creation and new creation.
This deserves consideration because it highlights an important question:
Does John 1:10 necessarily refer to Jesus personally, or could it describe the Father whose Word and light were revealed through Jesus?
The Father-reference interpretation has an obvious strength.
It fits passages identifying Yahweh as the original Creator.
It also fits the idea that God's revelation was rejected by humanity.
But it faces a significant contextual difficulty.
John 1:9–12 develops the identity of the true light, the one who comes into the world, is not received, and grants those who receive him authority to become children of God.
The most natural reading connects this figure with Jesus Christ.
A sudden change of subject to the Father would need to be established from the text.
We must therefore treat the Father-reference interpretation as a serious proposal, but not as an established grammatical conclusion.
The fact that the Father is the ultimate Creator does not, by itself, prove that every pronoun in John 1:10 refers directly to the Father.
13. WHAT DOES “EGENETO” MEAN IN JOHN 1:10?
Return to the Greek:
ὁ κόσμος δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο
Ho kosmos di' autou egeneto.
“The world came into being through him.”
The verb is:
ἐγένετο — egeneto.
As we discovered in Part 5, it comes from ginomai and can mean “came into being,” “became,” “happened” or “came about.”
It does not always describe physical creation.
For example, John 1:17 uses the same verb in connection with grace and truth coming through Jesus Christ.
But we must examine the subject.
In John 1:17, the subjects are grace and truth.
In John 1:10, the subject is the world.
Therefore, we cannot simply transfer the meaning of John 1:17 into John 1:10.
The verb does not tell us by itself whether the world is physical or spiritual.
The noun kosmos and the surrounding context must determine that.
And the connection with John 1:3 strongly favours a creation reference.
If John meant the original created world, egeneto naturally means “came into being.”
If John meant a new spiritual order, egeneto could describe that order coming about.
But the second interpretation requires additional contextual support.
The verb alone cannot establish the new-creation reading.
14. DOES “THROUGH HIM” IDENTIFY JESUS AS THE CREATOR?
The phrase is:
δι’ αὐτοῦ — di' autou.
“Through him.”
The preposition dia with the genitive can express means or agency.
But it does not independently identify the agent.
If the Word is God's own creative speech, creation through the Word means God created through His command.
If the Word is the personally preexistent Son, creation through the Word means God created through the Son.
If the referent is the Father, the phrase requires an explanation of how the Father is described as the means of creation.
The grammar does not choose between these interpretations.
But the wider context places limits on what is plausible.
We must therefore avoid two opposite assumptions.
First: That “through him” automatically proves Jesus personally existed before Genesis.
Second: That “through him” cannot describe a personal agent.
Both claims go beyond what the preposition itself establishes.
The identity of the Word remains the decisive question.
15. THE TRINITARIAN INTERPRETATION — THE CREATOR ENTERED HIS CREATION
Trinitarian interpreters generally understand John 1:10 as a dramatic statement about the incarnation.
The eternal Word created the world.
The Word then entered that world as Jesus Christ.
Yet the people of the world failed to recognise their Creator.
This interpretation gives the verse a powerful irony.
The Creator entered His own creation, but His creation did not recognise Him.
It also fits the personal language of verses 10–12.
The strength of this interpretation is its straightforward reading of the narrative's movement toward Jesus.
But it depends on identifying the Word of John 1:1–3 as the personally preexistent Son.
That identification must be established from the Prologue as a whole.
The Genesis Word interpretation offers an alternative.
God's own creative Word, through which the world was made, became embodied in Jesus Christ.
The world then failed to recognise God's revelation in His Messiah.
This also produces a meaningful contrast between creation and rejection.
Therefore, the irony of John 1:10 does not, by itself, prove personal preexistence.
Both interpretations can explain it, although they do so differently.
16. THE JEHOVAH'S WITNESS INTERPRETATION
Jehovah's Witnesses also understand John 1:10 as referring to the original creation.
They identify the Word as the preexistent Son, whom they associate with Michael the archangel.
According to their interpretation, Jehovah created the Son and subsequently used him as the agent of creation.
The Son later became human as Jesus Christ.
Thus, the world came into being through him, but humanity failed to recognise him.
This interpretation shares with Trinitarianism the belief that the Word was a conscious person before his human birth.
But it differs concerning the Word's nature and origin.
John 1:10 does not say that the Word was created.
Nor does it identify the Word as Michael.
The verse therefore cannot independently establish those Jehovah's Witness teachings.
They require evidence from other passages.
17. THE MODALIST OR ONENESS INTERPRETATION
Oneness interpreters commonly understand the Word as God's own self-expression.
They therefore interpret the creation of the world through the Word as God creating through His own speech and power.
When the Word becomes flesh, they understand God's self-revelation as being manifested in Jesus Christ.
Under this approach, the world failed to recognise God when He was revealed in Jesus.
This has similarities with the Father-reference and Genesis Word interpretations.
But the theological conclusions differ.
Biblical Unitarians generally distinguish Jesus Christ, the human Son and Messiah, from the one God, the Father.
Oneness theology identifies the divine reality revealed in Jesus differently.
Therefore, agreement about God's Word as the means of creation does not establish agreement about Jesus' identity.
The wider Gospel must decide the question.
18. JOHN 1:11 — “HE CAME TO HIS OWN”
John continues:
“He came to his own, and those who were his own didn't receive him.” — John 1:11, WEB
The Greek reads:
εἰς τὰ ἴδια ἦλθεν, καὶ οἱ ἴδιοι αὐτὸν οὐ παρέλαβον.
Eis ta idia ēlthen, kai hoi idioi auton ou parelabon.
There is an important grammatical distinction.
τὰ ἴδια — ta idia is neuter plural.
It can refer to one's own things, possessions, home or domain.
οἱ ἴδιοι — hoi idioi is masculine plural.
It refers to one's own people.
This distinction is significant.
John may be contrasting the sphere that properly belonged to the one who came with the people who failed to receive him.
The verse is commonly understood as referring to Jesus coming to his own people, Israel, who largely rejected him.
But the wording can also contribute to the wider theme of the Creator's relationship with the world.
The important observation is that John now speaks very naturally about a person arriving and being rejected.
This strengthens the connection with Jesus' historical ministry.
The question is whether the earlier references to the Word should be understood as already describing Jesus personally, or whether the narrative is moving toward the Word's embodiment in Jesus.
We must examine the transition carefully.
19. JOHN 1:12 — THOSE WHO RECEIVED HIM BECAME CHILDREN OF GOD
John 1:12 declares:
“But as many as received him, to them he gave the right to become God's children, to those who believe in his name.” — WEB
This verse provides an important contrast.
The world did not recognise him.
His own people did not receive him.
But some did receive him.
And those who received him were given the right to become children of God.
This is clearly connected with salvation.
It concerns faith, acceptance and spiritual birth.
John 1:13 explains that these people were born of God.
The new-creation theme is unmistakable.
But notice something important.
John does not explicitly say that the world in verse 10 was created spiritually.
Instead, he describes people becoming children of God in verses 12–13.
It is therefore possible that John moves from original creation in verse 10 to new creation in verses 12–13.
That would fit the pattern we have been investigating.
The original Creator's Word is revealed in Jesus.
Humanity rejects that revelation.
But those who receive it experience a new birth from God.
This interpretation gives the Prologue a coherent progression from creation to salvation.
20. JOHN 1:13 — THE NEW BIRTH COMES FROM GOD
John 1:13 declares that believers are born:
“Not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” — WEB
This is an important statement.
The new birth is attributed to God.
It is not merely the result of human decision or physical descent.
John later develops this theme in his conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus.
John 3:3 records Jesus saying:
“Unless one is born anew, he can't see God's Kingdom.” — WEB
John 3:5–8 develops the relationship between birth, Spirit and God's Kingdom.
This is clearly new-creation language.
It provides strong support for the claim that John's Prologue develops the theme of spiritual creation.
But it does not establish that John 1:3 or John 1:10 refers exclusively to that new creation.
The text may be deliberately connecting the two.
The God who created the original world now brings about a new birth through the revelation of His Son.
This is a powerful biblical pattern.
21. THE MOST IMPORTANT DISTINCTION — CREATION THROUGH THE WORD AND SALVATION THROUGH JESUS
We should now consider a possibility that may help explain the whole Prologue.
The Old Testament identifies God as the Creator.
He creates through His Word.
John begins by recalling that Word.
Then he introduces the light, the witness of John the Baptist and the response of humanity.
Finally, he declares that the Word became flesh.
Could John be showing that God's creative Word has now been revealed in human life through Jesus Christ?
Under this interpretation, the Word existed with God from the beginning.
The Word was the means of creation.
The Word communicated divine life and light.
And the Word became flesh in Jesus.
The human Messiah is therefore the fullest historical embodiment of God's Word.
This would explain why John can move from Genesis creation to Jesus' ministry without necessarily claiming that the human person Jesus was alive before his conception.
However, this interpretation must still explain what “became flesh” means.
Does it describe God's Word becoming embodied in a human life?
Or does it describe a personally preexistent Son assuming human nature?
That is the central question awaiting us in John 1:14.
22. OUR COMPARISON OF THE DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS
| Interpretation | Meaning of “the world came into being” | Main difficulty |
|---|---|---|
| Biblical Unitarian — Genesis Word | Original creation through God's own Word | Explaining the increasingly personal language |
| Biblical Unitarian — Gospel beginning | New Gospel order or spiritual creation | Explaining the Genesis echoes and the world rejecting its source |
| Biblical Unitarian — Father reference | Original creation by the Father, possibly with new-creation significance | Establishing the Father as the pronoun's referent in context |
| Trinitarian | Original creation through the personally preexistent Son | Establishing the personal identification of the Word |
| Oneness | Original creation through God's own self-expression | Explaining the Father–Son distinction throughout John |
| Jehovah's Witness | Original creation through a preexistent created Son | Establishing the Word's created status and identification with Michael |
Each interpretation offers an explanation.
But not every explanation has equal contextual support.
The strongest immediate connection remains between John 1:3 and John 1:10.
Both use the expression:
δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο — di' autou egeneto.
And both occur within a Prologue that begins with a deliberate echo of Genesis.
That connection deserves substantial weight.
23. OUR PRELIMINARY CONCLUSION — WHICH WORLD DID JOHN MEAN?
After examining the Greek and the surrounding context, we can identify several findings.
First: Kosmos can refer to the created universe, humanity or human society.
Second: The three occurrences in John 1:10 do not necessarily carry precisely the same meaning.
Third: The final occurrence clearly concerns humanity's failure to recognise God's revelation.
Fourth: The second occurrence naturally recalls John 1:3 and its statement that all things came into being through the Word.
Fifth: The Genesis background makes the original-creation interpretation particularly strong.
Sixth: The new-creation interpretation is possible as a broader theological proposal, but it requires additional evidence to establish that the world in verse 10 refers specifically to a new spiritual order.
Seventh: The Father-reference interpretation has an important theological argument from God's identity as Creator, but the immediate context more naturally points toward the light revealed in Jesus Christ.
Eighth: The increasing personal language in verses 10–12 is significant and must be explained by any interpretation that understands the Word as initially impersonal or personified.
Ninth: Verses 12–13 clearly introduce the new birth from God.
These observations lead to a provisional assessment.
The strongest immediate reading is that John recalls the original creation while moving toward the rejection of God's revelation in Jesus and the new birth experienced by believers.
This is not yet a final conclusion about the personal preexistence of Jesus.
It is a conclusion about the literary relationship between creation, revelation and salvation.
We must keep those questions separate.
24. DOES JOHN 1:10 PROVE THAT JESUS CREATED THE UNIVERSE?
We should answer this question carefully.
If John 1:10 refers to the original creation, it establishes that the world came into being through the referent of the pronoun autou.
But identifying that referent is the central issue.
If the Word is the personally preexistent Son, the verse supports creation through that Son.
If the Word is God's own creative speech later embodied in Jesus, the verse describes creation through God's Word without requiring the human Jesus to have existed personally before his birth.
If the verse refers directly to the Father, it describes creation through or by God, although that interpretation must explain the wording and context.
Therefore:
John 1:10 cannot settle the personal-preexistence question until we establish what John meant by the Word and how he connects the Word with Jesus Christ.
The most important verse for that investigation is now immediately ahead of us.
25. THE NEXT QUESTION — “THE WORD BECAME FLESH”
John 1:14 declares:
“The Word became flesh and lived among us.” — WEB
The Greek reads:
καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο
Kai ho logos sarx egeneto.
“And the Word became flesh.”
This may be the decisive statement in our entire investigation.
John does not say in these exact words:
“God the Son became flesh.”
Nor does he say:
“God's plan became flesh.”
He says:
“THE WORD BECAME FLESH.”
What does that mean?
Did God's own Word, wisdom and purpose become embodied in the human Messiah?
Did a personally preexistent Son become human?
Did God's Gospel message become a living reality in Jesus?
Or does John intend a meaning that cannot be reduced to any of those explanations?
We must also examine the Greek word sarx, meaning flesh, and the verb egeneto, meaning became or came into being.
And we must investigate why John says the Word dwelt among us, using language connected with God's presence in the tabernacle.
These questions take us to the heart of John's Gospel.
END OF PART 7
Coming in Part 8: “THE WORD BECAME FLESH” — DID GOD'S WORD BECOME JESUS, OR DID A PREEXISTENT SON BECOME HUMAN?
We will investigate John 1:14 in its original Greek, examine the Old Testament background of God's Word and Wisdom, and compare the competing interpretations of the Word becoming flesh.
We will also investigate the meaning of the Word dwelling among humanity and the significance of God's glory being revealed through Jesus Christ.
Our guiding principle remains unchanged:
We must follow the evidence rather than a predetermined doctrine.
We must distinguish grammatical facts from theological explanations.
And we must compare every interpretation with the complete biblical testimony from Genesis to Revelation.
The goal is not to prove what we already believe. The goal is to discover what John actually meant.
JOHN 1:1 — GOD'S WORD, OR THE BEGINNING OF JESUS' MINISTRY?
PART 8 — “THE WORD BECAME FLESH”: DID GOD'S WORD BECOME EMBODIED IN JESUS, OR DID A PREEXISTENT SON BECOME HUMAN?
By Simon Brown — Real Discoveries
1. INTRODUCTION — THE MOST IMPORTANT VERSE IN THE PROLOGUE?
We have now reached John 1:14, one of the most debated passages in the New Testament.
John declares:
“The Word became flesh, and lived among us. We saw his glory, such glory as of the one and only Son of the Father, full of grace and truth.” — John 1:14, WEB
For Trinitarian Christianity, this verse is a central statement about the incarnation of the eternal Son.
For Jehovah's Witnesses, it describes a preexistent heavenly being becoming human.
For Oneness theology, it describes God's own Word or self-expression being manifested in human flesh.
For Biblical Unitarians, the verse raises a different possibility: God's own Word, wisdom, purpose and promise became embodied in the human Messiah, Jesus Christ.
But another Biblical Unitarian approach emphasises the Gospel message itself becoming a living reality in Jesus' ministry.
Which interpretation best explains John's words?
We must begin with the Greek text rather than assuming that any theological tradition has already settled the question.
2. WHAT DOES THE ORIGINAL GREEK ACTUALLY SAY?
The opening words of John 1:14 are:
Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο
Kai ho logos sarx egeneto.
A literal rendering is:
“And the Word became flesh.”
The important words are:
| Greek | Transliteration | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| ὁ λόγος | ho logos | The Word |
| σὰρξ | sarx | Flesh |
| ἐγένετο | egeneto | Became, came to be |
| ἐσκήνωσεν | eskēnōsen | Dwelt, pitched a tent, tabernacled |
| δόξα | doxa | Glory |
John does not use the exact expressions “God the Son became flesh” or “God's plan became flesh.”
He says:
“THE WORD BECAME FLESH.”
This is important, but we must avoid making an argument merely from what John does not say.
A Trinitarian believes the Word is the eternal Son.
A Biblical Unitarian may believe the Word is God's own self-expression.
The Greek sentence itself does not define the Word's personal status.
That question depends on the identity of the logos throughout the Prologue.
Nevertheless, the verb egeneto makes a substantial claim.
The Word became flesh.
Something about the Word's mode of existence or manifestation changed.
We must determine what kind of change John intended.
3. DOES “BECAME” MEAN THAT A PERSON CHANGED INTO ANOTHER PERSON?
The Greek verb ginomai, from which egeneto comes, has a broad range of meanings.
It can describe coming into existence, becoming something, happening or entering a new condition.
In John 1:3, it describes things coming into being.
In John 1:6, it introduces John the Baptist's appearance.
In John 1:14, it describes the Word becoming flesh.
But the verb alone cannot tell us whether the Word was previously a conscious person.
For example, a promise can become reality.
A divine command can become effective in history.
A purpose can become embodied in a person's actions.
Such expressions are understandable without treating the promise, command or purpose as an independently existing person.
On the other hand, a person can also enter a new condition.
Therefore, egeneto is compatible with a personal-incarnation interpretation.
The grammar does not, by itself, settle the dispute.
The critical question remains:
WHAT WAS THE WORD BEFORE IT BECAME FLESH?
4. WHAT DOES “FLESH” MEAN?
The Greek noun is:
σάρξ — sarx.
It commonly refers to flesh, human physical existence or humanity in its mortal condition.
John 1:14 does not simply say that the Word appeared as a human.
It says the Word became flesh.
This is a strong statement about genuine human existence.
Compare John 3:6:
“That which is born of the flesh is flesh. That which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” — WEB
Here, flesh describes human existence arising through natural birth.
John 17:2 refers to authority over all flesh, meaning humanity.
In John 1:14, the word therefore points toward the Word's manifestation in authentic human life.
The verse cannot easily be reduced to a mere illusion or temporary appearance.
But does it require the Word to have been a person before becoming flesh?
No such requirement follows from the noun sarx alone.
The meaning depends on the subject: the Word.
5. GOD'S WORD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT — WAS IT A SECOND PERSON?
Before interpreting John 1:14, we must return to the Old Testament.
Genesis repeatedly declares:
“GOD SAID.”
God speaks, and His command accomplishes His will.
Psalm 33:6 declares:
“By Yahweh's word, the heavens were made; all their army by the breath of his mouth.” — WEB
Isaiah 55:11 describes God's Word going out from His mouth and accomplishing what He desires.
Notice the language.
God's Word is described as going forth, accomplishing His purpose and returning successfully.
But Isaiah does not explicitly identify the Word as a second divine person.
The imagery can naturally describe the effectiveness of God's own speech.
Psalm 107:20 similarly describes God sending His Word to heal and deliver.
The Old Testament therefore provides a substantial background for understanding the Word as God's own powerful expression.
If John deliberately begins with Genesis, this background is highly relevant.
Under the Genesis Word interpretation, the Word that became flesh is the same divine Word through which God created and revealed His will.
The Word was not necessarily another person alongside God.
It was God's own creative and revelatory activity.
In Jesus, that Word became embodied in human existence.
But we must still examine whether John's own language supports that transition.
6. THE WISDOM CONNECTION — PROVERBS 8
Proverbs 8 presents Wisdom as speaking.
Wisdom calls to humanity, offers instruction and describes her relationship to God's creative work.
The chapter includes language that has long been discussed in relation to John 1.
But Wisdom is grammatically feminine in Hebrew, and the passage uses literary personification.
The presence of personal speech does not automatically establish a separate divine person.
Under a Biblical Unitarian interpretation, God's Wisdom can be understood as His own wisdom poetically represented as a woman.
John may draw upon this tradition when describing God's Word.
The Word, like Wisdom, is associated with creation, life and divine revelation.
But John introduces a remarkable development:
THE WORD BECAME FLESH.
The Genesis Word interpretation understands this as God's Word and Wisdom becoming concretely expressed in the Messiah.
This would not mean that a woman named Wisdom literally changed into Jesus.
Nor would it mean that an abstract idea simply transformed into human tissue.
It would mean that God's previously expressed wisdom, purpose and revelation reached their decisive human embodiment in Jesus Christ.
That is a coherent theological interpretation.
But we must recognise that it is an interpretation, not a direct dictionary definition of logos.
7. THE GENESIS WORD INTERPRETATION — GOD'S WORD EMBODIED IN JESUS
We can now state the first major Biblical Unitarian interpretation clearly.
Before Jesus was born, God possessed His Word.
Through that Word, God created the heavens and the earth.
Through His Word, God revealed His will to humanity.
Through His Word, God announced His promises and saving purpose.
Then, in the fullness of time, God's Word became flesh in Jesus Christ.
Under this interpretation, Jesus is not merely someone who repeated God's message.
He is the supreme embodiment of that message.
God's wisdom, truth, saving purpose and revelation are expressed through the life of His Son.
This understanding fits the wider Johannine emphasis on Jesus revealing the Father.
John 14:9 records Jesus saying:
“He who has seen me has seen the Father.” — WEB
This does not necessarily mean Jesus is the same person as the Father.
The surrounding passage distinguishes Jesus from the Father.
Rather, Jesus reveals the Father so completely that seeing Jesus is seeing the Father's character and activity expressed through him.
Likewise, John 12:49 records Jesus saying that the Father gave him a commandment concerning what he should say and speak.
This supports the biblical principle that Jesus communicates the Father's Word.
The question is whether John 1:14 describes that revelation as embodiment, or something more specifically involving a preexistent person becoming human.
8. DOES THE WORD BECOMING FLESH MEAN JESUS EXISTED BEFORE HIS BIRTH?
This is the central question.
John 1:14 establishes a relationship between the Word and the human Jesus.
But it does not explicitly state:
“Jesus personally existed before his conception.”
That conclusion is reached by identifying the Word as Jesus personally before the incarnation.
The Trinitarian and Jehovah's Witness interpretations make that identification.
The Genesis Word interpretation does not.
Instead, it distinguishes between God's Word before Jesus' birth and the human Messiah in whom that Word became flesh.
Under this understanding, the Word existed before Jesus, but Jesus did not necessarily exist personally before his conception.
We must distinguish:
The preexistence of God's Word
from
the personal preexistence of Jesus Christ.
These are not logically identical claims.
God's wisdom, promise and purpose can precede the historical fulfilment of that purpose.
For example, 1 Peter 1:20 says Christ was foreknown before the foundation of the world but manifested at the end of the times.
A Biblical Unitarian may understand this as evidence that Christ existed in God's foreknowledge before his actual human life.
However, foreknowledge alone does not establish the meaning of John 1:14.
It provides a possible biblical framework for understanding divine purpose and later fulfilment.
9. THE TRINITARIAN INTERPRETATION — THE ETERNAL SON BECAME HUMAN
The traditional Trinitarian interpretation is different.
It understands the Word as a personally existing divine Son.
John 1:1 is read as describing the Word's eternal relationship with God.
John 1:3 describes creation through that Word.
John 1:14 then describes the Word assuming human nature.
Under classical Trinitarian theology, the Son does not cease to be divine.
Rather, the Son becomes genuinely human while remaining divine.
This is the doctrine of the incarnation.
Its principal strength is that it reads the personal language of John 1:1–14 as referring continuously to the same conscious subject.
The Word is with God.
The Word is involved in creation.
The Word comes into the world.
The Word is rejected.
The Word becomes flesh.
This produces a coherent personal narrative.
But its principal challenge, from a Biblical Unitarian perspective, is establishing that the Word was already a distinct conscious person in the opening verses.
The Old Testament background does not necessarily require that conclusion.
Therefore, the Trinitarian reading is not established by the word egeneto alone.
It depends on the cumulative interpretation of the Prologue and other New Testament passages.
10. THE JEHOVAH'S WITNESS INTERPRETATION
Jehovah's Witnesses also understand the Word as a personally preexistent being.
But unlike Trinitarians, they do not regard the Word as the eternal, uncreated Son sharing the Father's divine nature.
They identify the Word as God's first creation, associated with Michael the archangel.
Under their interpretation, the Word existed in heaven before becoming the human Jesus.
John 1:14 describes that preexistent being becoming flesh.
This interpretation shares with Trinitarianism the belief in personal preexistence.
But it differs concerning the Word's origin and nature.
The difficulty is that John 1:14 does not say the Word was created.
Nor does it identify the Word as Michael.
Those claims require evidence from other passages.
The verse itself says only that the Word became flesh.
11. THE ONENESS INTERPRETATION — GOD'S OWN WORD MANIFESTED IN FLESH
Oneness theology generally understands the Word as God's own self-expression rather than a second eternal divine person.
In this respect, it shares a point of contact with the Genesis Word interpretation.
The Word belongs to God.
The Word expresses God.
The Word becomes flesh.
But the disagreement concerns the identity of Jesus.
Oneness theology understands Jesus as the manifestation of the one God Himself.
Biblical Unitarian theology understands Jesus as God's Son, the human Messiah, distinct from the one God, the Father.
John 17:3 is especially important in this debate because Jesus addresses the Father as the only true God and distinguishes himself as the one sent by Him.
John 20:17 likewise records Jesus referring to the Father as his God.
Therefore, even if the Word is understood as God's own self-expression, that does not automatically establish the Oneness interpretation of Jesus.
The distinction between Father and Son remains essential.
12. THE GOSPEL-BEGINNING INTERPRETATION — THE WORD AS GOD'S MESSAGE
We must now examine the second major Biblical Unitarian approach.
Under the Gospel-beginning interpretation, the Word is closely associated with God's saving message.
Jesus is the one through whom that message is proclaimed and realised.
John 1:14 can therefore be understood as the divine message becoming a living reality in the human Messiah.
This interpretation emphasises the historical ministry of Jesus.
God's Word is not merely spoken.
It is demonstrated through Jesus' life, teaching, obedience, death and resurrection.
John 6:63 is relevant:
“The words that I speak to you are spirit, and are life.” — WEB
Jesus' words communicate life.
John 12:49 likewise describes Jesus speaking according to the Father's command.
The Gospel-beginning interpretation therefore understands the Word becoming flesh as God's saving revelation becoming visible and effective in Jesus Christ.
Its strength is its close connection with the Gospel's emphasis on Jesus' message and mission.
Its difficulty is explaining why John begins with language so strongly recalling Genesis creation.
If the Prologue is primarily about the Gospel beginning, the interpretation must show how the creation-language serves that purpose.
The Genesis Word interpretation does not face the same difficulty because it begins with the original creation and moves toward Jesus.
13. A CRUCIAL DISTINCTION — EMBODIMENT IS NOT THE SAME AS PERSONIFICATION
We should distinguish two related ideas.
Personification occurs when something that is not a person is described in personal language.
For example, Wisdom speaks in Proverbs.
Embodiment occurs when an idea, quality, purpose or message finds concrete expression in a person's life.
For example, someone may be described as the embodiment of justice or compassion.
Under the Genesis Word interpretation, God's Word is personified in the opening verses and becomes embodied in Jesus Christ.
But we must be careful.
John does not explicitly say:
“The Word was personified and then embodied.”
That is a proposed explanation of his language.
The Trinitarian interpretation offers a different explanation: the Word was personally existent and became human.
Both interpretations seek to account for the same text.
The question is which explanation best fits the complete biblical evidence.
We must not confuse a possible interpretation with a grammatical certainty.
14. “AND DWELT AMONG US” — THE GREEK WORD ESKĒNŌSEN
John continues:
καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν
Kai eskēnōsen en hēmin.
“And dwelt among us.”
The verb is:
σκηνόω — skēnoō.
It is related to the Greek word for a tent or tabernacle.
It can convey the idea of pitching a tent or taking up residence.
This is particularly important because the Old Testament describes God dwelling among Israel through the tabernacle.
Exodus 25:8 records God's instruction:
“Let them make me a sanctuary, that I may dwell among them.” — WEB
The tabernacle represented God's presence among His people.
John's use of eskēnōsen may deliberately recall that background.
The Word became flesh and dwelt among humanity.
God's presence and revelation were now encountered through Jesus Christ.
But what exactly does this establish?
It certainly associates Jesus with God's presence among His people.
It does not, by itself, settle whether Jesus is personally the one God or the appointed Son through whom God dwells and acts.
The distinction must be examined through the wider Gospel.
15. THE TABERNACLE CONNECTION — GOD DWELLING WITH HIS PEOPLE
The tabernacle was not God Himself.
It was the place where God's presence was manifested among Israel.
Exodus 40:34 describes the glory of Yahweh filling the tabernacle.
The tabernacle therefore provides a powerful background for John 1:14.
John writes:
“The Word became flesh and dwelt among us.”
Then he immediately adds:
“We saw his glory.”
The sequence is significant.
God's dwelling.
God's glory.
God's revelation.
These themes belong together in the Old Testament.
Under a Biblical Unitarian interpretation, Jesus is the appointed human Son through whom God's presence and glory are revealed.
Under a Trinitarian interpretation, the divine Son personally dwells among humanity in human nature.
Both interpretations can recognise the tabernacle imagery.
But they explain the identity of the one dwelling among humanity differently.
The imagery itself does not remove the need to investigate that identity.
16. “WE SAW HIS GLORY” — WHOSE GLORY?
John 1:14 continues:
καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ
Kai etheasametha tēn doxan autou.
“And we saw his glory.”
The Greek noun doxa means glory, honour or splendour.
In the Old Testament, God's glory is associated with His presence and majesty.
But the New Testament also speaks of glory being given to Jesus.
John 17:22 records Jesus saying:
“The glory which you have given me, I have given to them...” — WEB
This is important.
Jesus receives glory from the Father and gives glory to his disciples.
Therefore, the possession or manifestation of glory does not automatically establish identity as Almighty God.
The question is the nature and source of that glory.
John 1:14 describes the glory as that of the Father's unique Son.
The wording directs attention to the relationship between Father and Son.
We must examine that relationship carefully.
17. “GLORY AS OF THE ONLY SON FROM THE FATHER”
The Greek expression includes:
δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός
Doxan hōs monogenous para patros.
The important word is:
μονογενής — monogenēs.
This word is often translated “only begotten” or “one and only.”
Many modern scholars understand its central meaning as unique or one of a kind.
In John's Gospel, it is associated with the special relationship between Jesus and the Father.
But does monogenēs mean that Jesus was eternally generated before creation?
The word alone does not establish that doctrine.
Nor does it prove that Jesus began to exist only at his human conception.
It identifies Jesus' unique sonship.
The nature and timing of that sonship must be investigated through other passages.
Luke 1:35, for example, connects Jesus' identity as Son of God with the action of the Holy Spirit in his conception.
John's Gospel emphasises Jesus' unique relationship with the Father.
These passages must be compared rather than isolated.
18. LUKE 1:35 — WHEN DID JESUS BECOME THE SON OF GOD?
Luke 1:35 records the angel's explanation to Mary:
“The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore also the holy one who is born from you will be called the Son of God.” — WEB
This passage is especially important for Biblical Unitarian theology.
The angel connects Jesus' miraculous conception with his designation as the Son of God.
The word “therefore” gives the explanation a causal force.
Because of God's miraculous action, the child will be called the Son of God.
Biblical Unitarians understand this as strong evidence that Jesus' personal existence begins with his conception.
Trinitarians interpret Luke 1:35 differently, understanding it as describing the incarnation of an already existing Son.
But Luke does not explicitly mention a preexistent Son entering Mary's womb.
The passage emphasises God's creative action in bringing about the conception of the Messiah.
This does not automatically settle John 1:14.
But it is essential evidence for comparing the interpretations.
19. THE WORD AND THE SON — ARE THEY IDENTICAL BEFORE JOHN 1:14?
This question may be one of the most important in the entire study.
John begins with:
“THE WORD.”
But by John 1:14, he speaks of:
“THE FATHER'S ONLY SON.”
Should we assume that the Word was already the Son before becoming flesh?
The Trinitarian interpretation says yes.
The Genesis Word interpretation distinguishes God's preexistent Word from the human Son in whom that Word became flesh.
The Gospel-beginning interpretation emphasises the revelation of God's message through Jesus.
The text itself does not explicitly use the title “Son” in John 1:1–3.
That is a significant observation.
But it does not prove that the Word was not personally the Son.
John may have deliberately delayed identifying the Word until the incarnation statement.
Therefore, the absence of the word “Son” in the opening verses is relevant, but not decisive.
We must examine the progression of John's language.
Word → Life → Light → World → Reception or rejection → Flesh → Son → Jesus Christ.
This sequence may be central to understanding the Prologue.
20. JOHN 1:17 — THE FIRST EXPLICIT NAMING OF JESUS CHRIST
John 1:17 declares:
“For the law was given through Moses. Grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ.” — WEB
This is the first explicit occurrence of the name Jesus Christ in the Prologue.
John has already described the Word becoming flesh and the Father's unique Son.
Now he identifies the historical Messiah by name.
This progression is important.
It may support the idea that John is gradually revealing the identity of the Word.
But the interpretations differ.
The Trinitarian sees the name Jesus Christ as identifying the eternal Word who became human.
The Genesis Word interpreter sees Jesus Christ as the human Messiah in whom God's Word became flesh.
The Gospel-beginning interpreter sees the divine message realised through Jesus' ministry.
The appearance of Jesus' name confirms the subject toward which the Prologue has been moving.
But it does not independently determine the Word's mode of existence before the incarnation.
21. JOHN 1:18 — THE SON REVEALS THE UNSEEN GOD
John 1:18 declares that no one has seen God and that the unique Son — or, according to an important textual variant, the unique God — has made Him known.
This verse presents a textual question that we must not ignore.
Some Greek manuscripts read:
μονογενὴς θεός — monogenēs theos.
Others read:
ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός — ho monogenēs huios.
The difference affects how the verse is translated.
But both readings distinguish the one who reveals God from the God who is revealed.
John 1:18 therefore reinforces the Prologue's central theme of revelation.
Jesus makes the unseen God known.
The question is how John's description of the revealer relates to the identity of the one God, the Father.
This deserves a separate detailed examination.
We should not build an entire doctrine on John 1:18 without first addressing the manuscript evidence.
22. COMPARING THE FIVE MAJOR INTERPRETATIONS
| Interpretation | What became flesh? | Was Jesus personally alive before his conception? |
|---|---|---|
| Biblical Unitarian — Genesis Word | God's own Word, wisdom and purpose embodied in Jesus | No |
| Biblical Unitarian — Gospel beginning | God's saving message realised in Jesus | No |
| Trinitarian | The eternal divine Son | Yes |
| Jehovah's Witness | A preexistent created heavenly Son | Yes |
| Oneness | God's own Word or self-expression manifested in human life | Generally no distinct preexistent Son-person |
This comparison highlights the real disagreement.
All these interpretations affirm that Jesus is central to John 1:14.
But they disagree about what existed before the Word became flesh.
The question is not whether Jesus reveals God.
The question is whether the one who reveals God personally existed before his human birth.
23. OUR PRELIMINARY FINDINGS
After examining John 1:14, several conclusions can be drawn.
First: The Greek text says that the Word became flesh.
Second: The verb egeneto does not independently establish whether the Word was previously a conscious person.
Third: The noun sarx emphasises genuine human existence.
Fourth: The Old Testament provides substantial evidence for God's Word as His own powerful speech and creative expression.
Fifth: The Jewish Wisdom tradition provides a background for personal language applied to divine wisdom.
Sixth: The Genesis Word interpretation understands the Word becoming flesh as God's Word and purpose becoming embodied in Jesus.
Seventh: The Trinitarian interpretation understands the verse as a personally preexistent divine Son assuming human nature.
Eighth: The Gospel-beginning interpretation understands the Word in relation to God's saving message realised through Jesus.
Ninth: The verb eskēnōsen strongly evokes the theme of God's dwelling among His people.
Tenth: The language of glory connects Jesus with God's revelation but does not, by itself, settle the question of divine identity.
Eleventh: The title monogenēs identifies Jesus' unique sonship without independently establishing the timing or metaphysical nature of that sonship.
Twelfth: John 1:18 contains an important textual variant that requires careful examination.
These findings bring us closer to understanding the Prologue.
But the central question remains unresolved.
24. OUR CURRENT ASSESSMENT — WHAT DOES THE EVIDENCE FAVOUR?
The evidence continues to support a strong connection between John's Prologue and Genesis creation.
God's Word is associated with creation, life and light.
John then moves toward the historical revelation of Jesus Christ.
The Genesis Word interpretation provides a coherent explanation of this progression.
God's Word existed from the beginning.
That Word was the means of creation.
That Word became flesh in the Messiah.
However, the Trinitarian interpretation also provides a coherent explanation of the increasingly personal language.
The Word is a personally preexistent Son.
The Son creates.
The Son comes into the world.
The Son becomes human.
Therefore, we cannot settle the issue merely by appealing to the fact that God's Word is sometimes impersonal in the Old Testament.
Nor can we settle it merely by pointing to personal pronouns in John.
We must determine whether John intended the Word to be a distinct conscious person before the incarnation or God's own Word later embodied in a human person.
That is the decisive question.
The Genesis Word interpretation has substantial Old Testament support.
The personal-preexistence interpretation draws strength from the Prologue's continuous personal narrative.
The Gospel-beginning interpretation has substantial support from the later Gospel themes but faces a greater challenge in explaining the opening Genesis-language.
Our investigation must continue.
25. THE NEXT QUESTION — WHOSE GLORY DID JOHN SEE?
John 1:14 says:
“WE SAW HIS GLORY.”
But what exactly was this glory?
Was it the glory of Almighty God?
Was it glory given by the Father to His Son?
Was it the glory of God's Word and Wisdom manifested through Jesus?
And how does John 17:5 relate to this question?
Jesus prays:
“Now, Father, glorify me with your own self with the glory which I had with you before the world existed.” — WEB
This is one of the most frequently cited passages in support of Jesus' personal preexistence.
But Biblical Unitarians have proposed alternative interpretations involving God's foreknowledge, purpose and promised glory.
We must investigate these claims carefully.
We must also compare John 17:22, where Jesus says that he has given his disciples the glory the Father gave him.
Does glory necessarily imply personal preexistence?
Or can glory exist in God's purpose before its historical fulfilment?
These questions deserve their own detailed investigation.
END OF PART 8
Coming in Part 9: “WE SAW HIS GLORY” — DID JESUS POSSESS DIVINE GLORY BEFORE HIS BIRTH?
We will investigate John 1:14, John 17:5, John 17:22 and the Old Testament background of divine glory.
We will compare the personal-preexistence interpretation with the Biblical Unitarian interpretations of glory in God's purpose and foreknowledge.
We will also examine whether the glory revealed through Jesus proves that he is Almighty God or demonstrates the Father's glory manifested through His appointed Son.
Our guiding principle remains unchanged:
We must follow the evidence rather than a predetermined doctrine.
We must distinguish grammatical facts from theological interpretations.
And we must compare every explanation with the complete biblical testimony from Genesis to Revelation.
The goal is not to prove what we already believe. The goal is to discover what John actually meant.
JOHN 1:1 — GOD'S WORD, OR THE BEGINNING OF JESUS' MINISTRY?
PART 9 — “WE SAW HIS GLORY”: DID JESUS POSSESS GLORY BEFORE HIS BIRTH?
By Simon Brown — Real Discoveries
1. INTRODUCTION — WHOSE GLORY DID JOHN SEE?
John 1:14 declares:
“The Word became flesh, and lived among us. We saw his glory, such glory as of the one and only Son of the Father, full of grace and truth.” — WEB
In Part 8, we examined the meaning of the Word becoming flesh.
We discovered two major possibilities.
The traditional Christian interpretation understands the Word as a personally preexistent Son who became human.
The Biblical Unitarian Genesis Word interpretation understands God's own Word, wisdom and purpose as becoming embodied in Jesus Christ.
But John adds another important statement:
“WE SAW HIS GLORY.”
What was this glory?
Was it the glory of a divine person who existed before the world?
Was it glory bestowed by God upon His Messiah?
Or was it the visible revelation of the Father's own glory through His Son?
The question becomes particularly important when we examine Jesus' prayer in John 17:5:
“Now, Father, glorify me with your own self with the glory which I had with you before the world existed.” — WEB
This is among the strongest New Testament passages used to argue that Jesus personally existed before his human birth.
We must not dismiss its wording.
But neither should we assume that only one explanation is possible without examining the biblical evidence.
Our investigation must distinguish three questions:
What does John mean by glory?
What does Jesus mean when he says he had glory with the Father before the world existed?
Does possessing glory necessarily establish that Jesus is Almighty God?
These questions are related, but they are not identical.
2. WHAT DOES THE GREEK WORD DOXA MEAN?
The Greek noun translated “glory” is:
δόξα — doxa.
In biblical usage, it can describe honour, reputation, splendour, majesty or divine glory.
Its meaning depends upon the context.
For example, human beings may receive honour or glory.
Kings may possess glory.
God possesses glory in a supreme and incomparable sense.
And Jesus receives glory from the Father.
Therefore, the mere presence of the word doxa does not establish that its subject is Almighty God.
The source, nature and circumstances of the glory must be examined.
This distinction is essential.
If Jesus possesses glory, we must ask whether that glory is inherently his, bestowed upon him, or revealed through him.
The New Testament contains language relevant to all three possibilities, depending on the passage and interpretation.
3. GOD'S GLORY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT
The Old Testament repeatedly describes Yahweh's glory.
Exodus 40:34 records the cloud covering the Tent of Meeting and the glory of Yahweh filling the tabernacle.
Isaiah 6:3 declares that the whole earth is full of God's glory.
Isaiah 42:8 records Yahweh's declaration that He will not give His glory to another.
These passages establish that God's glory belongs uniquely to Him.
But we must understand Isaiah 42:8 in its context.
The passage contrasts Yahweh with idols and false gods.
It is not necessarily a prohibition against God granting honour or glory to His chosen servants.
Indeed, Scripture explicitly describes God glorifying others.
That distinction becomes important when we examine Jesus.
God's unique divine glory must not be confused with the glory He may bestow upon His appointed Messiah.
4. CAN GOD GIVE GLORY TO SOMEONE ELSE?
Yes.
John's Gospel explicitly says so.
John 17:22 records Jesus saying to the Father:
“The glory which you have given me, I have given to them, that they may be one, even as we are one.” — WEB
This is a remarkable statement.
Jesus says:
“THE GLORY WHICH YOU HAVE GIVEN ME.”
He identifies the Father as the giver.
Then he says:
“I HAVE GIVEN TO THEM.”
He identifies his disciples as recipients.
Therefore, glory can be given by the Father to Jesus and communicated by Jesus to believers.
This does not mean the disciples become Almighty God.
Nor does it mean that Jesus and the disciples possess every aspect of glory in precisely the same way.
But it establishes an important principle:
Receiving divine glory does not automatically mean becoming identical with the one God who gives it.
We must therefore investigate what kind of glory Jesus receives and how John understands it.
5. JOHN 1:14 — GLORY BELONGING TO THE FATHER'S SON
Return to John 1:14.
John describes the glory as:
δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός
Doxan hōs monogenous para patros.
A close rendering is:
“Glory as of a unique Son from a Father.”
The context identifies the Father as God and the Son as Jesus Christ.
The word monogenēs expresses uniqueness.
The expression does not simply describe generic human honour.
It describes glory appropriate to the Father's unique Son.
But does it identify Jesus as the same being as Almighty God?
That conclusion does not follow automatically.
The verse explicitly relates the Son's glory to the Father.
Under a Biblical Unitarian interpretation, Jesus manifests the glory of the God who sent him.
Under a Trinitarian interpretation, Jesus reveals the divine glory of the eternal Son in his incarnate life.
Both approaches recognise that the glory is extraordinary.
The disagreement concerns its ultimate nature and the Son's identity.
6. JOHN 2:11 — JESUS MANIFESTED HIS GLORY
John 2:11 describes Jesus' miracle at Cana:
“This beginning of his signs Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and revealed his glory; and his disciples believed in him.” — WEB
This verse helps explain how glory functions in John's Gospel.
Jesus performs a sign.
His glory is manifested.
His disciples respond with faith.
The glory is not merely physical brightness.
It is revealed through the miraculous work of Jesus.
The sign points beyond itself to his identity and mission.
But where does Jesus say his power comes from?
John 5:19 records Jesus explaining that the Son can do nothing of himself, but does what he sees the Father doing.
John 14:10 similarly describes the Father dwelling in Jesus and doing His works.
These passages are important for the Biblical Unitarian interpretation.
They emphasise God's activity through His Son.
The manifestation of Jesus' glory can therefore be understood in relation to the Father's power working through him.
However, Trinitarians understand these statements within the relationship between Father and Son.
The evidence must be considered together.
7. JOHN 17:5 — THE MOST DIFFICULT PASSAGE
Now we reach the central text.
John 17:5 reads:
“Now, Father, glorify me with your own self with the glory which I had with you before the world existed.” — WEB
The Greek is:
καὶ νῦν δόξασόν με σύ, πάτερ, παρὰ σεαυτῷ τῇ δόξῃ ᾗ εἶχον πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι παρὰ σοί.
Transliteration:
Kai nyn doxason me sy, pater, para seautō tē doxē hē eichon pro tou ton kosmon einai para soi.
The essential expressions are:
| Greek | Meaning |
|---|---|
| δόξασόν με | Glorify me |
| παρὰ σεαυτῷ | With yourself, in your presence |
| τῇ δόξῃ | With the glory |
| ᾗ εἶχον | Which I had |
| πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι | Before the world existed |
| παρὰ σοί | With you, in your presence |
The Greek wording is clear.
Jesus speaks in the first person.
He says that he had glory with the Father before the world existed.
The question is whether this describes an actual personal existence before creation or glory belonging to Jesus in God's eternal purpose.
We must be especially careful here.
The most immediate reading of the sentence favours personal preexistence.
That observation deserves acknowledgment.
The alternative interpretation must therefore provide a convincing explanation for why Jesus speaks of possessing glory before the world existed.
It is not sufficient simply to say that God planned to glorify Jesus.
We must demonstrate that this manner of speaking is biblically plausible.
8. THE VERB “I HAD” — EICHON
The Greek word is:
εἶχον — eichon.
It is the imperfect active indicative of echō, meaning to have or possess.
In John 17:5, it is first-person singular:
“I HAD.”
This is significant.
Jesus does not merely say:
“The glory which you intended to give me.”
He says:
“THE GLORY WHICH I HAD.”
The ordinary meaning is that Jesus possessed this glory before the world existed.
This provides strong support for the personal-preexistence interpretation.
However, the Biblical Unitarian response appeals to the way Scripture sometimes speaks of future realities as already existing within God's purpose.
That argument must be examined rather than assumed.
The Greek verb itself does not mean “was promised.”
Nor does it mean “existed only in God's mind.”
Those are interpretive proposals introduced from a broader biblical framework.
9. WHAT DOES “WITH YOU” MEAN?
The Greek expression is:
παρὰ σοί — para soi.
It means “with you,” “beside you” or “in your presence,” according to context.
Jesus uses the same preposition earlier in the verse:
παρὰ σεαυτῷ — para seautō.
“With yourself” or “in your own presence.”
This repetition is important.
Jesus asks to be glorified in the Father's presence with the glory he says he had in the Father's presence before the world existed.
The personal-preexistence interpretation takes this language naturally.
Jesus existed with the Father and possessed glory in His presence.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands the glory as existing with the Father in His eternal purpose, even though Jesus had not yet begun to exist as a human person.
But the phrase para soi does not itself mean “in your plan.”
That meaning must be inferred from other biblical passages.
Therefore, the personal-preexistence interpretation has a clear grammatical advantage at this point.
Whether the wider biblical evidence justifies a figurative or proleptic reading remains to be investigated.
10. THE TRINITARIAN INTERPRETATION OF JOHN 17:5
Trinitarians understand John 17:5 as Jesus referring to his personal existence with the Father before creation.
The Son possessed divine glory before becoming human.
During his earthly ministry, he lived in the condition of genuine humanity.
Now, approaching his death and resurrection, he asks the Father to glorify him.
This interpretation connects John 17:5 with John 1:1:
“The Word was with God.”
It also connects with John 1:14:
“The Word became flesh.”
The interpretation is coherent.
It takes the first-person language of John 17:5 in its ordinary sense.
It also explains the repeated references to being with the Father.
However, John 17:5 does not independently establish every element of the later doctrine of the Trinity.
Even if it establishes personal preexistence, further arguments would be required to establish that Jesus is eternally uncreated, coequal with the Father and of the same divine essence.
Personal preexistence and full Trinitarian theology are not identical claims.
This distinction is important.
11. THE JEHOVAH'S WITNESS INTERPRETATION
Jehovah's Witnesses also understand John 17:5 as evidence of Jesus' personal existence before creation.
They believe the Son existed with Jehovah in heaven and possessed glory before becoming human.
But they regard the Son as a created heavenly being.
Therefore, John 17:5 is compatible with their belief in personal preexistence.
However, the verse does not identify Jesus as Michael the archangel.
Nor does it say that Jesus was the first creature God made.
It describes glory possessed before the world existed.
The origin and nature of the one possessing that glory must be established elsewhere.
This again demonstrates that personal preexistence does not automatically prove Trinitarianism.
12. THE BIBLICAL UNITARIAN RESPONSE — GLORY IN GOD'S PURPOSE
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation proposes that Jesus' glory existed with the Father in God's foreknowledge and predetermined purpose.
Under this understanding, Jesus did not personally exist before his conception.
But God's purpose concerning the Messiah existed before creation.
The Messiah's future glory was already established in God's plan.
Jesus could therefore speak of the glory as something he had with the Father before the world existed.
This interpretation depends on a biblical principle sometimes described as prolepsis.
Prolepsis involves speaking of a future reality as though it were already established or accomplished.
The Bible contains examples of future events being described with striking certainty.
But we must investigate whether those examples are sufficiently comparable to John 17:5.
It would be too easy simply to label the verse proleptic and assume the problem is solved.
13. ROMANS 4:17 — GOD CALLS THINGS THAT DO NOT EXIST AS THOUGH THEY DID
Romans 4:17 describes God as the one:
“Who gives life to the dead, and calls the things that are not, as though they were.” — WEB
This passage is relevant to the Biblical Unitarian argument.
God can speak of things that do not yet exist as though they already do.
His promises are certain because His purpose cannot fail.
The immediate context concerns Abraham and God's promise to make him the father of many nations.
The promised future is treated as assured.
This establishes that biblical language can anticipate future realities.
But we must be precise.
Romans 4:17 does not say that every reference to something existing before creation is figurative.
Nor does it establish that John 17:5 uses the same kind of language.
It provides a possible conceptual background.
The interpretation still needs to demonstrate that Jesus' statement fits this pattern.
14. 1 PETER 1:20 — CHRIST FOREKNOWN BEFORE THE WORLD
First Peter 1:20 is particularly important:
“Who was foreknown indeed before the foundation of the world, but was revealed at the end of times for your sake.” — WEB
The passage refers to Christ.
He was foreknown before the foundation of the world.
He was manifested later in history.
This distinction is significant.
The verse explicitly uses the language of foreknowledge.
It does not require us to conclude that Christ was personally active before creation.
Under a Biblical Unitarian interpretation, this supports the view that Jesus existed in God's purpose before his historical life.
However, Trinitarians can also affirm that Christ was foreknown before creation while believing that he personally existed.
Foreknowledge and personal preexistence are not mutually exclusive.
Therefore, 1 Peter 1:20 supports the possibility of a foreknowledge interpretation, but it does not prove that John 17:5 must be read that way.
15. EPHESIANS 1:4 — BELIEVERS CHOSEN BEFORE THE WORLD
Ephesians 1:4 declares that God chose believers in Christ before the foundation of the world.
This is another important passage.
The people who would later become Christians did not all personally exist before creation.
Yet God's choice concerning them is described as taking place before the world was founded.
This establishes that God's eternal purpose can concern people who have not yet begun to exist.
A Biblical Unitarian may therefore argue:
If believers were chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world without personally existing, then Jesus' glory could likewise have existed in God's purpose before his birth.
The comparison is meaningful.
But it has a limitation.
Ephesians says believers were chosen before creation.
John 17:5 says Jesus had glory with the Father before creation.
These are not identical expressions.
The difference must be acknowledged.
The analogy demonstrates a biblical possibility.
It does not establish the interpretation of John 17:5 by itself.
16. JOHN 17:22 — THE GLORY JESUS GAVE TO HIS DISCIPLES
Now consider one of the most important comparisons.
John 17:22 records Jesus saying:
“The glory which you have given me, I have given to them, that they may be one, even as we are one.” — WEB
Jesus speaks of glory given by the Father.
He also speaks of giving that glory to his disciples.
Yet at the time of this prayer, the disciples had not entered their final resurrected glory.
The Gospel's story was still moving toward Jesus' death and resurrection.
This may support the idea that glory can be spoken of as given before its fullest future manifestation.
The Biblical Unitarian argument is that John 17:22 illustrates the language of divine purpose and anticipated fulfilment.
But we must also consider an alternative.
Jesus may be speaking of glory already shared with the disciples through his ministry, teaching, revelation and relationship with them.
The statement does not necessarily refer exclusively to future resurrection glory.
Therefore, John 17:22 does not automatically prove that John 17:5 is proleptic.
Nevertheless, it establishes that glory in John 17 is not restricted to an eternal divine attribute possessed only by God.
It is also something communicated to believers.
17. JOHN 17:24 — GLORY AND LOVE BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD
John 17:24 is especially important:
“Father, I desire that they also whom you have given me be with me where I am, that they may see my glory, which you have given me, for you loved me before the foundation of the world.” — WEB
Here, Jesus connects his glory with the Father's love before the foundation of the world.
This verse strengthens the personal-preexistence argument.
Jesus speaks not merely of glory but also of being loved by the Father before creation.
The ordinary reading suggests a relationship existing before the world.
A Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands the Father's love as directed toward the Messiah foreknown in God's eternal purpose.
That explanation is possible within a theology of divine foreknowledge.
But it faces a challenge.
The language is relational and personal.
Jesus says:
“YOU LOVED ME.”
The interpretation must explain why such language should be understood as God's love for a future person rather than an actual relationship between persons.
It is not enough to demonstrate that God can foreknow future individuals.
We must establish that John's wording is reasonably understood in that way.
This is one of the strongest challenges to the non-personal-preexistence interpretation.
18. CAN GOD LOVE SOMEONE BEFORE THAT PERSON EXISTS?
The Biblical Unitarian response may appeal to God's foreknowledge and eternal purpose.
God's love is not limited by human time.
He can choose, know and purpose the future before it occurs.
Jeremiah 1:5 records God telling Jeremiah:
“Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you...” — WEB
This passage establishes that God knew Jeremiah before his conception.
It does not establish that Jeremiah personally existed before birth.
This provides a relevant comparison with John 17:24.
God can know a person before that person's historical existence.
But knowing and loving are not precisely the same expression.
Nor does Jeremiah 1:5 describe Jeremiah possessing glory in God's presence before creation.
The analogy supports the broader principle of divine foreknowledge.
It does not eliminate the particular difficulties of John 17:5 and 17:24.
We must therefore treat the foreknowledge interpretation as a serious but contested explanation.
19. JOHN 17:5 AND JOHN 17:22 — ARE THEY TALKING ABOUT THE SAME GLORY?
This is a crucial question.
John 17:5 speaks of glory Jesus had with the Father before the world existed.
John 17:22 speaks of glory the Father gave Jesus and Jesus gave his disciples.
Are these statements referring to precisely the same glory?
The text does not explicitly say so.
The word doxa appears in both verses, but that does not automatically establish identical meaning or scope.
In John 17:5, the emphasis is on glory associated with the Father before creation.
In John 17:22, the emphasis is on glory shared with the disciples for the purpose of unity.
There may be a meaningful relationship between them.
But we must avoid treating them as interchangeable without argument.
A Trinitarian may distinguish the Son's eternal divine glory from the glory shared with believers.
A Biblical Unitarian may understand both within the Father's purpose to glorify His Messiah and those united with him.
The question is whether the Gospel provides enough evidence to decide between these explanations.
John 17:22 establishes that glory can be shared.
It does not, by itself, establish the precise nature of the glory described in John 17:5.
20. JOHN 17:1–5 — THE IMMEDIATE CONTEXT
We must now read John 17:5 within the prayer's opening movement.
Jesus begins:
“Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may also glorify you.” — John 17:1, WEB
In verse 2, Jesus speaks of authority given to him by the Father.
In verse 3, he identifies eternal life with knowing the Father, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom He sent.
In verse 4, Jesus says he glorified the Father on earth by accomplishing the work given to him.
Then, in verse 5, he asks to be glorified with the glory he had with the Father before the world existed.
This sequence is important.
The Father sends Jesus.
The Father gives Jesus authority.
Jesus completes the work given to him.
Jesus glorifies the Father.
Jesus asks the Father to glorify him.
Under a Biblical Unitarian interpretation, this fits the relationship between the one God and His appointed Messiah.
Under a Trinitarian interpretation, it fits the Son's incarnate mission and his relationship with the Father.
The prayer clearly distinguishes Father and Son as speakers and participants in a relationship.
It does not support the idea that Father and Son are simply interchangeable names for one person.
But the existence of two distinct persons in the prayer does not, by itself, decide whether the Son personally existed before creation.
That remains the central issue.
21. DOES JOHN 17:3 CHANGE THE MEANING OF JOHN 17:5?
John 17:3 declares:
“This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Jesus Christ.” — WEB
This verse is especially important for Biblical Unitarian theology.
Jesus identifies the Father as:
“THE ONLY TRUE GOD.”
He distinguishes himself as:
“JESUS CHRIST, WHOM YOU SENT.”
Biblical Unitarians understand this as a direct statement that the one God is the Father.
Trinitarians understand it within the relationship between the Father and Son, arguing that the Son shares the divine nature without being the same person as the Father.
But an important distinction must be preserved.
Even if John 17:3 establishes the Father as the one true God, it does not automatically prove that Jesus lacked personal existence before his birth.
A personally preexistent heavenly being could still be distinct from the Father.
Jehovah's Witness theology itself illustrates that distinction.
Therefore, John 17:3 and John 17:5 address related but different questions.
John 17:3 concerns the identity of the only true God and the one He sent.
John 17:5 concerns the glory Jesus says he had with the Father before the world existed.
We must not use one verse to avoid examining the other.
22. DID JESUS HAVE GLORY BEFORE HIS BIRTH, OR WAS GLORY RESERVED FOR HIM?
We can now compare the two principal explanations.
THE PERSONAL-PREEXISTENCE INTERPRETATION
Jesus personally existed with the Father before creation.
He possessed glory in the Father's presence.
He later became human.
As his earthly mission approached completion, he prayed to be glorified in the Father's presence.
This reading has a strong advantage in the ordinary meaning of “I had” and “with you.”
It also fits John 17:24's language of the Father's love before creation.
THE FOREKNOWLEDGE AND DIVINE-PURPOSE INTERPRETATION
Jesus did not personally exist before his conception.
But God foreknew the Messiah and had already determined his future glory.
That glory existed with God in His eternal purpose.
Jesus could therefore speak of the glory as his because it had been appointed for him before creation.
This interpretation draws support from biblical language concerning foreknowledge, election and the certainty of God's promises.
Its principal difficulty is that John 17:5 does not explicitly say “foreknown glory” or “glory prepared for me.”
Jesus says he had the glory with the Father.
The foreknowledge interpretation must therefore establish that a proleptic reading is intended in this particular context.
Both explanations are intelligible.
But the second requires a greater interpretive step away from the sentence's most immediate meaning.
That fact should be acknowledged in any fair investigation.
23. DOES PREEXISTENT GLORY PROVE JESUS IS ALMIGHTY GOD?
We must now ask a separate question.
Suppose John 17:5 does establish Jesus' personal preexistence.
Would that automatically establish that Jesus is Almighty God?
No.
Personal preexistence and identification as the one Almighty God are distinct claims.
Jehovah's Witnesses believe Jesus personally existed before creation while denying that he is Almighty God.
Other forms of subordinationist Christology have also distinguished a preexistent Son from the supreme God.
Therefore, John 17:5 cannot independently establish the full doctrine of the Trinity.
To establish that doctrine, additional claims concerning divine nature, eternity, worship and the relationship between Father, Son and Holy Spirit must be demonstrated.
Conversely, rejecting the Trinity does not automatically require rejecting personal preexistence.
This distinction is important for the broader debate.
We must not confuse the question “Did Jesus exist before his birth?” with the question “Is Jesus the one Almighty God?”
They are related, but they are not identical.
24. THE GLORY OF JESUS AFTER HIS RESURRECTION
The New Testament repeatedly connects Jesus' glory with his suffering, resurrection and exaltation.
Luke 24:26 records Jesus asking:
“Didn't the Christ have to suffer these things and to enter into his glory?” — WEB
Acts 2:36 declares that God made the crucified Jesus both Lord and Christ.
Philippians 2:9 says that God highly exalted him.
First Peter 1:21 speaks of God raising Jesus from the dead and giving him glory.
These passages emphasise glory bestowed through God's action.
Under Biblical Unitarian theology, they support the understanding of Jesus as the human Messiah whom God exalted.
But they do not, by themselves, settle whether Jesus personally existed before his birth.
Trinitarians understand the exaltation as belonging to the incarnate Son following his obedient earthly mission.
The texts therefore provide essential evidence about the source and timing of Jesus' exaltation.
They do not eliminate the need to examine John 17:5.
25. WHAT ABOUT THE GLORY JESUS GAVE HIS DISCIPLES?
John 17:22 deserves one final examination.
Jesus says:
“THE GLORY WHICH YOU HAVE GIVEN ME, I HAVE GIVEN TO THEM.”
This statement establishes that Jesus shares glory with his disciples.
It also identifies the Father as the source of the glory given to Jesus.
The purpose is unity:
“THAT THEY MAY BE ONE.”
But what kind of unity?
John 17:21 describes believers being one in relation to the Father and Son.
The passage does not say that the disciples become the same divine being as God.
Their unity concerns relationship, fellowship and participation in God's saving purpose.
Therefore, the glory shared with the disciples cannot simply be equated with possession of Almighty God's unique identity.
This is an important caution against overstating the implications of glory-language.
Nevertheless, the sharing of glory in verse 22 does not automatically explain the pre-world glory of verse 5.
We must preserve that distinction.
26. COMPARING THE INTERPRETATIONS
| Interpretation | John 17:5 | John 17:22 | Main challenge |
|---|---|---|---|
| Biblical Unitarian — Foreknowledge | Glory appointed in God's eternal purpose | Glory given and shared with disciples | Explaining “I had with you” before creation |
| Trinitarian | Personal glory of the preexistent Son | Glory shared through Christ's saving work | Establishing the full doctrine beyond preexistence |
| Jehovah's Witness | Glory of a preexistent created Son | Glory shared with believers | Establishing created status and Michael identification |
| Oneness | Glory associated with God's eternal Word and purpose | Glory manifested and shared through Jesus | Explaining the personal Father–Son dialogue |
| Other preexistence interpretations | Glory possessed by a preexistent heavenly Son | Glory subsequently shared | Determining the Son's nature and relationship to God |
The table highlights an important result.
John 17:5 provides strong evidence for personal preexistence on its ordinary reading.
But it does not, by itself, establish the Trinity.
The Biblical Unitarian alternative is possible within a broader theology of divine foreknowledge.
However, it requires a convincing explanation of the personal and temporal language.
27. OUR PRELIMINARY FINDINGS
We can now summarise the evidence.
First: John 1:14 associates Jesus with the glory of the Father's unique Son.
Second: Glory in Scripture can refer to divine majesty, honour, revelation or glory bestowed upon others.
Third: Jesus explicitly says the Father gave him glory.
Fourth: Jesus also says he gave glory to his disciples.
Fifth: John 17:5 uses the first-person expression “I had,” referring to glory before the world existed.
Sixth: The Greek phrase para soi naturally means “with you” or “in your presence.”
Seventh: The ordinary reading of John 17:5 strongly supports personal preexistence.
Eighth: The Biblical Unitarian foreknowledge interpretation appeals to genuine biblical patterns concerning God's eternal purpose.
Ninth: Romans 4:17, 1 Peter 1:20 and Ephesians 1:4 provide relevant parallels, but none uses exactly the same language as John 17:5.
Tenth: John 17:24 strengthens the personal-preexistence argument through its reference to the Father's love before creation.
Eleventh: John 17:22 establishes that glory can be shared, but it does not necessarily describe precisely the same glory as John 17:5.
Twelfth: Even if personal preexistence is established, that does not automatically prove that Jesus is Almighty God.
These conclusions are important for our ongoing investigation.
28. OUR CURRENT ASSESSMENT — WHERE DOES THE EVIDENCE LEAD?
After examining John 17:5 in detail, we must acknowledge that it is a substantial challenge to the interpretation that Jesus did not personally exist before his conception.
The most natural reading of the Greek describes Jesus possessing glory with the Father before creation.
The Biblical Unitarian explanation based on foreknowledge and divine purpose is possible, but it is not explicitly stated in the verse.
It must be supported by the wider biblical context.
This does not mean the entire question is settled.
We must still consider how John's Gospel uses the language of coming from God, being sent, descending from heaven and returning to the Father.
We must also consider the relationship between John's Prologue and Jesus' own statements about his origin.
But we should not minimise the force of John 17:5.
A serious Biblical Unitarian interpretation must explain the verse, not merely quote John 17:3 and move on.
Equally, a serious Trinitarian interpretation must recognise that personal preexistence is not the same as proving the full doctrine of the Trinity.
The evidence must be allowed to speak with its proper weight.
29. THE NEXT QUESTION — DID JESUS COME DOWN FROM HEAVEN?
John 6:38 records Jesus saying:
“For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me.” — WEB
John 6:62 adds:
“Then what if you would see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?” — WEB
These passages are frequently used to establish Jesus' personal preexistence.
But Biblical Unitarians have proposed alternative explanations.
Some understand coming from heaven as describing divine origin and authority rather than literal descent.
Others understand John 6:62 in connection with Daniel 7:13 and the prophetic vision of the Son of Man.
We must examine these interpretations carefully.
Does being sent from heaven necessarily mean that Jesus personally lived there before his birth?
What does “where he was before” mean?
And how does the title Son of Man connect with Daniel's heavenly vision?
These questions take us into another major area of the preexistence debate.
END OF PART 9
Coming in Part 10: “I CAME DOWN FROM HEAVEN” — DID JESUS LITERALLY DESCEND FROM HEAVEN BEFORE HIS BIRTH?
We will examine John 6:38, John 6:62, John 3:13 and Daniel 7:13.
We will compare the literal personal-preexistence interpretation with Biblical Unitarian explanations involving divine origin, prophetic vision and God's appointed Messiah.
We will also investigate whether the expression “sent from God” always implies previous residence in heaven.
Our guiding principle remains unchanged:
We must follow the evidence rather than a predetermined doctrine.
We must distinguish what the Greek directly says from what each theological interpretation proposes.
And we must compare every explanation with the complete biblical testimony.
The goal is not to prove what we already believe. The goal is to discover what John actually meant.
JOHN 1:1 — GOD'S WORD, OR THE BEGINNING OF JESUS' MINISTRY?
PART 10 — “I CAME DOWN FROM HEAVEN”: DID JESUS LITERALLY DESCEND FROM HEAVEN BEFORE HIS BIRTH?
By Simon Brown — Real Discoveries
1. INTRODUCTION — WHAT DID JESUS MEAN BY COMING FROM HEAVEN?
In Part 9, we examined Jesus' prayer in John 17:5:
“Now, Father, glorify me with your own self with the glory which I had with you before the world existed.” — WEB
We acknowledged that its most immediate reading favours personal preexistence, while the Biblical Unitarian interpretation involving divine foreknowledge and purpose requires additional explanation.
But Jesus makes other statements that appear to describe an existence before his human birth.
John 6:38 declares:
“For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me.” — WEB
John 6:62 adds:
“Then what if you would see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?” — WEB
These verses present a serious challenge to interpretations denying Jesus' personal preexistence.
Was Jesus describing a literal journey from heaven to earth?
Or was he using biblical language of divine origin, heavenly authority and prophetic revelation?
Our task is not to assume the answer.
We must examine the original Greek, the immediate context, the Old Testament background and the competing interpretations.
2. JOHN 6:38 — THE ORIGINAL GREEK
John 6:38 reads:
ὅτι καταβέβηκα ἀπὸ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ οὐχ ἵνα ποιῶ τὸ θέλημα τὸ ἐμὸν ἀλλὰ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός με.
Hoti katabebēka apo tou ouranou ouch hina poiō to thelēma to emon alla to thelēma tou pempsantos me.
A close translation is:
“For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of the one who sent me.”
Three expressions deserve attention.
| Greek | Meaning | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| καταβέβηκα (katabebēka) | I have descended | Perfect tense, describing a descent with continuing relevance |
| ἀπὸ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ (apo tou ouranou) | From heaven | Indicates heavenly origin |
| τοῦ πέμψαντός με (tou pempsantos me) | The one who sent me | Identifies Jesus as commissioned by another |
The Greek certainly contains the language of descent.
We should not attempt to explain it away.
But does descent necessarily mean that the subject personally occupied heaven before arriving on earth?
That question must be answered from the context.
3. THE BREAD OF LIFE — WHY DOES JESUS SPEAK ABOUT HEAVEN?
John 6 begins with Jesus feeding a large crowd.
The people then seek him again.
Jesus challenges their motives, directing their attention away from ordinary food toward the food that endures to eternal life.
The discussion turns to the manna given to Israel in the wilderness.
John 6:32–33 explains that the Father gives the true bread from heaven, which gives life to the world.
Jesus then declares:
“I AM THE BREAD OF LIFE.” — John 6:35
This background is essential.
Jesus does not introduce the language of coming down from heaven in isolation.
He introduces it within a discussion about bread from heaven.
The manna provides the Old Testament comparison.
But the true bread offers something greater than physical nourishment.
It gives eternal life.
Therefore, the chapter is full of symbolic language.
Bread represents more than literal food.
Eating represents more than physical consumption.
Coming to Jesus and believing in him are central to receiving life.
The question is whether the language of descent is similarly figurative or whether it describes an actual heavenly origin.
4. DID THE MANNA LITERALLY COME DOWN FROM HEAVEN?
Exodus 16 describes God's provision of manna.
The manna appeared on the ground for Israel to gather.
Psalm 78:24 describes God raining manna upon them to eat.
The food was described as bread from heaven because God provided it.
This is important.
The manna did not have to be understood as bread previously stored in a heavenly bakery.
Its heavenly origin identified God as its source.
The Biblical Unitarian argument is that Jesus can likewise be called the bread from heaven because he is God's provision for humanity.
His origin and authority are divine.
His mission comes from the Father.
However, we must acknowledge a difference.
Jesus does not merely say that bread came from heaven.
He says:
“I HAVE COME DOWN FROM HEAVEN.”
The first-person language is more direct.
The personal-preexistence interpretation therefore has an argument that cannot be answered merely by pointing to the manna.
The symbolic setting makes a figurative interpretation possible.
It does not automatically establish it.
5. JOHN 6:41–42 — THE PEOPLE QUESTIONED HIS ORIGIN
John 6:41 reports that some of Jesus' listeners complained because he claimed to be the bread that came down from heaven.
They asked:
“Isn't this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How then does he say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?” — John 6:42, WEB
Their objection is significant.
They knew Jesus as a man from an ordinary human family.
They could not understand how someone whose earthly origins were familiar could claim heavenly origin.
The personal-preexistence interpretation understands this as evidence that Jesus was making a claim about existence before his human birth.
But John's Gospel frequently records people misunderstanding Jesus' spiritual language.
Nicodemus misunderstands the new birth.
The Samaritan woman initially misunderstands living water.
Jesus' listeners misunderstand his statement about destroying and raising the temple.
Therefore, the objection of the crowd does not necessarily establish that their interpretation was correct.
Nevertheless, their reaction demonstrates that Jesus' words were provocative.
The statement cannot be reduced to the ordinary claim that he was simply a prophet.
Something greater is being asserted.
6. WHAT DOES “SENT FROM GOD” MEAN?
The language of being sent is central to John's Gospel.
Jesus repeatedly says that the Father sent him.
John 5:30 connects his mission with the Father's will.
John 7:16 says his teaching comes from the one who sent him.
John 12:49 explains that the Father gave him a commandment concerning what he should say.
These passages clearly establish divine commission.
But does being sent by God necessarily mean that someone previously lived in heaven?
Consider John 1:6:
“There came a man, sent from God, whose name was John.” — WEB
John the Baptist was sent from God.
Yet this does not mean that John personally existed in heaven before his birth.
He was a human prophet commissioned by God.
This establishes an important principle:
BEING SENT FROM GOD DOES NOT, BY ITSELF, PROVE PERSONAL PREEXISTENCE.
However, John 6:38 contains more than the language of being sent.
It also says Jesus came down from heaven.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation must therefore explain the combination of these expressions.
We cannot settle the issue by comparing only the word “sent.”
7. JOHN 3:31 — “HE WHO COMES FROM ABOVE”
John 3:31 declares:
“He who comes from above is above all. He who is from the earth belongs to the earth, and speaks of the earth. He who comes from heaven is above all.” — WEB
This passage connects heavenly origin with authority.
The one from above speaks from a superior source.
The contrast is between heaven and earth.
A personal-preexistence interpretation understands this as referring to Jesus' actual heavenly origin.
A Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands the contrast as describing the source of Jesus' authority and revelation.
Jesus speaks the words of God.
His message originates in heaven.
The Gospel's concern is not merely where Jesus was physically located before birth, but the authority behind his teaching.
Both interpretations have contextual support.
The heavenly-origin language is strong.
But the connection with testimony and divine revelation is also explicit.
We must weigh both.
8. JOHN 3:13 — “NO ONE HAS ASCENDED INTO HEAVEN”
John 3:13 is another important passage.
It reads:
“No one has ascended into heaven, but he who descended out of heaven, the Son of Man, who is in heaven.” — WEB
An important textual question must be acknowledged.
The final expression, “who is in heaven,” appears in some Greek manuscripts but is absent from several important early witnesses and many modern critical editions.
Therefore, we should not build an argument on that phrase without discussing the manuscript evidence.
The central statement, however, is not in dispute:
The Son of Man is described as the one who descended from heaven.
The personal-preexistence interpretation understands this as an actual descent.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation may understand it as heavenly revelation and authority.
But John 3:13 also speaks of ascending into heaven.
The relationship between ascent and descent must be examined carefully.
9. PROVERBS 30:4 — WHO HAS ASCENDED OR DESCENDED?
Proverbs 30:4 asks:
“Who has ascended up into heaven, and descended? Who has gathered the wind in his fists? Who has bound the waters in his garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and what is his son's name, if you know?” — WEB
This passage contains striking parallels with John 3:13.
It speaks of ascending and descending.
It also raises questions about divine knowledge and the Creator.
The context emphasises human limitations.
No ordinary human being possesses God's comprehensive heavenly knowledge and authority.
John 3:13 may deliberately echo this tradition.
If so, Jesus' claim concerns his unique access to divine revelation.
But this does not settle whether his access results from personal preexistence or divine commission.
The passage provides an important Old Testament background.
It does not independently determine the meaning of John's statement.
10. JOHN 6:62 — THE MOST DIFFICULT STATEMENT
Now we reach John 6:62:
ἐὰν οὖν θεωρῆτε τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἀναβαίνοντα ὅπου ἦν τὸ πρότερον;
Ean oun theōrēte ton huion tou anthrōpou anabainonta hopou ēn to proteron?
A close rendering is:
“Then what if you see the Son of Man ascending where he was previously?”
The important words are:
| Greek | Meaning |
|---|---|
| ἀναβαίνοντα (anabainonta) | Ascending |
| ὅπου (hopou) | Where |
| ἦν (ēn) | He was |
| τὸ πρότερον (to proteron) | Previously, before |
This verse deserves particular attention.
Jesus speaks of the Son of Man ascending to where he was previously.
The most immediate interpretation is that he previously existed in the place to which he would ascend.
This provides substantial support for personal preexistence.
We must acknowledge that fact.
However, Biblical Unitarian interpreters have proposed two different alternatives.
These must be distinguished rather than combined.
11. THE PERSONAL-PREEXISTENCE INTERPRETATION OF JOHN 6:62
The traditional interpretation is straightforward.
Jesus personally existed in heaven before his human birth.
He descended from heaven.
He lived as a human being.
After his death and resurrection, he ascended to heaven.
Thus, John 6:62 refers to his return to the place where he previously existed.
This reading fits naturally with John 6:38.
It also connects with John 17:5, where Jesus speaks of glory he had with the Father before the world existed.
Its strength is that it takes the spatial and temporal language in its ordinary sense.
The difficulty for alternative interpretations is explaining why Jesus speaks of being somewhere previously if he had not personally existed there.
That is a genuine challenge.
But personal preexistence still does not automatically establish the Trinity.
A preexistent Son could be understood in different ways.
The question of his divine identity remains separate.
12. SIR ANTHONY BUZZARD — THE DANIEL 7 PROPHETIC-VISION INTERPRETATION
Sir Anthony Buzzard has proposed an alternative reading connected with Daniel 7:13.
Daniel describes a prophetic vision:
“I saw in the night visions, and behold, there came with the clouds of the sky one like a son of man, and he came even to the Ancient of Days, and they brought him near before him.” — Daniel 7:13, WEB
This passage is important because Jesus repeatedly identifies himself as the Son of Man.
Daniel's vision portrays the Son of Man approaching the Ancient of Days in a heavenly setting.
Under Buzzard's interpretation, the Son of Man was previously present in Daniel's prophetic vision.
Jesus' later ascension fulfils the heavenly scene that Daniel had seen.
Therefore, the expression “where he was before” can be understood in relation to the prophetic vision rather than a literal personal existence before Jesus' birth.
The argument is that Jesus is referring to the heavenly position already assigned to the Son of Man in prophecy.
This interpretation connects John 6:62 with an important Old Testament passage.
But it faces a difficulty.
John 6:62 does not explicitly mention Daniel.
Nor does it say:
“Where the Son of Man was previously seen in prophecy.”
The Greek simply says:
“WHERE HE WAS BEFORE.”
Therefore, the Daniel 7 interpretation requires an intertextual connection that must be established rather than assumed.
It is a distinctive Biblical Unitarian explanation.
But it is not the ordinary reading of the sentence.
13. DANIEL 7 — WHAT DOES THE VISION ACTUALLY DESCRIBE?
We must examine Daniel 7 carefully.
Daniel sees one like a son of man approaching the Ancient of Days.
The figure receives dominion, glory and a kingdom.
Daniel 7:14 describes an everlasting dominion.
Later in the chapter, the kingdom is also associated with the holy ones of the Most High.
The passage is therefore rich in royal, prophetic and symbolic imagery.
Jesus' use of the title Son of Man is closely connected with Daniel's vision.
For example, Mark 14:62 records Jesus speaking of the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power and coming with the clouds of heaven.
This strengthens the case that Daniel 7 forms part of the background to Jesus' understanding of his mission.
But a further question remains.
Does Daniel's vision depict a person who already existed in heaven?
Or does it prophetically portray the future exaltation of the Messiah?
Biblical Unitarians commonly emphasise the prophetic character of the vision.
The Son of Man is seen in a vision of future dominion.
A prophetic appearance does not necessarily mean that the person represented was already living at the time of Daniel.
This is an important point.
But it still does not prove that John 6:62 refers specifically to Daniel's vision.
The connection is plausible as a proposal, not established by explicit wording.
14. A SECOND BIBLICAL UNITARIAN INTERPRETATION — PREEXISTENCE IN GOD'S PURPOSE
There is another explanation that should not be confused with Buzzard's Daniel 7 interpretation.
Under this approach, the Son of Man's heavenly position existed beforehand in God's purpose and foreknowledge.
The Messiah's future exaltation was already established in God's plan.
Jesus could therefore speak of ascending to the place assigned to him before his historical existence.
This interpretation resembles the foreknowledge explanation of John 17:5.
It appeals to biblical passages showing that God's purposes may be established before their fulfilment.
For example, 1 Peter 1:20 describes Christ as foreknown before the foundation of the world.
Ephesians 1:4 describes believers being chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world.
These passages demonstrate the importance of God's eternal purpose.
But John 6:62 presents a particular difficulty.
Jesus does not merely say that a heavenly position was prepared for him.
He says the Son of Man was there previously.
Therefore, the foreknowledge interpretation requires a figurative or proleptic understanding of the wording.
That possibility should be investigated.
But it should not be presented as the direct grammatical meaning.
15. THE TWO NON-PERSONAL-PREEXISTENCE INTERPRETATIONS MUST REMAIN DISTINCT
We should summarise the difference.
INTERPRETATION A — DANIEL 7 PROPHETIC VISION
The Son of Man was previously seen in Daniel's heavenly vision.
Jesus' ascension fulfils the scene depicted in prophecy.
The earlier presence is visionary or prophetic, not necessarily personal existence before birth.
INTERPRETATION B — GOD'S FOREKNOWN PURPOSE
The Messiah's future heavenly position existed in God's purpose before its historical fulfilment.
Jesus speaks of that position as already established.
The earlier existence concerns divine purpose rather than personal residence in heaven.
These explanations are related but not identical.
The first depends especially on Daniel 7.
The second depends on biblical patterns of foreknowledge and prophetic certainty.
Both face the challenge of explaining the plain wording of John 6:62.
But they should be evaluated separately.
16. DOES “SON OF MAN” MEAN JESUS WAS ONLY HUMAN?
The title Son of Man is central to the discussion.
In Hebrew and Aramaic biblical usage, expressions meaning “son of man” can refer to a human being.
Ezekiel is repeatedly addressed as son of man.
Daniel 7:13 describes one like a son of man.
Jesus frequently uses the title for himself.
Biblical Unitarians emphasise that the title identifies Jesus with humanity.
But we must be careful.
The title does not automatically settle whether Jesus personally existed before his birth.
In Daniel 7, the Son of Man figure appears in a heavenly vision and receives extraordinary authority.
Therefore, the title carries more than the simple meaning “ordinary human being.”
It is associated with messianic authority and exaltation.
The question is how Jesus uses that title in John 6:62.
The answer requires attention to both Daniel 7 and John's own narrative.
17. JOHN 6:63 — “THE WORDS THAT I SPEAK ARE SPIRIT AND LIFE”
Immediately after John 6:62, Jesus declares:
“It is the spirit who gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and are life.” — John 6:63, WEB
This verse is particularly important.
Jesus has been speaking about eating his flesh and drinking his blood.
His listeners find the teaching difficult.
Jesus then emphasises the life-giving Spirit and his words.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation argues that this shows the discourse must be understood spiritually.
The bread from heaven represents God's saving revelation through Jesus.
The flesh and blood language is not an instruction to physically consume Jesus.
The words communicate life.
This is a strong contextual observation.
But we must avoid an unwarranted conclusion.
The fact that the bread discourse contains spiritual symbolism does not establish that every statement about descent and ascent is figurative.
A speaker can use symbolic language while also making literal claims.
Therefore, John 6:63 supports a spiritual reading of the discourse as a whole.
It does not automatically settle John 6:62.
18. JOHN 6:51 — “THE BREAD THAT I WILL GIVE IS MY FLESH”
John 6:51 declares:
“I am the living bread which came down out of heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. Yes, the bread which I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.” — WEB
This verse connects heavenly bread with Jesus' flesh.
It anticipates his sacrificial death.
Jesus gives his flesh for the life of the world.
The Genesis Word interpretation may see a parallel with John 1:14:
“THE WORD BECAME FLESH.”
God's life-giving Word is embodied in Jesus.
Jesus gives his human life for the world.
The Gospel-beginning interpretation emphasises the saving message and mission.
The personal-preexistence interpretation understands the preexistent Son as having become human and offering his flesh.
All three interpretations can recognise the central importance of Jesus' sacrifice.
But they explain the heavenly origin differently.
The sacrificial meaning of the bread does not by itself determine the question of preexistence.
19. JOHN 6:57 — “I LIVE BECAUSE OF THE FATHER”
Jesus says:
“As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father; so he who feeds on me, he will also live because of me.” — John 6:57, WEB
This statement is significant.
Jesus identifies the Father as the living Father.
He says that he lives because of the Father.
Then he explains that believers will live because of him.
The structure is:
THE FATHER → JESUS → BELIEVERS
Life comes from the Father through Jesus to those who believe.
This fits the Biblical Unitarian emphasis on the Father as the ultimate source of life.
But Trinitarians also understand the Father as the source within the Father–Son relationship.
Therefore, the verse does not automatically disprove personal preexistence.
It does, however, establish a distinction between the Father and the Son.
Jesus' mission and life are presented in relation to the Father.
That relationship must remain central to our interpretation.
20. JOHN 16:28 — “I CAME FROM THE FATHER”
Another important passage is John 16:28:
“I came from the Father, and have come into the world. Again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.” — WEB
This statement forms a striking sequence.
Jesus came from the Father.
He entered the world.
He leaves the world.
He goes to the Father.
The personal-preexistence interpretation understands this as a literal movement from heaven to earth and back to heaven.
This reading is natural.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands the first movement as divine commissioning and the second as actual exaltation to the Father.
But that introduces an asymmetry.
The coming is interpreted figuratively.
The going is interpreted literally.
Such a combination is possible in biblical language.
But it requires contextual justification.
We should not assume that the two movements must be identical.
Nor should we assume that they must be different.
The parallel structure gives the personal-preexistence interpretation substantial strength.
21. JOHN 13:3 — “HE CAME FROM GOD AND WAS GOING TO GOD”
John 13:3 describes Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands and that he came from God and was going to God.
This verse reinforces the pattern found in John 16:28.
Jesus' mission originates with God.
His destination is God.
The personal-preexistence interpretation sees this as a description of heavenly origin and return.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation sees it as describing divine commission followed by exaltation.
Again, both readings are intelligible.
But the repeated pattern across John's Gospel strengthens the cumulative argument for personal preexistence.
A non-personal-preexistence interpretation must explain the pattern consistently, not verse by verse in isolation.
This is an important methodological requirement.
22. DOES JOHN THE BAPTIST PROVIDE A PARALLEL?
We have already examined John 1:6:
“There came a man, sent from God, whose name was John.” — WEB
This is an important comparison.
John the Baptist was sent from God.
Yet no one needs to assume that he lived in heaven before his birth.
Therefore, divine sending does not necessarily imply personal preexistence.
But we must distinguish the language applied to John the Baptist from that applied to Jesus.
John the Baptist is said to be sent from God.
Jesus is said to have come down from heaven.
Jesus also speaks of ascending to where he was previously.
And he speaks of glory with the Father before the world existed.
These additional statements create a stronger cumulative case.
Therefore, the John the Baptist comparison establishes a limitation on the meaning of “sent.”
It does not, by itself, explain the complete language of Jesus' heavenly origin.
23. THE TRINITARIAN INTERPRETATION — A COHERENT HEAVENLY ORIGIN
The Trinitarian interpretation brings the passages together.
John 1:1 describes the Word with God.
John 1:14 describes the Word becoming flesh.
John 3:13 describes descent from heaven.
John 6:38 describes Jesus coming down from heaven.
John 6:62 describes his ascent to where he was before.
John 16:28 describes coming from the Father and returning to the Father.
John 17:5 describes glory with the Father before creation.
Taken together, these passages form a coherent narrative of personal preexistence.
This is a substantial strength.
But we must preserve an important distinction.
The passages may support personal preexistence without independently establishing the full doctrine of the Trinity.
They do not all explicitly identify Jesus as the one Almighty God.
The question of Jesus' divine nature must be examined separately.
Nevertheless, the cumulative personal-preexistence argument is strong and cannot be dismissed by appealing to one figurative parallel.
24. THE JEHOVAH'S WITNESS INTERPRETATION
Jehovah's Witnesses also understand these passages as describing personal preexistence.
They believe Jesus existed in heaven before his human birth.
He was sent by Jehovah.
He became human.
After his resurrection, he returned to heaven.
This interpretation agrees with Trinitarianism about literal heavenly origin.
But it disagrees about the nature of the preexistent Son.
Jehovah's Witnesses identify him as a created heavenly being associated with Michael the archangel.
The passages in John 3 and John 6 do not establish that identification.
They also do not explicitly say that Jesus was created before the universe.
Therefore, the Jehovah's Witness interpretation requires additional arguments.
25. THE ONENESS INTERPRETATION
Oneness theology understands Jesus as the manifestation of the one God.
The language of descent from heaven is commonly explained in relation to God's own self-revelation in flesh.
Under this approach, the divine Word originates with God and becomes manifested in the human Jesus.
This differs from the Trinitarian belief in an eternally distinct Son-person.
It also differs from the Biblical Unitarian understanding of Jesus as a distinct human Messiah.
The difficulty for Oneness theology is explaining the repeated distinction between the Father who sends and the Son who is sent.
John 6:38 explicitly distinguishes Jesus' will from the will of the one who sent him.
John 17 presents an extended prayer addressed by Jesus to the Father.
These passages require a coherent explanation of the relationship.
The descent-language alone cannot settle the issue.
26. COMPARING THE INTERPRETATIONS OF JOHN 6:62
| Interpretation | Meaning of “where he was before” | Principal difficulty |
|---|---|---|
| Personal preexistence | Jesus previously lived in heaven | Does not independently establish the Trinity |
| Buzzard's Daniel 7 interpretation | The Son of Man previously appeared in a heavenly prophetic vision | Daniel 7 is not explicitly mentioned in John 6:62 |
| Divine-purpose interpretation | The Messiah's heavenly position was previously established in God's plan | Requires a figurative reading of “he was” |
| Oneness interpretation | God's heavenly Word or self-revelation is manifested in Jesus | Must explain the personal Father–Son language |
The comparison reveals an important result.
The ordinary reading of John 6:62 favours personal preexistence.
The alternative interpretations depend on broader biblical arguments involving prophecy and divine purpose.
Those arguments deserve consideration.
But they should not be presented as equally direct readings of the Greek.
27. WHAT DOES THE GREEK ACTUALLY ESTABLISH?
We can now distinguish grammatical facts from theological interpretations.
John 6:38
The Greek says Jesus has come down from heaven.
It does not explicitly explain whether the descent is literal or figurative.
John 6:62
The Greek says the Son of Man will ascend to where he was previously.
The most immediate reading describes a previous location.
John 3:13
The Greek connects descent from heaven with the Son of Man's unique heavenly authority.
John 16:28
The Greek describes Jesus coming from the Father, entering the world, leaving the world and going to the Father.
These statements collectively provide strong evidence for a personal-preexistence interpretation.
But the Greek alone does not establish every theological conclusion sometimes attached to that interpretation.
We must still investigate the nature of the Son and his relationship with the Father.
28. OUR PRELIMINARY FINDINGS
Several important conclusions emerge.
First: The bread-of-life discourse contains extensive spiritual symbolism.
Second: Manna was described as bread from heaven because it was God's provision.
Third: Being sent from God does not automatically establish previous personal residence in heaven.
Fourth: Jesus' language goes beyond ordinary divine commissioning.
Fifth: John 6:38 explicitly describes descent from heaven.
Sixth: John 6:62 describes the Son of Man ascending to where he was previously.
Seventh: The ordinary reading of John 6:62 strongly supports personal preexistence.
Eighth: Buzzard's Daniel 7 interpretation offers a distinct prophetic-vision explanation.
Ninth: The divine-purpose interpretation offers a separate foreknowledge-based explanation.
Tenth: Neither alternative is explicitly stated in John 6:62.
Eleventh: John 6:63 emphasises the life-giving character of Jesus' words but does not automatically make every statement in the discourse figurative.
Twelfth: John 16:28 and John 17:5 strengthen the cumulative personal-preexistence argument.
Thirteenth: Personal preexistence does not, by itself, establish the full doctrine of the Trinity.
These findings must inform our final assessment of John 1.
29. OUR CURRENT ASSESSMENT — IS THE EVIDENCE CHANGING?
After examining John 6:38 and John 6:62, we must acknowledge that the evidence for personal preexistence is substantial.
The most natural reading of Jesus' statements describes someone who came from heaven and would return to a place where he had previously been.
The Biblical Unitarian alternatives are not without biblical foundations.
The Old Testament uses prophetic imagery.
God's purposes are established before their fulfilment.
Divine commissioning can be described in language of heavenly origin.
But the cumulative wording in John's Gospel creates a genuine challenge.
The question is no longer simply whether a single phrase can be interpreted figuratively.
We must ask whether the non-personal-preexistence interpretation can explain all the relevant passages consistently.
At the same time, we must avoid treating personal preexistence as automatic proof of Trinitarianism.
The identity of the one God remains a separate question.
John 17:3 identifies the Father as the only true God.
John 20:17 records Jesus referring to the Father as his God.
Those statements must be considered alongside the heavenly-origin passages.
Our investigation must allow both sets of evidence to retain their full force.
30. THE NEXT QUESTION — DID JESUS EXIST BEFORE ABRAHAM?
John 8:58 records Jesus declaring:
“Most certainly, I tell you, before Abraham came into existence, I AM.” — WEB
This is another major passage in the debate.
The Greek reads:
πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί.
Prin Abraam genesthai egō eimi.
The statement has been interpreted in several ways.
Trinitarians commonly understand it as evidence of Jesus' personal preexistence and, in some interpretations, an allusion to divine identity.
Jehovah's Witnesses translate the statement differently, emphasising Jesus' existence before Abraham.
Biblical Unitarians have proposed explanations involving messianic priority, divine purpose and the significance of egō eimi within John's Gospel.
We must examine the Greek carefully.
Does egō eimi mean “I AM” as a divine title?
Does it simply mean “I am”?
Can the expression refer to Jesus' messianic identity without implying personal preexistence?
And why did Jesus' opponents attempt to stone him?
These questions require detailed investigation.
END OF PART 10
Coming in Part 11: “BEFORE ABRAHAM WAS, I AM” — DID JESUS CLAIM TO BE ALMIGHTY GOD?
We will examine John 8:58, the Greek expression egō eimi, Exodus 3:14, Isaiah's declarations of divine identity and the wider context of John 8.
We will also compare the personal-preexistence interpretation with the Biblical Unitarian explanations of Jesus' messianic identity and priority in God's purpose.
Our guiding principle remains unchanged:
We must follow the evidence rather than a predetermined doctrine.
We must distinguish what the Greek actually says from what each theological interpretation proposes.
And we must compare every explanation with the complete biblical testimony from Genesis to Revelation.
The goal is not to prove what we already believe. The goal is to discover what John actually meant.
JOHN 1:1 — GOD'S WORD, OR THE BEGINNING OF JESUS' MINISTRY?
PART 11 — “BEFORE ABRAHAM WAS, I AM”: DID JESUS CLAIM TO BE ALMIGHTY GOD?
By Simon Brown — Real Discoveries
https://wwwrealdiscoveriesorg-simon.blogspot.com
1. INTRODUCTION — ONE OF THE MOST CONTROVERSIAL STATEMENTS JESUS EVER MADE
In John 8:58, Jesus makes an extraordinary declaration:
“Most certainly, I tell you, before Abraham came into existence, I AM.” — John 8:58, WEB
Immediately afterwards, his opponents pick up stones to throw at him.
For many Trinitarian Christians, this is among the strongest biblical proofs that Jesus is Almighty God.
For Jehovah's Witnesses, the verse demonstrates Jesus' personal existence before Abraham, but not his equality with Almighty God.
For Biblical Unitarians, alternative explanations have been proposed involving God's foreknowledge, the Messiah's identity, the Abrahamic promises and the language of prophetic fulfilment.
But what did Jesus actually mean?
Did he identify himself as Yahweh?
Did he claim to have personally existed before Abraham?
Or did he declare that he was the Messiah who had always occupied the central place in God's saving purpose?
These questions must be separated.
Claiming personal preexistence is not necessarily the same as claiming to be Almighty God.
Our investigation begins with the Greek.
2. THE ORIGINAL GREEK OF JOHN 8:58
The Greek reads:
πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί.
Prin Abraam genesthai egō eimi.
A close translation is:
“Before Abraham came into existence, I am.”
The important expressions are:
| Greek | Meaning |
|---|---|
| πρίν (prin) | Before |
| Ἀβραάμ (Abraam) | Abraham |
| γενέσθαι (genesthai) | To become, come into existence |
| ἐγώ (egō) | I |
| εἰμί (eimi) | Am |
The wording contains an unusual contrast.
Abraham is described using a verb associated with coming into existence.
Jesus describes himself using the present tense:
“I AM.”
John could have reported Jesus saying “I was.”
But the text says “I am.”
That distinction is central to the debate.
Nevertheless, we must distinguish what the grammar establishes from what interpreters infer.
The words egō eimi do not automatically mean “I am Almighty God.”
They are ordinary Greek words capable of several functions.
Their meaning depends on context.
3. WHAT DOES EGŌ EIMI ACTUALLY MEAN?
The Greek expression is:
ἐγώ εἰμι — egō eimi.
Its basic meaning is:
“I am.”
Depending on context, it can also be translated:
“I am he.”
“It is I.”
Or as part of a longer sentence:
“I am the bread of life.”
The pronoun egō makes the subject explicit and can add emphasis.
But the expression itself is not exclusively divine.
For example, in John 9:9, the man who had been blind uses the same Greek words when identifying himself.
He is effectively saying:
“I am the man.”
Clearly, this man was not claiming to be Almighty God.
Therefore, the words egō eimi cannot automatically be treated as a divine name whenever they appear.
But this observation does not settle John 8:58.
The unusual temporal comparison with Abraham gives Jesus' statement a significance absent from the ordinary self-identification in John 9:9.
We must investigate that difference.
4. THE TWO TYPES OF “I AM” STATEMENTS
John's Gospel contains two important patterns.
The first is the statement with an expressed description.
For example:
“I am the bread of life.” — John 6:35
“I am the light of the world.” — John 8:12
“I am the good shepherd.” — John 10:11
“I am the resurrection and the life.” — John 11:25
“I am the way, the truth, and the life.” — John 14:6
“I am the true vine.” — John 15:1
These statements identify Jesus through descriptions or metaphors.
The second pattern is the absolute or apparently unqualified egō eimi.
Examples include John 8:24, 8:28, 8:58 and 13:19.
These statements require particular attention because they may echo Old Testament language of divine self-identification.
But not every unqualified egō eimi necessarily has exactly the same meaning.
Sometimes the implied meaning is “I am he.”
The question is whether John 8:58 is one of those statements or something stronger.
5. EXODUS 3:14 — DID JESUS QUOTE GOD'S NAME?
This is one of the most important comparisons.
In Exodus 3:14, God speaks to Moses.
The Hebrew reads:
אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה
Ehyeh asher ehyeh.
This is commonly translated:
“I AM WHO I AM.”
The Hebrew verb can also carry a future-oriented sense, giving rise to translations such as “I will be what I will be.”
Now examine the ancient Greek Septuagint.
Its rendering includes:
ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν
Egō eimi ho ōn.
A close translation is:
“I am the One who is.”
God then instructs Moses to tell Israel that:
ὁ ὤν — ho ōn
“The One who is” has sent him.
This distinction matters.
John 8:58 contains:
ἐγώ εἰμι — egō eimi.
It does not contain the full expression:
ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν — egō eimi ho ōn.
Therefore, John 8:58 is not an exact quotation of the Greek wording of Exodus 3:14.
That is a grammatical fact.
But it does not prove that no allusion is intended.
An author may allude to an Old Testament passage without reproducing its complete wording.
We must therefore distinguish:
Not an exact quotation
from
Not a possible allusion.
These are different claims.
6. ISAIAH — AN EVEN MORE IMPORTANT OLD TESTAMENT CONNECTION?
Many discussions focus almost entirely on Exodus 3:14.
But the book of Isaiah may provide an equally important background.
Isaiah repeatedly records Yahweh identifying Himself with expressions equivalent to:
“I AM HE.”
Isaiah 43:10 is especially significant.
In the Greek Septuagint, God's declaration includes:
ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι
Hoti egō eimi.
“That I am.”
This wording is much closer to the expression used in John's Gospel.
Isaiah's context concerns God's unique identity, His power to save and His distinction from false gods.
Other relevant passages include Isaiah 41:4, 43:13, 46:4 and 48:12.
Therefore, the argument that Jesus' egō eimi sayings echo divine language does not depend exclusively on Exodus 3:14.
The Isaiah passages deserve serious consideration.
A Biblical Unitarian interpretation must address them.
It is insufficient merely to point out that Exodus 3:14 contains ho ōn.
That observation is correct but does not eliminate the possible Isaianic background.
7. IF JESUS ECHOED ISAIAH, WAS HE CLAIMING TO BE YAHWEH?
This question requires care.
One interpretation is that Jesus deliberately uses Yahweh's language of self-identification to reveal his participation in divine identity.
Under this interpretation, the statements are much more than ordinary messianic claims.
But another interpretation is possible.
Jesus may speak as God's uniquely authorised representative, revealing the Father's identity and purpose.
The Old Testament contains examples of God's agents speaking with divine authority.
Prophets deliver God's words in the first person.
The angel of Yahweh sometimes speaks in a manner closely identifying the divine messenger with the God who sends him.
Such passages raise important questions about representation and agency.
However, we must not automatically apply those examples to John 8:58.
Jesus is not explicitly introduced in this verse as quoting Yahweh.
Nor does the text state that he is merely repeating a message.
The interpretation must be established from the wider context.
The existence of agency-language elsewhere in Scripture makes a representative interpretation possible.
It does not prove that John intended one here.
8. JOHN 8:24 — “UNLESS YOU BELIEVE THAT I AM HE”
Earlier in the same chapter, Jesus declares:
“I said therefore to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am he, you will die in your sins.” — John 8:24, WEB
The Greek expression is:
ἐγώ εἰμι — egō eimi.
The word “he” is supplied in English to express an implied identification.
What identity must people believe?
The immediate context concerns Jesus' origin, mission and relationship with the Father.
Jesus says he is from above and that he is not of this world.
He also declares that the Father sent him.
A Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands the statement as requiring belief that Jesus is the promised Messiah.
A Trinitarian interpretation may understand it as revealing a deeper divine identity.
Both readings must explain the connection with Isaiah's divine self-identification language.
The statement is significant.
But the words alone do not explicitly say:
“I am Yahweh.”
The theological conclusion depends on the broader context.
9. JOHN 8:28 — “THEN YOU WILL KNOW THAT I AM HE”
Jesus continues:
“When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he, and I do nothing of myself, but as my Father taught me, I say these things.” — John 8:28, WEB
Again, the Greek contains:
ἐγώ εἰμι — egō eimi.
But notice what immediately follows.
Jesus says:
“I DO NOTHING OF MYSELF.”
And:
“AS MY FATHER TAUGHT ME, I SAY THESE THINGS.”
This is particularly important for Biblical Unitarian theology.
Jesus identifies himself as the one who speaks according to the Father's teaching.
His authority comes from the Father.
The context strongly emphasises his dependence upon God.
But the Trinitarian interpretation does not necessarily deny this dependence within Jesus' earthly mission.
Therefore, John 8:28 establishes the Father's role as sender and teacher.
It does not, by itself, settle the question of Jesus' preexistence.
Nevertheless, it helps us understand how John's Gospel connects egō eimi with Jesus' mission.
10. JOHN 4:25–26 — “I WHO SPEAK TO YOU AM HE”
The Samaritan woman says:
“I know that Messiah comes, he who is called Christ. When he has come, he will declare to us all things.” — John 4:25, WEB
Jesus answers:
“I am he, the one who speaks to you.” — John 4:26, WEB
The Greek includes:
ἐγώ εἰμι — egō eimi.
Here, the context is clear.
The woman speaks about the coming Messiah.
Jesus identifies himself as that Messiah.
This provides an important example of egō eimi functioning as messianic self-identification.
Biblical Unitarians argue that John 8:24, 8:28 and possibly 8:58 should be understood within the same framework.
But there is a difficulty.
John 4:26 contains an immediately identifiable subject: the Messiah.
John 8:58 contains a comparison with Abraham's existence.
Therefore, the two passages are not identical.
John 4:26 proves that egō eimi can mean “I am he” in a messianic context.
It does not prove that John 8:58 has exactly the same meaning.
11. JOHN 8:56 — WHAT DID ABRAHAM ACTUALLY SEE?
The immediate context of John 8:58 is crucial.
Jesus declares:
“Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day. He saw it, and was glad.” — John 8:56, WEB
This is an extraordinary statement.
Jesus does not initially say that Abraham personally met him.
He says Abraham rejoiced to see his day.
What does “my day” mean?
The phrase may refer to the promised messianic era, the fulfilment of God's promises through Christ, or a prophetic anticipation of Jesus' mission.
The Abrahamic covenant is therefore central to the discussion.
Genesis 12:3 promises that all the families of the earth will be blessed through Abraham.
Genesis 22:18 repeats the promise concerning Abraham's offspring.
Galatians 3:16 identifies the promised offspring, in Paul's interpretation, with Christ.
Therefore, Abraham's hope was connected with the future Messiah.
Under a Biblical Unitarian interpretation, Abraham saw Christ's day through faith in God's promise.
This does not require Abraham to have personally met a preexistent Jesus.
But the next two verses introduce an additional question.
12. JOHN 8:57 — THE CROWD MISUNDERSTANDS JESUS
Jesus' opponents respond:
“You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” — John 8:57, WEB
Notice the change.
Jesus had said:
“ABRAHAM REJOICED TO SEE MY DAY.”
His opponents ask:
“HAVE YOU SEEN ABRAHAM?”
These are not identical statements.
Jesus spoke of Abraham seeing his day.
His opponents reverse the relationship and ask whether Jesus had seen Abraham.
This is important because John's Gospel frequently records misunderstandings.
Nicodemus misunderstands being born again.
The Samaritan woman initially misunderstands living water.
Jesus' opponents misunderstand his statement about the temple.
The Biblical Unitarian argument is that the opponents again misunderstand Jesus by treating his statement about Abraham's prophetic hope as a claim about a personal encounter.
This is a reasonable contextual observation.
But Jesus' response in verse 58 must still be explained.
Does he correct their misunderstanding?
Or does he deliberately make an even greater claim?
13. JOHN 8:58 — DID JESUS CORRECT THEM OR INTENSIFY HIS CLAIM?
Jesus answers:
“BEFORE ABRAHAM CAME INTO EXISTENCE, I AM.”
The personal-preexistence interpretation understands this as intensifying the claim.
Jesus is not merely saying Abraham foresaw his day.
He is declaring that his own existence precedes Abraham's.
This interpretation has strong support from the natural reading of the sentence.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation argues that Jesus is asserting the priority of his messianic identity in God's purpose.
The Messiah's place in God's plan precedes Abraham himself.
But there is a difficulty.
Jesus does not explicitly say:
“My mission was planned before Abraham.”
Nor does he say:
“My day was foreknown before Abraham.”
He says:
“I AM.”
The foreknowledge interpretation therefore requires a theological explanation of the language rather than a straightforward grammatical translation.
That does not automatically make it impossible.
But it does place a burden of proof on the interpreter.
14. THE CONTRAST BETWEEN GENESTHAI AND EIMI
The Greek contrast deserves closer attention.
Abraham is described using:
γενέσθαι — genesthai.
Jesus uses:
εἰμί — eimi.
The first verb concerns coming into existence.
The second concerns being.
Many traditional commentators understand the contrast as deliberate.
Abraham came into existence.
Jesus simply is.
This is sometimes connected with John 1:1–3, where the Word “was” in the beginning while created things “came into being.”
That connection is important.
The personal-preexistence interpretation sees a consistent distinction between the eternal Word and created humanity.
But the Greek verbs alone do not establish the entire doctrine of eternal deity.
The verb eimi is ordinarily used of human existence as well.
Its significance in John 8:58 arises from the unusual combination of present tense and a temporal reference to Abraham.
We should neither minimise nor exaggerate the contrast.
15. WHY DID JESUS SAY “I AM” INSTEAD OF “I WAS”?
This is a major question.
If Jesus simply wanted to say that he existed before Abraham, why use the present tense?
One explanation is that Jesus is describing continuing existence extending back before Abraham.
Another is that he deliberately echoes God's language of self-identification.
A third is that the expression functions as an emphatic identification of Jesus as the promised Messiah.
Some interpreters argue that the present tense may communicate a state beginning in the past and continuing into the present.
This has sometimes been called a present of past action still in progress.
But the exact classification of John 8:58 is disputed.
It would be inaccurate to claim that Greek grammar forces only one interpretation.
Nevertheless, the sentence's temporal comparison strongly favours some claim of priority before Abraham.
The question is whether that priority concerns Jesus' personal existence or his identity within God's eternal purpose.
16. THE JEHOVAH'S WITNESS TRANSLATION — “I HAVE BEEN”
The New World Translation renders John 8:58:
“Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.”
This differs from the more familiar:
“Before Abraham was, I am.”
Jehovah's Witnesses understand the statement as affirming Jesus' personal existence before Abraham.
They reject the conclusion that Jesus is Almighty God.
Their translation attempts to communicate continuing existence from an earlier time.
But it is important to recognise that the Greek verb is present tense:
εἰμί — “I am.”
“I have been” is an interpretive English rendering.
It is not the direct grammatical form of the verb.
Some scholars have considered a continuing-existence explanation possible.
Others strongly reject the translation as insufficiently justified in this context.
Therefore, the New World Translation should not be treated as a neutral solution to the debate.
Its wording reflects a particular interpretation.
17. THE BIBLICAL UNITARIAN FOREKNOWLEDGE INTERPRETATION
We now examine a major Biblical Unitarian explanation.
Under this interpretation, Jesus existed in God's purpose before Abraham.
God had already determined the Messiah's identity and saving mission.
The promise given to Abraham was part of that purpose.
Therefore, Jesus could claim priority over Abraham without implying that he personally lived before Abraham's birth.
Relevant passages include:
1 Peter 1:20: Christ was foreknown before the foundation of the world.
Ephesians 1:4: Believers were chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world.
Jeremiah 1:5: God knew Jeremiah before forming him in the womb.
These passages establish that God's knowledge and purpose can precede the historical existence of those involved.
But we must distinguish them from John 8:58.
The passages explicitly use language of foreknowledge, choosing or knowing.
John 8:58 does not.
Therefore, the foreknowledge interpretation is possible as a theological proposal.
But it is not the most immediate grammatical reading.
The interpretation must demonstrate that John's context justifies applying this principle.
18. DR DUSTIN SMITH — JEWISH NOTIONAL PREEXISTENCE
Biblical Unitarian scholar Dr Dustin Smith has examined Jewish concepts of preexistence in relation to John 8:58.
His research distinguishes between literal personal preexistence and what is sometimes called notional preexistence.
Notional preexistence refers to something existing in God's plan, purpose or foreknowledge before its historical appearance.
Jewish literature contains traditions concerning realities prepared or contemplated before creation.
These include discussions of the Messiah and the Messiah's name.
The argument is that ancient Jewish readers could understand language of preexistence without always assuming the literal existence of a conscious person.
This provides a historically relevant framework.
It is stronger than simply asserting that God can foreknow the future.
It attempts to establish that such language belonged to the conceptual world of early Judaism.
However, the existence of notional-preexistence traditions does not prove that John 8:58 uses one.
The question remains whether the particular wording and context favour that explanation.
Historical background establishes interpretive possibilities.
It does not automatically determine authorial intention.
19. ANOTHER BIBLICAL UNITARIAN APPROACH — “BEFORE ABRAHAM BECOMES”
A less common interpretation takes a different approach.
It argues that the Greek infinitive genesthai does not itself specify past time.
Its time reference must be determined by context.
Some interpreters have therefore proposed reading the statement along the lines of:
“Before Abraham becomes, I am he.”
Under this explanation, the reference could concern Abraham's future fulfilment as father of many nations, particularly in the resurrection and messianic kingdom.
The interpretation has historical roots in Socinian discussions.
It is distinct from the more common foreknowledge interpretation.
But it faces a substantial contextual difficulty.
The conversation concerns Abraham as an ancestral figure who lived long before Jesus.
Jesus' opponents have just questioned how someone under fifty could have seen Abraham.
Therefore, the ordinary contextual reference of genesthai is Abraham's coming into existence in the past.
A future reading is grammatically discussable but contextually much less persuasive.
We should include it in our investigation without treating it as equally probable.
20. DID ABRAHAM SEE JESUS IN A VISION?
Another possibility concerns Jesus' statement that Abraham saw his day.
Genesis records divine promises to Abraham.
It also records encounters with divine messengers and the appearance of Yahweh.
Some Christians understand certain Old Testament appearances as manifestations of the preexistent Son.
Others reject that identification.
But John 8:56 does not explicitly identify a particular Genesis event.
It says Abraham saw Jesus' day.
The language may refer to prophetic faith in the coming Messiah.
Hebrews 11 describes the patriarchs as looking toward promises they had not yet received.
This provides a relevant framework.
Abraham could rejoice in the promised Messiah without having met Jesus personally.
However, this explains John 8:56 more directly than John 8:58.
The latter verse still requires its own interpretation.
21. JOHN 8:54 — JESUS IDENTIFIES THE FATHER AS HIS GOD
Before the disputed declaration, Jesus says:
“It is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say that he is our God.” — John 8:54, WEB
This verse is extremely important.
Jesus identifies the Father as the one who glorifies him.
He also identifies the Father as the God worshipped by his opponents.
The structure is clear.
The Father is the one who gives glory.
Jesus is the one who receives glory.
Under Biblical Unitarian theology, this supports the distinction between the one God and His Messiah.
But does it settle John 8:58?
No.
A Trinitarian can affirm that the Father glorifies the Son while maintaining that the Son shares the divine nature.
A non-Trinitarian who believes in personal preexistence can also affirm the distinction.
Therefore, John 8:54 provides important evidence concerning the Father–Son relationship.
It does not automatically eliminate the possibility of personal preexistence.
Nevertheless, it prevents us from reading John 8:58 in isolation from Jesus' explicit identification of the Father.
22. WHY DID THEY PICK UP STONES?
John 8:59 reports:
“Therefore they took up stones to throw at him, but Jesus was hidden, and went out of the temple.” — WEB
This reaction is frequently treated as proof that Jesus claimed to be Almighty God.
But we must be careful.
The text does not explicitly say:
“They took up stones because Jesus had pronounced the divine name.”
Nor does it explicitly say:
“They took up stones because Jesus claimed to have lived before Abraham.”
The reaction demonstrates that his opponents regarded his statement as extremely offensive.
Several explanations have been proposed.
They may have understood him to be claiming divine identity.
They may have regarded his claim to superiority over Abraham as blasphemous.
They may have considered his messianic claims intolerable.
The surrounding conflict certainly involves questions of religious authority, truth and Jesus' relationship with God.
John 10:33 later records opponents explicitly accusing Jesus of making himself God.
But that later accusation cannot simply be inserted into John 8:59 as though John had written it there.
An accusation made by Jesus' opponents is evidence of their reaction, not automatically proof that their interpretation was correct.
The attempted stoning is important.
It is not, by itself, a complete explanation of John 8:58.
23. DID JESUS CLAIM TO BE GREATER THAN ABRAHAM?
Earlier in the discussion, Jesus' opponents ask:
“Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died?” — John 8:53, WEB
This question provides important context.
The issue is Jesus' authority and status relative to Abraham.
Jesus has promised life to those who keep his word.
His opponents respond by pointing to Abraham's death.
They challenge his authority to make such a promise.
Jesus then explains that the Father glorifies him.
He speaks of Abraham rejoicing to see his day.
Finally, he declares:
“BEFORE ABRAHAM CAME INTO EXISTENCE, I AM.”
This sequence strongly suggests that Jesus is claiming an extraordinary priority over Abraham.
The question is the nature of that priority.
Is it personal existence before Abraham?
Is it the Messiah's superior place in God's purpose?
Or does it include a claim to divine identity?
The context establishes the seriousness of the claim.
But it does not explicitly define every theological implication.
24. JOHN 1:1 AND JOHN 8:58 — A DELIBERATE CONNECTION?
Now return to the main subject of our series.
John 1:1 declares:
“IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD.”
John 8:58 declares:
“BEFORE ABRAHAM CAME INTO EXISTENCE, I AM.”
The traditional interpretation sees these as mutually reinforcing statements.
The Word existed before creation.
The Word became flesh.
Jesus identifies himself as existing before Abraham.
Therefore, Jesus is the personally preexistent Word.
This is a coherent reading of John's Gospel.
But the Biblical Unitarian Genesis Word interpretation understands the opening Word as God's own creative speech and purpose.
Under that view, the Word existed before Abraham, but Jesus as a human person did not.
The difficulty is explaining why Jesus later speaks in the first person about priority before Abraham.
A foreknowledge interpretation provides one proposed answer.
But we must ask whether John intended his readers to make that distinction.
The question cannot be settled merely by observing that the Old Testament sometimes describes God's Word impersonally.
The Gospel's later statements must also be explained.
25. DOES JOHN 8:58 PROVE THE TRINITY?
We must distinguish three possible conclusions.
CONCLUSION ONE: JESUS CLAIMED MESSIANIC PRIORITY.
Under this interpretation, Jesus identifies himself as the promised Messiah whose place in God's purpose precedes Abraham.
This is compatible with Biblical Unitarian theology.
CONCLUSION TWO: JESUS CLAIMED PERSONAL PREEXISTENCE.
Under this interpretation, Jesus personally existed before Abraham.
This is compatible with Trinitarianism, Jehovah's Witness theology and other preexistence Christologies.
It does not independently establish the Trinity.
CONCLUSION THREE: JESUS CLAIMED DIVINE IDENTITY.
Under this interpretation, Jesus' language deliberately echoes Yahweh's self-identification in Isaiah and perhaps Exodus.
This provides a stronger argument for a high Christology.
But even then, the interpreter must explain the relationship between Jesus and the Father whom he identifies as his God and the one who glorifies him.
John 8:58 does not explicitly mention the Holy Spirit or formulate the doctrine of three coequal persons.
Therefore, it should not be presented as a complete proof of the Trinity by itself.
26. THE MOST IMPORTANT DISTINCTION — DIVINE IDENTITY OR DIVINE REPRESENTATION?
The central theological question is not simply whether Jesus used language associated with God.
It is what that language communicates.
Did Jesus claim to be the one God Himself?
Or did he speak as the uniquely appointed Son who perfectly reveals and represents the Father?
John 5:43 records Jesus saying that he came in his Father's name.
John 7:16 says his teaching belongs to the one who sent him.
John 8:28 says he speaks as the Father taught him.
John 12:49 says the Father gave him a commandment concerning what to speak.
These passages strongly emphasise divine representation.
But John also contains extraordinary claims concerning Jesus' origin, glory and relationship with the Father.
Therefore, representation and high Christology cannot simply be treated as mutually exclusive categories.
The Gospel may portray Jesus as God's representative while also making claims that exceed ordinary prophetic agency.
The question is how far those claims extend.
That is what our investigation must determine.
27. COMPARING THE INTERPRETATIONS
| Interpretation | Meaning of John 8:58 | Main strength | Main difficulty |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trinitarian | Jesus speaks as the eternally preexistent divine Son | Fits the temporal contrast and possible divine echoes | Full Trinity requires additional evidence |
| Jehovah's Witness | Jesus existed personally before Abraham | Fits the ordinary temporal reading | Created status is not stated |
| Biblical Unitarian — Foreknowledge | Jesus' messianic identity existed in God's purpose | Has biblical and Jewish conceptual parallels | “I am” is not explicitly described as foreknowledge |
| Biblical Unitarian — Messianic identification | Jesus identifies himself as the promised Messiah | Fits John 4:26 and the Abrahamic promises | Must explain the unusual temporal comparison |
| Socinian future-Abraham reading | Jesus' messianic identity precedes Abraham's future fulfilment | Explores a grammatical possibility | Strong contextual objections |
| Oneness | God's eternal self-expression is manifested in Jesus | Connects divine Word and manifestation | Must explain Father–Son distinctions |
These interpretations should not be treated as equally supported merely because they can be proposed.
Their relative strength depends on grammar, immediate context and the wider Gospel.
28. OUR PRELIMINARY FINDINGS
The evidence supports several important conclusions.
First: John 8:58 contains the Greek expression egō eimi.
Second: The expression itself is not exclusively a divine name.
Third: John 9:9 demonstrates its ordinary use in human self-identification.
Fourth: Exodus 3:14 in the Septuagint contains the fuller expression egō eimi ho ōn.
Fifth: John 8:58 is not an exact quotation of Exodus 3:14.
Sixth: Isaiah's divine self-identification language provides a potentially important background.
Seventh: The contrast between Abraham's coming into existence and Jesus' “I am” is striking.
Eighth: The ordinary reading strongly supports some claim of existence or priority before Abraham.
Ninth: The immediate context concerns Abraham, messianic fulfilment and Jesus' extraordinary authority.
Tenth: Biblical Unitarian interpretations based on divine foreknowledge and messianic identity have relevant biblical parallels.
Eleventh: Those interpretations face substantial difficulties in explaining the direct first-person temporal language.
Twelfth: The attempted stoning demonstrates the seriousness of the claim but does not independently identify its precise meaning.
Thirteenth: John 8:54 identifies the Father as the one who glorifies Jesus.
Fourteenth: Personal preexistence and identification as Almighty God are distinct theological claims.
29. OUR CURRENT ASSESSMENT — WHICH INTERPRETATION IS STRONGEST?
After examining the Greek and the immediate context, the personal-preexistence interpretation has a substantial advantage in explaining the temporal wording of John 8:58.
The contrast between Abraham coming into existence and Jesus saying “I am” naturally suggests an existence or status preceding Abraham.
The wider Gospel also contains statements about Jesus coming from heaven, returning to the Father and possessing glory before the world existed.
Taken together, these passages create a strong cumulative argument for personal preexistence.
But the claim that John 8:58 directly identifies Jesus as Yahweh requires a further argument.
The words egō eimi are not exclusively divine.
John 8:58 is not an exact quotation of Exodus 3:14.
Nevertheless, the language of Isaiah provides a serious possible background for divine self-identification.
Therefore, we should not dismiss the divine-identity interpretation merely because the Exodus wording differs.
The Biblical Unitarian foreknowledge interpretation remains a meaningful alternative within a wider theology of God's eternal purpose.
But it requires a greater interpretive step than the ordinary reading of the sentence.
Our provisional conclusion is that John 8:58 provides stronger immediate evidence for personal preexistence than for the claim that Jesus explicitly identified himself as Almighty God.
That conclusion does not settle the larger question of Jesus' identity.
Nor does it determine the final meaning of John 1:1.
It does establish that any non-personal-preexistence interpretation must account for some unusually strong language.
30. THE NEXT QUESTION — DID JESUS EXIST BEFORE THE WORLD WAS CREATED?
We have now examined several major passages.
John 1:1 speaks of the Word in the beginning.
John 6:38 speaks of Jesus coming down from heaven.
John 6:62 speaks of ascending to where he was previously.
John 8:58 speaks of priority before Abraham.
John 17:5 speaks of glory with the Father before the world existed.
But another group of passages must now be examined.
Colossians 1:15–17 describes Christ as:
“THE FIRSTBORN OF ALL CREATION.”
It also says that all things were created through him and for him.
Hebrews 1:1–2 declares that God has spoken through His Son, through whom He also made the ages.
First Corinthians 8:6 distinguishes the one God, the Father, from the one Lord, Jesus Christ, and describes all things as being through Jesus.
Do these passages establish that Jesus personally participated in the original creation?
Or can they be understood in relation to God's purpose, the new creation and the Messiah's exaltation?
These questions are essential.
We cannot reach a final conclusion about John 1 without comparing John's language with the rest of the New Testament.
END OF PART 11
Coming in Part 12: “ALL THINGS WERE CREATED THROUGH HIM” — WAS JESUS PRESENT AT THE ORIGINAL CREATION?
We will investigate Colossians 1:15–20, Hebrews 1:1–2 and 1 Corinthians 8:6.
We will compare original creation with new creation, examine the Greek prepositions used for divine agency, and consider whether the Son is presented as the Creator, the agent of creation or the appointed heir of God's new creation.
Our guiding principle remains unchanged:
We must follow the evidence rather than a predetermined doctrine.
We must distinguish grammatical facts from theological interpretations.
And we must compare every explanation with the complete biblical testimony.
The goal is not to prove what we already believe. The goal is to discover what John actually meant.
JOHN 1:1 — GOD'S WORD, OR THE BEGINNING OF JESUS' MINISTRY?
PART 12 — “ALL THINGS WERE CREATED THROUGH HIM”: WAS JESUS PRESENT AT THE ORIGINAL CREATION?
By Simon Brown — Real Discoveries
https://wwwrealdiscoveriesorg-simon.blogspot.com
1. INTRODUCTION — DID GOD CREATE THE UNIVERSE THROUGH JESUS CHRIST?
In our previous studies, we examined the extraordinary statements found in John's Gospel.
John 1:1 declares that the Word was in the beginning.
John 1:3 says all things came into existence through the Word.
John 1:14 declares that the Word became flesh.
John 6:38 records Jesus saying that he came down from heaven.
John 8:58 places Jesus' “I am” before Abraham's coming into existence.
And John 17:5 describes glory Jesus says he had with the Father before the world existed.
These passages provide important evidence for the traditional interpretation that Jesus personally existed before his human birth.
But the New Testament contains other passages that must be examined.
Colossians 1:16 declares:
“For by him all things were created, in the heavens and on the earth, things visible and things invisible...” — WEB
Hebrews 1:2 says God spoke through His Son:
“...through whom also he made the worlds.” — WEB
And 1 Corinthians 8:6 declares:
“Yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we live through him.” — WEB
These statements raise a serious question.
If all things were created through Jesus Christ, does this prove that he personally existed when the universe was created?
Or is the language concerned with God's purpose, His Word and the new creation established through the Messiah?
We must not assume that the answer is obvious.
The original Greek, the literary context and the Old Testament background must be examined carefully.
2. FIRST, WE MUST DISTINGUISH THREE DIFFERENT QUESTIONS
Before studying the passages, three questions must be kept separate.
QUESTION ONE: WHO IS THE ULTIMATE SOURCE OF CREATION?
The New Testament repeatedly identifies God the Father as the ultimate source of all things.
QUESTION TWO: THROUGH WHOM DOES GOD ACCOMPLISH HIS CREATIVE PURPOSE?
Several New Testament passages associate creation with the Son.
But the nature of that agency is debated.
QUESTION THREE: DOES CREATIVE AGENCY ESTABLISH THAT JESUS IS ALMIGHTY GOD?
Even if Jesus personally participated in creation, that would not automatically establish every element of Trinitarian theology.
The relationship between the one God, the Father, and the one Lord, Jesus Christ, must still be investigated.
Likewise, if the passages concern the new creation, that interpretation must be demonstrated from the context rather than assumed.
These distinctions are essential.
3. COLOSSIANS 1:15 — “THE IMAGE OF THE INVISIBLE GOD”
Paul begins his description of Christ:
“Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.” — Colossians 1:15, WEB
The Greek expression for “image” is:
εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου
Eikōn tou theou tou aoratou.
It means:
“Image of the invisible God.”
The word eikōn refers to an image, likeness or representation.
The expression is important because it distinguishes Christ from the invisible God whose image he is.
Biblical Unitarians understand this as evidence that Jesus reveals and represents God rather than being the same person as God.
Trinitarians also distinguish the Son from the Father, while maintaining that the Son shares the divine nature.
Therefore, the distinction between image and original does not independently settle the question of Christ's nature.
Nevertheless, it establishes the representative character of Jesus' identity.
He makes the invisible God known.
This connects with John 1:18, where the Son reveals the unseen God.
4. WHAT DOES “FIRSTBORN OF ALL CREATION” MEAN?
The Greek reads:
πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως
Prōtotokos pasēs ktiseōs.
Literally:
“Firstborn of all creation.”
The word prōtotokos means firstborn.
But in biblical usage, firstborn can express either birth order or superior status.
For example, Psalm 89:27 describes God's appointed king:
“I will also appoint him my firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth.” — WEB
The king's firstborn status is associated with supremacy.
It does not necessarily mean he was the first human being created.
Therefore, Colossians 1:15 does not automatically mean Jesus was the first creature God made.
Jehovah's Witnesses interpret the verse in connection with their belief that the Son was God's first creation.
Trinitarians understand firstborn as expressing supremacy over creation.
Biblical Unitarians may understand it in relation to the Messiah's appointed authority and inheritance.
But the next verse is crucial.
Paul immediately explains why Christ is called firstborn.
We cannot interpret verse 15 without verse 16.
5. COLOSSIANS 1:16 — “FOR IN HIM ALL THINGS WERE CREATED”
The Greek begins:
ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα
Hoti en autō ektisthē ta panta.
A close rendering is:
“Because in him all things were created.”
The word hoti means “because” or “for.”
It introduces an explanation of Christ's firstborn status.
The verb ektisthē comes from ktizō, meaning to create.
The phrase ta panta means “all things.”
The verse continues by describing things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible.
It specifically includes thrones, dominions, principalities and powers.
This language is extremely important.
The traditional interpretation understands it as describing the original creation of the universe.
Under that interpretation, the Son personally existed before creation and participated in God's creative activity.
The Biblical Unitarian new-creation interpretation argues that Paul's emphasis is on the new order of authority established through the exalted Messiah.
The mention of thrones and dominions is particularly important to that argument.
But we must examine whether the wording supports restricting “all things” to a new spiritual order.
6. DOES “ALL THINGS” ALWAYS MEAN ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING?
The Greek phrase is:
τὰ πάντα — ta panta.
It commonly means “all things.”
But its scope depends on context.
For example, when Scripture says that God placed all things under Christ's feet, the context concerns authority and dominion.
The phrase does not necessarily mean that God Himself is included among the things subjected to Christ.
First Corinthians 15:27 explicitly clarifies that the one who subjected all things to Christ is excluded.
Therefore, “all things” can have contextual limits.
This is relevant to Colossians 1:16.
The new-creation interpretation argues that the things in view are those belonging to Christ's kingdom and authority.
But the original-creation interpretation points to the breadth of the wording:
“IN THE HEAVENS AND ON THE EARTH.”
“VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE.”
These expressions naturally suggest the total created order.
A restricted interpretation must therefore explain why Paul uses such comprehensive language.
The existence of contextually limited uses elsewhere does not prove that Colossians 1:16 is limited.
7. THE IMPORTANCE OF “THRONES, DOMINIONS, PRINCIPALITIES AND POWERS”
Paul specifically mentions:
θρόνοι — thronoi: thrones
κυριότητες — kyriotētes: dominions
ἀρχαί — archai: rulers or principalities
ἐξουσίαι — exousiai: authorities or powers
These terms are associated with structures of authority.
They may refer particularly to heavenly or spiritual powers, although interpretations differ.
The new-creation interpretation emphasises that Paul is discussing Christ's supremacy over every authority.
This fits the broader letter.
Colossians 2:10 describes Christ as the head of all principality and power.
Colossians 2:15 describes the disarming of principalities and powers.
Therefore, authority is certainly an important theme.
But the mention of authorities does not necessarily restrict creation to authorities.
Paul introduces them after the comprehensive expressions “in heaven and on earth” and “visible and invisible.”
They may be examples included within the totality of creation.
Thus, the original-creation interpretation has a substantial contextual argument.
The new-creation interpretation must demonstrate that the list defines the whole scope rather than illustrating it.
8. “ALL THINGS WERE CREATED THROUGH HIM AND FOR HIM”
Colossians 1:16 continues:
τὰ πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται
Ta panta di' autou kai eis auton ektistai.
A close translation is:
“All things have been created through him and for him.”
Two prepositions are particularly important.
διά — dia: through
εἰς — eis: for, toward, unto
The language of creation “through” someone can describe agency.
The language of creation “for” someone can describe purpose or goal.
This distinction matters.
God may be the ultimate source of creation, while another is described as the one through whom creation occurs.
But does dia require a personally existing agent?
Not in every possible context.
God's Word, wisdom or power can be described as the means through which He acts.
Nevertheless, in Colossians 1:16, the pronouns refer to Christ, a personal subject.
That gives the personal-agency interpretation significant force.
A Biblical Unitarian explanation must account for why Paul describes creation through and for Christ.
It is not sufficient simply to point out that dia can sometimes describe an instrument.
9. COLOSSIANS 1:17 — “HE IS BEFORE ALL THINGS”
Paul continues:
“He is before all things, and in him all things are held together.” — Colossians 1:17, WEB
The Greek begins:
καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν πρὸ πάντων
Kai autos estin pro pantōn.
A close translation is:
“And he is before all things.”
The expression pro pantōn can naturally indicate priority before all things.
The traditional interpretation understands this as Christ's existence before creation.
The new-creation interpretation may understand it as supremacy or priority in rank.
The Greek preposition pro can express temporal priority, and the context must determine its force.
The next clause declares:
“IN HIM ALL THINGS HOLD TOGETHER.”
This is particularly challenging for an interpretation limited to the new creation.
The language can naturally describe the continuing coherence of the created universe.
A new-creation interpretation may understand it as the maintenance of the new order under Christ's authority.
But that is not the most obvious reading of the entire statement.
Therefore, Colossians 1:17 provides substantial support for the original-creation interpretation.
10. COLOSSIANS 1:18 — THE FIRSTBORN FROM THE DEAD
Paul then declares:
“He is the head of the body, the assembly, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.” — WEB
This verse introduces an important development.
Christ is the head of the church.
He is the beginning.
He is the firstborn from the dead.
The resurrection is central to his supremacy.
This is particularly important for the new-creation interpretation.
Jesus' resurrection marks the beginning of the new creation.
He is the firstborn from the dead.
He is the head of the new community of believers.
The question is whether verses 15–17 already describe that new creation or whether Paul moves from original creation to new creation in verse 18.
The traditional interpretation sees two related spheres.
Christ is supreme over the original creation.
Christ is also supreme over the new creation through resurrection.
The new-creation interpretation sees a more unified emphasis on Christ's kingdom and renewed order.
Both approaches recognise the importance of verse 18.
But the transition from cosmic creation-language to the church and resurrection may favour the traditional interpretation that Paul is discussing more than one aspect of Christ's supremacy.
11. COLOSSIANS 1:20 — RECONCILING ALL THINGS
Colossians 1:20 speaks of God reconciling all things through Christ, making peace through the blood of his cross.
The passage refers to things on earth and things in heaven.
This resembles the comprehensive language of verse 16.
The new-creation interpretation argues that reconciliation provides the key to understanding the whole passage.
The “all things” associated with Christ concern God's renewed order.
But reconciliation and creation are not identical concepts.
Something can be created before it requires reconciliation.
Indeed, the traditional interpretation sees a deliberate relationship.
The one through whom all things were created is also the one through whom God reconciles all things.
That produces a coherent movement from creation to redemption.
The new-creation interpretation must explain why the same comprehensive language should be understood as referring only to the new order in both contexts.
The argument is possible, but it requires careful demonstration.
12. OUR PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF COLOSSIANS 1
Colossians 1:15–20 is one of the strongest passages supporting Christ's involvement in original creation.
The language is broad.
It includes heaven and earth.
It includes visible and invisible realities.
It describes all things being created through and for Christ.
It says Christ is before all things.
It says all things hold together in him.
The new-creation interpretation correctly emphasises the passage's concern with authority, resurrection, reconciliation and Christ's supremacy.
But restricting the entire passage to the new creation faces substantial difficulties.
The original-creation interpretation currently provides a more straightforward explanation of the comprehensive wording.
However, this does not automatically settle whether Christ is the ultimate source of creation.
Paul's language of agency remains important.
Nor does it independently establish the full doctrine of the Trinity.
The identity and relationship of the Father and Son must still be examined.
13. HEBREWS 1:1–2 — GOD SPOKE THROUGH HIS SON
Hebrews begins:
“God, having in the past spoken to the fathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, has at the end of these days spoken to us by his Son...” — Hebrews 1:1–2, WEB
The opening distinction is clear.
God is the one who speaks.
The prophets were His earlier messengers.
Now God has spoken through His Son.
This is important for Biblical Unitarian theology.
The Son is distinguished from God as the one through whom God now speaks.
But the passage continues:
“...whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the worlds.” — Hebrews 1:2, WEB
The Greek contains:
δι’ οὗ καὶ ἐποίησεν τοὺς αἰῶνας
Di' hou kai epoiēsen tous aiōnas.
A close translation is:
“Through whom also he made the ages.”
The question is what tous aiōnas means.
Does it refer to the created universe?
Or to the ages of God's saving purpose?
14. THE GREEK WORD AIŌNAS — WORLDS OR AGES?
The Greek noun is:
αἰών — aiōn.
Its plural form here is:
αἰῶνας — aiōnas.
The word can refer to ages, eras or, in some contexts, the world understood in its temporal or cosmic dimensions.
This creates an interpretive question.
Many English translations render Hebrews 1:2 as God making the universe through His Son.
Others preserve the more literal expression “the ages.”
Biblical Unitarians have argued that “ages” may refer to the eras of God's redemptive purpose.
Under this interpretation, the Son is central to the ordering and fulfilment of the ages.
But we must examine Hebrews itself.
Hebrews 11:3 uses the same plural noun in a passage about the universe being prepared by God's word.
That context strongly connects aiōnas with the created order.
Therefore, translating Hebrews 1:2 as “ages” does not automatically establish that the verse excludes original creation.
The meaning must be determined from the author's usage and context.
15. HEBREWS 11:3 — THE AGES WERE PREPARED BY GOD'S WORD
Hebrews 11:3 declares:
“By faith, we understand that the universe has been framed by the word of God, so that what is seen has not been made out of things which are visible.” — WEB
The Greek again contains:
τοὺς αἰῶνας — tous aiōnas.
This is highly significant.
The author connects the ages with the visible created order.
The verse also explicitly identifies God's Word as the means of creation.
The Biblical Unitarian Genesis Word interpretation finds important support here.
God created through His Word.
But Hebrews 1:2 describes God making the ages through His Son.
The traditional interpretation understands these statements as compatible because the Son is identified with the divine Word.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation may distinguish God's creative Word from the human Son in whom that Word later became flesh.
However, Hebrews 1:2 itself refers to the Son as the one through whom God made the ages.
Therefore, the distinction must be argued from the broader biblical context.
It cannot simply be assumed.
16. HEBREWS 1:3 — THE SON UPHOLDS ALL THINGS
Hebrews 1:3 describes the Son as:
“...the radiance of his glory, the very image of his substance, and upholding all things by the word of his power...” — WEB
This is an extraordinary description.
The Son is associated with God's glory.
He is described as the representation of God's reality.
And he upholds all things by his powerful word.
The personal-preexistence interpretation understands this as evidence of the Son's cosmic role.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation emphasises that the Son represents God and exercises authority granted by Him.
But the language of sustaining all things is broad.
It naturally suggests more than the administration of the church alone.
Therefore, Hebrews 1:3 strengthens the cumulative argument for a cosmic role belonging to the Son.
The question is whether that role requires personal existence before his human birth.
The traditional interpretation answers yes.
Alternative interpretations must explain how the Son could be described as the agent of original creation without personally existing at that time.
17. HEBREWS 1:10–12 — A CREATION TEXT APPLIED TO THE SON?
Later in Hebrews 1, the author quotes Psalm 102.
The passage declares:
“You, Lord, in the beginning, laid the foundation of the earth. The heavens are the works of your hands.” — Hebrews 1:10, WEB
This is one of the most important passages in the entire debate.
In Psalm 102, the words concern Yahweh as Creator.
Hebrews applies the quotation within a section contrasting the Son with angels.
The traditional interpretation understands this as identifying the Son with the Creator described in the Psalm.
This provides substantial support for a high Christology and personal preexistence.
Biblical Unitarian interpreters have proposed alternative explanations involving the quotation's function, its original context and the Son's role in God's new creation.
But these explanations face a serious challenge.
The quotation explicitly refers to the foundation of the earth and the heavens as the works of the addressed Lord's hands.
The original-creation interpretation is therefore strong.
A new-creation reading must establish why this language should be transferred to a future renewed creation.
That cannot be assumed merely because Hebrews also discusses the coming world.
18. HEBREWS 2:5 — “THE WORLD TO COME”
Hebrews 2:5 declares:
“For he didn't subject the world to come, of which we speak, to angels.” — WEB
This verse is important for the Biblical Unitarian argument.
The author explicitly mentions the coming world.
The following verses discuss humanity's appointed dominion and Jesus' exaltation.
Therefore, Hebrews is certainly concerned with the future order established through Christ.
Some Biblical Unitarians argue that this provides the controlling framework for the creation-language in Hebrews 1.
But the argument requires caution.
The fact that Hebrews discusses the world to come does not prove that every reference to creation in the preceding chapter concerns only the future world.
Hebrews also refers to the original creation in chapter 11.
The author's argument may encompass both creation and new creation.
Therefore, Hebrews 2:5 provides relevant context but does not automatically redefine Hebrews 1:2 or 1:10.
19. THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION IN HEBREWS — WHO IS SPEAKING?
Hebrews 1 repeatedly quotes the Old Testament.
The author introduces passages concerning angels and the Son.
This raises an important interpretive issue.
When the author quotes a Psalm, is the quoted speaker addressing the Son?
Is the author applying language originally addressed to Yahweh to the Son?
Or is the quotation being used in another literary way?
Hebrews 1:8 explicitly introduces a quotation concerning the Son.
Hebrews 1:10 continues the sequence of quotations.
The traditional interpretation therefore understands the creation-language as addressed to the Son.
This is a substantial argument.
Alternative interpretations must explain the quotation structure carefully.
It would be inadequate simply to claim that Psalm 102 originally concerned the Father and therefore cannot be applied to the Son.
New Testament authors sometimes apply Old Testament passages in ways that extend beyond their original historical setting.
The question is how Hebrews uses the quotation.
This deserves further detailed investigation before reaching a final conclusion.
20. FIRST CORINTHIANS 8:6 — THE ONE GOD AND THE ONE LORD
We now turn to another foundational passage.
Paul declares:
“Yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we live through him.” — 1 Corinthians 8:6, WEB
The Greek distinguishes two expressions.
For the Father:
ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα
Ex hou ta panta.
“From whom are all things.”
For Jesus Christ:
δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα
Di' hou ta panta.
“Through whom are all things.”
This distinction is essential.
The Father is described as the source.
Jesus Christ is described as the one through whom all things are.
But what does “all things” refer to?
The original creation?
The new creation?
Or both?
21. THE FATHER AS THE SOURCE OF ALL THINGS
The Greek preposition used for the Father is:
ἐκ — ek.
It expresses origin or source.
Paul identifies the one God as the Father.
This is particularly important for Biblical Unitarian theology.
The statement is explicit:
“ONE GOD, THE FATHER.”
Paul does not write:
“One God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.”
But we must be careful not to settle the entire debate by an argument from omission.
Trinitarians understand Paul's statement within a broader account of divine identity.
Some argue that Paul is reformulating Israel's confession of one God in a way that includes Jesus within the divine identity.
Biblical Unitarians argue that Paul distinguishes the one God from the one Lord.
Both interpretations must explain the actual wording.
The Father is the source of all things.
Jesus Christ is the one through whom all things are.
The question is how these roles relate.
22. DOES “ONE LORD” MEAN JESUS IS YAHWEH?
The Greek word for Lord is:
κύριος — kyrios.
It can mean lord, master or one possessing authority.
In the Greek Old Testament, kyrios is also commonly used to represent the divine name Yahweh.
This makes Paul's statement particularly significant.
Some Trinitarian scholars argue that Paul deliberately echoes the Shema of Deuteronomy 6:4.
Under this interpretation, the one God and one Lord language includes Jesus within Israel's confession of the one God.
Biblical Unitarians understand the one Lord as the Messiah whom God has appointed and exalted.
Acts 2:36 is important here:
“God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.” — WEB
This passage explicitly describes God making Jesus Lord and Christ.
But does appointed lordship exclude participation in divine identity?
Trinitarians answer no.
Biblical Unitarians answer that the distinction between the one God and the one Lord should be preserved.
The meaning of kyrios must therefore be established contextually.
The title alone does not settle the dispute.
23. THE SHEMA — DEUTERONOMY 6:4
Deuteronomy 6:4 declares:
“Hear, Israel: Yahweh is our God. Yahweh is one.” — WEB
This confession is foundational to biblical monotheism.
Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians 8:6 occurs within a discussion of idols and the existence of one God.
The connection with Jewish monotheism is therefore clear.
The question is whether Paul is simply distinguishing God from His appointed Messiah or deliberately including Jesus in a reformulated expression of the Shema.
The Trinitarian argument emphasises the use of “God” and “Lord” in a context where both terms are associated with Israel's one God.
The Biblical Unitarian argument emphasises Paul's explicit identification of the one God as the Father.
Both arguments must be evaluated.
But one conclusion is certain.
Paul does not present Jesus as an independent rival deity.
His relationship to the Father is central.
The Father remains the ultimate source.
The Son's role is described through agency.
24. DOES “THROUGH WHOM ARE ALL THINGS” REQUIRE PERSONAL PREEXISTENCE?
This is the decisive question.
If Paul means that the original universe was created through Jesus Christ, then the natural implication is that Jesus personally existed at the time of creation.
But the Biblical Unitarian Genesis Word interpretation proposes another explanation.
God created through His Word.
That Word later became flesh in Jesus.
Therefore, creation can be associated with Jesus because he is the embodiment of God's creative Word.
This explanation is theologically coherent.
But does Paul himself make that distinction in 1 Corinthians 8:6?
Not explicitly.
He refers directly to:
“ONE LORD, JESUS CHRIST.”
Then he says:
“THROUGH WHOM ARE ALL THINGS.”
The personal-preexistence interpretation takes this as direct agency.
The Genesis Word interpretation requires an additional step connecting Jesus with God's earlier Word.
That step may be supported by John 1, depending on how the Prologue is understood.
But it is not explicitly stated in 1 Corinthians 8:6.
Therefore, the original-creation personal-agency interpretation has a significant advantage in the immediate wording.
25. THE NEW-CREATION INTERPRETATION OF 1 CORINTHIANS 8:6
Another Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands Paul's statement in relation to the new creation.
The Father is the source of all things.
Jesus Christ is the one through whom believers receive life.
The final expression is important:
“AND WE THROUGH HIM.”
Paul is discussing the community of believers.
The new-creation interpretation argues that the verse concerns God's saving order established through Christ.
This is a meaningful contextual observation.
But the verse contains two related statements:
“THROUGH WHOM ARE ALL THINGS.”
And:
“WE THROUGH HIM.”
The distinction may suggest that the first expression has a broader scope than the second.
The traditional interpretation understands the first as referring to creation and the second to believers' life through Christ.
A new-creation interpretation must explain why Paul uses both expressions if they refer to essentially the same reality.
The distinction is not decisive, but it deserves attention.
26. COMPARING THE THREE MAJOR PASSAGES
We can now bring the evidence together.
| Passage | Original-creation interpretation | New-creation interpretation | Main challenge |
|---|---|---|---|
| Colossians 1:15–20 | Christ is involved in the creation of all things | Christ establishes the new order of authority and reconciliation | Explaining heaven, earth, visible and invisible |
| Hebrews 1:1–3 | God made the universe through His Son | God established the ages of salvation through His Son | Hebrews 11:3 connects the ages with visible creation |
| Hebrews 1:10–12 | Creation-language from Psalm 102 is applied to the Son | The quotation concerns the new creation or a different literary application | Explicit reference to the foundation of earth and heavens |
| 1 Corinthians 8:6 | The Father is the source; Christ is the agent of creation | The Father is the source of salvation; Christ mediates new life | Distinguishing “all things” from “we through him” |
The original-creation interpretation has substantial strength across these passages.
The new-creation interpretation identifies genuine themes of resurrection, reconciliation and messianic authority.
But it faces difficulties when the language appears to describe the entire created order.
27. DOES ORIGINAL CREATION THROUGH CHRIST PROVE THE TRINITY?
No single passage should be made to prove more than it actually says.
Suppose Colossians 1, Hebrews 1 and 1 Corinthians 8:6 describe the original creation through a personally preexistent Son.
That would provide strong evidence for personal preexistence and cosmic agency.
But it would not automatically establish every element of Trinitarian theology.
The passages distinguish God from His Son.
They also use language of divine agency.
The Father is repeatedly presented as the ultimate source.
Therefore, additional arguments would be required to establish that the Son is eternally uncreated and shares the same divine essence as the Father.
Likewise, rejecting Trinitarianism does not automatically require rejecting personal preexistence.
A non-Trinitarian interpretation could affirm a preexistent Son while maintaining that the Father alone is the supreme God.
This distinction is essential for a careful investigation.
28. OUR PRELIMINARY FINDINGS
Several conclusions emerge.
First: Colossians 1:15 describes Christ as the image of the invisible God.
Second: The title “firstborn” can express supremacy rather than merely birth order.
Third: Colossians 1:16 uses comprehensive creation-language.
Fourth: The reference to thrones and powers does not automatically restrict creation to a new spiritual order.
Fifth: Colossians 1:17 strongly suggests priority before all things and a continuing cosmic role.
Sixth: Colossians 1:18 introduces resurrection and Christ's headship over the church.
Seventh: Hebrews 1:2 describes God making the ages through His Son.
Eighth: Hebrews 11:3 uses the same word for ages in connection with the visible created order.
Ninth: Hebrews 1:10–12 applies creation-language from Psalm 102 within its discussion of the Son.
Tenth: First Corinthians 8:6 explicitly identifies the one God as the Father.
Eleventh: The Father is described as the source of all things.
Twelfth: Jesus Christ is described as the one through whom all things are.
Thirteenth: The original-creation interpretation has substantial cumulative support.
Fourteenth: The new-creation interpretation identifies genuine contextual themes but faces important difficulties in explaining the comprehensive language.
Fifteenth: Personal participation in creation does not independently establish the full doctrine of the Trinity.
29. OUR CURRENT ASSESSMENT — WHAT DOES THE EVIDENCE FAVOUR?
After examining these passages, we must acknowledge that the evidence for Christ's involvement in original creation is substantial.
Colossians 1:16–17 is especially difficult to restrict to the new creation.
Hebrews 1:2 and 1:10–12 strengthen the case.
First Corinthians 8:6 provides a further statement of creation through Jesus Christ.
Taken together, these passages create a strong cumulative argument that the New Testament associates Christ with the original creation.
But one important question remains.
Does the New Testament identify the personally preexistent Jesus as the agent of creation, or does it associate Jesus with creation because God's eternal Word and purpose became embodied in him?
The first interpretation is more direct in several of the passages we have examined.
The second depends on a broader understanding of God's Word and its manifestation in Christ.
The question cannot be settled by grammar alone.
It requires a careful comparison of John 1, the Old Testament Word traditions and the New Testament's statements concerning the Son.
Our investigation must therefore continue.
30. THE NEXT QUESTION — DID GOD CREATE ALONE?
One Old Testament passage is particularly important.
Isaiah 44:24 declares:
“I am Yahweh, who makes all things; who alone stretches out the heavens; who spreads out the earth by myself.” — WEB
This is an extraordinary statement.
Yahweh declares that He created alone.
He stretched out the heavens by Himself.
How should this be understood alongside New Testament statements that all things were created through Christ?
Does the Old Testament exclude the possibility of a personally preexistent Son participating in creation?
Or can God's creation through His Word or Son be understood as consistent with Yahweh creating alone?
This question takes us directly to the relationship between divine agency and the identity of the Creator.
We must examine Isaiah 44:24, Isaiah 45:12, Psalm 33:6, Genesis 1 and the New Testament's creation-language.
We must also investigate whether the Old Testament ever presents God's Word or Wisdom as a second conscious person alongside Him.
These questions are essential for our final understanding of John 1:1–3.
END OF PART 12
Coming in Part 13: “I CREATED ALL THINGS ALONE” — DOES ISAIAH 44:24 EXCLUDE A PREEXISTENT SON AS CREATOR?
We will investigate the Hebrew of Isaiah 44:24, the meaning of “alone” and “by myself,” the role of God's Word in creation, and whether New Testament creation-language can be reconciled with the Old Testament's insistence that Yahweh created without another god.
Our guiding principle remains unchanged:
We must follow the evidence rather than a predetermined doctrine.
We must distinguish grammatical facts from theological interpretations.
And we must compare every explanation with the complete biblical testimony.
The goal is not to prove what we already believe. The goal is to discover what John actually meant.
JOHN 1:1 — GOD'S WORD, OR THE BEGINNING OF JESUS' MINISTRY?
PART 13 — “I CREATED ALL THINGS ALONE”: DOES ISAIAH 44:24 EXCLUDE A PREEXISTENT SON AS CREATOR?
By Simon Brown — Real Discoveries
https://wwwrealdiscoveriesorg-simon.blogspot.com
1. INTRODUCTION — A STATEMENT THAT MUST NOT BE IGNORED
In Part 12, we examined three major New Testament passages frequently used to establish that Jesus Christ personally participated in the original creation.
Colossians 1:16 declares that all things were created through Christ and for him.
Hebrews 1:2 describes God making the ages through His Son.
First Corinthians 8:6 identifies the Father as the one God, from whom all things come, and Jesus Christ as the one Lord, through whom all things are.
We acknowledged that the original-creation interpretation has substantial textual support.
But this raises an extraordinary question.
If God created everything through a personally preexistent Son, why does Yahweh explicitly declare that He created everything ALONE?
Isaiah 44:24 states:
“I am Yahweh, who makes all things; who alone stretches out the heavens; who spreads out the earth by myself.” — WEB
This is not an obscure passage.
It is a direct declaration by the God of Israel concerning His identity as Creator.
For Biblical Unitarians, it raises a serious challenge to the idea that a second conscious person participated alongside the Father in the original creation.
For Trinitarians, the verse affirms that the one God alone created, without excluding the eternal Son who shares the divine identity.
For those who believe in a preexistent but created Son, the verse raises a different question: how could Yahweh create alone while employing another heavenly being?
And for the interpretation that God's Word is His own creative speech, Isaiah 44:24 may provide particularly important support.
We must examine the Hebrew text, the surrounding context, the Old Testament's teaching about creation and the New Testament's language of agency.
Our central question is:
WHEN YAHWEH SAID HE CREATED ALONE, DID HE EXCLUDE EVERY OTHER PERSON, OR EVERY OTHER INDEPENDENT GOD?
The distinction is crucial.
2. THE ORIGINAL HEBREW OF ISAIAH 44:24
The central Hebrew statement reads:
אָנֹכִי יְהוָה עֹשֶׂה כֹּל נֹטֶה שָׁמַיִם לְבַדִּי רֹקַע הָאָרֶץ
Anokhi YHWH, oseh kol, noteh shamayim levaddi, roqa ha'aretz.
A close rendering is:
“I am Yahweh, making all things, stretching out the heavens alone, spreading out the earth...”
Several words are especially important.
| Hebrew | Transliteration | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| אָנֹכִי | anokhi | I |
| יְהוָה | YHWH | Yahweh |
| עֹשֶׂה | oseh | Making, maker |
| כֹּל | kol | All, everything |
| שָׁמַיִם | shamayim | Heavens |
| לְבַדִּי | levaddi | I alone, by myself |
| רֹקַע | roqa | Spreading out |
| הָאָרֶץ | ha'aretz | The earth |
The key expression is:
לְבַדִּי — LEVADDI.
It means:
“I ALONE.”
This is strong language.
Yahweh does not merely claim that He is the greatest creator.
He claims exclusive responsibility for making the heavens and the earth.
But the verse contains another important expression, and there is a textual issue concerning its precise reading.
We must examine that before drawing conclusions.
3. “BY MYSELF” OR “WHO WAS WITH ME?” — AN IMPORTANT HEBREW TEXTUAL DETAIL
The final words of Isaiah 44:24 have been translated in two principal ways.
One reading produces:
“WHO SPREADS OUT THE EARTH BY MYSELF.”
Another produces:
“WHO SPREADS OUT THE EARTH — WHO WAS WITH ME?”
The difference concerns the Hebrew textual tradition.
The written consonantal text, known as the ketiv, can be understood as:
מִי אִתִּי — mi itti.
“Who was with me?”
The traditional marginal reading, known as the qere, is:
מֵאִתִּי — me'itti.
It is commonly understood in this context as “by myself.”
This explains why English translations differ.
The World English Bible follows the sense “by myself.”
Some other translations preserve the rhetorical question “Who was with me?”
But the theological force is similar.
Both readings emphasise Yahweh's exclusive creative activity.
The question “Who was with me?” expects the answer:
NO ONE.
Nevertheless, we must not pretend that the two Hebrew readings are identical.
The difference matters when discussing whether the passage explicitly denies the presence of another person.
The wording “Who was with me?” raises that issue more directly.
The wording “by myself” emphasises independent action.
Both support Yahweh's uniqueness as Creator.
4. DOES THE TEXTUAL VARIANT WEAKEN THE ARGUMENT?
No, not substantially.
Even before the disputed final expression, the Hebrew declares:
“I STRETCHED OUT THE HEAVENS ALONE.”
The word levaddi is not dependent on the final textual variant.
Therefore, the statement of exclusivity remains secure.
The Septuagint also preserves the idea of Yahweh acting alone.
The Greek includes:
ἐξέτεινα τὸν οὐρανὸν μόνος
Exeteina ton ouranon monos.
“I stretched out heaven alone.”
The word monos means alone or only.
Thus, both the Hebrew and Greek traditions emphasise Yahweh's solitary creative action.
The remaining question is how that exclusivity should be understood.
Does it exclude a distinct divine person?
Does it exclude an independent creator?
Does it exclude a created assistant?
Or does it express the absolute uniqueness of the one God without explaining His internal mode of action?
The verse itself does not formulate those later theological distinctions.
We must examine its context.
5. THE CONTEXT — YAHWEH AGAINST IDOLS
Isaiah 44 contains a sustained contrast between Yahweh and false gods.
The prophet exposes the absurdity of idolatry.
A craftsman cuts down a tree.
He uses part of the wood for fuel.
He uses another part to manufacture an idol.
Then he bows down before the object he has made.
The argument is deliberately forceful.
A manufactured idol cannot be the Creator of the universe.
Yahweh, by contrast, made everything.
Isaiah 44:24 therefore belongs to a larger declaration of God's uniqueness.
The Creator is not one divine craftsman among many.
He has no rival.
No idol contributed to the making of the heavens and the earth.
This context is important for the Trinitarian response.
Trinitarians argue that Isaiah is excluding rival gods, not distinguishing the Father from the Son within the one divine identity.
But Biblical Unitarians respond that Yahweh's statement is broader than merely saying no idols helped.
He says He created alone.
We must not reduce the force of that word.
The contextual argument explains why the declaration was made.
It does not automatically settle everything the declaration excludes.
6. ISAIAH 40:13–14 — WHO COUNSELLED YAHWEH?
Isaiah 40 asks:
“Who has directed Yahweh's Spirit, or has taught him as his counsellor?” — Isaiah 40:13, WEB
The following verse asks whom Yahweh consulted and who instructed Him.
The expected answer is no one.
Yahweh does not depend upon an adviser.
He does not require another being to supply knowledge or wisdom.
This passage strengthens the theme of divine independence.
God's wisdom belongs to Him.
He is not taught by another.
This is important when examining the claim that God created through a preexistent Son.
If the Son is understood as a separate created being who assisted God, Isaiah's language creates a serious difficulty.
Why would Yahweh emphasise that no one counselled Him and that He created alone?
A Trinitarian may respond that the eternal Son is not an external adviser or created assistant.
A Biblical Unitarian may respond that God's own wisdom and Word require no second person.
Both interpretations can appeal to the passage.
But the passage itself presents Yahweh as fully sufficient for creation.
7. ISAIAH 45:12 — “I MADE THE EARTH”
Isaiah 45:12 declares:
“I have made the earth, and created man on it. I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens; and I have commanded all their army.” — WEB
Notice the repeated first-person language.
“I HAVE MADE.”
“I HAVE CREATED.”
“MY HANDS.”
“I HAVE COMMANDED.”
Yahweh identifies Himself as the actor.
The passage does not introduce another heavenly person as a co-creator.
This supports the Biblical Unitarian emphasis on the Father's sole creative authority.
But we must also recognise that the absence of a named agent does not logically exclude every possible means through which God acted.
A person may truthfully say “I built the house” while employing instruments or workers.
However, Isaiah 44:24 adds the word “alone,” making the comparison more demanding.
If another conscious being participated, the interpreter must explain why Yahweh could still truthfully describe Himself as creating alone.
That explanation cannot simply be assumed.
8. NEHEMIAH 9:6 — “YOU ARE YAHWEH, EVEN YOU ALONE”
Nehemiah 9:6 declares:
“You are Yahweh, even you alone. You have made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their army, the earth and all things that are on it...” — WEB
This passage closely connects God's unique identity with His creative work.
Yahweh alone is God.
Yahweh made the heavens.
Yahweh made the earth.
Yahweh preserves creation.
The passage is important because it presents creation as evidence of God's exclusive sovereignty.
For Biblical Unitarians, this fits the understanding that the Father alone is the supreme Creator.
For Trinitarians, it affirms that the one God alone created, while the Son and Spirit are included within the one divine identity.
The disagreement is therefore not whether there is one Creator.
Both affirm that.
The disagreement is whether the one Creator is one divine person or one divine being shared by distinct persons.
Nehemiah does not explicitly formulate the later Trinitarian distinction.
But neither does it directly address the New Testament's later identification of Christ with creation.
9. PSALM 33:6 — GOD CREATED THROUGH HIS WORD
Now we reach one of the most important passages for our entire John 1 investigation.
Psalm 33:6 declares:
“By Yahweh's word, the heavens were made; all their army by the breath of his mouth.” — WEB
The Hebrew refers to:
דְּבַר יְהוָה — devar YHWH.
“The Word of Yahweh.”
And:
רוּחַ פִּיו — ruach piv.
“The breath of His mouth.”
The parallelism is striking.
God's Word.
God's breath.
Both are associated with creation.
Under the Biblical Unitarian interpretation, these are expressions of God's own power and activity.
They do not require the existence of two additional conscious persons.
God speaks.
His Word accomplishes His will.
His breath expresses His creative power.
This fits Isaiah 44:24 naturally.
Yahweh created alone because His Word and breath belong to Him.
But the Trinitarian interpretation understands these passages in relation to the Son and Spirit.
The question is whether Psalm 33 itself identifies the Word and breath as distinct divine persons.
It does not explicitly do so.
That identification depends upon later theological interpretation and New Testament evidence.
10. GENESIS 1 — “AND GOD SAID”
Genesis 1 repeatedly declares:
“GOD SAID.”
God speaks, and creation follows.
Genesis 1:3 records:
“God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light.” — WEB
The narrative presents God as the Creator.
His speech is effective.
There is no explicit introduction of a second divine person called the Word.
Nor does Genesis identify the speaker's Word as a separate conscious being.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation therefore begins with the ordinary meaning of the narrative.
God created through His own command.
The Trinitarian interpretation understands the divine Word as the eternal Son, particularly in light of John 1.
But that conclusion is not stated directly in Genesis 1.
It is reached by reading Genesis and John together.
This is an important methodological distinction.
Genesis 1 establishes creation by God's Word.
Whether that Word was already a distinct conscious person is a further question.
11. ISAIAH 55:11 — GOD'S WORD GOES OUT AND ACCOMPLISHES HIS PURPOSE
Isaiah 55:11 describes God's Word going out from His mouth and accomplishing what He desires.
This passage is highly relevant.
The Word is portrayed as going forth.
It performs God's purpose.
It succeeds in the task for which God sends it.
The language can sound personal.
But the immediate subject is God's own speech.
The imagery communicates the effectiveness of divine revelation and command.
This provides a strong Old Testament precedent for personifying God's Word without requiring that the Word be an independently existing person.
A Biblical Unitarian may therefore argue that John 1 continues this pattern.
The Word through which God created eventually became flesh in Jesus Christ.
But we must acknowledge a difficulty.
John 1:14 does not merely say that God's Word accomplished a task.
It says the Word became flesh.
The transition from divine speech to human embodiment requires explanation.
The Old Testament background makes such an interpretation possible.
It does not independently establish it.
12. PROVERBS 8 — WAS WISDOM A PERSON AT CREATION?
Proverbs 8 presents Wisdom speaking.
Wisdom describes her relationship to God and His creative activity.
The chapter has played a major role in Christian debates about Christ's preexistence.
Some early Christians connected Wisdom with the preexistent Son.
Others have understood the chapter primarily as poetic personification.
The literary setting is important.
Wisdom is represented as a woman calling to humanity.
Folly is also personified elsewhere in Proverbs.
This strongly supports the presence of literary personification.
Under the Biblical Unitarian interpretation, Wisdom represents God's own wisdom rather than a separate heavenly person.
Under some forms of preexistence Christology, Wisdom provides a model for understanding the Son's role before creation.
But the chapter itself does not explicitly name Jesus Christ.
Nor does it directly identify Wisdom as God's literal second person.
Therefore, Proverbs 8 cannot settle John 1 by itself.
It provides important background that must be interpreted carefully.
13. WAS THERE A SECOND CREATOR BESIDE YAHWEH?
This is the central issue.
Isaiah 44:24 declares that Yahweh created alone.
If a second being independently created the universe alongside Yahweh, the statement would be difficult to reconcile.
But different theological interpretations make different claims.
TRINITARIANISM
The Father and Son are not two independent gods.
They share the one divine being.
Creation is understood as the work of the one God.
JEHOVAH'S WITNESS THEOLOGY
Jehovah alone is the ultimate source of creation, but He used the preexistent Son as His agent.
The Son is a distinct created being.
BIBLICAL UNITARIAN — GENESIS WORD
The Father alone created through His own Word, wisdom and power.
No second conscious person was required.
BIBLICAL UNITARIAN — DIVINE PURPOSE
God created with His future messianic purpose in view.
The Messiah was central to God's plan but was not personally present at creation.
These interpretations do not face identical difficulties.
We must examine them separately.
14. THE TRINITARIAN RESPONSE — ONE GOD, NOT TWO CREATORS
The classical Trinitarian response is that Isaiah 44:24 excludes every creator outside the one divine being.
The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not three independent creators.
They are understood as distinct persons sharing the one divine nature.
Therefore, when Yahweh says He created alone, the statement does not exclude the Son.
The Son is included within the identity of Yahweh.
This is a coherent explanation within Trinitarian theology.
But it depends upon establishing that the Son shares Yahweh's divine identity.
Isaiah 44:24 does not explicitly state that Yahweh consists of three persons.
Therefore, the verse itself does not prove the Trinitarian explanation.
It is compatible with that explanation if the wider doctrine is established.
But Biblical Unitarians question whether the New Testament actually establishes that doctrine.
The debate therefore moves beyond Isaiah 44:24 alone.
15. THE JEHOVAH'S WITNESS RESPONSE — CREATION THROUGH A CREATED SON
Jehovah's Witnesses understand Jehovah as the sole ultimate Creator.
They believe He created the Son first and then created everything else through him.
Under this interpretation, the Son acts as Jehovah's instrument or agent.
But Isaiah 44:24 creates a substantial difficulty.
If Yahweh says He stretched out the heavens alone, how should we understand the participation of another conscious heavenly being?
One possible response is that Yahweh alone is the ultimate source and that the Son acts only by delegated power.
But the language “alone” remains strong.
It is not enough simply to distinguish source from agent.
The interpretation must explain why the use of a created personal assistant is consistent with Yahweh's declaration.
This is especially important if the alternative Hebrew reading “Who was with me?” is accepted.
A created heavenly assistant would appear to be precisely the kind of additional participant the question raises.
Therefore, Isaiah 44:24 presents a more direct challenge to a created-agent interpretation than to classical Trinitarianism, which does not regard the Son as a being outside the one God.
16. THE BIBLICAL UNITARIAN RESPONSE — GOD'S WORD IS NOT ANOTHER PERSON
The Genesis Word interpretation provides a comparatively straightforward explanation of Isaiah 44:24.
Yahweh created alone.
He created by speaking.
His Word was His own creative expression.
His wisdom belonged to Him.
His power belonged to Him.
No separate heavenly person was required.
Psalm 33:6 fits naturally.
Genesis 1 fits naturally.
Isaiah 55:11 fits naturally.
And Isaiah 44:24 fits naturally.
Under this interpretation, John 1:1 does not introduce another conscious person alongside God.
It introduces God's own Word.
The Word was with God because it belonged to Him.
The Word was God in the sense that it expressed God's own divine reality.
The Word became flesh when God's revelation and purpose were embodied in Jesus Christ.
This is a coherent Biblical Unitarian explanation.
But it still faces a major challenge.
The New Testament sometimes describes creation directly through Jesus Christ, not merely through God's Word.
Colossians 1:16 and Hebrews 1:2 must therefore be explained.
Isaiah 44:24 cannot be used to ignore those passages.
17. DOES “THROUGH” ALWAYS REQUIRE A SECOND PERSON?
The Greek preposition frequently used in the New Testament is:
διά — dia.
With the genitive, it commonly means “through.”
It can describe agency or means.
For example, God may accomplish His purpose through a person.
But a person may also accomplish something through speech, wisdom, power or another means.
Therefore, the preposition does not automatically require two conscious persons.
This is important for John 1:3.
If the Word is God's own speech, creation through the Word is compatible with Yahweh creating alone.
But in Colossians 1:16 and 1 Corinthians 8:6, the language refers to Christ.
That gives the personal-agency interpretation greater force.
The grammatical possibility of an impersonal instrument does not prove that the instrument is impersonal in every passage.
We must identify the subject from the context.
18. FIRST CORINTHIANS 8:6 — SOURCE AND AGENT
Paul declares:
“Yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we live through him.” — WEB
The Father is the one God.
All things are from Him.
Jesus Christ is the one Lord.
All things are through him.
This distinction is clear.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation emphasises the Father as the ultimate source.
The Trinitarian interpretation emphasises the inclusion of Christ in God's creative activity.
But the text does not explicitly say:
“The Father created alone without using any agent.”
Nor does it say:
“The Father and Son are two independent creators.”
Paul's wording is compatible with a distinction between source and agency.
The question is the nature of the agent.
Was the agent the personally preexistent Son?
Or is creation associated with Jesus because God's Word and purpose became embodied in him?
That question must be settled from the wider evidence.
19. CAN GOD CREATE ALONE WHILE USING AN AGENT?
We must now examine the logic carefully.
Suppose a king says:
“I built this city.”
The king may have employed builders.
But if he says:
“I built this city alone, and nobody was with me,”
the meaning becomes stronger.
The statement appears to exclude other participants.
However, Isaiah 44:24 is not ordinary human speech about construction.
It is a theological declaration about God's unique creative power.
The immediate contrast is between Yahweh and rival gods.
Therefore, the meaning of “alone” may concern exclusive divine sovereignty rather than the absence of every possible instrument.
A Trinitarian argues that the Son is not another god outside Yahweh.
A Biblical Unitarian argues that the plainest explanation is that Yahweh created through His own Word without another conscious person.
A Jehovah's Witness argues that a subordinate created agent can act entirely through Jehovah's power.
These explanations must be evaluated according to the wider biblical evidence.
The analogy of a king and builders is helpful only to a limited extent.
It cannot determine the meaning of Isaiah by itself.
20. THE ANGELS — WERE THEY PRESENT AT CREATION?
Job 38:4–7 contains God's challenge to Job.
Yahweh asks where Job was when the earth's foundations were laid.
The passage describes the morning stars singing together and the sons of God shouting for joy.
This imagery is commonly understood as referring to heavenly beings rejoicing at God's creative work.
That raises an important distinction.
BEING PRESENT IS NOT THE SAME AS PARTICIPATING AS CREATOR.
Heavenly beings may witness God's creative work without creating the universe.
Therefore, the rhetorical question “Who was with me?” should not automatically be interpreted as excluding the existence of every heavenly being at every stage of creation.
Its central force concerns God's exclusive creative activity and authority.
This is important for interpreting Isaiah 44:24 responsibly.
The verse strongly excludes rival creators.
Whether it excludes every subordinate participant must be considered in light of the broader biblical evidence.
21. DID GOD CONSULT ANYONE BEFORE CREATION?
Isaiah 40:13–14 emphasises that God required no counsellor.
This supports the principle that Yahweh's wisdom is self-sufficient.
But the question of consultation differs from the question of agency.
An agent may act under another's direction without providing independent advice.
Therefore, Isaiah 40 does not logically exclude every possible agent.
However, it does exclude the idea that God needed another being to supply wisdom or creative knowledge.
This distinction matters.
If the Son is presented as a created assistant who contributes something God otherwise lacks, the passage would strongly challenge that understanding.
If the Son is understood as God's own Word or as sharing the one divine identity, the difficulty is different.
The Biblical Unitarian explanation remains especially simple at this point.
God's Word and wisdom belong to God Himself.
22. JOHN 1:3 — “ALL THINGS CAME INTO BEING THROUGH HIM”
Return to the central passage of our series.
John 1:3 declares:
“All things were made through him. Without him, nothing was made that has been made.” — WEB
The Greek refers to the Word using masculine grammatical forms.
But Greek grammatical gender does not automatically establish that the Word is a conscious person.
The noun logos is masculine.
Pronouns referring to it will normally reflect that grammatical gender.
Therefore, the masculine pronouns alone do not settle the issue.
The Genesis Word interpretation understands John 1:3 in relation to Psalm 33:6.
God created through His Word.
The personal-preexistence interpretation understands the Word as the eternal Son.
Both interpretations can account for creation through the Word.
The disagreement concerns the Word's identity.
Isaiah 44:24 adds an important consideration.
Whatever John means, his description must be consistent with the biblical declaration that Yahweh created alone.
23. JOHN 1:14 — THE WORD BECAME FLESH
John 1:14 declares:
“THE WORD BECAME FLESH.”
This is where the Biblical Unitarian Genesis Word interpretation makes its central claim.
God's Word existed from the beginning.
God created through that Word.
God revealed His purpose through that Word.
Then the Word became flesh in Jesus Christ.
Under this interpretation, Jesus did not need to exist personally before his conception.
God's Word existed before him.
The Word became embodied in the human Messiah.
But the traditional interpretation sees the same verse differently.
The personally preexistent Word became human.
The challenge is determining which interpretation best explains the complete Prologue.
Isaiah 44:24 provides strong support for the understanding of God's Word as His own creative activity.
But it does not independently establish how John understood the Word's becoming flesh.
That remains a question for the whole Gospel.
24. HEBREWS 1:2 — GOD MADE THE AGES THROUGH HIS SON
Hebrews 1:2 describes God making the ages through His Son.
This is a difficult passage for a strictly non-personal-preexistence interpretation.
The author does not merely say God made the ages through His Word.
He says God made them through His Son.
The Biblical Unitarian explanation may distinguish between the Son as historically manifested and God's eternal Word or purpose.
But that distinction is not explicitly stated in Hebrews 1:2.
Therefore, the personal-preexistence interpretation has an advantage in the immediate wording.
Isaiah 44:24 creates a theological question about how the Son's agency relates to Yahweh's exclusive creative work.
It does not automatically cancel the statement in Hebrews.
A careful interpretation must account for both.
25. COLOSSIANS 1:16 — THE SAME DIFFICULTY
Colossians 1:16 declares that all things were created through Christ and for him.
As we discovered in Part 12, the language is comprehensive.
It includes heaven and earth.
It includes visible and invisible realities.
It includes thrones, dominions and powers.
The new-creation interpretation identifies genuine themes of messianic authority and reconciliation.
But the original-creation interpretation has substantial strength.
Isaiah 44:24 therefore raises an important question.
If Christ personally participated in the original creation, how is that compatible with Yahweh's declaration that He created alone?
The Trinitarian response includes Christ within the one divine identity.
The Jehovah's Witness response understands Christ as a subordinate created agent.
The Biblical Unitarian Genesis Word response understands God's own Word as the means of creation.
The question cannot be resolved by quoting only Isaiah or only Colossians.
The passages must be interpreted together.
26. DOES ISAIAH 44:24 PROVE THAT JESUS DID NOT PREEXIST?
No.
That would be a stronger conclusion than the verse itself establishes.
Isaiah 44:24 clearly affirms Yahweh's exclusive creative activity.
But personal preexistence and participation in creation are not identical claims.
A person could theoretically exist before the human birth of Jesus without being the Creator.
Therefore, even if Isaiah excluded a second creator, it would not automatically exclude every form of personal preexistence.
This is an important distinction.
Biblical Unitarian theology often rejects both the Trinity and Jesus' personal preexistence.
But those positions require separate arguments.
Isaiah 44:24 is primarily about creation.
It does not directly discuss the conception of Jesus or the timing of his personal existence.
We must not make the verse answer a question it does not explicitly address.
27. DOES ISAIAH 44:24 PROVE THAT JESUS IS NOT ALMIGHTY GOD?
Again, the answer depends on the wider theological framework.
Biblical Unitarians understand Yahweh as the Father, the one God.
Under that interpretation, Isaiah 44:24 strongly supports the Father's unique identity as Creator.
Trinitarians understand the Son as sharing Yahweh's divine identity.
Under that interpretation, Isaiah's declaration of one Creator is compatible with the Son's participation.
The verse itself does not explicitly identify Jesus as Yahweh.
Nor does it explicitly identify Yahweh as three persons.
Therefore, Isaiah 44:24 cannot independently settle the full Trinitarian debate.
But it establishes a non-negotiable principle:
THERE IS ONLY ONE ULTIMATE CREATOR.
Any interpretation of John 1, Colossians 1 or Hebrews 1 must preserve that principle.
28. THE STRONGEST BIBLICAL UNITARIAN ARGUMENT
We can now state the argument at its strongest.
The Old Testament repeatedly identifies Yahweh alone as Creator.
Genesis describes God creating by speaking.
Psalm 33:6 identifies God's Word and breath as the means of creation.
Isaiah 55:11 describes God's Word accomplishing His purpose.
Proverbs 8 personifies God's Wisdom.
Isaiah 44:24 declares that Yahweh created alone.
None of these passages explicitly identifies God's creative Word as a second conscious divine person.
Therefore, the Biblical Unitarian interpretation argues that John 1:1–3 should initially be understood within this established Old Testament framework.
God's Word was with Him.
God's Word expressed His own divine reality.
All things came into being through His Word.
That Word later became flesh in Jesus Christ.
This interpretation has considerable strength in the Old Testament evidence.
But it must still explain the New Testament passages that describe creation through Christ personally.
That remains its principal challenge.
29. THE STRONGEST PERSONAL-PREEXISTENCE ARGUMENT
The opposing argument is also substantial.
John 1:1 describes the Word with God.
John 1:14 describes the Word becoming flesh.
John 6:62 speaks of the Son of Man ascending to where he was previously.
John 8:58 places Jesus' “I am” before Abraham.
John 17:5 describes glory with the Father before the world existed.
Colossians 1:16 describes all things created through Christ.
Hebrews 1:2 describes God making the ages through His Son.
Hebrews 1:10–12 applies language about the foundation of the earth and heavens within its discussion of the Son.
Taken together, these passages provide a strong cumulative argument for personal preexistence.
The Trinitarian interpretation reconciles Isaiah 44:24 by identifying the Son within the one divine identity.
The non-Trinitarian personal-preexistence interpretation must explain how a distinct subordinate agent is compatible with Yahweh creating alone.
Thus, Isaiah 44:24 creates different difficulties for different versions of personal preexistence.
It does not refute them all in precisely the same way.
30. COMPARING THE INTERPRETATIONS
| Interpretation | Meaning of “I created alone” | Main strength | Main difficulty |
|---|---|---|---|
| Biblical Unitarian — God's Word | The Father created through His own speech and wisdom | Closely fits Genesis, Psalms and Isaiah | Must explain NT creation through Christ |
| Biblical Unitarian — Divine purpose | God alone created with the Messiah in His eternal plan | Preserves God's sole creative activity | Requires interpreting NT creation-language proleptically |
| Trinitarian | The one divine being created; the Son is not another god | Reconciles one Creator with the Son's cosmic role | Requires establishing the Son's inclusion in Yahweh's identity |
| Jehovah's Witness | Jehovah is the ultimate Creator and uses a created Son | Distinguishes ultimate source from agent | “Alone” challenges the participation of a distinct created being |
| Other personal-preexistence views | God creates through a subordinate heavenly agent | Fits direct NT agency-language | Must explain Isaiah's exclusive wording |
This comparison highlights the central issue.
What exactly does Isaiah's declaration exclude?
A rival god?
A created assistant?
Every conscious agent?
Or every source of creation outside Yahweh's own divine identity?
The passage is strong.
But its precise implications depend on how the whole biblical testimony is understood.
31. OUR PRELIMINARY FINDINGS
Several conclusions can now be drawn.
First: Isaiah 44:24 explicitly identifies Yahweh as the maker of all things.
Second: The Hebrew word levaddi means “I alone.”
Third: The final Hebrew expression has two principal readings: “by myself” and “Who was with me?”
Fourth: Both readings emphasise Yahweh's exclusive creative activity.
Fifth: The Septuagint also describes Yahweh stretching out heaven alone.
Sixth: Isaiah's immediate context contrasts Yahweh with idols and false gods.
Seventh: Genesis 1 describes God creating through His own speech.
Eighth: Psalm 33:6 associates creation with Yahweh's Word and breath.
Ninth: These Old Testament passages do not explicitly identify the Word as a separate conscious person.
Tenth: Isaiah 44:24 creates a significant difficulty for interpretations involving a distinct created heavenly assistant.
Eleventh: Classical Trinitarianism answers the difficulty by including the Son within the identity of the one God.
Twelfth: The Biblical Unitarian Genesis Word interpretation provides a straightforward explanation of Yahweh creating through His own Word.
Thirteenth: The New Testament's direct creation-language concerning Christ remains a substantial challenge to that interpretation.
Fourteenth: Isaiah 44:24 does not independently prove that Jesus lacked personal preexistence.
Fifteenth: The verse does not independently settle the full doctrine of the Trinity.
32. OUR CURRENT ASSESSMENT — WHAT DOES ISAIAH 44:24 ESTABLISH?
Isaiah 44:24 is one of the strongest Old Testament passages affirming Yahweh's exclusive identity as Creator.
The Hebrew word levaddi leaves no doubt that Yahweh claims to have created alone.
The textual variation in the final phrase does not remove that emphasis.
The Biblical Unitarian Genesis Word interpretation fits this declaration naturally.
God created through His own Word, wisdom and power.
No second conscious creator is required.
But we must distinguish a natural interpretation from an exclusive proof.
The verse does not explicitly discuss the later New Testament identification of Jesus with creation.
Nor does it define the relationship between God's identity and the Son.
The Trinitarian interpretation can maintain Yahweh's exclusive creative activity by understanding the Son as sharing the one divine identity.
That explanation depends upon evidence from other passages.
The Jehovah's Witness interpretation faces a more direct challenge because it places a distinct created being alongside Yahweh as an agent of creation.
But even there, the question concerns the precise meaning of divine agency and exclusivity.
Our provisional conclusion is that Isaiah 44:24 strongly supports the principle that Yahweh alone is the Creator and provides substantial Old Testament support for understanding creation through God's own Word.
It does not, by itself, establish that John 1's Word cannot be personally preexistent.
The decisive question remains whether John and the other New Testament authors identify God's Word with a personally preexistent Son or describe God's eternal Word becoming embodied in the historical Messiah.
That question must be answered from the complete evidence.
33. THE NEXT QUESTION — WAS THE WORD A PERSON BEFORE BECOMING FLESH?
We have now examined the major creation passages.
But an important issue remains.
John 1:1 declares:
“THE WORD WAS WITH GOD.”
John 1:3 declares:
“ALL THINGS CAME INTO BEING THROUGH HIM.”
John 1:14 declares:
“THE WORD BECAME FLESH.”
Does the language of being “with God” necessarily describe a relationship between two conscious persons?
Can God's Word be personified in the same way as Wisdom in Proverbs?
What did ancient Jewish writers mean when they described God's Wisdom, Word and divine activity?
And how did early Christians understand the relationship between God's Word and Jesus Christ?
To answer these questions, we must investigate the Jewish background of the logos.
We must examine the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Philo of Alexandria and the language of God's Memra in the Aramaic Targums.
These sources may help us understand the conceptual world in which John's Prologue was written.
But we must also distinguish historical evidence from later theological interpretation.
Not every ancient Jewish use of the Word or Wisdom refers to the same concept.
And not every personification should automatically be understood as a separate conscious person.
END OF PART 13
Coming in Part 14: “WAS GOD'S WORD A PERSON?” — JEWISH WISDOM, PHILO, THE MEMRA AND THE ORIGINS OF JOHN'S LOGOS
We will investigate whether ancient Jewish literature treated God's Word as His own speech and wisdom, as a personified divine attribute, or as a distinct heavenly agent.
We will also examine whether John's language is best explained by Jewish Scripture, Greek philosophy or a combination of traditions.
Our guiding principle remains unchanged:
We must follow the evidence rather than a predetermined doctrine.
We must distinguish grammatical facts from theological interpretations.
And we must compare every explanation with the complete biblical testimony.
The goal is not to prove what we already believe. The goal is to discover what John actually meant.
JOHN 1:1 — GOD'S WORD, OR THE BEGINNING OF JESUS' MINISTRY?
PART 14 — “WAS GOD'S WORD A PERSON?” JEWISH WISDOM, PHILO, THE MEMRA AND THE ORIGINS OF JOHN'S LOGOS
By Simon Brown — Real Discoveries
https://wwwrealdiscoveriesorg-simon.blogspot.com
1. INTRODUCTION — WHAT WOULD JOHN'S FIRST READERS HAVE UNDERSTOOD?
John opens his Gospel with one of the most debated statements in the New Testament:
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” — John 1:1, WEB
Today, many Christians immediately understand “the Word” as Jesus Christ personally existing in heaven before his human birth.
But would John's original readers necessarily have understood the expression that way?
That question requires historical investigation.
John wrote in a world shaped by the Hebrew Scriptures, Jewish traditions concerning divine Wisdom, Greek philosophical language and developing Jewish interpretations of God's activity.
In that world, God's Word could mean His speech, command, revelation or effective power.
Wisdom could speak, travel, teach, invite people to follow her and dwell among God's people.
Some Jewish writers also described a heavenly Logos using titles such as image, firstborn and even archangel.
Therefore, we must not assume that every personal description of God's Word proves that the Word was literally a separate conscious person.
But neither should we assume that every description was merely a poetic metaphor.
The historical evidence reveals several different ways of speaking about God's Word and Wisdom.
Our task is to distinguish them.
2. THE HEBREW WORD DAVAR — WORD, SPEECH AND ACTIVITY
The Hebrew noun commonly translated “word” is:
דָּבָר — davar.
It can refer to speech, a statement, a command, a matter or an affair.
In the Old Testament, God's Word is not merely information.
It is effective.
God speaks, and events happen.
Genesis 1 repeatedly declares:
“GOD SAID.”
Psalm 33:6 states:
“By Yahweh's word, the heavens were made; all their army by the breath of his mouth.” — WEB
Isaiah 55:11 describes God's Word accomplishing the purpose for which He sends it.
The basic pattern is:
GOD → HIS WORD → THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF HIS PURPOSE.
Nothing in that pattern necessarily requires God's Word to be a second conscious person.
A person's speech can express that person's will without becoming another individual.
But biblical poetry can also portray God's Word as an active agent.
The important question is whether such descriptions are literal or figurative.
3. GOD'S WORD CAN BE PERSONIFIED
Consider Psalm 147:15:
“He sends out his commandment to the earth. His word runs very swiftly.” — WEB
God's Word is described as running.
But does anyone suppose that a spoken command literally possesses legs?
The language communicates speed and effectiveness.
Similarly, Isaiah 55:11 describes God's Word going out and accomplishing its mission.
These passages demonstrate that Scripture can describe God's Word using the language of activity without identifying it as a separate person.
This provides an important precedent for interpreting John 1.
The Biblical Unitarian argument is that John's Word may initially refer to God's own active revelation and purpose.
But there is a limitation.
John's Prologue goes beyond saying that the Word runs or accomplishes something.
It says the Word became flesh.
Therefore, we must investigate whether Jewish literature provides parallels for divine Wisdom or Word entering human history in a more substantial way.
4. PROVERBS 8 — WISDOM SPEAKS AS A PERSON
Proverbs 8 presents Wisdom speaking in the first person.
She calls out to humanity.
She gives instruction.
She describes her relationship with God before the creation of the earth.
She speaks of being present when God established the heavens.
This is extraordinary language.
But Proverbs also personifies Folly as a woman.
Wisdom and Folly function as contrasting figures in the book's instruction.
That literary setting strongly supports understanding Wisdom as personification.
God's wisdom is portrayed as a woman inviting people to follow her.
The purpose is to communicate the value, antiquity and divine origin of wisdom.
Nevertheless, the passage also provided material for later Jewish and Christian reflection about heavenly Wisdom.
It cannot be dismissed as irrelevant simply because it is poetic.
5. PROVERBS 8:22 — DID GOD CREATE WISDOM?
The Hebrew of Proverbs 8:22 contains the verb:
קָנָה — qanah.
Its meaning is debated in this context.
It can be associated with acquiring or possessing, and the verse has also been understood in terms of bringing forth or creating.
The ancient Greek Septuagint uses:
ἔκτισέν με — ektisen me.
“He created me.”
This wording became important in early Christian disputes about the Son's relationship to God.
Some interpreted Wisdom as the preexistent Son.
Others argued that the passage concerns God's personified wisdom.
We must be careful.
If Wisdom is a literary personification, the statement about her origin need not describe the literal creation of a heavenly individual.
If Wisdom is identified with a preexistent Son, the passage raises additional theological questions.
But Proverbs 8 itself does not name Jesus.
Nor does it explicitly identify Wisdom as a second divine person.
Therefore, the chapter provides important background but cannot independently establish the identity of John's Word.
6. SIRACH 24 — WISDOM COMES FROM GOD'S MOUTH
We now turn to one of the most striking Jewish parallels.
The book of Sirach, also called Ecclesiasticus, was composed in Hebrew in the early second century BC, with a Greek translation produced later.
It therefore predates the Gospel of John.
Sirach 24 portrays Wisdom speaking about her origin and activity.
In verse 3, Wisdom declares that she came forth from the mouth of the Most High.
This is highly significant.
Wisdom originates from God's mouth.
That imagery closely resembles the biblical language of God's Word.
She is not introduced as an independent rival deity.
Her origin is God Himself.
But the chapter continues with language that sounds remarkably personal.
Wisdom describes dwelling in heaven.
She travels through creation.
She seeks a resting place.
Then God commands her to dwell among Israel.
This is one of the most important historical parallels to John 1:14.
7. SIRACH 24:8 — WISDOM DWELLS AMONG ISRAEL
Sirach 24:8 describes the Creator commanding Wisdom to make her dwelling in Jacob and receive an inheritance in Israel.
The imagery is remarkable.
Wisdom comes from God.
Wisdom dwells in heaven.
Wisdom receives a command.
Wisdom establishes her dwelling among God's people.
Compare John 1:14:
“THE WORD BECAME FLESH AND DWELT AMONG US.”
The similarities are important.
Both passages describe a heavenly reality associated with God becoming present among humanity.
Both use dwelling imagery.
Both connect divine revelation with God's people.
But there is also a crucial difference.
In Sirach, Wisdom dwells among Israel in association with the covenant, sanctuary and divine instruction.
In John, the Word becomes flesh.
John's language is more specific.
He identifies the historical manifestation of God's Word with Jesus Christ.
Therefore, Sirach provides a significant conceptual parallel, but it does not independently explain everything John means.
8. SIRACH 24:23 — WISDOM AND THE LAW OF MOSES
One of the most important details appears later in the chapter.
Sirach 24:23 identifies the Wisdom being praised with the book of the covenant of the Most High God, the law commanded through Moses.
This is decisive for understanding Sirach's own literary argument.
Wisdom's dwelling among Israel is connected with the Torah.
Divine Wisdom becomes accessible through God's covenant instruction.
The chapter does not conclude by identifying Wisdom as a separate heavenly individual who has become human.
It connects Wisdom with God's revelation to Israel.
This provides strong evidence that elaborate personal language could be used to describe God's own wisdom and instruction.
For the Biblical Unitarian interpretation of John 1, this is highly relevant.
It demonstrates that ancient Jewish readers could encounter a heavenly figure who speaks, travels and dwells among God's people without necessarily understanding that figure as a literal second person.
But John's Gospel may intentionally develop this imagery in a new direction.
The existence of the parallel does not prove that John uses it in exactly the same way.
9. “DWELT AMONG US” — THE TABERNACLE CONNECTION
John 1:14 contains the Greek verb:
ἐσκήνωσεν — eskēnōsen.
It means to dwell or pitch one's tent.
It is related to the Greek noun skēnē, meaning tent or tabernacle.
The wording recalls God's dwelling among Israel.
Exodus 25:8 records God's instruction to make a sanctuary so that He may dwell among His people.
Exodus 40 describes God's glory filling the tabernacle.
Sirach 24 also uses tabernacle imagery for Wisdom's dwelling in Israel.
John therefore appears to draw upon a deeply Jewish tradition.
God's presence and revelation are now encountered in Jesus Christ.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands this as God's Word becoming embodied in His human Messiah.
The Trinitarian interpretation understands it as the eternal divine Word personally becoming human.
Both interpretations recognise the tabernacle background.
The difference concerns the identity of the Word before becoming flesh.
10. THE WISDOM OF SOLOMON — GOD CREATED THROUGH WISDOM
Another important Jewish work is the Wisdom of Solomon.
It was composed in Greek, probably in the late pre-Christian or early Roman period, although its precise date remains debated.
Wisdom 9:1–2 addresses God as the one who made all things by His Word and formed humanity through His Wisdom.
The parallel is extremely important.
GOD'S WORD
and
GOD'S WISDOM
are both associated with creation.
The language closely resembles Psalm 33:6 and John 1:3.
But Wisdom of Solomon 9 does not explicitly identify God's Word as Jesus Christ.
It belongs to Jewish reflection on God's creative activity.
This strengthens the historical case that John's readers could associate logos with God's own creative Word and Wisdom.
However, the Wisdom of Solomon also uses elevated language about Wisdom's heavenly origin and activity.
Therefore, the evidence is not limited to ordinary speech.
It includes sophisticated ways of describing God's relationship with the world.
11. WISDOM OF SOLOMON 7 — WISDOM AS THE IMAGE OF GOD
Wisdom of Solomon 7:25–26 describes Wisdom using extraordinary language.
Wisdom is presented as an expression of God's power, an emanation of His glory and an image of His goodness.
These descriptions resemble later Christian language concerning Christ.
Colossians 1:15 calls Christ the image of the invisible God.
Hebrews 1:3 describes the Son as the radiance of God's glory.
The similarities deserve serious consideration.
They suggest that early Christians could employ established Jewish Wisdom-language when describing Jesus.
But what does that establish?
It shows that the language was available.
It does not independently determine whether the New Testament authors understood Wisdom as a literary personification, a heavenly mediator or the personally preexistent Son.
The same imagery can be developed in different theological directions.
We must distinguish a shared vocabulary from an identical doctrine.
12. WISDOM OF SOLOMON 18 — GOD'S WORD LEAPS FROM HEAVEN
Wisdom of Solomon 18:15 describes God's almighty Word descending from heaven in the context of divine judgment upon Egypt.
The Word is portrayed dramatically, like a warrior executing God's command.
This is another striking example of personified divine activity.
God's Word descends.
God's Word acts.
God's Word carries out judgment.
The language can sound like the description of a heavenly person.
But within the literary context, it is also intelligible as poetic personification of God's effective command.
This provides a useful comparison with Jesus' statements about coming from heaven.
It demonstrates that heavenly-descent language was not necessarily limited to literal journeys by conscious beings.
However, it does not prove that Jesus' descent-language in John 6 is figurative.
That question must still be settled from John's own context.
13. THE HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF JEWISH WISDOM LITERATURE
We can now identify an important pattern.
In Proverbs, Wisdom speaks and participates in the poetic account of creation.
In Sirach, Wisdom comes from God's mouth and dwells among Israel.
In the Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom is associated with God's creative power, glory and revelation.
These texts show that Jewish writers possessed a rich vocabulary for describing divine Wisdom.
They did not always speak about Wisdom as merely an abstract quality.
They could portray Wisdom as active, heavenly and personal.
But literary personification and literal personal existence are not identical.
The existence of personal language does not automatically prove personhood.
Equally, the existence of poetic personification does not mean every later use of Wisdom-language must be impersonal.
This distinction is fundamental.
14. PHILO OF ALEXANDRIA — WHO WAS HE?
Philo of Alexandria was a Jewish philosopher who lived approximately from 20 BC to AD 50.
He belonged to the Greek-speaking Jewish community of Alexandria in Egypt.
His writings combine Jewish Scripture with philosophical ideas drawn especially from Platonism and related Greek traditions.
Philo is particularly important because he wrote before or around the period of Jesus' earthly ministry.
He therefore provides evidence of Jewish thought before the Gospel of John was written.
Philo frequently uses the Greek word:
λόγος — logos.
But his use of the term is complex.
It can refer to divine reason, God's ordering principle, His creative activity and a mediator between God and the created world.
In some passages, Philo's Logos is described in remarkably personal language.
This makes his writings essential to our investigation.
15. PHILO'S LOGOS — GOD'S FIRSTBORN
In On the Confusion of Tongues, sections 62–63, Philo describes a heavenly figure associated with God's image.
He calls this figure the eldest son and firstborn.
This is extraordinary because it predates the Gospel of John.
Philo was not writing about Jesus of Nazareth.
Yet he could describe God's Logos using language associated with sonship.
This raises an important question.
When John calls Jesus the Son and associates him with the Word, was he using a vocabulary already familiar in Jewish philosophical thought?
Possibly.
But we must avoid assuming direct literary dependence.
The fact that Philo and John use related terminology does not prove that John read Philo.
Both may draw upon overlapping Jewish scriptural traditions.
Nevertheless, Philo demonstrates that a Jewish writer could speak of God's Logos in highly elevated terms before Christianity developed its later doctrines.
16. PHILO'S LOGOS — THE IMAGE OF GOD
In On the Confusion of Tongues, sections 146–147, Philo again describes God's Logos.
He associates the Logos with titles including the Beginning, God's Name, the divine Image and the firstborn.
He also uses angelic terminology.
This is particularly significant.
Compare Colossians 1:15:
“THE IMAGE OF THE INVISIBLE GOD.”
And Colossians 1:15:
“THE FIRSTBORN OF ALL CREATION.”
The conceptual parallels are striking.
But we must distinguish parallel language from proof of borrowing.
Philo's Logos belongs to his philosophical interpretation of Jewish Scripture.
Paul's description of Christ belongs to an argument about the crucified, risen and exalted Messiah.
The similarities deserve investigation.
But they do not establish that Paul simply adopted Philo's Logos doctrine.
17. DID PHILO BELIEVE THE LOGOS WAS A LITERAL PERSON?
This is one of the most difficult historical questions.
Philo sometimes describes the Logos in language that sounds personal.
The Logos is called firstborn.
The Logos is associated with mediation.
The Logos receives titles resembling those of a heavenly agent.
But Philo also uses the Logos as a philosophical concept expressing divine reason and God's relationship with creation.
His terminology does not fit neatly into later categories.
It would be misleading to declare confidently that Philo's Logos was simply an impersonal word.
It would also be misleading to claim that Philo taught the Christian doctrine of an eternally distinct divine Son.
He did neither in the later doctrinal sense.
Philo's Logos occupies a complex position between God's transcendence and His activity in the world.
Scholars disagree about how literally Philo intended his personifying language.
The most responsible conclusion is that his writings demonstrate the existence of sophisticated Jewish Logos speculation before John.
They do not settle John's meaning.
18. DID PHILO CALL THE LOGOS AN ARCHANGEL?
Yes, Philo uses archangelic language for the Logos.
In On the Confusion of Tongues, section 146, he describes the Logos using language associated with the eldest angel or archangel.
This is historically important.
It demonstrates that exalted titles such as firstborn and divine image could appear in Jewish discussions of heavenly mediation.
But we must avoid drawing an unsupported conclusion.
Philo's terminology does not prove that Jesus is Michael the archangel.
Nor does it prove that John's Word was a created angel.
The identification of Jesus with Michael belongs to a separate theological argument.
Philo provides historical background for Logos-language.
He does not identify his Logos with the historical Jesus.
19. PHILO AND ISAIAH 44:24 — DID HE BELIEVE IN TWO CREATORS?
Philo strongly affirms the supremacy of the one God.
His Logos-language does not establish a second independent god who rivals the Creator.
Rather, the Logos functions within Philo's explanation of how the transcendent God relates to creation.
This is important for Isaiah 44:24.
The existence of Logos-language does not necessarily mean the writer believed in two independent creators.
But it also demonstrates that some Jewish thinkers could use elaborate mediating language while maintaining monotheism.
This complicates the debate.
A Biblical Unitarian cannot simply claim that ancient Jews never spoke of a heavenly Logos in personal terms.
A Trinitarian cannot simply claim that Philo's Logos proves the doctrine of the Trinity.
Both conclusions would go beyond the evidence.
20. THE ARAMAIC TARGUMS — WHAT IS THE MEMRA?
We now turn to another important Jewish tradition.
The Targums are Aramaic translations and interpretations of the Hebrew Scriptures.
In some Targumic passages, the Aramaic term:
מֵימְרָא — memra.
Means:
“WORD.”
The term can appear in expressions referring to God's Word.
For example, a Targum may use language about the Word of the Lord where the Hebrew text speaks directly about the Lord's action.
This has led some Christian interpreters to suggest that the Targumic Memra provides a background for John's Logos.
The suggestion deserves examination.
But we must first address a major historical difficulty.
21. THE DATING PROBLEM — CAN WE USE THE TARGUMS AS DIRECT EVIDENCE FOR JOHN?
Not all Targums reached their surviving written forms before the Gospel of John.
Some preserve ancient traditions.
Others contain material transmitted, edited or compiled over many generations.
Therefore, we cannot simply quote a later Targum and claim that John's first readers necessarily knew that exact wording.
This would be historically careless.
The existence of Aramaic interpretive traditions in the first century is well established.
But the precise dating of individual Memra formulations is more difficult.
Therefore, Targumic evidence must be used cautiously.
It may illuminate a Jewish way of speaking about God's activity.
It cannot automatically establish direct dependence by John.
This is an important distinction.
22. DID THE MEMRA MEAN A SECOND DIVINE PERSON?
The answer is not straightforward.
In many contexts, Memra language functions as a way of describing God's own activity, presence or self-expression.
It can provide reverential or interpretive wording where Scripture speaks directly of God.
Some passages employ language that sounds like mediation.
But the mere use of Memra does not establish that the translator believed in a second conscious divine person.
The phrase “Word of the Lord” may function as a way of referring to the Lord Himself in action.
Therefore, the Biblical Unitarian interpretation finds useful parallels here.
God's Word can act because God acts through His Word.
But we must not turn this observation into an absolute rule.
Different Targums and passages must be examined individually.
A single definition of Memra cannot be imposed on every occurrence.
23. IS JOHN'S LOGOS THE SAME AS THE TARGUMIC MEMRA?
The Greek word logos and the Aramaic word memra can both mean “word.”
That lexical overlap is significant.
But identical or similar meanings do not prove that two theological concepts are identical.
John may draw directly upon Genesis 1, Psalm 33 and other Hebrew Scriptures.
He may also reflect broader Jewish Wisdom traditions.
Some interpreters suggest an additional relationship with Aramaic Memra language.
These possibilities are not mutually exclusive.
But direct literary dependence must be demonstrated.
At present, the strongest securely identifiable background remains the Hebrew Scriptures themselves.
The Targums provide useful comparative evidence, subject to chronological caution.
24. GREEK PHILOSOPHY — DID JOHN BORROW THE WORD LOGOS?
The Greek word logos had a long history before Christianity.
It could mean word, speech, account, reason or rational explanation.
Greek philosophers used it in discussions of reason and the ordering of the universe.
Stoic philosophy employed logos language in relation to the rational structure of reality.
Philo combined Jewish Scripture with philosophical terminology.
Therefore, John's choice of logos would have been intelligible within a Greek-speaking world.
But the mere use of the word does not establish philosophical borrowing.
John's opening phrase:
“IN THE BEGINNING.”
Immediately recalls Genesis 1:1.
His discussion of light, darkness, life and creation also echoes the Hebrew Scriptures.
Therefore, John's Prologue has a strong Jewish biblical foundation.
Greek philosophical associations may have been available to readers.
But Genesis provides the most obvious literary starting point.
25. DID JOHN REJECT OR TRANSFORM EARLIER LOGOS IDEAS?
John 1:14 declares:
“THE WORD BECAME FLESH.”
This is where John's account becomes distinctive.
Jewish Wisdom could dwell among Israel.
Philo's Logos could be described as divine image and firstborn.
The Targums could speak of God's Word acting.
But John identifies the Word's manifestation with a particular historical person.
Jesus Christ.
The Word is not merely a philosophical principle in John's Gospel.
The narrative proceeds to identify the one who reveals the Father, receives testimony from John the Baptist and brings grace and truth.
The question is whether John means that a personally preexistent Logos became human or that God's own Word and Wisdom became fully embodied in the Messiah.
Both interpretations recognise the historical particularity of Jesus.
The disagreement concerns what existed before that historical manifestation.
26. THE BIBLICAL UNITARIAN INTERPRETATION — GOD'S OWN WORD BECAME FLESH
We can now state this interpretation at its strongest.
The Hebrew Scriptures describe God creating through His Word.
They also personify divine Wisdom.
Sirach portrays Wisdom coming from God's mouth and dwelling among Israel.
The Wisdom of Solomon associates God's Word and Wisdom with creation.
The Targums sometimes describe God's activity through His Memra.
Therefore, John could introduce God's Word without intending to describe a second conscious person.
The Word was with God because it belonged to Him.
The Word was God because it expressed God's own divine reality.
All things came into being through God's Word.
Then the Word became flesh when God's revelation, wisdom and saving purpose were embodied in Jesus Christ.
This interpretation has significant Jewish literary support.
But it must explain the strong personal language elsewhere in John's Gospel.
It must also explain why John uses the verb “became” rather than merely saying the Word was revealed through Jesus.
That remains an important challenge.
27. THE TRINITARIAN INTERPRETATION — THE ETERNAL LOGOS BECAME HUMAN
The traditional interpretation understands John's Word as a personally preexistent divine Son.
The Word existed with God before creation.
The Word participated in creation.
The Word became flesh in Jesus Christ.
The Jewish Wisdom and Logos traditions provide background for this interpretation.
Philo's language concerning the firstborn Logos and divine image is especially relevant.
But the Trinitarian interpretation does not depend solely on Philo.
It appeals to John's own statements about the Word and Jesus' heavenly origin.
John 6:62 speaks of ascending to where the Son of Man was previously.
John 8:58 places Jesus' identity before Abraham.
John 17:5 describes glory with the Father before the world existed.
These passages strengthen the personal-preexistence interpretation.
However, the Jewish background demonstrates that personified divine language was already familiar.
Therefore, the personal character of the Logos must be established from John's complete narrative, not merely from masculine pronouns or personifying expressions.
28. THE JEHOVAH'S WITNESS INTERPRETATION
Jehovah's Witnesses understand the Word as a personally preexistent heavenly being.
They believe the Word was created by Jehovah before the rest of creation.
They identify him with Michael the archangel.
Philo's language about a firstborn Logos and archangel may appear superficially similar.
But historical resemblance is not proof.
Philo was not writing about Michael as Jesus Christ.
John 1 does not explicitly identify the Word as Michael.
Nor does John 1 explicitly state that the Word was created.
Therefore, the Jehovah's Witness interpretation requires arguments beyond the Jewish Logos background.
The historical material does not independently establish their identification.
29. THE ONENESS INTERPRETATION
Oneness theology understands God's Word as His own self-expression rather than a second eternal divine person.
In that respect, it may resemble the Biblical Unitarian interpretation of the Word before the incarnation.
But the two positions differ substantially.
Oneness theology identifies Jesus as the manifestation of the one God Himself.
Biblical Unitarian theology understands Jesus as the human Messiah, distinct from the one God, the Father.
Therefore, agreement that God's Word is His own self-expression does not settle the identity of Jesus.
John 1:14 must be interpreted alongside Jesus' prayers, his relationship with the Father and his explicit statements about God.
The Word's identity before the incarnation and Jesus' identity after the incarnation are related but distinct questions.
30. WHAT DID JOHN'S ORIGINAL READERS PROBABLY KNOW?
We must avoid claiming more historical certainty than the evidence permits.
John's readers were likely familiar with at least some Jewish scriptural traditions.
Genesis 1 provides an obvious background.
Psalm 33 connects creation with God's Word.
Proverbs personifies Wisdom.
Greek-speaking Jewish communities possessed additional Wisdom traditions.
Some readers may have known ideas resembling those found in Philo.
But we cannot prove that every reader knew Sirach, the Wisdom of Solomon, Philo or particular Targumic expressions.
Nor can we prove that John directly borrowed from any one of these sources.
The historical evidence establishes a range of available concepts.
It does not establish a single universal understanding of logos.
This is an important limitation.
31. COMPARING THE HISTORICAL SOURCES
| Source | Description of Word or Wisdom | Does it explicitly establish a second conscious divine person? |
|---|---|---|
| Genesis 1 | God creates by speaking | No |
| Psalm 33:6 | Creation through Yahweh's Word and breath | No |
| Proverbs 8 | Wisdom speaks and is present in creation imagery | No; personification is a strong literary explanation |
| Sirach 24 | Wisdom comes from God's mouth and dwells in Israel | No; Wisdom is connected with Torah |
| Wisdom of Solomon | Wisdom and Word participate in descriptions of God's activity | No unambiguous statement establishing a second divine person |
| Philo | Logos described as image, firstborn and heavenly mediator | Strongly personifying language; exact ontological status debated |
| Targumic Memra | God's Word used in descriptions of divine activity | Not automatically; individual passages require examination |
| John 1 | Word with God, involved in creation and becoming flesh | The disputed passage itself |
The historical evidence is diverse.
It does not support the claim that all Jewish Word-language was purely impersonal.
Nor does it support the claim that all Jewish Word-language described a literal second person.
32. OUR PRELIMINARY FINDINGS
Several important conclusions emerge.
First: The Hebrew davar commonly refers to God's speech, command and effective activity.
Second: The Old Testament frequently describes God's Word acting without explicitly identifying it as another conscious person.
Third: Proverbs 8 provides a clear example of highly developed Wisdom personification.
Fourth: Sirach 24 describes Wisdom coming from God's mouth and dwelling among Israel.
Fifth: Sirach connects Wisdom with the Torah rather than explicitly identifying her as a human person.
Sixth: The Wisdom of Solomon associates God's Word and Wisdom with creation.
Seventh: Philo describes the Logos using elevated titles including image and firstborn.
Eighth: Philo's Logos-language is more complex than a simple distinction between person and impersonal attribute.
Ninth: Targumic Memra language may illuminate Jewish ways of describing God's activity, but surviving texts require chronological caution.
Tenth: Greek philosophical uses of logos provide additional background but do not override the obvious Genesis connection.
Eleventh: The historical evidence demonstrates that personal language does not automatically establish literal personhood.
Twelfth: The historical evidence also demonstrates that some Jewish thinkers developed sophisticated concepts of heavenly mediation.
Thirteenth: John 1:14 is distinctive because the Word becomes flesh in the historical Jesus Christ.
Fourteenth: The personal-preexistence interpretation must be tested against the Jewish tradition of personification.
Fifteenth: The non-personal-preexistence interpretation must explain John's unusually strong language about the Word becoming flesh and Jesus' heavenly origin.
33. OUR CURRENT ASSESSMENT — WHICH BACKGROUND BEST EXPLAINS JOHN?
The most obvious literary foundation of John 1 remains Genesis 1.
The opening words, creation-language, light and darkness all point toward the biblical creation account.
Psalm 33:6 provides an especially important parallel because it describes creation through Yahweh's Word.
Proverbs 8, Sirach 24 and the Wisdom of Solomon demonstrate that Jewish writers could describe God's Wisdom and Word using highly personal language without necessarily identifying them as a second divine person.
This provides substantial historical support for the Biblical Unitarian interpretation that John's Word initially refers to God's own creative revelation and purpose.
But Philo's writings demonstrate that Jewish Logos-language could also develop into a more elaborate concept of heavenly mediation.
Therefore, the historical background does not establish that John's Word must be impersonal.
The decisive evidence must come from John's own Gospel.
Does John introduce God's Word as a person already existing alongside the Father?
Or does the Word become personally embodied in Jesus at John 1:14?
And how should we understand the later statements about Jesus' heavenly origin?
Our provisional conclusion is that Jewish Wisdom traditions make a non-personal reading of the Word historically credible, but they do not prove it.
The personal-preexistence interpretation remains a serious competitor because of the cumulative language of John's Gospel and other New Testament passages.
Neither interpretation should be accepted merely because it resembles an earlier Jewish tradition.
The whole Gospel must determine the meaning.
34. THE NEXT QUESTION — WHEN DID THE WORD BECOME JESUS?
We have now investigated the historical background.
But one question remains especially important.
John 1:14 declares:
“THE WORD BECAME FLESH.”
Does this describe the moment when an eternal conscious person became human?
Or does it describe God's eternal Word becoming embodied in the human Messiah?
If the Word was God's own speech, how exactly did that speech become flesh?
Was the Word embodied at Jesus' conception?
At his birth?
At his baptism?
Or throughout his entire life and ministry?
And does the New Testament ever explicitly say that Jesus personally existed before his conception?
These questions require careful examination.
We must distinguish between incarnation, manifestation, prophetic commissioning and divine begetting.
We must also examine the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke.
Those narratives describe the origin of Jesus in ways that may be crucial to understanding John's Prologue.
END OF PART 14
Coming in Part 15: “WHEN DID THE WORD BECOME FLESH?” — THE CONCEPTION OF JESUS, THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE ORIGIN OF THE SON
We will examine Luke 1:35, Matthew 1:18–23, John 1:14, Galatians 4:4 and the distinction between God's eternal Word and the historical beginning of Jesus' human life.
We will also investigate whether the virgin conception supports a non-personal-preexistence interpretation or can be reconciled with the traditional incarnation doctrine.
Our guiding principle remains unchanged:
We must follow the evidence rather than a predetermined doctrine.
We must distinguish historical facts, grammatical observations and theological interpretations.
And we must compare every explanation with the complete biblical testimony.
The goal is not to prove what we already believe. The goal is to discover what John actually meant.
JOHN 1:1 — GOD'S WORD, OR THE BEGINNING OF JESUS' MINISTRY?
PART 15 — “WHEN DID THE WORD BECOME FLESH?” THE MIRACULOUS CONCEPTION, THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE ORIGIN OF THE SON
By Simon Brown — Real Discoveries
https://wwwrealdiscoveriesorg-simon.blogspot.com
1. INTRODUCTION — DID JESUS BEGIN TO EXIST IN MARY'S WOMB?
We have reached a decisive question in our investigation of John 1.
John declares:
“The Word became flesh, and lived among us.” — John 1:14, WEB
The traditional Christian interpretation is that an eternal, personally existing divine Son became human.
But another interpretation understands God's Word as His own creative speech, wisdom and purpose, which became embodied in the human Messiah.
How can we distinguish these interpretations?
One important approach is to examine the accounts of Jesus' conception.
Matthew and Luke both describe Jesus' birth as miraculous.
Neither describes an ordinary human conception.
Both identify God's activity as the cause.
But do they describe the arrival of a previously existing heavenly person?
Or the miraculous beginning of a new human life?
And does Luke 1:35 explain why Jesus would be called the Son of God?
We must examine these questions without assuming the answer.
2. THREE QUESTIONS THAT MUST REMAIN SEPARATE
Before proceeding, three different questions must be distinguished.
First: When did Jesus' human life begin?
Matthew and Luke associate Jesus' human origin with his conception and birth.
Second: When did Jesus become the Son of God?
Luke 1:35 explicitly connects his divine sonship with the miraculous conception.
But other passages connect sonship with Davidic kingship, resurrection and heavenly exaltation.
Third: Did Jesus personally exist before his human conception?
This is the principal disputed question.
A person may begin human life at conception while, under the traditional incarnation doctrine, having existed previously in another mode of existence.
Therefore, demonstrating the beginning of Jesus' human life does not automatically demonstrate the beginning of his personal existence.
That further conclusion requires an argument.
This distinction is essential if our research is to remain fair.
3. LUKE 1:26–33 — THE ANGEL ANNOUNCES THE BIRTH OF THE MESSIAH
Luke records the angel Gabriel appearing to Mary.
He announces that she will conceive and bear a son.
She is to name him Jesus.
The child will be great.
He will be called the Son of the Most High.
God will give him the throne of David.
He will reign over the house of Jacob.
His kingdom will have no end.
The language is unmistakably messianic.
The child is identified with God's promises concerning David's royal descendant.
Second Samuel 7:12–16 promised that God would establish the kingdom of David's offspring.
Psalm 2 also connects God's appointed king with divine sonship.
Therefore, Luke's announcement is rooted in the Hebrew Scriptures.
The angel does not initially introduce the child as a heavenly person who is about to descend into Mary's womb.
He announces the conception and future kingship of the promised Messiah.
This is important.
But the absence of an explicit statement about preexistence does not prove that Luke intended to deny it.
We must examine the next verses.
4. MARY'S QUESTION — “HOW CAN THIS BE?”
Mary responds:
“How can this be, seeing I am a virgin?” — Luke 1:34, WEB
The question concerns conception.
Mary has been told she will bear a child.
She asks how that can happen.
The angel answers by explaining the divine action that will make the conception possible.
This is crucial.
The question is not:
“How can a heavenly person become human?”
Nor is it:
“How can the eternal Son enter my womb?”
Mary's question concerns how she will conceive.
The angel's explanation therefore deserves particular attention.
It may reveal what Luke wishes readers to understand about the child's origin.
5. LUKE 1:35 — THE CENTRAL TEXT
The Greek reads:
Πνεῦμα Ἅγιον ἐπελεύσεται ἐπὶ σέ, καὶ δύναμις Ὑψίστου ἐπισκιάσει σοι· διὸ καὶ τὸ γεννώμενον ἅγιον κληθήσεται Υἱὸς Θεοῦ.
A close English rendering is:
“The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the holy child to be born will be called Son of God.”
The verse contains four major elements.
THE HOLY SPIRIT WILL COME UPON MARY.
THE POWER OF THE MOST HIGH WILL OVERSHADOW HER.
THE CHILD WILL BE HOLY.
THEREFORE THE CHILD WILL BE CALLED THE SON OF GOD.
The word “therefore” is especially important.
It connects the explanation of the conception with the child's identity.
This is the central evidence for the Biblical Unitarian interpretation.
6. THE GREEK WORD DIO — “THEREFORE”
Luke uses:
διό — dio.
The word means:
“Therefore,” “for this reason,” or “consequently.”
It introduces a conclusion flowing from what precedes.
The angel has explained that the Holy Spirit will come upon Mary and that the power of the Most High will overshadow her.
Then he says:
“THEREFORE ... THE CHILD ... WILL BE CALLED SON OF GOD.”
The connection is significant.
Luke does not merely mention the conception and sonship as unrelated facts.
He connects them.
The natural reading is that the miraculous conception provides the reason for the child's designation as Son of God.
This is strong evidence for the Biblical Unitarian argument.
But we must ask precisely what follows.
Does the conception explain the beginning of the child's sonship?
Or does it explain why the incarnate child is rightly recognised as the Son of God, without denying a prior relationship?
The word dio establishes a causal relationship.
It does not independently settle every question concerning preexistence.
7. DOES “WILL BE CALLED” MEAN “WILL BECOME”?
The Greek verb is:
κληθήσεται — klēthēsetai.
It means:
“Will be called.”
In biblical language, being called something can mean being recognised or designated as possessing a particular identity.
For example, Luke 1:32 says the child will be called the Son of the Most High.
Luke 1:35 says he will be called Son of God.
The expression does not necessarily imply that the title is merely honorary or inaccurate.
But neither does the verb, by itself, specify the precise moment at which the relationship begins.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands the designation as grounded in the child's miraculous origin.
The traditional interpretation understands the title as belonging to the eternal Son and appropriately applied to the child born of Mary.
Both interpretations can account for the words “will be called.”
The stronger Biblical Unitarian argument rests on the preceding dio.
The reason given for the title is the miraculous conception.
That connection must not be overlooked.
8. THE WORD GENNŌMENON — THE ONE BEING BORN
Luke uses:
γεννώμενον — gennōmenon.
The word comes from gennaō, which can mean to beget or give birth.
The expression refers to the child who will be born.
Luke's attention is directed toward the child's origin in Mary's pregnancy.
He does not describe the conception as the creation of a heavenly being.
Nor does he explicitly describe the transfer of an existing conscious person into Mary's womb.
The child is conceived through God's power.
He will be born.
He will be holy.
He will be called Son of God.
This provides a coherent narrative of Jesus' human origin.
But the verb gennaō does not, by itself, exclude the possibility of a previously existing person becoming human.
The distinction between human origin and personal preexistence remains important.
9. THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE POWER OF THE MOST HIGH
Luke 1:35 uses two parallel expressions:
“THE HOLY SPIRIT WILL COME UPON YOU.”
“THE POWER OF THE MOST HIGH WILL OVERSHADOW YOU.”
The parallelism is significant.
It describes God's activity in bringing about the miraculous conception.
Biblical Unitarians understand the Holy Spirit here as God's own active power and presence.
Under this interpretation, God Himself causes the conception.
There is no need to introduce another divine person as a biological father.
Trinitarians understand the Holy Spirit as a distinct divine person who accomplishes the conception through divine power.
But classical Trinitarian theology does not teach that the Holy Spirit becomes Jesus' Father in the same sense that the first person of the Trinity is the Father.
The conception is a divine miracle, not an ordinary act of reproduction.
Therefore, the verse cannot be treated as a description of biological fatherhood.
Its language concerns supernatural creative action.
10. “OVERSHADOW” — A CONNECTION WITH THE TABERNACLE?
The Greek verb is:
ἐπισκιάσει — episkiasei.
It means:
“Will overshadow.”
The verb can describe a covering or overshadowing presence.
A significant Old Testament parallel occurs in the Greek account of God's glory filling the tabernacle.
Exodus 40:34–35 describes the cloud covering the tent of meeting and God's glory filling the sanctuary.
The Greek language of overshadowing provides a possible background for Luke's description.
This is important because John 1:14 also uses tabernacle imagery:
“THE WORD BECAME FLESH AND DWELT AMONG US.”
The two passages may share a theological theme.
God's presence is manifested among His people.
In Luke, God's power brings about the conception.
In John, God's Word becomes flesh and dwells among humanity.
The connection is suggestive.
But it does not establish that Luke and John use identical concepts of incarnation.
Their language and literary purposes differ.
11. MATTHEW 1:18 — CONCEIVED THROUGH THE HOLY SPIRIT
Matthew gives a parallel account.
Mary is found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit before she and Joseph come together.
Matthew 1:20 explains that what has been conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.
This is an explicit statement concerning the origin of Jesus' pregnancy.
The conception is miraculous.
It is caused by divine activity.
The narrative does not explicitly describe a preexistent Son entering Mary's womb.
This is significant for the Biblical Unitarian interpretation.
Matthew's emphasis is on the origin of the child through God's Spirit.
But, once again, silence about preexistence is not equivalent to a denial of preexistence.
Matthew may simply be explaining the child's human conception rather than addressing the metaphysical question of whether the Son existed beforehand.
We must distinguish what the text states from what it leaves unstated.
12. MATTHEW 1:21 — WHY WAS HE NAMED JESUS?
The angel tells Joseph that Mary will bear a son and that he must name him Jesus.
The reason given is that he will save his people from their sins.
The name Jesus reflects the Hebrew name Yeshua, associated with Yahweh's salvation.
This is important.
The child's identity is connected with God's saving purpose.
He is the appointed Saviour.
But the verse does not explicitly say that Jesus is Yahweh Himself.
Nor does it explain whether Jesus personally existed before conception.
The focus is his saving mission.
This fits the broader messianic framework of the birth narratives.
13. MATTHEW 1:23 — “GOD WITH US”
Matthew quotes Isaiah 7:14:
“THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME IMMANUEL.”
Matthew explains the meaning:
“GOD WITH US.”
This is a major passage in the debate.
Trinitarians understand the title as pointing to God's personal presence in the incarnate Son.
Biblical Unitarians understand it as describing God's presence and saving activity through His Messiah.
The Hebrew name Immanuel does not automatically establish that the person bearing the name is ontologically identical with God.
Biblical names frequently express truths about God's activity.
For example, names can mean that God hears, saves or strengthens.
But Matthew's deliberate application of “God with us” to Jesus is theologically significant.
It should not be reduced to an ordinary name with no deeper meaning.
The passage establishes that God's presence and salvation are uniquely manifested in Jesus.
Whether that manifestation involves the incarnation of a personally preexistent divine Son requires further evidence.
14. LUKE 1:32–33 — THE DAVIDIC SON
The angel declares that Jesus will receive the throne of his father David.
This is important for understanding the title Son of God.
In the Old Testament, divine sonship can be associated with kingship.
Second Samuel 7:14 contains God's promise concerning David's royal offspring:
“I WILL BE HIS FATHER, AND HE SHALL BE MY SON.”
Psalm 2:7 likewise connects God's appointed king with sonship.
Therefore, Luke's description of Jesus as Son of the Most High has a strong Davidic and messianic background.
The title does not automatically mean “God the Son” in the later Trinitarian sense.
It can identify the uniquely appointed Messiah.
But Luke 1:35 adds another dimension.
The miraculous conception is presented as a reason for the child's divine sonship.
Thus, Luke combines royal-messianic identity with supernatural origin.
15. IS LUKE 1:35 THE BEGINNING OF JESUS' SONSHIP?
This is the central question.
The Biblical Unitarian argument is straightforward.
The angel explains that God's Spirit will cause Mary's conception.
He then says:
“THEREFORE ... THE CHILD ... WILL BE CALLED SON OF GOD.”
Under this interpretation, Jesus is God's Son because God miraculously brings him into existence.
The Son begins to exist at conception.
The title is not describing a heavenly relationship that existed before Mary.
This is a strong contextual argument.
But the traditional interpretation offers a different explanation.
The eternal Son becomes human through the Holy Spirit's action.
The child is therefore rightly called Son of God because of both his eternal identity and his miraculous conception.
Luke does not explicitly say that the Son previously existed.
But he also does not explicitly say that the Son had no existence before conception.
Therefore, Luke 1:35 strongly connects sonship with the conception.
It does not, by itself, conclusively establish the absence of personal preexistence.
16. DOES THE MIRACULOUS CONCEPTION REQUIRE A PREEXISTENT SON?
No.
The miraculous conception can be understood without personal preexistence.
God can bring about a human life through His own creative power.
The Genesis creation account already establishes God as the giver of life.
Luke's account presents the conception as a divine miracle.
Therefore, the Biblical Unitarian interpretation is internally coherent.
Jesus begins his human life through God's supernatural action.
He is holy.
He is the promised Messiah.
He is the Son of God.
No preexistent heavenly person is required to explain the conception itself.
But this does not mean personal preexistence is impossible.
The traditional incarnation doctrine can also accommodate a miraculous conception.
The question is whether other New Testament passages establish that the Son existed beforehand.
The birth narratives alone do not resolve that wider issue.
17. DOES THE MIRACULOUS CONCEPTION CONTRADICT THE INCARNATION?
Not necessarily.
Classical Trinitarian theology distinguishes between the eternal existence of the Son and the beginning of his human life.
Under this doctrine, the Son did not begin to exist at Mary's conception.
He began to exist as a human being at that point.
This is a coherent distinction within the doctrine of incarnation.
The Biblical Unitarian objection is that Luke does not explicitly describe such a two-stage existence.
He describes God's action bringing about the conception of the child.
The question is whether the traditional interpretation is reading a later doctrinal framework into Luke or drawing a legitimate conclusion from the whole New Testament.
That question cannot be answered by Luke alone.
We must compare his account with John, Paul and Hebrews.
18. GALATIANS 4:4 — “GOD SENT FORTH HIS SON”
Paul writes:
“But when the fullness of the time came, God sent out his Son, born to a woman, born under the law.” — Galatians 4:4, WEB
The Greek reads:
ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ, γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός
Exapesteilen ho theos ton huion autou, genomenon ek gunaikos.
A close translation is:
“God sent forth His Son, having come from a woman.”
This is an important passage.
God sends His Son.
The Son is born of a woman.
The personal-preexistence interpretation understands the sending as referring to the Son's movement from heavenly existence into human life.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands sending as God's commissioning of His Messiah.
But the wording raises a difficulty.
Paul describes God sending His Son and then describes the Son's birth.
Does that imply the Son already existed before being born?
It may.
But Greek participial construction alone does not conclusively determine the timing of personal existence.
The question is whether “sent” describes heavenly descent or the divine commissioning of the Messiah whose birth Paul then identifies.
19. CAN GOD SEND SOMEONE WHO DID NOT PREEXIST?
The New Testament frequently uses sending-language for human messengers.
John the Baptist is described as a man sent from God.
The prophets were sent by God.
The apostles were sent by Jesus.
Such language does not necessarily imply that the messenger previously lived in heaven.
Therefore, the verb “send” does not automatically establish preexistence.
But Galatians 4:4 is not identical to the sending of John the Baptist.
Paul describes God sending His Son, born of a woman.
The traditional interpretation sees a deliberate sequence involving a Son who already exists.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation sees the language of divine commissioning and historical manifestation.
Both must account for the wording.
The ordinary use of sending-language establishes that preexistence is not a necessary implication of the verb itself.
It does not prove that preexistence is absent in Galatians 4:4.
20. ROMANS 1:3–4 — DESCENDED FROM DAVID AND DECLARED SON OF GOD
Paul describes God's Son as descended from David according to the flesh.
He then connects Jesus' sonship in power with the resurrection from the dead.
This is important because it shows that divine sonship has several dimensions in the New Testament.
Jesus is associated with Davidic descent.
He is associated with resurrection.
He is associated with powerful exaltation.
The passage does not necessarily mean Jesus first became God's Son at the resurrection.
Paul has already referred to him as God's Son.
But it does indicate a new stage in the public manifestation and exercise of his sonship.
Therefore, we should not assume that every passage referring to Jesus becoming, being called or being declared Son of God addresses the same moment or aspect of sonship.
Luke 1:35 concerns miraculous conception.
Romans 1:4 concerns resurrection and sonship in power.
These are distinct contexts.
21. ACTS 13:33 — “TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU”
Paul quotes Psalm 2:7:
“YOU ARE MY SON. TODAY I HAVE BECOME YOUR FATHER.”
The quotation appears in the context of God's fulfilment of His promises concerning Jesus.
Its application has been debated.
Some understand it in connection with Jesus' resurrection and exaltation.
Others distinguish the raising up of Jesus as Messiah from the resurrection language in the following verse.
This matters because the title Son of God can be associated with royal appointment and vindication.
Therefore, the word “begotten” in a messianic passage does not automatically refer to biological conception.
Nor does it necessarily refer to an eternal metaphysical relationship.
Its meaning depends on the context.
This is particularly important when comparing Luke 1:35 with Psalm 2:7.
The passages use related sonship language but address different aspects of Jesus' identity.
22. HEBREWS 1:5 — “YOU ARE MY SON”
Hebrews quotes Psalm 2:7 and God's promise to David's royal descendant.
The author asks to which angel God ever said:
“YOU ARE MY SON.”
The argument concerns the Son's superiority over angels.
The traditional interpretation understands this within the wider framework of the Son's eternal identity and exaltation.
Biblical Unitarians emphasise the royal-messianic meaning of the quotations.
The passage demonstrates that sonship is closely connected with God's appointment and promise.
But Hebrews 1 also contains strong language about the Son's role in creation.
Therefore, the chapter cannot be reduced to royal appointment alone.
The full context must be considered.
23. JOHN 1:14 — WHAT DOES “BECAME FLESH” MEAN?
We now return to the central verse.
The Greek reads:
καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο
Kai ho logos sarx egeneto.
A close translation is:
“And the Word became flesh.”
The verb is:
ἐγένετο — egeneto.
It comes from ginomai, which can mean to become, come into being or happen.
The noun is:
σάρξ — sarx.
It means flesh.
In this context, it refers to human existence and embodied life.
The traditional interpretation understands the statement as the eternal Word assuming humanity.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands God's Word becoming embodied in the human Jesus.
But we must be precise.
The verse does not explicitly say:
“The Word entered Mary's womb.”
Nor does it explicitly say:
“The Word was merely expressed through Jesus.”
It says:
“THE WORD BECAME FLESH.”
Any interpretation must explain the strength of that wording.
24. DOES EGENETO REQUIRE A PREEXISTENT PERSON?
No.
The verb ginomai does not independently establish the prior personal existence of its subject.
A plan can become reality.
A promise can become fulfilled.
An idea can become embodied in action.
A person can also become something he was not previously.
Therefore, the verb itself does not settle the issue.
The question is the identity of the subject:
THE WORD.
If the Word was already a conscious divine person, John 1:14 describes that person's becoming human.
If the Word was God's own creative revelation and purpose, the verse describes that Word becoming embodied in Jesus.
The grammar allows the question to be asked.
The broader context must determine the answer.
25. WAS THE WORD EMBODIED AT CONCEPTION, BIRTH OR BAPTISM?
Under the Biblical Unitarian interpretation, the miraculous conception is a natural candidate for the beginning of the Word's embodiment in Jesus.
God's creative Word brings about the conception.
The child is holy.
The child is God's Son.
His entire life becomes the expression of God's purpose.
But John 1:14 does not explicitly specify the precise moment.
The verse describes the Word becoming flesh, not a detailed biological sequence.
The traditional incarnation interpretation likewise locates the beginning of the Son's human existence at conception.
Both interpretations therefore commonly connect John 1:14 with the miraculous conception.
The baptism of Jesus marks another important event.
The Spirit descends upon him.
His messianic mission is publicly affirmed.
But neither Matthew nor Luke describes the baptism as the beginning of Jesus' human existence.
Nor does John 1:14 explicitly identify baptism as the moment the Word became flesh.
Therefore, identifying the baptism as the moment of incarnation requires additional argument.
26. THE BAPTISM — DID JESUS BECOME GOD'S SON THEN?
At Jesus' baptism, a heavenly voice identifies him as God's beloved Son.
The event is important for understanding his public mission.
But Luke has already identified Jesus as Son of God in the conception narrative.
Therefore, Luke does not present the baptism as the first occasion on which Jesus becomes God's Son.
The baptism publicly confirms his identity.
It also marks the beginning of his Spirit-empowered ministry.
This distinction matters.
A Biblical Unitarian interpretation need not claim that Jesus became God's Son only at baptism.
Indeed, Luke 1:35 provides a strong reason to reject that conclusion.
The miraculous conception is already connected with his sonship.
27. DID JESUS HAVE A HUMAN MIND AND WILL?
The New Testament portrays Jesus as genuinely human.
He grows.
He learns.
He experiences hunger.
He becomes tired.
He prays.
He obeys God.
He experiences temptation.
He dies.
These descriptions are important.
Biblical Unitarians understand them as evidence that Jesus is a genuine human person.
Trinitarians affirm Jesus' full humanity while maintaining that he is also the eternal divine Son.
Therefore, human experiences alone do not disprove the incarnation doctrine.
But they raise important questions about the relationship between Jesus' humanity and any supposed preexistent consciousness.
If Jesus personally existed in heaven before his birth, how should his human development be understood?
The traditional doctrine addresses this through the distinction between divine and human natures.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation does not require that distinction.
The question is which explanation best accounts for the complete biblical evidence.
28. JOHN 17:5 — THE MOST DIFFICULT COUNTERARGUMENT
We must not avoid the strongest evidence against a non-personal-preexistence interpretation.
Jesus prays:
“Now, Father, glorify me with your own self with the glory which I had with you before the world existed.” — John 17:5, WEB
The wording is powerful.
Jesus speaks in the first person.
He says he had glory with the Father before the world existed.
The personal-preexistence interpretation understands this as a direct reference to heavenly existence before his birth.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands the glory as existing in God's purpose and foreknowledge.
Biblical parallels exist for realities being prepared or known before their historical manifestation.
But John 17:5 does not explicitly say:
“The glory which You planned for me.”
It says:
“THE GLORY WHICH I HAD WITH YOU.”
Therefore, the foreknowledge interpretation requires a substantial contextual argument.
Luke 1:35 provides important evidence concerning Jesus' miraculous origin.
But it does not automatically cancel the force of John 17:5.
Both passages must be explained.
29. JOHN 6:62 — “WHERE HE WAS BEFORE”
Jesus asks:
“Then what if you would see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?” — John 6:62, WEB
This is another serious challenge.
The ordinary reading suggests that Jesus had previously been in the place to which he would ascend.
Biblical Unitarian alternatives include interpretations connected with Daniel 7's heavenly vision of the Son of Man.
Under that approach, the Son of Man was previously represented in prophetic vision.
But the personal-preexistence interpretation is more immediate in the wording.
The alternative interpretation must demonstrate that Jesus was referring to his prophetic identity rather than his personal heavenly existence.
Therefore, Luke's conception account is important but cannot be treated as the sole controlling passage.
A comprehensive interpretation must account for the full Gospel of John.
30. JOHN 8:58 — “BEFORE ABRAHAM WAS, I AM”
John 8:58 presents a further difficulty.
Jesus declares:
“BEFORE ABRAHAM CAME INTO EXISTENCE, I AM.”
The personal-preexistence interpretation understands this as a claim to existence before Abraham.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands it in relation to the Messiah's priority in God's purpose.
But the direct first-person temporal wording favours a claim of pre-Abraham existence or priority.
The foreknowledge explanation is possible within a wider theological framework.
It is not the most immediate grammatical reading.
Therefore, any interpretation that locates the beginning of Jesus' personal existence at conception must explain why Jesus later speaks this way.
Luke 1:35 alone does not resolve the difficulty.
31. THE STRONGEST BIBLICAL UNITARIAN ARGUMENT
We can now state the argument fairly.
Luke describes the miraculous conception of Jesus.
The Holy Spirit comes upon Mary.
The power of the Most High overshadows her.
The angel explicitly connects this event with the child's identity as Son of God.
Matthew likewise attributes the conception to the Holy Spirit.
Neither birth narrative explicitly describes a previously existing heavenly person entering Mary's womb.
The Old Testament provides a framework in which God creates through His own Word and power.
Therefore, the Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands Jesus as beginning his personal existence through God's miraculous creative act.
The Word became flesh because God's revelation and purpose became embodied in the Messiah.
This interpretation is coherent and has significant textual support.
But it must explain the passages that appear to describe Jesus' personal existence before his birth.
That is its principal challenge.
32. THE STRONGEST TRINITARIAN ARGUMENT
The traditional interpretation also has substantial evidence.
John describes the Word existing with God before creation.
The Word becomes flesh.
Jesus speaks of coming down from heaven.
He speaks of ascending to where he was before.
He speaks of existing before Abraham.
He speaks of glory with the Father before the world existed.
Paul describes all things being created through Christ.
Hebrews describes God making the ages through His Son.
Taken together, these passages provide a strong cumulative argument for personal preexistence.
The traditional interpretation understands Matthew and Luke as describing the beginning of the Son's human life, not the beginning of his personal existence.
This is a coherent synthesis.
But it requires a distinction between eternal sonship and human conception that Luke does not explicitly formulate.
The interpretation must therefore be established from the wider New Testament.
33. DOES LUKE 1:35 CONTRADICT ETERNAL SONSHIP?
This is a particularly important theological question.
Luke says the child will be called Son of God because of the miraculous conception.
If the Son already existed eternally, why does Luke connect sonship with conception?
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation sees this as evidence that sonship begins there.
The traditional interpretation distinguishes different senses or manifestations of sonship.
The eternal Son becomes human.
The miraculous conception explains why the child born of Mary is rightly identified as Son of God.
But this raises a further question.
Is Luke's causal explanation being given its full force if the title is understood as referring primarily to an eternal relationship that already existed?
The answer depends on whether sonship in Luke is being used in precisely the same sense as sonship in later doctrinal formulations.
Luke's language is rooted in miraculous origin and messianic kingship.
The doctrine of eternal generation belongs to a broader theological synthesis.
The two should not be treated as identical without argument.
34. COMPARING THE INTERPRETATIONS
| Interpretation | Meaning of Luke 1:35 | Meaning of John 1:14 | Main challenge |
|---|---|---|---|
| Biblical Unitarian — Miraculous origin | Jesus becomes God's Son through miraculous conception | God's Word becomes embodied in the human Messiah | Explaining apparent personal preexistence passages |
| Trinitarian | The eternal Son begins human life through the Spirit | The personally preexistent Word assumes humanity | Explaining Luke's causal connection between conception and sonship |
| Jehovah's Witness | A preexistent heavenly Son becomes human | The preexistent Word becomes flesh | Explaining the transition from heavenly existence to human conception |
| Oneness | God's own Spirit brings about the human Son | God's eternal Word becomes manifested in flesh | Explaining the distinction between Father and Son throughout the Gospel |
| Adoptionist interpretation | Jesus' divine sonship is associated with a later appointment | The Word's manifestation may be connected with ministry | Luke already connects sonship with conception |
The table demonstrates that the same passages can be incorporated into different theological frameworks.
But their explanations are not equally direct in every context.
Luke's account strongly emphasises miraculous origin.
John's Gospel contains stronger language of preexistence.
The interpreter must explain both.
35. OUR PRELIMINARY FINDINGS
First: Matthew and Luke explicitly describe Jesus' miraculous conception.
Second: Luke 1:35 connects the conception with the child's designation as Son of God.
Third: The Greek word dio establishes a causal relationship.
Fourth: The phrase “will be called” does not independently specify whether sonship begins at conception or is manifested there.
Fifth: Luke's account does not explicitly describe a preexistent heavenly person entering Mary's womb.
Sixth: Matthew likewise attributes the conception to the Holy Spirit.
Seventh: The birth narratives strongly connect Jesus with Davidic messianic promises.
Eighth: The miraculous conception does not logically require personal preexistence.
Ninth: It also does not logically exclude personal preexistence.
Tenth: Galatians 4:4 describes God sending His Son, born of a woman.
Eleventh: Sending-language does not always imply heavenly preexistence.
Twelfth: The wording of Galatians 4:4 nevertheless provides a meaningful argument for the personal-preexistence interpretation.
Thirteenth: John 1:14 does not explicitly identify the moment at which the Word became flesh.
Fourteenth: John 6:62, 8:58 and 17:5 remain major challenges to the non-personal-preexistence interpretation.
Fifteenth: The birth narratives and John's Gospel must be interpreted together rather than allowing one passage to silence the others.
36. OUR CURRENT ASSESSMENT — WHAT DOES LUKE 1:35 ACTUALLY ESTABLISH?
Luke 1:35 provides substantial evidence for understanding Jesus' divine sonship in connection with his miraculous conception.
The causal word dio is especially important.
The angel does not merely announce that the child will be called Son of God.
He explains the divine action that will bring about the conception and then connects that action with the child's identity.
This is a strong argument for the Biblical Unitarian understanding of Jesus' origin.
The narrative itself does not explicitly teach that Jesus personally existed before conception.
But we must not overstate the conclusion.
Luke's silence about preexistence does not establish that preexistence is impossible.
The traditional interpretation can understand Luke as describing the beginning of the Son's human life.
That explanation is not stated directly in Luke, but it may be argued from other New Testament passages.
Therefore, our provisional conclusion is:
LUKE 1:35 STRONGLY CONNECTS JESUS' SONSHIP WITH HIS MIRACULOUS CONCEPTION.
IT DOES NOT, BY ITSELF, PROVE THAT JESUS HAD NO PERSONAL EXISTENCE BEFORE THAT CONCEPTION.
The question remains whether John's Gospel and the other New Testament writings establish such prior existence.
That question must be answered from the complete evidence.
37. THE NEXT QUESTION — WHAT DOES “SON OF GOD” ACTUALLY MEAN?
We have repeatedly encountered the title:
“SON OF GOD.”
But what did that title mean in the Hebrew Scriptures?
Israel is called God's son.
David's royal descendant is called God's son.
Angelic beings are called sons of God.
Jesus is called God's Son because of his miraculous conception.
He is also identified as Son of God in connection with his resurrection and exaltation.
Does the title necessarily imply that Jesus shares God's divine nature?
Does it necessarily imply eternal personal preexistence?
Or does it identify the uniquely appointed Messiah whose relationship with God is unlike that of any other human being?
To answer these questions, we must investigate the title throughout the Bible.
We must examine Exodus 4:22, 2 Samuel 7:14, Psalm 2:7, Luke 1:35, John 10:36, John 20:31, Romans 1:4 and Hebrews 1.
We must also distinguish the biblical title “Son of God” from the later theological expression “God the Son.”
These are not identical phrases.
The distinction deserves careful investigation.
END OF PART 15
Coming in Part 16: “SON OF GOD OR GOD THE SON?” — WHAT DID THE TITLE ORIGINALLY MEAN?
We will investigate the Hebrew and Greek meaning of divine sonship, the royal Messiah, miraculous conception, resurrection and the development of later Christian doctrine.
We will also examine whether the New Testament ever explicitly identifies Jesus as “God the Son” and whether the absence of that precise phrase settles the theological question.
Our guiding principle remains unchanged:
We must follow the evidence rather than a predetermined doctrine.
We must distinguish grammatical facts from theological interpretations.
And we must compare every explanation with the complete biblical testimony.
The goal is not to prove what we already believe. The goal is to discover what John actually meant.
JOHN 1:1 — GOD'S WORD, OR THE BEGINNING OF JESUS' MINISTRY?
PART 16 — “SON OF GOD” OR “GOD THE SON”? WHAT DID THE TITLE ORIGINALLY MEAN?
By Simon Brown — Real Discoveries
https://wwwrealdiscoveriesorg-simon.blogspot.com
1. INTRODUCTION — TWO EXPRESSIONS THAT MUST NOT BE CONFUSED
One of the most important titles given to Jesus in the New Testament is:
SON OF GOD.
But traditional Christian theology frequently uses another expression:
GOD THE SON.
Are these two expressions interchangeable?
Do they mean the same thing?
Or does the second expression represent a later theological interpretation of the first?
The distinction matters because the Bible repeatedly calls Jesus the Son of God, while the exact expression “God the Son” does not appear as a biblical title.
This is a factual observation.
But it is not, by itself, proof that the doctrine expressed by “God the Son” is false.
A theological doctrine may be expressed using terminology not found word for word in Scripture.
The real question is whether the doctrine accurately reflects the biblical evidence.
Our investigation must therefore begin with the original meaning of divine sonship.
We will examine Israel, the Davidic kings, angels, Adam, believers and Jesus Christ.
We will also consider whether John's Gospel gives the title a significance beyond its earlier royal and covenantal meanings.
Our central question is: When Jesus called himself the Son of God, was he claiming to be the one God Himself, or identifying himself as God's uniquely appointed Messiah?
2. THE HEBREW EXPRESSION “SON OF GOD”
The Hebrew Scriptures use expressions such as:
בְּנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים — bene ha'elohim.
“Sons of God.”
And:
בְּנִי — beni.
“My son.”
The meaning depends on context.
Divine sonship may describe:
A nation belonging to God.
A king appointed by God.
Heavenly beings associated with God's court.
A person enjoying a special covenant relationship.
Someone reflecting God's character or receiving His authority.
Therefore, the title does not always identify a being who shares God's divine nature.
That observation is crucial.
But it does not prove that the title can never carry a more exalted meaning.
We must examine how it functions when applied specifically to Jesus.
3. EXODUS 4:22 — ISRAEL IS GOD'S FIRSTBORN SON
Yahweh instructs Moses to tell Pharaoh:
“Israel is my son, my firstborn.” — Exodus 4:22, WEB
This is an explicit declaration.
Israel is called God's son.
Indeed, Israel is called His firstborn.
But Israel is not Almighty God.
The title expresses a special relationship between Yahweh and His covenant people.
Israel belongs to Him.
Israel is the recipient of His promises.
Israel is called to serve Him.
This establishes an important principle:
BEING CALLED GOD'S SON DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY MEAN BEING GOD.
The word “firstborn” also expresses special standing and privilege.
It need not always describe the first individual brought into existence.
This becomes important when examining Colossians 1:15.
4. HOSEA 11:1 — “OUT OF EGYPT I CALLED MY SON”
Hosea 11:1 recalls God's relationship with Israel:
“When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.” — WEB
Here, God's son is Israel.
The statement refers to the Exodus.
But Matthew 2:15 applies the passage to Jesus' return from Egypt.
This is important.
Matthew identifies Jesus with Israel's history.
Where Israel was called God's son, Jesus is also presented as God's Son.
Jesus embodies and fulfils Israel's calling.
The connection does not require that the original Hosea passage was describing a heavenly divine person.
It concerned Israel.
Matthew applies its pattern to the Messiah.
This provides a strong example of biblical sonship-language developing through fulfilment.
5. ADAM — THE SON OF GOD
Luke 3:38 concludes Jesus' genealogy with:
“ADAM, THE SON OF GOD.”
Adam is called God's son because his existence ultimately comes from God.
He is not the child of a human father.
This is especially relevant to Luke 1:35.
Jesus is conceived through God's miraculous action.
Adam was brought into existence through God's creative action.
The comparison is not exact.
Adam was formed from the dust.
Jesus was born of Mary.
But both accounts associate human origin with divine creative activity.
This provides a possible background for understanding why Luke connects Jesus' miraculous conception with his designation as Son of God.
However, Luke does not explicitly say in chapter 1 that Jesus' sonship is identical to Adam's.
The comparison is interpretive.
It should not be treated as an explicit statement by Luke.
6. THE ANGELS — SONS OF GOD
Job 1:6 describes heavenly beings presenting themselves before Yahweh.
They are called sons of God.
Job 38:7 likewise describes the sons of God shouting for joy in the context of creation.
These expressions are commonly understood as referring to heavenly beings.
They demonstrate that divine sonship-language was not restricted to human kings or Israel.
But the title does not automatically mean those heavenly beings are Almighty God.
They are distinguished from Yahweh.
This is important for Jehovah's Witness theology and other interpretations involving a preexistent heavenly Son.
The fact that heavenly beings can be called sons of God does not prove that Jesus is an angel.
Nor does it prove that he is not.
His identity must be established from passages specifically concerning him.
7. SECOND SAMUEL 7:14 — THE DAVIDIC KING AS GOD'S SON
God makes a promise concerning David's royal descendant:
“I will be his father, and he shall be my son.” — 2 Samuel 7:14, WEB
The immediate historical setting concerns David's royal dynasty.
Solomon is a central initial fulfilment.
But the promise also becomes foundational for later messianic expectation.
The important distinction is that the king is called God's son because of a special royal relationship.
God appoints him.
God establishes his kingdom.
God promises to act as his Father.
The king does not become Yahweh.
He remains the ruler appointed by Yahweh.
This is one of the strongest Old Testament backgrounds for the title Son of God when applied to the Messiah.
8. PSALM 2:7 — “YOU ARE MY SON”
Psalm 2:7 declares:
“You are my son. Today I have become your father.” — WEB
The Hebrew reads:
בְּנִי אַתָּה אֲנִי הַיּוֹם יְלִדְתִּיךָ
Beni attah, ani hayom yelidtika.
A close rendering is:
“You are my son; today I have begotten you.”
The context concerns Yahweh's anointed king.
The king receives authority over the nations.
The language of sonship is closely connected with royal appointment.
Many scholars understand this as an enthronement or royal-adoption declaration.
The king is designated as God's son because he occupies a special covenantal position.
The Psalm does not explicitly teach that the king existed eternally before his birth.
Nor does it explicitly identify him as Yahweh Himself.
But the New Testament applies the Psalm to Jesus in significant ways.
We must examine those applications before drawing conclusions.
9. WHAT DOES “BEGOTTEN” MEAN IN PSALM 2?
The Hebrew verb comes from:
יָלַד — yalad.
It can mean to bear or beget.
But the context determines whether the language refers to physical birth or a figurative relationship.
In Psalm 2, the statement is associated with the king's divine appointment.
The phrase “today” is particularly important.
It naturally refers to a decisive moment of royal recognition or installation.
This makes a royal interpretation historically plausible.
But later Christian theology also uses Psalm 2:7 in discussions of the Son's relationship with the Father.
The doctrine of eternal generation understands divine sonship in a way that is not limited to a historical coronation.
That is a theological interpretation requiring additional evidence.
It is not simply the original meaning of Psalm 2:7.
10. THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS — A MESSIANIC SON OF GOD
A particularly important piece of evidence comes from the Dead Sea Scrolls.
The text commonly known as 4QFlorilegium, or 4Q174, brings together passages from 2 Samuel 7 and Psalm 2.
It interprets the Davidic promise in relation to an expected future ruler.
This demonstrates that Jewish interpreters before or around the beginning of Christianity could apply divine sonship-language to an anticipated Davidic figure.
This is significant.
The New Testament's identification of Jesus as God's Son did not emerge in a vacuum.
It belongs to a wider world of Jewish messianic interpretation.
However, we must avoid claiming that all Jewish groups understood the title in precisely the same way.
Second Temple Judaism was diverse.
The meaning of “Son of God” could vary according to context and community.
Nevertheless, the royal-messianic background is historically well supported.
11. THE GREEK EXPRESSION “SON OF GOD”
The New Testament commonly uses:
υἱὸς θεοῦ — huios theou.
“Son of God.”
Or:
ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ — ho huios tou theou.
“The Son of God.”
The Greek noun huios means son.
The genitive theou identifies the relationship with God.
But Greek grammar alone does not define the nature of that relationship.
It does not automatically establish that the Son shares the same divine essence as the Father.
Nor does it automatically establish that the relationship is merely honorary.
The meaning must be determined from the context.
This is especially important because John's Gospel uses the title in a highly developed theological setting.
12. LUKE 1:35 — SON OF GOD BECAUSE OF MIRACULOUS CONCEPTION
We examined this verse in Part 15.
The angel explains that the Holy Spirit will come upon Mary and the power of the Most High will overshadow her.
Then he declares that the holy child will be called Son of God.
The Greek word dio connects the conception with the child's designation.
This is substantial evidence for understanding Jesus' sonship in relation to his miraculous origin.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation sees the beginning of Jesus' personal existence and divine sonship at conception.
The traditional interpretation sees the eternal Son beginning his human existence through the Spirit.
But Luke does not explicitly describe an eternal Son entering Mary's womb.
His explanation concerns God's miraculous creative action.
Therefore, Luke 1:35 gives strong support to the miraculous-origin understanding of sonship.
It does not independently settle the question of personal preexistence.
13. MATTHEW 16:16 — “YOU ARE THE CHRIST, THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD”
Peter declares:
“You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” — Matthew 16:16, WEB
Notice the relationship between the two titles.
THE CHRIST.
THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD.
The titles are closely connected.
Peter identifies Jesus as the promised Messiah.
Jesus then declares that the Father has revealed this truth to Peter.
This is important for Biblical Unitarian theology.
Peter's confession does not explicitly say:
“You are Almighty God.”
Nor does it say:
“You are God the Son, the second person of the Trinity.”
But we must be careful.
The absence of those formulations does not prove that Peter's confession has no deeper theological implications.
Matthew's Gospel also contains extraordinary statements concerning Jesus' authority and God's presence in him.
The confession must be read within the whole Gospel.
Nevertheless, its explicit wording is messianic.
14. JOHN 20:31 — WHY DID JOHN WRITE HIS GOSPEL?
Near the conclusion of his Gospel, John states his purpose:
“But these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.” — John 20:31, WEB
This is one of the most important verses in our entire investigation.
John tells us what he wants readers to believe.
JESUS IS THE CHRIST.
JESUS IS THE SON OF GOD.
The two titles appear together.
This provides substantial support for understanding divine sonship in a messianic framework.
John does not formulate his purpose as:
“That you may believe Jesus is the second person of the Trinity.”
But the Gospel also begins with the Word being God and becoming flesh.
It includes statements about heavenly origin and preexistence.
It records Thomas addressing Jesus as “My Lord and my God.”
Therefore, the title Son of God must be interpreted in light of John's entire narrative.
John 20:31 establishes the Gospel's stated confession.
It does not necessarily exhaust every theological claim the Gospel makes about Jesus.
15. JOHN 10:36 — JESUS EXPLAINS HIS OWN CLAIM
Jesus asks:
“Do you say of him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?” — John 10:36, WEB
This verse is especially important.
Jesus explicitly identifies his claim:
“I AM THE SON OF GOD.”
He describes himself as the one whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world.
The Father is the one who consecrates and sends.
Jesus is the one consecrated and sent.
This distinction strongly supports the understanding of Jesus as God's authorised Messiah.
But the immediate context contains another extraordinary statement.
Jesus has said:
“I AND THE FATHER ARE ONE.”
His opponents accuse him of blasphemy.
Therefore, John 10:36 cannot be interpreted in isolation.
We must examine the accusation and Jesus' response.
16. JOHN 10:30 — “I AND THE FATHER ARE ONE”
The Greek reads:
ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν
Egō kai ho patēr hen esmen.
A close translation is:
“I and the Father are one.”
Two grammatical details are important.
First, the verb is plural:
ἐσμεν — esmen.
“We are.”
Jesus distinguishes himself from the Father.
He does not say:
“I am the Father.”
Second, the word for “one” is neuter:
ἕν — hen.
It does not use the masculine form that would ordinarily identify one male individual.
This is compatible with unity of action, purpose or shared reality.
The immediate context concerns the security of Jesus' sheep.
Jesus gives them eternal life.
No one can snatch them from his hand.
No one can snatch them from the Father's hand.
The unity of action is unmistakable.
But does the statement mean only unity of purpose?
Not necessarily.
Trinitarian interpreters understand it as expressing a profound unity between Father and Son, consistent with shared divine nature.
Biblical Unitarians understand it as unity in the Father's saving work.
The grammar excludes a simple identification of Jesus as the same person as the Father.
It does not, by itself, settle the question of shared divine nature.
17. JOHN 10:33 — “YOU MAKE YOURSELF GOD”
Jesus' opponents respond:
“For a good work we don't stone you, but for blasphemy: because you, being a man, make yourself God.” — John 10:33, WEB
This is a serious accusation.
His opponents understand his claim as exceeding the proper status of a human being.
But does their accusation accurately express Jesus' intended meaning?
John's Gospel repeatedly records misunderstandings of Jesus' words.
Therefore, the accusation must be evaluated in light of Jesus' reply.
Biblical Unitarians argue that Jesus corrects their interpretation by identifying himself as the Son of God rather than claiming to be the Father.
Trinitarians argue that Jesus does not deny the divine significance of his claim but defends it using Scripture and his works.
Both interpretations must explain the following verses.
The accusation alone does not settle the issue.
18. JOHN 10:34–35 — “I SAID, YOU ARE GODS”
Jesus responds by quoting Psalm 82:6:
“I SAID, YOU ARE GODS.”
The Greek term is:
θεοί — theoi.
“Gods.”
In Psalm 82, the term is applied to figures addressed within God's judgment scene.
Their precise identity is debated.
Some interpret them as human judges or rulers.
Others understand them as heavenly beings.
Jesus' argument appeals to the fact that Scripture can use exalted divine terminology for figures other than Yahweh Himself.
He then asks why it is blasphemy for the one sanctified and sent by the Father to say:
“I AM THE SON OF GOD.”
This is an important argument.
It demonstrates that Jesus defends his claim through scriptural usage.
But we must not oversimplify.
Jesus may be arguing from a lesser case to a greater one.
If Scripture can call certain figures gods, how much more appropriate is his own designation as God's Son?
Therefore, the argument does not necessarily place Jesus on exactly the same level as the figures in Psalm 82.
It establishes the legitimacy of his claim while leaving the full nature of his identity to be determined from the broader Gospel.
19. JOHN 10:36 — WHY DID JESUS SAY “SON OF GOD” RATHER THAN “GOD”?
This is a particularly important question.
Jesus does not respond:
“Yes, I am the Father.”
Nor does he explicitly declare:
“I am the second person of the Trinity.”
He identifies himself as the Son of God.
He emphasises that the Father sanctified and sent him.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands this as Jesus correcting an accusation that he had made himself God.
But the Trinitarian interpretation argues that Jesus is not retreating from his extraordinary claims.
He proceeds to say that the Father is in him and he is in the Father.
Therefore, the response may communicate more than ordinary messianic appointment.
The strongest conclusion we can draw is that Jesus explicitly identifies himself as God's Son and distinguishes himself from the Father.
Whether this sonship includes divine identity remains a wider interpretive question.
20. JOHN 5:18 — DID JESUS MAKE HIMSELF EQUAL WITH GOD?
John 5:18 reports that Jesus' opponents sought to kill him because he called God his own Father, thereby making himself equal with God.
This passage is often treated as decisive.
But we must distinguish the narrator's description of the dispute from Jesus' subsequent explanation.
Jesus responds:
“THE SON CAN DO NOTHING OF HIMSELF.”
He describes his activity as dependent upon the Father.
The Father shows him what to do.
The Father gives life.
The Son gives life according to the authority and relationship described in the passage.
Biblical Unitarians emphasise the Son's dependence.
Trinitarians emphasise that the Son performs extraordinary works associated with God, including giving life and exercising judgment.
Both observations are present.
The passage cannot be reduced either to simple equality without dependence or to ordinary prophetic authority without considering the extraordinary claims.
John's Christology is more complex than either slogan.
21. JOHN 5:26 — LIFE GIVEN TO THE SON
Jesus declares:
“For as the Father has life in himself, even so he gave to the Son also to have life in himself.” — John 5:26, WEB
This verse deserves special attention.
The Father possesses life in Himself.
The Father gives the Son to have life in himself.
The distinction between giver and recipient is explicit.
Biblical Unitarians understand this as evidence that the Son receives authority and life from God.
Trinitarians may interpret the statement in relation to the eternal Father–Son relationship, including the doctrine of eternal generation, or in connection with the Son's saving mission.
The verse does not explicitly explain which theological framework should be adopted.
But it does establish that John's Gospel presents the Son's life-giving role in relation to what the Father grants.
This must be considered when interpreting the Son's identity.
22. JOHN 17:3 — THE FATHER AS THE ONLY TRUE GOD
Jesus prays:
“This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Jesus Christ.” — John 17:3, WEB
This is one of the clearest statements distinguishing the Father and Jesus.
Jesus addresses the Father.
He identifies the Father as the only true God.
He identifies himself as the one sent by the Father.
For Biblical Unitarians, this is foundational.
The one God is the Father.
Jesus is the Messiah whom God sent.
Trinitarians also affirm that the Father is the only true God, while maintaining that the Son shares the one divine nature.
They argue that the statement does not necessarily exclude the Son from divine identity.
The disagreement therefore concerns whether the title “only true God,” addressed to the Father, excludes the Son from deity or identifies the Father without denying the Son's participation in divine nature.
The text does not explicitly formulate the later Trinitarian distinction.
But neither should it be interpreted without considering the rest of John's Gospel.
23. FIRST CORINTHIANS 8:6 — “ONE GOD, THE FATHER”
Paul writes:
“Yet to us there is one God, the Father ... and one Lord, Jesus Christ...” — 1 Corinthians 8:6, WEB
The wording is significant.
Paul explicitly identifies the one God as the Father.
He distinguishes Jesus Christ as the one Lord.
This is a major passage for Biblical Unitarian theology.
But Trinitarian scholars argue that Paul is expressing Israel's monotheistic confession in a way that includes Jesus within the divine identity.
The question is whether the distinction between “one God” and “one Lord” establishes two different levels of being or two distinguishable identities within a shared divine reality.
The verse itself does not explicitly define those later categories.
It establishes the Father as the source of all things and Jesus Christ as the one through whom all things are.
This is the wording our interpretation must explain.
24. ROMANS 1:3–4 — SONSHIP AND RESURRECTION
Paul describes Jesus as descended from David according to the flesh.
He also describes him as appointed or declared Son of God in power through resurrection, depending on how the Greek is translated and interpreted.
The key Greek expression includes:
ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ θεοῦ ἐν δυνάμει
Horisthentos huiou theou en dynamei.
The verb horizō can refer to appointing, determining or designating.
The phrase “in power” is important.
Paul does not necessarily mean that Jesus first became God's Son at the resurrection.
He has already referred to God's Son.
Rather, the resurrection marks a decisive new stage in Jesus' identity and authority as the exalted Messiah.
This fits the royal-messianic background of Psalm 2.
The Son is publicly vindicated and exalted.
The passage does not independently establish eternal generation.
Nor does it necessarily deny personal preexistence.
25. ACTS 2:36 — GOD MADE JESUS LORD AND CHRIST
Peter declares:
“God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.” — Acts 2:36, WEB
This statement is extremely important.
God is the one who appoints.
Jesus is the one appointed.
The crucified Jesus has been exalted.
He is now publicly established as Lord and Messiah in the context of resurrection and exaltation.
Biblical Unitarians understand this as evidence that Jesus' lordship is granted by God.
Trinitarians distinguish between the Son's eternal identity and the public exaltation of the incarnate Messiah.
Both interpretations recognise that Acts describes a decisive exaltation.
The question is whether that exaltation creates a status Jesus never possessed in any sense or publicly manifests and extends a status associated with his prior identity.
Acts 2:36 itself does not explain the full metaphysical question.
But it strongly emphasises God's action in exalting Jesus.
26. PHILIPPIANS 2:9–11 — GOD EXALTED JESUS
Paul declares that God highly exalted Jesus and gave him the name above every name.
Every knee is to bow.
Every tongue is to confess Jesus Christ as Lord.
The passage concludes:
“TO THE GLORY OF GOD THE FATHER.”
This is important.
Jesus receives extraordinary honour.
But that honour glorifies the Father.
The passage also echoes Isaiah 45:23, where Yahweh declares that every knee will bow to Him.
The Trinitarian interpretation understands this as including Jesus within the divine identity.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands it as God's granting His Messiah supreme authority.
Both interpretations must explain the Old Testament allusion.
The passage does not merely describe ordinary human honour.
It presents Jesus' exaltation in exceptionally elevated terms.
But the source of that exaltation is explicitly God.
27. HEBREWS 1 — IS THE SON GREATER THAN THE ANGELS?
Hebrews 1 distinguishes the Son from the angels.
The author quotes Psalm 2:7 and 2 Samuel 7:14.
These are royal-sonship passages.
But Hebrews also describes the Son as the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of His reality.
It speaks of creation through the Son.
It applies Old Testament creation-language within the argument about the Son.
Therefore, Hebrews presents a more developed Christology than a simple statement that Jesus is a Davidic king.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation emphasises royal appointment and exaltation.
The traditional interpretation emphasises personal preexistence and divine identity.
Both must account for the full chapter.
It would be inadequate to interpret Hebrews 1 solely from Psalm 2 while ignoring its creation-language.
Equally, it would be inadequate to ignore the royal and messianic foundation of the author's quotations.
28. JOHN 1:18 — THE ONLY SON OR THE ONLY GOD?
This verse introduces an important textual problem.
Ancient manuscripts preserve different readings.
One reading refers to:
μονογενὴς θεός — monogenēs theos.
Often translated along the lines of “the unique God” or “the only God,” depending on interpretation.
Another reading refers to:
ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός — ho monogenēs huios.
“The only Son.”
The textual evidence is significant and disputed in its interpretation.
Modern critical editions generally favour a form containing theos, while the traditional Byzantine reading contains huios.
The theological implications must be examined carefully.
If theos is original, the verse provides an important example of divine terminology associated with the one who reveals the Father.
But even then, the relationship between the Son and the Father must be interpreted.
If huios is original, the verse emphasises the unique Son who reveals God.
The textual variant should not be concealed.
Nor should either reading be used without acknowledging the manuscript evidence.
29. WHAT DOES MONOGENĒS MEAN?
The Greek word is:
μονογενής — monogenēs.
It is often translated “only begotten.”
But many modern scholars understand its central meaning as “only,” “unique” or “one of a kind.”
The word does not necessarily describe the physical process of begetting.
This is important.
John's description of Jesus as monogenēs emphasises his unique relationship with the Father.
It does not, by itself, establish the later doctrine of eternal generation.
But neither does the meaning “unique” disprove that doctrine.
The doctrine would need to be argued from the wider theological evidence.
We should therefore distinguish the lexical meaning of monogenēs from later doctrinal conclusions.
30. WHY “GOD THE SON” IS A DIFFERENT KIND OF EXPRESSION
The biblical title:
SON OF GOD
identifies Jesus through his relationship to God.
The theological expression:
GOD THE SON
identifies the Son as a divine person within Trinitarian doctrine.
These are different kinds of statements.
The first is directly biblical language.
The second is a later doctrinal formulation.
The distinction matters.
The phrase “God the Son” should not be presented as though it were a direct quotation from Scripture.
But the absence of the exact phrase does not automatically invalidate the doctrine.
The same methodological principle applies to other theological terms.
The question is whether the doctrine accurately explains the biblical evidence.
A responsible investigation must examine the concepts rather than relying only on whether a particular phrase appears.
31. DOES A SON HAVE TO BE YOUNGER THAN HIS FATHER?
A common Biblical Unitarian argument is that a son cannot be the same age as his father.
In ordinary human experience, this is true.
A human son begins to exist after his father.
But classical Trinitarian theology does not understand eternal sonship as ordinary biological reproduction.
It teaches that the Son is eternally related to the Father without a beginning in time.
Therefore, the argument from ordinary human age does not directly refute the doctrine as Trinitarians define it.
The more substantial question is biblical.
Does Scripture actually teach an eternal relationship of divine generation?
Or does it describe sonship through miraculous conception, messianic appointment and resurrection?
That question requires textual evidence.
Analogies from human parenthood cannot settle it by themselves.
32. DOES A SON HAVE TO BE A DIFFERENT BEING FROM HIS FATHER?
Another argument concerns the distinction between father and son.
A human father and son are two distinct individuals.
They are not the same person.
This supports the biblical distinction between Jesus and the Father.
But Trinitarian theology also distinguishes the Father and Son as persons.
It does not claim they are the same person.
The disagreement concerns whether they share one divine being or are distinct beings, with the Father alone being Almighty God.
The human analogy has limits.
Human fathers and sons share a kind of nature but not one individual existence.
Classical Trinitarian theology proposes a different relationship within the unique divine nature.
The question is whether Scripture supports that proposal.
Therefore, simply stating that a son is not his father does not refute classical Trinitarianism.
It does, however, challenge interpretations that collapse Father and Son into one person without adequately explaining their relationship.
33. THE STRONGEST BIBLICAL UNITARIAN ARGUMENT
The Biblical Unitarian argument can now be stated at its strongest.
The Old Testament calls Israel God's son.
It calls the Davidic king God's son.
It calls heavenly beings sons of God.
Luke identifies Adam as God's son.
These uses demonstrate that divine sonship does not automatically mean being Almighty God.
The Davidic covenant and Psalm 2 provide a particularly strong messianic background.
Luke 1:35 connects Jesus' sonship with miraculous conception.
Matthew 16:16 identifies Jesus as the Christ, the Son of the living God.
John 20:31 states that the Gospel was written so readers would believe Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.
John 10:36 records Jesus explicitly identifying himself as the Son of God.
John 17:3 identifies the Father as the only true God.
First Corinthians 8:6 identifies the one God as the Father.
Acts 2:36 describes God making Jesus Lord and Christ.
Together, these passages provide a coherent understanding of Jesus as God's uniquely appointed Messiah.
The title Son of God does not, by itself, establish that Jesus is Almighty God.
This is a substantial argument.
But it must still explain the passages that associate Jesus with preexistence, creation and divine honours.
34. THE STRONGEST TRINITARIAN ARGUMENT
The Trinitarian argument begins by acknowledging that divine sonship can have several meanings.
Israel's sonship is not identical to the Son's relationship with the Father in John's Gospel.
The Davidic king's sonship provides important background, but Jesus may fulfil that category in a uniquely exalted way.
John describes the Word as God and as becoming flesh.
Jesus speaks of glory with the Father before the world existed.
He speaks of coming from heaven and returning to where he was before.
Colossians describes creation through Christ.
Hebrews describes the Son in extraordinary terms.
Philippians applies language associated with Yahweh's universal honour to the exalted Jesus.
Therefore, Trinitarians argue that the Son's identity exceeds ordinary messianic appointment.
The doctrine of “God the Son” is presented as a theological synthesis of this wider evidence.
This argument cannot be dismissed merely because the precise phrase is absent from Scripture.
But the doctrine must still explain the Father's unique identification as the one God and the Son's dependence upon Him.
35. THE STRONGEST NON-TRINITARIAN PERSONAL-PREEXISTENCE ARGUMENT
There is another important possibility.
A person may accept Jesus' personal preexistence while rejecting the Trinity.
Under this interpretation, Jesus existed before his human birth.
He may have participated in creation through God's authority.
But the Father alone remains the supreme God.
Jehovah's Witnesses adopt one form of this position, although their identification of Jesus with Michael is an additional claim.
Other non-Trinitarian Christians have held different forms of preexistence Christology.
This is important because the debate is not limited to two alternatives.
JESUS WAS PERSONALLY PREEXISTENT
does not automatically mean:
JESUS IS THE ALMIGHTY GOD.
Likewise:
JESUS IS THE SON OF GOD
does not automatically establish whether he personally preexisted.
These questions must remain distinct.
36. COMPARING THE MAIN INTERPRETATIONS
| Interpretation | Meaning of Son of God | Main strength | Main challenge |
|---|---|---|---|
| Biblical Unitarian | God's uniquely begotten and appointed human Messiah | Strong royal, covenantal and conception background | Explaining high Christology and preexistence passages |
| Trinitarian | The eternal divine Son who becomes human | Integrates John's high Christology and creation-language | Explaining dependence and the Father's identification as the one God |
| Jehovah's Witness | God's first-created heavenly Son, later human | Preserves distinction between Father and Son | Establishing created status and Michael identification |
| Other preexistence Christologies | A personally preexistent Son subordinate to the Father | Explains preexistence without full Trinitarian doctrine | Defining the Son's nature from Scripture |
| Oneness | The human Son as manifestation of the one God | Emphasises divine unity | Explaining interpersonal Father–Son language |
The biblical title is capable of being incorporated into different theological systems.
But the title itself does not establish all the claims of those systems.
37. OUR PRELIMINARY FINDINGS
First: The Old Testament applies divine sonship-language to Israel, kings and heavenly beings.
Second: Such language does not automatically identify its subject as Almighty God.
Third: Second Samuel 7 and Psalm 2 provide a strong royal-messianic background.
Fourth: Jewish texts from the Second Temple period show that Davidic sonship remained relevant to messianic expectation.
Fifth: Luke 1:35 connects Jesus' sonship with miraculous conception.
Sixth: Matthew 16:16 connects Son of God with the title Christ.
Seventh: John 20:31 explicitly states that belief in Jesus as Christ and Son of God is central to the Gospel's purpose.
Eighth: John 10:36 records Jesus identifying his claim as “I am the Son of God.”
Ninth: John 10:30 distinguishes Father and Son while affirming profound unity.
Tenth: John 10:33 records an accusation of blasphemy that must be evaluated in light of Jesus' response.
Eleventh: John 5 describes the Son's dependence upon the Father while also assigning him extraordinary authority.
Twelfth: John 17:3 identifies the Father as the only true God.
Thirteenth: First Corinthians 8:6 identifies the one God as the Father.
Fourteenth: The exact expression “God the Son” does not appear as a biblical title.
Fifteenth: Its absence does not independently disprove the doctrine it is intended to express.
Sixteenth: The title Son of God does not, by itself, establish personal preexistence or eternal deity.
Seventeenth: The wider New Testament contains passages that require further explanation.
38. OUR CURRENT ASSESSMENT — WHAT DOES “SON OF GOD” MOST DIRECTLY MEAN?
The historical and biblical evidence strongly establishes that divine sonship-language can describe a relationship of appointment, covenant, origin and authority without identifying the person concerned as Almighty God.
The Davidic covenant and Psalm 2 provide a particularly strong background for Jesus' messianic sonship.
Luke 1:35 adds the miraculous conception.
John 20:31 explicitly connects Son of God with the confession that Jesus is the Christ.
Therefore, the title Son of God does not inherently mean “God the Son.”
That is an important conclusion.
But we must not go further than the evidence permits.
John's Gospel contains claims about Jesus that exceed the ordinary language of royal appointment.
His relationship with the Father, his role in giving life, his heavenly origin and the Prologue's description of the Word all require explanation.
The Trinitarian interpretation understands these passages as establishing the Son's divine identity.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands them through God's unique Messiah, divine agency and the embodiment of God's Word.
The non-Trinitarian personal-preexistence interpretation offers another possibility.
Therefore, our provisional conclusion is:
THE BIBLICAL TITLE “SON OF GOD” DOES NOT, BY ITSELF, IDENTIFY JESUS AS ALMIGHTY GOD.
THE LATER EXPRESSION “GOD THE SON” IS A THEOLOGICAL FORMULATION, NOT A DIRECT BIBLICAL TITLE.
BUT WHETHER JESUS SHARES DIVINE IDENTITY MUST BE DETERMINED FROM THE COMPLETE NEW TESTAMENT, NOT FROM THE TITLE ALONE.
This distinction is essential to our continuing investigation of John 1:1.
39. THE NEXT QUESTION — WHAT DID JOHN MEAN BY “THE WORD WAS GOD”?
We have now examined the historical background of divine sonship.
But our original question remains.
John 1:1 declares:
“THE WORD WAS GOD.”
The Greek reads:
καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
Kai theos ēn ho logos.
Does this mean that the Word was Almighty God Himself?
Does it mean that the Word possessed a divine nature?
Could it mean that God's Word was His own divine self-expression?
Or should it be translated “the Word was a god”?
The Greek construction has been debated extensively.
The absence of the definite article before theos is important, but it does not automatically establish any single translation.
We must examine the distinction between definite, indefinite and qualitative nouns.
We must also compare the expression with other uses of theos in John's Gospel.
And we must consider whether the Word is being identified as a conscious person or described as God's own divine revelation.
These questions will take us back to the precise wording of John 1:1.
END OF PART 16
Coming in Part 17: “THE WORD WAS GOD” — DOES THE GREEK MEAN GOD, DIVINE OR A GOD?
We will revisit the original Greek with special attention to the scholarly debate about qualitative predicate nouns, the absence of the article and the relationship between the Word and the Father.
We will also examine how the translation of John 1:1 affects the competing interpretations of Jesus' identity.
Our guiding principle remains unchanged:
We must follow the evidence rather than a predetermined doctrine.
We must distinguish grammatical facts from theological interpretations.
And we must compare every explanation with the complete biblical testimony.
The goal is not to prove what we already believe. The goal is to discover what John actually meant.
JOHN 1:1 — GOD'S WORD, OR THE BEGINNING OF JESUS' MINISTRY?
PART 17 — “THE WORD WAS GOD”: DOES THE GREEK MEAN GOD, DIVINE OR A GOD?
By Simon Brown — Real Discoveries
https://wwwrealdiscoveriesorg-simon.blogspot.com
1. INTRODUCTION — FIVE GREEK WORDS AT THE CENTRE OF A GREAT CONTROVERSY
Few biblical statements have produced more disagreement than the closing words of John 1:1:
καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
Kai theos ēn ho logos.
Traditionally translated:
“AND THE WORD WAS GOD.”
Trinitarians understand this as a declaration of the Word's divine nature.
Jehovah's Witnesses translate it:
“AND THE WORD WAS A GOD.”
Some translators have used:
“THE WORD WAS DIVINE.”
Biblical Unitarians who understand the Word as God's own speech or wisdom may accept the traditional wording while rejecting the conclusion that a second divine person existed alongside the Father.
These interpretations are not identical.
They differ both in translation and in what they understand the Word to be.
Our investigation must therefore distinguish two questions.
WHAT DOES THE GREEK SENTENCE SAY?
And:
WHO OR WHAT IS THE WORD BEING DESCRIBED?
The first is primarily grammatical.
The second requires literary, historical and theological investigation.
Neither question should be allowed to predetermine the answer to the other.
2. THE COMPLETE GREEK OF JOHN 1:1
John writes:
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.
Transliteration:
En archē ēn ho logos, kai ho logos ēn pros ton theon, kai theos ēn ho logos.
A close rendering:
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
The sentence has three clauses.
FIRST: THE WORD WAS IN THE BEGINNING.
SECOND: THE WORD WAS WITH GOD.
THIRD: THE WORD WAS GOD.
These clauses must be interpreted together.
The first concerns the Word's existence or presence at the beginning.
The second concerns the Word's relationship to God.
The third describes the Word using the noun theos.
The difficulty arises because the second and third clauses use the word theos differently.
That difference is central to the debate.
3. “WITH GOD” — THE DEFINITE ARTICLE
In the second clause, John writes:
πρὸς τὸν θεόν
Pros ton theon.
The noun theon is preceded by the article ton.
This is the accusative form of the definite article.
The expression identifies God as the one with whom the Word was.
In the Gospel's wider context, this is most naturally understood as referring to the Father.
John 1:18 speaks of the one who reveals the unseen God.
John 17:3 records Jesus addressing the Father as the only true God.
Thus, the Father-reference is strongly supported by the Gospel.
But we must not assume that the presence of the article means the noun always refers to the Father.
Greek articles do not operate as fixed theological labels.
Their function depends on grammar and context.
4. “THE WORD WAS GOD” — WHY IS THE ARTICLE MISSING?
In the third clause, John writes:
θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
Theos ēn ho logos.
Here theos appears without the article.
The Greek article appears instead before logos:
ὁ λόγος — THE WORD.
This difference is important.
But what does it mean?
Some argue that the absence of the article requires “a god.”
Others argue that it emphasises the Word's divine nature.
Still others understand the clause as identifying God's own Word with His divine reality.
The grammatical construction must be examined before choosing among these explanations.
5. GREEK DOES NOT HAVE AN ENGLISH-STYLE INDEFINITE ARTICLE
English distinguishes:
THE GOD.
A GOD.
GOD.
Greek has a definite article, but it does not possess a separate indefinite article corresponding directly to English “a” or “an.”
Therefore, a Greek noun without the article is not automatically indefinite.
An anarthrous noun — one without the article — may be definite, indefinite or qualitative.
Its meaning depends upon syntax and context.
This is one of the most important facts in the debate.
The argument:
“THEOS HAS NO ARTICLE, THEREFORE IT MUST MEAN A GOD”
is grammatically invalid.
But the opposite argument is also invalid:
“THEOS APPEARS BEFORE THE VERB, THEREFORE IT MUST MEAN THE ONE ALMIGHTY GOD.”
Greek grammar does not permit either automatic conclusion.
6. THREE POSSIBLE FUNCTIONS OF THEOS
A predicate noun can communicate different kinds of meaning.
DEFINITE
The noun identifies a particular referent.
For example, a statement may identify someone as the specific king already known to the audience.
INDEFINITE
The noun identifies someone as one member of a class.
For example, someone may be described as a prophet or a king.
QUALITATIVE
The noun emphasises the character, nature or qualities associated with the noun.
For example, a statement may describe someone's character by saying that the person is light, truth or spirit.
These categories are useful for examining John 1:1.
But they are not always completely separate.
A noun may carry qualitative force while also having definite associations.
Therefore, we should avoid treating them as three rigid boxes into which every Greek noun must fit.
7. WHAT IS A PREDICATE NOMINATIVE?
In the sentence:
“THE WORD WAS GOD,”
“the Word” is the subject.
“God” is the predicate noun.
The Greek verb ēn means “was.”
The predicate tells us something about the subject.
John writes:
θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
The subject is identified by the article:
ὁ λόγος — THE WORD.
The predicate appears before the verb:
θεός — GOD.
This word order is significant.
But it does not mean that theos is the subject.
The sentence is not grammatically equivalent to:
“GOD WAS THE WORD.”
The subject is the Word.
The predicate describes the Word.
This distinction is essential.
8. WHY DOES WORD ORDER MATTER?
Greek word order is more flexible than English word order.
John could place the predicate before the verb for emphasis or other discourse reasons.
In John 1:1c, theos stands at the beginning of the clause.
This gives the predicate prominence.
The statement focuses attention on what the Word was.
Many scholars understand this construction as especially suitable for communicating quality or nature.
But the word order alone does not determine whether the predicate is definite, indefinite or qualitative.
Context remains essential.
Therefore, we must examine the scholarly debate.
9. COLWELL'S RULE — WHAT DOES IT ACTUALLY SAY?
In 1933, E. C. Colwell published a study concerning the use of the Greek article with definite predicate nouns.
His research observed that definite predicate nouns preceding the verb frequently lack the article.
This is relevant to John 1:1.
But the rule is often misunderstood.
Colwell's observation does not mean:
EVERY ANARTHROUS PREDICATE BEFORE THE VERB IS DEFINITE.
That would reverse the direction of the observation.
The correct reasoning is more limited.
If a predicate noun is already determined to be definite, its position before the verb helps explain why it may lack the article.
But the absence of the article cannot, by itself, prove definiteness.
Therefore, Colwell's Rule cannot be used as an automatic proof that John 1:1 must mean “the Word was Almighty God.”
It also cannot be used to establish the opposite.
It is a grammatical observation, not a complete theological argument.
10. THE COMMON MISUSE OF COLWELL'S RULE
The mistaken argument often runs as follows:
Theos comes before the verb.
It has no article.
Colwell's Rule explains that definite predicates can lack the article.
Therefore theos must be definite.
The conclusion does not follow.
The rule explains a pattern among predicates already understood as definite.
It does not classify every predicate with the same structure.
This is an important methodological point.
We must not use a grammatical rule to establish what the rule itself presupposes.
The meaning of theos must be determined from the entire construction and context.
11. PHILIP B. HARNER — THE QUALITATIVE INTERPRETATION
In 1973, Philip B. Harner published a study titled:
“Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1.”
His research examined the significance of anarthrous predicate nouns placed before the verb.
Harner argued that the predicate in John 1:1c has primarily qualitative significance.
This is an important contribution.
Under a qualitative interpretation, John is not simply identifying the Word as the same referent as the God mentioned in the preceding clause.
He is saying something about the Word's character or nature.
This helps explain why the clause differs from:
“THE WORD WAS WITH GOD.”
The second clause establishes a relationship.
The third characterises the Word.
But we must not misrepresent Harner.
His qualitative interpretation was not an argument that the Word was merely godlike in a weak or secondary sense.
His discussion was concerned with the Word's divine character.
Therefore, Biblical Unitarians should not quote Harner as though he had demonstrated that the Word was simply an impersonal divine attribute.
That is a separate interpretive claim.
12. DOES “QUALITATIVE” MEAN “LESS THAN GOD”?
No.
This is an especially important distinction.
A qualitative predicate emphasises nature or character.
But it does not automatically indicate a lesser degree of that nature.
For example, if a writer describes God as spirit, the statement is not necessarily saying that God possesses only a small amount of spirituality.
Likewise, if John uses theos qualitatively, the strength of the description must be determined contextually.
The traditional interpretation understands the clause as attributing full deity to the Word.
A Biblical Unitarian interpretation may understand it as describing God's own Word as divine because it belongs to and expresses God.
These interpretations differ concerning the identity of the Word.
The qualitative function of the noun does not independently decide between them.
13. THE NET BIBLE — “THE WORD WAS FULLY GOD”
The NET Bible translates John 1:1c:
“AND THE WORD WAS FULLY GOD.”
Its translators recognise the qualitative significance of theos.
They explain that the clause describes what the Word was in essence, while distinguishing the Word from the Father.
This is a clearly Trinitarian interpretation of the grammatical evidence.
The NET notes also acknowledge that Colwell's Rule does not require a definite interpretation.
That acknowledgement is important.
But the translation “fully God” goes beyond simply identifying the grammatical category.
It expresses a conclusion about the Word's nature.
The question is whether John's wider context establishes that conclusion.
We must distinguish the grammatical observation from the theological interpretation built upon it.
14. “WHAT GOD WAS, THE WORD WAS”
Another rendering sometimes proposed is:
“WHAT GOD WAS, THE WORD WAS.”
This wording attempts to communicate qualitative force.
It distinguishes the Word from the person with whom the Word was.
But it also strongly associates the Word with God's nature.
Trinitarian interpreters understand this as affirming that the Word shares the divine essence.
A Biblical Unitarian who understands the Word as God's own self-expression may interpret the same wording differently.
God's Word expresses what God is.
His Word is not an independent rival deity.
But does this interpretation fully account for John's wording?
It is possible as a theological explanation.
It is not directly established by the grammatical construction alone.
The meaning of logos remains decisive.
15. “THE WORD WAS DIVINE” — IS THIS A GOOD TRANSLATION?
Some translators have used:
“THE WORD WAS DIVINE.”
The English adjective “divine” can describe something belonging to God or possessing divine character.
This may communicate part of the qualitative meaning.
But it introduces a difficulty.
In modern English, “divine” can also mean godlike, heavenly, excellent or possessing a lesser kind of sacred quality.
Therefore, the translation may sound weaker than the Greek expression.
A Trinitarian scholar may object that “divine” fails to communicate the full force of theos.
A Biblical Unitarian may prefer it because it does not immediately identify the Word as a second Almighty God.
But translation should not be selected merely because it favours a theological position.
The question is whether it accurately communicates John's intended meaning.
“Divine” is a possible explanatory rendering.
It is not automatically the most precise English translation.
16. “THE WORD WAS A GOD” — THE JEHOVAH'S WITNESS TRANSLATION
The New World Translation renders John 1:1c:
“AND THE WORD WAS A GOD.”
This interpretation understands the Word as a distinct heavenly being who possesses divine or godlike status but is not Jehovah, the Almighty God.
The absence of the Greek article is often presented in support of this translation.
But the absence of the article does not automatically make a noun indefinite.
Greek grammar permits anarthrous definite and qualitative nouns.
Therefore, “a god” cannot be established from the missing article alone.
The interpretation also faces a contextual question.
Would John, a Jewish monotheistic writer, introduce a second heavenly god without further explanation?
Jehovah's Witnesses understand “god” here as referring to a subordinate mighty being rather than an independent rival to Jehovah.
That explanation must be assessed.
But it is not simply a grammatical consequence of the Greek.
17. CAN THEOS EVER REFER TO SOMEONE OTHER THAN THE ALMIGHTY GOD?
Yes.
The Greek word theos can have different referents depending on context.
John 10:34 quotes Psalm 82:
“I SAID, YOU ARE GODS.”
The plural noun theoi is applied to figures other than Yahweh Himself.
Second Corinthians 4:4 refers to the “god of this world,” commonly understood as Satan.
Acts 28:6 records observers calling Paul a god after he survived a snakebite.
These examples establish that the word theos does not always refer to Almighty God.
But they do not prove that John 1:1 uses theos in the same way.
The meaning of a word in one passage cannot simply be transferred to another.
John's context must determine the referent and force.
18. JOHN 1:6 — AN ANARTHROUS USE OF THEOS
John 1:6 describes John the Baptist as a man sent from God.
The Greek expression is:
παρὰ θεοῦ — para theou.
Here theou lacks the definite article.
Yet the reference is clearly to God, not to an unspecified lesser god.
This provides a simple demonstration that the absence of the article does not automatically require an indefinite English translation.
But the construction is different from John 1:1c.
John 1:6 uses a prepositional phrase.
John 1:1c uses a predicate nominative before the verb.
Therefore, John 1:6 illustrates a general principle about Greek articles.
It is not an exact grammatical parallel.
That distinction matters.
19. JOHN 4:24 — “GOD IS SPIRIT”
Jesus declares:
πνεῦμα ὁ θεός
Pneuma ho theos.
Commonly translated:
“GOD IS SPIRIT.”
The word pneuma appears without the article and before the implied copular relationship.
The subject is identified by the article:
ὁ θεός — GOD.
The predicate describes God's nature.
The statement does not ordinarily mean:
“GOD IS A SPIRIT”
in the sense of merely one spirit among many.
This provides a useful example of a qualitative predicate.
But it is not identical to John 1:1c.
The nouns are different, and the theological context is different.
Nevertheless, it demonstrates how an anarthrous predicate can describe nature or character.
This supports the grammatical possibility of a qualitative interpretation in John 1:1.
20. FIRST JOHN 4:8 — “GOD IS LOVE”
First John 4:8 declares:
ὁ θεὸς ἀγάπη ἐστίν
Ho theos agapē estin.
“GOD IS LOVE.”
The noun agapē means love.
It lacks the article.
The statement characterises God.
It does not identify God as one particular instance of love among several competing loves.
Nor does it mean that God and love are interchangeable persons.
This illustrates the difference between identifying a subject and describing its nature.
But again, the comparison has limits.
Agapē is an abstract noun.
Theos can refer to a personal being.
Therefore, First John 4:8 provides a helpful grammatical analogy, not an exact equivalent.
21. MARK 15:39 — “THIS MAN WAS SON OF GOD”
Mark 15:39 records the centurion's declaration concerning Jesus.
The Greek expression includes:
υἱὸς θεοῦ — huios theou.
The construction lacks articles.
English translations differ in how they communicate the statement.
Some render it “the Son of God.”
Others have understood the wording as “a son of God.”
The meaning depends upon the centurion's perspective, Mark's narrative and the theological context.
This is important because it demonstrates that anarthrous nouns can require interpretation.
Grammar alone does not settle every question.
Harner included Mark 15:39 in his study of qualitative anarthrous predicates.
The passage provides another reason to distinguish grammatical structure from theological meaning.
22. WOULD “THE WORD WAS THE GOD” MEAN SOMETHING DIFFERENT?
Suppose John had written a construction identifying the Word directly with the articular theos of the preceding clause.
Such wording could more readily suggest that the Word and the God with whom the Word was were the same referent.
But John does not write that.
He says:
THE WORD WAS WITH GOD.
Then:
THE WORD WAS GOD.
The different constructions are significant.
The traditional interpretation understands this as distinguishing the Word from the Father while affirming divine nature.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation may understand the distinction as God's Word being with Him and expressing His own divine reality.
Both recognise that John has avoided a simple equation of the Word with the person described in the second clause.
But we must not overstate the grammatical conclusion.
The absence of the article does not, by itself, prove a doctrine of distinct divine persons.
Nor does it prove an impersonal Word.
23. THE SECOND CLAUSE — WHAT DOES PROS TON THEON MEAN?
John writes:
ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν
Ho logos ēn pros ton theon.
“The Word was with God.”
The preposition pros can describe orientation, relationship or being in someone's presence.
The traditional interpretation understands this as a personal relationship between the Word and the Father.
That is a natural reading when the Word is already understood as a person.
But Biblical Unitarians argue that God's Word can be described as being with Him without requiring another conscious person.
They appeal to Jewish traditions of personified Wisdom and divine purpose.
The Greek phrase itself does not explicitly say:
“THE WORD WAS A SECOND PERSON.”
But it does naturally convey relational language.
The non-personal interpretation must explain that language through literary personification or another recognised conceptual framework.
The personal interpretation must establish that John intended a literal personal relationship rather than personified divine activity.
This remains one of the central questions.
24. THE WORD “WAS” — ĒN AND THE QUESTION OF EXISTENCE
John repeatedly uses:
ἦν — ēn.
“Was.”
The verb appears in the opening clauses.
It describes the Word's existence or presence in the beginning.
John later uses forms of ginomai when describing things coming into being.
This contrast has often been understood as distinguishing the Word from created things.
The traditional interpretation sees the Word as already existing before creation.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation may understand God's Word as existing eternally because it belongs to God Himself.
Both interpretations can account for the Word's existence before created things.
The verb ēn does not, by itself, identify the Word as a conscious person.
Nor does it establish that the Word was created.
The subject's identity must still be determined.
25. DOES “THE WORD WAS GOD” MEAN “THE WORD WAS THE FATHER”?
Not necessarily.
John has just said that the Word was with God.
If God in the second clause refers to the Father, then a simple personal identification of the Word with the Father would create a difficulty.
The traditional interpretation distinguishes the Father and Word while affirming shared deity.
The Oneness interpretation understands the Word as God's own self-expression, not a separate eternal person.
The Biblical Unitarian Genesis Word interpretation likewise understands the Word as belonging to God Himself, but differs from Oneness theology concerning Jesus' identity.
Therefore, different interpretations can agree that the Word was not a second independent god while disagreeing about the Word's relationship to the Father.
The grammar does not independently establish one of those systems.
26. THE BIBLICAL UNITARIAN GENESIS WORD INTERPRETATION
We can now state this interpretation carefully.
John begins with Genesis.
God created through His Word.
Psalm 33:6 describes creation through Yahweh's Word.
Isaiah 55:11 describes God's Word accomplishing His purpose.
Jewish Wisdom literature personifies God's wisdom and revelation.
Therefore, John may introduce the Word as God's own eternal self-expression.
The Word was with God because it belonged to Him.
The Word was God because it expressed His own divine reality.
The Word became flesh when God's revelation and purpose were embodied in Jesus Christ.
Under this interpretation, John 1:1 does not directly describe Jesus personally existing before his conception.
It describes God's Word before that Word became flesh.
This interpretation can accept the traditional translation:
“THE WORD WAS GOD.”
It does not require:
“THE WORD WAS A GOD.”
But it must still explain why John uses such strong relational and personal language, and why the Gospel later contains statements apparently referring to Jesus' preexistence.
27. THE TRINITARIAN INTERPRETATION
The traditional interpretation understands the Word as the personally preexistent Son.
The Word was with God, indicating distinction from the Father.
The Word was God, indicating divine nature.
The Word became flesh, indicating incarnation.
The qualitative interpretation of theos fits this understanding.
It allows John to describe the Word's divine nature without simply identifying the Word as the Father.
The interpretation also appeals to John 17:5, John 6:62, Colossians 1 and Hebrews 1.
Taken together, these passages provide a strong argument for personal preexistence and divine identity.
But the grammatical construction in John 1:1c does not independently establish the full doctrine of the Trinity.
It does not mention the Holy Spirit as a third person.
It does not define eternal generation.
It does not explain one divine essence shared by three persons.
Those conclusions belong to a wider theological synthesis.
28. THE JEHOVAH'S WITNESS INTERPRETATION
Jehovah's Witnesses understand the Word as a preexistent heavenly person.
They distinguish him from Jehovah, the Almighty God.
They translate theos indefinitely:
“A GOD.”
This interpretation emphasises the absence of the article.
But the grammatical evidence does not require an indefinite translation.
The qualitative interpretation is a strong alternative.
Moreover, the New World Translation's wording can suggest a second divine being in a way that requires careful explanation within Jewish monotheism.
Jehovah's Witnesses understand the Son as subordinate and created, not as an independent rival to Jehovah.
But John 1:1 does not explicitly say the Word was created.
Nor does it identify the Word as Michael the archangel.
Those claims must be established from other passages.
The translation “a god” cannot carry that entire theological argument.
29. THE ONENESS INTERPRETATION
Oneness theology understands the Word as God's own self-expression rather than a distinct eternal divine person.
Under this interpretation, the Word was with God because God's Word belonged to Him.
The Word was God because it was His own divine expression.
The Word became flesh in Jesus Christ.
This resembles the Biblical Unitarian Genesis Word interpretation at certain points.
But the conclusions differ.
Oneness theology understands Jesus as the manifestation of the one God Himself.
Biblical Unitarian theology understands Jesus as God's human Messiah, distinct from the one God, the Father.
Therefore, agreement about the Word's initial identity does not settle the identity of Jesus.
John's later statements about the Father and Son must still be examined.
30. WHAT ABOUT THE SAHIDIC COPTIC TRANSLATION?
The Sahidic Coptic translation of John 1:1 is important because Coptic, unlike Greek, has an indefinite article.
In the surviving Sahidic tradition, the final occurrence of the word for God is marked with an indefinite article.
Jehovah's Witnesses have appealed to this as support for “a god.”
The evidence deserves attention.
It shows that an early translator represented the Greek anarthrous theos using a Coptic construction containing an indefinite article.
But Coptic article usage is not identical to English.
The indefinite article can occur in expressions involving qualities, substances and abstract concepts.
Therefore, its presence does not automatically establish that the translator understood the Word as one lesser god among several.
Nor does it automatically establish full Trinitarian deity.
The Coptic evidence is relevant to the history of translation and interpretation.
It cannot override the Greek context.
31. THE COPTIC EVIDENCE — WHAT CAN WE SAFELY CONCLUDE?
Several conclusions are justified.
First, the Sahidic translation is an important ancient witness.
Second, it uses an indefinite article in John 1:1c.
Third, Coptic article usage differs from English usage.
Fourth, the Coptic construction cannot be translated mechanically into English without considering its linguistic function.
Fifth, the evidence has been studied by scholars who disagree about its implications.
Therefore, the claim:
“THE COPTIC PROVES JOHN WROTE ‘A GOD’”
is too strong.
But the opposite claim:
“THE COPTIC EVIDENCE IS COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT”
is also too dismissive.
It is relevant historical evidence.
Its significance must be assessed through Coptic grammar rather than modern English assumptions.
32. DOES JOHN 1:1 CONTAIN A TEXTUAL VARIANT?
The principal debate over John 1:1c is not about whether the Greek manuscripts contain the word theos.
The standard Greek text reads:
θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.
The major controversy concerns how the words should be understood and translated.
This is an important distinction.
The question is primarily grammatical and interpretive, not a dispute over whether the phrase was inserted centuries later.
Ancient translations may illuminate how readers understood the text.
But the Greek wording itself is well established.
Therefore, we should not present the debate as though the original Greek has been lost.
The wording is known.
Its theological meaning remains disputed.
33. THE IMPORTANCE OF JOHN 1:14
John 1:14 declares:
“THE WORD BECAME FLESH.”
This verse is essential because it connects the Word with the historical Jesus.
But notice the order.
John first describes the Word.
Then he describes the Word becoming flesh.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation argues that we should not automatically read the historical person Jesus back into every description of the Word before verse 14.
The traditional interpretation argues that the Word is the same personal subject throughout the Prologue and becomes human in verse 14.
Both interpretations recognise continuity.
They disagree about the nature of that continuity.
Was it continuity of a conscious person?
Or continuity of God's Word and purpose becoming embodied in a person?
John 1:1c alone cannot settle that question.
34. JOHN 1:18 — THE ONE WHO REVEALS GOD
John 1:18 concludes the Prologue by describing the unique Son or unique God, depending on the textual reading, as the one who reveals the unseen God.
This is significant.
The Prologue moves from the Word with God to the revelation of God through Jesus.
The traditional interpretation understands this as the preexistent Son revealing the Father.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands God's Word becoming embodied in the Messiah who reveals the Father.
The textual variant in John 1:18 must be acknowledged.
But the central theme is clear.
Jesus reveals the God whom human beings have not seen.
The question is whether this revelation requires Jesus to share God's divine essence.
The Prologue provides evidence relevant to that question.
But its meaning must be established through careful comparison with the whole Gospel.
35. JOHN 20:28 — “MY LORD AND MY GOD”
Thomas addresses Jesus:
“MY LORD AND MY GOD.”
This passage is one of the strongest New Testament texts used to identify Jesus as God.
Our earlier Real Discoveries research examined several historical interpretations, including the controversy surrounding Theodore of Mopsuestia.
But John 20:28 must also be considered in relation to John 1:1.
If John begins by describing the Word as theos, does Thomas' confession bring the Gospel to a deliberate climax?
Many scholars argue that it does.
The traditional interpretation sees a literary relationship between John 1:1 and John 20:28.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation must explain whether Thomas' words address Jesus as God in a representative sense, distinguish Jesus from the Father, or communicate something else.
This cannot be settled by John 1:1c's missing article.
It requires a separate examination of John 20:28 and the Gospel's narrative structure.
36. JOHN 20:31 — JOHN'S STATED PURPOSE
Immediately after Thomas' confession, John writes:
“THESE ARE WRITTEN THAT YOU MAY BELIEVE THAT JESUS IS THE CHRIST, THE SON OF GOD.”
This is crucial.
John's stated purpose is belief in Jesus as Messiah and Son of God.
Biblical Unitarians emphasise that John does not formulate the purpose as belief in the Trinity.
Trinitarians understand the titles Christ and Son of God within the Gospel's wider high Christology.
Both observations matter.
John 20:31 cannot be ignored.
But it should not be used to erase John 1:1 or John 20:28.
Likewise, John 1:1 should not be used to redefine John 20:31 without argument.
The Gospel must be interpreted as a whole.
37. COMPARING THE THREE MAIN TRANSLATIONS
| Translation | Grammatical emphasis | Main strength | Main difficulty |
|---|---|---|---|
| “The Word was God” | Traditional rendering, compatible with a qualitative or definite understanding | Directly preserves the noun theos | English readers may assume identity with the Father |
| “The Word was divine” | Emphasises divine character or quality | Highlights a qualitative reading | Modern English may suggest something weaker than theos |
| “The Word was a god” | Treats theos as indefinite | Grammatically conceivable in isolation | Not required by article absence; faces contextual and monotheistic difficulties |
| “What God was, the Word was” | Explicitly communicates qualitative force | Distinguishes identity from nature | Is interpretive and may imply a particular theology |
No translation should be selected merely because it supports a preferred doctrine.
The goal is to communicate the Greek accurately.
38. WHAT CAN GREEK GRAMMAR ESTABLISH?
We can now identify several firm grammatical conclusions.
FIRST: The subject of John 1:1c is “the Word.”
SECOND: The predicate is theos.
THIRD: The predicate lacks the definite article.
FOURTH: The absence of the article does not automatically require “a god.”
FIFTH: The predicate's position before the verb is significant.
SIXTH: A qualitative interpretation is strongly supported by scholarly analysis.
SEVENTH: Qualitative meaning does not automatically imply lesser deity.
EIGHTH: The grammatical construction does not simply identify the Word as the same person as the Father.
NINTH: The grammar does not independently establish that the Word is an impersonal attribute.
TENTH: The grammar does not independently establish the complete doctrine of the Trinity.
These conclusions are important because they prevent us from overstating the evidence.
39. WHAT GREEK GRAMMAR CANNOT ESTABLISH
The Greek construction alone cannot answer every theological question.
It does not tell us whether the Word was a conscious person before becoming flesh.
It does not define the relationship between the Father and Son in later Trinitarian categories.
It does not explain how God's Word became flesh.
It does not determine whether Jesus personally existed before his conception.
It does not identify the Word as Michael the archangel.
It does not prove that God's Word was merely an abstract plan.
These questions require evidence from the surrounding narrative and other biblical passages.
The grammar establishes important boundaries.
It does not supply a complete theology.
40. THE STRONGEST BIBLICAL UNITARIAN ARGUMENT
The Biblical Unitarian Genesis Word interpretation can now be stated at its strongest.
John begins with Genesis.
The Hebrew Scriptures describe God creating through His own Word.
Jewish Wisdom literature demonstrates that divine Wisdom can be personified.
The Greek logos can refer to speech, reason, revelation or an organising principle.
The Word was with God because it belonged to Him.
The Word was God because it expressed God's own divine reality.
The qualitative understanding of theos is compatible with this interpretation.
The Word became flesh when God's revelation and saving purpose were embodied in Jesus Christ.
Under this explanation, John 1:1 does not introduce a second Almighty God.
Nor does it require the translation “a god.”
This is a coherent interpretation with significant Old Testament background.
But it faces an important difficulty.
The qualitative meaning of theos does not itself establish that the Word is impersonal.
The personal-preexistence interpretation remains grammatically possible and contextually substantial.
41. THE STRONGEST TRINITARIAN ARGUMENT
The traditional interpretation understands John 1:1 as carefully distinguishing the Word from the Father while affirming the Word's divine nature.
The Word was with God.
The Word was God.
The Word became flesh.
The qualitative understanding of theos fits this interpretation well.
It explains why John can distinguish the Word from the Father without describing the Word as merely one lesser god.
The interpretation also draws support from the Gospel's later statements about Jesus' heavenly origin and pre-world glory.
This is a strong cumulative argument.
But the grammar of John 1:1c alone does not establish the doctrine of three coequal persons.
Nor does it prove that the Word was a conscious person before becoming flesh.
Those conclusions depend upon the broader theological reading of the Gospel.
Therefore, the traditional interpretation has substantial evidence but should not claim more from the grammatical construction than it actually establishes.
42. OUR PRELIMINARY FINDINGS
First: John 1:1c reads kai theos ēn ho logos.
Second: The subject is the Word.
Third: The predicate theos lacks the article.
Fourth: Greek has no separate indefinite article corresponding directly to English “a.”
Fifth: Anarthrous nouns can be definite, indefinite or qualitative.
Sixth: Colwell's Rule does not prove that every pre-verbal anarthrous predicate is definite.
Seventh: Harner's research supports a primarily qualitative interpretation.
Eighth: Qualitative meaning does not automatically imply lesser deity.
Ninth: The traditional translation “the Word was God” is grammatically defensible.
Tenth: “The Word was divine” may communicate qualitative force but can be misleading in modern English.
Eleventh: “The Word was a god” is not required by Greek grammar.
Twelfth: The Sahidic Coptic translation is relevant but does not mechanically determine the English rendering.
Thirteenth: John 1:1 distinguishes the Word from the God with whom the Word was.
Fourteenth: The verse does not independently establish whether the Word was a conscious person.
Fifteenth: The complete Gospel must determine how the Word relates to Jesus Christ.
43. OUR CURRENT ASSESSMENT — WHAT DOES JOHN 1:1 MOST LIKELY MEAN?
The grammatical evidence strongly supports understanding theos in John 1:1c as having qualitative force.
John is describing what the Word was.
The clause does not simply identify the Word as the same person as the God mentioned in the preceding clause.
Nor does the absence of the article require the translation “a god.”
The traditional translation:
“THE WORD WAS GOD”
remains defensible.
But English readers must understand that John is not necessarily saying:
“THE WORD WAS THE FATHER.”
The distinction between the Word and God in the preceding clause remains important.
The Biblical Unitarian Genesis Word interpretation can understand the statement as describing God's own Word as divine because it expresses His nature and purpose.
The traditional interpretation understands it as describing the personally preexistent Son as possessing divine nature.
The grammar alone does not settle that disagreement.
Our provisional conclusion is that John 1:1c most naturally emphasises the divine character of the Word, but it does not independently determine whether the Word was already a distinct conscious person.
This is an important distinction.
It prevents us from treating a grammatical observation as though it automatically establishes an entire theological system.
44. THE NEXT QUESTION — DOES JOHN 1:1 DESCRIBE THE FATHER'S WORD OR A SECOND PERSON?
We have now examined the Greek construction in detail.
But our original question remains.
WHO OR WHAT WAS THE WORD?
Was the Word God's own speech, wisdom and creative purpose?
Was the Word a personally preexistent Son?
Was the Word a subordinate heavenly being?
Or did John deliberately employ language capable of connecting Jewish Wisdom traditions with the historical revelation of God in Jesus Christ?
The next stage must bring together everything we have discovered.
We must compare John 1:1–18 with Genesis 1, Psalm 33, Proverbs 8, Sirach 24, Colossians 1, Hebrews 1 and the birth narratives.
We must also distinguish the strongest evidence for each interpretation from arguments that depend on later doctrinal assumptions.
Only then can we begin to determine which explanation best accounts for the complete evidence.
END OF PART 17
Coming in Part 18: “WHO WAS THE WORD?” — A COMPLETE COMPARISON OF THE FIVE MAJOR INTERPRETATIONS OF JOHN 1:1–18
We will compare the Trinitarian, Oneness, Jehovah's Witness and two major Biblical Unitarian interpretations.
We will assess each against the original Greek, the Old Testament background, Jewish Wisdom literature, the birth narratives and the New Testament's strongest preexistence passages.
Our guiding principle remains unchanged:
We must follow the evidence rather than a predetermined doctrine.
We must distinguish grammatical facts from theological interpretations.
And we must compare every explanation with the complete biblical testimony.
The goal is not to prove what we already believe. The goal is to discover what John actually meant.
JOHN 1:1 — GOD'S WORD, OR THE BEGINNING OF JESUS' MINISTRY?
PART 18 — WHO WAS THE WORD? A COMPLETE COMPARISON OF THE FIVE MAJOR INTERPRETATIONS OF JOHN 1:1–18
By Simon Brown — Real Discoveries
https://wwwrealdiscoveriesorg-simon.blogspot.com
1. INTRODUCTION — WE MUST NOW COMPARE THE EVIDENCE
Our investigation began with a simple but profound question:
WAS THE WORD IN JOHN 1:1 JESUS PERSONALLY, OR WAS IT GOD THE FATHER'S OWN WORD?
We have examined the original Greek, the Hebrew Scriptures, Jewish Wisdom literature, the miraculous conception of Jesus, and passages that appear to describe his existence before his birth.
We have also investigated the difference between the biblical title “Son of God” and the theological expression “God the Son.”
It is now time to compare the major interpretations.
Our purpose is not to declare a winner before examining the evidence.
Instead, we will ask whether each interpretation can explain the complete passage without forcing its meaning.
We must distinguish three levels of evidence:
EXPLICIT STATEMENTS: What the biblical text actually says.
CONTEXTUAL INFERENCES: Conclusions reasonably drawn from its language and literary setting.
THEOLOGICAL SYNTHESIS: Broader doctrinal explanations constructed by comparing multiple passages.
Confusing these three levels has contributed greatly to the controversy surrounding John 1.
2. THE FIVE INTERPRETATIONS UNDER INVESTIGATION
For clarity, we will compare five major interpretive approaches.
INTERPRETATION ONE — TRINITARIAN
The Word was the eternal divine Son, personally existing with the Father before creation. The Word became human in Jesus Christ.
INTERPRETATION TWO — ONENESS
The Word was God's own eternal self-expression, not a second eternal divine person. The one God manifested Himself in the human Jesus.
INTERPRETATION THREE — JEHOVAH'S WITNESS
The Word was a personally preexistent heavenly being, God's first creation, through whom God created other things. The Word later became the human Jesus.
INTERPRETATION FOUR — BIBLICAL UNITARIAN: GOD'S CREATIVE WORD
The Word was God's own speech, wisdom, revelation and purpose. It was not a separate conscious person. God's Word became embodied in Jesus Christ.
INTERPRETATION FIVE — BIBLICAL UNITARIAN: THE BEGINNING OF THE GOSPEL
The beginning in John 1 is understood primarily in relation to God's new creation through Jesus, rather than as a direct account of the original creation of the universe.
These are representative categories, not exhaustive descriptions of every believer's position.
There are also non-Trinitarian interpretations that accept Jesus' personal preexistence without identifying him as Almighty God or as a created angel.
We will consider that additional possibility when evaluating the evidence.
3. JOHN 1:1 — “IN THE BEGINNING”
The opening Greek words are:
Ἐν ἀρχῇ — En archē.
“In the beginning.”
The wording immediately recalls Genesis 1:1.
This is one of the strongest literary connections in the Prologue.
Genesis begins with God creating the heavens and the earth.
John begins with the Word already present in the beginning.
The question is whether John is referring to the same beginning.
The original-creation interpretation has an important advantage.
The verbal connection with Genesis is direct.
John also proceeds to speak of all things coming into being through the Word.
This strongly suggests a creation setting.
The Gospel-beginning interpretation argues that John is describing the beginning of the new creation in Christ.
That theme certainly exists in John's Gospel.
But a reference to new creation does not necessarily exclude an intentional reference to Genesis creation.
PRELIMINARY FINDING: The opening words most naturally evoke Genesis 1, although John may use that background to introduce the new creation accomplished through Jesus.
4. DOES GENESIS REQUIRE A SECOND PERSON?
Genesis 1 repeatedly describes God creating through His speech.
God says:
“Let there be light.”
And light comes into existence.
Psalm 33:6 likewise associates the heavens with Yahweh's Word.
These passages do not explicitly describe God's Word as a second conscious person standing beside Him.
The Word is God's effective creative speech.
This is a substantial argument for the Biblical Unitarian interpretation.
But there is an important limitation.
The fact that Genesis does not explicitly identify the Word as a second person does not establish that John could not later develop that imagery in a personal direction.
John may be interpreting Genesis through a more developed understanding of God's revelation in Christ.
Therefore, the Old Testament background is highly relevant, but it does not independently settle John's intended meaning.
5. JOHN 1:1 — “THE WORD WAS WITH GOD”
The Greek reads:
ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν
Ho logos ēn pros ton theon.
The traditional interpretation understands this as a personal relationship between the Word and the Father.
This is a natural reading if the Word is already understood as a conscious person.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands the Word as God's own wisdom or purpose existing with Him.
Jewish Wisdom literature demonstrates that divine Wisdom could be described in highly personal language.
Therefore, personification is a historically plausible possibility.
But we must be precise.
The expression pros ton theon is relational.
It is not simply equivalent to saying that God possessed a plan.
The non-personal interpretation must explain why John chose such relational language.
The personal interpretation must explain why John introduced the figure as logos rather than immediately calling him the Son.
PRELIMINARY FINDING: The wording favours a relational presentation of the Word, but whether that relationship is literal personal communion or literary personification remains disputed.
6. JOHN 1:1 — “THE WORD WAS GOD”
The Greek reads:
θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
Theos ēn ho logos.
Our earlier grammatical investigation established that the absence of the article before theos does not automatically require the translation “a god.”
A qualitative understanding is strongly supported.
The statement describes what the Word was.
The Trinitarian interpretation understands this as affirming the Word's divine nature.
The Biblical Unitarian Genesis Word interpretation understands God's Word as divine because it belongs to and expresses God Himself.
The Oneness interpretation likewise identifies the Word with God's own self-expression, but reaches a different conclusion concerning Jesus' identity.
Jehovah's Witnesses understand theos as referring to a subordinate heavenly being.
The grammar does not independently establish that reading.
PRELIMINARY FINDING: The traditional translation “the Word was God” is defensible, and a qualitative reading is strong. The clause does not independently settle whether the Word was a distinct conscious person.
7. JOHN 1:2 — WHY DOES JOHN REPEAT THE STATEMENT?
John writes:
“THE SAME WAS IN THE BEGINNING WITH GOD.”
This repetition is significant.
John returns to the Word's presence with God before discussing creation.
The traditional interpretation understands this as reinforcing the Word's personal preexistence.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands it as reinforcing the eternal presence of God's Word with Him.
Both can explain the repetition.
But the language again emphasises the Word's relationship to God.
It does not merely describe the Word as a future plan.
Therefore, the interpretation of pros ton theon remains important.
8. JOHN 1:3 — “ALL THINGS CAME INTO BEING THROUGH HIM”
The Greek reads:
πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο
Panta di' autou egeneto.
“All things came into being through him.”
The pronoun autou is grammatically masculine or neuter genitive in form, depending on its antecedent and interpretation.
Because logos is masculine, masculine agreement is expected even if the Word is understood non-personally.
Therefore, the English word “him” does not independently establish that the Word was a conscious person.
This is an important grammatical point.
But the verse presents the Word as the means through which all things came into existence.
The original-creation interpretation has substantial contextual strength.
John has just echoed Genesis.
He now speaks of all things coming into being.
The new-creation interpretation argues that “all things” refers to the new order established through Christ.
But the verse contains no explicit restriction to the church or new covenant.
PRELIMINARY FINDING: Original creation is the stronger immediate contextual reading, although the passage also introduces themes that John develops in relation to salvation and new creation.
9. DOES “THROUGH HIM” REQUIRE PERSONAL AGENCY?
No.
The Greek preposition dia with the genitive can indicate means or agency.
It does not automatically require a conscious intermediary.
God may accomplish something through His Word.
A king may act through an authorised servant.
Both are possible kinds of agency.
Therefore, the preposition alone does not determine whether the Word is personal.
The identity of the Word must be established from the broader context.
This is an important limitation on arguments that treat the word “through” as proof of a second divine person.
But it is equally important not to dismiss the possibility of personal agency.
The traditional interpretation remains grammatically possible.
10. JOHN 1:4 — “IN HIM WAS LIFE”
John declares:
“IN HIM WAS LIFE.”
The Greek expression is:
ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν
En autō zōē ēn.
The Word is associated with life.
Genesis creation provides one background.
God gives life to His creatures.
But John's Gospel repeatedly uses life-language in connection with salvation.
Jesus gives eternal life.
Believers pass from death to life.
The Word's life-giving role therefore has both creation and salvation associations.
The traditional interpretation understands life as belonging to the personally preexistent Word.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands God's Word as the source and revelation of life.
Neither explanation can be established from the pronoun alone.
11. JOHN 1:5 — LIGHT AND DARKNESS
John writes that the light shines in the darkness.
The darkness does not overcome it.
Genesis 1 provides an obvious background.
God creates light.
But John's Gospel also presents light as the revelation of God through Jesus.
John 3:19 describes light coming into the world.
John 8:12 records Jesus identifying himself as the light of the world.
Therefore, the Prologue appears to combine creation imagery with the historical revelation of God in Christ.
This is important for both Biblical Unitarian interpretations.
The Genesis Word interpretation can understand the original creative Word becoming the saving light revealed through Jesus.
The Gospel-beginning interpretation can emphasise the arrival of messianic revelation.
But the Genesis imagery should not be ignored.
12. JOHN 1:6–8 — WHY IS JOHN THE BAPTIST INTRODUCED?
John suddenly introduces a historical figure.
A man named John was sent from God.
He came to bear witness to the light.
He was not himself the light.
This is a significant literary transition.
The Prologue moves from cosmic language to historical testimony.
Some interpreters understand this as the point where the discussion shifts toward the historical ministry of Jesus.
Others argue that the Word has been personally identified with Christ from the beginning.
The text does not explicitly announce that the Word became flesh at verse 6.
That statement appears in verse 14.
Therefore, we should distinguish the introduction of historical testimony from the explicit statement of incarnation.
13. JOHN 1:9 — THE TRUE LIGHT
John describes the true light that enlightens humanity.
This can be understood in several ways.
The traditional interpretation identifies the light with the preexistent Son entering the world.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands the light as God's revelation, now manifested through Jesus.
The Gospel-beginning interpretation emphasises the beginning of messianic enlightenment.
The language is compatible with the Gospel's wider salvation theme.
But the connection with the earlier creation-language remains important.
John may deliberately present Jesus' saving work as the fulfilment of God's original creative purpose.
14. JOHN 1:10 — “THE WORLD WAS MADE THROUGH HIM”
This verse is one of the most difficult for interpretations that restrict the Prologue to the new creation.
John declares that the world came into being through the Word.
The Greek uses:
κόσμος — kosmos.
“World.”
And:
ἐγένετο — egeneto.
“Came into being.”
The combination naturally suggests creation.
The traditional interpretation understands the preexistent Word as participating in the original creation.
The Genesis Word interpretation understands God's own Word as the means of creation.
Both explain the wording directly.
The Gospel-beginning interpretation must argue that the world in question is a new spiritual order or that John is using creation-language figuratively.
That is possible in principle.
But it requires substantial contextual support.
PRELIMINARY FINDING: John 1:10 provides strong evidence that original creation is within the Prologue's horizon.
15. JOHN 1:11 — “HE CAME TO HIS OWN”
John describes the Word or light coming to his own.
His own people did not receive him.
This language naturally points toward Jesus' historical ministry.
The question is whether John has now moved from describing God's Word to describing the historical Messiah.
The Biblical Unitarian Genesis Word interpretation may understand the Word as now embodied in Jesus.
But John has not yet explicitly stated that the Word became flesh.
The traditional interpretation sees continuity of the same personal subject.
This creates an important literary question.
AT WHAT POINT DOES JOHN INTEND THE READER TO IDENTIFY THE WORD WITH THE HISTORICAL JESUS?
The answer may not be reducible to one simple verse boundary.
The Prologue may move between cosmic and historical perspectives before explicitly announcing the incarnation in verse 14.
16. JOHN 1:12–13 — CHILDREN OF GOD
John describes those who receive the light as being given authority to become children of God.
They are born of God.
This introduces the theme of spiritual birth.
The language belongs clearly to salvation and new creation.
But it does not follow that the earlier creation-language must also refer exclusively to new creation.
A writer can connect the original creation with God's work of bringing new life.
Indeed, such a connection would be particularly appropriate in a Gospel beginning with Genesis imagery.
Therefore, John 1:12–13 strengthens the new-creation theme without eliminating the original-creation background.
17. JOHN 1:14 — THE DECISIVE STATEMENT
John declares:
καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο
Kai ho logos sarx egeneto.
“AND THE WORD BECAME FLESH.”
This is the central statement of the Prologue.
The traditional interpretation understands it as a personally preexistent divine Son becoming human.
The Oneness interpretation understands God's own Word becoming manifested in flesh.
The Biblical Unitarian Genesis Word interpretation understands God's revelation and purpose becoming embodied in Jesus.
The Jehovah's Witness interpretation understands a preexistent created heavenly Son becoming human.
The Gospel-beginning interpretation emphasises the manifestation of God's Word in Jesus' historical life.
All five interpretations must explain the same verb:
ἐγένετο — BECAME.
John does not merely say that the Word spoke through Jesus.
He says that the Word became flesh.
That is stronger language.
But the verb does not independently identify whether the Word was previously a conscious person.
The identity of the subject remains decisive.
18. CAN A NON-PERSONAL WORD BECOME FLESH?
This is one of the strongest objections to the Biblical Unitarian Genesis Word interpretation.
How can speech become a human being?
The response appeals to embodiment and fulfilment.
God's promise can become reality.
His wisdom can be expressed in human life.
His purpose can be realised in a person.
His revelation can be embodied in the Messiah.
These concepts are intelligible.
But John does not explicitly explain the incarnation using the words “embodied purpose.”
He says the Word became flesh.
Therefore, the non-personal interpretation must demonstrate that this is a plausible use of John's language, not merely an explanation invented to avoid personal preexistence.
Jewish Wisdom literature provides a significant conceptual background.
But the interpretation still requires a literary argument.
19. DOES “BECAME FLESH” REQUIRE A PREEXISTENT PERSON?
Not as a matter of grammar alone.
A subject may undergo a change without having been a conscious person beforehand.
But in John's Prologue, the Word has already been described as existing with God, participating in creation, possessing life and coming into the world.
These descriptions make the personal interpretation substantial.
The non-personal interpretation must explain them through God's Word and Jewish personification.
The traditional interpretation must explain why John chose language associated with divine speech and Wisdom rather than simply beginning with the title Son.
The question cannot be answered by the verb egeneto alone.
20. JOHN 1:14 — “WE SAW HIS GLORY”
John continues by describing the glory witnessed by those who encountered Jesus.
The glory is associated with the unique Son from the Father.
This strongly connects the Word's manifestation with the historical Jesus.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands Jesus as the visible embodiment of God's revelation.
The traditional interpretation understands him as the incarnate eternal Son revealing divine glory.
Both interpretations can account for the revelation of God's glory through Jesus.
But the wider Gospel includes John 17:5, where Jesus speaks of glory with the Father before the world existed.
That passage provides stronger evidence for personal preexistence than the phrase “we saw his glory” alone.
21. JOHN 1:18 — THE TEXTUAL VARIANT
John 1:18 contains an important textual variation.
Some manuscripts read:
μονογενὴς θεός — monogenēs theos.
Others read:
ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός — ho monogenēs huios.
The first includes the word God.
The second includes the word Son.
Modern critical Greek editions generally favour a reading containing theos.
This is important for evaluating the Prologue's Christology.
If theos is original, John uses divine terminology for the one who reveals the Father.
That provides significant support for a high understanding of the revealer's identity.
But it does not, by itself, establish the complete doctrine of the Trinity.
If huios is original, the verse explicitly emphasises the unique Son.
The textual problem must be acknowledged rather than selecting whichever reading best supports a preferred theology.
22. THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES — GOD'S WORD AS CREATIVE POWER
The strongest Old Testament evidence for the Biblical Unitarian Genesis Word interpretation includes:
GENESIS 1: God creates through His speech.
PSALM 33:6: The heavens are made by Yahweh's Word.
PSALM 33:9: God speaks, and creation comes into existence.
ISAIAH 55:11: God's Word accomplishes the purpose for which He sends it.
These passages establish that God's Word can be described as effective and active without requiring a second conscious divine person.
This is a major strength of the interpretation.
But it does not prove that John intended to retain precisely the same non-personal understanding throughout his Prologue.
John may be presenting Jesus as the personal fulfilment of the creative Word.
The historical development of the imagery remains important.
23. PROVERBS 8 — PERSONIFIED WISDOM
Proverbs 8 describes Wisdom speaking in the first person.
Wisdom is associated with God before the creation of the world.
Wisdom speaks of being present when God established the heavens.
This is strikingly similar to several themes in John 1.
But Proverbs presents Wisdom in feminine personified form.
Most interpreters recognise the passage's poetic character.
Therefore, the use of first-person speech does not automatically establish a distinct heavenly person.
This supports the possibility that John's Word-language also draws upon personification.
But there is an important difference.
John explicitly says that the Word became flesh.
Proverbs does not describe Wisdom becoming a particular historical human being in the same way.
Therefore, the parallel is significant but not conclusive.
24. SIRACH 24 — WISDOM DWELLING AMONG ISRAEL
Sirach 24 presents Wisdom as coming from God and dwelling among His people.
This is particularly relevant to John 1:14.
John says that the Word became flesh and dwelt among humanity.
The conceptual resemblance is substantial.
God's Wisdom is associated with heavenly origin, revelation and dwelling among Israel.
These themes provide a credible Jewish background for John's Prologue.
But Sirach does not establish that John's Word must be impersonal.
John may have transformed Wisdom imagery into a description of a personally preexistent Christ.
Alternatively, he may have used Wisdom imagery to describe God's revelation becoming embodied in Jesus.
The background makes both questions historically intelligible.
It does not settle the answer.
25. PHILO OF ALEXANDRIA — THE LOGOS IN JEWISH THOUGHT
Philo used the concept of logos extensively.
He associated the Logos with divine reason, creation and God's relationship with the world.
His descriptions sometimes employ strikingly personal language.
But Philo's Logos does not fit neatly into the categories of later Trinitarian theology.
Nor can it simply be reduced to an ordinary spoken word.
This is important.
It demonstrates that Jewish philosophical language about God's Logos could be more complex than a choice between a literal second person and an abstract plan.
John's original audience may have encountered several overlapping conceptual traditions.
But direct literary dependence upon Philo should not be assumed merely because both writers use the word logos.
Their purposes and theological frameworks differ.
26. THE MIRACULOUS CONCEPTION — LUKE 1:35
Luke describes the Holy Spirit coming upon Mary and the power of the Most High overshadowing her.
He then connects the miraculous conception with the child's designation as Son of God.
This provides substantial support for understanding Jesus' human origin through God's creative action.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation sees Jesus beginning his personal existence at conception.
The traditional interpretation sees the eternal Son beginning his human life at conception.
Luke does not explicitly describe a preexistent Son entering Mary's womb.
But neither does he explicitly deny preexistence.
Therefore, Luke 1:35 cannot independently settle John 1.
It provides an important part of the wider evidence.
27. GALATIANS 4:4 — GOD SENT HIS SON
Paul describes God sending His Son, born of a woman.
The traditional interpretation sees this as consistent with personal preexistence.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands sending-language as divine commissioning.
Both uses of sending-language exist in biblical literature.
But Galatians 4:4 specifically refers to God's Son and his birth.
That gives the personal-preexistence interpretation a meaningful argument.
The passage does not explicitly state that the Son began to exist at conception.
Nor does it explicitly describe a heavenly descent.
Therefore, it contributes to the cumulative evidence without settling the issue alone.
28. JOHN 6:38 — “I CAME DOWN FROM HEAVEN”
Jesus declares that he came down from heaven to do the will of the one who sent him.
The personal-preexistence interpretation is direct.
Jesus previously existed in heaven and came to earth.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands the statement as describing Jesus' divine origin, authority and mission.
Biblical parallels exist for persons being sent by God without personally descending from heaven.
But John 6 contains repeated heavenly-descent language.
Therefore, the non-literal interpretation requires careful contextual support.
It cannot be established merely by observing that John the Baptist was also sent from God.
29. JOHN 6:62 — “WHERE HE WAS BEFORE”
Jesus speaks of the Son of Man ascending to where he was before.
This is a particularly strong passage for personal preexistence.
The ordinary reading suggests that the Son of Man previously occupied the destination of his ascension.
Biblical Unitarian alternatives include a connection with Daniel 7's heavenly vision of the Son of Man.
That interpretation deserves examination because John's Gospel frequently employs symbolic and prophetic language.
But the Daniel 7 explanation is not explicitly supplied in John 6:62.
Therefore, the personal-preexistence interpretation has an important textual advantage.
A non-personal-preexistence interpretation must account for that advantage rather than dismissing it.
30. JOHN 8:58 — “BEFORE ABRAHAM WAS, I AM”
Jesus declares:
“BEFORE ABRAHAM CAME INTO EXISTENCE, I AM.”
This is another major difficulty for interpretations denying personal preexistence.
The ordinary reading suggests that Jesus claims existence or priority before Abraham.
Biblical Unitarians may understand the statement through God's foreknowledge and the Messiah's place in the divine purpose.
But that interpretation requires a broader conceptual explanation.
The wording itself is personal and temporal.
At the same time, the passage does not explicitly say:
“I am the Father.”
Nor does it formulate the doctrine of the Trinity.
Therefore, evidence for preexistence must not automatically be treated as evidence for equality with Almighty God.
These are distinct questions.
31. JOHN 17:5 — GLORY BEFORE THE WORLD EXISTED
Jesus prays:
“THE GLORY WHICH I HAD WITH YOU BEFORE THE WORLD EXISTED.”
This is among the strongest statements favouring personal preexistence.
Jesus speaks in the first person.
He says he had glory with the Father before the world existed.
The Biblical Unitarian foreknowledge interpretation understands this as glory prepared for him in God's purpose.
That explanation has conceptual parallels in biblical language about things prepared before their historical manifestation.
But John 17:5 does not explicitly say that the glory was merely planned.
The direct wording favours personal preexistence.
Therefore, a non-personal-preexistence interpretation must explain why Jesus speaks as though he possessed glory before creation.
This remains a significant challenge.
32. COLOSSIANS 1:15 — FIRSTBORN OF ALL CREATION
Paul calls Christ:
“THE FIRSTBORN OF ALL CREATION.”
The Greek is:
πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως
Prōtotokos pasēs ktiseōs.
Jehovah's Witnesses understand this as identifying Christ as God's first created being.
Trinitarians understand firstborn primarily in terms of supremacy and inheritance.
Biblical Unitarians emphasise the Messiah's exalted position within God's purposes.
Psalm 89:27 demonstrates that firstborn-language can describe royal supremacy.
Therefore, the word does not automatically mean “first created.”
But neither should the creation-language of Colossians 1 be ignored.
The following verses speak of all things in heaven and earth being created through and for Christ.
That is substantial evidence requiring explanation.
33. COLOSSIANS 1:16–17 — ALL THINGS CREATED THROUGH CHRIST
Paul describes all things in heaven and earth, visible and invisible, as created through Christ.
He also says that Christ is before all things and that all things hold together in him.
The original-creation interpretation is strong.
The references to heaven, earth and invisible powers naturally suggest a cosmic scope.
The Biblical Unitarian new-creation interpretation understands the passage in relation to Christ's authority over the new order.
That interpretation draws support from the surrounding emphasis on reconciliation and the church.
But it must explain why Paul uses such comprehensive creation-language.
A claim that “all things” means only church offices or new-covenant institutions is not directly stated in the passage.
Therefore, the narrower interpretation carries a significant burden of explanation.
34. HEBREWS 1:2 — GOD MADE THE AGES THROUGH THE SON
Hebrews describes God speaking through His Son in the last days.
It also says that God made the aiōnas through him.
The Greek word aiōnas can refer to ages or the world understood across time.
Some Biblical Unitarians understand the passage as referring to God's messianic ages.
The traditional interpretation understands it as referring to the created universe.
Hebrews 11:3 uses similar language in connection with God's creative Word.
That strengthens the cosmic-creation interpretation.
Hebrews 1 also describes the Son sustaining all things.
Therefore, the original-creation reading has considerable contextual support.
The new-ages interpretation remains possible as an argument, but it requires more than observing that aiōn can mean “age.”
35. HEBREWS 1:10–12 — THE MOST DIFFICULT CREATOR TEXT
Hebrews quotes Psalm 102:
“YOU, LORD, IN THE BEGINNING LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH.”
In its Old Testament setting, Psalm 102 addresses Yahweh.
Hebrews places the quotation within a sequence contrasting the Son with the angels.
The traditional interpretation understands the author as applying Yahweh's creative identity to the Son.
This is a very strong argument for an exalted Christology.
Biblical Unitarian alternatives include interpretations involving representative agency or a different understanding of the quotation's addressee.
But these alternatives must explain the structure of Hebrews 1.
It is not enough simply to say that the quotation originally addressed the Father.
The question is how the author of Hebrews uses it.
This passage deserves particular weight in the overall assessment.
36. FIRST CORINTHIANS 8:6 — ONE GOD AND ONE LORD
Paul writes of:
ONE GOD, THE FATHER.
And:
ONE LORD, JESUS CHRIST.
He describes all things as coming from the Father and through Jesus Christ.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation emphasises that the one God is explicitly identified as the Father.
The traditional interpretation argues that Paul is including Jesus within Israel's monotheistic confession through the titles God and Lord.
Both interpretations recognise a distinction between Father and Son.
The disagreement concerns whether that distinction is between the one God and His exalted Messiah, or between distinguishable persons sharing divine identity.
The verse does not explicitly define the later doctrine of the Trinity.
But its creation-language and use of the title Lord require careful explanation.
37. ISAIAH 44:24 — YAHWEH CREATED ALONE
Yahweh declares that He made all things and stretched out the heavens alone.
This is an important passage.
It emphasises Yahweh as the sole creator.
The Biblical Unitarian Genesis Word interpretation understands creation through God's Word as Yahweh's own action.
No second conscious creator is required.
The traditional interpretation understands the Son's role in creation as belonging to the one divine creative action.
The non-Trinitarian personal-preexistence interpretation understands the Son as God's subordinate agent.
But Isaiah's language of Yahweh creating alone creates a theological question for any interpretation involving a distinct personal agent.
The answer depends upon how divine agency and the uniqueness of Yahweh's creative activity are understood.
The passage cannot simply be ignored.
38. THE FIVE INTERPRETATIONS — COMPARATIVE TABLE
| Interpretation | Strongest evidence | Greatest difficulty |
|---|---|---|
| Trinitarian | John 1:1–14; John 17:5; Colossians 1; Hebrews 1 | Explaining the Father's identification as the one God and the Son's dependence |
| Oneness | God's Word as His own expression; Isaiah's monotheism; John 1:14 | Explaining sustained interpersonal Father–Son language |
| Jehovah's Witness | Personal preexistence; distinction between Father and Son; firstborn-language | Establishing that the Son was created and that John 1:1 means “a god” |
| Biblical Unitarian — Genesis Word | Genesis 1; Psalm 33; Proverbs 8; Luke 1:35; John 17:3 | Explaining John 6:62, John 8:58, John 17:5 and Hebrews 1 |
| Biblical Unitarian — Gospel beginning | John's light/life themes; John the Baptist; new creation and salvation | Explaining the Genesis echo and comprehensive creation-language |
The table does not establish which interpretation is correct.
It identifies where the evidence is strongest and where further explanation is needed.
39. WHICH INTERPRETATION BEST EXPLAINS JOHN 1:1–5?
The immediate context strongly favours an original-creation background.
The phrase “in the beginning” echoes Genesis.
The Word is already present.
All things come into being through the Word.
Life and light are associated with the Word.
Therefore, the interpretation that restricts the entire passage exclusively to the beginning of Jesus' ministry is less persuasive than one that recognises the Genesis creation setting.
But two major interpretations remain.
The Word may be God's own creative speech and wisdom.
Or the Word may be a personally preexistent divine agent.
Both can account for the creation-language.
The relational presentation of the Word provides support for the personal interpretation.
The Old Testament background of divine speech and personified Wisdom provides support for the non-personal interpretation.
John 1:1–5 alone does not conclusively settle the distinction.
40. WHICH INTERPRETATION BEST EXPLAINS JOHN 1:14?
The statement “the Word became flesh” most naturally describes a transition from the Word's previous mode of existence to human embodiment.
The traditional interpretation explains this through personal incarnation.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation explains it through God's Word becoming embodied in Jesus.
Both provide coherent accounts of a transition.
But the traditional interpretation has the advantage of maintaining the same personal subject throughout the Prologue.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation has the advantage of connecting the passage directly with the Hebrew Scriptures' understanding of God's Word.
The decisive question is whether John's earlier personal-sounding language is literal or personified.
That remains a matter of interpretation.
41. WHICH INTERPRETATION BEST EXPLAINS THE WHOLE GOSPEL?
When we move beyond the Prologue, the evidence becomes more challenging for interpretations denying personal preexistence.
John 6:62 speaks of the Son of Man returning to where he was before.
John 8:58 presents Jesus speaking of existence or priority before Abraham.
John 17:5 describes glory Jesus had with the Father before the world existed.
These passages form a cumulative argument.
The personal-preexistence interpretation explains them more directly.
The Biblical Unitarian foreknowledge and prophetic interpretations remain possible, but each requires additional contextual explanation.
Therefore, we should acknowledge that the wider Gospel strengthens the case for personal preexistence.
However, personal preexistence does not automatically establish the Trinity.
The identity and nature of the preexistent Son remain separate questions.
42. DOES PERSONAL PREEXISTENCE PROVE THAT JESUS IS ALMIGHTY GOD?
No.
This is one of the most important distinctions in our investigation.
A person could have existed before his human birth without being the one Almighty God.
Jehovah's Witnesses affirm personal preexistence while denying that Jesus is Jehovah.
Other non-Trinitarian Christians have held different forms of personal-preexistence theology.
Therefore, the following statements are not identical:
JESUS EXISTED BEFORE ABRAHAM.
JESUS PARTICIPATED IN CREATION.
JESUS IS THE ALMIGHTY GOD.
Each claim requires its own evidence.
A passage supporting the first does not automatically establish the third.
Likewise, a passage describing creation through Christ requires interpretation concerning the source and nature of his authority.
This distinction is essential.
43. DOES JOHN 17:3 DISPROVE THE TRINITY?
John 17:3 identifies the Father as the only true God.
This is a foundational Biblical Unitarian passage.
It strongly emphasises the Father's unique identity.
But the traditional interpretation argues that the Son shares the one divine nature without being the same person as the Father.
Therefore, the passage does not automatically refute Trinitarian theology as its defenders define it.
The question is whether that explanation is consistent with John's complete portrayal of the Father and Son.
John 17:3 must be considered alongside John 1:1, John 17:5 and John 20:28.
The debate cannot be settled by isolating one verse.
44. DOES THE ABSENCE OF “GOD THE SON” MATTER?
Yes, but its significance must be stated accurately.
The New Testament repeatedly uses:
SON OF GOD.
It does not use the exact theological title:
GOD THE SON.
This demonstrates that the later formulation is not a direct biblical quotation.
But a doctrine may be expressed using terminology developed after the biblical period.
The important question is whether the doctrine accurately summarises the biblical evidence.
Therefore, the absence of the phrase “God the Son” is relevant to the history of theological language.
It does not independently prove that the doctrine is false.
The strongest Biblical Unitarian argument must rest on the meaning of the biblical passages, not simply the absence of a later expression.
45. WHAT ABOUT THE HOLY SPIRIT?
The Trinity includes three persons.
But John 1:1–18 directly discusses the Word and God.
It does not provide a complete doctrine of the Holy Spirit.
Therefore, even if John 1:1 establishes that the Word is personally preexistent and divine, the complete doctrine of the Trinity would still require additional evidence.
The Spirit's identity must be investigated from passages that directly address the Spirit.
This is important because arguments for the deity of the Word and arguments for the full Trinity are not identical.
They overlap, but they are not the same question.
46. WHAT ABOUT ONENESS THEOLOGY?
Oneness theology rightly emphasises that the Hebrew Scriptures teach one God.
It also recognises that God's Word can be understood as His own self-expression.
But the Gospel of John repeatedly distinguishes Jesus from the Father.
Jesus prays to the Father.
The Father sends the Son.
The Father loves the Son.
The Son obeys the Father.
Jesus speaks of glory with the Father.
These statements create a serious challenge for interpretations that do not adequately preserve the distinction.
Oneness theology offers explanations involving Jesus' humanity and divine manifestation.
Those explanations must be assessed on their own terms.
But the sustained interpersonal language of John's Gospel is substantial evidence requiring explanation.
47. WHAT ABOUT THE JEHOVAH'S WITNESS INTERPRETATION?
The Jehovah's Witness interpretation explains several personal-preexistence passages directly.
It also preserves a distinction between the Father and Son.
But it makes additional claims.
The Son was God's first creation.
The Word was “a god.”
Jesus is Michael the archangel.
These claims are not explicitly stated in John 1.
The absence of the article before theos does not establish “a god.”
The title firstborn does not automatically mean first-created.
And identifying Jesus as Michael requires arguments from other passages.
Therefore, personal preexistence may have stronger textual support than the particular Jehovah's Witness explanation of that preexistence.
The two should not be confused.
48. WHAT ABOUT A NON-TRINITARIAN PREEXISTENT SON?
This possibility deserves serious consideration.
A person may conclude that John teaches Jesus' personal preexistence while also concluding that the Father alone is the one Almighty God.
Under this interpretation, the Son existed before his human birth and acted through authority received from the Father.
This approach can explain John 6:62, John 8:58 and John 17:5 more directly than interpretations denying personal preexistence.
It can also emphasise John 17:3 and 1 Corinthians 8:6.
But it faces important questions.
Was the Son created?
If not, what was the nature of his existence?
How does his participation in creation relate to Isaiah 44:24?
How should John 1:1c's qualitative theos be understood?
And how does Hebrews 1 apply creation-language to the Son?
These questions cannot be answered simply by rejecting the Trinity.
A positive account of the Son's identity is still required.
49. THE MOST IMPORTANT DISTINCTION — THE WORD AND THE SON
Our investigation repeatedly returns to one question.
DOES JOHN IDENTIFY THE WORD AS THE SON BEFORE VERSE 14?
The traditional interpretation answers yes.
The Word is the Son before incarnation.
The Biblical Unitarian Genesis Word interpretation answers no.
The Word becomes embodied in the human Son.
This is the central disagreement.
The Greek grammar of John 1:1 does not independently resolve it.
The Genesis background supports the possibility of God's own Word.
The relational language supports the possibility of personal preexistence.
The incarnation statement connects the Word with Jesus.
The wider Gospel contains strong preexistence-language.
Therefore, the question must be resolved through a cumulative interpretation rather than one isolated grammatical argument.
50. OUR COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT
We can now identify the strongest conclusions supported by the evidence.
FIRST: John 1:1–5 most naturally evokes the original Genesis creation.
SECOND: The new-creation theme is also important but does not erase the Genesis background.
THIRD: The Hebrew Scriptures provide strong evidence for God's Word as His own creative speech and power.
FOURTH: Jewish Wisdom literature demonstrates that divine attributes could be described in personal language.
FIFTH: The phrase “with God” gives the Word a relational presentation.
SIXTH: The qualitative understanding of theos in John 1:1c is grammatically strong.
SEVENTH: The translation “a god” is not required by the missing article.
EIGHTH: John 1:14 explicitly connects the Word with human existence in Jesus.
NINTH: The grammar of John 1:14 does not independently establish whether the Word was previously a conscious person.
TENTH: Luke 1:35 strongly connects Jesus' sonship with miraculous conception.
ELEVENTH: The birth narratives do not explicitly deny personal preexistence.
TWELFTH: John 6:62, John 8:58 and John 17:5 provide substantial evidence favouring personal preexistence.
THIRTEENTH: Colossians 1 and Hebrews 1 contain strong cosmic-creation language associated with Christ.
FOURTEENTH: The title Son of God does not inherently mean Almighty God.
FIFTEENTH: Personal preexistence and identification as Almighty God are distinct claims.
SIXTEENTH: The complete doctrine of the Trinity cannot be established from John 1:1 alone.
51. WHICH INTERPRETATION CURRENTLY HAS THE STRONGEST EVIDENCE?
We should distinguish two levels of assessment.
JOHN 1:1–5 CONSIDERED BY ITSELF
The original-creation background is stronger than an interpretation restricted exclusively to the beginning of Jesus' ministry.
But the identity of the Word remains debated.
God's creative Word and a personally preexistent divine Word are both serious interpretations.
THE COMPLETE GOSPEL OF JOHN
The cumulative evidence for personal preexistence becomes stronger.
John 6:62, John 8:58 and John 17:5 are particularly important.
The ordinary readings of these passages favour Jesus having a personal existence before his human birth.
The Biblical Unitarian foreknowledge and prophetic interpretations are possible but require more explanatory work.
Therefore, the personal-preexistence interpretation currently has an advantage when the complete Gospel is considered.
But this does not settle whether the preexistent Son is Almighty God.
That is a further question.
The distinction must remain clear.
52. DOES THIS MEAN THE BIBLICAL UNITARIAN INTERPRETATION HAS BEEN DISPROVED?
No.
The Biblical Unitarian Genesis Word interpretation has substantial strengths.
It is rooted in the Hebrew Scriptures.
It explains creation through God's own Word.
It connects naturally with Jewish Wisdom traditions.
It gives serious weight to Luke 1:35, John 17:3 and 1 Corinthians 8:6.
It also avoids assuming that the biblical title Son of God automatically means God the Son.
But its principal challenge remains the cumulative preexistence-language.
A convincing non-personal-preexistence interpretation must explain those passages individually and collectively.
It cannot simply assume that they are figurative because a literal interpretation would conflict with its theology.
Likewise, the traditional interpretation must explain the Father's unique status and the Son's dependence without merely appealing to later doctrinal terminology.
Every interpretation must be tested by the same standard.
53. THE CENTRAL QUESTION WE STILL NEED TO ANSWER
Our research has uncovered a distinction that may prove decisive.
WAS JOHN'S WORD PERSONIFIED DIVINE WISDOM THAT BECAME HUMAN?
Or:
WAS JOHN'S WORD A PERSONALLY PREEXISTENT SON WHO BECAME HUMAN?
The Genesis and Wisdom backgrounds support the first possibility.
The relational language of the Prologue and the wider Gospel's preexistence-statements support the second.
But we must not confuse personal preexistence with the doctrine of the Trinity.
Even if personal preexistence is established, the identity of the one God remains a separate issue.
John 17:3 and 1 Corinthians 8:6 continue to demand careful explanation.
The strongest interpretation must account for both the preexistence-language and the Father's unique identification as God.
54. OUR PROVISIONAL CONCLUSION
After comparing the five interpretations, the evidence presently supports the following assessment.
THE ORIGINAL CREATION BACKGROUND OF JOHN 1 IS STRONG.
The Gospel begins with language deliberately recalling Genesis.
THE WORD'S DIVINE CHARACTER IS STRONGLY EXPRESSED.
The Greek of John 1:1c is best approached as a statement describing the Word's divine character or nature.
THE WORD'S PERSONAL IDENTITY REMAINS A MAJOR INTERPRETIVE QUESTION.
The Old Testament and Jewish Wisdom background make a non-personal understanding possible.
But the Prologue's relational language and the wider Gospel's preexistence-statements give substantial support to a personal interpretation.
PERSONAL PREEXISTENCE IS NOT THE SAME AS BEING ALMIGHTY GOD.
The evidence for one claim must not automatically be transferred to the other.
THE FATHER'S UNIQUE IDENTIFICATION AS GOD MUST REMAIN CENTRAL TO THE INVESTIGATION.
John 17:3 and 1 Corinthians 8:6 cannot be ignored.
Therefore, our provisional assessment is that the complete Gospel of John provides stronger direct evidence for personal preexistence than for an exclusively non-personal Word interpretation.
But whether that preexistent Son is Almighty God, a subordinate heavenly being, or should be understood through another theological framework remains disputed.
The complete doctrine of the Trinity has not been established merely by demonstrating preexistence.
That is an important distinction.
55. THE NEXT STAGE — CAN THE FATHER ALONE BE THE ONE GOD IF JESUS PREEXISTED?
This is now one of the most important questions in our investigation.
Suppose the evidence establishes that Jesus personally existed before his birth.
Would that automatically make him Almighty God?
Or could he have existed as God's Son while remaining subordinate to the Father?
What did Paul mean when he wrote:
“ONE GOD, THE FATHER”?
What did Jesus mean when he addressed the Father as:
“THE ONLY TRUE GOD”?
And how should we understand passages that describe the Son receiving life, authority, glory and exaltation from God?
We must investigate these questions without assuming that preexistence necessarily means equality with the Father.
END OF PART 18
Coming in Part 19: “IF JESUS PREEXISTED, WAS HE ALMIGHTY GOD?” — THE FATHER AS THE ONE GOD AND THE SON'S RECEIVED AUTHORITY
We will examine John 17:3, John 5:26, John 14:28, John 20:17, 1 Corinthians 8:6, 1 Corinthians 11:3, 1 Corinthians 15:24–28, Ephesians 4:6 and Revelation 3:12.
We will distinguish personal preexistence, divine agency, delegated authority, divine nature and the identity of Almighty God.
Our guiding principle remains unchanged:
We must follow the evidence rather than a predetermined doctrine.
We must distinguish grammatical facts from theological interpretations.
And we must compare every explanation with the complete biblical testimony.
The goal is not to prove what we already believe. The goal is to discover what John actually meant.
JOHN 1:1 — GOD'S WORD, OR THE BEGINNING OF JESUS' MINISTRY?
PART 19 — IF JESUS PREEXISTED, WAS HE ALMIGHTY GOD?
THE FATHER AS THE ONE GOD AND THE SON'S RECEIVED AUTHORITY
By Simon Brown — Real Discoveries
https://wwwrealdiscoveriesorg-simon.blogspot.com
1. INTRODUCTION — TWO QUESTIONS THAT MUST REMAIN SEPARATE
Our investigation has reached an important point.
The Gospel of John contains substantial evidence that can be understood as describing Jesus' personal existence before his human birth.
John 6:62, John 8:58 and John 17:5 are especially significant.
But suppose that personal preexistence is established.
Would that automatically prove that Jesus is Almighty God?
NO.
Personal preexistence and identity as Almighty God are two different claims.
A person might have existed before his human birth without being the supreme God.
Likewise, someone might possess extraordinary heavenly authority without being the ultimate source of that authority.
This distinction is essential because the New Testament repeatedly identifies the Father as God while describing Jesus as God's Son, Messiah, appointed Lord and authorised representative.
Yet other passages associate Jesus with creation, divine glory and honours normally reserved for God.
Our task is to explain both sets of evidence.
We must not begin by assuming that every passage concerning Jesus' preexistence establishes the Trinity.
Nor should we assume that every statement about Jesus' dependence disproves his participation in divine identity.
The central question is whether the New Testament presents Jesus as Almighty God Himself, or as a distinct Son whose existence and authority ultimately depend upon the Father.
2. WHAT DO WE MEAN BY “ALMIGHTY GOD”?
Before examining the passages, we must define our terms.
The Hebrew Scriptures identify Yahweh as the one God of Israel.
He is the creator of heaven and earth.
He possesses supreme authority.
He has no rival deity.
The New Testament continues to affirm the uniqueness of God.
But Christians disagree about how Jesus relates to this one divine identity.
The principal interpretations are:
BIBLICAL UNITARIAN: The Father alone is the one Almighty God. Jesus is His uniquely begotten and exalted Messiah.
TRINITARIAN: The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinct persons who share the one undivided divine being. The Son is not the Father, but is fully God.
NON-TRINITARIAN PERSONAL PREEXISTENCE: The Son existed before his human birth but is distinct from and subordinate to the supreme God, the Father.
ONENESS: The one God is manifested in Jesus Christ, with Father–Son language interpreted through divine and human aspects or relationships.
These explanations must be tested against Scripture.
We must also distinguish the biblical language of divine identity from later technical terms such as essence, person and eternal generation.
Those terms may be useful in theology, but they are not substitutes for textual evidence.
3. JOHN 17:3 — “THE ONLY TRUE GOD”
Jesus prays to the Father:
“This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Jesus Christ.” — John 17:3, WEB
This is one of the most important statements in the entire debate.
Jesus addresses the Father.
He calls the Father:
THE ONLY TRUE GOD.
He then distinguishes himself as Jesus Christ, the one whom the Father sent.
The grammatical distinction is clear.
The Father is addressed as God.
Jesus is identified as the one sent by Him.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands this as a direct identification of the one God.
The one God is the Father.
Jesus is God's Messiah.
The Trinitarian interpretation argues that Jesus is identifying the Father as the only true God without denying that the Son shares the same divine nature.
This interpretation depends upon a distinction between divine person and divine essence.
But that distinction is not explicitly explained in John 17:3.
PRELIMINARY FINDING: The verse explicitly identifies the Father as the only true God and distinguishes Jesus from Him. Whether it excludes the Son from shared divine identity must be determined from the wider Gospel.
4. DOES “ONLY TRUE GOD” EXCLUDE EVERYONE ELSE?
The word “only” is important.
Jesus does not simply call the Father “God.”
He calls Him the only true God.
The Greek expression is:
τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεόν
Ton monon alēthinon theon.
A close translation is:
“THE ONLY TRUE GOD.”
The adjective monon communicates exclusivity.
This gives the Biblical Unitarian argument considerable force.
But the disagreement concerns what is being excluded.
Biblical Unitarians understand the phrase as excluding Jesus from being the one true God.
Trinitarians understand it as excluding false gods, while maintaining that the Son shares the one divine identity of the Father.
The latter explanation is a theological inference from the wider New Testament.
It is not stated in the immediate sentence.
Therefore, the direct wording favours the Father's unique identification as God, while the question of the Son's divine nature remains dependent upon additional evidence.
5. JOHN 17:5 — GLORY WITH THE FATHER BEFORE THE WORLD
In the same prayer, Jesus says:
“Now, Father, glorify me with your own self with the glory which I had with you before the world existed.” — John 17:5, WEB
This verse creates a major challenge for interpretations denying personal preexistence.
Jesus speaks of glory he had with the Father before the world existed.
The personal-preexistence interpretation is direct.
Jesus existed with the Father and possessed glory before creation.
The Biblical Unitarian foreknowledge interpretation understands the glory as belonging to Jesus in God's eternal purpose.
That explanation has conceptual parallels in Scripture.
But the wording does not explicitly say that the glory existed only as a future plan.
Therefore, the personal-preexistence interpretation has an important textual advantage.
However, notice something equally important.
Jesus asks the Father to glorify him.
The Father is the one addressed as the source of the requested glorification.
Even if John 17:5 establishes personal preexistence, it does not independently establish that Jesus is the same Almighty God whom he addresses.
6. JOHN 17:22 — GLORY GIVEN TO THE DISCIPLES
Jesus declares:
“The glory which you have given me, I have given to them...” — John 17:22, WEB
This provides an important comparison.
The Father gives glory to Jesus.
Jesus gives glory to his disciples.
But the disciples do not thereby become Almighty God.
Therefore, receiving divine glory does not automatically establish identity as God.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation emphasises this principle.
But the comparison has limits.
The glory described in John 17:5 is associated with the period before the world's existence.
The glory given to the disciples is associated with their participation in Christ's mission and unity.
These are not necessarily identical forms of glory.
Therefore, John 17:22 demonstrates that glory can be shared without transferring divine identity.
It does not, by itself, explain the pre-world glory of John 17:5.
7. JOHN 5:26 — THE FATHER GAVE THE SON LIFE
Jesus declares:
“For as the Father has life in himself, even so he gave to the Son also to have life in himself.” — John 5:26, WEB
The structure is striking.
THE FATHER HAS LIFE IN HIMSELF.
THE FATHER GAVE THE SON TO HAVE LIFE IN HIMSELF.
The distinction between giver and recipient is explicit.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands this as evidence that the Son's authority and life-giving power are derived from God.
The Trinitarian interpretation may understand the giving in relation to the eternal Father–Son relationship or to the incarnate Son's saving mission.
Classical theology sometimes relates the passage to the doctrine of eternal generation.
But the verse itself does not explicitly say “eternal generation.”
It describes the Father giving the Son to have life in himself.
The theological question is whether this giving concerns eternal divine relationship, messianic authority, or both.
PRELIMINARY FINDING: The Son's life-giving role is presented as received from the Father. The verse does not independently determine whether that reception excludes shared divine nature.
8. JOHN 5:19 — “THE SON CAN DO NOTHING OF HIMSELF”
Jesus says:
“The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he sees the Father doing.” — John 5:19, WEB
This is a strong statement of dependence.
Jesus does not describe himself as acting independently of the Father.
He describes his works as corresponding to the Father's works.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands this as evidence of delegated authority.
The Trinitarian interpretation understands it as expressing the perfect unity of Father and Son, not an inability arising from inferior divine nature.
But the passage contains an additional feature.
Jesus says that whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise.
That is an extraordinary claim.
The Son is not portrayed as an ordinary prophet.
Therefore, the passage presents both dependence and exceptional participation in the Father's works.
A complete interpretation must account for both.
9. JOHN 5:22–23 — HONOURING THE SON AS THE FATHER
Jesus explains that the Father has entrusted judgment to the Son.
He then says that all should honour the Son just as they honour the Father.
This is among the strongest passages for a high Christology.
The honour given to Jesus is extraordinary.
The traditional interpretation sees this as evidence that the Son shares divine status.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation emphasises that the Father grants the Son authority.
Under this explanation, honouring the Father's appointed representative honours the Father who sent him.
But the phrase “just as they honour the Father” deserves serious attention.
It may imply more than the honour normally given to a human messenger.
Therefore, the verse cannot be dismissed as ordinary delegated authority without further explanation.
At the same time, the source of the Son's judicial authority remains explicitly the Father.
10. JOHN 14:28 — “THE FATHER IS GREATER THAN I”
Jesus declares:
“The Father is greater than I.” — John 14:28, WEB
The Greek reads:
ὁ πατὴρ μείζων μού ἐστιν
Ho patēr meizōn mou estin.
The statement is direct.
The Father is greater than Jesus.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands this as a statement of real hierarchy between God and His Son.
The Trinitarian interpretation commonly relates it to Jesus' incarnate condition or his role within the saving mission.
Some Trinitarians also discuss eternal relations of origin without affirming inequality of divine essence.
The verse itself does not define those categories.
Its immediate context concerns Jesus' departure to the Father.
Therefore, the incarnational interpretation has contextual relevance.
But the statement remains important evidence for the Father's superior position within the relationship Jesus describes.
11. DOES “GREATER” NECESSARILY MEAN GREATER IN NATURE?
Not necessarily.
A king may be greater than an ambassador in authority without belonging to a different species.
A father may hold greater authority than a son without being more human.
Therefore, the word “greater” does not automatically establish an ontological difference.
But neither should it be reduced automatically to a temporary role.
The context must determine the nature of the comparison.
John 14:28 establishes a real distinction in greatness.
It does not explicitly explain whether that distinction concerns authority, status, incarnate condition, divine nature or some combination.
This is why the verse must be interpreted alongside the rest of John's Gospel.
12. JOHN 20:17 — “MY GOD AND YOUR GOD”
After his resurrection, Jesus tells Mary Magdalene:
“I am ascending to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God.” — John 20:17, WEB
This is an exceptionally important statement.
The risen Jesus refers to the Father as:
MY GOD.
He also identifies the Father as the God of his disciples.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands this as powerful evidence that Jesus is not the Almighty God.
The Trinitarian interpretation understands the statement through Jesus' incarnate identity and continuing relationship with the Father.
But the statement occurs after the resurrection.
It is not confined to Jesus' suffering before his death.
The risen Jesus still speaks of the Father as his God.
Therefore, any interpretation of Jesus' divine identity must explain this continuing relationship.
13. DOES JESUS HAVING A GOD SETTLE THE QUESTION?
The statement “my God” is highly significant.
In ordinary biblical language, the one who calls another “my God” acknowledges that other as his God.
This strongly supports the distinction between Jesus and the Father.
But classical Trinitarian theology does not identify Jesus as the Father.
It understands the incarnate Son as relating to the Father in genuine obedience and worship.
Therefore, the statement does not refute Trinitarianism merely by distinguishing the persons.
The deeper question is whether a person who possesses full divine nature can genuinely call another divine person “my God.”
Trinitarian theology answers yes within its account of incarnation and divine relations.
Biblical Unitarian theology argues that this introduces a complexity absent from the direct wording.
The passage is especially strong evidence for the Father's position as Jesus' God.
14. REVELATION 3:12 — THE EXALTED JESUS SAYS “MY GOD”
In Revelation 3:12, the exalted Christ repeatedly uses the expression:
“MY GOD.”
He speaks of the temple of his God.
He speaks of the name of his God.
He speaks of the city of his God.
This is important because the setting concerns the glorified Christ, not simply Jesus before his resurrection.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation argues that the Father remains Jesus' God even after his exaltation.
The Trinitarian interpretation understands this as consistent with the Son's enduring relationship to the Father.
But the passage does not explicitly explain the doctrine of one divine essence shared by Father and Son.
It presents the exalted Christ acknowledging God as his God.
That fact must remain central to the interpretation.
15. FIRST CORINTHIANS 8:6 — “ONE GOD, THE FATHER”
Paul writes:
“Yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him.” — 1 Corinthians 8:6, WEB
This is one of the clearest statements in the New Testament.
ONE GOD — THE FATHER.
ONE LORD — JESUS CHRIST.
Paul distinguishes the Father and Jesus.
He also distinguishes their roles in relation to all things.
All things are from the Father.
All things are through Jesus Christ.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands the Father as the ultimate source and Jesus as His authorised agent.
The Trinitarian interpretation understands the verse as a remarkable inclusion of Jesus within Israel's monotheistic confession.
The disagreement is substantial.
16. THE GREEK PREPOSITIONS — EK AND DIA
Paul uses:
ἐξ οὗ — ex hou.
“From whom.”
And:
δι’ οὗ — di' hou.
“Through whom.”
The Father is presented as the source.
Jesus is presented as the one through whom all things exist.
This distinction is explicit.
But it does not automatically establish that Jesus is a created being.
The preposition dia can describe personal agency without defining the agent's nature.
Likewise, the Father's status as source does not independently settle whether the Son shares divine nature.
The text distinguishes source and mediation.
The theological question is how those roles relate to the identity of the one God.
17. DOES PAUL INCLUDE JESUS IN THE SHEMA?
The Shema declares:
“YAHWEH OUR GOD, YAHWEH IS ONE.”
Some Trinitarian scholars argue that Paul reformulates this confession in 1 Corinthians 8:6.
Under this interpretation:
ONE GOD corresponds to the Father.
ONE LORD corresponds to Jesus.
Since “Lord” is the usual Greek rendering of Yahweh in many Old Testament contexts, the verse may include Jesus within the divine identity.
This is a substantial scholarly argument.
But Biblical Unitarians respond that Paul explicitly identifies the one God as the Father.
They argue that the title Lord can describe an exalted agent appointed by God.
Acts 2:36 is particularly relevant because Peter says God made Jesus Lord and Christ.
The disagreement concerns whether Paul's wording includes Jesus within the identity of Yahweh or distinguishes the one God from His supreme Messiah.
Both interpretations must explain the full verse.
18. EPHESIANS 4:6 — ONE GOD AND FATHER OF ALL
Paul writes:
“One God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in us all.” — Ephesians 4:6, WEB
The statement is explicit.
ONE GOD AND FATHER OF ALL.
This is foundational for Biblical Unitarian theology.
Paul identifies the one God as the Father.
But the surrounding passage also speaks of one Lord and one Spirit.
Trinitarian interpreters understand the passage as compatible with a triadic pattern of Christian confession.
Biblical Unitarians understand the distinctions as identifying God, His Messiah and His Spirit without establishing three divine persons.
The verse itself does not formulate the doctrine of the Trinity.
But the presence of Lord and Spirit in the wider passage means that the context should not be ignored.
19. FIRST TIMOTHY 2:5 — ONE GOD AND ONE MEDIATOR
Paul writes:
“For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” — 1 Timothy 2:5, WEB
The structure is significant.
ONE GOD.
ONE MEDIATOR.
THE MAN CHRIST JESUS.
The mediator is distinguished from the God between whom and humanity he mediates.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands this as direct evidence that Jesus is not the one God.
The Trinitarian interpretation understands Jesus' mediation through his genuine humanity, while affirming his divine nature.
But the passage explicitly calls him a man.
It does not describe him as “God the Son.”
Therefore, the direct wording supports Jesus' human mediatorial identity.
Whether he also possesses divine nature must be established elsewhere.
20. FIRST CORINTHIANS 11:3 — GOD IS THE HEAD OF CHRIST
Paul writes:
“The head of Christ is God.” — 1 Corinthians 11:3, WEB
This statement is important because Paul presents a relationship between Christ and God.
The Greek word kephalē means head.
Its metaphorical meaning is debated.
It can involve authority, prominence or other relational associations depending on context.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands the verse as establishing God's authority over Christ.
The Trinitarian interpretation may understand it in relation to the Son's role or the ordering of relationships.
The verse does not explicitly define divine essence.
But it presents God and Christ as distinguishable and ordered in a relationship.
That evidence should not be ignored.
21. FIRST CORINTHIANS 15:24–28 — THE SON WILL BE SUBJECT TO GOD
This passage is among the most important in our investigation.
Paul describes the final consummation of Christ's reign.
Christ destroys every opposing rule and authority.
He delivers the kingdom to God the Father.
Then Paul declares that the Son himself will be subjected to the one who subjected all things to him.
The purpose is:
“THAT GOD MAY BE ALL IN ALL.”
This is remarkable.
The passage concerns the final future, after Christ has completed his reign over his enemies.
It does not merely describe his earthly ministry.
The Son's subjection is presented in the ultimate consummation.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands this as strong evidence that the Father remains supreme over the Son.
The Trinitarian interpretation understands it as the final ordering of Christ's mediatorial kingship, not an inequality of divine essence.
But the distinction between God and the Son is unmistakable.
22. DOES THE SON'S FINAL SUBJECTION DISPROVE EQUALITY?
The question requires care.
Paul explicitly describes the Son being subjected to God.
That is a statement of ordered relationship.
But the text does not directly discuss whether Father and Son share one divine essence.
Trinitarian theology distinguishes equality of nature from submission in role or relationship.
Biblical Unitarian theology argues that the passage more naturally presents the Father as the supreme God and Jesus as His subordinate Messiah.
The direct wording strongly supports the Father's ultimate supremacy.
Whether that supremacy is compatible with equality of divine essence is a theological question requiring further argument.
The text itself does not supply the later technical distinction.
23. ACTS 2:36 — GOD MADE JESUS LORD AND CHRIST
Peter declares:
“God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.” — Acts 2:36, WEB
The statement distinguishes the one who appoints from the one appointed.
God exalts Jesus.
Jesus receives his messianic lordship in the context of resurrection and enthronement.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation sees this as evidence of delegated authority.
The Trinitarian interpretation understands the exaltation as the public installation of the incarnate Son in his messianic kingship.
Under that explanation, the Son's eternal divine identity is not created by the exaltation.
But Acts 2:36 does not explicitly discuss eternal divine identity.
It emphasises God's act of exalting Jesus.
That is the direct evidence.
24. PHILIPPIANS 2:9 — GOD HIGHLY EXALTED HIM
Paul declares that God highly exalted Jesus and gave him the name above every name.
The exaltation is explicitly God's action.
The Son receives honour and authority.
The passage concludes with every tongue confessing Jesus Christ as Lord:
“TO THE GLORY OF GOD THE FATHER.”
This strongly emphasises the Father's role as the ultimate recipient of glory.
But Philippians 2 also contains language about Christ's earlier condition and his relationship to the form of God.
That earlier section is debated.
Some understand it as describing personal preexistence.
Others understand it through the contrast between Adam and the obedient Messiah.
Therefore, Philippians 2 must be read as a whole.
The exaltation-language alone does not settle the preexistence question.
25. THE EXTRAORDINARY HONOUR GIVEN TO JESUS
We must now consider evidence that challenges a merely ordinary understanding of Jesus' delegated authority.
The New Testament describes Jesus receiving honour that is exceptionally exalted.
Every knee bows in connection with his lordship.
He exercises universal judgment.
He gives eternal life.
He is associated with creation.
He receives heavenly worship or reverence in Revelation.
These statements cannot be dismissed.
The traditional interpretation argues that such honours belong to divine identity.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands Jesus as God's uniquely exalted representative.
The question is whether the honour given to Jesus is compatible with a distinction between God and His appointed Messiah.
This requires careful comparison with Jewish monotheism and the Old Testament's language about Yahweh.
26. ISAIAH 45:23 AND PHILIPPIANS 2:10–11
Isaiah 45:23 describes every knee bowing and every tongue swearing allegiance in relation to Yahweh.
Philippians 2 applies similar language to Jesus.
This is one of the strongest arguments for an exceptionally high Christology.
The traditional interpretation understands Paul as including Jesus within the honour due to Yahweh.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands God as granting His Messiah authority so that honouring Jesus glorifies the Father.
But the connection with Isaiah cannot be ignored.
Paul is not merely saying that Jesus is an ordinary ruler.
He is describing a universal acknowledgement of Jesus' lordship using language associated with Yahweh.
Therefore, the passage is significant evidence in the debate over divine identity.
27. REVELATION 5 — WORSHIP OF GOD AND THE LAMB
Revelation 5 depicts heavenly praise directed toward the one seated on the throne and the Lamb.
The Lamb receives extraordinary honour.
The traditional interpretation understands this as evidence that Jesus participates in divine worship.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation emphasises that the Lamb is distinct from the one seated on the throne.
The Lamb receives authority and honour because of his sacrificial victory.
Both observations are present.
The scene does not identify the Lamb as the Father.
But it gives the Lamb a place in heavenly praise that is difficult to explain through ordinary human kingship alone.
Therefore, Revelation 5 deserves substantial weight.
28. REVELATION 3:12 AND REVELATION 5 — BOTH MUST BE EXPLAINED
These two passages create an important interpretive challenge.
In Revelation 3:12, the exalted Jesus repeatedly speaks of:
“MY GOD.”
In Revelation 5, the Lamb receives extraordinary heavenly honour alongside the one seated on the throne.
A complete interpretation must explain both.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation emphasises the distinction between God and His exalted Lamb.
The Trinitarian interpretation emphasises the Lamb's participation in heavenly worship while maintaining personal distinction.
Neither passage should be used to erase the other.
The question is whether Revelation presents the Lamb as sharing divine identity or as the supreme agent of the one God.
29. HEBREWS 1:8 — “YOUR THRONE, O GOD”
Hebrews 1:8 quotes Psalm 45.
Many English translations render the statement addressed to the Son as:
“YOUR THRONE, O GOD.”
This is significant.
The Son is addressed using theos.
The traditional interpretation understands this as direct evidence of the Son's deity.
Biblical Unitarian interpreters have proposed alternative grammatical and royal interpretations.
The original Psalm concerns a royal figure and uses highly exalted language.
But Hebrews applies the quotation to the Son.
Therefore, the question is not simply what Psalm 45 meant in its original royal setting.
We must also ask what Hebrews intends by applying it to Christ.
The direct address “O God” is grammatically well supported and widely accepted.
Alternative readings must be assessed carefully.
30. HEBREWS 1:9 — “GOD, YOUR GOD, HAS ANOINTED YOU”
The next verse is especially important.
It declares:
“THEREFORE GOD, YOUR GOD, HAS ANOINTED YOU.”
This creates a striking combination.
The Son may be addressed as God in verse 8.
Yet verse 9 speaks of God as his God.
The traditional interpretation understands this through the distinction between the Father and Son, with the Son receiving messianic anointing.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands the language of verse 8 in a royal or representative sense because verse 9 identifies the Son's God.
But the fact that both statements appear together must be explained.
The author of Hebrews does not appear to regard them as contradictory.
That observation is important.
It suggests that our interpretation must be capable of accounting for exalted divine terminology and the Son's acknowledged dependence upon God.
31. JOHN 20:28 — THOMAS' CONFESSION
Thomas addresses Jesus:
“MY LORD AND MY GOD.”
This remains one of the strongest passages for the traditional identification of Jesus as God.
Our earlier Real Discoveries investigation examined alternative historical interpretations, including the controversy surrounding Theodore of Mopsuestia.
But we must not dismiss the immediate grammar.
The narrative says that Thomas answered Jesus.
The natural reading is that Thomas addresses Jesus with the confession.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation must therefore explain the statement without relying solely on the fact that John 20:17 calls the Father Jesus' God.
The traditional interpretation must explain how Thomas' confession relates to John's repeated identification of the Father as God.
The passage is significant evidence for high Christology.
It does not independently formulate the complete doctrine of the Trinity.
32. JOHN 20:17 AND JOHN 20:28 — A DELIBERATE TENSION?
Within the same chapter, John records two remarkable statements.
Jesus says:
“MY GOD AND YOUR GOD.”
Thomas says:
“MY LORD AND MY GOD.”
These statements appear close together.
That literary arrangement deserves attention.
The traditional interpretation understands them as compatible because Jesus is both genuinely human and genuinely divine.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands the Father's status as Jesus' God as controlling the meaning of Thomas' confession.
But the narrative does not explicitly explain the relationship between the two statements.
Therefore, neither should be ignored.
A complete interpretation of John's Christology must explain why both appear in the same Gospel.
33. THE WORD THEOS — CAN IT HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE MEANING?
The Greek word theos normally refers to God or a deity.
But Scripture sometimes uses divine terminology for figures other than Yahweh.
Psalm 82 provides an example.
John 10:34 quotes that Psalm.
This demonstrates that divine terminology can have a broader range of reference.
But it does not mean that every application of theos to Jesus must be merely representative.
The context determines the meaning.
Therefore, the argument:
“JESUS IS CALLED GOD, SO HE MUST BE ALMIGHTY GOD”
requires contextual support.
But the opposite argument:
“OTHERS ARE CALLED GODS, SO JESUS CANNOT BE ALMIGHTY GOD”
is equally insufficient.
The nature of the particular claim must be examined.
34. DIVINE AGENCY — CAN GOD ACT THROUGH ANOTHER?
The Hebrew Scriptures frequently describe God accomplishing His purposes through appointed agents.
Moses acts under God's authority.
Angels deliver divine messages.
Prophets speak God's Word.
Kings exercise authority granted by God.
This provides a framework for understanding Jesus as God's supreme representative.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation emphasises this principle.
But Jesus' role in the New Testament appears to exceed ordinary agency.
He is associated with creation, universal judgment, life-giving authority and heavenly honour.
Therefore, the agency explanation must demonstrate that these extraordinary functions can be attributed to an authorised representative without identifying him as Almighty God.
The traditional interpretation argues that the cumulative evidence points beyond delegated authority.
The question remains open to examination.
35. ISAIAH 44:24 — “I ALONE” CREATED
Yahweh declares that He stretched out the heavens alone.
This is important because several New Testament passages associate Jesus with creation.
The Biblical Unitarian Genesis Word interpretation understands creation through God's own Word as Yahweh's own act.
The Trinitarian interpretation understands the Father and Son as participating in the one undivided divine creative action.
A non-Trinitarian personal-preexistence interpretation understands the Son as God's subordinate agent.
But Isaiah's statement creates a challenge for the latter interpretation if the Son is understood as a separate created being participating in original creation.
The question is whether Yahweh's declaration excludes all personal intermediaries or primarily excludes rival gods.
The immediate context is strongly concerned with Yahweh's uniqueness over idols.
But the wording also emphasises His exclusive creative power.
Therefore, the passage must be taken seriously.
36. DOES CREATION THROUGH THE SON PROVE EQUALITY WITH GOD?
Not automatically.
The New Testament distinguishes the Father as the source of all things and Jesus as the one through whom all things exist.
This distinction is explicit in 1 Corinthians 8:6.
But the scope of the Son's creative role is extraordinary.
Colossians 1 and Hebrews 1 use comprehensive creation-language.
The traditional interpretation understands this as evidence of divine identity.
The non-Trinitarian personal-preexistence interpretation understands the Son as God's supreme agent.
The Biblical Unitarian new-creation interpretation understands the passages primarily in relation to the messianic order.
Each explanation faces difficulties.
The fact of agency does not independently determine divine nature.
But the extraordinary scope of the agency is relevant evidence.
37. THE FATHER AS SOURCE — THE SON AS RECIPIENT
A repeated New Testament pattern now becomes clear.
The Father sends.
The Son is sent.
The Father gives authority.
The Son receives authority.
The Father raises Jesus.
Jesus is raised.
The Father exalts.
Jesus is exalted.
The Father is called the Son's God.
The Son acknowledges Him.
The Father is described as the source of all things.
The Son is described as the one through whom all things exist.
This pattern strongly supports a real distinction between Father and Son.
It also strongly supports the Father's position as source.
The disagreement concerns whether that relationship excludes equality of divine nature.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation answers yes.
The Trinitarian interpretation answers no.
The New Testament describes the relationship.
Later theology attempts to explain its metaphysical implications.
38. WHAT IS THE STRONGEST BIBLICAL UNITARIAN ARGUMENT?
The strongest argument is cumulative.
Jesus identifies the Father as the only true God.
Paul identifies the one God as the Father.
Jesus calls the Father his God.
The exalted Jesus continues to speak of his God.
The Father gives life and authority to the Son.
The Father exalts Jesus.
The Son ultimately becomes subject to God so that God may be all in all.
These statements consistently present the Father as supreme.
They also distinguish Jesus from the one he serves.
This is a powerful biblical pattern.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands it without requiring a distinction between equality of essence and subordination of role.
But it must still explain the passages associating Jesus with divine creation, honour and terminology.
Those passages cannot be dismissed.
39. WHAT IS THE STRONGEST TRINITARIAN ARGUMENT?
The strongest Trinitarian argument is also cumulative.
John describes the Word as God.
Jesus speaks of pre-world glory.
Colossians associates Christ with the creation of all things.
Hebrews applies creation-language to the Son.
Philippians uses language associated with Yahweh's universal honour.
Revelation presents the Lamb receiving extraordinary heavenly praise.
Thomas addresses Jesus as his Lord and God.
These passages support a very high understanding of Jesus' identity.
The traditional interpretation understands the Father's unique position and the Son's dependence through the distinction between divine nature and personal relationship or incarnate mission.
But those categories are not explicitly formulated in the passages themselves.
The interpretation must demonstrate that they are a faithful synthesis of the biblical evidence rather than an external solution imposed upon it.
40. WHAT IS THE STRONGEST NON-TRINITARIAN PREEXISTENCE ARGUMENT?
This interpretation accepts that Jesus personally existed before his human birth.
It therefore explains John 6:62, John 8:58 and John 17:5 directly.
It may also explain creation through the Son as genuine personal agency.
But it distinguishes the Son from the Father as the one supreme God.
This approach can account for many passages emphasising the Father's authority.
However, it must answer several questions.
Was the Son created?
If so, where does Scripture explicitly say this?
If not, what was the nature of his preexistent life?
How does his participation in creation relate to Isaiah 44:24?
How should the divine terminology of John 1:1 and Hebrews 1 be understood?
Therefore, accepting personal preexistence does not remove the need for a coherent explanation of the Son's nature.
41. COMPARING THE THREE MAIN EXPLANATIONS
| Question | Biblical Unitarian | Trinitarian | Non-Trinitarian personal preexistence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who is the one Almighty God? | The Father alone | The one divine being shared by Father, Son and Spirit | The Father alone |
| Did Jesus personally preexist? | Usually no | Yes | Yes |
| Why does Jesus call the Father “my God”? | The Father is Jesus' God | Genuine incarnate and personal relationship | The Father is supreme over the Son |
| Why is Jesus given authority? | God exalts His Messiah | The incarnate Son receives messianic authority | The Father grants authority to His Son |
| Why is Jesus associated with creation? | God's Word embodied in Jesus, or new-creation agency | The eternal Son participates in the one divine creative act | God creates through His preexistent Son |
| Greatest challenge | Strong preexistence and divine-identity passages | Explaining the Father's supremacy and Son's dependence | Defining the Son's nature and reconciling Isaiah 44:24 |
This comparison shows why the debate cannot be resolved by a single passage.
Each interpretation explains some evidence more directly than others.
42. WHAT CAN WE ESTABLISH WITHOUT SPECULATION?
Several conclusions are firmly grounded in the texts.
FIRST: Jesus and the Father are consistently distinguished.
SECOND: Jesus identifies the Father as the only true God.
THIRD: Paul explicitly identifies the one God as the Father.
FOURTH: Jesus refers to the Father as his God.
FIFTH: The exalted Christ continues to use the expression “my God.”
SIXTH: The Father gives life and authority to the Son.
SEVENTH: God exalts Jesus.
EIGHTH: The Son ultimately delivers the kingdom to the Father and is subjected to God.
NINTH: Jesus receives extraordinary honour and authority.
TENTH: Several New Testament passages associate Jesus with original creation.
ELEVENTH: Some passages apply divine terminology or Old Testament Yahweh-language to Jesus.
TWELFTH: Personal preexistence does not logically establish identity as Almighty God.
THIRTEENTH: The complete doctrine of the Trinity is not explicitly formulated in any one of these passages.
These findings provide the foundation for our assessment.
43. OUR CURRENT ASSESSMENT — DOES PREEXISTENCE MAKE JESUS ALMIGHTY GOD?
The answer is:
NOT BY ITSELF.
Even if Jesus personally existed before his human birth, that fact alone would not establish that he is Almighty God.
The New Testament repeatedly presents the Father as the source of the Son's authority.
Jesus identifies the Father as the only true God.
Paul identifies the one God as the Father.
The risen and exalted Jesus acknowledges the Father as his God.
These are substantial facts.
They strongly support the Father's unique position within the biblical testimony.
But the investigation cannot end there.
The New Testament also associates Jesus with divine creation, extraordinary heavenly honour and terminology used of God.
The traditional interpretation understands this as evidence that the Son shares divine identity.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands Jesus as God's uniquely authorised Messiah.
A non-Trinitarian personal-preexistence interpretation offers another possibility.
Therefore, our provisional conclusion is:
PERSONAL PREEXISTENCE, EVEN IF ESTABLISHED, DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY PROVE THAT JESUS IS ALMIGHTY GOD.
THE FATHER'S STATUS AS JESUS' GOD IS EXPLICIT AND REPEATED THROUGHOUT THE NEW TESTAMENT.
BUT THE SON'S EXTRAORDINARY ROLE IN CREATION, JUDGMENT AND HEAVENLY HONOUR REQUIRES FURTHER EXPLANATION BEFORE A FINAL CONCLUSION CAN BE REACHED.
This is where the evidence currently leads.
44. THE NEXT QUESTION — CAN JESUS RECEIVE WORSHIP WITHOUT BEING ALMIGHTY GOD?
Our investigation now moves to another major controversy.
The New Testament records people bowing before Jesus.
It describes the heavenly Lamb receiving praise.
It says that every knee will bow in connection with Jesus' lordship.
But does the Greek word proskyneō always mean worship offered exclusively to Almighty God?
Can it describe honour or homage given to a king?
How did the Hebrew Scriptures distinguish worship of Yahweh from respect shown to His appointed representatives?
And does Revelation 5 place Jesus within the worship of the one God, or present him as the supreme recipient of honour granted by God?
These questions are essential.
They may help us determine whether the extraordinary honour given to Jesus establishes his identity as Almighty God.
END OF PART 19
Coming in Part 20: “DID PEOPLE WORSHIP JESUS?” — DOES PROSKYNEŌ MEAN DIVINE WORSHIP OR HOMAGE?
We will examine Matthew 2:2, Matthew 14:33, Matthew 28:9, John 9:38, Hebrews 1:6, Philippians 2:10–11 and Revelation 5.
We will also investigate the Hebrew word hishtachavah, the Greek word proskyneō, and the difference between honouring a king and worshipping Almighty God.
Our guiding principle remains unchanged:
We must follow the evidence rather than a predetermined doctrine.
We must distinguish grammatical facts from theological interpretations.
And we must compare every explanation with the complete biblical testimony.
The goal is not to prove what we already believe. The goal is to discover what the Bible actually teaches.
JOHN 1:1 — GOD'S WORD, OR THE BEGINNING OF JESUS' MINISTRY?
PART 20 — DID PEOPLE WORSHIP JESUS?
DOES THE GREEK WORD PROSKYNEŌ MEAN DIVINE WORSHIP OR HOMAGE?
By Simon Brown — Real Discoveries
https://wwwrealdiscoveriesorg-simon.blogspot.com
1. INTRODUCTION — DOES WORSHIP PROVE THAT JESUS IS GOD?
One of the most frequently presented arguments for the deity of Jesus is that people worshipped him.
The reasoning is straightforward:
ONLY ALMIGHTY GOD SHOULD BE WORSHIPPED.
JESUS WAS WORSHIPPED.
THEREFORE, JESUS MUST BE ALMIGHTY GOD.
But does this argument accurately reflect the original biblical languages?
The answer requires careful investigation.
The Greek word commonly translated “worship” is proskyneō.
It can describe divine worship.
But it can also describe bowing, reverence or homage shown to a human superior.
Therefore, the appearance of this word does not automatically establish the recipient's divine identity.
However, this does not mean that every act of proskyneō toward Jesus was merely ordinary respect.
Some New Testament passages describe extraordinary honour given to the risen and exalted Christ.
The most important are Hebrews 1:6, Philippians 2:10–11 and Revelation 5.
Our investigation must distinguish ordinary homage from religious worship without artificially weakening the strongest passages.
2. THE GREEK WORD PROSKYNEŌ
The Greek verb is:
προσκυνέω — proskyneō.
Its meanings include:
To bow down.
To prostrate oneself.
To show reverence.
To pay homage.
To worship.
The word describes an action of submission, respect or devotion.
But the meaning of the action depends upon its recipient and context.
A subject may bow before a king.
A petitioner may bow before a ruler.
A worshipper may bow before God.
The physical action can look similar while expressing different kinds of honour.
This is why translating proskyneō as “worship” in every passage can sometimes mislead modern readers.
In contemporary English, worship normally suggests religious devotion offered to a deity.
But the ancient word had a wider range.
PRELIMINARY FINDING: The Greek word proskyneō does not, by itself, establish that the person receiving homage is Almighty God.
3. THE HEBREW BACKGROUND — HISHTACHAVAH
The Hebrew Scriptures use the verb:
הִשְׁתַּחֲוָה — hishtachavah.
This form comes from the Hebrew root commonly associated with bowing down or prostrating oneself.
It is used in contexts involving worship of God.
But it is also used for acts of respect shown to human beings.
The Greek Septuagint frequently uses proskyneō to translate this Hebrew verb.
This connection is important.
It means that the Greek language of the New Testament belongs to a biblical tradition in which bowing before someone did not always imply that the person was a deity.
We must examine specific examples.
4. GENESIS 23:7 — ABRAHAM BOWED BEFORE PEOPLE
Genesis 23:7 describes Abraham bowing before the people of the land, the sons of Heth.
Abraham was not treating them as Almighty God.
He was showing respect in a social and legal setting.
The Hebrew verb belongs to the same family of bowing-language used elsewhere in worship.
This establishes an important principle.
THE PHYSICAL ACT OF BOWING DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY MEAN DIVINE WORSHIP.
The context determines the meaning.
5. GENESIS 33:3 — JACOB BOWED BEFORE ESAU
When Jacob approached Esau, he bowed to the ground seven times.
Jacob was not acknowledging Esau as Yahweh.
He was showing submission and respect during a dangerous family reconciliation.
This demonstrates that repeated prostration could be directed toward another human being.
Therefore, the mere fact that someone falls before Jesus does not automatically establish that the person considers him Almighty God.
But it does not prove the opposite either.
We must examine the reason for the act.
6. FIRST CHRONICLES 29:20 — HOMAGE TO YAHWEH AND THE KING
This passage is especially important.
The congregation bows before Yahweh and the king.
The Hebrew text uses the language of prostration in relation to both.
The Septuagint likewise presents the action using bowing-language.
Yet the king is not being identified as Yahweh.
The same physical act is directed toward God and His appointed human ruler.
The distinction lies in the identity and status of the recipients.
This is one of the strongest Old Testament examples demonstrating that bowing-language does not automatically mean that everyone receiving it is Almighty God.
But we must also recognise that the text distinguishes the divine recipient from the royal recipient.
It does not make them identical.
7. PSALM 45 — THE HONOUR GIVEN TO GOD'S KING
Psalm 45 describes a royal figure receiving extraordinary honour.
The Psalm includes language later applied to Jesus in Hebrews 1.
This is relevant because ancient Israelite kings could be addressed in elevated terms as representatives of God's authority.
But royal honour did not necessarily make the king Yahweh Himself.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation emphasises this background.
The traditional interpretation argues that Hebrews applies the Psalm to Jesus in a way that goes beyond ordinary kingship.
Both observations must be considered.
The original royal setting provides context.
The New Testament application determines how the passage functions in Christian Christology.
8. MATTHEW 2:2 — THE MAGI CAME TO HONOUR THE KING
The visitors from the east ask:
“Where is he who is born King of the Jews? For we saw his star in the east, and have come to worship him.” — Matthew 2:2, WEB
The Greek uses proskyneō.
But notice how the visitors identify Jesus.
KING OF THE JEWS.
They do not explicitly say:
“We have come to worship Almighty God.”
Their stated purpose concerns the newborn king.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands their action as royal homage.
This is a strong contextual argument.
The traditional interpretation may understand the scene as having a deeper significance recognised by Matthew's readers.
That is possible.
But the word proskyneō alone does not establish that the visitors believed the infant was Almighty God.
9. MATTHEW 2:11 — THEY FELL DOWN BEFORE THE CHILD
Matthew records the visitors falling down and honouring Jesus.
They present gifts.
The action is appropriate to a royal setting.
Gold and other valuable gifts are consistent with honouring an important ruler.
But the gifts do not independently establish deity.
The passage identifies Jesus as the promised king.
The theological significance may be greater than the visitors themselves understood.
Nevertheless, we must distinguish Matthew's possible literary intention from the explicit beliefs attributed to the visitors.
PRELIMINARY FINDING: Matthew 2 supports extraordinary royal honour but does not independently prove that the infant Jesus was recognised as Almighty God.
10. MATTHEW 8:2 — A LEPER BOWED BEFORE JESUS
A man suffering from leprosy approaches Jesus and performs proskyneō.
He asks Jesus to make him clean.
The man recognises Jesus' extraordinary healing authority.
But does he believe Jesus is Almighty God?
The text does not explicitly say so.
The action may express desperate supplication before someone believed capable of healing.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands this as homage to God's authorised Messiah.
The traditional interpretation may see a deeper recognition of Jesus' divine power.
But the word itself cannot settle the issue.
The man's request and the wider narrative must determine its significance.
11. MATTHEW 9:18 — A RULER BOWED BEFORE JESUS
A ruler approaches Jesus and bows before him.
He asks Jesus to restore his daughter to life.
This is an extraordinary request.
The ruler recognises Jesus' power over death.
But the text does not explicitly say that the ruler identifies Jesus as Yahweh.
Biblical prophets had previously been associated with miracles involving the dead.
Elijah and Elisha provide relevant Old Testament examples.
Therefore, belief in miraculous authority does not automatically establish that the miracle-worker is Almighty God.
But Jesus' authority must still be examined within Matthew's wider portrayal.
12. MATTHEW 14:33 — “TRULY YOU ARE THE SON OF GOD”
After Jesus walks on the sea and the wind ceases, those in the boat bow before him.
They declare:
“TRULY YOU ARE THE SON OF GOD.”
This is an important passage because the narrative provides the confession accompanying the action.
They identify Jesus as God's Son.
They do not explicitly call him “God the Son.”
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands the confession as recognition of Jesus' unique messianic identity.
The traditional interpretation sees the sea miracle and the disciples' reverence as revealing divine identity.
The Old Testament frequently presents Yahweh as sovereign over the sea.
Therefore, the miracle may carry theological significance beyond an ordinary demonstration of prophetic power.
But the title “Son of God” must not automatically be equated with “Almighty God.”
The passage requires a broader contextual reading.
13. MATTHEW 15:25 — A WOMAN BOWED BEFORE JESUS
A Canaanite woman approaches Jesus and performs proskyneō.
She asks for help.
The context is supplication.
She recognises Jesus as Lord and seeks healing for her daughter.
But the action does not necessarily indicate divine worship.
People could bow before rulers and other persons of superior authority when seeking assistance.
Therefore, the passage is not decisive evidence for Jesus' divine nature.
It demonstrates his recognised authority and the woman's faith.
14. MATTHEW 18:26 — A SERVANT BOWED BEFORE HIS MASTER
This example is especially important because it occurs within one of Jesus' own parables.
The servant falls before his master and performs proskyneō.
He pleads for patience concerning his debt.
The master is a human figure within the story.
The servant is not identifying him as Almighty God.
The Greek word describes submission and supplication.
This establishes beyond reasonable dispute that proskyneō can refer to homage given to a human superior.
Therefore, arguments based entirely on the English word “worship” are inadequate.
15. MATTHEW 20:20 — A MOTHER BOWED BEFORE JESUS
The mother of James and John approaches Jesus and performs proskyneō.
She requests positions of honour for her sons in his kingdom.
The context is royal and political.
She understands Jesus as the coming ruler.
Her action is consistent with paying homage to a king.
The passage does not explicitly describe her recognising Jesus as Almighty God.
This provides another clear example of why the context matters.
16. MATTHEW 28:9 — THE RISEN JESUS RECEIVES HOMAGE
After the resurrection, the women meet Jesus.
They take hold of his feet and perform proskyneō.
The setting is now different.
Jesus has conquered death.
The women encounter the risen Messiah.
The traditional interpretation sees their action as worship of the divine Christ.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands it as profound reverence toward God's resurrected and exalted Son.
Both interpretations can account for the physical action.
But the resurrection gives the scene extraordinary significance.
Therefore, it should not be treated as merely equivalent to a servant bowing before a human master.
17. MATTHEW 28:17 — THE DISCIPLES BOWED BEFORE JESUS
Matthew records that the disciples bowed before the risen Jesus.
Some doubted or hesitated.
Jesus then declares:
“ALL AUTHORITY HAS BEEN GIVEN TO ME IN HEAVEN AND ON EARTH.”
This statement is decisive for understanding the source of his authority.
Jesus says that authority has been given to him.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation emphasises that the recipient is distinct from the giver.
The traditional interpretation understands the statement as the exaltation of the incarnate Son to universal messianic authority.
But the scope of the authority is extraordinary.
It extends to heaven and earth.
Therefore, the passage presents both delegated authority and universal supremacy.
Neither feature should be ignored.
18. JOHN 9:38 — “LORD, I BELIEVE”
The man healed of blindness declares his faith in Jesus.
Many manuscripts include a statement that he performed proskyneō toward Jesus.
This passage is important because it occurs in John's Gospel.
The traditional interpretation sees the man's response as worship of Jesus.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands it as homage to the revealed Son of Man or Messiah.
There is also a textual consideration.
The words describing the man's confession and worship are absent from some textual witnesses and have been discussed in textual criticism, although they are included in standard critical editions.
Therefore, the passage should be evaluated with attention to the manuscript evidence.
Even if the wording is original, the meaning of proskyneō must still be determined contextually.
19. JOHN 4:23 — TRUE WORSHIPPERS WORSHIP THE FATHER
Jesus tells the Samaritan woman:
“But the hour comes, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth...” — John 4:23, WEB
This is especially significant.
Jesus identifies the Father as the object of true worship.
The Greek uses proskyneō.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands this as a direct statement concerning whom Christians should worship.
The traditional interpretation agrees that the Father is worshipped but maintains that the Son also shares divine identity.
The verse does not explicitly discuss worship of the Son.
But it gives the Father a central and unmistakable position.
Any Christian theology of worship must account for this teaching.
20. MATTHEW 4:10 — WORSHIP GOD ALONE
During the temptation, Jesus quotes Scripture:
“You shall worship the Lord your God, and you shall serve him only.” — Matthew 4:10, WEB
The Greek contains two important verbs.
προσκυνέω — proskyneō.
To bow, reverence or worship.
λατρεύω — latreuō.
To serve, particularly in a religious or cultic context.
Jesus quotes Deuteronomy 6:13, where Israel is commanded to fear and serve Yahweh.
This is crucial.
The command concerns exclusive allegiance to God.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation emphasises that Jesus himself directs worship and service toward God.
The traditional interpretation maintains that Jesus shares divine identity and is therefore not a rival to the one God.
But the passage does not explicitly explain that later theological distinction.
It clearly establishes the exclusivity of worship and religious service owed to God.
21. DOES LATREUŌ MEAN SOMETHING DIFFERENT FROM PROSKYNEŌ?
Yes, although the meanings can overlap in religious contexts.
Proskyneō describes bowing, homage or worship.
Latreuō often describes service rendered in a religious or sacred setting.
The related noun latreia can refer to religious service or worship.
This distinction is important because some Biblical Unitarians argue that Jesus receives proskyneō but not the exclusive sacred service owed to Almighty God.
The argument has merit as a lexical observation.
But it must not be overstated.
The meaning of worship is not determined by one Greek verb alone.
Praise, prayer, sacrifice, invocation and heavenly devotion may also communicate religious worship.
Therefore, we must examine the entire context.
22. ACTS 10:25–26 — PETER REFUSES HOMAGE
Cornelius falls at Peter's feet and performs proskyneō.
Peter raises him up and explains that he is also a man.
This passage is often used to argue that Jesus must be God because Jesus does not reject similar homage.
But the argument requires caution.
Peter rejects the action in its particular context.
That does not establish that every instance of bowing before a human ruler was forbidden.
The Hebrew Scriptures contain many examples of legitimate human homage.
Therefore, Peter's refusal must be understood in relation to Cornelius' attitude and the setting.
It does not change the lexical meaning of proskyneō.
23. REVELATION 19:10 — THE ANGEL REFUSES WORSHIP
John falls before an angel to perform proskyneō.
The angel refuses.
He directs John to worship God.
Revelation 22:8–9 contains a similar scene.
These passages are important because they occur in heavenly revelation.
The angel refuses the kind of reverence John offers.
The traditional interpretation contrasts this with the Lamb's reception of heavenly honour.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation responds that God may authorise extraordinary honour toward His exalted Messiah.
But the angel's refusal shows that heavenly beings do not automatically qualify as legitimate recipients of religious worship.
This creates a serious challenge for any explanation that treats the Lamb as merely another heavenly creature.
24. REVELATION 3:9 — BOWING BEFORE HUMAN BELIEVERS
The exalted Jesus speaks of opponents coming and bowing before the feet of faithful believers.
The Greek uses proskyneō.
This is a decisive lexical example.
The recipients are not Almighty God.
They are human believers.
The passage therefore demonstrates that proskyneō can describe an act directed toward humans even within the book of Revelation.
But we must distinguish the contexts.
The homage of Revelation 3:9 is not necessarily equivalent to the heavenly worship scene of Revelation 5.
The same verb can occur in different settings with different meanings.
25. HEBREWS 1:6 — LET ALL GOD'S ANGELS HONOUR THE SON
Hebrews declares:
“LET ALL THE ANGELS OF GOD WORSHIP HIM.”
The Greek uses:
προσκυνησάτωσαν — proskynēsatōsan.
This is an imperative form of proskyneō.
The command concerns God's angels and the Son.
This is considerably stronger than a human petitioner bowing before Jesus.
The heavenly angels are instructed to honour the Son.
The traditional interpretation sees this as evidence of divine worship.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands it as homage commanded by God toward His supreme Messiah.
But the heavenly setting and the identity of the participants make the passage extraordinary.
The question is whether angels may properly perform this action toward someone who does not share divine identity.
That requires more than a dictionary definition.
26. THE OLD TESTAMENT BACKGROUND OF HEBREWS 1:6
Hebrews 1:6 is connected with Greek Old Testament traditions, particularly wording associated with Deuteronomy 32:43 and Psalm 97:7.
These texts contain language concerning heavenly beings bowing before God.
The textual traditions are complex.
The Hebrew Masoretic Text, Greek Septuagint and ancient textual witnesses do not always preserve identical wording.
Therefore, we should not assume that Hebrews quotes one simple, universally identical Old Testament text.
The important point is that Hebrews applies heavenly homage-language to the Son.
That is significant.
If language originally associated with Yahweh is applied to Jesus, the interpretation must explain why.
The traditional explanation is participation in divine identity.
The Biblical Unitarian explanation is God's appointment of His Son to supreme heavenly authority.
The author of Hebrews must be allowed to determine the meaning through his wider argument.
27. HEBREWS 1 — THE SON IS GREATER THAN THE ANGELS
Hebrews 1 repeatedly distinguishes the Son from angels.
The Son inherits a superior name.
He receives extraordinary honour.
He is addressed using exalted royal and divine language.
He is associated with creation.
This cumulative presentation is important.
The traditional interpretation argues that the Son is not simply another creature within the heavenly hierarchy.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands the Son's superiority as the result of God's appointment and exaltation.
But Hebrews also contains language suggesting a role extending beyond ordinary messianic kingship.
Therefore, Hebrews 1:6 cannot be evaluated in isolation.
It belongs to a sustained argument about the Son's exceptional status.
28. PHILIPPIANS 2:10–11 — EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW
Paul declares that every knee will bow in connection with Jesus' name.
Every tongue will confess Jesus Christ as Lord.
This is an extraordinary universal statement.
But notice that the passage does not use proskyneō.
It uses the language of bending the knee.
The Greek verb is associated with bowing or kneeling.
Therefore, Philippians 2 should not be presented as another occurrence of proskyneō.
The theological argument depends on the passage's relationship to Isaiah 45.
That relationship is more important than simply counting Greek words translated “worship.”
29. ISAIAH 45:23 — EVERY KNEE BOWS TO YAHWEH
Isaiah declares that every knee will bow and every tongue will swear allegiance.
The speaker is Yahweh.
Paul's application of similar language to Jesus is therefore highly significant.
The traditional interpretation argues that Jesus is included within the divine honour belonging to Yahweh.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation emphasises that God has exalted Jesus and granted him universal lordship.
Under this explanation, bowing to Jesus honours the God who appointed him.
Both interpretations recognise the connection with Isaiah.
The disagreement concerns its implications.
Does Paul identify Jesus within Yahweh's divine identity?
Or does he present Jesus as Yahweh's supreme appointed representative?
The passage requires careful attention to its conclusion.
30. “TO THE GLORY OF GOD THE FATHER”
Philippians 2:11 concludes:
“TO THE GLORY OF GOD THE FATHER.”
This is important.
The universal confession of Jesus' lordship glorifies the Father.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands this as evidence that the Father remains the ultimate object of glory.
The Trinitarian interpretation understands it as the Son's divine honour being inseparable from the Father's glory.
But the distinction between the Father and Jesus remains explicit.
God exalts Jesus.
Jesus receives the name.
Every knee bows.
Every tongue confesses.
The result glorifies God the Father.
This pattern of exaltation and received authority must be preserved.
31. REVELATION 4 — WORSHIP OF THE ONE ON THE THRONE
Revelation 4 depicts heavenly worship.
The one seated on the throne receives glory, honour and thanksgiving.
He is praised as the creator of all things.
This is the foundation for the following chapter.
The one on the throne is presented as the supreme divine ruler.
Revelation 5 then introduces the Lamb.
The relationship between these two figures is central to the question of worship.
We must not begin with Revelation 5 while ignoring Revelation 4.
32. REVELATION 5 — THE LAMB RECEIVES HEAVENLY PRAISE
In Revelation 5, the Lamb is found worthy to open the scroll.
He has been slain.
Through his blood, he has redeemed people for God.
The heavenly beings praise him.
They declare him worthy to receive power, riches, wisdom, strength, honour, glory and blessing.
This is far beyond ordinary royal homage.
The scene takes place in heaven.
The Lamb receives extraordinary praise from heavenly beings.
The traditional interpretation sees this as evidence of divine worship.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation emphasises that the Lamb's worthiness is connected with his sacrificial obedience and redemptive achievement.
The Lamb receives honour because of what God accomplished through him.
But the scale and setting of the praise remain extraordinary.
33. REVELATION 5:13 — GOD AND THE LAMB HONOURED TOGETHER
This verse is particularly important.
Every creature in heaven, on earth, under the earth and in the sea joins in praise.
The praise is directed to:
THE ONE SEATED ON THE THRONE.
And:
THE LAMB.
Both receive blessing, honour, glory and dominion.
This is among the strongest passages supporting the traditional view.
The Lamb is included in the heavenly doxology directed toward the enthroned God.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation emphasises that the two recipients remain distinct.
The Lamb is not identified as the one seated on the throne.
But distinction does not automatically establish a difference of divine nature.
The central question is whether a created or purely human representative could properly share in this universal heavenly praise.
This is a substantial difficulty for interpretations that reduce Jesus' honour to ordinary homage.
34. REVELATION 5:14 — THE ELDERS FALL DOWN
The four living creatures say Amen.
The elders fall down and perform proskyneō.
The immediate context is the praise of the one seated on the throne and the Lamb.
Therefore, the worship action belongs to a scene in which both have just received universal honour.
The traditional interpretation understands this as worship involving both God and the Lamb.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation may distinguish the praise directed to both from the ultimate worship of God.
But the narrative does not explicitly restrict the elders' action to the Father alone.
Therefore, an interpretation that excludes the Lamb from the scene's worship must provide contextual reasons.
The passage cannot simply be dismissed because proskyneō sometimes means homage.
35. IS THE LAMB INCLUDED AMONG CREATED THINGS?
Revelation 5:13 describes every creature praising the one on the throne and the Lamb.
The traditional interpretation argues that the Lamb is distinguished from the totality of creation giving praise.
That is a meaningful observation.
But literary visions can distinguish an exalted figure from a larger group without independently settling that figure's ontological nature.
Therefore, the argument is significant but not mechanically conclusive.
The wider presentation of the Lamb must be considered.
Revelation associates him with heavenly rule, universal praise, divine judgment and the throne of God.
This cumulative evidence strongly supports an exceptionally exalted Christology.
The question remains whether it establishes full deity or uniquely delegated divine authority.
36. REVELATION 22:3 — THE THRONE OF GOD AND OF THE LAMB
Revelation describes:
“THE THRONE OF GOD AND OF THE LAMB.”
This is a remarkable expression.
The throne is associated with both God and the Lamb.
The passage also speaks of His servants serving Him.
The Greek contains singular pronouns that have generated discussion concerning their referent.
The traditional interpretation understands the shared throne and singular language as evidence of close divine unity.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation emphasises that the Lamb remains distinguished from God.
But the shared throne is extraordinary.
It goes beyond the honour ordinarily given to a human king.
Therefore, Revelation 22 must be considered alongside Revelation 5.
37. THE GREEK WORD LATREUŌ IN REVELATION 22:3
Revelation 22:3 uses a form of latreuō.
This is important because the verb is associated with sacred service.
The passage speaks of the throne of God and the Lamb, followed by service rendered to “him.”
The singular pronoun creates an interpretive question.
Does it refer specifically to God?
Does it encompass God and the Lamb in the closely connected throne imagery?
Scholars disagree about the implications.
Therefore, the verse should not be presented as an uncontested proof that latreuō is directly addressed to Jesus.
But neither should the shared-throne context be ignored.
The passage is significant evidence of the Lamb's extraordinary heavenly status.
38. DOES THE NEW TESTAMENT COMMAND CHRISTIANS TO WORSHIP JESUS?
The answer depends partly upon what is meant by worship.
The New Testament clearly describes honour, reverence and praise directed toward Jesus.
It commands believers to honour the Son.
It describes angels paying homage to him.
It presents universal acknowledgement of his lordship.
It depicts the Lamb receiving heavenly praise.
But the New Testament also repeatedly directs worship toward God the Father.
Jesus teaches true worshippers to worship the Father.
He commands worship of the Lord God.
The apostles regularly give thanks to God through Jesus Christ.
Therefore, we must distinguish worship directed to the Father, honour directed to Jesus, and passages where Jesus participates in extraordinary heavenly praise.
A complete theology of Christian worship must explain all three.
39. DOES JESUS EVER TELL PEOPLE TO WORSHIP HIM AS ALMIGHTY GOD?
The Gospels do not record Jesus issuing a simple command in these exact words:
“WORSHIP ME BECAUSE I AM ALMIGHTY GOD.”
This observation is relevant.
But the absence of that exact statement does not establish that Jesus is not divine.
The Gospels often communicate identity through actions, titles, quotations and narrative structure.
The traditional interpretation argues that Jesus' claims and actions reveal divine identity indirectly.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation argues that Jesus consistently directs attention toward the Father as the one true God.
The question is which explanation best accounts for the complete evidence.
We must not substitute the absence of a particular phrase for detailed exegesis.
40. THE STRONGEST BIBLICAL UNITARIAN ARGUMENT
The strongest Biblical Unitarian argument begins with the original languages.
Proskyneō can mean homage.
The Hebrew Scriptures contain examples of people bowing before human rulers.
First Chronicles 29:20 describes homage directed toward Yahweh and the king.
Matthew 18:26 uses proskyneō for a servant bowing before his master.
Revelation 3:9 uses the same verb in relation to human believers.
Therefore, the presence of proskyneō does not automatically identify Jesus as Almighty God.
Jesus himself directs true worship toward the Father.
He commands worship of the Lord God.
The Father exalts Jesus and gives him authority.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation therefore understands the honour given to Jesus as honour toward God's supreme Messiah.
This is a substantial argument.
But it must explain Hebrews 1:6, Philippians 2 and Revelation 5 without reducing their extraordinary heavenly language to ordinary human respect.
41. THE STRONGEST TRINITARIAN ARGUMENT
The strongest Trinitarian argument does not depend merely upon the dictionary definition of proskyneō.
It is cumulative.
Jesus receives extraordinary honour after his resurrection.
God's angels are commanded to bow before him.
Every knee bows in connection with his name.
Isaiah's Yahweh-language is applied to him.
The Lamb receives universal heavenly praise alongside the one seated on the throne.
The throne is associated with God and the Lamb.
These passages go beyond ordinary acts of respect.
The traditional interpretation understands them as evidence that Jesus participates in divine honour.
But it must still explain why Jesus identifies the Father as the only true God and why the exalted Jesus calls the Father his God.
Those passages remain important.
42. THE STRONGEST NON-TRINITARIAN PREEXISTENCE ARGUMENT
A non-Trinitarian personal-preexistence interpretation can acknowledge that Jesus existed before his human birth.
It can also acknowledge his extraordinary heavenly status.
It understands the Son as receiving honour through God's appointment.
This approach explains many passages describing delegated authority.
But Revelation 5 creates a serious challenge.
If the Son is a created heavenly being, why does he receive universal heavenly praise alongside the Creator?
Why do angels refuse worship in Revelation while the Lamb receives extraordinary honour?
The interpretation must explain the distinction.
It cannot simply say that all honour is identical.
The scale, context and divine associations matter.
43. COMPARING THE KEY PASSAGES
| Passage | Action or language | Main interpretive issue |
|---|---|---|
| Genesis 23:7 | Abraham bows before people | Human respect |
| Genesis 33:3 | Jacob bows before Esau | Submission and reconciliation |
| 1 Chronicles 29:20 | Homage to Yahweh and the king | Same physical action, different recipients |
| Matthew 2:11 | Magi bow before Jesus | Royal homage or deeper worship |
| Matthew 18:26 | Servant bows before master | Clearly human homage |
| Matthew 14:33 | Disciples bow and confess Son of God | Messianic or divine identity |
| Matthew 28:9, 17 | Homage to risen Jesus | Resurrection and exaltation |
| John 4:23 | Worship of the Father | True worship |
| Revelation 3:9 | Bowing before believers | Human recipients of proskyneō |
| Hebrews 1:6 | Angels honour the Son | Heavenly homage or divine worship |
| Philippians 2:10–11 | Every knee bows | Isaiah 45 and divine identity |
| Revelation 5:13–14 | Universal praise to God and Lamb | Shared heavenly worship |
| Revelation 22:3 | Sacred service at God's and Lamb's throne | Referent of singular pronoun |
The table demonstrates why context is decisive.
The same physical action can have different meanings.
But some passages contain far more theological significance than others.
44. WHAT CAN WE ESTABLISH FROM THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGES?
FIRST: Proskyneō can mean worship, homage, reverence or bowing.
SECOND: The word does not automatically identify its recipient as Almighty God.
THIRD: The Hebrew Scriptures describe people bowing before human rulers.
FOURTH: The Septuagint frequently uses proskyneō for Hebrew bowing-language.
FIFTH: Matthew 18:26 clearly uses proskyneō for a human master.
SIXTH: Revelation 3:9 uses proskyneō in relation to human believers.
SEVENTH: Latreuō is especially associated with religious or sacred service.
EIGHTH: The meanings of proskyneō and latreuō must be determined contextually.
NINTH: Philippians 2:10–11 does not use proskyneō.
TENTH: Hebrews 1:6 describes heavenly beings honouring the Son.
ELEVENTH: Revelation 5 presents extraordinary praise directed to both God and the Lamb.
TWELFTH: The lexical meaning of proskyneō alone cannot settle the question of Jesus' divine identity.
45. OUR CURRENT ASSESSMENT — DID PEOPLE WORSHIP JESUS?
The answer is yes, if the word “worship” is used in its broad biblical sense of reverence, homage or adoration.
But the question requires qualification.
Some people bowed before Jesus as the promised king.
Others approached him as a healer and miracle-worker.
His disciples honoured him as the Son of God.
After his resurrection, he received extraordinary reverence.
In heavenly visions, the Lamb receives praise far beyond ordinary royal homage.
Therefore, it would be misleading to treat every instance of proskyneō as proof that Jesus was recognised as Almighty God.
It would also be misleading to treat every instance as nothing more than ordinary respect.
OUR PROVISIONAL CONCLUSION IS THAT THE GREEK WORD PROSKYNEŌ DOES NOT INDEPENDENTLY PROVE JESUS IS ALMIGHTY GOD.
HOWEVER, HEBREWS 1:6, PHILIPPIANS 2:10–11 AND REVELATION 5 PRESENT A STRONGER CUMULATIVE ARGUMENT FOR JESUS' PARTICIPATION IN EXTRAORDINARY HEAVENLY HONOUR.
Whether that honour establishes shared divine identity or uniquely delegated authority remains a major theological question.
The evidence must be examined without minimising either the Father's supremacy or the Son's exceptional exaltation.
46. THE NEXT QUESTION — DID THE EARLIEST CHRISTIANS PRAY TO JESUS?
Our next investigation will examine prayer.
Did the earliest Christians address prayers directly to Jesus?
Did they normally pray to the Father through Jesus?
What does it mean to call upon the name of the Lord?
Does Stephen's appeal to Jesus in Acts 7:59 constitute prayer?
What about Paul's appeal to the Lord in 2 Corinthians 12:8–9?
And how should we understand the early Christian expression:
“MARANATHA — OUR LORD, COME”?
These questions are important because prayer is closely associated with religious devotion.
They may help us distinguish between Jesus as the object of divine worship and Jesus as the exalted mediator through whom believers approach the Father.
END OF PART 20
Coming in Part 21: “DID THE EARLIEST CHRISTIANS PRAY TO JESUS?” — PRAYER, INVOCATION AND THE ONE GOD
We will examine Matthew 6:9, John 16:23, Acts 7:59–60, Acts 9:14, Romans 10:13, 1 Corinthians 1:2, 1 Corinthians 16:22, 2 Corinthians 12:8–9 and Revelation 22:20.
We will distinguish prayer directed to God, invocation of Jesus' name, requests addressed to the exalted Christ and the role of Jesus as mediator.
Our guiding principle remains unchanged:
We must follow the evidence rather than a predetermined doctrine.
We must distinguish grammatical facts from theological interpretations.
And we must compare every explanation with the complete biblical testimony.
The goal is not to prove what we already believe. The goal is to discover what the Bible actually teaches.
JOHN 1:1 — GOD'S WORD, OR THE BEGINNING OF JESUS' MINISTRY?
PART 21 — DID THE EARLIEST CHRISTIANS PRAY TO JESUS?
PRAYER, INVOCATION AND THE ONE GOD
By Simon Brown — Real Discoveries
https://wwwrealdiscoveriesorg-simon.blogspot.com
1. INTRODUCTION — TO WHOM DID THE FIRST CHRISTIANS PRAY?
Our investigation has established an important distinction.
The Greek word proskyneō, frequently translated “worship,” can describe either divine worship or homage to a human superior.
But prayer introduces another question.
DID THE FIRST CHRISTIANS ADDRESS PRAYERS DIRECTLY TO JESUS?
If they did, what does that tell us about their understanding of his identity?
Did they regard Jesus as Almighty God?
Or did they believe that the risen Messiah, now exalted to heaven, could hear and answer requests through authority received from the Father?
These questions are especially important for Biblical Unitarian theology.
Jesus explicitly instructed his disciples to pray to the Father.
Yet the New Testament also records appeals addressed directly to Jesus.
We must not deny either fact.
Our investigation will distinguish four practices:
Prayer addressed to God the Father.
Prayer offered to God through Jesus Christ.
Requests addressed directly to the risen Jesus.
Calling upon the name of the Lord Jesus.
The question is whether these practices establish Jesus' identity as Almighty God or demonstrate the extraordinary authority God granted His Son.
2. THE GREEK LANGUAGE OF PRAYER
The New Testament uses several Greek words associated with prayer and petition.
προσεύχομαι — proseuchomai
To pray.
This is the standard New Testament verb for prayer, especially prayer directed toward God.
δέομαι — deomai
To ask, plead or entreat.
It can be used in religious and ordinary contexts.
παρακαλέω — parakaleō
To appeal, urge, exhort or beseech.
It can describe a request made to another person or an appeal directed toward the Lord.
ἐπικαλέομαι — epikaleomai
To call upon, invoke or appeal to.
This word becomes particularly important in Acts 7:59 and passages describing Christians calling upon the name of Jesus.
These words overlap in meaning, but they are not interchangeable in every context.
The identity of the recipient matters.
So does the nature of the request.
PRELIMINARY FINDING: A request can be a prayer even when the ordinary Greek verb proseuchomai is not used.
3. MATTHEW 6:9 — JESUS TAUGHT PRAYER TO THE FATHER
Jesus instructed his disciples:
“Pray like this: ‘Our Father in heaven, may your name be kept holy.’” — Matthew 6:9, WEB
This is foundational.
Jesus explicitly directs prayer toward the Father.
He does not instruct the disciples to address him as the Almighty God.
He teaches them to pray to their heavenly Father.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands this as the normal pattern of Christian prayer.
The Trinitarian interpretation also accepts the Father as the proper recipient of prayer, while maintaining that prayer to the Son is legitimate because the Son shares divine nature.
But that additional claim is not stated in Matthew 6:9.
The explicit instruction is clear.
PRAY TO THE FATHER.
4. LUKE 11:2 — “FATHER”
Luke records a similar instruction.
When the disciples ask Jesus to teach them to pray, he begins:
“FATHER.”
The prayer then concerns God's name, kingdom, daily provision, forgiveness and deliverance.
Again, the recipient is the Father.
This is significant because the disciples specifically asked Jesus how to pray.
If the normal pattern was to address Jesus himself, this would have been an opportunity to explain that practice.
Instead, Jesus directs them to the Father.
However, the absence of an instruction to pray to Jesus does not automatically prove that no such practice later developed after his resurrection and exaltation.
That possibility must be tested from Acts and the Epistles.
5. JOHN 16:23 — ASK THE FATHER IN JESUS' NAME
Jesus declares:
“Whatever you may ask of the Father in my name, he will give it to you.” — John 16:23, WEB
The structure is important.
THE DISCIPLES ASK.
THE FATHER RECEIVES THE REQUEST.
THE REQUEST IS MADE IN JESUS' NAME.
THE FATHER GIVES THE ANSWER.
This is a clear example of prayer to the Father through the authority of Jesus.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation sees this as the primary New Testament pattern.
The Trinitarian interpretation agrees that prayer to the Father in Jesus' name is central.
But it also recognises direct invocation of Jesus in other passages.
The question is whether those other passages supplement this pattern or contradict it.
6. JOHN 16:26–27 — JESUS AND THE FATHER
Jesus tells his disciples that they will ask in his name.
He also emphasises that the Father Himself loves them.
This is important.
Jesus does not present the Father as unwilling to hear believers unless persuaded by the Son.
The Father directly loves the disciples.
The Son reveals the Father and provides access to Him.
Therefore, prayer in Jesus' name should not be understood as Jesus overcoming the Father's reluctance.
The passage emphasises the Father's love and the disciples' relationship with Him through Jesus.
7. JOHN 14:13–14 — “I WILL DO IT”
Jesus declares that he will do what is asked in his name so that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
John 14:14 contains an important textual variation.
Some manuscripts include the Greek pronoun:
με — me.
This produces the reading:
“IF YOU ASK ME ANYTHING IN MY NAME, I WILL DO IT.”
Other manuscripts omit “me.”
This matters.
If “me” is original, the verse explicitly describes requests addressed to Jesus.
Modern critical editions generally include the pronoun, although the manuscript variation remains relevant.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation must therefore take the stronger reading seriously.
But notice the purpose.
“THAT THE FATHER MAY BE GLORIFIED IN THE SON.”
Even when Jesus is understood as receiving the request, the Father's glory remains the ultimate purpose.
8. DOES JOHN 14:14 ESTABLISH PRAYER TO JESUS?
If the reading “ask me” is original, it provides strong evidence that Jesus expected his disciples to address requests to him.
This is important.
The verse should not be dismissed merely because Jesus elsewhere teaches prayer to the Father.
But the context concerns Jesus' continuing activity on behalf of his disciples.
The Son acts so that the Father is glorified.
Therefore, the verse establishes the legitimacy of addressing requests to Jesus under that reading.
It does not independently establish the complete doctrine of the Trinity.
Nor does it explicitly identify Jesus as the Father.
The recipient's identity and the theological explanation of his authority remain distinct questions.
9. ACTS 1:24–25 — WHO WAS ADDRESSED AS LORD?
Before selecting Matthias to replace Judas, the disciples pray:
“YOU, LORD, WHO KNOW THE HEARTS OF ALL MEN...”
They ask the Lord to reveal the chosen apostle.
But who is the Lord?
Some interpreters understand the prayer as addressed to God the Father.
Others understand it as addressed to the risen Jesus.
The latter interpretation draws support from Jesus' role in choosing apostles.
The former draws support from the traditional biblical identification of God as the one who knows human hearts.
The text does not explicitly name the recipient.
Therefore, Acts 1:24–25 should not be presented as an uncontested example of prayer to Jesus.
It is relevant but ambiguous.
10. ACTS 7:55–56 — STEPHEN SEES JESUS IN HEAVEN
Stephen is filled with the Holy Spirit.
He sees the glory of God.
He also sees Jesus standing at God's right hand.
This distinction is important.
GOD IS PRESENTED AS ONE FIGURE.
JESUS IS PRESENTED AT GOD'S RIGHT HAND.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands this as evidence that Jesus is distinct from the Almighty God who exalted him.
The Trinitarian interpretation likewise recognises the distinction between Father and Son.
But it understands Jesus' heavenly position as participation in divine authority.
The vision establishes the setting for Stephen's final appeal.
11. ACTS 7:59 — STEPHEN DIRECTLY ADDRESSES JESUS
As Stephen is being stoned, he calls out:
“LORD JESUS, RECEIVE MY SPIRIT.”
The Greek reads:
Κύριε Ἰησοῦ, δέξαι τὸ πνεῦμά μου.
Kyrie Iēsou, dexai to pneuma mou.
The recipient is unmistakable.
LORD JESUS.
Stephen is not merely speaking about Jesus.
He addresses Jesus directly.
He asks Jesus to receive his spirit.
This is one of the clearest examples of direct invocation of the risen Christ in the New Testament.
Any interpretation claiming that the earliest Christians never addressed Jesus must account for this passage.
12. THE GREEK WORD EPIKALEOMAI IN ACTS 7:59
Luke describes Stephen as:
ἐπικαλούμενον — epikaloumenon.
This comes from the verb epikaleomai.
It means calling upon or invoking.
The context makes the meaning clear.
Stephen calls upon Jesus and asks him to receive his spirit.
Some older English translations insert the word “God” after “calling upon.”
But the Greek text does not contain that additional noun.
The wording explicitly identifies Jesus as the one addressed.
This is not merely an inference.
It is the direct statement of the narrative.
FINDING: Acts 7:59 provides strong evidence of a prayer-like appeal addressed directly to Jesus.
13. DOES STEPHEN'S PRAYER PROVE JESUS IS ALMIGHTY GOD?
Not automatically.
The passage establishes that Stephen addresses Jesus in heaven.
It also establishes that Stephen believes Jesus can receive his spirit.
These are extraordinary claims.
But the passage has already distinguished Jesus from God by placing him at God's right hand.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands Stephen's appeal as directed toward God's exalted Messiah.
The Trinitarian interpretation understands the appeal as prayer to the divine Son.
Both interpretations acknowledge the direct address.
The disagreement concerns what the act implies about Jesus' nature.
We must distinguish:
THE FACT THAT STEPHEN PRAYED TO JESUS.
From:
THE CLAIM THAT THIS PROVES JESUS IS ALMIGHTY GOD.
The first is strongly supported.
The second requires a wider theological argument.
14. ACTS 7:60 — “LORD, DO NOT HOLD THIS SIN AGAINST THEM”
Stephen then asks:
“LORD, DO NOT HOLD THIS SIN AGAINST THEM.”
The recipient is not explicitly named in this second appeal.
But the preceding verse directly addresses Jesus.
Therefore, it is natural to understand the second appeal as continuing the address to Jesus.
This resembles Jesus' own prayer for his persecutors.
The passage presents Stephen imitating his Lord in suffering and forgiveness.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation may understand Jesus as exercising authority granted by God.
The traditional interpretation sees further evidence of prayer directed to Christ.
But the immediate context strongly supports the view that Stephen is addressing Jesus.
15. ACTS 9:14 — THOSE WHO CALL UPON JESUS' NAME
Ananias describes Saul's authority to arrest:
“ALL WHO CALL ON YOUR NAME.”
The recipient of Ananias' speech is the risen Jesus.
The expression therefore refers to Christians who call upon Jesus' name.
This is important.
It suggests that invocation of Jesus was not limited to Stephen's final moments.
It was associated with Christian identity.
But what exactly did calling upon Jesus' name involve?
It may include prayer, confession, appeal and public identification with Jesus.
The phrase should not be restricted to one practice without contextual evidence.
Nevertheless, it indicates that the name of Jesus held a central place in early Christian devotion.
16. ACTS 9:21 — CHRISTIANS IDENTIFIED BY INVOKING JESUS
The people in Damascus recognise Saul as the man who persecuted those calling upon Jesus' name.
This reinforces the significance of the expression.
Calling upon Jesus was sufficiently characteristic of Christians that opponents could identify them by it.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation must acknowledge this early practice.
The traditional interpretation sees it as evidence of religious devotion to Jesus.
But the expression does not independently specify every form that invocation took.
It could include public confession and appeal as well as direct prayer.
The evidence should be neither exaggerated nor minimised.
17. FIRST CORINTHIANS 1:2 — CHRISTIANS EVERYWHERE CALL UPON JESUS
Paul addresses the church together with:
“ALL WHO CALL ON THE NAME OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST.”
This is an especially important passage.
The expression is not limited to one individual.
It describes believers in different places.
Jesus' name is central to their shared religious identity.
The traditional interpretation sees this as evidence that invocation of Jesus was a widespread early Christian practice.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation may understand it as allegiance to God's exalted Messiah.
But the language is significant because it resembles Old Testament expressions concerning calling upon Yahweh's name.
That connection deserves closer examination.
18. THE OLD TESTAMENT — CALLING UPON YAHWEH
The Hebrew Scriptures repeatedly describe people calling upon the name of Yahweh.
Genesis 4:26 associates early worship with calling upon Yahweh's name.
Psalm 116:4 describes calling upon Yahweh for deliverance.
Joel 2:32 promises deliverance to those who call upon Yahweh's name.
This background is important.
Calling upon Yahweh was a recognised expression of religious devotion.
When New Testament writers use similar language in connection with Jesus, the theological implications become significant.
The traditional interpretation argues that Jesus is being included in the divine identity.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands Jesus as God's authorised representative through whom salvation is received.
Both explanations must account for the Old Testament background.
19. ROMANS 10:9 — CONFESSING JESUS AS LORD
Paul writes that salvation is associated with confessing Jesus as Lord and believing that God raised him from the dead.
Notice the distinction.
JESUS IS CONFESSED AS LORD.
GOD IS THE ONE WHO RAISED HIM.
This is a recurring New Testament pattern.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands Jesus' lordship as the authority granted to him by God.
The Trinitarian interpretation understands the confession as recognising Jesus' participation in divine lordship.
The immediate passage continues with a quotation from Joel.
That quotation is crucial.
20. ROMANS 10:13 — “WHOEVER CALLS ON THE NAME OF THE LORD”
Paul quotes Joel 2:32:
“WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED.”
In Joel, the Lord is Yahweh.
In Romans 10, Paul has been discussing confession of Jesus as Lord.
This creates a powerful connection.
The traditional interpretation argues that Paul applies Yahweh-language to Jesus.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands Jesus as the divinely appointed Lord through whom Yahweh grants salvation.
But the passage's use of Joel cannot simply be ignored.
The identity of the Lord in Paul's argument is central to its interpretation.
21. DOES ROMANS 10 IDENTIFY JESUS AS YAHWEH?
This is a major disputed question.
The immediate context strongly associates the confession of Jesus as Lord with calling upon the Lord for salvation.
Therefore, the traditional interpretation has substantial textual support.
But Paul also explicitly says that God raised Jesus from the dead.
He distinguishes God from Jesus.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation argues that Yahweh saves through His appointed Messiah.
That principle is consistent with biblical agency.
However, it must explain why Paul applies the language of calling upon Yahweh to the confession of Jesus.
The passage supports an exceptionally exalted understanding of Jesus' role in salvation.
Whether it establishes shared divine identity requires further argument.
22. FIRST CORINTHIANS 16:22 — MARANATHA
Paul uses the Aramaic expression:
Μαράνα θά — Marana tha.
It is commonly understood as:
“OUR LORD, COME!”
Another possible division produces:
“OUR LORD HAS COME.”
The first interpretation is widely favoured.
It fits the expectation of Christ's return.
It also corresponds closely with Revelation 22:20.
The significance is considerable.
Paul preserves an Aramaic expression within a Greek letter.
This suggests that the phrase was already familiar in early Christian usage.
It may reflect a prayer or liturgical acclamation directed toward the returning Lord Jesus.
23. WHY IS THE ARAMAIC IMPORTANT?
Paul wrote to a Greek-speaking Christian community.
Yet he preserved the Aramaic expression Maranatha.
This is important because Aramaic was associated with the earliest Palestinian Christian setting.
The preservation of the expression suggests that invocation of the Lord Jesus may have roots in very early Christian practice.
But we must be cautious.
The precise history of the formula cannot be reconstructed from one occurrence alone.
Nor can we prove exactly how every early Christian congregation used it.
Nevertheless, the expression is valuable historical evidence.
It supports the conclusion that devotion to Jesus was not merely a much later invention.
24. REVELATION 22:20 — “COME, LORD JESUS”
The closing chapter of Revelation contains the appeal:
“AMEN! COME, LORD JESUS.”
This is a direct address.
The recipient is explicitly Jesus.
The request concerns his return.
It closely resembles the commonly accepted meaning of Maranatha.
The passage therefore provides another clear example of a prayer-like invocation addressed to Jesus.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands it as a request directed toward God's appointed returning Messiah.
The Trinitarian interpretation understands it as prayer to the divine Son.
But the existence of the direct address is not reasonably disputed.
FINDING: Revelation 22:20 confirms that early Christian literature contains direct appeals to the risen Jesus.
25. SECOND CORINTHIANS 12:8 — PAUL APPEALED TO THE LORD
Paul describes a persistent affliction.
He says:
“CONCERNING THIS THING, I BEGGED THE LORD THREE TIMES THAT IT MIGHT DEPART FROM ME.”
The Greek verb is:
παρεκάλεσα — parekalesa.
It means that Paul appealed, pleaded or entreated.
The recipient is called the Lord.
But does Paul mean Jesus or God the Father?
The following verse provides important evidence.
26. SECOND CORINTHIANS 12:9 — “MY GRACE IS SUFFICIENT”
Paul reports the Lord's answer:
“MY GRACE IS SUFFICIENT FOR YOU.”
He then speaks of the power of Christ resting upon him.
This strongly supports identifying the Lord addressed in verse 8 as Jesus Christ.
Therefore, Paul appears to have appealed directly to the risen Jesus concerning his affliction.
The traditional interpretation understands this as prayer to Christ.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands it as a petition addressed to God's exalted Son.
But the passage should not be dismissed as an ordinary conversation between two people physically present together.
Paul describes communication with the heavenly Lord.
This is significant evidence of direct petition to Jesus.
27. DOES PAUL'S APPEAL ESTABLISH A NORMAL PRACTICE?
Second Corinthians 12 demonstrates that Paul could address a petition to the Lord Jesus.
But it does not independently establish that every prayer Paul offered was directed to Jesus.
In his letters, Paul frequently gives thanks to God.
He regularly identifies the Father as the recipient of prayer.
Therefore, the evidence suggests a pattern in which prayer to the Father remained central while direct appeals to Jesus also occurred.
The question is how these practices were understood together.
The New Testament does not present them as mutually exclusive.
28. FIRST THESSALONIANS 3:11–13 — GOD AND JESUS IN A PRAYER
Paul expresses a wish that God the Father and the Lord Jesus direct his way to the Thessalonians.
This is significant because both are named in a prayer-like expression.
The traditional interpretation sees Jesus included alongside the Father as an appropriate recipient of petition.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation may understand the expression as recognising the Father's work through His exalted Son.
But the wording does more than merely mention Jesus.
It associates the Father and the Lord Jesus with the desired divine guidance.
The passage therefore contributes to the cumulative evidence of Jesus' role in early Christian prayer.
29. SECOND THESSALONIANS 2:16–17 — THE SON AND FATHER NAMED TOGETHER
Paul refers to the Lord Jesus Christ and God the Father in a prayer for encouragement and strength.
The order is noteworthy.
Jesus is mentioned before the Father.
But order alone does not establish equality of divine nature.
The important observation is that both are included in the prayer's invocation of comfort and establishment.
The traditional interpretation sees this as evidence of shared divine action.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands Jesus as participating in the saving work of the Father.
Again, the question is whether participation in divine action establishes divine identity or delegated authority.
30. EPHESIANS 5:20 — THANKS TO THE FATHER IN JESUS' NAME
Paul instructs believers to give thanks:
“TO GOD THE FATHER IN THE NAME OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST.”
This provides an important balance.
The Father is the recipient of thanksgiving.
Jesus is the one through whose name thanksgiving is offered.
This is consistent with Jesus' instruction in John 16.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands it as the normal pattern of Christian prayer.
The Trinitarian interpretation also accepts this pattern while recognising additional direct invocations of Jesus.
Therefore, we should not assume that the existence of prayer to Jesus eliminates the central role of the Father.
Both practices appear in the New Testament.
31. COLOSSIANS 3:17 — THANKS TO GOD THROUGH JESUS
Paul writes that believers should do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.
The distinction is clear.
GOD THE FATHER RECEIVES THANKSGIVING.
JESUS CHRIST IS THE MEDIATOR.
This is particularly important for the Biblical Unitarian interpretation.
It identifies the Father as God and Jesus as the one through whom believers approach Him.
But the same Pauline writings also contain direct appeals to the Lord Jesus.
Therefore, the evidence does not support an absolute prohibition on addressing Jesus.
The question is how his mediatorial role relates to those direct appeals.
32. FIRST TIMOTHY 2:5 — ONE GOD AND ONE MEDIATOR
Paul declares:
“THERE IS ONE GOD, AND ONE MEDIATOR BETWEEN GOD AND MEN, THE MAN CHRIST JESUS.”
This is a foundational passage.
The one God is distinguished from the mediator.
Jesus is explicitly identified as a man.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands this as a clear distinction between God and His human Messiah.
The Trinitarian interpretation understands Jesus' mediation through his genuine humanity while affirming his divine nature.
But the verse itself does not formulate the doctrine of two natures.
It identifies one God and one mediator.
This provides an important framework for understanding prayer to the Father through Jesus.
33. HEBREWS 7:25 — JESUS INTERCEDES FOR BELIEVERS
Hebrews describes Jesus as able to save completely those who approach God through him.
He lives to make intercession for them.
The structure is significant.
BELIEVERS APPROACH GOD.
JESUS INTERCEDES FOR THEM.
This strongly supports Jesus' mediatorial role.
But intercession does not automatically exclude the possibility of direct appeals to the mediator.
A person may address a representative while also approaching the authority whom that representative serves.
Therefore, Hebrews 7:25 and Acts 7:59 are not necessarily contradictory.
They describe different aspects of the relationship between believers, Jesus and God.
34. ROMANS 8:34 — CHRIST INTERCEDES
Paul describes Christ Jesus as the one who died, was raised, is at God's right hand and intercedes for believers.
Again, the distinction is clear.
Jesus is at God's right hand.
He intercedes.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands this as evidence of his subordinate mediatorial role.
The traditional interpretation understands it as the incarnate Son's continuing work on behalf of believers.
But the passage does not identify Jesus as the Father.
It presents Jesus as the exalted mediator.
This is consistent with the wider New Testament pattern.
35. DID JESUS HEAR PRAYERS FROM HEAVEN?
Acts 7:59 presents Stephen addressing Jesus in heaven.
Second Corinthians 12 appears to present Paul appealing to the heavenly Lord.
Revelation 22:20 directly addresses Jesus concerning his return.
These passages imply that the risen Jesus can be addressed beyond ordinary physical communication.
That is an extraordinary status.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands this as authority granted by God.
The traditional interpretation understands it as consistent with Jesus' divine nature.
But the passages do not explicitly explain the mechanism by which Jesus hears such appeals.
They do not independently establish that Jesus possesses unlimited knowledge by nature.
Therefore, the fact of heavenly invocation should be distinguished from philosophical claims about omniscience.
36. DOES HEARING PRAYER REQUIRE OMNISCIENCE?
Not necessarily as a logical proposition.
A heavenly being could receive information or authority from God.
The biblical narrative frequently describes angels receiving and communicating divine messages.
Therefore, the ability to receive a particular appeal does not automatically establish unlimited knowledge.
But the scope of Jesus' role in the New Testament is extraordinary.
Christians in many places call upon his name.
He is associated with universal judgment.
He is presented as the exalted Lord of the church.
Therefore, the cumulative evidence goes beyond a single isolated request.
The traditional interpretation argues that this scope points toward divine attributes.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation must explain how such authority is exercised through God's exalted Messiah.
The issue cannot be settled merely by asserting that only Almighty God can hear prayers.
That claim requires its own biblical demonstration.
37. DOES THE NEW TESTAMENT EVER COMMAND PRAYER TO JESUS?
The New Testament clearly contains direct appeals to Jesus.
But it does not present a universally repeated prayer formula addressed to Jesus comparable to the Lord's Prayer addressed to the Father.
The distinction matters.
Jesus explicitly teaches prayer to the Father.
The apostles frequently pray to the Father.
Yet Stephen addresses Jesus.
Paul appears to appeal to Jesus.
The closing appeal of Revelation addresses Jesus.
Therefore, the evidence supports both a dominant Father-directed prayer pattern and genuine direct invocation of the risen Christ.
A claim that Christians must never address Jesus is difficult to reconcile with these passages.
But a claim that all Christian prayer must be directed to Jesus would also go beyond the evidence.
38. THE EARLIEST CHRISTIAN PATTERN
We can now identify a recurring pattern.
THE FATHER IS THE ONE GOD.
JESUS IS HIS EXALTED SON AND LORD.
BELIEVERS APPROACH THE FATHER THROUGH JESUS.
BELIEVERS ALSO CALL UPON JESUS' NAME.
SOME NEW TESTAMENT PASSAGES RECORD DIRECT REQUESTS ADDRESSED TO JESUS.
This pattern is important.
It does not fit the claim that Jesus was absent from early Christian devotion.
But neither does it erase the distinction between Jesus and the Father.
The earliest Christian writings preserve both.
The theological question is how they belong together.
39. COMPARISON OF THE MAJOR PASSAGES
| Passage | Recipient | Nature of communication | Strength of evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Matthew 6:9 | Father | Explicit prayer instruction | Very strong |
| Luke 11:2 | Father | Explicit prayer instruction | Very strong |
| John 16:23 | Father | Request in Jesus' name | Very strong |
| John 14:14 | Jesus, if “me” is original | Direct request | Strong, with textual variation |
| Acts 1:24–25 | Uncertain | Prayer to “Lord” | Ambiguous |
| Acts 7:59 | Jesus | Direct appeal for spirit | Very strong |
| Acts 9:14 | Jesus' name | Invocation identifying Christians | Strong |
| 1 Corinthians 1:2 | Jesus' name | Widespread invocation | Strong |
| Romans 10:13 | Lord, in context associated with Jesus | Calling for salvation | Strong, debated implications |
| 1 Corinthians 16:22 | Probably Jesus | Aramaic appeal for return | Strong |
| 2 Corinthians 12:8–9 | Probably Jesus | Repeated petition | Strong |
| Ephesians 5:20 | Father | Thanksgiving in Jesus' name | Very strong |
| Colossians 3:17 | Father | Thanksgiving through Jesus | Very strong |
| Revelation 22:20 | Jesus | Direct appeal for return | Very strong |
The table shows that the New Testament evidence is more complex than either an exclusive Father-only practice or an exclusively Jesus-directed practice.
40. WHAT IS THE STRONGEST BIBLICAL UNITARIAN ARGUMENT?
The strongest Biblical Unitarian argument is that Jesus himself teaches prayer to the Father.
John 17:3 identifies the Father as the only true God.
First Corinthians 8:6 identifies the one God as the Father.
First Timothy 2:5 distinguishes the one God from the mediator, Christ Jesus.
Ephesians 5:20 directs thanksgiving to the Father in Jesus' name.
Colossians 3:17 directs thanksgiving to the Father through Jesus.
Hebrews 7:25 describes believers approaching God through Christ.
These passages establish a consistent pattern.
The Father is the ultimate recipient of prayer.
Jesus is the mediator.
But a responsible Biblical Unitarian interpretation must acknowledge that Stephen directly addressed Jesus and that early Christians called upon his name.
Those passages cannot be removed from the evidence.
41. WHAT IS THE STRONGEST TRINITARIAN ARGUMENT?
The strongest Trinitarian argument is that Jesus receives forms of religious invocation associated with devotion to God.
Stephen calls upon Jesus.
Christians everywhere call upon Jesus' name.
Paul appears to petition Jesus directly.
The Aramaic Maranatha formula likely expresses an early appeal to Christ.
Revelation ends with a direct appeal to Jesus.
Romans 10 applies language from Joel concerning calling upon Yahweh to a context centred on Jesus' lordship.
These passages support a very high understanding of Jesus' status.
But they do not independently explain the metaphysical relationship between Father and Son.
The complete doctrine of the Trinity remains a theological synthesis.
42. WHAT IS THE STRONGEST NON-TRINITARIAN PREEXISTENCE ARGUMENT?
This interpretation accepts that Jesus is a heavenly person who can receive appeals.
It understands his authority as received from the Father.
It therefore explains direct invocation without identifying Jesus as the one Almighty God.
This is a coherent possibility.
But it must explain why language associated with calling upon Yahweh is applied to Jesus.
It must also explain the extraordinary scope of Christ's heavenly authority.
The interpretation cannot simply assert that Jesus is a subordinate heavenly being without demonstrating how the New Testament defines that status.
43. DOES PRAYER TO JESUS PROVE THAT HE IS ALMIGHTY GOD?
Not by itself.
The New Testament establishes that some early Christians addressed the risen Jesus directly.
That is a fact of considerable importance.
But the act of addressing a heavenly figure does not automatically determine that figure's metaphysical nature.
The traditional interpretation understands the practice as consistent with Jesus' deity.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands it as compatible with Jesus' exalted authority.
The decisive issue is whether the complete biblical evidence identifies Jesus as sharing the divine identity of the Father or as the supreme representative of the one God.
Prayer is one part of that evidence.
It is not the entire argument.
44. THIRTEEN FINDINGS FROM OUR INVESTIGATION
FIRST: Jesus explicitly instructed his disciples to pray to the Father.
SECOND: The New Testament repeatedly presents the Father as the recipient of thanksgiving and prayer.
THIRD: Jesus is described as the mediator through whom believers approach God.
FOURTH: The Greek language of prayer includes more than one verb.
FIFTH: Acts 7:59 clearly records Stephen addressing Jesus directly.
SIXTH: The word “God” inserted into some older English translations of Acts 7:59 is not present in the Greek.
SEVENTH: Calling upon Jesus' name was a characteristic of early Christian identity.
EIGHTH: Romans 10:13 applies language from Joel concerning calling upon Yahweh within a discussion of Jesus' lordship.
NINTH: Maranatha probably preserves an early appeal for the Lord Jesus to come.
TENTH: Second Corinthians 12:8–9 probably describes Paul appealing directly to Jesus.
ELEVENTH: Revelation 22:20 explicitly addresses the returning Jesus.
TWELFTH: Direct appeals to Jesus do not eliminate the central role of the Father in Christian prayer.
THIRTEENTH: The existence of prayer to Jesus does not, by itself, settle whether Jesus is Almighty God.
45. OUR PROVISIONAL CONCLUSION
Our investigation has established something important.
THE EARLIEST CHRISTIANS DID SOMETIMES ADDRESS THE RISEN JESUS DIRECTLY.
This conclusion is strongly supported by Acts 7:59 and Revelation 22:20.
It is further supported by 1 Corinthians 1:2, 1 Corinthians 16:22 and probably 2 Corinthians 12:8–9.
Therefore, it would be inaccurate to claim that the New Testament contains no examples of direct appeals to Jesus.
But it would be equally inaccurate to claim that these examples eliminate the Father as the principal recipient of Christian prayer.
Jesus explicitly taught his disciples to pray to the Father.
Paul repeatedly directs thanksgiving to God the Father through Jesus Christ.
The New Testament presents Jesus as the mediator between God and humanity.
The evidence therefore supports a pattern in which the Father remains central while the exalted Jesus also receives invocation and direct requests.
DOES THIS PROVE JESUS IS ALMIGHTY GOD?
Not automatically.
The practice demonstrates his extraordinary heavenly authority and central place in early Christian devotion.
Whether that authority is intrinsic to divine nature or received from the Father remains a further theological question.
The distinction must be maintained.
46. THE NEXT QUESTION — WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE CALLED “LORD”?
Our investigation has repeatedly encountered the title:
LORD.
Jesus is called Lord.
The Father is called Lord.
The Greek Old Testament frequently uses Kyrios for Yahweh.
The New Testament applies Kyrios to Jesus.
But the same word can also refer to human masters and rulers.
This creates an important question.
WHEN THE NEW TESTAMENT CALLS JESUS “LORD,” DOES IT IDENTIFY HIM AS YAHWEH, OR AS THE MESSIAH APPOINTED BY YAHWEH?
We must investigate the Hebrew and Greek evidence.
We must examine Psalm 110:1.
We must distinguish Adon, Adoni, Adonai and Kyrios.
We must examine Acts 2:36 and 1 Corinthians 8:6.
And we must investigate why New Testament writers sometimes apply Old Testament Yahweh-language to Jesus.
This may prove decisive for understanding the relationship between the Father and the Son.
END OF PART 21
Coming in Part 22: “IS JESUS CALLED YAHWEH?” — LORD, ADONI, ADONAI AND KYRIOS IN THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGES
We will examine Psalm 110:1, Matthew 22:41–46, Acts 2:34–36, Romans 10:9–13, 1 Corinthians 8:6, Philippians 2:9–11 and Hebrews 1.
We will distinguish the biblical title Lord from the divine name Yahweh and investigate how the New Testament applies Old Testament language to Jesus.
Our guiding principle remains unchanged:
We must follow the evidence rather than a predetermined doctrine.
We must distinguish grammatical facts from theological interpretations.
And we must compare every explanation with the complete biblical testimony.
The goal is not to prove what we already believe. The goal is to discover what the Bible actually teaches.
JOHN 1:1 — GOD'S WORD, OR THE BEGINNING OF JESUS' MINISTRY?
PART 22 — IS JESUS CALLED YAHWEH?
LORD, ADONI, ADONAI AND KYRIOS IN THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGES
By Simon Brown — Real Discoveries
https://wwwrealdiscoveriesorg-simon.blogspot.com
1. INTRODUCTION — DOES CALLING JESUS “LORD” MAKE HIM ALMIGHTY GOD?
Throughout the New Testament, Jesus is repeatedly called Lord.
The disciples address him as Lord.
The apostles proclaim him as Lord.
Paul declares that Jesus Christ is Lord.
Yet the Hebrew Scriptures identify Yahweh as the one God of Israel.
This creates an important question:
WHEN THE NEW TESTAMENT CALLS JESUS “LORD,” DOES IT IDENTIFY HIM AS YAHWEH HIMSELF, OR AS THE MESSIAH APPOINTED BY YAHWEH?
The answer cannot be determined simply by looking at the English word Lord.
We must examine the original Hebrew and Greek.
Four terms are especially important:
YHWH — יהוה
ADON — אָדוֹן
ADONI — אֲדֹנִי
ADONAI — אֲדֹנָי
And the Greek word:
KYRIOS — κύριος
These words overlap in translation, but they do not always carry the same meaning.
Our investigation will establish what the linguistic evidence demonstrates and where theological interpretation begins.
2. THE DIVINE NAME — YHWH
The Hebrew Scriptures identify Israel's God by the four consonants:
יהוה
Usually transliterated:
YHWH.
This is called the Tetragrammaton.
The name is conventionally represented in English as Yahweh.
The precise ancient pronunciation cannot be established with complete certainty, although Yahweh is widely accepted by scholars as a likely reconstruction.
The divine name appears thousands of times in the Hebrew Scriptures.
It identifies the God who delivered Israel from Egypt and entered into covenant with His people.
The name is not simply another ordinary title for a human ruler.
Therefore, a distinction must be maintained between the personal divine name YHWH and titles such as lord or master.
3. WHY DO ENGLISH BIBLES USE “LORD”?
Many English translations represent YHWH as:
LORD
Usually in capital letters.
This reflects a longstanding Jewish reading tradition.
When reading Scripture aloud, Jewish readers commonly substituted Adonai rather than pronouncing the divine name.
Greek translations frequently used Kyrios.
English translators often continued the convention.
This creates a potential difficulty.
An English reader may encounter the word Lord without recognising whether the underlying Hebrew contains YHWH or a different title.
Therefore, capitalisation and the original-language context matter.
But the situation becomes more complicated in the Greek New Testament.
There, Kyrios can refer to God, Jesus or an ordinary human master.
4. THE HEBREW WORD ADON
The Hebrew word is:
אָדוֹן — adon.
Its basic meaning is lord, master or owner.
It can describe a human superior.
It can also be used in reference to God.
Therefore, the word itself does not exclusively identify Almighty God.
The context determines the recipient.
This is important because some arguments incorrectly suggest that every form of adon refers either exclusively to God or exclusively to a human being.
The Hebrew evidence is more complex.
5. THE HEBREW WORD ADONI
The form is:
אֲדֹנִי — adoni.
It commonly means:
“MY LORD.”
The form consists of adon with a first-person singular suffix.
It is frequently used when addressing a human superior.
For example, servants may address masters.
Subjects may address kings.
Individuals may address respected persons.
This provides an important background for Psalm 110:1.
But we must avoid exaggeration.
The form's usual human reference does not, by itself, establish an absolute rule concerning every possible theological application.
The identity of the recipient must still be determined from context.
6. THE HEBREW WORD ADONAI
The traditional Masoretic vocalisation is:
אֲדֹנָי — Adonai.
This form is commonly used as a reverential designation for God.
In the Masoretic reading tradition, the distinction between adoni and Adonai is reflected in the vowels.
The difference is meaningful.
But there is an important historical qualification.
The original consonantal Hebrew texts did not contain the later Masoretic vowel-pointing system.
The vocalisation preserves a longstanding reading tradition, but the written vowels were added centuries after the composition of the biblical texts.
Therefore, we must not pretend that the Masoretic vowel marks were written by the original author of Psalm 110.
They are important textual evidence, but their historical status must be accurately understood.
7. COMPARING THE HEBREW TERMS
| Hebrew | Transliteration | Usual significance |
|---|---|---|
| יהוה | YHWH | Personal divine name |
| אָדוֹן | Adon | Lord or master; human or divine depending on context |
| אֲדֹנִי | Adoni | My lord; commonly a human superior |
| אֲדֹנָי | Adonai | Reverential title for God in the Masoretic tradition |
The distinction between adoni and Adonai is especially relevant to Psalm 110.
But the forms should not be turned into a simplistic rule that automatically settles every question of Christology.
8. PSALM 110:1 — THE CENTRAL TEXT
Psalm 110:1 reads:
“YAHWEH SAYS TO MY LORD: SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND...”
The Hebrew begins:
נְאֻם יְהוָה לַאדֹנִי
Ne'um YHWH la'adoni.
The first figure is Yahweh.
The second is described as:
MY LORD.
The Masoretic vocalisation reads la'adoni.
This distinction is important.
The verse presents Yahweh addressing another figure.
The second figure is invited to sit at Yahweh's right hand.
Therefore, the text distinguishes the speaker from the one being addressed.
The question is the identity and status of that second figure.
9. DOES PSALM 110:1 DESCRIBE TWO YAHWEHS?
The verse does not explicitly say so.
It presents Yahweh speaking to David's lord.
The second figure is distinguished from Yahweh.
This is a substantial argument for the Biblical Unitarian interpretation.
But Trinitarian theology does not claim that the Father and Son are the same person.
Therefore, the presence of two distinguishable figures does not independently refute the Trinity.
The disagreement concerns whether the second figure shares divine identity or is Yahweh's appointed Messiah.
Psalm 110:1 alone does not explicitly define the second figure's divine nature.
It establishes distinction and exaltation.
10. WHY IS ADONI IMPORTANT?
The Masoretic reading adoni naturally fits the description of an exalted royal figure.
The Psalm concerns enthronement, enemies, priesthood and victory.
These are royal and messianic themes.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands David's lord as the Messiah appointed by Yahweh.
This interpretation is strongly supported by the New Testament's application of the Psalm to Jesus.
But the claim that adoni can never have any association with divine status is stronger than the linguistic evidence alone permits.
The underlying noun adon can be used of God.
Moreover, later Christian writers apply additional Yahweh-language to Jesus.
Therefore, Psalm 110 should be treated as important evidence for distinction between Yahweh and the Messiah, not as a single-word solution to the entire debate.
11. THE MASORETIC VOWELS — AN IMPORTANT CAUTION
The Hebrew consonants of the second title in Psalm 110:1 are compatible with more than one theoretical vocalisation.
The Masoretic tradition reads:
לַאדֹנִי — la'adoni.
That is significant.
But the original unpointed consonants do not independently preserve the later vowel distinction.
The context supports a royal interpretation.
The New Testament also identifies the second figure with Jesus.
Therefore, the Masoretic vocalisation and the literary context point in a consistent direction.
Nevertheless, we should not claim that the consonants alone prove the word must have been pronounced adoni by the original author.
Scholarly precision requires acknowledging the distinction between consonantal text and later vocalisation.
12. PSALM 110 — A ROYAL ENTHRONEMENT PSALM
Psalm 110 describes a figure receiving extraordinary authority.
He sits at Yahweh's right hand.
His enemies are placed beneath his feet.
He rules in the midst of opposition.
He is associated with priesthood according to the order of Melchizedek.
This is not an ordinary description of a minor ruler.
The figure receives exceptional status.
But the authority comes from Yahweh.
Yahweh speaks.
Yahweh grants the position.
Yahweh promises victory.
This pattern is important.
THE MESSIAH'S AUTHORITY IS PRESENTED AS RECEIVED FROM YAHWEH.
The question is whether such authority implies divine identity or supreme messianic appointment.
13. WHAT DOES “SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND” MEAN?
The right hand is a symbol of honour, power and authority.
Sitting at a ruler's right hand indicates an exalted position.
But the expression does not automatically identify the honoured figure as the ruler himself.
In Psalm 110, the second figure sits at Yahweh's right hand.
This demonstrates exceptional status.
It also preserves a distinction.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands the image as delegated messianic kingship.
The Trinitarian interpretation understands it as the exaltation of the incarnate Son, who shares divine identity.
The image itself does not explicitly explain the metaphysical nature of the enthroned figure.
14. MATTHEW 22:41–46 — JESUS QUOTES PSALM 110
Jesus asks the Pharisees whose son the Messiah is.
They answer:
DAVID'S SON.
Jesus then asks why David calls him Lord.
He quotes Psalm 110:1.
The point is significant.
The Messiah is more than merely David's ordinary descendant.
David himself calls him Lord.
But does Jesus say:
“Therefore the Messiah is Yahweh”?
No.
That conclusion is not explicitly stated.
The passage establishes the Messiah's extraordinary superiority to David.
The traditional interpretation sees this as pointing toward the Messiah's divine identity.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands it as evidence of the Messiah's God-given exaltation.
Both must explain why David's descendant is also David's lord.
15. MARK 12:35–37 — DAVID'S LORD
Mark preserves the same essential argument.
Jesus asks how the Messiah can be David's son when David calls him Lord.
The passage challenges an inadequate understanding of messianic identity.
It does not deny that the Messiah is David's descendant.
Other New Testament passages explicitly affirm Jesus' Davidic descent.
Instead, the argument shows that the Messiah's authority exceeds ordinary hereditary kingship.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands this through God's exaltation of Jesus.
The traditional interpretation understands it through the Messiah's greater personal identity.
The text itself leaves the full explanation unstated.
16. THE SEPTUAGINT — TWO USES OF KYRIOS
The Greek version of Psalm 110:1, numbered Psalm 109:1 in the Septuagint, reads:
Εἶπεν ὁ κύριος τῷ κυρίῳ μου
Eipen ho kyrios tō kyriō mou.
“The Lord said to my Lord.”
The same Greek noun appears twice.
This is important.
The Hebrew distinguishes YHWH from adoni.
The Greek renders both using forms of kyrios.
Therefore, the Greek word kyrios does not independently preserve the distinction visible in the Hebrew.
An English reader may see two occurrences of Lord.
A Greek reader likewise encounters the same basic noun.
The identity of each referent must be determined contextually.
17. DOES KYRIOS MEAN YAHWEH?
Sometimes.
But not always.
The Greek word is:
κύριος — kyrios.
It can mean:
Lord.
Master.
Owner.
Ruler.
A respectful form of address.
The Lord God, particularly in Greek biblical usage.
The Septuagint frequently uses kyrios to represent YHWH.
But the word also refers to human masters and rulers.
Therefore, calling Jesus Kyrios does not automatically establish that he is Yahweh.
The question is how the title functions in each passage.
18. MATTHEW 7:21 — “LORD, LORD”
Jesus says that not everyone who calls him “Lord, Lord” will enter the kingdom.
The Greek uses:
Κύριε κύριε — Kyrie kyrie.
The expression recognises Jesus' authority.
But Jesus immediately emphasises doing the will of his Father in heaven.
This is important.
Jesus distinguishes himself from the Father.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands the title Lord as messianic authority.
The traditional interpretation understands it as compatible with Jesus' divine identity.
The word itself does not settle the question.
19. JOHN 13:13 — JESUS ACCEPTS THE TITLE LORD
Jesus tells his disciples that they rightly call him Teacher and Lord.
He accepts both titles.
But the context concerns his role as teacher and master.
He then washes the disciples' feet.
The lesson is humility and service.
The title Kyrios here does not independently establish divine identity.
It clearly expresses authority.
But authority and divine nature are not identical concepts.
20. ACTS 2:34–36 — PETER'S INTERPRETATION OF PSALM 110
Peter quotes Psalm 110:1.
He then declares:
“GOD HAS MADE HIM BOTH LORD AND CHRIST, THIS JESUS WHOM YOU CRUCIFIED.”
This is one of the strongest passages supporting delegated messianic lordship.
God acts.
Jesus receives exalted status.
The title Lord is explicitly connected with God's action.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands this as evidence that Jesus' lordship is granted by the Father.
The traditional interpretation understands it as the enthronement of the incarnate Son in his messianic office.
Under that explanation, God does not create the Son's eternal divine nature by exalting him.
But Acts 2:36 itself speaks of appointment and exaltation.
It does not explicitly formulate eternal divine equality.
21. DOES “GOD MADE JESUS LORD” MEAN HE WAS NOT LORD BEFORE?
Not necessarily.
The verb can describe appointment to a particular status or office.
A person may possess one kind of authority and later receive a further office.
Therefore, Acts 2:36 does not independently prove that Jesus had no previous existence or authority.
But it does explicitly associate his messianic lordship with God's action.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation is correct to emphasise this distinction.
The traditional interpretation must explain why the Son receives lordship without suggesting that his divine identity was created.
The passage concerns the exalted Messiah.
22. FIRST CORINTHIANS 8:6 — ONE GOD AND ONE LORD
Paul writes:
“ONE GOD, THE FATHER.”
And:
“ONE LORD, JESUS CHRIST.”
This is one of the most important texts in the entire investigation.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation emphasises that the one God is explicitly identified as the Father.
Jesus is distinguished as the one Lord.
The traditional interpretation argues that Paul is reformulating Israel's confession of the one God.
Under this reading, the titles God and Lord correspond to the language of the Shema.
The question is whether Paul is including Jesus within the one divine identity or distinguishing God from His exalted Messiah.
The verse must be read in its Jewish monotheistic context.
23. DEUTERONOMY 6:4 — THE SHEMA
The Hebrew confession reads:
שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ יְהוָה אֶחָד
Shema Yisrael, YHWH Eloheinu, YHWH echad.
Commonly translated:
“HEAR, ISRAEL: YAHWEH OUR GOD, YAHWEH IS ONE.”
This is the foundational confession of Israel's monotheism.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands the one God as the Father.
The traditional interpretation argues that the New Testament reveals the Son within the identity of the one God without multiplying gods.
The Shema itself does not explicitly describe three persons.
But the debate concerns whether the New Testament reinterprets the divine identity in light of Jesus.
This question requires examination of Paul's use of Lord.
24. DID PAUL SPLIT THE SHEMA BETWEEN FATHER AND SON?
Some scholars argue that 1 Corinthians 8:6 deliberately echoes Deuteronomy 6:4.
The argument is that Paul identifies:
ONE GOD — THE FATHER.
ONE LORD — JESUS CHRIST.
Since Kyrios represents YHWH in the Greek Scriptures, Jesus is understood as participating in the divine identity.
This is a serious argument.
It should not be dismissed as a later invention.
But there is also an important objection.
Paul explicitly identifies the one God as the Father.
He distinguishes Jesus as Lord.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation argues that the passage preserves the distinction between God and His Messiah.
The traditional interpretation argues that the distinction is personal rather than ontological.
The verse does not explicitly explain the later categories of person and essence.
Therefore, the debate remains one of contextual interpretation.
25. ROMANS 10:9 — CONFESS JESUS AS LORD
Paul associates salvation with confessing Jesus as Lord and believing that God raised him from the dead.
The distinction is clear.
JESUS IS LORD.
GOD RAISED JESUS.
This is consistent with Acts 2:36.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands the title Lord as recognition of the exalted Messiah.
The traditional interpretation sees a confession of divine lordship.
The immediate wording does not independently settle the nature of Jesus' lordship.
But the following verses introduce an important Old Testament quotation.
26. ROMANS 10:13 — JOEL'S YAHWEH TEXT APPLIED TO JESUS?
Paul quotes:
“WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED.”
The source is Joel 2:32.
In Joel, the Hebrew text names YHWH.
The Greek uses Kyrios.
But Romans 10 has been discussing Jesus as Lord.
This is one of the strongest passages supporting the application of Yahweh-language to Jesus.
The traditional interpretation argues that Paul identifies Jesus with the Lord of Joel's prophecy.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands salvation as coming from Yahweh through His appointed Messiah.
Both interpretations recognise that Paul is connecting Jesus with the saving promise of Joel.
The disagreement concerns the theological significance of that connection.
27. DOES ROMANS 10:13 DIRECTLY IDENTIFY JESUS AS YAHWEH?
The immediate context strongly supports understanding Jesus as the Lord whom believers call upon.
Romans 10:9 names Jesus as Lord.
Romans 10:12 speaks of the same Lord being rich toward all who call upon him.
Romans 10:13 then quotes Joel's promise.
This is a powerful contextual sequence.
Therefore, it is difficult to argue that Jesus has no connection with the Lord named in the quotation.
But the question remains whether applying a Yahweh passage to Jesus establishes identity of divine being or supreme representative agency.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation must explain why Paul uses Yahweh's saving-language in connection with Jesus.
The traditional interpretation must explain how this relates to Paul's repeated identification of the Father as God.
Neither question should be avoided.
28. WAS THE DIVINE NAME REMOVED FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT?
Some have proposed that the original New Testament manuscripts contained the Tetragrammaton in quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures.
Under this theory, later scribes replaced the divine name with Kyrios.
This proposal has been associated particularly with George Howard.
But no surviving Greek New Testament manuscript provides direct evidence that the original text of Romans 10:13 contained the Hebrew divine name.
Some ancient Greek Old Testament manuscripts did preserve the Tetragrammaton.
That is an important historical fact.
However, it does not establish that New Testament authors originally wrote the divine name in their quotations.
Therefore, the claim that later scribes systematically removed YHWH from the New Testament remains unproven.
We must distinguish a historical hypothesis from manuscript evidence.
29. PHILIPPIANS 2:9–11 — JESUS RECEIVES THE NAME
Paul says that God highly exalted Jesus and gave him the name above every name.
Every knee bows in connection with Jesus' name.
Every tongue confesses Jesus Christ as Lord.
The result is:
“TO THE GLORY OF GOD THE FATHER.”
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation emphasises that God gives Jesus the name and authority.
The traditional interpretation emphasises the extraordinary divine associations of the name and universal confession.
The passage contains both.
The source of exaltation is God.
The recipient is Jesus.
The scope is universal.
The ultimate glory is directed toward the Father.
30. ISAIAH 45:23 — THE SOURCE OF PAUL'S LANGUAGE
Isaiah 45 presents Yahweh declaring His unique deity.
Every knee will bow.
Every tongue will swear allegiance.
Paul uses closely related language in Philippians 2.
This is one of the strongest arguments for an exceptionally high Christology.
The traditional interpretation understands Jesus as included in the divine honour due to Yahweh.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands the universal acknowledgement of Jesus as honouring Yahweh's appointed Messiah.
But the Isaiah background is not ordinary royal language.
It belongs to a declaration of Yahweh's unique divine status.
Therefore, the passage carries substantial weight in evaluating Jesus' identity.
31. DOES RECEIVING THE NAME MEAN RECEIVING THE DIVINE NAME?
This is debated.
Some interpreters understand the name above every name as the divine title Lord, associated with Yahweh.
Others understand it as the exalted status and authority of Jesus.
The passage explicitly identifies the confession:
“JESUS CHRIST IS LORD.”
But it does not spell out the Tetragrammaton.
Therefore, identifying the bestowed name specifically with YHWH is a theological interpretation supported by the Isaiah background, not a direct quotation of the divine name.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation emphasises that the name is given.
The traditional interpretation argues that the giving concerns the incarnate Son's exaltation and public acknowledgement.
Both must explain the relationship between received authority and divine identity.
32. HEBREWS 1 — THE SON AND YAHWEH'S CREATIVE WORKS
Hebrews 1 applies extraordinary language to the Son.
The Son is superior to angels.
He is associated with creation.
He receives heavenly homage.
He is addressed using exalted royal and divine language.
Hebrews 1:10–12 quotes Psalm 102, which originally concerns Yahweh's creative work.
This is significant.
The traditional interpretation understands the quotation as applying Yahweh's creative identity to the Son.
Biblical Unitarian alternatives include interpretations involving agency or a different understanding of the quotation's referent.
But the structure of Hebrews 1 must be carefully examined.
The passage is one of the strongest challenges to explanations that treat Jesus' lordship as merely ordinary human authority.
33. HEBREWS 1:10 — “YOU, LORD, LAID THE FOUNDATION”
The quotation begins:
“YOU, LORD, IN THE BEGINNING LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH.”
The original Psalm addresses Yahweh.
Hebrews places the quotation within a sequence describing the Son's superiority.
The traditional interpretation understands this as a direct application to the Son.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation must explain whether the author is addressing the Son, describing God's creative work, or employing another literary arrangement.
The natural structure of Hebrews 1 favours the Son as the addressee.
Therefore, this passage deserves serious weight.
It cannot be dismissed merely because the original Psalm concerned Yahweh.
The New Testament author's use of the quotation is precisely the issue under investigation.
34. JOHN 12:41 — ISAIAH SAW WHOSE GLORY?
John describes Isaiah as having seen glory and spoken about Jesus.
The surrounding context quotes Isaiah 6 and Isaiah 53.
Isaiah 6 contains a vision of Yahweh enthroned.
This creates a significant interpretive question.
Does John identify Jesus with the glory of Yahweh seen by Isaiah?
Or does he understand Isaiah's prophetic vision as ultimately concerning the Messiah?
The traditional interpretation sees evidence of Jesus' participation in divine identity.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands the prophecy as revealing God's glory through His appointed Son.
Both must explain the relationship between Isaiah's original vision and John's application.
The passage is an important example of why the debate extends beyond the title Lord alone.
35. JOHN 20:28 — “MY LORD AND MY GOD”
Thomas addresses Jesus:
“MY LORD AND MY GOD.”
The Greek reads:
ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου
Ho kyrios mou kai ho theos mou.
This is a particularly strong Christological statement.
The narrative says that Thomas answered Jesus.
The natural reading is that Thomas addresses Jesus with both titles.
Our earlier Real Discoveries research examined historical alternatives, including Theodore of Mopsuestia and the controversy surrounding the Second Council of Constantinople in AD 553.
But the immediate narrative and grammar must be given their proper weight.
The two-person interpretation, in which Thomas addresses Jesus as Lord and the Father as God, faces a significant difficulty because the text presents Thomas speaking to Jesus.
Therefore, it is a minority reading requiring substantial justification.
The passage strongly supports the application of divine terminology to Jesus.
But it does not independently formulate the complete doctrine of the Trinity.
36. JOHN 20:17 — JESUS CALLS THE FATHER HIS GOD
Earlier in the same chapter, Jesus declares:
“MY GOD AND YOUR GOD.”
This must be considered alongside Thomas' confession.
The risen Jesus acknowledges the Father as his God.
Thomas then addresses Jesus as his Lord and God.
A complete interpretation must explain both.
The traditional interpretation understands Jesus as the incarnate Son who shares divine nature while relating to the Father as his God.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands the Father as the one Almighty God and seeks another explanation for Thomas' language.
But neither statement should be ignored.
The Gospel preserves both.
37. REVELATION 3:12 — THE EXALTED JESUS STILL HAS A GOD
The exalted Christ repeatedly uses the expression:
“MY GOD.”
This is important.
Jesus' acknowledgement of the Father as his God continues after his resurrection and exaltation.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands this as strong evidence that the Father remains supreme over the Son.
The traditional interpretation understands it through the enduring relationship between Father and Son.
But the passage does not explicitly explain the doctrine of one divine essence.
It directly presents the exalted Jesus referring to God as his God.
This must remain central to the investigation.
38. DOES THE NEW TESTAMENT EVER CALL JESUS YHWH DIRECTLY?
The surviving Greek New Testament does not normally write the Hebrew Tetragrammaton as Jesus' name.
Instead, it uses titles such as:
KYRIOS — LORD.
THEOS — GOD.
CHRISTOS — CHRIST.
HUIOS TOU THEOU — SON OF GOD.
The strongest arguments for identifying Jesus with Yahweh do not depend upon finding the four Hebrew consonants attached to Jesus.
They depend upon the application of Old Testament Yahweh passages to him.
Examples include Romans 10:13, Philippians 2:10–11 and Hebrews 1:10–12.
Therefore, the question is not simply whether the New Testament writes YHWH beside Jesus' name.
The deeper question is how the authors use Scripture to describe his identity.
39. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN IDENTITY AND REPRESENTATION
This distinction is essential.
A person may act on behalf of another.
An ambassador may speak with the authority of a king.
A prophet may proclaim God's words.
An angel may deliver a divine message.
These examples demonstrate the principle of representation.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation applies this principle to Jesus.
He is God's supreme authorised representative.
But the New Testament's application of Yahweh-language to Jesus may go beyond ordinary agency.
The traditional interpretation argues that the cumulative evidence includes Jesus within the divine identity.
Therefore, the agency explanation must be demonstrated from context.
It cannot simply be assumed whenever a passage presents Jesus with divine honours.
Likewise, the divine-identity interpretation must explain the Father's continuing supremacy.
40. THE STRONGEST BIBLICAL UNITARIAN ARGUMENT
The strongest Biblical Unitarian argument is cumulative.
Psalm 110:1 distinguishes Yahweh from David's lord.
The Masoretic reading identifies the second figure as adoni.
Jesus applies the Psalm to the Messiah.
Peter declares that God made Jesus Lord and Christ.
Paul identifies the one God as the Father.
Jesus calls the Father the only true God.
The risen Jesus refers to the Father as his God.
The exalted Christ continues to use the expression “my God.”
These statements establish a strong biblical pattern.
THE FATHER IS GOD.
JESUS IS HIS EXALTED SON AND LORD.
But the Biblical Unitarian interpretation must explain the New Testament's application of Yahweh-language to Jesus.
Romans 10, Philippians 2 and Hebrews 1 are particularly important.
41. THE STRONGEST TRINITARIAN ARGUMENT
The strongest Trinitarian argument is not simply that Jesus is called Kyrios.
That would be insufficient.
The stronger argument is that New Testament writers apply Old Testament Yahweh-language to Jesus.
Paul applies Joel's saving invocation to a context centred on Jesus.
Philippians uses Isaiah's universal bowing-language in relation to Jesus.
Hebrews applies Psalm 102's creation-language to the Son.
John associates Jesus with Isaiah's vision of divine glory.
Thomas addresses Jesus as Lord and God.
These passages support an exceptionally high understanding of Jesus' identity.
But the traditional interpretation must explain why the Father is repeatedly identified as Jesus' God.
The complete doctrine of the Trinity remains a synthesis of the biblical evidence, not a single statement found in Psalm 110.
42. THE STRONGEST NON-TRINITARIAN PREEXISTENCE ARGUMENT
A non-Trinitarian personal-preexistence interpretation can acknowledge that Jesus existed before his human birth.
It can also acknowledge that God created through him.
It understands Jesus' lordship as received from the Father.
This explains Psalm 110 and Acts 2:36 directly.
But it must explain why passages concerning Yahweh are applied to Jesus.
It must also explain Hebrews 1's extraordinary creation-language.
Therefore, the interpretation cannot simply rely on the distinction between adoni and Adonai.
That distinction is relevant but not sufficient.
A complete account of the Son's identity is still required.
43. COMPARING THE KEY PASSAGES
| Passage | Explicit statement | Main theological question |
|---|---|---|
| Psalm 110:1 | Yahweh speaks to David's lord | Distinction and messianic status |
| Matthew 22:41–46 | Messiah is David's son and lord | Why is Messiah greater than David? |
| Acts 2:36 | God made Jesus Lord and Christ | Delegated or eternal lordship? |
| 1 Corinthians 8:6 | One God Father; one Lord Jesus | Distinction or inclusion in the Shema? |
| Romans 10:13 | Joel's Yahweh-language in Jesus-centred context | Divine identity or saving agency? |
| Philippians 2:9–11 | God exalts Jesus; every knee bows | Participation in Yahweh's honour? |
| Hebrews 1:10–12 | Psalm 102 creation-language applied in the Son's context | Creator identity or agency? |
| John 12:41 | Isaiah's glory associated with Jesus | Divine identity or prophetic fulfilment? |
| John 20:28 | Thomas addresses Jesus as Lord and God | Nature of divine terminology |
| Revelation 3:12 | Exalted Jesus says “my God” | Father's continuing supremacy |
The table demonstrates why no single occurrence of Lord can settle the debate.
The complete biblical context is decisive.
44. FIFTEEN FINDINGS FROM OUR INVESTIGATION
FIRST: YHWH is the personal divine name in the Hebrew Scriptures.
SECOND: Adon can refer to human or divine authority.
THIRD: Adoni commonly means “my lord” and frequently refers to human superiors.
FOURTH: Adonai is used as a reverential designation for God in the Masoretic tradition.
FIFTH: The Masoretic vowel marks were added after the original composition of the Hebrew Scriptures.
SIXTH: Psalm 110:1 distinguishes Yahweh from David's lord.
SEVENTH: The second figure receives an exalted position at Yahweh's right hand.
EIGHTH: The Greek Kyrios can refer to Yahweh, Jesus or human masters.
NINTH: The Septuagint uses Kyrios for both figures in Psalm 110:1.
TENTH: Acts 2:36 explicitly connects Jesus' messianic lordship with God's action.
ELEVENTH: First Corinthians 8:6 identifies the one God as the Father and the one Lord as Jesus Christ.
TWELFTH: Romans 10:13 strongly associates Jesus' lordship with Joel's Yahweh-language.
THIRTEENTH: Philippians 2 applies Isaiah's universal bowing-language to Jesus.
FOURTEENTH: Hebrews 1 applies extraordinary creation-language to the Son.
FIFTEENTH: The title Lord alone does not prove Jesus is Yahweh, but the cumulative application of Yahweh-language to Jesus requires serious theological explanation.
45. OUR PROVISIONAL CONCLUSION
Our investigation has established an important distinction.
CALLING JESUS “LORD” DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY IDENTIFY HIM AS YAHWEH.
The Greek word Kyrios has a broad range of meanings.
It can refer to God.
It can also refer to human masters and rulers.
Psalm 110:1 distinguishes Yahweh from David's lord.
Acts 2:36 explicitly describes God making Jesus Lord and Christ.
These passages provide substantial evidence for the Messiah's received authority.
But the investigation cannot end there.
Romans 10:13, Philippians 2:10–11 and Hebrews 1:10–12 apply language associated with Yahweh to Jesus.
This is considerably stronger evidence than the mere occurrence of the title Lord.
The traditional interpretation understands these passages as identifying Jesus within the one divine identity.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands them through God's appointment and supreme agency of His Messiah.
The decisive question is whether the New Testament's use of Yahweh-language can be adequately explained through representation, or whether it establishes that the Son shares the divine identity of the Father.
OUR PROVISIONAL CONCLUSION IS THAT PSALM 110:1 STRONGLY DISTINGUISHES YAHWEH FROM HIS EXALTED MESSIAH, BUT IT DOES NOT BY ITSELF RESOLVE THE NEW TESTAMENT'S APPLICATION OF YAHWEH-LANGUAGE TO JESUS.
Both sets of evidence must be explained.
46. THE NEXT QUESTION — DID JESUS PERSONALLY EXIST BEFORE HIS BIRTH?
We have now examined the Word, creation, divine sonship, worship, prayer and the title Lord.
But one major question remains unresolved.
DID JESUS PERSONALLY EXIST BEFORE HIS HUMAN BIRTH?
This question must now be examined directly.
We must bring together the strongest evidence on both sides.
John 1:1–14.
John 6:38 and 6:62.
John 8:58.
John 17:5.
Philippians 2:6–8.
Colossians 1:15–17.
Hebrews 1:1–12.
Luke 1:35.
Matthew 1:18–23.
Galatians 4:4.
First Peter 1:20.
We must distinguish literal personal preexistence from divine foreknowledge, prophetic anticipation, personification and God's creative Word.
And we must determine whether the Biblical Unitarian explanation can account for the cumulative evidence.
END OF PART 22
Coming in Part 23: “DID JESUS EXIST BEFORE HIS BIRTH?” — THE STRONGEST EVIDENCE FOR AND AGAINST PERSONAL PREEXISTENCE
Our investigation will compare the most important passages without assuming that either interpretation is correct in advance.
Our guiding principle remains unchanged:
We must follow the evidence rather than a predetermined doctrine.
We must distinguish grammatical facts from theological interpretations.
And we must compare every explanation with the complete biblical testimony.
The goal is not to prove what we already believe. The goal is to discover what the Bible actually teaches.
JOHN 1:1 — GOD'S WORD, OR THE BEGINNING OF JESUS' MINISTRY?
PART 23 — DID JESUS EXIST BEFORE HIS BIRTH?
THE STRONGEST BIBLICAL EVIDENCE FOR AND AGAINST PERSONAL PREEXISTENCE
By Simon Brown — Real Discoveries
https://wwwrealdiscoveriesorg-simon.blogspot.com
1. INTRODUCTION — DID JESUS PERSONALLY EXIST BEFORE HE WAS BORN?
We have now reached one of the most important questions in our investigation of John 1:1.
DID JESUS CHRIST PERSONALLY EXIST BEFORE HIS MIRACULOUS CONCEPTION?
The answer affects our understanding of the Word, creation, the incarnation, the Son of God and the relationship between Jesus and his Father.
Traditional Christianity generally teaches that the Son existed eternally before becoming human.
Jehovah's Witnesses teach that Jesus existed as a heavenly person before his human birth, but was created by God.
Some other non-Trinitarian Christians also believe in a personally preexistent Son who is subordinate to the Father.
Biblical Unitarians commonly reject personal preexistence, understanding Jesus as the human Messiah whose life began through God's miraculous action in Mary.
But Biblical Unitarians do not all interpret John 1:1 in the same way.
Some understand the Word as God's creative Word present at Genesis.
Others understand John's beginning primarily in relation to the Gospel and the new creation.
These interpretations must be distinguished.
Our purpose is to investigate what the biblical evidence actually establishes.
2. THREE QUESTIONS THAT MUST NOT BE CONFUSED
Before examining individual passages, we must separate three questions.
QUESTION ONE: DID GOD'S WORD EXIST BEFORE JESUS WAS BORN?
Yes. The Hebrew Scriptures repeatedly describe God's Word as active in creation, revelation and prophecy.
QUESTION TWO: DID GOD FOREKNOW AND PURPOSE THE COMING OF JESUS?
Yes. The New Testament describes Christ as foreknown and God's saving purpose as established before the ages.
QUESTION THREE: DID JESUS HIMSELF EXIST AS A CONSCIOUS PERSON BEFORE HIS HUMAN BIRTH?
This is the disputed question.
The first two answers do not automatically establish the third.
But neither do they disprove it.
We must determine whether the New Testament describes merely God's preexistent Word and purpose, or the personal existence of the Son.
3. WHAT DOES PERSONAL PREEXISTENCE MEAN?
Personal preexistence means that Jesus existed as an individual conscious subject before his conception in Mary's womb.
Under this understanding, Jesus did not begin to exist when Mary conceived him.
Instead, the person who became Jesus already existed.
Traditional Trinitarian theology identifies this person as the eternal Son.
Jehovah's Witness theology identifies him as a created heavenly being.
Other non-Trinitarian preexistence interpretations understand him as God's subordinate heavenly Son.
By contrast, the Biblical Unitarian interpretation generally holds that Jesus' personal existence began through his miraculous conception.
The Word, wisdom and purpose of God existed beforehand.
But Jesus himself did not yet exist as a conscious individual.
This distinction will govern our investigation.
4. JOHN 1:1 — “IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD”
John begins:
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” — John 1:1, WEB
The Greek begins:
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος
En archē ēn ho logos.
The traditional interpretation understands the Word as the personally preexistent Son.
The Biblical Unitarian Genesis interpretation understands the Word as God's own creative expression.
The Biblical Unitarian Gospel-beginning interpretation understands the opening in relation to the beginning of the Gospel and the new creation.
The Greek noun logos can mean word, message, account, reason or expression.
It does not inherently mean a separate divine person.
But John's extended description of the Word may involve more than ordinary speech.
Therefore, the noun's dictionary meaning cannot settle the question.
5. THE GREEK VERB “WAS” — ĒN
John repeatedly uses:
ἦν — ēn.
This is the imperfect form of the verb eimi, meaning “to be.”
It describes the Word as already existing in the beginning.
The traditional interpretation argues that this points toward the Word's existence before creation.
The Genesis Word interpretation agrees that God's Word existed at the beginning but denies that this necessarily means a separate person existed.
The Gospel-beginning interpretation must explain how John's beginning relates to the period in which the Word already “was.”
An important grammatical distinction follows.
THE VERB ESTABLISHES THE WORD'S EXISTENCE IN THE STATED BEGINNING.
IT DOES NOT, BY ITSELF, ESTABLISH THAT THE WORD WAS A CONSCIOUS PERSON.
Personal identity must be established from the wider context.
6. JOHN 1:2 — “THE SAME WAS IN THE BEGINNING WITH GOD”
John continues:
“The same was in the beginning with God.” — John 1:2, WEB
The traditional interpretation understands this as a relationship between the Father and the Son.
The Biblical Unitarian Genesis interpretation understands God's Word as belonging to Him and existing in His purpose.
The Gospel-beginning interpretation relates the expression to the saving message originating with God.
The Greek expression pros ton theon is important.
It can express orientation toward or relationship with God.
In ordinary personal contexts, pros with the accusative can describe being with another person.
That gives the traditional interpretation a meaningful argument.
But grammatical constructions do not automatically determine whether a personified abstraction has become a literal person.
The interpretation depends upon the complete prologue.
7. JOHN 1:3 — “ALL THINGS WERE MADE THROUGH HIM”
John declares:
“All things were made through him. Without him, nothing was made that has been made.” — John 1:3, WEB
The Greek contains:
πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο
Panta di' autou egeneto.
Literally:
“All things came into being through him/it.”
The traditional interpretation understands the Word as the personal agent of original creation.
The Biblical Unitarian Genesis interpretation understands creation as occurring through God's own Word.
The Gospel-beginning interpretation understands the language as referring to the new creation associated with Jesus' ministry.
This is a major test.
The repeated language of coming into being, together with the opening reference to the beginning and the themes of light and darkness, strongly evokes Genesis.
Therefore, the original-creation reading has a substantial contextual advantage.
But identifying the beginning as Genesis does not automatically establish the Word's personal identity.
8. DOES THE GREEK PRONOUN PROVE THAT THE WORD WAS A PERSON?
John 1:3 uses forms of the Greek pronoun autos.
English translations commonly render these as “him.”
But Greek pronouns agree grammatically with their antecedents.
The noun logos is masculine.
Therefore, masculine pronouns naturally refer back to it.
The grammatical gender does not independently establish biological sex or personhood.
This is an important Biblical Unitarian observation.
However, the opposite error must also be avoided.
The presence of masculine grammatical agreement does not prove that the Word was impersonal.
The question is how John develops the Word's identity throughout the prologue.
Grammar permits more than one interpretation.
Context must decide.
9. PSALM 33:6 — CREATION THROUGH GOD'S WORD
Psalm 33:6 declares:
“By Yahweh's word, the heavens were made; all their army by the breath of his mouth.” — WEB
This is one of the strongest Old Testament parallels to John 1.
The heavens are made through Yahweh's Word.
The passage does not explicitly introduce another conscious person beside Yahweh.
Instead, God's Word and breath express His creative activity.
The Biblical Unitarian Genesis interpretation understands John 1 in this background.
God created through His Word.
That Word later became embodied in Jesus.
The traditional interpretation agrees that John draws upon Genesis and creation-language but understands the Word as the personal Son.
The Old Testament parallel establishes the conceptual background.
It does not independently determine John's final meaning.
10. GENESIS 1 — “GOD SAID”
Genesis repeatedly describes God creating through speech.
“GOD SAID.”
Light appears.
Creation proceeds.
God's command accomplishes His will.
The Hebrew narrative does not explicitly identify God's spoken Word as a second divine person.
This supports the Biblical Unitarian argument that God's Word can be active without being personally distinct from God.
But John's Gospel may develop the concept beyond its Old Testament presentation.
The question is whether John introduces a personally preexistent Son or describes God's own creative Word becoming embodied in the Messiah.
Both interpretations acknowledge the Genesis background.
Their disagreement concerns what John does with it.
11. JOHN 1:14 — “THE WORD BECAME FLESH”
This is the decisive transition in the prologue.
“The Word became flesh, and lived among us.” — John 1:14, WEB
The Greek reads:
καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο
Kai ho logos sarx egeneto.
The traditional interpretation understands this as the preexistent Son becoming human.
The Biblical Unitarian Genesis interpretation understands God's Word becoming embodied in the human Jesus.
The Gospel-beginning interpretation understands God's saving message as becoming personally expressed in Jesus' life and ministry.
The Greek verb egeneto means “became” or “came to be.”
It describes a transition.
But the nature of that transition is disputed.
Did a heavenly person assume human nature?
Or did God's Word become fully expressed in a human person who began to exist through miraculous conception?
The grammar alone does not provide a complete answer.
12. AN IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE — “THE WORD BECAME FLESH” IS NOT “THE SON BECAME FLESH”
John's exact wording matters.
He writes:
“THE WORD BECAME FLESH.”
He does not use the expression:
“GOD THE SON BECAME FLESH.”
This observation is relevant.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation argues that John deliberately identifies God's Word as the subject of the transformation.
The traditional interpretation responds that the Word is already the personal Son and that John 1:14 describes his incarnation.
The absence of the later theological expression “God the Son” does not disprove the traditional interpretation.
But neither should the traditional interpretation be inserted into the verse before examining John's meaning.
The identity of the Word must be demonstrated, not merely assumed.
13. JOHN 1:14 — “WE SAW HIS GLORY”
John continues by describing the glory of the only Son from the Father.
The traditional interpretation sees the Word and the Son as the same personally preexistent subject.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands the human Jesus as the embodiment of God's Word and the one in whom God's glory becomes visible.
The connection between Word and Son is undeniable within the prologue's developing narrative.
The question is when the Son personally began to exist.
The text clearly identifies Jesus as the embodiment of the Word.
It does not explicitly narrate the mechanics of his conception.
For that, we must examine Matthew and Luke.
14. LUKE 1:35 — THE MIRACULOUS ORIGIN OF THE SON
The angel tells Mary:
“The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore also the holy one who is born from you will be called the Son of God.” — Luke 1:35, WEB
This is one of the strongest passages for the Biblical Unitarian interpretation.
The Greek includes:
διὸ καί — dio kai.
Meaning:
“Therefore also,” or “for this reason also.”
The angel connects Jesus' designation as Son of God with the miraculous action of the Holy Spirit.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands this as explaining the origin of Jesus' sonship.
The traditional interpretation understands it as explaining why the incarnate, miraculously conceived child will be called Son of God.
But Luke does not explicitly describe a preexistent heavenly Son entering Mary's womb.
The narrative focuses upon God's creative action bringing about the holy child.
15. DOES LUKE 1:35 DISPROVE PREEXISTENCE?
Not by itself.
The verse explains the miraculous conception and the child's designation as Son of God.
But it does not explicitly say:
“Jesus did not exist before this event.”
The traditional interpretation understands the conception as the beginning of the Son's human existence, not the beginning of his personal existence.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation argues that this distinction is not stated in Luke's account.
That is an important observation.
The doctrine of a preexistent person assuming human nature is not explicitly explained by the angel.
But an omission is not necessarily a denial.
Therefore, Luke 1:35 is strong positive evidence for Jesus' miraculous human origin, while its implications for preexistence depend upon the wider New Testament.
16. MATTHEW 1:18–23 — JESUS' ORIGIN THROUGH THE HOLY SPIRIT
Matthew describes Mary's pregnancy as occurring through the Holy Spirit.
Joseph is told that the child conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.
The child is named Jesus because he will save his people from their sins.
Matthew connects the event with Isaiah's Immanuel prophecy.
The narrative does not explicitly describe a heavenly Son descending into Mary's womb.
Instead, it describes a miraculous conception.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands this as the beginning of Jesus' personal existence.
The traditional interpretation understands it as the incarnation of the eternal Son.
Both interpretations affirm the miraculous conception.
The difference concerns whether the person conceived already existed.
Matthew does not explicitly resolve that question.
17. GALATIANS 4:4 — GOD SENT HIS SON, BORN OF A WOMAN
Paul writes:
“But when the fullness of the time came, God sent out his Son, born to a woman, born under the law.” — Galatians 4:4, WEB
The traditional interpretation understands “sent his Son” as evidence of the Son's preexistence.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands sending as God's commissioning of His Messiah.
Both uses of sending-language occur in Scripture.
God sends prophets.
God sends John the Baptist.
God sends His saving message.
But Galatians 4:4 refers specifically to God sending His Son.
That is significant.
The verse also explicitly describes the Son as born of a woman.
The question is whether sending precedes his human existence or describes God's action in bringing the promised Messiah into history.
The Greek wording permits discussion but does not independently settle the issue.
18. JOHN 6:38 — “I HAVE COME DOWN FROM HEAVEN”
Jesus declares:
“For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me.” — John 6:38, WEB
This is among the strongest passages supporting personal preexistence.
Jesus speaks in the first person.
He says he has come down from heaven.
He distinguishes his own will from the will of the one who sent him.
The natural personal reading is that Jesus existed in heaven before coming into the world.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation argues that heavenly origin-language can describe divine commissioning, revelation or authority.
The issue is whether John's context supports such a figurative understanding.
We must examine the bread discourse as a whole.
19. JOHN 6 — THE BREAD FROM HEAVEN
Jesus compares himself to bread descending from heaven.
The discussion recalls manna in the wilderness.
Manna came from heaven as God's provision.
But manna was not a conscious person who previously lived in heaven.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation therefore understands Jesus' heavenly descent as describing the divine origin of his mission.
He is the true bread God provides.
The traditional interpretation responds that Jesus is not merely comparing himself with manna.
He speaks personally about having come down from heaven.
Therefore, the manna imagery does not automatically remove the personal significance of his words.
The context contains both metaphorical bread-language and personal statements about Jesus' origin.
Both must be explained.
20. JOHN 6:62 — “WHERE HE WAS BEFORE”
Jesus asks:
“Then what if you would see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?” — John 6:62, WEB
The Greek includes:
ὅπου ἦν τὸ πρότερον
Hopou ēn to proteron.
Meaning:
“Where he was previously.”
This is a particularly difficult passage for interpretations rejecting personal preexistence.
The natural reading suggests that the Son of Man had previously been in the place to which he would ascend.
The traditional interpretation understands this as a reference to Jesus' earlier heavenly existence.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation must offer an alternative explanation.
Two such interpretations deserve consideration.
21. JOHN 6:62 — THE DANIEL 7 PROPHETIC-VISION INTERPRETATION
One Biblical Unitarian interpretation connects John 6:62 with Daniel 7:13.
Daniel sees one like a son of man coming with the clouds of heaven and approaching the Ancient of Days.
Under this interpretation, the Son of Man existed previously in prophetic vision.
Jesus' ascension fulfils what Daniel had seen.
Therefore, the phrase “where he was before” is understood in relation to the Son of Man's previously revealed heavenly destiny.
This interpretation has been advocated in Biblical Unitarian discussions, including those associated with Sir Anthony Buzzard.
Its strength is the genuine connection between the title Son of Man and Daniel 7.
Its weakness is that John 6:62 does not explicitly mention Daniel's vision.
The wording naturally suggests the Son of Man's previous location, not merely his earlier appearance in prophecy.
Therefore, the interpretation is possible as a theological reading but requires more contextual argument than the straightforward personal-preexistence reading.
22. JOHN 6:62 — THE PROPHETIC OR PROLEPTIC INTERPRETATION
A second non-preexistence interpretation understands Jesus' language in relation to God's predetermined heavenly purpose.
Under this approach, Jesus' destiny existed beforehand in God's plan.
His heavenly position was certain before its historical fulfilment.
The language may therefore be understood proleptically: speaking of a future reality as already established.
The Bible sometimes uses this kind of anticipatory language.
But applying it to John 6:62 presents a challenge.
The verse says “where he was before.”
It does not merely say “where he was destined to be.”
Therefore, the interpretation must demonstrate that John's context supports such a shift.
It cannot simply replace the wording with a statement about divine foreknowledge.
ASSESSMENT: John 6:62 is substantial evidence for personal preexistence. Non-preexistence readings exist, but they carry a significant explanatory burden.
23. JOHN 8:58 — “BEFORE ABRAHAM WAS, I AM”
Jesus declares:
“Most certainly, I tell you, before Abraham came into existence, I AM.” — John 8:58, WEB
The Greek reads:
πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί
Prin Abraam genesthai, egō eimi.
The traditional interpretation understands Jesus as claiming existence before Abraham.
Some understand the expression egō eimi as carrying additional divine significance.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands the statement through messianic priority, divine foreknowledge or the predetermined identity of Christ.
The central question is whether Jesus is describing his personal existence or the priority of God's saving purpose.
24. DOES JOHN 8:58 MEAN “I AM ALMIGHTY GOD”?
Not automatically.
The Greek expression:
ἐγώ εἰμι — egō eimi.
Means:
“I am.”
It appears in various contexts.
Sometimes it is an ordinary expression of identification.
Elsewhere, particularly in biblical passages involving divine self-identification, it can carry theological significance.
John 8:58 is unusual because Jesus contrasts Abraham's coming into existence with his own “I am.”
The traditional interpretation sees this as a powerful claim of preexistence and possibly divine identity.
But the words “I am” do not automatically mean “I am Yahweh” in every occurrence.
The immediate context must determine the force of the statement.
25. JOHN 8:56 — ABRAHAM REJOICED TO SEE JESUS' DAY
Jesus says Abraham rejoiced to see his day.
This provides an important contextual clue.
The discussion concerns Abraham's relationship to the Messiah.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands Abraham as seeing the promised messianic future through faith and prophecy.
The traditional interpretation agrees that Abraham anticipated the Messiah but argues that Jesus then makes a stronger claim concerning his own existence before Abraham.
The distinction matters.
Abraham's prophetic knowledge of the Messiah does not independently prove that the Messiah personally existed.
But Jesus' subsequent statement may go beyond prophetic anticipation.
The interpretation must explain the complete exchange.
26. HOW STRONG IS JOHN 8:58 FOR PERSONAL PREEXISTENCE?
The natural reading is that Jesus claims an existence or identity that precedes Abraham.
That gives the personal-preexistence interpretation a significant advantage.
The Biblical Unitarian alternative must explain why the first-person statement should be understood in terms of God's purpose rather than Jesus' personal existence.
Such an explanation is not impossible.
Biblical language can describe persons and events as established in divine purpose before their historical appearance.
But the immediate wording of John 8:58 does not explicitly identify that framework.
Therefore, John 8:58 remains one of the strongest individual passages supporting personal preexistence.
It does not, by itself, establish that Jesus is Almighty God.
Preexistence and deity are separate questions.
27. JOHN 17:5 — “THE GLORY I HAD WITH YOU BEFORE THE WORLD EXISTED”
Jesus prays:
“Now, Father, glorify me with your own self with the glory which I had with you before the world existed.” — John 17:5, WEB
This is another major passage.
The Greek contains:
ᾗ εἶχον πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι
Hē eichon pro tou ton kosmon einai.
Meaning:
“Which I had before the world existed.”
The traditional interpretation understands Jesus as recalling glory personally possessed with the Father before creation.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands the glory as existing beforehand in God's plan.
The wording is significant because Jesus says:
“I HAD.”
That naturally suggests personal possession.
But we must examine the biblical concept of glory and foreordination.
28. JOHN 17:22 — GLORY GIVEN TO THE DISCIPLES
Jesus later declares:
“The glory which you have given me, I have given to them...” — John 17:22, WEB
This is important.
Jesus speaks of glory given to his disciples.
Yet the disciples' final glorification had not been fully realised.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation argues that glory can be described as given in God's purpose before its complete historical manifestation.
Therefore, John 17:5 may refer to glory reserved for Jesus in the Father's plan.
The traditional interpretation responds that John 17:5 specifically speaks of glory Jesus “had” with the Father before the world existed.
That is stronger language than simply describing future glory.
Both passages are relevant.
But they are not grammatically identical.
29. FIRST PETER 1:20 — CHRIST FOREKNOWN BEFORE THE WORLD
Peter describes Christ as foreknown before the foundation of the world and manifested in the last times.
The Greek uses a form of:
προγινώσκω — proginōskō.
To know beforehand or foreknow.
This passage strongly establishes that Christ belonged to God's saving purpose before creation.
But foreknowledge does not automatically establish personal preexistence.
God can foreknow persons before they exist.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation emphasises this distinction.
The traditional interpretation agrees that Christ was foreknown but maintains that other passages also establish his personal preexistence.
Therefore, 1 Peter 1:20 cannot independently settle the debate.
It does establish the biblical legitimacy of speaking about Christ before his historical appearance in terms of God's purpose.
30. REVELATION 13:8 — THE LAMB AND THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD
Revelation 13:8 contains wording that has generated debate over whether “from the foundation of the world” modifies the Lamb's being slain or the writing of names in the book of life.
The Greek construction is discussed in relation to Revelation 17:8.
Therefore, the verse should not be used carelessly to assert that Jesus was literally slain before creation.
Nor should it be treated as a simple proof that every statement about Christ before creation must be figurative.
The relevant principle is that biblical prophecy and divine purpose can describe events as established before their historical fulfilment.
But each passage must be interpreted according to its own wording.
31. PHILIPPIANS 2:6 — “EXISTING IN THE FORM OF GOD”
Paul writes of Christ Jesus:
“WHO, EXISTING IN THE FORM OF GOD...”
The Greek contains:
ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων
En morphē theou hyparchōn.
The traditional interpretation understands this as describing Christ's preexistent divine status.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands the passage through Jesus' human obedience, divine representation and refusal to grasp at status.
The word morphē means form or outward expression, with its precise nuance determined by context.
The participle hyparchōn describes existing or being in a condition.
Neither word independently establishes when Christ began to exist.
But the following verses describe a dramatic movement involving status, servanthood and humiliation.
This makes Philippians 2 one of the most important passages in the debate.
32. PHILIPPIANS 2:7 — “HE EMPTIED HIMSELF”
Paul says Christ emptied himself, taking the form of a servant and being made in human likeness.
The traditional interpretation understands this as the preexistent Son assuming human nature.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands it as the human Messiah refusing self-exaltation and adopting the position of a servant.
The sequence is important.
Christ exists in the form of God.
He does not exploit equality with God.
He empties himself.
He takes the form of a servant.
He becomes obedient to death.
The traditional reading understands the movement as heavenly-to-earthly.
The human-Messiah reading understands it as a movement from God-given status to voluntary humiliation.
Both interpretations must explain the entire sequence.
33. DOES PHILIPPIANS 2 DESCRIBE A HEAVENLY PERSON BECOMING HUMAN?
The traditional interpretation has a strong argument from the apparent contrast between divine form and human likeness.
The movement naturally suggests a change of condition.
But the passage does not explicitly say:
“Christ existed in heaven before his conception.”
Nor does it use the technical language of later incarnational theology.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation draws attention to Adamic themes.
Adam was made in God's image.
Jesus, unlike Adam, did not seek equality with God.
He humbled himself and obeyed.
This provides a meaningful alternative.
But the Adamic interpretation must explain the language of taking human likeness if Jesus was already human.
Therefore, Philippians 2 remains a substantial argument for personal preexistence, though its meaning is debated.
34. PHILIPPIANS 2:9 — GOD EXALTED JESUS
Paul continues:
“THEREFORE GOD ALSO HIGHLY EXALTED HIM.”
The word “therefore” is important.
Jesus' exaltation follows his obedience and death.
God is the one who exalts him.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands the passage as the human Messiah receiving supreme authority.
The traditional interpretation understands it as the incarnate Son receiving exaltation in his mediatorial role.
But the distinction between God and Jesus is explicit.
The passage does not present Jesus as the Father.
It presents God exalting Christ.
This is compatible with personal preexistence but does not require equality with the Father.
35. COLOSSIANS 1:15 — “THE FIRSTBORN OF ALL CREATION”
Paul describes Jesus as:
“THE IMAGE OF THE INVISIBLE GOD, THE FIRSTBORN OF ALL CREATION.”
The Greek uses:
πρωτότοκος — prōtotokos.
The word means firstborn.
It can describe birth order.
It can also express rank, inheritance and supremacy.
The traditional interpretation understands Jesus as supreme over creation, not the first created being.
Jehovah's Witnesses understand the title as consistent with Jesus being God's first creation.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands it in relation to Jesus' messianic supremacy and the new creation.
The word alone does not settle the issue.
Its meaning depends upon the following verses.
36. COLOSSIANS 1:16 — “ALL THINGS WERE CREATED THROUGH HIM”
Paul declares that all things were created in, through and for Christ.
He names things in heaven and on earth.
He includes visible and invisible realities.
He mentions thrones, dominions, principalities and powers.
The traditional interpretation understands this as original creation through the preexistent Son.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands it as the establishment of the new creation and its spiritual order.
But the breadth of Paul's language is significant.
“ALL THINGS.”
“IN HEAVEN AND ON EARTH.”
“VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE.”
These expressions naturally suggest a comprehensive scope.
Therefore, a new-creation-only interpretation must explain why Paul uses such broad cosmic language.
37. COLOSSIANS 1:18 — “THE FIRSTBORN FROM THE DEAD”
Paul identifies Jesus as:
“THE BEGINNING, THE FIRSTBORN FROM THE DEAD.”
This provides important support for the new-creation interpretation.
The passage clearly concerns Christ's resurrection and supremacy over the church.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation argues that the earlier creation-language should be understood within this new-creation context.
The traditional interpretation argues that Paul moves from Christ's supremacy over original creation to his supremacy over the new creation.
Both interpretations recognise the resurrection theme.
The disagreement concerns whether the whole passage is limited to it.
The repeated cosmic language in verses 16–17 creates a substantial challenge for an exclusively new-creation reading.
38. COLOSSIANS 1:17 — “HE IS BEFORE ALL THINGS”
Paul says:
“HE IS BEFORE ALL THINGS.”
The Greek reads:
αὐτός ἐστιν πρὸ πάντων
Autos estin pro pantōn.
The traditional interpretation understands this as temporal preexistence and supremacy.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation may understand “before” as priority in rank or divine purpose.
The preposition pro can express temporal priority and, in appropriate contexts, other kinds of precedence.
But the phrase must be read alongside Paul's statements about creation and the continuing coherence of all things in Christ.
The natural cumulative reading supports a scope extending beyond the church alone.
Therefore, Colossians 1:15–17 remains strong evidence for personal preexistence, although the precise relationship between Christ and creation is disputed.
39. HEBREWS 1:1–2 — GOD SPOKE THROUGH HIS SON
Hebrews begins by contrasting God's earlier revelation through the prophets with His final revelation through the Son.
It then describes the Son as the one through whom God made the ages.
The Greek expression includes:
δι’ οὗ καὶ ἐποίησεν τοὺς αἰῶνας
Di' hou kai epoiēsen tous aiōnas.
The traditional interpretation understands this as God creating the universe through the preexistent Son.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation may understand the ages as the redemptive order established through Christ.
But the broader context of Hebrews 1 includes creation-language.
Therefore, the traditional reading has significant contextual support.
The question is whether the author is describing original creation or the establishment of the messianic age.
40. HEBREWS 1:10–12 — THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH
Hebrews applies language from Psalm 102 within its discussion of the Son.
The quotation concerns the foundation of the earth and the heavens as the work of the addressee's hands.
The original Psalm addresses Yahweh.
The traditional interpretation understands Hebrews as applying this creation-language directly to the Son.
This is among the strongest passages supporting personal preexistence and high Christology.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation must explain whether the quotation addresses the Son, refers to God, or describes the future world in another sense.
But the natural literary structure favours the Son as the addressee.
Therefore, the passage should not be dismissed.
It presents a serious challenge to interpretations that restrict Jesus' role entirely to events beginning with his earthly ministry.
41. FIRST CORINTHIANS 8:6 — “THROUGH WHOM ARE ALL THINGS”
Paul writes of one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things.
This verse is important because it contains both distinction and creation-language.
The Father is identified as the one God.
Jesus is identified as the one Lord.
All things are described as being through him.
The traditional interpretation understands Jesus as the personal agent of original creation.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands him as the divinely appointed mediator of the new creation.
The phrase “all things” is broad.
But Paul's context concerns the one God in contrast with idols.
Therefore, the original-creation interpretation has substantial contextual support.
The distinction between Father and Son remains explicit.
42. ISAIAH 44:24 — YAHWEH CREATED ALONE
Yahweh declares that He stretched out the heavens and spread out the earth by Himself.
This passage is important because it strongly emphasises Yahweh's unique creative activity.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands it as excluding another independently acting creator beside God.
The traditional interpretation agrees that there is only one Creator but understands the Son as participating in the one divine creative action.
A non-Trinitarian preexistence interpretation may understand the Son as an agent through whom Yahweh created.
But the word “alone” creates an important question for any model involving a second heavenly creator.
The distinction between ultimate source and instrumental agency must be carefully demonstrated.
It cannot simply be asserted.
43. DOES CREATION THROUGH JESUS PROVE THAT HE IS ALMIGHTY GOD?
Not automatically.
A distinction exists between the source of an action and the means through which it is accomplished.
The New Testament frequently identifies the Father as the source.
It also describes divine activity through Jesus.
The traditional interpretation understands this as the work of the one God through the Son.
The non-Trinitarian preexistence interpretation understands Jesus as God's subordinate agent.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands God's Word as the means of original creation and Jesus as the embodiment of that Word.
The decisive question is whether the passages describe Jesus personally acting before his birth.
That cannot be settled merely by observing the preposition “through.”
The identity of the agent must be established from context.
44. JOHN 3:13 — THE SON OF MAN AND HEAVEN
John 3:13 describes the Son of Man in relation to ascent and descent from heaven.
The traditional interpretation understands this as evidence of Jesus' heavenly origin.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands it through heavenly revelation and the Son of Man's authority.
The passage also contains a textual variation.
Some manuscripts add a phrase describing the Son of Man as being in heaven.
That longer reading is not accepted as original by many modern critical editions.
Therefore, the variant should not be used without qualification.
Even in the shorter reading, the heavenly language remains significant.
The passage contributes to John's broader presentation of Jesus as the one who reveals heavenly truth.
45. JOHN 13:3 — JESUS CAME FROM GOD AND WAS GOING TO GOD
John describes Jesus as knowing that he had come from God and was going to God.
The traditional interpretation understands this as personal heavenly origin and return.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands it as divine commissioning and return to the Father's presence through exaltation.
The expression “came from God” can describe divine origin or authority.
But John's repeated language of coming and going creates a cumulative pattern.
The question is whether the pattern is best understood as literal heavenly movement or as the language of revelation, mission and exaltation.
The traditional reading has substantial force.
But the precise meaning must be determined from John's broader theological language.
46. JOHN 16:28 — “I CAME FROM THE FATHER”
Jesus declares that he came from the Father into the world and is leaving the world to go to the Father.
This is one of the clearest statements supporting a heavenly-origin interpretation.
The sequence is symmetrical.
FROM THE FATHER.
INTO THE WORLD.
LEAVING THE WORLD.
GOING TO THE FATHER.
The traditional interpretation understands this as descent from heaven followed by return.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands the first movement as divine commissioning and the second as resurrection and ascension.
But the parallel structure creates a significant challenge.
If the departure is literal, why should the arrival be understood only figuratively?
The Biblical Unitarian response must demonstrate that biblical sending-language can operate differently in the two halves of the statement.
This is possible in principle but requires contextual support.
47. JOHN 17:3 — THE FATHER AS THE ONLY TRUE GOD
Jesus addresses the Father:
“This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Jesus Christ.” — John 17:3, WEB
This is one of the strongest passages supporting Biblical Unitarian theology.
The Father is explicitly identified as the only true God.
Jesus is distinguished as the one whom the Father sent.
But the passage does not directly answer whether Jesus existed before his birth.
A personally preexistent Son could still be distinguished from the Father.
Therefore, John 17:3 is highly relevant to the identity of the one God, but it does not independently settle personal preexistence.
The two questions must not be confused.
48. JOHN 20:17 — THE RISEN JESUS HAS A GOD
Jesus speaks of ascending to his Father and the disciples' Father, his God and their God.
This remains significant after the resurrection.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands it as evidence that Jesus is not the Almighty God whom he worships.
The traditional interpretation understands it through the incarnate Son's relationship to the Father.
But the verse does not directly establish whether Jesus existed before his conception.
It establishes that the risen Jesus acknowledges the Father as his God.
That distinction must be preserved regardless of the conclusion reached about preexistence.
49. DOES “SON OF GOD” MEAN A PREEXISTENT DIVINE PERSON?
Not necessarily.
The Hebrew Scriptures apply sonship-language to Israel, kings, angels and other figures.
Psalm 2 identifies the Davidic king as God's son.
Luke 1:35 connects Jesus' sonship with his miraculous conception.
Romans 1:3–4 connects his Davidic descent and resurrection with his messianic identity.
Therefore, the title Son of God does not automatically establish personal preexistence.
But John's Gospel may use sonship-language with additional significance.
The traditional interpretation argues that John's Father-Son relationship reflects an eternal personal relationship.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands it through Jesus' miraculous origin and unique relationship with God.
The title must be interpreted according to each author's context.
50. THE JEWISH BACKGROUND — GOD'S WISDOM AND WORD
The Hebrew Scriptures and Jewish wisdom literature describe God's wisdom as present before creation.
Proverbs 8 personifies wisdom as speaking.
Wisdom is associated with God's creative work.
Sirach 24 and Wisdom of Solomon develop similar themes.
Philo of Alexandria uses the term Logos in philosophical and theological discussions.
These traditions provide important background for John 1.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands the Word through Jewish personification and divine self-expression.
The traditional interpretation understands these traditions as preparing the way for John's revelation of the personal Son.
But the historical evidence does not establish that every Jewish use of Word or Wisdom referred to a separate conscious divine person.
Nor does it prove that John could not develop the concept personally.
The question remains how John uses the tradition.
51. DOES PERSONIFICATION EXPLAIN JOHN 1?
Personification is a genuine biblical literary device.
Wisdom speaks.
Sin reigns.
Death rules.
Jerusalem is addressed as a woman.
Therefore, the use of personal language does not automatically establish literal personhood.
This supports the Biblical Unitarian interpretation of the Word.
But personification must be demonstrated from context.
It cannot simply be invoked whenever a passage appears to describe personal preexistence.
John 1:1–5 may plausibly employ personified Word-language.
John 1:14 introduces a concrete historical transition.
The broader Gospel contains Jesus' first-person statements about coming from heaven and returning to the Father.
Therefore, personification may explain part of the evidence, but it must be tested against the whole Gospel.
52. THE GOSPEL-BEGINNING INTERPRETATION
A second Biblical Unitarian approach understands the beginning of John 1 primarily as the beginning of the Gospel or new creation.
This interpretation emphasises several themes:
Light entering darkness.
John the Baptist bearing witness.
People receiving the Word.
Believers becoming children of God.
The Word becoming flesh.
The revelation of God's glory in Jesus.
These themes clearly belong to the Gospel narrative.
The interpretation therefore has genuine contextual support.
But it faces an important challenge.
John 1:3 uses comprehensive creation-language.
The opening words closely resemble Genesis 1:1.
The Gospel-beginning interpretation must demonstrate why this language should be restricted to the new creation.
The argument cannot rest merely upon the fact that the Gospel concerns salvation.
53. THE GENESIS WORD INTERPRETATION
The Genesis Word interpretation understands John's opening as a deliberate return to Genesis.
God's Word existed in the beginning.
God created through His Word.
That Word expressed God's wisdom, purpose and power.
The Word was divine because it belonged to God and expressed His own activity.
In the fullness of time, God's Word became embodied in Jesus Christ.
This interpretation preserves the original-creation background without requiring a personally preexistent Son.
Its strength is its connection with Genesis 1 and Psalm 33:6.
Its principal challenge is explaining John's personal language and Jesus' statements about coming from heaven.
It must also explain the transition from God's Word to the human Son without reducing John 1:14 to a vague metaphor.
54. THE TRADITIONAL PERSONAL-PREEXISTENCE INTERPRETATION
The traditional interpretation understands the Word as the personally preexistent Son.
The Son existed with the Father before creation.
All things came into existence through him.
He became flesh through the incarnation.
He descended from heaven.
He returned to the Father.
This interpretation offers a relatively direct explanation of several passages.
John 6:62.
John 8:58.
John 17:5.
John 16:28.
Philippians 2:6–8.
Colossians 1:15–17.
Hebrews 1:1–12.
Its strength is the cumulative force of the personal and heavenly-origin language.
Its challenge is explaining the Father as the only true God, the Son's received authority and the human-origin narratives without importing later theological definitions into every passage.
Personal preexistence also does not, by itself, establish equality with the Father.
55. THE NON-TRINITARIAN PERSONAL-PREEXISTENCE INTERPRETATION
A separate interpretation accepts personal preexistence while rejecting the claim that Jesus is Almighty God.
Under this understanding, the Son existed in heaven before his human birth.
He was sent by the Father.
He became human.
He received authority and exaltation.
This interpretation can explain much of John's descent-language literally.
It also preserves a distinction between the Father and Son.
But important questions remain.
Was the Son created?
Was he eternally generated?
How does his role in creation relate to Isaiah 44:24?
Why does Hebrews apply Yahweh's creation-language to him?
And how does his preexistent status relate to Luke's explanation of his miraculous sonship?
The interpretation must answer these questions without assuming that personal preexistence automatically establishes a particular divine nature.
56. COMPARING THE FIVE MAJOR INTERPRETATIONS
| Question | Trinitarian | Preexistent subordinate Son | Genesis Word Biblical Unitarian | Gospel-beginning Biblical Unitarian | Oneness |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Did Jesus personally preexist? | Yes | Yes | No | No | Not as a distinct Son |
| What existed in the beginning? | Eternal Son as Word | Heavenly Son as Word | God's creative Word | God's saving message and purpose | God's own divine Word |
| What is John 1:3 about? | Original creation | Original creation | Original creation | New creation | Original creation |
| What does John 1:14 mean? | Son assumes humanity | Heavenly Son becomes human | God's Word embodied in Jesus | Saving message embodied in Jesus | God manifested in flesh |
| How is John 6:62 read? | Literal prior heavenly existence | Literal prior heavenly existence | Prophetic or figurative heavenly origin | Prophetic or figurative heavenly origin | Divine origin and manifestation |
| How is Luke 1:35 understood? | Human conception of eternal Son | Human conception of preexistent Son | Beginning of Jesus' personal existence | Beginning of Jesus' personal existence | Beginning of the human Son |
| Is the Father Jesus' God? | Yes, in the incarnate Son's relationship | Yes | Yes | Yes | Explained through Jesus' humanity |
This comparison demonstrates that the question of preexistence is not identical to the question of whether Jesus is Almighty God.
Several different theological models accept personal preexistence.
Others reject it while understanding God's Word as preexistent.
57. WHICH PASSAGES MOST STRONGLY SUPPORT PERSONAL PREEXISTENCE?
The strongest cumulative evidence includes:
JOHN 6:62
The Son of Man ascending to where he was before.
JOHN 8:58
Jesus speaking of himself in relation to Abraham's earlier existence.
JOHN 17:5
Jesus describing glory he had with the Father before the world existed.
JOHN 16:28
Jesus describing his coming from the Father into the world and his return.
PHILIPPIANS 2:6–8
Christ's movement from the form of God to servanthood and human likeness.
COLOSSIANS 1:15–17
The Son's relationship to all creation and his priority before all things.
HEBREWS 1:1–12
Creation-language and divine associations applied to the Son.
These passages form a substantial cumulative argument.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation must explain them together, not merely offer unrelated explanations for each.
58. WHICH PASSAGES MOST STRONGLY SUPPORT THE BIBLICAL UNITARIAN INTERPRETATION?
The strongest evidence includes:
GENESIS 1 AND PSALM 33:6
God creates through His own Word without explicitly introducing a second conscious creator.
LUKE 1:35
Jesus' sonship is connected with the miraculous conception.
MATTHEW 1:18–23
The narrative describes Jesus' origin through the Holy Spirit without explicitly mentioning a preexistent Son.
FIRST PETER 1:20
Christ is foreknown before the foundation of the world.
JOHN 17:3
The Father is identified as the only true God.
FIRST CORINTHIANS 8:6
The one God is identified as the Father.
FIRST TIMOTHY 2:5
The one God is distinguished from the man Christ Jesus.
ACTS 2:36
God makes Jesus Lord and Christ.
REVELATION 3:12
The exalted Jesus repeatedly refers to the Father as his God.
These passages strongly support the Father's supremacy, Jesus' genuine humanity and the importance of divine purpose.
But some concern the identity of God rather than the chronological question of Jesus' personal existence.
That distinction must be maintained.
59. THE PRINCIPAL DIFFICULTY FOR THE BIBLICAL UNITARIAN VIEW
The greatest difficulty is not John 1:1 considered alone.
It is the cumulative force of passages in which Jesus appears to speak of a personal heavenly past.
John 6:62 speaks of where the Son of Man was before.
John 17:5 speaks of glory Jesus had with the Father.
John 16:28 describes coming from the Father and returning to Him.
John 8:58 contrasts Abraham's coming into existence with Jesus' “I am.”
These are not simply references to the noun logos.
They are statements made by Jesus in the first person.
Therefore, a Biblical Unitarian explanation must show why prophetic, figurative or foreknowledge-language is appropriate in each context.
It is not sufficient merely to demonstrate that such language exists elsewhere in Scripture.
The explanation must fit John's actual wording.
60. THE PRINCIPAL DIFFICULTY FOR PERSONAL PREEXISTENCE
The greatest difficulty is explaining how the personally preexistent Son relates to the explicit distinction between Jesus and his God.
Jesus identifies the Father as the only true God.
He calls the Father his God.
The exalted Jesus continues to use the expression “my God.”
God gives Jesus authority.
God raises him.
God exalts him.
God appoints him Lord and Christ.
Luke connects his designation as Son of God with his miraculous conception.
These passages require explanation.
The traditional interpretation distinguishes the Son's eternal divine nature from his human and mediatorial roles.
But that distinction must be supported by the wider biblical evidence.
It cannot simply be assumed at the outset.
A non-Trinitarian preexistence interpretation must likewise explain how the Son's heavenly existence relates to the Father's unique identity as God.
61. DOES PERSONAL PREEXISTENCE AUTOMATICALLY PROVE THE TRINITY?
No.
This is one of the most important conclusions of our research.
Even if Jesus personally existed before his human birth, that fact would not automatically establish that he is coequal and coeternal with the Father.
A preexistent person could theoretically be subordinate.
A preexistent person could be understood as created.
A preexistent person could be God's appointed heavenly agent.
Therefore, the argument:
JESUS PREEXISTED.
THEREFORE JESUS IS ALMIGHTY GOD.
Is not logically sufficient.
Additional evidence would be required to establish divine identity, equality and eternity.
This is why our investigation must distinguish preexistence from Trinitarian doctrine.
62. DOES REJECTING PREEXISTENCE AUTOMATICALLY PROVE THE GENESIS WORD INTERPRETATION?
No.
Rejecting personal preexistence does not automatically establish what John meant by the Word.
The Genesis Word interpretation and the Gospel-beginning interpretation remain distinct.
The Genesis interpretation understands the beginning as original creation.
The Gospel-beginning interpretation understands it primarily through the new creation.
Both can reject personal preexistence.
But they must independently explain John 1:1–5.
Therefore, our final verdict must answer two questions separately:
WHAT BEGINNING DID JOHN MEAN?
And:
WHO OR WHAT WAS THE WORD?
Only then can we determine how John 1:14 relates to Jesus' personal origin.
63. THE IMPORTANCE OF THE WHOLE BIBLE
No responsible conclusion should depend upon one isolated verse.
John 1 must be read alongside Genesis 1.
John 6 must be read alongside the bread discourse.
John 8 must be read alongside Abraham and messianic promise.
John 17 must be read alongside the Father's identity and Jesus' mission.
Philippians 2 must be read alongside Christ's humility and exaltation.
Colossians 1 must be read alongside creation and resurrection.
Hebrews 1 must be read alongside the Psalms it quotes.
Luke 1 must be read alongside the miraculous conception.
The strongest interpretation will explain the greatest amount of evidence with the fewest unsupported assumptions.
But simplicity alone is not proof.
A difficult passage should not be forced into an interpretation merely because it fits a preferred doctrine.
64. FIFTEEN KEY FINDINGS
FIRST: God's Word existed before Jesus' birth.
SECOND: God's foreknowledge of Christ does not automatically establish Christ's personal preexistence.
THIRD: The Greek noun logos does not inherently mean a separate conscious person.
FOURTH: John 1:1–5 strongly evokes Genesis creation.
FIFTH: The masculine pronouns referring to the Word do not independently establish personhood.
SIXTH: John 1:14 describes the Word becoming flesh but does not explicitly explain the mechanics of that transition.
SEVENTH: Luke 1:35 connects Jesus' designation as Son of God with his miraculous conception.
EIGHTH: John 6:62 is strong evidence for personal preexistence under its natural reading.
NINTH: John 8:58 strongly suggests an existence or identity preceding Abraham.
TENTH: John 17:5 naturally suggests previously possessed glory, although foreordination interpretations have been proposed.
ELEVENTH: Philippians 2 contains substantial evidence for a movement from exalted status to human servanthood.
TWELFTH: Colossians 1:15–17 uses comprehensive creation-language that challenges an exclusively new-creation interpretation.
THIRTEENTH: Hebrews 1:10–12 is among the strongest passages applying original-creation language to the Son.
FOURTEENTH: The Father is repeatedly distinguished from Jesus as his God and the source of his authority.
FIFTEENTH: Personal preexistence and identification as Almighty God are separate theological questions.
65. OUR PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENT
After examining the evidence, several conclusions can be stated with reasonable confidence.
THE GENESIS BACKGROUND OF JOHN 1:1–5 IS STRONG.
The opening words, creation-language, light and darkness all point toward Genesis.
This favours the interpretation that John's prologue deliberately recalls original creation.
But it does not independently establish that the Word was a conscious person.
THE BIBLICAL UNITARIAN GENESIS WORD INTERPRETATION HAS A GENUINE OLD TESTAMENT FOUNDATION.
Psalm 33:6 and Genesis 1 demonstrate that God's Word can be described as active in creation without explicitly introducing a second divine person.
THE GOSPEL-BEGINNING INTERPRETATION CORRECTLY EMPHASISES JOHN'S NEW-CREATION THEMES.
But it faces a substantial challenge in explaining the comprehensive creation-language of John 1:3.
THE PERSONAL-PREEXISTENCE INTERPRETATION HAS STRONG CUMULATIVE SUPPORT FROM SEVERAL NEW TESTAMENT PASSAGES.
John 6:62, John 8:58, John 17:5, Philippians 2, Colossians 1 and Hebrews 1 are especially significant.
The non-preexistence interpretations offer alternative explanations, but several require substantial contextual justification.
THE FATHER'S IDENTIFICATION AS THE ONE GOD REMAINS EXPLICIT.
John 17:3, 1 Corinthians 8:6 and other passages cannot be ignored.
But the Father's identity as God does not, by itself, settle whether the Son personally preexisted.
66. OUR CONCLUSION — WHAT HAVE WE ACTUALLY ESTABLISHED?
We began by asking:
DID JESUS PERSONALLY EXIST BEFORE HIS BIRTH?
The evidence is not equally strong in every passage.
Some texts can be understood naturally through God's foreknowledge, creative Word and messianic purpose.
Others contain language that more directly suggests Jesus' personal existence before his earthly life.
The strongest evidence for personal preexistence is cumulative.
It does not depend upon the grammatical gender of logos or the mere existence of God's Word before creation.
It depends upon the repeated personal and heavenly-origin language associated with Jesus, together with the creation-language applied to the Son.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation offers an important corrective by distinguishing God's Word, God's purpose and Jesus' personal existence.
It also rightly emphasises the Father's unique position in many explicit biblical statements.
But the interpretation must explain the strongest preexistence passages without weakening their natural wording.
OUR PROVISIONAL CONCLUSION IS THAT THE NEW TESTAMENT CONTAINS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTING PERSONAL PREEXISTENCE, PARTICULARLY WHEN JOHN, PHILIPPIANS, COLOSSIANS AND HEBREWS ARE CONSIDERED TOGETHER.
HOWEVER, THAT DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY ESTABLISH THAT JESUS IS ALMIGHTY GOD, NOR DOES IT REMOVE THE STRONG GENESIS BACKGROUND OF JOHN'S WORD-LANGUAGE.
The final question remains whether John understood the Word as the personally preexistent Son or as God's own Word subsequently embodied in the human Messiah.
That question must be resolved through the full literary and historical evidence, not by assuming the conclusion in advance.
67. THE NEXT INVESTIGATION — WHAT DID THE EARLIEST CHRISTIANS BELIEVE?
We have examined the biblical evidence.
But how did Christians understand these passages before the Council of Nicaea?
Did the earliest writers identify the Word as the personally preexistent Son?
Did they understand the Word as God's own reason or expression?
Did they distinguish between the Word existing within God and the Son coming forth?
Were there early Christians who understood Jesus as a human Messiah without personal preexistence?
And how did later theological controversies influence the interpretation of John 1:1?
We must investigate the historical evidence carefully.
The earliest Christian writers did not all use the same terminology.
Some described the Logos as eternally existing within God.
Others described the Logos as coming forth for creation.
Some emphasised Jesus' human origin and messianic appointment.
These differences are important.
But we must avoid assuming that an early writer's language corresponds exactly to a modern theological category.
END OF PART 23
Coming in Part 24: “WHAT DID THE EARLIEST CHRISTIANS BELIEVE ABOUT THE WORD?” — FROM THE APOSTLES TO THE COUNCIL OF NICAEA
We will examine:
The Didache and early Christian worship.
Ignatius of Antioch.
Justin Martyr and the Logos.
Theophilus of Antioch and the Word within God.
Irenaeus and the relationship between Father and Son.
Tertullian and the development of Trinitarian terminology.
Origen and eternal generation.
Early Jewish-Christian and adoptionist interpretations.
The historical development of John 1:1 interpretation before AD 325.
Our purpose will not be to decide biblical truth by majority vote among ancient writers.
Instead, we will investigate how the earliest Christians interpreted the Word and whether their evidence helps clarify the meaning of John's prologue.
Our guiding principle remains unchanged:
We must follow the evidence rather than a predetermined doctrine.
We must distinguish grammatical facts from theological interpretations.
We must compare every explanation with the complete biblical testimony.
The goal is not to prove what we already believe. The goal is to discover what the Bible actually teaches.
JOHN 1:1 — GOD'S WORD, OR THE BEGINNING OF JESUS' MINISTRY?
PART 24 — WHAT DID THE EARLIEST CHRISTIANS BELIEVE ABOUT THE WORD?
FROM THE APOSTOLIC AGE TO THE COUNCIL OF NICAEA — THE LOGOS, THE FATHER AND THE ORIGIN OF THE SON
By Simon Brown — Real Discoveries
https://wwwrealdiscoveriesorg-simon.blogspot.com
1. INTRODUCTION — DID THE EARLIEST CHRISTIANS BELIEVE IN THE TRINITY?
Our investigation of John 1:1 has reached a crucial historical question.
What did Christians believe about Jesus and the Word before the Council of Nicaea in AD 325?
Did they believe that the Word was God's own wisdom and creative expression?
Did they believe the Word was a separate, personally preexistent heavenly being?
Did they understand the Son as eternally existing alongside the Father?
Or did some believe that Jesus' personal existence began with his miraculous conception?
These questions matter because later Christian theology developed terminology that does not appear explicitly in the earliest New Testament writings.
But we must establish an important principle from the beginning.
THE EARLIEST CHRISTIAN WRITERS WERE NOT NECESSARILY CORRECT SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY LIVED CLOSER TO THE APOSTLES.
Their writings are valuable historical evidence.
They are not a replacement for Scripture.
Our purpose is to determine what the historical evidence actually reveals, rather than to assume that later Christian orthodoxy existed unchanged from the beginning.
2. THREE HISTORICAL QUESTIONS
We must distinguish three different questions.
FIRST: DID EARLY CHRISTIANS BELIEVE JESUS WAS THE SON OF GOD?
Yes. This is established by the New Testament itself.
SECOND: DID EARLY CHRISTIANS BELIEVE JESUS PERSONALLY EXISTED BEFORE HIS BIRTH?
Some clearly did, especially among the second-century writers whose works survive.
Other Christian groups understood Jesus differently.
THIRD: DID EARLY CHRISTIANS BELIEVE IN THE FULL NICENE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY?
The earliest surviving writings do not generally express the doctrine using the later technical language of one divine essence and distinct persons.
This does not automatically prove that the doctrine was invented in AD 325.
But it does mean that we must distinguish earlier beliefs from later doctrinal formulations.
3. A BRIEF HISTORICAL TIMELINE
| Period | Approximate date | Historical significance |
|---|---|---|
| Apostolic age | AD 30–100 | New Testament writings and earliest Christian communities |
| Apostolic Fathers | AD 90–150 | Didache, Clement, Ignatius and related writings |
| Early apologists | AD 130–180 | Justin Martyr and developing Logos theology |
| Later second century | AD 170–200 | Theophilus, Irenaeus and debates over Christian identity |
| Early third century | AD 200–250 | Tertullian, Origen and more developed theological terminology |
| Fourth-century controversy | AD 300–325 | Disputes concerning the Son's origin and relationship to the Father |
| Council of Nicaea | AD 325 | Formal rejection of Arius's teaching and affirmation of the Son as homoousios with the Father |
The development was gradual.
Not every Christian community followed the same theological path.
And the surviving writings represent only part of early Christianity.
4. AN IMPORTANT HISTORICAL LIMITATION
Most surviving second- and third-century theological works were written by educated Christian leaders.
They do not provide a complete record of what every ordinary Christian believed.
Some groups are known primarily through descriptions written by their opponents.
Many original writings have been lost.
This creates a historical problem.
We cannot confidently reconstruct every form of early Christianity.
Nor can we assume that a doctrine was absent merely because an early writer did not mention it.
Therefore, our conclusions must distinguish:
WHAT A WRITER EXPLICITLY TAUGHT.
WHAT CAN REASONABLY BE INFERRED.
WHAT THE SURVIVING EVIDENCE DOES NOT ESTABLISH.
5. THE DIDACHE — EARLY CHRISTIAN WORSHIP
The Didache, commonly dated to the late first or early second century, provides instructions concerning Christian conduct, baptism, fasting, prayer and communal worship.
Its prayers frequently address God as Father.
Jesus is identified as God's servant or child in traditional English translations of the relevant Greek term.
The Greek word pais can mean servant or child, depending on context.
The Didache therefore preserves language that distinguishes God from Jesus.
This is important for Biblical Unitarian research.
But the document does not offer a systematic explanation of John 1:1.
It does not clearly resolve whether Jesus personally preexisted.
HISTORICAL FINDING: The Didache provides evidence of early Father-directed prayer and devotion centred on Jesus, but it does not settle the identity of the Logos.
6. FIRST CLEMENT — THE FATHER AND JESUS CHRIST
The letter known as 1 Clement, traditionally associated with the Roman church near the end of the first century, repeatedly distinguishes God from Jesus Christ.
God sends Christ.
Christ acts as the means through whom believers receive divine blessings.
The letter also uses elevated language concerning Jesus' authority.
This is consistent with important New Testament patterns.
The Father is the source.
Jesus is the mediator.
But the letter is not a detailed commentary on John 1:1.
Therefore, it should not be claimed that Clement explicitly rejected personal preexistence.
Nor should his silence be treated as proof that he accepted the later Nicene formulation.
The evidence supports a Father-centred pattern of Christian devotion.
7. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH — STRIKINGLY HIGH LANGUAGE ABOUT JESUS
Ignatius, writing in the early second century, uses exceptionally exalted language concerning Jesus.
In the commonly accepted middle recension of his letters, he sometimes calls Jesus God.
He also describes Jesus in ways that connect divine and human identity.
This is important evidence.
It shows that high Christological language existed long before Nicaea.
But Ignatius also distinguishes Jesus from the Father.
His language does not provide a fully developed fourth-century explanation of divine essence and personhood.
Therefore, Ignatius cannot simply be classified as a modern Nicene Trinitarian.
Nor can his writings be used to support the claim that all early Christians regarded Jesus as merely an ordinary human prophet.
His surviving letters present a much more exalted understanding.
8. WHY THE IGNATIAN MANUSCRIPTS MATTER
The letters of Ignatius survive in different textual forms.
The shorter, middle and longer recensions have been studied extensively.
The middle recension is generally regarded as preserving the authentic core of seven letters.
The longer recension contains later expansions.
Therefore, quotations attributed to Ignatius must be checked against the relevant textual tradition.
This is especially important in debates concerning the Trinity.
A quotation from a later expanded text should not automatically be treated as evidence of what Ignatius wrote in the early second century.
Our historical investigation must use the best-supported texts.
9. JUSTIN MARTYR — THE WORD BEFORE CREATION
Justin Martyr, writing around the middle of the second century, provides some of the clearest surviving evidence for personal Logos preexistence.
In his Dialogue with Trypho, Justin describes a rational power begotten from God before creation.
He identifies this power using titles including:
Word.
Wisdom.
Son.
Lord.
Angel or messenger.
And God.
Justin believes that the Logos existed before Jesus' human birth.
He also associates the Logos with appearances of God in the Hebrew Scriptures.
This is not merely an interpretation of Jesus' earthly ministry.
It is a developed personal-preexistence theology.
10. JUSTIN MARTYR — THE FATHER REMAINS SUPREME
Justin's theology contains an important distinction.
He presents the Father as the ultimate source of all things.
The Logos proceeds from the Father and carries out His will.
In Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 56, Justin distinguishes the Logos from the supreme Maker.
He describes another figure called God and Lord who remains subject to the Creator.
This language differs significantly from the later, carefully formulated Nicene understanding of equality of divine essence.
Justin does not simply identify Jesus as the same person as the Father.
Nor does he present two independent supreme Gods.
He attempts to explain a distinction within his understanding of divine revelation and agency.
HISTORICAL FINDING: Justin clearly supports personal preexistence, but his explanation of the Father's supremacy is not identical to later Nicene terminology.
11. JUSTIN MARTYR — THE WORD AS FIRE FROM FIRE
In Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 61, Justin uses an analogy.
One fire can kindle another without diminishing the first.
Similarly, he argues that the Word comes forth from the Father without dividing or diminishing Him.
Justin also compares the process with a spoken word proceeding from a speaker.
This is especially interesting for our John 1:1 investigation.
Justin uses the concept of God's Word proceeding from God.
But he understands the result as a personally distinguishable rational power.
Therefore, Justin's theology combines two ideas:
THE WORD ORIGINATES FROM GOD.
THE WORD EXISTS AS A PERSONALLY DISTINGUISHABLE BEING BEFORE CREATION.
This is not the same as the Biblical Unitarian Genesis Word interpretation.
Yet the analogy demonstrates that early Christian thinkers understood the Logos through God's own speech and reason.
12. DID JUSTIN BELIEVE IN TWO ALMIGHTY GODS?
Justin does not present two independent supreme deities.
He consistently gives the Father the highest position.
The Logos acts according to the Father's will.
Nevertheless, Justin can describe the Logos as another God and Lord.
This creates a theological tension.
Later Nicene theology sought to express divine unity without treating the Son as a second independent deity or an inferior creature.
But Justin's own language should be allowed to stand in its historical context.
We should not automatically reinterpret every statement as if he were writing after Nicaea.
Nor should we claim that he simply taught modern Biblical Unitarianism.
His personal-preexistence theology is explicit.
13. THEOPHILUS OF ANTIOCH — GOD'S WORD WITHIN HIM
Theophilus of Antioch, writing in the later second century, is particularly important for our research.
In To Autolycus, Book II, chapter 10, he describes God as possessing His Word internally.
The Word is associated with God's wisdom and creative activity.
Theophilus then describes the Word as being brought forth before creation.
This is a remarkable historical witness.
It demonstrates that early Logos theology could distinguish between the Word existing within God and the Word being expressed or brought forth.
The Biblical Unitarian Genesis interpretation has an obvious point of contact with the first idea.
God possesses His own Word.
But Theophilus goes beyond a purely impersonal interpretation when he describes the Word proceeding and functioning in creation.
Therefore, his theology cannot simply be equated with the view that Jesus had no personal existence before birth.
14. THEOPHILUS — THE INTERNAL AND EXPRESSED WORD
Later scholarship often describes this distinction using the expressions:
LOGOS END IATHETOS — THE INTERNAL WORD.
LOGOS PROPHORIKOS — THE EXPRESSED OR UTTERED WORD.
More conventionally transliterated:
Logos endiathetos.
Logos prophorikos.
These categories concern the relationship between thought and expression.
Theophilus uses language consistent with this conceptual distinction.
God's Word exists within Him.
The Word is then brought forth for the work of creation.
This raises a major question.
Was the Word eternally a distinct conscious person?
Or did personal distinction arise through the Word's coming forth?
Theophilus does not explain the question using later Nicene categories.
His account therefore shows an important stage in the development of Logos theology.
15. THEOPHILUS AND THE WORD IN GENESIS
Theophilus explicitly connects God's Word with Genesis creation.
God creates through His Word.
The Word is not presented as an independent rival to the Creator.
This resembles the biblical language of Psalm 33:6.
But Theophilus also treats the Word as participating in divine action in a way that anticipates later personal Logos theology.
His writings are therefore valuable because they demonstrate that the contrast between God's internal Word and a personally expressed Word was already being explored before Nicaea.
The distinction was not invented by modern Biblical Unitarians.
But Theophilus should not be presented as a straightforward advocate of modern Biblical Unitarian non-preexistence.
His actual position is more complex.
16. THEOPHILUS AND THE WORD “TRINITY”
Theophilus is often identified as one of the earliest surviving Christian writers to use the Greek term trias in a theological context.
In To Autolycus, Book II, chapter 15, he associates the first three days of creation with God, His Word and His Wisdom.
This is historically significant.
But the use of the word trias does not mean that Theophilus had already formulated the Nicene or later Constantinopolitan doctrine of the Trinity.
His conceptual arrangement differs from later standard terminology.
The existence of an early threefold expression is not equivalent to a fully developed doctrine of three coequal, coeternal persons.
HISTORICAL FINDING: Trinitarian vocabulary began appearing before Nicaea, but its meaning and theological structure developed over time.
17. IRENAEUS — GOD CREATED THROUGH HIS WORD AND WISDOM
Irenaeus, writing in the later second century, strongly emphasises the unity of God as Creator.
He describes God as creating through His Word and Wisdom.
He identifies the Son and Spirit with God's creative and revelatory activity.
This is important because Irenaeus opposes theories that separate the supreme God from a lesser creator.
He insists that the one God is responsible for creation.
The Word is not an independent creator acting against the Father's will.
But Irenaeus also understands the Son as personally existing before his human birth.
Therefore, he cannot simply be classified as a non-preexistence Biblical Unitarian.
His theology combines strong monotheism with a personally preexistent Son.
18. IRENAEUS — THE SON'S GENERATION IS MYSTERIOUS
In Against Heresies, Book II, chapter 28, Irenaeus warns against speculative explanations of the Son's generation.
He argues that human beings should not presume to describe mysteries beyond their knowledge.
This is particularly relevant to later debates.
Irenaeus recognises the Son's relationship to the Father.
But he resists overly confident explanations of how divine generation occurs.
His caution deserves attention.
Later theological systems often attempted to define the precise relationship between divine persons.
Irenaeus reminds us that early Christians did not always claim to possess detailed explanations of these mysteries.
This does not mean he denied personal preexistence.
It means his account should not be forced into a later technical framework.
19. TERTULLIAN — THE WORD AS GOD'S REASON
Tertullian, writing in the early third century, provides especially interesting evidence.
In Against Praxeas, chapter 5, he discusses God before creation.
He describes God as possessing reason within Himself.
He associates this reason with the Word.
This resembles the idea of God's internal Word.
Tertullian then explains the Word's procession in connection with divine activity.
His argument is intended to preserve the distinction between Father and Son without dividing God into independent deities.
The language is significant because it shows that the concept of God's Word as internal reason remained central to developing Christian theology.
20. TERTULLIAN — DID THE SON HAVE A BEGINNING?
Tertullian's discussion distinguishes God's eternal possession of reason or Word from the Word's expression as Son.
This has generated debate about whether his theology implies that the Son, as personally distinct, had a beginning.
Some historians understand Tertullian's account as involving a development from internal Word to expressed Son.
Others emphasise that he regards God's Word as eternally present within God.
The distinction is important.
Tertullian does not simply teach that God's Word began to exist at creation.
But neither does every statement correspond neatly to the later Nicene doctrine of eternal personal generation.
His writings reveal a developing attempt to explain the relationship between the Father's eternal reason and the Son's personal distinction.
21. TERTULLIAN — ONE SUBSTANCE AND THREE PERSONS
Tertullian helped establish Latin theological vocabulary that later became important.
He used terminology concerning one substance and three persons.
His Latin expressions contributed to the development of Western Trinitarian theology.
But his account still contains language of order and derivation.
The Father is presented as the source.
The Son proceeds from the Father.
The Spirit is discussed within this divine arrangement.
Therefore, the emergence of technical Trinitarian terminology did not immediately eliminate all questions concerning hierarchy, derivation or the Son's origin.
The theology was still developing.
22. PRAXEAS AND THE ONENESS CONTROVERSY
Tertullian wrote against a position associated with Praxeas.
That position was understood as collapsing the distinction between Father and Son.
In later terminology, similar approaches are often called modalistic.
Under a modalistic interpretation, Father and Son are not eternally distinct divine persons in the Nicene sense.
Instead, they concern God's different manifestations or modes of action.
Tertullian strongly opposed this explanation.
This demonstrates that debates over divine personal distinction existed well before Nicaea.
But we must distinguish early modalistic positions from modern Oneness Pentecostal theology.
They are historically related in some conceptual respects but not identical movements.
23. ORIGEN — THE ETERNAL GENERATION OF THE SON
Origen, writing in the early third century, made a major contribution to Logos theology.
He argued that the Son's generation should not be understood as an ordinary event occurring at a particular moment in time.
His account develops the idea of the Son's eternal generation.
This differs from explanations in which the Word comes forth as a distinct being only when God prepares to create.
Origen understands the Father-Son relationship as belonging to God's eternal reality.
This is an important development toward later Nicene theology.
But Origen's terminology and hierarchical assumptions do not always correspond to later orthodoxy.
He should be studied in his own historical setting.
24. ORIGEN — THE FATHER AS THE ULTIMATE SOURCE
Origen distinguishes the Father from the Son.
He often gives the Father a unique position as the ultimate source of divinity.
He also describes the Son using extraordinary divine language.
This combination is important.
Origen does not simply teach that Jesus was an ordinary human prophet.
Nor does he present the Son as the same person as the Father.
His theology attempts to preserve divine unity, personal distinction and the Son's eternal relation to the Father.
But the precise status of the Son relative to the Father remained a subject of debate.
Later theologians adopted some of Origen's ideas while rejecting or revising others.
25. WERE THERE EARLY CHRISTIANS WHO REJECTED PERSONAL PREEXISTENCE?
Yes.
Historical sources describe early Christian groups and teachers who understood Jesus primarily as a human Messiah.
Some associated with Jewish-Christian traditions emphasised Jesus' humanity, observance of the Law and relationship to Israel.
Certain groups known as Ebionites are described by later writers as rejecting the idea that Jesus was a personally preexistent divine being.
But the evidence is complicated.
Different ancient writers describe different beliefs under the same group names.
Some reports concern the virgin birth.
Others concern adoptionist explanations of Jesus' sonship.
The original writings of many such groups have not survived.
Therefore, we should not speak as though all Jewish Christians shared one uniform theology.
26. THE EBIONITES — WHAT CAN WE ESTABLISH?
The Ebionites are frequently mentioned in discussions of early non-Trinitarian Christianity.
Some ancient reports describe them as regarding Jesus as a human being specially chosen by God.
Other reports indicate disagreements concerning the virgin birth and other doctrines.
This is important for Biblical Unitarian research.
It demonstrates that not every early Christian group accepted the personally preexistent Logos theology found in Justin.
But we must avoid claiming that the Ebionites were simply identical to modern Biblical Unitarians.
Their beliefs, practices and scriptural interpretations differed in important respects.
And much of our knowledge comes from opponents.
HISTORICAL FINDING: Early Christianity included human-Messiah interpretations, but their precise distribution and earliest development cannot be reconstructed with certainty.
27. THEODOTUS AND DYNAMIC MONARCHIANISM
Theodotus of Byzantium is associated with a late second-century interpretation that emphasised Jesus' humanity.
Later writers describe his position as treating Jesus as a man empowered by God.
Such views are often grouped under dynamic monarchianism or adoptionist Christology.
The terminology requires caution.
Not every teacher who emphasised Jesus' humanity denied the miraculous conception.
Not every adoptionist explanation was identical.
But the historical evidence demonstrates that some Christians rejected the idea that Jesus was personally the eternal divine Son.
Their interpretation placed greater emphasis upon God's action in the human Messiah.
This provides an important historical comparison with modern Biblical Unitarian arguments.
28. PAUL OF SAMOSATA — A LATER NON-PREEXISTENCE APPROACH
Paul of Samosata, active in the third century, is another important figure.
He is associated with a theology emphasising the one God and the human Jesus.
His opponents accused him of denying the personal preexistence of the Son.
Some reconstructions understand his Logos theology as treating the Word as God's own reason or power rather than a distinct heavenly person.
But the surviving evidence is fragmentary and often hostile.
Therefore, detailed claims about his exact teaching require caution.
Nevertheless, his controversy demonstrates that debates concerning the Word's personal existence continued long before Nicaea.
29. DID THE EARLIEST CHRISTIANS ALL AGREE?
No.
The surviving evidence shows significant diversity.
Some writers clearly believed in a personally preexistent Son.
Others emphasised Jesus' human origin and divine appointment.
Some understood the Word through God's internal reason.
Others described the Word as proceeding from God before creation.
Still others developed accounts of eternal generation.
But diversity alone does not establish which interpretation is correct.
The question is not merely how many views existed.
The question is which interpretation best explains the biblical writings.
Historical evidence can illuminate the development of ideas.
It cannot replace careful biblical exegesis.
30. DID THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY BEGIN AT NICAEA?
No, not in the simple sense that the idea appeared suddenly in AD 325.
Christians had debated the relationship between Father, Son and Spirit for generations.
Justin, Theophilus, Irenaeus, Tertullian and Origen all contributed to those discussions.
Some used threefold language.
Some described personal distinction.
Some affirmed the Son's preexistence.
Some developed ideas concerning divine generation.
Therefore, it would be historically inaccurate to claim that Constantine or the Council of Nicaea simply invented belief in the Son's preexistence.
However, it would also be inaccurate to claim that every earlier Christian writer taught the fully developed Nicene doctrine in identical terms.
The historical development was real.
31. WHAT DID THE COUNCIL OF NICAEA ACTUALLY DECIDE?
The Council of Nicaea met in AD 325.
Its central controversy concerned the relationship between the Father and Son.
Arius and his supporters taught that the Son did not possess the same eternal status as the Father.
The council rejected the claim that the Son was made from nothing or belonged among created things.
It affirmed that the Son was begotten from the Father's essence and was:
ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί
Homoousion tō Patri.
Meaning:
OF THE SAME ESSENCE OR SUBSTANCE AS THE FATHER.
This was a major doctrinal statement.
But Nicaea did not produce the complete later formulation of Trinitarian doctrine in its final historical form.
Further controversy and clarification followed.
32. DID CONSTANTINE INVENT THE TRINITY?
No.
Constantine supported the council and played an important political role.
But the underlying theological debates existed long before his reign.
Justin Martyr wrote about the personally preexistent Logos approximately 150 years before Nicaea.
Theophilus discussed God, His Word and His Wisdom in the second century.
Tertullian used Trinitarian terminology in the early third century.
Origen developed eternal-generation theology before Constantine.
Therefore, the claim that Constantine invented the entire doctrine is historically untenable.
But imperial involvement influenced the political and institutional setting in which doctrinal decisions were made.
The distinction between theological development and imperial enforcement is important.
33. WHAT ABOUT THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE IN AD 381?
The Council of Constantinople in AD 381 belongs to a later stage of Trinitarian development.
The creed associated with this period provides a fuller statement concerning the Holy Spirit.
The fourth-century debates helped establish the terminology of one divine essence and three distinct persons.
Therefore, the fully developed classical doctrine was not expressed in precisely the same form by the earliest second-century writers.
This is an important historical observation.
But doctrinal development does not automatically prove doctrinal corruption.
Nor does later formulation automatically prove biblical correctness.
The doctrine must still be evaluated against Scripture.
34. DOES THE EARLIEST HISTORICAL EVIDENCE SUPPORT THE GENESIS WORD INTERPRETATION?
It supports an important part of that interpretation.
Theophilus and Tertullian describe God's Word or reason as existing within God.
They connect the Word with divine creative activity.
This demonstrates that understanding the Logos as God's own reason or expression has genuine ancient roots.
But those writers generally develop the concept beyond a purely impersonal Word.
They describe the Word as proceeding or functioning in a personally distinguishable manner.
Therefore, their writings cannot simply be cited as direct endorsements of the modern Biblical Unitarian Genesis Word interpretation.
They support the antiquity of its conceptual starting point.
They do not establish its entire theological conclusion.
35. DOES EARLY HISTORY SUPPORT THE GOSPEL-BEGINNING INTERPRETATION?
The evidence is less direct.
The early writers examined here commonly associate John 1 with God's creative Word and the original creation.
They do not provide clear surviving examples of a developed interpretation restricting John 1:1–3 entirely to the beginning of Jesus' ministry.
This does not prove that no early Christian ever held such a view.
The surviving record is incomplete.
But we must distinguish possibility from evidence.
THE EARLIEST SURVIVING LOGOS COMMENTARY MORE CLEARLY SUPPORTS A GENESIS-CREATION BACKGROUND THAN AN EXCLUSIVELY GOSPEL-BEGINNING INTERPRETATION.
That is a historical observation, not a final judgment concerning biblical meaning.
36. DOES EARLY HISTORY SUPPORT PERSONAL PREEXISTENCE?
Yes, substantially.
Justin Martyr clearly teaches that the Logos existed before Jesus' human birth.
Irenaeus understands the Son as personally involved in God's revelation and creative work.
Origen develops an explicit account of eternal generation.
Other writers also present forms of personal Logos preexistence.
Therefore, personal preexistence is not merely a doctrine invented at Nicaea.
It is clearly documented in second-century Christianity.
But the historical evidence does not establish that every Christian accepted it.
Nor does personal preexistence automatically establish Nicene equality with the Father.
Those are separate questions.
37. DOES EARLY HISTORY SUPPORT THE FATHER'S SUPREMACY?
Yes.
Several early Christian writers strongly emphasise the Father as the ultimate source of divine activity.
Justin describes the Logos as proceeding from the Father and acting according to His will.
Theophilus presents God as possessing and bringing forth His Word.
Irenaeus emphasises the one Creator acting through His Word and Wisdom.
Tertullian describes the Father as the source from whom the Word proceeds.
Origen gives the Father a distinctive position as the ultimate source.
But the theological significance differs between writers.
Fatherly sourcehood is not automatically equivalent to modern Biblical Unitarianism.
The same writers may also affirm personal preexistence and divine titles for the Son.
We must examine their complete positions.
38. AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION — SUBORDINATION IS NOT NON-PREEXISTENCE
This distinction is especially important.
A writer may believe:
THE FATHER IS GREATER THAN THE SON.
And also believe:
THE SON PERSONALLY EXISTED BEFORE CREATION.
Justin provides a clear example of this combination.
Therefore, evidence that an early writer subordinated the Son to the Father does not establish that the writer rejected personal preexistence.
Similarly, a writer may reject Nicene equality while affirming a heavenly Son.
Our final comparison must avoid confusing these positions.
39. ANOTHER DISTINCTION — GOD'S WORD WITHIN HIM IS NOT NECESSARILY A SEPARATE PERSON
Theophilus and Tertullian demonstrate that early Christians could speak of God's Word as internal to God.
This is important.
God's reason and wisdom do not automatically require another conscious person beside Him.
The Biblical Unitarian Genesis interpretation therefore has a meaningful conceptual foundation.
But some early writers then describe the Word coming forth as personally distinguishable.
This creates a second question.
WHEN, IF EVER, DOES THE WORD BECOME A DISTINCT PERSONAL SUBJECT?
Some early writers connected this development with creation.
Origen moved toward an eternal understanding of the Father-Son relation.
Modern Biblical Unitarians commonly understand personal existence as beginning with Jesus' conception.
These are different answers to the same underlying problem.
40. DID EARLY CHRISTIANS IDENTIFY JESUS AS THE FATHER?
Not uniformly, and many explicitly rejected doing so.
Justin distinguishes the Father from the Logos.
Irenaeus distinguishes the Father and Son.
Tertullian argues against collapsing Father and Son into one person.
Origen likewise distinguishes them.
Therefore, the historical evidence strongly supports the existence of early Christian belief in a real distinction between Father and Son.
But this does not automatically establish the later doctrine of coequal persons.
Personal distinction and equality of divine essence are separate claims.
41. COMPARING THE MAJOR EARLY WRITERS
| Writer or group | Approximate period | View of the Word or Son | Main relevance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Didache | Late 1st–early 2nd century | Father-directed worship; Jesus as God's servant/child | Does not resolve Logos preexistence |
| 1 Clement | Late 1st century | God acts through Jesus | Strong distinction between God and mediator |
| Ignatius | Early 2nd century | Very high language about Jesus | Pre-Nicene divine terminology |
| Justin Martyr | Mid-2nd century | Personally preexistent Logos begotten from Father | Clear preexistence with Father's supremacy |
| Theophilus | Late 2nd century | Internal Word brought forth before creation | Word as God's own reason and expression |
| Irenaeus | Late 2nd century | Preexistent Son, God's Word and Wisdom | One Creator acting through Word and Spirit |
| Tertullian | Early 3rd century | Word within God and proceeding as Son | Development of Trinitarian terminology |
| Origen | Early 3rd century | Eternal generation of Son | Important precursor to Nicene theology |
| Some Ebionite groups | Early centuries | Human-Messiah interpretations | Evidence of non-preexistence views |
| Theodotus | Late 2nd century | Jesus as human Messiah empowered by God | Dynamic monarchian approach |
| Paul of Samosata | 3rd century | Word associated with God's own reason or power | Important non-preexistence controversy |
| Nicaea | AD 325 | Son of same essence as Father | Formal doctrinal definition |
The table demonstrates that early Christianity was neither completely uniform nor devoid of high Christology.
42. WHICH VIEW APPEARS EARLIEST IN THE SURVIVING EVIDENCE?
This question requires caution.
The New Testament is our earliest substantial Christian literary evidence.
It contains the very passages under investigation.
Among later writings, Father-directed prayer and Jesus' mediatorial role are clearly visible.
Explicit personal Logos preexistence becomes especially clear in Justin Martyr.
But the absence of detailed Logos explanations in some earlier writings does not establish that personal preexistence was unknown.
Nor does Justin's explicit teaching prove that every apostle interpreted John 1 in exactly the same way.
The historical evidence cannot be reduced to a simple sequence in which one doctrine universally existed and another suddenly replaced it.
The development was more complex.
43. THE MOST IMPORTANT HISTORICAL FINDING
Our investigation has uncovered a particularly significant pattern.
Early Christian writers frequently begin with God's Word and Wisdom.
They then explain the relationship between that Word and the Son.
Some understand the Word as eternally related to God.
Some describe the Word as coming forth for creation.
Some emphasise personal distinction.
Others emphasise God's internal reason or power.
This shows that the relationship between God's Word and the person of Jesus was a genuine theological problem in early Christianity.
The later doctrine of the Trinity was one historical attempt to explain that relationship.
But it was not the only interpretation proposed.
44. TWELVE KEY FINDINGS
FIRST: Early Christian belief about Jesus was not completely uniform.
SECOND: The earliest surviving writings frequently distinguish God the Father from Jesus Christ.
THIRD: High divine language about Jesus existed long before Nicaea.
FOURTH: Justin Martyr clearly taught personal preexistence.
FIFTH: Justin also presented the Father as the supreme source.
SIXTH: Theophilus described God's Word as existing within God and being brought forth before creation.
SEVENTH: Tertullian similarly discussed God's internal reason and the Word's procession.
EIGHTH: Irenaeus strongly emphasised one Creator acting through His Word and Wisdom.
NINTH: Origen developed the idea of eternal generation before Nicaea.
TENTH: Some early Christian groups and teachers rejected personal preexistence.
ELEVENTH: The Council of Nicaea did not invent personal Logos preexistence, but it formalised a particular doctrine concerning the Son's divine essence.
TWELFTH: Historical testimony is valuable evidence of interpretation, but Scripture remains the primary source for determining John's intended meaning.
45. OUR HISTORICAL ASSESSMENT
What does this evidence mean for our John 1:1 investigation?
First, the claim that personal preexistence was invented by Constantine or the Council of Nicaea is historically incorrect.
Second-century Christian writers clearly taught personal Logos preexistence.
Second, the claim that all early Christians believed the fully developed Nicene doctrine is also historically incorrect.
The surviving writings contain significant differences in terminology and explanation.
Third, the Biblical Unitarian Genesis Word interpretation has meaningful historical connections with early discussions of God's internal Word and reason.
But Theophilus and Tertullian should not be presented as straightforward advocates of modern Biblical Unitarian theology.
Fourth, early human-Messiah interpretations existed.
But the surviving evidence does not establish that they represented the universal original apostolic belief.
Fifth, the Gospel-beginning interpretation has less direct support in the surviving early Logos discussions than the Genesis-creation interpretation.
This does not automatically disprove it.
But the historical evidence should be reported accurately.
46. OUR PROVISIONAL CONCLUSION
The earliest surviving Christian writings reveal a developing understanding of the relationship between God, His Word and Jesus Christ.
They do not present one completely uniform theological system.
Some writers clearly believed that Jesus personally existed before his birth.
Others emphasised the Word as God's own reason, wisdom and power.
Some understood the Son as subordinate to the Father.
Others developed increasingly sophisticated explanations of eternal generation and divine unity.
THE HISTORICAL EVIDENCE DOES NOT SUPPORT THE CLAIM THAT PERSONAL PREEXISTENCE WAS INVENTED AT NICAEA.
NOR DOES IT SUPPORT THE CLAIM THAT EVERY EARLY CHRISTIAN BELIEVED IN THE FULLY DEVELOPED NICENE TRINITY.
The distinction is crucial.
The development of doctrine was real.
But development alone does not establish whether the final doctrine was correct.
That question must be answered by examining Scripture.
For our particular research, the most important historical observation is that God's Word as internal reason and creative expression was a genuine early Christian concept, while personal Logos preexistence was also clearly taught well before Nicaea.
The historical record therefore helps us understand the competing interpretations.
It does not, by itself, decide between them.
47. WHAT MUST OUR FINAL BIBLICAL COMPARISON ESTABLISH?
We are now ready to bring the evidence together.
The remaining question is not merely what early Christians believed.
It is:
WHICH INTERPRETATION BEST EXPLAINS THE COMPLETE BIBLICAL EVIDENCE?
We must compare:
The Trinitarian interpretation.
The Oneness interpretation.
The Jehovah's Witness interpretation.
The non-Trinitarian personally preexistent Son interpretation.
The Biblical Unitarian Genesis Word interpretation.
And the Biblical Unitarian Gospel-beginning interpretation.
Each must be tested against the same passages.
Each must explain the strongest evidence supporting competing views.
And each must be evaluated without assuming that its theological conclusion is already correct.
END OF PART 24
Coming in Part 25: “THE FINAL BIBLICAL COMPARISON — WHICH INTERPRETATION OF JOHN 1:1 BEST FITS THE WHOLE BIBLE?”
Part 25 will bring together all our previous research.
We will compare the interpretations passage by passage, examine their strongest arguments and weaknesses, and determine which questions remain unresolved.
Then Part 26 will present our final verdict concerning:
THE BEGINNING.
THE WORD.
THE WORD WITH GOD.
THE WORD WAS GOD.
ALL THINGS CAME INTO EXISTENCE THROUGH THE WORD.
AND THE WORD BECAME FLESH.
Our guiding principle remains unchanged:
The goal is not to prove what we already believe. The goal is to discover what the Bible actually teaches.
JOHN 1:1 — GOD'S WORD, OR THE BEGINNING OF JESUS' MINISTRY?
PART 25 — THE FINAL BIBLICAL COMPARISON
WHICH INTERPRETATION OF JOHN 1:1 BEST FITS THE WHOLE BIBLE?
A comprehensive comparison of Trinitarian, Oneness, Jehovah's Witness, non-Trinitarian preexistence and the two principal Biblical Unitarian interpretations
By Simon Brown — Real Discoveries
https://wwwrealdiscoveriesorg-simon.blogspot.com
1. INTRODUCTION — THE TIME HAS COME TO COMPARE THE EVIDENCE
Throughout this investigation, we have examined the opening verses of John's Gospel, the meaning of the Greek Logos, the creation accounts, the origin of Jesus, his heavenly language, his relationship with the Father and the testimony of early Christianity.
We have examined arguments for personal preexistence.
We have examined arguments against it.
We have investigated whether Jesus is identified as Almighty God.
We have examined the meaning of the titles God, Lord, Son of God and Word.
Now we must bring the evidence together.
Our central question is:
WHAT DID JOHN ACTUALLY MEAN WHEN HE WROTE, “IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD”?
But we must not answer that question by assuming the identity of the Word before examining the evidence.
We must first determine what beginning John describes.
Then we must investigate what the Word was.
Finally, we must determine how the Word became flesh in Jesus Christ.
This chapter will compare six major interpretations using the same biblical tests.
The final theological judgment will follow in Part 26.
2. THE SIX INTERPRETATIONS
For clarity, we will compare six distinct models.
MODEL A — TRINITARIAN
The Word is the eternal Son, personally distinct from the Father but sharing the one divine essence. The Son existed before creation and became human in Jesus Christ.
MODEL B — ONENESS OR MODALISTIC
The Word is God's own divine self-expression, not a second eternal divine person. God Himself was manifested in Jesus. Modern Oneness theology distinguishes the divine identity from the genuinely human Son.
MODEL C — JEHOVAH'S WITNESS
The Word is a personally preexistent heavenly being, understood as God's first creation, through whom God created everything else.
MODEL D — NON-TRINITARIAN PREEXISTENT SON
The Son personally existed before his human birth, but the Father alone is identified as the supreme God. This broad category includes different views of the Son's origin and status.
MODEL E — BIBLICAL UNITARIAN: GENESIS WORD
The beginning refers to Genesis creation. The Word is God's own creative speech, wisdom, purpose and self-expression. This Word became embodied in Jesus, whose personal existence began through miraculous conception.
MODEL F — BIBLICAL UNITARIAN: GOSPEL BEGINNING
The beginning refers primarily to the Gospel or new creation. The Word is God's saving message, revealed and embodied in Jesus. Jesus did not personally exist before his conception.
These are broad interpretive models. Individual advocates differ on important details.
3. THE FIRST PRINCIPLE — DO NOT CONFUSE BEGINNING WITH IDENTITY
This distinction is foundational.
A person may believe that John 1:1 refers to Genesis creation without believing that Jesus personally existed at Genesis creation.
That is Model E.
A person may believe that John 1:1 refers to Genesis creation and also believe that the Word was the personally preexistent Son.
That is common to Models A, C and D.
A person may believe that the Word was God's own divine self-expression but interpret the incarnation differently from Biblical Unitarians.
That is characteristic of Model B.
Therefore:
GENESIS BEGINNING DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY MEAN PERSONAL PREEXISTENCE.
Equally:
REJECTING PERSONAL PREEXISTENCE DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY MEAN THE BEGINNING OF JESUS' MINISTRY.
We must test the two questions independently.
4. OUR METHOD OF COMPARISON
Each interpretation will be examined against five major categories of evidence.
Language: Does it explain John's Greek naturally?
Immediate context: Does it fit John 1:1–18?
Old Testament background: Does it fit Genesis, the Psalms, Isaiah and Jewish Word/Wisdom traditions?
Wider New Testament: Does it explain Jesus' origin, heavenly language, creation passages and relationship with God?
Explanatory consistency: Does it account for difficult passages without repeatedly introducing unsupported assumptions?
We will use qualitative assessments rather than numerical scores.
A numerical score can create the appearance of scientific precision where the evidence actually requires historical and literary judgment.
Our objective is not to manufacture a winner.
It is to identify which interpretations explain particular passages most naturally and where their difficulties remain.
THE FIRST MAJOR TEST: WHAT BEGINNING DID JOHN MEAN?
5. JOHN 1:1 AND GENESIS 1:1
John begins:
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” — John 1:1, WEB
Genesis begins:
“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” — Genesis 1:1, WEB
The Greek opening of John is:
Ἐν ἀρχῇ — En archē.
The Greek Septuagint version of Genesis 1:1 also begins:
Ἐν ἀρχῇ — En archē.
This verbal correspondence is striking.
John then introduces life, light and darkness.
Genesis describes God's creation of light and the separation of light from darkness.
John also uses language of things coming into existence.
The cumulative literary resemblance is substantial.
FINDING: John deliberately evokes Genesis creation.
This is one of the strongest observations in the entire investigation.
6. DOES A GENESIS ECHO PROVE JOHN MEANT ONLY ORIGINAL CREATION?
No.
John may deliberately evoke Genesis while also introducing a new-creation theme.
The Gospel repeatedly concerns new life, light, belief, rebirth and the formation of God's children.
The Genesis language may serve a theological purpose beyond merely retelling the creation account.
Therefore, two possibilities must be distinguished.
POSSIBILITY ONE: John directly describes original creation through the Word and subsequently introduces the Word's manifestation in Jesus.
POSSIBILITY TWO: John uses Genesis language to describe God's new creative work in the Gospel.
Both recognise the Genesis echo.
But the first reads the creation-language more literally in relation to the original cosmos.
The second gives the language a primarily theological or new-creation referent.
We must examine John 1:3 to determine which reading has stronger contextual support.
7. JOHN 1:3 — “ALL THINGS CAME INTO BEING”
The Greek reads:
πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο
Panta di' autou egeneto.
“All things came into being through him/it.”
John adds that apart from the Word nothing came into being that has come into being.
This is comprehensive language.
The Genesis interpretation understands it as referring to original creation.
The Gospel-beginning interpretation understands it as referring to everything brought about through God's new saving work.
But John does not explicitly qualify “all things” as “all things in the church” or “all things in the new creation.”
That limitation must be established from context.
The immediate Genesis echoes favour the original-creation interpretation.
FINDING: John 1:3 provides stronger direct support for original creation than for an exclusively new-creation reading.
8. JOHN 1:4–5 — LIFE, LIGHT AND DARKNESS
John continues by associating the Word with life and light.
The light shines in darkness.
This imagery recalls Genesis.
But it also anticipates Jesus' ministry.
John later identifies Jesus as the light of the world.
Therefore, the imagery operates on more than one level.
Original creation provides the background.
The Gospel provides the fulfilment and application.
This suggests that John may intentionally connect creation and redemption.
The original-creation and new-creation themes need not be mutually exclusive.
The real question is whether the new-creation application replaces the original-creation referent.
The passage does not clearly require such a replacement.
9. JOHN 1:6 — JOHN THE BAPTIST ENTERS THE NARRATIVE
John introduces a man sent from God whose name was John.
This marks an identifiable historical transition.
The prologue moves from the Word, creation, life and light to the witness of John the Baptist.
The Gospel-beginning interpretation emphasises this transition.
It argues that the surrounding context concerns Jesus' ministry.
That is correct.
But the Genesis interpretation explains the same transition as a movement from God's preexistent Word and creative work into the historical appearance of the light.
Therefore, John the Baptist's introduction does not settle the earlier meaning of “beginning.”
It does, however, show that the prologue moves toward the historical revelation of Jesus.
10. OUR FIRST COMPARATIVE RESULT
| Interpretation | Genesis echo | John 1:3 creation-language | New-creation themes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trinitarian | Strong fit | Strong fit | Strong fit |
| Oneness | Strong fit | Strong fit | Strong fit |
| Jehovah's Witness | Strong fit | Strong fit, with questions about the Word's created status | Strong fit |
| Preexistent subordinate Son | Strong fit | Strong fit | Strong fit |
| BU Genesis Word | Strong fit | Strong fit | Strong fit |
| BU Gospel beginning | Recognises the echo | Requires broader figurative or restricted interpretation | Strong fit |
PROVISIONAL RESULT:
The Genesis-creation reading has the stronger immediate textual foundation.
But this result does not decide whether the Word was personally preexistent.
That is our next test.
THE SECOND MAJOR TEST: WHO OR WHAT WAS THE WORD?
11. THE MEANING OF LOGOS
The Greek noun is:
λόγος — logos.
Its meanings include word, speech, message, account, reason and expression.
The noun does not inherently mean Jesus Christ.
Nor does it inherently mean an impersonal message.
John's intended meaning must be determined from the prologue.
In the Hebrew Scriptures, God's Word accomplishes His will.
In Jewish wisdom traditions, God's wisdom can be personified.
In some early Jewish philosophical writings, Logos language becomes a means of describing divine reason and creative activity.
These backgrounds support a rich understanding of the Word.
But they do not independently establish whether John identifies the Word as a conscious person.
12. THE OLD TESTAMENT TEST — PSALM 33:6
Psalm 33:6 describes the heavens as made by Yahweh's Word and the breath of His mouth.
The Genesis Word interpretation understands this as a direct conceptual parallel.
God creates through His own speech.
The traditional preexistence interpretations understand God's Word as ultimately revealing the Son's role in creation.
Both recognise God's creative Word.
But Psalm 33:6 itself does not explicitly distinguish a second conscious divine person.
FINDING: The Old Testament background establishes that God's Word can be described as creatively active without independently proving personal distinction.
This is a substantial strength of Model E.
However, John may develop the concept beyond its Old Testament presentation.
That possibility must remain open.
13. PROVERBS 8 — PERSONIFIED WISDOM
Proverbs 8 presents Wisdom speaking.
Wisdom describes a relationship with God before and during creation.
This provides a significant parallel to John's Word-language.
But personification is a recognised literary device.
The fact that Wisdom speaks does not automatically establish a separate divine person.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation argues that John's Word can be understood similarly.
The traditional interpretation argues that Wisdom imagery prepares the reader for the revelation of the personal Son.
Both approaches have a meaningful literary foundation.
The crucial difference is whether John maintains personification or identifies the Word as a literal preexistent person.
14. JOHN 1:2 — “WITH GOD”
The Greek reads:
πρὸς τὸν θεόν — pros ton theon.
The traditional interpretation understands this as personal relationship.
The Word was with God.
The Biblical Unitarian Genesis interpretation understands the Word as belonging to God and being oriented toward Him as His own self-expression.
The phrase can carry interpersonal significance.
That gives the personal interpretation a real argument.
But grammatical possibility does not independently establish the metaphysical nature of the Word.
We must avoid two opposite errors.
ERROR ONE: Claiming that pros ton theon automatically proves two eternal persons.
ERROR TWO: Claiming that the phrase cannot describe a personal relationship.
The language supports a meaningful relationship or orientation.
Its precise referent remains disputed.
15. JOHN 1:3 — THE MASCULINE PRONOUNS
Greek uses masculine pronouns referring to the masculine noun logos.
English translations commonly use “him.”
But Greek grammatical gender does not independently establish personhood.
An impersonal masculine noun can receive masculine pronouns.
Therefore, the pronouns alone cannot prove that the Word was Jesus personally.
However, the traditional interpretation does not rest solely on grammatical gender.
It appeals to the complete description of the Word and its later identification with Jesus.
FINDING: Pronoun gender is not a decisive test.
Both sides must use contextual evidence.
16. JOHN 1:14 — THE WORD BECAME FLESH
John declares:
“The Word became flesh, and lived among us.” — John 1:14, WEB
The Greek reads:
ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο
Ho logos sarx egeneto.
This is the crucial transition.
The traditional interpretation understands a preexistent personal Son becoming human.
The Biblical Unitarian Genesis interpretation understands God's Word becoming embodied in the human Messiah.
The Oneness interpretation understands God's own divine self-expression being manifested in flesh.
The Gospel-beginning interpretation understands God's saving message becoming embodied in Jesus.
The Greek establishes a transition from Word to flesh.
But it does not explicitly explain the metaphysical process.
The interpretation depends on how the Word has been identified in the preceding verses.
17. DOES JOHN SAY “THE SON BECAME FLESH”?
John's exact wording is important.
He writes:
THE WORD BECAME FLESH.
He does not write:
THE ETERNAL SON BECAME FLESH.
This is a legitimate observation.
But we must not turn it into an argument from silence.
John may intend the Word to be understood as the personal Son.
The traditional interpretation argues that the prologue reveals precisely this identification.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation argues that John identifies Jesus as the historical embodiment of God's Word.
Both must explain why John chose the noun logos and how the Word's identity develops.
The absence of the later expression “God the Son” does not settle the question.
18. THE SECOND COMPARATIVE RESULT
| Evidence | Personal Word interpretation | God's own Word interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| Meaning of logos | Possible | Possible |
| Psalm 33:6 | Requires identifying Word with Son through wider revelation | Direct conceptual fit |
| Proverbs 8 | Can support personal Wisdom Christology | Can support personification |
| “With God” | Natural interpersonal reading | Possible relational or personified reading |
| Masculine pronouns | Grammatically compatible | Grammatically compatible |
| “Word became flesh” | Incarnation | Embodiment |
| Identification with Jesus | Direct personal continuity | Word embodied in a newly existing human person |
PROVISIONAL RESULT:
John 1:1–14 permits serious debate about the Word's personal identity.
The Genesis background strongly supports God's creative Word as the conceptual starting point.
The traditional interpretation gains additional support from the Word's personal associations and the wider Gospel.
The prologue cannot responsibly be decided by one grammatical observation.
THE THIRD MAJOR TEST: WHAT DOES “THE WORD WAS GOD” MEAN?
19. THE ORIGINAL GREEK
John 1:1c reads:
καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
Kai theos ēn ho logos.
The structure places theos before the verb.
The noun theos lacks the definite article in this clause.
The Word, ho logos, is the grammatical subject.
The traditional translation is:
“AND THE WORD WAS GOD.”
Other proposed renderings include:
“THE WORD WAS DIVINE.”
And:
“THE WORD WAS A GOD.”
The question is whether theos is definite, qualitative or indefinite in this context.
20. DOES THE ABSENCE OF THE ARTICLE MEAN “A GOD”?
No automatic rule establishes that conclusion.
Greek does not have an indefinite article corresponding exactly to English “a.”
An anarthrous noun can be definite, qualitative or indefinite depending on context.
Therefore, the absence of the article before theos does not by itself require “a god.”
The Jehovah's Witness interpretation must establish its rendering from the clause and wider context.
Equally, the traditional translation “God” does not automatically prove that the Word is the same person as the Father.
John has already distinguished the Word from ton theon in the preceding clause.
The grammar must be read carefully.
21. DOES “THE WORD WAS GOD” MEAN THE WORD WAS THE FATHER?
Not necessarily.
The Word is described as being with God.
Then the Word is described using theos.
The traditional interpretation understands the distinction as personal and the predication as concerning divine nature.
The Oneness interpretation understands the Word as God's own divine expression, not another eternal divine person.
The Biblical Unitarian Genesis interpretation understands God's Word as divine because it belongs to and expresses God.
The Jehovah's Witness interpretation understands the Word as a subordinate divine being.
The grammar does not by itself decide among these theological models.
But the clause does make a strong statement about the Word's relationship to deity.
It should not be weakened into merely saying that the Word was a good or godly message.
22. THE QUALITATIVE INTERPRETATION
Many grammatical discussions emphasise a qualitative force in John 1:1c.
Under this understanding, theos describes the nature or character of the Word.
The traditional interpretation understands that nature as fully divine.
A non-Trinitarian interpretation may understand the Word as possessing divine character or expressing God's nature without being the Father.
The qualitative reading does not automatically settle the question of personal identity.
Nor does it automatically establish the later doctrine of the Trinity.
The Greek supports a significant claim concerning the Word's divine character.
The exact theological implications require the wider context.
23. THE THIRD COMPARATIVE RESULT
The traditional rendering “the Word was God” is grammatically defensible and widely accepted.
The absence of the article does not require “a god.”
A qualitative understanding is also important.
But none of these grammatical observations independently proves:
That the Word was the Father.
That the Word was a second eternal divine person.
That the Word was a created heavenly being.
That the Word was exclusively an impersonal message.
The clause establishes a profound relationship between the Word and deity.
Its precise theological interpretation remains dependent on the complete prologue and wider biblical evidence.
THE FOURTH MAJOR TEST: DID JESUS PERSONALLY PREEXIST?
24. THE MIRACULOUS CONCEPTION — LUKE 1:35
Luke records the angel explaining that the Holy Spirit will come upon Mary and the power of the Most High will overshadow her.
The angel connects this action with the child's designation as Son of God.
The Greek includes:
διὸ καί — dio kai.
“Therefore also.”
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands this as the beginning of Jesus' personal existence.
The traditional interpretation understands it as the beginning of the preexistent Son's human existence.
Luke does not explicitly describe a heavenly person entering Mary's womb.
That is a significant observation.
But Luke also does not explicitly deny the possibility of personal preexistence.
FINDING: Luke 1:35 strongly establishes miraculous human origin, but does not independently settle the chronological origin of the Son's personhood.
25. JOHN 6:38 — “I CAME DOWN FROM HEAVEN”
Jesus speaks of coming down from heaven to do the Father's will.
The traditional interpretation understands literal heavenly origin.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands divine commissioning and heavenly authority.
The bread discourse uses metaphorical language.
Manna is described as bread from heaven.
Jesus is the true bread provided by God.
That gives the nonliteral interpretation an important contextual argument.
But Jesus speaks personally about his own descent.
Therefore, the metaphorical setting does not automatically remove the possibility of literal personal preexistence.
The passage remains significant evidence for that interpretation.
26. JOHN 6:62 — “WHERE HE WAS BEFORE”
Jesus asks what would happen if his hearers saw the Son of Man ascending to where he was before.
This is one of the strongest passages for personal preexistence.
The natural reading is that the Son of Man previously occupied the place to which he would ascend.
Biblical Unitarian alternatives include prophetic-vision and foreordained-destiny interpretations.
The Daniel 7:13 connection is particularly relevant because the title Son of Man evokes Daniel's heavenly vision.
But John 6:62 does not explicitly say that Jesus existed only in Daniel's vision.
FINDING: The personal-preexistence reading has a substantial advantage in the immediate wording of John 6:62.
Alternative readings require additional contextual argument.
27. JOHN 8:58 — “BEFORE ABRAHAM WAS, I AM”
The Greek reads:
πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί
Prin Abraam genesthai, egō eimi.
The traditional interpretation understands Jesus as claiming existence before Abraham.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation may understand the statement through messianic priority, divine foreknowledge or prophetic promise.
The surrounding discussion concerns Abraham seeing Jesus' day.
That provides some basis for understanding the passage through messianic expectation.
But the first-person contrast between Abraham's coming into existence and Jesus' “I am” naturally suggests something more than merely being foretold.
FINDING: John 8:58 is significant evidence for personal preexistence.
However, it does not automatically establish that Jesus is Yahweh or Almighty God.
28. JOHN 17:5 — GLORY BEFORE THE WORLD
Jesus prays concerning the glory he had with the Father before the world existed.
The traditional interpretation understands personally possessed preexistent glory.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands glory established beforehand in God's purpose.
John 17:22 is relevant because Jesus speaks of giving glory to his disciples.
This demonstrates that glory-language can relate to divine purpose and promised participation.
But John 17:5 uses explicit first-person language of previously possessing glory.
The foreordination interpretation must explain that wording.
FINDING: John 17:5 naturally supports personal preexistence, although the wider biblical concept of foreordained glory makes alternative readings possible.
29. PHILIPPIANS 2:6–8 — FROM DIVINE FORM TO SERVANTHOOD
Paul describes Christ as existing in the form of God, not exploiting equality with God, emptying himself, taking the form of a servant and becoming obedient to death.
The traditional interpretation understands the movement as preexistent divine status followed by incarnation and humiliation.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands Jesus as the obedient human Messiah who refuses to grasp at status.
The Adam comparison is important.
Adam was made in God's image.
Jesus, unlike Adam, obeyed.
But the traditional interpretation argues that the language of taking human likeness naturally suggests a transition into the human condition.
FINDING: Both interpretations have contextual arguments, but the sequence of exalted status, self-emptying and human likeness gives substantial support to the preexistence reading.
30. COLOSSIANS 1:15–17 — ALL THINGS CREATED THROUGH CHRIST
Paul describes Christ as the image of the invisible God and firstborn of all creation.
He then describes all things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, as created in, through and for him.
The traditional interpretation understands original creation.
The Jehovah's Witness interpretation also understands original creation but regards the Son as the first created being.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation may understand the passage through the new creation.
The resurrection and church context in verse 18 gives the new-creation interpretation meaningful support.
But the cosmic language in verses 16–17 is broader than the church alone.
FINDING: The original-creation interpretation has the stronger direct reading of the passage's comprehensive language.
That favours personal preexistence if Christ himself is the personal agent described.
But the distinction between God's Word and the human Messiah remains the central Biblical Unitarian question.
31. HEBREWS 1 — CREATION THROUGH THE SON
Hebrews describes God making the ages through the Son.
It later applies language from Psalm 102 concerning the foundation of the earth and heavens.
The traditional interpretation understands this as original creation through the preexistent Son.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation must explain the creation-language through God's Word, prophetic fulfilment or the messianic age.
But the reference to the earth's foundations and the heavens strongly evokes original creation.
FINDING: Hebrews 1 is a substantial challenge to an exclusively new-creation interpretation.
The natural literary structure supports applying the quoted creation-language to the Son.
32. THE CUMULATIVE EVIDENCE FOR PERSONAL PREEXISTENCE
The strongest argument is not one isolated verse.
It is the combined force of several passages:
John 6:62.
John 8:58.
John 16:28.
John 17:5.
Philippians 2:6–8.
Colossians 1:15–17.
Hebrews 1:1–12.
Each passage has been interpreted differently.
But taken together, they repeatedly associate Jesus with existence, glory, heavenly origin or creative activity preceding his earthly life.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation must explain why this language should consistently be understood in terms of God's purpose, prophetic vision, personification or new creation.
Some individual explanations are plausible.
The cumulative burden is greater.
PROVISIONAL RESULT: The straightforward personal-preexistence reading has a substantial cumulative advantage across these passages.
This remains distinct from whether Jesus is Almighty God.
THE FIFTH MAJOR TEST: WHO IS THE ONE GOD?
33. JOHN 17:3 — THE FATHER AS THE ONLY TRUE GOD
Jesus addresses the Father as the only true God and distinguishes himself as the one sent.
This is one of the strongest passages for Biblical Unitarian theology.
The Father is explicitly identified as the only true God.
The traditional interpretation understands Jesus as distinguishing persons rather than excluding the Son from the one divine essence.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands the wording as directly identifying the Father alone as the one God.
The non-Trinitarian preexistence interpretation can also affirm the Father's unique supremacy.
FINDING: The verse explicitly identifies the Father as the only true God.
Whether it excludes the Son from sharing divine nature is a further theological question.
The distinction must not be obscured.
34. FIRST CORINTHIANS 8:6 — ONE GOD, THE FATHER
Paul writes of one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ.
The Father is described as the source of all things.
Jesus is described as the one through whom all things are.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands the one God as the Father alone.
The traditional interpretation argues that Paul incorporates Jesus into a reformulated Jewish monotheistic confession.
Both recognise that Paul distinguishes the Father and Son.
The passage also uses creation-language associated with both.
FINDING: The Father is explicitly called the one God, while Jesus receives an extraordinary role as the one Lord through whom all things are.
Any complete interpretation must explain both halves.
35. FIRST TIMOTHY 2:5 — ONE GOD AND ONE MEDIATOR
Paul distinguishes the one God from the one mediator between God and humanity, the man Christ Jesus.
This strongly emphasises Jesus' humanity and mediatorial position.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands the distinction straightforwardly.
The traditional interpretation affirms Jesus' humanity while maintaining that the Son also possesses divine nature.
But the verse itself does not explain a two-nature doctrine.
Nor does it explicitly deny personal preexistence.
FINDING: The verse is direct evidence of Jesus' humanity and distinction from God in his mediatorial role, but not an independent disproof of preexistence.
36. JOHN 20:17 AND REVELATION 3:12 — JESUS HAS A GOD
The risen Jesus calls the Father his God.
In Revelation 3:12, the exalted Jesus repeatedly uses the expression “my God.”
These are important passages.
They demonstrate that Jesus' acknowledgment of the Father as his God continues beyond his earthly ministry.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation sees this as powerful evidence against identifying Jesus as Almighty God.
The traditional interpretation understands the relationship through the Son's incarnate and mediatorial identity.
A non-Trinitarian preexistence interpretation can also affirm the Father's supremacy.
FINDING: The Father remains Jesus' God in the New Testament's resurrection and exaltation language.
This must be explained by any interpretation claiming that Jesus shares the Father's divine status.
37. ACTS 2:22–36 — GOD EXALTED THE MAN JESUS
Peter describes Jesus as a man attested by God.
God performs mighty works through him.
God raises him from the dead.
God exalts him.
God makes him Lord and Christ.
This is strongly Father-centred and human-Messiah language.
It is especially compatible with Biblical Unitarian theology.
But the passage does not explicitly discuss Jesus' existence before conception.
The traditional interpretation understands Peter as preaching the historical mission and exaltation of the incarnate Son.
FINDING: Acts 2 strongly establishes Jesus' genuine humanity and dependence upon God's action.
It does not independently settle personal preexistence.
THE SIXTH MAJOR TEST: IS JESUS IDENTIFIED WITH YAHWEH?
38. PSALM 110:1 — YAHWEH AND DAVID'S LORD
Psalm 110:1 distinguishes Yahweh from David's lord.
The Hebrew text uses different forms for the two figures.
The traditional interpretation understands the Messiah as David's exalted Lord.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation emphasises that the second lord is not directly identified as Yahweh in the Hebrew wording.
This distinction is legitimate.
But the New Testament gives the exalted Messiah an extraordinary heavenly position.
FINDING: The title “Lord” alone does not prove that Jesus is Yahweh.
Its meaning depends upon context.
39. PHILIPPIANS 2:9–11 — THE NAME ABOVE EVERY NAME
Paul describes God exalting Jesus and giving him the name above every name.
Every knee bows and every tongue acknowledges Jesus Christ as Lord.
The language recalls Isaiah 45, where universal acknowledgment belongs to Yahweh.
The traditional interpretation understands this as including Jesus in the divine identity.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation emphasises that God gives Jesus this authority and that the confession glorifies God the Father.
Both observations are significant.
The passage contains a remarkable application of Yahweh-language to Jesus.
It also explicitly describes Jesus' exaltation as God's action.
FINDING: The passage supports exceptionally high Christology, but its precise implications for Jesus' relationship to the Father remain debated.
40. HEBREWS 1:10–12 — YAHWEH'S CREATION-LANGUAGE APPLIED TO THE SON
Hebrews quotes Psalm 102, originally addressed to Yahweh.
The quoted language concerns laying the earth's foundation and the heavens being the work of the addressee's hands.
Within Hebrews 1, the natural reading applies this language to the Son.
This is one of the strongest challenges to a strictly low Christology.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation must explain why such language is used for Jesus.
A non-Trinitarian preexistence interpretation must explain how a subordinate Son can receive creation-language originally addressed to Yahweh.
The traditional interpretation understands the application as evidence of the Son's participation in the divine identity.
FINDING: Hebrews 1:10–12 is particularly significant and cannot be dismissed merely by noting that the Father is the one God elsewhere.
41. JOHN 20:28 — “MY LORD AND MY GOD”
Thomas addresses the risen Jesus:
“My Lord and my God!” — John 20:28, WEB
The natural grammatical reading is that Thomas addresses Jesus.
This is strong evidence of extraordinary divine language applied to Jesus.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation must explain whether the statement expresses recognition of God's presence and action in Jesus or uses representative divine language.
The traditional interpretation understands it as a direct confession of Jesus' deity.
But John's Gospel also records Jesus calling the Father his God.
And John 20:31 states the Gospel's purpose in terms of believing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.
FINDING: Thomas's confession is strong evidence of divine language addressed to Jesus, but its relationship to John's Father-Son distinction requires careful explanation.
THE SEVENTH MAJOR TEST: WHAT DO WORSHIP AND PRAYER ESTABLISH?
42. DID PEOPLE WORSHIP JESUS?
The Greek verb proskyneō can describe worship or acts of homage.
Its meaning depends upon context.
In the New Testament, people bow before Jesus.
The risen Jesus receives extraordinary honour.
Revelation 5 depicts heavenly praise directed to the Lamb alongside the one seated on the throne.
The traditional interpretation sees this as evidence of divine worship.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation distinguishes homage to God's appointed Messiah from worship belonging exclusively to the Father.
But Revelation 5 presents a particularly elevated setting.
FINDING: Ordinary acts of bowing do not independently prove deity, but the heavenly honour given to the Lamb presents a substantial theological challenge to interpretations that treat Jesus as merely an honoured human teacher.
43. DID EARLY CHRISTIANS PRAY TO JESUS?
The New Testament ordinarily presents prayer as directed to the Father.
Jesus teaches his disciples to pray to the Father.
But some passages contain direct appeals to Jesus.
Stephen addresses the Lord Jesus in Acts 7:59.
The early Christian expression Maranatha invokes the Lord's coming.
Revelation ends with an appeal for the Lord Jesus to come.
The traditional interpretation sees this as evidence of Jesus' participation in divine devotion.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands such appeals as communication with the exalted Messiah whom God has appointed.
FINDING: Direct appeals to Jesus existed in early Christianity, but the New Testament also preserves a strong pattern of prayer directed to the Father.
THE EIGHTH MAJOR TEST: THE SIX MODELS COMPARED
44. MODEL A — THE TRINITARIAN INTERPRETATION
Principal strengths
The Trinitarian interpretation offers a direct explanation of the personal-preexistence passages.
It understands John 1:3, Colossians 1 and Hebrews 1 as original creation through the Son.
It explains the divine language of John 1:1, John 20:28 and Hebrews 1 through the Son's divine nature.
It explains the Father-Son distinction without identifying them as the same person.
Principal difficulties
It must explain why the Father is explicitly called the only true God and the one God.
It must explain Jesus' continued acknowledgment of the Father as his God.
It must demonstrate from Scripture, rather than assume, the theological distinction between eternal divine status and incarnate mediatorial subordination.
The precise later terminology of coequal persons and one essence is not stated as a complete formula in John 1.
Assessment
The model has considerable explanatory power across high-Christology passages.
Its principal challenge is integrating those passages with the explicit Father-centred statements without relying excessively on later theological categories.
45. MODEL B — THE ONENESS INTERPRETATION
Principal strengths
The Oneness interpretation emphasises the one God.
It understands the Word as God's own divine expression.
It connects John 1:14 with God's manifestation in flesh.
It does not require a second eternal divine person existing alongside the Father.
Principal difficulties
It must explain the apparently interpersonal language between Father and Son.
It must explain Jesus' prayers, received authority and references to the Father as his God.
It must explain how the Word was “with God” without reducing John's language to an empty distinction.
It must account for passages suggesting Jesus' personal heavenly origin.
Assessment
The model offers a strong account of divine unity and the Word as God's expression.
But the sustained relational distinction between Father and Son creates serious difficulties for versions that deny genuine personal distinction.
46. MODEL C — THE JEHOVAH'S WITNESS INTERPRETATION
Principal strengths
The model explains personal-preexistence passages directly.
It preserves a distinction between the Father and Son.
It understands the Son as subordinate to God.
It explains creation through the Son as instrumental agency.
Principal difficulties
Its rendering “a god” in John 1:1 is not required by the absence of the Greek article.
Colossians 1 does not explicitly include the word “other” in its statements about all things being created through Christ.
Its interpretation of “firstborn” as implying the first created being is disputed.
Isaiah 44:24 creates questions about a created heavenly agent participating in original creation.
Hebrews 1 applies exceptionally exalted creation-language to the Son.
Assessment
The model explains personal preexistence and subordination but faces significant grammatical and theological difficulties concerning the Son's created status.
47. MODEL D — THE NON-TRINITARIAN PREEXISTENT SON
Principal strengths
This model accepts the natural personal reading of many heavenly-origin passages.
It distinguishes the Father as the supreme God.
It can explain Jesus' received authority and continued acknowledgment of the Father as his God.
It does not require that personal preexistence automatically mean equality with the Father.
Principal difficulties
The model must explain whether the Son is created, generated or otherwise derived from the Father.
It must account for the Son's role in creation alongside Isaiah 44:24.
It must explain the divine language applied to Jesus.
It must explain Luke 1:35 and the relationship between miraculous conception and preexistent sonship.
Assessment
This model is important because it demonstrates that the evidence for preexistence and the evidence for Nicene equality are not identical.
Its principal weakness is that its various forms require further definition of the Son's origin and status.
48. MODEL E — THE BIBLICAL UNITARIAN GENESIS WORD
Principal strengths
It preserves the strong Genesis background of John 1:1–5.
It explains creation through God's own Word using Genesis 1 and Psalm 33:6.
It avoids assuming that the masculine pronouns prove personhood.
It understands John 1:14 as God's Word becoming embodied in the human Messiah.
It fits naturally with the miraculous conception narratives.
It gives direct weight to passages identifying the Father as the one God.
Principal difficulties
It must explain John 6:62, John 8:58 and John 17:5 without personal preexistence.
It must explain the broad creation-language of Colossians 1 and Hebrews 1.
It must demonstrate how God's impersonal Word becomes embodied in Jesus without reducing John 1:14 to an imprecise metaphor.
It must account for the divine titles and heavenly honour given to Jesus.
Assessment
This is a coherent interpretation of the prologue's Genesis background and Jewish Word theology.
Its greatest challenge comes from the wider New Testament's cumulative personal-preexistence language.
49. MODEL F — THE BIBLICAL UNITARIAN GOSPEL BEGINNING
Principal strengths
It emphasises John's Gospel purpose.
It explains the prologue's movement toward John the Baptist, belief, light and new life.
It connects John's beginning with the new creation.
It fits the historical ministry of Jesus and the miraculous conception narratives.
It gives direct weight to the Father as the one God.
Principal difficulties
It must explain why John begins with wording so closely associated with Genesis 1:1.
It must explain the comprehensive creation-language of John 1:3.
It must explain John 1:10, where the world is described as having been made through the Word.
It must explain the personal-preexistence passages elsewhere in the Gospel.
It must show that new-creation themes actually replace original creation rather than build upon it.
Assessment
This interpretation correctly recognises the Gospel's new-creation themes.
But as an exclusive explanation of John 1:1–5, it has a greater contextual burden than the Genesis-creation interpretation.
THE FINAL COMPARISON
50. COMPARATIVE EVIDENCE TABLE
The following assessments concern explanatory fit, not mathematical proof.
| Biblical question | Interpretations with the most direct explanatory fit | Principal unresolved issue |
|---|---|---|
| Genesis echo in John 1:1 | Models A–E | Does the echo also introduce new creation? |
| Original creation in John 1:3 | Models A–E | Is the Word personally distinct from God? |
| God's Word in Psalm 33:6 | Models B and E have the most direct impersonal-Word fit | Does John develop the Word personally? |
| “With God” in John 1:1 | Personal-Word models have a natural relational reading | Can personification explain the expression? |
| “Word became flesh” | Models A–E offer distinct readings | What precisely became flesh? |
| Miraculous conception | Models E and F have a direct personal-origin reading | Does conception exclude preexistence? |
| John 6:62 | Models A, C and D | Can prophetic or proleptic readings fit naturally? |
| John 17:5 | Models A, C and D | Can previously possessed glory be foreordained? |
| Philippians 2 | Personal-preexistence models have a natural incarnational reading | Is the passage primarily Adamic and ethical? |
| Colossians 1 | Original-creation models | Is the scope original creation or new creation? |
| Father as one God | Models D, E and F give the most direct exclusive-Father reading | How do divine titles applied to Jesus fit? |
| John 20:28 | Models A and B readily explain the direct divine address | What is the precise meaning of “God” here? |
| Hebrews 1:10–12 | Models A, C and D | How does creation-language apply to the Son? |
| Revelation 5 | High-Christology models | Does shared heavenly honour imply shared deity? |
This table reveals something important.
NO SINGLE PASSAGE SETTLES EVERY QUESTION.
Different models explain different groups of passages more naturally.
The final decision must be based upon cumulative explanatory power.
51. WHAT HAVE WE ESTABLISHED ABOUT THE BEGINNING?
The evidence strongly favours a deliberate reference to Genesis creation.
John's opening words reproduce the Greek wording of Genesis 1:1.
John introduces creation, life, light and darkness.
John 1:3 speaks comprehensively about things coming into being.
The new-creation themes are genuine.
But they do not require us to exclude original creation.
Therefore, the strongest provisional conclusion is:
JOHN'S “BEGINNING” MOST NATURALLY EVOKES THE ORIGINAL CREATION IN GENESIS, WHILE ALSO PREPARING THE READER FOR GOD'S NEW-CREATION WORK THROUGH JESUS CHRIST.
This conclusion does not determine whether the Word was personally preexistent.
That remains a separate question.
52. WHAT HAVE WE ESTABLISHED ABOUT THE WORD?
The Word belongs to God.
The Word is associated with divine creative activity.
The Word is described as being with God.
The Word is described using theos.
The Word becomes flesh.
The Old Testament provides a substantial background for understanding God's Word as His own speech, wisdom and creative expression.
But the New Testament also contains significant language associating Jesus personally with preexistent glory, heavenly origin and creation.
Therefore, two principal possibilities remain.
THE WORD WAS GOD'S OWN PREEXISTENT CREATIVE EXPRESSION, WHICH BECAME EMBODIED IN JESUS.
Or:
THE WORD WAS THE PERSONALLY PREEXISTENT SON, WHO BECAME HUMAN IN JESUS.
The first has a strong Genesis and Jewish Word-theology foundation.
The second has substantial support from the wider New Testament's personal-preexistence language.
The question must be resolved through the cumulative evidence.
53. WHAT HAVE WE ESTABLISHED ABOUT THE FATHER?
The New Testament repeatedly identifies the Father as Jesus' God.
Jesus calls the Father the only true God.
Paul identifies one God, the Father.
God raises Jesus.
God exalts Jesus.
God gives Jesus authority.
Jesus submits the kingdom to God in 1 Corinthians 15:24–28.
These statements are explicit.
Any interpretation that treats Jesus as Almighty God must explain them carefully.
But these passages do not independently establish that Jesus had no personal existence before his conception.
Therefore:
THE FATHER'S IDENTIFICATION AS GOD AND THE SON'S PERSONAL PREEXISTENCE MUST BE INVESTIGATED AS DISTINCT CLAIMS.
This distinction prevents us from confusing two separate theological questions.
54. WHAT HAVE WE ESTABLISHED ABOUT JESUS' HUMANITY?
Jesus was born of Mary.
He descended from David.
He experienced temptation, suffering and death.
He prayed to God.
He depended upon the Father.
He was raised and exalted by God.
The New Testament unmistakably presents Jesus as genuinely human.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands his personal existence as beginning through miraculous conception.
The traditional interpretation understands the preexistent Son as assuming genuine human nature.
The evidence of Jesus' humanity is clear.
The disputed question is whether his human beginning was also the beginning of his personal existence.
That question cannot be answered simply by affirming that Jesus was a man.
Both sides affirm his humanity, although they explain its relationship to his identity differently.
55. WHAT HAVE WE ESTABLISHED ABOUT PERSONAL PREEXISTENCE?
The strongest cumulative evidence includes:
John 6:62.
John 8:58.
John 16:28.
John 17:5.
Philippians 2:6–8.
Colossians 1:15–17.
Hebrews 1:1–12.
The natural readings of several of these passages support personal preexistence.
Biblical Unitarian alternatives exist.
But those alternatives must be tested collectively.
A reading that requires numerous independent figurative explanations may have a greater explanatory burden than one that understands the statements as referring to a personal heavenly past.
However, the presence of personal-preexistence language does not automatically establish eternal equality with the Father.
PERSONAL PREEXISTENCE IS NOT THE SAME DOCTRINE AS THE TRINITY.
That conclusion is essential.
56. THE STRONGEST CASE FOR THE BIBLICAL UNITARIAN GENESIS WORD INTERPRETATION
The argument can be stated as follows.
God alone is the Creator.
God created through His Word.
The Hebrew Scriptures do not explicitly introduce a second divine person as the speaker of Genesis 1.
John deliberately recalls Genesis.
The Word is described as divine because it belongs to and expresses God.
The Word became flesh when God's creative and saving purpose became embodied in the human Messiah.
Luke describes Jesus' miraculous conception through the Holy Spirit.
Jesus identifies the Father as the only true God.
Paul identifies the Father as the one God.
The risen Jesus continues to call the Father his God.
This is a coherent biblical argument.
Its principal challenge is explaining why Jesus speaks in apparently personal terms about heavenly existence before his birth.
A final verdict cannot responsibly ignore that difficulty.
57. THE STRONGEST CASE FOR PERSONAL PREEXISTENCE
The argument can also be stated coherently.
John describes the Word as existing before creation and being with God.
The Word becomes flesh.
Jesus says he came down from heaven.
He speaks of ascending to where he was before.
He speaks of existing before Abraham.
He speaks of glory he had with the Father before the world existed.
Paul describes Christ as existing in God's form before taking the form of a servant.
Colossians associates Christ with the creation of all things.
Hebrews describes God making the ages through the Son and applies original-creation language to him.
Taken together, these passages naturally suggest a personally preexistent Son.
This is a substantial biblical argument.
Its principal challenge is explaining the Son's relationship to the Father, who is explicitly identified as the one God and as Jesus' God.
And even if personal preexistence is established, further argument is required to establish Nicene equality.
58. THE STRONGEST CASE FOR THE GOSPEL-BEGINNING INTERPRETATION
The argument emphasises the purpose of John's Gospel.
John writes so that readers may believe Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and have life through his name.
The prologue introduces light, life, witness, belief and becoming children of God.
These are central Gospel themes.
The Word is God's saving message.
The new creation begins through Jesus' ministry.
The Word becomes flesh as God's saving purpose is revealed in Jesus.
This interpretation has genuine theological coherence.
Its principal difficulty is explaining the broad creation-language and unmistakable Genesis echoes.
A final verdict must decide whether the new-creation themes replace the original-creation meaning or develop from it.
The latter presently has the stronger textual foundation.
59. FIFTEEN FINDINGS FROM OUR COMPLETE COMPARISON
FIRST: John 1:1 deliberately evokes Genesis 1:1.
SECOND: John 1:3 most naturally refers to original creation, although new-creation themes are also present.
THIRD: A Genesis beginning does not automatically establish Jesus' personal preexistence.
FOURTH: The Greek noun logos does not inherently mean a separate divine person.
FIFTH: Masculine pronouns referring to logos do not independently prove personhood.
SIXTH: God's Word as creative speech and wisdom has a strong Old Testament foundation.
SEVENTH: John 1:14 establishes that the Word became flesh but does not independently explain the metaphysics of that transition.
EIGHTH: The absence of the article before theos in John 1:1 does not require the translation “a god.”
NINTH: Luke 1:35 strongly establishes Jesus' miraculous human origin.
TENTH: John 6:62 and John 17:5 are particularly strong passages supporting personal preexistence.
ELEVENTH: Philippians 2, Colossians 1 and Hebrews 1 add substantial cumulative support for personal preexistence.
TWELFTH: The Father is explicitly identified as the one God and as Jesus' God.
THIRTEENTH: Divine titles and heavenly honour applied to Jesus create serious questions for interpretations that reduce him to an ordinary human teacher.
FOURTEENTH: Personal preexistence does not automatically establish that Jesus is Almighty God or coequal with the Father.
FIFTEENTH: The strongest interpretation must explain both the Genesis Word-language and the New Testament's personal language about Jesus without dismissing either.
60. THE QUESTIONS WE MUST ANSWER IN PART 26
Our final chapter must answer seven questions.
QUESTION ONE
Did John mean Genesis creation or the beginning of Jesus' ministry?
QUESTION TWO
Was the Word God's own creative expression or a personally preexistent Son?
QUESTION THREE
Does the Greek statement “the Word was God” establish that the Word was Almighty God?
QUESTION FOUR
Does John 1:14 describe God's Word becoming embodied in a newly existing human Messiah, or a preexistent Son becoming human?
QUESTION FIVE
Does the complete New Testament more naturally support or reject Jesus' personal preexistence?
QUESTION SIX
If Jesus personally preexisted, does that establish the Trinity, or could he remain distinct from and subordinate to the Father?
QUESTION SEVEN
Which interpretation explains the greatest amount of biblical evidence with the fewest unsupported assumptions?
These questions must be answered separately before they can be brought together into one final conclusion.
61. OUR PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENT BEFORE THE FINAL VERDICT
Our investigation has produced several results.
FIRST: THE GENESIS-CREATION INTERPRETATION HAS THE STRONGER FOUNDATION FOR JOHN'S OPENING WORDS.
The literary parallels are too substantial to ignore.
SECOND: GOD'S OWN WORD AND WISDOM PROVIDE A STRONG OLD TESTAMENT BACKGROUND FOR THE LOGOS.
This is an important strength of the Biblical Unitarian Genesis interpretation.
THIRD: THE PERSONAL-PREEXISTENCE INTERPRETATION HAS SUBSTANTIAL CUMULATIVE SUPPORT FROM THE WIDER NEW TESTAMENT.
Several passages are more naturally read as referring to Jesus' personal heavenly existence than merely to his foreordained role.
FOURTH: THE FATHER'S UNIQUE IDENTIFICATION AS GOD REMAINS EXPLICIT.
That fact must be integrated into any conclusion concerning Jesus' status.
FIFTH: THE EVIDENCE FOR PERSONAL PREEXISTENCE IS NOT IDENTICAL TO THE EVIDENCE FOR THE TRINITY.
This distinction is perhaps one of the most important discoveries in our investigation.
The Bible may present a personally preexistent Son without every passage automatically establishing the later Nicene doctrine.
Equally, a reader may understand John 1 through God's impersonal Word without thereby establishing that every personal-preexistence passage must be figurative.
Our final judgment must respect the evidence on both sides.
62. CONCLUSION — THE LAST QUESTION REMAINS
We began this research with a seemingly simple question.
WHO WAS THE WORD IN JOHN 1:1?
But that question led us into Genesis, Hebrew wisdom, Greek grammar, the miraculous conception, the identity of the Father, the Son's heavenly language, the creation passages and early Christian history.
We have discovered that the debate cannot be resolved by merely quoting John 1:1.
Nor can it be resolved by declaring that Jesus is the Son of God.
The title Son of God does not independently establish personal preexistence or equality with the Father.
Nor can it be resolved by assuming that because God created through His Word, Jesus personally existed at creation.
That conclusion requires further evidence.
But the opposite conclusion also requires evidence.
We cannot simply assume that every statement about Jesus' heavenly past refers only to God's foreknowledge.
The strongest interpretation must explain the entire biblical picture.
THE BEGINNING.
THE WORD.
THE WORD WITH GOD.
THE WORD WAS GOD.
ALL THINGS THROUGH THE WORD.
THE WORD BECAME FLESH.
THE SON OF GOD.
THE FATHER AS THE ONE GOD.
AND THE QUESTION OF PERSONAL PREEXISTENCE.
These are the issues our final chapter must bring together.
END OF PART 25
COMING NEXT — PART 26: THE FINAL VERDICT
JOHN 1:1 — WHO WAS THE WORD, AND WHAT DID JOHN REALLY MEAN?
Our final chapter will present the reasoned conclusion of the entire 26-part investigation.
We will distinguish what the biblical text states explicitly, what the evidence strongly suggests and what remains disputed.
We will give a separate verdict on the Genesis beginning, the identity of the Word, the meaning of theos, the Word becoming flesh, Jesus' personal preexistence and the Father's identity as the one God.
We will not treat theological tradition as proof.
We will not dismiss difficult passages because they challenge a preferred interpretation.
And we will not confuse the question of whether Jesus preexisted with the separate question of whether he is Almighty God.
OUR GUIDING PRINCIPLE:
THE GOAL IS NOT TO PROVE WHAT WE ALREADY BELIEVE. THE GOAL IS TO DISCOVER WHAT THE BIBLE ACTUALLY TEACHES.
JOHN 1:1 — WHO WAS THE WORD, AND WHAT DID JOHN REALLY MEAN?
PART 26 — THE FINAL VERDICT
GOD'S OWN WORD, THE PREEXISTENT SON, OR THE BEGINNING OF JESUS' MINISTRY?
The concluding investigation into John 1:1–18, the original Greek, Genesis creation, Jesus' personal preexistence and the identity of the one true God
By Simon Brown — Real Discoveries
https://wwwrealdiscoveriesorg-simon.blogspot.com
INTRODUCTION — AFTER 26 PARTS, WHAT HAVE WE DISCOVERED?
1. THE QUESTION THAT BEGAN OUR INVESTIGATION
We began this extensive biblical investigation with one central question:
WHO OR WHAT WAS THE WORD IN JOHN 1:1?
Was the Word Jesus Christ personally existing in heaven before his human birth?
Was the Word God's own speech, wisdom, purpose and creative power, subsequently embodied in Jesus?
Or was John primarily describing the beginning of Jesus' ministry and the new creation brought about through the Gospel?
These questions led us into a detailed examination of the Hebrew Scriptures, the original Greek, the Gospel of John, the writings of Paul, the letter to the Hebrews, the miraculous conception and early Christian history.
We also investigated the Trinity, Oneness theology, Jehovah's Witness teaching and several Biblical Unitarian interpretations.
Now we must determine what the evidence actually establishes.
Our conclusion must not depend upon theological loyalty, inherited tradition or a preferred translation.
It must be based upon the strongest cumulative explanation of Scripture.
2. OUR MOST IMPORTANT DISTINCTION
Before presenting any verdict, we must repeat the distinction that has governed this research.
QUESTION ONE: WHAT BEGINNING DID JOHN MEAN?
Was it Genesis creation or the beginning of the Gospel?
QUESTION TWO: WHO OR WHAT WAS THE WORD?
Was it God's own Word or a personally preexistent Son?
QUESTION THREE: DID JESUS PERSONALLY EXIST BEFORE HIS BIRTH?
This is related to the identity of the Word, but it requires additional evidence.
QUESTION FOUR: IF JESUS PREEXISTED, WAS HE ALMIGHTY GOD?
This is yet another question.
These four questions must not be collapsed into one.
A person can believe John 1:1 refers to Genesis without believing Jesus personally existed at creation.
A person can believe Jesus personally preexisted without believing he was Almighty God.
A person can reject the Trinity while accepting personal preexistence.
And a person can understand the Word as God's own expression while interpreting John 1:14 differently from a Biblical Unitarian.
Our final verdict must preserve these distinctions.
PART ONE — WHAT BEGINNING DID JOHN MEAN?
3. THE OPENING WORDS OF JOHN
John begins:
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” — John 1:1, WEB
The Greek reads:
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος
En archē ēn ho logos.
“In the beginning was the Word.”
The opening expression is identical to the opening words of Genesis 1:1 in the Greek Septuagint:
Ἐν ἀρχῇ — En archē.
This is not an isolated resemblance.
John immediately introduces creation, life, light and darkness.
These themes correspond closely to Genesis.
The literary connection is exceptionally strong.
4. GENESIS 1:1 — THE ORIGINAL CREATION
Genesis begins with God's creation of the heavens and the earth.
God speaks.
Light appears.
Creation proceeds through His command.
John likewise describes all things coming into existence through the Word.
This suggests that John intentionally begins his Gospel by recalling the original creation.
The question is not merely whether John uses Genesis imagery.
He clearly does.
The question is whether he is describing original creation itself or using Genesis language exclusively for the new creation.
5. JOHN 1:3 — THE DECISIVE CREATION STATEMENT
John writes:
“All things were made through him. Without him, nothing was made that has been made.” — John 1:3, WEB
The Greek reads:
πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο
Panta di' autou egeneto.
“All things came into being through him/it.”
John's wording is comprehensive.
He does not explicitly limit “all things” to the church, the Gospel or the new creation.
The Genesis context naturally points toward original creation.
This is a substantial difficulty for the interpretation that John's beginning refers exclusively to Jesus' earthly ministry.
That interpretation correctly recognises the Gospel's new-creation themes.
But it must explain why John uses language so closely associated with the original creation.
6. DOES JOHN ALSO DESCRIBE THE NEW CREATION?
Yes.
The Gospel is concerned with new life.
Light enters darkness.
People receive the Word.
Believers become children of God.
Jesus reveals the Father.
These are central themes of salvation and new creation.
But the presence of new-creation themes does not mean that the original-creation background disappears.
John can deliberately connect the two.
God, who created through His Word, now brings life and salvation through Jesus Christ.
This connection is particularly meaningful.
The same God who brought light into the original darkness now reveals the light of life through His Messiah.
7. FINAL VERDICT ON THE BEGINNING
THE STRONGEST READING IS THAT JOHN 1:1 DELIBERATELY REFERS BACK TO GENESIS CREATION.
The evidence includes:
The identical opening expression.
The comprehensive creation-language of verse 3.
The themes of life, light and darkness.
The Old Testament background of God's creative Word.
John also introduces new-creation themes.
But those themes appear to develop from the Genesis background rather than replace it entirely.
VERDICT: GENESIS CREATION IS THE PRIMARY LITERARY BACKGROUND, WITH THE NEW CREATION AS A MAJOR THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT.
This conclusion does not establish that Jesus personally existed at Genesis creation.
That remains a separate question.
PART TWO — WHO OR WHAT WAS THE WORD?
8. THE GREEK WORD LOGOS
John uses:
λόγος — logos.
The word can mean speech, word, message, reason, account or expression.
It does not inherently mean a separate divine person.
Nor does it inherently mean an impersonal message.
The meaning depends upon context.
The Hebrew Scriptures provide an important background.
God creates through His Word.
God reveals His will through His Word.
God's Word accomplishes His purposes.
Therefore, the concept of God's own Word is firmly established before the New Testament.
9. PSALM 33:6 — GOD CREATED THROUGH HIS WORD
Psalm 33:6 declares:
“By Yahweh's word, the heavens were made; all their army by the breath of his mouth.” — WEB
This passage is particularly important.
Yahweh creates through His Word.
The Word is associated with the breath of His mouth.
The passage does not explicitly introduce another conscious divine person beside Yahweh.
It describes God's own creative activity.
This provides a substantial foundation for the Biblical Unitarian Genesis Word interpretation.
Under that interpretation, John's opening refers to God's own Word through which the universe came into existence.
The Word existed before Jesus' birth because God's Word existed before Jesus' birth.
But that does not automatically mean Jesus personally existed.
10. ISAIAH 55:11 — GOD'S WORD ACCOMPLISHES HIS PURPOSE
God declares that His Word goes out from His mouth and accomplishes what He desires.
This is another important example.
The Word acts.
The Word accomplishes.
The Word succeeds.
Yet the passage does not require the Word to be a separate conscious person.
The language describes God's effective command.
This demonstrates that active language concerning God's Word does not independently prove personal identity.
But it does not prove that John's use of the Word must remain impersonal.
John may develop the concept beyond its Old Testament presentation.
11. PROVERBS 8 — WISDOM BEFORE CREATION
Proverbs 8 presents Wisdom speaking.
Wisdom is associated with God before and during creation.
This is a striking parallel to John 1.
But Wisdom is personified in a poetic literary setting.
Personification can describe an attribute as though it were a person.
Therefore, the use of personal language does not automatically establish literal personal existence.
This supports the possibility that John's Word begins as a personified description of God's wisdom and creative activity.
The traditional interpretation, however, understands Wisdom-language as anticipating the revelation of the personal Son.
Both interpretations have a genuine literary basis.
The question is what John ultimately does with that background.
12. THE WORD AS GOD'S OWN SELF-EXPRESSION
The Biblical Unitarian Genesis interpretation can be summarised as follows.
God existed before creation.
His Word belonged to Him.
His Word expressed His wisdom, purpose and will.
Through His Word, God created all things.
That Word was divine because it originated in God and expressed His own activity.
The Word was subsequently embodied in Jesus Christ.
This is a coherent interpretation of the Old Testament background.
But the fact that it is coherent does not automatically establish that it is John's intended meaning.
We must examine the more difficult language of John 1.
13. “THE WORD WAS WITH GOD”
John writes:
καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν
Kai ho logos ēn pros ton theon.
“And the Word was with God.”
The traditional interpretation understands this as a personal relationship between the Word and God.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands God's Word as belonging to Him, existing in His purpose or being oriented toward Him.
The expression pros ton theon can convey personal relationship.
This gives the traditional interpretation a meaningful grammatical argument.
But grammar alone cannot determine whether the Word is a separate conscious person or a personified divine expression.
The wider context remains decisive.
14. DOES THE MASCULINE PRONOUN PROVE PERSONHOOD?
No.
The Greek noun logos is grammatically masculine.
Greek pronouns referring to it are correspondingly masculine.
English translations commonly use “him.”
But grammatical gender is not proof of personal identity.
This is an important finding.
However, the opposite conclusion would also be incorrect.
The pronouns do not prove that the Word was impersonal.
They simply do not decide the question.
The identity of the Word must be established through the complete literary argument.
15. THE WORD'S IDENTITY — OUR FIRST QUALIFICATION
The Old Testament background provides strong evidence that God's Word can be understood as His own creative expression.
John's language of being “with God” is also naturally compatible with a personal relationship.
Therefore, the evidence cannot be reduced to a single grammatical rule.
The Genesis Word interpretation has a strong conceptual foundation.
The personally preexistent Word interpretation has a meaningful relational reading.
The decisive test must include John 1:14 and the wider New Testament.
PART THREE — WHAT DOES “THE WORD WAS GOD” MEAN?
16. THE ORIGINAL GREEK
John 1:1 concludes:
καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
Kai theos ēn ho logos.
The conventional translation is:
“AND THE WORD WAS GOD.”
The noun theos appears before the verb and without the definite article.
The Word, ho logos, is the grammatical subject.
This construction has generated centuries of discussion.
Does John identify the Word as God?
Does he describe the Word as divine in nature?
Or does he mean that the Word was “a god”?
We must distinguish what the Greek allows from what a theological system concludes.
17. DOES THE ABSENCE OF THE ARTICLE MEAN “A GOD”?
No.
Greek does not possess an indefinite article corresponding exactly to English “a.”
An anarthrous noun can be definite, qualitative or indefinite.
The absence of the article does not automatically require an indefinite translation.
Therefore, the argument that John must have meant “a god” because theos lacks the article is grammatically unsound.
An indefinite interpretation would require independent contextual justification.
The conventional rendering “the Word was God” is grammatically defensible.
A qualitative understanding of theos is also important.
18. WHAT IS A QUALITATIVE UNDERSTANDING?
A qualitative understanding emphasises the nature or character of the subject.
Under this approach, John describes the Word as possessing the character or nature expressed by theos.
The traditional interpretation understands this as the Word sharing the divine nature.
A non-Trinitarian interpretation may understand it as the Word being genuinely divine without being identical to the Father.
The Biblical Unitarian Genesis interpretation understands God's Word as expressing God's own divine character.
But a qualitative reading does not automatically establish that the Word was impersonal.
Nor does it automatically establish a second divine person.
The theological conclusion requires further evidence.
19. DID JOHN SAY THE WORD WAS THE FATHER?
No.
John distinguishes the Word from the one with whom it was.
He then predicates theos of the Word.
The traditional interpretation understands this as personal distinction combined with divine identity.
The Oneness interpretation understands the Word as God's own self-expression.
The Biblical Unitarian Genesis interpretation understands the Word as belonging to and expressing God.
These interpretations disagree about personhood.
But the wording does not simply say:
“The Word was the Father.”
That distinction matters.
20. FINAL VERDICT ON “THE WORD WAS GOD”
THE GREEK DOES NOT REQUIRE THE TRANSLATION “A GOD.”
The conventional rendering “the Word was God” is grammatically defensible.
A qualitative emphasis is also well supported as a serious grammatical analysis.
However:
THE GRAMMAR ALONE DOES NOT ESTABLISH THE NICENE TRINITY.
Nor does it establish that the Word was merely an impersonal message.
The statement expresses an exceptionally close relationship between the Word and deity.
Whether the Word is personally distinct from God must be determined from the wider context.
VERDICT: JOHN 1:1c STRONGLY AFFIRMS THE WORD'S DIVINE CHARACTER, BUT DOES NOT BY ITSELF SETTLE THE WORD'S PERSONHOOD OR THE LATER DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.
PART FOUR — WHAT DOES “THE WORD BECAME FLESH” MEAN?
21. JOHN 1:14 — THE CENTRAL TRANSITION
John declares:
“The Word became flesh, and lived among us.” — John 1:14, WEB
The Greek reads:
καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο
Kai ho logos sarx egeneto.
This is the turning point of the prologue.
The Word becomes flesh.
John then describes glory associated with the only Son from the Father.
The Word's relationship to Jesus is unmistakable.
But the precise nature of the transition remains disputed.
22. THE TRADITIONAL INCARNATION INTERPRETATION
Under the traditional interpretation, the Word is the personally preexistent Son.
The Son existed with the Father before creation.
He then assumed human nature.
The person who became Jesus already existed.
John 1:14 therefore describes incarnation.
This interpretation provides direct personal continuity between the Word before creation and Jesus in history.
Its strength is the apparent movement from preexistent Word to flesh.
Its difficulty is that John does not explain the incarnation using the technical categories of later theology.
Those categories must be justified from the wider biblical evidence.
23. THE BIBLICAL UNITARIAN EMBODIMENT INTERPRETATION
Under the Genesis Word interpretation, God's Word existed before Jesus.
The Word was God's own wisdom, purpose and creative expression.
Through the Holy Spirit, God brought Jesus into existence.
In Jesus, God's Word became embodied in a real human life.
Jesus revealed God's character and communicated His message.
This interpretation connects John 1:14 with Luke 1:35.
It also avoids assuming that God's Word was already a conscious person.
Its difficulty is explaining the precise force of “became.”
John does not merely say that Jesus preached God's Word.
He says the Word became flesh.
Therefore, embodiment must be understood as a profound identification between God's Word and Jesus, not merely as Jesus repeating a message.
24. THE ONENESS INTERPRETATION
Oneness theology understands the Word as God's own divine self-expression.
The Word becomes flesh through God's manifestation in Jesus.
This shares an important conceptual feature with the Genesis Word interpretation.
Both reject the necessity of a second eternal divine person in John 1:1.
But they differ concerning Jesus' identity.
Oneness theology identifies Jesus with the one divine identity in a way that Biblical Unitarians generally reject.
The difficulty for Oneness theology lies in explaining the sustained distinction between Jesus and the Father.
Jesus prays to the Father.
The Father sends him.
The Father gives him authority.
Jesus calls the Father his God.
These distinctions require more than merely observing that the Word was God's own expression.
25. FINAL VERDICT ON JOHN 1:14
John explicitly teaches that the Word became flesh.
The verse does not explicitly say:
“God the Son became flesh.”
Nor does it explicitly say:
“An impersonal divine message became embodied in a newly created human being.”
Those are interpretations.
The text identifies a transition and associates its fulfilment with Jesus.
VERDICT: JOHN 1:14 IS COMPATIBLE WITH BOTH INCARNATION AND EMBODIMENT READINGS WHEN CONSIDERED IN ISOLATION, BUT THE WIDER NEW TESTAMENT MUST DETERMINE WHICH READING BEST EXPLAINS THE WORD'S PERSONAL IDENTITY.
PART FIVE — DID JESUS PERSONALLY EXIST BEFORE HIS BIRTH?
26. THE MOST DIFFICULT QUESTION
We now reach the question that cannot be settled merely by examining the noun logos.
DID JESUS HIMSELF EXIST AS A CONSCIOUS PERSON BEFORE HIS MIRACULOUS CONCEPTION?
The Biblical Unitarian Genesis interpretation answers no.
The Gospel-beginning interpretation also answers no.
The traditional Trinitarian interpretation answers yes.
Jehovah's Witnesses answer yes.
Other non-Trinitarian preexistence interpretations answer yes.
The question must be answered by examining Jesus' own statements and the wider New Testament.
27. LUKE 1:35 — THE ORIGIN OF THE SON
The angel tells Mary that the Holy Spirit will come upon her and the power of the Most High will overshadow her.
The angel connects this miraculous event with the child's designation as Son of God.
The Greek includes:
διὸ καί — dio kai.
“Therefore also.”
This is strong evidence that Luke grounds Jesus' sonship in God's miraculous action.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands the conception as the beginning of Jesus' personal existence.
The traditional interpretation understands it as the beginning of the preexistent Son's human life.
Luke does not explicitly describe a heavenly Son entering Mary's womb.
But neither does Luke explicitly state that the Son had no prior personal existence.
The passage is important but not independently decisive.
28. JOHN 6:38 — COMING DOWN FROM HEAVEN
Jesus says he came down from heaven to do the will of the one who sent him.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands this as heavenly origin in the sense of divine commissioning.
The bread discourse contains metaphorical language.
Jesus is the bread from heaven.
But Jesus also speaks personally of having come down.
This gives the personal-preexistence interpretation substantial force.
The figurative interpretation must demonstrate why the first-person language should be understood as mission rather than previous personal location.
29. JOHN 6:62 — “WHERE HE WAS BEFORE”
Jesus speaks of the Son of Man ascending to where he was before.
The Greek includes:
ὅπου ἦν τὸ πρότερον
Hopou ēn to proteron.
“Where he was previously.”
This is one of the strongest passages for personal preexistence.
The natural reading is that the Son of Man had previously been in the place to which he would ascend.
Biblical Unitarian alternatives include the Daniel 7 prophetic-vision interpretation and a foreordained-destiny interpretation.
These deserve consideration.
But neither is explicitly identified in John 6:62.
ASSESSMENT: THE PERSONAL-PREEXISTENCE INTERPRETATION HAS THE STRONGER IMMEDIATE READING.
30. JOHN 8:58 — BEFORE ABRAHAM
Jesus declares:
πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί
Prin Abraam genesthai, egō eimi.
“Before Abraham came into existence, I am.”
The traditional interpretation understands this as a statement of preexistence.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation may understand it through messianic priority and God's predetermined purpose.
The context concerns Abraham seeing Jesus' day.
This provides a meaningful prophetic background.
But Jesus' first-person contrast with Abraham naturally suggests an existence or identity preceding Abraham.
ASSESSMENT: JOHN 8:58 IS SIGNIFICANT EVIDENCE FOR PERSONAL PREEXISTENCE.
However, the words egō eimi do not automatically establish that Jesus is Yahweh.
That is a separate interpretive question.
31. JOHN 17:5 — GLORY BEFORE THE WORLD
Jesus prays concerning the glory he had with the Father before the world existed.
The Greek uses a form of the verb meaning “I had.”
The traditional interpretation understands this as previously possessed personal glory.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands the glory as foreordained in God's purpose.
John 17:22, where Jesus speaks of giving glory to the disciples, is relevant to the possibility of promised glory.
But the language is not identical.
John 17:5 specifically describes glory Jesus had with the Father before the world existed.
ASSESSMENT: THE PERSONAL-PREEXISTENCE READING IS MORE DIRECT, ALTHOUGH A FOREORDINATION READING REMAINS A POSSIBLE THEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION.
32. JOHN 16:28 — FROM THE FATHER INTO THE WORLD
Jesus describes coming from the Father into the world and leaving the world to go to the Father.
The symmetry is important.
Coming from the Father.
Entering the world.
Leaving the world.
Returning to the Father.
The traditional interpretation understands literal heavenly origin and return.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands divine commissioning followed by resurrection and ascension.
But the parallel structure makes a purely figurative explanation of the first movement more difficult.
This passage adds to the cumulative case for personal preexistence.
33. PHILIPPIANS 2:6–8 — THE FORM OF GOD
Paul describes Christ as existing in the form of God, not exploiting equality with God, emptying himself, taking the form of a servant and becoming obedient to death.
The traditional interpretation understands preexistent status followed by incarnation.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands the obedient human Messiah, contrasting him with Adam.
The Adamic interpretation is meaningful.
But the sequence of divine form, self-emptying and human likeness naturally supports a transition into the human condition.
The passage is debated.
Its grammar does not independently prove the later doctrine of the Trinity.
Nevertheless, it contributes substantially to the personal-preexistence argument.
34. COLOSSIANS 1:15–17 — BEFORE ALL THINGS
Paul describes Christ as firstborn of all creation.
He then describes all things in heaven and earth, visible and invisible, as created through and for him.
He says Christ is before all things.
The Biblical Unitarian new-creation interpretation emphasises the church and resurrection context.
But the language of verses 16–17 is comprehensive.
The original-creation interpretation has a substantial contextual advantage.
The question then becomes whether Paul is describing the personal Son as the agent of creation or associating the Messiah with God's creative Word and purpose.
The former is the more direct personal reading of Paul's statements.
35. HEBREWS 1 — GOD MADE THE AGES THROUGH THE SON
Hebrews describes God speaking through the Son and making the ages through him.
It also applies creation-language from Psalm 102 in the discussion of the Son.
The reference to the earth's foundations and the heavens strongly evokes original creation.
This creates a major challenge for an interpretation that restricts the Son's role entirely to the new creation.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation must explain the passage through divine purpose, representative identification or another contextual framework.
But the natural reading supports the Son's involvement in creation.
36. THE CUMULATIVE ARGUMENT
The strongest case for personal preexistence is cumulative.
It includes:
John 6:62.
John 8:58.
John 16:28.
John 17:5.
Philippians 2:6–8.
Colossians 1:15–17.
Hebrews 1:1–12.
Not every passage is equally decisive.
Not every passage is free from interpretive difficulty.
But together they repeatedly associate Jesus with heavenly origin, previous glory, existence before Abraham and creation.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation must explain why this language should consistently be understood through divine foreknowledge, personification, prophetic vision or new creation.
Some individual explanations are possible.
The cumulative explanatory burden is substantial.
37. FINAL VERDICT ON PERSONAL PREEXISTENCE
After weighing the evidence, the most defensible provisional judgment is:
THE WIDER NEW TESTAMENT MORE NATURALLY SUPPORTS JESUS' PERSONAL PREEXISTENCE THAN AN INTERPRETATION IN WHICH EVERY REFERENCE TO HIS HEAVENLY PAST IS UNDERSTOOD FIGURATIVELY OR PROLEPTICALLY.
This conclusion is not based upon John 1:1 alone.
It is based upon the cumulative force of several passages.
The Biblical Unitarian Genesis Word interpretation remains a serious explanation of the Old Testament background.
But its greatest difficulty is accounting for the repeated personal-preexistence language elsewhere in the New Testament.
IMPORTANT: THIS CONCLUSION DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY ESTABLISH THAT JESUS IS ALMIGHTY GOD.
The next question must be considered separately.
PART SIX — IF JESUS PREEXISTED, WAS HE ALMIGHTY GOD?
38. THE FATHER AS THE ONLY TRUE GOD
Jesus says:
“This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Jesus Christ.” — John 17:3, WEB
The Father is explicitly identified as the only true God.
Jesus is distinguished as the one sent.
This is among the strongest passages supporting Biblical Unitarian theology.
The traditional interpretation understands Jesus as distinguishing persons while not excluding the Son from divine nature.
But the verse itself does not articulate the later Nicene explanation.
The explicit statement must be given full weight.
39. FIRST CORINTHIANS 8:6 — ONE GOD, THE FATHER
Paul identifies:
ONE GOD — THE FATHER.
And:
ONE LORD — JESUS CHRIST.
The Father is described as the source of all things.
Jesus is described as the one through whom all things are.
This is a remarkable passage.
It distinguishes the Father and Son.
It also gives Jesus an extraordinary role within Paul's monotheistic confession.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands the Father alone as the one God.
The traditional interpretation understands Jesus as included in the unique divine identity.
Both interpretations must explain the entire verse.
The explicit identification of the Father as the one God cannot simply be ignored.
But neither can the extraordinary description of Jesus as the one Lord through whom all things are.
40. JOHN 20:17 — JESUS HAS A GOD
After his resurrection, Jesus refers to the Father as his God.
This is important.
The relationship is not confined to the period before Jesus' resurrection.
The exalted Jesus also repeatedly refers to “my God” in Revelation 3:12.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands this as strong evidence that Jesus is distinct from and subordinate to the Almighty God.
The traditional interpretation explains the language through the incarnate Son's continuing relationship with the Father.
But that explanation requires a broader theological framework.
The explicit biblical distinction remains.
41. ACTS 2 — GOD MADE JESUS LORD AND CHRIST
Peter describes Jesus as a man attested by God.
God performs mighty works through him.
God raises him.
God exalts him.
God makes him Lord and Christ.
The distinction between God and Jesus is clear.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands this as direct evidence of the human Messiah's received authority.
The traditional interpretation understands it as describing the exaltation of the incarnate Son.
Both acknowledge that Jesus receives authority from God.
The dispute concerns the implications for his eternal status.
42. FIRST CORINTHIANS 15 — THE SON'S FINAL SUBJECTION
Paul describes Christ reigning until all enemies are placed under his feet.
He then describes the Son being subjected to the one who subjected all things to him, so that God may be all in all.
This is an important passage.
The Father's ultimate supremacy is explicit.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands the Son's subjection as evidence of a genuine distinction in authority.
The traditional interpretation distinguishes the Son's mediatorial role from his divine nature.
But that distinction is a theological explanation, not a phrase explicitly stated in the passage.
The text itself must be taken seriously.
43. THE STRONGEST EVIDENCE FOR JESUS' DIVINE IDENTITY
The traditional interpretation also possesses substantial evidence.
John 1:1 describes the Word using theos.
John 20:28 records Thomas addressing Jesus as “my Lord and my God.”
Philippians 2 applies language recalling Isaiah 45 to Jesus.
Hebrews 1 applies creation-language from Psalm 102 to the Son.
Revelation 5 depicts extraordinary heavenly honour given to the Lamb.
These passages cannot be dismissed.
They establish that New Testament Christology is more complex than merely describing Jesus as an ordinary human prophet.
The question is whether this language establishes full equality with the Father or can be explained through God's unique representative and exalted Son.
44. PERSONAL PREEXISTENCE IS NOT THE SAME AS NICENE EQUALITY
This is a central finding of our research.
A personally preexistent Son could theoretically be understood as subordinate to the Father.
That is demonstrated by several historical non-Trinitarian interpretations.
Therefore:
PERSONAL PREEXISTENCE DOES NOT LOGICALLY REQUIRE THE TRINITY.
But the opposite is also important.
The Father's supremacy does not automatically establish that the Son lacked personal preexistence.
These are separate claims.
Our final verdict must not use evidence for one question as though it automatically settles the other.
45. FINAL VERDICT ON WHETHER JESUS IS ALMIGHTY GOD
The New Testament explicitly identifies the Father as the one God and repeatedly describes Jesus as receiving authority from Him.
At the same time, it applies extraordinary divine titles, creation-language and heavenly honour to Jesus.
Therefore, the evidence cannot responsibly be reduced to a simple argument based on one title.
OUR VERDICT IS THAT PERSONAL PREEXISTENCE, EVEN IF ACCEPTED, DOES NOT BY ITSELF ESTABLISH THAT JESUS IS ALMIGHTY GOD OR COEQUAL WITH THE FATHER.
Whether the strongest high-Christology passages ultimately establish the Nicene doctrine requires further theological argument beyond the fact of preexistence.
The Father's unique identity and Jesus' exalted status must both be explained.
PART SEVEN — THE TWO BIBLICAL UNITARIAN INTERPRETATIONS
46. WHY THEY MUST REMAIN SEPARATE
One of the original purposes of this investigation was to compare different Biblical Unitarian interpretations.
We must not combine them into one position.
They answer the question of John's beginning differently.
They also interpret the creation-language differently.
Their shared rejection of personal preexistence does not make their explanations identical.
47. BIBLICAL UNITARIAN VIEW ONE — GENESIS CREATION
This interpretation understands:
“IN THE BEGINNING”
As Genesis creation.
“THE WORD”
As God's own creative speech, wisdom and purpose.
“WITH GOD”
As the Word belonging to or existing in relation to God.
“THE WORD WAS GOD”
As expressing the Word's divine character.
“ALL THINGS THROUGH THE WORD”
As original creation through God's own creative activity.
“THE WORD BECAME FLESH”
As God's Word becoming embodied in Jesus Christ.
This interpretation has a strong foundation in Genesis and the Psalms.
Its principal difficulty is explaining the wider New Testament's personal-preexistence passages.
48. BIBLICAL UNITARIAN VIEW TWO — THE GOSPEL BEGINNING
This interpretation understands:
“IN THE BEGINNING”
As the beginning of the Gospel or new creation.
“THE WORD”
As God's saving message and purpose.
“WITH GOD”
As the message originating with God.
“THE WORD WAS GOD”
As the message expressing God's own nature and authority.
“ALL THINGS THROUGH THE WORD”
As the new creation brought about through the Gospel.
“THE WORD BECAME FLESH”
As God's saving message becoming embodied in Jesus.
This interpretation rightly recognises John's themes of new life, light and salvation.
But it faces a greater difficulty explaining the direct Genesis echoes and comprehensive creation-language of John 1:3.
49. WHICH BIBLICAL UNITARIAN INTERPRETATION IS STRONGER?
On the specific question of John's beginning, the Genesis Word interpretation has the stronger textual foundation.
The reasons are clear.
John uses the opening words of Genesis.
He introduces creation, light and darkness.
He describes all things coming into being through the Word.
The new-creation interpretation has meaningful theological support.
But it requires a greater restriction of the apparent scope of the creation-language.
Therefore:
AMONG THE TWO BIBLICAL UNITARIAN INTERPRETATIONS, THE GENESIS WORD READING IS THE STRONGER EXPLANATION OF JOHN 1:1–5.
However, that does not automatically make it the strongest explanation of every passage concerning Jesus' preexistence.
The wider New Testament remains a substantial challenge.
PART EIGHT — THE SIX INTERPRETATIONS: FINAL COMPARISON
50. THE COMPARISON TABLE
| Interpretation | Main strength | Main difficulty |
|---|---|---|
| Trinitarian | Explains personal preexistence and high divine language | Must integrate the Father's unique identity and Jesus' subordination |
| Oneness | Emphasises one God and the Word as divine self-expression | Must explain sustained Father-Son personal distinction |
| Jehovah's Witness | Explains preexistence and subordination | Must establish created status and defend disputed readings |
| Non-Trinitarian preexistent Son | Explains personal preexistence while preserving Father's supremacy | Must clarify the Son's origin, status and role in creation |
| BU Genesis Word | Strong Genesis and Old Testament Word background | Must explain cumulative personal-preexistence passages |
| BU Gospel beginning | Strong new-creation and ministry themes | Must explain Genesis echoes and comprehensive creation-language |
This comparison reveals that the interpretations do not all answer the same questions equally well.
A model may explain John's Genesis background naturally but struggle with Jesus' heavenly statements.
Another may explain personal preexistence naturally but struggle with the Father's explicit identification as the one God.
The strongest interpretation must account for both.
51. WHICH INTERPRETATION REQUIRES THE FEWEST ASSUMPTIONS?
This is not easily answered with a single numerical score.
The Genesis Word interpretation requires relatively few assumptions when explaining Psalm 33:6 and the opening creation-language of John 1.
But it requires more extensive explanations when dealing with John 6:62, John 17:5 and Hebrews 1.
The personal-preexistence interpretations explain those passages more directly.
But different personal-preexistence models then face questions about the Son's relationship to the Father.
The Trinitarian interpretation offers a developed framework for reconciling divine language with Father-Son distinction.
The non-Trinitarian preexistence interpretation preserves the Father's supremacy but must explain the Son's origin and participation in creation.
Therefore, the evidence does not support a simplistic claim that one model has no difficulties.
Every model must answer substantial questions.
PART NINE — THE FINAL TWENTY FINDINGS
52. WHAT OUR RESEARCH HAS ESTABLISHED
1. John 1:1 deliberately recalls Genesis 1:1.
2. The original-creation interpretation of John 1:3 has stronger immediate contextual support than an exclusively new-creation interpretation.
3. John's Gospel also develops genuine new-creation themes.
4. The Greek noun logos does not inherently identify a separate divine person.
5. God's Word as creative speech, wisdom and purpose has a substantial Old Testament foundation.
6. The masculine Greek pronouns referring to logos do not independently establish personhood.
7. The expression “with God” can naturally describe personal relationship, but grammar alone does not settle the Word's identity.
8. The absence of the article before theos does not require the translation “a god.”
9. John 1:1c makes a strong statement concerning the Word's divine character.
10. John 1:14 establishes that the Word became flesh but does not explicitly define the metaphysical mechanism.
11. Luke 1:35 strongly establishes Jesus' miraculous human origin.
12. God's foreknowledge of Christ does not automatically establish Christ's personal preexistence.
13. John 6:62 naturally supports personal preexistence.
14. John 8:58 and John 17:5 also provide substantial evidence for personal preexistence.
15. Philippians 2, Colossians 1 and Hebrews 1 strengthen the cumulative personal-preexistence case.
16. The Father is explicitly identified as the one God and as Jesus' God.
17. Jesus receives authority, exaltation and lordship from God.
18. Extraordinary divine titles and heavenly honour are nevertheless applied to Jesus.
19. Personal preexistence does not automatically establish Nicene equality with the Father.
20. The strongest reading of John 1 must account for both the Genesis Word background and the wider New Testament's personal language concerning Jesus.
PART TEN — THE FINAL VERDICT
53. VERDICT ONE — THE BEGINNING
JOHN MOST NATURALLY BEGINS WITH GENESIS CREATION.
The verbal and thematic connections are too strong to dismiss.
The Gospel's new-creation themes develop from this foundation.
Therefore, an exclusively ministry-beginning interpretation is less persuasive than a Genesis-centred reading.
54. VERDICT TWO — THE WORD
THE WORD IS ROOTED IN GOD'S OWN CREATIVE SPEECH, WISDOM AND SELF-EXPRESSION.
This background is firmly established in the Hebrew Scriptures.
But whether John identifies that Word as a personally preexistent Son cannot be decided by the noun logos alone.
The traditional interpretation gains support from the Word's relational language and the wider New Testament.
The Biblical Unitarian Genesis interpretation remains a serious explanation of the Old Testament background.
The decisive question is how the Word's identity develops across the complete biblical testimony.
55. VERDICT THREE — “THE WORD WAS GOD”
THE GREEK DOES NOT REQUIRE “A GOD,” AND THE CONVENTIONAL TRANSLATION “THE WORD WAS GOD” IS GRAMMATICALLY DEFENSIBLE.
The clause strongly expresses the Word's divine character.
But grammar alone does not establish a complete doctrine of three coequal persons.
Nor does it prove the Word was impersonal.
Its theological implications depend upon the broader context.
56. VERDICT FOUR — “THE WORD BECAME FLESH”
JOHN DESCRIBES THE WORD BECOMING FLESH IN JESUS CHRIST.
The traditional interpretation understands personal incarnation.
The Biblical Unitarian interpretation understands embodiment of God's Word in the human Messiah.
The verse itself does not explain the transition using later theological categories.
The wider evidence must determine which interpretation is most persuasive.
57. VERDICT FIVE — JESUS' PERSONAL PREEXISTENCE
THE CUMULATIVE NEW TESTAMENT EVIDENCE FAVOURS PERSONAL PREEXISTENCE AS THE MORE NATURAL READING.
John 6:62, John 8:58, John 16:28, John 17:5, Philippians 2, Colossians 1 and Hebrews 1 provide substantial support.
The Biblical Unitarian alternatives are not without biblical arguments.
But several require less direct readings of repeated first-person statements concerning Jesus' heavenly past.
This conclusion is stronger than any claim that John 1:1 alone proves personal preexistence.
58. VERDICT SIX — THE FATHER AS THE ONE GOD
THE NEW TESTAMENT EXPLICITLY IDENTIFIES THE FATHER AS THE ONE GOD AND REPEATEDLY DESCRIBES HIM AS JESUS' GOD.
This is a central fact.
Any interpretation claiming that Jesus shares the Father's divine identity must explain these passages.
At the same time, divine titles and extraordinary honour applied to Jesus must also be explained.
The evidence requires a more careful account than simply equating personal preexistence with being Almighty God.
59. VERDICT SEVEN — DOES PREEXISTENCE PROVE THE TRINITY?
NO.
Personal preexistence and the Trinity are not identical doctrines.
A person may accept the Son's preexistence while understanding the Father as uniquely supreme.
But any such interpretation must explain the Son's relationship to creation and the extraordinary divine language applied to him.
The Trinity is a further theological conclusion requiring additional argument.
It cannot be established merely by showing that Jesus existed before his birth.
60. WHICH INTERPRETATION EMERGES STRONGEST?
Our final assessment must be carefully qualified.
FOR THE MEANING OF THE BEGINNING: The Genesis-creation interpretation is strongest.
FOR THE OLD TESTAMENT BACKGROUND OF THE WORD: God's own creative Word and Wisdom provide the clearest starting point.
FOR THE QUESTION OF JESUS' PERSONAL PREEXISTENCE: The personally preexistent Son interpretation has the stronger cumulative support across the wider New Testament.
FOR THE QUESTION OF THE FATHER'S IDENTITY: The Father is explicitly identified as the one God, while Jesus is distinguished as His Son, Messiah and appointed Lord.
FOR THE QUESTION OF NICENE EQUALITY: Personal preexistence alone does not settle it. The high-Christology and Father-Son distinction passages require additional synthesis.
This means that the final evidence does not simply vindicate every claim of any one theological system.
Instead, it supports several conclusions that must be held together.
John's opening is deeply rooted in God's creative Word.
The wider New Testament gives substantial support to personal preexistence.
The Father remains explicitly distinguished from Jesus as his God.
And the question of whether Jesus shares the Father's divine essence is not resolved merely by establishing preexistence.
PART ELEVEN — A FINAL CHALLENGE TO EVERY READER
61. THE DANGER OF READING DOCTRINE INTO SCRIPTURE
Theological systems can become so familiar that readers no longer notice the difference between a biblical statement and an interpretation of that statement.
John says:
“THE WORD WAS GOD.”
That is the text.
A theological explanation of what this means is an interpretation.
John says:
“THE WORD BECAME FLESH.”
That is the text.
The precise mechanism of incarnation or embodiment is an interpretation.
Jesus says:
“THE FATHER ... THE ONLY TRUE GOD.”
That is the text.
A theological explanation of how this relates to Jesus' divine status is an interpretation.
We must distinguish the words of Scripture from the frameworks used to explain them.
This does not mean all interpretations are equally convincing.
It means every interpretation must be tested.
62. THE DANGER OF IGNORING DIFFICULT VERSES
A Biblical Unitarian should not ignore John 6:62 or John 17:5.
A Trinitarian should not ignore John 17:3 or Revelation 3:12.
A Jehovah's Witness should not ignore the grammatical problems associated with translating John 1:1 as “a god.”
An Oneness believer should not ignore the sustained distinction between Father and Son.
A non-Trinitarian preexistence believer should not ignore Isaiah 44:24 or Hebrews 1.
Every interpretation faces difficult passages.
The strongest interpretation is not the one that can quote the most favourable verses.
It is the one that explains the entire biblical testimony most consistently.
63. WHAT DID JOHN WANT HIS READERS TO BELIEVE?
Near the end of his Gospel, John states his purpose.
He writes that these things were recorded so that readers might believe Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and have life through his name.
This is important.
John's stated purpose is to establish faith in Jesus as the Christ and Son of God.
But this purpose statement does not automatically exclude other claims about Jesus' origin or nature.
The Gospel contains both the purpose statement and the remarkable language of the prologue.
It also contains Jesus' statements about coming from the Father and returning to Him.
Therefore, the Gospel must be read as a whole.
The purpose statement provides the central confession.
The rest of the Gospel explains the significance of that confession.
64. THE FINAL QUESTION — WHO IS JESUS CHRIST?
The New Testament presents Jesus as:
The Christ.
The Son of God.
The descendant of David.
The man through whom God worked.
The one whom God raised from the dead.
The one whom God exalted.
The Lord appointed by God.
The mediator between God and humanity.
The one who reveals the Father.
The one associated with the Word becoming flesh.
And, in several passages, the one whose origin or glory is described in terms preceding his earthly life.
All these descriptions belong to the biblical evidence.
A complete Christology must account for them.
We should not remove the passages that challenge our preferred interpretation.
Nor should we make one passage say more than its language establishes.
FINAL CONCLUSION — WHAT DOES JOHN 1:1 REALLY TEACH?
65. THE CONCLUSION OF OUR 26-PART INVESTIGATION
After examining the biblical, linguistic and historical evidence, our final conclusion is as follows.
FIRST: JOHN 1:1 IS DELIBERATELY ROOTED IN GENESIS CREATION.
The original-creation interpretation is stronger than an exclusively Gospel-beginning interpretation.
SECOND: THE WORD HAS A PROFOUND OLD TESTAMENT BACKGROUND IN GOD'S OWN CREATIVE SPEECH, WISDOM AND PURPOSE.
This is a substantial strength of the Biblical Unitarian Genesis Word interpretation.
THIRD: JOHN 1:1 ALONE DOES NOT PROVE THAT THE WORD WAS A SEPARATE CONSCIOUS PERSON.
The grammar and Old Testament background require careful interpretation.
FOURTH: THE WIDER NEW TESTAMENT CONTAINS SUBSTANTIAL CUMULATIVE EVIDENCE FOR JESUS' PERSONAL PREEXISTENCE.
Several passages are more naturally understood in that way than as exclusively prophetic or figurative language.
FIFTH: PERSONAL PREEXISTENCE DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY PROVE THAT JESUS IS ALMIGHTY GOD.
The Father is explicitly identified as the one God and as Jesus' God.
The New Testament also gives Jesus extraordinary divine titles, authority and honour.
Both sets of evidence must be explained.
SIXTH: THE TWO BIBLICAL UNITARIAN INTERPRETATIONS MUST REMAIN DISTINCT.
The Genesis Word interpretation has the stronger foundation in John 1:1–5.
The Gospel-beginning interpretation correctly identifies new-creation themes but faces a greater difficulty with the comprehensive creation-language.
SEVENTH: THE FINAL THEOLOGICAL QUESTION IS NOT SETTLED BY ONE GREEK WORD OR ONE ISOLATED VERSE.
The full biblical testimony must govern the conclusion.
66. OUR FINAL STATEMENT
JOHN'S GOSPEL BEGINS WITH GOD'S CREATIVE WORD AND LEADS US TO JESUS CHRIST, IN WHOM THAT WORD BECAME FLESH.
The Genesis background is clear.
The precise personal identity of the Word requires interpretation.
The wider New Testament provides substantial evidence supporting the Son's personal preexistence.
But personal preexistence and equality with Almighty God are separate questions.
The Father is repeatedly identified as the one God, while Jesus is presented as His Son, Messiah, mediator and exalted Lord.
A faithful interpretation must preserve all these biblical statements rather than allowing one theological system to silence another part of Scripture.
THE GREATEST LESSON OF THIS INVESTIGATION IS THAT WE MUST ALLOW THE BIBLE TO DEFINE ITS OWN TERMS.
Not later tradition alone.
Not a preferred denomination.
Not a single English translation.
Not one isolated Greek grammatical observation.
But the complete biblical testimony.
We began by asking:
WHO WAS THE WORD IN JOHN 1:1?
We conclude that John's Word-language is firmly rooted in God's own creative self-expression, while the broader New Testament gives significant support to understanding Jesus as personally preexistent.
Whether that personally preexistent Son shares the Father's divine essence, or should instead be understood through a different account of divine agency and sonship, remains a further theological judgment requiring the same careful scrutiny.
The evidence must always come before the conclusion.
67. A FINAL WORD TO OUR READERS
This investigation has not been an attempt to defend a doctrine at any cost.
It has been an attempt to examine the evidence.
Some passages have strongly supported the Biblical Unitarian understanding of God's Word and the Father's unique identity.
Other passages have presented substantial difficulties for a non-preexistence interpretation.
Acknowledging those difficulties is not a weakness.
It is part of responsible biblical research.
We must be willing to reconsider an interpretation when the evidence requires it.
And we must be willing to distinguish what Scripture explicitly teaches from what our theological reasoning concludes.
THE GOAL IS NOT TO PROVE WHAT WE ALREADY BELIEVE.
THE GOAL IS TO DISCOVER WHAT THE BIBLE ACTUALLY TEACHES.
END OF THE COMPLETE 26-PART INVESTIGATION
JOHN 1:1 — GOD'S WORD, OR THE BEGINNING OF JESUS' MINISTRY?
Research and authorship: Simon Brown
Real Discoveries
https://wwwrealdiscoveriesorg-simon.blogspot.com
“They received the word with all readiness of mind, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.” — Acts 17:11, WEB
LET THE SCRIPTURES SPEAK.
LET THE EVIDENCE DECIDE.
LET THE TRUTH PREVAIL.
RELATED ARTICLE: WHY John 1:1 is not about Jesus!
No comments:
Post a Comment