It is commonly assumed by Trinitarians that "logos" translated as "the Word" could be synonymous to Jesus, for example Edward Klink III made the statement:

“Certainly the term [logos] might be recognizable [to John’s audience], but its direct connection to Jesus assumes that Jesus, not merely his [John’s] religious-philosophical context, determines its meaning. ... John is not relying on a background but on a foreground. For it is Jesus who embodies the “Word” (logos) in the flesh.”

However, "the Word" is a transliteration of the Greek word "logos" which has a very wide range of meanings that fall into two categories:

1. the mind or products of the mind like "reason" or "logic" which comes from "logos"
2. an expression of "reason" (logic), for example a "plan", "promise", "command" which is often also translated as account, appearance, book, conversation, eloquence, flattery, grievance, instruction, matter, message, ministry, news, proposal, question, reply, report, rule, rumor, saying, sentence, speech, story, teaching, testimony, truth, and so forth depending on the context.

There is no historical evidence that the people of Christ’s ever thought the "logos" was Jesus Christ. This is only an assumption.

"The Word of God" is explained by Peter (Acts 2:22-24), Stephen (Acts 7:2-56), Paul (Acts 13:16-39; Titus 1:1-3) and according to them the meaning of "the Word of God" is:

Even John himself uses the same Greek word ho logos to communicate:

The renowned Trinitarian scholar, J. B. Lightfoot, writes that it was Christian teachers who took the word logos and changed it, giving it new definitions, such as a divine Person, and that change occurred in the centuries after John lived.

For example John 1 is quoted as:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.

...

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

-- John 1:1-2,14 (ESV)

With this biased translation it seems like John stated that Jesus is God.

John 1

What was John trying to introduce?

• Some argue that John gave a mysterious riddle. Guess what "the word" is? Then later he reveals the answer: "the word" is Jesus.
• Some argue that the so-called "contradictions" in John 1 is caused by people who literally interpret the symbolic message of John.
• Some argue that John was writing poetic text that does not have to make perfectly sense.

However, we found this comment about John appended to his Gospel:

This is the disciple (John) who is bearing witness about these things, and who has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true. -- John 21:24 (ESV)

A witness or testimony is not supposed to be overcomplicated, confusing, symbolic, prophetic or mysterious.

Instead...

these are written so that you may believe that

• Jesus is the Christ,
• the Son of God, and
• that by believing you may have life in his name.

-- John 20:30 (ESV)

None of the above-mentioned arguments would make a good testimony about Jesus.

Then John continues to include even more witnesses about Jesus:

• And this is the record of John... "but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not; He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose." -- John 1:19,26,27 (KJV)

• The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." -- John 1:29 (KJV)

• And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. And I knew him not: but He that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, "Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost." -- John 1:32-33 (KJV)

• And I (John) saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.

• Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples; And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, "Behold the Lamb of God!" -- John 1:35-36 (KJV)

• Simon, and saith unto him, "We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ." -- John 1:41 (KJV)

• Nathanael answered and saith unto him, "Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel." -- 1 John 1:49 (KJV)

Some scholars claim that John testifying about the Godhead. However, if this was the case, then John forgot to mention the Holy Spirit in his introduction.

Analyzing John 1

If "the Word" (logos) is Jesus, it would change the meaning of John's text to:

In the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was with God, and Jesus was God. The same (Jesus) was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him (Jesus); and without Him (Jesus) was not any thing made that was made. In Him (Jesus) was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light (Jesus), that all men through him might believe. He was not that Light (Jesus), but was sent to bear witness of that Light (Jesus). That was the true Light (Jesus), which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

He (Jesus) was in the world, and the world was made by Him (Jesus), and the world knew Him (Jesus) not. He (Jesus) came unto His (Jesus) own, and His (Jesus) own received Him (Jesus) not. But as many as received Him (Jesus), to them gave He (Jesus) power to become the sons of God (Jesus), even to them that believe on His name (Jesus): Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God (Jesus). And Jesus was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld His (Jesus) glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father) full of grace and truth.

John bare witness of Him (Jesus), and cried, saying,

This was He of Whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for He was before me.

And of His fulness (Jesus) have all we received, and grace for grace. For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

No man hath seen God (Jesus) at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He (Jesus) hath declared Him (Jesus).

-- Nonsense version of John 1

Even Trinitarians would say that this version of John 1 is ridiculous. Some argue that one cannot simply substitute "the Word" with "Jesus" as it was done here. They argue that it requires years of theological studies to understand the Godhead.

John more likely intended to get the following message across:

In the beginning God already had a plan, and the plan was His will, such that this master plan, was used in the beginning by God to create everything according to it and nothing exists that was not part of it.

It also includes the solution to life which is "the light" (true gospel of salvation) that shines into "the darkness" (deception) such that the lies would be revealed.

John the Baptist was sent by God as a witness to testify about this "light" (gospel), so that by his gospel all would believe. However, the gospel is not about John, but instead he came to testify about the gospel. The true gospel is that another saviour had come to the world of the lost.

When he was in the world of the lost, and he came to make the world children of God, despite that the world did not personally know him. Although he came to his own nation, his own nation rejected him, but many did accept him whom he gave the right to become children of God. These are those who belief in his authority: which is that he was not born because of the will of a man, but that he was born according to the original plan of God.

This plan materialized when our saviour was born among us, because we have seen God's glory, which is the glory of a Father that is pleased with His only born Son, such that His grace and truth is completely revealed by this.

John the Baptist, testified about him and when he declared: "This was the one about whom I said, 'He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was superior to me.'"

From him we have all have received total grace from the law that was given by Moses. Therefore, grace and truth was given by Jesus Christ.

Although no one has ever "seen" (understood) God, the only born Son (who is very intimate with his Father) could "declare" (explain) Him.

-- A paraphrased version of John 1

However, before we jump to conclusions, we need to analyze the original John 1:

John 1:1

Facts:

• logos has many possible meanings - commonly it is translated as "Word"
• John refers 3 times to "THE WORD" (HO LOGOS) in the same sentence which means he was addressing a specific "Word", not just any "word"
• John refers 2 times to God in the same sentence:
  • "WITH GOD" (PROS THEON) with a preposition and accusative masculine singular noun
  • "GOD" (THEOS) without a preposition and only a nominative masculine singular noun

The Jehovah Witnesses argue that because the last "GOD" (THEOS) not have a preposition, which means it should be translated as "a god". This would change the text to:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and the Word was a god.

This changes the text to read that there are 2 different "gods". However, some argue the lacking preposition makes no difference and could still refer to "the God".

The New English Bible translate the scripture as:

... What God was the Word was.

This means that "the word" shared the same attribute with God, namely that they both existed from the beginning.

The paradox

Why did John wrote "the Word was with God" and "the Word was God"?

From quoting John 1:1 alone, it is not clear if John referred to 1 or 2 different gods. Because of this confusion, some reason "John is a paradoxical guy and is unable to be consistent":

The issue of the paradoxical relationship of the Son (or "Word") to the Father is faced immediately.... Here is the seeming contradiction of the Word being God and yet not being God. -- Millard J. Erickson (God in Three Persons, p 199)

In other words, "X was with Y" implies X is not Y, but "X was Y" implies X is Y. This seems like a contradiction.

If interpret that the author is contradicting himself in the opening sentence, you probably made a big mistake. The author is probably not stupid. The author should be able to remain consistent in the space of at least one sentence... There was not this tradition of celebrating confusion as mysteries. -- Dr. Dale Tuggy

The Greek word transliterated as "theos" means "God", but unlike the English word "God", "theos" could also mean a number of different things.

Therefore, Murry J. Harris suggested:

Whenever [theos or ho theos are] found in the New Testament, we are to assume that ho pater [the Father] is the referent unless the context makes this sense impossible. -- Murry J. Harris (Jesus as God, p 271)

Which statement is less contradicting?

• In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the Father, and the Word was the Father.

• In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the Father, and the Word was divine.

How could "the Word" be divine?

Jehovah's witnesses would point it means that Jesus was a divine angel of the God, but even this is only an unproven assumption and clash with the meaning of "the word".

To the Jewish audience, "the Word" would mean God's command:

By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth... For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast. -- Psalm 33:6,9 (NKJV)

Some suggest that John choose to use the Greek word "logos" for the sake of his Greek philosophical audience, which means in this context would mean "wisdom about our existence and purpose" which is essentially what the Gospel intended to address and the purpose of his book (John 20:30). If this was John's motivation, it could mean that he means that he witness about the "divine" philosophy (wisdom) which explain our purpose and how we were created. If this is the case we could also translate "the Word" as God's "plan" which is perhaps easier for the modern reader to understand.

The Greek word "pros" which was translated as "with" actually means "advantageous for".

This changes the text to:

In the beginning was the plan, and the plan was advantageous for God, and the plan was divine.

John 1:2

Verse 2 is usually translated:

He was in the beginning with God. -- John 1:2 (ESV)

The word Greek word "houtos" which is translated as "he" could also mean "it" depending on the context. Since most English bible translators assume "the Word" is Jesus' other name, they translate it with "he" is a person, they say it proof that "the word" is Jesus. This is called circular reasoning.

Not all translators agree that "He" is the correct translation, for example:

The same was in the beginning with God. -- John 1:2 (ASV, KJV)

or

The Word was with God in the beginning. -- John 1:2 (NET)

or

This word was in the beginning with God. -- John 1:2 (REV)

or in Afrikaans:

Hierdie het aanvanklik saam met God bestaan. -- John 1:2 (PWL)

Why the repetition?

The original Greek did not had punctuation marks like English.

While verse 1 states the origin and purpose of "the word", I believe verse 2 is supposed to be part of the same sentence of verse 3 which states how God used "the word" to create the creation "in the beginning", which is the same phrase is found in Genesis 1:1.

This moves the subject from "the word" to "God" because ultimately John was not testifying about another "word" (Greek philosophy) but the God Who created us.

John 1:3

Many modern English translation would read something like:

All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. -- John 1:3 (ESV)

When something is made "through" someone, it means that person is only the channel and another person was the creator. This contradicts with other scriptures that state that God is the only Creator.

Other translations may read:

All things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made. -- John 1:3 (KJV)

or

Everything came to be through it, and apart from it nothing came to be. -- John 1:3 (REV)

What is the correct translation?

Whether it is "Him" (referring to God) or an "it" (referring to the word), it does not really matter because both are technically correct. God created according to His word:

By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth.
He gathers the waters of the sea together as a heap;
He lays up the deep in storehouses.
Let all the earth fear the Lord;
Let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of Him.
For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast.

-- Psalm 33:6-9 (NKJV)

Greece did not yet exist at the time the Psalms were written, so the psalmists could not have Greek philosophies in mind when they wrote this. Therefore, in this case "the word of the LORD" is His "command, and it stood fast".

Let them praise the name of the LORD, for He commanded and they were created. -- Psalm 148:5 (NRSV)

In Genesis 1 we read that God created everything by saying: "Let there be..." and then it was created.

Peter also understood and preached:

For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly. But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow to fulfill His promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance...

But according to His promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.

-- 2 Peter 3:5-9,13 (ESV)

Peter was not preaching that we should expect Jesus to burn the world. According to Peter, "the word" by which the heaven and the earth was formed is the Lord's "promise". He was making the point that he was very certain that God will keep His promise at the end-times.

John 1:2-5

The same was in the beginning with God, all things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made. In Him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. -- John 1:2-5 (KJV)

This aligns with:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. -- Genesis 1:1-3 (NRSV)

Here, John introduces 2 more terms:

• the life and
• the light

Neither of these terms are designations of Jesus, nor of God, because God did not create Jesus, nor Himself in the beginning. However, God's creation and the plan (word) for it, is the solution to the life and the light which are mentioned here and that is why John mentions it.

John 1:6-9

There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the light, that all through him might believe. He was not that light, but was sent to bear witness of that light. That was the true light which gives light to every man coming into the world. -- John 1:6-9 (NKJV)

Some scholars argue John witnessed about Jesus, which implies Jesus is "the Light" because their bibles are biased translated:

The one who is the true light, who gives light to everyone, was coming into the world. -- John 1:9 (NLT)

In the context of John 1:4 "the life is the light of men", I believe "the life" which refers to eternal salvation is also the Glory of God as that is the purpose why God created life (Psalm 86:9-10, 148:1-12; Ephesians 1:3-6).

People easily idolize people. I believe that the author John want to make sure that he is clear that we should not idolize John the Baptist, who was only "bearing witness of the light" because he was not personally the means to salvation ("the life), nor the glory ("the light") that people should pursue.

John 1:10-13

He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. -- John 1:10-13 (KJV)

There are multiple ways to interpret these verses.

• The "He" in this verse, obviously does not refer to John the Baptist because "he was not that light" (John 1:8).
• If "He" refers to God the Creator (John 1:3), Who came to His own nation (Exodus 19-20) and was rejected by His own nation (Isaiah 40-55; Romans 11), we need to be able to explain why John refers to God as distinct from "He which were born of God" and how could God be "born of God"?
• If "he" refers to Jesus the Jew, who were reaching out to the Jews, but got rejected (crucified) by the Jews, we need to explain why John wrote "the world was made by him" when he just said that the world was created by God in verse 3?

Note that John first said "He was in the world", then "the world was made by him". If John was referring to the creation, then this statement would not make sense because:

• Jesus or God could not have been "in the world" if "the world" was not created yet, and
• John would have made a redundant statement, because he already testified that God created "all things" in John 1:3

In this context, "the world" is not the creation and does not include "all things". It refers to the people of the world that rejected him.

I believe when John wrote "the world was made by him" it means that those who were of the world were made relevant (or saved) because the context is about rejection or acceptance to "to become the sons of God". It could also be understood that the world was made God's children. "Sons of God" are "made" when they "believe on his name (authority) which is: that he "were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God". In other words, Jesus was no accident of Mary having a good time out wedlock, but that his birth was according to the will of God.

John 1:14

And the word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. -- John 1:14 (NKJV)

Some argue this means Jesus was reincarnated from God to human.

As seen before "the word" as God's promised plan of grace materialized when Jesus was born. John highlights that God kept His promise and that God's prophets spoke the truth. This event glorified God.

John 1:15

John bore witness of Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me is preferred before me, for He was before me.’” -- John 1:15 (NKJV)

John also bore witness of Jesus:

The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! This is he of whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who is preferred before me, for he was before me.’ I did not know him; but that he should be revealed to Israel, therefore I came baptizing with water.” -- John 1:29-31

When John says "He was before me" when Jesus was younger than him does not necessary mean Jesus pre-existed before John.

The Greek word "protos" translated as "before" can also mean "first", "chief", "leader", etc. For example Matthew 20:27, 22:38; Mark 6:21, 10:44; Luke 11:26.

John 1:16-17

And of his fullness we have all received, and grace for grace. For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. -- John 1:16-17 (NKJV)

Scholars interpret these words very differently:

• Some argue this means Jesus was full of God or was completely God, however John was not discussing Jesus essence.
• Some argue this means Jesus fulfilled the prophecies of Christ, however he already said that in verse 14.
• Some argue that the subject is in this verse is "grace" compared to the "law given through Moses", therefore Jesus was full of God's grace / completed God's grace / supplied God's grace (whichever way you want to interpret it)

John 1:18a

No one has seen God at any time. -- John 1:18a (NKJV); Exodus 33:20

If Jesus is God, then John contradicts himself in the rest of his book where people interacted with Jesus.

John 1:18b

Translators disagree on the correct translation of this verse:

God, the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared Him. -- John 1:18b (NKJV)

or

The only God, Who is at the Father’s side, he (Jesus) has made Him (God the Father) known. -- John 1:18b (ESV)

The NKJV says "the only begotten Son" is God, but the ESV says there is no other god but "the only God, Who is at the Father's side".

Either translations state the "he has made Him known" as two distinct persons. This does not make sense if God has made Himself known as someone else.

Jesus is not an incarnation of a "word"-divinity

According to John, Jesus cannot be God or some sort of incarnation of a mysterious "word"-divinity, because:

• John identified "the word" to be distinct from God. Something cannot be with God (separate) and be God (the same). (John 1:1). John would not contradict himself within the first sentence of his own book which is supposed to be a believable testimony.
• John clearly identifies "God", "the word", "the light", "the only begotten Son" and "the Father". We can either confuse all these subjects with each other and pretend that they are all mysteriously the same thing, or we need to define what each term means and why John brought up all these subjects.
• Jesus could not be the same the One who "came unto His own" at John 1:11 before he was "made flesh" in John 1:14, because John the baptist witnessed about "He that cometh after me" (John 1:15).
• Jesus only became flesh after the One "came unto His own". Therefore, we either need believe that Jesus is a mysterious shape-shifter or that Jesus was not the same One previously mentioned by John.
• Jesus was born according to the will of a bigger God (John 1:13).
• "The word was made flesh" by Someone other than "the word" itself (John 1:14) which John identifies as "the Father".
• John wrote after he saw Jesus (1 John 1:1-3), that nobody has seen God before (John 1:18).
• Nature shows that a begotten son is not the same essence as the son's Father. Therefore, "the only begotton Son" (John 1:18) has to be distinct from "the Father" or God would violate His own natural laws which makes a poor testimony.
• For someone to declare someone, they need to be distinct persons. A testimony of someone declaring himself has no value. Yet, Jesus declared his Father (John 1:18). Therefore, we either need to believe that the Father pretended to be a son or that the Son was really the Father's distinct Son as most people would naturally understand such a statement.

Revelations 19

John wrote in the book of Revelations:

Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war. His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows but himself. He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords. -- Revelation 19:11-16 (ESV)

Many scholars agree that Jesus is most likely described here based on similar prophecies about Jesus. Therefore, some would argue that "the name" in this context means "identity" and that John identified Jesus as "the Word of God".

However, there are no evidence that "John of Patmos" is the same John, known as "John the apostle". Also, the book of John is a testimony, while Revelations is a prophecy. The context and use of language differ.

In the context of John 19, "the name" is more likely a reference to his authority as Revelation 19:16 reveals his authority, which is "King of kings and Lord or lords". That is not the same as a human designation like the name "John" or the name "Jesus". It means he has authority over kings and lords (masters).

John also wrote "a name written that no one knows but himself".

If John intende name as a designation, then what would that be if his designation "no one knows but himself"?
If also causes John to contradict himself, when he states "no one knows" his name, then he reveals it as "the Word of God".

John more likely intended to say that Jesus received so much authority from God, that no one fully understand how powerful he is.

So if the first and third instance of the word "name" means authority, then it only makes sense that the second instance of the word "name" in the middle of the passage would also mean "authority". This changes the meaning to:

He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the authority by which he is called is The Word of God.

It is like the government sending a police officer to arrest a criminal on their behalf. Without an order, the officer has no right to arrest anyone. In this case it is Jesus acting by the Word of God to lead God's armies to strike down the nations.

It would be silly of John to say God comes by his own authority. Is there a bigger God than God? He is coming in the authority of God, or more specifically, by "the Word of God" which is God's "command" or by His instructions as we had see earlier. This scripture more likely means that Jesus was clothed in a special garment and is acting on the word (command) of God, therefore God's armies are following him.

This is significant, because it means we do not have to fear a coming trigger-happy bloodthirsty loose cannon. Instead, Jesus will return as an agent of God who obediently act according to the instructions of a fair God.