John 1:1a

"In the beginning was the Word"

Observation 1: There is a no-mistaking reference to Creation here. Whereas the genealogies of Matthew and Luke trace back to the OT, John's "genealogy" goes back to eternity! The preexistence of Jesus, the Second Person of the Trinity, is presented without apology. John wants to insure that we do not miss the deity of the Word. Grammatically, the sentence should be translated: "The Word was in the beginning". But here is where contextual syntax comes into play. Because of the clear parallel with Genesis 1:1, the prepositional phrase gets fronted to match the reference.

Observation 2: If we were reading it for the first time, we would assume that this "Word" was Yahweh God. It is the progression of the three phrases in verse 1 that completes the picture and alters our expectations of what is true of the nature of God and Christ.

Observation 3: "Word" has been variously assumed to be sourced in non-Christian, Greco-Roman literature, philosophy, or religion. There is widespread reference to some deified Being as the "Word" in the Greek writings. Rudolf Bultmann is one of the strongest proponents of this idea. But more recent scholarship has found plenty of references and theological uses of "Word" as designating God in the Jewish literature. In other words, "Word" is comfortably Jewish by the time the 1st century has rolled in. What is likely the case, however, is a both-and situation. Theologically, John surely couches "Word" in the Judeo-Christian world. The benefit of using "Word" is that it does have a natural segue into the Greco-Roman mind regarding the divine. Thus, it is a thought-bridge between Jewish and Greek worlds. Naturally, the Gentile would bring all of his (false) assumptions into the hearing of "Word". But John does more than make use of the word "Word". He defines it, tells us who this Word really is. And his concept is entirely Judeo-Christian.

Observation 4: In the Greek, this phrase "en arche ein ho logos", could be read fabulously as "There was a treasure in the midst of the leadership". (Those who know Greek know this.) Here is a good example of how words can be "played" with to mean whatever one wants, even nonsensical things. This does not lead us to interpretive or translation despair. Rather, this is where context matters. No "sensible" person could translate it that way. Anyone who thinks that the spoken and unspoken rules that govern all languages actually matters (and they do) have to pay attention to how words are used and could not render it as a reference to a "treasure"!