John 1:1b

"and the Word was with God"

Observation 1: As a conceptually complementary clause following "In the beginning was the Word", the clause "and the Word was with God" would present a sudden shift in expectations for the traditional 1st century Israelite. For (s)he would have assumed that "the Word" in v. 1a was "God" (Adonai). But now John distinguishes "the Word" from "God". In Israelite theology only "God" was "in the beginning", before the heavens and earth. So is this another deity? Is this polytheism? Statement 3 (forthcoming) will clarify these issues.

Observation 2: The Greek phrase translated "with God" is pros ton theon. Commonly, pros + accusative is rendered "toward" something. But with used with persons it can easily be understood as "with" without any necessary sense of "direction toward". What I find interesting is how this might, however, play into the ancient view of the Trinity, particularly the Father-Son relationship known as the doctrine of the "Eternal Generation of the Son". In short, this idea is an attempt to reconcile how Jesus can be "begotten" (1:18) yet uncreated. Many Church Fathers concluded that Jesus is "eternally generated" from the Father. Hence, he can be described as "begotten" as he proceeds from the Father yet there was never a time when he was not being generated from the Father, hence he is eternal and uncreated. (You don't see (m)any people holding to this view today. Most have simply concluded that texts that were formerly translated "begotten", like 1:18's "only begotten" ought to be just rendered "only" without any sense of begotten-ness.) I find it fascinating, that John 1:1b may represent the only text that describes the "direction" of the relationship between Father and Son. Again, I don't believe that pros ton theon MUST indicate directionality though it often does. Yet if there is any directionality to be found, even in mere possibility, 1:1b has it. And its directional relationship between Father and Son is not the Son being generated "from" the Father (which would be "ek") or at least movement "away from" the Father ("apo"), which would support the "generation" idea. Instead pros, if it has ANY direction, is TOWARD the Father not eternally spawned "from" him.

Observation 3: In any case, what matters is that pros ton theon expresses a relationship between these two distinct persons. This is not modalism though it could be polytheism if the sentence ended here. (But it doesn't.) The writer is careful to show these two persons as distinct yet in a relationship. One could, knowing what was expressed in the 3 synoptic Gospels written prior to John's, invest all of the intimacy already described about the Father-Son relationship.

Observation 4: There is a simple grammatical chiasm here:

prepositional phrase + "was" + the Word (1a)

the Word + "was" + prepositional phrase (1b)

As aforementioned, 1a is syntactically arranged to recall Genesis 1:1. The 1b phrase is likely a natural follow-up, probably unintentionally chiastic. It is noteworthy that a "normal" sentence would not have repeated "and the Word was". Instead it would've been 1 sentence that would've read: "In the beginning was the Word who was with God" or something like that. But there are separate clauses here both to highlight the parallel wording of 1:1a with Genesis 1:1 and to reinforce the importance of all 3 phrases in 1:1 as they are individually understood.