Punctuation of John 1:3-4

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. And the Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overtake it… There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens everyone. He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him… And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.” John 1:1-5, 9-10, 14

“Everything came into being through the Word, and without the Word nothing came into being. What came into being through the Word was life, and the life was the light for all people.” Common English Bible (CEB)

“And with this Word, God created all things. Nothing was made without the Word. Everything that was created received its life from him, and his life gave light to everyone.” Contemporary English Version (CEV)

“^[c]All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be. What came to be through him was life, and this life was the light of the human race;”

“Through him all things came into existence, and without him there was nothing. That which came to be found life in him, and the life was the light of the human race.” New Catholic Bible (NCB)

“All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people.” New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition (NRSVUE)

“Through him all things came to be, not one thing had its being but through him. All that came to be had life in him and that life was the light of men,” SAINT JOHN, Online Jerusalem Bible

“All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence. What has come into existence by means of him was life, and the life was the light of men.” New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (Study Edition)

“For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom He wishes… Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself; and He gave Him authority to execute judgment, because He is the Son of Man. Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice, and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment.” John 5:25-29  

“‘Do not work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you, for on Him the Father, God, set His seal.’  Therefore they said to Him, ‘What should we do, so that we may work the works of God?’ Jesus answered and said to them, ‘This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.’” 6:27-29

“Jesus then said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, Moses has not given you the bread from heaven, but My Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.’ Then they said to Him, ‘Lord, always give us this bread.’ Jesus said to them, ‘I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me will never hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst. But I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe. All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. Now this is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.’

“Therefore the Jews were grumbling about Him, because He said, ‘I am the bread that came down from heaven.’ They were saying, ‘Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does He now say, “I have come down from heaven”?’ Jesus answered and said to them, ‘Stop grumbling among yourselves. No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. It is written in the prophets, “And they shall all be taught by God.” Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me. Not that anyone has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father. Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and also the bread which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.’

“Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, ‘How can this man give us His flesh to eat?’ So Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me. This is the bread which came down out of heaven, not as the fathers ate and died. He who eats this bread will live forever.’” 6:27-58  

“My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish—ever; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.’ The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, “I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?’ The Jews answered Him, ‘For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself God.’” John 10:27-33

“Jesus said to her, ‘I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies, and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die—ever. Do you believe this?’” John 11:25-26

“Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but through Me.” John 14:6

“Jesus spoke these things; and lifting up His eyes to heaven, He said, ‘Father, the hour has come; glorify Your Son, that the Son may glorify You, even as You gave Him authority over all flesh, that to all whom You have given Him, He may give eternal life.” John 17:1-2

“What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we beheld and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life—and the life was manifested, and we have seen and bear witness and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us—what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you may also have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ.” 1 John 1:1-3

“If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater; for the witness of God is this, that He has borne witness about His Son. The one who believes in the Son of God has this witness in himself. The one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the witness which God has borne witness about His Son. And the witness is this, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have that life.

“These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life. And this is the confidence which we have before Him, that, if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us. And if we know that He hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have the requests which we have asked from Him…

 ^“And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life (houtos estin ho alethinos Theos kai zoe aionios).” 1 John 5:9-15, 20

“Whatever you ask in My name, this will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.” John 14:13-14

John 1:3 tc There is a major punctuation problem here: Should this relative clause go with v. 3 or v. 4? The earliest mss have no punctuation (P^66,75* א* A B Δ al). Many of the later mss which do have punctuation place it before the phrase, thus putting it with v. 4 (P^75c C D L W^s 050* pc). NA²⁵ placed the phrase in v. 3; NA²⁶ moved the words to the beginning of v. 4. In a detailed article K. Aland defended the change (“Eine Untersuchung zu Johannes 1, 3-4. Über die Bedeutung eines Punktes,” ZNW 59 [1968]: 174-209). He sought to prove that the attribution of ὃ γέγονεν (ho gegonen) to v. 3 began to be carried out in the 4th century in the Greek church. This came out of the Arian controversy, and was intended as a safeguard for doctrine. The change was unknown in the West. Aland is probably correct in affirming that the phrase was attached to v. 4 by the Gnostics and the Eastern Church; only when the Arians began to use the phrase was it attached to v. 3. But this does not rule out the possibility that, by moving the words from v. 4 to v. 3, one is restoring the original reading. Understanding the words as part of v. 3 is natural and adds to the emphasis which is built up there, while it also gives a terse, forceful statement in v. 4. On the other hand, taking the phrase ὃ γέγονεν with v. 4 gives a complicated expression: C. K. Barrett says that both ways of understanding v. 4 with ὃ γέγονεν included “are almost impossibly clumsy” (St. John, 157): “That which came into being—in it the Word was life”; “That which came into being—in the Word was its life.” The following stylistic points should be noted in the solution of this problem: (1) John frequently starts sentences with ἐν (en); (2) he repeats frequently (“nothing was created that has been created”); (3) 5:26 and 6:53 both give a sense similar to v. 4 if it is understood without the phrase; (4) it makes far better Johannine sense to say that in the Word was life than to say that the created universe (what was made, ὃ γέγονεν) was life in him. In conclusion, the phrase is best taken with v. 3. Schnackenburg, Barrett, Carson, Haenchen, Morris, KJV, and NIV concur (against Brown, Beasley-Murray, and NEB). The arguments of R. Schnackenburg, St. John, 1:239-40, are particularly persuasive.

tn Or “made”; Grk “that has come into existence.”

John 1:4 tn John uses ζωή (zōē) 36 times: 17 times it occurs with αἰώνιος (aiōnios), and in the remaining occurrences outside the prologue it is clear from context that “eternal” life is meant. The two uses in 1:4, if they do not refer to “eternal” life, would be the only exceptions. (Also 1 John uses ζωή 13 times, always of “eternal” life.)

sn An allusion to Ps 36:9, which gives significant OT background: “For with you is the fountain of life; In your light we see light.” In later Judaism, Bar 4:2 expresses a similar idea. Life, especially eternal life, will become one of the major themes of John’s Gospel. (New English Translation [NET])

1:3. Unlike the Gospel writers before him, John tells us that Jesus participated in creation and again states his case twice for emphasis. Surely this is a deliberate link with Genesis, and it sets the stage for other New Testament Scriptures which show us Jesus’ involvement in creation: “For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him” (Col. 1:16). “In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe” (Heb. 1:1–2).

Creation is a foundational doctrine of the Christian faith. Virtually every other aspect of theology rests upon our understanding of God as the origin of all life and of the role Jesus Christ, the Word, in creation. John could hardly say it more clearly: without him nothing was made that has been made—everything from subatomic particles to galaxies. Only God who created all things can redeem them. Creation is the foundation stone of the gospel. Christ could not have been created, for he created all things. There was a “historical Jesus,” but this terminology refers only to his thirty-three years on earth. His life had no beginning, and it will have no end.

1:4. Here we find the first appearance of our key word—life. The revelation of the Lamb was also the revelation of life. No fewer than thirty-six times in John, we find the word zoe. Jesus Christ the Creator provides physical life; Jesus Christ the Redeemer provides spiritual life; and Jesus Christ the Savior provides eternal life. In verse 4 John also introduced another key word—light. The life becomes the light of men. Notice these positive terms. What a wonderful contrast to death and darkness.

In the Word, God’s person and power were revealed to humanity. Here again we see a reference to creation since, in the Genesis account, light was the first evidence of God’s creative work. God is always the source of light and life. Christ the Son, the Creator, provides life and light to humanity. He alone is the life-giver and the light-bearer. John is getting ready to write new lyrics to an old melody, “With you is the fountain of life; in your light we see light” (Ps. 36:9). (Kenneth O. Gangel, John, vol. 4, Holman New Testament Commentary [Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2000], p. 10)

A. The Word as he was in the beginning (1:1–5)

This opening paragraph of the Prologue (a) describes the person and work of the Word in a number of brief but highly significant statements.

1. The first statement, in the beginning was the Word, echoes the opening words of Genesis, ‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth …’ (Gen. 1:1). As God was in the beginning prior to the creation of the world, so too was the Word. This implies something to be stated explicitly shortly: that the Word partakes of divinity.

The second statement, and the Word was with God, is susceptible to two interpretations. It may simply mean that the Word was with God in the beginning, just as Proverbs 8:27–30 says Wisdom was with God at creation. Alternatively, it could mean that the Word was faced towards God, in intimate relationship with God. The final paragraph of the Prologue (a¹), which balances this first paragraph and extends its meaning, makes just this point when it describes the Son (= the Word) as the one ‘who is close to the Father’s heart’.

The third statement, and the Word was God, on first reading might suggest a unitarian understanding of God, the Word being simply equated with God. But the original language (kai theos ēn ho logos) will not allow such an interpretation. To read the text in that way also overlooks the stress on the relationship existing between the Word and God (being ‘with God’ and being ‘close to the Father’s heart’). Relationship implies different persons, and this moves us away from unitarianism (one God, one person) towards trinitarianism (one God, three persons—Father, Son [=the Word] and Spirit). As the Fourth Gospel unfolds it becomes clear that this is what is intended. Jesus, the Word incarnate, claims to be one with God, but that involves being in relationship with God. So when the Prologue says ‘the Word was God’ it is not saying that the Word and God constitute an undifferentiated unity, but rather it is saying, in words aptly coined by Moloney, ‘what God was the Word also was’.

2. Two key ideas stated separately in verse 1 are brought together and repeated in verse 2: He was with God in the beginning, i.e. the Word was in intimate relationship with God and he was in that relationship at the very beginning.

3. The evangelist explains the work of the Word in the beginning: Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. Genesis 1:1–31 tells how God brought the universe into being by his creative word. The evangelist picks this up when he says that it was ‘through’ the person of the Word that God brought all things into being, or, putting it negatively, without his agency God brought nothing into being. This teaching is also found in Colossians 1:16–17 and Hebrews 1:2.

4. Further explaining the role of the Word in creation, the evangelist says, In him was life, and that life was the light of men. Because the Word shares in deity, he shares in the life of God (cf. 5:26). The evangelist does not make clear how the divine life in the Word illuminated human beings. Some suggest it relates to our creation in the image of God so that we participate in the light of reason in a way lesser created beings do not. Others suggest it refers to the light of general revelation, whereby the character of God is reflected in creation itself to be understood by human beings (cf. Rom. 1:19–20).

5. The first paragraph concludes with the statement The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it. Again the allusion is to the Genesis creation account in which darkness covered the face of the earth. God said, ‘Let there be light’ (Gen. 1:3), and the darkness gave way to the light. The evangelist, while alluding to Genesis, foreshadows the coming of the light of God into the world in the person of the incarnate Word. Through him light shone among the Jewish people. He entered their ‘darkness’, and ‘the darkness has not understood it’. The verb which the niv translates as ‘understood’ (katelaben) could also be rendered ‘overcame’ (nrsv). This is in line with the way the verb is used elsewhere in John (8:3–4; 12:35). Understood in this way the evangelist is foreshadowing the repeated futile attempts of ‘the Jews’ to extinguish the light, Christ. (Colin G. Kruse, John: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 4, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003], pp. 63–65)

1:3–4. Assuming that the niv accurately represents the relation between v. 3 and v. 4 (see Additional Notes), and rightly renders the Greek, then v. 3 simply insists, both positively and negatively, that the Word was God’s Agent in the creation of all that exists. Positively, Through him all things were made; negatively, without him nothing was made that has been made. The change in tense from were made to has been made is then the change in reference from the act of creation to the state of creation. Even so, the latter is a strange form of expression. It may be better to render the Greek, ‘All things were made by him, and what was made (taking ho gegonen as the subject of the second clause) was in no way (taking ouden adverbially) made without him.’ Either way, the point is powerfully made. Just as in Genesis, where everything that came into being did so because of God’s spoken word, and just as in Proverbs 3:19; 8:30, where Wisdom is the (personified) means by which all exists, so here: God’s Word, understood in the Prologue to be a personal agent, created everything.

That the pre-existent Christ created everything is a common theme in the New Testament, even though the title ‘Word’ in this connection is restricted to the present passage. Referring to Jesus Christ, Paul says that all things were created ‘by him’ and even ‘for him’, and that ‘in him all things hold together’ (Col. 1:16–17). The writer of Hebrews speaks of the Son as the one through whom God made the universe (Heb. 1:2); the Apocalypse presents him as ‘the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the archē (beginning? originator? ruler?) of God’s creation’ (Rev. 3:14)—and here ‘Amen’ may be an attempt to render the Hebrew ’āmôn in Proverbs 8:30, where Wisdom is the ‘craftsman’. ‘No literary dependence is probable between one and another of these passages: the teaching which they convey is antecedent to them all and therefore impressively primitive’ (Bruce, p. 32). John may share the language of some hellenistic philosophy, but his strong doctrine of creation radically avoids the dualism in which much of that tradition is steeped.

‘Life’ and ‘light’ are almost universal religious symbols. In John’s usage they are not sentimental props but ways of focusing on the excellencies of the ‘Word’: In him was life, and that life was the light of men. Many commentators draw attention to the formal parallel in 5:26: ‘For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son to have life in himself.’ The relationship between God and the Word in the Prologue is identical with the relationship between the Father and the Son in the rest of the Gospel. Both 1:4 and 5:26 insist the Word/Son shares in the self-existing life of God. Later on Jesus claims that he is both the light of the world (8:12; 9:5) and the life (11:25; 14:6). Both Wisdom and Torah are commonly associated with life and light in the Jewish sources; John ties them in with Christ, the Word.

Nevertheless there is a difference between this passage and most of the rest of the Gospel where light and life come to the fore. In the rest of his book, John is largely interested in ‘light’ and ‘life’ as they relate to salvation: the ‘light’ is revelation which people may receive in active faith and be saved, the ‘life’ is either resurrection life or spiritual life that is its foretaste. If 1:4, by contrast, is read in the context of the first three verses, it is more likely that the life inhering in the Word is related not to salvation but to creation. The self-existing life of the Word was so dispensed at creation that it became the light of the human race (tōn anthrōpōn, ‘of human beings’). It is not clear whether John is thinking of our essential constitution, the fact that we have been made ‘in the image of God’ (cf. Gn. 1:27, continuing the creation theme), or of the reflection of himself in the universe he has created (what theologians sometimes call ‘natural’ or ‘general’ revelation; cf. Rom. 1:20), or even of more specific revelation bound up with the coming of the Son. At least in this verse, John is more interested in the source of the light (the life of the Word) and its purpose (for the human race) than in the mode or purpose of its dispersal. (D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John, The Pillar New Testament Commentary [Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press; W.B. Eerdmans, 1991], pp. 118–119)

Additional notes

1:1. Dunn, Making, p. 241, cites Philo, Som i. 227–230, who in discussing the relationship of the logos to God also makes his argument depend on the presence or absence of an article: ‘He that is truly God is One, but those that are improperly so called are more than one. Accordingly the holy word in the present instance has indicated him who is truly God by means of the articles saying “I am the God”, while it omits the article when mentioning him who is improperly so called, saying “Who appeared to thee in the place” not “of the God”, but simply “of God” [Gn. 31:13 lxx—en tropō theou]. Here it gives the title of “God” to his chief Word …’. Dunn does not argue that John borrows from Philo, but that Philo ‘demonstrates that a distinction between ho theos and theos such as we find in John 1:1b–c, would be deliberate by the author and significant for the Greek reader.’ But the parallel between Philo’s self-conscious observations on the article and John’s syntax are not close. Philo’s logos, impersonal as it is, never really threatens the personal/transcendent God of Jewish monotheism anyway, and the syntactical distinction he draws is an argument of expedience, frequently contradicted by the exigencies of Greek grammar itself. By contrast, John’s omission of the article is not part of an elaborate, syntactically ill-conceived argument to prove a point, but common Greek usage, and not even demonstrably self-conscious. Syntactically, the question does not turn simply on the presence or absence of the article, but on the presence or absence of the article with definite nominative predicate nouns preceding a finite copula—which makes the alleged parallel in Philo irrelevant.

1:3–4. It is very difficult to decide whether the last two words of the Greek text of v. 3 should be read with what precedes (niv: ‘without him nothing was made that has been made’; similarly av) or with what succeeds in the next verse (neb: ‘no single thing was created without him. All that came to be was alive with his life …’). K. Aland argues strongly for the latter punctuation, which certainly prevailed in the early church amongst both the orthodox and the heterodox. On balance, however, the arguments of Schnackenburg (1. 239–240) in favour of reading the words with the rest of v. 3 seem persuasive. In particular, John regularly begins his sentences with the preposition ‘in’, which is how v. 4 begins. Moreover, it is very difficult to fathom exactly what ‘That which came to be was life in him’ (a rather literal rendering of the second option) could mean; and the objection that the niv reading is tautological (‘nothing was made that has been made’) can carry little force amongst those who have noted how frequently John resorts to repetition (e.g. vv. 1–2). In any case, as the main notes on this verse suggest (above), there is another way of rendering the text, even with this punctuation, that sidesteps this charge. (Ibid., pp. 137–138)

1:3 The use of the verb egeneto (“were made”) in v. 3 signals to the reader that the evangelist has moved the focus of his discussion to the subject of creation. This verse has been involved in storm clouds of debate, and the history of interpretation bears witness that it has been subjected to minute analysis. The opening word panta (“all things”) is not unlike the Gnostic ta panta (“the All”), sometimes used by the Gnostics as a variant for the Pleroma (the “fullness” or heavenly realm) and sometimes as the combination of the heavenly realm and its mirror image on earth. In the Johannine sense, however, the Greek term must refer to the created order, and the “all things” of the NIV probably should be read to include all realities except God. Although it is not stated here, those realities could well include the angelic host discussed in the lofty theological comparison with Jesus in Hebrews 1.

The preposition dia (“through”), used in connection with creation here, should not be taken to mean that the Logos is essentially inferior to God, as the Arians argued. But the early Christians, in attempting to discuss simultaneously the work of both the Father and the Son in creation, sometimes tried to hold both together through the use of two prepositions. The Father’s activity was linked with the preposition ek, which carries the sense of “origin,” and the Son’s activity was linked with the preposition dia, which carries the sense of “mediation” (e.g., the early Christian creedal statement in 1 Cor 8:6; also see Heb 1:2 for the use of dia). But where there was an attempt to affirm the creative activities of the Father and Son jointly, then both prepositions could readily be applied to Jesus (e.g., Rom 11:36; Col 1:16). Accordingly, one must not make too much out of a preposition like dia, especially given what comes next.

In the second half of this verse the evangelist made absolutely clear that “apart from” (chōris, or “without”) the work of the Logos nothing at all was created. The Greek emphatic phrase oude hen (“nothing”) could be rendered “not one single thing,” which thus emphasizes the involvement of the Logos in the bringing into being all of reality except the uncreated reality of God.

The final clause of this verse, “that had been made,” also has been the subject of various debates. Although some of the issues cannot finally be solved with certainty, this clause can provide students of the Bible with an example or a case study in how scholars try to determine answers to vexing questions where there are several possible readings in our ancient texts of the Bible. Generally the state of our Greek and Hebrew biblical texts is quite certain, but periodically a textual problem arises that has to be decided on the balance of probabilities. Here is one such case. The issue is: Where does the full stop or conclusion of the sentence occur? Does it come at the end of our v. 3 as is indicated in most English translations, or does the last clause belong to the next sentence, as is evident in the new technical Greek texts? We must always remember that our verse divisions were not in the original Greek.

In support of reading the final clause of v. 3 with v. 4, many scholars have pointed out that both the early church fathers and the heretics like the Gnostics and the Arians seemed to recognize this reading. Indeed, the Arians thought the text supported the idea of development in the Logos, namely, that “what had come to be in him was life.” Now this argument carries some weight because if the full stop had been understood as coming at the end of v. 3, the argument here would have been less likely. Indeed, the later church fathers used the reading as we have it in the NIV to squelch Arian type arguments. But other scholars have argued that there are some early witnesses to the reading as in the NIV.

Now the issues of style often weigh heavily in making decisions. R. Brown, Beasley-Murray, and many others argue that the poetic “stair-step” nature of the verses favors this clause being placed with v. 4. Barrett, Haenchen, Schnackenburg, and a few others argue just as strongly for a different pattern of style supporting the clause as part of v. 3, and they contend that in terms of meaning it makes more sense. What is important for the student of the Bible to understand is that excellent Greek scholars can differ on a text like this one, and most of them will recognize that the answer is not absolutely certain. But what has become clear in the debate is that the Arian interpretation of the text is absolutely not what was intended by the statement in the Prologue. Another equally important lesson for the student of the Bible to learn is that if past patterns of Bible translation are any test of what can be anticipated in the future, future English translations likely can be expected to follow the sentence division in the technical Greek editions of the New Testament. Unless something radically changes in our understanding of the Greek text here, the translations of the twenty-first century likely will not follow the sentence division of the NIV.³²

1:4–5 The NEB, in contrast to the NIV, moves in the direction of the major scholarly perspective and renders the beginning of v. 4: “All that came to be [gegonen] was alive with his life.” Besides translating “in him” as “his life,” the major problem I find with this translation is that it applies the verb “was” (ēn) to the realm of creation and breaks, I think, the logic of the Johannine argument, which uses ginesthai in relation to the created order. In the pattern of the KJV, RSV, NIV, and others, the theology appears to be a little more consistent because the verb “was” (ēn) refers to the Logos (namely, “life” is an essential quality only of such persons in the Godhead as the Logos) and not to creation. In the second half of the verse, then, preparation is laid for the order of redemption that was introduced into the world. As the evangelist indicated, life is the source of light for humanity. But it takes v. 5 to apply that light to the world situation. “Light” according to the Prologue does not belong naturally to humanity. It is a gift or a power from outside the human situation that confronts the world.

In this age of science, when light is often regarded as the source of energy and life, it is significant to reflect on the pattern of Johannine thinking here. There is no question that to the ancients light was an important symbol. Indeed, light and darkness in philosophical thought were epitomized in the gods of the ancient Near Eastern world—Ahurimazda (light) and Ahriman (darkness) were the opposing deities in Persian dualism; Re was the great sun god of Egypt, and the Helios figure (the Greek god of the sun chariot) is found even in the tiled floors of ancient synagogues such as at Dura Europas, Hammath-Tiberias, and Sepphoris. Light was the symbol of enlightenment as it is today. The children of light and darkness were identified as the devotees of good and evil, as, for example, in the Dead Sea Scrolls.³⁵ But our text ought to press us to an even deeper insight, namely, that behind light stands a “life” reality. In a rationalistic generation that finds its answers in a closed system of either scientific analysis or the secure logic of verbal formulas, the Johannine message may suggest that we ought to look for ultimate meaning not merely in our systems or in enlightenment but in the ultimate source of the universe—the Life-giver. Here also may be a clue to interpreting correctly John 8:32 concerning knowing the truth, not as gaining intellectual information (one of the most misunderstood verses of the Gospel; see comments there) but as being in a personal relationship with the informing one.

In v. 5 this Johannine idea is completed as the Life/Light-giver continues to shine (notice the present tense) into the darkness. The question is: What response is elicited? From the Greek Fathers to the present time katelaben (the aorist tense) has been translated as a word indicating conflict. Such a rendering would mean that the darkness did not “overcome” or “capture” the light. More recently, however, katelaben has been taken to mean “accepted,” “received,” or “understood” (NIV).³⁷ This interpretation would suggest that the positive coming of the light was rejected by the darkness. Such a rendering would mean that this verse parallels the nonacceptance of the Logos stated in v. 11.

Ancient thinkers were fully aware that light transcended the darkness and not the reverse. Gnostic thinkers built their theology on the thesis of captured transcendent light particles. But clearly the Prologue of John will not admit such Gnostic speculation. Johannine theology is directly opposed to a dualism that gives evil such power. It nevertheless takes evil and darkness seriously. There is no question that light is set against darkness in John, and the full impact of such a battle is recognized in the Gospel when Judas is sent out to do his evil deed. At that point the evangelist added his unsettling words, “And it was night” (13:30)!

But those words are not the end of the story. In spite of the fact that respected scholars such as Beasley-Murray, R. Brown, and Schnackenburg see absolutely no possibility that the term katelaben here could indicate conflict, I would suggest a slight alternative. The reason these scholars have moved against a conflictive interpretation, I believe, is that they have focused too much attention on the idea of an eternal conflict between light and darkness such as is present in the ancient religions that are built on a cosmic dualistic framework. I would agree with Schnackenburg that such is not the framework of John.⁴⁰ I would, however, remind readers that conflict is at the core of this Gospel. Conflict is clearly related to the coming of the Logos to earth.

One of the major interpretive challenges here is not to lose sight of the resurrection perspective in John. A failure to do so can mean that one does not take seriously enough the victory perspectives in the Gospel and particularly here in the Prologue at v. 5 and vv. 9–13. In v. 12 the positive perspective, elabon (“accept”), is set against the negative perspective of v. 11, ou parelabon (“reject,” or “not to go along with”). It is crucial to remember that the evangelist was writing with a postresurrection perspective. From his point of view there was no guesswork in how the story would turn out. The light of the Logos shone and continues to shine. Certainly the darkness did not accept it, but neither did it have victory over it. That is the reason confession and witness are possible.

The prospect of victory is the reason there is a church and a gospel and why small groups of Christians like a Johannine community, who were being squeezed by the world, could make a powerful confession concerning the Logos. The concept of witness in John might seem to offer the readers an open-minded choice, but not really. The decisive moment in history had already come, and that is why readers of the Gospel must always hold together the three important verses of John 3:16–18. In the combination of those verses is encapsulated the Johannine perspective of the coming of light enunciated here and elsewhere in the Gospel. The Johannine witness implies something about one’s response. What you decide about Jesus is absolutely crucial. (Gerald L. Borchert, John 1–11, vol. 25A, The New American Commentary [Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996], pp. 106–111)

John Presents the Revelation in a Nutshell (1:1–5) These first five verses provide the frame of reference and the main components for the story to follow—sort of a prologue to the prologue. We get the story in the right perspective by beginning in eternity (vv. 1–2) and then moving to creation (v. 3). The key ingredients follow, namely, incarnation (v. 4) and conflict (v. 5).

John’s opening echoes Genesis (Gen 1:1), but whereas Genesis refers to the God’s activity at the beginning of creation, here we learn of a being who existed before creation took place. In the beginning the Word already was. So we actually start before the beginning, outside of time and space in eternity. If we want to understand who Jesus is, John says, we must begin with the relationship shared between the Father and the Son “before the world began” (Jn 17:5, 24). This relationship is the central revelation of this Gospel and the key to understanding all that Jesus says and does.

The first verse is very carefully constructed to refer to the personal distinctness yet the essential oneness of the Word with God. To be with God means the Word is distinct from him. The word with (pros) in a context like this is used to indicate personal relationship, not mere proximity (cf. Mk 6:3). But he also was God; that is, there is an identity of being between them. These two truths seem impossible to reconcile logically, and yet both must be held with equal firmness. At this point John simply affirms this antinomy, but later he will reveal more of the relations of the Father and the Son, as well as of the Holy Spirit. John does not reflect philosophically on the Holy Trinity but bears witness to it as the eternal reality, leaving it to later teachers to try to expound its bright mystery.

To speak of the Word (logos) in relation to the beginning of creation would make sense to both Jews and Greeks. In some schools of Greek thought, the universe is kosmos, an ordered place, and what lies behind the universe and orders it is reason (logos). For the Jews, creation took place through God’s speech (Gen 1; Ps 33:6). Furthermore, in John’s day “word” was often associated with “wisdom” (for example, Wisdom of Solomon 9:1; cf. Breck 1991:79–98), and John will often use wisdom motifs to speak of Jesus (cf. Willett 1992). For example, like the Word who was with God, Wisdom is said to have been “at his side” at the creation (Prov 8:30). As this passage suggests, God’s word and wisdom were often spoken of as if they were persons (for example, Wisdom of Solomon 18:14–16; Prov 8:1–9:18; Job 28; cf. Hengel 1974:1:153–56). The Jews did not view these personifications as divine personal beings distinct from God, thereby challenging monotheism (Hurtado 1988:41–50). However, a redefinition of monotheism is called for with the coming of Jesus (for example, Jn 1:14, 18; 5:16–18). Thus the use of “word” and “wisdom” within Judaism was of enormous help to the Christians as they tried to understand and express the reality they found in Jesus. Jesus is what the “word” and “wisdom” were, and much more.

The description of Wisdom as the master worker at God’s side at creation (Prov 8:22–31) is now echoed in John’s declaration that the Word was the agent of all creation (1:3). As agent he is distinct from the Creator. God the Father is viewed throughout the Gospel as the ultimate source of all, including the Son and the Spirit. But life did not simply come through the Word but was in the Word (1:4). Only God is the source of life, and it is a mark of Jesus’ distinctness and deity that the Father “has granted the Son to have life in himself” (5:26).

By stating both positively and negatively that the Word is the agent of all creation (1:3), John emphasizes that there were no exceptions: the existence of absolutely all things came by this Word. Although with verse 3 we move from eternity to creation, we are still dealing with facts hard to comprehend. Until discoveries made in the 1920s, the Milky Way was thought to be the entire universe, but now we realize there are many billions of galaxies. Science is helping us spiritually, for it silences us before God in wonder and awe. But this verse also helps us put science in its proper place. The universe is incredibly wonderful, so how much more wonderful must be the one upon whose purpose and power it depends. “The builder of a house has greater honor than the house itself” (Heb 3:3).

Because the earliest manuscripts had no verse numbers, nor even spaces between words and sentences, it is sometimes hard to know where one sentence ends and another begins. Such is the case with verses 3 and 4. Many commentators, ancient and modern, divide the text as in the NIV, but many others think the final words of verse 3 belong with verse 4: “What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people” (NRSV). Either option would fit John’s style and thought, but the NRSV option reflects how all the earliest commentators took the text, suggesting this was the more natural reading for native speakers. At a later date the orthodox began taking it as in the NIV because of misuses by false teachers who took ho gegonen (“what was made in him”) to include the Holy Spirit, thus making the Spirit a creature (cf. Chrysostom In John 5.1).

If the text reads “what has come into being in him was life,” this could refer to those who came to have union with God in the Son, a major theme of this Gospel. If so, John has moved from creation in verse 3 to re-creation, as it were, in verse 4. The quality of life in the sphere of creation is not yet the deepest life, the divine life in the Word. This idea is true to John’s thought, but he does not use light of men to refer to the new order of life now offered in Jesus. So most likely the reference is to the incarnation, declaring that what took place in the Word at his incarnation was the manifestation of life itself (cf. 1 Jn 1:1–2). This allusion to the incarnation would only be evident to those who understand Jesus’ identity as revealed in the rest of the Gospel.

His life, manifest in the incarnation, is our light (Jn 1:4). In this Gospel light always refers to the revelation and salvation that Jesus is and offers (cf. 8:12; 11:9 is the one exception). In order to have life we need to know God, and Jesus is our source of such knowledge. As our light, his life is our guide. He is our wisdom, that which reveals all else to us and enables us to see. In Jewish thought it is the law that plays this role (for example, Wisdom of Solomon 18:4; cf. Hengel 1974:1:171; 2:112; Kittel 1967:134–36), but for John it is the incarnation of the Word that makes sense of all of life.

Thus, here at the outset we have the two most fundamental affirmations about Jesus in this Gospel, namely that he himself is the presence of God’s own life and light and that he makes this life and light available to human beings. In one profound sentence we have the central assertion of this Gospel concerning the revelation of the Son and the salvation he offers.

The story will reveal the glory described in these opening verses, but it will be a tragic story of conflict, because humanity is in the darkness of rebellion. The shining of the light is an ongoing, continuous activity (phainei, present tense, v. 5), for it is the very nature of light to shine. But when that light and life came amongst us as a human being, the darkness did not grasp, or master, the light; it neither comprehended it nor overcame it (katelaben; cf. the NIV text and note). The story will show both senses of this word to be true. (Rodney A. Whitacre, John, vol. 4, The IVP New Testament Commentary Series [Westmont, IL: IVP Academic, 1999], 49–53)

1. Origin (1:3)

Through him all things were made. Love’s instinct is to create; so out of the unique communion of love between ‘God’ and ‘the Word’ (or between ‘the Father’ and ‘the Son’), the universe sprang into existence. John puts this fundamental truth of creation through the Word of God both positively (Through him all things were made) and negatively (without him nothing was made that has been made). This mediatorial role in creation is one which other New Testament passages similarly attribute to Christ. We note further that while John asserts the intimate involvement of the Word in the creation of the world, he does not specify how this relates to the origin of the universe as described scientifically. His point is the essentially religious and doxological one—the greatness of Christ is shown by his being the creative mediator of the observable universe. Christ is therefore the unifying principle at the heart of all existence. ‘The eventual goal of science is to provide a single theory that describes the whole universe.’² From the theological perspective, the theory is a person, Jesus Christ.

John stresses the all-inclusive range of the creative activity of the Word: Through him all things were made (3). This is apparently the reason for the repetition of the negative clause following, without him nothing was made that has been made. John is correcting some first-century notions of the origin of the universe which taught that it was shaped by God out of some pre-existing primeval ‘stuff’, which was in turn the explanation of the presence of evil in the universe. The net effect, however, was to reduce God’s sovereignty in the world, since by this view there are two determining forces in the universe, God and primary matter.

John’s statement about the creating Word is congruent with the notion of creation ‘out of nothing’. Creation ‘out of nothing’ means exactly what it says. The universe came to be, not out of some pre-existing material ‘something’, but out of ‘nothing’, non-existence, void. This truth implies the unqualifiable dependence of all things upon the Word of God; i.e. the Word is the sustaining and upholding principle of an irreducibly contingent universe. It also means that the universe, while utterly dependent on God, is also fundamentally distinct from him. This is a crucial truth today. Much of New Age thought, influenced by Hinduism and Buddhism, obliterates the distinction between God and the world,⁶ leading to the deifying of nature and the claim that God can be experienced directly through nature. This experience of God is not of course in terms of a personal relationship with him, since God has no personal existence apart from the world. By contrast, biblical creation ‘out of nothing’ means that God is distinct from the world. As Father and Word (and Spirit) God in his full personal reality existed prior to the world. He is not dependent on the world for his existence and therefore, crucially, as a sovereignly free personal agent, he can enter into a personal relationship with his creatures within the world.

He is a God in whom we can ‘believe’, in the sense that John will explain throughout his gospel. In this stress on the breadth of the Word’s creative act (Through him all things … without him nothing) John is also addressing a first-century tendency to view Jesus as simply one of a series of intermediaries or emanations from God. A similar idea appears commonly in New Age writers, where Jesus is simply one of a series of spiritual masters who have been sent to bring enlightenment at different stages of human spiritual development. John’s point is that it is through Jesus alone that all things exist, whether physical planets or spiritual hierarchies. He towers above all and cannot be reduced to one of a series, whether as a stage in the process of human evolution or in the history of human ideas. ‘Since he is fully divine, he cannot be reduced to an intermediate state; since he is a person he cannot be dissolved into an idea.’⁸

2. Illumination (1:4–5)

In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness. The fruit of the Word’s activity in mediating creation was not just the coming into existence of the world ‘in the beginning’, but the emergence of life within it (4). We are driven beyond the initial act of creation to the Word’s ongoing sustenance of the universe; the logos is the life-giver. Finally considered, all life derives from him (Acts 17:8, ‘For in him we live and move and have our being’). ‘There is no such thing as a godless person; he is too near every one of us’ (Brunner).

This life John sees in terms of light (4), another elemental religious symbol, and another echo of Genesis chapter 1, as the light shines in the darkness (Gn. 1:3) in the act of creation. (Bruce Milne, The Message of John: Here Is Your King!: With Study Guide, The Bible Speaks Today [Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993], pp. 37–39)