Greek Text of John 1:1
ΕΝ ΑΡΧΗ ΗΝ Ο ΛΟΓΟC ΚΑΙ Ο ΛΟΓΟC ΗΝ ΠΡΟC ΤΟΝ ΘΝ ΚΑΙ ΘC
ΗΝ Ο ΛΟΓΟC
Literal Translation
IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD AND THE WORD WAS WITH THE GOD AND GOD WAS THE WORD
1. Morphological and Grammatical Analysis
- Ἐν ἀρχῇ (en archē) – “In [the] beginning”. The preposition ἐν governs the dative noun ἀρχῇ. Echoes Genesis 1:1 in the Septuagint. Indicates that the Logos existed before creation.
- ἦν (ēn) – Imperfect active indicative of εἰμί (“to be”), 3rd person singular. Continuous existence in the past. Contrasts with ἐγένετο used of created things in John 1:3.
- ὁ λόγος – Nominative singular masculine. “The Word.” Definite article marks it as subject. Refers to pre-incarnate Christ.
- πρὸς τὸν θεόν – “Toward God.” Suggests intimate communion, not mere proximity. Preposition πρός + accusative emphasizes relationship.
- θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος – “And the Word was God/Divine.” The predicate θεὸς is anarthrous and precedes the verb for emphasis.
2. Syntactic and Semantic Focus: θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
Anarthrous θεὸς preceding the verb often signals qualitative force in Koine Greek. This avoids identity with ὁ θεός (the Father) while affirming the Logos’s divine essence.
3. Arian Interpretation
Arius taught that the Logos was a created being, divine in nature, yet subordinate to the Father. The anarthrous θεὸς was interpreted as “a divine being”—a lesser, derivative divinity.
Clarification
- Arius did not treat θεὸς as strictly indefinite in modern grammatical terms.
- Arian theology affirmed monotheism but posited the Logos as a divine being of lesser essence.
- This differs significantly from Jehovah’s Witness doctrine, which treats the Logos as a categorically separate god.
Lexical Support
John 10:34 (“You are gods”) illustrates that θεὸς can be used of others beyond the one true God.
Historical Figures
- Lucian of Antioch – Rooted Logos theology in ontological distinction.
- Eusebius of Nicomedia – Political and theological advocate of Arius.
- Eunomius – Emphasized radical unlikeness (ἀνόμοιος) between Father and Son.
Translation (Arian Perspective)
“The Word was divine.”
4. Nicene Interpretation
The Council of Nicaea (325 AD) affirmed the coequality of the Logos with the Father. The phrase θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος was read as qualitative, meaning “the Word was God in nature.”
Colwell’s Rule
In Greek, a predicate noun that precedes the verb and lacks the article is often definite in sense.
Historical Figures
- Athanasius – Championed the coeternity and consubstantiality of the Son.
- Eusebius of Caesarea – Accepted Nicene language, though originally nuanced. Initially associated with Semi-Arianism, he favored the term ὁμοιούσιος (Homoiousion, meaning ‘of like substance’) rather than ὁμοούσιος (Homoousion, meaning ‘of the same substance’), reflecting his belief that the Son was similar to, but not identical with, the Father. While he later aligned with Nicene language, his early theological stance contributed to the broader debates on Christ’s nature in the 4th century..
- Cappadocian Fathers – Refined Trinitarian distinctions between essence and person.
Translation (Nicene Perspective)
“The Word was God.”
5. Comparative Table
| Feature | Arian View | Nicene View |
|---|---|---|
| Eternality | Created in time | Eternal, uncreated |
| Ontology | Subordinate divine being | Equal in essence with the Father |
| Use of θεὸς | Qualitative/derivative: “divine/a divine being” | Qualitative-definite: “God in nature” |
| Christological Role | Highest creature, mediator | Eternal Son, consubstantial |
6. Historical and Lexical Background
- Heraclitus – Logos as universal rational principle.
- Stoics – Logos as divine reason structuring the cosmos.
- Philo – Logos as intermediary, personal principle between God and creation.
John redefines Logos in a Jewish monotheistic context: the personal, pre-existent Word active in creation and revelation.
7. Origen’s Nuanced View
Origen of Alexandria (c. 185–254 AD) was one of the most influential Christian theologians of the early Church and a pioneer in articulating a systematic theology. Long before the Arian controversy erupted, Origen had already wrestled with the relationship between the Father and the Son. He is credited with formulating the concept of the Son’s eternal generation—that the Logos is eternally begotten of the Father, not created in time, and therefore always existed in relationship to the Father.
Origen made a lexical and theological distinction between ὁ θεός (“God,” with the article, referring to the Father) and θεός (without the article, referring to the Son). While he acknowledged this difference in designation, he did not deny the divinity of the Son. Rather, he believed that the Son was fully divine but derived from the Father—possessing divinity by participation and origin, not as an independent source of being.
He maintained that the Son was subordinate to the Father in role and order, not in essence or eternality. For Origen, this subordination did not mean inferiority but reflected the eternal relationship within the Godhead. The Son is the agent through whom the Father creates and reveals Himself, yet His divinity is real and essential. Origen also applied the concept of logos philosophically, describing the Son as the rational principle (λόγος) of God, consistent with the Hellenistic and Jewish philosophical milieu of Alexandria.
While his views influenced later orthodox theology, Origen’s formulations were complex and at times ambiguous. Later writers (including Arius) would appeal to his language to support subordinationist claims, though Origen himself remained firmly within a framework of divine unity. His doctrine was eventually clarified and refined by the Cappadocian Fathers, who emphasized the equality of essence (οὐσία) and distinction of persons (ὑπόστασις) in Trinitarian theology.
8. Sabellius’s View
Sabellius, active around the early 3rd century (c. 215–220 AD), taught a radically different view from Paul of Samosata. He promoted what is called Modalistic Monarchianism (or simply Sabellianism), a view that emphasized the absolute oneness of God to the extent that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were not distinct persons but merely different modes or manifestations of one divine being.
In this model, God operated as the Father in creation, the Son in redemption, and the Holy Spirit in sanctification. These were not distinct persons co-existing eternally, but temporal roles or expressions of the one God. Sabellius attempted to preserve monotheism by avoiding any suggestion of “division” in the Godhead, but in doing so he effectively denied the real, eternal distinction of persons within the Trinity.
His teaching was ultimately condemned as heresy, particularly by Dionysius of Rome and other Western bishops. The Sabellian controversy significantly influenced the Church’s development of Trinitarian doctrine, compelling theologians to affirm both the unity of essence and the real personal distinctions between the Father, Son, and Spirit.
Interestingly, many well-meaning Christians today who affirm the Trinity but lack a clear understanding of the Nicene Creed often unknowingly hold to a form of Sabellianism. By describing the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as merely “three forms” or “three roles” of God, rather than three coeternal and coequal persons, they unintentionally echo this ancient error. This demonstrates the ongoing importance of theological clarity in Trinitarian teaching.
9. Paul of Samosata’s View
Paul of Samosata, Bishop of Antioch in the mid-3rd century (c. 260–268 AD), promoted a form of Christology later labeled as Adoptionism or Dynamic Monarchianism. He denied the personal pre-existence of the Logos as a distinct divine being. Instead, he taught that Jesus was a mere man, born of a woman, who became divine by degree as the Logos—understood as the impersonal wisdom or rationality (λόγος) of God—dwelt in Him more fully over time. According to Paul, the Logos did not have personal subsistence prior to the incarnation.
He rejected the idea that Christ was of the same essence as God or that He existed prior to His human birth. Instead, he saw Jesus as being “adopted” by God and exalted to divine status because of His perfect obedience and moral excellence. In his framework, the term “Son of God” was honorific, not metaphysical. His teachings were condemned at a synod in Antioch in 268 AD, and he was removed from office. The controversy surrounding Paul of Samosata helped clarify the Church’s rejection of any Christology that denied the personal pre-existence and divine nature of the Logos.
10. Lucian of Antioch’s Legacy and Influence
Lucian of Antioch (c. 240–312 AD) was a pivotal figure in early Christian scholarship and theology. As a presbyter and teacher in Antioch, he became known for his rigorous intellectual approach to Scripture and his influence on both theology and biblical text transmission. Though not the founder of Arianism, Lucian’s theological ideas significantly shaped the views of his student Arius and others in the so-called Antiochene tradition. He emphasized the transcendence and unapproachability of God the Father, and viewed the Logos as a distinct, subordinate entity—divine in function but not in essence.
While Lucian himself may not have explicitly taught the later Arian formulation, his subordinationist tendencies and philosophical framework deeply influenced the doctrinal context in which Arianism arose. Many bishops who supported Arius at the Council of Nicaea, including Eusebius of Nicomedia, were connected to Lucian’s theological legacy. Some early sources even identify Arius as having been one of Lucian’s students in Antioch.
Lucian was also one of the most important early textual critics of the Bible. He undertook a major revision of the Septuagint, aiming to standardize and correct what he saw as corrupted or inconsistent texts. His edition came to be known as the Lucianic recension, and it exerted considerable influence, especially in the Eastern Church. Many later Byzantine manuscripts reflect Lucian’s textual tradition, and his work became one of the foundations of the Antiochene textual family.
Lucian’s combined legacy as both a theologian and a textual scholar left a lasting mark on early Christianity. He was martyred during the Diocletian persecution in 312 AD, just before Constantine’s rise. Though his doctrinal influence was controversial, his commitment to the integrity of Scripture and theological inquiry helped shape the trajectory of both biblical scholarship and the Arian controversy that soon followed.
Theological Reflections on the 1,700-Year Legacy of Nicaea
The phrase θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος in John 1:1 is a masterful use of Greek syntax with immense theological weight. Early Christian interpretations of this clause reflect differing understandings of the relationship between the Father and the Logos. Arius and his followers understood it to mean the Logos was divine but subordinate — “a divine being,” not in the sense of polytheism, but as a distinct, begotten being. The Nicene fathers, on the other hand, saw it as a clear affirmation of the coequality of the Logos with the Father.
It is crucial not to conflate Arius’s position with that of modern Jehovah’s Witnesses, who reinterpret the grammar and theology of the verse in ways not held by Arius himself. Arius’s view was grounded in early Christian metaphysics and aimed to preserve monotheism, albeit with a strong view of ontological hierarchy.
Grammatically, the text permits both qualitative and definite readings. Theologically, the Church in the Byzantine Empire came to subscribe to the Nicene Creed, adopted on June 19, 325 AD, at the First Council of Nicaea. The council was convened by Emperor Constantine, who sought to unify the Christian faith across the empire and end internal divisions. It officially opened on May 20, 325 AD in the city of Nicaea (modern-day İznik, Turkey).
Historical sources report that approximately 318 bishops attended the council, though other accounts suggest the number may have ranged from 250 to over 300. The majority of bishops came from the Eastern provinces of the empire. Among the attendees were representatives of two major theological parties: the followers of Arius of Alexandria, who taught that the Son was created and therefore not eternal nor consubstantial with the Father, and the opponents of Arius, led by figures such as Athanasius (then a deacon under Bishop Alexander of Alexandria), who defended the full divinity and eternal generation of the Son.
The council ultimately rejected Arius’s teachings as heretical and formulated the original Nicene Creed, which included the pivotal term ὁμοούσιος (“of the same essence”) to affirm the Son’s coequality and coeternity with the Father. Only two bishops refused to sign the creed, and Arius was condemned and exiled to Illyricum by imperial order. However, theological conflict continued for decades after, as Arian sympathizers regained influence in later reigns. Athanasius, who emerged as a principal defender of Nicene orthodoxy, would be exiled five times for his steadfast opposition to Arianism.
As of May 20, 2025, the global Church commemorates the 1,700th anniversary of the opening of the First Ecumenical Council—an enduring legacy of theological clarity, ecclesiastical unity, and imperial involvement in Christian doctrine that continues to shape confessional Christianity to this day.
