In this article, we will examine each element of this passage and its relation to Genesis 1 and the creation narrative within its original rabbinic/Judaic context. Whether one subscribes to strict Monotheism or Trinitarianism, we can all agree John is harkening us back to Genesis with his opening statement, and more than anything else, it is paramount that any meaning we derive from the apostles’ words must first be weighed against the Torah before we can determine that derived meaning as valid.
Back to John's introduction of the beginning and “the word.” The Gospel then gives further detail on this “word” we have now been introduced to by explaining it was with God, and further still (as it’s rendered in most common translations) that this “word” was God.
This Narrative continues on throughout the chapter to explain that “Life was in it”, that “all things were created through” the word, and that the word was “the light of man which shined in the darkness yet could not be overcome by the darkness,” and lastly that “The word became flesh.” Let's examine each of the highlighted phrases individually according to the portions of Genesis 1 that they echo naturally from the beginning with the opening statement.
“In the beginning was the word”
One of the first things to note is how most people read this phrase in their minds. Of course, everyone understands the words they are reading to be “in the beginning was the word” but what gets lost on most is how once we have been taught a frame of mind in which to think, it becomes second nature. Once we are taught that this “word” the passage refers to is Jesus we tend to comprehend the passage as saying “In the beginning was Jesus”, and this, if nothing else, makes the pains experienced by the author of John's Gospel so cryptic that they are moot and disregarded. Suddenly, the entire passage reads rather repetitively and is void of deeper meaning and relevance.
That's not to say that the “word” here does not refer to Jesus. But the complexity of how the passage comes around to conveying this insists that there is more depth to the concept than simply “in the beginning was Jesus” and the author intends for us to understand that complexity first and foremost. The author wrote in those particular words for a reason. “In the beginning was the word.” The author intended for us to read and comprehend that accordingly.
A very common approach to dissecting this verse is to begin with the word “word” which in the Greek text of John 1:1 is “Logos”. The word Logos relates to a complex concept that seems to have no single unanimous definition among scholars. The only thing they all agree on is the complexity of the idea it intends to convey. The stoics of the 3rd-4th century BCE rendered the definition of Logos as an active, rational, and spiritual principle. To them, Logos was the soul of the universe. It was nature. It was providence. It was God.
Philo, a secular Hellenistic Jew of the first century, believed that Logos was the agent of creation through which mankind could both comprehend and apprehend God. That it was the intermediary between God and the Universe. Not that these or any other thoughts on the word logos are invalid or worthless but I don’t wanna spend too much time musing over the word logos because it puts the cart before the horse. The author of John gives us a pretty clear hint as to his frame of thought by starting with “in the beginning’. It begs us to review Genesis before moving forward with any thoughts on the potential meaning of “logos”.
Genesis 1:1 begins identical to John's Gospel. “In the beginning”. And many take this obvious hint to heart and look to the Aramaic Targums of Genesis 1 to help influence their understanding of Logos, because the Aramaic equivalent to the Greek Logos is ממרה (Memra). Specifically in the Targum Neofiti in which the “Memra of the LORD” is the one that appears to be speaking creation into existence. And for certain this can help shed light on the passage as the definition of Memra is exactly as we see in John 1. Memra means “word.” But this is still not taking to heart the opening words which are identical to Genesis. “In the beginning.” What is it about these words that the Gospel intends for us to take note of? Firstly, we have to examine the passage in its original Hebrew rendering.
בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית בָּרָ֣א אֱלֹהִ֑ים אֵ֥ת הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם וְאֵ֥ת הָאָֽרֶץ׃
You and I understand this to mean “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” The first word בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית (Bereishit) is what's important. Rashi, an 11th century Jewish Rabbi and one of the most authoritative sources of Jewish scholarship on the Tanakh, notes it as a grammatical error in the text, and that, if read literally, it does not make sense in proper Hebrew. He argues that if, in fact, the chronological sequence of events were intended to be conveyed using the root of the word רֵאשִׁ֖ one would rather used the word בראשונה (bereishonah) which translates “at first” or “in the beginning.” Rashi further notes that it should be obvious the word at hand does not intend to inform as to the chronological order of creation, being that the verse at hand lists heaven and earth, yet in Genesis 1:2 we see that the waters existed before the heavens and the earth. Therefore, this word cannot possibly be taken as a literal statement that heaven and earth were created at first.
So, the verse in question has 2 dilemmas that require elucidation and rectification. The first being that the word we commonly see translated as “In the beginning” is not proper grammatical form for that statement, and the second being that the statement in question is built on the presupposition that “In the beginning” is, in and of itself, an incorrect statement as per the following verses. We will see, however, that resolving one, in turn, resolves the other.
To rectify this, Rashi points out the fact of grammar. Bereishit is a construct form. If literally translated the verse would read “In the beginning of…God created the heavens and the earth.” It reads almost as if a word is missing or should be there in the middle. How does Rashi resolve this dilemma?
By reading it literally as it is yet accounting for the compound nature of the word. Its beginning letter ב(Beit) in and of itself is a word. A preposition connoting “by” or “with.” It is also the cardinal number 2, which will become relevant momentarily.
So, Rashi interprets the verse to read thus:
“With Reishit God created the Heavens and the earth.''
Our only mystery now is the meaning of “Reishit”, which appears in this verse as a noun. Translated literally it means “beginning,” but Rashi notes something incredible about its use throughout the Torah. Of all the times “Reishit'' appears in the Torah as a noun, it is almost explicitly in reference to one of two things (remember Beit has a numeric value of 2) being either the children of Israel/Jewish people or the Torah. Letting the Torah itself set the precedence for how the verse should be read we have two options.
1. ”With Israel God created the heavens and earth.”
or
2. ”With the Torah God created the heavens and the earth.”
The first option, as much as it may seem illogical, is not inherently incorrect as many sages accept that the goal of creation was for the sake of establishing Israel. This, however, seems less of a literal application and more of a symbolic application. The second option, however, is much more literally applicable. From where can we derive this? Rashi notes the use of the word “Reishit” in Proverbs 8:22 as “the beginning of His way.” This is because, in a Judaic context, such phrases as “his way(s)”, “the way(s) of the Lord”, etc., are all euphemisms indicative of the Torah, which are based on such verses as Deuteronomy 8:16, Joshua 22:5, and 1 Kings 2:3, amongst many others. In total, there are about 28 or so verses in the whole of the Old Testament (aka Tanach) that make mention of His ways, etc., in direct tandem with the commandments of the Torah, or that directly contrast His ways, etc. with “transgression(s), disobedience, and iniquity.” These also constitute the majority of verses in which such phrases are used in scripture as a whole.
The overwhelming precedence of scripture is that “the ways of the Lord” are inextricably synonymous with the Torah. Rashi, therefore, submits the verse that intends to inform us that the Torah was the tool of creation by which all was created. This makes perfect sense in light of what Torah actually is, being Godliness itself and the eternal living expression of God's nature. Sounds a little like Logos and Memra, right? It’s noteworthy that this interpretation concerning Bereishit, as indicating that the Torah was the tool with which the creation was brought into being, is further established by the opening of the Midrash Rabbah on this passage which states:
“So too Hashem gazed into the Torah and created the world. Similarly the Torah says, "Through the reishis Hashem created [the heavens and the earth]," and reishis means Torah, as in "Hashem made me [the Torah] the beginning (reishit) of His way"
Note the last citation from Midrash Rabbah from Proverbs 8:22 where the spirit of wisdom is speaking. If we look at the next 2 verses in the chapter you’ll see that wisdom says of itself that it was at the beginning and that there was no deep when it was brought forth. This word for wisdom in Proverbs 8 is חׇכְמָ֥ה (Chokhmah), which in such writings as Lekutei Amarim (Otherwise known as Tanya) describe “wisdom” as being totally unified with God in Chapter 2 of Volume 1 stating:
“For ‘he is wise—God possesses the quality of wisdom–but not the wisdom that is known to us created beings’ because He and His wisdom are one, and as Maimonides writes: ‘He is Knowledge and simultaneously the Knower… who knows and comprehends through the Knowledge…;[ and He is that which is Known]--G-d is also the subject of knowledge and comprehension, as Maimonides concludes.”
In short, God is the knowledge, the knower, and the known. So, we see this wisdom is itself one with God and not separate from Him, but rather emanating from him and also that this wisdom is the beginning of His ways making it synonymous with the Torah. One last scriptural evidence of this can be found in Psalms 111:10 where again we see the word “Reishit” being described as the fear of the LORD. The “Reishit” of “Chokmah”(Beginning of Wisdom). The verse then continues to equate this with the observance of the commandments stating:
“A good understanding have all they who do his commandments.”
An objection to this application and interpretation of John 1 insists on a literal application in which the contention is that it would make the verse read “With the Torah was the Torah, and the Torah was with God, and the Torah was God.” The primary flaw in this objection is that it disregards not only the nature in which the word Bereishit even in Genesis acts as a clue to deeper meaning, but it fundamentally ignores the mystical nature in which John's Gospel is written. I submit the author of John is utilizing the word Bereishit as an introduction to the Gospel in the manner of a hint or clue every bit as much as it is in the case of Genesis. The hint is that one is to comprehend the opening phrase in the same mind and with the same understanding that one comprehends Genesis 1. In which case, “The Word” being the Torah truly was in the beginning as Proverbs 8:23-24 exhibits by stating:
“I was formed before ancient times, from the beginning, before the earth began. I was born when there were no watery depths and no springs filled with water.” And remembering the chronology of Genesis 1, the water precedes heaven and earth, which makes the Torah truly the beginning of all things.
In conclusion, we see a clear cut precedence for The Torah as “The Wisdom of God” and “The Way of God”, which are both synonymous and eternally bound up in God himself. Yet, we also see a precedence for the Torah being grasped and attainable by humanity. John 1:1 could easily be read and understood thus-In the beginning was the Torah (the Logos, the Memra, The Reishit, The Chokhmah), and God had the Torah (as in Proverbs 8:22-30 Wisdom/Chokhmah was with God, the Beginning/Reishit of his ways), and the Torah was God (the very essence, nature, and innermost will of the Almighty eternally bound up in His being as the Knowledge, Knower, and Known). This further sets Torah as the perfect concept to stand in for and illuminate our understanding of logos within the framework of both Philo and the earlier stoics as the mode by which man comprehends the divine and is yet unified and synonymous with that very same divinity. This is made even more evident in the musings of a great teacher from Galilee like our own Rabbi Yeshua. In the Talmud (Shabbat 105a:3), 3rd century Rabbi Yochanan says of the first word in the giving of the Ten Words (The Ten Commandments), Anokhi, functions as an acronym which denotes a meaning of “Ana Nafshi Ketivat Yehavit” Which means, “I myself wrote and gave.” This has an alternative rendering of “I give you my soul in writing" as noted by Abraham Joshua Heschel in his book Kotzk: The struggle for integrity (Yiddish 1973-p.58). We see from this that just as John 1:1 illustrates, Judaism already had a concept of God's nature and essence (The Torah) being incarnate, though their understanding of its incarnation was that of a written text. John 1 goes only a little further to present this incarnation of the Torah as a human being by stating “The word (Torah) became flesh”.
With this understanding of this opening phrase, the others that follow in the narrative all fall into perfect harmony with God's absolute oneness.
Comments