I believe no verse with a clearer meaning can be found in all of scripture than John 1:3. While some people really dear to me claim that verse 1 can mean "a" god, this verse should remove any doubt to its meaning, as no Greek scholar can be found who disputes the clear meaning of verse 3
1) No serious Greek scholar would argue that a line which doesn't use any lexeme we might translate as "god" clearly indicates
"that Jesus created everything that was created and therefore cannot himself be created!"
or much of anything else. We don't even need to leave commentaries that are clearly biased by Christian theology (rather than relying solely on classical languages, linguistics, etc.) to see this. See e.g., Wallace's
Greek Grammar or McHugh's
John 1-4.
2) The text is quite clear that "the word" (
ho logos) didn't create, but rather uses a construction that deliberately avoids this reading: πάντα διʼ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν (
panta di' autou egeneto, kai choris autou egeneto oude hen). "All things came to be
through [not by, not because of] him, and apart from him came to be not a thing". It's pretty clear that the author(s) stress(es) the necessity of "the word" for everything that is, but deliberately avoids the suggestion that "the word" was a creative force. If
dia is taken to be "through" in the sense "through the creative power of
ho logos, then there would be no need to indicate that nothing existed without
ho logos playing creative role. In fact, this latter part doesn't make much sense other than to indicate that "the word/memra/divine wisdom/etc." was important (even vital) for that which is. It would be simplicity itself to mimic Genesis and indicate that
ho logos wasn't simply pre-existent but
created everything (or was a creative force). Instead, the author(s) elect(s) to use a weaker preposition and doesn't use any verb, participle or similar construction indicating a creative role.
3) As
ho logos isn't equated with Jesus (in fact, the author(s) state(s) that, rather than Jesus being
ho logos, that ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο/
ho logos sarx egeneto or "the word
became flesh). I think it's pretty obvious that "the word" is meant to refer to Jesus before he had a human form, but this is not a matter of Greek grammar.
4) Lexemes are universally polysemous; constructions are idiomatic by definition and frequently nested, inheriting from multiple others, and ambiguous; finally, the prologue is quite deliberately poetic, metaphorical, arcane, and cryptic. IE linguistics, classicists, NT scholars, etc., can't make arguments here based upon the Greek. To suggest that what is deliberately more ambiguous & cryptic than language normally is can be settled by Greek grammar is to misunderstand the nature of language itself.
I firmly believe that when God wants to emphasize a matter in his written word such as in John 1:3
Fair enough. Just don't argue that the Greek makes this clear.
