I am in a discussion with a Jehovah's Witness regarding the John 1:1–4 passage and the Deity of Christ. He says this:

John 1 did not work out well for you. With the punctuation as found in our critical editions such as NA28 and UBS4, in that passage "what came to be in him was [ην] life."

Here is the New Revised Standard Version:

NRS John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being 4 in him was life, and the life was the light of all people.

So, life came into being in him "in the beginning."

What was this life? BDAG says it was "2. transcendent life, life" And also in the entry for "life" - b. of Christ, who received life fr. God J 5:26b

Note that John 5:26 is tied to this by BDAG: NRS John 5:26 For just as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself; Therefore, in the beginning, the first action of the Father was to give life to the Son.

I would like some insight into the variances of this passage and also as to the correctness of choosing which texts are chosen as superior in quality.

  • 1
    This question has way too much baggage attached to it. By this I mean it is aswirl with confusion because of the discussion that has already ensued, to which we are not even privy. What is the actual question? Is the question about punctuation? About NA27 vs UBS? NWT vs NRSV? I can't read the question without losing track of what the question is and can't separate the question from the presuppositions introduced. This seems to be a theological question wrapped up in a host of unrelated exegetical issues awash with presuppositions.
    – Ruminator
    Feb 14, 2021 at 23:19
  • I've given my answer a definite conclusion which is the opposite of what my answer originally implied.
    – Perry Webb
    Mar 1, 2022 at 13:54

3 Answers 3


There are three distinct ways to punctuate the Greek:

  1. και χωρις αυτου εγενετο ουδε εν ο γεγονεν / εν αυτω ζωη ην / και η ζωη ην το φως των ανθρωπων

And without him was not anything made which was made.
In Him was life;
And the life was the light of men

  1. και χωρις αυτου εγενετο ουδε εν / ο γεγονεν εν αυτω ζωη ην / και η ζωη ην το φως των ανθρωπων

And without him was not anything made.
[What] was made was life in him;
And the life was the light of men

  1. και χωρις αυτου εγενετο ουδε εν ο γεγονεν εν αυτω / ζωη ην / και η ζωη ην το φως των ανθρωπων

And without Him was not anything made which was made in Him.
[He] was life,
And the life was the light of men

The Nestle-Aland "Critical Text" upon which the ESV, NASB, NIV, and other translations are based follows the second reading:

καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν.
ὃ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν,
καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων·

The Textus Receptus (Scrivener compilation) more or less follows the third reading:

καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν, ὃ γέγονεν.
ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν,
καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων,

The 1904 Patriarchal Text of the Orthodox Church also follows the third reading:

καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἓν ὃ γέγονεν.
ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν,
καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων.

The Jehovah's Witness' New World Translation is based on the Westcott-Hort Greek New Testament, which is neither punctuated nor accented:

και χωρις αυτου εγενετο ουδε εν ο γεγονεν εν αυτω ζωη ην και η ζωη ην το φως των ανθρωπων

Given the NWT version of John 1:3-4:

... 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.

It would seem that the NWT translators imputed the punctuation:

και χωρις αυτου εγενετο ουδε εν.
ο γεγονεν εν αυτω ζωη ην.
και η ζωη ην το φως των ανθρωπων.

which would conform to the second possible reading above.

The first and third readings are "Orthodox" readings of the passage. The second was considered a heretical reading put forth by the Pneumatomachi, followers of Macedonius. The supposed heresy itself was condemned by the Second Ecumenical Council at Constantinople in 381.

A discussion of the above can be found in a footnote in the Chrysostom Press translation of Theophylact's commentary on John, originally written in Greek. Theophylact is summarizing in part a longer 4th century commentary by John Chrysostom on how to understand the passage. Punctuation did not exist at that time, but Chrysostom discusses where pauses should be understood in the text:

“All things were made by Him.” And that you may not think that he merely speaks of all the things mentioned by Moses, he adds, that “without Him was not anything made that was made.” That is to say, that of created things, not one, whether it be visible or intelligible was brought into being without the power of the Son.

For we will not put the full stop after “not anything,” as the heretics do. They, because they wish to make the Spirit created, say, “What was made, in Him was Life”; yet so what is said becomes unintelligible. First, it was not the time here to make mention of the Spirit, and if he desired to do so, why did he state it so indistinctly? For how is it clear that this saying relates to the Spirit? Besides, we shall find by this argument, not that the Spirit, but that the Son Himself, is created by Himself. But rouse yourselves, that what is said may not escape you; and come, let us read for a while after their fashion, for so its absurdity will be clearer to us. “What was made, in Him was Life.” They say that the Spirit is called “Life.” But this “Life” is found to be also “Light,” for he adds, “And the Life was the Light of men.” ( Ver. 4.) Therefore, according to them the “Light of men” here means the Spirit. Well, but when he goes on to say, that “There was a man sent from God, to bear witness of that Light” ( vers. 6, 7 ), they needs must assert, that this too is spoken of the Spirit; for whom he above called “Word,” Him as he proceeds he calls “God,” and “Life,” and “Light.” This “Word” he says was “Life,” and this “Life” was “Light.” If now this Word was Life, and if this Word and this Life became flesh, then the Life, that is to say, the Word, “was made flesh, and we beheld” Its “glory, the glory as of the Only-Begotten of the Father.” If then they say that the Spirit is here called “Life,” consider what strange consequences will follow. It will be the Spirit, not the Son, that was made flesh; the Spirit will be the Only-Begotten Son.

And those who read the passage so will fall, if not into this, yet in avoiding this into another most strange conclusion. If they allow that the words are spoken of the Son, and yet do not stop or read as we do, then they will assert that the Son is created by Himself. Since, if “the Word was Life,” and “what was made in Him was Life”; according to this reading He is created in Himself and through Himself. Then after some words between, he has added, “And we beheld His glory, the glory as of the Only-Begotten of the Father.” ( Ver. 14.) See, the Holy Spirit is found, according to the reading of those who assert these things, to be also an only-begotten Son, for it is concerning Him that all this declaration is uttered by him. See when the word has swerved from the truth, whither it is perverted, and what strange consequences it produces!

  • This is a question about the Greek text, not about anachronistic, later Christian interpretation
    – Dan
    Jan 30, 2017 at 23:33
  • 4
    The Greek text is not punctuated, so one must discern the writer's intent. One could argue that the Church is an authoritative source for such discernment, since the Church determined the canon of Scripture and placed John's Gospel within it in the first place.
    – user33515
    Jan 31, 2017 at 20:26
  • Welcome to Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange user18368, thanks for contributing! Be sure to take our site tour to learn more about us. We're a little different from other sites.
    – Steve can help
    Feb 1, 2017 at 10:36

Modern writers use punctuation and paragraphs to separate and organize thoughts and to identify changes or shifts in the text. Of course at the time it was written punctuation was not yet in use. While ancient writers did not use or have these conventions, they did employ other techniques. In particular a chiasm was a common structural device/form:

Definition of chiasmus (or chiasm) 1
Robert Norrman: the use of bilateral symmetry about a central axis.
Brad McCoy: the use of inverted parallelism of form and/or content which moves toward and away from a strategic central component.

McCoy notes that the prologue of John was arranged as a chiasmus: 2

A: The Word with God (1-2)  
 B: The Word's role in creation (3)  
  C: God's grace to mankind (4-5)  
   D: Witness of John the Baptist (6-8)  
    E: The Incarnation of the Word (9-11)  
      X: Saving faith in the Incarnate Word (12-13)  
    E': The Incarnation of the Word (14)  
   D': Witness of John the Baptist (15)  
  C': God's grace to mankind (16)  
 B': The Word's role in re-creation (17)  
A': The Word with God the Father (18)

The structure highlights the main theme and pairs supporting thoughts before and after. Each supporting thought has a primary and secondary purpose:

  • Primary purpose: Support and/or explain the main theme
  • Secondary purpose: Support and/or explain its corresponding partner

In addition to amplifying or explaining the main theme, each supporting thought has a corresponding partner which is essential to the integrity of the overall structure. This also serves to separate thoughts and functions like punctuation.

A chiastic arrangement is how an author can "punctuate" a passage:3

The Word's role in creation
B: All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. (3)
The Word's role in re-creation
B': For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. (17)

God's grace to mankind
C: In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. (4-5)
God's grace to mankind
C': For from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. (16)

More importantly, the chiastic outline not only separates thoughts, it focuses how each thought is to be understood. Supporting thoughts are secondary; they are meant to be understood from the point of the primary. The main theme is a person's authority to become a child of God. Creation is secondary in terms of the main theme, making children of God. The author's point is that both are works of creation. Life is not to be understood in the limited sense of creation (Genesis). Life is also found in the continued work of The Word: creating children of God.

The mistake of the Jehovah Witness approach to the passage is to make the work of creation the primary point. That is, life came form The Word in creation. Obviously, the author is more interested in writing about The Word's current work of creation, making children of God. If nothing comes into existence except through The Word, then the offer of new life, which is eternal life, is also a work of The Word and for both author and reader, more important than the work of creation.

John 5:26

The OP notes BDAG ties John 5:26 to meaning of life in verse 4. In fact, John 5:26 is a good example of the importance of understanding a verse in terms of the structure.

John 5:26 is the center of a chiastic arrangement on the Son. As such it is meant to be understood in terms of the supporting statements, not as a stand alone statement:

A: Son of God
  X: Son
A': Son of Man

A: “Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. (5:25)

X: For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. (5:26)

A': And he has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man. (5:27)

The point is the Son is first the Son of God and the Word becomes flesh and the Son becomes the Son of Man. The central theme is the Son has life in Himself. In terms of life there are two essential supporting statements:

  1. The Son of God has the authority to raise the dead
  2. The Son of Man has authority to execute judgment

In order for the Son to have life in Himself, He must have the ability to raise the dead and to execute judgment. If the Son can only create life and give new life (making children of God) and raise the dead to life but has not the authority to judge, then a final judgment of death overrides every work of the Son:

and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment. (5:29)

In order for the Son to have life in Himself, which results in eternal life, He must:

  • Create life
  • Regenerate life (create children of God)
  • Raise the dead to life
  • Give a judgment of life

1. Brad McCoy, "Chiasmus: An Important Structural Device Commonly Found in Biblical Literature." p 18 [Chafer Theological Seminary]
2. Ibid p.29
3. All Scripture from the ESV


What supports the period after ὃ γέγονεν is that ζωὴ is feminine. What supports the period before ὃ γέγονεν is the poetic/phrase structure.

The decisive factor is putting the period before ὃ γέγονεν seems to conflict with the context. It seems to say all that was created was life. It assigns both γέγονεν and ἦν to ζωὴ without reason or explanation. Whaile it's not impossible for John to have neuter pronouns with the feminine ζωὴ as the antecedent, it is unlikely when doing so would cause such ambiguity. Putting the period after ὃ γέγονεν implies that John meant life to be an uncreated attribute of God (Matt. 16:16), thus life as an attribute of the Word. Therefore, the period after ὃ γέγονεν makes the most sense.

Poetic Sentence Structure

Look at how NA28 punctuation fits the structure of the prolegomena well (shown at the end). What seems to fit the context best is the ἐν prepositional clause being instrumental, and a translation would be something like "Life which was made by him was," or "there was life which was made by him." The problem with a translation, "That which was made by him was life," seems to say life was all that he made, which contradicts the previous sentence.

However, there is a problem with translating ζωὴ to mean all created life. It gives ζωὴ a different meaning than ἡ ζωὴ in the next sentence. Thus, better might be, "That which came by him was life, and that life was the light of humanity."

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος,

καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν,

καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν.

πάντα διʼ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο,

καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο ⸂οὐδὲ ἕν.

ὃ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν,

καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων·

καὶ τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει,

καὶ ἡ σκοτία αὐτὸ οὐ κατέλαβεν.

Ἐγένετο ἄνθρωπος,

ἀπεσταλμένος παρὰ θεοῦ,

ὄνομα αὐτῷ Ἰωάννης·

οὗτος ἦλθεν εἰς μαρτυρίαν

ἵνα μαρτυρήσῃ περὶ τοῦ φωτός,

ἵνα πάντες πιστεύσωσιν διʼ αὐτοῦ.

οὐκ ἦν ἐκεῖνος τὸ φῶς,

ἀλλʼ ἵνα μαρτυρήσῃ περὶ τοῦ φωτός.

Ἦν τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινόν,

ὃ φωτίζει πάντα ἄνθρωπον,

ἐρχόμενον εἰς τὸν κόσμον.

ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἦν,

καὶ ὁ κόσμος διʼ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο,

καὶ ὁ κόσμος αὐτὸν οὐκ ἔγνω.

εἰς τὰ ἴδια ἦλθεν,

καὶ οἱ ἴδιοι αὐτὸν οὐ παρέλαβον.

ὅσοι δὲ ἔλαβον αὐτόν,

ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς ἐξουσίαν τέκνα θεοῦ γενέσθαι,

τοῖς πιστεύουσιν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ,

οἳ οὐκ ἐξ αἱμάτων

οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος σαρκὸς

οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος ἀνδρὸς

ἀλλʼ ἐκ θεοῦ ἐγεννήθησαν. (John 1:1-18, NA28)

Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο

καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν,

καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ,

δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός,

πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας.

(Ἰωάννης μαρτυρεῖ περὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ κέκραγεν λέγων· Οὗτος ἦν ⸂ὃν εἶπον·⸃ Ὁ ὀπίσω μου ἐρχόμενος ⸆ ἔμπροσθέν μου γέγονεν,* ὅτι πρῶτός μου ἦν.)

ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ πληρώματος αὐτοῦ ἡμεῖς πάντες ἐλάβομεν

καὶ χάριν ἀντὶ χάριτος·

ὅτι ὁ νόμος διὰ Μωϋσέως ἐδόθη,

ἡ ⸀χάρις καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐγένετο.

θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε·

μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς

ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.