Genesis 1:1

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

John 1:1

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

As an aside, the Chinese translation actually uses different phrases for these two beginnings. See https://holybible.com.cn/genesis/1.htm and https://holybible.com.cn/john/1.htm

Genesis 1:1 起初 literally rise-beginning means developmental beginning.

John 1:1 太初 literally principal-beginning means something like super beginning.

  • 3
    The answer is a resounding yes. I look forward to seeing alternative proposals and multiple beginnings to justify a whole host of prejudicial claims. Thank you for the question, hopefully this will shed light on the truth and the historicity of factual events and chronology. Commented Dec 15, 2020 at 17:51
  • 3
    . . . . and another resounding 'Yes' from myself. If there is 'another' beginning then either the first one was not a true beginning or the second one is not a true beginning. This is contrary to all sense and logic. A very, very rare down-vote to you, Mr Chan. -1.
    – Nigel J
    Commented Dec 15, 2020 at 18:33
  • 1
    Thanks for your sincerity.
    – user35953
    Commented Dec 15, 2020 at 19:23
  • 2
    I would beg to differ with my learned and erudite colleagues for the reasons in my answer below. The reason is simple - making them the same beginning makes the creation as eternal as the Logos and the Logos a created being. Both are untrue by the logic of John 1:1-3.
    – Dottard
    Commented Dec 15, 2020 at 20:49
  • 1
    @NigelJ - I fully agree. And that is the point - "the beginning" if John 1:1 is eternity past, but Gen 1:1 is a specific point of time - creation week. Thus, John 1:1 is MUCH earlier (eternity earlier) that Gen 1:1.
    – Dottard
    Commented Dec 16, 2020 at 19:09

10 Answers 10


There is little doubt that the author of the Gospel of John alluded to Gen 1:1 when he started his gospel with the same Greek words as the Septuagint Greek translation of Gen 1:1: ἐν ἀρχῇ . But mere allusion does not exhaust ALL meaning of "In the beginning" as the rest of this answer will attempt to show how time does not seem to be the only aspect that the authors have in mind. We in modern Western civilization (who love timeline) need to be careful not to bring our own lenses into reading ancient texts.

Commentaries on 'In the beginning' in John 1:1

Several commentators (J. Ramsey Michaels and D.A. Carson) said that the author may also alluded to Mark 1:1:

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God

which also uses the Greek word Ἀρχὴ (archē, beginning), saying in effect (from Carson's commentary):

‘Mark has told you about the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry; I want to show you that the starting point of the gospel can be traced farther back than that, before the beginning of the entire universe.’

From J. Ramsey Michaels's commentary (emphasis mine):

Each of the four Gospels begins, appropriately enough, with a reference to some kind of beginning. ... John’s “beginning” (archē) is the earliest of all, for the vocabulary of John’s preamble is decisively shaped by the opening verses of Genesis. Why this is so has puzzled interpreters for centuries. The Gospel of John is not particularly interested in creation. Like the other Gospels, its focus is on revelation and redemption, the new creation if you will. But at the outset, attention is drawn to the beginning of all beginnings, the story of creation in Genesis. Whether or not the purpose is to counter a group in or on the fringes of the Christian movement that denigrated the old creation (Gnosticism comes immediately to mind), we do not know. As interpreters, our best course is to defer judgment for the moment, and wait to see if subsequent evidence in the Gospel sheds light on why the writer has begun in this way.

In any event, the words “In the beginning” unmistakably echo Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth.” Yet the differences are more striking than the similarities. God is the solitary Creator in the Genesis account, while in John creation is jointly the work of God and the Word. Genesis, moreover, is interested in God’s act, not God’s being or existence, which is simply presupposed: “God made the heaven and the earth.” John’s Gospel, by contrast, focuses on being, in three clauses: (1) “In the beginning was the Word,” (2) “the Word was with God,” and (3) “the Word was God.” Perhaps this is because God in the book of Genesis needs no introduction. God can be safely presupposed, but the same is not true of the Word in the Gospel of John. The Word must be identified, and can only be identified in relation to God, the God of Israel.

Answering your question

I think it is safe to say that that Gen 1:1 is part of the pericope Gen 1:1 to Gen 2:3 where the original author focuses on the creation of the visible universe ONLY ("the heavens and the earth"), which also includes human beings BUT leaves unspecified the creation of supernatural beings which may have been created "EARLIER", especially if we ask the question of when did God create the supernatural beings such as the serpent in Gen 3:1 (which may not be a regular animal snake because it can talk) and the sons of God in Gen 6:2 (who may not be human beings).

  • "In the beginning" in Gen 1:1 (בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית, bə·rê·šîṯ) emphasizes how the transcendent Creator God is outside the heavens and the earth, bringing goodness and order to the formless void (Gen 1:2), and how human beings are made in this God's image (Gen 1:26). The author deliberately used a mythic form to argue AGAINST an older Mesopotamian creation myth where the myth's god is not as transcendent and where the human beings are made as slaves for that god.

  • "In the beginning" in John 1:1 (ἐν ἀρχῇ, En archē) emphasizes the identity of Jesus in relation to the God of the OT, the same Creator God referred to in Gen 1:1.

Therefore it's safe to say that both authors have different aspects of "In the beginning" in mind and not necessarily to mean primarily time, which we, in modern science can argue is part of the creation as well. See excellent article Modern Physics, the Beginning, and Creation by Stephen M. Barr, a professor of theoretical particle physics), who nicely argued how St. Augustine got it right 1600 years earlier in conceiving time as something created, an assertion that brought mockery from pagan philosophers of that time.

CONCLUSION: The "beginning" in John 1:1 is outside time or precedes the "beginning" in Gen 1:1. The word does not mean the same thing. The Chinese rendition of the 2 verses are then quite faithful to the original meaning by making John 1:1 as "principal/super beginning" (can this mean outside time?) and Gen 1:1 as "developmental beginning" (which includes time). Regardless of the interpretations, mainstream Christian theology assertion that both God the Father and Jesus are transcendent and outside creation is preserved.

  • 2
    Your statement, ""In the beginning" in Gen 1:1 (בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית, bə·rê·šîṯ) emphasizes how the transcendent Creator God is outside the heavens and the earth, bringing goodness and order to the formless void (Gen 1:2)" is totally speculative, and nowhere proven by scripture. Nowhere in scripture are "heavens" (plural) or earth shown to have existed as anything visible on Day-One. The Earth did not visibly appear (made--not created) until Day-three and Heavens (plural) on Day-Four by the WORD. Once you head down that path, it is away from The WORD being revealed by John. Commented Dec 17, 2020 at 1:16
  • @BillPorter Most commentaries I consulted, while acknowledging that some ancient interpreters tried to include the creation of angels within the 7 days, interpret "the heavens" to refer to the sky (where birds fly) and the visible space (where planets and stars are). When I have time I will include them in the answer. In the meantime, you may find this article interesting as more and more evangelicals go this route in interpreting Genesis. Commented Dec 17, 2020 at 3:49
  • @TonyChan Is there anything else that I can clarify / address to make this the accepted answer? I don't know Mandarin at all, but with your help I can try to see how the different sense in the Chinese words match the meaning that the Bible book authors tried to convey in their ancient cultures and languages. Commented Dec 17, 2020 at 5:05

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. (John 1:1-4 NRSV).

No human being existed in John 1:1-3, only “God” was there, (a) in the beginning, (b) with the word, (c) through whom all things came into being. Viola, the passage speaks of the Genesis creation in a nutshell.

Context shows that the word became human (d), which corroborates with 1:1 that it was non-human, but divine [θεός].

The very words of John 1:1-4 alludes to the Genesis creation (1:1-3) because of those words: in the beginning, God, came into being, light [εν αρχη, θεός, ἐγένετο, φῶς] It’s not the similarity of language per se that tells us about the allusion to the Genesis creation in John’s prologue but the context itself. John’s prologue speaks of creation of all things through the word.

The Greek word λόγος was not found in the Greek of Genesis 1. However, in Psalm 33:6 it said that the λόγος was the word through which God created in Genesis.

By the word [λόγος] of the LORD the heavens were made. Psalm 33:6

In the Old Testament, the word of God is also the wisdom of God (Sirach 24:5). Wisdom said:

“I came out of the mouth of the most High, the firstborn before all creatures.” Sirach 24:5

And wisdom, being that same word, was the co-creator with God. Wisdom said:

Then I was beside Him, as a master workman; And I was daily His delight, Rejoicing always before Him Proverbs 8:30

ἐγένετο is related to creation in Genesis 1. It occurs 23 times in Genesis 1. What was created obviously has “come into being”. [e.g. God said, let there be light and light came into being, Gen 1:3]

In John 2:7, Jesus the incarnate word miraculously turned water into wine. Water became [ἐγένετο] wine. God always create things through his word. Things always come into being through the word. All things came into being [ἐγένετο] through the word, says John 1:3.

Any first century Jew would recall the beginning of the Tanakh [Genesis 1:1-3] when they read the Prologue of John [1:1-3]. That is actually John’s purpose, to link the old creation to the new creation. John was pointing out that the God who creates all things is the same God who re-creates all things.


In the beginning was the Logos. John 1:1.

And the Logos was in association with (1) the Deity (2). John 1:1.

And God (3) was the Logos (4). John 1:1.

The same was, in the beginning, in association with (1) the Deity. John 1:2.

In the beginning, Deity (5) created. Genesis 1:1.

All things through him (the Logos) came into being and without him came into being not anything that has come into being (6). John 1:3.

In these few words, there is no indication, whatsoever, of any possibility of 'two beginnings'. There is no such thing as 'past' 'eternity'. That is a contradiction of terminology.

The eternal is.

The beginning was.

And when the beginning began, the Deity was.

And also, in the beginning, God - the Logos - was.

  1. See Daniel B Wallace for his list of meanings of pros, p380 Beyond the Basics.

  2. I have used the collective, concept (abstract) noun 'Deity' where there is an article in Greek.

  3. I have used the concept (abstract) noun 'God' where there is no article in Greek.

  4. Despite linguistic arguments to the contrary (with regard to 'predicate') this is John's emphasis by way of word order and it should not be lost in translation. The original is 'God was the word' not, as elsewhere (God is Light) where John actually says 'God Light is' wherein he makes a different emphasis, by means of a different word order.

  5. I have used the collective, concept (abstract) noun 'Deity' to render the collective, concept (abstract), unarticled noun in Hebrew Elohim.

  6. I have quoted the Englishman's Greek New Testament, interlinear translation, where the verb forms of gennao, εγενετο and γεγονεν, have been rendered as a matter of 'being'. 'Made' assumes the verb poeio, which is not there. The emphasis is not on manufacture but of existence and the bringing into existence.

  • 2
    seems like a convoluted way of saying there could be two beginnings after all. Gen1 requires a time frame. John 1:1-3 does not - cannot. It simply states a fact about God that always was. Gen 1 was not always, but had a beginning. John 1 states IN the beginning, not AT the beginning. When the Gen beginning began, John 1 already was b/c it WAS.
    – Steve
    Commented Dec 17, 2020 at 8:48
  • No comments will be added, by myself, to this answer. Any comment on this particular answer may be addressed to me via a chat room and an invite to me to attend that chat room.
    – Nigel J
    Commented Dec 17, 2020 at 8:50

God asked Job:
Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding. . . when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy? (Job 38: 4,7).

Angels existed before the earth or man.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. 3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

The Word existed before angels.

John 1:3 speakers of creation. Genesis 1:1 speaks of creation. John 1:1 speaks of before creation. So John 1:1 and Genesis 1:1 do not point to an identical time in the history of the universe.


Allow me to make just two observations about this very interesting question.

First: I fully and stridently agree that John 1:1 is an allusion to Gen 1:1. But then, so is also 1 John 1:1. Even a casual glance at these shows that all three cannot allude to the same period or point of time for the reasons that will become clear.

Second: If the "beginning" of John 1:1 and Gen 1:1 is the same, then Jesus or the "Logos" is a created being which the simple logic of John 1:1-3 makes impossible, because the Logos created all things and so Himself cannot be created.

Let me be more specific about the second point.

In Gen 1:1, we can interpret this passage as either:

  • a heading/summary of that which follows (and Gen 2:1 is a corresponding chiastic answer to it), or
  • (as some do) insist that Gen 1:1 records the creation of the universe

The second option is not possible because:

  1. "heaven" is created in day #2 in Gen 1:8, 8 - "God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so. God called the expanse heaven."
  2. "earth" is created on day #3 in Gen 1:9, 10, "Then God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas"
  3. The heavenly lights were created on day #4 in Gen 1:14-16, "Then God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens ... and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also."

Therefore, "in the beginning" of Gen 1:1 is the beginning of the creation of our world. The planet and water existed before this "beginning".

The "beginning" of John 1:1 is the ancient eternity past before any creation even began

The "beginning" of 1 John 1:1 is the beginning of John's and the disciple's ministry about preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

  • 1
    This is a forced reading of the text. You’re placing a lot of weight on v1 being a heading/summary. You don’t have any other example to point to where this is the case and there is nothing to identify it as such other than a modern contextual inference. You make the point that heavens were made on day two, then by extension the earth was made on day three. So it follows that the waters predate creation or are uncreated. Yet All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.” ‭‭J1:3‬ this means the hypothesis falls apart, unless God is the waters Commented Dec 15, 2020 at 20:16
  • @NihilSineDeo - of course all things were made by God as per Ps 33:6, 9 - just at an earlier date from the beginning in Gen 1:1.
    – Dottard
    Commented Dec 15, 2020 at 20:43
  • @NihilSineDeo - Other examples - Genesis itself is full of them - all 11 Toledoths are examples of headings/summaries of what follows, eg, Gen 2:4, 5:1, 6:9, 10:1, 11:10, etc, etc.
    – Dottard
    Commented Dec 15, 2020 at 20:46
  • “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.” ‭‭Exodus‬ ‭20:11‬ ‭please tell me what is excluded? Commented Dec 15, 2020 at 20:47
  • @NihilSineDeo - correct - the heaven as defined in Gen 1:8, the earth as defined in Gen 1:10, the sea as defined in Gen 1:11, etc.
    – Dottard
    Commented Dec 15, 2020 at 20:50

John 8:57-59 KJV declares:

Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

We know that Jesus was not "made" flesh before Abraham was made flesh. Jesus was not word-twiddling (whether with Chinese words or not) when He made this statement. Though Jesus was said in that same portion of John to have been "made" flesh, that does not give mankind the right to twiddle the words, "made" and "created" at will just to satisfy their personal agenda.

THEREFORE: I AM means I AM and that time of being the I AM remained undisclosed, just like Jesus never disclosed just how much before Abraham He "IS." Clearly, both the Hebrew and the Greek words for beginning mean that one "chief", "initial" beginning, as John 1:1 and Genesis 1:1 so adamantly and appropriately declared in Luke 24:27:

And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.


The short answer to your question is "No." At John 1:2, "beginning" the definite article has been supplied. The Greek reads "en arche-that is, "in beginning." So the "Word/Logos/Jesus" was there before the creation of space, mass and time. This means that John's "beginning" even antecedes the Genesis "beginning," extending without an initial beginning into eternity past, even before time was created.

John 17:24, "Father, I desire that they also, whom Thou hast given Me, be with Me where I am, in order that they may behold My glory, which Thou hast given Me BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD." At John 17:5 Jesus says, "He had glory with the Father before the world was."

Moreover, John 1:3 identifies Jesus Christ as the creator in no uncertain terms. "All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him (or without Him) nothing came into being that has come into being." Colossians 1:15-16 backs this up. So does Hebrews 1:10 according to Jesus' Father and Revelation 3:14.

So to sum up we have Genesis 1:1 stating, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." John 1:1 states, "In the beginning was the Word/Logos/Jesus who was with God.

Both verses start out with the same words. Yet the main thought in Genesis 1:1 is on "WHAT HAPPENED" in the beginning, and in John 1:1 the emphasis is on "WHO EXISTED" in the beginning. (Some of this answer is from the "Institute of Creation Research).

  • John 1:3 identifies Jesus Christ as the creator in no uncertain terms. This is plainly incorrect. -1
    – Steve
    Commented Jan 8, 2021 at 20:46
  • @48152 Look, anyone can state a position or simply give an opinion, but around here you have to prove your position. Your in the "big leagues" now and not messing around with people who don't know what their taking about, at least some of us. Now, give me your "apologetic" as to why I am "plainly incorrect?" And please, don't give me the excuse (an oldie but a goodie on your part) that Jesus can't be God or the creator because God can't die? Read Acts 20:28
    – Mr. Bond
    Commented Jan 8, 2021 at 21:27
  • Simply that the verse quoted says no such thing. Find a verse that says this - should be easy for you, but this isn’t it. Please respect the text and read it according.
    – Steve
    Commented Jan 8, 2021 at 21:36
  • @user48152 Since you made the statement that what I said is "plainly incorrect" in logic it is incumbent on you to PROVE I'm incorrect. You can't just give your "opinion" that I'm wrong, you have to prove I'm wrong. Now, show me a Greek Scholar that disputes what Greek Scholar A.T. Robertson stated per Acts 20:28. Please read the following per continued
    – Mr. Bond
    Commented Jan 8, 2021 at 22:46
  • "With his own blood (δια — dia tou haimatos tou idiou). Through the agency of (του τεου — dia) his own blood. Whose blood? If tou theou (Aleph B Vulg.) is correct, as it is, then Jesus is here called “God” who shed his own blood for the flock. It will not do to say that Paul did not call Jesus God, for we have Romans 9:5; Colossians 2:9; Titus 2:13 where he does that very thing, besides Colossians 1:15-20; Philemon 2:5-11. And btw, it was easy for me because I know my Bible. How can Jesus be the agent of creation, i.e John 1:3 if God says He created all alone and by Himself, Isaiah 44:24
    – Mr. Bond
    Commented Jan 8, 2021 at 22:51


In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. (Genesis 1:1) [ESV]
בראשית ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ

In the beginning God made the sky and the earth. (LXX-Genesis 1:1)
ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν

First, not everyone agrees the meaning of the Hebrew בראשית (rendered as ἐν ἀρχῇ in the LXX) should be understood as "in the beginning." For example, Robert D. Homlstedt maintains "in the beginning" is grammatically indefensible. He states a correct understanding of Genesis 1:1-3 should reflect the phrase is not pointing to the beginning and offers this translation:

“In the beginning period that God created the heavens and earth (the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the wind of God was hovering over the surface of the waters), God said, ‘Let light be!'”1

Holmstedt's argument is based on the Hebrew and he cites the LXX as support for the position syntax demands a beginning period from among potentially multiple periods or stages.2The use of בְּרֵאשִׁ֗ית elsewhere in Scripture does not support this position. Rather it is context which determines whether the beginning is correct.

Second, the Prologue repeats the phrase before making mention of things made:

1: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God
   ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος  
2: He was in the beginning with God
   οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν  
3: All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made
   πάντα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν ὃ γέγονεν

If there is an allusion to Genesis 1:1 then is that allusion for both phrases or just one? A secondary question is if just one, then which one, and what does the other phrase refer to; or if both, then what purpose does the repetition serve?

Genesis 1
As a standalone narrative, Genesis is complete. When one begins reading at Genesis 1, "in the beginning" makes sense since the context of what follows depicts the making of the physical universe. However, an allusion in the Gospel has the entire Old Testament and possibly the New Testament in view. In that case, since the reader knows there are created things which are not detailed or found in Genesis 1, the beginning is not necessarily correct. Because creation encompasses more than what is detailed in Genesis, an understanding such as Holmstedt offers is more accurate (though not for the reason he cites).

For example, there is no mention in Genesis of the making of angelic beings and so it is possible Genesis 1:1 is not speaking to "the beginning of creation." In fact, it is clear darkness exists "in the beginning" despite there being no detail of when or how it came into being, a fact the writer of the Gospel would know:

forming light, and making darknesses, making peace, and forming evil; I am the LORD, doing all these things. (Isaiah 45:7 WYC)
יוצר אור ובורא חשך עשה שלום ובורא רע אני יהוה עשה כל־אלה

I am the one who has prepared light and made darkness, who makes peace and creates evils; I am the Lord who does all these things. (LXX-Isaiah 45:7)
ἐγὼ ὁ κατασκευάσας φῶς καὶ ποιήσας σκότος ὁ ποιῶν εἰρήνην καὶ κτίζων κακά ἐγὼ κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὁ ποιῶν ταῦτα πάντα

Just as it was God who made בָּרָא (or ποιέω) the heavens and the earth in Genesis 1:1, it was YHVH who made בָּרָא (or ποιέω) darkness which is present in Genesis 1:2. The text implies darkness was present before "the beginning." Darkness has a significant place in the Prologue and throughout the Gospel; it is vital to clarify the relationship of the Word "in the beginning" to the darkness which was (already) present.

John 1
John is drawing attention to Genesis 1:1 when he begins with ἐν ἀρχῇ, but I believe he is also clarifying בראשית and it is the second ἐν ἀρχῇ which alludes to Genesis 1:1. The first functions to resolve any uncertainty the reader may have about "the" beginning as recorded in Genesis:

In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. This was in the beginning with God [who made the heavens and the earth]. All things were made through Him, and without Him was not any thing made that was made. [The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.]

Placing the Word in the beginning before Genesis 1:1 strengthens the fact John is conveying the eternal (preexistent) nature of the Word. In addition, allusion to Genesis 1:1 in John 1:2 removes the potential for misinterpreting the Word as referring to an utterance of God found in Genesis when "God said..."

1. Robert D. Holmstedt, Genesis 1.1-3, Hebrew Grammar, and Translation, November 11, 2011. See also The Restrictive Syntax of Genesis i 1.
2. Ibid.


Do Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1 point to the same identical beginning?

John 1 speaks of an eternal, never starting, never ending arrangement consisting of God and His word or logos. We are not told who or what this logos is apart from 'God made all things through it'. Based on John writing in 1 John 1, the logos is presented as a which and provides no scriptural reason for logos to be some kind of eternal person until it was manifested in Jesus. It is greatly emphasised in John 1 by our translators, but never mentioned again with such import in all the NT. The personification is simply a literary tool - just as wisdom was also personified - she was not really a woman who was also with God at the beginning too. Many things are personified for effect, even sin.

Gen 1 speaks of things made. Not necessarily from nothing, as the earth already exists in v2. Suffice to say that when things are made - they inherently have a beginning.

John 1:1-3 speak of the eternal God who always is, was and will be.

There is no beginning for this - it always was - God just is!

The beginning mentioned in John 1 speaks of the same time event in Genesis.

Clearly, John is not attempting to provide a beginning for the logos or God - but stating that God, and the logos with God, was responsible for the creation event Gen gives account of.

John is simply affirming that when the Gen beginning took place, God and His logos were there and did these creative acts.

Thus, Gen 1 and John 1:1-3 speak of the same beginning. One from the vantage of God's perspective - John speaks of who made them. The other more from man's perspective about the things made.

It is a good question that serves us well to consider how we may have thought of these passages and to entertain the various aspects that many bring to the table. So long as we stick to the text and its legitimate meaning - and not add to it, we will grow in understanding.


Certainly as some have said, there were things before Gen 1. So that means Gen 1 is a new beginning which is centred on man and God's plan for us. This allows the bible with it’s specific focus on the earth as a place for man to be a limited revelation - ignoring entirely the earth had a prehistoric period of some other life forms, and purpose.

  • You should read beyond verse 1: οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν; and the life was the light of men; the true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world. [the light pre-existed His coming into the world]; John bore witness about him, and cried out, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.’” He pre-existed John. Commented Jan 24, 2022 at 19:00

For a long time it has puzzled me that John 1 starts at the beginning of creation and skips to "There was a man sent from God whose name was John". There's no connection there. I believe that all prophecy of scripture has been fulfilled (Matt. 24:34 Truly I tell you, "this generation" will certainly not pass away until "all" these things have happened). That means the new heavens and earth have come. If you read John 1:1 this way- In the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was with God, and Jesus was God etc. and his coming was the new beginning etc., it makes a lot more sense that the text would go to "There was a man sent from God whose name was John".


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.