Thank you for your question! It’s true that John 1:1 doesn’t explicitly say the name “Jesus,” but the context of the passage makes it absolutely clear that the Logos is referring to Him. In John 1:14, we read: “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen His glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.”
This verse leaves no room for ambiguity. The Logos (the Word) “became flesh,” which is a direct reference to the moment God the Son took on human nature—the Incarnation. Who else but Jesus Christ became flesh and revealed God’s glory as the only Son from the Father? The text leads us straight to this conclusion.
The Orthodox Christian understanding has been affirmed from the earliest days of the Church. The Church Fathers unanimously taught that the Logos in John 1:1 is Christ Himself. St. Athanasius of Alexandria, for example, emphasizes that the Word is eternal, consubstantial with the Father, and became incarnate for our salvation.
So while the name “Jesus” does not appear in the opening verse, we don’t interpret scripture in isolation. The entire prologue of John (1:1–18) reveals exactly who the Logos is—and it’s Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God. There is no other conclusion in context. This understanding is not a stretch or a matter of personal interpretation—it’s the clear teaching of the text within the context of the Gospel and consistently upheld by the Christian tradition.
Steve, your comments misrepresent both scripture and the teachings of the Orthodox Christian faith. You seem convinced that holding to the historic teaching of the Church, which reflects the clear teaching of scripture, is what’s “pointless.” However, the Orthodox understanding of who Christ is flows directly from scripture itself—precisely because Christ is the Word of God, eternally one with the Father (John 1:1), who became flesh for our salvation (John 1:14).
To address your points directly:
1. Does Jesus "have a God"?
Yes, as the incarnate Son, fully human, Jesus prays to and obeys the Father as His God—this reflects the humility and submission of His human nature (Philippians 2 and all that). But as the eternal Word (Logos), Jesus is also God, sharing fully in the same divine essence as the Father and the Holy Spirit. This is not "two gods" but the mystery of the Holy Trinity, one God in three persons. Your objection overlooks the biblical and theological truth that God is both one in essence and exists eternally as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Jesus Himself affirms this mystery. When He declares, "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30), the Jewish audience understood Him to mean equality with God, which is why they accused Him of blasphemy. Likewise, Jesus commands His followers to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19), affirming the triune nature of God.
2. You suggest that Jesus rejects His divinity.
On the contrary, throughout the Gospels, Jesus affirms His divine identity. For example, in John 8:58, He declares, “Before Abraham was, I AM,” explicitly identifying Himself with the divine name revealed to Moses (Exodus 3:14). His audience understood this, which is why they tried to stone Him for blasphemy.
Your argument that “Jesus has a God, so He cannot be God” leans on a misunderstanding of the Incarnation. The Orthodox faith (reflected in scripture) teaches that in the mystery of the Incarnation, the eternal Son of God assumed human nature. This means that as man, He can pray to the Father, worship the Father, and even refer to the Father as His God, while remaining fully divine. Again, this is not a matter of “two gods” but the mystery of the Word who became flesh.
3. Your dismissal of “Orthodox whatever” misunderstands the role of tradition.
Tradition in the Orthodox Church is not something added to scripture—it’s the life of the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, that faithfully preserves and transmits scripture. The Church is the “pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15). The canon of scripture itself comes to us through the discerning authority of the Church, guided by the Spirit. As long as you have a Table of Contents, you’ve already accepted part of the Church’s Tradition.
Finally, if you find no value in this Orthodox Christian blog or in the historical and scriptural teachings upheld here, I suggest that you take your arguments elsewhere. This platform is not the place for denying Christ’s eternal divinity or the truth of the Trinity that Christians have faithfully professed for 2,000 years. While I welcome participation from non-Orthodox, using this space to attack the faith and promote an unorthodox view is not constructive.
May you find clarity and peace as you seek the truth, but this kind of exchange does not serve the purpose of this blog or its community.
Scripture should be our first priority, not tradition; for only in scripture do we find truths from God, not men. If you are actually interested in the original truths, read on.
The logos was not flesh until Jesus is conceived/born. It became flesh—it was not previously.
Jesus was not ‘in the beginning’ because he wasn’t yet born—through Mary~4bc.
We must not anachronistically insert Jesus anywhere we might like.
You also say, “Jesus Christ became flesh”. Again, no, the logos did, not Jesus.
Thank you for taking the time to respond, though I have to say your interpretation of scripture is at odds with both the plain meaning of the text and the historic, time-tested understanding of Christianity. I don’t mean this disrespectfully, but the issue I have with your argument is simple: the text itself refutes your position.
Let’s revisit John 1:14, which clearly states: “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen His glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.” The Logos becoming flesh is not just an abstract idea; it is the core proclamation of the Incarnation—that the eternal Word of God, consubstantial with the Father (John 1:1), took on human nature in the person of Jesus Christ. This is not an “insertion” of Jesus “anywhere we like”—it is the whole point of the passage.
While it is true that Jesus, as man, was born in time (through the Virgin Mary), Orthodox Christianity holds that He is also fully God, the pre-eternal Logos, who existed with the Father “in the beginning.” John goes to great lengths to make this clear so that we do not fall into a mistaken, time-bound, creaturely view of Christ. To deny this is not to affirm scripture—it is to break with it.
Regarding scripture versus tradition, I would encourage you to reconsider your dichotomy. Scripture and tradition are not enemies but inseparable companions. The Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, discerned the scriptures. The Table of Contents is the Word of the Church. The Church Fathers, whose writings are invaluable to Christianity, did not add something foreign to the revealed truths of God; they passed on the faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3), preserving its integrity from the earliest days of the Church.
I appreciate the engagement, but this is an Orthodox Christian space where the faith as handed down from the Apostles is upheld. Arguments that deny the pre-eternal divinity of Christ, or that separate the Logos from Jesus Christ in this way, have no place in that tradition and—in truth—stand outside the boundaries of Christian orthodoxy.
Your perspective is noted, but it represents a distortion of one of the clearest and most foundational teachings of the faith. I encourage you to explore how the Church—from the New Testament writers to the early councils and saints—has consistently upheld the truth about who Christ is: the eternal Logos, who became flesh for us and our salvation.
I wonder how you arrived at this conclusion?
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1)
You say this equates to Jesus. It does not say Jesus, it refers to the logos which was with God.
Thank you for your question! It’s true that John 1:1 doesn’t explicitly say the name “Jesus,” but the context of the passage makes it absolutely clear that the Logos is referring to Him. In John 1:14, we read: “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen His glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.”
This verse leaves no room for ambiguity. The Logos (the Word) “became flesh,” which is a direct reference to the moment God the Son took on human nature—the Incarnation. Who else but Jesus Christ became flesh and revealed God’s glory as the only Son from the Father? The text leads us straight to this conclusion.
The Orthodox Christian understanding has been affirmed from the earliest days of the Church. The Church Fathers unanimously taught that the Logos in John 1:1 is Christ Himself. St. Athanasius of Alexandria, for example, emphasizes that the Word is eternal, consubstantial with the Father, and became incarnate for our salvation.
So while the name “Jesus” does not appear in the opening verse, we don’t interpret scripture in isolation. The entire prologue of John (1:1–18) reveals exactly who the Logos is—and it’s Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God. There is no other conclusion in context. This understanding is not a stretch or a matter of personal interpretation—it’s the clear teaching of the text within the context of the Gospel and consistently upheld by the Christian tradition.
😉 if you respect Jesus, you would believe what he says first. Jesus does not endorse the traditional theory you are bound by.
He said he has the same God we do.
Does your God have a God?
Perhaps you are not really interested in scripture, just thought I’d check.
Orthodox whatever is pointless if scripture rejects it.
How does Jesus have the same God and yet you say he is God too! So you have 2 gods.
Steve, your comments misrepresent both scripture and the teachings of the Orthodox Christian faith. You seem convinced that holding to the historic teaching of the Church, which reflects the clear teaching of scripture, is what’s “pointless.” However, the Orthodox understanding of who Christ is flows directly from scripture itself—precisely because Christ is the Word of God, eternally one with the Father (John 1:1), who became flesh for our salvation (John 1:14).
To address your points directly:
1. Does Jesus "have a God"?
Yes, as the incarnate Son, fully human, Jesus prays to and obeys the Father as His God—this reflects the humility and submission of His human nature (Philippians 2 and all that). But as the eternal Word (Logos), Jesus is also God, sharing fully in the same divine essence as the Father and the Holy Spirit. This is not "two gods" but the mystery of the Holy Trinity, one God in three persons. Your objection overlooks the biblical and theological truth that God is both one in essence and exists eternally as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Jesus Himself affirms this mystery. When He declares, "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30), the Jewish audience understood Him to mean equality with God, which is why they accused Him of blasphemy. Likewise, Jesus commands His followers to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19), affirming the triune nature of God.
2. You suggest that Jesus rejects His divinity.
On the contrary, throughout the Gospels, Jesus affirms His divine identity. For example, in John 8:58, He declares, “Before Abraham was, I AM,” explicitly identifying Himself with the divine name revealed to Moses (Exodus 3:14). His audience understood this, which is why they tried to stone Him for blasphemy.
Your argument that “Jesus has a God, so He cannot be God” leans on a misunderstanding of the Incarnation. The Orthodox faith (reflected in scripture) teaches that in the mystery of the Incarnation, the eternal Son of God assumed human nature. This means that as man, He can pray to the Father, worship the Father, and even refer to the Father as His God, while remaining fully divine. Again, this is not a matter of “two gods” but the mystery of the Word who became flesh.
3. Your dismissal of “Orthodox whatever” misunderstands the role of tradition.
Tradition in the Orthodox Church is not something added to scripture—it’s the life of the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, that faithfully preserves and transmits scripture. The Church is the “pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15). The canon of scripture itself comes to us through the discerning authority of the Church, guided by the Spirit. As long as you have a Table of Contents, you’ve already accepted part of the Church’s Tradition.
Finally, if you find no value in this Orthodox Christian blog or in the historical and scriptural teachings upheld here, I suggest that you take your arguments elsewhere. This platform is not the place for denying Christ’s eternal divinity or the truth of the Trinity that Christians have faithfully professed for 2,000 years. While I welcome participation from non-Orthodox, using this space to attack the faith and promote an unorthodox view is not constructive.
May you find clarity and peace as you seek the truth, but this kind of exchange does not serve the purpose of this blog or its community.
Hi, you say, Orthodox Christian understanding…
Scripture should be our first priority, not tradition; for only in scripture do we find truths from God, not men. If you are actually interested in the original truths, read on.
The logos was not flesh until Jesus is conceived/born. It became flesh—it was not previously.
Jesus was not ‘in the beginning’ because he wasn’t yet born—through Mary~4bc.
We must not anachronistically insert Jesus anywhere we might like.
You also say, “Jesus Christ became flesh”. Again, no, the logos did, not Jesus.
Thank you for taking the time to respond, though I have to say your interpretation of scripture is at odds with both the plain meaning of the text and the historic, time-tested understanding of Christianity. I don’t mean this disrespectfully, but the issue I have with your argument is simple: the text itself refutes your position.
Let’s revisit John 1:14, which clearly states: “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen His glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.” The Logos becoming flesh is not just an abstract idea; it is the core proclamation of the Incarnation—that the eternal Word of God, consubstantial with the Father (John 1:1), took on human nature in the person of Jesus Christ. This is not an “insertion” of Jesus “anywhere we like”—it is the whole point of the passage.
While it is true that Jesus, as man, was born in time (through the Virgin Mary), Orthodox Christianity holds that He is also fully God, the pre-eternal Logos, who existed with the Father “in the beginning.” John goes to great lengths to make this clear so that we do not fall into a mistaken, time-bound, creaturely view of Christ. To deny this is not to affirm scripture—it is to break with it.
Regarding scripture versus tradition, I would encourage you to reconsider your dichotomy. Scripture and tradition are not enemies but inseparable companions. The Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, discerned the scriptures. The Table of Contents is the Word of the Church. The Church Fathers, whose writings are invaluable to Christianity, did not add something foreign to the revealed truths of God; they passed on the faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3), preserving its integrity from the earliest days of the Church.
I appreciate the engagement, but this is an Orthodox Christian space where the faith as handed down from the Apostles is upheld. Arguments that deny the pre-eternal divinity of Christ, or that separate the Logos from Jesus Christ in this way, have no place in that tradition and—in truth—stand outside the boundaries of Christian orthodoxy.
Your perspective is noted, but it represents a distortion of one of the clearest and most foundational teachings of the faith. I encourage you to explore how the Church—from the New Testament writers to the early councils and saints—has consistently upheld the truth about who Christ is: the eternal Logos, who became flesh for us and our salvation.