In
his book, The Forgotten Trinity (1998) and some of his debates, James
White has argued that ἦν ("was") in the locution, "in the
beginning was (ἦν) the word" proves that the word/Jesus existed all
throughout the eternal past. However, this is an argument that those who hold
to the eternal pre-existence of Jesus should avoid. Why? Examining the use of
this indicative imperfect form of ειμι ("to be") in John's writings
shows that it does not necessarily have this meaning--more evidence will be
required. Consider the following examples early on in the Gospel of John:
He was (ἦν) in the world, and the world was made by him,
and the world knew him not. (John 1:10)
And the third day there was a marriage in
Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was(ἦν) there. (John 2:1)
I
don't think anyone will seriously argue that Jesus' incarnation goes back to
the eternal past nor that Mary was in Cana of Gailee since the eternal past. If
one will argue for eternal pre-existence, one should instead focus on the
phrase εν αρχη ("in the beginning") hearkens back to Gen 1:1 in the
LXX and other considerations which could provide a more plausible case for this doctrine.