Some
Trinitarian apologists tend to put too much weight on the use of the imperfect ην (“was”) John 1:1. As one
example:
. . . John uses the Greek word ην, en (a form of eimi). The
tense of the word expresses continuous
action in the past. (James R. White, The
Forgotten Trinity: Recovering the Heart of Christian Belief [2d ed;
Minneapolis, Minn.: Bethany House, 2019], 47)
However, the
apologist seems to be aware that he is putting too much weight into the use of
the imperfect as Mary is said to have been ην (“was”) at the wedding at Cana:
Some have argued against this use of ην by noting that the same verb is
used of Mary’s presence at the wedding in Cana of Galilee in John 2:1, “and the
mother of Jesus was (en) there.”
Obviously John is not saying that Mary had eternally
been in Cana. Such an argument, however, assumes that every use of ην indicates eternal existence in the past, and such is not the
case. In john 2:1, a specific limitation is provided in the context (that
speaks of “on the third day”), and, of course, eternity itself is not even in
view in the passage, unlike the prologue where that is, in fact, the specific “time”
frame provided by the author himself. (Ibid., 198 n. 3)
The problem
is that the qualification he provides contradicts what we find in the main body
of the text:
. . . John gave us some very important information
about the time frame he has in mind when he says “in the beginning.” That information
is found in the tense of the verb en.
You see, as far back as you wish to push
“the beginning,” The Word is already in existence. The Word does not come into existence at the “beginning,” but
is already in existence when the “beginning”
takes place.” (Ibid., 47, emphasis in bold added)