I'm not interested in what the "one true meaning" of the passage "theos
en ho logos" is, since I'm pretty convinced that it is ambiguous: that
is, that it has several different meanings in the Greek, and what's more,
I believe it was intended to be that way (thought I'm willing to be
un-convinced upon evidence).
I do not see how John would have been "lunatic" to have used "theos" in a
double sense, even if that involved literary subtlety. After all, the
Nicene interpretation is that this passage is a paradox - and a paradox
is a very sophisticated literary form. The fact that the following words
refer to the Messiah creating the world is *not at all* proof that this
equates the pre-existent Messiah with God. "By his word God created the
world" was interpreted messianically in Jewish tradition, that God used
his instrument to create, etc., and this sense is found elsewhere in the
New Testament. This passage, in fact, is one of the very few (two? by my
last count) which *might* support the Nicene concept of Christ being God.
That is why it is a point of interest.
The Greek word "theos" among Jews/Christians was, in fact, an odd
construct, a metaphor from a pagan language, just as "elohim" was a
metaphor in Hebrew applied to YHWH as a particular person. Jesus himself
stretched the sense of "theos" by quoting from the OT passage in which
even misbehaving Jews were "gods", and in which he, as Messiah, could
also be called god. And then, of course, Nicene partisans also dabbled in
interpreting "theos" as adjectival (and I wouldn't know the intricacies
of orthodox trinitrianism, but I think there may be something like that
So by all means, chew on "logos." But "theos" is tougher than you think.