The Word Was Not a God, But Possesses the Nature of God

 

I've recently received a request by Lordwiki asking whether I agree with the translation he provided, which is quite similar to the New World Translation used by Jehovah's Witnesses.

No, I don't.

Everything else is "fine," and while "the word was with the God" isn't entirely misleading, it's inaccurate. However, I'll overlook it for the larger issue, which is their translation choice of "and the word was a God."

The core of the debate centers on the absence of the definite article ("the") before the word "God" (θεὸς, theos) in the Greek text. The sentence structure is unusual: a predicate nominative (theos) without the article preceding the verb (ēn, "was"), followed by the subject (ho logos, "the Word") with the article. This isn't the typical way to express identity in Koine Greek. If John had wanted to say that the Word was identical to the Father, the one true God, he would have written ὁ λόγος ἦν ὁ θεός (ho logos ēn ho theos), "the Word was the God." The definite article with both nouns would have created a clear equation.

The fact that John didn't write it that way is significant. It's deliberate. It's telling us something. The absence of the article before theos is just as important as the presence of the article before logos. It's a grammatical clue that we can't ignore.

Now, I have heard of Colwell's Rule, which states that definite predicate nominatives that precede the verb often lack the article. This is true, but it's a tendency, not an absolute rule. It doesn't prove definiteness. It simply says that if a predicate nominative is definite, it's more likely to be anarthrous (without the article) if it comes before the verb. It doesn't work the other way around. An anarthrous predicate nominative before the verb can be definite, but it doesn't have to be. Context is always king.

The context here screams against a definite reading. Just look at the previous clause: "and the Word was with God" (καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, kai ho logos ēn pros ton theon). The preposition pros with the accusative (ton theon, "the God") indicates a relationship, a distinction. To then say, in the very next breath, that the Word is "the God" would be a blatant contradiction.

Furthermore, throughout John's Gospel, "the God" (ὁ θεός, ho theos) always refers to the Father. This is consistent, unwavering usage. Jesus prays to the Father as "the only true God" (John 17:3). He distinguishes Himself from the Father, saying, "My Father is greater than I" (John 14:28). He speaks of ascending to "my Father and your Father, my God and your God" (John 20:17). To suddenly, in 1:1c, have theos (without the article) mean the exact same thing as ho theos (with the article) would be jarring, inconsistent, and utterly confusing to John's readers. It would violate John's established linguistic pattern.

So, what does it mean? It's quite simple actually, The absence of the article suggests a qualitative meaning. It's not about identity, but about nature. It's saying that the Word was divine, that it shared the quality of God, that it was God's. It's like saying, "The car was a wreck." We're not saying the car was the abstract concept of "wreck"; we're saying it had the quality of being wrecked. Similarly, "the Word was divine" means the Word had the quality of being divine, of being God's.

This understanding fits perfectly with the broader context of Jewish Wisdom literature. In Proverbs 8, Wisdom is personified as being with God at creation, a "master workman." In Sirach 24, Wisdom is said to have come forth from God's mouth and to dwell in Israel. In the Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom is a "reflection of eternal light," an "image of his goodness." These are not descriptions of a separate divine being. They are poetic personifications of God's attributes, His wisdom, His word, His plan.

John is drawing on this tradition. He's saying that God's Logos, His plan, His wisdom, was with Him from the beginning, and that this Logos was divine because it was God's. It's not a separate person, but an expression of God's own being.

To insist on "the Word was a god" is to impose an indefinite article where it doesn't exist in the Greek. It's to introduce a second god, a concept that is foreign to the consistent monotheism of both the Old and New Testaments. It's to create a dilemma where none exists. The qualitative understanding, "the Word was divine," or "the Word was God's," resolves the apparent contradiction, aligns with the context, and maintains the unity of God. It allows us to see Jesus as the human Messiah, the Son of God, who perfectly reveals the Father, without making Him identical to the Father. It's a far more coherent, consistent, and biblically sound interpretation.

And while it's true that no major translation renders it exactly my way, this is because of interpretive choices, not grammatical necessity. The Greek allows for a qualitative reading, and in fact, demands it to avoid contradiction. Saying "the Word was divine" or "the Word was God's" isn't adding words; it's clarifying the meaning of theos without the article. It's the sense of the Greek, even if it's not a literal, word-for-word translation. Major translations often prioritize traditional theology over strict grammatical accuracy, which is why a strictly literal translation, like the Concordant Literal Version, is so valuable. The CLV doesn't render it that way, but that doesn't make the qualitative understanding wrong. It simply means the CLV, like all translations, made interpretive choices. The grammar and context, not just the CLV, support the qualitative reading.

Honestly, understanding John 1:1 isn't rocket science. It's actually pretty straightforward once you get past centuries of theological baggage. The key is to read it as a first-century Jew would have, since the Bible was primarily written by Jews for a Jewish audience, with the exception of Paul's letters, which were addressed to both Jews and Gentiles. They wouldn't have jumped to "pre-existent divine being" when they heard "Word of God." They'd have thought of Proverbs 8, where Wisdom is with God at creation, or Sirach 24, where Wisdom comes from God's mouth. It's all about God's plan, His wisdom, being personified.

And if you don't agree with me here, why not? If you're arguing against the qualitative interpretation, you must demonstrate that θεός in John 1:1c cannot function qualitatively. What’s your reasoning?