John 1:1 How the Greek text argues that Jesus is God (and why it doesn't mean 'Jesus is a God')

John 1:1 is intended to connect the advent of Christ to Genesis 1, yet the New World Translation translates "the word was God" as "the word was a God." There are three reasons why this is not a good translation and why this verse is good news for Christmas. In this video we'll look at the role of the article in Greek and the predicate nominative.

Follow me:

Note that product links above may be affiliate links. Your purchase using these links helps support this channel at no additional cost to you.

Thanks for your support!

[stephengaddis]

Thank God for a conservative Scholar like yourself. I consumed the Word day and night for 2 years when I first got saved. God did miraculous things in me and also for me through that word. I have now served the Lord for 26 years. If you engage the Word, it will fill you with grace, and Spirit!

[t.l.duncan]

The " Word" is the "aleph tav" attached onto the word Elohim in Genesis 1:1. It is unspoken. All that was created flowed from the father through the Aleph Tav (Yeshua) for Him, By Him and through Him. Then the only way back to the Father is through "the Word", Yeshua. Bidirectional flow of energy.

[domenicorettura]

If you like or not, Jesus is God ^ _~

[seankasabuske]

There are a number of problems with denying that John 1:1c should be rendered "the Word was a god, " but the most conspicuous is that every other noun in the Gospel of John that is comparable to Θεος at John 1:1c is rendered into English with the indefinite article. For a noun to be comparable to Θεος at John 1:1c, it must (1) be singular, (2) be preverbal, (3) be anarthrous, (4) be a predicate nominative, (5) be count (not abstract/mass), (6) not be definite (in consideration of Harner’s hypothesis). *EVERY* noun in John’s Gospel that fits those criteria is rendered into English by translators with the indefinite article, with one very lonely, theologically motivated exception: Θεος at John 1:1c.

At John 4:19 the anarthrous noun προφητης precedes the verb ει, and translators render it "a prophet"; At John 6:70 the anarthrous noun διαβολος precedes the verb εστιν, and translators render it "a devil"; At John 8:34 the anarthrous noun δουλος precedes the verb εστιν, and translators render it "a slave”; At John 8:44a the anarthrous noun ανθρωποκτονος precedes the verb ην, and translators render it "a murderer"; At John 8:44b the anarthrous noun ψευστης precedes the verb εστιν, and translators render it "a liar"; At John 8:48a the anarthrous noun σαμαριτης precedes the verb ει, and translators render it "a Samaritan"; At John 9:8 the anarthrous noun προσαιτης precedes the verb ην, and translators render it "a beggar”; At John 9:17 the anarthrous noun προφητης precedes the verb εστιν, and translators render it "a prophet”; At John 9:24 the anarthrous noun αμαρτωλος precedes the verb εστιν, and translators render it "a sinner”; At John 9:25 the anarthrous noun αμαρτωλος precedes the verb εστιν, and translators render it "a sinner”; At John 10:1 the anarthrous noun κλεπτης precedes the verb εστιν, and translators render it "a thief”; At John 10:13 the anarthrous noun μισθωτος precedes the verb εστιν, and translators render it "a hired hand”; At John 12:6 the anarthrous noun κλεπτης precedes the verb ην, and translators render it "a thief”; At John 18:35 the anarthrous noun ιουδαιος precedes the verb ειμι, and translators render it "a Jew"; At John 18:37a the anarthrous noun βασιλευς precedes the verb ει, and translators render it "a king?”; At John 18:37b the anarthrous noun βασιλευς precedes the verb ειμι, and translators render it "a king”.

Two things are worthy of note in light of your argument:

1. Every noun referenced above is a predicate nominative that fits the criteria noted in the first paragraph.

2. They were all dubbed "qualitative" by Paul Dixon in his DTS Masters thesis.

What point #2 shows is that, in English, count nouns used descriptively, a/k/a "qualitatively" typically include the indefinite article. There is therefore no reason to fail to do so at John 1:1c.

About the claim that John was a monotheist and therefore wouldn't have called the LOGOS "a god, " I'll simply recommend that you study the character of ancient Jewish monotheism. They had no problem asserting that there was only one God on the one hand, but also speaking of Moses, kings, angels, Melchizedek, members of the Divine Council, etc., as "God" or "gods." Indeed, when Jesus' adversaries charged him with "making himself Theon" at John 10, he defended himself by reminding them that, in their own law (specifically, Psalm 82), sons of God are called "gods."

[ChiefCedricJohnson]

Luke 18:19
And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.

[archiehendricks]

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

[acheloua]

The summation of the book of John is John 20:31
John 20:31

King James Version

31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

[Frstnxt]

Usually definite is for something earlier introduced with an indefinite article in English, because the next time it is a previously defined noun.

[cavemancyproductions]

I've never imagined that it could be so difficult and complex for English speakers to understand this, it's so simple to take it from NT Greek to modern Greek, yet so strange for you.

[anniesavedbygrace]

I was born in to JW through my mother. I left but she remains.
Thankyou for this video greatly appreciated it has really helped me to understand the Greek better. Thankyou

[brianpeterson]

Not only was He with God HE was GOD and THE CREATOR of everything that was created..in fact nothing has been made that hasn't been made by HIM

[DanielJamesBuck]

The oldest version of the Christian Greek Scriptures "Codex Sinaiticus" some 1600 years old is different to the Greek translation your using? What is your source material? I'm a normal non-academic person and did my own research using this book via a museum website with digital photos of the book in PDF all free to do anyone can do the same and there are not 3 words λογοϲ like you are claiming? in fact the second comma in your translation is where the original scripture ends with a full stop your version has a second comma and another sentence including another λογοϲ? why? am I missing something?

[InvestigadorTJ]

Wrong! John 1:1 NWT correctly
Translates it into English. “TON” in John 1:1b shows that The word was with “the God” he wasn’t the god we was with, as John 1:1c is qualitative in Greek which allows the text to say a god or a divine being… others say it says “and the word was God” but that is not the same as the god nor that he is the trinity many Christian scholars recognize that “ God”for Jesus is qualitative!. The Sahidic Coptic translates it as “a god was the word” where “a” does exist unlike koine Greek…

[pleaseenteraname]

Great video. Although I would’ve liked you to get into Colwell’s rule and how it relates to John 1:1. Would you consider doing a video about it in the future?

[josephjbarton]

In the begining was the plan, and the plan was holy. The fact that there is no article makes it not a noun but an adjective. Again John was monotheistic. He doesnt velieve in three gods.

[Kayokak]

I love the opening of John's account. Docetism is also developing around this point (depending on how you pin down time of writing). God was fine, Spirit was fine, but God becoming flesh conflicted with docetism. The hypostatic union – Jesus' equality and sameness with God will always be a conflict.

Great video Darryl

[markmarkster]

It is wonderful to know that the gospel can be seen even in the details of Greek - something as “small” as the presence or absence of the article

[jeronimous]

John 1 should be understood in the context of him quoting Philo of Alexandria. He is not stating a new understanding, he is using an existing popular philosophy to introduce Christ to unbelieving Jews. Similar to what Paul did with the statue to the unknown God.

[quentinhathcock]

I though that in beginning here meant in eternity prior to time as the beginning in Genesis meant the start of time and that was (eimi) referred to the pre existence of Jesus the Word.

[ProselyteofYah]

People think this is unique to the NWT Bible, but in fact several Bibles through the ages, including ancient manuscripts, and other translations have rendered "a God", long predating JWs and the NWT.

“…and the word was a god.” – Sahidic Coptic Manuscript, 300–600 C.E
“…and the Son of God was Eloah (God/a god?).” – Hebrew Sepharad Manuscript, 1400s
“…and the word was a god.” – New Testament in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation, 1808
“…and the Word was a god“. – The New Testament in Greek and English, 1822
“…and the Word was a god” – The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists, 1829
“…and the Word was a god” – A Literal Translation of the New Testament, 1863
“…and a god was the word.” – The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, 1864
“…and the Son was of God” – The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible, 1867
“…and the Word was a god” – Concise Commentary on The Holy Bible, 1885
“…and [a] God was the word” – The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Southern Dialec, 1911
“…and the Word was a God.” – The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Anointed, 1958
“…and godlike kind was the Logos.” – Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 1978
“…and the word was a god (or divine)“ – 2001 Translation Project, 2001+
“…and a divinity was the Word” – Universal Arian Bible, 2010

As we know, Greek does not have indefinite articles, but only definite (which is used to point out something important in the context of a passage), which means every instance the term "a" or "an" is written in our modern English Bibles, is an insert. The indefinite is needed for English speakers to make sense of otherwise self contradictory sentences.

A good example is this:

The word "Christian", it's both the name of a person, and the name of one who is Christian in religion.

Now if I say; "There was a man named Christian, a Christian was with Christian, and Christian was a Christian".

We as English speakers get it, a man named Christian was with another man who was a Christian religiously, and Christian himself was religiously Christian...

But if we write this without the indefinite, and make it "Greek" as it were: "There was a man named Christian, Christian was with Christian, and Christian was Christian".

Now that to an English person sounds like saying Christian was with himself and was himself... This is what the later churches in the 3rd centuries who didn't fully understand ancient Greek, as well modern people and language scholars get confused over.


Now regardless, one "could" still 'try' and argue that it's meant to be read as "word was God (Almighty)"... and I do respect that opinion. I agree, we do not always need articles to make something "definite", if the context allows for it.


But there is internal proof however, that there is validity for the opinion that it should be "a god", and this is founded not just in overall doctrinal consistency of how Jesus acts and speaks about his Father ("my God and your God") but also in John's "Differentiational Grammar".

“the Word was with Ton theon and the Word was theos“.

It's very likely that John chose to use the Ho/Ton article (defining the True God) combined with the “theon” variation, and then afterward “theos” in the same sentence without the article, to make sure he didn’t give the impression that these two “divine beings” were the same person. This is the same as what Paul did at 2 Corinthians 4:4 when he distinguishes Satan from God:

“The god (Ho Theos) of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers so they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of [the] Anointed, who is the image of the God (Tou Theou)“.

Notice how similar in structure 2 Corinthians 4:4 is to John 1:1. Both begin by introducing a specific “god”, and then ends by mentioning another specific god. In English, the god at the beginning of the passage, and the god at the end, looks to be the exact same phrase, both of them even making use of the definite article (ho theos, "the god"), and thus it could be very easy to confuse the two as the same being, and as a result, we could make the drastic mistake of thinking Jesus is the Image of Satan.

The potential for this confusion was just as much a reality in the 1st century as much as it could be today, but to get around this, Paul made sure to use an alternative variation of the term “theos” (Theou), to clarify that these two “gods” were not the same being.

A good example in modern English would be the phrase “this and that”, I can point to one object and call it “this”, or I can call it “that”, and both phrases would refer to that one object, but if I said “this and that” within a singular sentence side by side, I mean “two objects”. And this form of word usage appears to be exactly what we are seeing here. Thus, it can be strongly argued that this use of “differentiational grammar” is exactly what we see John do in John 1:1, and we continue to see John do this throughout, for example again at verse 18:

“No one has ever seen God (Theon). The only-begotten god (Theos), the one being in the bosom of the Father, he has made Him known“.

"Theon" is being used as the 'accusative' (identification tag of an individual), whilst "theos" is being used here as a "generalisation" and possibly also as an alternative identification tag in comparison, just as Paul made sure to do.

Hence, understanding I believe that it's highly probable that this was John's intent, to separate these "gods" as two different beings via his very particular use of grammar perfectly lines up with why it was written as "a god" in the Sahidic manuscripts that made use of indefinite articles, just like modern English does.

This is why, as even mentioned in the video, the structure of the sentence is "the word was god", and not "God was the word", because the subject was the Logos, and it's telling us what he was in the 'generalised' sense (a theos/a god). If the Word was literally the Almighty, then that would lend to "God was the Word", but the subject is the Logos being "with God", as opposed to "being God", which is exactly 'why' the grammar doesn't support "God was that Word", because the "god" that the Logos is, isn't an "identification of name", but a "what" (a species/kind).


This grammatic issue was pointed out by ancient historical Christians between the late 1st-3rd centuries, such as Justin Martyr, Tertullian and even Origen (who is credited much with the roots of the theology of Trinitarianism), and it was they themselves who said the "god" in John 1:1 could only be translated to mean "a second god".

If we claim the second theos is also meant to be definite, then we get "the logos was with Ton Theon, and the logos was Ton Theon", but this results in modalism (oneness - that the Son is the Father), which is considered heresy by Trinitarianism, and was condemned by the early church, therefore, by asserting theos is the definitive in this context, then you have to force it to mean Modalism. So you have two options, the non-definite, which renders "god/a god" in the general sense, or the definite, which makes the Son the the Father, and is modalistic. One option locks out the other.

We have to remember, that in ancient Hebrew mentality, the word "god" didn't mean what it meant later on in language, or today. But simply meant "mighty", and we see in scripture, multiple people being called "gods" without being rendered as "false gods" (e.g angels, spirits, judges of Israel, kings, sons of god, etc). So this rendition does not at all break monotheism, but is consistent with Jewish theology and ancient language.


Whilst I do not agree with all doctrines of JWs, and I beleive the NWT is corrupt in a few places, this is teaching/rendering I agree with, which is not to be attributed to JWs as their own unique made up teaching, but is historically Christian.