Jehovah’s Witnesses are well known for rejecting Jesus as God. They believe instead that Jesus is a lesser god, one with divinity, but nonetheless a created being who is not eternal God. One verse they may point to is John 1:1 to back their claim. John 1:1 (NASB) says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” We read this and think clearly that the Word was God. However, the Jehovah’s Witness Bible, called The New World Translation, renders the verse like this: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” Did you see it? The New World Translation lowercased God and added the letter “a” before it. Therefore, the Jehovah’s Witnesses claim the Word was not God, but a god.

They might reason with you that this is true because there is no definite article (or “the”) in the Greek language of John 1:1c. So then, it must be translated as “a.” What shall we say? We must admit they are technically correct that there is no definite article (or “the”) in the original Greek language of John 1:1c. But we must point out that they are incorrect in their understanding and translation of the definite article’s absence. When a definite article (or “the”) is absent before a noun (a person, place, or thing), the noun does not automatically warrant an “a” before it. Rather, the noun may be one of three things: indefinite, qualitative, or definite. Indefinite refers to one of many in a class (such as a horse from the herd). Qualitative describes a noun’s “quality, nature, or essence” (such as having a horse’s nature). And definite marks out something or someone specific (such as the big horse).

With the absence of the definite article in John 1:1c, the question now is, which is the best understanding and translation? Is it indefinite, definite, or qualitative?

Indefinite - “a god"

Should the noun “God” be understood indefinitely and rendered “a god”? At least two reasons teach that we should not (Wallace). First, the grammatical construction of this verse does not support such a translation. The Greek of John 1:1c reads literally like this, “and God was the Word.” In order for us to know how to translate this into English we have to know which word is the subject, verb, object, direct object, etc. The case endings in Greek teach us that “the Word” is the subject (or nominative) and that “God” has a close association with the subject (called the predicate nominative). Thus, when we translate John 1:1c into English, “the Word” is placed before “God” in the sentence since it is the main subject, even though the Greek has a different word order.

Why all the grammar Sean? The grammar is put forth because knowing the original Greek here is most helpful. The way the Greek construction is written puts “God” before the verb (“was”) and leaves it indefinite (without the definite article). This construction fits into what is known as Colwell’s Construction, which says in essence that a predicate nominative (in this case “God”) that appears before the verb in Greek “is normally qualitative, sometimes definite, and only rarely indefinite (Wallace).” Thus, the word “God” in John 1:1c follows a construction that is normally used to express a word as qualitative or definite.

Daniel B. Wallace (262n19) cites a study by Paul Steven Dixon and says, “Of the 53 Cowell’s constructions Dixon found in John, not one was considered indefinite.” Therefore, the indefinite translation lacks support in John 1:1c. Second, a theological study of John does not warrant an indefinite translation. After reading of Jesus’ deity expressed in John 1:18, 5:17–18, 8:58, 14:9, and 20:28, an indefinite translation is confusing.

Definite - “the God”

Should the noun “God” be understood definitely and be rendered “the God”? Is this what John is trying to say, that the Word is the God? If this translation is adopted, then we would end up with the heretical teaching of Modalism, which fails to distinguish between the three persons of the Trinity. Modalism holds that God sometimes manifests as the Father, sometimes as the Son, and sometimes as the Spirit. Simply, the one God appears in different modes. Scripture rejects this teaching. We see clearly in Scripture that the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Spirit, and the Spirit is not the Father (Matthew 28:19–20). This distinction must be kept intact, and a definite translation would lose this as it would in essence say that the Son is the Father.

Qualitative - “was God”

Should the noun “God” be understood qualitatively and be rendered “was God”? The answer is yes. First, this fits Cowell’s Construction where the predicate nominatives that are before the verb and lack the definite article are normally qualitative. And second, this understanding is in line theologically with the rest of John.

Thus, John is not saying that the Word was a god (one of many), or the God (modalism), but rather that the Word was in essence and nature God. John 1:1 teaches us in compact language that the Word was distinct from God (the Father) in eternity, with God (the Father) in eternity, and also possessing the nature and essence of God (the Father) from eternity. Jesus is not the Father then, but He is fully divine like Him and shares fully in His essence and nature.

John 1:1 is a powerful statement of the personhood and deity of our Lord and Savior. He is not “a god” or a lesser god than the Father. Rather, Jesus is God, the Divine Word, who shares the same essence of the Father and is a part of the one true Godhead. Let us be confident in the divine nature of Jesus!