Does John 1:1 Say Jesus Is God or "a god?"

The Greek Text Behind Christianity's Most Contested Question About Jesus

Few words in the entire Bible have generated more debate than the small, seemingly innocuous "a" at the end of this verse — and the reason it matters so much is that it does not even exist in the original Greek.

You may be aware that people at the east end of the Mediterranean Sea did not speak Elizabethan English in biblical times, and we rely on documents written in the dialect of Greek at that time.

The startling thing is, there is no Greek equivalent of "a." So it is a conundrum of Greek grammar which has become a festering sore of Christian theology.

This is not a trivial subject.

Fortunately, there are short and long version answers.

The Short Answer:

One of the contenders for World Champion Greek Geek, Dan Wallace, devotes 15 pages in his book Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics to John 1:1. An article by him on his insights is presented in The Puritan Board. A précis is given here. In layman's language he is saying that "and the Word was God" remains true.

Wallace argues that in John 1:1c the Logos ("the Word") is the subject (marked by the article on λόγος), while θεὸς ("God"), lacking the article and fronted for emphasis, functions as a qualitative anarthrous predicate nominative. This construction conveys "what God was, the Word was," affirming the Word's full divine essence without identifying Him as the Father. Hence, the proper translation remains "and the Word was God," countering both Arian ("a god") and Sabellian ("the God") misreading's by distinguishing essence (qualitative θεὸς) from person (the distinct, articulated subject).

Yet, a can of worms has been opened.

The anthem of New Testament saints is "God is Love," as is written in 1 John 4:16: And we have known and believed the love that God has for us. God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God in him.

That can't be denied. But if the logic and syntax of John 1:1 being "a god" is consistent, then 1 John 4:16 should be translated "God is a Love" because Agapē is a noun. This will become apparent in the long answer.

However — Professor Wallace may be Top Gun Geek, but the movies tell us there is always a Young Gun who wants to take the title.

Is there a Top Gunner?

Yes, the Logos Himself. But first it is necessary to see what a dog's breakfast there is. How do we solve it?

This is exactly the kind of question that gets wrestled with in There! He Admits It Himself… Jesus Isn't God? — where Brad takes on the argument that Jesus admitting He didn't know the day or hour proves He can't be God. It's worth reading alongside this one.

The Very Long Answer:

I've been interested in this situation for more years than I care to remember and have always ended up in the same place — someone's opinion based on secular reasoning which actually turns out to be circular reasoning — with "My theologian is better than your theologian. He wrote a book that is thicker than your theologian."

Opinion is not useless. However, it is the most democratic of all methods for transferring ideas in that everyone has equal opportunity to be wrong. "I believe..." is of no use to me.

"It is written..." is what I'm after.

He (Jesus) said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven."

To be honest, your theologian doesn't impress me unless he can offer me eternal life.

If your practice doesn't agree with your theory, go back and check your theory.

Perusing the miles of column inches on this topic it is obvious that there are a number of clever, plausible conclusions — but plausible does not mean true. That there are an unspecified number of interpretations is true but incomplete. It does not specify, or even imply, that there are an unspecified number of valid interpretations.

Everyone has a bias. On what evidence does one establish that bias? There is just so much noise. Most of this muddies the water so, as the investigation proceeds, the fools' errands will be eliminated in order to declutter.

Firstly define the problem.

The reference translations will be the New World Translation (NWT) of the Jehovah's Witnesses, and the well known New King James Version (NKJV). The NWT has been chosen because the Jehovah's Witnesses are one of the most vociferous in claiming that Jesus is a created being.

It can be seen that there is an "a" in the NWT that is not in the NKJV. But more about that soon.

This is a Greek grammar topic so the Greek elements must be clarified for English readers. There are a number of New Testament Greek copies but these can be distilled down to two primary influences: the Textus Receptus from Antioch, and the Morphological Greek New Testament from Alexandria. Both are presented here to prevent any arguments about different sources. Some differences do occur in the different editions but it can be seen that these texts are identical for this verse.

There is potential confusion right from the start because the order of the English wording is different from the direct translation of the Greek. This is of no consequence because, while word order in English and Hebrew is critical, the rules of syntax in Greek render word order less critical (long story), so the rearrangement of the words for English has no effect on the idea being conveyed.

Examining the Greek text it will be seen that there are letters and words that appear in the table below. It is not necessary to remember these items. They are added just in case you are puzzled.

• Number: Sing = singular, Pl = plural

• Case: Nom = nominative, Gen = genitive, Dat = dative, Acc = accusative

• Gender: Masc = masculine, Fem = feminine, Neut = neuter

This is one of the strengths of Greek. It gives precision in articulating nouns, pronouns and adjectives which are linked. As can be seen, there are 24.

Also — there is no indefinite article in Greek. (The indefinite article will be explained soon.)

I could tell you that no Greek noun, pronoun, or adjective has an associated indefinite article and I would be telling the truth. I could tell you that every Greek noun, pronoun, or adjective has an associated definite article (the word "definite" is redundant because there is no "indefinite") but I'd be lying. All Greek nouns have a definite article... except the ones which don't. For some reason, unknown to my Greek speaking friends, some nouns have no article at all.

This is called an anarthrous substantive for short. (Refer to Professor Wallace above.) Which means nothing to me either, except that anarthrous is a term in entomology meaning an insect without joints, or having joints that are indistinct. An apt description for what is happening here.

A rough mathematical analogy to this linguistic occurrence would be having one equation with more than one unknown. There would be numerous potential solutions depending on assumed values. If this, then that. Nothing would be definite — opinions based on assumptions, presented as fact.

Can Other Biblical Languages Help?

A quick Google will confirm the following.

English has two articles — the definite article ("the/that/this") and the indefinite article ("a/an"). The definite article "the" is the most frequent word in English. It is used because there is specifically only one. The indefinite article "a" or "an" refers to non-specific or unknown nouns. (Whether to use "a" or "an" depends on the spelling of the noun, so there is essentially only one indefinite article.)

Hebrew has only one article, the definite article הַ (ha), meaning "the." It doesn't have indefinite articles like "a" or "an" — context does the heavy lifting there.

So no help can come from going down the Hebrew trail. The Hebrew and Greek interaction has a number of friction points (another story for another time) as does English and Greek. How does one mesh one definite and one indefinite with 24 definite articles?

The Greek article functions very differently from the English "the":

• Greek changes form to specify the gender, number and case of a noun or pronoun — specific

• English doesn't change form, so is not as specific

• English has the indefinite article. Greek doesn't. Be careful of injecting the English indefinite into Greek. This has to be constantly repeated because it is happening constantly.

What About Other Middle Eastern Languages?

Coptic has both a definite article and an indefinite article, similar to English, but it obviously has the same snags. So that line is a fool's errand and can be eliminated — the decluttering begins.

What About the Church Fathers?

This is an oft used refuge of modern scholarship, but I look at the Letters to the Seven Churches which open Revelation and see that the Boss was not overjoyed with everything that was going on then.

More decluttering, less noise, now we can hear ourselves think.

So it appears I've shot myself in the foot. There is nowhere else to go. Not so. God knows a lot more tricks than the intellectual glitterati give Him credit for. A Bible literate communications engineer who knows the narrative recognises that the Bible has been designed in anticipation of hostile jamming.

What Has This Got to Do With Theology?

Lots. Who hasn't seen a World War 2 movie showing some resistance agent in Nazi occupied Europe tuning a radio to receive a message coming from London? The signal was always bad. That was not poor technology, it was deliberate.

The signal was being broadcast over the entire available bandwidth. If the signal was bunched into a concentrated beam it would be clear but easily jammed. It is impossible to jam the entire bandwidth. It is intriguing to notice that the biblical text evidences these same techniques.

Here is an extract from a teaching by Koinonia Institute: "Where is the chapter on baptism? Or salvation? Or any specific critical doctrine? Every major theme is spread throughout the 66 books making up the total message. There is no concentration of any critical element in any single location. One can tear out a surprising number of pages and still not lose visibility of the essential message. (Some resolution or clarity would be lost, however.) This design intent of distributing the vital elements throughout the entire message system gives a new perspective to Isaiah 28:10: For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line, here a little, there a little."

כּי צו לצו צו לצו קו לקו קו לקו זעיר שׁם זעיר שׁם

So what?

Martin Luther is reported to have given the following advice about parts of the Bible that are hard to understand: find the meaning of difficult texts with those that are easily understood. Where else is the topic of Christ's divinity settled?

If you want to see what that authority looked like in action, It Is Finished: The Meaning Behind Jesus' Last Words unpacks exactly what Jesus declared from the cross and why it still matters.

Conclusion

The best scholar to use as a reference for investigating the Bible is the Holy Spirit. Relying on what man says is dicing with death.

A lot of emotional energy has been needlessly spent over the years on a single, indeterminate situation which has been decided several places elsewhere. Could there be particular agendas at play? Surely not. There is an old Hebrew proverb: "Paying attention is more important than thinking." I must admit, I got caught up in it myself.

© Brad Banardict ネ