John 1:1 and the Jehovah’s Witnesses – Episode 32, Is the Word Divine?

We have established that John could not have meant “the Word was a god” in John 1:1. There is no definite article “the” with the word God (theos) in John’s wording, but “a” god is not a possibility given John’s theology. But in Greek usage the absence of the article “the” could still mean the word God is to be taken definitely, “the God” or could signify a qualitative sense, “divine.” Is the predicate nominative, “theos (God),” definite (even though there is no definite article there) or qualitative (purposely left without the definite article to emphasize a qualitative meaning)? What is the case or defense for either of these meanings?

The Case for “the Word Was Divine”

The qualitative sense for predicate nominatives without the direct article is fairly common in the New Testament. Here are some examples:

• John 1:14, ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο (“The Word became flesh”) – Jesus did not become “a” or “the” flesh, but flesh as an element.
• John 2:9, τὸ ὕδωρ οἶνον γεγενημένον (“the water had become wine”) – not “a” or “the” wine but wine as a substance
• John 3:6, τὸ γεγεννημένον ἐκ τῆς σαρκὸς σάρξ ἐστιν, καὶ τὸ γεγεννημένον ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος πνεῦμά ἐστιν (“that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit”) – That which is born of the flesh is not “a” flesh or “the” flesh, but the quality “flesh”

But here is the question: Would the word “God” be used in that qualitative way? There is no example of this in the New Testament unless John 1:1c is that example, but it is not impossible. It is possible that John left the definite article off of theos purposely to direct us to a qualitative meaning. His concern would be that if he made the word “God” definite (‘the’ God) as he did in the second part of the verse (“and the Word was with [the] God”) it might communicate that the Father and the Son were the same person.

What would the qualitative sense communicate? John would be saying that the Word, Jesus, was the quality of God. We might communicate that with the ideas of Jesus being of the same essence as the Father, divine in the sense that he has all the attributes of God. And again, this would lead to an understanding that the one God has a plurality of personalities. He is not one person but one being with three personages. Of course, John doesn’t mention the Holy Spirit here, but once we see that there can be two personages in the Godhead we can then see three as well.

We don’t have a qualitative version of the word “God” in our language. The best we could do would be something like, “and the Word was Godness.” But that is not really a word we use. We have resorted to using the word “divine” to convey the sense of being God or the word “deity” to convey that same meaning. If we translate, “and the Word was divine,” we run into the danger, however, that this word would not convey full deity, because we often use “divine” for things less than God. “Deity” doesn’t seem to have that same limitation, so perhaps the better translation would be, “and the Word was deity.” This communicates that Jesus was fully God but not the same person as the Father.