According to John’s Gospel, Jesus in his prehuman existence is the Word that has been existing from before creation with God the Father and as God in nature, being the One whom the Father appointed to create all things, and who later became flesh at a specific moment in time:
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God (kai theos een ho logos). The Word was with God in the beginning. All things were created by him, and apart from him not one thing was created that has been created. In him was life, and the life was the light of mankind… The true light, who gives light to everyone, was coming into the world.He was in the world, and the world was created by him, but the world did not recognize him… Now the Word became flesh and took up residence among us. We saw his glory—the glory of the one and only, full of grace and truth, who came from the Father… No one has ever seen God. The only one, himself God (monogenes theos), who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known.” John 1:1-4, 9-10, 14, 18 New English Translation (NET Bible)(1)
In this post I want to focus attention on v. 1 where the Word is declared to be God.
Scholars typically break down v. 1 into three clauses:
1a: In the beginning was the Word
1b: and the Word was with God (ton theon)
1c: and the Word was God (kai theos een ho logos)
In the third clause, the term God is in the nominative (the case in which a word would be written if it were the subject), doesn’t have the definite article (anarthrous), and is placed before the verb (preverbal).
I want to highlight what some reputable NT scholars, grammarians and theologians have said about 1:1c as it relates to the Deity of Christ.
For instance, here’s what a bona fide Evangelical scholar of NT Greek stated in regards to 1:1c:
“The nominative case is the case that the subject is in. When the subject takes an equative verb like ‘is’ (i.e., a verb that equates the subject with something else), then another noun also appears in the nominative case–the predicate nominative. In the sentence, ‘John is a man,’ ‘John’ is the subject and ‘man’ is the predicate nominative. In English the subject and predicate nominative are distinguished by word order (the subject comes first). Not so in Greek. Since word order in Greek is quite flexible and is used for emphasis rather than for strict grammatical function, other means are used to determine subject from predicate nominative. For example, if one of the two nouns has the definite article, it is the subject…
“As we have said, word order is employed especially for the sake of emphasis. Generally speaking, when a word is thrown to the front of the clause it is done so for emphasis. When a predicate nominative is thrown in front of the verb, by virtue of word order it takes on emphasis. A good illustration of this is John 1:1c. The English versions typically have, ‘and the Word was God.’ But in Greek, the word order has been reversed. It reads,
kai theos een ho logos
and God was the Word.
“We know that ‘the Word’ is the subject because it has the definite article, and we translate it accordingly: ‘and the Word was God.’ Two questions, both of theological import, should come to mind: (1) why was theos thrown forward? and (2) why does it lack the article? In brief, its emphatic position stresses its essence or quality: ‘What God was, the Word was’ is how one translation brings out this force. Its lack of a definite article keeps us from identifying the person of the Word (Jesus Christ) with the person of ‘God’ (the Father). That is to say, the word order tells us that Jesus Christ has all the divine attributes that the Father has; lack of the article tells us that Jesus Christ is not the Father. John’s wording here is beautifully compact! It is, in fact, one of the most elegantly terse theological statements one could ever find. As Martin Luther said, the lack of the article is against Sabellianism; the word order is against Arianism.
kai ho logos een ho theos
‘and the Word was the God’ (i.e., the Father; Sabellianism)
kai ho logos een theos
‘and the Word was a god’ (Arianism)
kai theos een ho logos
‘and the Word was God’ (Orthodoxy).
“Jesus Christ is God and has all the attributes that the Father has. But he is not the first person of the Trinity. All this is concisely affirmed in kai theos een ho logos.” (William D. Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar [Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI 1993], Chapter 6. Nominative and Accusative Definite Article (First and Second Declension), pp. 28-29; bold emphasis mine)
The late Raymond E. Brown was a renowned liberal NT scholar who even wrote a highly influential two volume commentary on John’s Gospel. Brown took the position that theos in John 1:1c stresses the nature and qualities of the Word:
beginning. This is not, as in Genesis, the beginning of creation, for creation comes in vs. 3. Rather the “beginning” refers to the period before creation and is a designation, more qualitative than temporal, of the sphere of God. Note how the Gospel of Mark opens: “The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ [the Son of God]…”
was the Word. Since Chrysostom’s time, commentators have recognized that each of the three uses of “was” in vs. 1 has a different connotation: existence, relationship, and predication respectively. “The Word was” is akin to the “I am” statements of Jesus in the Gospel proper (see App. IV). There can be no speculation about how the Word came to be, for the Word simply was.
was God. Vs. 1c has been the subject of prolonged discussion, for it is a crucial text pertaining to Jesus’ divinity. There is no article before theos as there was in 1b. Some explain this with the simple grammatical rule that predicate nouns are generally anarthrous… However, while theos is most probably predicate, such a rule does not necessarily hold for a statement of identity as, for instance, in the “I am…” formulae (John xi 25, xiv 6–with the article). To preserve in English the different nuance of theos with and without the article, some (Moffat) would translate, “the Word was divine.” But this seems too weak; and, after all, there is in Greek an adjective for “divine” (theios) which the author did not choose to use. Haenchen, p. 31388, objects to this latter point because he thinks that such an adjective smacks of literary Greek not in the Johannine vocabulary. The NEB paraphrases the line: “What God was, the Word was”; and this is certainly better than “divine.” Yet for a modern Christian reader whose trinitarian background has accustomed him to thinking of “God” as a larger concept than “God the Father,” the translation “The Word was God” is quite correct. This reading is reinforced when one remembers that in the Gospel as it now stands, the affirmation of i 1 is almost certainly meant to form an inclusion with xx 28, where at the end of the Gospel Thomas confesses Jesus as “My God” (ho theous mou). These statements represent the Johannine affirmative answer to the charge made against Jesus in the Gospel that he was wrongly making himself God (x 33, v 18). Nevertheless, we should recognize that between the Prologue’s “The Word was God” and the later Church’s confession that Jesus Christ was “true God of true God (Nicaea), there was marked development in terms of philosophical thought and a different problematic. See COMMENT. (Brown, The Gospel According to John I-XII (Anchor Bible Series, 1966), Vol. 29, pp. 4-5; bold emphasis mine)
And:
The NT does not predicate “God” of Jesus with frequency. V. Taylor, ET 73 (1961-62), 116-18, has asked whether it ever calls Jesus God, since almost every text proposed has its difficulties… Most of the passages suggested (John i 1, 18; xx 28; Rom ix 5; Heb i 8; II Pet i 1) are in hymns or doxologies–as indication that the title “God” was applied to Jesus more quickly in liturgical formulae than in narrative or epistolary literature. We are reminded again of Pliny’s description of the Christian singing hymns to Christ as God. The reluctance to apply this designation to Jesus is understandable as part of the NT heritage from Judaism. For the Jews “God” meant the heavenly Father; and until a wider understanding of the term was reached, it could not be readily applied to Jesus. This is reflected in Mark x 18 where Jesus refuses to be called good because only God is good; in John xx 17 where Jesus calls the Father “my God”; and in Eph iv 5-6 where Jesus is spoken of as “one Lord,” but the Father is “one God.” (The way that the NT approached the question of the divinity of Jesus was not through the title “God” but by describing his activities in the same way as it described the Father’s activities; see John v 17, 21, x 28-29). In vs 1c the Johannine hymn is bordering on the usage of “God” for the Son, but by omitting the article it avoids any suggestion of personal identification of the Word with the Father. And for Gentile readers the line also avoids any suggestion that the Word was a second God in any Hellenistic sense.
There is a further consideration, however. We have mentioned the suggestion by the Catholic scholar De Ausejo that the Word throughout the Prologue means the Word-become-flesh and that the whole hymn refers to Jesus Christ. If this is so, then perhaps there is justification for seeing in the use of the anarthrous theos something more humble than the use of ho theos for the Father. It is Jesus Christ who says in John xiv 28, “The Father is greater than I,” and who in xvii 3 speaks of the Father as “the only true God.” The recognition of a humble position for Jesus Christ in relation to the Father is not strange to early Christian hymns, for Philip ii 6-7 speaks of Jesus s emptying himself and not clinging to the form of God. (Ibid., pp. 24-25; bold emphasis mine)
And here’s Brown’s exposition of Thomas’ confession:
The Confession of Thomas’ Faith (xx 28)
When finally he does believe, Thomas gives voice to his faith in the ultimate confession, “My Lord and my God.” The Jesus who has appeared to Thomas is a Jesus who has been lifted up in crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension to his Father and has received from the Father the glory that he had with Him before the world existed (xvii 5); and now Thomas has the faith to acknowledge this. Thomas has penetrated beyond the miraculous aspect of the appearance and has seen what the resurrection-ascension reveals about Jesus. Jesus’ response in 29a accepts as valid Thomas’ understanding of what has happened: “You have believed.”
The combination of the titles “Lord” and “God” appears in pagan religious literature and is represented in the “Dominus et Deus noster‘ affected by the Emperor Domitian (A.D. 81-96; see Suetonius, Domitian, 13), who was probably the reigning emperor when the Gospel was being written and against whose pretensions the Book of Revelation was directed. Nevertheless, there is scholarly agreement that John’s source for the titles is biblical, combining the terms used by LXX to translate YHWH (=Kyrios) and Elohim (=theos). Actually in LXX the usual translation of the combination YHWH Elohay is “Lord, my God” (Kyrie, ho theos mou -Bultmann, p. 5388); the closest we come to the Johannine formula is Psalm xxx 23: “My God and my Lord.”
This, then, is the supreme christological pronouncement of the Fourth Gospel. In ch. i the first disciples gave many titles to Jesus (vol 29, pp. 77-78), and we have heard still others throughout the ministry: Rabbi, Messiah, Prophet, King of Israel, Son of God. In the post-resurrectional appearances Jesus has been hailed as the Lord by Magdalene and by the disciples as a group. But it is Thomas who makes clear that one may address Jesus in the same language in which Israel addressed Yahweh. Now is fulfilled the will of the Father “… that all men may honor the Son just as they honor the Father” (John v 23). What Jesus predicted has come to pass: ”When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will realize that I AM” (viii 28). We note, however, that it is in a confession of faith that Jesus is honored as God. We have insisted (vol. 29, p. 24) that the NT use of “God” for Jesus is not yet truly a dogmatic formulation, but appears in a liturgical or cultic context. It is a response of praise to the God who has revealed Himself in Jesus. Thus, Thomas’ “My Lord and my God” is closely parallel to “The Word was God” in the opening line of the hymn that has been prefixed to the Fourth Gospel. If Barrett is right in thinking that the appearance of Jesus in xx 19 ff. is evocative of an early Christian liturgy (see NOTE on ”that first day of the week” in 19), Thomas speaks the doxology on behalf of the Christian community. We find a reflection of such a community acclamation in the scene depicted by the author of Rev iv 11, when the elders fall before the throne of God singing, “Worthy are you, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power.” In Revelation the acclamation is for the Father; in John it is for the Son; but then the Father and the Son are one (John x 30). It is no wonder that Thomas’ confession constitutes the last words spoken by a disciple in the Fourth Gospel (as it was originally conceived, before the addition of ch. xxi)–nothing more profound could be said about Jesus.
Having treated Thomas in vs. 28 as a spokesman for the faith of the Christian community responding to the kerygma proclaimed in the Gospel, we are now in a position to understand the covenantal aspect of his confession. As we pointed out (p. 1016 above), xx 17 promised that after Jesus’ ascension God would become a Father to the disciples who would be begotten by the Spirit, and also would in a special way become the God of a people bound to him by a new covenant. The words that Thomas speaks to Jesus are the voice of this people ratifying the covenant that the Father has made in Jesus. Ass Hos ii 25 (23) promised, a people that was formerly not a people has now said, “You are my God.” This confession has been combined with the baptismal profession “Jesus is Lord,” a profession that can be made only when the Spirit has been poured out (I Cor xii 3). (Ibid., The Gospel According to John XIII-XXI (Anchor Bible, 1970), Vol 29, Part A, pp. 1046-1048; bold emphasis mine)
Another notable scholar of NT Greek grammar is Evangelical professor Daniel B. Wallace. Wallace was involved with the English translation of the NET Bible, who also provided the text critical notes for the NT.
This is what Wallace says in respect to John 1:1c:
sn And the Word was fully God. John’s theology consistently drives toward the conclusion that Jesus, the incarnate Word, is just as much God as God the Father. This can be seen, for example, in texts like John 10:30 (“The Father and I are one”), 17:11 (“so that they may be one just as we are one”), and 8:58 (“before Abraham came into existence, I am”). The construction in John 1:1c does not equate the Word with the person of God (this is ruled out by 1:1b, “the Word was with God”); rather it affirms that the Word and God are one in essence.
tn Or “and what God was the Word was.” Colwell’s Rule is often invoked to support the translation of θεός (theos) as definite (“God”) rather than indefinite (“a god”) here. However, Colwell’s Rule merely permits, but does not demand, that a predicate nominative ahead of an equative verb be translated as definite rather than indefinite. Furthermore, Colwell’s Rule did not deal with a third possibility, that the anarthrous predicate noun may have more of a qualitative nuance when placed ahead of the verb. A definite meaning for the term is reflected in the traditional rendering “the word was God.” From a technical standpoint, though, it is preferable to see a qualitative aspect to anarthrous θεός in John 1:1c (ExSyn 266-69). Translations like the NEB, REB, and Moffatt are helpful in capturing the sense in John 1:1c, that the Word was fully deity in essence (just as much God as God the Father). However, in contemporary English “the Word was divine” (Moffatt) does not quite catch the meaning since “divine” as a descriptive term is not used in contemporary English exclusively of God. The translation “what God was the Word was” is perhaps the most nuanced rendering, conveying that everything God was in essence, the Word was too. This points to unity of essence between the Father and the Son without equating the persons. However, in surveying a number of native speakers of English, some of whom had formal theological training and some of whom did not, the editors concluded that the fine distinctions indicated by “what God was the Word was” would not be understood by many contemporary readers. Thus the translation “the Word was fully God” was chosen because it is more likely to convey the meaning to the average English reader that the Logos (which “became flesh and took up residence among us” in John 1:14 and is thereafter identified in the Fourth Gospel as Jesus) is one in essence with God the Father. The previous phrase, “the Word was with God,” shows that the Logos is distinct in person from God the Father. (NET Bible https://netbible.org/bible/John+1; bold emphasis mine)
Here are the particular English renderings of 1:1 mentioned in the aforementioned note:
“When all things began, the Word already was. The Word dwelt with God, and what God was, the Word was.” NEB
“In the beginning the Word already was. The Word was in God’s presence, and what God was, the Word was.” REB
Moreover, in his monumental work on Greek NT grammar Wallace wrote the following concerning theos in John 1:1c being a preverbal (before the verb), anarthrous (without the article) predicate nominative (PN), i.e., a noun that is in the subject case and which predicates or attributes specific qualities/characteristics to the subject:
a. Is Theos in John 1:1c Indefinite?
If theos were indefinite, we would translate it “a god.” If so, the theological implication would be some form of polytheism, perhaps suggesting that the Word was merely a secondary god in a pantheon of deities.
The grammatical argument that the PN here is indefinite is weak. Often, those who argue for such a view do so on the sole basis that the term is anarthrous. The indefinite notion is most poorly attested for anarthrous preverbal predicate nominatives. Thus grammatically such a meaning is improbable.
As well, the context suggests that such is not likely, for the Word already existed in the beginning. Further, the Evangelist’s own theology militates against this view, for there is an exalted Christology in the Fourth Gospel, to the point that Jesus Christ is identified as God (cf. 5:23; 8:58; 10:30; 20:28, etc.).
b. Is Theos in John 1:1c Definite?
Although it is certainly possible grammatically to take theos as a definite noun, the evidence is not very compelling. The vast majority of definite anarthrous preverbal predicate nominatives are monadic, in genitive constructions, or are proper names, none of which is true here, diminishing the likelihood of a definite theos in John 1:1c.
Further, calling theos in 1:1c definite is the same as saying that if it had followed the verb, it would have had the article. Thus it would be a convertible proposition with logos (i.e., “the Word”=”God” and “God”=”the Word”). The problem with this argument is that the theos in 1:1b is the Father. Thus to say that the theos in 1:1c is the same person is to say that “the Word was the Father.” This, as the older grammarians and exegetes pointed out, is embryonic Sabellianism or modalism.11
c. Is Theos in John 1:1c Qualitative?
The most likely candidate for theos is qualitative. This is true both grammatically (for the largest proportion of preverbal anarthrous predicate nominatives fall into this category) and theologically (both the theology of the Fourth Gospel and of the NT as a whole). There is a balance between the Word’s deity, which was already present in the beginning (en arche … theos een [1:1]), and his humanity, which was added later (sarx egeneto [1:14]). The grammatical structure of these two sentences mirror; both emphasize the nature of the Word, rather than his identity. But theos was his nature from eternity (hence, eimi is used), while sarx was added at the incarnation (hence, ginomai is used).
Such an option does not at all impugn the deity of Christ. Rather, it stresses that, although the person of Christ is not the person of the Father, their essence IS IDENTICAL. The idea of a qualitative theos here is that the Word had all the attributes and qualities that “the God” (of 1:1b) had. In other words, he shared the essence of the Father, though they differed in person. The construction the evangelist chose to express this idea was the most concise way he could have stated that the Word was God and yet was distinct from the Father.12 (The Basics of New Testament Syntax: An Intermediate Greek Grammar [Zondervan Academic, Grand Rapids, MI, Abridged edition, 2000], pp. 119-120; emphasis mine)
EXAMPLES OF PREVERBAL PN
I cite some examples of preverbal predicate nominatives from both the Greek versions of the Hebrew Bible (typically referred to as the Septuagint [LXX]) and the NT, which are clearly qualitative in meaning. These cases help illustrate the point that such nouns ascribe the full and essential characteristics of a specific nature or quality to the particular individual in question. I also quote examples where there is no verb at all, and yet the meaning is still the same.
In the case of the OT texts I will cite English renderings of both the Hebrew and the Greek translations.
“To you it was shown that you might know that Yahweh, He is God (YHWH hu ha’elohim); there is no other besides Him… Know therefore today, and take it to your heart, that Yahweh, He is God (YHWH hu ha’elohim) in heaven above and on the earth below; there is no other.” Deuteronomy 4:35, 39 LSB
“So that thou shouldest know that the Lord thy God he is God (houtos theos esti), and there is none beside him… And thou shalt know this day, and shalt consider in thine heart, that the Lord thy God he [is] God (houtos theos) in heaven above, and on the earth beneath, and there is none else but he.” LXX
“for Yahweh our God (YHWH elohenu) is He who brought us and our fathers up out of the land of Egypt, from the house of slavery, and who did these great signs in our sight and kept us through all the way in which we went and among all the peoples through whose midst we passed.” Joshua 24:17 LSB
“The Lord our God, he is God (houtos theos estin); he brought up us and our fathers from Egypt, and kept us in all the way wherein we walked, and among all the nations through whom we passed.” LXX
“‘Then you call on the name of your god, and I will call on the name of Yahweh, and the God who answers by fire, He is God (hu ha’elohim).’… Now it happened at noon, that Elijah mocked them and said, ‘Call out with a loud voice, for he is a god (elohim hu); either he is occupied or relieving himself, or is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and needs to be awakened.’’” 1 Kings 8:24, 27 LSB
“And do ye call loudly on the name of your gods, and I will call on the name of the Lord my God (kai ego epikalesomai en to onomati kyriou tou theou), and it shall come to pass that the God who shall answer by fire, he [is] God (houtos theos). And all the people answered and said, The word which thou hast spoken [is] good… And it was noon, and Eliu the Thesbite mocked them, and said, Call with a loud voice, for he is a god (theos estin); for he is meditating, or else perhaps he is engaged in business, or perhaps he is asleep, and is to be awaked.” 3 Kings 18:24, 27
In light of these passages would anyone deny that YHWH is being described as God in the absolute and fullest sense of the term?
What makes this last example of Elijah’s showdown with the false prophets of baal rather interesting is that Jesus is depicted as the very Lord whom all true believers would call upon in their individual and corporate worship!
“To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, called as saints, with all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours (pasin tois epikaloumenois to onoma tou kyriou hemon ‘Iesou Christou… auton kai hemon):” 1 Corinthians 1:2 LSB – Cf. Acts 7:59-60; 9:14, 21; 22:16
In our final two cases, God is said to be both spirit and love:
“God is spirit (pneuma ho theos), and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.” John 4:24 LSB
“The one who does not love does not know God, because God is love (ho theos agape estin)… And we have come to know and have believed the love which God has in us. God is love (ho theos agape estin), and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.” 1 John 4:8, 16 LSB
Once again, would anyone assume that God possesses some or certain aspects of spirit and love, but that he himself isn’t truly and fully spirit or love in/by his very nature?
Similarly, just because theos in John 1:1c is a preverbal predicate nominative, and is therefore stressing the point of the Word possessing the qualities of God, this isn’t meant to negate the Word being God in the absolute and fullest sense of the term.
On the contrary, John’s whole point is to emphasize the fact of the Word being truly and fully God in nature, having all the essential qualities and characteristics of Deity, and is therefore just as much God in essence as the Father is, who is the God that the Word has eternally existed with in intimate personal, loving communion and fellowship.
FURTHER READING
JOHN 1:1
NT SCHOLARSHIP ON JOHN 1:1 AND TITUS 2:13 PT. 1
DEBATE MATERIAL FOR JOHN’S GOSPEL AND DEITY OF CHRIST PT. 1, PT. 2
ENDNOTES
It is clear that John intends to communicate the fact of Jesus being God in the absolute and fullest sense of the term since he has ascribed to the preincarnate Son the very roles and functions, which the Hebrew Bible attributes to YHWH alone.
For instance, it is YHWH who created and sustains all things by himself, and he is the Source of Life and spiritual illumination:
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters. Then God said, ‘Let there be light’; and there was light. And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day… And God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.” Genesis 1:1-5, 31
“Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. And on the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because on it He rested from all His work which God had created in making it. These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that Yahweh God made earth and heaven. Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet grown, for Yahweh God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. But a stream would rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground. Then Yahweh God formed man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and so the man became a living being.” Genesis 2:1-7
“You alone are Yahweh. You have made the heavens, The heaven of heavens with all their host, The earth and all that is on it, The seas and all that is in them. You give life to all of them And the heavenly host bows down to You.” Nehemiah 9:6
“For with You is the fountain of life; In Your light we see light.” Psalm 36:9
“Thus says Yahweh, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, ‘I, Yahweh, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself And spreading out the earth all alone,’” Isaiah 44:24
John has predicated all these characteristics and tasks to the Logos/Word, whom he even describes as being the Life of all creation and the true Light that illuminates every man. In ln light of this, there is simply no way of getting around the fact that the Evangelist has identified God’s Son as YHWH Almighty who became a flesh and blood human being for the salvation of the world (Cf. 1:5-8, 14-15, 19-36; Isa. 40:3-5).
Answering Islam Blog 
One thought on “JOHN 1:1 REVISITED”