The Word Was With God… and Also God?
John 1:1, the Missing Article, and the Grammar Nobody Preaches On
TL;DR (but you should still read it)
John 1:1 is one of the most well-known and theologically loaded verses in the New Testament:
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
It’s a foundational text for understanding who Jesus is, and it’s also one of the most debated.
Is the Word God Himself? A divine being? Is this about the Trinity? Or is it something else entirely?
This article looks at the Greek, the historical context, and the most well-known interpretations; from classic Trinitarian theology to Gnostic and Second Temple Jewish thought. The goal isn’t to argue for one view but to explore what the text actually says, and how different traditions have understood it.
Why This Verse Matters
John doesn’t start his Gospel with a birth narrative or Jesus’ baptism. He starts with this striking, cosmic statement about “the Word” (Logos).
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
There’s no mention of Jesus by name here. Instead, we get a poetic, carefully structured opening that raises big theological questions right out of the gate.
What—or who—is the Word?
How can the Word be with God and also be God?
And what does it mean when the Greek says theos without the article?
This verse has been read through many lenses, from early church doctrine to modern critical scholarship. To understand it well, we need to look at the Greek, the historical setting, and how the early readers might have understood it.
A Closer Look at the Greek
Here’s how John 1:1 reads in the original Greek:
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος
En archē ēn ho logos
In the beginning was the Wordκαὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν
kai ho logos ēn pros ton theon
And the Word was with Godκαὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
kai theos ēn ho logos
And God was the Word
Each line builds something important. Here’s how:
The first clause (“In the beginning was the Word”) echoes Genesis 1:1. It tells us the Word existed before creation.
The second clause (“the Word was with God”) implies distinction. The Word isn’t the same as God the Father.
The third clause (“the Word was God”) is where things get interesting.
In the Greek, that last clause places theos (God) before the verb and leaves out the definite article (ho, “the”). That construction matters.
According to Greek grammar, especially a rule known as Colwell’s Rule, a noun like theos in that position is likely qualitative. That means it’s describing the nature or essence of the Word, not necessarily saying the Word is the same person as ho theos (God the Father).
In simple terms, it might mean:
“And the Word was divine.”
Not “a god,” not “the God,” but “of God’s nature.”
This opens the door to interpretations that preserve both the unity and the distinction between the Word and God.
Four Interpretive Traditions (And Why They Differ)
1. Trinitarian Christianity: The Word Is Fully God
In traditional Christian theology, especially since the 4th century, this verse has been read as a clear statement of Jesus’ full divinity.
The Word is eternal.
The Word is distinct from the Father.
The Word is God in nature.
J. Ramsey Michaels, in his commentary on John, argues that the Greek grammar doesn’t reduce the Word to being “divine-like.” Instead, it affirms that the Word shares fully in what it means to be God.
“The lack of the article in ‘God was the Word’ doesn’t mean the Word is less than God. It simply avoids confusion between the Word and the Father.”
— Michaels, Gospel of John
In this view, John 1:1 reflects what later came to be called the Trinity, even if the formal doctrine hadn’t developed yet.
2. Gnostic Readings: The Word as Emanation
Some early Gnostic writers read John 1:1 through the lens of Platonic metaphysics.
In this model:
God is completely transcendent and untouchable.
The Word (Logos) is a secondary being, flowing out from a more abstract source (Archē).
The Logos helps shape the cosmos but is part of a descending chain of spiritual beings.
Valentinian teacher Ptolemy, interpreted John 1:1 through the lens of emanation theology (the idea that lesser spiritual beings flow out from the ultimate God, like light from the sun).
According to Irenaeus (Against Heresies 1.8), Ptolemy drew distinctions between God, the Beginning (archē), and the Logos, arranging them in a kind of spiritual hierarchy.
Ptolemy’s triad resembles a proto-Trinitarian structure, a three-part model of divine order, but its foundation is Platonic, not Jewish. In Plato’s framework, reality flows downward in a chain from perfect, immaterial beings to the flawed, material world. Jewish thought, by contrast, centers on a single, personal God in covenant with His people, not a distant source that is mediated through layers of spiritual intermediaries.
It’s a creative writing, but this approach moves far away from the theological world of Second Temple Judaism and the Jewish monotheism that shaped John’s Gospel.
3. Jehovah’s Witnesses: “The Word was a God”
The New World Translation, used by Jehovah’s Witnesses, renders John 1:1c as:
“…and the Word was a god.”
Why? Because the Greek lacks the definite article (ho) before theos. So they take it as indefinite, suggesting the Word is a separate, created being who is “divine,” but not equal to God.
However, most Greek scholars disagree with this translation. Why?
John sometimes uses theos without the article (Examples: 1:6, 1:12, 1:18), but the context shows these are still references to the one true God.
Greek doesn’t use articles the same way English does. If we followed the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ logic consistently, we’d have to translate John 1:6 as “There was a man sent from a god”, but no one does that, because the context makes the meaning obvious.
In John 1:1, the context points to someone who is eternal, distinct from the Father, and fully divine; not a created or secondary god.
Michael Heiser critiques the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ rendering: “There’s no linguistic justification for inserting ‘a god’ here.” He explains this is ultimately “a theological decision, not a grammatical one” (paraphrased from Of Yehovah and Jehovah’s Witnesses).
4. Second Temple Jewish Context: The Word as God’s Divine Agent
A growing number of scholars are reading John 1:1 within the Second Temple Jewish worldview, which included concepts like:
The Memra (Aramaic for “Word”) a way of speaking about God’s action in the world.
Wisdom literature, where God’s Wisdom is personified, preexistent, and involved in creation.
The Divine Council a heavenly court where God presides over other divine beings (elohim).
In this context:
The Logos is not a created being, nor a separate god.
He is God’s visible, active presence; His Word, Wisdom, and creative power.
Saying “the Word was divine” fits this background without importing later metaphysical categories.
Dan McClellan points out that the language of “one substance, three persons” didn’t exist yet:
“John 1:1 is not a proof-text for the Trinity. It’s a high Christology rooted in Jewish categories.”
— McClellan, 2023
This reading emphasizes that John’s theology is deeply Jewish, not Hellenistic. It also explains why John 1:1 doesn’t flatten Jesus into the Father, but still calls Him divine.
Bonus: And Then There's Thomas (John 20:28)
At the end of John’s Gospel, Thomas encounters the risen Jesus and exclaims:
“My Lord and my God!”
This moment echoes the opening claim of John 1:1 and is often seen as the narrative climax, a full confession that the Word truly is God.
But notice: even after this declaration, John summarizes the purpose of his Gospel like this:
“…that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God…” (John 20:31)
Not “so you’ll affirm the Nicene Creed.” Just: believe that Jesus is the Messiah, and the Son.
So even John’s highest Christological moments remain anchored in Jewish categories, not post-biblical definitions.
So What Was the Word?
Here’s what we can say, with confidence:
The Word was eternal — already existing “in the beginning.”
The Word was with God — suggesting distinction.
The Word was God — sharing God’s nature, without collapsing into being the same person as the Father.
The Greek grammar supports a qualitative reading:
“The Word was divine.”
That’s not a downgrade. It’s a way of affirming the Logos shares God’s nature, without making the confusing claim that “the Word is the Father.”
In the end, John 1:1 invites us into a mystery, not to resolve it with dogma, but to reflect deeply on the one who became flesh and made God known.
Your Turn — Read It Again; This Time Without the Assumptions
The Word came first.
Not theology.
Not tradition.
Not even understanding.
If the Logos predates creation,
He also predates interpretation.
Even the best doctrine is downstream.
John wrote in Greek.
His readers heard echoes of Genesis, Wisdom, and Torah;
not Nicea.
Are we hearing what John actually said, or just what we’ve been told he meant?
What happens when we let the Word speak in His world, before interpreting Him through ours?
References
Michaels, J. R. (2010). The Gospel of John. NICNT. Eerdmans.
Wallace, D. B. (1996). Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. Zondervan.
Philo of Alexandria. On Dreams, 1.229–30. — Philo isn’t commenting on John, but his distinctions about theos influenced later Christian discussions.
Heiser, M. (2022). Of Yehovah and Jehovah’s Witnesses. drmsh.com
McClellan, D. (2023). Doesn’t John 1:1 Tell Us the Word Was God?
Irenaeus. Against Heresies 1.8. (ca. 180 CE)
Dunn, J. D. G. (1989). Christology in the Making. SCM Press.
Divine Council Worldview Podcast, EP049: John 1:1: Is Jesus God?
Disclaimer: This article was polished with the help of AI tools to improve clarity and flow.
Change Your Mind?
If you ever decide this content isn’t for you, you can unsubscribe with the link below at any time.
A favorite topic of mine. My additional thoughts are far too much for a comment. But it’s a wonderfully deep topic to ponder.