In our translation, this reads:
In the beginning there was the Word,
The Word was with The God,
And [a] god was the Word.
The NIV – and most Bibles – put it quite differently:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Greek does not have the word ‘a’ (or ‘an’), but it’s found throughout Bible translations because translators insert it where it makes sense in English. Where it’s added, or not added, is entirely at the discretion of the translator (and the translator’s sponsors).
Why do we add ‘[a]’ here to say ‘[a] god?’
1. Wrong century
History tells us that the belief in the Father and Son being co-equal members of a ‘Godhead’ only arose gradually over centuries amid much public dispute (which sometimes turned violent). It was not an orthodox teaching until well after the Bible was completed. This is widely known, acknowledged, and backed up by voluminous amounts of historical data.
If John were saying that Jesus is a god, then this would be in full agreement with the documented history of early Christian belief.
For example, Justin Martyr was one of the earliest Christian writers. In his Dialogue with Trypho, he stated this:
I shall attempt to persuade you… that there is… another god and lord subject to the maker of all things who is also called an angel… He who is said to have appeared to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, and who is called ‘God’, is distinct from Him who made all things… it must be admitted absolutely that some other one is called lord by the Holy Spirit besides Him who is considered Maker of all things… He is the lord who received commission from the Lord who [remains] in the Heavens, i.e; the Maker of all things.
Since the early Christians believed that Jesus was “another God,” it helps us understand how they read John 1:1. This is supported by the Greek text, as explained below.
2. The two ‘God’ references in John 1:1 are different
The two uses of the term ‘God’ in John 1:1 are different in Greek. The first term is ton theon (“The God”), while the second simply says theos (“God” or “divine”).
This is very important because ton theon (“The God”) is a phrase used throughout the Greek Christian Bible to refer to Almighty God.
If the author had truly wanted to say that the Word was somehow both simultaneously with Almighty God and was Almighty God, then the author could have said “The God” twice, but he did not. The author instead chose two different terms.
If we translate these two terms identically in English, we would be deceiving our readers into thinking that the Greek text also has two identical terms – when it does not. Instead, we show readers that the first ‘God’ is actually the common term for Almighty God (“The God”), but it is not so with the second ‘god.’
The two different Greek terms indicate that the writer considered the second ‘god’ to be different from “The God,” in other words, another, lesser god exactly as early Christians like Justin Martyr described.
3. “a god” not offensive
In Western culture, we only think of one God, but in the ancient world, it was ordinary to talk of many different gods. Referring to any powerful being as a ‘god’ was not shocking, offensive, or alien. It does not undermine the idea of one all-powerful, Almighty God over everyone and everything. This is why Paul could talk about there being ‘many gods’ in 1 Corinthians 8:5.
Also, in Acts 28:6, when the Maltese people thought that Paul was ‘god,’ they likely thought that he was ‘a god’ rather than Almighty God – perhaps one of the gods from the various pagan pantheons. After all, in Acts 14, after Paul performed a miracle, the people of Lystra said, “The gods have turned themselves into men and come down to us!” They then called Paul “Hermes” (the god of orators, among other things), and his companion BarNabas was labeled “Zeus” (the god of thunder, son of Cronus, grandson of Uranus).
Even the Jewish holy writings would refer to the “sons of the Most High” as being “gods.” Psalm 82 says:
God stands in the gathering of gods [...] I said to them: ‘You are gods… You are sons of the Most High!’
Jesus himself then quoted those words in John 10:34.
So, calling Jesus “a god” would not be shocking in the first century, but it is entirely in line with how they thought back then.
4. “The Word” is likely referring to the Jewish concept of the “Memra”
Has it ever struck you as odd that John would start to call Jesus “the Word”? Well, that’s because the idea did not originate with John. Ancient readers would already be familiar with it, as “the Word” was a known concept at the time. In Aramaic, it was known as the “Memra”. What’s that?
When referring to God speaking something into existence in Genesis or speaking to humans at other times, it was common to say these things were done by God’s “Word” rather than by God Himself. Yes, it was common to personify God’s Word and treat it like a separate person doing things on God’s behalf. This idea was often combined with the personification of Wisdom in texts like Proverbs and Sirach. The “Word” was treated like a second entity that spoke for Almighty God, performed works for Him, and embodied God’s Wisdom.
Why did the ancient Jews do this? Were they just trying to avoid referring to God too directly (out of respect), or did they believe that the Word was a separate powerful spirit creature? Experts are divided on the matter.
Regardless of exactly what the Jews believed, John tells us exactly what he believes. In John 1:2, he states that the “Word” is indeed a separate person who even created the world: “This one was with The God in the beginning, everything, by his hand, was made.”
Conclusion
So for the above reasons, it seems highly likely to us that when first-century readers saw theos in John 1:1, they saw that he was not Almighty God (ton theon) but was “a” god – the “Memra” or “Word” who spoke for Almighty God and performed creative acts on His behalf.
This view is entirely consistent with history, early Christian texts (before they developed the Trinity doctrine), and the rest of the Gospel of John:
And, although nobody’s ever seen God, this ‘only generated god’ (the one in the favored position of the Father) has explained Him. —1 John 1:18
Interestingly, the most ancient translation of John in the Coptic language uses grammar to indicate ‘a god.’
What if John was originally written in Aramaic?
In this translation, we entertain the theory that most (but not all) of the New Testament may have been originally written, or at least narrated, in Aramaic before being translated into Greek. How does this affect our understanding of John 1:1?
Well, unlike Koine Greek, the Aramaic language did not traditionally use the phrase “The God” to indicate the Father, nor does it have the word “a” in its language. Therefore, you are not going to see “The God” or “a god” in this verse in Aramaic. Native speakers, like Arabic speakers today, use the context to assume the idea of “a” in their minds.
However, if the Gospel of John was originally written or narrated in Aramaic, then whoever translated it into Greek made the distinction between “The God” (ton theon) and “god” (theos). He or she believed there was a difference between the two and chose to convey it in writing.
The Aramaic version does teach us one useful thing about John 1:1: the second reference to “god” is probably not an adjective meaning “divine” because Aramaic has a different word for that term. So although the Greek theos can mean either “god” (noun) or “divine” (adjective), the writer was probably not trying to say that “the Word was divine.”