Objection · Case 12 · Jehovah’s Witnesses
John 1:1 distinguishes “the God” (with the article) from “the Word.” If the Word were identical to the God he was with, the sentence would be incoherent. So mustn’t John mean the Word is divine in a lesser sense?
One objection from the free evidence repository at apologetics.pro.
Response
This is the Witnesses’ best point, and the Trinitarian reply is that the qualitative reading (the Word was what God was, as the New English Bible has it) is exactly what preserves the distinction. The Word is not the same person as the Father he was with, but shares the same nature. That is the Trinity in one verse, which is why both sides fight over it. The with God and was God structure is not a problem for the doctrine; it is an expression of it, and a god in a lesser sense is the reading that has to explain how a strict Jewish monotheist could write the next clause.
About this exhibit
This objection is to Greek grammar of John 1:1c, the qualitative reading.
The construction is a predicate noun before the verb without the article. Grammarians such as Daniel Wallace and Philip Harner argue it is normally qualitative, stressing that the Word has the full…
Under Claim 05: The New World Translation’s rendering “the Word was a god” is contested on grammatical grounds and reads oddly against John’s own next verse.