“My Lord and my God!” Is this theology or rhetoric?

Your argument presupposes a strictly mechanical application of grammar, divorced from context, theology, and the author’s intent. But Greek syntax, especially in elevated theological prose like John’s prologue, cannot be reduced to a checklist of grammatical boxes. Your six criteria for what constitutes a noun “comparable” to theos at John 1:1c seem arbitrary — on what philological basis do you declare that these six conditions “must” (?!?!) be met in order to interpret the phrase correctly? Why specifically these and not others? Is this methodology your own invention, or is it widely supported in contemporary peer-reviewed linguistic scholarship?

It is crucial to note that the key interpretive question at John 1:1c is not merely grammatical but theological. When John says kai theos ēn ho logos, he does not simply assign a class membership (“a god”), as you seem to suggest. Rather, as Philip Harner, C.H. Dodd, F.F. Bruce, and many others have rightly pointed out, the anarthrous predicate noun theos placed before the verb emphasizes the nature or essence of the subject — it is qualitative, not indefinite. It does not mean “the Word was a god” (one of many), but “the Word had the nature of God.” And as Murray Harris (in Jesus as God, pp. 63ff) emphasizes, this use is typical of Johannine style: placing an anarthrous predicate before the verb often conveys qualities, not class distinctions. Hence, the NEB’s “what God was, the Word was” is entirely in line with this nuance — and importantly, it does not support the indefinite rendering of “a god.” If you “fail to see the difference,” might I ask — on what theological basis do you then distinguish between unique divine essence and participation in divine attributes?

Furthermore, your claim that the traditional rendering “confuses the Logos with the Father” reveals a misunderstanding of Trinitarian theology. Trinitarian doctrine distinguishes between person (hypostasis) and essence (ousia). John 1:1b (“the Word was with God”) establishes personal distinction. John 1:1c (“the Word was God”) affirms ontological unity. The two clauses do not contradict; rather, they reflect precisely the mystery the Fathers sought to articulate at Nicaea. Denying the legitimacy of this theological distinction simply because the English expression appears ambiguous is not a fault of the Greek nor of the theological interpretation, but perhaps of the English reader’s unfamiliarity with this distinction.

Now let us return to your broader claim that “EVERY noun comparable to theos at John 1:1c is rendered with an indefinite article.” This is simply inaccurate. Greek does not function like English, which demands an article to express definiteness or indefiniteness. Koine Greek lacks an indefinite article altogether. Translation into English therefore requires interpretation — which must be guided by context, not by a mechanical rule. For example, in John 4:24 (pneuma ho theos), “God is spirit,” not “God is a spirit,” is preferred because the idea is qualitative: God’s essence is spiritual. This is the same construction — anarthrous predicate noun before the verb. So your own example contradicts your claim. Similarly, in Matthew 14:33 (alēthōs theou huios ei), “Truly you are the Son of God,” translators do not render “a son of God,” despite the absence of the article. Why? Because the context demands it.

The same is true in John 1:1. The Logos is eternal (v. 2), involved in creation (v. 3), life-giving (v. 4), and uniquely revealing the Father (v. 18). None of these attributes are ever ascribed to any created “god.” They belong to the one God. John 1:1c does not introduce a second deity — it affirms the same divine essence as that of ho theos in 1:1b, without identifying the Logos as the Father. The qualitative use of theos here allows for this nuance.

You also suggest that John 1:1c could support henotheism — that Jesus was “a god” in a subordinate, non-worshipped sense, akin to angels or exalted beings in the Hebrew Bible. But if this were John’s intent, why does he elsewhere (John 20:28) put the confession ho theos mou kai ho kurios mou (“my Lord and my God”) on the lips of Thomas, with no correction from Jesus? Why is the Logos worshipped (John 5:23; Revelation 5:13)? Why does John 1:3 declare that “all things were made through him,” ruling out his own creaturehood? Why does John 1:18 call him the only-begotten God (monogenēs theos)? Your model of “non-worshipped divine beings” is historically alien to second-temple Judaism at the time of Christ, which — as Larry Hurtado and Richard Bauckham have demonstrated — had already absorbed the earlier henotheistic language (e.g., Psalm 82) into metaphorical and judicial categories, no longer applied to ontologically divine beings. If such lesser “gods” existed and were recognized in Jesus’ time as real divine beings alongside God, can you point to a single clear first-century Jewish source that affirms this — not in metaphor, but as actual theology?

Moreover, why do you isolate John 1:1c from the entire flow of John’s Gospel? You seem to operate with a “sandbox” hermeneutic, limiting theological conclusions to isolated phrases while ignoring their cumulative force. John 1:14 (“the Word became flesh”), John 5:18 (calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God), John 10:30 (“I and the Father are one”), and John 17:5 (sharing glory before the world was) all converge in affirming Christ’s unique, divine identity — not merely functional, but ontological.

So let me press the question back to you: on what grammatical or contextual basis do you believe that “the Word was a god” — i.e., one of a class of deities — makes better sense of the Gospel’s entire narrative? What evidence do you have that first-century Jewish monotheists like John would feel comfortable inserting another divine being “alongside” YHWH in creation, worship, and glory — yet not intend that being to be equal in essence? How many “divine beings” are there? Why do you accept that theos can be qualitative when it suits your view, but reject the full implications of that qualitative force when it points to ontological unity with the Father?

Your model does not escape theological confusion — it introduces more of it. The traditional reading “the Word was God” (qualitatively understood) remains the best synthesis of the Greek, the theology of the Gospel, and the witness of the early Church. Not because it’s easy — but because it’s faithful.