On the other pages discussing John 1:1 on this site we have found that the Greek of John 1:1c, namely, KAI QEOS EN hO LOGOS, can be rendered as ” and the Word was a god” and that this is grammatically possible, even grammatically preferable. However, those trinitarians who admit as much argue against it on the grounds that such a rendering conflicts with the belief of monotheism. This is a theological arguement. The belief that there is only one who is QEOS and this one is the true God, so that, if Jesus is QEOS and yet is not a ‘false god’ he must of necessity be that one true God and not “a god.” The following will allow the scriptures themselves to show that true, biblical monotheism and the “a god” rendering of QEOS at John 1:1 is theologically sound.
We will ‘set the scene’ by firstly quoting William Loader who made these remarks on the three ways John 1:1c can be translated:
The Word was ‘God‘
The gospel begins with the words,’In the beginning was the Word and the Word was God and the Word was theos(‘God’).’ ‘The Word was theos‘ must not be ioslated and made into a simple equation: the Word was God. Grammatically this is a possible translation, but not the only one.The statement’s meaning, and so it’s translation, must be determined from it’s context. It could also be translated: ‘the Word was a god’ or ‘the Word was divine’. Grammatical considerations alone fail to decide the question, since all three translations can be defended on grammatical grounds.
The Word was God?
Against the first of these interpretations (‘the Word was God’)is the fact that the author has just said that the Word was ‘with’ God. …Nor is it likely that the author intends in his opening statement to make a gradual approach to what he wishes to say, so that ‘the Word was with God’ is merely a step along the way to the statement, ‘the Word was God.’ For it is precisely ‘the Word was with God’ which is repeated in 1:2,
The Word was a God?
The other two translations fit the context more smoothly at one level.Yet their evaluation cannot take place without our making assumptions about the author’s wider frame of reference. In particular it is unlikely, given his context within the Christian community and it’s roots in Judaism, that he would mean that there is more than one God….It is true on the more natural reading of the text, that there are two beings here: God and a second who was theos but this second is related to God in a manner which shows that God is the absolute over and against which the second is defined. They are not presented as two equal gods.
The Word was divine?
This leads us to consider the third translation, ‘divine’, the equivalent of theios, suggested already by Origen, and represented often by the phrase ‘Gott von Art’ or ‘God of a kind’. Should the author be concerned to say that the Word was divine, why did he write theos and not the more usual adjective, theios. The order of 1:1c and the lack of the article may be idiomatic in relation to the use of predicate nouns, as Colwell suggests, or it may, in addition, reflect an emphasis on quality shared without exact reciprocity. This would suggest that the focus here lies not on the person, but on the quality or nature of the Word…..”-The Christology of the Fourth Gospel-Structures and Issues, Verlag Peter Lang, p.156.
Notice that the stumbling block Loader has with the translation of John1:1c as “the Word was god,” is that of the “context within the Christian community and it’s roots in Judaism, that he would mean that there is more than one God.” What he means in essence is that it does not seem to ‘marry’ with the idea or belief in Monotheism.
However, note what another writer on this passage of scripture has said and see if there is any real conflict with a rendering that says the “Word was a god,” and ‘monotheism:
“[In]John 1:1, however, [we are told]of something that was inexistence already in time primeval; astonishingly,it is not “God.” …The Logos…is thereby elevated to such heights that it almost becomes offensive. The expression is made tolerable only by virtue of the continuation in “and the Logos was in the presence of God,” viz’, in intimate,personal union with God.
“In order to avoid misunderstanding here, it may be inserted here that [theos] and [ho theos](“god,divine” and “the God)were not the same thing in this period. Philo has therefore written: the [logos] means only[theos(“divine”)and not [ho theos](“God”)since the logos is not God in the strict sense. Philo was not thinking of giving up Jewish monotheism. In similar fashion, Origen, too, interprets: the Evangelist does not say that the logos is “God,” but only that the logos is “divine.” In fact, for the author of the hymn, as for the Evangelist, only the Father was “God”(ho theos; cf 17:3); “the Son” was subordinate to him(cf.14:28). But that is only hinted at in this passage because here the emphais is on the proximity of the one to the other: the Logos was in “the presence of God,” that is, in intimate, personal fellowship with him….
“The Logos therefore was not a substitue for God in the beginning, but lives in and out of this fellowship(1:18;4:34). But precisely for this reason, viz., that he alone had this primeval union with “God,” does he take on added significance. Verse 1c expresses this meaning more strongly: “and divine(belonging to the category divinity)was the Logos.”…Bultman objects to this interpretation: one cannot speak of God(in the Christian sense)in the plural. On the contrary, in the period in which the hymn took it’s rise, it was quite possible in Jewish and Christian monotheism to speak of divine beings that existed alongside and under God but were not identical with him. Phil 2:6-10 proves that. In that passage Paul depicts just such a divine being, who later became man in Jesus Christ, and before whom every knee will one day bow. But it should be noted that the Son will eventually return all authority to the Father(1Cor.15:28), so that his glory may be complete.Thus, both in Philippians and John 1:1 it is not a matter of a dialectical relationship between two-in-one, but a personal union of two entities, and to that personal union corresponds the church’s rejection of patripassianism”.- E.Haenchen, A Commentary on the Gospel of John, Chapter 1-6, pp.109-110.(emphasis ours)
(Regarding Haenchen’s comment above “…In fact, for the author of the hymn, as for the Evangelist, only the Father was “God”(ho theos; cf 17:3);..” Hans Kung comments on John 17.3 “…in this late, fourth Gospel, we still have the statements like: ‘And this is eternal life, that they may know the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent’…. Here is a clear distinction between God and Jesus Christ.”- Judaism, p.382, SCM Press, 1995 English edition.)
It is to be noted from the above that someone other than “the God,” could bear the title or rather the term “god,”[theos] and not contradict or conflict with the notion of monotheism at that time.(We also have to realise that such terms as ‘monotheism,’ ‘polytheism’ and ‘henotheism’ are relatively modern descriptive terms.) That is, it, the rendering “and the Word was a god” would not teach polytheism.(Polytheism is the belief that there are many gods, each having a ‘sphere’ of their own and each is to be/can be worshipped.)Can this be proved from the scriptures? Aswell as the remarks by Haenchen re Philippians 2:6ff- Yes.
That the Bible clearly states that there is only one God and that others could be called “gods” is borne out from the following scriptures:
One God, Jehovah(YHWH):Gen.5:22, 24; 6:2, 4, 11; 17:18; 20:6; Ex.2:23; 3:1, 6, 11, 12, 13; De.4:35, 39; 7:9; Jos.14:6; 22:34; 1Ki.8:60; 12:22; 13:4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 21, 26, 29, 31; Job 1:6; 2:1,10; Eze.31:9; Da.1:2, 9, 17. etc.
Angels=gods: Psalm 8:5,”Yet Thou hast made him little less than heavenly beings[Heb: elohim]and Thou hast crowned him with glory and honor.”-New Berkely Version.
Psalms 8:5 LXX, “Thou madest him a little less than angels, thou hast crowned him with glory and honour.”-Brenton. The writer of Hebrews quotes Ps.8:5 at 2:7,9 and shows this to be the correct translation.
(We would like to make clear at this point something about lexicons that some might refer to when looking up the meaning of Hebrew(and Greek)words.
For instance, the Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon under its entry for the Hebrew word elohim gives for Psalms 8:5 “angels.” However, this does not mean that this lexicon is informing us that the meaning of elohim here is “angels”! No! This lexicon, and others, is informing its readers that at this place the referent of the word elohim is “angels.” “Angels” is not a meaning of elohim! This can be shown by considering John 10.34, 35 which has Jesus quoting from Psalms 82.1, 6 where “elohim” ocurrs. Now, when we turn to Ps.82 verses 1 and 6 in the New American Standard Bible we read: “…He judges in the midst of the rulers“-v.1. Also, verse 6: “I said, “You are gods.” But in a marginal note for verse 1 its says for “rulers”: “Lit[erally] gods” Yes, although they rendered “elohim” here as “rulers” one could just aswell render it as “gods” and indeed, the marginal note says that “literally” the word elohim here means “gods” and they so call these “rulers” “gods” in verse 6 which is a translation of the same word they rendered as “rulers”, namely elohim! Yes, this translation choose to offer, as a substitute, the referent of the word, in this case, “rulers” in verse 1 rather than the literal meaning which they rightly informs us is “gods” in both the marginal note and their actual translation of the same word in verse 6. Yes, the “rulers” there are “gods” themselves. The New Revised Standard Version renders elohim here in vss 1 and 6 as “gods” and this shows that the “rulers”(NAS) are “gods.”(NRSV) But they are not ‘false gods’. This should show those who when looking up elohim in the Brown-Driver-Briggs_Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon and see under 1.a rulers, judges,……..Ps 82.1, 6″ that this lexicon is giving the referents of the word not its meaning and that “literal”(NAS note) meaning is “gods.” This is shown by the NAS translation and marginal readings and comparing with the New Revised Standard Version above quoted. But this can also be seen by looking at where Jesus quoted from this Psalm. He did so at John 10. 34, 35 where we can read: “Jesus answered them, “Has it not been written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods‘? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came…..” The word translated here as “gods” is the plural of theos(the first one is in the nominative the second in the accusative hence the different inflections) and so this also shows that “elohim” in Psalms.82.1, 6 means “gods.” Yes, the word rendered as “rulers” by the New American Standard Bible means “gods” not “rulers.” The “rulers” is what is denoted by the word elohim, not its meaning, or ‘core sense.’ So, the question for some who might misunderstand what some lexicons are doing should ask themselves that if this is so with elohim at Ps.82.1, 6 , yet the Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon does not give “gods” here at Psalms 82.1, 6 as its ‘meaning’ might it also be the case that this lexicon here does not give its meaning(its “literal” meaning as the New American Standard Bible’s marginal note informs us and the New Revised Standard Version’s actual translation) but rather its referent at this place? Yes! As both the New American Standard renderings and marginal notes, the translation of the New Revised Standard Version and the Greek of John 10.34, 35 informs us. So, likewise, when we see in the Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hrebrew-Lexicon under its entry for elohim “1.c “angels” this lexicon is not saying that the meaning of elohim is “angels” but that “angels ” is the referent for the word(or expression “bene ha elohim” “sons of gods)in certain scripture places and gives as an example Psalm 97.7. However, in 1.b it does say: “divine ones, superhuman being including God and angels Ps. 8.6…..”. Here we see that in Psalm 8.6 the “angels” are “divine ones.” This really is saying that, like “God” the angels are themselves “gods.” The meaning of elohim, when used as a simple plural means “gods.” When used of “God” it is as an ‘intensive plural’ to denote the supreme “God” Jehovah.)
Robert Bowman(Why You Should Believe in the Trinity, “Are Angels God?”, p.51ff) denies that at Psalms 8:5 the elohim or “gods,” “godlike ones” are angels but elohim in this text is in fact God. However, we would defer our readers to the following:
The New Century Bible Commentary, Psalms(1-72):
“5. little less than God[Revised Standard Version]: a problem is caused by the Hebrew elohim which may mean ‘God'(so it was understood by Aq[uila], Sym[machus], Theod[otion] or ‘angels'(so LXX, T[argums], S[yriac Version], V[ulgate]). The latter alternative is more likely, because the Psalmist had been at pains to stress the infinite greatness of God and the comparative insignificance of man. The first alternative would have the effect of practically contradicting the essence of verses 3-4, and therefore the comparison must be between man and the heavenly beings or God’s messengers who surround his throne(cf. 1 Kings 22:19; Job 1:6; Ps.82:1, 86:8, 89:6(M[asoretic] T[ext]).-p.103(by A.A.Anderson, Reprint of March 1992, Errdmans Pub.Co, Grand Rapids, Michigan, ISBN 0-8028-1865-X)-italics ours.
New International Biblical Commentary, Psalms:
“8:5 / Than the heavenly beings[New International Version]: The M[asoretic] T[ext] reads me-elohim, which in most contexts should be translated “from/than God,” as noted in the NIV margin. The LXX reads par aggelous, “than angels.” This is the version quoted in Heb.2:7. The LXX need not reflect a paraphrase because an expression denoting angels in the H[e]b[rew] Bible is “sons of elohim“(Gen.6:2, 4; Job 1:6; 2:1; 387). In Ps.82:1, 6 elohim by itself appears to denote such spiritual beings.”-p73(Craig C. Broyles:, 1999, Hendrickson Publishers, ISBN 1-56563-220-6)
Hence, The Psalms: A New Translation. Translated From the Hebrew and Arranged for Singing to the Psalmody of Joseph Gelineau, Fontana Books, 2nd impression, December 1963 and The Psalms: A New Translation For Worship, Collins Liturgical Publications(by and for the Anglican Church), 1977 reads here:
“Yet you have made him little less than a god;” –italics ours.
As does the Revised English Bible of 1989. The New Revised Standard Version has “gods.”
The above contradicts Bowman(ibid, pp.52, 53) who asserts that the LXX(Septuagint) translation of elohim as “angels” is a “paraphrase” and “introduc[es] a new understanding of [the Hebrew of Ps.8:5].” The above shows this to be an arguement based upon flawed or false grounds! The fact is that “angels” in the Hebrew scriptures, including here at Psalms 8:5, are elohim or “gods.”
The New American Bible reads here:
“You have made him a little less than the angels,..” with a footnote that says: “8.6:The angels: in Hebrew, elohim, which is the ordinary word for “God” or “the gods”; hence, some translate, ” a little less than godlike.” Cf Pss 45,7; 58,2; 82,1; 97,7. But the ancient versions generally understood the term as referring to the heavenly spirits. Cf Ps 138,1.” At Ps 138:1 in this same Bible version we read: “…in the presence of the angels I will sing your praise” with a footnote that explains: “The angels: in Hebrew, elohim, which is the word for “God,” “gods,” and sometimes “godlike beings,” such as the angels.”
Yes! The Bible shows that “Yahweh is thought of as supreme in a heavenly assembly of divine beings.(cf. note on [Ps]82)”-G.W.Anderson in Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, M.Black/H.H.Rowley editors, Thomas Nelson, May 1962, p.442. Italics ours
Bowman(ibid.p.52)also tries to argue that because, as he thinks, that Psalms 8:5 is “parallel” to Genesis’ “in the image of God”(Gen.1:26-28) when it says “a little lower than elohim,” both in reference to man and, hence, elohim here means “God” and not “gods” or “godlike ones.” We do not see how this is necessarily so! Why are they “parallel”? True, there are common thoughts in Psalm 8 and the Genesis account. Yet could not man be made in the “image of God” and yet also be greatly lower than God and yet still “a little lower” than angels? Yes! However, Holt, cutting through all this, correctly observes: “Some have argued that the correct understanding of Psalms 8:5 is ‘man was made a little lower than God(i.e., Almighty God)’. We have a difficult time accepting this because it hardly seems that man is ‘a little lower than God.” This is also out of harmony with Hebrews 2:7, which reads, “What is man that you should keep him in mind, or [the] son of man that you take care of him? You made him a little lower than angels.” This verse is referring to the perfect man Jesus Christ yet it says he was lower than angels. So how can imperfect men be just a little lower than God?”-Jesus: God or the Son of God, p.54, ftnote 44)
(On the back cover of Bowman’s book we read: “The choice is between believing in the true God as he has revealed himself, mystery and all, or believing in a God who is relatively simple to understand but bears little resemblance to the true God. Trinitarians are willing to live with a God that they can’t fully comprehend.” We would retort by saying that the choice is between believing in the true God as he has revealed himself, relatively simple to understand and comprehensible or a mysterious incomprehensible God whom bears little resemblance to the True God. ‘Unitarians’ are willing to live with a God that they can comprehend, know.Cp. John 4:22)
Genesis 6:2,4; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7-“sons of God.” Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar says about the use of “ben”[“son”]. “There is another use of ben-[“son of”] or benei [“sons of”] to denote membership of a guild or society (or of a tribe, or any definite class). Thus benei Elohim[“sons of God”] or benei ha-Elohim[son of The God] Genesis 6:2, 4, Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7 (compare also benei Elim Psalms 29:1, 89:7)properly means not sons of god(s), but beings of the class of elohim[gods]or Elim.” p.418. The Lexicon for the Old Testament by Koehler and Baumgartner, on p.134, ed.of 1951 agrees,”BENEI ELOHIM(individual)divine beings, gods.” And on p.51,”BENEI HA-ELOHIM the (single) gods Genesis 6:2; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7.”
In Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament, one can read an interesting comment on p 59, where the authors show that in Psalms 97:7 and 138:1 angels are called elohim (the LXX has “angels” both places).This seems to suggests then that their opinion was that the word elohim could refer to, be applied to angels, as we also maintain.(1983, by G.L.Archer and G.Chirichigno) This is certainly the opinion of the already quoted New International Biblical Commentary: Psalms by Broyes. He writes in reference to 138:1-3: “It is possible the expression, before the “gods,” can refer to human judges….,but it is more likely we should understand this term in the same sense as it is used in Psalm 82…, namely as heavenly beings(i.e., angels.).p.481
We might also quote from a webpage critical of the beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses and which has a bearing on this page’s subject matter, namely, biblical monotheism.
Quote: “Nehemiah 9:6 in the New World Translation, the Jehovah’s Witnesses own translation of the bible says “You are Jehovah alone; you yourself have made the heavens, [even] the heaven of the heavens, and all their army, the earth and all that is upon it, the seas and all that is in them; and you are preserving all of them alive; and the army of the heavens are bowing down to you.”
If Jehovah is alone and made the heavens himself then Jesus must be one with Jehovah!”-end of quote.
In reply we would remark:
We would ask if anyone has noticed already a mistake in the above explanation of Nehemiah 9:6? It does not say “Jehovah is alone” but that “You are Jehovah alone.” This means that there is no other that is called Jehovah, no other that is the true God and no other can rival him as the rightful Sovereign of the Universe. Jehovah is not “alone.” Surrounding Him and his throne the Bible describes heavenly creatures that have intimate contact with him. These are the “sons of God.” Jehovah has a family of spirit creatures with him in the spiritual heavens. He is certainly not alone! The Bible teaches that there is only one God. This is monotheism. But today there is the common but erroneous conception that Biblical monotheism means that only One can be called “God” – Hebrew “elohim,” Greek “theos.” However, even this following quote shows this to be wrong.
“It is often said that, in its highest reaches of religious thought, the Old Testament expresses belief in God in terms of ‘ethical monotheism’. But it must be remembered that monotheism, for the Old Testament prophets, had a connotation very different in many respects from that which it has in modern thought. It is false to assume that the Old Testament writers, however exalted their conception of the Godhead might be, conceived of God as alone in isolated majesty over against men, the creatures of his will. There is ample evidence to show that this conception of monotheism was held in conjunction with a belief in a spiritual world peopled with super-natural and superhuman beings who, in some ways, shared the nature, though not the being of God” (Russell, D.S. The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic. 235).
Men=gods; Psalms 82:1,6; “God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgement:”-v.1; “I say, “You are gods, children of the Most High, all of you.”-v.6 NRSV. At John 10:34-36 Jesus quotes Ps.82; “Jesus answered, “Is it not written in your law,’I said, you are gods’? If those to whom the word of God came were called ‘gods’-and the scripture cannot be annulled-can you say that the one whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world is blaspheming because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?” Clearly, Jesus showed that those who were called elohim there were in fact ‘gods,’ with a positive understanding. Any other understanding would destroy the force of Jesus’ use of that scripture!
Jesus himself quotes from Psalm 82:6: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “You are gods”‘? If he called ‘gods’ those against whom the word of God came…”-John 10:34, 35.
We would agree with G.R.Beasley-Murray who comments on these words of Jesus: “It is plain from the course of the arguement, as well as from usual Jewish assumptions in quoting the Bible, that the second line is assumed along with the first(the whole passage was well known to the hearers, for its meaning was frequently discussed). A single clear idea is in mind as Jesus cites this scripture: In the “Law”(i.e., the OT, of which the Law is the chief part : cf. 12:34; 15:25), the term “god” is applied to others than God himself; if those addressed by God in this passage can be called gods(and sons of God), how much more can he whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world be so termed?“-Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 36(2nd edition), John, Thomas Nelson Publishers, p.175.-italics ours. Yes! Jesus was not only claiming that he was “God’s Son”(10:25, 29) but was also claiming, by quoting the above Psalm, that he was entitled to the designation “god.” This is how the Jewish hearers of Jesus words understood him for did they not say that they picked up stones to stone him “because [Jesus], although being a man, make yourself a god.”? –NWT. See also the New English Bible. Jesus’ words following this charge shows that this translation in the correct one. By claiming that he was “God’s Son” he was claiming not that he was “God” but “a god” and so the Jews rightly understood him but incorrectly thought this was “blasphemy”. Hence we would also agree with the following: “Once more the Jews attempt to stone Jesus as a blasphemer who makes a claim of divinity which no man is permitted to do(33). Jesus points out to them that even within their Scriptures, whose validity is permanent and beyond dispute, men in the persons of the judges receive from God Himself the title gods(Ps. lxxxii.6). They were entitled to be so designated, for they represented, however imperfectly, the divine will in so far as they were called upon to administer God’s word. In the light of this verse from the Psalms, Jesus cannot therefore be legitimately denounced as a blasphemer for calling Himself by what is nominally the lesser title Son of God(36). It is, to be sure, only nominally a lesser title, for the judges as well as the law-givers and prophets of the old dispensation, as is pointed out in verse 35, were those unto whom the word of God came, while Jesus is Himself sent by God, the very Word of God made flesh.”-The Gospel According to John, An Introduction and Commentary by Prof. R. V. G. Tasker, Tyndale Press, 1964 printing, 134, 135. What must be accepted from the above however is that others other than God Himself could be designated as god(Gk: QEOS or Heb: elohim) and so the translation of “and the Word was a god” cannot be disputed on theological grounds.
The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew and English Lexicon(coded to Strong’s): “430…a. rulers, judges, either as divine representatives at sacred places or as reflecting divine majesty and power…Ex 21:6..22:7,8…82:1,6…”
Exodus 7:1; “The LORD said to Moses,”See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet.”
Jack T. Sanders comments on Moses being called “like God” and comparing this with John’s christology and calling Jesus THEOS:
“The closest analogy to the use of the word (or title) ‘god’ for Jesus, however, is the use of such a term for Moses. Already Ex. 7.1 says that God makes Moses god to Pharaoh; and even before that Ex. 4.16 makes nearly the same claim (le lohim, ‘as god’) of Moses in his relation to Aaron. Consequently, Philo does not hesitate to call Moses god, and in quite an unrestricted sense: For [Moses] was called god and king of the whole people, for he was said to enter the dark cloud wherein was God’ (Life Mos. 1.158). The coincidences between this god-predication of Moses and the Fourth Gospel’s god-predication of Jesus are these: (1) Jesus is emphatically likened to Moses in the Johannine tradition (John 1.17); (2) Jesus in Johannine tradition also entered into darkness (John 1:5); (3) it is clear that by calling Moses god, Philo does not actually equate Moses with the supreme God, just as it is clear that the Johannine Christians, by calling Jesus god, do not actually equate him with the supreme God, inasmuch as Jesus is in Johannine tradition otherwise Son of God and the revealer sent from heaven. Beyond Philo, the divine appellation adheres to Moses when Josephus calls him a theios aner (‘divine man’, AJ 3.180). One may suspect, on the basis of this evidence, that there was some connection between the equation of Jesus with God in the Fourth Gospel and the comparison of Jesus to Moses.”-Schismatics, Sectarians, Dissisdents, Deviants: The First One Hundred Years of Jewish-Christian Relations, SCM Press, 1993, pages 93, 94.
Yes! Just as Moses could be called “god” likewise Jesus could be called “god” and not be “equated with the supreme God.” When we see John’s writings giving Jesus the appellation ‘theos'(1:1, 18; 10:33; 20:28)he was using it just the way that Moses had been understood as being ‘god.” Neither did the Jews think of Moses as “God” and nor did the Jewish-Christians think that Jesus was “God.”
It is quite clearly the case then, that the Bible’s monotheism is teaching that only ONE can be called “God” in the absolute sense (‘The Divine Being’)while still acknowledging others as “god/s,” as “divine beings,” in a secondary sense. Either as representatives or reflections(by their very nature of being elohim)of the true God. There are, of course Bible references to those who are ‘false’ gods aswell. The translation then, “and the Word was a god”-New World Translation and others:
“…does no injustice to Greek grammar. Nor does it conflict with the worship of the One whom the resurrected Jesus Christ called “my God” and whom Jesus himself is subjected.-John 20:17; Rev.3:2, 12; 1 Cor.11:3; 15:18.”-The Watchtower, 1975, p.704.-italics ours.
So, true monotheism, biblical monotheism, should be defined not by the beliefs that agree with Trinitarianism but by the Bible itself. The Bible’s Monotheism is the worship of only one that is the true God and the acceptance that others can rightly be considered “gods,” “divine beings” in a different secondary derived sense.
The rendering of John 1:1c as “and the Word was a god” in the New World Translation is therefore not only grammatically correct/acceptable/better, but also contextually the better than the ‘traditional’ “and the Word was God,” aswell as being theologically(biblically)sound.