I am with you Mr Hermit,
Do please continue.
As I was saying, in the phrase "και θεος ην ο λογος", we see that λογος has an article (o) and θεος does not. Thus, o λογος is the subject, while θεος is the predicate.
When translated into English, because λογος is the subject, we have to put it first. English has syntactical rules that must be followed as well. So, this is properly translated "And the Word was God."
Now, pay attention because it is critical that this be understood. There are THREE things this could mean (depending on the construction):
a. The Word was a LESSER god than the Father who is the τον θεον (the God) in the previous clause.
b. The Word was the father.
c. The Word was fully God, but was NOT the Father.
If John had written the clause: και ο λογος ην θεος, it would mean "the word was A god." That is, the word was a LESSER god than the father. The reason is since λογος is the subject, and is first, there is no grammatical reason to leave the article OFF of θεος, thus the absence of the article means something (since even if we gave it the article, it would STILL be the predicate). Therefore, the absence of the article would mean "A" god. In other words, since the inclusion of the article would not change the grammatical function of θεος, the exclusion of the article must therefore change the MEANING of θεος.
The absence of the article in a position where the inclusion of the article would NOT change the word's grammatical function would tell us there is a difference in specificity: the λογος is not the same individual as the Father.
Further, if it does not have an article, the position of θεος at the end of the sentence would tell us there is a difference in emphasis (θεος would be be “de-emphasized”): λογος is less of a god than the Father. Thus, "και ο λογος ην θεος" could ONLY mean "the Word was a god."
BUT, John did NOT use this construction.
If John had written the clause: και ο λογος ην ο θεος, it would mean "the word was THE God." That is, the word was exactly the same person as the Father. Meaning there is only ONE person, not two, and there would then be no trinity. The Father and the Son would then be nothing more than manifestations of the SAME GOD. They would not be separate individuals. There would simply be one God who "appears" at times in different forms. This would then lend support to the monotheist argument. The inclusion of the article with θεος would make it specific: the λογος was exactly the same individual as the Father (the exact same θεος just mentioned in the previous clause). Since both nouns have the article, θεος is grammatically LOCKED into occurring AFTER λογος. If it moved in front of λογος, it would change its grammatical function, and become the subject. Thus, in this construction, the position of θεος would not mean anything. It MUST appear there. Thus, the clause "και ο λογος ην ο θεος" can only mean "Jesus was THE God (the exact same individual as the Father)."
BUT again, John did NOT use this construction either.
By writing it: και θεος ην ο λογος, John does TWO critical and deliberate things. First, he leaves the article OFF of θεος, thus indicating that word is NOT the same individual as the father. Second, he places θεος to the front of the clause thus placing extra emphasis on that word. By doing that, he makes it clear by the increase in emphasis, that the absence of the article does NOT mean "lesser." Since the absence of the article does not mean "lesser god," it leaves us only one choice as to what it can mean: Not exactly the same individual as the "τον θεον" of the second clause, but every bit as much GOD as the "τον θεον" of the second clause. Thus, the absence of the article tells us that the θεος of the third clause is NOT the same individual as the τον θεον of the second clause. The position tells us that the absence of the article does NOT mean "lesser." By placing θεος in a position of emphasis, John is doing the equivalent of bolding it, underlining it, and adding an exclamation point:
The Word was God!
I know this is a lot to absorb but are you with me so far?
