That's not explaining John 1:1, it's just quoting it and changing the word 'Word' to 'Jesus'.
A similar sentence, logically, is, "Last week Mary was with Jim and Mary was Jim". It doesn't make sense! That's why we need to pay more attention to the original Greek text, and to try and understand what John meant when he wrote it. In the following verses, which John also wrote, it is clear that John thought that Jesus, the Word, was God's only son, and that Jesus was not God:
(John 1:14) The Word became flesh, and lived among us. We saw his glory, such glory as of
the one and only Son of the Father, full of grace and truth.
(John 1:18) No one has seen God at any time. The
one and only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him.
[They had seen Jesus, therefore Jesus could not be God.]
1 John 1:1-3 (WEB):
That which was from the beginning, that which we have heard, that which we have seen with our eyes, that which we saw, and our hands touched, concerning the Word of life (and the life was revealed, and we have seen, and testify, and declare to you the life, the eternal life, which was with the Father, and was revealed to us); that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us. Yes, and our fellowship is
with the Father, and with his Son, Jesus Christ.
(2Jn 1:3) Grace, mercy, and peace will be with us, from
God the Father, and from
the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love.
(Rev 1:1) This is the Revelation of Jesus Christ, which
God gave him to show to his servants the things which must happen soon, which he sent and made known by his angel to his servant, John,
(Rev 1:5-6) and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To him who loves us, and washed us from our sins by his blood; and he made us to be a Kingdom, priests to
his God and Father; to him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen.
As an explanation of John 1:1 -
The obvious deduction from verse 2 ("The same was in the beginning with God") is that Jesus and God are two different beings. The confusion comes from the incorrect translation of verse 1, which should be translated "the Word was with God, and the Word was a God". To quote from "Studies in the Scriptures Vol. 5" by Charles T. Russell:
... nothing whatever in the words used distinguishes the Father from the Son in the words rendered Lord and God. The matter is left entirely to the judgement of the reader, and indicated only by the construction of the sentance - except where the word Theos is used twice in the same clause the Greek Prepositive Article is sometimes used, so as to give the effect of THE God in contrast with A God. An illustration is found in John 1:1 - "the Word was with the God [ho theos] and the word was a God [theos]." But the careful student (freed from prejudice) will generally have no difficulty in determining the thought of the apostle. Indeed, the language is so explicit that the wonder is that we were heedless of it so long.
As an explanation of the grammar of "the Word was a God", I'll include a soc.religion.christian newsgroup response from 25 years ago that I have a copy of (I think from somebody who was a Jehovah's Witness):
Grammatically speaking, "a god" is quite correct. A qualitative "god" without the "a" is also grammatically acceptable. However, the definite "god" without the "a" is unacceptable.
The expression "the Word was God" leads many to believe that Jesus is "ho theos," or Jehovah, and this is not what John 1:1 teaches. I will grant you that "the Word was a god" can also be interpreted ambiguously in the following way:
[
Hmm, there may be something missing here.]
I recommend as must reading "Qualitative Anarthrous Nouns in the Pauline Epistles and Their Translation in the Revised Version" by Henry Wakefield Slatten. I also humbly but straightforwardly submit that persons trying to understand the John 1:1c significance will be greatly assisted by reading this book. The critic of "a god" will learn much regarding grammar.
Henry Wakefield Slatten makes the following observation (which I summarize from memory since I do not have his book with me).
I can say "Frederick is a prince." What do I mean? I can mean:
1) Indefinite:
Frederick is a son of a monarch but may or may not be princely in character.
2) Indefinite and Qualitative with Indefinite emphasis:
Frederick is a son of a monarch and also has a princely character with some but little reference to his having a princely character.
3) Qualitative and Indefinite with Qualitative emphasis:
Frederick is of princely character and is also the son of a monarch with some but little reference to his being the son of a monarch.
4) Qualitative only:
Frederick is princely in character but may or may not be the son of a monarch.
We NEVER mean that 'Frederick is the Prince' from 'Frederick is a prince.' The translation 'Frederick is princely' is fine. However, it restricts the range of possibilities of "a prince" to the qualitative only #4.
With this in mind, let us focus on John 1:1c....
"The Word was a god." (Greek= kai theos [w/o the def. article] En ho logos)
What do we mean? We can mean:
1) Indefinite only: "The Word was one of the group of those who can be called gods.'
2) Indefinite and Qualitative with Indefinite Emphasis: 'The Word was one of the group of gods with some but little reference to the qualities he possesses.'
3) Qualitative and Indefinite with Qualitative Emphasis: 'The Word was godlike with some but little reference to the group.'
4) Qualitative only: 'The Word was godlike.'
All of these are grammatically possible with John 1:1c. But NOT 'the Word was the God.' The most common, statistically speaking, is #3.
Here is the limitation of grammar. WHICH of these possibilites must be decided by context and what we believe the point the author was trying to make.
The critics of the NWT "a god" usually focus on interpreting "a god" in the sense of #1 above. In so doing, they miss the point somewhat. This is because Jehovah's Witnesses view the anarthrous theos as having qualitative emphasis (I will return to this in a moment).
As far as theology is concerned, interpreting "a god" as indefinite only (#2, and not the position of Jehovah's Witnesses) is still permissible, scripturally speaking but not unitarian speaking. This is due to the Jewish monotheistic view of human and angelic gods that represented the true God (Ps 8:5, Heb 2:7, Ps 82:1). These were not worshipped and so the Jews were not committing polytheism. Thus John COULD have been referring to #2 only and not have violated his monotheism.
There is a Watchtower reference that says that Jehovah's Witnesses view the anarthrous theos in its usual sense of both qualitative and indefinite. Therefore, this would place the expression "the Word was a god" as meaning that 'the Word has the qualities and characteristics of Jehovah (is like Jehovah without being Jehovah) and is also among the body of all those who represent Jehovah and can be called gods, with little emphasis on the group'. Thus, the translation "the Word was godlike," although grammatically possible, limits the interpretation to #4 does not fully express the usual flavor of the anarthrous predicate nominative that preceeds the copulative verb.
I hope that this necessarily lengthy explanation explains why we think the term "a god," although have a limited range of possibilities, is closer in meaning to the sense of the greek grammar than "God," which can be interpreted erroneously as definite, although it too can be interpreted as qualitative. The damage done by understanding it as definite "god" is shown by the confusion of so many people who use this verse to explain that Jesus is Jehovah.
Sincerely,
Wes
[Before you ask, no I am not a Jehovah's Witness!]