Jehovah’s Witnesses and
John 1:1 : Is
their translation correct about the Deity of Jesus Christ?
By: Moses Flores
If you have ever read through the official doctrines of the Watch Tower Society (Jehovah’s Witnesses), it doesn’t take very long to come across some pretty odd sounding doctrines. For instance, they teach that only 144,000 people will go to heaven as spiritually reborn sons of God. There are also some practices that they will not participate in such as blood transfusions or a pledge of allegiance. While there are many things that sound odd to orthodox and Evangelical Christians about the doctrines of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, it doesn’t take long to come across chief theological errors regarding the nature of the Deity of Jesus Christ and the nature of God. For instance, we read in one of their doctrinal tracts: “Christ is God’s Son and is inferior to Him [1]” and “Christ was first of God’s creations [2].”
What these doctrines are basically saying is that Christ is not ontologically equal with the God the Father. Instead, Christ is a creation of God, even the very first of God’s creations. As such, he is nothing more than a highly exalted creature who shares in some of the glory and praise with God (Jehovah, as they call Him), but is not equally eternal and equal in being. He is “inferior” to him in being.
The question that we have before us is do the Scriptures teach such a doctrine? Do they teach that Christ is a creature and not God through whom all things were made? Does the Bible teach that Christ is nothing more than an exalted creature who shares in the glory of redemption with God or does it teach that Christ is worthy of the glory of God because He is God?
Before I proceed in my argument, it must be said that this will not be an exhaustive presentation on the topic, nor will it be a study on the Trinity per se, although it does deal with an aspect of it, namely the second member of the Trinity. Instead the focus will be on proving the Deity of Christ from the Bible by focusing on the first verse of the first chapter of the Gospel of John. The reader should also keep in mind that even though we are dealing here with the Deity of Christ, we must not forget that the Scriptures present Christ as equally human. So although we will not explore that topic, it must be maintained that Christ was both fully human and fully God in one person.
John
1:1
The prologue of the Gospel of John is one of the most amazing sections of the Bible. This is probably so, because of the careful work that went into penning it out [3]. John’s purpose in the prologue, and even for the entire Gospel, is that the readers may “believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name (John 20:31).” This prologue sets the theme for the entire Gospel of John, so if we miss what the prologue is saying, the rest of the book might fly right over our heads.
However, before we proceed in looking at the opening passages of this masterful work, I must say that there is some effort that must be undertaken in order to grasp the fullness of this passage. This will involve some work with the original Greek languages but it is nothing that will be overwhelming or cause the reader to be lost. The reason for this is because it was the Greek language that John used under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to write this God-breathed account of the life of Christ. Therefore, it is certainly to our benefit in understanding what the Spirit says through what He has inspired.
NKJV: “In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
NWT: “In [the] Beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. [4]”
Greek: ’En arch hn ov logoS kaiv ov logoS hn proS ton qeon kaiv qeoS hn o logoS
“In the Beginning was the Word”
The opening passages of the Gospel of John cause us to recall the opening passages of the Hebrew Scriptures in Genesis 1:1 : “In the Beginning…” It is fairly obvious that this passage is an explicit reference to the creation of the world. How proper that since Genesis introduced God’s people to God’ work of creation, this passage now introduces God’s work of Redemption [5].
But this
passage is not merely trying to recall the creation of the world for us; it is
trying to tell us something about the Word ( ov logoS, the word ) which is the
subject of the sentence [6]. Before we
get to the relation of existence between the “beginning” and the “word”, let us
consider the Logos.
The word Logos
has represented very significant thought in the development of ideas. To the Greeks, the Logos is a sort of incorporeal substance that is the governing
reason behind the world. In some Greek
thought, it represents the self - consciousness of the Supreme Being [7] though
it was never personal. However, we must
understand that this word was written and being employed by a Hebrew and the
concept of the “word of God” has a history among the Jewish people. For example, in Psalm 33:6 we read, “By the
Word [8] of the Lord the heavens were made.”
“The ‘word of God’ in the Old Testament denoted God in action,
especially in creation, revelation and deliverance. [9] ” For example, in Psalm 107:20, men are crying
out to God to heal them, we see that God “sent His Word and healed them, and delivered them from their destructions.”
The Greek word hn reveals something very significant about the relation of the “beginning” and the existence of the Logos. The normal rendering in English is usually translated as “was” so that we understand that the Word was in existence in the “beginning”. However, when Greek verb is in the imperfect tense [10] which indicates a duration of existence before the “beginning.” Therefore, we should understand this passage to be saying that before the beginning was – however far back one wishes to extend that – the Logos was already in existence. “At the very least, then, this passage teaches that Jesus existed before creation. [11]”
We can also
logically infer that because the Logos precedes
creation, we can say that He Himself is uncreated – an attribute of God.
“and the Word was with God”
John continues with his discussion about the Logos by telling us that the Logos was (hn) with God. Again, we should observe that this Greek verb that is translated “was” is the same Greek verb that was used in the first clause and is an imperfect tense. So we know that this Logos was always “with God.”
Just like the Greek verb translated “was” can have a profound significance in our understanding of what this text is saying, so can the preposition “with”. The Greek word used here is proS which can have a variety of meanings depending on the context. In this case, the word denotes relationship, and even intimacy [12]. The theological significance lies in the fact that the Logos, the pre-incarnate Jesus Christ, was with God (ton qeon). The implication is a distinction of persons – not Being - who were always with each other. There was never a time, when they were not with each other. In fact, the same author, in I John 1:2 uses very the exact same language to describe Jesus Christ and His relation to the Father. Notice:
“the life which was manifested, and we have seen and bear witness, and declare to you that eternal life which was with the Father (h\n proS ton patera ) and was manifest to us…”
John is a bit more explicit in what he means to say in I John 1:2 when he clearly makes the distinction of persons between the Father and Jesus Christ [13]. The text in John 1:1, along with I John 1:2, also refutes the errors of Sabellius, who taught that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were the same person in three different modes of being [14]. We know this passage does not endorse such an idea because the Logos is with God (the Father) and “it would have been absurd in the [Gospel] to say that [the Logos] was always with God, if he had not some kind of subsistence peculiar to himself in God. [15]”
“and the Word was God”
The final
clause is one of the most controversial passages of scripture but it is not
hard to understand if we are following the prepositions of the apostle John so
far. Namely, that “the Word was in
existence before the beginning,” implying that He is not a creature for He
existed before “the beginning” and that “the Word was always with God” clearly
implying co-eternality with God. Of this
third clause, Calvin says, “that there may be no remaining doubt as to Christ’s
divine essence, the Evangelist distinctly asserts that he is God. [16]”
In the Greek, it would seem that we should translate the clause qeoS hn o logoS as “God was the Word”. However, we see that the English translations read “the Word was God” and there are reasons why this is not so. First of all, in the Greek language, it is not unusual for subjects and predicates to be placed in a reverse order. In this instance, the Logos is the subject of the entire prologue of John and the purpose of the text is to tell us who the Logos is. Also, because Logos has the definite article ( ov logoS) preceding it, this also helps to mark it out as the subject. Second, if the definite article had been in front of “God” (o qeoS ) then the passage would be asserting that “The God was the Word” thus disregarding the distinction of persons that was previously made in the second clause, thereby affirming a Sabellianism, or Modalism. Instead, the word “God” is acting as a predicate, which is a quality or attribute asserted onto a subject to describe something about that subject.
What John is saying, then, in a very direct way is that “The Logos always was (hn) God in nature [17].” The reason for the interpretation of “God” as qualitative is because of the fact that the word “God” is acting as a predicate, thus the quality of “God” is being ascribed to the Logos. The Word is essentially God and has always been God. The Logos is not a being that came into existence to become God, or god-like. Rather, The Word has always been God. The Word is co-equal with the Father.
The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ interpretation of John 1:1
Contrary to translation and interpretation of the final clause in John 1:1, the New World Translation of the Watchtower Society has a slight, yet significant, textual difference in their translation. The NWT reads, “In [the] Beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” The significance of this translation is that Jesus Christ is creature with “god-like” qualities, but is not God in nature. He is divine, but not Deity.
Their argument proceeds from the definite article that is missing from the final clause qeoS hn o logoS . Because this article is missing from this clause, they say that they cannot identify “god” as “the God” ( o qeoS ). Therefore, the Logos, Jesus Christ is a mere creature who cannot be God because there is only one true God, whom is identified as Jehovah of the Old Testament. Thus, “God” is indefinite and should be translated “a god.”
John Frame observes several reasons why this translation does not hold water:
1. The absence of the article may be a ‘purely grammatical phenomenon.’ When, as here, a Greek sentence uses ‘to be’ to connect a subject and a predicate noun, the predicate noun normally lacks the article, even when it is definite. So the absence of an article implies nothing about the precise sense of theos.
2. This argument is even stronger in passages like ours, where the predicate precedes the subject. The ‘Colwell Rule’ states that in such a sentence, the predicate noun usually lacks an article, even though it is definite, but that the subject of the sentence, if definite, will employ the definite article. So again the phenomenon has a grammatical explanation and does not presuppose any change of meaning between ‘God’ in clause two and ‘God’ in clause three.
3. As we have seen, in such constructions the predicate noun usually or normally lacks the article. Following that normal practice here may have also served the author’s purpose to draw additional attention to the term God, the center of the chiasm [18]. Dropping the article focuses on the noun itself, and brings the two occurrences of theos closer together in the chiasm. This consideration weakens further the need for further explanation of the construction.
4.
In similar verses, where theos is a
predicate noun lacking the definite article, a reference to God in the fullest
sense is indisputable (see Mark
5. There are many other verses, some in the same first chapter of John, in which theos lacks a definite article, but in which the references to God in the fullest sense is indisputable. Nobody would claim a reduced meaning of theos, for example, in 1:6, 13, or 18.
6. Even if we grant that theos without the definite article puts some emphasis on the qualities of God rather than his person, this supposition does not entail that theos in the third clause has a reduced sense. To prove otherwise, one must show that the qualities in view are something other than the essential attributes of God. If the qualities are essential qualities, then the third clause identifies the Word with God in the highest sense.
7. A very strong argument is needed to prove that the meaning of theos changes between clause two and clause three. That burden of proof has certainly not been met. [19]
There are
other reasons why we can dismiss the indefinite – “a god” – interpretation of
the Jehovah’s Witnesses. For instance,
we can appeal to the Monotheism that is explicitly taught in the Bible. That is, it is hardly likely that John would
use the word that he consistently uses to describe the One True God to describe
a mere creature, or a being who is a “lesser god” of some sort. There is no Biblical support for an idea of
One True God along with other lesser gods.
Also, think of the theological mess that we would have if we had to
interpret qeoS every time it appeared by
itself as “a god.” For example, in 2
Corinthians
Final thoughts and conclusion
It is clear that John 1:1 clearly teaches that Christ in His person is co-eternal and co-equal in with the Father and is, in His very nature, said to be God. It should also be noted that the One who exists before creation, by definition must be uncreated. This is an attribute of the One True God alone. The significance of the Logos being identified, though differentiated in person, with the One True God is great indeed for in verse 14 we come to the most shocking element of the prologue to the Gospel of John: The Word became flesh!!
The New World Translation’s rendering of this passage is clear evidence of reading into a passage a theological presupposition and translating accordingly rather than allowing the text to speak for itself. When the text is allowed to speak for itself, it clearly asserts that full Deity of Jesus Christ as being equal with God the Father in that He is eternal and equal in nature. Clearly the doctrinal propositions mentioned earlier of the Watchtower Society do not stand on the exegesis of scripture, but are clearly a foreign concept introduced to the text. But now that we know what the truth of John 1:1 teaches, it should be taught and emphasized with holy fire and Godly reverence. For in this truth is the doctrine of God Himself. Three Persons; One True God in substance. In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Amen.
[1] Jehovah’s Witnesses:
Who are they? What do they
believe? ,
[2] ibid.
[3] John was probably writing
this Gospel account to combat the errors of Cerenthius,
a heretic who taught that Jesus was merely a man and at the Baptism, the Spirit
came down on Him but then left Him before He suffered upon the Cross. See William Hendricksen’s New Testament Commentary: John, Baker Book House,
[4] italics mine.
[5] White, James R., The Forgotten Trinity: Recovering
the Heart of Christian belief, Bethany
House Publisher,
[6] nom. Masc. sing. Noun
[7] like Aristotle’s “unmoved mover”
[8] the
word used for “word” in the LXX is logos
[9] Bruce, F. F., The Gospel & Epistles of John, Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1983, pg. 29
[10] the imperfect tense denotes continuous action in the past.
[11] Frame, John M.,
‘The Doctrine of God, Presbyterian
and Reformed Publishing Co., Phillipsburg, New Jersey, 2002, pg. 664
[12] White, The Forgotten Trinity, pg. 52
[13] This might be the case
because in I John, it seems that John’s audience is explicitly Christian and
that this is whom the letter is directed toward so he
feels he can write to them in a very explicit fashion. The Gospel of John, however, it might seem
was intended for a larger audience – believing and non-believing - and was
possibly written in an almost apologetic fashion so that Christians would keep
on believing that Christ was the Son of
God and the non-believers would believe that He is the Son of God, indeed, God
Himself (John 20:31,32)
[14] This position today is commonly known in Pentecostal communities known as “Oneness”, “Pentecostal Oneness” or “modalism.”
[15] Calvin, John, Calvin’s Commentaries: Volume XVII; Gospel According
to John, trans. Pringle, William, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan,
1979, pg. 28
[16] ibid. pg. 29
[17] This is a qualitative
rendering of qeovz
[18] Frame notes that the second
and third clause for a “chiasm” which is a device found often in Hebrew
writings which ideas, concepts or words are structured in certain orders such
as A B C C B A.
In this case, Frame believe the order to be A B
B A in which A is the Word and B is God. “the Word was with
God and God was the Word”.
[19] Frame, The Doctrine of God, pg. 665-666