TRINITY COLLEGE OF THE BIBLBE AND SEMINARY

GOD OR A GOD?
JOHN 1:1

A PAPER SUBMITTED TO DR. JOHNATHAN PRITCHETT

BS 518 BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS

BY DAN MCDONALD

MAY 2016

1
 2

Introduction

The conservative Christian orthodox position is Trinitarian with respect to God or the

Godhead, that is, conservative Christian orthodoxy affirms that God the Father, God the Son,

and God the Holy Spirit are the same in essence but distinct in function. This was affirmed by

the Nicene Creed in 325 and has been the conservative orthodox position ever since.

Although there have been various heresies concerning the nature of the Biblical

Godhead since that time, probably no heresy has had more of a negative influence and impact

like that of the New World Translation produced by the Watchtower Bible and Tract society.

Originally produced in 1961, the NWT has particularly attacked the deity of Jesus Christ with its

translation of John 1:1.

While there have been many conservative Biblical scholars who have addressed

this issue and have through scholarly exegesis shown the NWT to be in error, the Watchtower

and Bible Tract Society have become more sophisticated in their attack on the deity of Jesus

Christ. It is because of this, that this author will attempt to add yet another layer of defense

against the heretical doctrine of Jesus being “a god”, a mighty created being, displaying the

attributes of God the Father, but being reduced to a created being according to the NWT and the

Watchtower and Bible Tract Society. The Watchtower and Bible Tract Society will now be

referred to in the rest of this writing as the JW’s.

The intent of this paper is to buttress work already done in defeating the heresy of the

JW’s and perhaps add to some unique hermeneutical insights with respect to John 1:1. This

author does not claim to be an authority in Koine Greek, but has studied said language for four

semesters in college and still continues to use and study Greek. That being said, this author

humbly submits to the advanced knowledge of those who will be used as references in this paper.
 3

The Actual Text (Manuscript)

John 1:1-2 Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν.1

A literal translation of John 1:1-2 is as follows: In beginning was the Word, and the

Word was with the God, and God was the Word. This one was in beginning with the God.

Here, syntax comes into play. Syntax is the proper arrangement of words in order to

provide the coherent meaning of a text, for example take these three words: “I am here”, “Here I

am”, Am I here?” Notice in all three instances the same words are used but the syntax of the

words gives three different meanings, thus syntax is important in any text but particularly in John

1:1. In addition to syntax is grammar, which will be addressed latter, however, syntax and

grammar has aided in providing good multiple English translations of John 1:1-2:

John 1:1-2 (NASB) 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,

and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God.

John 1:1-2 (ASV) 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and

the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God.

John 1:1-2 (ESV) 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and

the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God.

John 1:1-2 (KJV) 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and

the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God.
1
Goodrick, Richard J. Albert L. Lukaszewski. A Reader’s Greek New Testament
Revised Edition (Zondervan, Grand Rapids MI 2007) The Greek text used in this edition of the
Greek New Testament was originally developed for the Portland Index Project by Edward W.
Goodrick and John Kohlenberger III, and subsequently reviewed and modified by Gordon D.
Fee. The text is the Standard text of Nestle-Aland’s Novum Testamentum Graece.
 4

Notice that the four above cited translations of John 1:1-2 are all basically the same

with the exception of the ASV (1901 Authorized Standard Version) and the 1611 King James,

which translates John 1:2 as “The same was in the beginning with God”, whereas the other two

state, “He was in the beginning with God.” All four translations are referring to the eternal logos,

Jesus Christ.

These versions or translations of John 1:1-2 are referred to as the Trinitarian version of

the text, in which the eternal logos (Word), Jesus Christ is the same in essence as Theos (God the

Father) but distinct in function. There are other theological camps that differ from the

conservative orthodoxy of the Nicene Creed, examples which come to bear:

καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν ὁ θεὸς

“and the word was the God.”

This is the position known as Sabellianism2; Sabellianism is western attempts in the

third century to defend monotheism against suspected tritheism by denying the personal

distinctiveness of a divine Son and Holy Spirit in contrast to God the Father3. Consider now

another example heresy:

καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν θεὸς

“and the word was a god”

This position is known as Arianism4. Arianism comes from Arius the heretic who was
refuted by the council of Nicaea. Arius taught that no substance of God could in any way be

communicated or shared with any other being, and since God was immutable and unknowable,
2
Mounce, William D. Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar (Zondervan, Grand Rapids
MI 2009) Ch 6
3
Elwell, Walter A. Editor Evangelical Dictionary of Theology Second Edition (Baker
Academic Grand Rapids MI 2001) pg 785
4
Mounce, William D. Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar (Zondervan, Grand Rapids
MI 2009) Ch 6
 5

Christ had to be a created being, made out of nothing but God, hence there was a time when

Christ was not5.

And this is where the rub is with the NWT of John 1:1, it reads as such:

John 1:1 (NWT) In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and

the Word was a god.

Clearly the NWT of John 1:1c is nothing more than Arianism resurrected in modern

times, the NWT ignores orthodoxy and although the JW’s have become way more sophisticated

in their Greek grammatical gymnastics, in the end they also ignore solid Greek grammatical and

syntactical structure6.

One must keep in mind that there exists a scholarly paradigm concerning the

uniformity of solid, credible, English translations of the Bible, and more particularly John 1:1.

This scholarly paradigm as previously noted is Greek grammar and syntax. In the specific case of

the difference in John 1:1c, “and the word was God” (orthodoxy) as opposed to the JW’s

Arianistic translation, “and the word was a god”, one must look at how first and second

declension nouns relate to the Nominative and Accusative case in Koine Greek.

It is this scholarly practice that this author believes that Distanciation truly takes place,

D.A. Carson states, “The fundamental danger with all critical study of the Bible lies in what

hermeneutical experts call distanciation. Distanciation is a necessary component of critical work;

but it is difficult and sometimes costly.”7

Distanciation in a nut shell is the attempt to jettison personal biases and

presuppositions and in a scholarly endeavor, one objectively seeks to go where the facts of truth
5
Elwell, Walter A. Editor Evangelical Dictionary of Theology Second Edition (Baker
Academic Grand Rapids MI 2001) pg 95
6
Bowman, Robert M. Jr. Jehovah’s Witnesses Jesus Christ and & The Gospel of John
(Baker Book House, Grand Rapids MI 1989) This point is made throughout the first five
chapters of this book.
7
Carson D.A. Exegetical Fallacies Second Edition (Baker Academic, Grand Rapids
MI 1996)
 6

may lead. And that is why scholars have arrived where they have with John 1:1 and particularly

1:1c. The nominative case is the case that the subject is in. When the subject takes an equative

verb such as “is” or “was” then another noun appears in the nominative case, that noun is known

as the predicate nominative.

In John 1:1c, θεὸς is what is known as the predicate nominative because it is an

anarthrous term, which is a predicate nominative noun that lacks the definite article8. In English

the subject and predicate nominative are distinguished by word order, in English the subject

comes first, however, this is not the case in Greek. Word order in Greek is employed more for

emphasis rather than strict grammatical function, other means are used to distinguish the subject

from the predicate nominative, one of the primary means to accomplish this is, if one of two

nouns in a clause such as John 1:1c has a definite article, that noun is the subject9.

Given this scholarly practice of Greek grammar, ὁ λόγος is the subject because it has

the definite article, and so grammatically and syntactically καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος is rightly

translated “and the Word was God.” Again, when a predicate nominative such as θεὸς is placed

in front of the verb (ἦν), by virtue of word order it takes on emphasis10.

Hermeneutically thinking, there are two important theological questions

which comes to bear: (1) Why was θεὸς after the coordinating conjunction καὶ and before the

verb ἦν? (2) Why does θεὸς lack the definite article? The arrangement stresses that what θεὸς is
the λόγος is, the lack of the definite article keeps one from identifying the person of the λόγος

(Jesus Christ) with the person of θεὸς (God the Father). That is to say that the word order tells
8
Bowman, Robert M. Jr. Jehovah’s Witnesses Jesus Christ and & The Gospel of John
(Baker Book House, Grand Rapids MI 1989) pg 30. Carson D.A. Exegetical Fallacies Second
Edition (Baker Academic, Grand Rapids MI 1996) pg 82-83

9
Mounce, William D. Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar (Zondervan, Grand Rapids
MI 2009) Ch 6
10
Ibid.
 7

the student of the Bible that Jesus Christ has all the divine attributes that the Father has; the lack

of the definite article tells us that Jesus Christ is not God the Father11.

The JW’s Seemingly Inability to Distanciate

If the apostle John meant write what the JW’s insist is the correct meaning of John

1:1c, that Jesus is a mighty “created” being, there are several ways that John could have

accomplished this that would make certain their position. The following is but one of many

examples: Ἐν ἀρχῇ ὁ λόγος ἐγένετο καὶ ἦν πρὸς θεὸς, this writer’s proposed example reads: “In

beginning the Word came into being and was with God.”12 This would have settled everything, it

is this writers opinion based off of observation that if John actually meant to write what Arius

and the JW’s purport, then John would have made it abundantly clear in a similar way that this

writer has proposed.

It is also this writer’s view, based off of observation that the JW’s grasp at imposition

of the text as opposed to exposition, they seem to run after isogesis instead of exegesis. One

instance shows how Nelson Herle, a JW that has taken their Greek stance to a whole new

sophisticated level. Nelson states that he can prove their position on John 1:1 and particularly1:

1: c because most all anarthrous predicate nominative nouns are indefinite and thus, he offers

indefinite parallels to John 1:1. The proposed parallels are from Mark 11:32; John 6:70; 8:44;

10:2; 12:6.
The nouns in these instances are, according to Herle, “qualitative” which identifies

and or emphasizes the subject’s characteristics or qualities. With reference to John 1:1c θεὸς is

“qualitative” and so does not imply that θεὸς means anything less than it means in 1:1b. It is

simply another way of saying that the λόγος (Word) is called God with reference to his nature,
11
Ibid.
12
This author in His own study has taken words used by John in the actual text of
John 1:1-2 and has determined that it would have been easy for John to assert that Jesus Christ
was created by God with the attributes of God, if indeed that is the message that John wanted to
convey.
 8

essence, or being, and does not identify the λόγος (Word) as a specific person13.

It seems as though Herle has not engaged in distanciation, for he has confused the

concepts of figurative nouns with qualitative nouns and renders the λόγος as “a god” (figurative)

and completely misses the distinction in function of the Godhead that John made. The JW’s

interpret John 1:1c to mean that the λόγος was a divine being of some sort, but lesser and inferior

compared to the θεὸν (Accusative case) of 1:1b.

The JW’s and particularly Herle state as a rule that an anarthrous predicate nominative

noun (θεὸς) that occurs before the verb must be translated “a god”. They cite parallel passages in

the N.T. that allegedly validates their point:

Acts 28:6 (NASB) But they were expecting that he was about to swell up or suddenly

fall down dead. But after they had waited a long time and had seen nothing unusual happen to

him, they changed their minds and began to say that he was a god.

Paul was bitten by a poisonous snake and pagans hailed him as a heathen god.

Acts 12:22 (NASB) The people kept crying out, "The voice of a god and not of a

man!"

The People were hailing Herod as a pagan god.

These parallel passages do not take into account the semantic range or semantic field

of the anarthrous predicate nominative noun θεὸς, for not all anarthrous predicate nominative
nouns are translated with an indefinite article14. Theologically speaking the JW’s position with

John 1:1 makes them polytheists! To acknowledge the λόγος as “a god” naturally and logically

implies that they believe in multiple deities but hold Jehovah as being the supreme deity, a denial

of this violates the law of non-contradiction; hence the JW’s position is self-defeating.

The Logos
13
Bowman, Robert M. Jr. Jehovah’s Witnesses Jesus Christ and & The Gospel of
John (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids MI 1989) pg 44
14
Ibid., chapter 5
 9

The semantic range of a word encapsulates all of the possible meanings of the word,

whereas the semantic field nails down the specific meaning of the word by way of context,

simply put. The semantic range of λόγος in the N.T. is fairly wide; however the semantic field of

λόγος as used by John nails down a specific meaning:

1 John 1:1 Ὃ ἦν ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς, ὃ ἀκηκόαμεν, ὃ ἑωράκαμεν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς ἡμῶν, ὃ

ἐθεασάμεθα καὶ αἱ χεῖρες ἡμῶν ἐψηλάφησαν περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς-15

1 John 1:1 (NASB) What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have

seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of

Life—

Writing to refute Gnosticism and Docetism John states to his audience the he and the

other apostles of Jesus can empirically verify his existence as τοῦ λόγου (genitive case) τῆς

ζωῆς, “the word of life”. Here John narrows the semantic range within the semantic field with

respect to the eternal λόγος. Bear in mind:

1 John 5:20 οἴδαμεν δὲ ὅτι ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ἥκει καὶ δέδωκεν ἡμῖν διάνοιαν ἵνα

γινώσκωμεν τὸν ἀληθινόν, καὶ ἐσμὲν ἐν τῷ ἀληθινῷ, ἐν τῷ υἱῷ αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ. οὗτός

ἐστιν ὁ ἀληθινὸς θεὸς καὶ ζωὴ αἰώνιος.16

1 John 5:20 (NASB) And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given

us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His
Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.

Notice in 1 John 5:20 that John makes an inseparable link between God the Father and

God the Son in essence, but distinct in function. Jesus, the τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς in 1 John 1:1 is
15
Goodrick, Richard J. Albert L. Lukaszewski. A Reader’s Greek New Testament
Revised Edition (Zondervan, Grand Rapids MI 2007) The Greek text used in this edition of the
Greek New Testament was originally developed for the Portland Index Project by Edward W.
Goodrick and John Kohlenberger III, and subsequently reviewed and modified by Gordon D.
Fee. The text is the Standard text of Nestle-Aland’s Novum Testamentum Graece.

16
Ibid.
 10

the οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἀληθινὸς θεὸς καὶ ζωὴ αἰώνιος, in 1 John 5:20 along with ‘Him’ θεοῦ (genitive

case) in 1:1a. The semantic field of λόγος with respect to John cannot possibly be merely “a

god”! Without a doubt, 1 John 1:1 is in direct correspondence and development in the prologue

of John’s gospel17.

It should be kept in mind that John writes in both his gospel and his first epistle that

the λόγος was Ἐν ἀρχῇ, (in beginning). The word ἀρχῇ has a semantic range, perhaps not as

large as λόγος, and it has a semantic field as well, particularly in John. With reference to Christ

in John the semantic field of Ἐν ἀρχῇ includes the assertion of eternity, for that which, or He,

who was from all ages can only be that which or He who is included in the being of God. This

makes evident the pre-existence of Christ in a strict sense, thus Ἐν ἀρχῇ (in beginning) is that

which is “before” all time, or more correctly, that concerning which no temporal statement can

be made18.

So the JW’s figurative rendering of θεὸς in John 1:1c as “a god” on the basis that

λόγος is godlike but created in a temporal dimension of existence is a total sham. For John

displays a very important hermeneutical rule with the law of first mention in the entire gospel of

John, he also displays the law of consistency in 1st John with respect to λόγος and ἀρχῇ.

Adding more insight into John 1:1 and Ἐν ἀρχῇ is Henry Alford (famed scholar of

biblical Greek and ecclesiastical Latin):

Theos must then be taken as implying God, in substance and essence-not ho theos, “the
Father,” in person. It does not = theios, nor is it to be rendered a God- but, as in sarx
egeneto [“became flesh,” John 1:14], sarx [“flesh”] expresses that state into which the
Divine Word enetered by a definite act, so in theos en [“was God”], theos expresses that
essence which was His en arche [“in the beginning”]: - that He was very God. So that this
first verse might be connected thus: the Logos was from eternity,-was with God (the
Father),-and was Himself God.19
17
Kittle, Gerhard Editor. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Volume IV
(W.M. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company Grand Rapids, MI 1995) pg 128
18
Ibid., Volume I pg 482
19
Alford, Henry. Alford’s Greek Testament: An Exegetical and Critical Commentary,
Volume I. Part II: Luke-John (Guardian Press, Grand Rapids MI 1976) pg 681
 11

Providing insight on a more basic and practical level with the subject that is being

dealt with is comments from Walter C. Kaiser Jr. and Moises Silva:
More often than not (as these examples may suggest), some knowledge of the biblical
languages proves its value in a negative way, that is, by helping us set aside invalid
interpretations. This point becomes particularly significant when we realize that heretical
views are often based on misuse of the text. Some groups, especially the Jehovah’s
Witnesses, routinely appeal to the fact that in John 1:1c, “And the Word was God,” the
Greek term for God, theos, does not have the definite article, and so, they argue, it means “a
god” or “divine.” Even a superficial knowledge of Greek, however, allows the student to
note that in many passages that indisputably refer to the only God, the definite article is
missing in Greek (even John 1, see vv.6 and 18). Students with a more advanced knowledge
of the language will know that one of the ways Greek grammar distinguishes between the
subject of the sentence (here “the Word” ho logos) and the predicate (“God” theos) is
precisely by retaining the article with the former but omitting it with the latter.20

Conclusion

Although this writer is not a Greek scholar, a working knowledge of the Greek

language has been of great benefit in the task of exegesis and hermeneutics, particularly when

the hermeneutical task overlaps into apologetics and evangelism. The student of the Bible not

only has the task of avoiding exegetical fallacies as per D.A. Carson, but also has the task of

defending heretical interpretations as put forward by the JW’s. The task of the Bible exegete is to

defend the honor, total inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible in the autographs as accurately

reflected in the solid English translations, in other words, to defend the faith once for all

entrusted to the saints.

20
Kaiser, Walter C. Jr., Moises Silva Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics: The
Search for Meaning (Zondervan, Grand Rapids MI 2007) pg 52
 12

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bowman, Robert M. Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jesus Christ, and the Gospel of John. Baker Book
House, Grand Rapids MI 1989.

Brauch, Manfred T. Abusing Scripture: The Consequence of Misreading the Bible. Inter Varsity
Press, Downers Grove IL 2009.

Carson, D.A. Exegetical Fallacies Second Edition. Baker Academic, Grand Rapids MI 1996.

Elwell, Walter A. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology Second Edition. Baker Academic, Grand
Rapids MI 2001.

Friberg, Barbra. Timothy Friberg, Editors, Analytical Greek New Testament. Baker Book House,
Grand Rapids MI 1981.

Goodrich, Richard J. Albert L. Lukaszewski. A Reader’s Greek New Testament 2nd Edition.
Zondervan, Grand Rapids MI 2007.

Greidanus, Sidney. The Modern Preacher and the Ancient Text: Interpreting and Preaching
Biblical Literature. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids MI 1988

Kaiser, Walter C. Jr. Moises Silva. Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics: The Search for
Meaning. Zondervan, Grand Rapids MI 2007.

Kittle, Gerhard. Editor, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Volume I. WM. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids MI 1995

Kittle, Gerhard. Editor, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Volume IV. WM. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids MI 1995

Mounce, William D. Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar Third Edition. Zondervan, Grand Rapids
MI 2009.

Witherington, Ben III. Reading and Understanding the Bible. Oxford University Press,
Cambridge 2014
13