Does John 1:1 actually say, "the Word was a god"?

Question:

I got into a conversation with some Jehovah's Witnesses, and they said that according to Greek grammar, John 1:1 should read, "In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." Is this true?

Answer:

No.

In order for me to explain why that is wrong, I'm going to need to explain a few rules of Greek grammar, which most people will find horribly boring. I apologize, but unfortunately, this is the best way to refute this claim, so if you really want to know why this JW doctrine is wrong, you will need to bear with me. If not, feel free to stop reading now.

The Jehovah's Witnesses claim that Greek only has a definite article ("the"), and does not have an indefinite article ("a"). This is true. They also claim that since Greek normally attaches the definite article ("the") to the noun, any time it does NOT attach the definite article to the noun, it automatically implies the indefinite article ("a"). This is NOT completely true, but the really irritating part is that the Jehovah's Witnesses KNOW this is not completely true, which I shall prove at the end of this post with their own translation.

You can read the Jehovah's Witnesses full argument on this issue here. If anyone is interested, I have the writings of most of the scholars they reference, and it is NOT true that those scholars support their interpretation of John 1:1. Their explanation is, at best, the kind of thing a first year Greek student might come up with before he gets a wider, and much more in depth understanding of Greek beyond the bare basics.

Now, it is true that the only way to imply the indefinite article is to leave off the definite article, and that construction DOES occur in the New Testament, however there are at least ten ways to make a noun definite in Greek, and attaching a definite article to it is only one of the ten ways. This means that an indefinite article is only implied in about 15% of all cases in the New Testament where the definite article is missing. In other words, there are other rules that help us determine if a noun that is missing a definite article is supposed to be indefinite. So what rule applies to John 1:1?

Ok, now comes the really boring Greek grammar stuff. You have been warned.

The first thing you need to know is that Greek is a highly inflected language, meaning the endings on most words, particularly the nouns and verbs, tell us the role they are playing in the sentence (subject, primary verb, object, predicate, etc.). As a result, the word order rules in Greek are much more flexible than in English, and because of that, many Greek words can appear anywhere in the sentence. Greek writers typically used this inherent word order flexibility to emphasize or de-emphasize specifics words and concepts within a given sentence. Most of this is extremely subtle, but it can occasionally have a huge impact on what the writer is trying to say.

The third clause in John 1:1 is normally translated "And the Word was God," which the JW's claim is incorrect because the noun "God" does not have an article, and thus, it should be translated with the indefinite article as "a god."

Here is the clause in question in Greek:

και θεος ην ο λογος

And God was the Word.

Just as in English, a sentence in Greek in which the connecting verb was some form of "to be" (is, was, are) has a subject and predicate (rather than a normal sentence which has a subject and object). In English, the subject is always first, and the predicate is always second, and it is used to equate the predicate to the subject. For example, "John is king," "Jane is black," "Bill is cold," or "Sue is angry" are all this kind of construction. In most cases, it matters which of these is the subject and which is the predicate. In the sentence, "Bill is cold," we are saying that "being cold" is something Bill is experiencing. We are not saying that "being Bill" is something cold is experiencing.

In Greek, we would normally determine which noun is the subject and which is the object from the endings, but in predicate constructions, this is a problem, as both nouns are in the same case, so they have the same ending. Since a Greek writer can put these words in any order, determining which is the subject and which is the predicate could be a problem . . . except that Greek has a rule for this. Here is how the rule works:

If both nouns have the article, or neither noun has the article, then the first noun is the subject and the second noun is the predicate. Thus, in the following sentences (shown in English for ease of understanding), "John" is the subject and "king" is the predicate:

A)   The John was the king.
B)   John was king.

In example (B), since there is no particular reason for leaving off the article, it would be legitimate to translate that sentence, "John was a king," or maybe, if the context was not clear as to who "John" was, it might be translated, "A John was a king."

However, if only one of the nouns had the article, then the rule is that the noun with the article is the subject, while the noun without the article is the predicate. Thus, although they read oddly in English (remember, we are pretending that our English words are actually Greek words), in both of the following sentences, "John" is the subject and "king" is the predicate.

C)   The John was king.
D)   King was the John.

Here are the two really important things to remember: First, Greek uses word order for emphasis, and second, if both words have the article, the FIRST word is the subject, and the SECOND word is the predicate.

Remember that the third clause of John 1:1 follows the pattern of example (D) above, where one noun has the article (ο λογος = "the Word"), and one noun does not have the article (θεος = "God").

So we know that "the Word," although it appears at the end of the clause, is actually the subject, and "God," although it appears at the beginning of the clause, is actually the predicate. From this rule, we know this clause SHOULD be translated, "And the Word was God," NOT "And God was the Word."

Ok, so why did John place θεος ("God") at the beginning of the clause? For emphasis. The effect is something like this, "And the Word was GOD!"

But how do we know it is not supposed to be translated "a god"? Simple, remember that if both words have the article, then the first word is the subject and the second word is the predicate? That means, according to the rules of Greek grammar, you cannot place the predicate at the beginning of the sentence AND also give it the article. So, Greek grammar demands that if you want to place the predicate at the beginning, as John did in this clause, you MUST drop the article (so that your readers will know this is the predicate, NOT the subject).

This means that John could NOT do both. He could EITHER give it the article and leave it without any particular emphasis, OR place it at the beginning of the sentence for emphasis, where he would be required to drop the article. If he chose to place it at the beginning for emphasis, the rules DEMAND that he must drop the article.

When the rules demand that you drop the article, the absence of the article does not, in fact, cannot indicate the indefinite.

Thus, the effect is the exact opposite of what the JW's claim. By placing the predicate θεος at the beginning of the sentence, John is required to drop the article, but in so doing, he is placing extra emphasis on the noun θεος, which gives it extra force in the sentence, and produces the result, "And the Word was GOD."

Now, here is the really underhanded part of this argument from the Jehovah's Witnesses. They actually DO know that the absence of the article only rarely indicates the indefinite, as proven by their own translation, the New World Translation (Available online here).

John 1:6 reads as follows in the New World Translation:

There came a man who was sent as a representative of God; his name was John. [emphasis mine]

Here is how the Greek reads in that verse:

εγενετο ανθρωπος απεσταλμενος παρα θεου ονομα αυτω ιωαννης.

The word θεου ("of God") does not have an article, which according to their claims, means it should be translated, "of a god." But they know their claim is not true, and they demonstrate that in this verse.

How about John 1:12 where the New World Translation reads:

However, to all who did receive him, he gave authority to become God’s children. [emphasis mine]

And the Greek reads:

οσοι δε ελαβον αυτον εδωκεν αυτοις εξουσιαν τεκνα θεου γενεσθαι

Again, θεου ("of God," the Greek literally reads, "the children of God") has no article, so by their rules, it should read, "the children of a god."

Here is the next verse, John 1:13. New Word Translation:

And they were born, not from blood or from a fleshly will or from man’s will, but from God. [emphasis mine]

And the Greek:

οι ουκ εξ αιματων ουδε εκ θεληματος σαρκος ουδε εκ θεληματος ανδρος αλλ εκ θεου εγεννηθησαν.

Again, θεου does not have an article attached to it (εκ is a preposition meaning "from"), so according to their own arguments, this should be translated, "from a god."

These are all from the same writer as John 1:1, in the same chapter.

Just so you can verify this for yourself, because Greek is an inflected language, the article can have 17 different spellings. I will list them all here (in alphabetical order) so you can see that there is no article attached to θεου in any of these sentences: αι, η, ο, οι, τα, ταις, τας, τη, την, της, το, τοις, τον, του, τους, τω, των.

There are numerous other examples directly from their own translation I can give where it is clear they either don't really understand how the article works in Greek, or are being intentionally deceptive about the rules governing its use.

The bottom line is that John 1:1 tells us, to quote preeminent Greek scholar Daniel B. Wallace, "Jesus Christ is God and has all the attributes that the Father has. But He is not the first person of the Trinity. All this is concisely confirmed in και θεος ην ο λογος." [Quoted in Basics of Biblical Greek, by William D. Mounce, pages 27-28].

Far from meaning what the JW's claim, this verse, when coupled with verse 14 (and the Word become flesh, and dwelt among us), actually proclaims the deity of Jesus with emphatic boldness that leave no room for doubt about the claims John is making about Jesus: He is the God, He is the creator, He was not created (he was already there in the beginning), and He became flesh to pay for our sins so that we could be saved.

How Do I Choose a Church?

Question:

They [denominations] all believe something different. Baptists, Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists . . . How do I know which one is right?

Answer:

Well, for one thing, I think you might be asking the wrong question. You seem to be focusing exclusively on "Truth," which is very important, but it is not even remotely the only issue, nor is it one that you and I can most effectively employ (at least not with completely certainty) when evaluating various churches. In fact, once we get past a few central doctrines, it is not even the best means of evaluating a church.

Within Christianity, as you have noted, there are quite a few "doctrinal" divisions. Most notable is the Catholic/Protestant split. Then there is the Calvinist/Arminian split. The orthodox/liberal split. The traditional/contemporary split. The immersion/sprinkling split. And on and on and on.

And when it comes to the question of who has "The Truth," the answer is . . . all of them. And none of them.

Let me explain.

Not all doctrine is of equal importance. Paul was by far the most theologically complex writer in the New Testament, yet even he broke it all down to one central, critical Truth:

This is what I mean: Each of you is saying, "I belong to Paul," or "I belong to Apollos," or "I belong to Cephas," or "I belong to Christ." Is Christ divided? Paul wasn't crucified for you, was he? You weren't baptized in Paul's name, were you? . . . For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, not with eloquent wisdom, so the cross of Christ won't be emptied of its power. For the message about the cross is nonsense to those who are being destroyed, but it is God's power to us who are being saved. . . . Jews ask for signs, and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified. He is a stumbling block to Jews and nonsense to gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ is God's power and God's wisdom. . . . For while I was with you I resolved to know nothing except Jesus Christ, and him crucified. (1Corinthians 1:12-13; 17-18; 22-24; 2:2)

You see, despite all those splits, there is one set of central doctrines, in fact, THE central doctrines, upon which all of Christianity agrees: Jesus' identity as the Son of God, His death on the cross, and His resurrection. If we confess openly that He is our Lord, and believe with all our heart that He died on the cross to pay for our sins, and rose from the grave to secure our salvation, we will be saved.

Upon these core doctrines of the faith virtually all of Christianity is in agreement. As for the rest, I have very strong views on what is or is not correct. On baptism, I hold to believer baptism and immersion. On worship, I am very contemporary. On basic theology, I am very orthodox. On soteriology, I am very Arminian. On the church and the Bible, I am very Protestant.

But these positions are mitigated by three critical observations.

First, I have a strong and abiding confidence in man's inability to be perfect, either spiritually, physically, morally, doctrinally, or any other way. And that includes myself. I simply do not believe that ANY of us can claim perfection in our doctrine or theology. What this means is that once we get past the core doctrinal issues of Jesus, His death and resurrection that are critical to even BEING a Christian, I will not say that other believers are "wrong," but rather, that I DISAGREE with them. And this is NOT a semantics issue for me.

Second, it is absolutely undeniable that God uses believers who have strong disagreements with me on doctrinal and theologcial issues to further the kingdom of God and bring people to salvation. I am a staunch Arminian, yet some of the teachers and pastors I admire most, whose ministries are undeniably producing massive fruit for God, are Calvinist. I strongly disagree with many Catholic doctrines, yet I am deeply moved and inspired by Pope Francis, and will freely admit that I have much to learn from him about showing God's grace on a day to day basis. God does not require that our theology be perfect in order to use us in His kingdom. All He really requires is that we know His Son, and follow Him with all our heart.

Because of these first two observations, I harbor very little hostility toward most denominations, even those with whom I have my strongest theological disagreements. For example, I am thoroughly Protestant, but I also understand the foundational disagreement between the Protestants and Catholics (is the Church equal to or subordinate to the Bible?). This central difference means that the Catholic Church only requires that a particular doctrine not be contrary to scripture, where most protestants, particularly those of a more fundamentalist persuation, require that each doctrine be explicitly supported in scripture. While I simply cannot bring myself to embrace a doctrine that is not supported in scripture, because I understand why the Catholics can and do, it allows me to treat them with much more grace, and much less judgment. Even more than that, it allows me to embrace them without reservation as my brothers and sisters.

The third observation is that, while Jesus was the complete embodiment of Truth, beyond the central doctrines relating to salvation (mentioned above), He did not present Truth as the ultimate arbitrator of who was or was not a true believer.

Even the most cursory reading of the gospels will reveal that Jesus was highly critical of the Pharisees, and as clash after clash reveals, they might have been His stuanches opponents, if not out right enemies. Yet, did you know that Jesus had almost zero doctrinal disagreements with the Pharisees? In fact, not only is He never recorded explicitly refuting a Pharisitical doctrine, on several occasions He thoroughly confirmed first century Pharisee doctrine. For example, Jesus parable of Lazarus and the rich man confirms the Pharisee doctrine that (at that time) both the righteous and the wicked descended into the earth at death, where the righteous were comforted, the wicked punished, and the two could see each other across an impassable gulf.

So what was the basis for the hostility between Jesus and the Pharisees? Not what they believed, but how they lived. Despite their doctrinal accuracy, they were corrupt, hypocritical, judgmental, harsh, power hungry, impure, intollerant, self-righteous phoneys. They elevated their traditions for the express purpose of avoiding the command of God, specifically, "love your neighbor as yourself." They did not actually CARE about their fellow men. They had no qualms whatsoever about destroying lives to elevate their social, political or religious standing. Jesus had MUCH stronger condemnations for them than He ever did for those with whom He had clear doctrinal differences (such as the Samaritans) . . . and let's be clear here; if you have a doctrinal disagreement with Jesus, YOU'RE WRONG!

So how do you choose the best church?

First, make sure they really do hold to the central tenets of Christianity (Jesus is God, died on a cross, rose from the grave, is the sole source of salvation). Beyond this, make sure that you will feel doctrinally comfortable there (which probably will NOT mean you agree with 100% of what they teach). I am a pastor in the Free Methodist Church, and while I am very comfortable here theologically, I do have a few very minor doctrinal disagreements with official Free Methodist theology. Find a church where you have no major disagreements, but do NOT use doctrinal perfection as your ultimate measuring rod.

Second, make sure they are unwavering in their belief that the Bible is the Word of God. Undermining this critical foundation will open the flood gates to any and all ideas that happen to float by, and will give you no measuring stick against which to judge anything anyone ever teaches, preaches or endorses. It has been my experience that undermining this foundation almost always eventually leads to watering down the central, critical doctrines of Christianity, that being Jesus and salvation.

Third, make sure they LIVE what they believe! Specifically, that they are motivated to get out of their pews (or chairs, or homes) and go LOVE people. Despite what some seem to preach, we believers are not supposed to be known by what we are against, nor even really by how accurate our doctrine may be, but by how effectively we LOVE OTHERS!

Our command is to go tell people about Jesus, and love them.

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.  (Matthew 28:19-20)

I am giving you a new commandment to love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. This is how everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another. (John 13:34-35)

And this is his commandment: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus the Messiah, and to love one another as he commanded us. (1John 3:23)

Do not owe anyone anything—except to love one another. For the one who loves another has fulfilled the Law. For the commandments, "You must not commit adultery; you must not murder; you must not steal; you must not covet," and every other commandment are summed up in this statement: "You must love your neighbor as yourself." Love never does anything that is harmful to its neighbor. Therefore, love is the fulfillment of the Law. (Romans 13:8-10)

Did Jesus Claim to be God?

Question:

I know that Christians believe Jesus is God, but I can't find any place where Jesus claims to be God. Isn't that a problem for Christians?

Answer:

Well, if Jesus never did claim to be God, it might be a problem. However, the Truth is He did claim to be God on several occasions. The most blatant, and most enlightening, is found in the eighth chapter of the Gospel According to John. In this chapter, starting in verse 12, Jesus is involved in a prolonged confrontation with some of the Jewish leaders. In verses 21-24 we see this exchange:

Later on he told them again, "I am going away, and you will look for me, but you will die in your sin. You cannot come where I am going." So the Jews were asking, "He isn't going to kill himself, is he? Is that why he said, 'You cannot come where I am going'?" He told them, "You are from below, I am from above. You are of this world, but I am not of this world. That is why I told you that you will die in your sins, for unless you believe that I AM, you will die in your sins." (Joh 8:21-24 ISV)

The words translated "I AM" in verse 24 are εγω ειμι (ego eimi), which literally means "I am." Jesus is using this as a direct reference to Exodus 3:14, where Moses had asked God how he should answer the question when the Israelites asked him for God's name, and God responded with:

God replied to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM," and then said, "Tell the Israelis: 'I AM sent me to you.'" (Exo 3:14 ISV)

The problem is that in Greek, the phrase εγω ειμι was a really common phrase that was normally understood to mean "I am the one," or "I am he," or even "that is me." So all those listening understood Jesus to be saying something like "I am who I say I am," which is why they immediately responded with:

Then they asked him, "Who are you?" (Joh 8:25a ISV)

So how do we know that Jesus really meant this as a claim to divinity? Because He makes it crystal clear at the end of the chapter when the confrontation finally comes to a head.

Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day, and he saw it and was glad." Then the Jews asked him, "You are not even 50 years old, yet you have seen Abraham?" Jesus told them, "Truly, I tell all of you with certainty, before there was an Abraham, I AM!" (Joh 8:56-58 ISV) 

The phrase "Before there was an Abraham, I AM" actually makes no sense in Greek. It is grammatic nonsense akin to someone telling me, "I made this for you tomorrow. Yesterday I'm going to make you another one." The only possible way to read this statement is that Jesus is claiming to be the I AM of the Old Testament, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the one who gave the law to Moses, rescued Israel from Egypt, and established the nation of Israel.

And because this statement could not be interpreted any other way, the Jews immediately responded to what they saw as blasphemy:

At this, they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the Temple. (Joh 8:59 ISV)

This also means earlier, in verse 24, Jesus made His identity central to our faith. By stating "unless you believe that I AM, you will die in your sins." Jesus made it crystal clear that faith in His deity was not optional, but was, in fact, absolutely necessary for salvation. Jesus is the Lord of creation, the God of the universe, and making this the center of the Christian faith was not something the Church did hundreds of years later, but rather, something Jesus did before the Church even existed. It is because of this clear claim by Jesus that Paul later explains that salvation involves two parts:

If you declare with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. (Rom 10:9 ISV)