John 1:1 is probably the most hotly contested verse in the Bible in discussions between Christians and Jehovah’s Witnesses. Christians cite this passage in support of the divinity of Christ and of the Trinity, while Jehovah’s Witnesses argue the text upholds their view of Jesus as a lesser divinity created by God before anything else. Both sides claim to make a case for their position, although upon careful study the Witnesses’ argument collapses.
In the Watchtower version of the Bible, the New World Translation, John 1:1 reads: “In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.”
Although a few other translators follow this rendering, usually for theological reasons (they don’t accept the divinity of Christ either), the vast majority of contemporary scholars, whether Catholic, Protestant, or unbelieving, don’t. Most translate the third clause of the verse as “the Word was God” or its equivalent.
How do the Witnesses justify their rendering of John 1:1? Before considering the arguments, let’s look at the passage again, this time in the Revised Standard Version (RSV) with the key Greek words included in parentheses: “In the beginning was the Word (ho logos), and the Word was with God (ton theon), and the Word was God (theos).”
The Witnesses argue that since in the last clause of John 1:1 (RSV: “the Word was God”) the Greek word for God, theos, isn’t preceded by the definite article (it’s theos rather than ho theos), it should be taken as an indefinite noun and translated into English with the indefinite article “a.” The clause should read “the Word was a god,” as in the JW translation, not “the Word was God,” as in the RSV and most other versions.
Jehovah’s Witnesses go on to say the indefinite rendering implies a lower case “g” should be used in English, to indicate the Word is a lesser divinity not to be identified with Almighty God, Jehovah, who is referred to in the middle clause (“the Word was with God”) as ton theon (literally, “the God”–the accusative form of ho theos).
Trinitarians pursue two lines of thought in response to the Witnesses’ arguments.
The first is to challenge the contention that theos, as used in the last clause (“the Word was God [theos]”), is an indefinite noun. If it can be shown that theos is a definite noun, even though the definite article is absent, then the JW case for their translation of John 1:1 falters. Let’s call this approach to the question the “definite noun argument.”
The second line of attack says that, even if theos in the last clause of John 1:1 is an indefinite noun, this doesn’t mean that the JW translation is correct or that the JW inference that Jesus must be a lesser divinity and not Jehovah God is correct. We’ll call this the “indefinite noun argument.”
Let’s take these arguments in order.
The definite article argument runs as follows: The mere absence of the definite article in front of a noun doesn’t prove the noun is indefinite. In the passage in question, many scholars argue the lack of the article indicates only that the Word (ho logos), rather than God (theos), is the subject of the sentence. This tells us how the clause should be translated: “the Word was God” rather than “God was the Word.” On this view, John’s phrasing of the clause actually upholds the idea that the Word (Christ) is God.
Additional evidence for the definiteness of theos in John 1:1c is sometimes sought in Colwell’s rule, a grammatical principle named for the man who formulated it, E. C. Colwell. This rule states that a definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb. In other words, theos doesn’t have an article in John 1:1c because in the Greek it comes before the verb, not because it’s indefinite.
Some Trinitarians, especially the proponents of the indefinite noun position, find this argument unconvincing. While the argument upholds the divinity of the Word by identifying him with ho theos (“the God”), it also, contend the critics, undermines the distinction of persons in God and thereby succumbs to the heresy of modalism (the belief there aren’t really three distinct persons in God, merely three different modes of one person’s activity).
Proponents of the indefinite noun argument point out that ho theos usually refers to God the Father in the New Testament. If this is the case in John 1:1b, then the clause is saying the Word was with God the Father. If theos in the final clause of the passage (John 1:1c) is definite–if it means the same as ho theos and therefore refers to the same person as the second clause (God the Father), the one who’s with the Word–then the passage also means the Word was God the Father, something a Trinitarian must reject.
The second difficulty with the definite article argument is the way Colwell’s rule is at times employed. Although this rule is helpful as a general principle, there are exceptions to it. Furthermore, while the rule permits us to say theos in John1:1c may be a definite noun (and is without the article because it precedes the verb), it doesn’t force us to conclude it must be so. In fact, the rule can only be brought to bear on the text after it’s determined the noun in question is definite.
Defenders of the definite noun position respond by making two points: (1) Ho theos can be used of the Son as well as the Father and (2) it can also be used to designate the one true God.
Ho theos is used to refer to the Son in John 20:28, where Thomas says to Jesus, “My Lord and my God.” (Literally, “The Lord of me and the God [ho theos] of me.”) It’s used of the true God (including the Son and not merely the Father) in a slightly altered form in 1 John 5:20: “This is the true God and life eternal.”
Thus, while John may intend ton theon to refer to the Father in John1:1b (“the Word was with God” [i.e., God the Father]), he can also use theos in the definite sense (without the article, of course) in John 1:1c to refer to the one God. Paraphrasing, the passage would read: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God the Father, and the Word was the true God.”
The indefinite noun advocates find this argument not only unpersuasive, but also unnecessary. While acknowledging that theos is used as an indefinite noun in John 1:1c, they contend this neither supports the Watchtower’s rendering of the passage nor leads to the conclusions the Witnesses draw from it.
The lack of a definite article in the Greek can imply an indefinite article is needed in an English translation, but it doesn’t have to. It’s possible the word is being used in a qualitative sense, which can be indefinite–not referring to a specific person, “the God” (i.e., the Father), but to a quality, the Word’s “God-ness.” This has led many Scripture scholars to translate John 1:1c as “the Word was divine”–the Word possessed the same unique divine nature as ho theos (“the God”), usually identified as the Father.
Some Trinitarians are willing to concede even more. Robert M. Bowman, Jr., in his book Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jesus Christ, and the Gospel of John, argues that including the indefinite article “a” in John 1:1c doesn’t disprove the divinity of the Word per se. He shows how in Mark 12:27 and Luke 20:38 Jehovah himself is refered to as “a God,” even in the Witnesses’ own New World Translation.
About such a usage Bowman writes:
“If this were the ‘qualitative’ or ‘indefinite’ sense to which the JWs attributed theos in John 1:1, there would be no problem. In that case, we would understand the expression ‘a God’ as we do in Luke 20:38 and Mark 12:27, not as implying one God in contrast to another God, or a deity of a lesser nature in comparison to another deity, but simply as speaking of the only true God from the standpoint of his nature–what kind of ‘a God’ he is.”
Bowman says that understanding theos in John 1:1c to be a qualitative-indefinite noun isn’t wrong so long as this isn’t taken to mean the Word is a separate, lesser divinity than ho theos (God the Father).
The witnesses’ whole case for denying Christ’s divinity rests on their belief that theos is employed as an indefinite and qualitative noun. If this is not the case, then the Watchtower’s argument about John 1:1 can’t get off the ground.
Even if it’s granted that theos is used as an indefinite and qualitative noun in John 1:1c (as the advocates of the indefinite noun position assert), the Witnesses’ contention that the Word must be a lesser divinity than God the Father won’t hold up. That idea isn’t implied in the indefinite and qualitative use of theos.
Whether theos is a definite or indefinite noun in John 1:1c, neither the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ translation of the passage nor the inferences they draw from it will stand.