John 1:1

by Ding 22 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  sd-7

  The thing is, and I've done a fair amount of research on this, that saying 'the Word was God' is highly unlikely to be what the writer intended; I think most scholars would agree that that rendering, at least in terms of Greek of the time, would create theological problems, as it could be interpreted to mean that 'ho theos' (God the Father) and the Word ('logos') were the same person, literally. This would be Sabellianism, which was always a heresy. The writer needed to define the Word's quality (theos) while simultaneously not appearing to equate the person of the Word with the person of The God, the Father, ho theos.

  I'd go with 'the Word was divine' or 'the Word was a divine being'. I think 'the Word was a god', while literally accurate, does not necessarily capture what the writer of John was probably aiming for. Especially since he starts this verse with 'in the beginning the Word was' and later says that the Word was in the beginning with God. Since both entities would've existed outside of time and space, the Word has no clearly defined beginning, per se, if you ask me. His power is God's power, his person is the purest expression of God apart from the Father himself. This is pretty well established in New Testament letters.

  Does that mean he is God Almighty? Not necessarily, strange as that might sound. He's far more than the JWs proclaim him to be, but John 1:1 can't be used to demonstrate that, at least not without taking all the scriptures together. The Father has put the Son as the centerpiece of his plans and directed everyone, in Jesus' own words, to honor the Son as they honor the Father. To honor the Son is to honor the Father, so either way, let's just agree that, if you're the Christian religious type (I'm not), Jesus is powerful and the key to proper worship.

  'Nuff said.

  --sd-7
• 

  jonathan dough

  Whether John 1:1 should read "was a god" or "was God" should be the end of the argument, not the beginning. First, examine all of the evidence as to whether the Word was, and is, God, which the Word was, and is, and based upon that context and supporting grammatical constructs one must come to the inevitable conclusion that the Word was God, in the proper trinitarian context. Here is the proof for that: http://144000.110mb.com/trinity/index-5.html#20

  The JWs even agree with this context-based analytical approach because they can't win the grammatical argument outright.

  The Jehovah's Witnesses base their interpretation “the Word was a god” on a) rules of grammar, and b) the overall context of the Bible. Basically, they argue that even though a literal translation does not include the indefinite article “a” before God, it can and should be inserted, depending upon the context (Should You Believe, Chapter 9), even though a literal Greek rendering is “and God was the Word” or in English “and the Word was God,” (ibid., Chapter 10; Reasoning, 416, 417).

  Strong and Vine’s vehemently disagrees with this grammatical assessment.

  (4) Theos is used (4a) with the definite article, (4b) without (i.e., as an anarthrous noun). (4c) The English may or may not have need of the article in translation. But that point cuts no figure in the Greek idiom. Thus in Acts 27:23 (“of [the] God whose I am,”) the article points out the special God whose Paul is and is to be preserved in English. In the very next verse (ho theos) we in English do not need the article, (4c) John 1:1 As to this latter it is usual to employ the article with a proper name, when mentioned a second time. (4c) There are, of course, exceptions to this, as when the absence of the article serves to lay stress upon, or give precision to, the character or nature of what is expressed in the noun.

  (4c1) A notable instance of this is in Jn 1:1, “and the Word was God”; here a double stress is on theos by the absence of the article and by the emphatic position. To translate it literally, “a god was the Word” is entirely misleading. Moreover, that “the Word” is the subject of the sentence, exemplifies the rule that the subject is to be determined by its having the article when the predicate is amorphous (without the article).

  In other words, the absence of “a” in “a god” lays a double stress on and emphasizes theos so that it should read “God,” ie., “and the Word was God.”

  http://144000.110mb.com/trinity/index-7.html#37
• 

  elder-schmelder

  Why is it that when I hear the John 1:1 debate, all it does is help me realize that the bible is not from God?

  If god was going to give us a instruction book, would he not make it clear to ALL of us?

  elder-schmleder
• 

  tec

  Good post SD-7.

  I agree, whatever your belief, when it comes to translating, the translators fit in the rendering that best suited their belief. On either side. I personally like 'divine'. Because that is what I believe. What I do think it is safe to say though, is that John 1:1 cannot be taken of itself to prove anything, one way or the other.

  And SD-7 makes another good point. Regardless of you belief on doctrine, it is still the Son to whom we must go, to see the Father.

  Tammy
• 

  snowbird

  Amen to Tammy and SD-7.

  1 John 3:23 Again, this is God's command: to believe in his personally named Son, Jesus Christ. He told us to love each other, in line with the original command. The Message Bible

  Apparently, the other stuff doesn't matter to God. It shouldn't matter to us, either.

  Syl
• 

  PSacramento

  If we view Theos as NOT the name of God, since it isn't, but as the description given to the supreme ultimate being, then it may be easier to undersatnd what the wroter of GOJ was saying and IF we continue reading we get a clearer understanding.

  If we replace God with human we have:

  1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with HUMAN, and the Word was HUMAN 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being 4 in him was life, a and the life was the light of all people. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it.

  Of course as we read further we see that The Word was WITH God, so by saying that the word is God, John is making a comment on the NATURE and DIVINITY of the Word, just as Paul does in Philippians and Colossians.

  Put "a god" goes aginst what John is saying and what Paul had said before.
• 

  zombie dub

  Makes me laugh how into this people get - it's really very simple: the bible was written by [comparatively] unintelligent men over many years and without any real collaboration, most of the books are not authored by whom they claim, and are full of contradictions, inconsistencies and edits.

  You might as well analyse Moby Dick.
• 

  elder-schmelder

  I agree zombie dub !!
• 

  jonathan dough

  I think most scholars would agree that that rendering, at least in terms of Greek of the time, would create theological problems, as it could be

  interpreted to mean that 'ho theos' (God the Father) and the Word ('logos') were the same person, literally. This would be Sabellianism, which was

  always a heresy.

  I think you are confusing immanent trinity versus economic trinity. This will clear that up: http://www.144000.110mb.com/trinity/index.html#2

  Sabellianism has no place in this argument because John 1:1 is not speaking of Jesus. Furthermore, Orthodox Christians - the overwhelming majority of Catholic and Protestant churches - teach that: “The humanity of Christ is a creature, it is not God” (Catholic Encyclopedia, 922).

  The second God referred to at John 1:1 is God the Son, the second person of the Holy Trinity. In that sense it is not unreasonable to conclude that the first person of the trinity, God the Father, was with the Son, the second person. God the Son was with God the Father, in terms of their relative distinctions, inseparable as they ultimately comprise one God.
• 

  TTWSYF

  In the beginning, the Word already existed or the Word was. That to me reads taht the Word was there before the beginning because that's what the bible says.

  If the Word was 'a god', then what kind of god was the word?

  Scripture is quite clear that there is One God and all other gods are false. What kind of god is the Word?

  I say 'True God'

  respectfully,

  dc