Your argument hinges on the interpretation of "theos" as an
indefinite noun in John 1:1c, which is why you claim that "a god" is
a valid translation. However, you misunderstand the nature of Koine Greek and
how the anarthrous predicate nominative functions. The fact that
"theos" lacks the article in John 1:1c does not automatically make it
indefinite. The construction of "theos" in this context is widely
accepted by Greek scholars, such as Daniel Wallace and Philip Harner, as
qualitative, not indefinite.
Your claim
that "a god" is the best translation because theos lacks a definite article is a misunderstanding of
Greek grammar. Philip Harner’s article supports the qualitative understanding
of theos in John 1:1c, not an indefinite one. The
construction emphasizes the nature or essence of the Word—its divinity—rather
than suggesting a separate, subordinate god.
The qualitative force of "theos" here emphasizes the nature of
the Word (Logos). It expresses that the Word shares in the divine essence, not
that the Word is merely a lesser or subordinate god. This is an essential point
that has been emphasized by numerous scholars, including Wallace, Metzger, and
Harris. The Word is fully divine, sharing the same essence as the Father, but
is distinguished in person. Hence, translating "theos" as "a
god" not only ignores the qualitative aspect of the word but introduces
theological confusion by suggesting polytheism or henotheism, neither of which
align with biblical monotheism.
You mention Wallace's critique of the NWT's rendering of "theos"
as "a god" and state that you disagree with his analysis. Wallace,
however, is one of the leading authorities in Koine Greek grammar, and his
explanation of the qualitative nature of "theos" in John 1:1c is
based on extensive linguistic research. The qualitative reading of
"theos" affirms the Word's full participation in divinity without
suggesting the existence of multiple gods.
Greek grammarians, including Wallace, Philip Harner, and A.T. Robertson,
emphasize that "theos" in John 1:1c does not function as an
indefinite noun but rather highlights the divine essence of the Word. To
suggest that "a god" is a legitimate rendering contradicts the
overwhelming consensus among Greek scholars who affirm the qualitative nature
of "theos" in this passage.
You cite scholars who
interpret theos in John 1:1c as “divine” or “what God was,
the Word was.” However, the qualitative reading emphasizes that the Word
possesses the full nature of divinity, not a secondary or lesser deity. Even
scholars like Murray Harris acknowledge that “a god” would be grammatically
possible but theologically inappropriate because it suggests polytheism, which
contradicts biblical monotheism.
You argue that translating "theos" as "a god" does not
introduce polytheism because only two gods are mentioned (the Father and the
Word). However, this logic is flawed. Polytheism is not limited to the worship
of many gods but can also involve the belief in multiple distinct gods, even if
only two are referenced. By translating "theos" as "a god,"
you are introducing a second divine being, which violates the core monotheistic
principle found in both the Old and New Testaments. Deuteronomy 6:4 ("Hear,
O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one") and Isaiah 45:5 ("I
am the Lord, and there is no other; besides me there is no God")
affirm the singularity of God. To translate "theos" as "a
god" in John 1:1c introduces a dualistic notion of divinity, which is
incompatible with biblical monotheism. The qualitative reading of theos in John 1:1c does not introduce multiple, separate
gods but emphasizes that the Word shares fully in the divine essence of the one
God, distinct in person but not in essence.
The Trinity doctrine preserves monotheism by teaching that there is one God
in three persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—who share the same divine
essence. The Father is not greater than the Son in essence; they are co-equal
and co-eternal. John 1:1 emphasizes this unity while maintaining the
distinction of persons.
You mention that the Son is functionally subordinate to the Father and
claim that this indicates an ontological difference between the two. However,
the distinction between functional subordination and ontological equality is
essential in Trinitarian theology. The Son submits to the Father in His role
within the economy of salvation, particularly during His incarnation
(Philippians 2:6-11), but this does not imply that the Son is ontologically
inferior. The Church Fathers and later theologians, including Athanasius and
the Cappadocian Fathers, defended the Son's co-equality with the Father, even
while acknowledging the Son's submission to the Father's will during His
earthly ministry.
You maintain that the Word
is subordinate to God and that the NWT's translation reflects this. However,
functional subordination (the Son’s voluntary submission to the Father)
does not imply ontological inequality. The doctrine of the Trinity, developed
in response to heresies like Arianism, affirms that the Son is coequal with the
Father in essence, though distinct in person and role.
The claim that the Trinity is a product of pagan triads lacks substantial
historical evidence. The Trinity is a unique Christian doctrine, grounded in
the biblical revelation of one God in three persons, and it arose from a
reflection on Scripture, not pagan philosophy. Scholars have thoroughly
debunked the idea that the Trinity was borrowed from pagan sources like
Hislop's The Two Babylons—a work that has been discredited by historians
for its inaccurate and unsubstantiated parallels between Christianity and
paganism.
The argument claims that because Christians accept the functional
subordination of the Son to the Father, there must be an ontological
distinction—i.e., that the Son is lesser in being or nature
than the Father. This argument misunderstands both the nature of functional
subordination and the biblical teaching on the equality
of the Father and the Son.
Functional subordination refers to the roles the persons of
the Trinity take in the economy of salvation—meaning, how God interacts
with humanity. The Son willingly submits to the Father in His incarnation
(becoming human) and mission (to redeem humanity), as clearly
taught in Philippians 2:6-8:
“…though He was in the form of God, He did not count equality with God a
thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, by taking the form of a servant…”
This passage shows that Jesus is equal to God (“in the form
of God”) but chose to submit by taking on human nature. His
submission to the Father’s will (functional subordination) was voluntary
and part of the redemptive mission, not a reflection of any ontological
inferiority.
Furthermore, in John 10:30, Jesus says:
“I and the Father are one.”
Here, Jesus explicitly claims unity of essence with the
Father, which refutes the idea that the Father and the Son are ontologically
distinct. The Father and the Son are one
in nature, while remaining distinct in person.
The argument points to John 1:1-2 as evidence of
ontological distinction. However, a close reading of these verses actually
supports the Trinitarian view of equality in nature between
the Father and the Son:
- “In the beginning was the Word”: This phrase
emphasizes the pre-existence
of the Word (the Son). The Son was not created; He existed from all
eternity.
- “The Word was with God”: This indicates that
the Word (the Son) was distinct in
person from the Father (He was with God).
- “The Word was God”: Here, John emphasizes the divine nature of the Son. The Son is God in essence, not a created being or a
separate, lesser deity.
The Greek construction of the phrase “the Word was God”
(καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος) makes it clear that the Word shares in the divine
nature. If John intended to distinguish the Son as ontologically
different from the Father, he would have used a different construction.
Instead, the grammar strongly supports the unity of essence
between the Father and the Son.
Thus, John 1:1-2 does not teach ontological inequality. It
affirms that the Son is distinct in person but equal
in essence to the Father.
The claim that Trinitarian theology is “muddied” by paganism
or neo-Platonism is a common argument made by groups like
Jehovah’s Witnesses, but this claim is based on a misunderstanding of both Christian
doctrine and historical theology.
The early Christians, including Church Fathers like Athanasius
and Basil of Caesarea, firmly rejected the influence of pagan
philosophies and polytheism. The Council of
Nicaea (AD 325) condemned any view that diminished Christ’s full deity
(such as Arianism), while affirming the biblical understanding
of one God in three persons. The Trinity is
rooted in Scripture, not in pagan philosophy.
Let’s consider the biblical foundation of the Trinity:
- Matthew 28:19: “Go therefore and make
disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of
the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”
- This
verse speaks of one name
(not multiple names) that encompasses the Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit, showing the unity of the three
persons.
- 2 Corinthians 13:14: “The grace of the Lord
Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be
with you all.”
- This
verse references all three persons of the Godhead
and shows their distinct roles but also their unity.
The accusation of neo-Platonism is unfounded. Christian
theologians drew from biblical revelation, not from pagan
sources, to explain how God is one in essence and three
in persons. The Trinity is a mystery of divine
revelation, not a concept imported from Greek philosophy.
You criticize the Council
of Nicaea as being politically motivated and question its theological outcomes.
However, the council’s primary goal was to address Arianism and defend the full
divinity of Christ, a belief already present in early Christian writings. The
doctrine of the Trinity, as affirmed at Nicaea, was based on biblical
revelation and a reflection of the Church’s understanding of God’s nature, not
political expedience.
Furthermore, the Council of Nicaea did not “invent” the Trinity but rather
clarified the relationship between the Father and the Son in response to the
Arian heresy, which denied the full divinity of Christ. The Nicene Creed
affirmed that the Son is "of the same essence" (homoousios) as
the Father, a belief that was already widely held by Christians, including
Church Fathers like Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. The fact that the Council was
presided over by Emperor Constantine does not diminish the theological
significance of the decisions made, which were based on scriptural exegesis,
not political expediency.
So your assertion
that the Trinity is rooted in pagan triads misrepresents both the Christian
concept of the Trinity and pagan triads. Pagan triads consisted of three
separate gods, whereas the Christian Trinity teaches that the Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit are one God in three persons, coequal and coeternal. This is a fundamental
difference that invalidates any comparison to pagan triads.
You also argue that the
omission of God's personal name, Jehovah, in the Trinity doctrine represents a “muddied”
Christology. However, the New Testament writers consistently refer to God using
a variety of titles, including "Father" and "Lord," and
focus on the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The use of
the name Jehovah is not central to the debate over the nature of the Trinity,
which focuses on the revealed relationship within the Godhead. Jehovah's
Witnesses often claim that using the name "Jehovah" is essential for
properly identifying God. However, the New Testament consistently refers to God
as Father and emphasizes the revelation of God through Jesus
Christ.
It’s
important to recognize that the name “Jehovah” is a late Latinized
form of the Tetragrammaton (YHWH), and the pronunciation of
this name has been debated for centuries. Scholars generally agree that the original
pronunciation was likely closer to “Yahweh.”
In the New
Testament, the focus shifts to God’s Fatherhood and the person of
Christ as the fullest revelation of God’s nature:
- John 14:9: Jesus says, “Whoever has seen
me has seen the Father.”
- Jesus reveals the Father
fully through His words and actions.
- Philippians 2:9-11: “Therefore God has highly
exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that
at the name of Jesus every knee should bow…”
- Here, Paul emphasizes the name
of Jesus as the focus of worship and adoration. This doesn’t
diminish God the Father but shows that Jesus shares in the divine
identity.
The use of
the name “Jehovah” is not required in the New Testament, as the emphasis
is on the relationship with the Father through Jesus Christ,
who fully reveals the Father’s character, will, and purpose. Nowhere does Jesus
or the apostles command believers to use the name Jehovah specifically
in prayer or worship. Instead, they emphasize the relationship with God
as Father and the authority of Jesus’ name.
In conclusion, your argument that the Trinity is derived from pagan sources
and that "a god" is a legitimate rendering of John 1:1c
misunderstands both Greek grammar and Christian theology. The qualitative
nature of "theos" in John 1:1c emphasizes the Word's full divinity,
not a lesser status. The Trinity doctrine is grounded in Scripture, not in
pagan triads, and preserves the biblical teaching of one God in three
persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
The qualitative reading of theos
in John 1:1c emphasizes that the Word is fully divine, sharing the same nature
as the Father, without introducing polytheism or subordinationism. The NWT’s
translation of “a god” introduces theological confusion by implying a lesser
deity, which contradicts both Greek grammar and the consistent biblical
affirmation of monotheism.
FYI:
What Really Happened at Nicea?
A Response to the Pamphlet 'Should You Believe in the Trinity' by Barry Hofstetter
