The article 'ho' in Jn 1:1c

by grzesiek32 21 Replies latest watchtower bible

grzesiek32

One of the most inconvenient verses for non-trinitaries is this:

Jn 1:1
1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

In order to call the fact, that Jesus is God into question, they noticed that there are two words "God", and the first one refering to the Father follows definite article, but the other one not.

en archE En ho logos kai ho logos En pros ton theon kai __ theos En ho logos
in original was the saying and the saying was toward the God and __ God was the saying To cut a very long story short, in this way they hold that the second 'theos' can be translated into 'god' beginning with lowercase letter as well and this construction was used just to distinguish the first 'theos' from the other one.

So let's inspect how being the true God depends on articles!

Let's divide kind of gods into four groups:

1. The Father - everybody agrees, that he is the true God.
2. The Son - for some people he is the true God, who is equal to His Father, and for some people He isn't.
3. Gods, that were considered by pagans to be true gods.
4. Gods, that aren't considered by anyone to be true gods.

Reading Greek Gospel one can see that:

1. The Father is called 'theos' with an article:

Jn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (NIV)
en archE En ho logos kai ho logos En pros ton theon kai theos En ho logos and without any article:

Mk 12:27 He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!"
ouk estin __ theos nekrOn alla zOntOn polu planasthe in this bracket should be the article 'ho'

2. The Son is called 'theos' with an article:

Jn 20:28 Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!" (NIV)
apekrithE thOmas kai eipen autO ho kurios mou kai ho theos mou And without any article:

Jn 1:18 No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known. (NIV)
Theon ouvdeis heOraken pOpote monogenEs __ theos ho On eis ton kolpon tou patros ekeinos exEgEsato in this bracket should be the article 'ho'

3. The gods that were considered by pagans to be true gods are called 'theoi' with an article:

Act 19:37 You have brought these men here, though they have neither robbed temples nor blasphemed our goddess. (NIV)
Egagete gar tous andras toutous oute hierosulous oute blasphEmountas tEn theon hEmOn And without any article:

Act 19:26 (...) that man-made gods are no gods at all. (NIV)
hoti ouk eisin __ theoi hoi dia cheirOn ginomenoi in this bracket should be the article 'oi'

4. Gods, that aren't considered by anyone to be true gods are called 'theoi' with an article:

2kor 4:4 The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, (...) (NIV)
tou aiOnos toutou etuphlOsen ta noEmata tOn apistOn (...) And without any article:

Jn 10:34 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'? (NIV)
apekrithE autois ho iEsous ouk estin gegrammenon en tO nomO humOn hoti egO eipa __ theoi este in this bracket should be the article 'oi'

What is more in the Bible there are some verses where are both false gods and the true one. They seem to be very interesting, so have a look at them:

2Kor 4:4 The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. (NIV)

There are two words 'theos' - the first one is false, but the other is true, and what is very interesting, both of them follow article! So, thinking like non-trinitaries one can say, that Satan is a greater god than Jesus, because he wasn't distinguished from God, but Jesus was!

Gal 4:8 Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods. (NIV)

The situation is very similar to the previous one. There are no articles both before the 'God' and the 'gods'. In Mk 12:26-27 the true God is distinguished from himself! In this verse:

Mt 22:44 "'The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet." ' (NIV)

the first 'Lord', that refers to Father, doesn't follow the article, but the second 'Lord', that refers to Son does. One could say, that Son is Greater 'Lord' than His Father! Considering the verse Rev 19:16 one can say, that Jesus is the Lord of his Father! It is nonsense, isn't it!

This article shows us that being true God or not is absolutely independent of articles! It depends on context only and nothing else. Even if the word 'theos' is indefinite it doesn't allow us to translate it into a 'god'. Only context can allow us to do that.
Grzegorz Zebrowski (from Poland)
This article is also here:
http://www.trinitarians.republika.pl/articles/gz/articlesgz.html
Amazing

Hi Zebrowski,
Your points are well taken. The Watchtower translation of Greek was done primarily by Fred Franz, who had a minimal amount of training in Greek during his two years in college. No other member of the New World Translation Committee had any training in Greek, beyond some amount of self-study.
That said, the rules of grammar used by Fred Franz in John 1:1 do not exist in either modern, classical, or ancient Koine Greek. He simply fabicated a rule to support his theory that Jesus is a lesser god, or "a god." ...
On the other hand, both JWs and some Christians make far too much out of the Trinity. The JWs are correct that the Bible never teaches a Trinity, for the words Trinity, Triune, or Three-in-one are never mentioned in any Bible text. Jesus never promoted his equality with the Father, but subordinated his own position. Also, the Bible does not comdemn the Trinity, nor do the Apostles warn against it as a pagan teaching. So BOTH sides can be, and are often wrong about this central teaching.
The Bible does make an issue out of faith in Christ as our saviour. That is the important issue. Any issue not specifically stated as a salvation issue, becomes a fun acedemic debate at best.
Jim Whitney
metatron

I think it would have been far simpler - and more defensible- to say that John may have been using a metaphor
and leave it at that - "My love is a rose" doesn't mean your love is actually a plant. The "Word was God" doesn't have to
either.
Incredible isn't it? With Freddie gone , they have no one who "speaks with authority" on doctrine anymore.
As with Marx and Lenin being dead and gone, the old grey men are limited to cut and paste commentary.
metatron
JosephMalik

Hello Grzegorz Zebrowski (from Poland)
Arguing the definite article in this verse is a waste of time. It is all about context and use. John 1:1 is an introduction and what is being introduced by John is the Word to the world of mankind created by Him. It is in this capacity as our literal creator that this Word is God to the world. The term God does not in itself identify any specific Being or Person or their position over the universe. God properly describes human as well as non-human beings with authority in scripture. This is the way it is consistently used by John. However John also makes the point that permission to perform this task of creation came from the God that this Word was with. Consider this view of the text:
John 1:1 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.
Just how this Word came into existence is NOT discussed by John. No one really knows how or when this Word came into existence. And John is not even concerned about the beginning of creation as in Gen. 1:1. All John is describing is the beginning of the world of mankind with all its many forms of government that started with the man Adam. This is an introduction to his Gospel and limited to such world which does not include the universe. Yes the Word existed at such a beginning but so did many other non-human Sons of God. Such context is clearly visible in verse 10. In such context the word "All" does not mean everything and should be understood only in regard to the world under discussion.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
For such reasons the scriptures call this Word that became flesh the only begotten Son of God.
Notice:
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
It is the human being that this Word became that is now called the "only begotten of the Father" The text is not describing how the Word came into existence as some teach. All mankind from [Adam] were created by the Word and came into existence by this Word with the exception of this "flesh." This flesh is the only human being of flesh to come into existence by the Father?s direct intervention and thus became the "only begotten of the Father" as we see here. No information as to how the Word came to exist is given in scripture and such verses do not apply to such a non-human Word. Nowhere in scripture does it teach that Jesus made the angels, this planet or even the animals that live upon this planet. This scripture in Col contains detail that is not really any different from this brief introduction given to us by John.
15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
Everything in this text describing the creation is human including the references to heaven, the ruling authorities that were above the creation or earth ruled by them. It describes rulers both far away and invisible and local thrones, dominions, principalities and powers all human sources of government. It is to this world that this Word was God and it was in this capacity of creator and now redeemer or Savior that Thomas finally recognized the Christ calling Him his Lord and God.
Joseph
Kenneson

Joseph,
If Jesus did not create the angels, why are they "his angels"? See Matt. 13:41; Matt. 24:31; Matt. 16:27
And what does Heb. 1:2 mean? Was not the universe, including the planet earth, created through the Son?
Narkissos

Gregor,
Your shortcut was too short IMO: the WT argument (as I remember it) was never that the anarthrous theos cannot mean "God", or that the article always implies the meaning "God". It was only based on a syntaxical phenomenon in koine Greek, that the noun as a predicate (or attribute) is usually anarthrous. This only leaves (grammatically) the meaning open. It's absolutely possible to translate "The Word was God" or "The Word was divine". "The Word was a god" is grammatically possible though logically impossible (just because it would imply polytheism, which doesn't fit in the Johannine perspective).
Incidentally, in the first French NWT (1974), the translator argued that in French a predicate usually doesn't have any article, and translated "La Parole était dieu" (the Word was god), with Brooklyn's blessing. In a new revision, however, the French NWT added the indefinite article in order to stick to the English NWT ("La Parole était un dieu" = the Word was a god).
JosephMalik

If Jesus did not create the angels, why are they "his angels"? See Matt. 13:41; Matt. 24:31; Matt. 16:27
And what does Heb. 1:2 mean? Was not the universe, including the planet earth, created through the Son?
Kenneson,
41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
Nowhere in any of the texts that you provided does it say that this Son actually created such angels does it? They are His angels because they were provided by the Father to assist the Son in performing the tasks described in the prophecies. This is also in keeping with the "authority" that was bestowed upon this Son after His resurrection. Such authority reflects the "glory of the Father" which includes the support of such angels as described. All this simply depicts the fulfillment of prophecy that our Lord was already familiar with. Perhaps this text will clarify this point for you.
6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone. 7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
The verses that you offer in evidence all point to this time yet in the future when such angels will be provided for these tasks. The angels are the Father?s property not the Sons.
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; 3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
The answer to your second question is no. The worlds under discussion in Hebrews are the worlds of mankind, the many government systems which he upholds by the word of his power which he will also purge from sin. You may better understand this hope in Christ that those already purged also have when John said: 1Jo 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. It has already been shown how Col. 1:15 fits in. How anyone gets the universe or the planet out of this verse is the real mystery. The scriptures are clear regarding such things:
Isa 44:24 Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;
Joseph
ellderwho

Joseph,
Did the Father share his glory with the Son? Jo. 17:5
Would Yahweh share his glory with a created being? Isa. 42:8
Leolaia

Joseph: I agree that nowhere does John refer to the generation of the Son, but I don't understand why you say that nowhere in Col. 1:15 or other scripture "does it teach that Jesus made the angels, this planet or even the animals that live upon this planet," when it clearly says that "by him all things were created, whether in heaven, or in earth, visible or invisible"? Does that not include the angels and the things on this planet? What am I missing?
And while John 1 is about the relation between the Word and his creation, it is hard for me to see how John 1:1 refers to anything other than the existence of the Word and his relationship with God before creation, which is not mentioned or implied until v. 3. The text in Proverbs 8, which John is indebted to, similarly refers to a time before creation.
Leolaia
JosephMalik

Joseph : I agree that nowhere does John refer to the generation of the Son, but I don't understand why you say that nowhere in Col. 1:15 or other scripture "does it teach that Jesus made the angels, this planet or even the animals that live upon this planet," when it clearly says that "by him all things were created, whether in heaven, or in earth, visible or invisible"? Does that not include the angels and the things on this planet? What am I missing?

Leolaia,

Where in Col 1:15 does it include the angels, this planet or the animals? These are all imaginary projections. What you are missing is the fact that only human beings for which His blood was shed are being discussed in Col. The world governments are being compared to and included in with the Church or the faith itself. This delineates the ?all? things under discussion. Thus the verses that follow say:

17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; 20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

Jewish terms such as heaven should first be considered the way Jews understood them not the way many understand such words today. This word which depicts rulership over other human beings is supported by the context itself.

You said: And while John 1 is about the relation between the Word and his creation, it is hard for me to see how John 1:1 refers to anything other than the existence of the Word and his relationship with God before creation, which is not mentioned or implied until v. 3.

As already shown this is an introduction of the Word in the Gospel of John, the understanding of which is not determined by verse numbers. The flawed understanding of these texts implanted in the minds of most has more to do with this problem than such verse numbers of the distance between texts.

You said: The text in Proverbs 8, which John is indebted to, similarly refers to a time before creation.

If you are referring to the personification of Wisdom then forget it. If you have real evidence then offer it in detail.

Joseph

The article 'ho' in Jn 1:1c

Share this