[Sissy]

This is a response concerning the use of "a god" by JW's.




As for the JW's, I've never actually met one who could read Greek. The experts in the field dispute that even their "scholars" know anything about the language. The mistakes they make in translation are mostly learned in the FIRST YEAR of Greek. And John 1:1 is a perfect example of a simple, first year Greek construction that the JW's are flat out wrong about.

Ironically, despite the arguments of the JW's on this verse, it is one of the strongest verses in scripture demanding that Jesus is God. The reason is that while it is true that the absence of the article CAN mean that the indefinite is implied ("a" as opposed to "the"), that is actually a fairly RARE meaning for that word. For the most part, the article is used for grammatical CLARITY and for syntactical precision, NOT for definitive identification.

For many, many constructions, the article serves the purpose of identifying WHICH construction you are using, clarifying the grammatical roles of the nouns and adjectives in a sentence, and frankly, sometimes the use or non-use reflected nothing more than what had become habit in the culture.

In the case of the third clause of John 1:1, the article serves the purpose of identifying the subject and the predicate.

Here is a study I recently wrote on John 1:1:

=========================

εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

There are a couple things you need to know about Greek syntax in order to understand what John is really saying in this verse.

First, Koine Greek normally drops the article in a prepositional phrase. The absence of the article in a prepositional phrase is normal, and doesn't mean anything. It is the INCLUSION of the article in a prepositional phrase that is unusual, and thus, means something.

Thus, the prepositional phrase "εν αρχη" doesn't contain an article, but is STILL properly translated "in THE beginning." The prepositional phrase "προς τον θεον," however, DOES include the article (τον). Since it was proper NOT to include it, the inclusion here MEANS something. In general, the INCLUSION of an article when it is not expected means you are being SPECIFIC (a PARTICULAR individual who is God). In order to fully understand how that effects this verse, we need to go to the last clause.

To understand the implications of the last clause, you need to learn about more Greek syntax. First, Greek distinguished the role a noun plays in a sentence by changing the case. In general, if the noun is the subject, it is in the nominative case. If it is the direct object, it is in the accusative case.

However, there is a strange class of verbs that don't take a direct object, they take a predicate (there are THREE verbs that do this in Koine Greek). This means that you have TWO nouns that are the same case (nominative), where one is the subject, and one is the predicate. So if both are in the same case, how do you know which is the subject, and which is the predicate?

Here are the rules:

1) If both nouns have the article attached, then the first is the subject, the second is the predicate.

2) If NEITHER noun has the article attached, then the first is the subject, the second is the predicate.

3) If ONE has an article, but the other does not, then the one WITH the article is the subject, and the one without the article is the predicate.

So in the phrase "και θεος ην ο λογος", we see that λογος has an article (o) and θεος does not (και means "and"). Thus o λογος is the subject, while θεος is the predicate.

When translated into English, because λογος is the subject, we have to put it first, so this is properly translated "And the word was God."

Now, there are THREE things this could mean (depending on the construction):

a) The word was a LESSER god than the Father (τον θεον in the previous clause).

b) The word was the father.

c) The word was fully God, but was NOT the Father.

If John had written the clause: και ο λογος ην θεος, it would mean "the word was A god."

That is, the word was a LESSER god than the father. The reason being that since λογος is the subject, and is first, there is no grammatical reason to leave the article OFF of θεος, thus its absence must MEAN something (since even if we gave it the article, it would STILL be the predicate). Therefore, the absence of the article would mean "A" god. In other words, since the inclusion of the article would not change the grammatical function of θεος, the exclusion of the article must therefore change the MEANING of θεος.

The absence of the article in a position where the inclusion of the article would NOT change the word's grammatical function would tell us there is a difference in specificity: the λογος is not the same individual as the Father.

Further, if it does not have an article, the POSITION of θεος at the end of the sentence would tell us there is a difference in EMPHASIS (θεος is being “de-emphasized”): λογος is LESS of a god than the Father. Thus, "και ο λογος ην θεος" can ONLY mean "the Word was a god."

John did NOT use this construction.

If John had written the clause: και ο λογος ην ο θεος , it would mean "the word was THE God."

That is, the word was exactly the same PERSON as the Father. Meaning there is only ONE person, NOT two, and there is no trinity. The Father and the Son are nothing more than manifestations of the SAME GOD. They are NOT separate individuals. There is one God who simply "appears" at times in different forms.

The inclusion of the article with θεος would make it specific: the λογος was exactly the same individual as the Father (the exact same θεος just mentioned in the previous clause).

Since both nouns have the article, θεος is grammatically LOCKED into occuring AFTER λογος. If it moved in front of λογος, it would change its grammatical function, and become the subject. Thus, in this construction, the position of θεος would not mean anything. It MUST appear there. Thus, the clause "και ο λογος ην ο θεος" can only mean "Jesus was THE God (the exact same individual as the Father)."

John did NOT use this construction.

By writing it: και θεος ην ο λογος, John does TWO critical and clearly indicated things.

First, he leaves the article OFF of θεος (God), thus indicating that word is NOT the same individual as the father.

Second, he pops θεος to the front of the clause, placing extra emphasis on that word. By doing that, he makes it clear by the INCREASE in emphasis that the absence of the article does NOT mean "lesser." Since the absence of the article does not mean "lesser god," it leaves us only one choice as to what it can mean: Not exactly the same INDIVIDUAL as the "τον θεον" of the second clause, but every bit as much GOD as the "τον θεον" of the second clause.

Thus, the absence of the article tells us the θεος of the third clause is NOT the same individual as the τον θεον of the second clause.

The position tells us that the absence of the article does NOT mean "lesser." By placing θεος in a position of emphasis, John is doing the equivalent of bolding it, underlining it, and adding an exclamation point: The Word was God!

Now we see why John INCLUDED the article in the prepositional phrase "προς τον θεον." He was being very specific. The Word is with a SPECIFIC being called "The God" (τον θεον). In the next clause, he then lets us know that the Word was completely EQUAL with "The God" in divinity, but through the careful use of the articles, has clued us in that the Word is not the SAME individual as "The God."

One of the objections raised to the divinity of Jesus is that λογος means “the mind, wisdom, intelligence, or plan of God” and nothing more. λογος is NOT an individual, it is just a way of describing the “mind” or “wisdom” of God (this was a common philosophy of the Gnostics). Thus, the λογος was not an individual, but the wisdom of God. So Jesus was not a “God” made flesh, but the wisdom of God or the mind of God, made flesh.

That means He did not EXIST prior to His birth (as God). Prior to his physical birth, He was an IDEA, a PLAN in the MIND of God. That IDEA became a man.

John makes this interpretation absurd with the statement “ο λογος ην προς τον θεον” (the Word was WITH God). Further, προς emphasizes AGREEMENT WITH, not necessarily location or proximity. You see, if the λογος is JUST the mind, intelligence, wisdom or plan of God, it can’t be anything OTHER than with Him. If the λογος is the intelligence of God, then by definition it HAS to be with Him, which makes “the Word was WITH God” a completely pointless statement.

It is equivalent to saying, “My spinal cord, brain cells, and nerves are with me today.” Since, if you are alive, they can’t be anything other than with you, not only have you given no information, you have implied something that is not true. By making that statement, you are implying that there might be a situation in which they could be somewhere else other than with you.

Yet John makes it crystal clear that his choice of words was not an accident. He places extra emphasis on the fact that the λογος was WITH God by RESTATING it in the second verse:

“And this one was in the beginning WITH (προς) God.”

The words “this one” (ουτος in the Greek) references the subject of the previous sentence, which was λογος in all three clauses.

Thus, John is making a statement that can ONLY be interpreted as meaning the λογος is an individual who is somehow the ultimate summation of the wisdom of God. By stating TWICE that the λογος was WITH God, John makes it clear that the fact that the Word is WITH God as a CHOICE. It takes a real, living individual to make a choice.

And not only is this individual with God, He is also God Himself. That means Jesus DID exist prior to His birth (as He reveals Himself in John 17:5: “Father, glorify me with yourself, with the glory I had with you prior to the existence of the world”).

John's construction is so carefully crafted that it is often called the most concise theological statement ever made. With the seventeen words of verse one, he wrote a sentence that took me all of this space to explain.

John leave us only ONE option: Jesus is completely and totally God in every way that the Father is God, but Jesus is NOT the same individual as the Father.

Let me know if you need more information. If you need confirmation, virtually every Greek scholar who has ever LIVED agrees with this assessment of this clause (and it is found in most first year Greek books), so I can give you as many as you need.

Grace and peace to you,

Rhomphaia