The Word of God is God the Word by Ryan Campbell

The Word of God is God the Word:

An Exegesis of John 1:1-5

Ryan Campbell

            Nearly everyone has experienced sitting down for dinner with the family and hearing an unannounced visitor at the door. Often one will see two or three well-dressed individuals, carrying briefcases, and looking like CIA agents. Upon opening the door, one discovers that these individuals are interrupting dinnertime to zealously share with you ‘what the Bible really teaches.’ It usually does not take long to discover that these representatives of the Watchtower Society, the Jehovah’s Witnesses (JW hereafter), insist that, in stark contradiction to historical orthodox Christian theology and a plain reading of the New Testament (NT hereafter), the Bible really teaches that the Word of John 1:1-5, Jesus Christ, is not true deity but a mere god, a spirit creature. “Is the firstborn Son equal to God, as some believe? That is not what the Bible teaches,” claim the JWs (Watchtower 41). Contrary to the challenge that the Word of John 1:1-5 is merely ‘a god,’ a careful exegesis of the text and its critical terms and grammar produce a cumulative case argument that leads to the certain conclusion of the full deity of the Word, Jesus Christ.

1. Statement of the Challenge: Past and Present

            The heresy pushed from door to door by the JWs is not a recent development, although few Christians know how to respond to it today. The ESV Study Bible notes the history of the heresy, saying, “From the Patristic period (Arius, c. A.D. 256-336) until the present day (JWs), some have claimed that ‘the Word was God’ merely identifies Jesus as a god rather than identifying Jesus as God, because the Greek word for God, Theos, is not preceded by a definite article” (2019). The fourth century heretic Arius taught that “there was once when he [the Word, the Son] was not” (Bruce 31).

This statement by the ancient Arius has been given new life with the rise of the Watchtower Society and their 1950s translation of the Bible, which translated John 1:1c as “and the Word was a god” (NWT).  Less eloquently than Arius, the JWs state their position as, “[Jesus] is the ‘only begotten Son.’ This means that Jesus is the only one directly created by God…the Son was created…a spirit creature” (Watchtower 41-42). For millennia this heretical theology has exercised control over many, and since the 1950s has been promulgated by the New World Translation of the JW.  The alleged exegetical basis for the JW’s translation is the lack of a definite article (i.e., Gk. ho, “the”) before theos (“God”) in the Greek of John 1:1c.  However, because of the radical claims and deeds of Jesus the Word throughout the rest of John’s Gospel, C. K. Barrett’s remark rings true: “John intends the whole gospel shall be read in the light of this verse. The deeds and words of Jesus are the deeds and words of God; if this be not true, the book is blasphemous” (Bruce 31). The debate over the meaning of John 1:1-5 puts much at stake.

2. The Grammar of John 1:1-5

            The following examination of the grammar will be concerned with the primary (1) prepositional phrases, (2) nouns, and (3) verbs of John 1:1-5, which will together create a strong case for the orthodox view and translation of ‘the Word’ as the ‘God’ of John’s Gospel and the whole world.

2.1 Primary Prepositional Phrases of John 1:1-5

            The two primary prepositional phrases that inform a correct understanding of ‘the Word’ are the opening words of the Gospel, “In the beginning” and “with God” (John 1:1a, 2).

            Concerning the opening line of the Gospel, “In the beginning,” many have recognized its significance by it being a reference back to the opening line of the Old Testament (OT hereafter), what the NIV Study Bible calls “a deliberate echo of Ge(nesis) 1:1 to link God’s actions in behalf of the world through Jesus Christ” (1761). In terms of a picture of the whole of reality, according to the Bible, there are only two fundamental kinds of beings: everything in reality is either the uncreated Creator or a creation.  By John pointing back to Genesis 1:1, he is carefully indicating that the Word is not a creation but the Creator (compare John 1:3).  “In Gen. 1:1 ‘In the beginning’ introduces the story of the old creation; here it introduces the story of the new creation. In both works of creation the agent is the Word of God” (Bruce 28-29).

So, by employing the phrase “In the beginning” John was either being very careful in his choice of language in order to point to the Word as Creator, or he was being terribly careless with his theology and, as Bruce remarked above, following Barrett, was guilty of blasphemy (31). Further consideration of this phrase’s relationship to the verbs will only strengthen the conclusion that it is the former.   

Another crucial prepositional phrase for the passage is “with God” (1:1b, 2). Guthrie explains the importance of this phrase, saying, “the Greek preposition translated with (i.e., pros) suggests the idea of communion. The thought is literally ‘towards God,’ which requires some distinctiveness between God and the Word” (1025). This distinctiveness does not help the JW’s case that the Word is a god which is distinct from the true God. Rather, John has identified the Word as the Creator God, but has indicated that there is a relational distinction in the being of that God.  The Word and God enjoy a personal relationship with one another, something only distinct persons can enjoy.  So, John has unambiguously identified the Word as the Creator, yet has carefully qualified that the Word and God are two distinct persons in real relationship. 

2.2 The Primary Nouns of John 1:1-5

            For sake of the present thesis, the two primary nouns to be considered are “God” (Gk. theos) and the “Word” (Gk. logos), as they are the main two subjects of the debate.

            As the ESV Study Bible’s note indicated above, the main argument of the JW’s is that the Greek word for God is not preceded by the definite article (2019). They argue that because the Greek lacks the article, that theos in this case should be rendered ‘a god.’ There are two lines of reason that mitigate such a premature conclusion. First, what is interesting is that the JW concedes the fact that in every instance that “God” occurs in the first chapter of John’s Gospel it refers to the living true God of Israel—with this singular exception in 1:1c.  Again, the reasoning of the JW is because the word theos lacks the definite article.  However, theos also lacks the definite article in John 1:6, 12, 13, and 18 (see ESV Study Bible 2019). Why, then, it may be asked, do the JWs not also translate these instances as a god? Therefore, in four other cases in the same chapter, JWs disregard their own rule of interpretation, regarding the lack of an article and theos. This reveals that their interpretation is both arbitrary and driven by a dangerous preunderstanding of the text. 

            Secondly, is the word “Word” (Gk. logos). Again, the JWs would have people believe that John simply meant to speak of the Word as a god, a divine one.  However, if this was all John wanted to communicate, the he would have avoided the word theos, which is repeatedly use of the “only true God” (John 17:3) in his Gospel, and rather would have used theios, which was popular in Greek literature of speak of the various demigods in the polytheistic pantheon (White). Furthermore, the rules of Greek grammar inform a right reading of the text.  “In Greek grammar, Colwell’s Rule indicates that the translation ‘a god’ is not required, for the lack of an article does not necessarily indicate indefiniteness (‘a god’) but rather specifies that a given term (‘God’) is the predicate nominative of a definite subject (‘the Word’)” (ESV Study Bible 2019). So, John had the vocabulary at hand, if he had wanted to clearly communicate that the Word was something less than the one true God. And because John put the definite article on the subject, “the Word,” the rules of Greek grammar allow the second noun to function as a predicate nominative, thus describing the subject, the Word.  Therefore, a careful look at the nouns supports the conclusion that the Word is the living true God.

            2.3 The Primary Verbs of John 1:1-5

            The two verbs in question are “was” (Gk. en) and “became/was made” (Gk. ginomai). John was no less careful with his verb choice than he was with his choice of nouns. Concerning the former verb, en, John uses it only in reference to the Word prior to his incarnation.  White explains the importance of recognizing this fact. “The key element in understanding… the first phrase of the magnificent verse, is the form of the word ‘was,’ which in the Greek language in which John was writing, is the word en …It is a timeless word—that is, it simply points to existence before the present time without reference to a point of origin. One can push back the ‘beginning’ as far as you can imagine, and, according to John, the Word still is. Hence, the Word is eternal, timeless” (White). In John 1:1a the reader is given the time behind which the Word “was,” and that is “In the beginning,” which is a reference to the beginning of creation in Genesis 1:1. Therefore, as far back behind the time-space creation the Word “was.” As far as God has been pleased to reveal his eternity to humanity, he has here revealed the eternity of the Word. By definition, no created being can enjoy the attribute of eternality; but John makes clear that the Word does share in God’s eternality; therefore, the Word is theos, the eternal God and not a created being, as the JWs claim. 

            In the prologue, John is very careful to use a second verb only in reference to those things which are becoming rather than self-existent. Whereas the Word “was” (en) prior to his incarnation, those things which are created are “becoming/was made” (ginomai). For example, “all things were made” by the Word (John 1:3, 10); John the Baptist “was a man sent from God” (1:6), and those who believe on the Word are given the power to “become the children of God” (1:12). So, only when a thing or person is become something that it once was not does John use ginomai of that subject. John has been careful not to use this verb of the Word in verses 1-5.  However, John does use this verb in reference to the Word in verse 14. In John 1:14, John records the incarnation, when the Word “became flesh and made his dwelling among us.”  That is, at a particular point in time and space, the eternal Word became something that he was not once before, namely a human being.  It is not until this point is time that John uses ginomai in reference to the Word.   

            “Only when we come to verse 14 does John use ‘to become’ of the Word, and that is when the Word ‘became flesh.’ This refers to a specific point in time, the incarnation, and fully demonstrates John’s intentional usage of contrasting verbs” (White). This contrast in verbs, as noted above, was to emphasize the distinction between the Word’s deity and humanity. In his deity, “the Word was God” (1:1c); in his humanity, the Word “became flesh” (1:14). John therefore carefully contrasts the Word eternal existence from his human existence in order to emphasize his deity. If the Word were a created being, then the distinction is a moot point. 

3. Conclusion

            Denying the NT teaching of the full deity of the Word, Jesus, is nothing new; it has its roots as far back as Arius in the third and fourth centuries. More recently, however, the heresy has manifested itself in the Watchtower Society of the JWs, and specifically in their perversion of the Bible, the New World Translation, which presents the Word as “a god.” The JWs claim that the grammar of John 1:1-5 is on the side of their translation and theology. The above argument has shown that this is not the case. John’s choice of prepositional phrases lay equal stress on the Word’s absolute status as Creator God (“In the beginning,” 1:1a, 2) and his distinct, individual personality (“was with God,” 1:1, 2).

            If John wished to communicate what the JWs believe he did, then John was simply stupid in his choice of nouns. Had John wanted to merely suggest that the Word had a ‘divine nature’ or ‘god-ness’ about him, as the Greeks did their many gods, he had his term, theios. Instead, John pointedly used the same word that he did elsewhere to present the one true God when predicating the Word, theos. The JW’s charge that, because theos lacks the definite article, it should be translated “a god” was shown to be fallacious. In the four other instances of theos lacking the article in John 1, the JWs translate it “God,” revealing their theological bias against John’s meaning and their arbitrariness and inconsistency with their own rules. Colwell’s Rule shows that the grammar makes theos the predicate nominative for the Word. 

            John was no less careful in his choice of verbs. John used only en the timeless verb, pointing as far back behind creation as one can imagine, when speaking of the Word prior to the incarnation. Not until 1:14, when the Word became something he once was not, namely “flesh,” did John use ginomai, a verb he reserves otherwise for created things. This distinction in verbs is important, revealing that John wanted to emphasis the full deity of the Word in every possible way.  The grammar of John 1:1-5, therefore—the prepositional phrases, the nouns, and the verbs—create an undeniable conclusion that the passage teaches that the Word of God, Jesus Christ, is God the Word.