JOHN 1:1 AND THE JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES
by
Walter Martin

John 1:1, "In the beginning [or origin, Greek, arche] was the Word [Logos] and the Word was with God [Ton Theon] and the Word was God [Theos]" (KJV)

Contrary to the translations of "The Emphatic Diaglott" and the "New World Translation", the Greek grammatical construction leaves no doubt whatsoever that this is the only possible rendering of the text. The subject of the sentence is "Word" (Logos), the verb, "was". There can be no direct object following "was", since according to grammatical usage, intransitive verbs take no objects but take instead predicate nominatives which refer back to the subject, in this case, "Word" (Logos).* It is therefore easy to see that non article is needed for "Theos" (God), and to translate it "a god" is both incorrect grammar and poor Greek, since "Theos" is the predicate nominative of "was" in the third sentence-clause of the verse and must refer back to the subject, "Word" (Logos). Christ, then, if He is the Word "made flesh" (John 1:14, KJV) can be no one else except God, unless the Greek text and consequently God's Word be denied. [* - Colwell's rule clearly states that a definite predicate nominative (Theos -- God) NEVER takes and article when it precedes the verb ("was") as in John 1:1.]

Jehovah's Witnesses, in their "New World "Translation", attempt to discredit the Greek text on this point, for they realize that if Jesus and Jehovah are one in nature, their theology cannot stand, since they deny that unity of nature.[1] The refutation of their arguments on this point is conclusive.

The claim is that since the definitive article is used with "Theon" and not with "Theos" in John 1:1, therefore the omission is designed to show a difference; the alleged difference being that in the first case, the one true God (Jehovah) is meant, while in the second, "a god", other than, and inferior to, the first is meant, this latter "god" being Jesus Christ.

The "New World Translation" claims that the rendering "a god" is correct because "all the doctrine of sacred Scriptures bears out the correctness of this rendering." [2] This remark focuses attention on the fact that the whole problem involved goes far beyond this text. Scripture does in fact teach the full and equal deity of Christ. Why then is so much made of this one verse? It is probably because of the surprise effect derived from the show of pseudoscholarship in the use of a familiar text. Omission of the article with "Theos" does not mean that "a god" other than the one true God is meant. Let one examine these passages where the article is not used with "Theos" and see if the rendering "a god" makes sense (Mt 5:9, 6:24; Lk 1:35, 78; 2:40; Jn 1:6, 12, 13, 18; 3:2, 21; 9:16, 33; Ro 1:7, 17, 18; 1 Co 1:30; 15:10; Phil 2:11, 13; Titus 1:1). The "a god" contention in this rendering of "a god", Jehovah's Witnesses would have to translate every instance where the article is absent as "a god (nominative), of a god (genitive), to or for a god (dative)." This they do not do in Matthew 5:9; 6:24; Luke 1:35, 78; John 1:6, 12, 13, 18; Romans 1:7, 17. (See "New World Translation" and "Emphatic Diaglott" at above mentioned references.)

You cannot honestly render "Theos" "a god" in John 1:1, and then "Theou" "of God" (Jehovah), in Matthew 5:9, Luke 1:35, 78; and John 1:6, when "Theou" is the genitive case of the SAME noun (second declension), WITHOUT an article and MUST be rendered (following Jehovah's Witnesses' argument) "of A god" not "of God" as both the "Emphatic Diaglott" and "New World Translation" put it. We could list at great length, but suggest consultation of the Greek Testament by either D. Erwin Nestle or Westcott and Hort, in conjunction with "The Elements of Greek" by Francis Kingsley Ball, on noun endings. So then, if Jehovah's Witnesses must persist in this fallacious "a god" rendering, they can at least be consistent, which THEY ARE NOT, and render every instance where the article is absent in the same manner. The truth of the matter is that Jehovah's Witnesses use and remove the articular emphasis whenever and WHEREVER it suits their fancy regardless of grammatical laws to the contrary. In a translation as important as God's Word, every law must be observed. Jehovah's Witnesses have not been consistent in their observance of those laws.

The writers of the note have also exhibited another trait common to Jehovah's Witnesses, that of half quoting or misquoting a recognized authority to bolster their ungrammatical renditions. On page 776 (NWT, 1950 Edition), when quoting Dr. Robertson's words, "Among the ancient writers O THEOS was used of the god of the absolute religion in distinction from the mythological gods," they fail to note that in the second sentence following, Dr. Robertson says, "In the New Testament, however, while we have PRO TON THEON (John 1:1, 2) it is far more common to find SIMPLY "THEOS", especially in the Epistles." [Emphasis added.]

In other words, the writers of the New Testament frequently do not use the article with "Theos" and yet the meaning is perfectly clear in the context, namely that the one true God is intended. Let one examine the following references where in successive verses and even in the same sentence the article is used with ONE occurrence of "Theos" and NOT with another form, and it will be absolutely clear that no such drastic inferences can be drawn from John's usage in John 1:1, 2. (Mt 4:3-4, 12:28; Lk 20:37 38; Jn 3:2; 13:3; Ac 5:29-30; Ro 1:7-8, 17-19; 2:16-17; 3:5, 22 23; 4:2-3.)

The doctrine of the article is important in Greek; it is NOT used indiscriminately. But we are NOT qualified to be sure in ALL cases what is intended. Dr, Robertson is careful to note that :it is only of recent years that a really scientific study of the article has been made."[3] The facts are not all know, and no such drastic conclusion as the writers of the appendix note draw should be dogmatically affirmed.

It is nonsense to say that a single noun can be rendered "divine", and that an anarthrous noun conveys merely the idea of quality (NWT, 1950 Edition, pp. 773-774). the authors of this note themselves later render the same noun "Theos" as "a god" not as "a quality". This is a self-contradiction in the context.

In conclusion, the position of the writers of this note is made clear (NWT, 1950 Edition, p. 774); according to them, it is "unreasonable" that the Word (Christ) should be the God with whom He was (Jn 1:1). Their own manifestly erring reason is made the criterion for determining scriptural truth. One need only note the obvious misuse in their quotation from Dana and Mantey (NWT, 1950 Edition, pp. 774-775). Mantey clearly means that the "word was Deity" in accord with the overwhelming testimony of Scripture, but the writers have dragged in the interpretation of "a god" to suit their own purpose, which purpose is the denial of Christ's deity, and as a result a denial of the Word of God.** [** - Dr. Mantey has formally repudiated the out-of-context quoting and general misrepresentation of his views in a private letter made public, and accuses the Watchtower of gross error in their handling of his grammar.]

Since the publication of the Jehovah's Witnesses Kingdom interlinear translation of the Greek Scriptures in 1969, the Watchtower has quite literally backed itself into a corner with its translation of John 1:1 as it appears in the "New World Translation". In their "New Kingdom Interlinear Translation" of John 1:1, they render the Greek text on the left side of the page: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was toward the God and god was the Word." Directly across the page in the right column, the "New World Translation" says, "In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God and the Word was A god." It appears that the Watchtower is apparently trying to have its cake and eat it too. The Word (Christ who became flesh, see v. 14) is called God on one side of the page and A god on the other. Evidence of genuine grammatical confusion, and God, the Scripture reminds us, is not the author of confusion!

It is unnecessary to pursue this point any further, except to note that in their translation, "god was the Word," God is spelled with a small "g", another subtle attempt to demote Christ to the rank of demigod, apparently oblivious to the fact that the existing manuscripts of the New Testament were all written in capital letters, and the Witnesses have always made a great point of emphasizing capitals in John 1:1, when it came to translating the Greek "Theos". There is no grammatical reason for failing to capitalize "God" here; in fact, according to Colwell's rule, it must be.

FOOTNOTES: [1] "New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures", pp. 773-777, remarks on Appendix note to John 1:1. [2] Ibid., p. 776b. [3] A.T. Robertson, quoted in NWT, p. 755.