Category Archives: Jehovah’s Witnesses

John 1:1

Posted on by
Reply

stormsDr. Sam Storms:

The ESV translation of John 1:1 is as follows: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1). Perhaps a few comments will prove helpful.

The Greek preposition translated “with” (pros) often means “towards” or “to”, thereby pointing to the Word and God in face to face intimacy. The term “with” implies a strong sense of relationship. In some sense the Word is distinct and distinguishable from God and yet in another sense is God. In the Godhead in eternity past there was no solitude or isolation. There was complete togetherness. God is his own family.

John clearly declares that the Word is God. The Word who always was, the Word who always was with God, this Word was and is himself God. Although the Word is in some sense distinct from God, so too the Word and God are in some sense the same. John doesn’t say the Word was “like” or “similar to” or that he “bears a striking resemblance to” God. The Word was God. He doesn’t say the Word was a copy or facsimile of God or a reflection of God or merely analogous to God. The Word was God.

Therefore, whatever you can say about God the Father that pertains to his being God, you can say about the Word (God the Son; and God the Spirit as well). John isn’t saying there is something “divine” about the Word, as if he has some exalted, mystical, godlike qualities. He is God. The Word wasn’t an angel. The Word was God. The Word is in no sense, way, shape, or form inferior to God the Father.

So what are we to make of the insistence by Jehovah’s Witnesses that the absence of the definite article “the” requires that we translate the verse as: “and the Word was a god”? What follows may only make sense to those who know Greek, but I urge everyone to read it closely.

The absence of the Greek definite article (“the”) does not mean the Word is only one of perhaps many gods. In this kind of Greek construction where an anarthrous predicate nominative (one lacking the definite article), in this case theos or God, precedes the verb, the noun retains the emphasis of specificity or definiteness (i.e., “the” vs. “a”).
The apparent equation of subject and predicate nominative does not imply complete correspondence. The predicate nominative describes a larger category to which the subject belongs. Thus the verb “is” does not always mean “equals”.

I should also point out that when the article occurs with both the subject and predicate (which is not the case in John 1:1), both nouns are definite and interchangeable. When the nouns are not interchangeable, as here, the article is absent from the predicate (i.e., absent from the noun theos, God).

In other words, if John had included the article (“the” God) he would have contradicted himself. If he had said “the Word was the God” one would be led to conclude that the Word is all there is to God, that no being could be God except the Word. But John has already said the Word was with God. In other words, the Word isn’t all there is to God. There is also God the Father and God the Spirit.

So we see from this that there is both an excellent grammatical and theological reason why the definite article (“the”) does not appear with the noun “God”. And thus we are on solid ground when we affirm that John is declaring the Word, Jesus Christ, to be God.

Prince and the Jehovah’s Witnesses

Posted on by
Reply

stormsDr. Sam Storms has written an article today entitled “DID PRINCE KNOW THE PRINCE OF PEACE?” – original source many have wondered whether or not he might have known Jesus Christ as his Savior. I must confess that I never followed the career of Prince and I never intentionally listened to any of his music. I say “intentionally” because somewhere along the way I may have heard him sing, even though I wouldn’t have known who it was at the time. But I’m not here today to assess his talents as a musician. I’m sure many reading this were fans. I was not.

In any case, reports are that Prince was at one time a Seventh-Day-Adventist (a religious group with which former presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson affiliates). But from all that I’m hearing, Prince converted and became a Jehovah’s Witness. Some may think that because he was open and active in his practice of this religious faith that he was a born-again Christian, a follower of the Jesus of the Bible.

Rest assured, I’m no man’s judge. But I am the judge (as you must be also) of whether or not claims made by certain religious sects, cults, or other groups align with the teaching of the Bible. And I can say without hesitation that the teachings of the Jehovah’s Witnesses do not.

Several things about their understanding of God and Christ should be noted.

First, Jehovah’s Witnesses deny the truth of the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity, so they argue, is a Satanic invention which originated in ancient Babylon (@ 2,200 b.c.). The Jehovah’s Witnesses are, strictly speaking, Unitarian in their understanding of God.

Second, prior to his earthly advent Jesus Christ was known as Michael, the archangel. He is a creature, the first product of Jehovah God’s creative work. He was neither then, now, nor will he ever be equal with Jehovah. In this sense the JW’s are akin more to the fourth-century heresy of Arianism than they are to evangelical Christianity. NT scholar Bruce Metzger has rightly pointed out that according to JW theology, “Throughout his existence . . . Jesus Christ never was co-equal with God” (“The Jehovah’s Witnesses and Jesus Christ: A Biblical and Theological Appraisal,” Theology Today, 70). He is not eternal, so say the JW’s, because, to use the words of Arius himself, “there was a time when he was not” (Metzger, 70).

Third, Jehovah’s Witnesses provide their own distinct (and distorted) translation of John 1:1 that reveals much of their theology. According to what is known as the New World Translation (NWT), John 1:1 reads as follows: “Originally the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” Metzger points out that a footnote which is added to the first word, “Originally,” reads, “Literally, ‘In (At) a beginning’” (74). This rendering is more destructive than even they realize, for it is tantamount to an affirmation of polytheism (the existence of many gods). Continue reading →