Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
by Matthew Halsted
8/13/10
"Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples,
‘Who do people say that the Son of Man is?’" (Matthew 16:13)
This is, by far, the most important question anyone can ask. Is Jesus only a human prophet,
or is he God incarnate? To be sure, what one believes about the nature of Christ has eternal
consequences. The reason for this is that faith is only as good as its object. If I believe in
something that is not true, then my faith, however genuine and sincere, is futile. It does me
no good. It would be akin to saying, “I do not believe in gravity.” No matter how sincere the
statement, gravity still exists, and I will not begin to float away anytime soon. Gravity, then,
exists apart from my belief or non-belief.
Likewise, if one does not believe Christ is the second Person of the Trinity; and if it turns out
that he truly is, then that person’s faith would have been in someone who is false, namely, a
false christ. And a false christ cannot save. This is why sound theology is needed and
especially in today’s time. While it is not an end in itself, solid theology leads to the true
Christ; and the true Christ is whom we want to adore and worship.
If we are to accurately understand the person of Christ--who he is and what he has done--,
then we need to dive deep into the Word of God. The ontological aspects of the Godhead
may be mysterious but let there be no mistake that the Triune God of the Bible does, indeed,
exist. A strong apologetic stems from a true theology, which is rooted and grounded in the
revelation of God--the Bible; and it is from within the revelation of the Bible where we get
our theology of Christ.
Where to Begin
While this article does not intend to be exhaustive in its treatment of the many important
Trinitarian texts that the Bible contains, it is within our scope to look deeply into (arguably)
the most principal and foundational of all texts contained in the entire Bible concerning the
nature of Christ--John 1:1.
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
This text from John’s Gospel is important in light of today’s highly religious and pluralistic
atmosphere. The many heretical “offshoots” of Christianity which have appeared throughout
recent history (especially in North America) are of significant importance as we
consider John 1:1. More specifically, The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, otherwise
known as the Jehovah’s Witnesses, has from its very inception been unorthodox and heretical
in its teaching and theology. For our concerns, then, we will look briefly at what they believe
about Christ as well as their interpretation and translation of John 1:1.
According to The Watchtower Society, Christ was “directly created by God.”1 Moreover, in
answering the question, “Is the firstborn Son equal to God, as some believe?,” they answer,
“This is not what the Bible teaches. As we noted in the preceding paragraph, the Son was
created. Obviously, then, he had a beginning whereas Jehovah God has no beginning or
end.”2
Christ, to the Jehovah’s Witnesses, is not eternal. That is, he had a beginning; and there was
a time when he did not exist. Therefore, he is not God; but does this square with the biblical
witness of John 1:1? We maintain that it does not.
While this article does not have within its scope a detailed treatise on how to pick and choose
a good Bible translation, it should be noted that Jehovah’s Witnesses use a very faulty and
inaccurate Bible translation known as The New World Translation (NWT). How does their
translation render John 1:1? According to the NWT, this verse is translated as,
“In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.”
Notice the major difference between the NASB and the NWT’s translation of the third clause:
“ . . . and the Word was a god.” This is a significant shift between the two translations. The
question needs to be asked: Is this variation warranted?
Now, of course, if we want to decide which translation is the best, it only makes sense to go
to the original language in which the writers of the New Testament wrote. Since Koine
Greek was the language in which John wrote his Gospel, it would do us well to look at how
John wrote and arranged his words in this verse.
A Sound Exegesis of the Text
It would be best to look at John 1:1 in parts and taking into account each clause one at a
time. Once we understand what the text says and what John meant for it to mean, we can
better compare that with what Jehovah’s Witnesses claim about the Person of Christ. What
does the Greek say, then?
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.
Now for many, Greek is still Greek. An arrangement of unknown symbols means nothing to
the average Christian; but what we would like to do is take you, the reader, through this
simple, yet profound verse--one word at a time--and all the while equipping you with the
information needed in order to translate properly.
Clause #1
Clause #2
From the previous section, we have shown that Christ--the Word--always existed. In other
words, there was never a time when Christ was not in existence. This section draws our
attention to the second part of the verse of John 1:1.
καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν
Once again, if we were to transliterate this Greek clause into English letters, the following
would be the outcome:
kai ho logos ēn pros ton theon
We already know how to translate a few of these words. For example, “ho logos” means “the
Word.” The verb “ēn” means “was.” But what do the other words mean?
“Kai” is a conjunction that means “and.” Therefore, “Kai ho logos ēn” can be translated as,
“and the word was . . . "
But what about “pros ton theon?" “Pros” is another preposition that means “with.”
Moreover, “ton theon” means “the God.” We can therefore translate this whole clause as
“and the word was with God.”
John MacArthur sums up this clause rather well,
“ . . . John took his argument one step further. In His eternal preexistence the Word was with
God. The English translation does not bring out the full richness of the Greek expression
(pros ton theon). That phrase means far more than merely that the Word existed with God.”8
What, then, does this phrase mean? One commentator has said that the preposition “pros” is
hard to translate.9 “It is equivalent to ‘was in relation with God,’ ‘stood over against,’ not in
space or time, but eternally and constitutionally.”10
To make this clearer, it would do us well to turn back to John MacArthur, who, in his own
commentary, quotes W. Robert Cook as saying,
“ . . . it ‘[gives] the picture of two personal beings facing one another and engaging in
intelligent discourse.’”11
We can see, then, that not only was Christ preexistent but also he was in loving fellowship
with the Father. “Pros ton theon” actually shows the eternal distinction between the Father
and the Son. This text proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the Father is not the Son nor
is the Son the Father. They are, as it were, eternally distinct.
So far, then, we have translated the first two clauses of John 1:1. “In the beginning was the
Word, and the Word was with God . . . ”
Clause #3
There is one God. The Son is God; and the Father is God; and the Holy Spirit is God.
However, the Son is not the Father; and the Father is not the Son. Likewise, the Holy Spirit
is not the Father nor is he the Son.
What Jehovah’s Witnesses (who are really modern-day Arians) want to do is abolish all
mystery about God. Because the Trinity does not make sense, it must be wrong. So, after
mistranslating Holy Scripture, they deceive themselves into thinking the Trinity is unbiblical.
In the end, human reasoning has the final say for them.
But with the Triune God of the Bible, mystery is a good thing, and it should be embraced.
After all, why would we, mere dependent humans, want to serve a God who is exhaustible
and as one who can be figured out? To be sure, God has revealed himself in Scripture, and
he is known personally through Christ. But it is our job—as responsible exegetes of
Scripture and as obedient children—to not allow that revelation of God to be distorted or
repackaged into something nice and tidy.
Any divergence from what we know to be biblical truth about the nature of the Godhead is
heresy. It conveys to the world a false god and ultimately a false christ.
And a false christ does not save.
Soli Deo Gloria!
1 The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. What Does the Bible Really Teach? Ch. 4, “Who
is Jesus Christ?” http://www.watchtower.org/e/bh/article_04.htm accessed on August 12,
2010 at 11:25 am.
2 Ibid.
3 William D. Mounce, ed., Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old & New
Testament Words. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2006), 1,098.
4 John MacArthur, John 1-11, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary (Chicago:
Moody, 2006), 16.
5 William D. Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003)
2nd Edition. 181.
6 Ibid.
7 MacArthur, 16.
8 Ibid, 17.
9 H. D. M. Spence and Joseph S. Exell, eds., The Gospel According to St. John, vol. 17. The
Pulpit Commentary. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1950), 6.
10 Ibid.
11 MacArthur, 17.
12 It should be noted at this point that word order is very significant. Word order in Greek is
often used to show emphasis. In fact, the word order in this particular clause shows us, as
Daniel B. Wallace has said, that the Son “has all the divine attributes the Father has.” For
more information on this, please refer to http://randphoenix.livejournal.com/44388.html
13 MacArthur, 19.
14 The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. What About Trinity “Proof
Texts”? http://www.watchtower.org/e/ti/article_08.htm accessed on August 13, 2010 at 1:20
pm.
15 MacArthur, 18-19.