This verse deserves about a week or two of comments but we don’t have that long. Let me give you the skinny of it: (Please pardon my language, my analogies if you will.)
The three members of the Godhead (the Trinity), having decided to create angels and mankind, needed to assume different ROLES in relation to their creation. As we piece together the puzzle, one G assumed the title “the Father.” He would function toward all creatures in a different role/function than would the G who took on the title “the Son.” It appears that there is a pecking order within the Godhead, but in reality, that is not at all the truth. Looks can be deceiving.
Why this ROLE distinction?
Take for example the plan of Salvation. One of the Son’s ROLES/FUNCTION was to come to earth to die. (The Father did not come to earth to die, nor did the Holy Spirit; they each had other roles.) The Trinity is presented as devising this plan; the Son is seen as carrying out this plan, and the Holy Spirit is behind the scenes directing it toward its inevitable conclusion.
Now remember, this is intended to be a gross simplification. And whatever you do, do not try to email me back to ask: “Where’s the verse for that.” I have no idea HOW MANY verses there are that together present this picture, but it has to be in the hundreds.
So, getting back to the controversy. Is the Father “greater” than the Son? Are not the Father and the Son BOTH God? Is the Son a smaller/lesser God than the Father? Of course not! But as to their unique roles in the plan of creation, the Son assumed the role of a servant for example, but the Father did not assume such a humbling role. (Paul develops this in Philippians chapter 2). The Scriptures tell us that Jesus “humbled himself and became obedient to death.” In this sense, and in this limited and temporary sense only, the Father is greater (in his role) than the Son. It is that simple! The Son submitted to the Father. But note this!!!!! G did not submit to G!!!!!!!! I can not emphasize that enough.
That is why I developed the idea of G, G, and G BEFORE creation. Note that no G is greater or higher than any other G. All three members (G’s) of the Godhead are co-eternal, co-equal, co-everything. But when the plan of creation was implemented, they each had to assume different roles. And that is partly why we should be “glad” that Jesus must return to the Father. There is coming a day when their ROLES/FUNCTION will change before our very eyes.
Now, where was I before that digression? Oh yes, the Son was right beside the Father.
Now on to the last clause:
“In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God.”
The Jehovah Witnesses and other cults note that in the Greek Bible there is no definite article before that final “God” in verse 1. And in 1950, the JW’s published their own Bible, the New World Translation, and translated the final clause like this:
“…and the Word was a god.”
The Evangelical world became unglued with such a blasphemous translation. But what do you expect from a non-Christian group? Ever since that day, the debate has been raging, but as far as I am concerned, it is a futile battle. This gets to the heart of why I sometimes despise questions like, “What verse did you get that from?”
From a strictly grammatical point, this heretical translation is legitimate, grammatically speaking. There is no definite article used before “God”, and to supply the indefinite article is sometimes acceptable in Greek. How then would I respond to this translation by the JW’s? (Personally, I would not.) But hypothetically, if I did…
First, the JW’s do not believe the way they do because of a Greek grammatical rule. They lock, stock, and barrel reject the Jesus of Scripture, and as a result of that, they have forced this translation. So, as for me, if a JW wants to sit down to discuss the deity of Jesus Christ, we have to begin at Genesis 1:1 and go through the THOUSANDS of references that define who and what Jesus is. That will take too many years. But the effort would be worth it! Once this exercise was done, the deity of Jesus will be seen to rest on over THOUSANDS of verses, not ONE. (Get in the habit of not making a true statement and then supporting it with one verse, which I try to keep to a minimum. This is something a JW would do. When one looks at the totality of Scripture, you understand that our treasured truths do not hang on one or two verses!)
Now, let me at least address this lack of a definite article for our edification, not to counter some cultic translation.
John is discussing the existence of the LOGOS prior to creation. He has now informed us that there is not one (numerically speaking) God, but more than one. And if John had written, (in English for your convenience) “the Word was THE God” he would have stated that Jesus and the Father were the SAME BEINGS! And he has been very careful, albeit blasphemous to a Jew, to write that the LOGOS/Jesus is NOT THE God, but was WITH THE God.
After his first two clauses, it would have been intolerable for John to write that the word was “the” God. That would have been a direct contradiction. So, John was prevented from using the definite article, but for reasons that the rest of his gospel will make absolutely clear. (Remember: think “lots of verses” not “one verse.”)
How should we take this clause then? How about this, since it is the most literal of ways:
Remember, here is the exact Greek word order: KAI QEOS HN hO LOGOS
I translated it literally: “and God was the Word.”
Although John could not have used the definite article here, the indefinite article also denotes QUALITY. It describes the “quality or characteristic” of a noun. One of the best translations out there is: “What God was, the Word was.”
Now that is brilliant, and excellent Greek. The idea of this construct in the Greek is to stress the qualitative aspect of the LOGOS. You could also translate it, “The word was divine.” And if we reserved “divine” for God only, this would be an acceptable translation, but now people can dance divinely, so I’d stick with “What God was, the Word was.”
For what it’s worth, in Greek, in order to indicate which of the two nouns is the subject of the clause, you put the definite article with the subject. The definite article is with LOGOS to indicate that LOGOS is the subject, not QEOS (God). To put the definite article with both nouns would have been “intolerably clumsy.” (Can’t remember where I read that, but I like it.)
So, the reader is now prepped and won’t fall of his chair when Jesus says the following later in the gospel:
“I and the Father are one.” (John 10:30)
With but a brief comment on this I will bring this article to a close. This of course brings us back to our discussions about there being “one God.” In this verse, the Greek is very explicit. Let me put in English what a Greek would see:
“I (masculine, referring to Jesus) and the Father (masculine) are (plural verb, not “is”) one thing (neuter).”
A little smoother: I and the Father, we are one thing.
I added “we” to “are” because that is how the Greek reads. So, Jesus says there are two beings involved in this statement… I and the Father. And the word “one” is written in the neuter gender in the Greek, not the masculine. So, you must supply a neuter idea. Note the NET Bible’s footnote to this verse: (In case you are not familiar with the NET Bible, it was compiled by the scholars of Dallas Theological Seminary, and is, in my opinion, the best translation available today. And it is available FREE at www.bible.org.) Here’s their footnote on John 10:30:
“The phrase hEN ESMEN (we are) is a significant assertion with Trinitarian implications. hEN is neuter, not masculine, so the assertion is not that Jesus and the Father are one person, but one ‘thing.’ Identity of the two persons is not what is asserted, but essential unity (unity of essence).”
If I could improve on that note I surely would, but I must humbly bow out here.
The three members of the Godhead (the Trinity), having decided to create angels and mankind, needed to assume different ROLES in relation to their creation. As we piece together the puzzle, one G assumed the title “the Father.” He would function toward all creatures in a different role/function than would the G who took on the title “the Son.” It appears that there is a pecking order within the Godhead, but in reality, that is not at all the truth. Looks can be deceiving.
Why this ROLE distinction?
Take for example the plan of Salvation. One of the Son’s ROLES/FUNCTION was to come to earth to die. (The Father did not come to earth to die, nor did the Holy Spirit; they each had other roles.) The Trinity is presented as devising this plan; the Son is seen as carrying out this plan, and the Holy Spirit is behind the scenes directing it toward its inevitable conclusion.
Now remember, this is intended to be a gross simplification. And whatever you do, do not try to email me back to ask: “Where’s the verse for that.” I have no idea HOW MANY verses there are that together present this picture, but it has to be in the hundreds.
So, getting back to the controversy. Is the Father “greater” than the Son? Are not the Father and the Son BOTH God? Is the Son a smaller/lesser God than the Father? Of course not! But as to their unique roles in the plan of creation, the Son assumed the role of a servant for example, but the Father did not assume such a humbling role. (Paul develops this in Philippians chapter 2). The Scriptures tell us that Jesus “humbled himself and became obedient to death.” In this sense, and in this limited and temporary sense only, the Father is greater (in his role) than the Son. It is that simple! The Son submitted to the Father. But note this!!!!! G did not submit to G!!!!!!!! I can not emphasize that enough.
That is why I developed the idea of G, G, and G BEFORE creation. Note that no G is greater or higher than any other G. All three members (G’s) of the Godhead are co-eternal, co-equal, co-everything. But when the plan of creation was implemented, they each had to assume different roles. And that is partly why we should be “glad” that Jesus must return to the Father. There is coming a day when their ROLES/FUNCTION will change before our very eyes.
Now, where was I before that digression? Oh yes, the Son was right beside the Father.
Now on to the last clause:
“In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God.”
The Jehovah Witnesses and other cults note that in the Greek Bible there is no definite article before that final “God” in verse 1. And in 1950, the JW’s published their own Bible, the New World Translation, and translated the final clause like this:
“…and the Word was a god.”
The Evangelical world became unglued with such a blasphemous translation. But what do you expect from a non-Christian group? Ever since that day, the debate has been raging, but as far as I am concerned, it is a futile battle. This gets to the heart of why I sometimes despise questions like, “What verse did you get that from?”
From a strictly grammatical point, this heretical translation is legitimate, grammatically speaking. There is no definite article used before “God”, and to supply the indefinite article is sometimes acceptable in Greek. How then would I respond to this translation by the JW’s? (Personally, I would not.) But hypothetically, if I did…
First, the JW’s do not believe the way they do because of a Greek grammatical rule. They lock, stock, and barrel reject the Jesus of Scripture, and as a result of that, they have forced this translation. So, as for me, if a JW wants to sit down to discuss the deity of Jesus Christ, we have to begin at Genesis 1:1 and go through the THOUSANDS of references that define who and what Jesus is. That will take too many years. But the effort would be worth it! Once this exercise was done, the deity of Jesus will be seen to rest on over THOUSANDS of verses, not ONE. (Get in the habit of not making a true statement and then supporting it with one verse, which I try to keep to a minimum. This is something a JW would do. When one looks at the totality of Scripture, you understand that our treasured truths do not hang on one or two verses!)
Now, let me at least address this lack of a definite article for our edification, not to counter some cultic translation.
John is discussing the existence of the LOGOS prior to creation. He has now informed us that there is not one (numerically speaking) God, but more than one. And if John had written, (in English for your convenience) “the Word was THE God” he would have stated that Jesus and the Father were the SAME BEINGS! And he has been very careful, albeit blasphemous to a Jew, to write that the LOGOS/Jesus is NOT THE God, but was WITH THE God.
After his first two clauses, it would have been intolerable for John to write that the word was “the” God. That would have been a direct contradiction. So, John was prevented from using the definite article, but for reasons that the rest of his gospel will make absolutely clear. (Remember: think “lots of verses” not “one verse.”)
How should we take this clause then? How about this, since it is the most literal of ways:
Remember, here is the exact Greek word order: KAI QEOS HN hO LOGOS
I translated it literally: “and God was the Word.”
Although John could not have used the definite article here, the indefinite article also denotes QUALITY. It describes the “quality or characteristic” of a noun. One of the best translations out there is: “What God was, the Word was.”
Now that is brilliant, and excellent Greek. The idea of this construct in the Greek is to stress the qualitative aspect of the LOGOS. You could also translate it, “The word was divine.” And if we reserved “divine” for God only, this would be an acceptable translation, but now people can dance divinely, so I’d stick with “What God was, the Word was.”
For what it’s worth, in Greek, in order to indicate which of the two nouns is the subject of the clause, you put the definite article with the subject. The definite article is with LOGOS to indicate that LOGOS is the subject, not QEOS (God). To put the definite article with both nouns would have been “intolerably clumsy.” (Can’t remember where I read that, but I like it.)
So, the reader is now prepped and won’t fall of his chair when Jesus says the following later in the gospel:
“I and the Father are one.” (John 10:30)
With but a brief comment on this I will bring this article to a close. This of course brings us back to our discussions about there being “one God.” In this verse, the Greek is very explicit. Let me put in English what a Greek would see:
“I (masculine, referring to Jesus) and the Father (masculine) are (plural verb, not “is”) one thing (neuter).”
A little smoother: I and the Father, we are one thing.
I added “we” to “are” because that is how the Greek reads. So, Jesus says there are two beings involved in this statement… I and the Father. And the word “one” is written in the neuter gender in the Greek, not the masculine. So, you must supply a neuter idea. Note the NET Bible’s footnote to this verse: (In case you are not familiar with the NET Bible, it was compiled by the scholars of Dallas Theological Seminary, and is, in my opinion, the best translation available today. And it is available FREE at www.bible.org.) Here’s their footnote on John 10:30:
“The phrase hEN ESMEN (we are) is a significant assertion with Trinitarian implications. hEN is neuter, not masculine, so the assertion is not that Jesus and the Father are one person, but one ‘thing.’ Identity of the two persons is not what is asserted, but essential unity (unity of essence).”
If I could improve on that note I surely would, but I must humbly bow out here.
