Gospel of John, Pt. 2
Posted on November 10th, 2007 by joebib into the Scriptures, joebib writes categoryContinuing with our discussion of the Gospel of John.
"and the Word was God."
John is the only NT writer who refers to Jesus as the Word. In the Book of Revelation, when John sees Jesus returning to the earth at His Second Coming, he says this:
11 “And I saw heaven opened; and behold, a white horse, and He who sat upon it is called Faithful and True; and in righteousness He judges and wages war. And His eyes are a flame of fire, and upon His head are many diadems; and He has a name written upon Him which no one knows except Himself. And He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood; and His name is called The Word of God.” (Rev. 19:11-13, NASB)
Though I’m not generally a big fan of the (too?) many different versions of the Bible which have flooded the market today — as I feel a lot of them play a bit too fast and loose with the words of Scripture — I do like how a couple of them have rendered this particular verse in John 1:1. The CEV has, “The Word was with God, and was truly God,” and the REB has, “…and what God was, the Word was.”
I think these do a good job in bringing out what John was really trying to say…that this Word was equal to, or the same as, God.
Now, the New World Translation, the official version of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, renders this verse as follows:
1 In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. (John 1:1, NWT)
In glossing through many of the other 400 or so English translations of the Bible that I could find, I notice that there are a few — less than 1%, I suppose — which render this verse like the Witnesses do, and make the Word to be merely “divine” (little “d”), or “a god” (little “g”). Their rationale rests on their interpretation of a rule of Greek grammar known by the high-falutin title of “The Anarthrous/Articular Use of the Definite Article,” and also whether or not another grammatical rule — Colwell’s — applies.
To save a lot of boring reading, the bottom line comes down to this: the overwhelming majority of Greek scholars behind these 400-some translations have rendered this verse with the word “God” — using a capital “G” — and thus understood John’s intention to present the Word as God Himself.
And setting forth the Deity of Jesus is nothing new for John. A bit later in this same chapter, he states:
18 No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him. (John 1:18, NASB)
Towards the end of his Gospel, John records the confession of Thomas to Jesus:
28 "My Lord and my God!" (John 20:28, NASB)
And three verses later, John gives the reason he wrote his Gospel in the first place:
31 but these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name. (John 20:31, NASB)
Later, at the end of his life, John wrote the following about Jesus in his First Epistle:
20 And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding, in order that we might know Him who is true, and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life. (1 John 5:20, NASB)
In case you may be interested, in all of these four passages, John uses the definite Greek article in referring to Jesus as (the) God.
Interestingly, the New World Translation translates this last passage very similarly to the NASB:
20 But we know that the Son of God has come, and he has given us intellectual capacity that we may gain the knowledge of the true one. And we are in union with the true one, by means of his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and life everlasting. (1 John 5:20, NWT)
I suppose their punctuation checker overlooked the capital “G” in that verse, since it’s so close to the back of the Bible 
Question:
Would it matter to you if the NT did not, in fact, teach the Deity of Jesus Christ? If He was merely some sort of super-angel, but not God Himself? Would it affect the way you feel about your salvation?
-joebib
RSS feed for posts
November 10th, 2007 at 11:21 pm
With regard to your statement:
“To save a lot of boring reading, the bottom line comes down to this: the overwhelming majority of Greek scholars behind these 400-some translations have rendered this verse with the word “God” — using a capital “G” — and thus understood John’s intention to present the Word as God Himself.”
The following might be of interest:
“It is only assumption,…that universality and ubiquity are made the tests of religious doctrine. No universality or ubiquity can make that divine which never was such. It is mere prejudice of veneration for antiquity, and the imposing aspect of an unanimous acquiescence (if unanimous it really be) which makes us regard that as truth which comes so recommended to us. Truth is rather the attribute of the few than the many. The real church of God may be the small remnant, scarcely visible amidst the mass of surrounding professors. Who, then, shall pronounce any thing to be divine truth, simply because it has the marks of having been generally or universally received among men?”
Taken from: Hampden, Renn Dickson (b.1763-d.1868), D.D., Regis Professor of Divinity at Oxford. “Bampton Lectures.” Annual. (Oxford, England: Oxford University, 1833), p. 356. BR45 .B3 / sv87-025507.
Agape, Alan.
john1one@earthlink.net
http://www.goodcompanionbooks.com
November 11th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
Alan, point taken. But as joebib elaborated, the doctrine of the deity of Christ is elsewhere given in Scripture, so that the capitalization of “God” in John 1 simply agrees with the other passages.
Joebib, about your questions: Yes it would matter. Because one of the great beauties of our God is that when man had no hope and was totally unable to fellowship with Him, GOD HIMSELF became the sacrifice who bore our sins and restored relationship. If He had chosen something different, that is within His rights. But the fact that He chose this way just demonstrates His character even more.
And the response of the ages because of this: Revelation 5
November 11th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
Dear Anna,
Whereas, you had said:
“Alan, point taken. But as joebib elaborated, the doctrine of the deity of Christ is elsewhere given in Scripture, so that the capitalization of “God” in John 1 simply agrees with the other passages.”
With respect to many of those “other passages,” I would suggest consultation of the following websites, for there, you will see that most of them have been effectively addressed:
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/newworldtranslation/pageindex.htm
You may wish to also examine:
http://www.jehovah.to/
http://web.archive.org/web/20040517235626/http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/
Agape, Alan.
john1one@earthlink.net
http://www.goodcompanionbooks.com
November 12th, 2007 at 7:47 am
Wow, I have never seen a more elaborate argument for something so shaky. The argument boils down to “it is possible to translate it this way, therefore it is equally true”, not paying any attention to the context of the rest of the Scriptures. And all this is done to support what idea? That Jesus is not God? That Jesus is one of lesser gods? That He is not a god at all?
If Jesus is not God, then the writers of the New Testament who professed that Jesus was God were sorely mistaken? That Jesus Himself was a liar? When He claims that He and the Father “are One”, when he claims Sonship and equality with the Father, when he professes to be the only way to God, is He a colossal liar? When the writer of Hebrews clearly establishes Christ’s divinity and his place as the ultimate intercessor between us and God, is he mistaken as well? Was Paul deluded when he wrote the book of Romans and declared definitively that Jesus was the Son of God and the only means of our restoration to God?
Oh, and let’s not forget about the writer of the Gospel of John. In his first epistle He wrote:
We see John’s intention clearly, that Jesus was the Son of God, and again He uses the Name of “Word” to describe Him. There cannot be any mistaking what John intended based on some grammatical possibility when he confirms his intention in separate and distinct writings.
Not enough evidence for you? Let’s look at another one of John’s writings, the book of Revelation:
Again, we see a clear intent to equate God, Jesus, and the Word. For your argument of grammatical ambiguity to hold, it would have to occur likewise in all of these writings and ignore their context and intent.
Alan, your argument is willing self-blindness to the intent and context of what was written. You build an intellectual tower that is built upon a shaky premise. As will all good lies, this one is based upon the truth. Don’t let yourself be lied to.
All of this goes towards Joe’s question, what if Jesus was not the Son of God? Well, the obvious answer would be that He is not the one way to God and that he did not pay for my sins or bring redemption to God through Himself. He’s just a good person who suffered a painful death rather needlessly. If Jesus isn’t who He says He is, then Christianity is the ultimate waste of human effort. It provides no real hope for means of communion with God.
November 12th, 2007 at 8:36 am
Persons can argue using the scriptures, the translations thereof, down to the placement of ‘jots and tittles’ (Matthew 5:18), until the cows come home and never make headway in convincing another of the truth of Christ’s deity / kingship.
I believe that is why it is written:
Note that it does NOT say:
I have seen Jesus. He has touched me, healed me, filled me, taught me and continues to speak with me and lead me, daily.
Jesus is indeed Lord God and King of Kings.
November 16th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
Dear FICM,
With regard to this portion of your comments:
~~~~~
“Let’s look at another one of John’s writings, the book of Revelation:
1 The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, 2 who testifies to everything he saw—that is, the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ.
Again, we see a clear intent to equate God, Jesus, and the Word. For your argument of grammatical ambiguity to hold, it would have to occur likewise in all of these writings and ignore their context and intent.”
~~~~~
Quite interestingly, this is actually one that I often use, that is, to prove just the opposite, that Jesus is, indeed, not God. After all, the very opening words tell us so by simply stating:
“The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him…”
Then, speaking of “context,” I then usually refer ones also to Revelation 3:2 & 12, wherein we read of Jesus speaking of “my God” some 5 times.
This, then, should remind us further of another of Jesus’ words, that is, when being put to death, whereby, within a question to God, Himself, he opens with, “My God, My God,…” (Matthew 27:46) and then on to the time of his first appearance, whereat he speaks of “My Father…and My God…” (John 20:17).
Yes, I would certainly agree, “context and intent” are always important to consider.
Agape, Alan.
john1one@earthlink.net
Good Companion Books
November 16th, 2007 at 11:14 pm
Dear FICM,
With regard to your statement:
“All of this goes towards Joe’s question, what if Jesus was not the Son of God? Well, the obvious answer would be that He is not the one way to God and that he did not pay for my sins or bring redemption to God through Himself. He’s just a good person who suffered a painful death rather needlessly. If Jesus isn’t who He says He is, then Christianity is the ultimate waste of human effort. It provides no real hope for means of communion with God.”
Perhaps it need be said here that I certainly do believe that Jesus is the Son of God. (Hebrews 10:29). In view of Jesus’ own words, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6), I believe this as well. As for the suggestion that I might believe that Jesus was “just a good person who suffered a painful death rather needlessly,” I certainly do not believe this, after all, He was God’s Son, the “sacrifice” for our sins. (Hebrews 2:17; Hebrews 10:12; 1 John 2:2; 1 John 4:10)
Furthermore, in addition to the above, the information contained within the following two links might also help in providing some of the reasoning I think would need to be addressed, that is, if one was to believe that Jesus was, indeed, God Himself.
Some Powerful Reasonings
Some Interesting Observations
Agape, Alan.
john1one@earthlink.net
Good Companion Books