Tag: god

Posted on

Did Thomas, in John 20:28, address Jesus as “God”?

SUMMARY

After God resurrected Jesus, He appeared to His disciples, but Thomas was not with them. When they told Thomas that Jesus is alive, he did not believe. But, a few days later, Jesus again appeared to them and this time Thomas was with them. When He saw Jesus, and when Jesus showed him His wounds, he exclaimed with great joy:

“My Lord and my God” (John 20:28).

Jesus did not correct Thomas.

CLEAREST PROOF

Elsewhere, the New Testament has a very high view of Christ. For example, Jesus always existed (Rev 1:17) in the form of God and with equality with God (Phil 2:6), and God made and maintains all things through His Son (Heb 1:2-3). However, in the view of some, John 20:28 is the clearest proof of Christ’s deity.

THOMAS DID NOT SAY,
JESUS IS GOD.

In contrast, the first purpose of this article is to show that ‘Jesus is God’ cannot be the right interpretation of John 20:28.

A STRICT MONOTHEIST

Firstly, Thomas, like all Jews, was a strict monotheist (cf. Deut 6:4). It would have required a huge amount of persuasion to convince the disciples otherwise, namely that Jesus is God.

WHAT JESUS TAUGHT

Secondly, Jesus never attempted to change the views of the disciples in this regard. Jesus never taught that He is God. On the contrary, He always made a clear distinction between Himself and God (e.g., John 17:3).

And when the Jews accused Him: “You … make Yourself out to be God,” Jesus immediately corrected them: “I said, I am the Son of God” (John 10:36). “Son of God” is a synonym for the title “Christ,” a Greek word that means “the anointed one,” or “the chosen one” (cf. John 1:49; 11:27; 20:31; Matt 26:63).

So, if Jesus during the preceding three years never attempted to teach His disciples that He is the Most High, how on earth could Thomas have thought that He is?

THE IMMEDIATE CONTEXT

Thirdly, in the immediate context of John 20, we can see that the disciples, at that time, did not understand Jesus to be God. For example:

      • A few days before His death Jesus addressed His Father as “the only true God” (John 17:3).
      • The day after He died, the disciples described Him as “a prophet … the one who was going to redeem Israel” (Luke 24:19-21).
      • A few days before Jesus appeared to Thomas, He referred to the Father as His God (John 20:17).
      • Just three verses after Thomas’ exclamation, John, summarizing his gospel, identified Jesus not as God but as “the Christ, the Son of God” (John 20:31).

WHAT THE DISCIPLES TAUGHT

Fourthly, we also see what the disciples believed in what they taught afterward. A few weeks after John 20:28, the disciples received the Holy Spirit and preached as recorded in the Book of Acts. If the apostles really believed that Jesus is God, that would have been their constant and main message. But they not even once proclaimed Jesus as God. On the contrary, they consistently made a clear distinction between God and Jesus (e.g., Acts 2:24, 32; 3:15, 26). If it is true that John 20:28 teaches the deity of Jesus, why didn’t the apostles preach it even once in the book of Acts?

WHAT PAUL TAUGHT

Fifthly, what the disciples believed in this regard is also reflected in Paul’s letters. He is the most important writer of the New Testament and wrote decades after Thomas met Jesus. Paul never taught (at least explicitly) that Jesus is God. On the contrary, Paul continued to make a distinction between God and Jesus (e.g., Rom 10:9; 1 Tim 5:21; 1 Cor 11:3). Paul did describe Jesus as “the image of the invisible God” (Col 1:15), through whom God made all things (Col 1:16), in whom “all the fullness of Deity dwells” (Col 2:9), who “existed in the form of God” and had “equality with God” (Phil 2:6). Nevertheless, it is important to understand that all these statements make a distinction between Jesus and God, meaning that Jesus is NOT God.

THE HIGH VIEW

Lastly, we must also remember that the high view of Christ, which we find, for example, in John 1:1-2, Colossians 1:15-17, and Hebrews 1:2-3, was revealed by the Holy Spirit, particularly to John and Paul, decades after the events of John 20:28. Consequently, at the time of John 20:28, Thomas and the disciples did not yet understand who Jesus really is. They had no idea of the profound concepts that God would later reveal.

CONCLUSION

For the three years or more before John 20:28, Jesus taught His disciples but He never taught them that He is God. Neither did the disciples, after Thomas said this, teach that Jesus is God. Therefore, Thomas could not have said that Jesus is God.

Remember, Thomas doubted that Jesus was alive. In other words, he thought of Jesus as a mortal being. It is simply unsound logic to argue that, just by seeing Jesus alive, his view of Christ immediately jumped from being a mortal man to being the immortal God.

WHAT DID THOMAS MEAN?

This second part discusses what Thomas could have meant to say. The following possible meanings are discussed below:

1) The basic meaning of the Greek word theos is an immortal being with supernatural powers – such as the Greek gods. Since Thomas described Jesus as “my theos” after he saw that Jesus is alive, Thomas could have described Jesus as such.

2) Jesus referred to people “to whom the word of God came” as theos (“gods” – John 10:35). Since the Father did send Jesus and gave Him His message (e.g., John 8:16, 26), Thomas could have described Jesus as such.

3) The word theos can also be used in a qualitative sense, namely as “Godlike” (cf. Col 1:15; Heb 1:3).

The God of me4) When theos is preceded by ho (the), it almost always refers to the supreme Divinity. (There are exceptions. For example, Satan is also referred to as ho theos.) In the Greek of John 20:28, Thomas did not merely say theos; he said ho theos. Therefore, another possibility is that Thomas used theos to refer to the Father. In other words, Thomas, in the extreme joy of the moment, cried out something like, “Oh my Lord (Jesus) and oh my God (the Father).” In that way, Thomas exclaimed “my God” as praise directed at God, the Father, for raising Jesus. Since ho theos usually refers to the Father, it probably also has that meaning in John 20:28.

CONCLUSION

As shown in the first part of this article, it is not possible that Thomas could have thought that Jesus is God. In the second part, a number of alternative possible meanings have been considered. Unfortunately, it is not possible to determine exactly what Thomas meant. But two things should be clear:

      • Thomas did not say that Jesus is God.
      • There are several other valid interpretations of the phrase.

– END OF SUMMARY –

INTRODUCTION

After Jesus rose from death, He appeared to the disciples, but Thomas was not with them. When they told Thomas that Jesus is alive, he refused to believe. But, a few days later, Jesus again appeared to them and this time Thomas was with them. When He saw Jesus, and when Jesus showed him His wounds, he exclaimed with great joy:

“My Lord and my God” (John 20:28).

CLEAREST PROOF

Of the 1300 times that the word theos (translated as “god” or “God”) appears in the New Testament, there are about seven verses where theos possibly describes Jesus. However, in each and every case, either the original text or the interpretation is disputed. (Several articles have been posted discussing these verses. For a general summary, see Is Jesus called God?)

Brian J. Wright, himself a Trinitarian, after careful and detailed study, concluded that John 20:28 is the only verse in the New Testa­ment that, with full certainty, refers to Jesus as God.

John 20:28Therefore, for some people, this verse is the clearest proof of Christ’s deity. The Pulpit Commentary describes these words as the climax of the Gospel. For Spurgeon, this is the plainest confession of Jesus’ deity.

Such writers support their view with arguments such as:

1) The words “my Lord” can only refer to Christ (compare with John 20:13). Therefore, the natural meaning of the phrase, “My Lord and my God” is that his Lord was also his God.

2) David, similarly, described Jehovah as: “My God and my Lord” (Psalm 35:23). Thomas, as an Israelite, knew this and would never have applied these words to any person whom he did not believe to be God.

3) If Jesus were not God, the Lord Jesus would have corrected Thomas. But Jesus responded:

“Because you have seen Me, have you believed?
Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed”
(John 20:29).

4) There is really no significant question as to how the original text reads.

THE HIGH VIEW

And, of course, elsewhere, the New Testament has a very high view of Christ. For example:

“Through whom (His Son) also He (God) made the world.
And He (His Son)
 – is the radiance of His (God’s) glory
 – and the exact representation of His (God’s) nature,
 – and upholds all things by the word of His (God’s) power”
(Heb 1:2-3).

It is difficult to understand that a being that was able to become a human being is also the One through whom God created and still maintains all things. Elsewhere, we also read that Jesus is “the first and the last” (Rev 1:17), which means that He always existed. And that “in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form” (Col 2:9). According to Philippians 2:6, before He became a human being, He existed in the form of God and had equality with God. In the article on Philippians 2, I attempt to explain who Jesus really is. I prefer to understand Jesus as the church understood Him during the first 300 years, namely before Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire (See, The Apologists).

THOMAS DID NOT SAY
THAT JESUS IS GOD.

However, the first purpose of this article is to show that ‘Jesus is God’ cannot be the right interpretation of John 20:28. This is justified as follows:

A STRICT MONOTHEIST

Firstly, Thomas, like all Jews, was a strict monotheist. In Judaism, “Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one” (Deut 6:4) was a foundational statement. It would have required a huge amount of persuasion to convince the disciples otherwise and that Jesus is God.

WHAT JESUS TAUGHT

Who do you say I AmBut secondly, Jesus never attempted to change the views of the disciples in this regard. Jesus never taught that He is God.

For example, Jesus never referred to Himself as θεός (theos). Rather, He described Himself as the Messiah and as the Son of God.

Furthermore, He always made a distinction between Himself and God. For example, at the end of His ministry – probably days before He appeared to Thomas – Jesus, in prayer, described the Father as “the only true God” (John 17:3). In using the word “only,” Jesus excluded Himself as “true God.”

The one verse where people sometimes say that Jesus claimed to be God is John 10:33, where the Jews accused Him:

“You … make Yourself out to be God.“

But Jesus immediately corrected them:

“I said, I am the Son of God” (John 10:36).

(See here for a discussion of John 10:33-36.)

Some people, when they read the words, “the Son of God,” they subconsciously convert that into “God the Son.” However, the latter title is never found in the Bible. The following verses have been selected because they contain both the title “Son of God” and another (parallel) title, giving us an understanding of what the title “Son of God” means:

Nathanael answered Him,
“Rabbi, You are the Son of God;
You are the King of Israel.” (John 1:49)

Lazarus’ sister said to Him,
“Yes, Lord; I have believed that You are the Christ,
the Son of God,
even He who comes into the world” (John 11:27).

“These have been written so that you may believe
that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God” (John 20:31).

The high priest said to Him,
“Tell us whether You are the Christ,
the Son of God” (Matt 26:63).

In other words, the “Son of God” is a synonym for the title “Christ,” a Greek word that means “the anointed one,” or “the chosen one.”

THE IMMEDIATE CONTEXT

Thirdly, in the immediate context of John 20, we can see that the disciples, at that time, did not understand Jesus to be God. For example:

1) A few days before His death Jesus prayed and addressed His Father as “the only true God” (John 17:3). Why would John record that and then, a little later, write that Thomas said that Jesus is God?

2) If they believed that Jesus was God, they would not have “all fled” just a few days earlier when Jesus was arrested.

3) The confession of the two disciples walking along the road to Emmaus demonstrates the views of Jesus’ followers at that time. Speaking to the resurrected Christ, whom they mistook as just another traveler, they described Jesus as:

“a prophet,
powerful in word and deed before God …
we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel” (Luke 24:19-21).

4) As recorded in that same chapter, a few days before Jesus appeared to Thomas, He spoke to Mary Magdalene and referred to the Father as His God:

“Go to My brethren and say to them,
‘I ascend to My Father and your Father,
and My God and your God’” (John 20:1, 17).

5) Just three verses after Thomas’ exclamation, John summarized his gospel and identified Jesus as “the Christ, the Son of God” and not as God:

“These have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God” (John 20:31).

WHAT THE DISCIPLES TAUGHT

We also see what the disciples believed in what they taught afterward:

Thomas made his exclamation after Jesus was resurrected and a few weeks before the Holy Spirit was poured out. Therefore, after Jesus ascended to heaven, the disciples had to preach without Jesus. They no longer had Jesus to do the talking. But they now had the support of the Holy Spirit, guiding them “into all the truth” (John 16:13). If the apostles really believed that Jesus is God, that would have been their constant and main message. But, in Acts, which records their sermons, the apostles not even once proclaimed Jesus as God. No sermon in the book of Acts attributes the title θεός (theos) to Jesus. On the contrary, they consistently proclaimed that God raised Jesus from the dead. At Pentecost, Peter told the multitudes:

      • “God raised him up” (Acts 2:24).
      • “God raised up this Jesus” (Acts 2:32).
      • “You killed the author of life,
        whom God raised from the dead        ” (Acts 3:15), and
      • “God raised up his servant” (Acts 3:26).

In other words, Acts, just like the gospels, maintains a distinction between God and Jesus, for if God raised Jesus up, then the Father only is called God. If it is true that John 20:28 teaches the deity of Jesus, why didn’t the apostles preach it even once in the book of Acts?

WHAT PAUL TAUGHT

What the disciples believed in this regard is also reflected in Paul’s letters:

Paul was given the task to interpret the dramatic events of the first century and to teach the church through his letters. And Paul never taught that Jesus is God.

EXPLICIT STATEMENTS

If Jesus was God, Paul’s letters would have taught this explicitly. An explicit statement would be something like we find in the Old Testament:

“I am Yahweh your God” (Exo 6:7; 16:12; 20:2).

Yahweh is identified as God about 400 times in the Old Testament, using phrases such as:

      • Yahweh God,
      • Yahweh, God of heaven,
      • Yahweh your God,
      • Yahweh, God of Israel
      • Yahweh our God, and
      • Yahweh, God of compassion.

But not once do we find an equivalent explicit statement in the New Testament, saying that Jesus is God.

DISTINCTION

On the contrary, similar to the gospels, Paul continued to make a distinction between God and Jesus. For example, similar to what Peter said in Acts, Paul wrote that God raised Jesus from death:

“If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord,
and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead,
you will be saved” (Rom 10:9).

Other examples of where Paul makes a clear distinction between God and Christ are:

    • “In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus” (1 Tim 5:21)
      and, most strikingly,
    • “The head of Christ is God” (1 Cor 11:3).

Hundreds of other examples are available. See, for example, The New Testament makes a distinction between God and Jesus.

ROMANS 9 VERSE 5

According to some translations of Romans 9:5, Paul referred to Jesus as God, but the article on Romans 9 verse 5 shows that it is all a matter of punctuation, and all punctuation in the Bible is interpretation.

CONCLUSION

Therefore, Paul, the most important writer of the New Testament, and writing decades after Thomas met Jesus after His resurrection, NEVER taught that Jesus is God. He did describe Jesus as “the image of the invisible God” (Col 1:15), through whom God made all things (Col 1:16), in whom “all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form” (Col 2:9), who “existed in the form of God” and had “equality with God” (Phil 2:6). Nevertheless, it is important to understand that all these statements make a distinction between Jesus and God, meaning that Jesus is NOT God.

THE HIGH VIEW

We must also understand that the high view of Christ, which we find, for example, in John 1:1-2, Colossians 1:15-17, and Hebrews 1:2-3 was not something that the disciples knew about at the time that Thomas made his exclamation. Those things were not taught by Christ. As Jesus said to His disciples:

“I have many more things to say to you,
but you cannot bear them now.
But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes,
He will guide you into all the truth” (John 16:12-13).

The very high view that John and Paul had of Jesus was revealed to them by the Holy Spirit decades after the events of John 20:28. When Thomas exclaimed, “My Lord and my God,” the Holy Spirit was not yet poured out. Consequently, the disciples did not yet understand who Jesus really is. Thomas had no idea of the profound concepts that God would later reveal. It is unthinkable that Thomas, when He saw the risen Jesus, could think of Him as the same as or equal to the Only True God (John 17:3).

CONCLUSION

For the three years or more before John 20:28, Jesus taught His disciples but He never taught them that He is God. Neither did the disciples, after Thomas said this, teach that Jesus is God. Therefore, Thomas could not have said that Jesus is God.

Remember, Thomas doubted. What did he doubt? One could speculate that he doubted that Jesus is the Christ. Trinitarians might speculate that he doubted that Jesus is God. But what he really doubted is that Jesus was alive. In other words, he thought of Jesus as a mortal being. It is not sound logic to argue that, just by seeing Jesus alive, his view of Christ immediately jumped from being a mortal man to being the immortal God.

Some Trinitarians consequently admit that the New Testament does not teach that Jesus is God. For example, Richard Swinburne, a prominent Christian philosopher at Oxford, wrote a book titled, Was Jesus God? (Oxford University Press). In it, he searches the Bible and church doctrine for evidence that Jesus is God. Swinburne concludes with cautious uncertainty that “it is very probable that Jesus was God,” but he offers no explicit proof from the Bible. He finds more evidence for Jesus’ deity in the teachings of the Church Fathers. He admits that some NT passages “deny this doctrine” of “the divinity of Jesus.” He says, “It is undisputed that Jesus did not teach this doctrine” (of the Trinity). This is quite a concession from a brilliant Trinitarian. Swinburne does believe that Jesus is God; not because that is what the Bible teaches, but on the basis of reason only.

And the trinit­arian Brian J. Wright, after an in-depth study, admitted:

No author of a Synoptic Gospel explicitly ascribes the title θεός to Jesus. Jesus never uses the term θεός for himself. No sermon in the book of Acts attributes the title θεός to Jesus.

WHAT DID THOMAS MEAN?

The first part of this article shows that it is not possible that Thomas could have thought that Jesus is the Most High God. In this second part, we discuss what Thomas could have intended to say.

(1) IMMORTAL BEING

The ancient Greeks had a pantheon of gods. They did not have one single Supreme Being which is the ultimate reality, as we find in the Bible. They used the word Θεός, transliterated as theos, to refer to their gods. The word theos, therefore, is equivalent to the modern English word “god.” In Greek thought, it described an immortal being with supernatural powers.

Since Thomas described Jesus as “my theos” after he saw that Jesus is alive, one possible meaning is that Thomas described Jesus as similar to one of the Greek gods; an immortal being with supernatural powers.

(See The Meanings of the Word theos for a further discussion.)

(2) GOD’S REPRESENTATIVE

According to Strong, one of the uses of theos is a person appointed by God as a magistrate. Jesus similarly referred to people “to whom the word of God came” as theos (John 10:35). This is a quote from Psalm 82:6 and probably refers to the judges of the Old Testament.

Therefore, another possible meaning is that Thomas described Jesus as theos to identify Him as the Christ, namely, mandated by God to speak and act for Him. Since the Father did send Jesus and gave Him His message (e.g., John 8:16, 26), that is a possible explanation.

(3) LIKE GOD

The word theos can also be used in a qualitative sense, as opposed to a definite (the god) or indefinite (a god) sense. It is unlikely but possible that Thomas used theos in a qualitative sense, namely as “Godlike,” similar to the following statements:

      • “He is the image of the invisible God” (Col 1:15).
      • “He (His Son) is … the exact representation of His (God’s) nature” (Heb 1:3).

John, after decades of meditation, in the first verses of his gospel, declared that “the Word (Jesus) was theos” and the creator of all things. It is possible that John 1:1 and John 20:28 use theos in the same sense. In a series of articles on the translation of John 1:1, I concluded, because the word theos is used in a qualitative sense in that verse, that John 1:1c should NOT be translated as “The Word was God” but as “the Word was Godlike,” or, to use Paul’s words, “the Word was in the form of God and had equality with God” (Phil 2:6).

(4) GOD

According to Strong, in the Bible, especially when it is preceded by ho (the), theos refers to the supreme Divinity. To put it differently, since the New Testament was written in Greek, it used the same word that the Greeks used for their gods (theos) for the god of the Bible. But since the Greek word theos is used for all gods, when the writers of the New Testament wanted to specify the supreme Deity, they added the definite article “ho” before theos. (This is a general rule but there are exceptions. For example, Satan is also referred to as ho theos.)

Modern English has something which ancient Greek did not have, namely differentiation between lower- and upper-case letters. Modern English, therefore, was able to invent the word “God.” While the word “god” refers to a category of beings, the word “God” functions as a personal name for one single being, namely the supreme Divinity, similar to the names John and Paul for human beings. The ancient Greek in which the New Testament was written has no word exactly equivalent to “God.”

For these reasons, generally, ho theos is translated as “God.” (Translators drop the definite article and capitalize the G.)

The point is that in the Greek of John 20:28, Thomas did not merely say theos; he said ho theos mou, literally “the god of me.” This implies that he used the word theos to refer to the supreme Divinity. This can be understood in at least the following ways:

One option is to understand that Thomas intended to describe Jesus as the Most High God; the supreme Divinity. However, as discussed, the immediate and wider context does not allow that interpretation.

An alternative possibility is that John referred to the Father when he wrote ho theos. In other words, Thomas, in the extreme joy of the moment, cried out something like, “Oh my Lord (Jesus) and oh my God (the Father).” In that way, Thomas exclaimed “my God” as praise directed at God, the Father, for raising Jesus.

Paul similarly wrote:

“If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord,
and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead,
you will be saved” (Rom 10:9).

Could this verse explain Thomas’ confession?  It contains both the words “Lord” and “God” but “God” is identified as the Father.

CONCLUSION

As shown in the first part of this article, it is not possible that Thomas could have thought that Jesus is God. In the second part, a number of alternative possible meanings have been considered, namely that Jesus:

      • Is similar to one of the Greek gods; an immortal being with supernatural powers.
      • Has been mandated by God to speak and act for Him.
      • Is like God in a qualitative sense; “the image of the invisible God” (Col 1:15).

The fourth alternative was that theos in John 20:28 does not refer to Jesus at all but to the Father.

Unfortunately, it is not possible to determine exactly what Thomas meant. But two things should be clear:

      • Thomas did not say that Jesus is God.
      • There are several other valid interpretations of the phrase.

OTHER AVAILABLE ARTICLES

Posted on

Theos (God) is a Count Noun. Does that mean that John 1:1c must be translated “the Word was a god?”

Overview

Jesus is God

In most Bibles, John 1:1c reads, “the Word was God.”  But the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ (JWs) New World Translation (NWT) reads, “the Word was a god.”  JWs understand Jesus to be one of many powerful created beings.

JWs have developed a sophisticated defense of their translation of this phrase, which argues that the word God is a count noun and count nouns must always be either definite or indefinite, even when used with a qualitative sense. And since the Word is distinct from God in 1:1b, He cannot be “the god,” and must be “a god.”

This article agrees that the word God is a count noun, that God is used in a qualitative sense in 1:1c and that the New Testament presents Jesus as distinct from God, but it does not agree that count nouns, when used with a qualitative sense, must necessarily be translated by inserting the indefinite article. For this purpose, this article mentions and discusses a number of example:

“Jehovah is God.”
“Jesus is Lord.”
“He is God.“
“God is God and man is man.”
“The Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath.”

This argument is analyzed and discussed below.  First, some background information:

The word “god”

The Greek word translated “god” is THEOS.  THEOS is equivalent to our word “god,” with a small g, for it is used for all gods.  Since the Bible is a book about the true God, THEOS in the Bible is mostly used for the true God, but additional information is provided to indicate that the true God is referred to, for instance:

● Many times the New Testament adds the Greek definite article HO (the) to indicate that the god referred to is known to the reader.  
● The context could make it clear that the true God is intended.
● Descriptive phrases such as “the living God” identify the true God.

The Hebrew Scriptures similarly did not use the Hebrew word for “god” (ELOHIM) as the semantic equivalent to God’s personal name, Jehovah.  To identify Jehovah, without using His name, “god” was qualified, for instance, “I am the God of Bethel,” “God of Abraham,” “your God,” “the most high God” or “the God of gods.“

The word “God”

We have something which the ancient Greeks did not have, namely the distinction between small and capital letters.  THEOS is therefore not equivalent to “God.”  THEOS is a common noun, but our word “God” is actually a proper noun: a name for the true God; perhaps equivalent to Jehovah in the Old Testament.  The word “God,” in a sense, therefore does not appear in the Bible.  The New Testament many times refers to the one true God as HO THEOS (THE GOD).  We translate this phrase by dropping the definite article HO and by capitalizing the G.

YHWH is a name, but ELOHIM is used in the OT is not as a name (a proper noun), as shown by the phrases “the most high God” and “the God of gods.“

The Word is distinct from “God.”

The Word

John 1:1b, in most Bibles, read, “the Word was with God.”  Since Jesus was “with God,” “God” refers to the Father and Jesus cannot be “God.”

This conclusion is supported by the articles.  The Koine Greek of the New Testament has a definite article (“the”) but no indefinite articles (“a” or “an” in English).  Thus, a Greek writer could make a noun definite by use of the article, but would omit the article before non-definite nouns.  In 1:1b the article HO precedes THEOS, and is rendered in all translations as “God.”  But THEOS in 1:1c, referring to Jesus, is without the article, which supports a distinction between HO THEOS (God) and Jesus.

This distinction between “God” and Jesus is found all over the New testament.  Perhaps the best known is Paul’s definition in 1 Corinthians 8, where He makes a distinction between God (identified here as “the Father”), Jesus and false gods:

1 Cor. 8:4 … We know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one. 5 For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.

For a further discussion, see Jesus is not God and God is the Head of Christ.

God is a count noun.

A count noun is anything that can be counted, such as cats.  The opposite is called mass nouns, namely things that cannot be counted, such as courage.  Since gods can be counted, “god” (and THEOS) are count nouns.

The JW “position is that THEOS must always be a count noun.”  Hartley agrees: THEOS is a count noun because it can be both indefinite and plural, regardless of its context or understood “meaning.” 

The important point, for the discussion of the translation of 1:1c, is that “a countable noun always takes either the indefinite (a, an) or definite (the) article when it is singular,” for example “a cat” or “a category.”  Mass nouns, on the other hand, cannot be used with the articles.  One would not say ‘the courage’ or ‘a water’.  (Count and Noncount Nouns 1988, Purdue Online Writing Lab).

The reader will realize where the JW argument is heading, namely:

(1) If THEOS is a count noun, and if count nouns always always takes either the indefinite or definite article, then 1:1c cannot be translated “the Word was God.” 
(2) Since the LOGOS is “with” THE THEOS (1:1b), He cannot himself also be THE THEOS.  John 1:1c, therefore, cannot be translated “the god.”
(3) We need to distinguish between the HO THEOS of 1:1b and the anarthrous (without the article) THEOS of 1:1c.  John 1:1c must therefore read “the Word was a god.”  

There is, however, a complication:

Count nouns may be used with a qualitative sense.

This statement refers to when we use a noun to describe the subject of a sentence, for example, “that animal is a lion.”

Hartley concluded that all mass terms exude a purely qualitative force.  For example, the predicate “flesh” in the phrase “the Word became flesh” (John 1:14) is a mass term, for one does not say “the flesh” or “a flesh.”  In this verse “flesh” exudes a purely qualitative force onto “the Word;” the Word (LOGOS) came to possess the qualities or attributes of “flesh.”

Count nouns as predicates generally do not have a qualitative sense, but are usually used to identify the subject, for example, “that animal is a lion” or “Jim is my son.”  But count nouns can also be used in a qualitative sense, for instance, “that rugby player is a tiger,” meaning that he is tough.   Here we use a noun (tiger) with a qualitative sense to describe the qualities of a tiger to the rugby player.

THEOS is used in a qualitative sense in 1:1c.

The JW argument does not state this directly, but implies this.  The background to this is that 1:1c has a special grammatical structure (noun without the article precedes the verb “to be”).  Phillip Harner and several other grammarians have studied phrases with this special grammatical construct.  They concluded that the predicates in such a construct function primarily to express the nature or character of the subject. 

This does not mean that THEOS in 1:1c definitely is used qualitatively, but the probability is high.  If it is a qualitative use, then 1:1c does not identify Jesus as THEOS, but attributes the qualities and characteristics of THEOS to Him. 

Count nouns must always be definite or indefinite, even when used with a qualitative sense.

JWs admit that count nouns, such as THEOS, are sometimes used with a qualitative sense, but respond to this challenge that count nouns cannot be purely qualitative .  They argue that count nouns retain their “countability” when they emphasize qualities and must therefore still be either definite (e.g. the god) or indefinite (e.g. a god):

“Count nouns denoting persons such as theos and logos, must be either definite or indefinite, and a stress of qualitativeness is an additional characteristic, not an alternative one (Furuli, p. 217; emphasis in original).

“I view [the category Qualitative-Indefinite] as a noun with an indefinite semantic, having a primarily qualitative emphasis (Stafford, p. 344). [Note his distinction between semantic (definite or indefinite) and emphasis (qualitative).  Witness apologists Kidd, Stafford, and Furuli all make this distinction.]

Phillip Harner said something similar.  He said that qualitativeness may coexist with either a definite or indefinite semantic force, but this qualitative significance may be more important that the question whether the predicate noun itself should be regarded as definite or indefinite (p. 75). 

We see an example of how this works in the phrase “that rugby player is a tiger.”  Even though this a qualitative use of the noun “tiger,” an “a” precedes the predicate noun.  Simon and Gurfunkel similarly sang, “I am a rock, I am an island.”

However, it is proposed here that the definite and indefinite article cannot always be inserted when count nouns are used with a qualitative sense, for example:

Jehovah is God.

YHVH, pronounced Jehovah or Yahweh

“Jehovah [the LORD] is God” (Joshua 22:34; 1 Kings 8:60, 18:21; Psalm 118:27) is comparable to 1:1c (“the Word was THEOS”).  Both Jehovah and “the Word” identify one specific being, and in both cases the predicate is “God,” which is a count noun. 

“Jehovah is God” is a statement which only a worshiper of Jehovah would make.  “God” is here used with a qualitative sense to stress qualities, nature, or character.  It describes Jehovah as the only true God; the Supreme One who has all authority in heaven and on earth. 

To say “Jehovah is a god” would also be a true statement, but has a very different meaning; identifying Jehovah merely as another god; one of many.  Even a Muslim would be willing to say “Jehovah is a god.” 

“Jehovah is God.” does have a definite semantic force, but to translate it as “Jehovah is the god” would also corrupt the meaning.  This phrase identifies Jehovah as the god we are currently speaking about, but this statement does not say anything about Him.  A Muslim may also make this statement. 

Other Examples

The following statements are similar to “Jehovah is God,” and also illustrate that, to insert an “a” or a “the” before the count term, would distort the meaning.

“Jesus is Lord” (1 Cor. 12:3).  [“Lord” is a count noun, for lords can be counted.  “Lord” is used in a qualitative sense, attributing the nature or character of true Lordship to Jesus.  To translate this as “Jesus is a lord” or even as “Jesus is the lord” significantly changes the meaning.

“He is God” (Deut. 4:35, 39, 7:9; Joshua 2:11; 1 Kings 18:24, 39). 

“God is God and man is man.”  Slaten offered a helpful example.  The first “God” is our name for the one true God.  The second “God” is a count noun used as a qualitative predicate; indicating God’s nature.  To say “God is a god” would distort the meaning.  The meaning seems best brought out by adding “by nature:” ” God is (by nature) God and man is (by nature) man.” 

Conclusion

JWs argue that count nouns, such as THEOS, in certain contexts emphasize qualities, but that count nouns cannot be purely qualitative, but retain their countability.  They argue that count nouns therefore always must be definite or indefinite, even when used with a qualitative sense.  According to this logic, THEOS in 1:1c “is a count noun and therefore must be either definite (the god) or indefinite” (a god).

But we have seen that, to insert an article in the translation of a count noun that is used with a qualitative sense, would in some instances distort the meaning of the phrase.  In other words, when count nouns are used in a qualitative sense, it does not necessarily follow that the English indefinite or definite articles must be inserted in the translation from Greek.  Consequently, even though “god” is a count noun, it is perfectly possible to translate 1:1c as “the Word is God.” 

When is “a” added?

We have seen that sometimes the indefinite article “a” must be added and sometimes not.  Linguists are fond of classifying words and phrases, and they need to tell us when “a” is added and when not.

One option is that the indefinite article is not used in phrases such “Jehovah is God” and “the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath” because these phrases stress uniqueness. 

Another option is to distinguish between literal and figurative uses of the predicate:

● When we say ‘Jim is a god’, meaning that he is a human being with near superhuman abilities as a basketball player, then the count noun “god” is used with a qualitative sense.  It also is a figurative statement, for we know that Jim is not a god.  We then add the indefinite article.

● Similarly, if we know that Jim is not a murderer, but say ‘Jim is a murderer’ to predicate the qualities of “murderer” to him, in other words, to say that he destroys people’s lives, then this is a figurative statement, and we insert “a”.  But if Jim actually murdered somebody, then ‘Jim is a murderer’ is an indefinite use of the predicate.

● In contrast, the statement “Jehovah is god” is a literal use of the predicate, for we know that Jehovah is God Almighty.

● Similarly, when we say ‘Jim is man’, the count noun ‘man’ is used with a qualitative sense; John is fully human.  But it is not a figurative statement, but a literal one, and we omit the “a”.

These examples seem to imply that, when a predicate with qualitative force applies literally to the subject, “a” must be omitted, for if we insert “a,” the statement becomes indefinite.  This point is, however, not important for the purpose of this article.  The mere fact that sometimes the articles are omitted when a count noun is used with a qualitative sense, is sufficient to counter the JW argument.

How should 1:1c be translated?

Consider 1:1c literally translated from Greek, using the English word order: THE WORD WAS GOD.

From the majority perspective, where Jesus is viewed as God, THE WORD WAS GOD seems like a literal use of the noun, which means that “a” may not be inserted in the translation.

In the Jehovah Witness tradition, where Jesus is not viewed as God, THE WORD WAS GOD seems like a figurative use of the noun, implying that an “a” should be inserted.

The question is therefore what the Bible’s perspective of Jesus is.  We have to translate the phrase from that perspective.  If the Bible declares Jesus to be God, then it is a literal phrase, and an “a” may not be inserted, and vice versa.  In other words, the classification of predicate nouns as count nouns or mass nouns does not help us at all with the translation of 1:1c.

Articles in the Christology series: Is Jesus God?

   1.    The three views of the Son 
  2.    Jesus existed prior to His birth in the form of God. 
  3.    Jesus in Colossians
  4.    Jesus in Philippians: Did He empty Himself of equality with God? 
  5.    Who is the Word in John 1:1?
  6.    Jesus is not God.  
  7.    God is the Head of Christ. 
  8.    Jesus is called God. 
  9.    He is the Only Begotten Son of God. 
 10.  God created all things through His Son. 
 11.  Jesus is worshiped.  Does that mean that He is God?  
       Worship verses in the New Testament   
 12.  Jesus has equality with God. 
 13.  Who is Jesus? – Summary of the series of articles 
 14.  Where do we find Jesus in the Old Testament?

For a discussion of the major role which Caesar Constantine played in the formulation of the Nicene Creed of 325, listen to Kegan Chandler on the term “homoousios”  The famous church historian Eusebius tells us that it was the emperor Constantine who suggested using the word homoousios.  Chandler ventures an educated guess as to what Constantine was thinking… and it has something to do with Egypt!

For a discussion of the church fathers, showing that they all believed that Jesus is subordinate to the Father, and that the idea of Christ being equal to the Father only developed during the Middle Ages, see the discussion by Dr. Beau Branson on the Monarchy of the Father (Trinities 240).

Proudly powered by WordPress