CLAIM: The translators of the Jehovah’s Witness Bible (the New World Translation, or NWT) render this verse as follows: “The Word was a god.” These translators argue that there is no article before theos (God). Therefore, they argue, this verse does not support the fact that Jesus is divine. Instead, this passage is describing that Jesus is godlike, but not God. Is this the case?

RESPONSE: This debated Greek text reads as follows:

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος

First, if John was trying to communicate that Jesus was godlike, he had a word at his disposal. Carson writes, “There is a perfectly serviceable word in Greek for ‘divine’ (namely theios).”^[1] But John didn’t use this word; he intentionally used theos instead.

Second, there are other places in the NT where the predicate nominative[2] has no article, but the NWT translates the predicate nominative as definite—not indefinite. This shows terrible inconsistency on behalf of the NWT. R.H. Countess writes,

In the New Testament there are 282 occurrences of the anarthrous [or lack of the article] θεός. At sixteen places NWT has either a god, god, gods, or godly. Sixteen out of 282 means that the translators were faithful to their translation principle only six percent of the time… The first section of John-1:1–18—furnishes a lucid example of NWT arbitrary dogmatism. Θεός occurs eight times-verses 1, 2, 6, 12, 13, 18—and has the article only twice-verses 1, 2. Yet NWT six times translated “God,” once “a god,” and once “the god.”^[3]

If we followed this translation rule consistently, we would need to translate all of these passages in this way (because all of these lack the article in front of them):

John 1:1 as “a beginning,” rather than “the beginning.”

John 1:4 as “a life,” rather than simply “life.”

John 1:6 as “there came a man sent from a god.”

John 1:18 as “No one has seen a god at any time.”

Carson adds, “Even in this chapter, ‘you are the King of Israel’ (1:49) has no article before ‘King’ in the original (cf. also Jn. 8:39; 17:17; Rom. 14:17; Gal. 4:25; Rev. 1:20).”^[4]

Third, John most likely wrote it this way to show the diversity in the Godhead. He wanted to be clear that Jesus was God (in nature), but he was a separate person from God (in person). This grammatical construction brilliantly shows the unity of God (Jesus is God), while also preserving the diversity of God (Jesus is not the Father). Carson notes, “The effect of ordering the words this way is to emphasize ‘God’, as if John were saying, ‘and the word was God!’ In fact, if John had included the article, he would have been saying something quite untrue. He would have been so identifying the Word with God that no divine being could exist apart from the Word.”^[5] Greek expert Daniel Wallace writes,

Such an option does not at all impugn the deity of Christ. Rather, it stresses that, although the person of Christ is not the person of the Father, their essence is identical. Possible translations are as follows: “What God was, the Word was” (NEB), or “the Word was divine” (a modified Moffatt). In this second translation, “divine” is acceptable only if it is a term that can be applied only to true deity. However, in modern English, we use it with reference to angels, theologians, even a meal! Thus “divine” could be misleading in an English translation. The idea of a qualitative θεός here is that the Word had all the attributes and qualities that “the God” (of 1:1b) had. In other words, he shared the essence of the Father, though they differed in person. The construction the evangelist chose to express this idea was the most concise way he could have stated that the Word was God and yet was distinct from the Father.^[6]

Fourth, elsewhere, John uses the definite article to refer to Christ. If Jehovah’s witnesses are hanging their case on this weak grammatical argument, they will find themselves in trouble when we get to 20:28. Here, John uses the definite article to refer to Christ (ho theos), when he exclaims, “My Lord and my God!” Jehovah’s Witnesses dodge this biblical assertion of Jesus’ deity by arguing that this is similar to someone winning a car on The Price is Right and exclaiming, “Oh my God! Oh my God! Oh my God!” However, Jesus’ clear affirmation of Thomas’ belief surely invalidates this completely bizarre interpretation (20:29).

It shouldn’t surprise us that Greek grammarians have viciously criticized the translators of the New World Translation for their poor scholarship. Cult expert Ron Rhodes writes,

Dr. Julius Mantey, author of A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, calls the New World Translation ‘a shocking mistranslation.’ Dr. Bruce M. Metzger, professor of New Testament at Princeton University, calls it ‘a frightful mistranslation,’ ‘erroneous,’ ‘pernicious,’ and ‘reprehensible.’ Dr. William Barclay concluded that ‘the deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New Testament translation…. It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest.’^[7]

Due to these vicious critiques by NT scholars, the Watchtower has always protected the identity of its translators. They argue that they hide the identity of the translators in order to be humble and give the glory to God. Suspiciously, however, this anonymity has made it difficult to check the credentials of their “scholarly” translators.

When Raymond Franz was disfellowshiped from the Jehovah’s Witnesses, he gave up the names of the translators: Nathan Knorr, Frederick Franz, Albert Schroeder, George Gangas, and Milton Henschel. Rhodes writes, “It quickly became apparent that the committee was completely unqualified for the task. Four of the five men in the committee had no Hebrew or Greek. The fifth—Frederick Franz—claimed to know Hebrew and Greek, but upon examination under oath in court of law in Edinburgh, Scotland, was found to fail a simple Hebrew test.”^[8]

For more on this subject, see our earlier article “Jehovah’s Witnesses.”