The $1M Question for Jehovah's Witnesses

Hey all,

So after going through the podcast on John 1:1, I realized we missed (or maybe only partially answered) one gaping hole in the Jehovah's Witness'argument in John 1:1c. 

 

It goes like this:

Argument: Because the article is missing before θεός in 1:1c, the English should be rendered "a god."

$1M question: Does adding the article make 1:1c Trinitarian?

Answer: Definitively no. 

John 1:1c-  καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. 

As we argued in our podcast episode, in a statement of equality, there is no direct object. By placing the article before λόγος (logos- Word), λόγος then becomes the subject of the sentence. So, if we place the article before θεὸς (theos- God), like-

καὶ ὁ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος

What happens is that you've now forced both nouns to act as subjects by making both definite, and therefore interchangeable. So, John was pretty clever. What he did was safeguard against a Modalistic reading. In Modalism, God the Father is the same Person as Jesus. So in Trinitarian terms, they are "One Person, One Being, two manifestations." This isn't Trinitarianism, and certainly isn't biblical.  

So, the facile argument made by Jehovah's Witnesses can't be solved by simply following what they say should be done. Which means the argument falls on its face. Following the rest of our arguments through, the only answer for understanding John's prologue properly is to read it in a Trinitarian manner. 

"Holy, Holy, Holy, merciful and mighty!

God in Three Persons, blessed Trinity!"

God bless,

Mike Senders