Jesus is "God" or "a god"?

Cousin,

Before I begin, let me just point out that, in making my case for the deity of Christ, I haven't really said anything about the Watchtower. I've been focused on Scripture, as the case stands or falls on its support from Scripture. But because of the topic of this post, l have to discuss the Watchtower, specifically, in regard to their New World Translation of the Bible, because I think it's accurate to say they've superimposed a piece of themselves onto the Scriptures.

John 1:1 is a straightforward verse for establishing Jesus' identity as God. I haven't brought it up because I know the Watchtower's translation of the verse gives it a different meaning than other translations. I also am under the impression Jehovah's Witnesses are trained at length to reject the historic Christian understanding of the verse. Therefore, I figure any case I make for Jesus being God is probably going to be more persuasive if I focus on other evidences from Scripture (as I have been doing). But today a few things about John 1:1 struck me as worth considering.

As you know, the Watchtower's translation reads:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. [Or “was divine.]"

Based on the verses that follow, the Watchtower asserts that the term "Word" is referring to Jesus (I think, correctly).

"And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth."

I just happened to look up John 1:1 on BibleGatway and noticed that they provide a way to view the verse in multiple English translations, which I've listed at the bottom of this.

You'll notice that in the over 50 translations listed, none of them end with the term "a god." They all end in some variation of the word "God." While it could be argued this isn't conclusive evidence that the Watchtower's translation is inaccurate, it's certainly notable. Scholars who do Biblical translations are masters of ancient Hebrew and Greek and are fully aware of the gravity of their task. You have to know they approach it soberly and take great care to do the best translation possible. (For a technical explanation of why, according to Greek rules of grammar, "God" is a proper translation, see this helpful post.) As far as I know, the Watchtower's New World Translation, which came out in 1950, is the only English translation in the history of Christendom to use the term "a god."

This strikes me as particularly suspicious considering that, at the time of the translation, the organization doing the translating specifically had as one of its unique and defining characteristics opposition to the majority understanding of Jesus' nature. In other words, rightly or wrongly, if anyone had an axe to grind regarding the idea that Jesus was God in the flesh, it was the Watchtower.

The Watchtower's translation also strikes me as suspect in that, while other religions in Biblical times believed in multiple gods (polytheism), the belief that there is one and only one God (monotheism) was a fundamental tenant of Judaism and Christianity. The Watchtower doesn't deny this. In the Bible, other gods are referred to as false gods, representing false religions. They are imaginary. Any belief or trust in them is condemned. Given that context, a translation that says Jesus is "a god" is thematically out of place. This is especially true since Jesus is always characterized in Scripture in a favorable light -- far from being a false god.

I know a common Jehovah's Witness rebuttal cites Psalm 58, where a group of men are called "gods." But if you actually read that passage, the reference to "gods" in lowercase is tongue-in-cheek, ridiculing evil men who abuse governing authority. It's sarcasm. This use of the word is not at all similar to the manner in which the Watchtower believes the term should be applied to Jesus in John 1:1, namely, that Jesus is a good god, but distinct from "almighty God."

I'm not positive what the Watchtower thinks characterizes the type of god they think Jesus is, but since the Watchtower acknowledges Jesus created the universe, it must be supernaturally powerful on a massive scale -- on a scale most people would associate with "God" is uppercase letters.

Regardless of how they want to characterize their teaching, it seems undeniable the Watchtower is claiming the universe has two god-like beings. That's polytheism. At the same time, they know Scripture is strict regarding monotheism, so I realize they would never want to accept the characterization of it as polytheism. Neverltheless, it fits the definition.

Note, this is a problem for the Watchtower regardless of whether "God" is lowercase or uppercase. Without a triune understanding of the nature of God -- where there's one God in three Persons -- the fist chapter of John leaves one with a polytheistic theology. To me, this is a compelling reason to conclude the Watchtower's understanding of God's nature is flawed. It also provides good insight into what the doctrine of the Trinity has to offer.


These are the 50+ alternate English translations of John 1:1:

KJ21 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

ASV In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

AMP In the beginning [before all time] was the Word (Christ), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God Himself.

AMPC In the beginning [before all time] was the Word (Christ), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God Himself.

BRG In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

CEB In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.

CJB In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

CEV In the beginning was the one who is called the Word. The Word was with God and was truly God.

DARBY In [the] beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

DLNT In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

DRA In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

ERV Before the world began, the Word was there. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.

ESV In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

ESVUK In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

EXB In the beginning [Gen. 1:1] ·there was the Word [the Word already existed; ^Cthe Word refers to Christ, God’s revelation of himself]. The Word was ·with [in the presence of; in intimate relationship with] God [^Cthe Father], and the Word was [fully] God.

GNV In the beginning was that Word, and that Word was with God, and that Word was God.

GW In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.

GNT In the beginning the Word already existed; the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

HCSB In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

ICB Before the world began, there was the Word. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.

ISV In the beginning, the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.

PHILLIPS At the beginning God expressed himself. That personal expression, that word, was with God, and was God, and he existed with God from the beginning. All creation took place through him, and none took place without him. In him appeared life and this life was the light of mankind. The light still shines in the darkness and the darkness has never put it out.

JUB In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and the Word was God.

KJV In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

AKJV In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

LEB In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

TLB Before anything else existed, there was Christ,* with God. He has always been alive and is himself God.

MSG The Word was first, the Word present to God, God present to the Word. The Word was God, in readiness for God from day one.

MEV In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

MOUNCE In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with · God, and the Word was God.

NOG In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.

NABRE In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

NASB In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

NCV In the beginning there was the Word. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.

NET In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God.

NIRV In the beginning, the Word was already there. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.

NIV In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

NIVUK In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

NKJV In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

NLV The Word (Christ) was in the beginning. The Word was with God. The Word was God.

NLT In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.

NRSV In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

NRSVA In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

NRSVACE In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

NRSVCE In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

NTE In the beginning was the Word. The Word was close beside God, and the Word was God.

OJB Bereshis (in the Beginning) was the Dvar Hashem [YESHAYAH 55:11; BERESHIS 1:3], and the Dvar Hashem was agav (along with, etzel, Mishle 8:30;30:4) Hashem, and the Dvar Hashem was nothing less, by nature, than Elohim! [Psa 56:11(10); Yn 17:5; Rev. 19:13 i.e., the Ma’amar Memra]

RSV In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

RSVCE In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

TLV In the beginning was the Word. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.

VOICE Before time itself was measured, the Voice was speaking. The Voice was and is God.

WEB In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

WE The Word already was, way back before anything began to be. The Word and God were together. The Word was God.

WYC In the beginning was the word, and the word was at God, and God was the word. [In the beginning was the word, that is, God's Son, and the word was at God, and God was the word.]

YLT In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;

A "mind prison"

[Note: This particular blog entry is not addressed to my cousin, but I think it provides insight into why it's more difficult than it should be to influence a Jehovah's Witness' thinking.]

Not too long ago I saw an impactful National Geographic documentary about North Korea. I recommend everyone see it (viewable on YouTube: Inside North Korea). North Korea basically operates as a cult. If you have anything less than complete devotion and adoration for their leader, your life will be destroyed -- quite literally. You, (and likely your family as well), will disappear into a concentration camp, never to be heard from again.

I found the film very disturbing. My discomfort lingered several days. The thought that people on planet Earth are right now living this sort of hellish existence was painful to grasp. I wondered if the North Koreans even realize they're in a "mind prison." There's evidence some are. But I suspect many eventually lose touch with reality and even willingly take part in the oppression.

Fast forward to this week: I did a Google search to re-locate this blog (it's been a while), and came across some YouTube videos made by former Jehovah's Witnesses. (You can find a bunch if you search on "why you shouldn't be a Jehovah's witness.") They were obviously home made, often rambling, but very insightful nonetheless for those of us on the outside. I think every speaker touched on the topic of being forced to terminate all contact with anyone the Jehovah's Witnesses kicked out or who left of their own accord. Known as "disfellowshipping," friendships are abruptly ended and family ties severed, even between parents and children. Violations of the ban put you at risk of the same fate yourself.

Although there is no violence involved, it doesn't take a lot of insight to see that this is another example of a "mind prison."

So far on this blog I've attempted to explain why I hold beliefs different than the Watchtower. But this whole practice of controlling people's religious beliefs by threatening to destroy their personal relationships is horrendous regardless of theological understanding. I wonder if there is a way to artfully bring this up when Jehovah's Witnesses come to our door that could help set them on the road towards escaping the situation they find themselves in.

I can envision taking a few minutes to ask them to describe the importance fellow Witnesses have to them personally. I expect they'd consider it an opportunity to pitch their organization and say positive things, especially with another Witness at their side.

Then I'd ask, "How likely would you be to consider the religious claims of someone who, at least in part, makes the claims they do due to coercion... in other words, because they're being threatened?"

I'm guessing they'd say they wouldn't be likely. 

Then I'd say,

"I'm with you! Religious beliefs should be adopted because one is persuaded they are true, not because one is threatened with harm.

"So I have a problem. I'm someone who's aware the Watchtower threatens to 'disfellowship' anyone who voluntarily leaves. I also understand the dire personal implications that would have for most people. I'm sure you don't want to lose fellowship with those you hold dear

"Knowing that, would it really make much sense for me to seriously consider what you, as a Witness, has to say about religion? How do I know you aren't saying what you have to in order to avoid having your relationships with family and friends essentially stolen from you?

"Though not his fault, no witness at gunpoint -- Jehovah's or otherwise -- is a reliable witness. Anyone would be foolish not to consider this when listening to what Jehovah's Witnesses have to say. But it's also something you yourself should be considering when you're listening to your fellow Witnesses. As far as I can tell, all of you are being blackmailed. 

"If you always think Watchtower teaching is correct, this situation might not bother you. But, think about it, are you okay with the fact that coming to a different conclusion than the Watchtower could put your relationship with everyone you hold dear at risk? In a very real sense, you guys are trapped.

"Someone like me, if you come to my door and I conclude the Watchtower is correct, I'm free to convert. My social network and familial relationships will remain intact. Jehovah's Witnesses don't have that assurance. 

"If I want to read and consider Watchtower literature, I'm free to do so, and I have done so. But the Watchtower forbids Witnesses from reading what others write. So if the Watchtower is ever wrong, they have minimized your ability to know about it. I realize they say they are never wrong, and therefore there is no error to be detected. But I think history informs us that those that forbid challenge typically have something to hide, and teachers who silence questioning are much more apt to unknowingly err.

"I don't expect you to express any agreement with me because I know you face punishment if you do. But I hope you'll give this some thought. 

"I don't know what the answer for you is. Blackmail, by its nature, doesn't offer painless alternatives. But I'd submit to you that any organization that uses coercion against you is an organization you should try and get out from underneath."

I'm guessing many Witnesses, deep inside, are intimidated by the threat they face from the Watchtower and have been conditioned to cope with it. Having an outsider shed light on the situation might be a way of penetrating the prison wall.

In theory, this should be a whole lot easier than addressing the problems in North Korea. In reality, I'm not sure it actually is.


This appears to be an excellent resource regarding disfellowshipping:

Disfellowshipping and Shunning

It includes a lot of excerpts from past Jehovah's Witness publications documenting the development and evolution of the practice in Jehovah's Witness history as well as Biblical reasons to regard it as wrong-headed.