Series: The Berean Examinations — Study B01 (Study Edition)

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." — John 1:1

HAVE YOU EVER WONDERED...

  • Why does the New World Translation say the Word was "a god"?
  • Is there a third option besides "God" and "a god"?
  • What would Isaiah say about a created god?

ONE WORD, TWO RENDERINGS

1 Imagine receiving a translated letter in which the translator rendered the very same foreign word as "God" four times — and as "a god" exactly once. Would you not ask why that one place is different? Keep that question in mind; before this study ends, you will run that exact check yourself, in about ninety seconds, and it will tell you nearly everything you need to know.

2 The New World Translation renders John 1:1: "the Word was a god." Behind the rendering stands a teaching: that the Word is Jehovah's first creation — a mighty spirit, divine in a lesser sense, but not the Almighty. Millions of sincere people have built their understanding of Jesus on this one translation choice. It deserves a fair and careful look.

1, 2. (a) What question would a strangely translated letter raise? (b) What does the NWT teach about the Word?

THE CASE — STATED FAIRLY

3 The argument is not foolish, and parts of it are right. In Greek, John 1:1 has no definite article before the second "God" (theos). Greek has no word for "a," so translators must sometimes supply it. The Watchtower also correctly points out that a grammar rule called "Colwell's Rule" has been misused by many defenders of the Trinity — and scholars agree with them on that point. Honesty requires saying so.

4 They also note that respected translators like Moffatt and Goodspeed rendered the phrase "the Word was divine" — proof, they say, that "the Word was God" is not the only option. Hold on to that word divine. It is about to become important — though not in the way the argument expects.

3, 4. (a) On what grammar point is the Watchtower correct? (b) How did Moffatt and Goodspeed translate the phrase?

THE THIRD OPTION

5 In 1973, the scholar Philip Harner published a careful study of this exact Greek construction. His finding: it is usually qualitative — it describes the nature of something, not its identity and not its membership in a class. Applied here: John is telling us what the Word was like — everything God is, the Word was. One translation captures it perfectly: "What God was, the Word was."

6 Now notice something remarkable. Moffatt's and Goodspeed's "divine" — the very translations the Watchtower cites — are qualitative renderings. They describe nature. They are votes for the third option, not for "a god." The Watchtower's own witnesses testify against its rendering.

5, 6. (a) What is the "qualitative" reading of John 1:1? (b) What do the Watchtower's own cited translators actually support?

THE NINETY-SECOND CHECK

7 Here is the test from paragraph 1 — and you can run it with any New World Translation. The Greek word theos appears without the article several more times in John chapter 1. How does the NWT render each one? Read John 1:6, 12, 13, and 18 in the NWT. Verse 6: sent from "God." Verse 12: children of "God." Verse 13: born from "God." Verse 18: no man has seen "God."

8 Four article-less occurrences — all rendered "God." Only verse 1 receives "a god." If missing the article required "a god," then verse 18 would read "no one has seen a god." The translation principle is applied exactly once: at the verse where the doctrine needs it. Say it gently, but say it clearly: that is a doctrine making a translation, not grammar.

7, 8. (a) How does the NWT render article-less "theos" in John 1:6, 12, 13, 18? (b) What does this reveal about the rendering at 1:1?

WHAT WOULD ISAIAH SAY?

9 Suppose, though, we granted "a god." What would the phrase then claim? That alongside the Almighty there exists a second, created, genuinely divine being. Now open the very book from which Jehovah's Witnesses take their name. Read Isaiah 43:10. "Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me."

10 A created god is, by definition, a god formed after Jehovah — the precise thing Jehovah's witness-commissioning verse declares impossible. The surrounding chapters close every exit: "Besides me there is no god" (44:6); "Is there a God besides me?... I know not any" (44:8). The rendering meant to protect Jehovah's supremacy ends up asserting the one thing his own testimony rules out.

9, 10. (a) What would "a god" actually claim? (b) What does Isaiah 43:10 declare?

WHAT JOHN ACTUALLY WROTE

11 So what did John mean? Think like a Hebrew reader. In Israel's Scriptures, God's word is not a second being: "By the word of Yahweh the heavens were made, and by the breath of his mouth all their host" (Psalm 33:6). His word is his own self-expression — his wisdom, his plan — personified beautifully in passages like Proverbs 8, yet never counted as a second god by any Jewish reader.

12 Read the verse with those ears: In the beginning was God's own word; the word was with God — his own, as a plan is with its planner; and what God was, the word was. Then the hinge of history: "the word became flesh" (John 1:14) — embodied in the man Jesus the Messiah. No second god, created or uncreated. Notice: the Watchtower and the Trinity actually share one assumption — that the Word is a second person beside God. They only argue over his résumé. The Hebrew reading declines the shared assumption — and it is the only reading Isaiah 43:10 never touches.

13 And Jesus himself gave us the measuring rod for every reading of John's Gospel, in his own prayer: "This is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent" (John 17:3). The Father alone, the only true God; Jesus, his sent Messiah. The Gospel that ends with that creed did not open by introducing deity number two.

11–13. (a) What is God's "word" in the Hebrew Scriptures? (b) What assumption do the Watchtower and the Trinity share? (c) What creed did Jesus himself give?

📖 KEY SCRIPTURES IN THIS STUDY

John 1:1, 6, 12, 13, 14, 18 · Psalm 33:6 · Proverbs 8 · Isaiah 43:10; 44:6–8 · John 17:3

💬 TALKING WITH A WITNESS FRIEND

Affirm first: "You may be surprised — I agree the Trinity isn't a biblical doctrine, and that the Father alone is the Most High. Can we look at this verse as friends on the same side of that question?" Three gentle questions:

  1. "Could we read John 1:6, 12, 13, and 18 together in the NWT? I'm trying to understand why 1:1 alone gets 'a god' when the Greek is article-less in all five places."
  2. "How does Isaiah 43:10 — 'before me no god was formed' — fit with a Word who was formed and is a god?"
  3. "Have you seen the third option — 'what God was, the Word was'? Moffatt and Goodspeed, whom the Society quotes, held that view. Could we look at it together?" Handle with care: Never use the word "cult" — it ends every conversation. A Biblical Unitarian is the rarest visitor a Witness meets: one who agrees the Trinity is unbiblical. Lead with that agreement, and a real conversation becomes possible.

✅ IN REVIEW

  • The Greek of John 1:1 has a third option: qualitative — "what God was, the Word was."
  • The NWT renders article-less theos as "God" four times in John 1 — and "a god" only where the doctrine requires it.
  • Isaiah 43:10 rules out any god formed — before or after.
  • God's "word" in Hebrew thought is his own self-expression — which became flesh in the man Jesus.
  • Jesus' own creed: the Father is "the only true God," and Jesus is the one he sent (John 17:3).

Sources for the teachings examined: New World Translation (2013), John 1:1 and Appendix; Insight on the Scriptures, "Jesus Christ"; Should You Believe in the Trinity? (1989). For the full evidentiary treatment, see the complete Study B01 in this archive.

Hear, O Israel: Yahweh our God, Yahweh is one — not two, not three; not one supreme and one created; one — and his word became flesh and dwelt among us: Jesus the Messiah, Son of the only true God.