Thought I'd give people a simple tool to address the JW who believe that the Bible says that the Word, that is, Jesus, was not God, but just a god. Their New World study bible says in John 1:1c "and the Word was a god." Why? Is there a possible justification for putting in the indefinite article "a" before "God" to remove Jesus from the Godhead? To the average American Christian, there could be, and the JWs like to prey on the general ignorance of the Bible. However, there is a very simple way to prove that the indefinite article does not belong there.
Before I do, the JWs like to say that the indefinite article does belong because the Koine Greek doesn't really use indefinite articles, instead allowing them to be implied. Fair enough. After all, John 1:6 has an implied indefinite article when referencing the introduction of John the Baptist. So why not in John 1:1c to fit the belief that Jesus is not the 2nd Person of God, but Michael?
First, let's look at the immediate context, with the section in question removed:
But as we know, the broader context is the whole Bible. So where else do we find a similar passage? Why, in the beginning, of course! Genesis 1:1, likewise, says "In the beginning..." In the beginning...what? "...GOD created..." Oh? But John said that all things were created through the Word! I'm sure that JWs would claim that since John doesn't expressly say that the Word created everything, that the Word therefore isn't necessarily God, but the vessel by which God created everything else. However, how can that be when John says that nothing was made without the Word being directly involved? If the Word is created, then without the Word something was made that was made. Thus, the Word MUST be an uncreated creator. Genesis 1:1 says that God is the uncreated creator, therefore, the Word, who is Jesus, is God.
Before I do, the JWs like to say that the indefinite article does belong because the Koine Greek doesn't really use indefinite articles, instead allowing them to be implied. Fair enough. After all, John 1:6 has an implied indefinite article when referencing the introduction of John the Baptist. So why not in John 1:1c to fit the belief that Jesus is not the 2nd Person of God, but Michael?
First, let's look at the immediate context, with the section in question removed:
John sure is taking great pains to describe Him as existing alongside God before Creation and being responsible for all Creation. If the Word is not God, then it will require some great rhetorical flourishes and long essays to prove it in light of this short passage. What John is doing is equivocating the Word and God, assigning them status as prior to Creation and Time, so saying "and the Word was God" makes the most sense.
But as we know, the broader context is the whole Bible. So where else do we find a similar passage? Why, in the beginning, of course! Genesis 1:1, likewise, says "In the beginning..." In the beginning...what? "...GOD created..." Oh? But John said that all things were created through the Word! I'm sure that JWs would claim that since John doesn't expressly say that the Word created everything, that the Word therefore isn't necessarily God, but the vessel by which God created everything else. However, how can that be when John says that nothing was made without the Word being directly involved? If the Word is created, then without the Word something was made that was made. Thus, the Word MUST be an uncreated creator. Genesis 1:1 says that God is the uncreated creator, therefore, the Word, who is Jesus, is God.