The Watchtower on John 1:1 #1: "the Logos was with the God, and the Logos was a God."

This is part #1 of my new series, "The Watchtower on John 1:1."

[Above: Charles Taze Russell (1852-1916), founder of the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society: Wikipedia:

"... Russell admitted that at most he had attended school only seven years of his life ... and that he had left school when he was about fourteen years of age ... that he knew nothing about Latin and Hebrew, and that he had never taken a course in philosophy or systematic theology, and had never attended schools of higher learning ... that he never claimed knowledge of the Greek language..." ("Charles Taze Russell: Qualifications," Wikipedia"Charles Taze Russell," Wikipedia, 2 February 2010).]

I had originally planned to post a brief one-page refutation of the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society's arguments against the third clause in John 1:1 (John 1:1c), "and the Word was God" (as it is translated in the NIV and the overwhelming majority of mainstream Bible translations), and for the Watchtower's "the Word/Logos was a god" (as it is today translated only in the Society's New World Translation).

This was to be the start of my "Watchtower Errors by Bible Verses" but as I compiled an index of the Society's various arguments on John 1:1c, it grew too large (up to 1975 it was 40+ arguments) for a one-page post! So I had reluctantly decided to abandon the project when today (15 February) a JW (?) under a pseudonym commented on my post, Re: `So, Who sent Jesus? if he is Jehovah, did he send himself to earth?', etc about a (his?) forthcoming book, "What About John 1:1?" which is against "that God is a Trinity, and that Jesus is the second person of this triune God" with particular reference to "the third clause of John 1:1 as something different from the typical, Trinitarian influenced rendering [sic], `and the Word was God.'" I thanked him for his comment which had "given me the incentive to now proceed with my series"!

My approach will be generally to work through the Watchtower Society's various arguments about John 1:1c in the Society's (including its ancestor the International Bible Students Association) books that I own, in chronological order from the earliest to the latest, quoting the Society's own words, and where possible using them in the title of each post. However, I will also occasionally use CD and Internet sources for important quotes that I don't have in hardcopy. Excerpts of quotes will be linked to the full quotes towards the end of each post.

The first time (as far as I am aware), that the Watchtower's Society, in the person of its founder Charles Taze Russell, claimed that John 1:1c should be translated "the Logos was a God" or "the Word was a God" (as well as John 1:1b "the Logos was with the God) was in 1893:

"`THE WORD WAS A GOD' `In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with the God, and the Logos was a God. The same was in the beginning with the God. All things mere made by him [the Logos], and without him was not anything made that was made.'-John 1:1-3. ... We adopt the word Logos as one of our Lord's many names. ... Another difference between the above translation and the common version, is the addition of the italicized words a and the. These are supplied in order to give the reader the true sense of the Greek text. In which the presence or absence of the Greek article is very important. In the above translation the represents the article, while a shows that the article is lacking. In the above translation the represents the article, while a shows that the article is lacking. With this translation verified and appreciated (as can be done by consulting any Greek Testament or any Greek scholar) ..." (Russell, C.T., 1893, "The Word was a god," Zion's Watch Tower, April 15. Square brackets and emphasis original).

Russell repeated in 1898 that, "The first verse of John's Gospel" should be rendered "the Logos was with the God, and the Logos was a God":

"The first verse of John's Gospel is a marked instance of the use of theos in referring to Jehovah's Logos, his Only Begotten Son ... But the critical Greek student should find no difficulty in distinguishing between these two Gods ... for this distinction is clearly shown by the use of the Greek article before theos in referring to Jehovah, and the absence of that article when theos is used in referring to the Logos. The effect of this, expressed in our English language, would render the passage thus:- `In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with the God, and the Logos was a God ...' This translation will not be disputed by any Greek scholar ..." (Russell, C.T., 1898, "The True Light That Lighteth Every Man ," Zion's Watch Tower, December 15).

Note that Russell stated that there were "two Gods" (capital "G"), "Jehovah" and his "Son," which is polytheism, i.e. the belief in more than one true god (my emphasis below):

"polytheism ... the belief in or worship of more than one god." ("polytheism," Compact Oxford English Dictionary, 5 February 2010).

"pol•y•the•ism ... the doctrine of or belief in more than one god or in many gods." ("polytheism," Dictionary.com, 19 February 2010).

"poly•the•ism ... belief in or worship of more than one god." ("polytheism," Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, 19 February 2010).

"Polytheism is the belief in and/or worship of multiple deities, called gods and/or goddesses." ("Polytheism," Wikipedia, 18 February 2010).

So Jehovah's Witnesses who today follow Russell in his belief in "two Gods": Jehovah the "Almighty God" or "the God" and Jesus the "mighty god" or "a god":

"... God's Son, the Word, was and is `a god' (El) ... whereas Jehovah ... is `the God' (Elohim) ... He [Jesus] is a `mighty god', but not the Almighty God, who is Jehovah. (Isaiah 9:6)." (WB&TS, 1943, "The Truth Shall Make You Free," p.47).

"Jesus is a god. ... Christ is called `The mighty God' at Isaiah 9:6, `a god' at John 1:1 (NW) ... Jehovah is not the only god ... The very fact that he is called the Almighty God indicates that there are other gods not so mighty, not almighty like him." ("Watchtower, September 1, 1955, p.543).

"Jesus is a god, a mighty god, and so is Jehovah a God, a mighty God. But additionally, Jehovah is the mighty God and also the God Almighty.." ("Watchtower, September 15, 1961, p.551. Emphasis original).

are "polytheists" because they believe in the existence of more than one true god.

Specifically, by rendering "John 1:1" in "the Society's New World Translation" as "and the Word was a god" that "little addition `a,' makes John to say that Jesus was `a god,' a second, though inferior deity, and distinct from `the God'" which is "polytheism, `the belief in or worship of a plurality of gods' (my emphasis):

"At John 1:1 the Society's New World Translation reads, `In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.' `A god?' Yes, suddenly the seemingly insignificant article `a' takes on new relevance. The little addition `a,' makes John to say that Jesus was `a god,' a second, though inferior deity, and distinct from `the God.' Such an interpolation forces the apostle to polytheism, `the belief in or worship of a plurality of gods.' [Webster's Dictionary] While this alone should be enough for even a Witness to reject the translation, the Society argues that `a god' is the preferred translation since the Greek text does not say `the god.'" (Magnani & Barrett, 1985, pp.185-186. Emphasis original).

Which also contradicts Isa 43:10 (from where the name "Jehovah's Witnesses" came), where Jehovah states, "Before me there was no God formed, and after me there continued to be none" (NWT):

"The Jehovah's Witnesses took their name from Isaiah 43:10, but the Watchtower seems to have forgotten what the verse said they were supposed to be witnesses of, when they mistranslated John 1:1. `Understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, and there will be none after Me' (Isa. 43:10 NASB)." (Magnani & Barrett, 1985, p.185).

"Although Jehovah clearly said, `Before Me there was no God formed, and there will be none after Me' (Isa. 43:10) ... Jehovah's Witnesses, will not believe Him " (Magnani & Barrett, 1985, pp.123-124).

But "There is no way John could have meant that Jesus was a god," i.e. "another god," because "John was a Jewish Christian, a monotheist" who "did not believe there were any other gods" (my emphasis):

"The common pagan opinion was that the world is populated by many gods. Such people who believe in the existence of more than one god are called polytheists. ... Jehovah's Witnesses are polytheists ... Jehovah's Witnesses translate John 1:1, `In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.' Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe Jesus (the Word) is the God, but another god! There is no way John could have meant that Jesus was a god. John was a Jewish Christian, a monotheist! He did not believe there were any other gods! That is why most recognized translations will read `and the Word was God." (Magnani, D. & Barrett, A., 1985, "The Watchtower Files," pp.123-124. Emphasis original).

In Zion's Watch Tower of April 1, 1902, Russell again repeated his rendering of John 1:1, "the Logos with the God, and the Logos was a God":

"Similarly, our context declares, that in his prehuman condition our Lord Jesus was from the beginning the head, the chief of all his Father's creatures, works, arrangements. `For by him were all things created, that are in heaven and that are in earth, visible, and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers; all things were created by him; and for him: and he is before all things, and by him all things consist.' (Col. 1:16, 17) This agrees also with the statement of John's Gospel (1:1), 'In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos with the God, and the Logos was a God: the same was in the beginning with the God. All things were made by him; and without him was not one thing made that was made.'" (Russell, C.T, 1902., "God First-His Appointments," Zion's Watch Tower, April 1. Emphasis original).

As can be seen from the three Zion's Watch Tower quotes above, Russell claimed that "this translation [could be] verified ... by consulting ... any Greek scholar" and "This translation will not be disputed by any Greek scholar." But this was a falsehood. There was then, and is to this day, no "Greek scholar" of any standing who has supported Russell's "the Logos/Word was a God" translation, and as we shall see, this translation has been disputed by many Greek scholars.

Moreover, Russell was in no position to evaluate the "Greek [New] Testament" because in a 1913 court case, Russell had to admit under oath that he could not even identify the letters of the Greek alphabet!:

"In June, 1912, the Rev. Mr. J. J. Ross ... published a denunciatory pamphlet about Russell ... Russell sued Ross for libel. In the trial, which took place the following year, Russell was proved to be a perjurer. When asked by Attorney Staunton, Ross's lawyer, whether he knew the Greek alphabet, Russell replied, `Oh, yes.' When he was further asked to identify the Greek letters on top of a page of the Greek Testament which was handed him, he was unable to do so, finally admitting that he was not familiar with the Greek language." (Hoekema, A.A., 1963, "Jehovah's Witnesses, pp.13-14).

So clearly Russell's claim that John 1:1 means, "the Logos/Word was a God," was not based on his scholarly evaluation of the Greek New Testament text of John 1:1, but on his personal prejudice against the Trinity:

"The Trinity. Russell believed in the divinity of Christ, but differed from orthodoxy by teaching Jesus had received that divinity as a gift from the Father, after dying on the cross. He also taught that the Holy Spirit is not a person, but the manifestation of God's power." ("Charles Taze Russell: Theology and teachings," Wikipedia, 2 February 2010).

In 1902, a Professor William G. Moorehead of United Presbyterian Theological Seminary, Xenia, Ohio, published a widely-circulated tract called "Brief Review of Millennial Dawn" (the latter being the original title of Russell's Studies in the Scriptures) in which he explained from the original Greek what was wrong with Russell's rendering of John 1:1, "the Logos was with the God" as published in the April 1, 1902 Zion's Watch Tower. Under pressure to respond, Russell actually published Morehead's critique in the September 15 Zion's Watch Tower. Moorehead made four key points, as follows (emphasis original below):

1. In New Testament Greek, "the subject generally takes the article while its predicate omits it." So in John 1:1c, the Greek, kai theos en ho logos - "and God was the Word," logos has the article ho "the" showing it is the subject; and theos "God" has no article, showing it is the predicate:

"Nor is this all. One of the commonest rules of Greek Grammar as touching the use of the definite article the is this: in a simple sentence the subject generally takes the article while its predicate omits it. Jno. 1:1, third clause, is a simple, definite statement with a subject and a predicate; the subject is, `the Word' (Logos) and its predicate is unquestionably is, `God.' and hence the latter word does not take the article. Will some one kindly loan these gentlemen a Greek Grammar?" (Moorehead, 1902b, "A New Rendering of John 1:1," Zion's Watch Tower, September 15).

2. That theos ("God") without the article ho ("the") does not therefore mean "a God" is evident in that, "In this, same first chapter of John four times [Jn 1:6,12,13, 18], the Greek word God is found without the definite article the" but it is not translated "a god":

"But let us follow the example of the above queer rendering of Jno. 1:1, and apply the method to other places of Scripture. In this, same first chapter of John four times the Greek word God is found without the definite article the. Let us read these and hear how they sound: verse 6. `There was a man sent from a God whose name was John.' verse 12, `But as many as received him to them gave he power to become the children of a God:' verse 13. `Which were born ... of a God:' verse 18 `No man hath seen a God at any time.' Quite recently I read the eighth chapter of Romans through in the original, and found that ten times the apostle uses the name without the article, and in each instance the name is employed to designate the Supreme God. Let us read but one verse with Dawn-ist translation inserted: verse 14. `For as many as are led by the Spirit of a God, they are the sons of a God.' How does it sound, brethren? ... silly nonsense ..." (Moorehead, W.G, 1902a).

3. There "is a Greek adjective that expresses exactly the idea of a ... god-like being ... the word theios" which "John might have used ... to convey the idea that Christ in his pre-incarnate state was like a God" but "John does not use this term":

"Furthermore, there is a Greek adjective that expresses exactly the idea of a divine or god-like being, but who is not necessarily himself God. It is the word theios. This word John might have used had he wished to convey the idea that Christ in his pre-incarnate state was like a God. But John does not use this term, instead he employs the supreme title of God and applies it most emphatically to the Lord Jesus Christ in his eternal pre-existent state." (Moorehead, 1902c).

4. If "John had inserted the article the before the term God in the third clause of the verse," i.e. kai ho theos en ho logos , "the God was the Word," then the "distinction of the Persons in the Trinity would have been obliterated". Or if John had written, kai ho logos en ho theos, "and the Logos was the God," then that would mean "The Son is the Father":

"Once more, if John had inserted the article the before the term God in the third clause of the verse, then the word would have embraced the entire Godhead, and a distinction of the Persons in the Trinity would have been obliterated. Had he written (to follow again the example of the Dawn translation), `and the Word was the God.' then Christ would have been the whole of the Trinity. He might as well have written, `The Son is the Father,' for that would have been the exact equivalent." (Moorehead, 1902d).

But two years later in 1904, Russell the Greek-illiterate, was unrepentant. He simply ignored Prof. Moorehead's correct explanation of the Greek grammar of John 1:1c, and again asserted that "the Greek article does not appear before the word translated God, and hence the thought in the statement is a God, as in contrast with the previous statement, the God":

"A GOD, WITH THE GOD ... But the whole matter is still more clearly seen when we take the literal reading of the Greek, because in it the Greek article appears before the word rendered God, which would make the translation into English properly read. `And the Word was with the God.' ... The next statement, `And the Word was God,' is not to be understood as contradicting the statements previously and elsewhere made, but the distinction is considerably lost in the translation. We explain, therefore, that here the Greek article does not appear before the word translated God, and hence the thought in the statement is a God, as in contrast with the previous statement, the God. Thus understood the passage would properly read, `The Word was with the God and the Word was a God.' ... " (Russell, C.T., 1904, "The Life and Light of Men," Zion's Watch Tower, Vol. XXV, No. 24, December 15. Emphasis original).

In this Russell again effectively confirmed, that he (like all his Jehovah's Witness followers down to the present), was indeed a polytheist, believing in two true gods: "A GOD, WITH THE GOD," "a God ... in contrast with ... the God," "a god-not the Father, not the God, not Jehovah," "the Word, which was a God, was in the beginning ... with the God," "the Word as a God was with the God, and that therefore they were two and not one ...":

"A GOD, WITH THE GOD ... We explain, therefore, that here the Greek article does not appear before the word translated God, and hence the thought in the statement is a God, as in contrast with the previous statement, the God. ... The thought in our text, then, is that the Word of God ... was-in very fact a god-not the Father, not the God, not Jehovah, but `The Son of the Highest.' ... The second verse reiterates and thus emphasizes the statement that the Word, which was a God, was in the beginning (before the creation of others) with the God. If anyone were in danger of misunderstanding the statement of the first verse that the Word was a God, if in any danger of thinking of this as signifying that the Word was- the God, the second verse would correct the error by showing that the Word as a God was with the God, and that therefore they were two and not one in person." (Russell, 1904, Emphasis original).

As we shall see in future posts in this series, these same criticisms (and others) have been made by other Greek scholars down through the years, but the Watchtower Society, which never has had in its membership any recognised Greek (or Hebrew) scholars, has had to resort to pseudoscholarship, fallacious arguments, misquoting and even dishonesty to maintain its false, "the Word was a god" translation.

The bottom line is that the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society's "the Word was a god" translation of John 1:1c is, in the final analysis, based on the anti-Trinitarian prejudice of its founder Charles Taze Russell, who was so ignorant of New Testament Greek that he could not even identify the letters of the Greek alphabet! So in this, Russell and the Watchtower Society which blindly follows him, are "Blind guides" and they and their "blind man" Jehovah's Witness followers "both will fall into a pit":

Mt 15:14 NWT. "LET them be. Blind guides is what they are. If, then, a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit."

To be continued in: "The Watchtower on John 1:1 #2: Emphatic Diaglott: `and the Word was with the God, and a god was the Word.'"

Stephen E. Jones.
My other blogs: CreationEvolutionDesign & The Shroud of Turin

---

"In June, 1912, the Rev. Mr. J. J. Ross, pastor of the James Street Baptist Church of Hamilton, Ontario, published a denunciatory pamphlet about Russell entitled Some Facts about the Self-styled `Pastor,' Charles T. Russell. [Martin, W.R. & Klann, N.H., "Jehovah of the Watchtower," Zondervan: Grand Rapids, 1959, p.18] Russell sued Ross for libel. In the trial, which took place the following year, Russell was proved to be a perjurer. When asked by Attorney Staunton, Ross's lawyer, whether he knew the Greek alphabet, Russell replied, `Oh, yes.' When he was further asked to identify the Greek letters on top of a page of the Greek Testament which was handed him. he was unable to do so, finally admitting that he was not familiar with the Greek language. [Ibid., p.20] Russell, furthermore, had previously claimed to have been ordained by a recognized religious body. Staunton also pressed him on this point, finally asking him point-blank, `Now, you never were ordained by a bishop, clergyman, presbytery, council, or any body of men living?' Russell answered, after a long pause, `I never was.' [Ibid., p.22] In this trial, therefore, Russell's deliberate perjury was established beyond doubt, and the real character of the man looked up to by his followers as an inspired religious teacher was clearly revealed." (Hoekema, A.A., 1963, "Jehovah's Witnesses," Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI, 1972, Reprinted, 1990, pp.13-14).

"The common pagan opinion was that the world is populated by many gods. Such people who believe in the existence of more than one god are called polytheists. ... Although Jehovah clearly said, `Before Me there was no God formed, and there will be none after Me' (Isa. 43:10), some pseudo-Christian groups, like the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, will not believe Him. Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are polytheists. Mormons themselves hope to become gods. Jehovah's Witnesses translate John 1:1, `In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.' Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe Jesus (the Word) is the God, but another god! There is no way John could have meant that Jesus was a god. John was a Jewish Christian, a monotheist! He did not believe there were any other gods! That is why most recognized translations will read `and the Word was God." (Magnani, D. & Barrett, A., 1985, "The Watchtower Files: Dialogue With a Jehovah's Witness," Bethany House Publishers: Bloomington MN, pp.123-124. Emphasis original).

"The Jehovah's Witnesses took their name from Isaiah 43:10, but the Watchtower seems to have forgotten what the verse said they were supposed to be witnesses of, when they mistranslated John 1:1. `Understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, and there will be none after Me' (Isa. 43:10). Strikingly similar to this Old Testament revelation are the words of Jesus, `Unless you believe that I am He, you shall die in your sins' (John 8:24). ... For the Watchtower Society, the issue of the deity of Christ has always been a choice item of discussion. While ready to debate with Christians on most issues, John 1:1 becomes a special delight-especially since the Society has published their own translation of the Bible. At John 1:1 the Society's New World Translation reads, `In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.' `A god?' Yes, suddenly the seemingly insignificant article `a' takes on new relevance. The little addition `a,' makes John to say that Jesus was `a god,' a second, though inferior deity, and distinct from `the God.' Such an interpolation forces the apostle to polytheism, `the belief in or worship of a plurality of gods.' [Webster's Third New International Dictionary Encyclopaedia Britannica: Chicago, 1966, Vol 11, p.1761] While this alone should be enough for even a Witness to reject the translation, the Society argues that `a god' is the preferred translation since the Greek text does not say `the god.'" (Magnani & Barrett, 1985, "The Watchtower Files, pp.185-186. Emphasis original).

"The Millennial Dawn people may perhaps ask: `but is not our translation of the verse exactly literal?' Yes, surprisingly literal. The reader who is not acquainted with the Greek may be here informed that the definite article the is very often attached (not always) to the term God in the original of the N. T. Its use there is idiomatic. Our English forbids it save in certain well-defined cases, as e. g. `The God of Abraham,' etc.. Its presence or absence in each is governed by the genius of the two tongues respectively. But let us follow the example of the above queer rendering of Jno. 1:1, and apply the method to other places of Scripture. In this, same first chapter of John four times the Greek word God is found without the definite article the. Let us read these and hear how they sound: verse 6. `There was a man sent from a God whose name was John.' verse 12, `But as many as received him to them gave he power to become the children of a God:' verse 13. `Which were born ... of a God:' verse 18 `No man hath seen a God at any time.' Quite recently I read the eighth chapter of Romans through in the original, and found that ten times the apostle uses the name without the article, and in each instance the name is employed to designate the Supreme God. Let us read but one verse with Dawn-ist translation inserted: verse 14. `For as many as are led by the Spirit of a God, they are the sons of a God.' How does it sound, brethren? This silly nonsense is matched only by the Reims version of Heb. 11:21. `By faith Jacob when `he was a dying ... adored the top of his staff.'" (Moorehead, W.G, 1902a, "A New Rendering of John 1:1," Zion's Watch Tower, Vol. XXIII, No. 18, September 15. Emphasis original).

"Nor is this all. One of the commonest rules of Greek Grammar as touching the use of the definite article the is this: in a simple sentence the subject generally takes the article while its predicate omits it. Jno. 1:1, third clause, is a simple, definite statement with a subject and a predicate; the subject is, `the Word' (Logos) and its predicate is unquestionably is, `God.' and hence the latter word does not take the article. Will some one kindly loan these gentlemen a Greek Grammar?" (Moorehead, W.G., 1902b. Emphasis original).

"Furthermore, there is a Greek adjective that expresses exactly the idea of a divine or god-like being, but who is not necessarily himself God. It is the word theios. This word John might have used had he wished to convey the idea that Christ in his pre-incarnate state was like a God. But John does not use this term, instead he employs the supreme title of God and applies it most emphatically to the Lord Jesus Christ in his eternal pre-existent state." (Moorehead, W.G., 1902c. Emphasis original).

"Once more, if John had inserted the article the before the term God in the third clause of the verse, then the word would have embraced the entire Godhead, and a distinction of the Persons in the Trinity would have been obliterated. Had he written (to follow again the example of the Dawn translation), `and the Word was the God.' then Christ would have been the whole of the Trinity. He might as well have written, `The Son is the Father,' for that would have been the exact equivalent." (Moorehead, W.G, 1902d. Emphasis original).

"In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with the God, and the Logos was a God. The same was in the beginning with the God. All things mere made by him [the Logos], and without him was not anything made that was made.'-John 1:1-3. The Apostle gives us in these words a brief statement of our great Redeemer's pre-human history. We adopt the word Logos as one of our Lord's many names. Dr. Adam Clarke also advocates its use in this manner, saying, `This term [Logos] should be left untranslated, for the very same reasons why the names Jesus and Christ are left untranslated. As every appellative of the Saviour of the world was descriptive of some excellence in his person, nature or work, so the epithet Logos, which signifies a word spoken, speech, eloquence, doctrine, reason or the faculty of reasoning, is very properly applied to him.' Another difference between the above translation and the common version, is the addition of the italicized words a and the. These are supplied in order to give the reader the true sense of the Greek text. In which the presence or absence of the Greek article is very important. In the above translation the represents the article, while a shows that the article is lacking. With this translation verified and appreciated (as can be done by consulting any Greek Testament or any Greek scholar), these verses, long doubtful and obscure to so many, become luminous." (Russell, C.T., 1893, "The Word was a god," Zion's Watch Tower, Vol. XIV, No. 8, April 15. Square brackets and emphasis original).

"The first verse of John's Gospel is a marked instance of the use of theos in referring to Jehovah's Logos, his Only Begotten Son, `the beginning of the creation of God.' (Rev. 3:14) But the critical Greek student should find no difficulty in distinguishing between these two Gods, and noting that the one is distinctly referred to as the superior of the other, for this distinction is clearly shown by the use of the Greek article before theos in referring to Jehovah, and the absence of that article when theos is used in referring to the Logos. The effect of this, expressed in our English language, would render the passage thus:- `In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with the God, and the Logos was a God. The same was in the beginning with the God.' This translation will not be disputed by any Greek scholar.; and it sets at rest all ground for dispute respecting the primary relationship between the Father and the Son." (Russell, C.T., 1898, "The True Light That Lighteth Every Man," Zion's Watch Tower, Vol. XIX, No. 24, December 15).

"Similarly the Almighty did not inquire of the angels whether or not they would accept the glorified Jesus as their Lord; he autocratically elevated our Lord Jesus, because of his implicit obedience even unto death, even the death of the cross, as the Apostle declares, `Wherefore [on account of his obedience unto death] God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name; that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow ... and every tongue confess ... to the glory of God the Father.' Similarly, our context declares, that in his prehuman condition our Lord Jesus was from the beginning the head, the chief of all his Father's creatures, works, arrangements. `For by him were all things created, that are in heaven and that are in earth, visible, and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers; all things were created by him; and for him: and he is before all things, and by him all things consist.' (Col. 1:16, 17) This agrees also with the statement of John's Gospel (1:1), 'In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos with the God, and the Logos was a God: the same was in the beginning with the God. All things were made by him; and without him was not one thing made that was made.'" (Russell, C.T., 1902, "God First-His Appointments," Zion's Watch Tower, Vol. XXIII, No. 7, April 1. Emphasis original).

"A GOD, WITH THE GOD In the beginning the Word was alone with the Father, the Apostle declares. But the whole matter is still more clearly seen when we take the literal reading of the Greek, because in it the Greek article appears before the word rendered God, which would make the translation into English properly read. `And the Word was with the God.' Here we see most clearly and beautifully the close relationship existing in the very remote past between the heavenly Father and the heavenly Son, between the Almighty God and his only begotten Son, in whom centered all the divine purposes and through whom he was pleased to manifest every feature of the divine power and glory. The next statement, `And the Word was God,' is not to be understood as contradicting the statements previously and elsewhere made, but the distinction is considerably lost in the translation. We explain, therefore, that here the Greek article does not appear before the word translated God, and hence the thought in the statement is a God, as in contrast with the previous statement, the God. Thus understood the passage would properly read, `The Word was with the God and the Word was a God.' Ah, now we have it clearly! The word god signifies mighty one, and in the Scriptures is used not only respecting the Father but also respecting the Son, also in reference to the angels, and in one instance when referring to men, influential men-the seventy elders of Israel whom Moses appointed or designated elohim, that is gods, mighty ones. The thought in our text, then, is that the Word of God, the Only Begotten of the Father, the beginning of the creation of God, was created on a nobler and higher plane of being, endued with grand qualities, so that he was-in very fact a god-not the Father, not the God, not Jehovah, but `The Son of the Highest.' The Apostle Paul clearly sets forth this matter, saying, `To us [Christians] there is one God the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ.'-1 Cor. 8:6. The second verse reiterates and thus emphasizes the statement that the Word, which was a God, was in the beginning (before the creation of others) with the God. If anyone were in danger of misunderstanding the statement of the first verse that the Word was a God, if in any danger of thinking of this as signifying that the Word was- the God, the second verse would correct the error by showing that the Word as a God was with the God, and that therefore they were two and not one in person." (Russell, C.T., 1904, "The Life and Light of Men," Zion's Watch Tower, Vol. XXV, No. 24, December 15. Emphasis original).

"By remembering that the word `god', according to the Hebrew, means `mighty one' or `one who is before (others)', and by remembering the Son's power and position with reference to all the rest of creation, it is easily grasped that God's Son, the Word, was and is `a god' (El), or `mighty one', pre-eminent above other creatures, whereas Jehovah, the Producer of the Word, is `the God' (Elohim), without beginning and `from everlasting to everlasting'.' By referring to John 10:34-36 you will note that Jesus quotes from the law at Psalm 82:6 and says: `Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?' If those mighty men of earth against whom God directed his word of condemnation could be called `gods', much more could and do the true Scriptures speak of God's Son, the Word, as `a god'. He is a `mighty god', but not the Almighty God, who is Jehovah. (Isaiah 9:6). Certainly, then, John 1:1-3, according to its original Greek text, is no proof that Jehovah God and his Son are `one in person, equal in power and glory', as religious catechisms say without Scripture proof." (WB&TS, 1943, "The Truth Shall Make You Free," Watchtower Bible & Tract Society: Brooklyn NY, p.47).

"Trinitarians point to John 20:28 as proof that Jesus is God. There Thomas said (NW): `My Master and my God! [Gk.ho kurios mou kai ho theos mou - "the Lord of me and the God of me"]' How can this argument be answered?-F. W., Philippine Republic. Jesus is a god. `God' means a strong one. Christ is called `The mighty God' at Isaiah 9:6, `a god' at John 1:1 (NW), and `the only- begotten god' at John 1:18 (NW). Jehovah is not the only god or strong one. The very fact that he is called the Almighty God indicates that there are other gods not so mighty, not almighty like him. So Thomas could call Jesus God, but not THE God, and three verses later Jesus is called `the Son of God,' as we read (NW): `But these have been written down that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that, because of believing, you may have life by means of his name.' So there was no objection to John's reporting that Thomas addressed Jesus as a deity, and certainly John does not say that Thomas' address to Jesus was to make us believe that Jesus was The God, but says it was to make us believe Jesus was God's Son. In this same chapter (20:17, NW) Jesus said: `I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God.' He was not ascending to himself [Straw Man Fallacy!]." ("Questions From Readers," Watchtower, September 1, 1955, p.543. Emphasis original. Words in square brackets mine).

"The title `Mighty God' applied to Jesus Christ at Isaiah 9:6 is also used to prove that Jesus is God, because Isaiah 10:21 and Jeremiah 32:18 speak of Jehovah God as `mighty God.' But here again too much is read into the texts. Only the superlatives and the infinites can dogmatically be limited to Jehovah, such as `the Most High.' Jesus is a god, a mighty god, and so is Jehovah a God, a mighty God. But additionally, Jehovah is the mighty God and also the God Almighty. The term in the Hebrew, el gibbór, `mighty God,' is not limited to Jehovah, but the term el Shaddái, `God Almighty,' is.-Gen. 17:1." ("What Does the Bible Teach About the Divinity of Christ?," Watchtower, September 15, 1961, p.551. Emphasis original)