@Earnest
Jason BeDuhn's commentary,
particularly in Truth in Translation, is often used to support the New
World Translation (NWT)'s rendering of John 1:1 as "a god." However,
BeDuhn himself did not fully endorse this translation. He preferred the term
"divine" to describe the theos in John 1:1c, a choice that
indicates a qualitative understanding of the word. He did not affirm the idea
that Jesus is "a god" in the sense of being a separate deity, nor did
he imply polytheism. Instead, BeDuhn’s preferred rendering of
"divine" captures the qualitative nature of Jesus’ divinity,
consistent with the understanding of Christ’s unique divine nature. His
statement that "the meaning is the same in either case" should be
understood within the context of recognizing that while the grammar may permit
certain translations, not all of them are theologically valid or appropriate.
BeDuhn himself acknowledged
that the term "divine" could allow for a Trinitarian interpretation.
In a private correspondence, he wrote that his rendering "leaves
open" the possibility of understanding the Word as fully divine and of the
same essence as the Father. Thus, the suggestion that BeDuhn supports the NWT's
rendering of John 1:1c as "a god" is misleading. His approach was
more nuanced, and he did not promote a translation that would lead to
theological polytheism or subordinationism.
Philip Harner’s seminal
article on qualitative anarthrous predicate nouns is another key source often
cited by proponents of the NWT’s rendering. Harner’s research focused on how
the placement of anarthrous predicate nouns (nouns without the definite
article) before the verb, as in John 1:1c, typically emphasizes the qualitative
aspect of the noun, rather than definiteness or indefiniteness.
Harner explicitly stated that
John’s intention in using this grammatical structure was to emphasize the
nature or essence of the Word as divine, not to indicate that the Word was a
separate, subordinate deity. His comment that there may be "some
connotation of definiteness" does not imply that John meant to suggest
that the Word was "a god," but rather, that the Word possesses the divine
nature fully and shares in the same essence as God. Harner’s primary conclusion
was that John 1:1c emphasizes the divine nature of the Word, which is
consistent with Trinitarian theology. His research does not support the
indefinite article "a god," as used by the NWT.
The grammatical structure of
John 1:1c, in which theos precedes the verb without the article, is
designed to emphasize the qualitative nature of the noun. The absence of the
article does not automatically make theos indefinite, and translating it
as "a god" introduces significant theological confusion, as it
suggests polytheism or henotheism, neither of which align with the biblical
witness of monotheism.
As scholars like Wallace, Harner,
and Harris have pointed out, the use of theos in John 1:1c emphasizes
that the Word shares fully in the divine nature. The Word (Logos) is distinct
from the Father in person but shares the same divine essence. The qualitative
force of theos shows that the Word is fully divine, which is essential
for maintaining biblical monotheism. Translating this as "a god"
would indeed be grammatically possible, but as Murray Harris notes, it would be
theologically inappropriate because it would imply the existence of multiple
gods, which contradicts the monotheistic foundation of both the Old and New
Testaments.
Translating John 1:1c as
"a god" would introduce polytheism, even if only two separate divine
beings are mentioned (the Father and the Word). Polytheism is not just the
belief in many gods but includes any belief in multiple distinct gods,
regardless of their number. Deuteronomy 6:4 and Isaiah 45:5 emphasize the absolute
singularity of God, and translating theos as "a god"
undermines the clear biblical assertion that there is only one true God. The
qualitative reading of theos in John 1:1c maintains that the Word shares
fully in the divine essence of the one God, distinct in person but not in
essence.
@ slimboyfat
You're
right in bringing up William Barclay's situation, and it's a perfect
illustration of how theological nuances can be misunderstood or misused. Here's
why Barclay's frustration with being quoted by Jehovah's Witnesses is
significant and why his argument about John 1:1 should not be used to deny
Christ's divinity, even if he suggested theos could be qualitative in
John 1:1c.
William
Barclay did suggest that theos in John 1:1c ("and the Word was
God") is qualitative, which means it describes the nature or essence of
the Word (Logos), not necessarily identifying it as "the God" (ho
theos). However, this does not diminish the divinity of the Word.
A qualitative reading of theos would mean that the Word has the very
nature of God, or shares in the divine essence. In essence, the Logos is
divine, fully possessing God's attributes.
Jehovah's
Witnesses, in their New World Translation, render John 1:1c as "the Word
was a god," implying that Jesus is a lesser, created being, not
truly divine. This is a misreading of both the Greek and the broader theological
implications. Barclay was horrified because his nuanced argument about the
qualitative nature of theos was being used to support a
theology that he did not endorse. He did not deny Christ’s divinity,
nor did he argue for a subordinate or created Jesus, as the Watchtower does.
Jehovah's
Witnesses often selectively quote scholars like Barclay to lend credibility to
their arguments, but they ignore the broader context of these scholars' work.
Barclay believed in the uniqueness and divine nature of Christ, even if his
views on universalism were controversial. Quoting his linguistic points without
addressing his overall theological stance is misleading.
While
Barclay did hold to some controversial views, such as universalism (the belief
that all will eventually be saved), it’s important to separate his views on
universalism from his views on Christ’s nature. The fact that he didn't want to
be associated with the Jehovah's Witnesses' Christology shows that he still
held a fundamentally orthodox view of Jesus' divine nature. His frustration
reflects that even those who may stray in some areas of doctrine can be
protective of core Christian truths like the divinity of Christ.
Barclay’s
argument about theos in John 1:1c does not support the Jehovah's
Witnesses’ Arian-like view of Jesus as a created being. Even though he believed
theos was qualitative, that still affirms Christ’s full
divinity—exactly the opposite of what Jehovah's Witnesses try to argue. Barclay
himself would have been appalled to see his work misrepresented in defense of a
view that denies Jesus' true divinity.