Discussion Jumpstarter
Study leader reference - not a definitive answer
Question 5
The teacher calls “the Word was a god” historically false not mainly on grammar, but because “the early Christians never referred to Jesus as a God,” and he adds that JWs don’t speak that way either except when explaining John 1:1. What does this reveal about how doctrinal language functions as a boundary-marker in communities, and what should carry more weight in your mind: grammatical possibility, historic usage, or theological coherence?
Another way to ask: He says “the Word was a god” is wrong mainly because early Christians didn’t talk that way about Jesus. What does that show about how groups use special wording to draw lines, and what matters most to you here: grammar, church history, or overall consistency?
Discussion Jumpstarter
Direct Answer
The transcript suggests doctrinal language works like a community boundary-marker: groups signal what they mean (and what they reject) by preferred phrases, not merely by what grammar could allow. The speaker urges that historic usage and theological meaning—how early Christians actually spoke about Christ’s deity—should outweigh bare grammatical possibility.
- He concedes: “Grammatically speaking, the Greek can be translated this way… not a wrong translation if we’re only looking at grammar.”
- Then he shifts the standard: “we’re not interested in grammar… [but] what’s correct historically and theologically.”
- He argues it’s historically wrong because “the early Christians never referred to Jesus as a God.”
- He also notes JW speech patterns: they don’t normally say “I… believe Jesus is a God,” except when “explaining John 1:1.”
- He cites Hippolytus calling the Word “from God himself… autotheos,” and “divine… being of the nature of God,” contrasting this with creation “made from nothing… not divine.”
- He stresses early Christians did call Jesus “God/theos” but not as a rival deity; they “make that crystal clear” that the Father is usually the one called God.