Mobile Ed: BI161 Problems in Bible Interpretation: Difficult Passages I (3 hour course)

This review will cover John 1:1-2. Dr. Heiser defends the traditional Trinitarian interpretation (“and the Word was God”) against the NWT (“and the Word was a god”). Dr. Heiser falsely charges JW’s of teaching that the absence of the article in Greek before the word “God” means Jesus is “a god.” After his misrepresentation, he claims that this passage teaches that Jesus is fully God without providing any basis for why the Apostle John made inspired distinctions between the Father (“the God) and the Son (“[no article] God.” Let’s unpack this further. Some Christians continue to falsely charge JW’s of teaching that the translation “a god” should be used in the New Testament every time there is no article before the word “God” in the Greek. Dr. Heiser states, “What if we used their own criterion, their own litmus test (wherever “God” lacks a definite article, we should translate it “a god”)? What if we did that through the rest of John 1 and the rest of the nt? What kind of readings would that produce?” The problem is that the Watchtower Society has never made such a claim. All one has to do is examine their translation (NWT) and it becomes evident that this charge is fallacious. Just because the unbiblical, authoritative Watchtower Society has made past failed prophecies and continues to promote some unbiblical doctrines is no justification for leveling this false charge. Because Dr. Heiser omitted the controversy surrounding the translation of John 1:1c, a brief summary follows: John 1:1 contains three clauses. The controversy is over how to correctly translate the third clause (“and the Word was [?]”). The second clause reads, “and the Word was with God” (ESV). Because the Word (Jesus) was with God (“and the Word was with God”), Jesus cannot be the same God He was with without the heresy of Modalism. Who is the God that Jesus (Word) is with? The Trinity has three choices. Jesus is undisputed with His Father (“God”). So Jesus is not the same God He was with (John 1:18). The second clause in the Greek translates, “and the Word was with THE God.” It includes the definite article “ton” before the word “God” (omitted in English translations). John made a second inspired distinction between Jesus (Word) and His Father (“the God). He placed a direct article before the Word “God” in the second clause for the Father and omitted this article in the third clause for Jesus (“and the Word [Jesus] was [no article] God. This leaves no doubt that Jesus is not the same God He was with. Yet Trinitarian translations pretend that John also used a direct article for Jesus and make Him the same God He was with (“and the Word [Jesus] was God [the Father]”). Trinitarian translations teach Modalism and don’t reflect the underlying Greek. A literal translation that transmits the inspired distinctions that the Apostle John made is to translate the third clause, “and the word was a god.” Since the Father who is greater (John 10:29, 14:28; Romans 6:10, 1 Corinthians 3:23, 11:3, 15:24-28, Ephesians 4:6) is sometimes called “a God” in the Old Testament (Exodus 34:6, Deuteronomy 32:4, 1 Samuel 2:3, Nehemiah 9:17, Psalm 7:11, 68:20, etc.), it is not out of place for Jesus to be called “a god” in the context. Other Bibles had this translation before the JW’s came into existence (For example, see the 2-3rd century Coptic Gospel of John). A correct understanding of the first verse of John sets the tone for the entire Gospel.

The Good: Very easy to listen to. (So easy that I can use 2x speed within Logos) Great explanations of ideas that could be new for some. Nice point that the “Hebrew Grammar View” doesn’t contradict the modern view that says the earth is millions of years old. (Genesis 1.1-3) He stresses the needed reminder to not filter the Bible through modern day lenses. (Acts 2 discussion) It is also great that he highlights various views on a given text and doesn’t just present his own as the final authority. The Bad: (well... questionable) 2 Samuel 13.1: Heiser says that 30 was inserted in the LXX from the parallel account. However, it is possible that the LXX drew on a different Hebrew text. Quaram has verified that differences exist. The whole LXX issue is debatable but he doesn’t present an alternative view. Gen 9:20-27: While Heiser view is possible it also raises serious questions. Why is the account sandwiched with Noah’s intoxication if it is really about Noah’s wife? If his nakedness is actually his wife’s what about the other masculine pronouns in the context? What does it mean when it says Noah woke up from his wine and learned what his son did “to him”? Everything in the context seems to center on Noah and not his wife. (of course doing something to his wife could be considered as doing it to Noah) In addition, If Canaan was the incestuous offspring from this act how is is possible that when he woke up Noah cursed a zygote? (It is possible that the account could look back and insert the name which the zygote was given later.) Deuteronomy 32.8: Heiser is strong on translating it “sons of God.” He has done much research on this and that has no doubt contributed to his stand. (Bib Sacra 158 52-74) However, there are other factors in addition to the Masoretic text saying “sons of Israel” not “sons of God.” (Peshitta agrees with MT) Gen 42:1-4 speaks of “Jacob” (though in Chapter 32 he is named Israel) and his sons. However, in verse 5 the expression “Sons of Israel” is used. This is in connection with going to Egypt where Israel on coming out of Egypt become a mighty nation. See also Gen 35.10-12; 36:31 where it mentions “nations” and kings ruling over the “Sons of Israel.” Thus Deuteronomy could very well be a prophetic indication of this future “nation.” The Ugly: Heiser unfortunately gives information that amounts to a straw man while discussing the position of Jehovah’s Witnesses on John 1.1. (Especially the 5 minute section “The Definite Article” under “The Word Was God”) While, to a degree, this is understandable since he no doubt relied on Wallace and Wallace stated in GGBB that he relied on Robert Countess. It should be made clear that the JW’s have not and do not teach that the “a” is added solely because theos lacks the article. What they have written is easy to find and can be used to verify that what Heiser says is not a position and argument that the JW’s have taken. They have stated context and syntax comes into play with John 1.1. One can read it here: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1001060096 This particular article is more than 30 years old. Also Heiser comes very close to sabellianism when he says Jesus was “the God”. Usually “the God” is “the trinity” (or Father by default) and surely Heiser doesn’t mean to say that Jesus is the trinity (or is the Father) but it sounds that way many times.

Great presentation, answers many questions for me!