Is Jesus The
Creator God?
A Look At John
1:1-3
Originally
published in Answers In Depth
Bodie Hodge,
M.Sc., B.Sc., PEI
Biblical
Authority Ministries, February 20, 2026 (Donate)
Introduction
Is this even an
important question? Absolutely! If Jesus
is not God, and therefore the Creator, then He is a created being. If Jesus is
created, then how could He have been an adequate sacrifice to atone for sins
committed against an infinite God? Jesus
must have been God to adequately atone for our sins, which bring upon us
unlimited guilt and cause us to deserve an eternal hell. Only the infinite God,
Jesus Christ, can take the punishment from an infinite God to make salvation
possible.
Our understanding of the nature of Christ has eternal consequences; Image request by Bodie Hodge (ChatGPT)
But does it
really matter whether or not we believe that Jesus is God? Yes! If one places faith in a false Christ, one
that is not described in Scripture (i.e., a created Jesus, Jesus as a sinner,
Jesus is merely one of many gods, etc.), then can this false Christ save them? Not
at all. Truly, the identity of Christ is of utmost importance. And yet, in
today’s culture there are people teaching that Jesus was a created being. They are leading people astray.
What sets
biblical Christianity apart from cults and other world religions? It is the
person of Jesus Christ—who He is. In Islam, Jesus was a messenger of God,
but not the Son of God (i.e., a created being). In many cults, the deity of
Jesus Christ is negated or changed, and
in many world religions and personal views, Jesus is just another wise
teacher. But the Bible says that all
things were created by Him and for Him:
For by Him [Jesus] all things were
created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible,
whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were
created through Him and for Him (Colossians 1:16).
The biblical
book of Hebrews indicates that God calls Jesus, the Son, God:
But to the Son He says: "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your Kingdom. You
have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; Therefore God, Your God, has
anointed You with the oil of gladness more than Your companions" (Hebrews
1:8-9).
We should
expect Satan, the adversary of God and the Father of lies, to advance many
variants of the person of Jesus Christ.
Satan would want all the false views to succeed in some measure to lead
people away from the true Jesus.
One may recall
the temptations of Jesus by Satan in the wilderness (Mark 4:1-11). The great Deceiver even (mis)quoted Scripture
in his attempt to trick Jesus into sinning (Mark 4:6). The tactic of the Serpent in the garden was
to deceive the Woman by distorting the plain meaning of the Word of God
(Genesis 3:1-6). Satan, through the
Serpent, quoted the words of God and abused their meaning. We must be aware of the devil’s devices (1
Corinthians 2:11). Today, Satan
misquotes Scripture through the cultist knocking on the doors in your
neighborhood.
John 1:1-3
And The Deity Of Christ
Jehovah’s
Witnesses teach that Jesus Christ is not the Creator God but a lesser created
angel (Michael) who was termed “a god” by
John in the New World Translation (the
Jehovah’s Witnesses translation of the Bible).
The NWT says:
In [the] beginning the
Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. This one was in
[the] beginning with God. All things came into existence through him, and apart
from him not even one thing came into existence (John
1:1-3 NWT).
According to
the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ theology (and other unitarian systems of belief),
Jesus is something that came into existence. But even their own translation
says that apart from Jesus not even one thing came into existence (John 1:3).
So then, did Jesus create Himself? Of
course that is a ridiculous proposition, but you see how Watchtower (Jehovah’s
Witness) theology contradicts the Bible, even their New World Translation.
Another
contradiction surfaces in such a theology: Jehovah’s Witnesses are firm that
there is only one God. But they also admit that there is at least
one other god, though not as powerful as Jehovah. Jehovah’s Witness literature
states:
Jesus is spoken of in the Scriptures as
“a god,” even as “Mighty God” (John 1:1; Isaiah 9:6). But nowhere is he spoken
of as being Almighty, as Jehovah is.
So even though
Jehovah’s Witnesses say they believe in one God, they really can’t be called
monotheists. If Jesus is not God himself, then there is a plurality of gods,
assuming Jesus is to be considered “a god” in their view.
Now let’s
compare the New World Translation of John 1:1-3 to more reputable translations:
In the beginning was the Word, and the
Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All
things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.
(NKJV)
In the beginning was the Word, and the
Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been
made. (NIV)
In the beginning was the Word, and the
Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with
God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that
was made. (KJV)
In the beginning was the Word, and the
Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All
things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being
that has come into being. (NASB)
In the beginning was the Word, and the
Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All
things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was
made. (ESV)
These
translations show that the Word was God, not “a god”. Why such blatantly different translations and
accordingly, different theologies? One starts with the Bible, the other starts
from a false theology and takes that view to the Bible.
The original
passage was written in Koine Greek.
Following is the Westcott and Hort Greek text (1881) for John 1:1-2:
1 εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον
και θεος ην ο λογος
2 ουτος ην εν αρχη προς τον θεον[7]
Elzevir’s
Textus Receptus (1624) is identical:
1 εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον
και θεος ην ο λογος
2 ουτος ην εν αρχη προς τον θεον[8]
Even non-Greek
scholars can use lexicons and other tools to show without much difficulty that
an exact English translation is:
1.
In beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and God was the Word
2.
He was in beginning with God
The Latin
Vulgate of Jerome in the 5th Century correctly translates John 1:1-2
into Latin:
1 in principio erat Verbum et Verbum
erat apud Deum et Deus erat Verbum
2
hoc erat in principio apud Deum
Word-for-word translation:
1
in (in) principio (beginning) erat (was) Verbum (Word) et (And) Verbum
(Word) erat (was) apud (with) Deum (God) et (and) Deus (God) erat (was) Verbum
(Word)
2 hoc (He) erat (was) in (in) principio
(Beginning) apud (with) Deum (God)
If God was the
Word, as John 1:1 is literally translated, then it is no problem for the uncreated
Word to have created all things. As God,
He created. How could the Word be with God and God be the Word at the same
time? The doctrine of the Trinity (One God; three Persons) is the solution
here. The
Word was with God (the Father) and God (the Son) was the Word. This
understanding, consistent with the rest of Scripture, eliminates any
contradiction of multiple gods. There is only one God, revealed in a plurality
of Persons. The Jehovah’s Witnesses do not have a solution to that alleged
contradiction.
The primary
reason Jehovah’s Witnesses do not want John 1:1 translated accurately is due to
influences outside the Bible. As the
theological descendants of their founder Charles Russell who began Jehovah’s
Witnesses in the late 1800s, they arrive at the Bible with the preconceived
notion that Jesus the Christ is not God.
Therefore, when a passage that clearly
contradicts their theology comes up, there are 2 options: change their belief
to coincide with what the Bible teaches or change God’s Word to fit with their
current theology. Sadly, they have opted to exalt their theology above
Jehovah’s Word. So who is really the
Jehovah’s Witnesses’ final authority? It
is no longer a perfect God and His Word but fallible, sinful men and their errant
ideas about God.
Kingdom
Interlinear And John 1:1
It is very
interesting to see how the Jehovah’s Witnesses Greek-English Interlinear
translation compares with the NWT and with more accurate translations. One
Jehovah’s Witness said that their translation comes from an interlinear
translation of the Westcott and Hort text and that the NWT is a good
translation of it. But let’s check into
the two primary interlinear translations appealed to by Jehovah’s Witnesses, the
Kingdom Interlinear and the Emphatic Diaglott.
The Kingdom Interlinear
says:
Look carefully
at John 1:1. The Interlinear doesn’t translate Theos (θεος)
as “a god”, which is an unjustifiable change in the NWT (to the right of the
interlinear above). Strangely the
interlinear does not capitalize ‘God’ the second time it occurs, though it does
the first.
One possible
reason they tried distinguishing this particular word for God is due to the
spellings of Theos (God) in this
passage (θεον, θεος)
is due to variant endings. Another
variant ending is commonly “θεου”.
All three variants for God are in one passage and each translated as God:
2
Thessalonians 2:4
who
opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God (θεον)
or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God (θεου) in the temple of God (θεον) , showing himself that he is God (θεος).
There is really
no obvious reason for the change to “a god” or a lower case “god” by the NWT or
Kingdom Interlinear.
Emphatic Diaglott And John 1:1-3
The next
interlinear to be checked was the Diaglott. It translates John 1:1-3 as:
The interlinear
this time incorrectly states that theos
is “a god”, but the side translation disagrees and says the Logos was God, instead of “a god”. So again, there are mismatches that make no
sense.
The Context Of
The Passage
Interestingly,
in defending their translation of John 1:1, the Jehovah’s Witnesses say:
Which
translation of John 1:1, 2 agrees with the context? John 1:18 says: “No one has
ever seen God.” Verse 14 clearly says that “the Word became flesh and dwelt
among us…we have beheld his glory.” Also, verses 1, 2 say that in the beginning
he was “with God.” Can one be with
someone and at the same time be that
person?
Trying to
appeal to context, the Jehovah’s Witnesses quote part of John 1:18 and John
1:14 while ignoring the teaching of verse 3 which shows Jesus made all
things—no exceptions! John 1:3 makes it clear that everything was created by
Christ (the Word). This puts Jehovah’s Witnesses on the horns of dilemma. If
Christ created all things, then Christ created Himself in their theology.
But
they say God created Christ, but this means that Christ didn’t create all
things that had been created and so their translation fails. Either way, they
have big theological problem. We have
already shown how Jesus can be with
God and be God—it is through the
concept of the Trinity which makes this passage perfectly readable as is.
Regardless, the
context of the chapter should not be neglected. John 1:18 is referring to God
the Father as the one no-one has seen. We can interpret John 1:18 this way: No one has seen God the Father at any time;
the only-begotten God, Jesus—He has revealed the Father. Anytime anyone has ever seen God, he has seen
the Logos, the Son, since the Son is the Word—the revealer.
Expositor Dr
John Gill explains the reference to God:
That is, God the Father, whose voice was
never heard, nor his shape seen by angels or men; for though Jacob, Moses, the
elders of Israel, Manoah, and his wife, are said to see God, and Job expected
to see him with his bodily eyes, and the saints will see him as he is, in which
will lie their great happiness; yet all seems to be understood of the second
person, who frequently appeared to the Old Testament saints, in an human form,
and will be seen by the saints in heaven, in his real human nature; or of God in
and by him: for the essence of God is invisible, and not to be seen with the
eyes of the body; nor indeed with the eyes of the understanding, so as to
comprehend it; nor immediately, but through, and by certain means: God is seen
in the works of creation and providence, in the promises, and in his
ordinances; but above all, in Christ the brightness of his glory, and the
express image of his person: this may chiefly intend here, man’s not knowing
any thing of God in a spiritual and saving way, but in and by Christ
So we
understand that Jesus reveals God and exists as God at the same time. There is not a contradiction between John 1:1
and John 1:18. In fact, they are
amazingly consistent!
Islamic Appeal To The NWT
Muslims also
deny the deity of Christ, so John 1:1-3 is also a problem to Islam if taken as
written. Muslim apologists have appealed
to the NWT in an effort to reduce the deity of Jesus Christ:
"The
Word" is only described as being "ton theos"(divine/a god) and
not as being "ho theos" (The Divine/The God). A more
faithful and correct translation of this verse would thus read: "In the
beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was
divine" (If you read the New World Translation of the Bible you will
find exactly this wording).
Christian
apologists have responded:
It
should first be noted that all of known manuscripts and fragments of John's
gospel contains this passage without any variation. It should also be noted
that John 1:1 was quoted on several occasions by early Christian theologians
and Church Fathers…Clearly, there is no "ton theos", in this text as
Al-Kadhi and Deedat claim. Both sentences have the phrase "ton
theon". "Ton theon" is used because it is the accusative case
(the nominative case is "ho theos" = "the God") In this [instance]
we must use the accusative case, since the text uses the preposition
"pros" which means "with" in this context.
Al-Kadhi
and Deedat should know that the article "ho" (nominative case) and
"ton" (accusative case) both translate as "the".
Incidentally, the Greek word for "divine" is "theios, theia,
theion", depending on the gender.
But this lets
us know how influential the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the NWT are. The NWT is
being used in Islam to take people away from
Jesus Christ. What is the typical Muslim response to the Bible? They claim that
that the Bible was changed after Muhammad.
Why after you might ask?
The reason is
simple. Muhammad repeatedly stated the Bible to be true in the Koran (Qur’an). So,
the Bible, as Muslims agree, was indeed true in Muhammad’s day. Muslims are
even called to believe in in the Bible (the Books sent down aforetime).
Surah
4:136 O ye who believe! Believe in God and His Apostle, and the Book which He
hath sent down to His Apostle, and the Books which He hath sent down aforetime.
Whoever believeth not on God and His Angels and His Books and His apostles, and
in the Last Day, he verily hath erred with far-gone error.
The Qur’an
declares the Bible to be a true revelation of God and demands faith in the
Bible (e.g., Sura 2:40-42,126,136,285; 3:3,71,93; 4:47,136; 5:47-51, 69,71-72;
6:91; 10:37,94; 21:7; 29:45,46; 35:31; 46:11). Furthermore, the Qur’an makes no
distinction between God's revelations (Sura 2:136). Because Muhammad believed
the Bible to be true, this puts Muslim scholars on the horns of a dilemma too
since the Koran (Qur’an) does not mesh with the previous 66 books of the Bible.
So their
response is that the Bible must have been changed after Muhammad. Of course,
there are two problems with this. First,
the Koran (Qur’an) claims that NO ONE can change the Word of God (e.g., Sura
6:34; 10:34). Second, there is no textual support for this at all. In other words, Bibles we have prior to
Muhammad (around AD 600) and Bibles after Muhammad are virtually identical
both clearly teaching the deity of Jesus Christ.
Jehovah’s
Witnesses’ Defense Of The Word Being “a god”
Leading
Jehovah’s Witness apologist Rolf Furuli write extensively about John 1:1 and
how theos should be translated in
reference to the Word. He argues for the
NWT’s rendering of the Word being “a god” as opposed to “God”. Several of his claims will be discussed here.
Mr. Furuli has
a chart comparing the NWT with a couple of lesser known translations as well as
the Greek text with his understanding
of the word meanings. It is shown below:
Let’s evaluate
Mr. Furuli’s comments concerning the term theos
(notice above how he defines theos as
meaning either “god” or “a god”). He says:
…in
the Bible the word theos is also used
for persons other than the creator, and therefore neither “creator” nor “YHWH”
could be a part of its semantic meaning…The word theos is a count noun, and John uses it in one of two ways: either
in a generic sense or as a “singular noun.” We might illustrate this point by
use of the OT. Here we find that elohim, the Hebrew equivalent to theos, is used in the generic sense.
Mr. Furuli
takes about two pages to compare theos
to the contextual uses of the Hebrew word elohim. But it would have been better to compare the
uses of theos throughout the Greek
New Testament and see how it was used in Greek context.
Perhaps the
reason such was not done is that it would destroy the point Mr. Furuli was
trying to make. A search of theos in the New Testament shows that theos is overwhelming translated as
“God” (even when not preceded by an article) unless context warrants otherwise
(only about 6 times). The NT context for John 1:1 overwhelming supports the
idea that the Word is God the Creator as John 1:3 indicates.
Mr. Furuli goes
on to say:
There
are 322 examples of theos without the
article. Because there is no inherent
semantic contrast between the articular and the anarthrous theos, the question about the meaning of theos in some passages is pragmatic, and thus the context becomes
essential.
Mr. Furuli
argues that John 1:1b can be translated: “And a god was the Word” since there
is no article in front of theos, and
thus the context must determine the meaning of theos. In response we can
first appreciate the concession that Furuli is making: The lack of the article
in front of theos does not mean that
the word theos is to be translated as
an adjective (divine) or with an indefinite article (a god) rather than simply
“God.” (Even if it should be translated as an adjective, the verse would still teach
the same thing—the Word is of the same essence as the Father.)
It is obvious
that there are many times that theos
is translated as “God,” referring to Jehovah, even when not preceded by an
article. Furuli evidently concedes that.
So now it is a
matter of context, says Furuli. We agree
that context is crucial. But if context is so important, then why not look
carefully at John 1:2-18? Furuli
mentions only John 1:14, “with God” from John 1:2, and John 1:18. Why did he not refer to the other verses,
including verse 3, which makes it clear that the Word made all things that have been made?
Furuli then
attacked the eternality of the Word, Jesus Christ. In an attempt to downgrade that “in the
beginning was the Word”, Mr. Furuli tries to show that Jesus was not eternal,
thus not God.
Regarding
the expression “in the beginning was the Word,” all we can say with reasonable
certainty is that at the particular point in time called “the beginning” the
Word existed. This is a far cry from saying “the Word is eternal”.
But again, look
at the context. If the Word made everything that was made (verse 3), then he
must be eternal. If everything that was
made (that is, had a beginning) had their beginning through Christ, then it
must be the case that the Word never had a beginning; thus He is eternal.
Christ, the Word, created time too, indicating His preeminent and eternal
nature.
Ignatius (John’s
Disciple) And The Deity Of Christ
Let’s go one
further step in this study. John, the
author of the Gospel, did not simply write the account and disappear. On the
contrary, he was the only disciple of Christ to live out his life and die of
old age even though he too endured tribulation for the Word of God (Revelation 1:9).
He, like Christ, had disciples of his own and the two most popular were
Polycarp and Ignatius. It makes sense that John would teach his disciples the
truth about Jesus Christ and who He was.
Polycarp wrote
very little that has survived. Ignatius had quite a bit more. In Ignatius’
letter to the Ephesians, it was clear that he viewed Jesus and the Father as
the one true God. He said:
…and
elected through the true passion by the will of the Father, and Jesus Christ,
our God…
God
existing in the flesh
Our
Lord and God, Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God…
For
our God, Jesus Christ, was, according to the appointment of God…
…God
Himself being manifested in human form for the renewal of eternal life.
…God
being manifested as man,…
We
have also as a Physician the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ, the only-begotten
Son and Word, before time began.
After reading
the words of a disciple of John who learned extensively from John there should
be no question what John was trying to say. So it is interesting that the
founder of Jehovah’s Witnesses, Charles Taze Russell, said with regards to John
1:1 and the Word being God:
…except
that where the word Theos is used twice in the same clause the Greek Prepositive Article is sometimes used, so as to give the effect of the God in contrast with a God. An illustration of this is found
in John 1:1 – “the Word was with the
God [ho Theos] and the Word was a God [Theos].” But the careful student (freed from Prejudice) will
generally have no difficulty in determining the thought of the Apostle. Indeed, the language is so explicit that the
wonder is that we were heedless of it so long.”
His
interpretation of Theos as “a god/a theos”, he claims is so explicit
that he wonders why it took so long for people to realize it. Pastor Russell
wrote this in 1899 and yet John’s own disciple Ignatius allegedly missed it?
This makes little sense logically. The
reason the early Church knew John was speaking of Jesus being God is not just
from the Scriptures which confirm it, but they were taught this by John who was
their pastor for many years.
So really, what
Mr. Russell was saying is that John’s disciples, the early church and the
church for about 1800 years were wrong and that he [Pastor Russell] was right.
This should be a red flag to anyone. Adam
Clarke sums up the argument regarding John 1:1 with excellent comments:
Should it be
objected that Christ created officially or by delegation, I
answer: This is impossible; for, as creation requires absolute and unlimited
power, or omnipotence, there can be but one Creator; because it is
impossible that there can be two or more Omnipotents, Infinites,
or Eternals.
It is therefore evident that creation cannot be effected officially,
or by delegation, for this would imply a Being conferring the office,
and delegating such power; and that the Being to whom it
was delegated was a dependent Being; consequently not unoriginated
and eternal; but this the nature of creation proves to be absurd.
1. The
thing being impossible in itself, because no limited being could produce a work
that necessarily requires omnipotence.
2. It is impossible, because, if
omnipotence be delegated, he to whom it is delegated had it not
before, and he who delegates it ceases to have it, and
consequently ceases to be GOD; and the other to whom it was delegated becomes
God, because such attributes as those with which he is supposed to be
invested are essential to the nature of God.
On this supposition God
ceases to exist, though infinite and eternal, and another not naturally infinite
and eternal becomes such; and thus an infinite and eternal
Being ceases to exist, and another infinite and eternal Being is produced
in time, and has a beginning, which is absurd. Therefore, as Christ
is the Creator, he did not create by delegation, or in any official
way.
Again, if he had created by delegation
or officially, it would have been for that Being who gave him
that office, and delegated to him the requisite power; but the text says
that all things were made BY him and FOR him, which
is a demonstration that the apostle understood Jesus Christ to be truly and
essentially God.
Conclusion
The reality is
that John 1:1-3 clearly reveals the deity of Jesus Christ, the Word, being the
Creator God (see also Colossians 1 and Hebrews 1). As such it confirms many
other passages in Scripture that teach that Christ is God. Early church fathers such as Ignatius, who
was a disciple of John the Apostle, also recognized Jesus as God.
The
significance of this is a matter of salvation.
Without the true Jesus, can one really be saved? Only the infinite Son
of God can satisfy the wrath of an infinite God the Father upon sin to pay the
debt in full. Any created Jesus could never have been able to endure that
punishment that we all deserve for sin. Yes, having the right Christ is crucial to salvation being made
possible.
□
Bodie Hodge, Ken Ham's son in law, has
been an apologist since 1998 helping out in various churches and running an
apologetics website. He spent 21 years working at Answers in Genesis as
a speaker, writer, and researcher as well as a founding news anchor for Answers
News. He was also head of the Oversight Council.
Bodie launched Biblical
Authority Ministries in 2015 as a personal website and it was
organized officially in 2025 as a 501(c)(3). He has spoken on multiple
continents and hosts of US states in churches, colleges, and universities. He
is married with four children.
Mr. Hodge earned a Bachelor and Master
of Science degrees from Southern Illinois University at Carbondale (SIUC).
Then he taught at SIUC for a couple of years as a Visiting Instructor teaching
all levels of undergraduate engineering and running a materials lab and a CAD
lab. He did research on advanced ceramic materials to develop a new method of
production of titanium diboride with a grant from Lockheed Martin. He
worked as a Test Engineer for Caterpillar, Inc., prior to entering
full-time ministry.
His love of science was coupled with a
love of history, philosophy, and theology. For about one year of his life,
Bodie was editing and updating a theological, historical, and scientific
dictionary/encyclopedia for AI use and training. Mr. Hodge has over 25 years of
experience in writing, speaking and researching in these fields. Originally at Answers
in Genesis in the journal Answers in Depth; Edited; Republished by permission.
[7] Westcott and Hort Greek New Testament (1881) : With Morphology. Bellingham : Logos Research Systems, 2002, S. John
1:1-3
[8]Robinson, Maurice: Elzevir Textus Receptus (1624) :
With Morphology. Bellingham, WA : Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2002, S.
John 1:1-3
