

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer

According to the article on “The Word” in the Watchtower publication Insight on the Scriptures,


The publication states that the λόγος was God’s only direct creation, the “only-begotten son of God.” Furthermore, it also identifies the λόγος as Jesus Christ:

In the Christian Greek Scriptures “the Word” (Gr., ho Lo′gos) also appears as a title. (Joh 1:1, 14; Re 19:13) The apostle John identified the one to whom this title belongs, namely, Jesus, he being so designated not only during his ministry on earth as a perfect man but also during his prehuman spirit existence as well as after his exaltation to heaven.

The claim is that God’s λόγος, the Word of God (ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ), is a creation (and thus, a creature). If God’s λόγος was created, then it did not exist before it was created. The corollary is that God at one point lacked λόγος, or was ἄλογος. The Greek word ἄλογος means “without reason, logic; irrational; illogical.”

Source: Strong’s Lexicon; Greek Word Study Tool at Tufts University.

The Greek letter α (alpha) prefixed to a word signifies absence, opposition, or negation.

Source: Strong’s Lexicon.

For example, the Greek word νόμος (nomos) means “law.” When prefixed with the Greek letter α, it means “without law; lawless.”

Source: Strong’s Lexicon.

While the Greek word λόγος is most often translated simply as “word,” it also possesses the meanings of “reason” and “logic.”

Source: Strong’s Lexicon.

Something which possesses reason, or the ability to reason, is said to be “rational.”

Source: Unabridged (based on the Random House Dictionary).

Something that lacks reason is said to be “irrational.”

Source: Unabridged (based on the Random House Dictionary).

The consequence of the argument that God created the λόγος was that God was at one point ἄλογος, or without reason, illogical, or irrational.

How do Arians and/or Jehovah’s Witnesses respond when it is said that their God was without reason, irrational, and illogical?

What does this say about God’s supposed immutability?

share|improve this question
Do few Jehova's Witnesses visit this site? – Simply a Christian Dec 6 '12 at 17:38
Perhaps. But I think it more likely that you've created an elaborate logical framework for something that is most likely self-evident to the JW's, and have couched your question in a way that is unlikely to be challenged, since it is clearly evident that you have the logical chops to pummel anyone who disagrees. Although no one has explicitly stated it yet, your question could be interpreted as an attempt to engage in debate over what is arguably a legalistic, literal interpretation of the theology. See also – Robert Harvey Dec 6 '12 at 22:04
No, that's not Witness theology, but this is not an argument I've ever seen before, and I'm not aware of any office Witness response to it. Still, I'll do my best to refute this allegation. – TRiG Dec 7 '12 at 21:29
I think it's a bit far-fetched to claim that God without the Word was irrational, basing that premise entirely on the technicalities of Greek. It is a false logic. – Andrew Leach Dec 8 '12 at 0:02
"You say you have a dog?" "Yes, a real rogue." "And he has puppies?" "Yes, and they are very like himself." "And the dog is the father of them?" "Yes, I certainly saw him and the mother of the puppies come together." "And is he not yours?" "To be sure, he is." "Then he is a father, and he is yours, and accordingly he is your father, and the puppies are your brothers!" - Plato, Euthydemus 298e, illustrating the dangers of equivocation. The use of logos to refer to Christ does not imply that every other meaning of logos applies to him as well. – James T Dec 8 '12 at 2:49
up vote 5 down vote accepted

If I’m understanding you correctly, this is your central claim:


Er, no. It doesn’t quite work like that. Here’s Witness theology, as I recall it.

God is God. Immutable. Unchanging. “For I am Jehovah; I do not change.” Malachi 3:6.

The Λόγος is a separate being (better known to us as Jesus, but bearing many other names besides, including Michael). The word is not, in this context, describing a quality of God, or an aspect of his nature. It’s a name. A person’s name. No doubt it’s a meaningful name, and the person so described is wise, but that does not mean that others lack wisdom, discernment, and rationality. Notably, God himself possesses all those qualities. And always has done.


I don’t know. I’ve never heard it said before. As far as I’m aware, this question is unique to you. You’ve come up with a novel approach.

I must say that the concept of an irrational God becoming rational would be a rather artistically pleasing element to a creation myth, but it does not form part of Witness theology.

share|improve this answer
TRiG: "God is God. Immutable. Unchangeable. The same yesterday, today, and tomorrow." That's interesting. That's what Hebrews 13:8 says about Jesus Christ, i.e. "the same yesterday, today, and forever." How is that possible if Jesus is only a god (a creature)? – Simply a Christian Dec 7 '12 at 23:03

I'm not a JW, but I've gone through just about every christological position at some point in my life, so I'll give you the answer I would have given when I was an Arian.

Does anyone really view the "logos" as being God's logic or reasoning faculty? Certainly Trinitarians DO NOT since they view it as a PERSON. So why would you think Arians view it as his logical or reasoning faculty? The question begins with an absurd premise.

Now, yes, I realize some of the "church fathers" in the earliest days when the doctrine of the deity of Christ was scare, used the "reasoning faculty" argument, since they had to have the Son begotten in time, and yet not say there was a time when he didn't exist. So they argued that before he was begotten he existed in God as God's reasoning faculty, and then when he was begotten he was emitted and became a distinct person. But they argued this way only because they were alone in a sea of unitarians and had to minimize the novelty of their new doctrine. To understand what I mean on that, read Joseph Priestley's masterful work An History of Early Opinions Concerning Jesus Christ (a 4-volume work, available on google books), particularly volumes 2 and 3, where he quotes the church fathers at length on this subject.

Note that it was the early Trinitarians (not the Arians) who argued that prior to being begotten the logos was God's reasoning faculty, because the Trinitarians had to grasp at straws to defend the incomprehensible doctrine that before he was begotten he already existed. And they had to do it in a way that wouldn't sound like polytheism to the unitarians. As soon as Arianism and unitarians both seemed to be defeated, the Trinitarians dropped this language and just went for the idea that the begetting was not in time and that Jesus was always the logos and the Son both, always having existed exactly as he now is, and always having been a distinct person. They no longer displayed caution against lapsing into tritheism because their doctrine had gained the ascendency and there weren't enough Arians and unitarians left to worry about.

share|improve this answer
~Irenaeus (A.D. c. 120– c.200) The Word, the Son, is always with the Father ( Against Heresies 4:20). Third century ~ Novatian ( A.D. 200-258) The Word is always the Son (On the Trinity 31:1) The Council of Nicea happened because Arius began teaching a new doctrine that Jesus is not of same nature with God the Father. He had many followers and this concerned the church itself of the unity of the one body of Christ and hence, a council* was called by the church through the Christian Emperor in order to reject the new teaching which Arius preached. – Radz Matthew Brown Feb 11 '15 at 12:47

Your Answer


