- This topic has 18,301 replies, 269 voices, and was last updated 3 weeks, 6 days ago by
.
- Posts
Quote OK Is 1:18, a much simpler question then. Let me restate:
What do the Bibles you own (any of them) say at John 6:70 and Acts 28:6?Please quote them. You seem afraid to. Why?
Is 1:18, are you unwilling to quote from your Bible (any one you own) because you're not sure why I'm asking for these scriptures, or because it's crippling to your beliefs?
david
Bully eh! You use dishonest methods in your aproach and i`m the bully, sir you have no shame.
Quote (david @ Nov. 11 2005,01:12) Quote OK Is 1:18, a much simpler question then. Let me restate:
What do the Bibles you own (any of them) say at John 6:70 and Acts 28:6?Please quote them. You seem afraid to. Why?
Is 1:18, are you unwilling to quote from your Bible (any one you own) because you're not sure why I'm asking for these scriptures, or because it's crippling to your beliefs?
david
Hey David,
As a matter of fact I have been working on your post re: John 1:1 in my spare hours (which are few), and I prefer not to get side tracked if I can help it. If you feel you need to make some point about a minor textual anomaly in the NASB (which is the Bible I use most for doctinal purposes) then by all means, be my guest. Coming from someone who promotes the NWT though I will struggle to take it too seriously. People in glass houses…as the saying goes….
Be wellQuote (Cubes @ Nov. 11 2005,00:16) Quote (Is 1:18 @ Nov. 10 2005,06:25) Quote (david @ Nov. 10 2005,03:45) Great. Before you do, a question:
What does your Bible say at John 6:70 and Acts 28:6?
Could I get a quote on both of them.Thankyou in advance.
david.
He he. As a matter of fact, David, I don't happan to affiliate myself with any particular translation. I do, however, know a dodgy one when I see it
Good to see you on, Is 1:18.
Hey Cubes!
Good to see you too. Yeah I come and go here (mostly go) but since John 1:1 was being discussed I couldn't help myself I have been working on your reply…i'm afraid its another 20+ pager! I tried to keep it succinct but it never really turns out that way. Should be ready to send this weekend.
Hope you are well.
I'm not sure what “minor textual anomaly” you are actually referring to. Does that Bible have a “texual anomaly”?
I'm just asking what that Bible or any Bible you own says at those two scriptures.
You could just cut and paste them. It would take 2 minutes.A 20 pager?
Well then. You should know why I asked for the scriptures I did.I asked you what those sciptures said in your Bible and you are having great difficulty replying. It doesn't seem like any conversation we have will move very fast.
david
Ok, I can't wait any longer. If you have a 20 pager, can I have a preview? Anything? I've never seen 20 pages on just John 1:1 before. Is that what it is?
He he. No David, the 20+ pager is an email reply I am writing to my good friend Cubes. We have an (enjoyable) ongoing Biblical debate on the nature and identity of Jesus.
The John 1:1 post could easily be 10 pages though, by the time i finish it. I think it will have to be posted in installments. I'll try to get the first one posted by tomorrow.God Bless
Hi cubes! haven`t had the pleasure i hope your not a disappointment like the others. What we have here is not a matter of; is this droctrine scriptual or isn`t. It is a matter of ethics, i hope you can see that! It is unethical to misrepresent comments and statements made by others. It is nothing short of slander when a soul states the bible is saying something other than what it is clearly stating. When it quotes God as saying let “Us” “Our” and then a soul says; NO! thats not what Gods says, then it is a direct challenge to God and His testimony of Himself! If a soul has the audacity to challenge God, then all things ethical go out the window!
Quote (soxan @ Nov. 11 2005,06:34) Hi cubes! haven`t had the pleasure i hope your not a disappointment like the others. What we have here is not a matter of; is this droctrine scriptual or isn`t. It is a matter of ethics, i hope you can see that! It is unethical to misrepresent comments and statements made by others. It is nothing short of slander when a soul states the bible is saying something other than what it is clearly stating. When it quotes God as saying let “Us” “Our” and then a soul says; NO! thats not what Gods says, then it is a direct challenge to God and His testimony of Himself! If a soul has the audacity to challenge God, then all things ethical go out the window!
Hi Soxan,Hope it'd be a mutual pleasure as beautiful are the feet of those that bring the gospel.
I hear what you are saying, but that's what the debates are for… to answer Elijah-vs-the-prophets-of-baal style. Elijah wasn't wasting time arguing with those guys… He simply allowed the real God of heaven to answer…and yes, he did say they could scream a little louder as their god(s) must be out to lunch or something like that! (It's been a while since I read it). I think that approach benefits all those who earnestly seek after YHWH and his Christ, and serves his purposes. That goes for me too.
“Let us” does not imply that God is other than One as the word which came on Sinai also clearly stated, “YHWH is ONE” which is something that Christ himself preached. And Christ did not refer or regard himself at anytime to be YHWH but did see YHWH as his God and Father. If you really consider the whole of scripture, you would find that the math adds up differently and it's a shame that the threads are so long so that refutations get buried and must of necessity be restated.
Looking forward to hearing from you.Quote (Is 1:18 @ Nov. 11 2005,04:46) Hey Cubes!
Good to see you too. Yeah I come and go here (mostly go) but since John 1:1 was being discussed I couldn't help myself I have been working on your reply…i'm afraid its another 20+ pager! I tried to keep it succinct but it never really turns out that way. Should be ready to send this weekend.
Hope you are well.
Hi Is 1:18:Looking forward to reading you. A welcome break in my leaf raking activities this weekend… and I am well, thank you!
“Let us” does not imply that God is other than One as the word which came on Sinai also clearly stated, “YHWH is ONE” which is something that Christ himself preached. And Christ did not refer or regard himself at anytime to be YHWH but did see YHWH as his God and Father.
cubes i`m pulling my hair, “Let us” does not imply, it declares that God is manifest in three Persons! How do you constrew “Let us” & “Our”? It is you that is implying not the bible . You fit in the ethics post i wrote. Do you realize what your doing ? I`m not taking the Elijah method. I`m foolishly trying to reason with unreasonable people.
Hi David,
Apologies, my friend, but I will not be posting tonight. My wife and kids were on our home PC almost all day and we had a birthday BBQ to attend tonight, so I have not written a single word today. Hoping for some time to do it tomorrow.Be well.
you`s guys David.
yousguyswunderfal David.
Quote (david @ Nov. 12 2005,17:38) Is 1:18, “let us” continue another time then with “our” discussion.
Now's good.Quote Tell me about John 1:1 Soxan. Say anything about it. Even mention it. Say that it's proof of the trinity. Utter one word to that effect. Do it. Anything. I would love to have a Biblical discussion with you.
Hi David.
I'm going to try and do this in installments because I simply don't have the time and energy to address John 1:1 (and do it justice) in one sitting. I also know its basically a waste of time writing very long posts, because even if people do take the time read it all, they seldom address all of the points raised – often focusing on the perceived weaker ones and ignoring the others. This is endemic to message boards.So, the three posts will loosely encompass:
1. The scholar's opinion on the best translation of John 1:1c,
2. A textual analysis of John 1:1c,
3. Context and supporting scriptures.Firstly though I would like to correct something you wrote (insertion mine):
Quote “Say that it's [John 1:1] proof of the trinity” Generally speaking, I don’t believe John 1:1 is used (or rather should be used) as a proof text to support the trinity doctrine per se. However, it certainly is (and should be) used in support of one of the foundation tenets of the doctrine, namely the deity of Jesus Christ. But that’s not quite the same thing, is it David? Since it clearly wasn’t John’s intention to comprehensively explicate the Godhead in this verse (the Holy Spirit isn’t even mentioned), I will not be attempting to prove the trinity from this one verse.
OK, here is the verse in question from the NASB:
John 1:1 (NASB)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.And from the NWT:
John 1:1 (NWT)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.Note: The former version is used (i.e. God with a capital “G”) in all 19 versions offered on BibleGateway.com and all 11 versions offered on Blueletterbible.org. Although some Greek scholars insist that the last two words should be rendered “a god” or “divine”, by far the vast majority of them accept the former translation and reject that latter. This point has already been made by Global on pg 25 (and following) of this thread, here is the link for those interested: click.
OK, in anticipation of this possible objection by David at this stage: ‘The ratio simply reflects the disproportionality of scholars with a trinitarian bias'
For this objection to have any validity, David, must first produce:
1. Verifiable proof that all scholars with tangible influence on the translations of the various versions that rendered John 1:1c as “the word was God” had a trinitarian bias.
2. Verifiable proof that these scholars chose to superimpose their bias on the text and misrepresent what John had actually written, in the context it was written.
3. Verifiable proof that the NWT translators were comparitively unbiased in their methodology.
So, David, if you choose to extend this objection, I wish you the best of luck – on all three counts. Personally, I think the ‘bias’ objection is a red herring. The core issues are the context of the passage and the Greek itself (as well as and the protocols that dictate accurate Greek-to-English translation – particularly with regard to predicate nominatives).
I think most sound-thinking people would agree that the impetus of the scholars that translated the versions listed on BibleGateway and BLB websites was to preserve the integrity of the original texts and not to promote the doctrinal axioms of any particular denomination or denominations. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the so-called translators of the NWT. In contrast to the NWT translators the BG and BLB versions were translated by large committees of highly-credentialed kione Greek experts:
New International Version Bible – translation committee of 115 scholars.
King James Version – translation committee of 54 scholars.
New King James Version – 119 scholars.
New American Standard Bible – 54 scholars
Contemporary English Version – 100+ scholars
English Standard Version – 100+ scholarsThese checks and balances used in the translations of these versions obviously helped eliminate the possibility of a radical influence leading to a possible mishandling of the text (i.e. making it say something other than the original Greek).
As I wrote earlier most Greek scholars do NOT concur with the NWT's handling of that text at all, primarily because it violates a basic understanding about the use of the article (“the”) in Greek as well as an understanding about the predicate nominative structure (more on this in the next post).
Here are some comments from world-renowned kione Greek experts:
Quote A. T. Robertson::
“So in Jo. 1:1 theos en ho logos the meaning has to be the Logos was God, not God was the Logos.” A New Short Grammar of the Greek Testament, by A. T. Robertson and W. Hersey Davis (Baker Book House, 1977), p. 279.E. M. Sidebottom:
“…the tendency to write 'the Word was divine' for theos en ho logos springs from a reticence to attribute the full Christian position to John.” The Christ of the Fourth Gospel (S. P. C. K., 1961), p. 461.E. C. Colwell::
“…predicate nouns preceding the verb cannot be regarded as indefinite or qualitative simply because they lack the article; it could be regarded as indefinite or qualitative only if this is demanded by the context and in the case of John 1:1c this is not so.” “A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament,” Journal of Biblical Literature, 52 (1933), p. 20.C. K.Barrett:
“The absence of the article indicates that the Word is God, but is not the only being of whom this is true; if ho theos had been written it would have implied that no divine being existed outside the second person of the Trinity.” The Gospel According to St. John (S.P.C.K., 1955), p.76.C. H. Dodd:
“On this analogy, the meaning of theos en ho logos will be that the ousia of ho logos, that which it truly is, is rightly denominated theos…That this is the ousia of ho theos (the personal God of Abraham, the Father) goes without saying. In fact, the Nicene homoousios to patri is a perfect paraphrase. “New Testament Translation Problems II,” The Bible Translator, 28, 1 (Jan. 1977), p. 104.Randolph O. Yeager:
“Only sophomores in Greek grammar are going to translate '…and the Word was a God.' The article with logos, shows that logos is the subject of the verb en and the fact that theos is without the article de
signates it as the predicate nominative. The emphatic position of theos demands that we translate '…and the Word was God.' John is not saying as Jehovah's Witnesses are fond of teaching that Jesus was only one of many Gods. He is saying precisely the opposite.” The Renaissance New Testament, Vol. 4 (Renaissance Press, 1980), p.4.James Moffatt:
“'The Word was God…And the Word became flesh,' simply means “The word was divine…And the Word became human.' The Nicene faith, in the Chalcedon definition, was intended to conserve both of these truths against theories that failed to present Jesus as truly God and truly man…” Jesus Christ the Same (Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1945), p.61.Philip B. Harner:
“Perhaps the clause could be translated, 'the Word had the same nature as God.” This would be one way of representing John's thought, which is, as I understand it, that ho logos, no less than ho theos, had the nature of theos.” “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,” Journal of Biblical Literature, 92, 1 (March 1973, p. 87.Henry Alford:
“Theos must then be taken as implying God, in substance and essence,–not ho theos, 'the Father,' in person. It does not = theios, nor is it to be rendered a God–but, as in sarx egeneto, sarx expresses that state into which the Divine Word entered by a definite act, so in theos en, theos expresses that essence which was His en arche:–that He was very God. So that this first verse might be connected thus: the Logos was from eternity,–was with God (the Father),–and was Himself God.” Alford's Greek Testament: An Exegetical and Critical Commentary, Vol. I, Part II (Guardian Press, 1975; originally published 1871), p. 681.Donald Guthrie:
“The absence of the article with Theos has misled some into thinking that the correct understanding of the statement would be that 'the word was a God' (or divine), but this is grammatically indefensible since Theos is a predicate.” New Testament Theology (InterVarsity Press, 1981), p. 327.Bruce Metzger: “It must be stated quite frankly that, if the Jehovah's Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists… As a matter of solid fact, however, such a rendering is a frightful mistranslation.” “The Jehovah's Witnesses and Jesus Christ,” Theology Today (April 1953), p. 75.
Julius R. Mantey:
“Since Colwell's and Harner's article in JBL, especially that of Harner, it is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 “The Word was a god.” Word-order has made obsolete and incorrect such a rendering… In view of the preceding facts, especially because you have been quoting me out of context, I herewith request you not to quote the Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament again, which you have been doing for 24 years.” Letter from Mantey to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. “A Grossly Misleading Translation… John 1:1, which reads 'In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.' is shockingly mistranslated, “Originally the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god,' in a New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, published under the auspices of Jehovah's Witnesses.” Statement by J. R. Mantey, published in various sources.B. F. Westcott:
“The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in v.24. It is necessarily without the article (theos not ho theos) inasmuch as it describes the nature of the Word and does not identify His Person… No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true deity of the Word.” The Gospel According to St. John (Eerdmans, 1958 reprint), p. 3.In anticipation of the possibility that David might attempt to discredit these high-calibre scholars I should add that they are generally accepted as the absolute best in their field, regardless of theological affiliation. This is underscored by the Watchtower frequently citing their work in their publications and interlinear (A. T. Robertson and Julius Mantley, in particular). Although, historically, their tendency has been to misquote or take them, or take their writings out of context. This, obviously, has not gone down well and has prompted some angry responses. A case in point is the citation of both Julius Mantey’s Manual Grammer and A. T. Robertson’s Grammar in their Kingdom Interlinear (p. 1158-1159) in an attempted defense of their John 1:1c translation.
Here is Mantey’s response:
Quote Since my name is used and our Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament is quoted on page 744 to seek to justify their translation, I am making this statement… of all the scholars in the world, as far as we know none have translated this verse as Jehovah’s Witnesses have done Actually, so frequent were the misquotations by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Dana and Mantey’s Grammar, Mantley was forced to write a letter to them demanding a public apology, as well as requested their discontinuance of the use of his grammar. In a letter to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society dated July 11, 1974, Mantley writes:
Quote In view of the preceding facts, especially because you have been quoting me out of context, I herewith request you not to quote the Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament again, which you have been doing for 24 years. Also that you not quote it or me in any of your publications from this time on.
Also that you publicly and immediately apologize in the Watchtower magazine, since my words had no relevance to the absence of the article before theos in John 1:1…. On the page before the Preface in the grammar are these words: “All rights reserved—no part of this book may be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the publisher.” If you have such permission, please send me a photocopy of it. If you do not heed these requests you will suffer the consequences.
Regretfully yours,
Julius R. Mantey
Although the general consensus among the Greek experts certainly supports the handling of the text by the BibleGateway and BLB translators, and this adds weight to the hypothesis that the NWT version of John 1:1c is erroneous, this is not proof in and of itself. However, this combined with a critical examination of the Greek text and the context in which it was made (within the prologue), the premise becomes, I think, irrefutable. These are the subjects of my next two posts. I hope to have installment # 2 posted tomorrow.Be well.
Quote (soxan @ Nov. 12 2005,04:12) “Let us” does not imply that God is other than One as the word which came on Sinai also clearly stated, “YHWH is ONE” which is something that Christ himself preached. And Christ did not refer or regard himself at anytime to be YHWH but did see YHWH as his God and Father. cubes i`m pulling my hair, “Let us” does not imply, it declares that God is manifest in three Persons! How do you constrew “Let us” & “Our”? It is you that is implying not the bible . You fit in the ethics post i wrote. Do you realize what your doing ? I`m not taking the Elijah method. I`m foolishly trying to reason with unreasonable people.
Hi Soxan,“Let us” be reasonable.
Soxan, I recommend that you patiently review Ephesians in its entirety (or any other books of scripture as a whole), and reconsider your understanding of YHWH and of his Christ.
Your position is not substantiated in the least. It just doesn't exist. Phil 2:5f which was the famous “…who being in the form of God did not consider it robbery to be equal with God…” has also failed the CUBE (math) test, as Paul clearly teaches otherwise in all his writings. Meaning, the text has been misunderstood or misapplied.
There is a Father who has a son. Those born of the Spirit of God are considered the body of Christ as we know. Now again, if Christ is part of a Trinity, then so must his body/bride be. Is Christ divided? The holy scriptures asks somewhere? Also did not Christ himself say, “where I am there my servant shall be also” when he spoke of his body/bride/church/disciples?
Thus the math needs to be reworked for we cannot be one with Christ and not be part of the so-called Trinity! You can't get closer than a body to itself. A body is itself.
If we therefore agree that Christ is in fact the head of his own body, and that means anything to us and we confess him as Lord, then that very principal ought to be applicable to the Father whom the bible conclusively and firmly states to be the head of Christ and of everything.
It's a mathematical issue. Find the formula and it should be applicable throughout, and the results should come out the same regardless of how you test it. The Trinity sorely has no legs when it comes to this. But YHWH is one all by himself (not 2 or three or something) and we, including Christ, are all in him… through Christ, and this is shown over and over and over again through every test of the pages of the scriptures.
Let “us” must be interpreted in such a way that it doesn't contradict other scripture.
1 Corinthians 8:6
yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.Hebrews 1:2
but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.So it is God talking to the one whom he created all things through. That is why “us” is used. It has nothing to do with a mysterious plural God, and everything to do with God talking to his son and creating all things through him.
Hi David,
Here is the NASB version in both English and Greek, broken down into its three constituent clauses:
John 1:1a. “In beginning was the word…”
(en arche en ho logos)John 1:1b. “and the word was with the God…”
(kai ho logos en pros ton theon)John 1:1c. “and God was the word” – or properly translated: “the Word was God.”
(kai theos en ho logos)As I have previously alluded to the general consensus among the creditable Greek scholars is that clause c (“and the Word was God” ) strongly attest to the deity of the pre-incarnate Word, particularly when the context of the prologue of the Gospel is examined. I imagine you will try to contest the translation of John 1:1c though David, arguing that since “theos” (“God” or “god”) in John 1:1C does not have the definite article (i.e. “ton”, a Greek equivalent of the English word “the”) it is best rendered “a god”, rather than “God”. However David, in koine Greek the article is used differently than it is in modern English. Linguistically, it had not long evolved from the demonstrative pronoun (“this”/”that”). Its true that the one of its purposes is to identify. But, its also true that if no article is used it does NOT at all indicate that identity is not the focus. And there is a very good grammatical reason why John could NOT have legitimately used an article here (I’ll get to this later). So John, in all likelihood, may have intended identity without an article, and it is perfectly valid grammatically to do this. In fact it is quite common in koine Greek.
If “theos” does not have an article, it can and often does still mean “God,” not “a god”, Consider these verse from the very same Chapter in John:
John 1:6
There came a man sent from God, whose name was John.No one would argue that this is not a reference to the Father – but where is the article?
John 1:12
But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name,No article here either.
John 1:18
No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.Or here…….
So David, if the absence of the article demands the “a god” rendering, why is this not evoked in these scriptures? Actually if you check your own interlinear (pgs 417-419) you will see you’re your society violates its own principle at least six times in John Chapter 1 alone! (John 1:6, 12, 13, 18 and 23). Van Buskirk made a great point when he wrote:
Quote “If the absence of the article demands the “a god” rendering, why is it not so rendered here? In fact, where is it in 94% of the instances of such construction in the NWT? Clearly translating John 1:1 “a god” is not only a violation of Greek grammar, it is unjustified even in light of the vast majority of their own translation. Obviously then, in John 1:1 (NWT), the translation should be “God,” not “a god.” Scholastic Dishonesty of the Watchtower, pg 16 So it’s abundantly obvious that the absence of the definite article can not be used as lexical proof that the noun is ‘indefinite’ in reference to Jesus in John 1:1c. If you propose this David, then you must also accept that it’s equally valid to use this principle to refute the deity of Jehovah, because anarthrous (article-less) nouns are used when identifying Him.
It’s also worth mentioning that John 1:1c is a predicate nominative (Theos) in which the noun precedes the verb. As I’m sure you know David a predicate nominative has an equating verb joining two “nominative” case nouns (i.e. they're both the “subject.”). Colwell’s Rules (which is at issue here) states that a definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb and lacks the article when it precedes it. This is very important to understanding what John was trying to convey in John 1:1c and I will address the significance later in this post.
This special format and the proper way to handle it is explained in this NET note (from http://www.bible.org):
Quote NET footnote #3:
3tn Or “and what God was the Word was.” Colwell's Rule is often invoked to support the translation of theos as definite (“God”) rather than indefinite (“a god”) here. However, Colwell's Rule merely permits, but does not demand, that a predicate nominative ahead of an equative verb be translated as definite rather than indefinite. Furthermore, Colwell's Rule did not deal with a third possibility, that the anarthrous predicate noun may have more of a qualitative nuance when placed ahead of the verb. A definite meaning for the term is reflected in the traditional rendering “the word was God.” From a technical standpoint, though, it is preferable to see a qualitative aspect to anarthrous theos in JOHN 1:1c (D. B. Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 26669). Translations like the NEB, REB, and Moffatt are helpful in capturing the sense in JOHN 1:1c, that the Word was fully deity in essence (just as much God as God the Father). However, in contemporary English “the Word was divine” (Moffatt) does not quite catch the meaning since “divine” as a descriptive term is not used in contemporary English exclusively of God. The translation “what God was the Word was” is perhaps the most nuanced rendering, conveying that everything God was in essence, the Word was too. This points to unity of essence between the Father and the Son without equating the persons. However, in surveying a number of native speakers of English, some of whom had formal theological training and some of whom did not, the editors concluded that the fine distinctions indicated by “what God was the Word was” would not be understood by many contemporary readers. Thus the translation “the Word was fully God” was chosen because it is more likely to convey the meaning to the average English reader that the Logos (which “became flesh and took up residence among us” in JOHN 1:14 and is thereafter identified in the Fourth Gospel as Jesus) is one in essence with God the Father while distinct in person from God the Father.An English equivalent example of the predicate nominative might be: “John is the butcher.”
In Greek, if you put the article before both “John” and “butcher,” then the statement would have to be fully reversible (unlike English, word order is insignificant in Greek, except for emphasis). So in the above example the statement would read both ways, “John is the butcher,” and “the butcher is John.” This would mean that all butchers are named John, which is clearly illogical.Question: How then in the Greek do you make it clear that you only intend it to go one way?
Answer: By NOT including the article.
Here are some Biblical examples (excerpts of verses) where the subject is made plain by the article and the predicate without it:
John 4:24
“God is spirit” – pneuma ho theos“Pneuma ho theos” can only mean “God is spirit,” not “spirit is God.” John uses a anarthrous predicate nominative to avoid the possibility of this being misconstrued as “Spirit is God”.
1 John 4:16
God is love – ho theos agape estin – same deal as above.John 1:14 is the same construction, only the logos is the subject:
John 1:14
the Word became flesh – ho L
ogos sarx egeneto, ” – It would be unintelligible had this read “Flesh became the Word”. Therefore, John uses the predicate nominative to avert the possible misinterpretation of the text.So since an article with “theos” would have forced a fully reversible statement (Jesus is God AND God is Jesus) we know that John could NOT have legitimately used the article in John 1:1c without affirming a Sabellianism (or modalism)! By using the construction he did, John could not have expressed the precepts the full deity of Jesus and the ‘plurality within unity’ more concisely.
But by placing the term “theos” in the emphatic position and dropping the article John deliberately avoids evoking the impression of ontological subordinationism at the same time avoids making “logos” and the “theos” of John 1:1 the same person (subject). Mantley summed it up best when he wrote:
Quote If the Greek article occurred with both Word and God in John 1:1, the implication would be that they are one and the same person, absolutely identical. But John affirmed that “the Word was with (the) God” (the definite article preceding each noun), and in so writing, he indicated his belief that they are distinct and separate personalities. Then John next stated that the Word was God, i.e., of the same family or essence that characterizes the Creator. Or, in other words, that both are of the same nature, and that nature is the highest in existence, namely divine…. The apostle John, in the context of the introduction to his Gospel, is pulling all the stops out of language to portray not only the deity of Christ, but also his equality with the Father. He states that the Word was in the beginning, that He was with God, that He was God and that all creation came into existence through him and that not even one thing exists that was not created by Christ. What else could be said that John did not say? So, David, you can see that the Watchtower objection is both illogical and unfounded – when looked at objectively. Also, if John really intended to convey the notion that Jesus was a lesser God/god, or was god-like but not true God (as the modern day Arians propose), then he could easily have done this by simply choosing Greek words other than “theos”. The word “theios”, for instance, can be used to denote a subject that is ‘god-like’. By using this word he would have removed all connotations that Jesus is deity. But he did not.
God Bless
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
