Greek: Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος.
NIV: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
I have not taken a formal poll or studied this question scientifically, but it seems that the verse I've been asked about, more than any other, is John 1:1, particularly, John 1:1c.
Now we all know John 1:1c has been beaten to death kinda like a dead horse; therefore, I'm not going to keep flogging it, but let's briefly consider John 1:1a. Exactly what does Ἐν ἀρχῇ potentially mean? How should we understand this part of the verse?
The consensus among scholars is that John 1:1 references the same beginning as Genesis 1:1 does. That passage in the LXX states: ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν
Scholars debate just what "the beginning" of Gen. 1:1 is, but the important consideration here is that it's likely not some indefinite past or eternal past referenced in the verse. Genesis 1:1 is likely about the beginning of creation, that is, the initial point of the physical universe. Even if someone wants to question the Genesis 1:1/John 1:1 connection, it's still a fact that Greek grammar cannot settle the question pertaining to the timing for the Johannine Ἐν ἀρχῇ.
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2016/04/john-11ff-work-in-progress.html
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI don't want to tread familiar ground, but ῥῆμα in Luke 3:2 seems different than Logos: one is grammatically neuter, but the other is grammatically masculine. ῥῆμα has other nuances that Logos does not and vice versa.
ReplyDeleteWhen read in the light of the entire Prologue and whole Gospel, the probability that John is identifying the Word/Logos as a person increases. It is not simply a matter of grammar but of general Johannine usage.
It's funny that Unitarians want to use gender arguments when it suits them, but ignore grammatical gender at other points. They also should read the discourse as a whole--within context. The Word (masculine) was with God in the beginning like the Word with God in v. 1. If pros ton theon comes anywhere close to having the significance M.J. Harris and others think it has, that would be an argument in favor of a personal Logos.
I disagree that we can't discern the personal Word's agency in creation. The verse can certainly be read that way in light of other texts and when compared with the concept of Logos, Wisdom, and Memra, etc. At any rate, understanding the Prologue is essential to comprehending the Fourth Gospel.
As I've posted before, it's possible to read John 1 as an unfolding/explanation of the original and new creation. Not a few scholars read the verse that way.
See Craig Keener, Marianne Meye Thompson, C.K. Barrett, Gerald Borchert, and many more.
Concerning the point about creation imagery, see https://www.bloomsburycollections.com/book/creation-imagery-in-the-gospel-of-john/?clearSearch
ReplyDeleteNotice what the abstract states.
Of course, I posted this entry to answer a question pertaining to arche and whether it has to be understood as an eternal or indefinite past. From the standpoint of grammar, it does not have to be construed thus. All the other stuff is window dressing for now.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYes, we have. But like I said before or within the current discussion, multiple criteria actually support the idea that John was talking about a personal Logos. Is it possible to contend for another view like Unitarians do? I don't think we can rule out the Unitarian view entirely, I just find it highly unlikely, but either way--grammar alone cannot solve the problem. Hence, the reason why I say in the light of other texts whether those texts are other Johannine verses, GNT passages or words of Tanakh. Texts should not be read in bare isolation from other texts/contexts. Furthermore, texts are forms of discourse produced by discourse (phatic) communities: only the postmodernists believe otherwise.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteA blog reader identified as "T" posted a G-drive link for John 1:1 versions, but I deleted it when I should not have. But I think this is the link that provides the info I removed: https://drive.google.com/file/d/12raIcg7lDHYsYw78kr9I1Yttq6aSu13N/view
ReplyDeleteMy apologies, but I want all links submitted to be safe.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJust to add a little point (the prologue as been done to death, and frankly I think almost everything has been already said many times that can be said, and this little point has also been said many times) the term "Logos" has possible/(in my mind plausible) philosophical implications that hreyma just doesn't have.
ReplyDeleteSaying "well we can't discnern any direct contact with Philo or middle-platonism" doesn't really avoid the point ... I have no direct connection with neo-liberal economic circles, or Arthur Laffer or Milton Friedman, but if I say the phrase "supply-side economics doesn't work," the fact that I have no connection to the Chicago school or Neo-classical school of economics doesn't mean that you can't interpret the term "supply-side" using those schools of thought as a background, especially given the way I use the term.
This is just simple use of language, it's contextual and its context is cultural, it's not dependent on specific ideological affiliations or direct connections (if it was language wouldn't actually work as it does).
I would agree that Logos has implications of which rhema does not: maybe even philosophical implications. And this is another issue that most articles about the Logos discuss: whence John's use of the word Logos? I like William Barclay's discussion in his John commentary and many others have fine analyses of the subject including John Burnet, Stanley Porter, and Gerald Borchert.
ReplyDeleteOkay, let's table the Philo connection, and I understand your illustration about supply side economics, even if you have no connection to those particular economic schools. But one thing I would suggest is that words have different meanings within disparate contexts and among varying groups.
For example, Paul likely meant something different when he used pleroma in Colossians although the term possibly evoked other usages. One thing that's always puzzled me about John, however, is that I've wondered how a fisherman (busy with his trade and being "ordinary") could have been theoretically sophisticated.
I'm not saying that a fisherman can't philosophize or read analytical literature: I once did it as a janitor. But times are different now since the Enlightenment has come and gone along with the Protestant Reformation (not in that order, I realize). Furthermore, literacy has increased exponentially since the 1st century CE--so our situation today is not the same as 1st century Palestine.
This reply is getting longer than I wanted it to be, so let me just end by setting forth what has been said by some Johannine scholars: the Johannine Logos probably came from texts like Ps. 33:6 and Genesis 1. Other Jewish works speak about Torah tabernacling with Israel, etc. Either way, as you say, the Logos of John would have resonated with many people, including ancient Greeks.
Romans, see https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2014/12/there-is-substantial-evidence-that.html
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDuncan, we already know that Sanskrit and Greek have much in common, but why? The most popular hypothesis is that both Sanskrit and Greek originated from Indo-European. But there are other views: see https://www.academia.edu/1898458/Greek_influence_on_Sanskrit
ReplyDeleteI have no problem believing that Greek and Sanskrit have many things in common. See A.T. Robertson's big Greek grammar and the 4 volume work by Moulton, Howard, and Turner. I'm also slowly reading A.N. Jannaris now; he discusses these issues too.
One problem though is how a 1st century Palestinian fisherman would have been directly influenced by Hinduism or something of the sort. I've yet to see a convincing argument for this hypothesis.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCompare https://books.google.com/books?id=UrpQDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA107&lpg=PA107&dq=links+between+buddhism+and+christianity+and+roman+trade&source=bl&ots=YZiKV3Qpnw&sig=ACfU3U19JSd1IlhSlTZrRxeCLMyxxMVD0g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwivtYmAtMrpAhXCY98KHS35Cd84ChDoATAFegQICxAB#v=onepage&q=links%20between%20buddhism%20and%20christianity%20and%20roman%20trade&f=false
ReplyDeletehttps://www.jstor.org/stable/1457141?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe Greek Orthodox normally understand Logos primarily as "reason" in John 1:1, not "word." The Romans defined Logos as ratio et ratio.
ReplyDeleteThat thing about John being a fisherman also perplexes me. But even in his Epistles he is very sophisticated, and in the book of revelation.
ReplyDeleteOne answer that I have thought of (I have not looked into it a lot though) is that John was clearly held in extremely high regard, we have traditions from the fragment of Papias that people would visit John and learn from him, supposedly Polycarp and Ignatius were Johns disciples, so perhpaps, John had discussions with educated Christians who learned form him and also gave him philosophical tools by which he could express things.
At the same time I understand your point there ... I mean reading Jesus in the synoptics is extremely clear he comes from the lower classes and spoke to the lower classes, that doesn't take anything away from his genius, it's just those were the linguistic and conceptual tools he used (Douglass Oakman has done great work on this in Jesus and the Peasants, as well as other scholars who reconstruct Jesus from a socio-economic perspective), whereas you can tell Paul is educated and from a higher social status.
As for John, either he got this philosophical sophistication over his lifetime, or I am over reading the similarities to Philo, or they are explained some other way that I havn't continued.
I will definately look into William Barcley's discussion though.
Thanks for the discussion brother.
Here’s a document of over 180 different bible translations of John 1:1c that doesn’t have the traditional rendering of John 1:1c as “the Word was God.” https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DI1gb5lCRPSnYh99pE30sn5ujnFcdBiu/view?usp=drivesdk
ReplyDeleteHere’s a couple interesting article on John 1:1c
1) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ri5kmAmsFlGIodl5TBcMNfrC_JP8Q0x9/view?usp=drivesdk
2) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RpvzRVOGYp_BbHUEatEUAHJqGzR5f5xF/view?usp=drivesdk
3) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sYt1UvtOO1RPeRjsR4UnoIYBeEKpggr6/view?usp=drivesdk
Thanks, T.
ReplyDeleteAfter watching this YouTube video on John 1:1 https://youtu.be/NR2Q2Jf44dE a trinitarian, Drew Tucker, posted this in the bible study debate group on Facebook:
ReplyDelete“This is for all you Arians (Jehovah Witnesses) out there. I wanted to take the time to share with you an educated view of John 1:1. I have Doctoral level training in Greek Exegesis and it is part of my job to understand, use, and research the New Testament Greek text. I’m not an expert but I have been doing it for 20 years and I am no novice and I’m pretty good at what I do.
Grammar may be boring to some but grammar is the law of language. And if you don’t care to understand it or follow it you will come to false conclusions.
John 1:1 “the Word was God.”
First: Qualitative nouns are not definite or indefinite
The grammatical structure of this statement can neither be “the Word was the God” nor can it be “the Word was a God.” Neither are correct. Why? Because the “Word” is the Subject and “God” is the Predicate Nominative which precedes the verb. And when the Predicate Nominative precedes the verb 80% of the time this is communicating a qualitative noun. It is describing the value, condition, or state of something or someone. In other cases the noun can be definite or indefinite depending on the context or natural reading of the English language. So here in John 1:1, John is communicating that the Word (Jesus) is God quality and condition.
John 1:14 is a good example. If the New World Translation was consistent with how they translated John 1:1, John 1:14 would read “the Word became a flesh”. Here “flesh” is the predicate nominative and in the Greek it precedes the verb “became.” Therefore we know it is communicating a qualitative noun. So it is translated the Word became flesh (quality) not the Word became “a” flesh. But if the New World translators were consistent with their interpretation of Greek grammar 1:14 would say “a flesh” just as 1:1 says “a god” in their bible.
Second: NWT does not place an “a” before other nouns or God in other places like they do in John 1:1
ReplyDeleteJust because a noun lacks a Greek article does not mean you put an “a” in front of it most of the time. If that were true John 1:1-2 would be ‘A’ beginning John 1:4 should be ‘A’ life; John 1:6 should be ‘A’ God; John 1:6 should be ‘A’ John; and John 1:18 should be ‘A’ God. But the New World Translation does not put an “a” in front of any of these nouns in John chapter 1 but it chooses to do so only in John 1:1. There is a reason the main translators of English Bibles do not take seriously the New World translation because it is painfully obvious the bias and it’s failure to follow Greek grammar and be consistent with it.
There are 282 occurrences of “Theos” without an article in the New Testament and out of that 282 times the New World Translation has either “a god, god, gods, or godly.” Sixteen out of 282 is only 6% of the time the NWT translators were consistent with how they treated John 1:1. This is inconsistent based on an obvious theological position not driven by the Greek language.
Third: Theos is not a word for a lower God
The translators are inconsistent for good reason because the word “Theos” is not just used for Jesus as a lower god as they claim. “Theos” is used to refer to Yahweh as well. So the claim that “Theon” is for the Father, while “Theos” denotes a lesser God is unfounded because “Theos” is used to refer to God the Father as well (John 3:2; 3:16; 3:17; 3:33; 3:34; 4:24; 6:27; 8:42; 9:29 etc.). By the way Theos does not have an article in John 8:54 and it refers to Yahweh. And these are examples only in the book of John, there are many other in the NT.
The term “theos”, “theon” or “theou” all different cases of the SAME EXACT Greek word just in different grammatical positions. They are found 8 times in John 1 alone. The Greek article for “the” is only present in 2 of those 8 words for God. Yet the New World Translation only places an “a” in front of theos in John 1:1. Not consistent because they are not following grammar and context but a tenacious belief that Jesus is not God.
Fourth and Finally: just a little something extra . . verb tense
Furthermore, “in the beginning WAS” is in the Imperfect tense. This tense communicates an indefinite amount of time in the past. If this was communicating the Word began at some point in time it would have used the Aorist tense. This grammar denotes the Word simply WAS indefinitely and not that He began at some point.”
https://m.facebook.com/groups/scriptureandtruth/?ref=m_notif¬if_t=group_comment
^ this is highly misleading and shows the person hasn't done their research or is being wilfully ignorant.
ReplyDelete(I would say this is why this hasn't been responded too)
as Bowman once stated "some good(?) information, but in my opinion not entirely accurate"
My apologies Edgar it was not Barclay but rather A.T Robertson:
ReplyDeleteA.T Robertson has previously pointed out:
"Hence we need not insist that [en](John 1:1)is strictly durative always(imperfect). It may be aorist also."-A Grammar of the N.T. in the Light of Historical Research, p.883.
and I will link the source as well: https://archive.org/details/grammarofgreekne00robeuoft/page/882/mode/2up
ReplyDeleteThanks, will check it out. Got to doze now
ReplyDeleteHi Anonymous, I read that part of Robertson and he's talking about "doubtful imperfects" in the context of the part you quoted. One thing to remember is that Robertson contains much fine information but his discussions about aspect/tense are dated. However, according to the context, he's also talking about the form of verbs and not just their aspect. At the end of the day, I think he views en as imperfect in John 1:1.
ReplyDeleteHere is what Robertson writes in Word Pictures about Jn 1:1:
Was (ην). Three times in this sentence John uses this imperfect of ειμ to be which conveys no idea of origin for God or for the Logos, simply continuous existence. Quite a different verb (εγενετο, became) appears in verse 14 for the beginning of the Incarnation of the Logos. See the distinction sharply drawn in 8:58 "before Abraham came (γενεσθα) I am" (ειμ, timeless existence).
The copy I'm using has typos, but I think the point is clear.
fair enough, I can admit when I'm wrong and have misquoted someone..
ReplyDeleteexplanation: I interpreted his statement as we could view the en in John 1:1 as an (as he writes it) "aoristic" imperfect. Looking online (recently) others have done the same.
I have my doubts John is trying to convey "timeless existence" as Robertson is trying to make out in Word Pictures - that seems to be out of the range of the word (John 1:10, also ref below) + as Iv said before "the beginning" is referenced by all apostles in every usage as a certain point in the past - never eternity, they use the Greek idiom "into the age of the age" (or the shortened form)for that.
(unless he (Robertson) means non-specified time, but I'm sure he means eternal existence, knowing Robertson in some cases)
Wallace says something similar (I understand it as similar) in GGBTB: "The imperfect is often used to describe an action or state that is in progress in past time from the viewpoint of the speaker."
(pp 540-553 - whole discussion)
In strict terms, like 1 John 5:21, where the action is continuous rather than a snapshot, tense is somewhat misleading. (if you get what I mean)
So then how does the "en" work in John 1:1? (compare John 1:10)
I'm wrong at least 7 times a day, so you're in good company. Seriously, some of these scholars don't make it easy to decipher their meaning, but I agree with you that the timeless existence idea just stretches how John likely used the imperfect.
ReplyDeleteI can agree that the imperfect in John 1:1 is continuous or durative, but I don't think it's timeless or points to eternal existence. That's theological conclusion about the imperfect, not a grammatical distinction.
If one sees enough imperfects while reading Greek, then he or she gets a feel for how the imperfect works. For example, look at how John employs en in the Johannine Prologue itself. Btw, John uses en three times in John 1:1. Does each instance denote timeless existence?
Some will argue that John juxtaposes en with ginomai in the Prologue: I don't have time to assess that claim, but I will just point to examples of en for you to analyze:
John 1:2, 4, 8-10; 1:15; 1:28; 1:30, and there's more.
"Imperfective aspect is the meaning of the present tense, including the so-called imperfect form (augmented present form with secondary endings): the action is conceived of by the language user as being in progress. In other
ReplyDeletewords, its internal structure is seen as unfolding" (Stanley Porter, Idioms, page 21).
Not that I agree with Porter in every respect, but he might have a point about the imperfect and imperfective aspect.
"John uses en three times in John 1:1. Does each instance denote timeless existence?" - I would say no, Origen and Robertson might say so, because its combined with "[the] Beginning"
ReplyDelete(but eternity seems out of the range of the word arkhe.)
"the action is conceived of by the language user as being in progress. In other words, its internal structure is seen as unfolding" - so he means (in this case) from "[the] beginning" forward (not backward)? similar to what Wallace says?
"John juxtaposes en with ginomai" - Robertson makes that claim - However its weak, when you consider that Mark and others call "the beginning" the creation of the "heavens and the earth" (whatever that means)* however the angels were created before "the Beginning" and "Wisdom" is said to also exist before the earth, as she was there for the foundation of it.
(stromata 5,6 sort of proves the Witnesses correct, the parallels between that text (and others, Sirach as another) and Jesus are insane)
Hebrews 1 seems to borrow from Wisdom 7
* as in in Mark's head, "the beginning" is when the heavens and the earth were created. (obviously there are exceptions, but they all point to a specific point in the past.)
I'm going to quote Porter verbatim on the point about what "beginning" possibly means in John 1:1:
ReplyDelete"Just as location in a place may be specified with the
preposition EN, so specification of location in time may also be
indicated.
Jn 1.1: EN ARXHi HN hO LOGOS; (in the beginning was the word), probably the most well-known use of this preposition in the NT where
temporal location is designated."
I had to transliterate the Greek characters since they suffered distortion when copied to this combox.
So it really says nothing about how long the logos had existed?
ReplyDeletesorry I'm not quite understanding
I didn't have time to check every comment that Porter makes about John 1:1 in his "Idioms" book, but the ones I've read so far just stick to the grammar without really inferring theology from tenses, etc.
ReplyDeletePorter believes that Christ (the Logos) is God, so I doubt he thinks that the Word came into existence but he might simply be saying that the imperfect "tense" only tells us so much about the Logos' existence.
I think people often read theology into something that is not meant to be theological. Greek uses hn in numerous contexts that are anything but theology: it's like saying, "There was a man named John." This is just the way one tells a story or predicates the existence of someone.
ReplyDeleteI mean if its past tense also, they would have to put it in the past the past tense, I realise these do not equate to English tenses but from my understanding, there is no other way to write this..
ReplyDeleteThe John who wrote the book of John is writing from his own view point, in 1:1-18 (roughly) is in the distant past.
en arkhe egeneto
1) makes no sense and sounds goofy in English (as I think it does in Greek, but it may work)
and 2) whether one admits it or not, en doesn't imply eternal existence based on Johns usage of the Wisdom/ logos concept as like the Angels (self-evident, to some its not - because theology) they seem to precede the beginning mentions in Gen
In another thread today, I cited John 13:23. John uses en there as well. And you are right that egeneto would make no sense used that way in John 1:1.
ReplyDeleteagain, I know we have conversed about this before, but could this be an example of what Robertson calls an "aoristic imperfect"? simply a snapshot of a point in time, not regarding time or how long the action took?
ReplyDeleteMe and you probably differ on this quite a bit. (probably because I am missing something)
also references to the beginning are vague in the Bible, which beginning do you think Jesus is referring when he says "that one is (has been) sinning from the beginning" (literal translation) - The beginning of Jesus' Ministry? (doubt it) of creation? (possibly)
1) I think you describe the aoristic imperfect accurately, but two things to consider is that it's extremely rare and may possibly be limited to verbs of saying. I guess one could read John 13:23 that way, if we exclude the clause about verbs of saying, but en there just seems like a customary imperfect to me, maybe. Or the imperfect just moves along the narrative (progressive imperfect).
ReplyDeleteIt might be good to consult Wallace on the imperfect: I also like Gildersleeve's discussion.
Dear 'Anonymous',
ReplyDeleteas I can see, you are very interested in the subject of the Trinity, let me recommend some good articles on the subject to your attention, you may read these:
https://shorturl.at/mnIX3
https://docdro.id/iSD7hLH
https://docdro.id/YjyzrLz
https://docdro.id/1UdIzcC
https://docdro.id/jP4OtYz
Just going to post this here as it is related:
ReplyDeleteHonestly didn’t think Ninc would stoop to using AT Robertson’s strategy of citing genitive and dative cases to compare to John 1:1c which aren’t even comparable… NO instance of theos matches 1:1c in ch.1
Ninc knows this but chose to cite those instances anyway…
Also can anyone find any reputable scholar or church father that agrees with nincs theos claim? Because so far I can only find ones who disagree including Origen, Hippolytus, Augustine and Justin martyr
ReplyDeleteAlso the lxx “corrects” in some places “angels” to “men” ( or the other way around, I can’t remember) so the angels being called Elohim has no Bering on NT environment
Phil 3:19 - where the sense is simply what strongs and vines assert
Biblehub commentators all disagree aswell
+ many other places including Philo and writings written a similar time to the NT
Well Ninc where is your evidence for your assertion there is no room for a theos class in the NT?
The JW argument hinges on the translation of "elohim" and "theos." They cite Psalm 8:5 and Hebrews 2:7, interpreting "elohim" as angels. However, contextually, "elohim" in Psalm 8:5 should be understood as "God," reflecting man's creation in God's image (Genesis 1:26-27). The Septuagint (LXX) translated "elohim" as "angels," which Hebrews quotes, but this translation was not meant to be literal or accurate to the Hebrew text. It introduces a new understanding without contradicting the original.
ReplyDeletePsalm 8:5 speaks of man's exalted status, whereas Hebrews 2:7 refers to Christ’s temporary humbling. The original Hebrew "elohim" likely means "God," not angels. Hebrews 2:7 uses "angels" to reflect Christ's humanity, not to equate angels with gods.
Nowhere in the NT are angels referred to as "gods" in a positive, affirming sense. Even when OT verses (e.g., Psalm 8:5) call angels "elohim," the NT does not translate this as "theoi." This is evident in Hebrews 2:7, where "elohim" becomes "angels," indicating a deliberate avoidance of calling angels "gods" in the NT.
The Bible consistently uses "theoi" in a mocking or condemning sense for false gods (e.g., 2 Corinthians 4:4, 2 Thessalonians 2:4). The inspired author of Hebrews uses "aggeloi" (angels) instead of "theoi" to avoid any positive attribution of divinity to created beings.
Christ is distinct from angels, being worshipped by them and identified as God's Son (Hebrews 1:4-5). He is not an angel but the Lord who created everything (Hebrews 1:10-13). Therefore, equating Jesus with angels or considering angels as gods undermines the biblical affirmation of Jesus's unique divinity.
Your arguments fail to recognize the consistent biblical theme that angels are not referred to as "gods" in a positive sense in the thological framework of the NT. The NT avoids attributing divinity to created beings, affirming instead the unique divinity of Jesus Christ.
Psalm 8:5 - The translation of "elohim" here can indeed be interpreted as "God" or "divine beings," but contextually, it refers to human beings' exalted status, not equating them with divine nature.The argument here is that "Elohim" in Psalm 8:5 should be translated as "angels." However, it's important to note that "Elohim" is a term that can refer to God, gods, or divine beings, depending on the context. The Septuagint (LXX), an ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, translates "elohim" as "angels" (ἀγγέλους) in this passage. The New Testament author of Hebrews follows this translation. This does not imply that angels are being called gods in a polytheistic sense; rather, it reflects the flexible usage of the term "Elohim" to denote beings with divine qualities or roles.
ReplyDeleteExodus 7:1 - Here, "god to Pharaoh" metaphorically indicates Moses’ authoritative role over Pharaoh, not literal divinity. This is clearly metaphorical, indicating the authority and power given to Moses by God. It does not imply that Moses is a deity in the same sense as God Himself. This use of "god" highlights the function or role rather than a literal divine nature.
Psalm 82:6 - The term "gods" (elohim) here refers to human judges or rulers who represent God's authority, not implying they are deities. In Psalm 82, God is addressing the judges of Israel, who are called "gods" (elohim) because they represent God's authority in executing justice. The subsequent verses clarify that these judges are mortal and will die like any other human (Psalm 82:7). The term "gods" here is used metaphorically to describe their role, not their nature.
The use of "elohim" to describe humans or angels in the OT is metaphorical and denotes roles of authority and representation, not literal divinity. This is consistent with monotheism, where there is only one true God, and any application of "god" to others is figurative.
The OT texts where creatures are called "gods" are using metaphorical language to describe roles of authority and representation. This usage does not conflict with the monotheistic belief in one true God. In the NT, angels are not called "gods" in a literal, affirmative sense. Instead, terms like "sons of God" or "angels" are used to denote their roles as divine messengers. The context and interpretation provided by the Church Fathers and biblical scholarship reinforce the understanding that these references do not imply henotheism but rather metaphorical descriptions of authority and function under the sovereignty of the one true God.
The critical point remains: John 1:1 refers to "the Word was God" (theos), denoting Jesus' divine nature, not as a lesser or different deity.
The Church Fathers often explained that terms like "gods" used for angels or humans in the Scriptures were honorific and figurative, not literal. They highlighted that such usage was meant to acknowledge the high status or divine commission of these beings rather than equate them with the one true God. They strongly affirmed that such descriptions did not imply polytheism or diminish the core monotheistic belief. Instead, these beings were seen as reflecting God's power or acting on His behalf.
ReplyDeleteFor example, Psalms 82:6, where it says, "I said, 'You are gods,'" was often interpreted as referring to human judges or leaders who were acting as God’s representatives on earth. The term "gods" indicated their role in executing divine justice, not that they were actually deities themselves. Similarly, in John 10:34, Jesus quotes this verse to demonstrate that calling someone "god" in a figurative sense was not blasphemous, thereby defending His claim of being the Son of God.
The Church Fathers emphasized that while these beings could be called "gods" in a secondary, figurative sense, Jesus Christ, the Son, was uniquely divine. His divinity was intrinsic and essential, not merely honorific. This distinction was crucial in maintaining both the unique divinity of Christ and the monotheistic framework.
They stressed the importance of understanding the context and the intended message behind these scriptural terms. The purpose was often to underscore the authority and responsibility given by God rather than to suggest actual divinity.
The Church Fathers rejected any notion of henotheism (belief in one primary god among many). They clarified that references to "gods" in scripture were never meant to introduce a hierarchy of deities but to highlight God’s sovereign appointment of certain beings to specific roles.
The use of grammatical cases in Greek is indeed crucial for understanding the nuances of the text. However, the primary issue in John 1:1c revolves around the anarthrous use of "theos." The lack of the article is significant in Greek syntax and is used to convey a qualitative sense of the noun. This is not about comparing grammatical cases but about understanding the qualitative use of theos in Greek grammar.
ReplyDeleteWhile the LXX does provide a Greek translation that sometimes differs from the Masoretic Text, it reflects Jewish understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures during the Second Temple period. Avoiding to render the word "elohim" as "aggeloi" indicates that they already wanted to weed out these henotheistic implications. The New Testament writers were well-versed in the LXX and often quoted from it, and this was already taken as a fait accompli for them.
Philippians 3:19 states, "Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things." Here, "theos" is used metaphorically to describe what people prioritize or worship. This metaphorical use does not conflict with the qualitative sense of "theos" in John 1:1c. It highlights the diverse usage of "theos" in the NT, supporting the argument that context determines meaning.
The NT consistently affirms monotheism while recognizing the divinity of the Son. Passages such as John 1:1, John 20:28, and Titus 2:13 explicitly refer to Jesus as God (theos) in a qualitative sense, distinguishing Him from the Father but affirming His divinity.
The use of "theos" in reference to beings other than the one true God in the NT is typically metaphorical or illustrative (e.g., "their god is their belly" in Philippians 3:19). The consistent NT teaching is that there is one God, and that Jesus, as the Logos, shares in the divine nature without introducing henotheism.
Thus the application of "theos" to beings other than God in the NT is metaphorical and does not support the existence of a "theos class" in a henotheistic sense.
It is vain to refer to the Philo, for him the Logos is a vague and confusing concept, an emanation, attribute of God, a demiurge, a mediator between God and the world, but not a separate person, not incarnated, not a savior, not Messiah. Philo's and John's Logos are not the same, in fact they only share a name.
ReplyDeleteJohn assumes that his readers were somewhat familiar with Logos; but he could not take the idea of the Christian Word from Jewish theology or Greek philosophy, but received it from divine revelation. The Word was with God, he was most intimately united with the Father in the divine essence, but he was a different person from him. He was God, the Word had a divine essence.
I’ll note I asked for a reputable scholar as a source not your opinion, but I’ll comment quickly - still want an academic source for this
ReplyDelete( I’ll keep pointing this out, your track record of honesty is not good, I have over 100 misleading claims by you at this point)
“The Church Fathers often explained that terms like "gods" used for angels or humans in the Scriptures were honorific and figurative,” - so the change was for another reason than what you claim, I have a good guess..
“Nowhere in the NT are angels referred to as "gods" in a positive, affirming sense.” - as I and you have stated it’s a “role”, doesn’t need to be positive or affirming as that has nothing to do with the equation.. “god” is instrumental
“The Bible consistently uses "theoi" in a mocking or condemning sense for false gods (e.g., 2 Corinthians 4:4, 2 Thessalonians 2:4).” - 2 Corinthians 4:4 poses a problem to this interpretation..
“The term "gods" indicated their role in executing divine justice, not that they were actually deities themselves. Similarly, in John 10:34, Jesus quotes this verse to demonstrate that calling someone "god" in a figurative sense was not blasphemous, thereby defending His claim of being the Son of God.” - thank you finally, that’s what I said months ago .. in slightly different wording hence my comment on John 10 having nothing to do with divinity
“while these beings could be called "gods" in a secondary, figurative sense, Jesus Christ,” - and this applies with equal force to angels… the “avoidance” is likely more clarification unless you can prove otherwise.
“They clarified that references to "gods" in scripture were never meant to introduce a hierarchy of deities but to highlight God’s sovereign appointment of certain beings to specific roles.” - oh so now it’s not a positive sense or negative sense but as I suggested an office/ high position sense… thank you finally… thats what the JW have been saying for decades and others have been saying too
“The purpose was often to underscore the authority and responsibility given by God rather than to suggest actual divinity.“ - exactly - so it’s meant in neither sense as they were never meant to be worshipped or turned away from..
“Avoiding to render the word "elohim" as "aggeloi" indicates that they already wanted to weed out these henotheistic implications.” - how do you explain the other examples then? This is not the only reason why they wouldn’t..
“Philippians 3:19 … Here, "theos" is used metaphorically to describe what people prioritize or worship.”- or what vines say “something one is wholly devoted too” aka it’s that persons “god” I.e something they implicitly worship ( not acknowledging worship as in the flag- but we disagree on this aswell, you get the point )
“This is not about comparing grammatical cases but about understanding the qualitative use of theos in Greek grammar.”- then cite relevant examples not scummy examples a first year Greek student could refute..
All those examples have other reasons to be definite… prepositions for one
Genitives and datives don’t need the article to be definite
You request reputable scholarly sources for the interpretation of "theos" in John 1:1c:
ReplyDeleteDaniel B. Wallace: In his book "Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics," Wallace argues that "theos" in John 1:1c is qualitative, indicating the nature of the Word. He states, "The lack of the article does not mean that 'theos' is indefinite. Instead, it emphasizes the qualitative aspect of the noun" (Wallace, 1996, p. 269).
Bruce M. Metzger: Metzger, a renowned New Testament scholar, explains in his "Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament" that the construction of John 1:1c focuses on the nature of the Word being divine (Metzger, 1994, p. 194).
F. F. Bruce: In "The Gospel of John: Introduction, Exposition, and Notes," Bruce notes that the anarthrous use of "theos" in John 1:1c signifies the Word's divine nature without equating the Word with the Father (Bruce, 1983, p. 31).
You claim that "god" is instrumental and doesn't need to be positive or affirming. The use of "theoi" in the New Testament indeed can be instrumental, but it is context-dependent. The Bible consistently distinguishes between the one true God and other beings referred to as gods in a figurative or negative sense. For example:
2 Corinthians 4:4: "The god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers..." Here, "god" refers to Satan, clearly in a negative sense.
2 Thessalonians 2:4: "...so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God." This refers to the man of lawlessness, an imposter.
Philippians 3:19 indeed uses "theos" metaphorically to describe what people prioritize or worship. Reputable lexicons and commentaries support this:
ReplyDeleteBDAG Lexicon: Defines "theos" in this context as anything that functions as a god in a person's life, meaning something that holds primary importance (BDAG, 2000, p. 450).
Vine's Expository Dictionary: Similarly, Vine's explains that "theos" can denote something or someone that is worshipped or regarded with supreme devotion (Vine, 1996, p. 242).
You claim that the NT avoids calling angels "theos" to clarify their role. Actually the New Testament writers were cautious in their terminology to maintain clear monotheistic doctrine. This caution is evident in their deliberate use of terms to distinguish between the Creator and created beings:
Hebrews 1:4-5: Emphasizes that Jesus, as the Son, is superior to angels and distinct in his divine sonship.
John 20:28: Thomas refers to Jesus as "My Lord and my God," affirming His divinity in a way not applied to any angel or human in the NT.
The interpretation of "theos" in John 1:1c as qualitative is supported by respected scholars like Daniel Wallace, Bruce Metzger, and F.F. Bruce. The New Testament usage of "theos" for beings other than the one true God is always context-dependent and often negative or metaphorical. The understanding of "gods" in Psalm 82 and John 10:34 by Church Fathers like Augustine and Origen aligns with the view that these terms are honorific and figurative, emphasizing roles rather than actual divinity. This distinction upholds the consistent monotheism of the Bible, affirming that there is one God, while Jesus Christ is uniquely divine, distinct from created beings such as angels and humans.
"You request reputable scholarly sources for the interpretation of "theos" in John 1:1c:" - increase misleading claims by 1 -I did not ask for this at all, if you will note my original comment on this thread you will note I asked for a scholarly or academic source for your "theos class" claim. please provide the source I asked for and don't put words in my mouth. If you cannot provide a source I will assume you are making something up..
ReplyDelete"You claim that the NT avoids calling angels "theos" to clarify their role" - never claimed such a thing... read my comment again
"he understanding of "gods" in Psalm 82 and John 10:34 by Church Fathers like Augustine and Origen aligns with the view that these terms are honorific and figurative, emphasizing roles rather than actual divinity" - exactly.. John 10:(??) is not about divinity its regarding something else
"hilippians 3:19 indeed uses "theos" metaphorically to describe what people prioritize or worship. Reputable lexicons and commentaries support this:
BDAG Lexicon: Defines "theos" in this context as anything that functions as a god in a person's life, meaning something that holds primary importance (BDAG, 2000, p. 450).
Vine's Expository Dictionary: Similarly, Vine's explains that "theos" can denote something or someone that is worshipped or regarded with supreme devotion (Vine, 1996, p. 242)." - did I not literally state this?
While I dont agree with this article 100%
ReplyDeleteyour claim about Philos Logos is also misleading (you are now at 102, how high will you go?)
https://nazarenejudaism.com/?page_id=413
And I’ll throw this in aswell: https://brill.com/view/journals/hbth/44/2/article-p141_2.xml?language=en
ReplyDeleteAnd also go and look at the NETs footnotes for nincs divine name claim… they (Ninc) have once again assumed they are right without proving anything and someone much more trust worthy has stated otherwise ( NET is highly trinitarian Ninc - I was looking up a verse and happened to stumble upon a footnote that asserts the opposite to you and presents a more valid reason)
@Anonymous
ReplyDeleteI have already responded to the Smarius paper, it does not address that, nor does it address whether this terminology occurs otherwise in the NT. Read my comments here:
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2022/08/another-god-in-gospel-of-john.html
Ninc - you have proven over 100 seperate times you are not a credible source for information only that your theologically motivated with no regard for actual truth.. In this case I will veto your request and ask you to provide the source I asked for.
ReplyDeleteYour comments about demigods assumes these gods were worshipped or considered false neither of which is true..
@Anonymous
ReplyDeleteCheck this up:
https://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-definition-god-watchtower-JW-henotheism.htm
Credible source - that source is neither credible nor scholarly
ReplyDelete