Greek: Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος.
While reading a paper on John 1:1 today, I came across the claim that Θεὸς is the subject in John 1:1c and ὁ Λόγος is the predicate since the former noun comes before the latter. I'm here to say the writer is wrong, and he should read some Daniel Wallace or William Mounce.
Similarly, Alexander Smarius writes:
"There is little doubt that ὁ λόγος is the subject in all of its three occurrences in 1:1a–c, so that θεός in the phrase 'and the Word was theos' (1:1c) is a predicate noun.5 From a strictly grammatical viewpoint, this predicate noun can be interpreted in three different ways."
https://brill.com/view/journals/hbth/44/2/article-p141_2.xml#ref_FN000005
Thursday, November 28, 2024
John 1:1c (Subject and Predicate Nouns)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
25 comments:
The claim that θεός is the subject in John 1:1c and ὁ λόγος the predicate is grammatically incorrect and misrepresents standard Greek syntax. In Koine Greek, when a sentence contains a definite noun (with the article) and an anarthrous noun, the definite noun is typically the subject. Here, ὁ λόγος has the article, and θεός does not. This makes ὁ λόγος the subject, and θεός the predicate nominative.
Greek word order often emphasizes the predicate for stylistic or theological reasons. In John 1:1c, θεός precedes ὁ λόγος to stress the divine nature of the Word, not to invert grammatical roles. Linguists and biblical scholars like Daniel Wallace and Alexander Smarius affirm this interpretation. Smarius correctly notes that θεός functions as the predicate nominative describing the Word’s divine nature.
This construction avoids modalism or henotheism. By using an anarthrous θεός, John highlights the qualitative nature of the Word's divinity without equating ὁ λόγος fully with ὁ θεός (the person of God the Father).
Thus, the claim misunderstands Greek grammar. ὁ λόγος is the subject, and θεός is the predicate nominative, emphasizing the qualitative divinity of the Word without denying its distinct personhood from the Father.
A noun as the subject without the article when you have another noun with the article makes little to sense in Greek..
This is not English… the subject can be in almost any position..
This person is either wilfully ignorant or has little idea on Greek
https://x.com/Historic_Arch/status/1860986885394567246
https://aleteia.org/2024/11/27/megiddo-mosaic-earliest-evidence-of-jesus-proclaimed-as-god
Hmm what are the 3 different ways?
Not so fast.
https://youtube.com/shorts/b61wV_UXR5E?si=zgfMvu0Of7YrBKmL
T
it does raise the question why the author did not just add "kai"?
I cannot think of an NT example like this.
unless it was the limited space.
But omissions in Greek are normally self-evident to the reader - such as "other"
or i.e John 4:24 -"estin" is self evident. Its so obvious literally anyone competent in reading Greek could figure out what was meant
https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2018/03/04/the-megiddo-mosaics-again/
@T
The phrase in question reads: “The god-loving Akeptous has offered the table to God Jesus Christ as a memorial.” The critical Greek portion is: Θεῷ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ.
Scholars like Leah Di Segni and others argue that the lack of the conjunction καί (and) between "Θεῷ" and "Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ" implies that "God Jesus Christ" is one continuous title. Larry Hurtado and other textual scholars have pointed out that there appears to be a longer-than-usual space between "Θεῷ" and "Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ," suggesting they were meant to be distinct entities. This could support the translation: "to God, [and as a] memorial for Jesus Christ."
In classical Greek, Θεῷ is in the dative case, meaning "to God," which naturally flows into the subsequent dative Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ ("to Jesus Christ"). Nomina Sacra (the sacred abbreviations ΘΩ, ΙΥ, and ΧΩ with overlines) complicate the interpretation, as these were commonly used in Christian texts to denote divine titles. If the space is purely stylistic, it could signify unity rather than separation. The nomina sacra (sacred abbreviations) used in the inscription—ΘΩ (Theō, “God”), ΙΥ (Iēsou, “Jesus”), and ΧΩ (Christō, “Christ”)—are consistent with early Christian texts that affirm Jesus' divinity. Nomina sacra were used as a reverential shorthand for sacred names, indicating their theological significance. This practice implies a unified conceptualization of the terms.
Inscriptions often omit conjunctions (e.g., καί) when brevity is required, as in mosaics. This makes the absence of καί inconclusive in determining whether "Θεῷ" and "Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ" were meant to refer to one entity or two distinct ones. The wide spacing between the words, however, is atypical, lending weight to the interpretation that the two terms were meant to be understood separately.
While it is true that there appears to be some space between ΘΩ (God) and ΙΥ (Jesus), it is not an established norm in Greek epigraphy to use spacing as a theological separator. Instead, spacing in mosaics was often stylistic or dictated by the need for symmetry. The absence of a connecting "kai" (and) does not disqualify the reading "God Jesus Christ," as similar constructions appear in early Christian writings where no "kai" is inserted due to semantic clarity. While the spacing might suggest separation, it is not definitive. The lack of grammatical markers (e.g., καί) and the use of dative cases for all three terms supports reading them as a unified title.
The space between ΘΩ (God) and ΙΥ (Jesus) may reflect artistic conventions or spacing constraints, not theological intent. Inscriptions often included irregular spacing for aesthetic or technical reasons, especially in mosaics where tesserae placement could dictate alignment. The absence of explicit separators (e.g., "and" or punctuation) suggests an integrated reading. The inscription’s phrasing mirrors the unity of terms in early Christian hymns and prayers, where Jesus is addressed directly as God. The overarching context of early Christian inscriptions frequently emphasizes Jesus’ divine identity. Diverging from this established pattern would require explicit grammatical or contextual indicators, which the mosaic lacks.
In early Christian manuscripts and inscriptions, Jesus is referred to as Θεός (God) in contexts such as John 1:1 and John 20:28 (“My Lord and my God”). The use of ΘΩ in the Megiddo Mosaic aligns with this tradition. Early writers, such as Ignatius of Antioch, used similar formulations: “Our God Jesus Christ”, reinforcing that combining "God" and "Jesus Christ" was a doctrinally accepted norm in the pre-Nicene Church.
Mosaic-making is a labor-intensive process that often prioritizes visual clarity and spatial efficiency over precise theological messaging. The "crammed letters" at the end of the line suggest that the artisan may have miscalculated space rather than intentionally leaving a significant gap. This aligns more with practical human error than theological intention.
The uneven quality of the text (such as the "bunched-up" letters) could indicate that the artisan was not highly skilled or did not carefully pre-plan the spacing. This undermines the argument that the space was deliberately intended to convey a deeper theological message. If the work was rushed or executed by an unskilled craftsman, the irregularities might reflect haste or inexperience rather than purpose.
While Hurtado posits that the spacing might reflect theological significance, there is no clear precedent in similar ancient Christian mosaics or inscriptions for using large spaces to indicate theological distinctions. Without corroborating examples, the claim remains speculative and difficult to substantiate.
The gap could be explained by entirely mundane factors, such as an adjustment for alignment, a misjudgment of remaining space, or the artisan's stylistic choice to break lines unevenly. Such possibilities suggest that interpreting the gap as a deliberate theological statement risks overreading the artifact.
In the context of early Christian mosaics, theological precision was typically expressed through symbols, iconography, or specific terminology, not through subtle textual formatting. This reduces the likelihood that the spacing carries the type of theological weight Hurtado suggests.
Even if the artisan laid the tesserae dry before setting them, minor adjustments during the final setting could lead to uneven spacing. The lack of alignment might simply reflect a "good enough" approach rather than intentional design, as the commenter you referenced notes. The idea that such work might be a "bodge job" reflects a realistic understanding of human imperfections in ancient craftsmanship.
Nics, the onus is on you to prove it's as early as you would like it to be.
The phrase in question reads: “The god-loving Akeptous has offered the table to God Jesus Christ as a memorial.” The critical Greek portion is: Θεῷ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ.
Scholars like Leah Di Segni and others argue that the lack of the conjunction καί (and) between "Θεῷ" and "Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ" implies that "God Jesus Christ" is one continuous title. Larry Hurtado and other textual scholars have pointed out that there appears to be a longer-than-usual space between "Θεῷ" and "Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ," suggesting they were meant to be distinct entities. This could support the translation: "to God, [and as a] memorial for Jesus Christ."
In classical Greek, Θεῷ is in the dative case, meaning "to God," which naturally flows into the subsequent dative Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ ("to Jesus Christ"). Nomina Sacra (the sacred abbreviations ΘΩ, ΙΥ, and ΧΩ with overlines) complicate the interpretation, as these were commonly used in Christian texts to denote divine titles. If the space is purely stylistic, it could signify unity rather than separation. The nomina sacra (sacred abbreviations) used in the inscription—ΘΩ (Theō, “God”), ΙΥ (Iēsou, “Jesus”), and ΧΩ (Christō, “Christ”)—are consistent with early Christian texts that affirm Jesus' divinity. Nomina sacra were used as a reverential shorthand for sacred names, indicating their theological significance. This practice implies a unified conceptualization of the terms.
While it is true that there appears to be some space between ΘΩ (God) and ΙΥ (Jesus), it is not an established norm in Greek epigraphy to use spacing as a theological separator. Instead, spacing in mosaics was often stylistic or dictated by the need for symmetry. The absence of a connecting "kai" (and) does not disqualify the reading "God Jesus Christ," as similar constructions appear in early Christian writings where no "kai" is inserted due to semantic clarity. While the spacing might suggest separation, it is not definitive. The lack of grammatical markers (e.g., καί) and the use of dative cases for all three terms supports reading them as a unified title.
The space between ΘΩ (God) and ΙΥ (Jesus) may reflect artistic conventions or spacing constraints, not theological intent. Inscriptions often included irregular spacing for aesthetic or technical reasons, especially in mosaics where tesserae placement could dictate alignment. The absence of explicit separators (e.g., "and" or punctuation) suggests an integrated reading. The inscription’s phrasing mirrors the unity of terms in early Christian hymns and prayers, where Jesus is addressed directly as God. The overarching context of early Christian inscriptions frequently emphasizes Jesus’ divine identity. Diverging from this established pattern would require explicit grammatical or contextual indicators, which the mosaic lacks.
In early Christian manuscripts and inscriptions, Jesus is referred to as Θεός (God) in contexts such as John 1:1 and John 20:28 (“My Lord and my God”). The use of ΘΩ in the Megiddo Mosaic aligns with this tradition. Early writers, such as Ignatius of Antioch, used similar formulations: “Our God Jesus Christ”, reinforcing that combining "God" and "Jesus Christ" was a doctrinally accepted norm in the pre-Nicene Church.
Duncan I believe I read that is a late 4th century variant at the earliest ( that may be my bad memory)
Late 4th century being known for at least 4 variants I can think of that either Chang exhorts to being God or remove him as part of creation.. ofcourse Ninc would claim the latter are scribal errors, which I find unlikely as my edition of metzgars textual commentary places one in the 6th century at the earliest
"as these were commonly used in Christian texts to denote divine titles." - this is not as true as you would like to make out Ninc.... otherwise we would have to interpret the other 6 the same way.
There is no common practise for nomina sacra, the fact that God, Christ and Holy spirit are written in nomina sacra proves nothing.. as David, Jerusalem and others are also written in the same form some even in the same manuscripts - and is also used in Acts 28:6 of Paul and in 2 corin 4:4 of Satan (in acouple of codex's, One being of the 3rd century (the date may be an error on my part)) - so has no bearing on divine identification. (Why you omit these others despite knowing about them, I am unsure. But it it getting old real fast..)
John20:28 is also a rough one, infact the article cited in the OP raises a few good points... ones you would likely omit... But reflects OT tendencies where BOTH Moses and David are addressed in the First-person as YHWH.
The King even being "worshipped" (or "honored" as I would prefer in this particular context) alongside YHWH
(a construction like The Beast and The image of the beast in revelation)
What you seem to fail understand is Witnesses have no issue with Christ being "addressed" as God (Even Kings were addressed as "God") this is common practise under not only shiliach (Which was still in play at the time of John) But also the messiah was seen as "beyond human" (Because he was not part of the class: sinful humans - He was a sinless human, no other human at that time was sinless, he is not "human" in that sense hense "Last Adam" - this is NOT a difficult notion to understand)
There are MULTIPLE explanations to John 20:28 but you using it as a crutch for your arguments does not help actaul scholarship solve this "mystery" - infact its a nuisance
https://vridar.org/other-authors/roger-parvus-letters-supposedly-written-by-ignatius/
https://www.ratzer-holyland.com/articles/megiddo-the-oldest-church/
One archaeologist asserts an early third century dating that then gets parroted all over the internet, but his proofs are ?????
You argue that nomina sacra has no consistent practice or significance for divine identification because it was applied to various terms like "David," "Jerusalem," "Paul," or even "Satan." This is partially correct but misses a crucial nuance. Nomina sacra were a scribal convention in early Christian texts to indicate reverence for certain words associated with the divine. While it's true that the system included terms like "David" or "Jerusalem" in some manuscripts, the primary and most consistent use was for God (theos), Christ (Christos), Lord (kyrios), and Spirit (pneuma), especially when referring to the Holy Spirit. The inclusion of "David" or "Jerusalem" in nomina sacra does not diminish their theological weight in divine contexts. Instead, it reflects their importance in salvation history, not their divinity. The argument that Satan is written with nomina sacra (e.g., 2 Corinthians 4:4) IN *LATER* MANUSCRIPTS does not undermine the convention’s primary focus. That passage uses "god" (theos) metaphorically, referencing Satan as a usurper or false authority, not as genuinely divine. The nomina sacra here highlight the term’s theological irony. Thus, the consistent use of nomina sacra for God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit still strongly supports their special identification within the divine framework of Christian theology.
Your claim that John 20:28 merely reflects the cultural practice of addressing kings or messianic figures as "God" and that this is consistent with Shaliach (agency) theology is problematic for several reasons. Thomas addresses Jesus directly: “My Lord and my God (ho kyrios mou kai ho theos mou).” The use of both "Lord" and "God" (kyrios and theos) here goes beyond mere honorifics or cultural norms. In the Greek, the definite articles (ho) reinforce the personal and direct nature of the statement, emphasizing that Thomas is acknowledging Jesus as God in the fullest sense. If Thomas merely intended a lesser, metaphorical sense (e.g., a king as a “god”), this would contradict the monotheistic framework of Second Temple Judaism. The explicit identification of Jesus as "my God" places Him on the level of the divine, not as an agent or intermediary.
Jesus affirms Thomas’s declaration without correction: "Because you have seen me, you have believed" (John 20:29). If Thomas’s statement were hyperbolic or improper, Jesus, as a faithful Jewish rabbi, would have corrected it. Instead, He affirms it. This contrasts with instances like Revelation 19:10, where John is corrected for bowing to an angel, demonstrating that worship or divine address must be properly directed.
You argue that Moses and David were addressed in ways similar to John 20:28, implying this weakens its theological significance. However, these examples do not hold up under scrutiny. In passages where Moses speaks on behalf of God, he acts as a prophet and mediator. However, there is no instance where Moses is directly addressed as "my God" (ho theos mou). The closest parallels involve Moses delivering God’s words, not receiving direct divine titles himself. Shaliach theology (agency) does not mean that the agent becomes the principal in an ontological sense. While Moses acted as God’s agent, he was never worshiped or called "God" by anyone.
The claim that kings were "worshipped" alongside YHWH is a misunderstanding. While kings in Israel held an exalted status as God’s anointed (e.g., Psalm 45:6), they were never considered divine beings. Worship (proskynesis) directed at kings was always subordinate to the ultimate worship of YHWH. In contrast, John 20:28 explicitly calls Jesus "God," and this declaration is not framed as agency or metaphor.
You claim that Witnesses have "no issue" with Christ being addressed as God because kings and messianic figures were sometimes addressed as such. However this argument collapses under the weight of contextual clarity. John 20:28 occurs post-resurrection, in the climactic moment where Thomas recognizes Jesus's true identity. The Gospel of John builds its narrative around Jesus’s divine status (e.g., John 1:1, 1:14, 5:18, 10:30). Unlike kings or agents, Jesus is consistently identified with divine prerogatives (e.g., forgiving sins, calming storms, receiving worship) throughout the Gospels.
You claim that using John 20:28 as evidence for Jesus’s divinity is a "nuisance" to scholarship because it leaves the matter unresolved. On the contrary, scholarship overwhelmingly recognizes John 20:28 as a climactic declaration of Jesus’s divinity. While debates about interpretation persist, the mainstream consensus views it as affirming Christ's divine nature, consistent with John’s overarching Christology. The supposed "multiple explanations" for the passage do not weaken its theological import. Instead, they highlight how opponents of Christ’s divinity must work to dilute its clear message.
just one point: conveniently it is written in Codex Sin - A 4th century manuscript...
see this reference I got when doing research: https://archive.org/details/manuscript-society-and-belief-in/page/n29/mode/2up
" Unlike kings or agents, Jesus is consistently identified with divine prerogatives (e.g., forgiving sins, calming storms, receiving worship) throughout the Gospels." - try looking in the OT for examples of other humans doing similar things... Christ is explicitly said to do these things because of God - so are these other humans..
Humans also receive worship in the OT - you not seen my debate on this very blog with "FR"? - Who also couldn't admit I was right... There is a parallel in Rev..
Kings were honoured as if they were God - Gods divine representative, an ancient King was even worshipped as if he was (His name is in Hebrew or Egyptian so I will reference it later. When I can be bothered - I have more important things to attend too)
So was Moses (Ex) and David (Chron) and Solomon (Ps)
"Shaliach theology (agency) does not mean that the agent becomes the principal in an ontological sense. While Moses acted as God’s agent, he was never worshiped or called "God" by anyone." - your correct, its not true of Moses that he was "Worshipped" he was addressed as God in the first person in Deut
So was the Angel in Judges 6 - Where he is mistaken for being "God"
"That passage uses "god" (theos) metaphorically, referencing Satan as a usurper or false authority, not as genuinely divine. " - or a "god" is a ruler or Judge... a functional role... doesn't matter the sense.. the point: Others can be called "gods"
There is no hint Paul means what you claim - it more likely means "Ruler"
"Divine" the trinitarian interpretation or the traditional meaning? I use it in the traditional meaning and I would prefer you do the same for sake of clarity (& me not losing braincells) and continue the flawed church father pattern of using "essense" when referring to the "Godhead"
Too me "Divinity" means a spirit.. so an angel or anything from heaven.. (Same as it means for the Witnesses, who don't deny Jesus lived before the world)
Refutation to Isa 44:24 (partial)
Tertullian's interpretation of Isa44:24:
when He Himself makes this declaration, He denies not the Son, but says that there is no other God; and the Son is not different from the Father. Indeed, if you only look carefully at the contexts which follow such statements as this, you will find that they nearly always have distinct reference to the makers of idols and the worshippers thereof, with a view to the multitude of false gods being expelled by the unity of the Godhead, which nevertheless has a Son; and inasmuch as this Son is undivided and inseparable from the Father, so is He to be reckoned as being in the Father, even when He is not named. The fact is, if He had named Him expressly, He would have separated Him, saying in so many words: “Beside me there is none else, except my Son.” In short He would have made His Son actually another, after excepting Him from others. Suppose the sun to say, “I am the Sun, and there is none other besides me, except my ray,” would you not have remarked how useless was such a statement, as if the ray were not itself reckoned in the sun? He says, then, that there is no God besides Himself in respect of the idolatry both of the Gentiles as well as of Israel; nay, even on account of our heretics also, who fabricate idols with their words, just as the heathen do with their hands; that is to say, they make another God and another Christ.
Now lets invoke our basic reading skills:
"when He Himself makes this declaration, He denies not the Son" - "He" likely means the father
". Indeed, if you only look carefully at the contexts which follow such statements as this, you will find that they nearly always have distinct reference to the makers of idols and the worshippers thereof, with a view to the multitude of false gods being expelled by the unity of the Godhead" - basic reading skills, Where does Tettulian mention the omission of "angels"? or are they included in the false Gods?
basic reading skills... something theologically motivated Ninc doesnt have.
2 words: Quote. Miner.
Educate yourself Ninc read these:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking
-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quoting_out_of_context#:~:text=Quoting%20out%20of%20context%20(sometimes,it%20to%20be%20non%2Dessential.
In the very same writing Ninc quotes - Tetullian says
"There was therefore One who caused God to be not alone, except “alone” from all other gods." - "except all other gods" Like in the other 2 previously cited examples of "alone".... RIP Nincsnevem
It was The Father ALONE who created through the Son...
(sorry Edgar, couldn't resist - Ninc has just been exposed as being no better than the religious people who he claims do the same thing)
@Anonymous
While it is true that humans in the OT sometimes appear to perform actions that could be considered "divine," such as acting as judges (Ps. 82:6) or prophets, these actions are always explicitly under God's delegation and authority. These humans never act independently of God or claim divine prerogatives for themselves in the way Jesus does. While priests offered sacrifices for atonement, only God forgave sins directly (Isa. 43:25). In Mk 2:5–7, Jesus forgives sins directly and independently, leading the scribes to accuse Him of blasphemy, saying, "Who can forgive sins but God alone?" Jesus’ ability to forgive sins, combined with His statement that "the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins" (Mk 2:10), demonstrates His divine authority. When humans (e.g., angels or prophets) in Scripture are mistakenly worshiped, they invariably reject it (e.g., Rev. 22:8–9, where the angel tells John to "worship God"). By contrast, Jesus consistently accepts worship (e.g., Matt. 14:33, John 20:28) without rebuke, affirming His divine status. The act of commanding nature, such as calming the storm (Mk 4:39), is attributed only to God in the OT (Ps. 89:9, Ps. 107:29). Unlike Moses, who prayed to God for miracles, Jesus directly commands the winds and the waves, which the disciples recognize as an act of divine authority.
While Jesus performed miracles as part of His earthly ministry, His actions consistently demonstrated His divine nature. Unlike OT prophets who called upon God for miracles, Jesus acted with inherent authority. For example in Mk 2:5–12 Jesus forgives the man’s sins before healing him, an act reserved for God alone. The scribes recognize this, accusing Him of blasphemy. Jesus receives worship post-resurrection (Matt. 28:9, John 20:28). In Rev. 5:13–14, He is worshiped alongside the Father, receiving equal praise, which would be blasphemous if He were not God.
While Moses is described as "like a god" to Pharaoh (Exodus 7:1), this is a metaphorical use, signifying Moses as God’s representative. It does not imply ontological divinity. Similarly, the angel in Judges 6:11–24, mistaken for God, clarifies his identity, and the context indicates he acts as a messenger, not as God Himself. Unlike Moses, Jesus explicitly claims divine identity. In John 8:58, He says, "Before Abraham was, I AM," invoking the divine name (Exodus 3:14). The Jews understood this as a claim to divinity, which is why they sought to stone Him for blasphemy (John 8:59). Moses never made such a claim.
In Ps. 82:6, rulers are metaphorically referred to as "gods" (Hebrew: elohim) because of their role as representatives of God’s authority. However, this is far removed from the way Jesus is identified in the NT. In John 10:34–36, Jesus references Ps. 82 to argue that if human judges can be called "gods" in a limited, metaphorical sense, His claim to be the "Son of God" (and by implication, God Himself) is even more legitimate. His argument hinges on His unique relationship with the Father and His divine works, such as granting eternal life (John 10:28)—a prerogative that no mere human or judge possesses.
(1/2)
(2/2)
Isa. 44:24 emphatically states, "I am the Lord, who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself." The Hebrew words "alone" (bad) and "by myself" (me’itti) leave no room for anyone—whether false gods, angels, or created beings—to participate in creation. The Hebrew text of Isa. 44:24 emphasizes God’s absolutely exclusive role in creation with the words "alone" (levadí) and "by myself" (mē’ittí). These terms categorically exclude the possibility of any secondary agent, whether divine, angelic, or otherwise. The text stresses that Jehovah alone, unaided, created the heavens and the earth. This directly contradicts the JW teaching that Jesus (as Michael) acted as a secondary tool or agent in creation. The NT directly attributes creation to Jesus (John 1:3, Col. 1:16, Hebrews 1:10), demonstrating that He is not a created being but fully God. If Jesus were merely an intermediary or agent, Isa. 44:24 would be contradicted, as it explicitly denies any assistance in creation. Tertullian explicitly argues that the Son’s role in creation is not as a subordinate agent but as God Himself. He states that the Son is included in the Father’s creative work because they are one in essence: “He stretched out the heavens alone, but alone with His Son, even as He is one with His Son” (Against Praxeas, Chapter 19).
Tertullian affirms the Son’s role in creation while maintaining the unity of the Godhead. He explicitly rejects the idea that the Son is a separate or subordinate being. Instead, he states that the Son is “undivided and inseparable from the Father” and participates in creation as God’s Wisdom and Word. Tertullian compares the Father and the Son to the sun and its ray, emphasizing their unity. The ray is not separate from the sun but is its emanation, just as the Son is eternally begotten of the Father. This analogy underscores the co-equality and co-eternity of the Son with the Father. Tertullian, often regarded as one of the early developers of Trinitarian theology, consistently affirmed that the Son is fully God, co-eternal and co-equal with the Father. For example, in his work Against Praxeas, he states: "All things were made by the Son, and without Him was nothing made." This aligns with John 1:3, which attributes all creation to the Logos (the Word). Tertullian saw the Son not as a secondary or subordinate creator, but as co-equal with the Father, working in perfect unity. Any claim that Tertullian’s writings suggest a lesser, secondary creator is a misrepresentation of his theology.
Tertullian’s writings, when read in context, support the orthodox Christian understanding of Christ as co-equal and co-eternal with the Father, participating in creation as God, not as a secondary agent. Isa. 44:24, coupled with NT affirmations of Christ’s role in creation, decisively refutes the JW interpretation. Their view imposes an artificial dichotomy between Jehovah and Jesus, undermining the consistent biblical teaching of God’s unity and the full divinity of the Son.
Post a Comment