01 May 2017

On John 1:1c “the Word was God” – What it truly means?



Is Jesus Christ called God
in John 1:1?
An in-depth discussion of the third clause of John 1:1
“The Word was God”



THE proponents of the Christ-is-God theology so confidenty affirm that the verse John 1:1 (specially the third clause) expressly supports their belief that one is led to think that this verse explicitly calls Jesus Christ “God.” However, the first verse of The Gospel According to John states:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (John 1:1).

The Greek text of John 1:1 states:

’ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.
En arche en o logos, kai o logos en pros ton theon, kai theos en o logos.

In this and in other Greek versions of the Bible, we do not find the name “Jesus Christ” in the first verse of the Fourth Gospel. Also, none of the Bible’s English translation, strictly so called, could be shown to contain the name of Jesus Christ in that verse.

[Note: The Living Bible renders this verse: “Before anything else existed, there was Christ, with God. He has always been alive and is himself God.” But strictly speaking, the Living Bible is a paraphrase. However, its publishers were honest enough to explain in the footnote that the name “Christ” which they insinuated into the verse, is “literally” the equivalent of the term “the Word.” (The Living Bible, special edition, Great Britain: Tyndale House Publishers, 1971)]

Thus, the Greek text, the Greek versions of the Bible, and the English translations of the Bible, strictly so called, do not contain the name of Jesus Christ in the first verse of the Fourth Gospel, the Gospel According to John.

However, the proponents of the belief in the deity of Christ still so confidently believe that this verse (specially the third clause which says “the Word was God”) expressly supports their belief. Hence, let us examine the interpretations and text itself of the third clause of John 1:1 to determine whether or not they are justified in asserting that Jesus Christ is called God in this verse.


WE MUST EMPLOY LOGICAL ANALYSIS “TO DETERMINED
WHAT PROMPTED JOHN’S FAIRLY UNUSUAL SYNTAX”

The English translation “and the Word was God” comes from the Greek “kai theos en o logos.” Professor Millard J. Erickson, author of many boks in Christian theology, says that we must employ logical analysis “to determined what prompted John’s fairly unusual syntax” (Erickson, p. 460).

Note that in the Greek text, the term “theos” (God) comes before the subject of the clause, “o logos” (the Word): καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (kai theos en o logos/and the Word was God). The key to learn what John might mean is to determine how John used the simple copula (the verb “ἦν”) in θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (the Word WAS God) – to determine the copular relationship of “theos” (God) and “o logos” (the Word).

Erickson cites at least three possible meanings of the verb “ἦν” (“was”) in New Testament Greek in which John wrote to determine what John might mean by the third clause of John 1:1:

“In an Indo-European language like New Testament Greek, there are at least three usages of the simple copula. One is the ‘is’ of conclusion, where the subject is said to be a member of a class. One is the ‘is’ of of predication or of attribution, where a particular quality is predicated of the subject by use of an adjective. The final use is the ‘is’ of identity, where the subject is equivalent with the predicate. This is, in the terminology of logic, a double A-type proposition where ‘All X is Y’ and ‘All Y is X.’ Such propositions are invertible: in other words, there really is no subject and predicate, only nouns in the first and second position.” (Erickson, p. 460)


WHY JOHN WOULD NEVER MEANT IN HIS WRITING
THAT “THE WORD IS GOD HIMSELF” WHEN HE SAID
“THE WORD WAS GOD”

Interestingly, “‘is’ of conclusion” and “‘is’ of identity” are how the proponents of Christ-is-God theoogy interpret the clause “the Word was God” to prove their belief that Jesus Christ is God. For instance, Bruce A. Demarest, in his book says that in this verse:

“John stresses the Logos’ eternal identity with God: ‘and the Word was God’. John wants us to know that the Word was not merely God’s eternal companion; He was in truth God Himself.” (Demarest, p. 25)

Demarest interprets the clause on the basis of his understanding that the copular relationship between the “logos” (Word) and “theos” (God) is that of identification. He interpret the verb “en” (was) as “’is’ of identification.” This is also how many people interpret the clause “the Word was God” which led them to believe that this clause proves that Jesus Christ is  “God Himself.”

However, the interpretation that identifies the Word with God is indeed very difficult to defend, because the preceeding clause states that ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν (“the Word was with God”). If it is true that the Word is God Himself (as their interpretation of the clause “the Word was God”), then there must be two Gods, because John 1:1 also said that “the Word was with God” – one “God” (the Word) who is with another God (the God who the Word was with). This is unacceptable with monotheistic people to whom John was writing. John would never contradict what he wrote in John 17:3:

“And this is the real and eternal life: THAT THEY KNOW YOU, THE ONE AND ONLY TRUE GOD, And Jesus Christ, whom you sent.” (John 17:3 The Message, emphasis ours)

Thus, John would never meant in his writing that “the Word is God Himself” when he said “the Word was God” because he will not contradict himself by saying in one part of his writing that “the Word is God Himself” and writing in another that “the Word was with God.” Also, John would never contradict what he wrote that the Father of Jesus Christ is the one and only true God. 


WHY THE CLAUSE “THE WORD WAS GOD” WOULD NEVER
REFERS TO THE “DIVINE RELATIONSHIP  OF THE TRINITY”

To avoid the difficulty of the “simple copula of identification,” other proponents of Christ-is-God theology assert that “there is a Divine relationship between the ‘Word’ and ‘God’ without absolute identification.” Says James M. Pratt in his booklet The Deity of Jesus of Nazareth:

“The ‘Word’ (Gk. logos)’was God’. John both ifentifies the Word as God as well as distinguishes Him from God. In other words, there is a Divine relationship between the ‘Word’ and ‘God’ without absolute identification. That is, while the Word is Deity. He is not the Father. For John, God is a larger entity than God the Father.” (Pratt, pp. 48-49)

Pratt’s interpretation of “was” in the clause “the Word was God” conforms to “simple copula of conclusion” rather than “simple copula of identification.” For him, the Word was God in the sense that the Word is a member of a class of being known as God. Neither the Word alone God nor is the Father alone God. He said, “God is a larger entity than God the Father.” Pratt’s interpretation can be summarized in the words of Professor Murray J. Harris:

“Like the Father, and equally with him, the Logos may be included within the category of Deity as a partaker in the divine essence.” (Harris, p. 67)

In other words, the reason why there is no absolute identfication between the Word and the Father, only divine relationship, is they are both parts of a larger entity, God, where one is God the Father and the other is God the Son. This is how trinitarians interpret the third clause of John 1:1 (“the Word was God”). However,  even those scholars who uphold the trinity doctrine admit that the absence of any reference to the so-called God the Holy Spirit in the verse, is a gaping hole in that argument. Says Professor Harris:

“…the articular θεὸς [theos] could not refer to the divine essence (‘the Word was with the divine nature’ is nonsensical) or to the trinitarian God (since ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν [en pros ton theon] is predicated  of the Logos-Son and the Spirit is not mentioned or alluded to elsewhere in the Prologue).” (Harris, p. 55)

This interpretation of John 1:1 that it shows divine relation between the Father and the Word,  that they are both parts of a larger entity, God, where one is God the Father and the other is God the Son,
is also very difficult to defend because John would never conforms with the idea that God the Father is only a part of a larger entity, God.

John wrote Jesus’ statement giving distinction between Jesus and the Father like what is written in John 14:28:

“You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, FOR THE FATHER IS GREATER THAN I.” (John 14:28 NIV, emphasis mine)

John also wrote Jesus’ statement giving distinction between Jesus and God:

“I AM A MAN who has told you the truth which I HEARD FROM GOD, but you are trying to kill me. Abraham did nothing like that.” (John 8:40-41 NCV, emphasis mine)

“If anyone chooses to do God's will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own.” (John 7:17 NIV)

But John never made a distinction between God and the Father, because he wrote Jesus’ statement that identified the Father as the one and only trie God:

“Jesus said these things. Then, raising his eyes in prayer, he said: Father, it's time…
“And this is the real and eternal life: THAT THEY KNOW YOU, THE ONE AND ONLY TRUE GOD, And Jesus Christ, whom you sent.” (John 17:1 and 3 The Message, emphasis ours)

In fact, nowhere in the entire book of the Gospel According to John that John ever make a distinction between God and the Father let alone hint that there is “a larger entity” than God the Father. This statement wrote by Apostle Paul refutes the trinitarian belief that there is “a larger entity” than God the Father:

“One God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all.” (Ephesians 4:6 RSV)

Therefore, the assertion that there is a larger entity than God the Father is without biblical basis. How can there be a larger entity than the Creator of all things Himself? Says Apostle Paul:

“Yet there is for us only one God, the Father, who is the Creator of all things and for whom we live; and there is only one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things were created and through whom we live.” (I Corinthians 8:6 TEV)

Thus, the weakness of interpreting the trinity in John 1:1c is this interpretation presuposes more than what the verse actually states. Nowhere in the verse, nor in the entire book for that matter, does John ever make a distinction between God and the Father let alone hint that there is “a larger entity” than God the Father. Basing such an interpretation  of John 1:1 on such presuppositions would be an eisegetical argument, dependent ultimately on circular reasoning. Existence of the Trinity is first assumed in order to interpret the verse, and then the verse is used in order to defend the doctrine of the Trinity. For this reason alone, we can dismiss a trinitarian interpretation as unscriptural.


WHAT DOES JOHN MEAN WHEN HE SAID
 THAT “THE WORD WAS GOD”?

Professor Bruce Vowter, a Catholic biblical scholar and a trinitarian, on his commentray on “The Gospel According to John” agrees with the “Simple copula of predication”:

“Here ‘God’ without the article is oredicative. The Word is divine, but he is not all of divinity, for he has already been distinguished from another divine person.” (Vowler, p. 422)

This trinitarian holds that “’God’ without the article is predicative.” The word “theos” is mentioned in the last two clauses of John 1:1. But, please take note the differences:

“En arche en o logos, kai o logos en pros TON THEON, kai THEOS en o logos.”

The second clause mentioned the word “theos” but with definite article “ton” (“the”), but take note that in the third clause, the word “theos” is mentioned without definite article “kai THEOS en o logos.” However, the word “logos” is mentioned in all the three clauses, and all mention of “logos” there is a definite article before it (“o logos”). Because of this, Vowler concluded “Here ‘God’ without the article is oredicative.” Remember what Erickson said about the “simple copula of predication”?

“…One is the ‘is’ of of predication or of attribution, where a particular quality is predicated of the subject by use of an adjective. The final use is the ‘is’ of identity, where the subject is equivalent with the predicate. This is, in the terminology of logic, a double A-type proposition where ‘All X is Y’ and ‘All Y is X.’ Such propositions are invertible: in other words, there really is no subject and predicate, only nouns in the first and second position.” (Erickson, p. 460)

To be classified as “simple copula of identification” or “simple copula of conclusion”, Erickson said, “there really is no subject and predicate, only nouns in the first and second position.” But, in the third clause of John 1:1, the absence of a definite article confirms that the term theos (God)  function not as a noun, but as predicate, and the term o logos (the Word) is the subject. Because of this reason we can dismiss the use of the simple copula (verb “en”) of the third clause of John 1:1 as “is of identification” and “is of conclusion.” Thus, the Word is not God Himself, and not a part of a larger entity called “God.” 

Those who interpret this (“kai theos en o logos” - “and the Word was God”) to mean that Jesus Christ is God accuse those who hold the opposite view of making so much of the omission of the definite article “o”  (Greek for “the”) before theos (Greek for “God”). The implication of such criticism is that the omission of “o” before “theos” is not that important.

However, those critics easilly dismiss the importance of the article before “theos” would not only have to answer why the article is “omitted,” but also face those thoughtful and sincere trinitarian scholars who, although not completely certain why the article was “omitted,” cannot deny the importance of this “omission.” According to the admission of Professor Harris, a trinitarian, the absence of the article before the term theos: 

“…show[s] that the statement ‘the Word was God’ is not convertible position. John thereby denies that “God was the Word.” (Harris, p. 63)

Had there been an article with both nouns, the proposition would have been true in both directions (“the Word was God”; “God was the Word”). But John did not say that. With the absence of a definite article, “the statement ‘the Word was God’ is not convertible position.” Indeed, JOHN DENIES THAT “GOD WAS THE WORD.”

It is like the statement “Time is Gold.” But, surely it is not in convertible position, as “Time is Gold”; “Gold is Time.” Indeed, “Time is Gold” but “Gold is not Time.” THUS, WITH THE ABSENCE OF A DEFINITE ARTICLE, “THE WORD WAS GOD” BUT “GOD IS NOT THE WORD.” 

Without the definite article, theos (God) is predicative and has the significance of an adjective describing the characteristic of the logos (Word). As Vowler said, “Here ‘God’ without the article is oredicative. The Word is divine…” Thus, the reason why some Bible scholars and translators translated John 1:1 as:

John 1:1 Goodspeed
“…and the Word was divine.”

John 1:1 Moffatt
“…the Logos was divine.”

In the statement “the Word was God”, the term theos (God) is not used as the subject, but as predicate, an adjecive. John used the term theos (God) to described the characteristic of the logos (Word). So, why does the text say θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (the Word was God)?

“For no word from God shall be void of power.” (Luke 1:37 ASV)

Like God eho is almighty or all-powerful (Gen. 35:11), no word of God is without power.


BELIEVERS IN THE DEITY OF CHRIST WRESTED THE
VERSE AND TRIED TO TWIST IT TO FORCE OUT
THE MEANING THAT THEY WANTED IT TO YIELD

How do the believers in the deity of Christ explain the absence of a definite article before the term theos? The proponents of the belief that Christ is God wrested with the verse and tried to twist it around to force out the meaning that they wanted it to yield. Here is some example:

“Why, then, is θεὸς [theos] anarthrousin John 1:1c? Although it is inappropriate to speak of John’s omission of the article, one may justifiably speak of his purpose in writing θεὸς [theos]rather than, say, ὸ θεὸς [ho theos] or θεὸς [ho theios] or θεὸv [theon].. Having distinguished the Logos from the Father (τὸν θεόν [ton theon], 1:1b) John wished to point to their commonality, not merely in purpose but in being (θεὸς [theos]). Lke the Father, and equally with him, the Logos may be included within the category of deityas a partaker of divine essene. If, then, a singlereason is to be given for the anarthrous state of θεὸς [theos], it is that this noun is qualitative, emphasizing nature rather than personal identity. In an incidental manner, this anarthous θεὸς [theos] also confirms that the articular λόγος is the subject of the clause and excludes the inferencethat the Word exhausts the category of Deity or that the Son was the Father.” (Harris, p.67)

So far, we can see how complicated and involved are the interpretations given to John 1:1c by the proponents of the deity of Christ. They made their interpretations more complicated believing that they can lure the innocents to believe that their interpretations answer the difficulty given by John’s omission of the article ὸ before the term θεὸς. But, how much complicated their interpretations are, still these are only their own interpretations. The fact remains that the absence of the article ὸ before the term θεὸς shows that this is a predicate, and articular λόγος is the subject, thus, it shows that the statement ‘the Word was God’ is not convertible position. John thereby denies that “God was the Word. Without the definite article, theos (God) is predicative and has the significance of an adjective describing the characteristic of the logos (Word).

CONCLUSION

We must employ logical analysis and consult the truth written in the Bible, and not to resort to opinions or interpretations “to determined what prompted John’s fairly unusual syntax.

The English translation “and the Word was God” comes from the Greek “kai theos en o logos.” Note that in the Greek text, the term “theos” (God) comes before the subject of the clause, “o logos” (the Word). Thus, the key to learn what John might mean is to determine how John used the simple copula (the verb ἦν”) in θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (the Word WAS God) – to determine the copular relationship of theos” (God) and “o logos” (the Word).

At least three possible meanings of the verb “ἦν” (“was”) in New Testament Greek in which John wrote to determine what John might mean by the third clause of John 1:1: (1) “is of identification”; (2) “is of conclusion”; and (3) “is of predication.”

If the use of the term “en” (was) in the clause “theos EN o logos” (“the Word WAS God”) is “simple copula of identification” – John would mean “the Word is God Himself”; If it’s “simple copula of conclusion” – John would mean “the Word is a part of a larger entity called ‘God’”; But if it’s “simple copula of predication” – the term theos (God) is a predicate, thus, John used the term theos (God) to described the characteristic of the logos (Word).

However, To be classified as “simple copula of identification” or “simple copula of conclusion,” there really is no subject and predicate, only nouns in the first and second position. But, in the third clause of John 1:1, the word “theos” is mentioned without definite article – “kai THEOS en o logos.” The absence of the definite article before the term “theos” proves:

(1) the term theos (God)  function not as a noun, but as predicate, and the term o logos (Word) is the subject;

(2) because the term theos (God)  function not as a noun, but as predicate, we can dismiss the use of the simple copula (verb “en”) of the third clause of John 1:1 as “is of identification” and “is of conclusion.” Thus, the Word is not God Himself, and not a part of a larger entity called “God”; 

(3) it shows that the statement ‘the Word was God’ is not convertible position, John thereby denies that “God was the Word.” Thus, with the absence of a definite article, “the Word was God,” but “God is not the Word.”

(4) Without the definite article, theos (God) is predicative and has the significance of an adjective describing the characteristic of the logos (Word) – the “Word was divine” (John 1:1 Goodspeed).

THEREFORE, JESUS CHRIST IS NEVER CALLED GOD IN JOHN 1:1.

_________________________________
References:

(1) Millard J. Erickson.The Word became Flesh. Grand Rapid, Michigan: Baker Book house, 1991.
(2) Bruce A. Demarest. Jesus Christ: the God Man. Wheaton, Illinois: Victor Books, 1978.
(3)  murray J. Harris. Jesus is God: The New Testameant use of Theos in Reference to Jesus. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1992.
(4) james M. Pratt. The Deity of Jesus of Naxareth. 1988.
(5) Bruce Vowter. The Gospel According to John: The Jerome Biblical Commentary. New Jersy: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1968.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Know why more and more people worldwide convert to Iglesia Ni Cristo (Church Of Christ). Learn more about this Church and find out what makes it unique.

Learn More About Iglesia Ni Cristo (Church Of Christ)