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 θεὶὸς
[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 θεὶὸς.
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.