oldhermit
Member
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2018
- Messages
- 90
Ivar, since you refused to respond to my last post regarding John 1:1, I am going to provide the following information for your consideration. You post a lot of scripture but seem to have no understanding of what those scriptures teach. Please consider the following critical examination of the Greek in John 1:1.
These arguments do not originate with me. I have them from a professor of New Testament Greek whose name I never knew. I have taken the liberty to rework some of the arguments for easier reading and understanding. I have also added some of my own comments and observations.
εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος
There are a couple things you need to know about Greek syntax in order to understand what John is saying in this verse. First, Koine Greek normally drops the article in a prepositional phrase. The absence of the article in a prepositional phrase is normal and doesn't mean anything. It is the INCLUSION of the article in a prepositional phrase that is unusual and thus means something.
The prepositional phrase "εν αρχη" doesn't contain an article, but is still properly translated "in the beginning." The prepositional phrase "προς τον θεον," however, does include the article (τον). Since it would have been grammatically proper not to include it, then the INCLSION of the article here means something. In general, the inclusion of an article in Greek when it is not expected means you are being specific. In this instance, John is being specific about a particular individual who is God. In order to fully understand how that effects this verse, we need to go to the last clause in the verse. To understand the implications of the last clause, you need to understand Greek syntax. First, Greek distinguishes the role a noun plays in a sentence by changing the case. In general, if the noun is the subject, it is in the nominative case. If it is the direct object, it is in the accusative case. However, there is a strange class of verbs that do not take a direct object, instead, they take a predicate. There are three verbs that do this in Koine Greek. This means that you have two nouns that are the same case (nominative), where one is the subject, and one is the predicate. So if both are in the same case, how do you know which is the subject, and which is the predicate?
Here are the rules: Notice, I said these are rules. You can't ignore them, you can't change them, you can't remove them, and you can't add to them!
1. If both nouns have the article attached, then the first is the subject, the second is the predicate.
2. If NEITHER noun has the article attached, then the first is the subject, the second is the predicate.
3. If one has an article, but the other does not, then the one WITH the article is the subject, and the one without the article is the predicate.
So in the phrase "και θεος ην ο λογος", we see that λογος has an article (o) and θεος does not. Thus, o λογος is the subject, while θεος is the predicate.
When translated into English, because λογος is the subject, we have to put it first. English has syntactical rules that must be followed as well. So, this is properly translated "And the word was God."
As I said in the previous post, there are three things this could mean, depending on the construction: Now pay attention because it is critical that this be understood.
a. That the Word was a LESSER god than the Father who is the τον θεον (the God) in the previous clause. It could mean
b. That the Word was the father.
c. That the Word was fully God, but was NOT the Father.
If John had written the clause: και ο λογος ην θεος, it would mean "the word was 'A' god." That is, the word was a LESSER god than the father. The reason is that since λογος is the subject and appears first, there is no grammatical reason to leave the article off of θεος, thus the absence of the article means something (since even if we gave it the article, it would STILL be the predicate). Therefore, the absence of the article would mean "A" god. In other words, since the inclusion of the article would not change the grammatical function of θεος, the exclusion of the article must therefore change the MEANING of θεος.
The absence of the article in a position where the inclusion of the article would NOT change the word's grammatical function would tell us there is a difference in specificity: the λογος is not the same individual as the Father.
Further, if it does not have an article, the position of θεος at the end of the sentence would tell us there is a difference in emphasis (θεος is being “de-emphasized”): λογος is less of a god than the Father. Thus, "και ο λογος ην θεος" could ONLY mean "the Word was a god." BUT, John did NOT use this construction. If John had written the clause: και ο λογος ην ο θεος, it would mean "the word was THE God." That is, the word was exactly the same person as the Father. Meaning there is only one person, not two, and there would then be no trinity. The Father and the Son would then be nothing more than manifestations of the same God. They would not be separate individuals. It would mean here is one God who simply appears at times in different forms. This would then lend support to the monotheist argument. The inclusion of the article with θεος would make it specific: the λογος was exactly the same individual as the Father (the exact same θεος just mentioned in the previous clause). Since both nouns have the article, θεος is grammatically locked into occurring after λογος. If it were moved in front of λογος, it would change its grammatical function, and become the subject. Thus, in this construction, the position of θεος would not mean anything. It MUST appear there. Thus, the clause "και ο λογος ην ο θεος" can only mean "Jesus was THE God (the exact same individual as the Father)." BUT, John did NOT use this construction.
By writing it: και θεος ην ο λογος, John does two critical and deliberate things. First, he leaves the article off of θεος, thus indicating that word is NOT the same individual as the father. Second, he places θεος to the front of the clause which places extra emphasis on that word. By doing that, John makes it clear by the increase in emphasis, that the absence of the article does NOT mean "lesser." Since the absence of the article does not mean "a lesser god," it leaves us with only one choice as to what is meant: Not exactly the same individual as the "τον θεον" of the second clause, but every bit as much GOD as the "τον θεον" of the second clause. Thus, the absence of the article tells us that the θεος of the third clause is NOT the same individual as the τον θεον of the second clause. The position tells us that the absence of the article does NOT mean "lesser." By placing θεος in a position of emphasis, John is doing the equivalent of bolding it, underlining it, and adding an exclamation point: "The Word was God!"
Now we see why John included the article in the prepositional phrase "προς τον θεον." He was being very specific. The Word is WITH a SPECIFIC being called "The God" (τον θεον). In the next clause, John then lets us know that the Word was completely EQUAL with "The God" in divinity, but through the careful use of the articles John has clued us in that the Word is not the same individual as "The God."
One of the objections raised to the divinity of Jesus is that λογος means “the mind, wisdom, intelligence, or plan of God” and nothing more. It is argued that λογος is not an individual but simply a way of describing the “mind” or “wisdom” of God (this was a common philosophy of the Gnostics). Thus, the λογος was not an individual, but the wisdom of God. So Jesus was not a “God” made flesh, but the wisdom of God or the mind of God, made flesh. That means He did not exist prior to His birth (as God). Prior to his physical birth, He was merely an idea, or a plan in the MIND of God and that IDEA became a man.
John makes this interpretation completely absurd with the statement “ο λογος ην προς τον θεον” (the Word was WITH God). Further, προς emphasizes AGREEMENT WITH, not necessarily location or proximity. You see, if the λογος is JUST the mind, intelligence, wisdom or plan of God, it can’t be anything OTHER than with Him. If the λογος is the intelligence of God, then by definition it HAS to be with Him, which makes statement “the Word was WITH God” completely pointless.
This would be the equivalent of saying, “My brain is with me today.” Since, if you are alive, it can’t be anything other than with you, not only have you given no information, you have implied something that is not true. By making that statement, you are implying that there might be a situation in which it could be somewhere else other than with you. Yet, John makes it crystal clear that his choice of words was not an accident. He places extra emphasis on the fact that the λογος was WITH God by restating it in the second verse: “And this one was in the beginning WITH God.” Οὗτος references the subject of the previous sentence, which was λογος in all three clauses. Thus, John is making a statement that can ONLY be interpreted as meaning the λογος is an individual who is somehow the ultimate summation of the wisdom of God. Not only is this individual with God, He is also God Himself. That means that Jesus DID exist prior to His birth (as He reveals Himself in John 17:5) “Father, glorify me with yourself, with the glory I had with you before the world was.”.
John's construction of this verse is so carefully crafted that it is often called the most concise theological statement ever made. With these seventeen words of verse one, the Holy Spirit wrote through John a sentence that took me all of this time and space to explain. John's deliberate use of grammar leaves us only ONE possible conclusion: Jesus is completely and totally God in every way that the Father is God, but Jesus is NOT the same individual as the Father.
AMAZING! NOBODY WRITES LIKE THE HOLY SPIRIT!
At any rate Ivar, here is the information. What you choose to do with it is up to you.
Last edited by a moderator:
