Part 7
5. The witness of the Apostles:
John 1:1-3*
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God.
2 He was in the beginning with God.
3
All things were brought into existence by Him, and without Him was not anything brought into existence that was brought into existence.
1. First, it is important to know and understand that verses 1-18 are John’s Prologue to his gospel account. This is important because it needs to be read, interpreted, and understood as a prologue and not the beginning of his body of work. It is the introduction to the main theme of John’s work, and that main theme is the deity of Christ.
2. “
In the beginning” – some try to make this opening phrase to mean the beginning of the preaching of the gospel, out of bias for the false doctrines that they hold to.
There is no article before arche, therefore it means before there was any beginning whatsoever, which destroys the idea that it means in the beginning of the gospel (a favorite interpretation of unitarians and arians). This same meaning and rule of Greek grammar applies to the “beginning” in verse 2.
Therefore, John makes reference to the beginning
before creation (creation is not mentioned linearly until verse 3). Since all things were “
made by Him,” then He had to exist before He could make all things. Furthermore, the idea that “in the beginning” intends the beginning of the gospel, rather than in the beginning before creation, does not stand up under the weight of the Scriptural evidence. (see John 17:5, Eph. 1:4)
Furthermore, note the use of “en apch” (in beginning) instead of “ap apxhV” (from beginning)
in John’s writings – “
in the beginning” addresses ‘time’ before creation (John 1:1, John 1:2), and “
from the beginning” addresses either the point of creation, or when the gospel age started (John 6:64, 8:25, 44; 15:27, 16:4; 1 John 1:1, 2:7, 13, 14, 24; 3:8, 11; 2 John 1:5-6).
3. “
was” (in the imperfect tense, which conveys “a past continuing”)
denotes absolute existence, not created existence in time and space. In this imperfect tense,
eimi literally means “was existing,” a direct implication of past eternal existence. He was not speaking of ideas, knowledge, plans, or any other such mental acuity of God before creation or any other time –
but of the substance of existing in some tangible spiritual form.
4. “
the Word” – what is the identity of the Word? Unitarians rely upon extrabiblical (natural) definitions of the term and completely ignore semantics. Furthermore, John’s viewpoint in using
logos as an identifier of Christ is from that of the Old Testament, not from that of Stoics, Philo, or any other philosopher of the logos. It is recognized by all scholars and theologian of any weight, that we find certain specific words (or phrases) in Paul and John where they semantically use words (or phrases) but fill them with their own intentional meanings.
The “Logos” is one of those terms found only in John wherein he intends the meaning of the preincarnate Christ, which he tells us in plain language in verses 14-15. John uses the term
without explanation to us today, but which was well known to his readers – which is why when we ignore cultural/historical principles in our interpretation of Scripture, we assign false interpretations to the narratives in question.
Therefore, we must tackle this question based upon both historical and grammatical grounds, NOT simply grammatical alone – to do so would be a failure of due diligence on the part of the exegete. John tells us that “the Word became (
ginomai –
came into a change of state of being) flesh and dwelt among us” and that John the Baptist bore witness about Him saying “He who comes after me ranks before me,
because He existed before I did,” in reference to His identity as eternal deity.
Both John the Baptist’s, and John the Apostle’s witness concerning Christ, is that He was the preincarnate Yahweh manifest in the flesh. This is the identity of “the Word” according to Scripture. Yahweh, who has always been, came into a change of state of being when He manifested Himself in the form of human flesh in the incarnate Messiah, just as the grammar of the text clearly states. This first clause, more accurately rendered, states: “
In the beginning, He was the Word.”
5. In the second clause, John uses the preposition
pros (proV) which basically means
toward;
but with the accusative, as it is in this text,
it takes on the meaning of either in, with, by, or among, particularly with the accusative of person. Furthermore, it presents a plane of equality and intimacy, where two are face to face with each other. In this sense, a better rendering of the second clause could read, “and the Word was in God.”
6. “
The Word was God” – again, “was” is in the imperfect tense, which conveys “a past continuing”)
denoting absolute existence, not created existence in time and space. Here, according to the Greek grammar, John tells us that the Word has always been in absolute existence as deity – Yahweh God in the flesh, now come to be manifest and incarnate in human flesh. The way John phrased this part of the text completely destroys the false argument that the Word was only in the mind of God as His plans, intellect, or thoughts...because John tells us that the Word “WAS God,” not the Word was a figment of God’s imagination, intellect, or plan(s).
7. As to the grammar and word placing in the text:
The
predicate is emphatically placed in the proposition
before the subject, because of the progress of the thought; this being the third and highest statement respecting the Word - the climax of the two preceding propositions. The word
God, used attributively,
maintains the personal distinction between God and the Word, but makes the unity of essence and nature to follow the distinction of person, and ascribes to the Word all the attributes of the divine essence. [
Vincent’s Word Studies, electronic version]
8. In verse 2, John continues the narrative; “
was” is still in the imperfect tense, meaning an eternal existence in the past. “
Beginning” is still being used by him as denoting eternity past before the physical creation of anything that was created. In this verse John is telling us that the Word (Christ) existed in eternity past with God before anything was created. Thus far, John presents the Word and God as two distinct persons sharing the attributes and nature of deity.
9. In verse 3 John tells us that the Word created all things, but we must look at the Greek to get the full and accurate rendering of the text: The preposition “
dia” (basic meaning of through or throughout) takes on different meanings in translating based upon different grammatical cues. In the case of the present text under consideration, which is in the genitive, it takes on the meaning of “efficient cause,” the author or first cause of a work.
In this case, it does not mean “through” but “by,” (all things came into being
by Him); otherwise stated as “all things were created
by Him.” Since Yahweh God is the Creator, and the Word is also clearly stated here as the Creator, the reference is to Christ before He became flesh incarnate – God. The text continues in saying that nothing that has ever been created (come into existence) came into existence without Him, confirming and ratifying that the Word is the Creator.
The verb
was (
ēn) is in the
imperfect tense which depicts continual existence, a continuous state, not a completed past. As
Phillips says "It suggests the idea of "
absolute, supra-temporal existence." Or stated another way, the verb in this tense "
denotes neither a completed state nor a coming into being. It is appropriate to eternal, unchanging being. John is affirming that the Word existed before creation, which makes it clear that the Word was not created." (Morris). "
The Word continually was" is the idea. This truth provides definitive proof of Christ’s deity, for only God is eternal. As Phillips says,
John "does not refer to a start, but to an infinite state!" [
www.preceptaustin.org/john_11_commentary]
Was (
1510) (
ēn which is the imperfect form of
eimi) means to be and is the usual verb for existence. In the metaphysical sense as in
John 1:1,
“In the beginning was the Word,” meaning it had been before there was any beginning or existed before the beginning of anything; John 8:50, estín, in the present tense indicating." (
Zodhiates) Notice John does not say in the beginning CAME the Word or BEGAN the Word, but WAS the Word. This verb is in the
imperfect tense which speak of continuous action. In a word, the Word was continually existing! [Austin, abid]
Watch John's masterful use of the Greek verbs and Greek tenses -- four times in
Jn 1:1-2 he uses the
imperfect tense (
ēn) of the verb
eimi to say the Word
was God (all of John's statements regarding His pre-existence are in this tense), but in
Jn 1:14-
note he uses the verb
ginomai in the
aorist tense (egeneto) (
punctiliar, an instantaneous intervention, decisive, at a moment or point in time - the aorist usage here refers to some historical time in the past
as the beginning of the new state) He became Man.
So Jesus who always was God, became Man in a moment in time, doing so without ceasing to be God! John never says Christ
became God but only that He
was (always) God! [Austin, abid]
It is notable that the verb
ēn (
imperfect of
eimi) is used by John in every instance where he is referring to the
eternal state of Jesus (see
Jn 1:1,
2,
4,
8,
9,
10,
15). One exception might be John's use of
ginomai in an allusion to Jesus' existence before [implying His eternal state] John (the Baptist) (
Jn 1:15-
note). [Austin, abid]
As discussed above John uses
ginomai in the
aorist tense (egeneto) to refer to becoming something that one was not before in
John 1:14-
note where God became a Man. In addition to
John 1:14, other uses of
ginomai in the
aorist tense (egeneto) in John's prologue are found in
John 1:3-
note (twice in the phrase "came into being"),
John 1:6 ("There came a man, sent from God"),
John 1:10-
note ("the world was made through Him") and
John 1:17-
note ("grace and truth were realized [came] through Jesus Christ."). [Austin, abid]
Note that ginomai is also used in the perfect tense in John 1:3 (“has come into being”) and John 1:15-note (“He existed before me”), where the perfect tense implies a continuing existence of a new state. [Austin, abid]
10. Aside from all of the grammar, there is another aspect of John’s use of “the Word” in describing Jesus Christ, which is found in two Messianic prophecies:
Isaiah 42:6
I, Yahweh, declare You righteous, and I will strengthen Your hand, and will keep You
and set You as a covenant for the people, a light unto the Gentiles,
Isaiah 49:8
Yahweh says this: In the time of favor I will answer You, on the day of deliverance I will help You; I will keep You
and set You as a covenant to the people, to make binding the land so as to possess the deserted inheritances;
Through study of
Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) covenants, we come across in particular, Suzerain-Vassal covenants, where the covenant that is being offered by the Suzerain (conquering) king, to the would-be Vassal king, is called in the prologue of the covenant, “
the Word of the Great King...”
In Isaiah God speaks to the Messiah who was to come and says that He (God the Father) is going to make the Messiah to be His living New Covenant. There is no doubt that the covenant which God speaks about is the New Covenant, and He says that Christ will be the living embodiment of His covenant “for” and “to” the people. In other words, by calling Christ the “Word” in his prologue, John intimates a direct connection back to these two passages in Isaiah, where he is basically telling us in no uncertain terms, that Christ is the living New Covenant of God made manifest in the flesh. As such, every word that Christ speaks that has to do with doctrine, are aspects of God’s New Covenant in Christ and are, in fact, covenant doctrines.
John 1:18*
No one has ever seen God;
the unique God, who is in the Father's bosom, He has made Him known.
This verse has some textual variants in the Greek manuscripts; however, the majority of critics agree that
monogenes theos (unique God) was the original reading. The best and oldest Greek manuscripts (Aleph B C L) read
monogenes theos, which is undoubtedly the true and original wording. Reymond points out, “The reputable textual critic must admit that the evidence points rather decisively in favor of an original theos.”
[[1]] The “one and only God” has the least doubt in terms of manuscript evidence; all attempts to make the text say otherwise is to place your bets on shaky evidence.
According to the vast majority of scholars,
theos is attested in the best Alexandrian majuscule and in the earliest available MSS manuscripts. Furthermore, the quality of the Western MS supporting “
theos” is comparatively greater than all Alexandrian MSS supporting documents for “
vios” (son). Given the totality of the weight of the evidence, both internally and externally, “theos” is most likely the correct word used in this text.
Regardless of which reading one takes, the force of the text is not weakened in its intended meaning – Christ is still deity. As for “who is in the Father’s bosom,” this related directly back to John 1:1 where we read that “the Word was with God.” We must also remember that from the very beginning of John’s Gospel, his purpose and intent was to demonstrate that Christ was God in the flesh, from the very first verse, unto the very last. For him to use “son” instead of “God” would have been out of character with the rest of his gospel.
The textual problem μονογενὴς θεός (monogenēs theos, “the only God”) versus ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός (ho monogenēs huios, “the only son”) is a notoriously difficult one. Only one letter would have differentiated the readings in the mss, since both words would have been contracted as
nomina sacra: thus qMs or uMs. Externally, there are several variants, but they can be grouped essentially by whether they read θεός or υἱός. The majority of mss, especially the later ones, read ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός. P א 33 have ὁ μονογενὴς θεός, while the anarthrous μονογενὴς θεός is found in P א* B C* L. The articular θεός is almost certainly a scribal emendation to the anarthrous θεός, for θεός without the article is a much harder reading. [
The NET Bible, online study notes]
The external evidence thus strongly supports μονογενὴς θεός. Internally, although υἱός fits the immediate context more readily, θεός is much more difficult.
As well, θεός also explains the origin of the other reading (υἱός), because it is difficult to see why a scribe who found υἱός in the text he was copying would alter it to θεός. [
The NET Bible, online study notes]
Scribes would naturally change the wording to υἱός however,
since μονογενὴς υἱός is a uniquely Johannine christological title (cf.
John 3:16,
18;
1 John 4:9).
But θεός as the older and more difficult reading is preferred. As for translation, it makes the most sense to see the word θεός as in apposition to μονογενής, and the participle ὁ ὤν (ho ōn) as in apposition to θεός, giving in effect three descriptions of Jesus rather than only two. [
The NET Bible, online study notes]
The modern translations which best express this are the NEB (margin) and TEV. Several things should be noted: μονογενής alone, without υἱός, can mean “only son,” “unique son,” “unique one,” etc. (see
1:14).
Furthermore, θεός is anarthrous. As such it carries qualitative force much like it does in 1:1c, where θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (theos ēn ho logos) means “the Word was fully God” or “the Word was fully of the essence of deity.” Finally, ὁ ὤν occurs in
Rev 1:4,
8;
4:8;
11:17; and
16:5, but even more significantly in the LXX of
Exod 3:14. Putting all of this together leads to the translation given in the text (“
the one and only unique God...”). [
The NET Bible, online study notes]
John 20:28
Thomas answered Him, "My Lord and my God."
Firstly, many try to claim that Thomas’ reply was an exclamation out of surprise or astonishment, but the text does not support this claim (
Ho kurios mou kai ho theos mou). The grammar tells us that this is an
address to Christ, not an
exclamation, as the vocative here indicates (even though it is in the nominative, which is common in Koine Greek).
Secondly, Jesus accepts Thomas’ reply and title-giving – He does not rebuke Thomas like He should have if He was not Yahweh God in the flesh. Thomas addresses Jesus Himself, not just saying words out into the open air like an exclamation from surprise or out of astonishment, as a knee-jerk reaction to something that just happened; “Thomas
ANSWERED Him...” not “Thomas exclaimed...” Furthermore, if John’s intent was to say that Thomas exclaimed “My Lord and my God” that was NOT an actual address to Jesus, then he would have used the word
anaphoneo (anafonew), meaning
to cry out emphatically. However, this is not the word John used.
Furthermore, the word John does use here for “answer” is
apokrinomai (apokrinomai), which is only used in the NT Scriptures in the middle deponent, giving it the strict meaning of “to answer.” Jesus just finished speaking to Thomas, saying, “Put your finger here, and see My hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe” speaking of the fact that He had been resurrected from the dead after having been crucified. And then Thomas answered Him, which in this text (John 20:28) is what scholars call a
verba finita reply. Thomas answered Jesus, he did not exclaim “My Lord and my God!” out of surprise or any other such nonsense.
If Jesus was not Yahweh God in the flesh, then He would have instantly rebuked Thomas, or in the least corrected him, in scope of His truthfulness and honesty – otherwise He was dishonest and deceptive in NOT saying anything to correct Thomas. He was either God in the flesh, or a deceiver, in which case He could NOT be the Messiah. If He allowed such a deception to live and propagate, which is paramount to a lie, then chances are He would have told a lie sometime before His death and resurrection – again, in which case, He was automatically disqualified to be the Messiah at that moment. For example, see Acts 14:11-15; Revelation 19:10, 22:8-9.
Then, Jesus immediately commends Thomas for believing – but believing what? Believing that He was both Lord and God in the flesh. Furthermore, if Thomas’ reply was a mere exclamation out of surprise or astonishment (a knee-jerk reaction), then it was nothing to be commended...such a reaction would not be evidence of his belief.
Bishop Pearce says here: “Observe that Thomas calls Jesus his God, and that Jesus does not reprove him for it...” And, I would ask...
could he be a prophet - could he be even an honest man, to permit his disciple to indulge in a mistake so monstrous and destructive, if it had been one? [Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible; electronic version]
Thomas looks right at Jesus and says, “My Lord and my God.” There was no mistake in what he said, and Jesus accepted his words. The sentence is simple, elegant, with no room to play with the Greek text. Jesus accepted the title of God from His disciple, thus indirectly claiming to be God.
Furthermore, only a single fifth-century Western manuscript (D) omits the second article in this text, which some have latched on to in trying to argue that Thomas was not calling Jesus God. The only problem with this, is that if this single manuscript (out of the thousands of others) is indeed correct, then it doesn’t help the unitarian argument because with the second article not there, then the grammatical rule (sometimes referred to as Granville Sharp’s Rule) comes into play...either way, Thomas refers to Christ as God.
The Socinian view, that these words, ὁ κύρ. μου κ. ὁ θεός μου, are
merely an exclamation, is refuted—(1) By the fact that no such exclamations were in use among the Jews. (2) By the εἶπεν
αὐτῷ. (3) By the impossibility of referring ὁ κύριός μου to another than Jesus: see
John 20:13. (4) By the N.T. usage of expressing the vocative by the nom. with an article. (5)
By the utter psychological absurdity of such a supposition: that one just convinced of the presence of Him whom he deeply loved, should, instead of addressing Him, break out into an irrelevant cry. (6) By the further absurdity of supposing that
if such were the case, the Apostle John, who of all the sacred writers most constantly keeps in mind the object for which he is writing, should have recorded any thing so
beside that object. (7) By the intimate conjunction of πεπίστευκας. [
Greek Testament Critical Exegetical Commentary; Henry Alford, electronic edition (StudyLight.org)]
All of the external and internal evidence taken into consideration, Thomas gives us the evidence that Jesus Christ is Yahweh God in the flesh...particularly because Jesus does not correct Him in his response. If Jesus was not Yahweh in the flesh, then He would have certainly corrected not only Thomas, but John and Paul, as well, through all of the visions, manifestations, and conversations that Paul, expressly, had with the risen Savior.
Acts 20:28
Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of
God, which He obtained with His own blood.
Historical note: both of the validated
Codex Sinaiticus, and the
Codex Vaticanus, have the wording, “God, which He obtained with His own blood.” This is first-hand weighty evidence that the word “God” is the original word, rather than the oft argued replacement, “Lord.”
As far as Scriptural evidence goes, Paul is the only NT writer to pen the phrase, “church of God.” Therefore, even with the other evidences equally balanced, that scale is heavily tipped in favor of that reading, rather than the “church of the Lord.” Paul uses it seven times (Acts 20:28; I Cor. 1:2, 10:32, 11:22, 15:9; II Cor. 1:1; and Gal. 1:13); again, no other NT writer uses this phrase. Not only this, but the claim that “the church of the Lord” is a valid alternative, has no forceful evidence, as this is the only place in the NT Scriptures that it would be found...while, as already mentioned, “the church of God” is found numerous times in the NT.
Additionally, while the internal evidence is equally balanced, the external evidence is undeniably superior for the reading of “tou aimatoV tou idiou” (the blood of one’s own), making “the church of God, which He obtained with His own blood” have more weight of grammatical evidence than those used by unitarians.
The late renowned Greek NT textual scholar Bruce M. Metzger did an excellent job of explaining the situation:
The external evidence is singularly balanced between "church of
God" and "church of
the Lord" (the reading "church
of the Lord and God" is obviously conflate, and is therefore secondary - as are also other variant readings). Paleographically, the difference concerns only a single letter… In deciding between the two readings one must take into account the internal probabilities. [Metzger,
A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Second Edition); A Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament, Fourth Revised Edition [Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft; ISBN: 3438060108], pp. 425-427]
The expression
ekklesia kuriou occurs seven times in the Septuagint but nowhere in the New Testament. On the other hand,
ekklesia tou theou appears with moderate frequency (eleven times) in the Epistles traditionally ascribed to Paul, but nowhere else in the New Testament. (The phrase
hai ekklesiai pasai tou Christou occurs once in Ro. 16:16.)...In support of the originality of
kuriou is the argument (urged by a number of scholars) that copyists were likely to substitute the more common phrase
he ekklesia tou theou for the more rare phrase
he ekkleesia tou kuriou. [Metzger, abid.]
On the other hand,
it is undeniable that theou is the more difficult reading. The following clause speaks of the church "which he obtained
dia tou haimatos tou idiou." If this is taken in its usual sense ("with his blood"),
a copyist might well raise the question, Does God have blood?, and thus be led to change theou to kuriou. If, however,
kuriou were the original reading, there is nothing unusual in the phrase to catch the mind of the scribe and throw it off its balance.
This and other considerations led the Committee (as well as a variety of scholars) to regard theou as the original reading...Without committing itself concerning what some have thought to be a slight probability that
tou idiou is used here as the equivalent of
tou idiou huiou,
the Committee judged that the reading theou was more likely to have been altered to kuriou than vice versa. [Metzger, abid.]
There is additional evidence from the apostolic and early Church fathers to substantiate that the original reading did refer to God purchasing the Church with his own blood.
I have become acquainted with your name, much-beloved in God, which you have acquired by the habit of righteousness, according to the faith and love in Jesus Christ our Saviour. Being the followers of God, and stirring up yourselves
by the blood of God, you have perfectly accomplished the work which was beseeming to you. For, on hearing that I came bound from Syria for the common name and hope, trusting through your prayers to be permitted to fight with beasts at Rome, that so by martyrdom I may indeed become the disciple of Him "who gave Himself for us, an offering and sacrifice to God," Ephesians 5:2 [you hastened to see me]. I received, therefore, your whole multitude in the name of God, through Onesimus, a man of inexpressible love, and your bishop in the flesh, whom I pray you by Jesus Christ to love, and that you would all seek to be like him. And blessed be He who has granted unto you, being worthy, to obtain such an excellent bishop. (
Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians, Chapter 1.)
If these things are so, it is certain that believers contracting marriages with Gentiles are guilty of fornication, and are to be excluded from all communication with the brotherhood, in accordance with the letter of the apostle, who says that "with persons of that kind there is to be no taking of food even." Or shall we "in that day" produce (our) marriage certificates before the Lord's tribunal, and allege that a marriage such as He Himself has forbidden has been duly contracted? What is prohibited (in the passage just referred to) is not "adultery;" it is not "fornication." The admission of a strange man (to your couch) less violates "the temple of God," less commingles "the members of Christ" with the members of an adulteress. So far as I know, "we are not our own, but bought with a price;" and what kind of price?
The blood of God. In hurting this flesh of ours, therefore, we hurt Him directly. What did that man mean who said that "to wed a 'stranger' was indeed a sin, but a very small one?" whereas in other cases (setting aside the injury done to the flesh which pertains to the Lord)
every voluntary sin against the Lord is
great. For, in as far as there was a power of avoiding it, in so far is it burdened with the charge of contumacy. (Tertullian in a letter to his wife)
This visible appearance cheats death and the devil; for the wealth within, the beauty, is unseen by them. And they rave about the carcass, which they despise as weak, being blind to the wealth within; knowing not what a "treasure in an earthen vessel" 2 Corinthians 4:7 we bear, protected as it is by the power of God the Father,
and the blood of God the Son, and the dew of the Holy Spirit. But be not deceived, you who has tasted of the truth, and been reckoned worthy of the great redemption. But contrary to what is the case with the rest of men, collect for yourself an unarmed, an unwarlike, a bloodless, a passionless, a stainless host, pious old men, orphans dear to God, widows armed with meekness, men, adorned with love. Obtain with your money such guards, for body and for soul, for whose sake a sinking ship is made buoyant, when steered by the prayers of the saints alone; and disease at its height is subdued, put to flight by the laying on of hands; and the attack of robbers is disarmed, spoiled by pious prayers; and the might of demons is crushed, put to shame in its operations by strenuous commands. (Clement of Alexandria,
Who is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved?)
Bowman further shows that "his own blood" was how the Church and scholars read it for the first eighteen centuries:
Although most contemporary English versions render the last part of the verse in the same way as the NASB (ESV, NIV, NKJV, HCSB, and others), many scholars and commentators
in recent decades have preferred the rendering found in the NRSV (and also in REB). There is no doubt as to the reason for this preference:
those who dispute the conventional translation find the language, which expresses the idea of God’s having "blood," difficult if not impossible to entertain. [Bowman & J. Ed Komoszewski,
Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case For The Deity of Christ (Kregel Publications, 2007)]
A little lesson in grammar is unavoidable in order to understand the problem with the NRSV interpretation. The disputed words usually translated "his own blood" but translated "the blood of his own Son" in the NRSV are
tou haimatos tou idiou (word for word, "the blood, the his-own").
The word idiou ("his own") is an adjective, which normally we would understand as modifying the noun haimatos ("blood"). The word order here, with the adjective following the noun with a second article between them, is perfectly normal and common in Greek. Another example of this construction appears in the very same verse: "the Holy Spirit" (
to pneuma to hagion, word for word, "the Spirit, the Holy").
It was not until the latter half of the nineteenth century, that anyone proposed that the words here in question did not mean "his own blood." [Bowman/Komoszewski, abid.]
The basis for the alternate translation "the blood of his own Son" is that Greek can use adjectives as if they were nouns (the technical term is
substantivally).
Many modern scholars argue that tou idiou is such a substantival use of the adjective, and therefore means "of his Own," comparable to the use of the adjective "the Beloved" (Eph. 1:6) as a kind of term of endearment.
This reinterpretation of the text is grammatically possible and difficult to disprove absolutely, but it is hardly the most natural understanding. [Bowman/Komoszewski, abid.]
As we mentioned, eighteen centuries went by before anyone came up with it. The New Testament nowhere calls Jesus "his Own" (
ho idios), nor was this term ever picked up in the early church as a designation for Jesus.
The substantival use of ho idios (or any grammatical variation, such as ton idion) is, in fact, rare in the New Testament, and in the singular occurs only once–and even then not in reference to a specific person (John 15:19
). On the other hand, ho idios functions as an adjective following the noun–just as in Acts 20:28–in several New Testament texts (John 1:41; 5:43; 7:18; Acts 1:25). [Bowman/Komoszewski, abid.]
We are inclined to agree with Nigel Turner, a twentieth-century scholar of Greek grammar, who called the alternate translation of Acts 20:28
"a theological expedient, foisting imaginary distinctions into a spontaneous affirmation, and is not the natural way to take the Greek." As the Catholic scholar Charles DeVine commented sixty years ago, it is nothing more than an attempt "to avoid at all costs the full force of the expression ‘God’s own blood.’" [Bowman/Komoszewski, abid.]
Therefore, with all of the evidence in hand, Acts 20:28 (like John 20:28) gives us the clear teaching that Jesus Christ was God in the flesh. As Augustine worded it, “
Behold, He was here, and was also in heaven; was here in His flesh, in heaven by His divinity; yea, everywhere by His divinity. Born of a mother, not quitting the Father.” [Augustine,
Tractate 12 (John 3:6-21), paragraph 8]
Romans 9:5*
whose are the fathers,
and out of whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is God over all, inherently worthy of praise forever. Amen.
Some play with the punctuation in this text, trying to change Paul’s Greek from a descriptive clause about Christ’s divinity, into a doxology of God, but the doxological formula in Scripture is always “Blessed be God...” and not “God...be blessed.” There is no evidence for a doxology here, only a statement of naked truth, that Christ is fully human and also God in the flesh. Any such doxology here in the text would be out of step with the wording of the text.
The facts of the text suggest anything but a doxology.
Who is over all, God blessed for ever (
ho on epi pantōn theos eulogētos):
A clear statement of the deity of Christ following the remark about his humanity. This is the natural and the obvious way of punctuating the sentence.
To make a full stop after sarka (or colon) and start a new sentence for the doxology is very abrupt and awkward. [
Robertson’s Word Pictures, electronic version]
Alford and Wuest agree:
Further grammatical reasons for rejecting the idea of a doxology here are as follows: (
1) Without one exception in Hebrew or Greek, the predicate
eulogētos (blessed)
precedes the name of God. Here the word order is
theos eulogētos (God blessed), the descriptive word "blessed" follows the name "God."
(
2) The present participle
on would be altogether superfluous if we understood the words to be a doxology having reference to God rather than a descriptive clause speaking of the deity of the Lord Jesus. The construction in Greek is as follows: After speaking of
ho Christos, the Christ coming as to His human nature out of Israel, Paul adds
ho ōn, the article pointing back to
ho Christos and the participial form of the verb of being, the Greek reading "the One being above all," or in good English diction, "the One (Christ) who is above all." The sense then follows, "The One (who is above all), who is God."
(
3) The doxology would be unmeaning and frigid in the extreme.
It is not the habit of the apostle Paul to break out into irrelevant ascriptions of praise; and certainly there is here nothing in the immediate context requiring one. If it be said that the survey of all these privileges bestowed on his people prompts the doxology, then such a suggestion ignores the grammar of the text, and the construction of the sentence, and causes the idea to be most unnatural.
(
4) The expression "blessed forever" is twice used by Paul,
and each time unquestionably not in an ascription of praise, but in an assertion regarding the subject of the sentence. In 2 Cor. 11:31 we find the same construction, ho ōn,
and there it refers to the subject of the sentence.
(
5) The interpretation which holds that the clause is not a doxology,
but descriptive of the Christ, is the only one permissible by the rules of Greek grammar and arrangement.
(
6) It also admirably suits the context: for, having enumerated the historic advantages of the Jewish people, he concludes by stating one which ranks higher than all, that from them sprung, according to the flesh, He who is God over all, blessed forever.
The Amen implies no optative ascription of praise, but is the accustomed ending of such solemn declarations of the divine Majesty.
Thus does the devout scholar, Henry Alford,
demolish the position of the present-day Liberal who would fain take out of the Bible as much of the testimony to our Lord’s absolute deity as he can, changing Paul’s Greek from a descriptive clause to a doxology. [
Wuest’s Word Studies, electronic version]
Furthermore, there are no (none) variant readings of the text in any ancient manuscripts, this reading is thoroughly true in all extant versions of the Scriptures – neither do any of them give adverse punctuation (that which differs from the punctuation previously discussed above) to give any hope or help to those who claim that the punctuation herein is wrong or in error. Those who make such an argument do so with absolutely no evidence to support their ill claims, as well as doing so when all of the evidence demonstrates the error of their claims.
Further evidence that Paul did not break out in doxology, is found in two other similar texts by him where he basically says the same thing, which are NOT doxologies:
2 Corinthians 11:31
The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, he
who is blessed forever, knows that I am not lying.
Romans 1:25
because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator,
who is blessed forever! Amen.
In conclusion on this text, Paul does whole heartedly proclaim that Jesus Christ “is God over all,” and adds to the collection of passages that clearly claim that Jesus is Yahweh God in the flesh.
II Corinthians 4:3-6*
3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing.
4
In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
5 For what we proclaim is not ourselves,
but Jesus Christ as Master, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake.
6 For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness," has shone in our hearts to give
the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
1. “the image of God” – Verse four ends with, “Christ, who is
the image of God.” The words here in their grammar, speak of the sameness that Christ is with God, His nature and essence. Yahweh is the bon-fire and Christ is the living flame out of that bon-fire – one in essence and nature, the same and yet one is wholly spirit and the other has added to His nature that of human flesh. He is Yahweh in the flesh, His very image in human flesh.
The word for “image” here is eikon, which basically means a
representation, resemblance, likeness, or image, whether a reflection or copy. As a copy, the word literally takes on the meaning of “a living copy,” “embodiment,” or “manifestation.” It can also mean
an appearance of something, not as a revelation, but something beforehand invisible now appearing (making an appearance) in a physical manifestation [TDNT Vol. 2, pg. 388].
Furthermore, eikon carries with it the idea that this copy or image is not a weakening or a feeble copy of something, but it directly implies the illumination (revelation, manifestation) of the original’s inner core and essence [TDNT Vol. 2, pg. 389] – “
The peculiarity of the expression is related to that of the ancient concept, which does not limit image to a functional representation present to human sense but also thinks of it in terms of an emanation, of a revelation of the being with a substantial participation in the object (copy).” [TDNT, abid.]
Thus, in this text and in others such as Colossians 1:15,
eikon means that Christ is the one and only ‘copy’ of God in which He actively participates in. Yahweh God embodied, manifested, copied by His own choice and participation, in human flesh. Furthermore, this word also has a religious meaning in Greek completely separate from the Jewish ideology, in that “the copies have the same powers and the same capacities of feeling and action as the original” from which it is a copy of [TDNT, pgs 389-390].
“
When Christ is called the eikon of God...all the emphasis is on the equality of the eikon with the original,” that which the copy is made and originates from [TDNT, pg. 395]. Jesus is Yahweh God in the flesh according to Paul and his use of the words and grammar in this text. As far as I can find, there are no textual variants of this passage; the only way to get around what Paul says here is to call him a liar, as well as the Holy Spirit who moved upon him to write this text.
2. “Jesus as Kurios” – Verse five says, “Jesus Christ as Master” which is
kurios; and according to our earlier study on kurios as a title of both Yahweh and Christ, Paul is here basically saying in English, that “Jesus Christ is God.”
For all of the details on that study, see pages 14-16. Paul, speaking from the point of view of a reader and quoter of the LXX, where Yahweh (for the pious Jews’ sake) was substituted with kurios, calls Jesus “kurios” which is the Lord or Master of creation – Yahweh God.
3. “the glory of God in the face of Jesus” – The last part of verse 6 is the whole reason for the creation of mankind and the new covenant gospel, leading back to God’s purpose and desire hinted at in the Garden and in His response to Moses:
Exodus 33:18-23
18 Moses said, "Please show me Your glory."
19 And God said, "I will make all My goodness pass before you and will proclaim before you My name ‘Yahweh.’ And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy.
20
But He said, "You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live!"
21 And the LORD said, "Behold, there is a place by Me where you shall stand on the rock,
22 and while My glory passes by I will put you in a cleft of the rock, and I will cover you with My hand until I have passed by.
23 Then I will take away My hand, and you shall see My back, but My face shall not be seen."
How can God have intimate relationship with man when man cannot look upon His face because of His glory, without dropping dead on the spot? Hence the reason for God coming into the world in human form in Christ, so that we could look upon Him and engage Him in relationship and fellowship on a personal basis.
But, as verse six further teaches, the god of this world has blinded the minds of those who not only cannot see the gospel, but neither which can see the Scriptural fact that Jesus, as the “image of God” in human flesh, is indeed and in fact Yahweh Himself. They cannot understand because their minds cannot be illuminated because of the false ideologies that they hold to, that Jesus is in fact Yahweh God in the flesh. Why? Because satan does not want them to become saved, and Scripture (even Jesus Himself) tells us that unless we believe that He is Yahweh in the flesh, that we cannot be saved.
Believing that Jesus is Yahweh God in the flesh, is one of the criteria for getting saved. This is one reason why the devil fights so hard in people’s minds to keep them from seeing the truth of Christ’s identity.
Galatians 4:6-8
And because you are sons, God has sent
the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!" So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God. Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to those that
by nature are not gods.
First, the Spirit is the Holy Spirit of God – if God shares His Spirit with the Son, then the Son is as much deity as is the Father.
Second, Paul here is contrasting the deity (God-ship, Godhead) of the Son (Christ) to those whom the Galatians were at one time under bondage to in worshiping demons, which “by nature are not gods.” Paul is comparing Jesus, who
by nature was God in the flesh, against the false gods who “
by nature are not gods.”
..
