In another thread (Santa Claus), Sarah has invited a discussion on who
God is.  I hesitate because, one, I don't have the time to spare, two,
will it really involve a discussion?  But Sarah has been a visitor to
these two NG's (SRC & SRCBS) for several years now, and has tried to
defend the position of the Jehovah's Witnesses fairly.  That position
being that Jesus was Michael the archangel incarnate, not God.  The
major point she and JW's content is that because John 1:1c lacks a
definite article in the Greek, it therefore must be translated, "a
god."  Setting aside how this interpretation runs counter to Greek
grammatical rules -for now, it must not go unnoticed that in so doing,
JW's necessarily believe in polytheism.

What I intend to do in this thread is expound a bit on Jn 1:1-18.  This
set of verses are commonly termed, "The Prologue," in theological
circles.  It is an introduction, an outline of what John intends to
write about at greater length through the rest of his gospel.  This
would include "life" (1:4), "light" and
"darkness" (vv. 5, 7-9),
"witness" (vv. 7-8, 15), "world" (v 10),
"belief" (and "unbelief"(vv
11-12) "glory" (v 14) and "grace and truth" (vv. 14,
17).  All these
themes are developed further in John's gospel.

To read Matthew, Mark, and Luke, one immediately recognizes that John's
gospel has an entirely different style.  Matthew, Mark and Luke are
termed the "Synoptic" gospels.  John's gospel is quite simply, the most
theological of the gospels.  No one even debates that point.  John does
not primarily present Jesus from a historians point of view, say as
Luke.  Nor does he primarily record what Jesus did during His three
years of active ministry, but rather seeks to lead the reader into
recognizing Christ's unique character as He interacted with others.

John 1:1a

Immediately, in the reading of verse 1, the reader recognizes John's
introduction being parallel to Genesis 1.  "In the beginning" of Jn 1:1
directly corresponds to "In the beginning" in Gen 1:1.  John's point?
That the "logos" (Word) was already in existence "in the
beginning."
In the Greek, John chose to write this verse in the imperfect tense
which infers the idea of prior existence, or  "In the beginning was
[already] the Word."

John uniquely referred to the Word, who was in existence already at the
time of Creation, that is, when all that came to be outside of God
Himself.  He did not refer to Him as the "Messiah" (Christ) nor the
"Son of Man" or even the "Son of God."  He referred to Him as the
"Logos," which most translations render "Word." 
"Word" is an
inadequate rendering of "Logos." or as FF Bruce put it, "It would be
difficult to find one less inadequate." (Gospel of John. p. 29)
Phillips paraphrased 1:1a to read, "At the beginning God expressed
Himself," seeking himself to express what "Logos" means.  Certainly,
all of John's 1st century readership did not understand the depth of
the Greek philosophical usage of this term (any more than today's
reader does), yet that stated, they were certainly acquainted with the
term.  For John to begin his gospel using this term most certainly had
to have captivated the interest of his audience.  We could spend the
all of our time laboring this point but I would like to curtail that
tangent by reminding the reader that John's intro is related to Genesis
1 and Greek philosophy is not to be found in Gen 1:1.

In Gen 1:3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20, 24, 26, 29, we see "Then God said"
repeated.  In the OT, the "word of God" denotes action.  In Ps 33:6,
this is seen as relating to creation.  In Isa 38:4, to revelation.  In
Ps 107:20, to deliverance.  The Hebrew term "word" is sometimes seen as
a personification and there viewed as God's agent or messenger (angel)
is in Isa 38:4, "The word of the Lord came [was] to Isaiah, saying..."
In Ps 107:20 we read, "He sent His word and healed them, and delivered
them from their destructions."  Yet for John to directly link his "In
the beginning" with that of Genesis, I would be foolish not to conclude
that the "God spoke" in Genesis has no relation to John's
"Logos."  If
such a correspondence is warranted (and the burden is placed on the
detractor to prove otherwise), then it is easy to see that from the
first of his three clauses of the first verse, John relates Logos to
"God spoke."  It was the Logos who spoke all things into existence (Jn
1:3)  Logos is YHVH Creator.

[In the intertestamental period, such personifications (or
hypostatization's) are even more detailed as in the Book of Wisdom
18:15.  The death angel who visited the last plague on Egypt is called
"Thy [God's] all-powerful word leaped from heaven, from the royal
throne, into the midst of the land that was doomed."]

The OT clearly uses literary personification in describing the "word of
God" but John builds on this and presents a new paradigm using familiar
words to expand upon personification.  The Word of God whom made the
universe was more than just a personification, He was a person.  For
John, the source of life was not a mere principle or a power, but a
living being, a person -a divine person who became man.

Whereas Matthew, Mark and Luke begin their gospels at Bethleham, John
takes us back to the very beginning, to a time prior to history.  As
Hunter in his commentary writes, "There is only one true perspective in
which to see the story -you must see it in the light of eternity."  (p.
15)

The first of verse one's three clauses then discloses to the reader
something abut the Logos -that the Logos is eternal in existence.
Whereas Gen 1:1 takes the reader back to the beginning of creation,
John "lifes our thoughts beyond the beginning and dwells on that which
'was' when time, and with time, finite being began its course."
(Westcott 1:4)  Calvin writes, "The Evangelist sends us to the eternal
sanctuary of God and teaches us that the Word was, as it were, hidden
there before He revealed Himself in the outward workmanship of the
world."  (Gospel According to St. John, 1:8)

1:1b

The second clause of the first verse states, "The Word was with God."
The preposition "with" carries two ideas in the Greek, that of
accompaniment and that of relationship.  AT Robertson in "A Grammar of
the Greek NT in the Light of Historical Research" notes that literally
this phrase in context means "face to face with God." (p 623).  John,
therefore places the Logos in relationship "with" God and yet distinct
from God, the Father.  "With" is therefore used by John to expressed
the idea of a personal relationship between two equal persons.  For in
Mark 6:3, the same term is used:

Mark 6:3 "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of
James, and Joses and Judas, and Simon? Are not His sisters here with
us?" [NASB]

Using Logos as a literary device, John startles his readers by
exchanging the "word of God" being used as a personification to that of
being a person, a Person equal "with" God.  In doing so, John begins to
counter the presuppositional thoughts of many world views then
prevalent such as, polytheism, the mystery religions, necromancy,
Hellenistic philosophy and unbelieving Judaism, occultism, emperor
worship, and possibly even proto-Mandaism, that is, those who believed
that John the Baptist was the Messiah.

1:1c

Now here is where Sarah's primary argument rests.  Literally, in the
Greek, the 3rd clause reads, "an God was the logos."  Logos is the
subject with the definite article therefore our English translations
read, "And the Word was God."

Though I do not remember Sarah ever making such an argument, there are
some who translate this to read, "the Logos was divine,"  Moffatt's
translation being one such translation.  However, to do this makes
"theos" an adjective whereas the Greek text makes it a noun.  It John
had wanted to render such a meaning, he would have used "theios" as
found elsewhere in the NT (Acts 17:29; 2 Pet 1:3, 4).  Though, as I
have confessed, I have not heard Sarah state this argument, it
certainly seems to align itself with her understanding of the clause.
But to do so in effect demotes the Logos to a state of quasi-divinity,
a condition which rests somewhere between God and creatures.  Yet even
Sarah has declared her strict adherence to monotheism which would chafe
as such a conclusion.

Now because John did not place a definite article before "God" (theos),
Jehovah's Witnesses like Sarah have argued that the only allowable
translation is then "and the Word was a god."    However there are
several reasons which will not allow the third clause to be reduced to
such an interpretation.

First, and for me primary, if John had in the Greek placed a definite
article before the word "God," it would have made John's Logos
modalistic.  For to have used a definite article would have
unequivically rendered the Logos  *ALL* that God is.  That is, He would
be the only personage known as God.  That would have required what had
heretofore been known as the Father to become the Logos.  He would have
rendered God the Father to transform Himself modally into the Logos.
Thus arguing that the Godhead has only one person, they confuse
themselves with Sabellianism in actuality.  If John had used the
definite article as the Jehovah's Witnesses state is required, then
grammatically it would have John saying that the Son is the Father.

But in truth, this is a moot point for in John 20:28, the definite
article is used when Thomas confesses, "My Lord and my God."

Secondly, similar to yet distinct from point one, to render the 3rd
clause, "a god" results in polytheism, or the belief that there is more
than one God.  But being a Jew, possibly even a ranking Jew, John's
monotheism would never have allowed such a rendering.  A monotheisitc
Jew could only apply the singual theos to the Supreme Being.  It could
not, in the context, be ever applied to an inferior divinity.

Of course there is the third reason.  To dismiss the anarthrous
(lacking a article) noun preceeding the verb is a clear indication of
the JW's lack of understanding and adherence to Greek grammatical laws.
It is even more scandlous when, as recorded and often noted, they
quote Greek scholars out of context to support their position.  Though
these scholars have written rebuttals to such out of context
quotations, the JW position remains unchanged.  Moulton, whom Sarah has
often used as a reference to support her position, in "Prolegomena,"
vol. 1, of "A Grammar of NT Greek" notes on page 83, "For exegesis,
there are few of the finer points of Greek which need more constant
attention than this omission of the article when the writer would lay
stress on the quality or character of the object."  One would be remiss
not to also note Colwell's, "A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article
in Greek NT," as published in the "Journal of Biblical Literature."

Yet for all this, what the context demands and what John wished his
readers to understand as new concerning the "Logos", was that the Word
was deity.  He did not, nor would he have, written that "God was the
Word."  Rather, what John was revealing was that, while the Logos was
not the Father, He does have all the qualities that add up to the fact
that He too is God.  "The absence of the article indicates that the
Word is God, but [He] is not the only being of whom this is true."
[Barrett, p 156]  So though the Logos is essentially God, He is not
alone God.  The Logos has His entire being withing deity, yet he does
not exhaust the being of deity.

I would like to briefly summarize four reasons that James Boice gives
as to why it matters that Jesus Christ is, indeed, God.

1)  We can know what God is like.  If Jesus is God, then we can know
God for Jesus perfectly expresses / represents Him (Heb 1:3) and only
infinity can perfectly represent infinity.
2)  It means that God was always like Jesus.  It is not the God of the
OT vs the Jesus of the NT.  The blood God of the OT vs the love God of
the NT.  The God of the NT did not become a God love by becoming a
Christian!  That the Logos was with God prior to creation, it means
that God always was a God of love.  Jeus did not change God's anger
into love.  God's attitude toward sin has never changed.
3)  A point that I have raised before but to which Sarah has never been
able to answer, that being, that Jesus was God, His blood atonement had
infinite worth and value.  His infinite death is the only acceptable
and sufficient sacrifice for rebellion against and infinite God.
Because Jesus was human and sinless, He could represent humanity.
Because He was God, He could be both the Just and the Justifier.  That
He is perfectly God and yet perfectly human, only Jesus can be the one
true Mediator and Advocate
4)  And from a more pastoral point of view, that Jesus is God, it means
that He is able to satisfy all the needs of the human heart.  Paul
prays that believers:

 Eph. 3:18, 19 may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is
the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of
Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled up to all the
fulness of God.

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group.  All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
(((   Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post.   )))
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 1/7/05 11:53:36 AM