A Critique of Christian Watchdog's Response to INCs : Definite or Not?
By Bro. Nathan
" In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and what God was, the Word was." (Jn. 1:1) NEB
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος [En arche en ho Logos, kai ho Logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en ho Logos]. (NA28)
The following is what I came across where the author interprets grammar yet deny the scholarship behind it at all. It starts by saying that we don't need Biblical scholarship which is anti-intellectual and even uses a verse that is used out of context. the following will be followed by my responses :
"..........First of all, using scholarly commentaries is not approved by god as it say:1 Corinthians 2:4-5[4]And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:[5]That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.Therefore, these scholarly references is invalid much to the extent that its anti-god for making alteration like changing THEOS (god) into divine. Divine is not one of the word for word meaning of THEOS. Therefore, for supplanting a correct meaning for other than required, that is god and changing it to divine then its adding up to the words of god."
We must note that 1 Cor. 2:4-5 does not say that biblical scholarship is not useful and it does not forbid the use of it. we must note that this is the very text that was used to say that the Bible forbids Philosophy but its not! that's not what the context says. we must note that Paul himself have knowledge of ancient thought on their Philosophy and their Literature, as of Paul used these to defend the Gospel of Jesus Christ! Acts 17 records that Paul, while he was on Athens—reasoned with Jews and God fearing Jews in a synagogue as well as in a marketplace (Acts 17:17). Paul reasoned together with Athenians and he used Stoic and Epicurian literature. ginamit ni Paul ang mga Greek poets to support what he teaches. In Acts 17, Paul taught na ang Diyos ay hindi nagdwedwell sa temples na idolatrous (vv. 24-25) at na ginawa ng Diyos ang tao in order na ang tao ay mag-seek after Him (vv. 26-27) at ang relationship ng tao sa Diyos as ang Kanyang "offspring", at na ang Divinity is not by material things e.g idols (vv. 28-29). ang material things ay hindi kasama sa ating γένος thus is foreign and does not represent or is not Divinity/Deity. It is not to be appropriately worshipped. ang "poets" sa v. 28 na minention ni Paul ay ang mga stoic philosopers particularly si Aratus Phaenomena na isang student ni Zeno of Citium (ang founder ng stoicism). Paul is contextually referring to Ancient Greek philosophers that yet deny the Gospel that he wants to preach to them. Paul used philosophy to make a valid theological point about God's nature and man's relation to God's divinity when discussing with Athenian Philosophers. Paul did not rejected Philosophy and human wisdom, but instead,—he used it too rightfully.
Back to 1 Cor. 2:4-5, considering it's context, v. 21 reads :
"For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe." (1 Cor. 1:21) KJV
What Paul points out this whole time ay na ang Gospel ni Jesus Christ is not discovered by human philosophy but is given by God through revelation. it is revealed truth and not discovered truth and this does not mean that using your intellect to explain and defend the Gospel is evil. both inspiration and reason are required and both must be used rightfully as Paul did in Acts 17. It has limitations but it does not mean that it is worthless. these are useful to have a clearer understanding of what a topic says and to aid thinking wide topics. Biblical scholarship is useful for it gives a deeper insight to the Bible and gives us data for us to learn and to evaluate. studying the Bible in depth is not forbidden. we should be nobleminded as the Bereans did (Acts 17:10-15).
And as for Jn. 1:1, the author had some flaws on understanding the flow of Synthax in text. the Greek reads :
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος [En arche en ho Logos, kai ho Logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en ho Logos]. (NA28)
The author wrote with a dictionary :
".........Here is the meaning of THEOS and see for yourself if “divine” is included:Greek: θεόςTransliteration: theosPronunciation: theh’-osDefinition: Of uncertain affinity; a deity especially (with G3588) the supreme Divinity; figuratively a magistrate; by Hebraism very: – X exceeding God god [-ly -ward].Who gave you authority to alter THEOS (god) and make it divine?Proverbs 30:6[6]Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar."The problem is grammar. how do you understand the word in context? and also it is what we call syntax. how would you understand the flow of a sentence? simply using a dictionary and ignore how it is used contextually is simply absurd and does not consider how a language actually works. furthermore, the author presented the following excerpts from a source :"........By having that then we know that THEOS is both noun and adjective but for a strictly biblical discipline then we cannot use THEOS as adjective bec it lacks support from the word for word counterpart of the greek word used. NO DICTIONARY PROVIDES AN ADJECTIVE AS ITS DEFINITION. THEOS in nature is noun and missing from its definition is an adjective as counterpart. Therefore, in usage it could only be a noun, otherwise, its an interpolation–an addition. If we are to be technical about it, what was provided as terminology is in its nature as noun whether its accompanied by an article or not, its inherently noun, so where can we get an affixation such as an adjective like “divine”? Unless, we add there is nothing in the greek dictionary that affirmed its intervention."
The problem here is not considering the placing of the Greek word θεὸς (Theos) and the way that it is used based upon the positioning of it it in a particular sentence or clause. we have two terms : definite, and indefinite. what we meant by definite is that we will refer to a particular person or object specifically, e.g "my cat", which means it is not just a cat but my cat. it refers to an specific cat owned by me and If I will refer as a indefinite, I am not referring specifically but I am describing what this is like I saying "it's a cat". Koine Greek, which is the language that the New Testament was originally written from—does not have any indefinite articles e.g "a" in the usage of "a cat". they will instead place it before a verb without an article and we call this "Anarthrous". we should note na ang Greek dito ay understood way more different kaysa sa English. John used the Greek word Θεός in two different ways. clause B says καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν (kai ho Logos en pros ton Theon) with the Greek word Θεός (Theos) in an accusative form, Θεόν (Theon). which means with ang word na ito sa third clause ng Jn. 1:1 shows na iba ito sa Θεόν (Theon) sa pangalawang clause na kung saan ay nasa accusative case. Ibig sabihin ay ang Θεόν ay ang direct object samantalang and Θεός ay isang indirect object. ang Θεός therefore is not the direct object of the sentence but this is a predicate. that's why major English translations that translate it as "the Word was God" (KJV, NKJV, NIV, NRSV) is quite problematic kasi if Θεός is the direct object ng sentence ay it would result to Modalism i.e same person si Heavenly Father at Jesus Christ or sa Trinitarianism na kung saan si Jesus Christ ay with the same being of the Father. hindi need na tingnan sa isang dictionary but yung placing ng Θεός at ang lack nito ng definite article—this is understood differently.
Sa Koine Greek, kapag nagsasalita ako patungkol sa God, which is mainly the Father (Θεός) or specifically—ay hindi lang basta basta na sasabihin ko na Θεός pero instead ay gagamit ako ng definite article which is ό (ho). pero kapag wala siyang article ay ang Θεός ay isang anarthrous predicate na kung saan ay ginagamit ito to stress the quality of a person or an object. if ganito ang purpose ng writer that is writing in Koine Greek, ilalagay niya ang predicate nominative before the verb rather than after the verb and this is primarily qualitative in meaning as Philip Harner wrote. this is an indication na ang λόγος ay may nature ng Θεός and this does not indicate definiteness. dito ay pinapakita na ang λόγος (logos) is divine like τὸν Θεόν (ton Theon) but not the same God that he is with. It is not interpreted as "the Word was with the person oft the Father." the λόγος is a divine being but not τὸν Θεόν i.e the Father in this context. it is shown that they are not of the same being unlike Trinitarianism. Jesus has the nature of Θεός according to this verse but not a person of God that is Interpreted as one being in three persons. the New English Bible (NEB, Oxford University Press [1961]) translates it as "what God was, the Word was" which catches the sense of the grammar of the text. we can see here also na mali ang ang pagkakaunderstood ng mga INC sa wording na "Divine" sa translation ni Dr. Edgar J. Godspeed at kay Prof. James Moffat. Furthermore, Philip Harner said :
John could have worded this in five ways:A. ο λογος ην ο θεος (ho logos en ho Theos)B. θεος ην ο λογος (Theos en ho logos)C. ο λογος θεος ην (ho logos Theos en)D. ο λογος ην θεος (ho logos en Theos)E. ο λογος ην θειος (ho logos en Theios)A (ο λογος ην ο θεος), "would mean that logos and theos are equivalent and interchangeable"D: "would probably mean that the logos was a god or divine being of some kind, belonging to the general category of theos, but as a distinct being from ho theos""John evidently wished to say something about the logos that was other than A and more than D and E" (Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns : Mark 15:39 and John 1:1 : pg. 77-85; transliteration added)
And in addition, various scholars wrote :
"And the Word was God (kai theos en ho logos). By exact and careful language John denied Sabellianism by not saying ho theos en ho logos. That would mean that all of God was expressed in ho logos and the terms would be interchangeable, each having the article. The subject is made plain by the article (ho logos) and the predicate without it (theos) just as in John 4:24 pneuma ho theos can only mean "God is spirit," not "spirit is God." So in 1 John 4:16 ho theos agape estin can only mean "God is love," not "love is God" as a so-called Christian scientist would confusedly say. For the article with the predicate see Robertson, Grammar, pp. 767f." (A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, vol. 5, pp. 4-5)."The word with the article is then the subject, whatever the order may be. So in Jo. 1:1, theos an ho logos, the subject is perfectly clear. Cf. ho logos sarx egeneto (Jo. 1:14). It is true that ho theos an ho logos (convertible terms) would have been Sabellianism. See also ho theos agape estin (1 Jo.4:16). "God" and "love" are not convertible terms any more than "God" and "Logos" or "Logos" and "flesh." Cf. also hoi theristai angeloi eisin (Mt. 13:39), ho logos ho sos alatheia estin (Jo. 17:17), ho nomos hamartia; (Ro. 7:7). The absence of the article here is on purpose and essential to the true idea" (A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934, p. 767-768).
"A word should be said concerning the use and non-use of the article in John 1:1, where a narrow path is safely followed by the author. "The Word was God." If both God and Word were articular [if they both had the definite article "the"], they would be coextensive and equally distributed and so interchangeable [Sabellianism]. But the separate personality of the Logos is affirmed by the construction used and Sabellianism is denied. If God were articular and Logos non-articular, the affirmation would be that God was Logos, but not that the Logos was God.(A. T. Robertson, The Minister and His Greek New Testament, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977) pp. 67-68).
"The absence of the article indicates that the Word is God, but is not the only being of whom this is true; if ho theos had been written it would have implied that no divine being existed outside the second person of the Trinity." (C.K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, S.P.C.K., 1955, p.76).
"On this analogy, the meaning of theos en ho logos will be that the ousia [substance (the "what")] of ho logos, that which it truly is, is rightly denominated theos...That this is the ousia of ho theos (the personal God of Abraham, the Father) goes without saying. In fact, the Nicene homoousios to patri is a perfect paraphrase. (C.H. Dodd: New Testament Translation Problems II, The Bible Translator, 28, 1, Jan. 1977), p. 104.)
"'The Word was God...And the Word became flesh,' simply means "the word was divine...And the Word became human.' The Nicene faith, in the Chalcedon definition, was intended to conserve both of these truths against theories that failed to present Jesus as truly God and truly man..."(James Moffatt, Jesus Christ the Same, Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1945, p.61).
"Perhaps the clause could be translated, 'the Word had the same nature as God." This would be one way of representing John's thought, which is, as I understand it, that ho logos, no less than ho theos, had the nature of theos." (Philip B. Harner, Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1," Journal of Biblical Literature, 92, 1, March 1973, p. 87.)
"Theos must then be taken as implying God, in substance and essence,--not ho theos, 'the Father,' in person. It does not = theios, nor is it to be rendered a God--but, as in sarx egeneto, sarx expresses that state into which the Divine Word entered by a definite act, so in theos en, theos expresses that essence which was His en arche:--that He was very God. So that this first verse might be connected thus: the Logos was from eternity,--was with God (the Father),--and was Himself God." (Henry, Alford, Alford's Greek Testament: An Exegetical and Critical Commentary, Vol. I, Part II, Guardian Press, 1975; originally published 1871), p. 681).
"The predicate [theos) stands emphatically first, as in v.24. It is necessarily without the article (theos not ho theos) inasmuch as it describes the nature of the Word and does not identify His Person... No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true deity of the Word." (B.F. Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John, Eerdmans, 1958 reprint, p. 3.)
" The article sometimes distinguishes the subject from the predicate in a copulative sentence. In Xenophon's Anabasis, 1:4:6, emporion d' en to korion, and the place was a market, we have a parallel case to what we have in John 1:1, kai theos en ho logos, and the word was deity. The article points out the subject in these examples. Neither was the place the only market, nor was the word all of God, as it would mean if the article were also used with theos. As it stands, the other persons of the Trinity may be implied in theos." (H. E. Dana, Julius Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, New York: The MacMillan Company, 1950, pp. 148-149).
"The Word was God. Here the word "God" is without the article in the original. When it is used in this way, it refers to the divine essence. Emphasis is upon the quality or character. Thus, John teaches us here that our Lord is essentially Deity. He possesses the same essence as God the Father, is one with Him in nature and attributes." (Kenneth Wuest, Word Studies in the Greek New Testament, vol. 3, "Golden Nuggets," p. 52)."In the beginning the Word was existing. And the Word was in fellowship with God the Father. And the Word was as to His essence absolute deity"(Kenneth Wuest, Word Studies, vol. 4, p. 209).
"The structure of the third clause in verse 1, theos en ho logos, demands the translation "The Word was God." Since logos has the article preceding it, it is marked out as the subject. The fact that theos is the first word after the conjunction kai (and) shows that the main emphasis of the clause lies on it. Had theos as well as logos been preceded by the article the meaning would have been that the Word was completely identical with God, which is impossible if the Word was also "with God". What is meant is that the Word shared the nature and being of God, or (to use a piece of modern jargon) was an extension of the personality of God. The NEB paraphrase "what God was, the Word was", brings out the meaning of the clause as successfully as a paraphrase can...So, when heaven and earth were created, there was the Word of God, already existing in the closest association with God and partaking of the essence of God. No matter how far back we may try to push our imagination, we can never reach a point at which we could say of the Divine Word, as Arius did, "There was once when he was not" (F. F. Bruce, The Gospel of John, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1983), p. 31).
"The Word is distinguishable from God and yet Theos en ho logos, the Word was God, of Divine nature; not "a God," which to a Jewish ear would have been abominable; nor yet identical with all that can be called God, for then the article would have been inserted..." (W. Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Greek Testament, 5 vols, [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1983], 1:684).
" Finally John says that "The Word was God". There is no doubt that this is a difficult saying for us to understand, and it is difficult because Greek, in which John wrote, had a different way of saying things from the way in which English speaks. When the Greek uses a noun it almost always uses the definite article with it. The Greek for God is 'theos', and the definite article is 'ho'. When Greek speaks about God it does not simply say 'theos'; it says 'ho theos'. Now, when Greek does not use the definite article with a noun that noun becomes much more like an adjective; it describes the character, the quality of the person. John did not say that the Word was 'ho theos'; that would have been to say that the Word was identical with God; he says that the Word was 'theos'- without the definite article- which means that the Word was, as we might say, of the very same charactor and quality and essence and being as God. When John said 'The Word was God' he was not saying that Jesus is identical with God, he was saying that Jesus is so perfectly the same as God in mind, in heart, in being that in Jesus we perfectly see what God is like." (Barclay, W. The Gospel of John, vol.1, The Dailey Study Bible Series, Saint Andrew Press, p. 39)
Both members ng MCGI and INC misunderstood the grammar and scholarship behind Jn. 1:1. Divine and "what God was, the Word was" is a proper na translation to catch the sense of what the writer wants to point out and we should not deny biblical scholarship for this is also essential as well as inspiration. that's how the text is understood and do not misinterpret the text.
__________________
Like and support our Facebook page and message us for your questions and get answers on : Restitutionem Defendi : A Defense For The Restored Gospel
Visit our blog at : Ldswarriors2000.blogspot.com
Visit my Quora profile at : Quora.com/Nathan-Lerr
