oldhermit
Active Member
- Dec 19, 2012
- 176
- 99
- 28
- 69
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
I am going to go ahead and post the second part of the John 1 discussion for your consideration and then I am going to bed. It is midnight here.
CRITICAL LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS OF VERSE ONE
εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος . This is the most concise theological statement ever made and it is the way in which John arranges this given set of words in verse one that makes it so.
I. The use of the article in verse one.
It must be understood that with all language, there are rules of grammar that must be recognized and followed. If not, then communication become impossible. The following was given by a professor of New Testament Greek whose name I do not know. I have rewritten some of the arguments for the purpose of clarity and flow. Though a brilliant scholar, he was not particularly gifted as a writer. I have added some of my own comments and observations but the basic arguments of each point are his.
NT Greek normally drops the article in a prepositional phrase so the absence of the article in a prepositional phrase is normal and doesn't mean anything. It is when we find examples such as John 1:1 were the article is included in a prepositional phrase that is unusual and should therefore grab our attention. It is the inclusion of the article that is significant. For example, the prepositional phrase “εν αρχη” (in the beginning) does not contain an article in the Greek, but is still properly translated "in the beginning." The prepositional phrase “προς τον θεον” (with God) however, does include the definite article (τον). Since it was proper NOT to include it, the inclusion here means something. Generally speaking, the inclusion of an article when one is not expected means the writer are being specific, in this case a particular individual who is God. In order to fully understand how that affects this verse, we need to go to the last clause.
To understand the implications of the last clause, one needs to understand Greek syntax. Greek distinguishes the role a noun plays in a sentence by changing the case. Generally, if the noun is the subject, it is in the nominative spelling. If it is the direct object, it is in the accusative spelling. However, there is a strange class of verbs that do not take a direct object, they take a predicate. There are three verbs that do this in NT Greek. This means you have two nouns that are in the nominative case, where one is the subject, and one is the predicate nominative. So, if both are in the same case, how does one determine which is the subject, and which is the predicate? The rules are as follows.
A. If BOTH nouns have the article attached, then the first noun is the subject and the second noun is the predicate.
B. If NEITHER noun has the article attached, then the first is the subject and the second is the predicate.
C. If ONE noun has an article and 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” (and the Word was God), we see that λογος has an article (ὁ) and θεος does not. Thus “ὁ λογος” is the subject, while θεος is the predicate. “The Word was God.” θεος as the predicate, describes what the λογος is. Who he is, is the Word. What he is, is God. When translated into English, because λογος is the subject, we have to put it first, so this is properly translated “And the word was God.” There are three things this could mean depending on the construction. It could mean:
1. The word was a lesser god than the Father (τον θεον in the previous clause).
2. The word was the father.
3. The word was fully God, but was NOT the Father.
So, how do we determine which is the meaning of the clause?
B. Understanding the implications of this syntax.
1. 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 both nouns contain the article, λογος is the subject and must appear first, there is no grammatical reason to leave the article off of θεος, thus its absence 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 mean 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 “deemphasized”): 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, so he does not mean that the word was 'a' god.
2. 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 being represented and would then stand as a solid case against the idea of a trinity. The Father and the Son would then be nothing more than manifestations of the same God and NOT separate individuals. The construction “και ο λογος ην θεος” then would demand that there is one God who simply appears at times in different forms. The inclusion of the article with θεος would make it specific: the λογος would then be the 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 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). However, John did NOT use this construction, so he is not saying that the Word is the same person as the Father.
3. By writing it: και θεος ην ο λογος, John does two critical things.
a. He leaves the article off of θεος indicating that the Word is not the same individual as the father.
b. He places θεος to the front of the clause, giving extra emphasis to that word. By doing that, he 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 “lesser god,” it leaves us only one choice as to what it can mean: Not exactly the same individual as the “τον θεον” (the God) 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 was with a specific being called “The God” (τον θεον). In the next clause, he then lets us know that the Word was completely equal with “The God” in divinity, but through the careful placement of the articles, he has shown us that the Word is not the same individual as “The God” of the second clause.
John's construction is so carefully crafted that it is often called the most concise theological statement ever made. With these seventeen words of verse one, he wrote a sentence that took me all of this 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.
CRITICAL LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS OF VERSE ONE
εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος . This is the most concise theological statement ever made and it is the way in which John arranges this given set of words in verse one that makes it so.
I. The use of the article in verse one.
It must be understood that with all language, there are rules of grammar that must be recognized and followed. If not, then communication become impossible. The following was given by a professor of New Testament Greek whose name I do not know. I have rewritten some of the arguments for the purpose of clarity and flow. Though a brilliant scholar, he was not particularly gifted as a writer. I have added some of my own comments and observations but the basic arguments of each point are his.
NT Greek normally drops the article in a prepositional phrase so the absence of the article in a prepositional phrase is normal and doesn't mean anything. It is when we find examples such as John 1:1 were the article is included in a prepositional phrase that is unusual and should therefore grab our attention. It is the inclusion of the article that is significant. For example, the prepositional phrase “εν αρχη” (in the beginning) does not contain an article in the Greek, but is still properly translated "in the beginning." The prepositional phrase “προς τον θεον” (with God) however, does include the definite article (τον). Since it was proper NOT to include it, the inclusion here means something. Generally speaking, the inclusion of an article when one is not expected means the writer are being specific, in this case a particular individual who is God. In order to fully understand how that affects this verse, we need to go to the last clause.
To understand the implications of the last clause, one needs to understand Greek syntax. Greek distinguishes the role a noun plays in a sentence by changing the case. Generally, if the noun is the subject, it is in the nominative spelling. If it is the direct object, it is in the accusative spelling. However, there is a strange class of verbs that do not take a direct object, they take a predicate. There are three verbs that do this in NT Greek. This means you have two nouns that are in the nominative case, where one is the subject, and one is the predicate nominative. So, if both are in the same case, how does one determine which is the subject, and which is the predicate? The rules are as follows.
A. If BOTH nouns have the article attached, then the first noun is the subject and the second noun is the predicate.
B. If NEITHER noun has the article attached, then the first is the subject and the second is the predicate.
C. If ONE noun has an article and 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” (and the Word was God), we see that λογος has an article (ὁ) and θεος does not. Thus “ὁ λογος” is the subject, while θεος is the predicate. “The Word was God.” θεος as the predicate, describes what the λογος is. Who he is, is the Word. What he is, is God. When translated into English, because λογος is the subject, we have to put it first, so this is properly translated “And the word was God.” There are three things this could mean depending on the construction. It could mean:
1. The word was a lesser god than the Father (τον θεον in the previous clause).
2. The word was the father.
3. The word was fully God, but was NOT the Father.
So, how do we determine which is the meaning of the clause?
B. Understanding the implications of this syntax.
1. 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 both nouns contain the article, λογος is the subject and must appear first, there is no grammatical reason to leave the article off of θεος, thus its absence 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 mean 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 “deemphasized”): 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, so he does not mean that the word was 'a' god.
2. 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 being represented and would then stand as a solid case against the idea of a trinity. The Father and the Son would then be nothing more than manifestations of the same God and NOT separate individuals. The construction “και ο λογος ην θεος” then would demand that there is one God who simply appears at times in different forms. The inclusion of the article with θεος would make it specific: the λογος would then be the 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 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). However, John did NOT use this construction, so he is not saying that the Word is the same person as the Father.
3. By writing it: και θεος ην ο λογος, John does two critical things.
a. He leaves the article off of θεος indicating that the Word is not the same individual as the father.
b. He places θεος to the front of the clause, giving extra emphasis to that word. By doing that, he 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 “lesser god,” it leaves us only one choice as to what it can mean: Not exactly the same individual as the “τον θεον” (the God) 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 was with a specific being called “The God” (τον θεον). In the next clause, he then lets us know that the Word was completely equal with “The God” in divinity, but through the careful placement of the articles, he has shown us that the Word is not the same individual as “The God” of the second clause.
John's construction is so carefully crafted that it is often called the most concise theological statement ever made. With these seventeen words of verse one, he wrote a sentence that took me all of this 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.
Last edited:
