Well I think Rita wants us to behave so have fun attacking the Bible.
There is no spiritual gift called "the gift of tongues".
- Thread starter 2 Peter 1:10-11
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
- Status
Keiw
Well-Known Member
Explain this fact--hundreds of different religions claim to be christian--hundreds of different truths-WHY? Jesus promised when he sent holy spirit to his it would guide them into all truth-that means 99% of them are false religions-1Cor 1:10= 1 has truth via holy spirit guidance.1 has Jesus. The one Jesus said would be hated because the world hated him first.
If you would like to hear the Truth, called the Bible, start a thread. We are off topic.
First of all, the same Greek word is used in both occurrences of the word "God" in John 1:1. This same word is used in many contexts, whether it refers to the Only True God or whether it is referring to a false god - such as a man-made god (1 Cor. 8:5) or Satan as the ‘god of this age’ (2 Cor. 4:4). The apparent differences in spelling between the word ‘God’ in the phrase ‘and the Word was God’ (‘theos’) and in other places, (even in the previous phrase, ‘and the Word was with God’ (‘theon’)) is due to inflection in the Greek language. Each Greek noun normally has 8 or 9 forms (cases & number) in which it can appear. (See my page on ‘Inflection’ and ‘Cases’ on the Web site). In the first instance in John 1:1 it is the object of preposition and thus is in the accusative case. In the phrase in question, it is in the nominative case (indicating the subject or predicate nominative - equal to the subject). But it is the same word for ‘God’, and in both phrases here indicates the One and Only True God. So the apparent difference is spelling is not because ‘theos’ is a different word than ‘theon’, but is a different form of the identical word.
The Lack of a Greek Definite Article
Another common confusion in John 1:1 comes from the fact that in Greek there is no definite article in front of the word ‘God’ (‘theos’) in the phrase ‘and the Word was God’. The confusion arises from an assumption that if there is no definite article in the Greek, then it must have an indefinite meaning and thus should be translated with the indefinite article "a". Based on this understanding, some argue that this phrase in John 1:1 should be translated "the word was a god," rather than "the word was God." It is important at this point to understand that the Greek language has a definite article (‘the’), but does not have an indefinite article (‘a’ or ‘an’). In certain instances, when the Greek omits a definite article, it may be appropriate to insert an indefinite article for the sake of the English translation and understanding. But we cannot assume that this is always appropriate. Greek does not operate in the same way as English does in regard to the use of the words ‘the’ and ‘a’. In many instances in which English would not include the word ‘the’, the Greek text includes it. (We don’t see it in the English translations because it would sound non-sensible in our language.) (See Note 1, below.) And in many cases where the Greek omits the definite article, the English translation requires it to convey the correct meaning of the Greek. (See Note 2, below.) Therefore it cannot be assumed that if the definite article is absent, then an indefinite article should be inserted. (For a clear illustration of this, see an example of the use of the word ‘God’ and the definite article in John chapter one.) Furthermore, even though the Greek language does not have an ‘indefinite article’ like we think of in English, there is a way in Greek for the writer to indicate the indefinite idea and thus avoid confusion. This is done in Greek by using the Greek indefinite pronoun ‘tis’.
In John 1:1 there is no definite article in front of the word ‘God’ in the phrase, ‘and the Word was God’. However, in this instance, it cannot just be assumed that the word ‘God’ is meant to be ‘indefinite’, and therefore an indefinite article used in the English translation. Because the first use of the word ‘God’ in John 1:1 (‘the Word was with God’) clearly refers to the Only True God, the Eternal Pre-existent Creator, more than likely John would have used a different Greek construction than he did if he had meant for this next phrase (‘and the Word was God’) to refer to a ‘lesser’ god, and did not want us to confuse this with the True God he had just mentioned. If John meant to avoid confusion, when making such a definitive statement, he could have done so by using this ‘indefinite pronoun’ (‘tis’) as an adjective. This would have made it clear that the Word was ‘a certain god’, but not the one he was just referring to. For examples of this, see the verses Mark 14:51, Luke 8:27, Luke 1:5, and Luke 11:1 (among many, many other examples). So, it seems that by the Greek grammatical structure in this statement, John is indicating that the Word (Jesus Christ - John 1:14) is the same essence and nature as God the Father.
(For a more thorough explanation of the function and use of the Greek article (and meaning of its absence), see ‘Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics’, by Daniel Wallace. He includes fifty pages - entitled ‘The Article, Part I’ - which is a more complete treatment of the subject that many grammar books present and explains all the general uses of the article. He actually has a ‘Part II’ which discusses some special issues with the article. Fifteen pages of this second section apply directly to understanding this passage in John 1:1. It is highly recommended for those who really desire an honest and thorough understanding of this passage.)
The Predicate Coming Before the Subject
Also, this phrase in John 1:1 is an example of a predicate nominative coming first in the sentence, before the subject. (Sentences like this one that use a linking verb require the noun in the predicate part of the sentence to be in the nominative case. Thus the phrase 'predicate nominative'.) The subject of this clause is ‘the Word’ and the predicate is ‘God’. In Greek, the word ‘God’ comes before the word ‘Word’. According to normal Greek usage (Colwell's Rule), the word ‘God’ should not have a definite article. Oftentimes, emphasis is shown in Greek by placing a word out of its normal, expected word order. Special emphasis is shown when the predicate comes first in the sentence. In other words, contrary to the thought that ‘since there is no definite article used here it could belittle the fact of the Word being God’, the fact that the word ‘God’ is used first in the sentence actually shows some emphasis that this Logos (Word) was in fact God in its nature. However, since it does not have the definite article, it does indicate that this Word was not the same ‘person’ as the Father God, but has the same ‘essence’ and ‘nature’.
The Context of All of the Apostle John’s Writings
It is also necessary to see this statement in context of the rest of John’s writings. When comparing this with other statements about who the person and nature of Jesus Christ really is, it adds to what is already made clear by the Greek grammar. See for instance: John 8:56-59 (cf. Exo. 3:13-14); 10:28-33; 14:6-11; 1 John 5:20; (also John 8:23; 3:12-13; 5:17-18). These verses also indicate that, in John’s understanding and thus the Bible’s clear statements, Jesus Christ is the same essence and nature as God the Father, but distinct in their person-hood.
Also, this phrase in John 1:1 is an example of a predicate nominative coming first in the sentence, before the subject. (Sentences like this one that use a linking verb require the noun in the predicate part of the sentence to be in the nominative case. Thus the phrase 'predicate nominative'.) The subject of this clause is ‘the Word’ and the predicate is ‘God’. In Greek, the word ‘God’ comes before the word ‘Word’. According to normal Greek usage (Colwell's Rule), the word ‘God’ should not have a definite article. Oftentimes, emphasis is shown in Greek by placing a word out of its normal, expected word order. Special emphasis is shown when the predicate comes first in the sentence. In other words, contrary to the thought that ‘since there is no definite article used here it could belittle the fact of the Word being God’, the fact that the word ‘God’ is used first in the sentence actually shows some emphasis that this Logos (Word) was in fact God in its nature. However, since it does not have the definite article, it does indicate that this Word was not the same ‘person’ as the Father God, but has the same ‘essence’ and ‘nature’.
The Context of All of the Apostle John’s Writings
It is also necessary to see this statement in context of the rest of John’s writings. When comparing this with other statements about who the person and nature of Jesus Christ really is, it adds to what is already made clear by the Greek grammar. See for instance: John 8:56-59 (cf. Exo. 3:13-14); 10:28-33; 14:6-11; 1 John 5:20; (also John 8:23; 3:12-13; 5:17-18). These verses also indicate that, in John’s understanding and thus the Bible’s clear statements, Jesus Christ is the same essence and nature as God the Father, but distinct in their person-hood.
Consulting with Other Well Respected Greek Scholars and Grammarians
For a further explanation and clarification about these items, it is helpful to consult with many of the well respected Greek scholars and expositors. Personally I have never come across any objective, well respected Greek grammarian that has come up with different conclusions that what has been presented here. Many of them go into much more detail than I have in these few short paragraphs. See for instance the writings of Daniel Wallace (‘Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics’), A.T. Robertson (both his ‘Grammar’ and ‘Word Pictures’), R.C.H. Lenski (in his commentary on the Gospel of John), Henry Alford (‘Greek Testament’), J.A. Bengel (‘Word Studies), Albert Barnes (‘Barnes’ Notes’), B.F. Westcott, and F.L. Godet, (and many others).
Final Comment
Bethany, I hope this helps to answer your questions. Obviously you are asking about a very large topic that can only be touched upon in such a small answer. My answer here is not meant to argue some theological doctrine, but to point out how important it is to have a pure heart when seeking God in His revealed speaking (the Bible) and how much it helps to know the Greek language in helping to answer some very complicated questions. A little (and incomplete) knowledge of Greek can do more harm than good when people try to apply it beyond their scope of knowledge. I beg you to seek the Lord honestly and continue to love Him with your whole heart. 1 Corinthians 8:1b-3 says, ‘Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. And if anyone thinks that he knows anything, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know. But if anyone loves God, this one is known by Him’. Many questions that are beyond our human understanding will only be answered when we see Him face to face. But for now, we continue to love Him and seek Him with our whole heart. The rest is up to Him. Please let me know if I can be of further help or guidance.
For a more systematic answer to the person of Jesus Christ, being both God and man,
please see a paper I wrote here: The Unity of the Person of Jesus Christ, the God-man
For further information (and a somewhat more scholarly approach to this specific question)
please see James White's answer at: http://www.aomin.org/JOHN1_1.html.
Note 1: A literal translation of the end of John 1:12 in Greek reads: ‘…to those who believe into [the] his name.’ It makes our English translation sound awkward or non-sensible to include the definite article 'the’ before the words ‘his name’, even though it appears in Greek.
For a further explanation and clarification about these items, it is helpful to consult with many of the well respected Greek scholars and expositors. Personally I have never come across any objective, well respected Greek grammarian that has come up with different conclusions that what has been presented here. Many of them go into much more detail than I have in these few short paragraphs. See for instance the writings of Daniel Wallace (‘Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics’), A.T. Robertson (both his ‘Grammar’ and ‘Word Pictures’), R.C.H. Lenski (in his commentary on the Gospel of John), Henry Alford (‘Greek Testament’), J.A. Bengel (‘Word Studies), Albert Barnes (‘Barnes’ Notes’), B.F. Westcott, and F.L. Godet, (and many others).
Final Comment
Bethany, I hope this helps to answer your questions. Obviously you are asking about a very large topic that can only be touched upon in such a small answer. My answer here is not meant to argue some theological doctrine, but to point out how important it is to have a pure heart when seeking God in His revealed speaking (the Bible) and how much it helps to know the Greek language in helping to answer some very complicated questions. A little (and incomplete) knowledge of Greek can do more harm than good when people try to apply it beyond their scope of knowledge. I beg you to seek the Lord honestly and continue to love Him with your whole heart. 1 Corinthians 8:1b-3 says, ‘Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. And if anyone thinks that he knows anything, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know. But if anyone loves God, this one is known by Him’. Many questions that are beyond our human understanding will only be answered when we see Him face to face. But for now, we continue to love Him and seek Him with our whole heart. The rest is up to Him. Please let me know if I can be of further help or guidance.
For a more systematic answer to the person of Jesus Christ, being both God and man,
please see a paper I wrote here: The Unity of the Person of Jesus Christ, the God-man
For further information (and a somewhat more scholarly approach to this specific question)
please see James White's answer at: http://www.aomin.org/JOHN1_1.html.
Note 1: A literal translation of the end of John 1:12 in Greek reads: ‘…to those who believe into [the] his name.’ It makes our English translation sound awkward or non-sensible to include the definite article 'the’ before the words ‘his name’, even though it appears in Greek.
Note 2: Literally in Greek, John 1:2 says: ‘He was in beginning with God.’ Notice that in Greek there is no definite article before the word ‘beginning’. It makes sense to include the definite article ‘the’ in our English translation for the sake of clarity and English idiom. Thus, ‘He was in the beginning with God.’
Predicate Nominatives in the New Testament and the “Problem” of John 1:1 and Other Passages
A predicate nominative in the New Testament is, by definition, a noun in the nominative case
that is linked by a stative or copulative verb to the subject of that verb and thus forms a
referential description of that subject. The nature of the referential description that a predicate
nominative gives to the subject varies. There are three kinds of referential descriptions of the
subject: either as another identity of the subject (John is the brother of James), or as a category
to which the subject belongs (John is an apostle), or as a quality inherent in the subject (God is
love). These referential categories correspond roughly to what we would describe as definite
predicate nominatives, indefinite predicate nominatives, and qualitative predicate nominatives.
With predicate nominatives that have the article (arthrous or articular predicate nominatives),
the referential description is almost always definite, or a one-to-one correspondence of identity,
whether literal or figurative.
Literal:
Mt 12:23, μήτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς Δαυίδ (“This isn’t the son of David, is it?”)
Mt 13:34, ὁ σπείρων τὸ καλὸν σπέρμα ἐστὶν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου (“The one sowing the
good seed is the Son of Man”)
Mt 16:16, σὺ εἶ ὁ χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος (“You are the Christ, the Son of the
living God”)
Mt 27:11, σὺ εἶ ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων (“You are the king of the Jews”)
2 Co 3:17, ὁ δὲ κύριος τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν (“The Lord is the Spirit”)
A predicate nominative in the New Testament is, by definition, a noun in the nominative case
that is linked by a stative or copulative verb to the subject of that verb and thus forms a
referential description of that subject. The nature of the referential description that a predicate
nominative gives to the subject varies. There are three kinds of referential descriptions of the
subject: either as another identity of the subject (John is the brother of James), or as a category
to which the subject belongs (John is an apostle), or as a quality inherent in the subject (God is
love). These referential categories correspond roughly to what we would describe as definite
predicate nominatives, indefinite predicate nominatives, and qualitative predicate nominatives.
With predicate nominatives that have the article (arthrous or articular predicate nominatives),
the referential description is almost always definite, or a one-to-one correspondence of identity,
whether literal or figurative.
Literal:
Mt 12:23, μήτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς Δαυίδ (“This isn’t the son of David, is it?”)
Mt 13:34, ὁ σπείρων τὸ καλὸν σπέρμα ἐστὶν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου (“The one sowing the
good seed is the Son of Man”)
Mt 16:16, σὺ εἶ ὁ χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος (“You are the Christ, the Son of the
living God”)
Mt 27:11, σὺ εἶ ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων (“You are the king of the Jews”)
2 Co 3:17, ὁ δὲ κύριος τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν (“The Lord is the Spirit”)
Figurative:
Mt 5:13, Ὑμεῖς ἐστε τὸ ἅλας τῆς γῆς (“You are the salt of the earth”)
Mt 6:22, Ὁ λύχνος τοῦ σώματός ἐστιν ὁ ὀφθαλμός (“The lamp of the body is the eye”)
Mt 13:38c, τὰ δὲ ζιζάνιά εἰσιν οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ πονηροῦ (“The weeds are the sons of the evil
one”)
Mk 14:22, τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου (“This is my body”)
Ac 4:11, οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ λίθος (“This is the stone”)
Mt 7:12, οὗτος γάρ ἐστιν ὁ νόμος καὶ οἱ προφῆται (“for this is the law and the prophets,”
that is, this golden rule sums up the law and the prophets)
But being articular doesn’t guarantee that it always refers to identity, strictly speaking, as the
following examples indicate:
Ac 4:12a, οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ἄλλῳ οὐδενὶ ἡ σωτηρία (“There is salvation in no other”), a qualitative sense, rather than “there is the (or, this) salvation in no other.”
1 John 3:4, Πᾶς ὁ ποιῶν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν καὶ τὴν ἀνομίαν ποιεῖ, καὶ ἡ ἁμαρτία ἐστὶν ἡ ἀνομία (“Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness”), not “the sin” or “the lawlessness,” but qualitative
These feel more like qualitative references, than identity references, which is why, in our
English translations, we don’t include the article.
When it comes to anarthrous predicate nominatives, things get a bit more complicated. The
reason for this is that despite the lack of an article a Greek speaker could still intend that noun
to be definite. And if not, the noun could be indefinite or qualitative. Is there no sure way to
tell? It is the thesis of this article that there is not. But there have been those who have cleverly
suggested that word order holds the key to determining which option, definite, indefinite, or
qualitative, is in the author’s or speaker’s mind. The suggestion has been that if the anarthrous
predicate nominative comes before the verb this signals a definite (Colwell) or qualitative
(Harner) sense in the author’s or speaker’s mind.
Mt 5:13, Ὑμεῖς ἐστε τὸ ἅλας τῆς γῆς (“You are the salt of the earth”)
Mt 6:22, Ὁ λύχνος τοῦ σώματός ἐστιν ὁ ὀφθαλμός (“The lamp of the body is the eye”)
Mt 13:38c, τὰ δὲ ζιζάνιά εἰσιν οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ πονηροῦ (“The weeds are the sons of the evil
one”)
Mk 14:22, τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου (“This is my body”)
Ac 4:11, οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ λίθος (“This is the stone”)
Mt 7:12, οὗτος γάρ ἐστιν ὁ νόμος καὶ οἱ προφῆται (“for this is the law and the prophets,”
that is, this golden rule sums up the law and the prophets)
But being articular doesn’t guarantee that it always refers to identity, strictly speaking, as the
following examples indicate:
Ac 4:12a, οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ἄλλῳ οὐδενὶ ἡ σωτηρία (“There is salvation in no other”), a qualitative sense, rather than “there is the (or, this) salvation in no other.”
1 John 3:4, Πᾶς ὁ ποιῶν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν καὶ τὴν ἀνομίαν ποιεῖ, καὶ ἡ ἁμαρτία ἐστὶν ἡ ἀνομία (“Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness”), not “the sin” or “the lawlessness,” but qualitative
These feel more like qualitative references, than identity references, which is why, in our
English translations, we don’t include the article.
When it comes to anarthrous predicate nominatives, things get a bit more complicated. The
reason for this is that despite the lack of an article a Greek speaker could still intend that noun
to be definite. And if not, the noun could be indefinite or qualitative. Is there no sure way to
tell? It is the thesis of this article that there is not. But there have been those who have cleverly
suggested that word order holds the key to determining which option, definite, indefinite, or
qualitative, is in the author’s or speaker’s mind. The suggestion has been that if the anarthrous
predicate nominative comes before the verb this signals a definite (Colwell) or qualitative
(Harner) sense in the author’s or speaker’s mind.
The Myth of Definite Nouns
Some of the evidence for this suggestion has relied on the concept of definite nouns. Colwell
has suggested that nouns already considered definite, when they appear before the verb in a
predicate nominative construction, are to be taken as definite. But the concept of an inherently
definite noun is a difficult one to sustain.
Can there be a more definite noun than a person’s name? And perhaps this could explain why,
in the New Testament, the name Elijah (Mt 11:14; 16:14; 17:3,4,10,11,12; 27:47,49; Mk 6:15;
8:28; 9:4,5,11,12,13; 15:35,36; Lk 4:25,26; 9:8,19,30,33; Jn 1:21a,25; Ro 11:2; Ja 5:17) never
has the article. But when you look at other proper names in the New Testament you are soon
disabused of this idea. Without seeming rhyme or reason names like Jesus, Andrew, and
Simon Peter, will have or not have an article. If you think you find one pattern with certain
words, for example articular Jesus with λέγει ([the] Jesus says…) and anarthrous Jesus with
ἀπεκρίθη (Jesus answered), your pattern gets exploded (Mt 28:9; Lk 22:48,52; 23:28; Jn 13:31;
18:4; 19:26; 20:15, etc., and Mt 3:5; 11:4,25; 15:28; 16:17; 17:17; 20:22; 21:21, etc.).
Some of the evidence for this suggestion has relied on the concept of definite nouns. Colwell
has suggested that nouns already considered definite, when they appear before the verb in a
predicate nominative construction, are to be taken as definite. But the concept of an inherently
definite noun is a difficult one to sustain.
Can there be a more definite noun than a person’s name? And perhaps this could explain why,
in the New Testament, the name Elijah (Mt 11:14; 16:14; 17:3,4,10,11,12; 27:47,49; Mk 6:15;
8:28; 9:4,5,11,12,13; 15:35,36; Lk 4:25,26; 9:8,19,30,33; Jn 1:21a,25; Ro 11:2; Ja 5:17) never
has the article. But when you look at other proper names in the New Testament you are soon
disabused of this idea. Without seeming rhyme or reason names like Jesus, Andrew, and
Simon Peter, will have or not have an article. If you think you find one pattern with certain
words, for example articular Jesus with λέγει ([the] Jesus says…) and anarthrous Jesus with
ἀπεκρίθη (Jesus answered), your pattern gets exploded (Mt 28:9; Lk 22:48,52; 23:28; Jn 13:31;
18:4; 19:26; 20:15, etc., and Mt 3:5; 11:4,25; 15:28; 16:17; 17:17; 20:22; 21:21, etc.).
And is it not possible to think of even a proper name as indefinite (“I am a Matthew like you are”)? And even a noun we would normally consider definite, God, for example, or a title like Lord, is used indefinitely and qualitatively in the New Testament:
· 2 Thessalonians 2:4, πάντα λεγόμενον θεὸν, “every so-called god”
· John 10:34, ἐγὼ εἶπα· θεοί ἐστε, “I said, ‘You are gods’,” though the fact that gods is plural almost necessitates an indefinite sense here, whereas the singular would not. But if Yahweh could say to plural individuals, “You are gods,” He could certainly say to one of them, “You are a god.”
· Mark 2:28, κύριός ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου καὶ τοῦ σαββάτου (“The Son of Man is lord indeed of the Sabbath”), though this could be conceived as “the Lord of all,” as could the next example, it could also indeed be qualitative.
· Acts 10:36, οὗτός ἐστιν πάντων κύριος (“This one is lord of all”)
· 1 Corinthians 8:5, ὥσπερ εἰσὶν θεοὶ πολλοὶ καὶ κύριοι πολλοί (“Even as there are many gods and many lords”)
So it is impossible to say that a “definite” noun must always be definite. Consequently, it is best
not to think of this as a category for our investigation of word order signaling whether an
anarthrous predicate nominative is definite, indefinite or qualitative.
As to word order as a clue, an examination of all the predicate nominatives in the New
Testament should help us determine whether this is a signal or not. I have endeavored to
examine every predicate nominative in the text of the New Testament (728 of them). I am sure I
have missed some. Some that I label as a predicate nominative might not be so labeled by
others. John’s writings (Gospel, letters, and Revelation), though they make up 20% of the New
Testament, have 45% of the predicate nominatives (333).
The stative verbs I have found that render predicate nominatives are εἰμι (most), γίνομαι (Mk
1:17; Lk 20:33; Jn 1:12,14; 2:9; 4:14; 5:14; 9:27; 12:36; 15:8; Ro 4:18; 7:13; 1 Co 4:9; 2 Co 5:21; Ga 4:16; 1 Th 1:6; 2:14; He 5:9; 10:33; 11:7; Ja 2:4,11; Re 12:10; 16:3,4; 18:2), δοκέω (Lk 22:24; Ga 2:9; 6:3), λέγω (Mt 1:16; 2;23a; 4:18; 9:9; 10:12; 13:55; 16:13; 26:3,14,36; 27:16,17,33; Mk 8:27; Lk 22:1,47; Jn 4:5,25; 11:16,54; 19:13,17; 20:24; 21:2; Ac 3:2; 6:9; 9:36; 1 Co 8:5; Ep 2:11; Col 4:11; 2 Th 2:4; He 9:2,3; 11:24; Re 2:2,9,20,24; 3:9), καλέω (Mt 2:23b; 5:9,19; 23:8a,10,13; 27:8; Mk 11:17; Lk 1:32,35,60,76; 2:4; 7:11; 9:10; 15:21; 22:25; Jn 1:42; Ac 1:19,23; 4:36; 14:12; 28:1; Ro 9:26; 1 Co 15:9; He 3:13; 11:16; Ja 2:23; 1 Jn 3:1a; Re 1:9; 11:8; 12:9; 16:16; 19:13), and χρηματίζω (Ac 11:26; Ro 7:3).
· 2 Thessalonians 2:4, πάντα λεγόμενον θεὸν, “every so-called god”
· John 10:34, ἐγὼ εἶπα· θεοί ἐστε, “I said, ‘You are gods’,” though the fact that gods is plural almost necessitates an indefinite sense here, whereas the singular would not. But if Yahweh could say to plural individuals, “You are gods,” He could certainly say to one of them, “You are a god.”
· Mark 2:28, κύριός ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου καὶ τοῦ σαββάτου (“The Son of Man is lord indeed of the Sabbath”), though this could be conceived as “the Lord of all,” as could the next example, it could also indeed be qualitative.
· Acts 10:36, οὗτός ἐστιν πάντων κύριος (“This one is lord of all”)
· 1 Corinthians 8:5, ὥσπερ εἰσὶν θεοὶ πολλοὶ καὶ κύριοι πολλοί (“Even as there are many gods and many lords”)
So it is impossible to say that a “definite” noun must always be definite. Consequently, it is best
not to think of this as a category for our investigation of word order signaling whether an
anarthrous predicate nominative is definite, indefinite or qualitative.
As to word order as a clue, an examination of all the predicate nominatives in the New
Testament should help us determine whether this is a signal or not. I have endeavored to
examine every predicate nominative in the text of the New Testament (728 of them). I am sure I
have missed some. Some that I label as a predicate nominative might not be so labeled by
others. John’s writings (Gospel, letters, and Revelation), though they make up 20% of the New
Testament, have 45% of the predicate nominatives (333).
The stative verbs I have found that render predicate nominatives are εἰμι (most), γίνομαι (Mk
1:17; Lk 20:33; Jn 1:12,14; 2:9; 4:14; 5:14; 9:27; 12:36; 15:8; Ro 4:18; 7:13; 1 Co 4:9; 2 Co 5:21; Ga 4:16; 1 Th 1:6; 2:14; He 5:9; 10:33; 11:7; Ja 2:4,11; Re 12:10; 16:3,4; 18:2), δοκέω (Lk 22:24; Ga 2:9; 6:3), λέγω (Mt 1:16; 2;23a; 4:18; 9:9; 10:12; 13:55; 16:13; 26:3,14,36; 27:16,17,33; Mk 8:27; Lk 22:1,47; Jn 4:5,25; 11:16,54; 19:13,17; 20:24; 21:2; Ac 3:2; 6:9; 9:36; 1 Co 8:5; Ep 2:11; Col 4:11; 2 Th 2:4; He 9:2,3; 11:24; Re 2:2,9,20,24; 3:9), καλέω (Mt 2:23b; 5:9,19; 23:8a,10,13; 27:8; Mk 11:17; Lk 1:32,35,60,76; 2:4; 7:11; 9:10; 15:21; 22:25; Jn 1:42; Ac 1:19,23; 4:36; 14:12; 28:1; Ro 9:26; 1 Co 15:9; He 3:13; 11:16; Ja 2:23; 1 Jn 3:1a; Re 1:9; 11:8; 12:9; 16:16; 19:13), and χρηματίζω (Ac 11:26; Ro 7:3).
Kinds and Numbers of Predicate Nominatives in the New Testament
There are several different kinds of predicate nominatives in the New Testament.
The most common predicate nominative construction is with a pronominal subject, that is with a
pronoun as the subject. By my count there are 211 of these, categorized as those with arthrous
predicate nominatives following or preceding the verb, and those with anarthrous predicate nominatives following or preceding the verb. Those with an arthrous predicate nominative
following the verb: Mt 1:23; 3:3,17; 5:13; 7:12; 12:23,48; 13:19,22,23,55a; 16:16; 17:5; 19:17; 21:11a,38; 22:32a,38; 23:8b,9; 24:45; 26:26,28,63; 27:11; Mk 3:11,33; 6:3a; 8:29; 9:7; 12:7; 13:11; 14:22,24,61; 15:2; Lk 3:22; 4:41; 9:35; 20:14; 21:19; 22:53,70; Jn 1:8,19,20,21c,25,34; 3:10,19,28; 4:29,42; 5:12,35; 6:14,29,35,40,41,42,48,50,51,58,69; 7:26,40,41; 9:19,20; 10:7,9,11,14,24; 11:25,27; 14:6; 15:1a,5a,b,12; 17:3; 18:33; 21:24; Ac 4:11; 8:10; 9:20,22; 17:3a; 21:28,38; 1 Co 4:17; 9:1b; 11:24; Ep 1:18,23; 2:14; Php 3:3; Col 1:18a,24; 1 Pe 1:5; 2 Pe 1:17; 1 Jn 1:5a; 2:22a,c,25; 3:11; 4:3; 5:3,4,5a, 6a,14; 2 Jn 7; Re 1:8,17a,b; 2:23; 4:5; 5:8; 11:4; 19:9; 20:14; 21:6,12; 22:16; with the arthrous predicate nominative preceding the verb: Jn 1:21c; 1 Co 9:1b; 11:25; 2 Pe 1:17; Re 19:9; 20:14; with the anarthrous predicate nominative following the verb: Mt 11:14; 14:2; 23:8a; Mk 3:17; 15:22,42; Lk 1:35,76; 2:11a,b; 12:1; 15:21; Jn 1:41,42a; 4:14,46; 6:42,70; 18:13b; Ac 4:36b; 5:17; 10:36; 17:3b; Ro 4:11,16; 8:29; 16:5; 1 Co 12:27; 2 Co 4:4; 5:21; Ga 3:6; 4:24a,26; Ep 1:14; 3:14; 6:2,17; Col 1:15a,b,18b,27; 3:5,14; 1 Th 4:3; 2 Th 2:4a,b; 3:17; 1 Ti 3:15; 4:10; He 2:6; 9:2; 1 Pe 5:12; 1 Jn 5:20b; Re 11:8; 21:7b; and with the anarthrous predicate nominative preceding the verb: Mt 5:9; 12:50; 23:8c; 27:54; Mk 3:35; 15:39; Lk 1:32,36; 2:4; 4:22; 19:9; 23:2; Jn 1:21a,49; 4:9,19; 8:44a; 9:24,27,28,31; 10:1,33; 15:14; 18:35,37a; Ac 9:15; 1 Co 3:17; 2 Co 6:16; 1 Th 1:6; 2:14; 1 Jn 2:2; Re 2:9; 3:9a.
Examples from each category are:
· Matthew 3:17, οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός (“This one is the Son of Me, the beloved one”)
· John 1:21c, ὁ προφήτης εἶ σύ (“Are you the prophet?”)
· Ephesians 1:14, ὅ ἐστιν ἀρραβὼν τῆς κληρονομίας ἡμῶν (“He is the downpayment of our inheritance”)
· John 1:49, σὺ βασιλεὺς εἶ τοῦ Ἰσραήλ (“You are the king of Israel”)
The next most popular construction, 189 by count, is that with the subject contained in the verb,
with an arthrous predicate nominative following the verb (Mt 24:6; Ac 4:12a; 1 Pe 2:15; Jn 1:9; 5:9; 8:12; 19:31; Re 12:10; 22:14), an arthrous predicate nominative preceding the verb (Ac 2:15; Jn 20:15; 21:7,12), with an anarthrous predicate nominative following the verb (Mt 2:23b; 4:3,6; 5:34; 22:23,32b; 23:10a; 26:14; 27:43; Mk 9:35; 12:27; Lk 1:35,60; 6:35; 7:39a,b; 11:8; 15:21; 20:33; 22:1,47; Jn 1:9; 5:9; 8:12,55; 9:14; 11:2,38; 12:20; 13:30; 15:8; 18:13a,39; 19:12,14,31; 20:19,24; 21:2; Ac 2:15; 4:12b; 9:36; 14:12; 25:16; Ro 4:18; 8:16; 9:26; 10:12; 13:1; 1 Co 8:5b; 9:1a,16; 12:15,16; 13:1; 15:9,44; Ga 5:23; Ep 2:11; 2 Th 2:4b; 2 Ti 3:1; Hb 4:13; 5:9; 8:6; 9:3; 11:7,24; Ja 2:4; 1 Jn 5:16; Re 2:2a,20; 12:10(3x); 16:14; 17:14; 18:2; 20:6; 21:7a,b; 22:14), and with an anarthrous predicate nominative preceding the verb (Mt 5:19,34; 14:26,33; 22:42,45; 27:6,40; Mk 6:15a,49; 11:32; 12:31,37; Lk 1:32; 4:3,9; 7:8,39b; 14:22; 20:27,38,44; 22:25,59; Jn 5:10,13,14,27; 8:33,37,39b, 44b, 48,54; 9:4,5,8,17,25; 10:13,22,34,36; 11:49,51; 12:6,36; 13:13,35; 18:18,26,37b; 19:21,40; 20:1,14,15; 21:4,7,12; 25:14; Ac 25:14; Ro 1:16; 2:28,29; 7:3; 13:4; 1 Co 1:18; 4:9; 6:7; 11:14,15; 12:6; 15:12; Ga 4:16,31; 5:3; Php 1:7; 2:13; Hb 5:13; 9:15; 10:33; Ja 2:23; 4:14,17; 1 Jn 2:18a,b; 3:2; 4:20; Re 10:6; Re 13:18; 18:7; 19:10; 21:3a; 22:9).
There are several different kinds of predicate nominatives in the New Testament.
The most common predicate nominative construction is with a pronominal subject, that is with a
pronoun as the subject. By my count there are 211 of these, categorized as those with arthrous
predicate nominatives following or preceding the verb, and those with anarthrous predicate nominatives following or preceding the verb. Those with an arthrous predicate nominative
following the verb: Mt 1:23; 3:3,17; 5:13; 7:12; 12:23,48; 13:19,22,23,55a; 16:16; 17:5; 19:17; 21:11a,38; 22:32a,38; 23:8b,9; 24:45; 26:26,28,63; 27:11; Mk 3:11,33; 6:3a; 8:29; 9:7; 12:7; 13:11; 14:22,24,61; 15:2; Lk 3:22; 4:41; 9:35; 20:14; 21:19; 22:53,70; Jn 1:8,19,20,21c,25,34; 3:10,19,28; 4:29,42; 5:12,35; 6:14,29,35,40,41,42,48,50,51,58,69; 7:26,40,41; 9:19,20; 10:7,9,11,14,24; 11:25,27; 14:6; 15:1a,5a,b,12; 17:3; 18:33; 21:24; Ac 4:11; 8:10; 9:20,22; 17:3a; 21:28,38; 1 Co 4:17; 9:1b; 11:24; Ep 1:18,23; 2:14; Php 3:3; Col 1:18a,24; 1 Pe 1:5; 2 Pe 1:17; 1 Jn 1:5a; 2:22a,c,25; 3:11; 4:3; 5:3,4,5a, 6a,14; 2 Jn 7; Re 1:8,17a,b; 2:23; 4:5; 5:8; 11:4; 19:9; 20:14; 21:6,12; 22:16; with the arthrous predicate nominative preceding the verb: Jn 1:21c; 1 Co 9:1b; 11:25; 2 Pe 1:17; Re 19:9; 20:14; with the anarthrous predicate nominative following the verb: Mt 11:14; 14:2; 23:8a; Mk 3:17; 15:22,42; Lk 1:35,76; 2:11a,b; 12:1; 15:21; Jn 1:41,42a; 4:14,46; 6:42,70; 18:13b; Ac 4:36b; 5:17; 10:36; 17:3b; Ro 4:11,16; 8:29; 16:5; 1 Co 12:27; 2 Co 4:4; 5:21; Ga 3:6; 4:24a,26; Ep 1:14; 3:14; 6:2,17; Col 1:15a,b,18b,27; 3:5,14; 1 Th 4:3; 2 Th 2:4a,b; 3:17; 1 Ti 3:15; 4:10; He 2:6; 9:2; 1 Pe 5:12; 1 Jn 5:20b; Re 11:8; 21:7b; and with the anarthrous predicate nominative preceding the verb: Mt 5:9; 12:50; 23:8c; 27:54; Mk 3:35; 15:39; Lk 1:32,36; 2:4; 4:22; 19:9; 23:2; Jn 1:21a,49; 4:9,19; 8:44a; 9:24,27,28,31; 10:1,33; 15:14; 18:35,37a; Ac 9:15; 1 Co 3:17; 2 Co 6:16; 1 Th 1:6; 2:14; 1 Jn 2:2; Re 2:9; 3:9a.
Examples from each category are:
· Matthew 3:17, οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός (“This one is the Son of Me, the beloved one”)
· John 1:21c, ὁ προφήτης εἶ σύ (“Are you the prophet?”)
· Ephesians 1:14, ὅ ἐστιν ἀρραβὼν τῆς κληρονομίας ἡμῶν (“He is the downpayment of our inheritance”)
· John 1:49, σὺ βασιλεὺς εἶ τοῦ Ἰσραήλ (“You are the king of Israel”)
The next most popular construction, 189 by count, is that with the subject contained in the verb,
with an arthrous predicate nominative following the verb (Mt 24:6; Ac 4:12a; 1 Pe 2:15; Jn 1:9; 5:9; 8:12; 19:31; Re 12:10; 22:14), an arthrous predicate nominative preceding the verb (Ac 2:15; Jn 20:15; 21:7,12), with an anarthrous predicate nominative following the verb (Mt 2:23b; 4:3,6; 5:34; 22:23,32b; 23:10a; 26:14; 27:43; Mk 9:35; 12:27; Lk 1:35,60; 6:35; 7:39a,b; 11:8; 15:21; 20:33; 22:1,47; Jn 1:9; 5:9; 8:12,55; 9:14; 11:2,38; 12:20; 13:30; 15:8; 18:13a,39; 19:12,14,31; 20:19,24; 21:2; Ac 2:15; 4:12b; 9:36; 14:12; 25:16; Ro 4:18; 8:16; 9:26; 10:12; 13:1; 1 Co 8:5b; 9:1a,16; 12:15,16; 13:1; 15:9,44; Ga 5:23; Ep 2:11; 2 Th 2:4b; 2 Ti 3:1; Hb 4:13; 5:9; 8:6; 9:3; 11:7,24; Ja 2:4; 1 Jn 5:16; Re 2:2a,20; 12:10(3x); 16:14; 17:14; 18:2; 20:6; 21:7a,b; 22:14), and with an anarthrous predicate nominative preceding the verb (Mt 5:19,34; 14:26,33; 22:42,45; 27:6,40; Mk 6:15a,49; 11:32; 12:31,37; Lk 1:32; 4:3,9; 7:8,39b; 14:22; 20:27,38,44; 22:25,59; Jn 5:10,13,14,27; 8:33,37,39b, 44b, 48,54; 9:4,5,8,17,25; 10:13,22,34,36; 11:49,51; 12:6,36; 13:13,35; 18:18,26,37b; 19:21,40; 20:1,14,15; 21:4,7,12; 25:14; Ac 25:14; Ro 1:16; 2:28,29; 7:3; 13:4; 1 Co 1:18; 4:9; 6:7; 11:14,15; 12:6; 15:12; Ga 4:16,31; 5:3; Php 1:7; 2:13; Hb 5:13; 9:15; 10:33; Ja 2:23; 4:14,17; 1 Jn 2:18a,b; 3:2; 4:20; Re 10:6; Re 13:18; 18:7; 19:10; 21:3a; 22:9).
Examples from each category are:
· 1 Peter 2:15, ἐστὶν τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ (“It is the will of God”)
· Ac 12:15, ὁ ἄγγελός ἐστιν αὐτοῦ (“It is the angel of him”)
· John 5:9, Ἦν δὲ σάββατον (“It is [was] a/the Sabbath”)
· James 4:14, ἀτμὶς γάρ ἐστε (“For you are a mist”)
The next most popular construction (149 by count) is with a stated subject (not a pronoun) with
an arthrous predicate nominative following the verb (Mt 6:22; 13:34,37,38a,b,c,39a; Lk 8:11b; 11:34; Jn 1:4,40; 6:64a; 20:31; Ep 4:10; 1 Jn 2:7,22b; 3:4; 4:15; 5:1,5b,6b,c,20a; Re 17:18; 18:23; 20:2b; 21:8), with an arthrous predicate nominative preceding the verb (Jn 15:1b; 1 Co 11:3a; 2 Co 3:17; Re 19:8), with an anarthrous predicate nominative following the verb (Mt 2:23a; 10:2; 13:55; 23:36; 27:8,16,17,33; Lk 9:10; 19:46; Jn 1:8,9; 4:5,18; 6:55; 11:16; 18:10,40; 19:13,38; Ac 1:19,23; 3:2; 4:36a; 10:34; 11:26; Ro 5:14; 8:24; 11:6; 12:12,14; 16:15; Ga 5:22(9x); Ep 5:5,23a; Col 4:11; 1 Ti 1:5; 6:6; Hb 11:1; 1 Jn 2:27b; 1 Jn 5:20b; Re 1:9; 5:6,11; 16:16; 17:15(2x); 20:2a; 21:3b), and with an anarthrous predicate nominative preceding the verb (Mt 9:9; 12:8; 13:39b,c; 23:10b,13; Mk 11:17; 12:35; Lk 1:63; 6:5; Jn 1:1,14; 2:9; 3:4,6a,b,29; 6:63b; 8:34,39a,42; 10:8,12; 11:54; 12:50; 17:17; Ac 7:33; 17:7; 22:26; 28:1,4; Ro 1:9; 1 Co 3:19; 4:4; 6:19; 7:22a,b; 10:16; 11:7a,b; Ga 2:9; 4:1,25; 1 Ti 6:10; Hb 11:16; Ja 3:4,5; 4:4; 1 Jn 1:5b; 2:4,27a; 3:15; 4:8,16; 5:7,17; Re 1:20; 17:12,15(2x), 21:22).
Examples from each category are:
· John 15:1b, καὶ ὁ πατήρ μου ὁ γεωργός ἐστιν (“and my Father is the vinedresser”)
· Luke 8:11b, ὁ σπόρος ἐστὶν ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ (“The seed is the word of God”)
· Ephesians 5:23a, ἀνήρ ἐστιν κεφαλὴ τῆς γυναικὸς (“the husband is the head of the
wife”)
· John 8:42, εἰ ὁ θεὸς πατὴρ ὑμῶν ἦν (“If God was the father of you all”)
There are 68 examples of pronominal predicate nominatives, pronouns or number words that
serve as predicate nominatives (Mt 10:20; 21:10; 23:16,18; 26:48,68; Mk 5:14; 8:27; 9:10,39; 12:28; Lk 7:49; 8:11a,25,30; 9:9; 10:29; 12:42; 20:12,17; 22:64; Jn 1:22; 5:13,14,32; 6:20,64a; 7:36,50; 8:25; 9:36; 10:30; 12:2,34; 13:25,26; 14:21; 16:17,18; 18:38; 21:20; Ac 21:22; 23:19; Ro 14:4; 1 Co 3:5(2x), 7,11; 7:19(2x); 9:3,18; 10:19(2x); 14:15; 2 Co 1:12; 12:11,13; Ga 4:24b; 6:3; Ep 4:9; Ja 2:19; 1 Jn 3:23; 5:7,9,11a; 2 Jn 6:a; Re 7:13). Many of these are in a question (“Who is it”) where, if we turn the question into an assertion, we can see which word is the predicate nominative (“it is who”).
Some interesting examples are:
· Galatians 6:3, εἰ γὰρ δοκεῖ τις εἶναί τι μηδὲν ὤν (“For if someone considers [himself] to be something, when he is nothing”). Here, τι acts as predicate nominative following the infinitive εἶναί, and μηδὲν as predicate nominative to the subject contained in the participle ὤν.
· John 10:30, ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν (“I and the Father are one thing”). Is a number a pronoun? No, but the similarity between its function here makes me put it in the pronominal category.
· John 21:25, Ἔστιν δὲ καὶ ἄλλα πολλὰ ἃ ἐποίησεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς (“Now there are also many other things that Jesus did”)
· 1 John 5:9, αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ μαρτυρία τοῦ θεοῦ (“This is the testimony of God,” or, “The testimony of God is this”). Is the pronoun the subject of this sentence or the predicate nominative? I’m taking it as a predicate nominative and there are several like this that could go either way.
· 1 Peter 2:15, ἐστὶν τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ (“It is the will of God”)
· Ac 12:15, ὁ ἄγγελός ἐστιν αὐτοῦ (“It is the angel of him”)
· John 5:9, Ἦν δὲ σάββατον (“It is [was] a/the Sabbath”)
· James 4:14, ἀτμὶς γάρ ἐστε (“For you are a mist”)
The next most popular construction (149 by count) is with a stated subject (not a pronoun) with
an arthrous predicate nominative following the verb (Mt 6:22; 13:34,37,38a,b,c,39a; Lk 8:11b; 11:34; Jn 1:4,40; 6:64a; 20:31; Ep 4:10; 1 Jn 2:7,22b; 3:4; 4:15; 5:1,5b,6b,c,20a; Re 17:18; 18:23; 20:2b; 21:8), with an arthrous predicate nominative preceding the verb (Jn 15:1b; 1 Co 11:3a; 2 Co 3:17; Re 19:8), with an anarthrous predicate nominative following the verb (Mt 2:23a; 10:2; 13:55; 23:36; 27:8,16,17,33; Lk 9:10; 19:46; Jn 1:8,9; 4:5,18; 6:55; 11:16; 18:10,40; 19:13,38; Ac 1:19,23; 3:2; 4:36a; 10:34; 11:26; Ro 5:14; 8:24; 11:6; 12:12,14; 16:15; Ga 5:22(9x); Ep 5:5,23a; Col 4:11; 1 Ti 1:5; 6:6; Hb 11:1; 1 Jn 2:27b; 1 Jn 5:20b; Re 1:9; 5:6,11; 16:16; 17:15(2x); 20:2a; 21:3b), and with an anarthrous predicate nominative preceding the verb (Mt 9:9; 12:8; 13:39b,c; 23:10b,13; Mk 11:17; 12:35; Lk 1:63; 6:5; Jn 1:1,14; 2:9; 3:4,6a,b,29; 6:63b; 8:34,39a,42; 10:8,12; 11:54; 12:50; 17:17; Ac 7:33; 17:7; 22:26; 28:1,4; Ro 1:9; 1 Co 3:19; 4:4; 6:19; 7:22a,b; 10:16; 11:7a,b; Ga 2:9; 4:1,25; 1 Ti 6:10; Hb 11:16; Ja 3:4,5; 4:4; 1 Jn 1:5b; 2:4,27a; 3:15; 4:8,16; 5:7,17; Re 1:20; 17:12,15(2x), 21:22).
Examples from each category are:
· John 15:1b, καὶ ὁ πατήρ μου ὁ γεωργός ἐστιν (“and my Father is the vinedresser”)
· Luke 8:11b, ὁ σπόρος ἐστὶν ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ (“The seed is the word of God”)
· Ephesians 5:23a, ἀνήρ ἐστιν κεφαλὴ τῆς γυναικὸς (“the husband is the head of the
wife”)
· John 8:42, εἰ ὁ θεὸς πατὴρ ὑμῶν ἦν (“If God was the father of you all”)
There are 68 examples of pronominal predicate nominatives, pronouns or number words that
serve as predicate nominatives (Mt 10:20; 21:10; 23:16,18; 26:48,68; Mk 5:14; 8:27; 9:10,39; 12:28; Lk 7:49; 8:11a,25,30; 9:9; 10:29; 12:42; 20:12,17; 22:64; Jn 1:22; 5:13,14,32; 6:20,64a; 7:36,50; 8:25; 9:36; 10:30; 12:2,34; 13:25,26; 14:21; 16:17,18; 18:38; 21:20; Ac 21:22; 23:19; Ro 14:4; 1 Co 3:5(2x), 7,11; 7:19(2x); 9:3,18; 10:19(2x); 14:15; 2 Co 1:12; 12:11,13; Ga 4:24b; 6:3; Ep 4:9; Ja 2:19; 1 Jn 3:23; 5:7,9,11a; 2 Jn 6:a; Re 7:13). Many of these are in a question (“Who is it”) where, if we turn the question into an assertion, we can see which word is the predicate nominative (“it is who”).
Some interesting examples are:
· Galatians 6:3, εἰ γὰρ δοκεῖ τις εἶναί τι μηδὲν ὤν (“For if someone considers [himself] to be something, when he is nothing”). Here, τι acts as predicate nominative following the infinitive εἶναί, and μηδὲν as predicate nominative to the subject contained in the participle ὤν.
· John 10:30, ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν (“I and the Father are one thing”). Is a number a pronoun? No, but the similarity between its function here makes me put it in the pronominal category.
· John 21:25, Ἔστιν δὲ καὶ ἄλλα πολλὰ ἃ ἐποίησεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς (“Now there are also many other things that Jesus did”)
· 1 John 5:9, αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ μαρτυρία τοῦ θεοῦ (“This is the testimony of God,” or, “The testimony of God is this”). Is the pronoun the subject of this sentence or the predicate nominative? I’m taking it as a predicate nominative and there are several like this that could go either way.
Participial phrases make up the next most numerous category of predicate nominatives, being
41 in number (Mt 3:3; 13:22,23; Mk 4:16,18a,b,20; 7:15; 15:7; Lk 16:15; Jn 1:15,33; 4:10,26,37(2x); 5:15,39,45; 6:33,63a,64a,b; 7:25; 8:18,50(2x); Ac 2:16; 9:21; 10:42; Ro 3:11a,b,c; 1 Co 8:5a; Ga 1:7; 1 Jn 5:5a,6a; Re 1:18; 2:23; 7:14; 14:4).
Examples are:
· Matthew 3:3, οὗτος γάρ ἐστιν ὁ ῥηθεὶς διὰ Ἠσαΐου (“For this is the one who spoke through Isaiah”)
· Revelation 14:4, οὗτοί εἰσιν οἳ μετὰ γυναικῶν οὐκ ἐμολύνθησαν (“These are those who did not defile themselves with women”)
There are 17 instances of unstated but understood predicate nominatives: Mt 11:10; 26:22,25; Mk 13:6; Lk 7:27; Jn 1:30; 8:24,28; 9:9; 13:19; 18:5,6,8; 18:25; 2 Co 2:3; 1 Jn 3:1b; Re 20:12.
Some examples are:
· Matthew 11:10, οὗτός ἐστιν περὶ οὗ γέγραπται (“this is [the one] concerning whom I wrote”)
· 1 John 3:1b, καὶ ἐσμέν (“and we are [the children of God]”)
Ten cases of missing, but understood, stative verbs that take predicate nominatives are Lk 23:38; Ro 7:7; 10:9; 1 Co 11:3b,c; 15:20; 2 Co 2:2; Ep 5:23b; Php 1:8; Re 21:21.
For example:
· Revelation 21:21, καὶ οἱ δώδεκα πυλῶνες δώδεκα μαργαρῖται (“and the twelve gates [are] twelve pearls”)
A case may be made for 32 “predicate nominatives” that are not in the nominative case: Mt 9:9;
10:25; 23:9a; 26:3(gen); 27:17,33; Lk 7:11; 9:10; 20:41; Jn 1:12; 4:5; 11:54; 19:13,17b; 20:19; Ac 6:9(gen); 8:37; 11:26; 14:12; 19:35; Ro 16:1; Ep 2:11b(gen); Php 1:7; 2 Th 2:4a; 1 Ti 6:5; Ja 2:11; Re 1:9(dat); 2:9,20,24; 3:9a; 16:3,4.
Examples:
· Luke 20:41, πῶς λέγουσιν τὸν χριστὸν εἶναι Δαυὶδ υἱόν; (“How do they say the Christ to be David’s son?”). What they say is in the accusative case so that the subject of εἶναι, τὸν χριστὸν, is in the accusative as is the predicate nominative, υἱόν. Do we call it a predicate accusative?
· Acts 8:37(txt), Πιστεύω τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ εἶναι τὸν Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν (“I believe Jesus Christ to be the Son of God”). This passage is not in all Greek manuscripts of Acts, but the Greek is genuine. Here again we have a predicate nominative type relationship expressed in the accusative case, “Jesus is the Son of God.” Ditto for Acts 19:35, Romans 16:1, Philippians 1:7, and Revelation 3:9a.
· John 20:19, Οὔσης οὖν ὀψίας τῇ ἡμέρᾳ (“When it was evening of that day”). This is a genitive absolute, the subject “it” being understood in the participle and evening, though in the genitive case, acting as a predicate nominative.
A case could be made three times for adjectives acting as substantives and therefore as
predicate nominatives:
· Mark 6:35, ἔρημός ἐστιν ὁ τόπος (“This place is a desert [literally, deserted]”)
· John 9:30, τὸ θαυμαστόν ἐστιν (“It is the marvelous”)
· Jn 18:15, ὁ δὲ μαθητὴς ἐκεῖνος ἦν γνωστὸς τῷ ἀρχιερεῖ (“Now that disciple was known to the high priest”)
There is one place where a prepositional phrase acts as a predicate nominative:
James 5:3, ὁ ἰὸς αὐτῶν εἰς μαρτύριον ὑμῖν ἔσται (“Their corrosion will be for a witness to you”)
A hina-clause can act as a predicate nominative:
John 4:34, ἐμὸν βρῶμά ἐστιν ἵνα ποιήσω τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός με (“My food is that I might do the will of the One who sent me”)
Then there are some cases (6) where the adjective μείζων could be construed as a substantive
and thus a predicate nominative (Mt 18:1; Mk 4:32; Lk 22:24; JN 8:53; 10:29; 14:28):
41 in number (Mt 3:3; 13:22,23; Mk 4:16,18a,b,20; 7:15; 15:7; Lk 16:15; Jn 1:15,33; 4:10,26,37(2x); 5:15,39,45; 6:33,63a,64a,b; 7:25; 8:18,50(2x); Ac 2:16; 9:21; 10:42; Ro 3:11a,b,c; 1 Co 8:5a; Ga 1:7; 1 Jn 5:5a,6a; Re 1:18; 2:23; 7:14; 14:4).
Examples are:
· Matthew 3:3, οὗτος γάρ ἐστιν ὁ ῥηθεὶς διὰ Ἠσαΐου (“For this is the one who spoke through Isaiah”)
· Revelation 14:4, οὗτοί εἰσιν οἳ μετὰ γυναικῶν οὐκ ἐμολύνθησαν (“These are those who did not defile themselves with women”)
There are 17 instances of unstated but understood predicate nominatives: Mt 11:10; 26:22,25; Mk 13:6; Lk 7:27; Jn 1:30; 8:24,28; 9:9; 13:19; 18:5,6,8; 18:25; 2 Co 2:3; 1 Jn 3:1b; Re 20:12.
Some examples are:
· Matthew 11:10, οὗτός ἐστιν περὶ οὗ γέγραπται (“this is [the one] concerning whom I wrote”)
· 1 John 3:1b, καὶ ἐσμέν (“and we are [the children of God]”)
Ten cases of missing, but understood, stative verbs that take predicate nominatives are Lk 23:38; Ro 7:7; 10:9; 1 Co 11:3b,c; 15:20; 2 Co 2:2; Ep 5:23b; Php 1:8; Re 21:21.
For example:
· Revelation 21:21, καὶ οἱ δώδεκα πυλῶνες δώδεκα μαργαρῖται (“and the twelve gates [are] twelve pearls”)
A case may be made for 32 “predicate nominatives” that are not in the nominative case: Mt 9:9;
10:25; 23:9a; 26:3(gen); 27:17,33; Lk 7:11; 9:10; 20:41; Jn 1:12; 4:5; 11:54; 19:13,17b; 20:19; Ac 6:9(gen); 8:37; 11:26; 14:12; 19:35; Ro 16:1; Ep 2:11b(gen); Php 1:7; 2 Th 2:4a; 1 Ti 6:5; Ja 2:11; Re 1:9(dat); 2:9,20,24; 3:9a; 16:3,4.
Examples:
· Luke 20:41, πῶς λέγουσιν τὸν χριστὸν εἶναι Δαυὶδ υἱόν; (“How do they say the Christ to be David’s son?”). What they say is in the accusative case so that the subject of εἶναι, τὸν χριστὸν, is in the accusative as is the predicate nominative, υἱόν. Do we call it a predicate accusative?
· Acts 8:37(txt), Πιστεύω τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ εἶναι τὸν Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν (“I believe Jesus Christ to be the Son of God”). This passage is not in all Greek manuscripts of Acts, but the Greek is genuine. Here again we have a predicate nominative type relationship expressed in the accusative case, “Jesus is the Son of God.” Ditto for Acts 19:35, Romans 16:1, Philippians 1:7, and Revelation 3:9a.
· John 20:19, Οὔσης οὖν ὀψίας τῇ ἡμέρᾳ (“When it was evening of that day”). This is a genitive absolute, the subject “it” being understood in the participle and evening, though in the genitive case, acting as a predicate nominative.
A case could be made three times for adjectives acting as substantives and therefore as
predicate nominatives:
· Mark 6:35, ἔρημός ἐστιν ὁ τόπος (“This place is a desert [literally, deserted]”)
· John 9:30, τὸ θαυμαστόν ἐστιν (“It is the marvelous”)
· Jn 18:15, ὁ δὲ μαθητὴς ἐκεῖνος ἦν γνωστὸς τῷ ἀρχιερεῖ (“Now that disciple was known to the high priest”)
There is one place where a prepositional phrase acts as a predicate nominative:
James 5:3, ὁ ἰὸς αὐτῶν εἰς μαρτύριον ὑμῖν ἔσται (“Their corrosion will be for a witness to you”)
A hina-clause can act as a predicate nominative:
John 4:34, ἐμὸν βρῶμά ἐστιν ἵνα ποιήσω τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός με (“My food is that I might do the will of the One who sent me”)
Then there are some cases (6) where the adjective μείζων could be construed as a substantive
and thus a predicate nominative (Mt 18:1; Mk 4:32; Lk 22:24; JN 8:53; 10:29; 14:28):
Matthew 18:1, τίς ἄρα μείζων ἐστὶν ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ (“Who, then, is a greater one in the kingdom”)
· John 8:53, μὴ σὺ μείζων εἶ τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν Ἀβραάμ (“You are not a greater one than our father Abraham”)
Anarthrous Predicate Nominatives that Are Clearly Definite, Qualitative, or Indefinite
Now, since it is really only the anarthrous predicate nominatives that are in question as to
interpretation (definite, indefinite, or qualitative), it makes sense to look at only those that can
only be one or the other, either definite, indefinite, or qualitative, and what order they come in, in
relationship to the stative verb. Some of those are not worth considering because they are
names, which we have seen are commonly arthrous or anarthrous with no rhyme or reason. They won’t tell us anything about whether the writers were using a pattern of word order or not to intend anarthrous predicate nominatives as either definite, indefinite or qualitative. When we
exclude these names, our list looks like this:
Anarthrous Predicate Nominatives following the verb where a definite interpretation seems the
only possibility:
Matthew 27:43, εἶπεν γὰρ ὅτι θεοῦ εἰμι υἱός (“Because he said that I am the Son of God”) – Jesus would not be in trouble for claiming to be “a” son of God.
Mark 15:42a, ἐπεὶ ἦν παρασκευὴ (“because it was the Preparation Day”) – It could not have been “a” day of preparation since there was only one and this term had taken on a proper name status.
Mark 15:42b, ὅ ἐστιν προσάββατον (“which is the day before Sabbath”) – It was not “a” day before Sabbath but, in equivalence with παρασκευὴ, must be “the” day before Sabbath, likely also a proper name status.
John 1:41, εὑρήκαμεν τὸν Μεσσίαν, ὅ ἐστιν μεθερμηνευόμενον χριστός (“We have found the Messiah, which being translated is [the] Christ”) – If there is equivalence between the Hebrew and the Greek, τὸν Μεσσίαν must translate as ὁ χριστός, and though John did not feel obligated to add the article before χριστός, it is equivalent.
John 18:13a, ἦν γὰρ πενθερὸς τοῦ Καϊάφα (“for he was the father-in-law of Caiaphas”) – Unless Caiaphas had more than one wife, and therefore more than one father-in-law, definite is the only possibility.
John 18:13b, ὃς ἦν ἀρχιερεὺς τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ ἐκείνου (“he was the high priest that year”) – Unless there was more than one high priest, definite is the only possibility.
John 19:14, ἦν δὲ παρασκευὴ τοῦ πάσχα (“Now it was the Preparation Day for Passover”) – It could not have been “a” day of preparation since there was only one and this term had taken on a proper name status.
Acts 2:15, ἔστιν γὰρ ὥρα τρίτη τῆς ἡμέρας (“for it is [was] the third hour of the day”) – Being the third hour makes this a unique reference, so it could not be “a” third hour of the day, there being only one.
Acts 5:17, ἡ οὖσα αἵρεσις τῶν Σαδδουκαίων (“who being the sect of the Sadducees”) – The high priest did not belong to “a” sect of the Sadducees among other sects of the Sadducees, but “the” sect of the Sadducees as opposed to the Pharisees.
Acts 17:3, οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ χριστὸς [ὁ] Ἰησοῦς (“This is the Christ, Jesus”) – As the textual addition in some manuscripts shows, there was an expectation that this Ἰησοῦς should have an article, and that is the only logical possibility, since it is a proper name.
Romans 4:16, ὅς ἐστιν πατὴρ πάντων ἡμῶν (“who is the father of us all”) – Abraham is not “a” father of us all, as if we have many fathers, and to say this is qualitative seems too fine a distinction.
Romans 8:29, εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν πρωτότοκον ἐν πολλοῖς ἀδελφοῖς (“So that he might be the firstborn among many brothers”) – There is only one firstborn.
Romans 16:5, ὅς ἐστιν ἀπαρχὴ τῆς Ἀσίας (“who is the firstfruits of Asia”) – There can only be one firstfruits, cannot be “a” firstfruits and others in addition.
1 Corinthians 16:15, τὴν οἰκίαν Στεφανᾶ, ὅτι ἐστὶν ἀπαρχὴ τῆς Ἀχαΐας (“the household of
Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia”) – There can only be one firstfruits, cannot be “a” firstfruits and others in addition.
2 Corinthians 4:4, ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ (“who is the image of God”) – There is only one image of God, so Christ cannot be “an” image of God, as if there is another.
2 Corinthians 5:21, ἵνα ἡμεῖς γενώμεθα δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ (“in order that we might become the righteousness of God”) – There is only one righteousness of God, not “a” righteousness among others.
2 Corinthians 6:16, ἡμεῖς γὰρ ναὸς θεοῦ ἐσμεν ζῶντος (“for we are the temple of the living God”) – We are not “a” temple of the living God, for there is only one, and qualitative (“we are temple of the living God”) seems strained.
Galatians 4:26, ἥτις ἐστὶν μήτηρ ἡμῶν (“who is the mother of us”) – We can only have one mother.
Ephesians 1:14, ὅ ἐστιν ἀρραβὼν τῆς κληρονομίας ἡμῶν (“who is the down payment of our inheritance”) – Unless there are other down payments besides the Holy Spirit, this must be definite.
Ephesians 5:23a, ἀνήρ ἐστιν κεφαλὴ τῆς γυναικὸς (“the husband is the head of the wife”) – The wife cannot have more than one head over her in the home, and there is equivalence between his headship over her and Christ’s headship over the church.
Ephesians 5:23b, ὡς καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς κεφαλὴ τῆς ἐκκλησίας (“as Christ is the head of the church”) – There is only one head of the church.
Ephesians 6:2, ἥτις ἐστὶν ἐντολὴ πρώτη (“which is the first commandment”) – There is only one commandment that can be πρώτη with a promise.
Ephesians 6:17, ὅ ἐστιν ῥῆμα θεοῦ (“which is the word of God”) – The sword of the Spirit cannot only be “a” word of God.
Colossians 1:15, ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου, πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως (“who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation”) – There is only one image of God and only one firstborn.
Colossians 1:18b, ὅς ἐστιν ἀρχή, πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν (“who is the beginning, the
firstborn from the dead”) – There is only one beginning an only one firstborn.
Colossians 1:27, ὅ ἐστιν Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν (“which is Christ in you”) – If Χριστὸς is being used as a proper name, then we should exclude this one. But if it is translating ‘anointed one,’ then Paul is saying, “which is [the] Messiah in you.” He could not mean “a” messiah in us.
Colossians 3:14, ὅ ἐστιν σύνδεσμος τῆς τελειότητος (“which is the bond of perfection”) – There is only one perfect bond – love.
1 Thessalonians 4:3, Τοῦτο γάρ ἐστιν θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ, ὁ ἁγιασμὸς ὑμῶν [txt] (“For this is the will of God, your sanctification”) – There is only one will or desire of God when it comes to marital fidelity, that is, our sanctification.
· John 8:53, μὴ σὺ μείζων εἶ τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν Ἀβραάμ (“You are not a greater one than our father Abraham”)
Anarthrous Predicate Nominatives that Are Clearly Definite, Qualitative, or Indefinite
Now, since it is really only the anarthrous predicate nominatives that are in question as to
interpretation (definite, indefinite, or qualitative), it makes sense to look at only those that can
only be one or the other, either definite, indefinite, or qualitative, and what order they come in, in
relationship to the stative verb. Some of those are not worth considering because they are
names, which we have seen are commonly arthrous or anarthrous with no rhyme or reason. They won’t tell us anything about whether the writers were using a pattern of word order or not to intend anarthrous predicate nominatives as either definite, indefinite or qualitative. When we
exclude these names, our list looks like this:
Anarthrous Predicate Nominatives following the verb where a definite interpretation seems the
only possibility:
Matthew 27:43, εἶπεν γὰρ ὅτι θεοῦ εἰμι υἱός (“Because he said that I am the Son of God”) – Jesus would not be in trouble for claiming to be “a” son of God.
Mark 15:42a, ἐπεὶ ἦν παρασκευὴ (“because it was the Preparation Day”) – It could not have been “a” day of preparation since there was only one and this term had taken on a proper name status.
Mark 15:42b, ὅ ἐστιν προσάββατον (“which is the day before Sabbath”) – It was not “a” day before Sabbath but, in equivalence with παρασκευὴ, must be “the” day before Sabbath, likely also a proper name status.
John 1:41, εὑρήκαμεν τὸν Μεσσίαν, ὅ ἐστιν μεθερμηνευόμενον χριστός (“We have found the Messiah, which being translated is [the] Christ”) – If there is equivalence between the Hebrew and the Greek, τὸν Μεσσίαν must translate as ὁ χριστός, and though John did not feel obligated to add the article before χριστός, it is equivalent.
John 18:13a, ἦν γὰρ πενθερὸς τοῦ Καϊάφα (“for he was the father-in-law of Caiaphas”) – Unless Caiaphas had more than one wife, and therefore more than one father-in-law, definite is the only possibility.
John 18:13b, ὃς ἦν ἀρχιερεὺς τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ ἐκείνου (“he was the high priest that year”) – Unless there was more than one high priest, definite is the only possibility.
John 19:14, ἦν δὲ παρασκευὴ τοῦ πάσχα (“Now it was the Preparation Day for Passover”) – It could not have been “a” day of preparation since there was only one and this term had taken on a proper name status.
Acts 2:15, ἔστιν γὰρ ὥρα τρίτη τῆς ἡμέρας (“for it is [was] the third hour of the day”) – Being the third hour makes this a unique reference, so it could not be “a” third hour of the day, there being only one.
Acts 5:17, ἡ οὖσα αἵρεσις τῶν Σαδδουκαίων (“who being the sect of the Sadducees”) – The high priest did not belong to “a” sect of the Sadducees among other sects of the Sadducees, but “the” sect of the Sadducees as opposed to the Pharisees.
Acts 17:3, οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ χριστὸς [ὁ] Ἰησοῦς (“This is the Christ, Jesus”) – As the textual addition in some manuscripts shows, there was an expectation that this Ἰησοῦς should have an article, and that is the only logical possibility, since it is a proper name.
Romans 4:16, ὅς ἐστιν πατὴρ πάντων ἡμῶν (“who is the father of us all”) – Abraham is not “a” father of us all, as if we have many fathers, and to say this is qualitative seems too fine a distinction.
Romans 8:29, εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν πρωτότοκον ἐν πολλοῖς ἀδελφοῖς (“So that he might be the firstborn among many brothers”) – There is only one firstborn.
Romans 16:5, ὅς ἐστιν ἀπαρχὴ τῆς Ἀσίας (“who is the firstfruits of Asia”) – There can only be one firstfruits, cannot be “a” firstfruits and others in addition.
1 Corinthians 16:15, τὴν οἰκίαν Στεφανᾶ, ὅτι ἐστὶν ἀπαρχὴ τῆς Ἀχαΐας (“the household of
Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia”) – There can only be one firstfruits, cannot be “a” firstfruits and others in addition.
2 Corinthians 4:4, ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ (“who is the image of God”) – There is only one image of God, so Christ cannot be “an” image of God, as if there is another.
2 Corinthians 5:21, ἵνα ἡμεῖς γενώμεθα δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ (“in order that we might become the righteousness of God”) – There is only one righteousness of God, not “a” righteousness among others.
2 Corinthians 6:16, ἡμεῖς γὰρ ναὸς θεοῦ ἐσμεν ζῶντος (“for we are the temple of the living God”) – We are not “a” temple of the living God, for there is only one, and qualitative (“we are temple of the living God”) seems strained.
Galatians 4:26, ἥτις ἐστὶν μήτηρ ἡμῶν (“who is the mother of us”) – We can only have one mother.
Ephesians 1:14, ὅ ἐστιν ἀρραβὼν τῆς κληρονομίας ἡμῶν (“who is the down payment of our inheritance”) – Unless there are other down payments besides the Holy Spirit, this must be definite.
Ephesians 5:23a, ἀνήρ ἐστιν κεφαλὴ τῆς γυναικὸς (“the husband is the head of the wife”) – The wife cannot have more than one head over her in the home, and there is equivalence between his headship over her and Christ’s headship over the church.
Ephesians 5:23b, ὡς καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς κεφαλὴ τῆς ἐκκλησίας (“as Christ is the head of the church”) – There is only one head of the church.
Ephesians 6:2, ἥτις ἐστὶν ἐντολὴ πρώτη (“which is the first commandment”) – There is only one commandment that can be πρώτη with a promise.
Ephesians 6:17, ὅ ἐστιν ῥῆμα θεοῦ (“which is the word of God”) – The sword of the Spirit cannot only be “a” word of God.
Colossians 1:15, ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου, πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως (“who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation”) – There is only one image of God and only one firstborn.
Colossians 1:18b, ὅς ἐστιν ἀρχή, πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν (“who is the beginning, the
firstborn from the dead”) – There is only one beginning an only one firstborn.
Colossians 1:27, ὅ ἐστιν Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν (“which is Christ in you”) – If Χριστὸς is being used as a proper name, then we should exclude this one. But if it is translating ‘anointed one,’ then Paul is saying, “which is [the] Messiah in you.” He could not mean “a” messiah in us.
Colossians 3:14, ὅ ἐστιν σύνδεσμος τῆς τελειότητος (“which is the bond of perfection”) – There is only one perfect bond – love.
1 Thessalonians 4:3, Τοῦτο γάρ ἐστιν θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ, ὁ ἁγιασμὸς ὑμῶν [txt] (“For this is the will of God, your sanctification”) – There is only one will or desire of God when it comes to marital fidelity, that is, our sanctification.
1 Timothy 3:15, ἥτις ἐστὶν ἐκκλησία θεοῦ (“which is the church of God”) – There is only one church.
Hebrews 8:6, κρείττονός ἐστιν διαθήκης μεσίτης (“of a better covenant he is the mediator”) – There is only one mediator of this covenant.
1 Peter 5:12, ταύτην εἶναι ἀληθῆ χάριν τοῦ θεοῦ (predicate accusative) (“this to be the true grace of God”) – There is only one true grace of God, which Peter references in verse 10.
Revelation 20:2, ὁ ὄφις ὁ ἀρχαῖος, ὅς ἐστιν Διάβολος καὶ ὁ Σατανᾶς (“the ancient serpent, who is the Devil and Satan”) – The definite article on ὄφις identifies this as one unique Διάβολος, as does the article on Σατανᾶς.
Revelation 21:3b, καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ θεὸς μετ᾽ αὐτῶν ἔσται [αὐτῶν θεός] (txt) (“and God Himself with them will be [and] [the] God of them”) – If the textual addition is allowed, perhaps this verse should be translated, “And God-with-them Himself (or, “He, God with them, will be”) will be the God of them.” And, of course, there is only one God, so He cannot be “a” God of them.
=33 instances.
We would not expect to see this many definite anarthrous predicate nominatives following the
stative verb if Colwell’s Rule applied, unless he would argue that many of these predicate
nominatives are not definite nouns to begin with.
Anarthrous Predicate Nominatives following the verb where a qualitative interpretation seems
the most likely possibility:
Luke 12:1, ἥτις ἐστὶν ὑπόκρισις (“which is hypocrisy”) – The leaven of the Pharisees is not the hypocrisy (there are others), nor a hypocrisy among others (possible but not likely), but rather the quality of hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is the leaven of the Pharisees.
Romans 7:13, Τὸ οὖν ἀγαθὸν ἐμοὶ ἐγένετο θάνατος (“What was good to me became death”) – What was good, the law, did not become a death or the death to Paul, but the quality of death.
Romans 8:24, ἐλπὶς δὲ βλεπομένη οὐκ ἔστιν ἐλπίς (“Now hope that is seen is not hope”) – Paul is probably not saying that seen hope is not a hope, or the hope, but hope itself.
Romans 10:12, οὐ γάρ ἐστιν διαστολὴ (“for there is no distinction”) – Definite or indefinite could work but make less sense.
Romans 11:6, ἐπεὶ ἡ χάρις οὐκέτι γίνεται χάρις (“otherwise grace is no longer grace”) – See Romans 8:24.
Galatians 5:22, ὁ δὲ καρπὸς τοῦ πνεύματός ἐστιν ἀγάπη… (“Now the fruit of the Spirit is love…”) – A list of qualities alone makes sense here.
Colossians 3:5, ἥτις ἐστὶν εἰδωλολατρία (“which is idolatry”) – It cannot be definite (Covetousness is not “the” idolatry.” There are others.), indefinite could work (covetousness is an idolatry), but the least clumsy is qualitative.
1 Timothy 1:5, τὸ δὲ τέλος τῆς παραγγελίας ἐστὶν ἀγάπη (“Now the goal of this instruction is love”) – The goal of Paul’s charge is not “the” love, nor “a” love indiscriminate, but love as a quality.
1 Timothy 6:6, Ἔστιν δὲ πορισμὸς μέγας ἡ εὐσέβεια (“but godliness is great gain”) – Godliness could be “a” great gain, but qualitative seems most likely.
Hebrews 5:9, ἐγένετο πᾶσιν τοῖς ὑπακούουσιν αὐτῷ αἴτιος σωτηρίας αἰωνίου (“he became, for all who heed him, eternal salvation”) – Definite is possible (“the eternal salvation”) but qualitative seems most likely.
Revelation 5:11, ἦν ὁ ἀριθμὸς αὐτῶν μυριάδες μυριάδων καὶ χιλιάδες χιλιάδων (“the number of them was myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands”) – The plurals make either definite or indefinite implausible.
=11 instances.
We would also expect these qualitative anarthrous nouns to precede the verb if Harner’s Rule
was correct.
Hebrews 8:6, κρείττονός ἐστιν διαθήκης μεσίτης (“of a better covenant he is the mediator”) – There is only one mediator of this covenant.
1 Peter 5:12, ταύτην εἶναι ἀληθῆ χάριν τοῦ θεοῦ (predicate accusative) (“this to be the true grace of God”) – There is only one true grace of God, which Peter references in verse 10.
Revelation 20:2, ὁ ὄφις ὁ ἀρχαῖος, ὅς ἐστιν Διάβολος καὶ ὁ Σατανᾶς (“the ancient serpent, who is the Devil and Satan”) – The definite article on ὄφις identifies this as one unique Διάβολος, as does the article on Σατανᾶς.
Revelation 21:3b, καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ θεὸς μετ᾽ αὐτῶν ἔσται [αὐτῶν θεός] (txt) (“and God Himself with them will be [and] [the] God of them”) – If the textual addition is allowed, perhaps this verse should be translated, “And God-with-them Himself (or, “He, God with them, will be”) will be the God of them.” And, of course, there is only one God, so He cannot be “a” God of them.
=33 instances.
We would not expect to see this many definite anarthrous predicate nominatives following the
stative verb if Colwell’s Rule applied, unless he would argue that many of these predicate
nominatives are not definite nouns to begin with.
Anarthrous Predicate Nominatives following the verb where a qualitative interpretation seems
the most likely possibility:
Luke 12:1, ἥτις ἐστὶν ὑπόκρισις (“which is hypocrisy”) – The leaven of the Pharisees is not the hypocrisy (there are others), nor a hypocrisy among others (possible but not likely), but rather the quality of hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is the leaven of the Pharisees.
Romans 7:13, Τὸ οὖν ἀγαθὸν ἐμοὶ ἐγένετο θάνατος (“What was good to me became death”) – What was good, the law, did not become a death or the death to Paul, but the quality of death.
Romans 8:24, ἐλπὶς δὲ βλεπομένη οὐκ ἔστιν ἐλπίς (“Now hope that is seen is not hope”) – Paul is probably not saying that seen hope is not a hope, or the hope, but hope itself.
Romans 10:12, οὐ γάρ ἐστιν διαστολὴ (“for there is no distinction”) – Definite or indefinite could work but make less sense.
Romans 11:6, ἐπεὶ ἡ χάρις οὐκέτι γίνεται χάρις (“otherwise grace is no longer grace”) – See Romans 8:24.
Galatians 5:22, ὁ δὲ καρπὸς τοῦ πνεύματός ἐστιν ἀγάπη… (“Now the fruit of the Spirit is love…”) – A list of qualities alone makes sense here.
Colossians 3:5, ἥτις ἐστὶν εἰδωλολατρία (“which is idolatry”) – It cannot be definite (Covetousness is not “the” idolatry.” There are others.), indefinite could work (covetousness is an idolatry), but the least clumsy is qualitative.
1 Timothy 1:5, τὸ δὲ τέλος τῆς παραγγελίας ἐστὶν ἀγάπη (“Now the goal of this instruction is love”) – The goal of Paul’s charge is not “the” love, nor “a” love indiscriminate, but love as a quality.
1 Timothy 6:6, Ἔστιν δὲ πορισμὸς μέγας ἡ εὐσέβεια (“but godliness is great gain”) – Godliness could be “a” great gain, but qualitative seems most likely.
Hebrews 5:9, ἐγένετο πᾶσιν τοῖς ὑπακούουσιν αὐτῷ αἴτιος σωτηρίας αἰωνίου (“he became, for all who heed him, eternal salvation”) – Definite is possible (“the eternal salvation”) but qualitative seems most likely.
Revelation 5:11, ἦν ὁ ἀριθμὸς αὐτῶν μυριάδες μυριάδων καὶ χιλιάδες χιλιάδων (“the number of them was myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands”) – The plurals make either definite or indefinite implausible.
=11 instances.
We would also expect these qualitative anarthrous nouns to precede the verb if Harner’s Rule
was correct.
Anarthrous Predicate Nominatives following the verb where an indefinite interpretation seems
the most likely possibility:
Matthew 14:26, φάντασμά ἐστιν (“It is a ghost”) – It is doubtful the disciples would have been commenting on the qualitative aspect of this apparition (“It is ghostly”), and they certainly were not referencing some specific ghost (“It is the ghost”).
Matthew 22:23, μὴ εἶναι ἀνάστασιν (“not to be a resurrection”) – indefinite, though could be definite in the Sadducees’ minds if they were thinking about “the” resurrection that the Pharisees believed in, or qualitative if they were thinking of the concept of resurrection period.
Luke 7:39a, οὗτος εἰ ἦν προφήτης (“if this one was a prophet”) – most likely indefinite (unless Simon is thinking Jesus has been identified as “the” prophet of Dt 18)
Luke 11:8, διὰ τὸ εἶναι φίλον αὐτοῦ (“since he is a friend of his”)
Luke 19:46, ἔσται ὁ οἶκός μου οἶκος προσευχῆς (“My house will be a house of prayer”)
John 4:14, ὃ δώσω αὐτῷ γενήσεται ἐν αὐτῷ πηγὴ ὕδατος (“What I give him will become
in him a spring of water”)
John 4:46, ἦν τις βασιλικὸς (“there was a certain official”) – The use of τις guarantees the
indefinite sense
John 8:55, ἔσομαι ὅμοιος ὑμῖν ψεύστης (“I will be a liar like you”)
John 11:38, ἦν δὲ σπήλαιον (“it was a cave”)
John 18:40, ἦν δὲ ὁ Βαραββᾶς λῃστής (“Now Barabbas was a thief”)
John 19:12, οὐκ εἶ φίλος τοῦ Καίσαρος (“you are not a friend of Caesar”)
Acts 4:12b, οὐδὲ γὰρ ὄνομά ἐστιν ἕτερον (“for there is not another name”) – ἕτερον helps insure the indefiniteness of this term
Acts 10:34, οὐκ ἔστιν προσωπολήμπτης ὁ θεός (“God is not a partiality-shower”)
1 Corinthians 8:5a, γὰρ εἴπερ εἰσὶν λεγόμενοι θεοὶ (“For even if there are so-called gods”) – Paul is thinking about pagan gods and this is therefore indefinite.
1 Corinthians 8:5b, ὥσπερ εἰσὶν θεοὶ πολλοὶ καὶ κύριοι πολλοί – Paul is thinking about pagan gods and pagan lords and this is therefore indefinite.
1 Corinthians 9:1a, οὐκ εἰμὶ ἀπόστολος (“Am I not an apostle”) – Would Paul be calling himself “the” apostle or apostle-ish?
1 Corinthians 9:16, οὐκ ἔστιν μοι καύχημα (“it is not to me a reason for boasting”)
1 Corinthians 12:14, τὸ σῶμα οὐκ ἔστιν ἓν μέλος (“the body is not one member”)
1 Corinthians 13:1, γέγονα χαλκὸς ἠχῶν (“I have become a noisy gong”)
1 Corinthians 15:44, Εἰ ἔστιν σῶμα ψυχικόν (“If it is a natural body”)
Romans 16:1, οὖσαν [καὶ] διάκονον τῆς ἐκκλησίας (“who is a servant of the churches”) – Phoebe is not the only servant/deaconess of the churches, and qualitative seems too fine a distinction.
Galatians 4:24, αὗται γάρ εἰσιν δύο διαθῆκαι (“for these are two covenants”)
Galatians 5:23, οὐκ ἔστιν νόμος “there is not a law”) – But see CSB, CJB, NLV which reflect a definite aspect to law.
Philippians 1:28, ἥτις ἐστὶν αὐτοῖς ἔνδειξις ἀπωλείας (“which is to them a sign of destruction”)
Hebrews 4:13, οὐκ ἔστιν κτίσις (“there is not a creature”)
James 2:4, ἐγένεσθε κριταὶ (“you have become judges”) – indefinite only possibility by virtue of being plural
James 2:11, γέγονας παραβάτης νόμου (predicate accusative) (“having become a transgressor of the law”)
Revelation 21:7b, καὶ αὐτὸς ἔσται μοι υἱός (“and they will be sons to me”)
=28 instances.
Indefinite anarthrous nouns following the verb makes sense for both Colwell’s and Harner’s
Rules, whereas they would not be expected preceding the verb, unless, as Colwell argues, they
are not be considered definite nouns to begin with, which, however, doesn’t make sense with 1
Corinthians 8:5.
Anarthrous Predicate Nominatives preceding the verb where a definite interpretation seems the
most likely possibility:
Matthew 5:34, θρόνος ἐστὶν τοῦ θεοῦ (“it is the throne of God”) – There is only one throne of God.
Matthew 5:35, μήτε εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα, ὅτι πόλις ἐστὶν τοῦ μεγάλου βασιλέως (“nor by Jerusalem, because it is the city of the Great King”) – There is only one Jerusalem, one city of the great King.
Matthew 12:50, αὐτός μου ἀδελφὸς καὶ ἀδελφὴ καὶ μήτηρ ἐστίν (“he is the brother of me and the sister of me and the mother of me”) – By comparison with v.48 where brother, sister and mother have the article, it is evident that these terms are definite here as well.
Matthew 13:39b, ὁ δὲ θερισμὸς συντέλεια αἰῶνός ἐστιν (“and the harvest is the end of the age”)
Matthew 14:33, ἀληθῶς θεοῦ υἱὸς εἶ (“You are truly the Son of God”) – Jesus’ disciples had the correct and highest evaluation of Jesus.
Matthew 27:40, εἰ υἱὸς εἶ τοῦ θεοῦ (“If you are the Son of God”) – The mockers are mocking Jesus with his own words. It would not make sense to tease him with being “a” son of God. But is this the concept the Roman soldier repeated when he became aware of Jesus’ uniqueness (27:54)?
Mark 12:28, ποία ἐστὶν ἐντολὴ πρώτη πάντων (“which is the first commandment of all”) – definite only possibility because of πρώτη
Luke 1:36, οὗτος μὴν ἕκτος ἐστὶν (“this is the sixth month”) – There is only one sixth month.
Luke 1:63, Ἰωάννης ἐστὶν ὄνομα αὐτοῦ (“the name of him is John” or “John is the name of him”) – The only question is whether John is the subject or the predicate nominative
Luke 4:3, εἰ υἱὸς εἶ τοῦ θεοῦ (“If you are the Son of God”) – It would not make sense for Satan to challenge Jesus with being “a” son of God.
Luke 4:9, εἰ υἱὸς εἶ τοῦ θεοῦ (“If you are the Son of God”) – It would not make sense for Satan to challenge Jesus with being “a” son of God.
John 1:49, σὺ βασιλεὺς εἶ τοῦ Ἰσραήλ (“you are the king of Israel”) – It would not be much of a declaration by Jesus’ disciple that Jesus is a king of Israel.
John 3:29, ὁ ἔχων τὴν νύμφην νυμφίος ἐστίν (“the one who has the bride is the bridegroom”)
the most likely possibility:
Matthew 14:26, φάντασμά ἐστιν (“It is a ghost”) – It is doubtful the disciples would have been commenting on the qualitative aspect of this apparition (“It is ghostly”), and they certainly were not referencing some specific ghost (“It is the ghost”).
Matthew 22:23, μὴ εἶναι ἀνάστασιν (“not to be a resurrection”) – indefinite, though could be definite in the Sadducees’ minds if they were thinking about “the” resurrection that the Pharisees believed in, or qualitative if they were thinking of the concept of resurrection period.
Luke 7:39a, οὗτος εἰ ἦν προφήτης (“if this one was a prophet”) – most likely indefinite (unless Simon is thinking Jesus has been identified as “the” prophet of Dt 18)
Luke 11:8, διὰ τὸ εἶναι φίλον αὐτοῦ (“since he is a friend of his”)
Luke 19:46, ἔσται ὁ οἶκός μου οἶκος προσευχῆς (“My house will be a house of prayer”)
John 4:14, ὃ δώσω αὐτῷ γενήσεται ἐν αὐτῷ πηγὴ ὕδατος (“What I give him will become
in him a spring of water”)
John 4:46, ἦν τις βασιλικὸς (“there was a certain official”) – The use of τις guarantees the
indefinite sense
John 8:55, ἔσομαι ὅμοιος ὑμῖν ψεύστης (“I will be a liar like you”)
John 11:38, ἦν δὲ σπήλαιον (“it was a cave”)
John 18:40, ἦν δὲ ὁ Βαραββᾶς λῃστής (“Now Barabbas was a thief”)
John 19:12, οὐκ εἶ φίλος τοῦ Καίσαρος (“you are not a friend of Caesar”)
Acts 4:12b, οὐδὲ γὰρ ὄνομά ἐστιν ἕτερον (“for there is not another name”) – ἕτερον helps insure the indefiniteness of this term
Acts 10:34, οὐκ ἔστιν προσωπολήμπτης ὁ θεός (“God is not a partiality-shower”)
1 Corinthians 8:5a, γὰρ εἴπερ εἰσὶν λεγόμενοι θεοὶ (“For even if there are so-called gods”) – Paul is thinking about pagan gods and this is therefore indefinite.
1 Corinthians 8:5b, ὥσπερ εἰσὶν θεοὶ πολλοὶ καὶ κύριοι πολλοί – Paul is thinking about pagan gods and pagan lords and this is therefore indefinite.
1 Corinthians 9:1a, οὐκ εἰμὶ ἀπόστολος (“Am I not an apostle”) – Would Paul be calling himself “the” apostle or apostle-ish?
1 Corinthians 9:16, οὐκ ἔστιν μοι καύχημα (“it is not to me a reason for boasting”)
1 Corinthians 12:14, τὸ σῶμα οὐκ ἔστιν ἓν μέλος (“the body is not one member”)
1 Corinthians 13:1, γέγονα χαλκὸς ἠχῶν (“I have become a noisy gong”)
1 Corinthians 15:44, Εἰ ἔστιν σῶμα ψυχικόν (“If it is a natural body”)
Romans 16:1, οὖσαν [καὶ] διάκονον τῆς ἐκκλησίας (“who is a servant of the churches”) – Phoebe is not the only servant/deaconess of the churches, and qualitative seems too fine a distinction.
Galatians 4:24, αὗται γάρ εἰσιν δύο διαθῆκαι (“for these are two covenants”)
Galatians 5:23, οὐκ ἔστιν νόμος “there is not a law”) – But see CSB, CJB, NLV which reflect a definite aspect to law.
Philippians 1:28, ἥτις ἐστὶν αὐτοῖς ἔνδειξις ἀπωλείας (“which is to them a sign of destruction”)
Hebrews 4:13, οὐκ ἔστιν κτίσις (“there is not a creature”)
James 2:4, ἐγένεσθε κριταὶ (“you have become judges”) – indefinite only possibility by virtue of being plural
James 2:11, γέγονας παραβάτης νόμου (predicate accusative) (“having become a transgressor of the law”)
Revelation 21:7b, καὶ αὐτὸς ἔσται μοι υἱός (“and they will be sons to me”)
=28 instances.
Indefinite anarthrous nouns following the verb makes sense for both Colwell’s and Harner’s
Rules, whereas they would not be expected preceding the verb, unless, as Colwell argues, they
are not be considered definite nouns to begin with, which, however, doesn’t make sense with 1
Corinthians 8:5.
Anarthrous Predicate Nominatives preceding the verb where a definite interpretation seems the
most likely possibility:
Matthew 5:34, θρόνος ἐστὶν τοῦ θεοῦ (“it is the throne of God”) – There is only one throne of God.
Matthew 5:35, μήτε εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα, ὅτι πόλις ἐστὶν τοῦ μεγάλου βασιλέως (“nor by Jerusalem, because it is the city of the Great King”) – There is only one Jerusalem, one city of the great King.
Matthew 12:50, αὐτός μου ἀδελφὸς καὶ ἀδελφὴ καὶ μήτηρ ἐστίν (“he is the brother of me and the sister of me and the mother of me”) – By comparison with v.48 where brother, sister and mother have the article, it is evident that these terms are definite here as well.
Matthew 13:39b, ὁ δὲ θερισμὸς συντέλεια αἰῶνός ἐστιν (“and the harvest is the end of the age”)
Matthew 14:33, ἀληθῶς θεοῦ υἱὸς εἶ (“You are truly the Son of God”) – Jesus’ disciples had the correct and highest evaluation of Jesus.
Matthew 27:40, εἰ υἱὸς εἶ τοῦ θεοῦ (“If you are the Son of God”) – The mockers are mocking Jesus with his own words. It would not make sense to tease him with being “a” son of God. But is this the concept the Roman soldier repeated when he became aware of Jesus’ uniqueness (27:54)?
Mark 12:28, ποία ἐστὶν ἐντολὴ πρώτη πάντων (“which is the first commandment of all”) – definite only possibility because of πρώτη
Luke 1:36, οὗτος μὴν ἕκτος ἐστὶν (“this is the sixth month”) – There is only one sixth month.
Luke 1:63, Ἰωάννης ἐστὶν ὄνομα αὐτοῦ (“the name of him is John” or “John is the name of him”) – The only question is whether John is the subject or the predicate nominative
Luke 4:3, εἰ υἱὸς εἶ τοῦ θεοῦ (“If you are the Son of God”) – It would not make sense for Satan to challenge Jesus with being “a” son of God.
Luke 4:9, εἰ υἱὸς εἶ τοῦ θεοῦ (“If you are the Son of God”) – It would not make sense for Satan to challenge Jesus with being “a” son of God.
John 1:49, σὺ βασιλεὺς εἶ τοῦ Ἰσραήλ (“you are the king of Israel”) – It would not be much of a declaration by Jesus’ disciple that Jesus is a king of Israel.
John 3:29, ὁ ἔχων τὴν νύμφην νυμφίος ἐστίν (“the one who has the bride is the bridegroom”)
John 8:42, εἰ ὁ θεὸς πατὴρ ὑμῶν ἦν (“if God was the father of you”) – He is not “a” father of us
John 8:54, ὃν ὑμεῖς λέγετε ὅτι θεὸς ἡμῶν ἐστιν (“whom you say that he is the God of you”) – Jesus wasn’t accusing the Jews of making God only one of many.
John 9:5, φῶς εἰμι τοῦ κόσμου (“I am the light of the world”)
John 9:37, ὁ λαλῶν μετὰ σοῦ ἐκεῖνός ἐστιν (“the one speaking to you is that one”) – The pronoun makes for a definite sense.
John 10:2, ὁ δὲ εἰσερχόμενος διὰ τῆς θύρας ποιμήν ἐστιν τῶν προβάτων (“the one who enters through the door is the shepherd of the sheep”)– Jesus’ point in context is that he is that definite and only shepherd
John 10:36, ὅτι εἶπον· υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ εἰμι (“because I said, ‘I am the Son of God”) – There is a bit of theological wrangling going on in this exchange but it does not seem likely that Jesus is backing down his self-evaluation to “a” son of God to escape the charge of blasphemy.
John 11:49, ἀρχιερεὺς ὢν τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ ἐκείνου (“being the high priest that year”) – There is only one high priest.
John 11:51, ἀρχιερεὺς ὢν τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ ἐκείνου ἐπροφήτευσεν (“being the high priest that year, he prophesied”)
Acts 19:35, τὴν Ἐφεσίων πόλιν νεωκόρον οὖσαν (“the city of Ephesus is the temple-keeper”) – It must be “the” city since it is further identified as Ephesus.
Romans 1:16, τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, δύναμις γὰρ θεοῦ ἐστιν (“the gospel, for it is the power of God”) – The gospel is not “a” power of God to salvation but “the” power.
1 Corinthians 1:18, δύναμις θεοῦ ἐστιν (“It is the power of God”) – The gospel, the word of the cross, is “the” power of God to those being saved.
1 Corinthians 4:4, ὁ δὲ ἀνακρίνων με κύριός ἐστιν (“the one who judges me is the Lord”) – not “a” lord
1 Corinthians 11:7a, δόξα θεοῦ ὑπάρχων (“being the image of God”) – only one image of God
1 Corinthians 11:7b, ἡ γυνὴ δὲ δόξα ἀνδρός ἐστιν (“and the wife is the glory of the husband”) – not “a” husband”
Philippians 2:13, θεὸς γάρ ἐστιν (“for it is God”) – There is only one God
1 John 2:18a, ἐσχάτη ὥρα ἐστίν (“it is the last hour”) – definite only possibility because of ἐσχάτη
Revelation 1:20, οἱ ἑπτὰ ἀστέρες ἄγγελοι τῶν ἑπτὰ ἐκκλησιῶν εἰσιν καὶ αἱ λυχνίαι αἱ ἑπτὰ ἑπτὰ ἐκκλησίαι εἰσίν (“the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches and the seven lampstands are the churches”) – Jesus is making identifications, making definite the meaning of symbols
Revelation 21:22, ὁ γὰρ κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὁ παντοκράτωρ ναὸς αὐτῆς ἐστιν καὶ τὸ ἀρνίον (“For the Lord God Almighty is the temple, and the Lamb”) – God and the Lamb are the only temple of the New Jerusalem
=31 instances.
We expect this with Colwell’s Rule, but not with the same frequency as those following the verb.
Those exceptions seem to disprove the rule.
Anarthrous Predicate Nominatives preceding the verb where a qualitative interpretation seems
the most likely possibility:
Matthew 23:8b, πάντες δὲ ὑμεῖς ἀδελφοί ἐστε (“You are all brothers”) – All Jesus’ disciples share the same quality, they are brothers/sisters. They are not all “the” rothers.
Matthew 27:6, τιμὴ αἵματός ἐστιν (“It is money of blood”) – It is the kind of money that cannot be allowed in the temple treasury.
Mark 12:29, κύριος εἷς ἐστιν (“the Lord is one”) – not “a” one or “the” one but the quality of oneness
Luke 14:22, ἔτι τόπος ἐστίν (“there is still room”) – The servants are not concerned that there is still “a” room available for the wedding, but the quality of room, space available still at the banquet.
John 1:14, ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο (“The Word became flesh”) – Jesus did not become “a” or “the” flesh, but flesh as an element.
John 2:9, τὸ ὕδωρ οἶνον γεγενημένον [pred acc or d/o] (“the water had become wine”) – not “a” or “the” wine but wine as a substance
John 3:4, ἄνθρωπος γεννηθῆναι γέρων ὤν (“a man to be born, when he is old”) – Γέρων is a noun, not an adjective, but the qualitative predicate nominative can act like an adjective
John 3:6, τὸ γεγεννημένον ἐκ τῆς σαρκὸς σάρξ ἐστιν, καὶ τὸ γεγεννημένον ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος πνεῦμά ἐστιν (“that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit”) – neither “a” nor “the” work
John 6:63b, τὰ ῥήματα ἃ ἐγὼ λελάληκα ὑμῖν πνεῦμά ἐστιν καὶ ζωή ἐστιν (“the words that I speak are spirit and life”) – neither “a” nor “the” work
John 9:4, ἕως ἡμέρα ἐστίν (“while it is day”)
John 10:22, χειμὼν ἦν (“it was winter”)
John 12:50, ἡ ἐντολὴ αὐτοῦ ζωὴ αἰώνιός ἐστιν (“His command is eternal life”)
John 17:17, ὁ λόγος ὁ σὸς ἀλήθειά ἐστιν (“Your word is truth”)
John 20:1, σκοτίας ἔτι οὔσης (“while it was still dark”)
Acts 7:33, τόπος ἐφ’ ᾧ ἕστηκας γῆ ἁγία ἐστίν (“the place on which you stand is holy
ground”)
1 Corinthians 3:19, ἡ γὰρ σοφία τοῦ κόσμου τούτου μωρία παρὰ τῷ θεῷ ἐστιν (“For the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God”)
1 Thessalonians 1:6, ὑμεῖς μιμηταὶ ἡμῶν ἐγενήθητε (“You became imitators of us”) – Likely not “some” or “the” imitators, but those with the quality of imitation.
1 Thessalonians 2:14, Ὑμεῖς γὰρ μιμηταὶ ἐγενήθητε (“You became imitators”) – Likely not “some” or “the” imitators, but those with the quality of imitation.
James 2:19, εἷς ἐστιν ὁ θεός (“God is one”)
James 3:4, τὰ πλοῖα τηλικαῦτα ὄντα (“the boat, though it is small”) – τηλικαῦτα is a demonstrative pronoun, not an adjective, but the qualitative sense gives it an adjectival sense
1 John 1:5b, ὅτι ὁ θεὸς φῶς ἐστιν καὶ σκοτία ἐν αὐτῷ οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδεμία (“that God is light, and there is no darkness at all in Him”)
1 John 4:8, ὁ θεὸς ἀγάπη ἐστίν (“God is love”) – God is not literally love but it is a defining quality of His
1 John 4:16, Ὁ θεὸς ἀγάπη ἐστίν (“God is love”)
1 John 5:7, τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες (“those which bear witness are three”) – the triadic Spirit, water and blood
1 John 5:17, πᾶσα ἀδικία ἁμαρτία ἐστίν (“All unrighteousness is sin”)
=25 instances.
These are consistent with Harner’s Rule and definitely more frequent preceding the verb, but that there are so many above that follow the verb seem the exceptions that disprove the rule.
John 8:54, ὃν ὑμεῖς λέγετε ὅτι θεὸς ἡμῶν ἐστιν (“whom you say that he is the God of you”) – Jesus wasn’t accusing the Jews of making God only one of many.
John 9:5, φῶς εἰμι τοῦ κόσμου (“I am the light of the world”)
John 9:37, ὁ λαλῶν μετὰ σοῦ ἐκεῖνός ἐστιν (“the one speaking to you is that one”) – The pronoun makes for a definite sense.
John 10:2, ὁ δὲ εἰσερχόμενος διὰ τῆς θύρας ποιμήν ἐστιν τῶν προβάτων (“the one who enters through the door is the shepherd of the sheep”)– Jesus’ point in context is that he is that definite and only shepherd
John 10:36, ὅτι εἶπον· υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ εἰμι (“because I said, ‘I am the Son of God”) – There is a bit of theological wrangling going on in this exchange but it does not seem likely that Jesus is backing down his self-evaluation to “a” son of God to escape the charge of blasphemy.
John 11:49, ἀρχιερεὺς ὢν τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ ἐκείνου (“being the high priest that year”) – There is only one high priest.
John 11:51, ἀρχιερεὺς ὢν τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ ἐκείνου ἐπροφήτευσεν (“being the high priest that year, he prophesied”)
Acts 19:35, τὴν Ἐφεσίων πόλιν νεωκόρον οὖσαν (“the city of Ephesus is the temple-keeper”) – It must be “the” city since it is further identified as Ephesus.
Romans 1:16, τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, δύναμις γὰρ θεοῦ ἐστιν (“the gospel, for it is the power of God”) – The gospel is not “a” power of God to salvation but “the” power.
1 Corinthians 1:18, δύναμις θεοῦ ἐστιν (“It is the power of God”) – The gospel, the word of the cross, is “the” power of God to those being saved.
1 Corinthians 4:4, ὁ δὲ ἀνακρίνων με κύριός ἐστιν (“the one who judges me is the Lord”) – not “a” lord
1 Corinthians 11:7a, δόξα θεοῦ ὑπάρχων (“being the image of God”) – only one image of God
1 Corinthians 11:7b, ἡ γυνὴ δὲ δόξα ἀνδρός ἐστιν (“and the wife is the glory of the husband”) – not “a” husband”
Philippians 2:13, θεὸς γάρ ἐστιν (“for it is God”) – There is only one God
1 John 2:18a, ἐσχάτη ὥρα ἐστίν (“it is the last hour”) – definite only possibility because of ἐσχάτη
Revelation 1:20, οἱ ἑπτὰ ἀστέρες ἄγγελοι τῶν ἑπτὰ ἐκκλησιῶν εἰσιν καὶ αἱ λυχνίαι αἱ ἑπτὰ ἑπτὰ ἐκκλησίαι εἰσίν (“the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches and the seven lampstands are the churches”) – Jesus is making identifications, making definite the meaning of symbols
Revelation 21:22, ὁ γὰρ κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὁ παντοκράτωρ ναὸς αὐτῆς ἐστιν καὶ τὸ ἀρνίον (“For the Lord God Almighty is the temple, and the Lamb”) – God and the Lamb are the only temple of the New Jerusalem
=31 instances.
We expect this with Colwell’s Rule, but not with the same frequency as those following the verb.
Those exceptions seem to disprove the rule.
Anarthrous Predicate Nominatives preceding the verb where a qualitative interpretation seems
the most likely possibility:
Matthew 23:8b, πάντες δὲ ὑμεῖς ἀδελφοί ἐστε (“You are all brothers”) – All Jesus’ disciples share the same quality, they are brothers/sisters. They are not all “the” rothers.
Matthew 27:6, τιμὴ αἵματός ἐστιν (“It is money of blood”) – It is the kind of money that cannot be allowed in the temple treasury.
Mark 12:29, κύριος εἷς ἐστιν (“the Lord is one”) – not “a” one or “the” one but the quality of oneness
Luke 14:22, ἔτι τόπος ἐστίν (“there is still room”) – The servants are not concerned that there is still “a” room available for the wedding, but the quality of room, space available still at the banquet.
John 1:14, ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο (“The Word became flesh”) – Jesus did not become “a” or “the” flesh, but flesh as an element.
John 2:9, τὸ ὕδωρ οἶνον γεγενημένον [pred acc or d/o] (“the water had become wine”) – not “a” or “the” wine but wine as a substance
John 3:4, ἄνθρωπος γεννηθῆναι γέρων ὤν (“a man to be born, when he is old”) – Γέρων is a noun, not an adjective, but the qualitative predicate nominative can act like an adjective
John 3:6, τὸ γεγεννημένον ἐκ τῆς σαρκὸς σάρξ ἐστιν, καὶ τὸ γεγεννημένον ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος πνεῦμά ἐστιν (“that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit”) – neither “a” nor “the” work
John 6:63b, τὰ ῥήματα ἃ ἐγὼ λελάληκα ὑμῖν πνεῦμά ἐστιν καὶ ζωή ἐστιν (“the words that I speak are spirit and life”) – neither “a” nor “the” work
John 9:4, ἕως ἡμέρα ἐστίν (“while it is day”)
John 10:22, χειμὼν ἦν (“it was winter”)
John 12:50, ἡ ἐντολὴ αὐτοῦ ζωὴ αἰώνιός ἐστιν (“His command is eternal life”)
John 17:17, ὁ λόγος ὁ σὸς ἀλήθειά ἐστιν (“Your word is truth”)
John 20:1, σκοτίας ἔτι οὔσης (“while it was still dark”)
Acts 7:33, τόπος ἐφ’ ᾧ ἕστηκας γῆ ἁγία ἐστίν (“the place on which you stand is holy
ground”)
1 Corinthians 3:19, ἡ γὰρ σοφία τοῦ κόσμου τούτου μωρία παρὰ τῷ θεῷ ἐστιν (“For the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God”)
1 Thessalonians 1:6, ὑμεῖς μιμηταὶ ἡμῶν ἐγενήθητε (“You became imitators of us”) – Likely not “some” or “the” imitators, but those with the quality of imitation.
1 Thessalonians 2:14, Ὑμεῖς γὰρ μιμηταὶ ἐγενήθητε (“You became imitators”) – Likely not “some” or “the” imitators, but those with the quality of imitation.
James 2:19, εἷς ἐστιν ὁ θεός (“God is one”)
James 3:4, τὰ πλοῖα τηλικαῦτα ὄντα (“the boat, though it is small”) – τηλικαῦτα is a demonstrative pronoun, not an adjective, but the qualitative sense gives it an adjectival sense
1 John 1:5b, ὅτι ὁ θεὸς φῶς ἐστιν καὶ σκοτία ἐν αὐτῷ οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδεμία (“that God is light, and there is no darkness at all in Him”)
1 John 4:8, ὁ θεὸς ἀγάπη ἐστίν (“God is love”) – God is not literally love but it is a defining quality of His
1 John 4:16, Ὁ θεὸς ἀγάπη ἐστίν (“God is love”)
1 John 5:7, τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες (“those which bear witness are three”) – the triadic Spirit, water and blood
1 John 5:17, πᾶσα ἀδικία ἁμαρτία ἐστίν (“All unrighteousness is sin”)
=25 instances.
These are consistent with Harner’s Rule and definitely more frequent preceding the verb, but that there are so many above that follow the verb seem the exceptions that disprove the rule.
Anarthrous Predicate Nominatives preceding the verb where an indefinite interpretation seems
the most likely possibility:
Matthew 14:26, φάντασμά ἐστιν (“it is a ghost”) – It is doubtful the disciples would have been commenting on the qualitative aspect of this apparition (“It is ghostly”), and they certainly were not referencing some specific ghost (“It is the ghost”).
Matthew 22:42, τίνος υἱός ἐστιν (“whose son is he”) – Jesus is asking whose indefinite son the Messiah would be, the answer being “David’s.”
Mark 6:49, φάντασμά ἐστιν (“it is a ghost”) – It is doubtful the disciples would have been
commenting on the qualitative aspect of this apparition (“It is ghostly”), and they certainly were not referencing some specific ghost (“It is the ghost”).
Luke 7:8, γὰρ ἐγὼ ἄνθρωπός εἰμι ὑπὸ ἐξουσίαν (“For I am a man under authority”) – What would the Centurion mean if he said, “I am the man under authority”? There are other soldiers under authority.
John 8:31, ἀληθῶς μαθηταί μού ἐστε (“truly you are a disciple of me”) – not “the” as if the only disciple, nor disciplish.
John 8:34, πᾶς ὁ ποιῶν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν δοῦλός ἐστιν τῆς ἁμαρτίας (“everyone who does sin is a servant of that sin”)
John 8:44b, ὅτι ψεύστης ἐστὶν (“because he is a liar”) – Satan is a liar and “the” father of lies
John 8:48, οὐ καλῶς λέγομεν ἡμεῖς ὅτι Σαμαρίτης εἶ (“Did we not rightly say that you are a Samaritan”) – Here is a “definite” noun being used indefinitely with qualitative overtones
John 10:13, ὅτι μισθωτός ἐστιν (“because he is a hireling”)
John 12:6, ὅτι κλέπτης ἦν (“because he is [was] a thief”) – Judas, being a thief, had thieving qualities
Acts 17:7, βασιλέα ἕτερον λέγοντες εἶναι Ἰησοῦν (“saying Jesus is another king”) – ἕτερον helps make this indefinite
Acts 22:26, ὁ γὰρ ἄνθρωπος οὗτος Ῥωμαῖός ἐστιν (“For the man is a Roman citizen”) – Paul is not “the” Roman citizen.
Ac 25:14, ἀνήρ τίς ἐστιν (“there is a man”) – Festus is letting King Agrippa know that there is a nondescript person whom he further describes, Paul.
Acts 28:4, φονεύς ἐστιν ὁ ἄνθρωπος (“this man is a murderer”)
1 Corinthians 4:9, ὅτι θέατρον ἐγενήθημεν τῷ κόσμῳ (“because we have become a spectacle to the world”) – Paul and the apostles are not “the” spectacle to the world but one such spectacle.
1 Corinthians 6:7, ἥττημα ὑμῖν ἐστιν (“it is a defeat for you”) – Going to court with brothers is not “the” defeat for the Corinthian believers (there were several), but “a” defeat, one among many in this congregation.
1 Corinthians 15:12, ἀνάστασις νεκρῶν οὐκ ἔστιν “(there is not a resurrection from the dead”) – A declaration of some of the Corinthians is that there is not “a” resurrection, so they have been “resurrected” spiritually, a source of pride for them.
1 John 2:4, ὁ λέγων…ψεύστης ἐστίν (“the one who says…is a liar”)
Revelation 18:7, χήρα οὐκ εἰμὶ (“I am not a widow”)
=19 instances. 1
This is not expected in Colwell’s Rule (unless, again, it be argued that none of these examples
are of nouns that are already definite, something that doesn’t work well, however, for Matthew
22:42, John 8:48, Acts 17:7, or Acts 22:26), but happens nonetheless.
And what do we do with instances where the anarthrous predicate nominatives both precede
and follow the stative verb:
John 10:8, πάντες ὅσοι ἦλθον [πρὸ ἐμοῦ] κλέπται εἰσὶν καὶ λῃσταί (“Everyone who came before me a thief is and a robber”). We should have expected both these predicate nominatives to follow the verb because they are indefinite, and we cannot argue that the one preceding is definite or qualitative while the one following is indefinite.
Revelation 17:15, τὰ ὕδατα ἃ εἶδες…λαοὶ καὶ ὄχλοι εἰσὶν καὶ ἔθνη καὶ γλῶσσαι (“the waters that you saw peoples and multitudes are and nations and languages”). The predicate nominatives have the same character (indefinite, I would argue) but are not signaled by following the verb in each case. Colwell might argue that none of these nouns is considered inherently definite, but as we have argued, no noun can be considered inherently definite.
What all this shows is that there is no hard and fast rule that can be applied when it comes to
making decisions about the definiteness, indefiniteness, or qualitativeness of the author’s intent
with anarthrous predicate nominatives. We are forced to make that decision based on other
factors than word order. And sometimes it is hard to make that decision.
Can the Author Intend More than One Meaning (Definite, Indefinite, or Qualitative) for an Anarthrous Predicate Nominative?
The answer to the question of whether an author can intend more than one meaning for an
anarthrous predicate nominative is: Of course! An author can intend any meaning. But the
concern is, with anarthrous predicate nominatives, whether the author’s intended meaning, if it
is somehow to include two or more meanings (definite, indefinite or qualitative) can be so
discerned without clear cues. Can an author intend to say “it was a Sabbath” and also mean “it
was the Sabbath”? He or she could, but how would this be signaled and what would be the point? And if the author intends contradictory meanings, what would be the point?
the most likely possibility:
Matthew 14:26, φάντασμά ἐστιν (“it is a ghost”) – It is doubtful the disciples would have been commenting on the qualitative aspect of this apparition (“It is ghostly”), and they certainly were not referencing some specific ghost (“It is the ghost”).
Matthew 22:42, τίνος υἱός ἐστιν (“whose son is he”) – Jesus is asking whose indefinite son the Messiah would be, the answer being “David’s.”
Mark 6:49, φάντασμά ἐστιν (“it is a ghost”) – It is doubtful the disciples would have been
commenting on the qualitative aspect of this apparition (“It is ghostly”), and they certainly were not referencing some specific ghost (“It is the ghost”).
Luke 7:8, γὰρ ἐγὼ ἄνθρωπός εἰμι ὑπὸ ἐξουσίαν (“For I am a man under authority”) – What would the Centurion mean if he said, “I am the man under authority”? There are other soldiers under authority.
John 8:31, ἀληθῶς μαθηταί μού ἐστε (“truly you are a disciple of me”) – not “the” as if the only disciple, nor disciplish.
John 8:34, πᾶς ὁ ποιῶν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν δοῦλός ἐστιν τῆς ἁμαρτίας (“everyone who does sin is a servant of that sin”)
John 8:44b, ὅτι ψεύστης ἐστὶν (“because he is a liar”) – Satan is a liar and “the” father of lies
John 8:48, οὐ καλῶς λέγομεν ἡμεῖς ὅτι Σαμαρίτης εἶ (“Did we not rightly say that you are a Samaritan”) – Here is a “definite” noun being used indefinitely with qualitative overtones
John 10:13, ὅτι μισθωτός ἐστιν (“because he is a hireling”)
John 12:6, ὅτι κλέπτης ἦν (“because he is [was] a thief”) – Judas, being a thief, had thieving qualities
Acts 17:7, βασιλέα ἕτερον λέγοντες εἶναι Ἰησοῦν (“saying Jesus is another king”) – ἕτερον helps make this indefinite
Acts 22:26, ὁ γὰρ ἄνθρωπος οὗτος Ῥωμαῖός ἐστιν (“For the man is a Roman citizen”) – Paul is not “the” Roman citizen.
Ac 25:14, ἀνήρ τίς ἐστιν (“there is a man”) – Festus is letting King Agrippa know that there is a nondescript person whom he further describes, Paul.
Acts 28:4, φονεύς ἐστιν ὁ ἄνθρωπος (“this man is a murderer”)
1 Corinthians 4:9, ὅτι θέατρον ἐγενήθημεν τῷ κόσμῳ (“because we have become a spectacle to the world”) – Paul and the apostles are not “the” spectacle to the world but one such spectacle.
1 Corinthians 6:7, ἥττημα ὑμῖν ἐστιν (“it is a defeat for you”) – Going to court with brothers is not “the” defeat for the Corinthian believers (there were several), but “a” defeat, one among many in this congregation.
1 Corinthians 15:12, ἀνάστασις νεκρῶν οὐκ ἔστιν “(there is not a resurrection from the dead”) – A declaration of some of the Corinthians is that there is not “a” resurrection, so they have been “resurrected” spiritually, a source of pride for them.
1 John 2:4, ὁ λέγων…ψεύστης ἐστίν (“the one who says…is a liar”)
Revelation 18:7, χήρα οὐκ εἰμὶ (“I am not a widow”)
=19 instances. 1
This is not expected in Colwell’s Rule (unless, again, it be argued that none of these examples
are of nouns that are already definite, something that doesn’t work well, however, for Matthew
22:42, John 8:48, Acts 17:7, or Acts 22:26), but happens nonetheless.
And what do we do with instances where the anarthrous predicate nominatives both precede
and follow the stative verb:
John 10:8, πάντες ὅσοι ἦλθον [πρὸ ἐμοῦ] κλέπται εἰσὶν καὶ λῃσταί (“Everyone who came before me a thief is and a robber”). We should have expected both these predicate nominatives to follow the verb because they are indefinite, and we cannot argue that the one preceding is definite or qualitative while the one following is indefinite.
Revelation 17:15, τὰ ὕδατα ἃ εἶδες…λαοὶ καὶ ὄχλοι εἰσὶν καὶ ἔθνη καὶ γλῶσσαι (“the waters that you saw peoples and multitudes are and nations and languages”). The predicate nominatives have the same character (indefinite, I would argue) but are not signaled by following the verb in each case. Colwell might argue that none of these nouns is considered inherently definite, but as we have argued, no noun can be considered inherently definite.
What all this shows is that there is no hard and fast rule that can be applied when it comes to
making decisions about the definiteness, indefiniteness, or qualitativeness of the author’s intent
with anarthrous predicate nominatives. We are forced to make that decision based on other
factors than word order. And sometimes it is hard to make that decision.
Can the Author Intend More than One Meaning (Definite, Indefinite, or Qualitative) for an Anarthrous Predicate Nominative?
The answer to the question of whether an author can intend more than one meaning for an
anarthrous predicate nominative is: Of course! An author can intend any meaning. But the
concern is, with anarthrous predicate nominatives, whether the author’s intended meaning, if it
is somehow to include two or more meanings (definite, indefinite or qualitative) can be so
discerned without clear cues. Can an author intend to say “it was a Sabbath” and also mean “it
was the Sabbath”? He or she could, but how would this be signaled and what would be the point? And if the author intends contradictory meanings, what would be the point?
Someone advocating this possibility has written,
In the English sentence “Charles is a prince,” I can mean several possibilities, two of
which combine categories….
1) Charles is the son of a monarch (indefinite)
2) Charles is the son of a monarch and is also of princely character but I am emphasizing the group (indefinite and qualitative with indefinite emphasis)
3) Charles is of princely character and also happens to be a son of a monarch (qualitative and indefinite with qualitative emphasis)
4) Charles is a prince of a man and is not the son of a monarch (qualitative)
But what is striking here is that this advocate of multiple meanings or at least emphases, has to
tell us what he intends. Without seeing his statement in context we have no way of knowing
what he intends. A skillful writer could, in the context of his writing, signal us this multiple intent,
but there is always the possibility that the author’s intended meaning could not be determined
because we lack clear signals or satisfactory knowledge of the author’s perspective.
With the many examples given above where the clear likelihood of a definite, indefinite, or
qualitative anarthrous predicate nominative exists, there are also many hard to determine. For
example, when Mark writes in 2:28, κύριός ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου καὶ τοῦ σαββάτου (“The
Son of Man is lord indeed of the Sabbath”), this could be conceived as qualitative (as I
translated it) or as definite (“The Son of Man is the Lord indeed of the Sabbath”) and either fits
well with what we know of Mark’s perspective. Could Mark have intended both. If Jesus is “the”
Lord of the Sabbath he is also easily lord, sovereign, of the Sabbath, and vice versa. To discern
whether Mark meant both, however, is not clearly signaled in any way and, in some ways, does
not matter. One needs pretty good arguments and evidence to substantiate an author’s dual or triple meaning.
And the Word was a god/the God/God
Of course, John 1:1 contains the most controversial predicate nominative of the New Testament. Is the Word “a” god, “the” God, or Godish (divine, deity)? The rejection of “a” god is easiest because this would necessitate that John conceive of Jesus in a way that throughout Scripture is almost exclusively meant in a negative way (the “gods” are demons, Deuteronomy 32, 1 Corinthians 10:20) rather than John’s clear attempt to display Jesus as “the” Son of God, the Son of Man of Daniel 7 who is equal to the Ancient of Days, and indeed as “the Lord of me and the God of me” (John 20:28).
There would seem to be an issue with seeing John’s intent as definite, “the” God, since this would perhaps make the Word not just divine but the same person with whom the Word was supposedly in fellowship with in the second part of the verse. It could lead to a modalistic view
of the Trinity. However, John has used the definite article on θεὸς in 20:28 in the mouth of
Thomas the apostle. Does he see Thomas as making an understandable error, but he records it anyway, or is he using Thomas’ declaration as his own? The latter seems more likely. The issue raised here may be akin to that of two Yahweh’s in the Old Testament (Genesis 19:24 being one instance), which to the careful theologian might suggest oneness of personality rather than substance, but clearly does not in the given instance. Supposing John to intend θεὸς as definite in John 1:1 does not seem insurmountable.
Conceiving of θεὸς as qualitative has no issues and would fit clearly in the intentions of John and his explanation in his Gospel about who Jesus is. It is simply a character of the English language that we don’t have an easy way to make “God” qualitative (I used “Godish,” which is clearly unsatisfactory, a coining of a word, and even that has issues, since “ish” often means less than an equality in our language). We shift to words like “the Word was divine,” or “the Word was deity.” Because these words might convey something less than fully God as to substance or essence, does not argue against the qualitative sense being used by John, only the inadequacy of our language. The qualitative sense makes sense on every level and does protect against a possible personality identification between the Father and the Son.
The Centurion’s Declaration
What about the Centurion’s declaration at Golgotha, about Jesus being “a” or “the” Son of God? It should be clear from this study that word order in his statement, ἀληθῶς θεοῦ υἱὸς ἦν οὗτος
(“Truly, this one was a/the Son of God,” in Matthew 27:54) or ἀληθῶς οὗτος ὁ ἄνθρωπος υἱὸς ἦν θεοῦ (“Truly this man was a/the Son of God,” in Mark 15:39), isn’t the determiner in this matter. To know the speaker’s intended meaning is difficult. As a Roman we might suppose that he did not have a Jewish concept of “the” Son of God, but would rather think in terms of “a” son of God, a divine being. But we know that the Jews there at the cross were jeering at Jesus and mocking him with his own words, εἰ υἱὸς εἶ τοῦ θεοῦ κατάβηθι ἀπὸ τοῦ σταυροῦ (“If you are the Son of God, come down from the cross,” Matthew 27:40) and πέποιθεν ἐπὶ τὸν θεόν, ῥυσάσθω νῦν εἰ θέλει αὐτόν· εἶπεν γὰρ ὅτι θεοῦ εἰμι υἱός (“He trusts in God, let Him deliver him now if He wants, for he said, ‘I am the Son of God,'” Matthew 27:43). They would not be mocking Jesus that he claimed to be “a” son of God. If the Centurion heard these words he might now see events of the cross as confirming that Jesus is “the” Son of God. So again, the decision comes down to what makes the most sense of the author’s intent.
Conclusion
In the English sentence “Charles is a prince,” I can mean several possibilities, two of
which combine categories….
1) Charles is the son of a monarch (indefinite)
2) Charles is the son of a monarch and is also of princely character but I am emphasizing the group (indefinite and qualitative with indefinite emphasis)
3) Charles is of princely character and also happens to be a son of a monarch (qualitative and indefinite with qualitative emphasis)
4) Charles is a prince of a man and is not the son of a monarch (qualitative)
But what is striking here is that this advocate of multiple meanings or at least emphases, has to
tell us what he intends. Without seeing his statement in context we have no way of knowing
what he intends. A skillful writer could, in the context of his writing, signal us this multiple intent,
but there is always the possibility that the author’s intended meaning could not be determined
because we lack clear signals or satisfactory knowledge of the author’s perspective.
With the many examples given above where the clear likelihood of a definite, indefinite, or
qualitative anarthrous predicate nominative exists, there are also many hard to determine. For
example, when Mark writes in 2:28, κύριός ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου καὶ τοῦ σαββάτου (“The
Son of Man is lord indeed of the Sabbath”), this could be conceived as qualitative (as I
translated it) or as definite (“The Son of Man is the Lord indeed of the Sabbath”) and either fits
well with what we know of Mark’s perspective. Could Mark have intended both. If Jesus is “the”
Lord of the Sabbath he is also easily lord, sovereign, of the Sabbath, and vice versa. To discern
whether Mark meant both, however, is not clearly signaled in any way and, in some ways, does
not matter. One needs pretty good arguments and evidence to substantiate an author’s dual or triple meaning.
And the Word was a god/the God/God
Of course, John 1:1 contains the most controversial predicate nominative of the New Testament. Is the Word “a” god, “the” God, or Godish (divine, deity)? The rejection of “a” god is easiest because this would necessitate that John conceive of Jesus in a way that throughout Scripture is almost exclusively meant in a negative way (the “gods” are demons, Deuteronomy 32, 1 Corinthians 10:20) rather than John’s clear attempt to display Jesus as “the” Son of God, the Son of Man of Daniel 7 who is equal to the Ancient of Days, and indeed as “the Lord of me and the God of me” (John 20:28).
There would seem to be an issue with seeing John’s intent as definite, “the” God, since this would perhaps make the Word not just divine but the same person with whom the Word was supposedly in fellowship with in the second part of the verse. It could lead to a modalistic view
of the Trinity. However, John has used the definite article on θεὸς in 20:28 in the mouth of
Thomas the apostle. Does he see Thomas as making an understandable error, but he records it anyway, or is he using Thomas’ declaration as his own? The latter seems more likely. The issue raised here may be akin to that of two Yahweh’s in the Old Testament (Genesis 19:24 being one instance), which to the careful theologian might suggest oneness of personality rather than substance, but clearly does not in the given instance. Supposing John to intend θεὸς as definite in John 1:1 does not seem insurmountable.
Conceiving of θεὸς as qualitative has no issues and would fit clearly in the intentions of John and his explanation in his Gospel about who Jesus is. It is simply a character of the English language that we don’t have an easy way to make “God” qualitative (I used “Godish,” which is clearly unsatisfactory, a coining of a word, and even that has issues, since “ish” often means less than an equality in our language). We shift to words like “the Word was divine,” or “the Word was deity.” Because these words might convey something less than fully God as to substance or essence, does not argue against the qualitative sense being used by John, only the inadequacy of our language. The qualitative sense makes sense on every level and does protect against a possible personality identification between the Father and the Son.
The Centurion’s Declaration
What about the Centurion’s declaration at Golgotha, about Jesus being “a” or “the” Son of God? It should be clear from this study that word order in his statement, ἀληθῶς θεοῦ υἱὸς ἦν οὗτος
(“Truly, this one was a/the Son of God,” in Matthew 27:54) or ἀληθῶς οὗτος ὁ ἄνθρωπος υἱὸς ἦν θεοῦ (“Truly this man was a/the Son of God,” in Mark 15:39), isn’t the determiner in this matter. To know the speaker’s intended meaning is difficult. As a Roman we might suppose that he did not have a Jewish concept of “the” Son of God, but would rather think in terms of “a” son of God, a divine being. But we know that the Jews there at the cross were jeering at Jesus and mocking him with his own words, εἰ υἱὸς εἶ τοῦ θεοῦ κατάβηθι ἀπὸ τοῦ σταυροῦ (“If you are the Son of God, come down from the cross,” Matthew 27:40) and πέποιθεν ἐπὶ τὸν θεόν, ῥυσάσθω νῦν εἰ θέλει αὐτόν· εἶπεν γὰρ ὅτι θεοῦ εἰμι υἱός (“He trusts in God, let Him deliver him now if He wants, for he said, ‘I am the Son of God,'” Matthew 27:43). They would not be mocking Jesus that he claimed to be “a” son of God. If the Centurion heard these words he might now see events of the cross as confirming that Jesus is “the” Son of God. So again, the decision comes down to what makes the most sense of the author’s intent.
Conclusion
- Status
Similar threads
