"and the Word was God" John 1.1

[Paidion]

John 1:1 does not teach that the Logos was God Himself.
How could the Logos be with God and also be God? That’s not what the text says.

The first “God” is prefixed with the article; thus “the God” (meaning the Father, whom Jesus addressed as “the only true God”.). The second “God” has no article. So it does not refer to the Father.

Because of the lack of an article, some think the sentence should read “and the Logos was a god”. This is also an incorrect translation.

That would be the case if the subjective completion had been placed AFTER the copula verb.
If John had meant "The Word was a god", then the Greek words would have been:

ὁ....λογος...ἠν......θεος
the..word...was a...god

But this is not what John wrote.

If John had meant that the Word was God the Father Himself (as Modalists affirm), then the Greek words would have been:

ὁ....λογος...]ἠν ...ὁ...θεος
the..Word...was..the..God

Prefixing the word "θεος" with the article "ὁ" (with no other modifiers) would indicate that God the Father is meant. But that is not what John wrote.

Here is what John actually wrote:

θεος..ἠν.... ὁ...λογος
God..was...the..Word

John placed the subjective completion BEFORE the copula verb! What did John mean? Did he mean that God the Father was the Word? No! If he had meant that, he would have prefixed the word "θεος" with the article "ὁ". What then was his meaning? As a person who has studied Hellenistic Greek for several years and has even taught a self-devised beginner's course to adults, I am going to propose a suggested translation, and then justify it by reference to other similar constructions in the New Testament.

A very crude translation could be "The Word was God-stuff". However, this doesn't sound very reverent. So I suggest "The Word was Divinity" or perhaps "The Word was divine". He was divine because God begat Him before all ages as Another just like Himself! "God" or "Divinity" was the essence of the Word.

Let's look at two more instances in the New Testament in which a subjective completion without a modifier is placed BEFORE a copula verb. In I John 4:8 and also in I John 4:16, we find the phrase:

ὁ...θεος.. ἀγαπη..ἐστιν
the God..love......is

Here the subject is clearly the Father since the word "θεος" is prefixed with the article. But notice the subjective completion "ἀγαπη" occurs BEFORE the copula verb "ἐστιν". The correct translation is: "God is love". Love is the essence of God. This is analagous to saying in John 1:1 that Divinity is the essence of the Word.

One more example:

ὁ....λογος..ὁ...........σος....ἀληθια...ἐστιν
the..word the [one]..of you reality....is

Translation: "Your word is reality". God's word is reality. There is never falsehood or unreality in what God says. Once again, the subjective completion "ἀληθια" comes BEFORE the copula verb "ἐστιν". Reality is the essence of what God says.

Martin Luther, whatever else he may have been, had an excellent understanding of Greek. Concerning the phrase in John 1:1:

θεος..ἠν.... ὁ...λογος
God..was...the..Word

Luther expressed quite succinctly what I have attempted to relate about the word order. He said:

"The lack of an article is against Sabellianism; the word order is against Arianism."

Sabellianism was a form of Modalism, that God is a single divine Individual who expresses Himself in three modes: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Today, Modalism is represented by the United Pentecostal Church as well as the various sects of the "Apostolic Church".

Arianism was and is thought by many to have been a position whereby the Son was a lesser god, and thus the translation "The word was a god". This position is represented today by Jehovah's Witnesses. The New World Translation actually renders the Greek phrase as "The word was a god.”

So, I suggest the following translation to express in English approximately what the author had intended.

In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was divine.

or perhaps

In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was Deity.

[mattrose]

If you knew nothing about theology and had no bias and looked at this statement , what would you think after reading all of the first verse of John?

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Not trying to be super annoying...

But I think if the author of the 4th Gospel were writing to someone(s) who had no theological background and no bias toward the word 'word'.... he wouldn't have written what he wrote! It seems to me he chose the word 'word' because he knew the theology, bias, and usage of that term in his culture.

If I were to answer your question directly, and truly had no theology/bias, I think I would just be utterly confused by the statement. If pressed to find a meaning, I might even think it was a quote from some cult-leader who was in love with language itself. "The pen is not only mightier than the sword, it is in fact the LORD!"

[Michelle]

John 1:1 does not teach that the Logos was God Himself.
How could the Logos be with God and also be God? That’s not what the text says.

The first “God” is prefixed with the article; thus “the God” (meaning the Father, whom Jesus addressed as “the only true God”.). The second “God” has no article. So it does [b’not[/b] refer to the Father.

Because of the lack of an article, some think the sentence should read “and the Logos was a god”. This is also an incorrect translation.

That would be the case if the subjective completion had been placed AFTER the copula verb.
If John had meant "The Word was a god", then the Greek words would have been:

ὁ....λογος...ἠν......θεος
the..word...was a...god

But this is not what John wrote.

If John had meant that the Word was God the Father Himself (as Modalists affirm), then the Greek words would have been:

ὁ....λογος...ἠν ...ὁ...θεος
the..Word...was..the..God

Prefixing the word "θεος" with the article "ὁ" (with no other modifiers) would indicate that God the Father is meant. But that is not what John wrote.

Here is what John actually wrote:

θεος..ἠν.... ὁ...λογος
God..was...the..Word

John placed the subjective completion BEFORE the copula verb! What did John mean? Did he mean that God the Father was the Word? No! If he had meant that, he would have prefixed the word "θεος" with the article "ὁ". What then was his meaning? As a person who has studied Hellenistic Greek for several years and has even taught a self-devised beginner's course to adults, I am going to propose a suggested translation, and then justify it by reference to other similar constructions in the New Testament.

A very crude translation could be "The Word was God-stuff". However, this doesn't sound very reverent. So I suggest "The Word was Divinity" or perhaps "The Word was divine". He was divine because God begat Him before all ages as Another just like Himself! "God" or "Divinity" was the essence of the Word.

Let's look at two more instances in the New Testament in which a subjective completion without a modifier is placed BEFORE a copula verb. In I John 4:8 and also in I John 4:16, we find the phrase:

ὁ...θεος.. ἀγαπη..ἐστιν
the God..love......is

Here the subject is clearly the Father since the word "θεος" is prefixed with the article. But notice the subjective completion "ἀγαπη" occurs BEFORE the copula verb "ἐστιν". The correct translation is: "God is love". Love is the essence of God. This is analagous to saying in John 1:1 that Divinity is the essence of the Word.

One more example:

ὁ....λογος..ὁ...........σος....ἀληθια...ἐστιν
the..word the [one]..of you reality....is

Translation: "Your word is reality". God's word is reality. There is never falsehood or unreality in what God says. Once again, the subjective completion "ἀληθια" comes BEFORE the copula verb "ἐστιν". Reality is the essence of what God says.

Martin Luther, whatever else he may have been, had an excellent understanding of Greek. Concerning the phrase in John 1:1:

θεος..ἠν.... ὁ...λογος
God..was...the..Word

Luther expressed quite succinctly what I have attempted to relate about the word order. He said:

"The lack of an article is against Sabellianism; the word order is against Arianism."

Sabellianism was a form of Modalism, that God is a single divine Individual who expresses Himself in three modes: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Today, Modalism is represented by the United Pentecostal Church as well as the various sects of the "Apostolic Church".

Arianism was and is thought by many to have been a position whereby the Son was a lesser god, and thus the translation "The word was a god". This position is represented today by Jehovah's Witnesses. The New World Translation actually renders the Greek phrase as "The word was a god.”

So, I suggest the following translation to express in English approximately what the author had intended.

In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was divine.

or perhaps

In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was Deity.

Thanks! I really appreciate the time you took to explain all that!

[steve7150]

In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was divine.







Thanks Paidion, this is the only translation that makes sense to my limited mind.

[Apollos]

Be careful, as you're misunderstanding the grammarians on the placement of the copula verb.

The arian view could be expressed by ὁ Λόγος Θεὸς ἦν or ὁ Λόγος ἦν Θεὸς. Examples of this are abundant in Greek literature.

Reading your post would have no defense if the JW turned to James 5:17

᾿Ηλίας ἄνθρωπος ἦν
Elijah was a man.

As much as I hate to keep reminding you, a reading-knowledge of Greek is essential - just knowing grammars and concordances can be dangerous.

Also, be careful with statements like:

The first “God” is prefixed with the article; thus “the God” (meaning the Father, whom Jesus addressed as “the only true God”.). The second “God” has no article. So it does not refer to the Father.

This could suggest that the word 'God' always has the article when it refers to the Father, which is not true; sometimes theos has no article, and it still refers to the Father.

However, you've otherwise read the grammars well - I agree with the main point of your article that theos is qualitative here; Colwell's rule is a dead end.

[Paidion]

The arian view could be expressed by ὁ Λόγος Θεὸς ἦν or ὁ Λόγος ἦν Θεὸς. Examples of this are abundant in Greek literature.

Perhaps. But does that make any difference to the basic argument? You do seem to agree with Martin Luther that John's word order made "Θεὸς" qualitative. I tried to make this as easy to understand as possible for those who were not literate in Greek.

I wonder if even James 5:17 is an example which shows that the Arian view could be expressed with ὁ Λόγος Θεὸς ἦν . Perhaps if ἠλιας ἀνθωπος ἠν were translated as "Elijah was human", James' meaning would be better expressed. The context seems to fit.

This could suggest that the word 'God' always has the article when it refers to the Father, which is not true; sometimes theos has no article, and it still refers to the Father.

I have never made the assertion that "God" always has the article when it refers to the Father. Nor did I "suggest" it. What I have stated in other posts is that when "God" is prefixed by the article and if "God" does not have any other modifier, then it always refers to the Father. I haven't yet seen anyone provide a counter-example to that rule.

May I ask, with your superior knowledge of Greek, why didn't you address the puzzle of John 1:1 to help those in this forum who were struggling with trying to understand it? Or do you find it more fulfilling to continually expose my Greek inadequacies?

[Apollos]

Perhaps. But does that make any difference to the basic argument? You do seem to agree with Martin Luther that John's word order made "Θεὸς" qualitative. I tried to make this as easy to understand as possible for those who were not literate in Greek.

The lack of an article is enough to make it potentially qualitative - but I think Luther was right to argue that the word order makes it necessarily so, though I think few scholars agree.

I wonder if even James 5:17 is an example which shows that the Arian view could be expressed with ὁ Λόγος Θεὸς ἦν . Perhaps if ἠλιας ἀνθωπος ἠν were translated as "Elijah was human", James' meaning would be better expressed. The context seems to fit.

Either 'a man' or 'human' could be correct. If Luther is right, then I suppose that ἀνθωπος ἠν ἠλιας would not be unambiguous - Elijah was human. My point wasn't that it couldn't mean that Elijah was human - my point is that it could mean 'Elijah was a man'.

I have never made the assertion that "God" always has the article when it refers to the Father. Nor did I "suggest" it.

Here's what you said:

The second “God” has no article. So it does not refer to the Father.

What you were trying to say is 'here 'God' doesn't refer to the Father, as it doesn't have the article and because the Word is the subject'. I understood what you were trying to say. But back up a minute, and think about how your words would be interpreted by someone else. Your 'so' means 'because'. You are saying that it doesn't refer to the Father because the word 'God' has no article. The logical implication of your statement is that if the word 'God' doesn't have an article, it doesn't refer to the Father, which means that the word 'God' must always have the article. That isn't what you meant to say, but that is what you did say.

What I have stated in other posts is that when "God" is prefixed by the article and if "God" does not have any other modifier, then it always refers to the Father. I haven't yet seen anyone provide a counter-example to that rule.

I agree with you, but I wonder how you would deal with John 20:28? Anyway, this is irrelevant; you didn't say that God with the article always refers to the Father - you said that it didn't have the article and therefore couldn't refer to the Father.

May I ask, with your superior knowledge of Greek, why didn't you address the puzzle of John 1:1 to help those in this forum who were struggling with trying to understand it? Or do you find it more fulfilling to continually expose my Greek inadequacies?

And tell me exactly what I'm supposed to do? Look at it from my perspective for a second - I see you making claiming about the Greek that are mistaken, and what am I supposed to do? If the forum was only populated by the two of us, believe me I would leave you to it. You don't like being corrected, and you feel threatened by it, and I have other things I could be attending to. But unfortunately there are other people on here, and I feel obligated to correct clear errors. I would rather not. Frankly, if there was someone on here who was far better than me at Greek, like a Classics professor, I would welcome it, and would use the opportunity to pump them with questions and try to learn from them, but I still have a long way to go.

As for why I didn't try helping them to understand - very simple - though I think Luther was right, I feel that I need considerably more Greek before making any dogmatic claims. Something to do with the more you know, the more you realize you don't know. I speak for myself - I don't want to rely on a grammatical understanding - I want to get to the point where a few people I know are at, where you just instinctively know what it is saying and not saying. I hold myself up to a high standard, but I won't comment on Greek (or anything) unless I am fairly certain that I'm right and that I know what I'm talking about. When it comes to Greek, I'll be the first to admit, I still have a long way to go.