Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Spotify | Email | RSS
Did you know that in both the Old and New Testament beings other than the one God are referred to as “God” or “gods”? In this first of three talks about disambiguating scriptural terms, I look at the Hebrew word elohim and the Greek word theos, each usually translated into English as “God.” I also introduce a new term, “monotheosism,” and distinguish this from “monotheism.”
I also interact with this informative book by evangelical theologian Dr. Murray Harris. In his view, the follow seven New Testament passages refer to Jesus using forms of theos:
- John 1:1
- John 20:28
- Romans 9:5
- Titus 2:13
- Hebrews 1:8
- 2 Peter 1:1
- John 1:18
Is he right? And if he is, how does this affect how we view the Lord Jesus?
In this talk I focus on indisputable facts about the texts, avoiding speculations of any kind. Whatever your theological views, you should agree with these facts about word usage.
Because I refer to slides in this talk, I recommend this YouTube version of this episode:
Alternately, here is the video version, produced by the inimitable Sharon Gill. Be sure to check out the 21st Century Reformation website, which will often feature my public talks before you can get them anywhere else.
Links for this episode:
- Isaiah 44:6; 1 Timothy 2:5; Exodus 7:1; 2 Corinthians 4:3-4; 1 Corinthians 8:4-6; John 10:31-36; Psalm 82:1-7.
- 21st Century Reformation
- Murray Harris, Jesus as God
- podcast 132 – 10 Apologists’ Mistakes about the Trinity – Part 2
- podcast 131 – 10 Apologists’ Mistakes about the Trinity – Part 1
- podcast 124 – a challenge to “Jesus is God” apologists
- podcast 70 – The one God and his Son according to John
- podcast 24 – How to be a Monotheistic Trinitarian
If the Logos is not God what does “eternal word” mean?
On the reading I am suggesting, “the Word was God” – in the sense that it is not something or someone in addition to God. It’s just an attribute of God, in this passage being personified, e.g. as creating, coming to his own.
Does the word, plan or wisdom of the Logos possess actuosity?
Actuosity? If you mean actuality, yes. The Word, on this interpretation of John 1, is not a mere potential, but is actual – an actual attribute of God, by which he created.
“God’s eternal word, plan or wisdom which made all things”.
Why the word “or”? Don’t you know which of the three he is? Or is he all at once?
Nothing controversial or ambiguous, just undeniable facts, or incoherent confusion?
On the reading I’m suggesting, John has something mental in mind here – it’s not a literal word – as with Psalm 33:6. It could be plan or wisdom or both that he has in mind.
Dale,
Redefining LOGOS as “a mental attribute” or a “plan or wisdom or both” really has no exegetical merit in the Prologue.
Not only is LOGOS not used elsewhere in the context of the 4th Gospel with that connotation, but none of the other hundreds of times it is found in the Greek scriptures with bear it either. That is why it is never translated that way in scripture. When the apostolic writers spoke of a “plan” or “wisdom” they used different Greek grammar.
Keep in mind, immediate “context” shouldn’t be used to isolate or redefine words; it should be used to substantiate the ordinary usage or a particular connotation that has been established by other usage.
Hi Dale!
As I understand things, Colwells Rule states
(I) Definite predicate nouns which precede the verb GENERALLY lack the definite article
(ii)A predicative nominative which precedes a verb cannot be translated as as infinite (e.g. a god , divine solely because the article is absent
(iii) If the context suggests that a predicate is definite it should be translated as definite.
TRINITARIANS go for (ii)
UNITARIANS go for (iii)
The question is of course what is the context?
If you scan through the Gospel According to John and look for scriptures which show Christ’s nature you will find
that with the exception of 4 arguable verses , Christ is very much like the Christ of the Book of Acts
– a man who was sent by God,
– empowered by God. Who can do nothing except what the Father wishes
-who does his Fathers will
– someone through whom God works.
Arguable verses are
– John 1 The LOGOS-with context the issue
– “John Chapter 8 “I AM-” If Christ wanted to say he was God he would have said “ego eimi o on’ and he did not
-John Chapter 10 “I and the Father are one Context is important and in a nearby scripture Christ had just told his
disciples “So that you and I may be one (ego eimi) just as I and the Father are one” United in purpose
.
He acknowledges that God is his Father later in Chapter 10
-John 20 v 28 “My Lord and my God”. It’s quite bizarre the way Trinitarians ignore the context in which Christ is portrayed as God’s son (verses 20 and 31) and how Granville Sharp was intimidated by Trinitarians to call an exception to his rule.
Surely the CONTEXT is all important in trying to interpret the prologue to Johns Gospel ?
So, what are we left with.
The likelihood that ‘LOGOS’ is an attribute of God, Gods Word Wisdom, the way God works in his creation? Gods Holy Spirit ? The ‘power from on high’ that entered the embryonic Jesus in Marys womb? YES – all of the above.!!
Best Wishes
John
Great Review!! I appreciate the positiveness in not “dogging” other groups or denominations. GREAT biblical points
Comments are closed.