Not that I think only the law should be preached. The Gospel is to be preached as well as the law. The law is to be preached only to make way for the Gospel, and in order that it may be preached more powerfully. The main work of a minister is to preach the Gospel.
Jonathan Edwards

Is Jesus The Word

Is Jesus The Word

Is Jesus The Word?

(Title supplied by sysop)

The scriptures in question John 1:1,2 read in the Greek from Wescott & Hort’s New Testament in Original Greek: “En arkhe en ho logos, kai ho logos en pros ton theon, kai theos en ho logos. Outos en en arkhe pros ton theon.”

That first clause rendered word-for-word means: “In beginning was the Word”. What is the implying? The beginning of what? Time? That is refering to the beginning of creation which was also the beginning of time (time existed before then but it was inconsequencial), the same that is refered to in Gen 1:1. The Word was in existance when God began creation. John 1:14 tells us that this “Word” became flesh and resided among us. We understand that to be Jesus Christ. This scripture does not imply that Jesus had no beginning himself, but just that when God began the creation, the entity later known as Jesus existed.

The second clause literally means: “and the word was toward the God”. That word “pros” means “to, toward, denoting direction towards a thing, or position and state looking towards a thing.””2. it is used of close proximity- the idea of direction, though not entirely lost, being more or less weakened.”(1) That implys that this “Word” is in close proximity with The God.

The third clause reads “and god was the Word.” The meaning of this clause is what I will be later discussing.

Verse 2 must be considered as it says “This one was in the beginning toward the God.”

Do those two verses indicate that the Logos who became Jesus is God Almighty or Jehovah of the Hebrew Scriptures?

Let’s look at how different Bible translations render that verse. The KJV, Catholic Douay, Rotherham, NIV, ASV, RSV, Young’s, New Life Testament, render that third clause as “and the Word was God”, “The New Testament-A translation in the Language of the People” by Charles B. Williams renders it as “the Word was God himself”, “The New English Bible” says “what God was, the Word was.”, James’ Moffatt’s “New Translation of the Bible” and “The Complete Bible” (Smith-Goodspeed) says “the Logos/ Word was divine.” The “Emphatice Diaglott” by Benjamin Wilson says in the interlinear section “and a god was the Word” and then he says in the English section “and the LOGOS was with GOD, and the LOGOS was God.” The “New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures” renders it as “and the Word was a god.”

As can be seen, there are many diverse and varied renderings of this verse. Which one conveys the true sense and meaning of the Greek text?

It may be concluded by some that since the Greek word “theos” is used it is calling that one God. But “theos” carries many various meanings as listed in Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon such as “1. a god, a goddess; a general appellation of deities or divinities. Spoken of the only true God or theos is used of whatever can in any respect be likened to God, or resembles him in anyway: Hebraistically God’s representative or vicegerent.” So, because the word “theos” is used, it does not limit it to God. The meaning would have to be derived from the context and grammar of the sentances in question.

In these two verses there are three occurances of the Greek noun “theos”. In the first and the last occurance it is recognized as referring to Almighty God. These two words are preceeded by the Greek word “ton” which is the definite article (the) in the accusative or objective sense. The article points out or distinguishes from others. But words can sometimes not have the definite article and refer to God, if the grammar and context decides that.

But the second occurance, in the third clause there is no definite article before the word “theos” which can bring into question is definiteness.

Concerning the non-use of the article Professor William Chamberlain, in his book “An Exegetical Grammar of the Greek New Testament” says on page 57 “The predicate of a sentence may be recognized by the absence of the article: “theos en ho logos” (John 1:1) `the Word was God’; “kai ho logos sarx egento” (John 1:14) `The Word became flesh’; “esontai oi eskhatoi protoi” (Mt. 20:16), `the last shall be first.'” What he states here is that the non-use of the article with these words may make it the predicate of the sentance recognizable.

Then he continues: “The article with each of these predicate nouns would equate them and make them interchangeable, e. g., `ho theos en ho logos’ would make God and the Word identical. The effect of this can be seen in `ho theos agape setin (1 John 4:8) `God is love.’ As the sentance now stands `love’ describes a primary quality of God; the article `he’ (the) with `agape’ (love) would make God and love equivalents, e.g., God would possess no qualities not subsumed under love.”

What he is saying is that a sentance that has a linking verb (to be; is; was) and a definite subject and a definite predicate noun, becomes an equation stating equality. In a math equation when both sides of the equal sign are equal, the two sides are interchangeable, for example, 7=4+3 is the same as 4+3=7. But he says that is not the case with John 1:1. The article with each of those predicate nouns in the examples that he gave (such as logos & theos; or Word & flesh; or last and first) would make them identical and interchangable as an equality. But the article does not appear with the predicate theos to show equality. If it said “ho theos en ho logos” or “the God was the Word” then it would make God and the Word identical. But it does not say that.

He uses the comparison of 1 John 4:8 which is similar in grammar. That says literally from the Greek “the God love is”. The construction is similar with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb as John 1:1 does. He says that love describes a primary quality of God. In this usage it demonstrates itself as an adjective where normally it is a noun. If the article were with the word love, it would make God and love equivalent, showing that God would not possess any quality not included in love. But we know that God hates and destroys the wicked, etc. Here love is a quality. Thus the word “theos” in John 1:1 is showing a quality not naming the Logos as God.

Composed by STeve Klemetti.