BBI II-A: #3 To Whom was God speaking in Genesis 1?
The New Testament is clear that the Son of God was concealed in the Old Testament in a “mystery” which Israel did not understand. This concealment was intentional, because it was necessary for God’s plan of redemption to be carried out. A close examination of the Genesis creation account actually illustrates how certain aspects of this “mystery” were concealed. The revelation of the “Mystery of Christ” was given to the Apostles to proclaim plainly. The prologue of John’s Gospel (John 1:1-18) is a critical part of revealing what was concealed in Genesis 1.
Please put questions in the comments section below. Again, if you have not subscribed to our You Tube channel where these lessons are hosted, please do so: 4Winds Fellowships – YouTube
Go to: BBI II-A: #4 The “Word” was God’s Subordinate Agent in Creation (Jn. 1:1-3)
21 thoughts on “BBI II-A: #3 To Whom was God speaking in Genesis 1?”
Hi Tim,
I posted a portion of your video (where you honed in on Genesis 1:26-27) on the One God Report Facebook group. Here’s a response from Rivers O Feden:
“The text doesn’t say “two persons” either. The “us” and “our” could refer to myriads of persons. Probably angels. They were the “ministering spirits” present at the time of creation (Psalms 104:4).
God the Father works through mediators throughout scripture. There’s no reason to think that the Genesis creation was any different. For example, Jesus was doing the Father’s works during his earthly ministry (John 5:17-20)…
I don’t agree with the “kind” inference because “image” was a Hebrew term for material shape (which wouldn’t apply to an invisible and intangible God person).
Thus, I think it would have to be referring to multiple corporeal persons (i.e. angels). Thus, in Genesis 18:1-3 where we have YHWH identified as “three men” who were “angels” (Genesis 19:2).”
Would love to hear how you’d respond.
Thanks,
Brian
Brian,
It appears this person misses the point. I did not deny that the plural Hebrew terms (translated as plurals in the LXX) “let us make” and “our likeness” and “our image” must be limited to two person. It only requires at least two persons. Of course, God works through mediators. That was my point regarding “agency.” However, if these plural terms referred to angels, then Biblical Unitarians cannot then use Isa. 44:24 to claim that “God alone” created, thus ruling out the Son as being that Agent. This is often their argument when Trinitarians, Arians, Apostolic Monotheists point to John’s prologue, Col. 1:15-20, or Heb. 1:8-12. In fact, that last passage (Heb. 1:8-12) contrasts angels with the Son, and uses the creation in order to do so, identifying the Son as that “Agent” and excluding the angels (other heavenly messengers). It quotes Psalm 102:25 and applies it to the Son who “in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands.”
Secondly, that interpretation requires that according to verse 26 man is made in the combined image of both God and angels, which are of a completely different kind, which is untenable. It also cannot account for the singular statement in vs. 27, God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him.
Yes, the word “image” only refers to a copy, not necessarily an exact copy. However, my point remains that the change from the plural in vs. 26 to the singular in vs. 27 requires that “the image of God” and “His own image” (in which man was made) in vs. 27 must be the same as “our image” and “our likeness” in vs. 26. In order for both verses 26 & 27 to be true, God and the other Person(s) must be exactly the same exemplar in whose image mankind was created, so that being made in the image of God is exactly the same as being made in the image of both God and the second Person(s).
The fact is, “God” and “angels” are completely different kinds of beings, and do NOT share the same nature or the same set of unique characteristics, ontological or otherwise. Whatever aspects of God’s nature that are reflected in mankind as being created in God’s image must be shared by all of those included in the plurals.
Also, you might want to have this person watch the video linked below on the Unitarian Christian Alliance (Dale Tuggy) YouTube channel where Dr. Dustin Smith acknowledges that the “angels” argument cannot work in this passage, and instead switches tactics to claiming that the plural terms in vs. 26 are really “majestic plurals” which have a singular sense. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SK2XHEUC9g However, in the same lecture Dustin previously appealed to the fact that the LXX correctly translates majestic plurals as singulars in the Greek translation, yet he failed to point out at the end of his presentation that the LXX translates these as plurals not singulars. Those Hebrew Temple scholars understood the use of the majestic plural far better than any modern scholar since it was their first language and their occupation was in dealing with the written Hebrew text. The ancient Jews also attempted to explain away this passage by using the “angels” argument, which proves that none of the ancient Jews understood this as majestic plurals. This is a modern Biblical Unitarian attempt to force their view, but they have painted themselves into a corner here. Disagreement within Biblical Unitarianism on this point shows that neither explanation is adequate. It is the same as the fact that Biblical Unitarians are split on John’s prologue and Col. 1:15-20, with some (like Buzzard) claiming that “in the beginning” and the creation described in v. 3 refers to Gen. 1, while others (like Schlegel) arguing that both passages refer to the “new” creation.
Lastly, “Yahweh” is NOT identified as “three” in Gen. 18:1-2, but only one of three (the others being angels). This is necessary because in vs. 14 Yahweh identifies Himself using the singular verb אָשׁ֥וּב (I will return). Also, after the two angels leave for Sodom, Abrahan “stood before Yahweh” (v. 22). “Yahweh” is NOT multiple persons, including His messengers. Yahweh may do things THROUGH His agents, but only ONE of His Agents carries His personal name (Yahweh), the one who led Israel out of Egypt into the Promised Land (Exod. 23:20-23). If Biblical Unitarians claim that “Yahweh” is three Persons (whether or not that is God plus two angels) in order to explain Gen. 1:26-27, then they might as well concede to Trinitarianism, because it would be far more likely to claim that “three Persons” who share the same divine nature are meant in Gen. 1:26 than God with one nature plus angels with completely different natures. That argument will quickly put the user in “check-mate” by Trinitarians! They would have conceded the strongest argument AGAINST Trinitarianism, that “Yahweh” is ONE Person, exactly as they have always interpreted the Shema.
Re: Gen 1:26
While the gentleman you referred to has charted another path than those who say God is speaking to angels (which seems to contradict their idea that God was alone), he is asserting that God is speaking to himself. I am not aware of any text that lends support to the idea that God speaks to himself.
Tim, I appreciate your comments concerning the equation that equals truth. That is an on-going challenge and endeavor for each one.
In Genesis 1, God creates the world by speaking, commanding the creation of light, sky, land, vegetation, animals, and humans with the repeated phrase, “And God said.”
Psalm 33:6 and 9 (LXX) emphasize the role of God’s spoken word in creation: “By the word of the Lord the heavens were made… For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood firm.”
Considering the consistent translation of “by” in Psalm 33:6, weight is given to the idea of God commanding someone by His word in Genesis 1. Using “by” in John 1:3 would maintain consistency with this principle. However, “through” in John 1:3 would not necessarily contradict this principle, as it could still convey the idea of God’s word being the means by which all things were made.
What is important to note is that the logos, or command, is not the one who is commanded, or the agent of creation. The biblical account in Genesis 1 does not provide detailed information on the specific mechanics of how the agent (believed to be the Son based on NT evidence) carried out God’s commands. It simply suggests that God spoke, and the Son, as the agent of creation, carried out the commands. The exact nature of the relationship between the logos and the Son in the act of creation is not explicitly explained. However, the Scriptures consistently present the Son as the agent of creation and the logos as the powerful and creative speech of God.
In John 1, the presentation of the logos maintains continuity between the Old and New Testaments in that it states that nothing came into being apart from it (1:3). In conjunction with verse 1, it is shown that the word is not a separate entity from God. The logos is not created or born, but rather it is an aspect of God’s being, His self-expression or communication. The Son, on the other hand, is a person that was begotten by the Father before the world was created and thus had a beginning and as such is distinct from the logos. Although the logos and the Son are intimately connected, they are distinct and should not be confused or conflated.
The phrase “And God said” in Genesis 1 suggests the presence of God’s creative word in the act of creation, even though the word “logos” is not explicitly mentioned. The repeated phrase implies that God’s creative process involves issuing commands that are then carried out by a subordinate agent. The third person imperative “Let there be” is an example of this, as it implies a direct address to a subordinate agent. This is consistent with the New Testament’s presentation of Jesus Christ as the agent of creation, who carried out God’s commands in accordance with God’s powerful word. Colossians 1:16 states that “all things were created in him, through him and for him,” while Hebrews 1:2 affirms that God “has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe.”
Taken together, these passages affirm that God (the Father) created all things by his word through his Son. The Father spoke his creative word, which was carried out by his Son, who is the agent of creation. The logos (word) is the means by which all things were made, and the Son is the agent who carried out God’s commands in accordance with the power of his word.
The idea in John 1:4 is that the logos possessed the life-giving power or the source of life within itself, and that this life was the light of all humanity. The Greek word used for “life” in this verse is “zoe,” which refers to the fullness of life, both physical and spiritual. So, “In him was life” can be understood as the word had the power or source of life within itself. John 1:4 is not a direct parallel with Colossians 1:16, as they have different emphases and contexts.
Colossians 1:16, on the other hand, emphasizes how God created all things in, through and for the Son, both in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible. The verse emphasizes the Son’s role as the agent of creation and affirms his authority over all created things.
While there is a connection between the ideas of life and creation, they are not interchangeable concepts. “What has originated in him was life” would emphasize the idea of creation, which is not the primary focus of John 1:4. The emphasis of the verse is on the life-giving power that is present in the word and subsequently expressed in the creation.
The Old Testament passages that emphasize the role of God’s spoken word in creation, such as Genesis 1 and Psalm 33:6 and 9, provide the basis for understanding the logos in reference to creation. There is no other sense of logos or rhema in the Old Testament that is specifically linked to the act of creation. Therefore, any interpretation of the logos in John 1:1-3 that is not consistent with the principles established in Genesis 1 and Psalm 33 would lack a scriptural basis and should not be entertained. It is through the lens of these foundational passages that we can understand the logos as God’s powerful and creative speech that commands the creation of all things, with the Son serving as the agent who carries out these commands. This understanding is consistent with the broader biblical narrative and provides a coherent theological framework for understanding the role of the logos in creation.
Steve
Steve,
Psalm 33:6,9 are perfectly compatible with “Logos” and “Spirit/Breath of His mouth” being a Person (part of the mystery). I have already shown why “Logos” MUST be a Person in John 1:1 because of the predicate nominative clause, “and the Word was God,” in which “God” is a personal noun. There are only two possible nuances to this grammatical construction. The first is that “Word” and “God” are exactly interchangeable (which is not possible here because the clause “the Word was WITH God” demands accompaniment beside “the God” which rules out identifying “Word” with “the God.”). The second possibility is that the noun “God” describes the CLASS to which the “Word” belongs. (See Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 40). In other words, whatever the noun “God” means, as describing a particular kind of person or being, that sense also applies to the “Word.” (This is why I spent an entire video lesson on what the word “God” actually means). You said you “disagree,” but you gave no legitimate grammatical arguments regarding this point but just doubled down on your interpretation. You are disagreeing with facts. There are also other grammatical and syntactical reasons in John 1:10-12 which REQUIRE that Logos is a Person which I have not covered yet in the video lessons but will do so in an upcoming lesson when I cover John’s prologue in detail. John’s prologue is not saying something different than Colossians 1. It is saying the same thing. The one called “Word” in John is “the image of the invisible God, the first-produced of all creation” in Col. 1:15. John was reinforcing Paul.
Regarding your interpretation of the clause, “In Him was life,” that is a poor translation. The correct translation is “What has originated in Him was life,” which is contrasted with all things which “originated through Him.” I have an in-depth article on this point here: https://www.4windsfellowships.net/blog/mistranslation-of-john-13-4/
Tim,
I’m still not following the reasoning of how the command (the logos) and the one commanded (the agent of Creation) are without distinction. Not much of what I said was touched on, which is fine, it speaks for itself, but I did want to respond to the things you mentioned— which has much to do with what we spoke on before.
>>>I have already shown why “Logos” MUST be a Person in John 1:1 because of the predicate nominative clause,<<>>The second possibility is that the noun “God” describes the CLASS to which the “Word” belongs. (See Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 40).<<<
This is true but does not necessarily rule out the qualitative interpretation of "God" in John 1:1. While "God" describes the class to which the "word" belongs, this does not necessarily preclude the possibility that "God" is used qualitatively to describe the nature of the word. However, it does not require that the word be a person or being in order to be true. The idea that a person speech is fully expressive of a person admits their speech belongs to the same class as the person speaking. The qualitative sense is a valid interpretation of the grammar and context of John 1:1, as many scholars and theologians have argued.
I haven’t watched the video that you mentioned so I don’t agree or disagree with it. Perhaps I will get to view it as time goes along.
The significance of the Old Testament passages that highlight the power of God's spoken word in creation, such as Genesis 1 and Psalm 33:6 and 9, cannot be overstated. They provide the foundational basis for comprehending the logos in reference to creation. Any interpretation of the logos in John 1:1-3 that fails to align with these principles would lack scriptural backing and should be rejected outright.
The concept of the Logos as a mediator or intermediary between God and creation was present in Greek and Jewish thought but never endorsed by the prophets or apostles but was later adopted by post-apostolic church leaders. It is not part of the apostolic message. Therefore, we must view the logos through the lens of these foundational passages and understand it as God's powerful and creative speech that commands the creation of all things, with the Son as the agent who carries out these commands. This understanding aligns with the broader biblical narrative and provides a cohesive theological framework for comprehending the logos' role in creation. To disregard this would be to ignore the very foundation of God's word and the nature of creation itself.
Steve
Steve,
You seem to be misunderstanding what the “qualitative” sense of the word “God” means. It means that Logos possessed ALL of the “qualities” of God. The first and foremost “quality” of “God” is that “God” is a PERSON. This is why translations which adopt this sense translate the predicate nominative clause as “what God was the Word was.” It does NOT mean that only some abstract “qualities” of “God” apply to the Word. The term “God” ALWAYS describes a person. It NEVER refers to something abstract. Translations which claim the “qualitative” sense are Trinitarian, and what they mean by it is that the Word was a Person who had full divinity since God is a Person with full divinity. It does not and cannot simply mean that the Word shared SOME abstract qualities with God. That is a misunderstanding of what these Trinitarians mean by “qualitative.” Those Trinitarians who argue for a “qualitative” interpretation are arguing against the Arian (JW) reading in the NWT, which says “and the Word was a god,” which is a legitimate translation of this clause. IN order to avoid the “a god” reading, these Trinitarians are attempting to make this clause say that the Word was a divine Person (co-equal and co-eternal), not a non-personal thing that had certain divine qualities.
I showed before that “Logos” (Word) was a proper name or title for Jesus in Rev. 19. So the argument that Logos in John’s prologue must refer to the words (commands) spoken by God in Gen. 1 is like saying that Peter must be a stone because that is the lexical definition of his name. The SOn is called “Logos” (Word) because He is the one who carried out God’s commands, and is the one who has always “declared” the God whom no one has ever seen (John 1:18).
Tim, that is your argument that should be subject to consideration, scrutiny and discussion.
The reasoning that the word in John 1:1 must be a person because God is a person is flawed, as there are examples in the Bible where God is described in non-personal terms, and the qualitative sense of ‘the word was God’ allows for the understanding of the word as an abstract concept or divine attribute, rather than a literal person.
I cited references of others who do not agree with your assertion that it “MUST” be the way you present. Those references were for some reason not posted with my post. I don’t know if my references were unintentionally deleted or intentionally censored, but I would like to know. While I would be glad to continue engaging in these matters, it’s important for me to avoid being subjected to undue censorship, as it goes against the principles of objectivity. It’s important to consider multiple perspectives and arguments in discussions about theological concepts like the nature of the word in John’s Gospel. It’s through open and respectful dialogue that we can deepen our understanding of different viewpoints and arrive at a more informed conclusion. Christianity is the religion of free inquiry.
Steve
Steve,
Posts are not censored here. I only reject entire spam posts (which we have a great deal of). I am not aware of any references which you claim to have posted.
If you wish to make the case that the word “God” is used elsewhere in Scripture as an abstract noun, then please provide the references and your exegesis of the passage(s) where you believe this to be the case so that it can be subject to consideration, scrutiny, and discussion.
Steve,
If you have access to Daniel Wallace’s “Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics” I strongly suggest that you read pages 256-270 where Colwell’s 1933 Rule is discussed in detail (which deals with the question of the construction of this clause “and the Word was God”). Wallace explains the rule and how it has been misunderstood and misused by many conservative modern scholars in an attempt to read John 1:1 as proving the “deity” of Jesus Christ. The word “God” in this clause does not mean, and cannot be translated, as an abstract noun referring only to certain qualities without referring to the Personhood of the Word. The only question left open by the so-called “qualitative” interpretation of the anarthrous “Theos” is whether the noun is definite or indefinite which has nothing whatever to do with whether it is concrete or abstract. It only leaves the possibility of whether the anarthrous “Theos” refers to “the God,” “a God,” or “God” (as a class of Personal Beings to which both “the God” and “Logos” belong), ALL of which are concrete and personal. There is no other possible interpretation of this clause that the grammar permits.
Thanks for clarifying that Tim. I am unsure what happened, but something went awry. What was within my post was this:
“The use of the predicate nominative in Greek is not an absolute rule for determining the nature of the subject as you insist, as there are instances where anarthrous predicate nominatives can function adjectivally. This is supported by various Greek grammars, including “Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics” by Daniel Wallace, and “An Introduction to Biblical Greek Syntax” by Bruce M. Metzger.
There are also respected scholars who interpret “God” in John 1:1c as an adjectival predicate, such as Murray J. Harris in his book “Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus,” and Philip B. Harner in his article “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1.
Therefore it is not accurate to claim that the predicate nominative construction “MUST” be interpreted as indicating personal identity in John 1:1c. The immediate and broader context and other factors must be taken into account to determine the intended meaning.”
The focus of the argument is on the interpretation of the phrase ‘the word was God’ in John 1:1c, which can be understood in a qualitative sense, indicating that the characteristics of the word are that of God. God is describing the word and not vice versa. Therefore, it is not necessary to prove that God is described in non-personal terms elsewhere in Scripture to understand this verse. The word possesses divine qualities because it is part of God’s own being, as his eternal thoughts are fully expressed through his communication.
This interpretation is based on a careful reading of the context and a consideration of the various grammatical and theological factors involved, which emphasizes the creative power of “the word” and its role in revealing God to humanity, rather than its personhood.
Additionally, there are respected scholars who interpret “God” in John 1:1c as an adjectival predicate, which would mean that “the word was God” describes the nature or quality of “the word,” rather than its identity as a person. Logos is not a separate entity outside of God. In the biblical understanding, logos is an aspect of God that is fully expressive of Him, specifically, the means by which God communicates and reveals himself to humanity.
It is important to note that “In the beginning was..”(1:1a) does not equate to “in the beginning” or “from the beginning” but rather implies an ongoing existence and indicates that the logos was already existing prior to the beginning of creation. This further underscores the eternality of the logos, which is as eternal as God Himself because logos goes to the underlying principle or concept, in other words, it is the communication of a message or the conveying of a thought or idea that eternally exists and these are inseparable. On the other hand, the Son was begotten by the Father at a specific point prior to the creation of all things, marking his beginning.
It is worth noting that in the Gospels, Jesus never explicitly identifies himself as “the Logos.” Although he is the embodiment of the logos, Jesus himself makes a distinction between himself and the logos.
John 3:34 For He whom God has sent speaks the words of God; for He gives the Spirit without measure.
John 8:55 I do know Him and keep His word.
John 14:24 He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine, but the Father’s who sent Me.
John 17:14 I have given them Your word; and the world has hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
These are no different than the word full of grace and truth that came through Jesus Christ (John 1:14, 17).
“And all bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth.”— Luke 4:22
“the word which you hear is not Mine, but the Father’s”— Jn 14:24.
“[Father] Thy word is truth” — John 17:17
“the word of truth, the gospel” — Col. 1:5
“the grace of God in truth” — Col. 1:6
“as the truth is in Jesus” — Eph. 4:21
“the gospel of the grace of God” — Acts. 20:24
Vincent’s Word Studies
“Full of grace and truth” ( πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας )
This is connected with the main subject of the sentence: “The Word – full of grace and truth.”
Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
“In John 1:17 these two words [grace and truth] picture the Gospel in Christ in contrast with the law of Moses. See Epistles of Paul for origin and use of both words.”
Re: Rev. 19:13 – The Gospel of John was likely written years before the book of Revelation, meaning that readers of the Gospel did not have access to the later text as a reference for interpreting John 1:1. Therefore, it is crucial to consider the immediate context and other relevant passages within the Gospel itself when trying to understand the meaning of “the word” in John 1:1.
While John 1:1 emphasizes the divine and eternal attributes of the word, in Revelation 19:13, Jesus is referred to as the Word of God, highlighting his role as the messenger and embodiment of God’s word at his Parousia. This emphasizes Jesus’ authority and power as the one who brings God’s message to humanity and enacts God’s will on earth.
While both passages refer to “the word,” their emphasis and context are distinct. Therefore, it should be noted that Rev. 19:13 does not serve as a proof-text to introduce the Son into John 1:1 or to support the idea that the logos is a person in John 1:1.
The burden of proof rests on those who claim that logos in John 1:1 refers to a person and that the Son is under consideration in the context of the verse. It is necessary to prove both claims in conjunction one with another. To support these claims, it is necessary to provide evidence based on the immediate context and other relevant passages within the Gospel of John and relevant Old Testament passages. Merely citing a later text like Revelation 19:13, which does not explicitly relate to the interpretation of John 1:1, is not sufficient to establish these claims.
Steve>>> ““The use of the predicate nominative in Greek is not an absolute rule for determining the nature of the subject as you insist, as there are instances where anarthrous predicate nominatives can function adjectivally. This is supported by various Greek grammars, including “Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics” by Daniel Wallace, and “An Introduction to Biblical Greek Syntax” by Bruce M. Metzger. There are also respected scholars who interpret “God” in John 1:1c as an adjectival predicate, such as Murray J. Harris in his book “Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus,” and Philip B. Harner in his article “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1. Therefore it is not accurate to claim that the predicate nominative construction “MUST” be interpreted as indicating personal identity in John 1:1c. The immediate and broader context and other factors must be taken into account to determine the intended meaning.”
Tim> I never stated or implied that the predicate nominative construction itself establishes the nature of either the subject or predicate. What is in question here is the meaning of the noun “Theos” (God). The N/PN construction does not define the meaning. It is the term “God” (Theos) itself that is ALWAYS a concrete and personal noun. It is NEVER abstract or adjectival, regardless of what kind of construction it happens to be in. In John 1:1c “Theos” is the predicate, and “Logos” is the subject. In the N/PN construction, the sense is that the subject is what the predicate is. In Wallace’s GGBB which you mentioned above, and which I have on my desk in front of me, Wallace quoted and discussed Harner’s, Metzger’s, Dixon’s etc. explanations of Colwell’s rule dealing with the anarthrous PN before the verb, especially in John 1:1c. You are completely misrepresenting what these scholars are claiming. I agree that “Theos” in John 1:1c is “qualitative.” But you are misrepresenting what the scholarly sources mean by “qualitative.” Let me provide a direct quote from Wallace on this very point in summary after quoting and discussing the comments by Colwell, Harner, Metzger, and Dixon. Under the heading: “Is Theos in John 1:1c Qualitative?“, Wallace explains what “qualitative” actually means as follows: “The idea of qualitative Theos here is that the Word had all of the attributes and qualities that “the God” (of 1:1b) had. In other words, he shared the essence of the Father, though they differed in person. The construction the evangelist chose to express this idea was the most concise way he could have stated that the Word was God and yet was distinct from the Father.” (Wallace, GGBB, p. 269, emphasis mine). The problem here seems to be that you are reading and quoting from people who misunderstand, misrepresent, and misuse what these scholarly sources are saying.
Steve>>> “Additionally, there are respected scholars who interpret “God” in John 1:1c as an adjectival predicate, which would mean that “the word was God” describes the nature or quality of “the word,” rather than its identity as a person. Logos is not a separate entity outside of God. In the biblical understanding, logos is an aspect of God that is fully expressive of Him, specifically, the means by which God communicates and reveals himself to humanity.”
Tim> It sounds to me like you are reading Biblical Unitarians which are incorrect on this point. Adjectival predicates require that the PN be a term that is adjectival in nature, which God is NOT. A PN such as “John is good” is only adjectival because the word “good” is an adjective! The word “God” is NOT an adjective and is not ever used adjectivally.
Steve>>> It is important to note that “In the beginning was..”(1:1a) does not equate to “in the beginning” or “from the beginning” but rather implies an ongoing existence and indicates that the logos was already existing prior to the beginning of creation. This further underscores the eternality of the logos, which is as eternal as God Himself because logos goes to the underlying principle or concept, in other words, it is the communication of a message or the conveying of a thought or idea that eternally exists and these are inseparable. On the other hand, the Son was begotten by the Father at a specific point prior to the creation of all things, marking his beginning.
Tim> No, you are mistaken. The verb ἦν (which is the verb of being in the imperfect tense) does NOT imply in any sense that “Logos was already existing prior to the beginning of creation.” Those who make this claim are Trinitarians, and are attempting to get co-eternality for Logos out of this text which it cannot support. The clause, “IN the beginning” is a reference to Genesis 1, and the entire creation account which took place over a six-day period. That Logos was “in the beginning with God” says absolutely nothing about whether He existed BEFORE the six-days of creation week. It only indicates an existence within the sense of the expression “in the beginning” which is the six days of creation.
Steve>>> It is worth noting that in the Gospels, Jesus never explicitly identifies himself as “the Logos.” Although he is the embodiment of the logos, Jesus himself makes a distinction between himself and the logos. …”
Tim> This is a straw man. The term “logos” (word) has a lexical meaning of a communicated message, which is how it is usually used. But it can and is used also as a proper noun by John in Rev. 19:13, a name for the Son. That both senses are used in John’s Gospel does not indicate that Jesus made a “distinction between himself and the logos” simply because He used the term “logos” (word) in reference to something spoken. The quotes from Vincent and Robertson are completely irrelevant.
Steve>>> “The burden of proof rests on those who claim that logos in John 1:1 refers to a person and that the Son is under consideration in the context of the verse. It is necessary to prove both claims in conjunction one with another. To support these claims, it is necessary to provide evidence based on the immediate context and other relevant passages within the Gospel of John and relevant Old Testament passages. Merely citing a later text like Revelation 19:13, which does not explicitly relate to the interpretation of John 1:1, is not sufficient to establish these claims.”
Tim> The PROOF is the word “God” (Theos) which is always a concrete (not abstract) and personal noun. Additional proof is in verses 10-11, where all of the pronouns and 3rd person verbs MUST refer to the Logos simply because the clause “the world originated through Him” is parallel to “all things originated through Him, and without Him nothing originated” (Logos) in vs. 3, and this one is identified as the one who “came unto His own (things), and His own (people) rejected Him,” yet to those who believe on His NAME He gives the right to be sons of God.
You have yet to provide ANY examples in Scripture where the word “God” is used in an abstract sense and does NOT refer to a Person. Until you can produce examples where the noun God (Theos) is NOT a concrete, personal noun, nothing else matters. I do not have time to argue about the grammar. You can only make your point by providing examples. Please do so.
Tim, It is crucial to understand that the interpretation of John 1:1 is a complex matter that requires considering not only the grammatical rules of the Greek language but also the broader context of the Gospel of John and the Scriptures as a whole. I have attempted to highlight the broader context that supports my perspective, which is consistent with both the Old and New Testaments. On the other hand, your argument relies on a single reference to Rev. 19:13, which has a distinct context from John 1:1 and does not establish the Son as being under consideration in 1:1. Steve
Thanks Tim.
One thing that jumps out at me right away in Daniel Wallace’s “Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics” is this comment:
“Dixon concluded that 94% of these predicate nominatives in John were qualitative while only 6% were definite.” Daniel Wallace’s “Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics” p.260
As noted by Dixon’s study of predicate nominatives in John’s Gospel, the qualitative sense is by far the most common usage. This statistical evidence lends further support to the probability that John 1:1c is intended to convey the quality of the logos rather than to identify the logos as a distinct person. Therefore, the qualitative interpretation is a reasonable and compelling understanding of the verse in light of both the grammatical evidence and the broader context of the Old and New Testament’s theology.
Steve
You are again misunderstanding what “qualitative” means. It requires that ALL of the qualities of “Theos” are applied to “Logos.” Again, as I have stated repeatedly, the very first and primary quality is that “Theos” is a PERSONAL BEING. You cannot exclude that “quality.” You are not correctly articulating what Wallace is saying. I am not saying you are intentionally misrepresenting. I think you are misunderstanding.
Tim, I could make a mistake, but I do not willfully misrepresent anyone. I may agree with certain points and not agree with their ultimate conclusion, but I do not try to manipulate the sense of any point.
‘’’’’’’“Is Theos in John 1:1c Qualitative?“, Wallace explains what “qualitative” actually means as follows: “The idea of qualitative Theos here is that the Word had all of the attributes and qualities that “the God” (of 1:1b) had. In other words, he shared the essence of the Father, though they differed in person. The construction the evangelist chose to express this idea was the most concise way he could have stated that the Word was God and yet was distinct from the Father.” (Wallace, GGBB, p. 269, emphasis mine).’’’’’’’’
I agree with Wallace’s position that “Theos” in John 1:1c is qualitative, meaning that the Word had all of the attributes and qualities that “the God” (of 1:1b) had.” However I disagree with his conclusion about the nature of the Word as the second person of a triune God.
In John 1:1c, the word “Theos” is the predicate of the sentence and is used in a specific grammatical construction called a nominative-predicate construction. In this construction, the predicate (in this case, “Theos”) is nominative, and the subject (in this case, “logos” or “word”) is also nominative. The lack of an article before “Theos” in this construction indicates that it is not being used as a proper name, but rather as a description of the Word.
Both “qualitative” and “adjectival” are terms used to describe the nature of “Theos” in this construction. The use of the term “qualitative” in relation to “Theos” in John 1:1c does not necessarily imply that the word is a distinct person. It simply means that the word possesses the same nature, attributes, and qualities as God (the Father) himself. “Adjectival” refers to the idea that “Theos” functions grammatically as an adjective, describing the nature or quality of the Word.
So, in summary, “qualitative” and “adjectival” are both terms used to describe the nature of “Theos” in John 1:1c, with “qualitative” emphasizing the idea of the Word sharing the same nature as God, and “adjectival” emphasizing the grammatical function of “Theos” as a description of the word.
‘’’’’’Tim said: Additional proof is in verses 10-11, where all of the pronouns and 3rd person verbs MUST refer to the Logos’’’’’’
I see this differently, but will reserve going into it now.
‘’’’’’’Tim said: That both senses are used in John’s Gospel does not indicate that Jesus made a “distinction between himself and the logos”.’’’’’’’
Both senses have not been shown in John.
As said, the onus is upon you to prove the logos is a person and in particular the Son in John 1:1, Rev. 19:13 doesn’t do that.
Tim, if the word must be a person in John 1:1, he is either ‘the Lord God’ or ‘a god’ because there is no other sense available. So which one are you going with? If he is the Lord God then there are two who are the Lord God unqualified. That is not going to work very well. If he is “a god,” then he is not identical to God (the Father), (and the sense of the verse is loss) not possessing all the qualities that are unique to God alone, such as being eternal, sovereign, omnipotent, omniscient, and inviolate. These are the reasons why there is no God beside him (Is. 44:6). There is not an in between category available. What’s it going to be?
Steve
Steve>>>“I agree with Wallace’s position that “Theos” in John 1:1c is qualitative, meaning that the Word had all of the attributes and qualities that “the God” (of 1:1b) had.” However I disagree with his conclusion about the nature of the Word as the second person of a triune God.”
Tim> If that is your position, then you MUST conclude that Logos is a PERSON, because at the very least, the primary attribute and quality of “the God” is that He is a personal being. If “Logos” has ALL the same qualities, you are not free to pick and choose certain abstract qualities and ignore those qualities that demand a concrete, personal, conscious being. Logos CANNOT be a spoken “word” or any kind of abstract thing, period, because “God” (Theos) is not.
Steve>>> “The lack of an article before “Theos” in this construction indicates that it is not being used as a proper name, but rather as a description of the Word.”
Tim> The use of the article with “Logos” and the lack of the article with “Theos” tells us which of the two nominative case nouns is the subject (with the article) and which is the predicate (anarthrous). That is the only way to identify each nominative in the clause. It has nothing whatever to do with whether either can be a proper name or title.
Steve> “Both “qualitative” and “adjectival” are terms used to describe the nature of “Theos” in this construction. The use of the term “qualitative” in relation to “Theos” in John 1:1c does not necessarily imply that the word is a distinct person. It simply means that the word possesses the same nature, attributes, and qualities as God (the Father) himself. “Adjectival” refers to the idea that “Theos” functions grammatically as an adjective, describing the nature or quality of the Word.”
Tim> That is simply not true. The “adjectival” use of a term requires that it be capable of adjectival use. “Theos” is a masculine noun and is NEVER EVER used in an adjectival or abstract sense. I have made this point repeatedly, and have more than once asked you to provide examples in Scripture where “Theos” is ever used in any way other than as a concrete, personal noun. The word θεῖος (Theios) which is NEUTER can refer to the divine qualities without referring to a Person (as in Prov. 2:17 (LXX) and Acts 17:29. But that is not the case with the masculine noun “Theos.” If it is the case, you should be able to provide examples. I am still waiting for examples.
Steve>>>“Tim, if the word must be a person in John 1:1, he is either ‘the Lord God’ or ‘a god’ because there is no other sense available. So which one are you going with? If he is the Lord God then there are two who are the Lord God unqualified. That is not going to work very well. If he is “a god,” then he is not identical to God (the Father), (and the sense of the verse is loss) not possessing all the qualities that are unique to God alone, such as being eternal, sovereign, omnipotent, omniscient, and inviolate. These are the reasons why there is no God beside him (Is. 44:6). There is not an in between category available. What’s it going to be?”
Tim> This is a false choice, because you are wrongly supposing that the word “God” implies some particular divine essence. But if that is true, then angels and demons also possess the same divine qualities because they are also called “god(s)” on many occasions. This is the mistake being made by both Trinitarians and Biblical Unitarians. The word “God” points exclusively to a PERSON holding sovereignty, both power and authority. It says absolutely NOTHING about any particular qualities or attributes apart from this. “Logos” was “God” to Adam, Abraham, Moses, etc., simply because He was God’s Agent authorized to speak and act in God’s name. He was “the image of the invisible God” and the “face” of God to man, and thus He is called “God” many times in the OT when He appeared to individuals. Because the word God has as its core meaning “sovereign,” an Agent acting under the authority of the supreme Sovereign also carries His authority and sovereignty. Thus, as “the Angel of the Lord” He was called both “God” and “Elohim.” The false choice you are presenting here also won’t work in Psalm 45:6-7 where there are two persons called “God” individually, the Father and the Son. Yet they are NOT the same Person, nor are they separate “Gods” simply because two Gods require two distinct spheres of sovereignty. They are two persons but one sovereignty, the one being the authorized agent of the other. This is what both Unitarians and Trinitarians are missing. Because you are gleaning arguments used by Unitarians (which are demonstrably false), you are missing the very key point that makes both Trinitarianism and Unitarianism untenable. It is also why neither side can overthrow the other because they both make the same mistake, but in different passages.
I have expended as much time discussing this point with you as I can at this time. I will consider any further points you wish to make IF or WHEN you provide examples where the masculine noun “Theos” is used in any way other than referring to an actual person (such as alleged qualities of God being applied to someone or something else).
Tim’s response: > If that is your position, then you MUST conclude that Logos is a PERSON, because at the very least, the primary attribute and quality of “the God” is that He is a personal being. If “Logos” has ALL the same qualities, you are not free to pick and choose certain abstract qualities and ignore those qualities that demand a concrete, personal, conscious being. Logos CANNOT be a spoken “word” or any kind of abstract thing, period, because “God” (Theos) is not.////
While it is true that “the God” (ho theos) in John 1:1b is a personal being, it does not necessarily follow that the word (logos) in John 1:1c must also be a person. As stated earlier, the use of the term “qualitative” in relation to “Theos” in John 1:1c does not necessarily imply that the word is a distinct person. It simply means that the word possesses the same nature, attributes, and qualities as God (the Father) himself.
////Tim> That is simply not true. The “adjectival” use of a term requires that it be capable of adjectival use. “Theos” is a masculine noun and is NEVER EVER used in an adjectival or abstract sense. I have made this point repeatedly, and have more than once asked you to provide examples in Scripture where “Theos” is ever used in any way other than as a concrete, personal noun. The word θεῖος (Theios) which is NEUTER can refer to the divine qualities without referring to a Person (as in Prov. 2:17 (LXX) and Acts 17:29. But that is not the case with the masculine noun “Theos.” If it is the case, you should be able to provide examples. I am still waiting for examples.////
While it is true that the term “adjectival” refers to the grammatical function of a word, it does not necessarily mean that the word is being used in an abstract or adjectival sense. In the case of “Theos” in John 1:1c, the term “adjectival” is being used to describe the grammatical function of the word as a predicate noun, functioning to describe the nature or quality of the word. This is in contrast to the subject noun “logos,” which has the article and is therefore the subject of the clause.
As for the use of “Theos” in an adjectival sense, it is true that the word is a masculine noun and is typically used as a concrete, personal noun to refer to God as a person. However, it is also true that the word can be used in a qualitative sense, as in John 10:34-35 where Jesus quotes from Psalm 82 and refers to human beings as “gods” (theoi), not in a personal sense but in a sense of possessing divine authority.
Furthermore, while the neuter form of “theios” is used in reference to divine qualities in Acts 17:29, it is not necessary for the word to be in the neuter form to refer to qualities or attributes. In fact, the feminine form of “theios” is used in 2 Peter 1:3 to describe the divine power (theias dunamis) that believers receive of through Christ. Additionally, in 2 Peter 1:4, the same author uses the phrase “divine nature” (theias physis) in the feminine form to refer to the nature of God that believers can partake in. The point still stands regardless of whether the gender of “theios” is masculine or feminine. The important thing to note is that “theios” can be used to describe both the divine power and the divine nature of God. So, while the gender of “theios” may be important for grammatical accuracy, it does not detract from the larger point being made about the nature of the word in John 1:1c.
While it is true that “Theos” is typically used as a concrete, personal noun to refer to God as a person, it is also possible for the word to be used in a qualitative sense to describe the nature or attributes of the word without necessarily referring to a distinct person.
////Tim said: This is a false choice, because you are wrongly supposing that the word “God” implies some particular divine essence.////
I believe God is a person or self, but that he does have characteristics of his person.
////Tim said: “The word “God” points exclusively to a PERSON holding sovereignty, both power and authority. It says absolutely NOTHING about any particular qualities or attributes apart from this.”////
Tim it seems that you are saying that the term “God” does not necessarily imply any particular qualities or attributes beyond holding sovereignty, power, and authority.
In the Old Testament, the Angel of the Lord is depicted as speaking in the first person on behalf of God in some instances, but it is important to note that the New Testament writers consistently make a clear distinction between the God and Father of Jesus Christ, who is the only true God, and Jesus Christ as His Son. This distinction is emphasized repeatedly throughout the New Testament and should be preserved in any interpretation of John 1:1.
////Tim said: “The false choice you are presenting here also won’t work in Psalm 45:6-7 where there are two persons called “God” individually, the Father and the Son. Yet they are NOT the same Person, nor are they separate “Gods” simply because two Gods require two distinct spheres of sovereignty. “////
There was no false choice. Your argument based on Psalm 45:6-7 doesn’t apply to John 1:1 because there is a crucial difference in the context of the two passages. In Psalm 45:6-7, there are two persons called “God” individually, and it is clear from the context that they are distinct persons with distinct roles. However, in John 1:1, there is no indication within the immediate context that the “God” in 1:1b is a different person from the “God” in 1:1c.
The interpretation of John 1:1 must be based on the context of the specific passage being studied, rather than importing external contexts. Importing external contexts into the interpretation of John 1:1 would amount to a failure to properly exegete the passage, and would result in a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the intended meaning of the author. It is important to approach the text with a clear and open mind, allowing the immediate context of the passage to guide our understanding and interpretation. This will lead to a more accurate and faithful interpretation of the text.
Your interpretation assumes that the Son is present in John 1:1 and then changes the referent of “God” (the Father) in 1:1b to be the Son in 1:1c, but there is no clear indication within the text to support this. Therefore, without a clear indication in the immediate context, it is not valid to assume that the “God” in 1:1c is a different person from the “God” in 1:1b. To do so would be to import a presupposition into the text that is not supported by the context and is sure to blur the important distinction between the God and Father of Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ himself as his Son, which is a consistent theme throughout the New Testament.
Steve
Steve,
You have given zero examples where “Theos” is used to apply certain qualities to something which is non-personal or non-concrete. This is the Achillies heel of your interpretation, which is just a rehash of the “Biblical Unitarian” position on this clause.
Steve>>> “John 10:34-35 where Jesus quotes from Psalm 82 and refers to human beings as “gods” (theoi), not in a personal sense but in a sense of possessing divine authority.”
Tim> Says who? These are persons who are called “gods.” This is NOT an example of the use of “Theos” to convey alleged divine attributes (sovereignty) to some impersonal or abstract thing WITHOUT personhood. To possess sovereignty requires that one be conscious and react in a certain way to events and personal actions as a judge and executioner of justice. That you chose this passage as your evidence shows plainly that you cannot produce even ONE example of the kind of unsound interpretation you are applying to John 1:1c. The point of calling these rulers “gods” is to convey the idea of PERSONS holding, using, and applying sovereignty. Abstract qualities (even sovereignty) are not “gods” and can never be called “gods.” Persons holding sovereignty can be called “God/gods.” John 1:1 demands that “Logos” is a person because “Logos” is called “God.” There are two PERSONS called “God” in John 1:1, just as there are two PERSONS called “God” in Psalm 45:6-7, the one being the “God” of the other. This principle of two Persons called “God” (Elohim, and Yahweh) is found in many passages in the OT, and this provides the background for John’s statement as well as the Genesis creation account which absolutely DEMANDS more than one Person involved in the creation by Gen. 1:26.
Steve>>> Therefore, without a clear indication in the immediate context, it is not valid to assume that the “God” in 1:1c is a different person from the “God” in 1:1b.
Tim> The clause “and Logos was with God” proves the two are distinct Persons. Even Anthony Buzzard (who holds the same position as you do on John 1:1c) acknowledges that “Logos” must be distinct from “the God” in this clause.
I am not going to respond to you further as my time is valuable right now, and beating a dead horse is not productive. People can read our exchange and make up their own mind.
In Genesis 1 the statements that have “and God saw” indicate that the One who is called God perceived what He had not known before. Genesis 1:25 says, “And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creeps upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. Verse 31 says, And God saw every time that He had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. The One who sees is making and commanding in verses 3, 4, 6, 7, etc, not someone else. In Genesis 6 God saw that the wickedness was great upon the earth. His knowledge is acquired and He is learning. He is commanding in the NT also while His God does it. Also in John the Word became flesh. Logos has to be a person to do so. Besides He appears to Jeremiah for example in Jeremiah 1.
Continued Polyglot version: As came the word (Logos) of God to him in the days of Josiah son of Amon king
of Judah. In verse 9 it says, And the Lord stretched His hand to me and touched my mouth.
Comments are closed.