| For an Answer Home | Mars Hill Index | Bibliography | Glossary |
| The Bible Gateway | The Blue Letter Bible | The Greek New Testament (NA26) | Greek & Hebrew Lexicons |
Mars Hill Apologetic Discussions
| << Previous Post |
Response >> |
|
Robert To BBS - Divine Nature (Con't)
|
| Hi, BBS,
Thanks for your response. I definitely appreciate your polite tone and your willingness to thoughtfully consider my remarks, and even to alter your view, if the evidence warrants. You display a very mature attitude, and I don't take it lightly. BBS: I'm starting to feel like someone who is playing several
different games of chess at the same time. Many people are now
responding to my various statements, and since it generally takes me
about an hour and a half to compose a comprehensive response I find
myself simply running out of time in attempting to keep up with them. I
do have other demands on my time in my life. ROBERT: Thanks! BBS - As may be, the use of the term "divine nature" by many of the commentators I have cited is not a reference to the nature that belongs to God alone, nor does the NT use it in this sense, nor have I. ROBERT: I think you may be reading your own sense of "divine nature" into the remarks of most of the commentators and translations you cited. I'd like to go in detail through each translation and commentary you mention in your original article. This will be a bit lengthy, but I think it's important that we're clear on what each is saying in context. "THE WORD WAS GOD" Here, I think, you may be misunderstanding the other translations you cite (with the exception of those who render THEOS as "a god"). They do not "DISAGREE" with the KJV, but seek to emphasize a qualitative rendering. The term "God" in John 1:1c of the KJV can be taken qualitatively in precisely the same was as THEOS is in the Greek. If I were to say, "BBS was with the Man and was man," we would immediately recognize the meaning as (more or less) "BBS was with the Man and was, himself, human." I am not saying BBS is "a man," (indefinite), nor am I saying BBS is "the Man" (definite). I am using "man" in a qualitative sense, emphasizing the qualities, character, essence of "man." Whatever makes The Man man, also makes BBS man. You will no doubt say, "Robert, you fool, if BBS is with the Man, he can't be the same Man he's with," and you'd be absolutely correct. The qualitative force does not pertain to INDIVIDUAL attributes - those that distinguish members within the same class or kind. We would, though, conclude that BBS was, in every sense, equal to the Man in terms of his nature, because the qualitative force DOES pertain to GENERIC attributes. So, too, "God" in John 1:1c in the KJV. "God" is not definite or indefinite, but qualitative. We are not used to seeing "God" used in a qualitative sense in English, but that is how THEOS is used here in the Greek. "Was God" may require some explanation, but that is really due to English usage, and not a fault of the KJV translators, who accurately reflect the Greek syntax. Indeed, as Dan Wallace has said, "Although I believe that THEOS in 1:1c is qualitative, I think the simplest and most straightforward translation is, 'and the Word was God.' It may be better to clearly affirm the NT teaching of the Deity of Christ and then explain that he is NOT the Father, than to SOUND ambiguous on his deity and explain that he is God but not the Father" (_Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics_, p. 269, n31, emphasis in original). If we substituted the word "Deity" for "God," (and we restrict it's meaning to the Only True God), we have "The Word was with the Deity, and the Word was Deity." Since we're used to seeing Deity both with the definite article and qualitatively (sans article), this rendering is perhaps a bit closer to the Greek - but, of course, we must then explain the restricted sense of the term, as I have done parenthetically, above. John is not saying that the Word is identical to HO THEOS. That would imply some form of modalism. John 1:1c is not a "convertible proposition," which it would be if John had placed HO before THEOS. By using the anarthrous construction, John emphasizes the distinction between HO THEOS (whom John and the other NT writers regularly apply to the Father) and the Logos. (He is also distinguishing the subject of the sentence, of course). However, his choice of Colwell's Construction (that is, a perverbal anarthrous predicate nominative in a copulative sentence) also emphasizes the qualitaties the Word possess as THEOS, and they are identical to those possessed by HO THEOS. John uses exactly the same construction in verse 14 - in what I think is an obvious stylistic parallel - to say not that the Word was LIKE flesh, or similar in nature to humans, but that He was fully flesh - possessing all the qualities and attributes of humanity. This view is widely supported by Greek scholars, such as Wallace, Mantey, Robertson, Nida, Ehrman (who's not even a Trinitarian!), Metzger, Bruce, Carson, Wuest, and scores of others, including those you have cited, as I hope to demonstrate, below. With regard to the Word not being the same God He is with, Trinitarians don't argue that He is - they argue that there is One God, and the Son shares the One Divine Nature with the Father (and the Spirit). Is this 3 beings in One God, Three Persons in One Being? Terminology fails, BBS, because we're talking about God, and his Nature is not ours. We can't hope to comprehend even the most mundane aspect of God's Nature, let alone plumb His infinite depths. Nevertheless, if we follow the whole counsel of Scripture, we must simultaneously acknowledge One God and a Divine Son who is Divine in every sense His Father is. TRANSLATIONS I haven't researched The Complete Bible, so I can't address what the translator(s) intended. But Goodspeeed and Moffatt have both said that what they intended by "divine" was to emphasize the qualitative force of THEOS in the sense I have delineated; that is, that the Word has all the qualities, attributes, essence of God. In a 1958 interview, Goodspeed explicitly criticized the NWT rendering of John 1:1. Moffatt wrote: "'The Word was God...And the Word became flesh,' simply means 'The Word was divine...And the Word became human.' The Nicene faith, in the Chalcedon definition, was intended to conserve both of these truths against theories that failed to present Jesus as truly God and truly man" (Moffatt, _Jesus Christ the Same_, p. 61). The Logos is truly "God" in the Trinitarian sense, according to Goodspeed and Moffatt, not merely a "divine" angelic being. MORE TRANSLATIONS Wilson's translation in the Diaglott reads "and the Logos was God," so he clearly was using the indefinite article in the interlinear to reflect the lack of the article, but believed the proper translation was definite or qualitative. Newcomb's NT was "improved" by an unnamed Unitarian committee, and does not reflect the scholarship of Newcomb himself. I haven't been able to learn much about Tomanek or his qualifications to translate the NT, but I've never seen his translation referenced in any scholarly paper or book. Perhaps you have more information that would lend credibility to his translation? The NWT has been widely discussed, and I don't think I need to comment beyond the fact that it is hard to credit the Translation Committee's rendering on the basis of their scholarship or knowledge of Greek (only one member, Franz, had a college degree, and it was not in Greek or Hebrew). Schulz's translation is "ein Gott (oder: Gott von Art) war das Wort." The term "von Art" (literally "from Kind") is a bit difficult to translate (at least with my limited German), but could be translated in English as "a kind of God" (which would support your view) or "in the nature of God" (which would support the Trinitarian view). To see what Schulz really meant by this phrase, let's see what he wrote in his commentary on John 1:1 (I will leave "von Art" in German): "The third phrase sets forth the basic premise concerning the pre-existent "Word": "and God was the Word" (German: und Gott war das Wort). In verse 1c "God" stands in contrast to the clearly articulated divine concept in verse 1b emphasized at the beginning by lack of the article...In so much as the last word of verse 1b was dealt with, the whole imparts a divine being to the "Word". The obvious "and God" is the predicate and in no way identifies the Word with the latter "with the God." Thereby "the Word" is identified as "God" just as the other one is, with which this "Word" stands in close association. The "being" of God [German: Gott-Sein] denotes the essence of the "Word" as it does God himself. The word "God" in the predicate of verse 1c is not the subject - as in Luther's translation "God was the Word," on the contrary it is the predicate. The "Word" is not "the God" (verse 1b) or God the Father. Likewise, Logos is "Gott von Art," divine essence, essentially equal to God, so that one has to translate them interrelatedly: "and the Word was Gott von Art." The religious traditions of monotheism in the Old Testament and the late Jewish period are supported and honored by this pre-Johannine, Hellenistic eulogy. In no way, however, as we have already stressed, is a simple interidentification to be had." Notice, BBS, Schulz says that The Word is "identified as 'God' just as the other one is" (i.e., just as HO THEOS is), and "essentially equal to God." Schulz is not saying that the Word is "a god," in the sense you might think by just looking at the literal English translation of "ein Gott," but rather is very clearly distinguishing the Logos from the Father, yet emphasizing that His "divine essence" is that of HO THEOS, and thus is equal in nature to God - which, of course, supports the Trinitarian view of what qualitative THEOS means in John 1:1c. STILL MORE TRANSLATIONS Again, all of these demonstrate what I have said. These translators all recognized that John was ascribing the SAME nature to both HO THEOS and HO LOGOS. The Logos is THEOS in every sense HO THEOS is, according to these translations. Barclay writes: "The only modern translator who fairly and squarely faced this problem [the anarthrous THEOS in John 1:1c] is Kenneth Wuest, who said: 'The Word was as to his essence essential Deity.' But it is here that the NEB [the New English Bible, which you cite, above] has brilliantly solved the problem with the absolutely correct rendering: 'What God was the Word was" (Barclay, _Many Witnesses, One Lord_, p. 23). In a letter criticizing the WT for quoting him out of context in support of the NWT rendering of John 1:1, Barclay wrote: "...to put it more crudely, that he [Jesus] is of the same stuff as God, that is of the same being as God, but the way the Watchtower has printed my stuff has simply left the conclusion that Jesus is not God in a way that suits themselves. If they missed from their answer the translation of Kenneth Wuest and the N.E.B., they missed the whole point" (Letter to Donald Schoemaker, 8/26/77). "As to his essence essential Deity...of the same being as God..." You see, BBS, these translators actually support the idea that the Logos is included in the Divine Nature that is unique to the One, True God. COMMENTARIES I haven't checked these commentaries, but reading the quotations you provided, it seems clear to me that they support the Trinitarian position. Can you provide specific quotes that suggest that their view of the "Divine Nature" is similar to your own? SCHOLARS Glassman echoes every translator and commentator you've prevously quoted that argue for a qualitative force for THEOS in the Trinitarian sense. As I've explained, the qualitative emphasis is also present in in the KJV, though it may require some explanation, since we do not regularly use the term "God" in a qualitative sense in modern English. "Bishop Westcott says, regarding the second use of the word "theos" in Jn. 1:1 : ------------------- "...it is necessarily without the definite article inasmuch as IT DESCRIBES THE NATURE OF THE WORD AND DOES NOT IDENTIFY HIS PERSON ." --------------------from An Idiom Book Of N.T. Greek - by Prof. C. F. D. Moule'-1953-page 116." Hmm. I thought you said somewhere that you weren't a Witness. Are you using Witness material to support your exegesis? You should know better ;-) This sounds like an exact quote from Aid to Bible Understanding. As might be expected, the WT didn't provide all of Moule's or Wescott's comments. Here's the quote in context: "On the other hand it needs to be recognized that the Fourth Evangelist need not have chosen this word-order, and that his choice of it, though creating some ambiguity, may in itself be an indication of his meaning; and Westcott's note (in loc.), although it may require the addition of some reference to idiom, does still, perhaps, represent the writer's theological intention: 'It is necessarily without the article (theos not ho theos) inamuch as it describes the nature of the Word and does not identify His Person. It would be pure Sabellianism to say "the Word was ho theos". No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of the expression, which simply affirms the true deity of the Word. Compare the converse statement of the true humanity of Christ v. 27 (hoti hious anthropou estin...).'" (Moule, p. 116). See it, BBS? "No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested." This is Westcott speaking, the guy of whom you said, "Certainly, any serious student of the Bible will want to consider his opinion on the subject of Jn. 1:1." A Dictionary Of The Bible by Jesuit John Mc Kenzie - McMillin Pubs. - a book currently on sale at most Christian booksellers- says in an article on Jesus, about Jn. 1:1, and concerning the phrase in question: "...SHOULD RIGOROUSLY BE TRANSLATED '..A DIVINE BEING ' . In the edition of the Dictionary I consulted (1965), this quote occurs in McKenzie's article about God, not Jesus. McKenzie states on the first page that the God of Israel is "a divine being." This is a clue that perhaps McKenzie doesn't mean that the Logos is a secondary "divine" being or angel, but it using "divine being" in an exclusive sense to mean the One True God. The quote you provide, when read in the larger context, I think, gives us the answer: "In the words of Jesus and in much of the rest of the NT the God of Israel (Gk. ho theos) is the Father of Jesus Christ. It is for this reason that the title ho theos, which now designates the Father as a personal reality, is not applied in the NT to Jesus Himself; Jesus is the Son of God (of ho theos). This is a matter of usage and not of rule, and the noun [Gk. ho theos] is applied to Jesus a few times. Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated 'the word was with the God [= the Father], and the word was a divine being.' Thomas invokes Jesus with the titles which belong to the Father, 'My Lord and my God' (Jn 20:28). 'The glory of our great God and Savior' which is to appear can be the glory of no other than Jesus (Tt 2:13)" (McKenzie, _Dictionary of the Bible_" , p317). Notice, McKenzie indicates that there ARE examples, rare though they may be, of HO THEOS being applied to the Son, and in so doing, Thomas - at least - is ascribing the exclusive "titles" of Jehovah to Christ. In this article, McKenzie speaks of the "identity between God and Jesus Christ" (IBID). McKenzie is even more explicit in his article on the Trinity. Here, McKenzie writes: "The NT does not approach the metaphysical problem of subordination, as it approaches no metaphysical problem. It offers no room for a statement of the relations of Father, Son, and Spirit which would imply that one of them is more or less properly on the divine level of being than another (IBID, p. 899). So, McKenzie says there is "no room" in the NT for any statement that "would imply" that Father or Spirit are any more or less "divine" than the Father. Thus, as I hope is clear, McKenzie is not using "divine being" the way you are, but rather in an exclusive sense, applied only the True God. Thus, his comments on John 1:1 actually support the Trinitarian position, though his choice of words may have led you to think otherwise, particularly if they were taken in isolation. BBS - If this is the case, then Jesus does not have God's nature, since he lacks omniscience and omnipotence. ROBERT: OK. If the view of "divine nature" is the one I have offered - and is the one supported by most scholars, even the ones you cited - do you want to revise your preferring rendering of John 1:1? BBS: As to your analysis of the use of "koinonos" in 2 Peter, if I understand you correctly you are saying that it refers to the fact that pre-resurrection humans who have received salvation in Christ are thereby able to avail themselves of Christ's divine nature and thereby avoid (although not perfectly) behaviours which displease God. Your evidence and arguments on this point seem entirely sound to me and I will have to conform my understanding of this passage to them. Thank you for taking the time and effort to enlighten me on this matter. ROBERT: You're very welcome! Your attitude is most refreshing! BBS: I am still left with the fact that in the resurrection we "shall be changed" and "like unto angels". Angels are divine beings ("gods") having divine nature, even though lacking the attributes which make God God. I find it reasonable to infer that beyond the explicit distinction noted in scripture that we will not marry in our resurrected state (possessing "spiritual bodies" rather than physical ones) this suggests that we will also become divine beings, as angels, yet not God. I suspect that you will disagree, and perhaps again you will persuade me that this idea is inconsistent with scripture. ROBERT: There are several points to address here. First, is THEOS applied to angels in the NT? Second, we should clarify what you mean by angels being 'divine beings" and see if this concept is found in the Bible. Third, we need to see in what way the NT teaches that we are "changed" or are "angel-like" (ISAGGELOS) post resurrection. ARE ANGELS THEOI? If you check the Brown, Driver, Briggs lexicon, you'll see that EL/ELOHIM can mean "God," "gods," or "angels." The semitic root word, El, is probably derived from the word for "power." The OT authors, of course, also had MA'LAK ("messenger") at their disposal, and used it frequently for angelic beings. But they also used EL/ELOHIM for angels as well. This does not necessarily mean that ancient Hebrews would have conceived of lesser, true "gods" (although many liberal scholars hold this view), but merely reflects the limitations of the language the authors were writing in. The same, of course, is true of THEOS. The question is not can THEOS mean a lesser, true god (of course it can, to a Hellenistic writer), but rather did the NT writers use it this way? We may furher note that the usage of EL/ELOHIM for angels appears only in poetic books - and, as many linguists have noted - poets frequently use archaic words for stylistic effect. So, it may well be that EL/ELOHIM in reference to angels reflects an early usage, and that later writers refrained from calling angels "gods." This view is strengthened when we consider how Jews in the 2nd Temple period expressed the idea of "gods" or angels. The LXX translators tried very hard to remove any ambiguity about Elohim referring to angels, translating passages like the ones you cite with AGGELOS or HUIOI THEOU ("sons of God"). When we get to the NT, we do not find the word THEOS applied to angels at all. Hebrews 2:7 is not an exception, because the Hebrews writer is quoting the LXX, which renders ELOHIM in Ps 8:5 as AGGELOI. And while the LXX was not an inspired translation, the fact is that the inspired writer of Hebrews quoted the LXX and therefore endorsed the distinction between THEOI and AGGELOI. Paul does exactly the same thing. So, I don't think a case can be made that THEOS is applied to angels in the NT. Indeed, I don't think you'll find it so used in ANY 2nd Temple literature. (I'm aware of a lone exception in the Pseudipigrapha, but it is in a poetic passage and so is likely an archaism). IN WHAT SENSE ARE ANGELS DIVINE? Perhaps you know of some verses I've missed that speak of angels as THEOS, THEIOS or having THEIAS PHYSIS? "EQUAL TO THE ANGELS" Neither does Jesus say explicitly that we will have the same nature as angels, or will become angels. The term ISAGGELOS is variously defined as: Louw & Nida: "Like or similar to angels"; Thayer & BAGD: "Like an Angel"; TDNT: "In the resurrection we shall be 'like the angels,' knowing neither mortality nor marriage." NIDNTT: "The word describes the condition of those who have been raised from the dead, who are no longer subject to the natural conditions of earthly life, including marriage." Jesus says we'll be "like the angels." This might be a reference to obtaining an angelic nature in the Kingdom of God, but it need not mean anything more than that we will be immortal, like the angels. If there were other verses that more specifically stated that our nature will become angelic or "divine," we might conclude that the former meaning is possible. However, the absence of such verses - and the immediate context - suggests that the latter is to be preferred. Indeed, this is the sense most commentators follow. Here are a couple examples: "Jesus did not say that resurrected people become angels. His point was that they, like angels, will be immortal. Thus there will be no further need for procreation, and the marriage relationship will not be necessary" (Bible Knowledge Commentary). "The immortality of the future life explains why marital relationships are not continued" (New Commentary on the Whole Bible). ISAGGELOS occurs only once in the Bible. There are no verses that speak of the same idea in different words. Thus, I don't think it provides a solid basis upon which to determine either the nature of angels nor ours, post-resurrection. It is dangerous to build a doctrine on a HAPAX LEGOMENON (a word occuring only once in Scripture), a single verse, or on several ambiguous ones. Better to stick to the clear statements, such as John 1:1. (I know you have argued that John 1:1 is not clear, due to the varying translations you cited, but I think the scholars, translators, and commentators would say that the verse is very clear, and means precisely what they have said - that the Logos is God in every way HO THEOS is). BBS: Also, just off the top of my head, it seems to me that Jesus is a unique being and that even though the divinity possessed by angels ( and possibly to be possessed by us in the resurrection) is different in ways from his, this does not rule out the possibility that his divinity, though like God's, is still different than God's. ROBERT: OK. Let's assume you're right, and the "divine nature" is simply the nature of heavenly, spirit beings of great power. God, secondary gods, angels, fallen angels - all are 'divine' in this sense, and exalted humans may even fit into this category. Now, let's look at John 1:1. First, you'll note that there is no mention of THEIAS PHYSIS here. The Word is said to be "qualitatively" God - that is, He has the qualities of God. Not the qualities of THEIOS, not the qualities of AGGELOI, but the qualities of THEOS. Now, unless John is changing the connotation of THEOS between John 1:1b and 1:1c, the THEOS the LOGOS is being compared to is HO THEOS, and it is HIS qualities that the LOGOS is said to have. So, unless you can demonstrate why the "attributes" that make God God are NOT part of his "qualities" or "nature," we must conclude that those attributes go along with the attribution - this is what we do in John 1:14, don't we? We attribute all qualities (including all attributes) of humanity to Jesus - He is fully human, right? Further, look at the syntax of 1:1c. John could have written HO LOGOS THEOS EN, placing the subject at the head of the clause, as we do in English. He didn't. He chose to place THEOS at the head of the clause. Robertson, Mantey and other grammarians tells us that this means that John wants to emphasize the word THEOS. "The Word was GOD!" Now, if John merely wished to tell us that the Word was divine in a garden-variety sort-of way, why would he emphasize that fact? There would be nothing remarkable about this Word who is with God being "divine" in that sense, would there? Indeed, since the context is "In the Beginning," He would HAVE to be an angelic being of some sort, right? John is a very careful writer. His Greek is nuanced and precise. His Prologue is a masterpiece by any measure. He chose to place THEOS in the emphatic position on purpose. The orthodox translation of John 1:1 accounts for this emphasis nicely. Unless I'm missing something (always possible ;-)), the same cannot be said for your preferred translation. BBS: We still have the fact that Jesus lacks at least two of the defining attributes of God, without which (it seems to me) he cannot BE God. ROBERT: First, I would suggest that in the human realm, knowledge and power are INDIVIDUAL attributes, not generic ones. Second, I believe it can be demonstrated that Jesus DOES have these attributes, though the Bible teaches that - at least in His human life on earth - Jesus depended upon the Father for them. And even if one views the Father as the 'source of Deity,' (the position of the Cappodocian Fathers and Eastern Orothodoxy), this fits comfortably within the historic definition of the Trinity - which is a bit broader than some detractors would like to paint it. Finally, we're told that Jesus "emptied himself" and became a "slave", just like us. Now, since angels are also our "fellow slaves," what, exactly, did the Son empty Himself of? These ideas will take awhile to develop, and this post is overlong as it is. For now, please consider the impact of John 1:1-3, if the qualitative force of THEOS is as I have suggested - that the Logos has all the qualities of HO THEOS in equal measure - the meaning of a qualitative predicate nominative, according to grammarians and scholars. If John is saying that the Logos has the same nature as HO THEOS, then John is saying either that there are two, co-equal Gods (co-equal in terms of their Nature), or that - somehow - we must accommodate a fully Divine Son into our concept of the One God. This, by the way, is exactly what Paul does at a literary level in 1 Cor 8:6, where he places Jesus in the middle of the Shema, one of the great monotheistic statements of the OT. Consider: John tells his audience that there was One who was "In the Beginning" with the Father. What would his audience make of that? He calls this One the Word. His audience would have been familiar with the Word from Jewish Wisdom literature - it was the personification of Torah and the creative power of Jehovah's spoken Word. John declares that the Word is not just a metaphoric aspect of God's Wisdom, but is a separate Person, distinct from the Father, yet with Him - continuously - "In the Beginning." This person has the nature or qualities or essence of God. And, this Person was the active agent of Creation. John's audience would no doubt be puzzled and amazed - but they would have understood him plainly, for Jews knew that their God was the Creator of all. They would have understood that the Word of God is actually his beloved Son, a Divine Son of a Divine Father, who came into the world, became human and "tented" among us for a time, so as to "exegete" the Father for us - to explain what only He could explain, to be the perfect mediator between God and Man, for He was both. BBS: While the commentators I cited in my article allude to
Jesus being divine, like God, etc., he clearly (or am I wrong about
this?) does not possess some of the attributes which make God God. ROBERT: I hope I've been able to convince you that the commentators and scholars you cited DO teach that the Logos is God in every way the Father is, though is personally distinct from Him. They hold a view of "divine" and "divine nature" that supports the orthodox translation and understanding of John 1:1. If this is so, and if Luke 20:26 and 2 Peter 1:4 don't teach that we are given a "divine nature" at the resurrection, then I would ask you to reconsider your position on what John 1:1 is actually saying. There is no evidence in the Bible that beings other than God have God's nature - only the Son is so described. There must be a reason for this - what do you think it is, BBS? May God bless you as you read his Word, seeking the answers to these questions! Robert |
| << Previous Post |
Response >> |