“In the beginning was the Word….” What if I started a book out with “In the beginning was the word”? It wouldn’t be read with the understanding of what it meant. That is, we read that line and start theologizing it. The first readers didn’t have a capital “Word” which symbolized “Jesus.” So did it mean John was saying that in the beginning was a literal word? That seems pretty crazy. Maybe this “word” was “alphabet.” Maybe this “word” was “supercalifragisexpialidocious.” No, probably not. The reality is the original reader knew “word” (logos) to be a symbolic word. It was used in philosophy to convey a sense of intangibility and otherworldliness. So what is this word? What is it trying to represent? Before we get there, we should know first that this English translation falls short of it’s Greek equivalent. In Greek there is no “the” in the line “In the beginning….” So let’s write it in English without the article. “In beginning was the word.” What is John trying to say? Well, we still don’t know what “word” is so all we know is that John is trying to convey that there was no specific beginning. The article “the,” if it were there, would be called a “definitive article.” It would the type of “the” which tries to send the “message of specifics.” Let’s say you and I co-own a dog, and I said “THE dog” jumped over the creek. You would know which dog I’m referring to. So if “the” were there, it would mean John would probably be saying this “word was” when time began. This word “was” when Genesis 1:1 happened. So “the beginning” referred to here is not Creation. In fact, the writer seems to be suggesting there was no time period when this “word” is mentioned. Time seems to be irrelevant in this word…almost existing outside of it. So what kind of thing is being referred to here if it can exist outside of time? I suppose we’re left with only a supernatural being. So this word is already exposed as a supernatural being by the lack of a single tiny word “the.”
You didn’t think this was enough material on the first third of that verse did you? We haven’t even looked at “was.” This word points to a past. Now remember the philosophical use of “logos”? It meant the logos was an “intangible thing” or an “otherworldly thing.” So this logos was. In verse 14, the logos “became flesh.” “Was” is no longer used. “To become” (egeneto) is used. So it doesn’t say this word “was” flesh but this word “became” flesh. The intangible became tangible. The otherworldly invaded this world. The immaterial became material. The timeless entered time.
“…And the word was with God….” Wait wait wait. We just learned this logos was supernatural. So how can there be 2 gods? If this logos isn’t God himself than he must just be a supernatural being like an angel. My other question is what does “with God” mean. Does it mean equality? Does it mean they’re buds who like to hang out? Why did John say in the first part of this sentence that the logos was there in the timeless beginning? How could this supernatural being be there when time didn’t exist? That would mean it wasn’t created. We already know that which isn’t created is God itself (via philosophy). This is getting complicated because we have a timeless being (1st third of John 1:1) that we learn is in some way separate from “God” (2nd third of John 1:1). Nothing is co-equal with God so what is going on here?
Well, let’s look at the Greek. The “with” is not the usual word that is translated as “with” (e.g. meta). The word used (pros) is usually translated as “to” which refers to a direct relationship. Like, “I give this “to you.” That wouldn’t make any sense in English though, so it isn’t written “…and the word was to God….” The reason it is translated as “with,” besides the fact that “to” wouldn’t make sense, is that “with” is what it is trying to convey. This word and God are distinguishable yet inter-related. The two have a relationship of intense closeness, yet by the very fact there is a relationship, the two are not the same. We say in our “Christian thought” that “two become one” in marriage. The two have such close relationship that they are united in various ways yet the very fact that they can be united makes them separate. So apparently we have 2 gods. Well, that is until we read the final third of the verse.
“…and the word was God.” So now we have a separate God but the same God. What is going on? John grew up monotheistic so we know he likely is not trying to suggest there are two gods. Maybe he is trying to say this is God manifest now. That Old Testament God was the past and this is the new experience of God. This is known as Sabellianism or technically that God is one person experienced as The Father first, then the Son/Word, then the Spirit. It also happens to be a heresy which John’s words are actually fighting against. Kai theos en ho logos. “…And God was the word.” This is how it is written in Greek, but it isn’t the order in which it is written in English. This is because we write the subject first. How do we know which is the subject: God or the logos? The article tells us this. The “the” (in the Greek above “ho”) tells us that the logos is the subject of the sentence and since we, unlike the Greeks, usually put the subject first, it must be written “…and the word was God.” We know from “and the word was with God…” that this logos is not the same person as God. So why here is John walking the line with Sabellianism (that the word is God)?
John is trying to avoid another misunderstanding which became very popular in the early church called Arianism (not Nazi Aryanism). This heresy taught that Jesus was a created being. A god-like being created to save humanity and could be worshipped because of his closeness with God and his work. To the Arians, he was of a “similar” “substance” as God. Why the quotes? Ever heard the phrase “it doesn’t make one iota’s difference”? Actually, you may not have, but my dad uses it all the time. In Greek, “similar” and “same” are separated by “one iota.” This one little letter is the difference in whether Jesus is actually God (uncreated being) or similar to God (created being). There is a significant problem with the idea that a created being can be a God. It’s really simple. Polytheistic cultures like the Greeks and Romans had multiple gods who controlled things. Mars was the God of war. So you offered Mars a sacrifice before going to war. I believe Neptune was the God of the sea. There were gods of love, peace, fertility, life, healing, death, harvests, marriage, etc. If there really is a god or gods then this/these god/gods should have certain characteristics. (This is a philosophical way of proving the superiority of monotheism over other theistic beliefs). “God is that which nothing greater can be conceived” (paraphrase of Anselm). God then is ultimate good, ultimate power, ultimate knowledge, and unlimited in by space-time (aka God personifies goodness, is omnipotent, is omniscient, and is omnipresent). If God is all-powerful, then he is the God of war and the god of fertility (because he can cause fertility). This same God controls the seas (e.g. Jesus walks on the water). This same God can heal (since he created us in the first place). The monotheistic God encompasses all the gods of the Romans into a single God who can do everything those gods can do, and more. Which is God: “Mars, God of war” or “God.” Which is God: a god who can do a single task or a god who can do every task? It’s simple philosophy that shows us that monotheism is far superior to polytheism.
So, Jesus could not be created by God because that then makes him a sub-god, which we know from the philosophy above, is no God at all. “…And the word was God” conveys that this logos is God himself. We know from “was with God,” though, that he is not the same person. So we have multiplicity of persons in the Godhead. The exact Greek that was used appears to be very intentional. It’s walking the tightrope of heresies to convey a new theology of God based on the new revelation of his Son. Keep John’s purpose in mind because we have to look at the “Jehovah’s Witness” translation of John 1 now.
Jehovah’s Witness theology translates the final third of John 1:1 as, “the logos was a god.” Why and how? Well, it isn’t because they’re evil and don’t any understanding of the Greek. It’s because they have too little understanding of the Greek. Technically, what was done is okay. What I mean is, if the Greek article comes before a noun, then typically it is definitive (THE, like I talked about earlier). It points to a specific person. If there is not definitive article, then an “a” can be supplied in English to show generality/plurality. So the lack of an article can and often does allow for the adding of “a.” So why is it incorrect to use it here?
If the article were before both nouns (God & Jesus) [would look like this “ho theos en ho logos” or “the God was the word”], then John would be saying that Jesus and God (Old Testament concept of “God”) were the same “person.” Basic Christian theology teaches a trinity of persons yet one substance. There is no single person in the godhead. Jesus is not all of the trinity. Jesus is not all of the Godhead. He is one of the three persons. If John had used an article before both nouns, this also would allow for the interchangeability of subject and direct object. Basically, “the God was the word” and “the word was God” would both be appropriate translations. This helps one see how John had a purpose in not using the second article. It prevents this interchangeability. We know later from v.14 that “the word became flesh.” The Father did not. “God” did not (“God,” here would mean the Old Testament concept of God which I contend means “Father”).
Some have suggested that the lack of the article before “God” conveys “divine essence” more so than personhood. Remember, the trinity (GOD) is both 3 persons and 1 essence. Consider that with this: Greek often uses word order to convey emphasis. The first word in a clause is the most important (“theos en ho logos” “God was the word”). That means “God” or “divine essence” as we just learned, is the emphasis. The logos WAS divine is the meaning. Furthermore, if the Jehovah’s Witnesses are right with “a God,” then how would John construct the sentence to fit the traditional interpretation? In other words, how would he write it if he wanted to write it the way that “the rest of us” interpret it? Here is how: the way he did. He could only write it that they way it was. Two articles = the heresy of Sabellianism. Zero articles = no subject and therefore, it wouldn’t even be a sentence. It would be like me trying to write a sentence without a subject. It had to be written the way it was.
So, in the context, it does not make much sense to translate it “a God” despite being technically possible. For one, we’ve already seen that there can be no such thing as a lesser God. There is either one God or no God but multiple gods is an impossibility. Also, it would require John to drop his monotheistic roots which simply didn’t happen with Jews. They were drilled from the time they could understand words (Deut. 6:4) “The LORD Our God is ONE.” Thirdly, the JW’s translation is the result of “sophomore syndrome.” That is, they have a little bit of knowledge but only enough to use it foolishly (soph- meaning “wisdom” + mor- meaning “fool”). The JW”s don’t name who their translators are and the ones that have come out have been revealed to have no more than two years of Greek education. I, myself, had two years of Greek, and I can tell you that I could only handle the easiest book of the New Testament (I John). For example, after my first year of Greek, we finally got to look at actual passages from the New Testament. I was excited at the prospect because of how much time and effort I had devoted to it. So the teacher told us to translate Luke 1:1-4 and come back the next day. That sounds like no big deal because it’s only four verses but four verses is easily over an hour of work. So, when we came back the next day, the teacher tallied up how many new words (meaning we hadn’t learn these yet in our vocabulary from the first year) were in these four verses. I believe it was around 15 and one of the words was 16 letters long. None of us could actual do the sentences because we didn’t know the words we were supposed to be translating. So if we couldn’t translate four verses, how could they translate the entire New Testament?
No comments:
Post a Comment