The Trinity: I AM
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me. John 14:6 NASB
I am – A lot has been made of the “I am” sayings in the gospels. In fact, the translation of the text has been so influenced by Trinitarian doctrine that sometimes the words “I am” are actually put in capitals and bold, “I AM,” clearly indicating that the translators take the phrase as a declaration of the personal, holy name of God from Exodus 3:14. With this sort of translation, Trinitarian proponents argue that Yeshua declared himself to be God.
But there are just a few messy problems.
First, of course, is that these “I am” statements are in Greek, not Hebrew. Ego eimi is the Greek phrase and it is typically used as a self-identifier, something like, “It’s me” (literally translated “I am he” or “I am the one”). So we would have to back-translate these Greek words into Hebrew in order to get something akin to the divine name. That isn’t a problem since it is fairly obvious that Yeshua was not speaking Greek when he said “I am.” But it is a problem when we construct the Hebrew text because the divine name from Exodus 3:14 doesn’t say “I am.” The Hebrew of Exodus 3:14 is ‘eheye(h)’ ‘asher ‘eheye(h)’, which does not mean “I am.” If anything, it means something like “I will be who I will be.” The verb is a Qal imperfect indicating continuing action, not a state of being like the Greek tense or the English translation. It is the first person singular equivalent of “I come to pass, I occur, I happen, I become or I will be.” The translation “I am” is not dynamic. It is a statement of static existence. So even if we back-translate to Hebrew, we don’t find the equivalent of the divine name. What we find is a forced English translation of the Exodus text to make it fit a Greek construction.
But that isn’t the only issue. It should also be obvious that Yeshua adopts the first century Jewish convention of avoiding the use of the divine name. For example, he uses the phrase “kingdom of heaven” as a circumlocution of the name of God. In fact, he regularly substitutes idioms rather than use God’s divine name, as any orthodox Jew would have done. In Luke’s gospel, these circumlocutions are not employed but that isn’t because Yeshua didn’t use them. It’s because Luke is writing to a Greek audience, not a Hebrew audience. It is highly probable that Yeshua did not use the divine name. He was Jewish, in a Jewish culture and speaking to orthodox Jews. To use the divine name would have been quite scandalous. Therefore, to suggest (in translation) that Yeshua applied the divine name to himself goes against everything else we know about his respect for the name and his cultural situation. Unless we come to these texts with Trinitarian translations already in mind, we do not find Yeshua making declarations that he is God Himself. What we find is that Yeshua declares himself to be God’s chosen one, God’s Messiah, God’s sent one, God’s Son and God’s messenger. But that is not the same as claiming he is God.
Finally, the audiences who heard his words and saw his deeds did not draw the conclusion that he was God. They said, “This is truly the Prophet who is to come into the world” (John 6:14). Even when they acknowledged him as the Messiah, they did not claim that he was God the Father or the equivalent of God the Father. In fact, Yeshua steadfastly refuses to allow others to worship him. That should give us some clues.
Once again we are faced with theological appendicitis, the dangerous inflammation of a useless anatomical appendage.
Topical Index: Trinity, I am, ego eimi, ‘eheye(h)’ ‘asher ‘eheye(h)’, John 14:6, Exodus 3:14
Is this why Moses was also excepted as a delivered? Also is this why Yeshua was called a prophet?
I never gave much thought to the trinity theory, just sorta went in one ear and out the other. The struggle I have had is trying to walk around praying to Jesus, as if I was praying to God, and the biggest one was the people who have prayed to the Holy Spirit as if that was their teacher and somehow they walk in this amazing power that everyone wants to walk in and it seems to be unattainable, and like they have this direct and special relationship that they are gifted with and ordinary folks just don’t get the blessing of getting to receive.
Looking forward to those things being uncovered.
“What we find is that Yeshua declares himself to be God’s chosen one, God’s Messiah, God’s sent one, God’s Son and God’s messenger. But that is not the same as claiming he is God.”
And yet the prophet Isaiah proclaims, “Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” – God with us.
“In fact, Yeshua steadfastly refuses to allow others to worship him. ”
John 20: “27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.”
28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!”
29 Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
Didn’t the jews take Jesus’ teachings in John chapter 8, summed up in verse 58 with “before Abraham was, I am.” as a God claim? Later, in John 18, when they come to arrest Jesus, His statement of “I am He” literally knocks them to the ground. In Luke 22 verse 70 they ask Him outright if He is the Son of God and He responds “You rightly say that I am”. Would it be worthy of a death sentence to be simply making a claim of messiahship, or did they hear this as a God claim? Also, I have read that the reason the Jews were so upset about the sign placed over Jesus was because the acronym of the hebrew was “YHVH”. I don’t know that we can verify this, but if it were true, I don’t think it would be coincidental.
Ian and Brett,
I find your comments very interesting!
So now I have some more to research 🙂
wondering what these statements are in greek?
Blessings…
Regarding that, I read an interesting book that explained the parallels of the Passover lamb and Yeshua. When each family would bring their lamb to the temple, they would put a sash or a tag of some type on it with their family name. This book (I am trying to remember the exact title but I believe it was called Unlocking the Secrets of the Feasts) explained that the sign above Yeshua was God putting his “family name” on his lamb. I thought that was interesting. I don’t know that it is for or against a Trinitarian viewpoint necessarily, but it is another way of looking at the sign. And it is, for me, kind of in line with the only way I have ever been able to understand the tri-unity of God — that God is a “family name”, a “bloodline”, essence, or designation belonging to ONLY three beings – the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Keep up the good work Skip, I’m finding these post very revealing and helpful. My impression is that to be the Messiah one of the criteria doesn’t have to be that you are God himself, I could be wrong but I think that’s where a lot of people are getting upset. It seems people think that if Yeshua isn’t God then He can’t be the Messiah.
I’ve been eagerly reading TW about the Trinitarian theory and it has shaken my beliefs, not my faith in God. Thank you Skip for these because the more I learn the more I believe in our Heavenly Father and His Messiah.
I am sorry, but I am kind of disappointed with this TW Skip.
You have taught us many times to look for Greek equivalents in the Septuagint. As Brett R points out, the people took up stones when Yeshua said in John 8:58 (NET) Jesus said to them, “I tell you the solemn truth, before Abraham came into existence, I am!” (BYZ) Ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι, ἐγώ εἰμι. [Ego eimi]
This is improper grammar in both English and Greek. Whoever wrote John in Greek (whether it was John or a translator) clearly wanted to make a point.
He also used ἐγώ εἰμι in the same way as the LXX. The LXX used it for the full Divine Name אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֶֽהְיֶ֑ה in the very text you quoted: Ex 3:14 (NET) God said to Moses, ** “I AM that I AM.” ** And he said, “You must say this to the Israelites, ‘I AM has sent me to you.'” (BGT) καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεὸς πρὸς Μωυσῆν ** ἐγώ εἰμι ** ὁ ὤν καὶ εἶπεν οὕτως ἐρεῖς τοῖς υἱοῖς Ισραηλ ὁ ὢν ἀπέσταλκέν με πρὸς ὑμᾶς.
So your argument “What we find is a forced English translation of the Exodus text to make it fit a Greek construction.” can be leveled against the translators of the LXX. I think the English translators did exactly the same as the LXX did.
I agree that too much has been made of the “I AM” statements, but the context of John 8:58 clearly shows that the people saw the statement of Yeshua as blasphemy.
I also agree that Yeshua probably didn’t use the divine Name. Not even in John 8:58. But I think, based on the reaction, He would have used the word Ehyeh. It also doesn’t necessarily follow that He didn’t believe He was God because of His respect for the divine Name. He clearly believed He was the Son of Man which is a MUCH stronger argument for His divinity than “Son of God”. It clearly refers to Dan 7:13. [See the comment I made on the June 2 TW about the Two Powers research]
Hi Skip, how is what you are suggesting line up with this Old Testament scripture in Jeremiah 23? God is speaking of the future Messiah coming and gives him the name: YHWH Tzidkenu?
5 “The days are coming,” says Adonai
when I will raise a righteous Branch for David.
He will reign as king and succeed,
he will do what is just and right in the land.
6 In his days Y’hudah will be saved,
Isra’el will live in safety,
and the name given to him will be
Adonai Tzidkenu [Adonai our righteousness].
This is a major argument that has caused the slaughter of many in times past. The thought that Messiah was divine or more specific, that Jesus was both fully God and fully man. This polytheistic bent is what gives Islam such a sour belly towards Christians. This actual division was around shortly after Messiah was crucified. Catholics could not stand that the Jews of the day would not confess the Trinity doctrine but stuck with the fact that our God is One. It drove them into horrifying actions like the Crusades and Spanish Inquisitions. Look into the history a little. It is really sickening (I cannot find one word that describes what I have learned has been done and is still being done to Jews by so-called Christians) that Jews (men, women and children) have been murdered and outright slaughtered for this very thing.Some events like the Crusades make the Holocaust look like a holiday. (at least to me) It is true that the Israelites are a stiff-necked people but aren’t we all?
Seems like a huge case of the pot calling the kettle black.
I am looking forward to examining the notion of “divine” from a Hebrew mind very much. I am thinking that this may be yet another total misinterpretation of the Hebrew.
I am really enjoying the various dialogs about this subject and yet saddened by some of them as well. Thank you for deciding to tackle this subject Skip. Something you have entered no doubt with some reservation. It is and always has been a major division in the ranks.
The Controversial Christ
Again it was our LORD (Himself) who said, ~ Do not suppose (or think or “assume” or surmise) that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. ~ (Matthew 10.34)
Or again in Luke’s gospel ~ Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division ~ (Luke 12.51)
His (own) question to Peter could just as easily be asked of us as well- “Who do YOU say that I AM?” And to this inquiry Carl replied.. or Skip replied.. or Mary replied.. – (Who is this virgin-born “carpenter’s son?”) or.. “Who is this King of glory?”
Just a man we might say? or was (excuse me) IS He, the (very) human face of God? What do the scriptures reveal to every man on this planet concerning this “Jesus of Nazareth?” Worthy is the Lamb who was slain? Oh?? Why? – what difference does it make? (it makes one among us cringe and cower!)
Oh, and by the way.. (SomeOne) has been given a Name.. a Name which is (Hello) above EVERY name.. Don’t u just gotta wonder why?
Knock.. knock.. – anyone at home today? ~ Behold, I stand at the door and knock.. ~ Who is it dear (one)? Is it Moses? Is it Isaiah? Name your own who might be “worthy.” Who might be called, who may be called Redeemer? (I’m listening..for your response). Who may we call Savior? Any takers? Is it our own Obama? Is he the “new and improved” Messiah? (wow!- I actually did not vomit up my breakfast!- amazing!) Who other “human only” has been virgin-born? (yes, I’m listening..- please, speak up! I would love to hear your favorite “Rabbi” respond.. And yes, let’s ask ourselves about this resurrection “claim.” One (man) among us conquered Death by dying. One man among us, (a very human man-the most human “human” EVER to have lived!) knows our every “temptation” having been tempted Himself! Sorry, can’t use the old ‘excuse’ “I’m only human” anymore.. because so was He! (yet, without sin). And when, dear friend, is the last time you knew “one” who was “sinless?” – I’m still here.. and ready to hear for you to enlighten me.
Now, as I wait patiently for enlightening revelation from all who read these words, I will give my clear confession, Jesus, (I love that Name) the Christ, is LORD of all. I will readily, freely, fully, gladly “bow the knee” to Him, the son of man. Was He, (excuse me) Is He the son of man? Absolutely. – And… Was He, (excuse me) Is He, the Son of God? Yes. Positively identified by multiplied witnesses. – More than two- I guarantee it! lol!
And? ~ This is a faithful saying and worthy of ALL acceptance.. (you know.. I used to think that “all” actually meant “all!”) But, of course.. that was then..- and this is now. What is this faithful saying? ~ Christ Jesus came into this world to save sinners, of whom I am chief! ~ Move over Paul.. is there room for two at the feet of Jesus? It is my desire to worship Him. This I must do..I no longer ask the question,~ Is He the ONE?- or shall we look for another? No John, the LORD, He is God. God incarnated into human form and flesh. His reward from us? We taunted and tortured Him, spit in His face and nailed His hands and His feet to a wooden execution stake, the tslav. This, is how we say “thank you..”
His response to us? ~ “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”
A few comments in defense of what Skip has posted. To Ian: Isaiah 7:14 gives the name Immanuel which we know applies to Jesus as per Matthew. However that same name was applied in Isaiah 8:8 to Israel as well. It means “God is with us”, not that the entity named is actually God.
Re John 20:27-29, this is the only situation I can find where someone actually called Jesus “God” according to translators of the Greek word “theos”. Yet only three verses later John summarizes his gospel by saying he has written these things that the reader would believe that Jesus is God? No actually that Jesus is the MESSIAH, Son of God (that is a complete title of Messiah). Surely being God Himself trumps being the Messiah (anointed one). Also note that the declaration of Peter in Matt 16:16 “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God” (i.e. You are the Mashiach of Israel) merited a blessing on him from Jesus “Blessed art thou Simon…” yet in the case of Thomas declaration the blessing flows not to Thomas but to those who believe Jesus has risen without needing to see him in person. Interesting that the first three gospels don’t even mention this encounter at all, only John who is adding in details that the others have not covered. Yet the apostles are all present when Thomas utters this statement. They neither rebuke him, nor do they fall down prostrate in the presence of God. Is it not possible that nobody present thought Thomas was actually calling Jesus God? I have found that in the LXX the word “theos” is used for a whole variety of Hebrew words, not just deity. If Thomas said that Jesus was “Eli” that could be translated into English as “My strength/mighty one” not just “My God”. Something to consider.
TO Brett: regarding the “God claim” in John 8:58 I ask you to read the account of Jesus trial before the Sanhedrin as recounted in Matthew Mark and Luke. What charge(s) are levelled against Jesus? Surely He was accused of blasphemy, desecration of Sabbath, sorcery, etc. No actually He was accused of only ONE offense. Look it up. There is testimony that Jesus said He would “Destroy the Temple and rebuild it in three days” yet the witnesses cannot agree on what Jesus actually said. Study the event in the Temple as recorded in John…very interesting! What that means in Jewish Law is that there is NO CASE against Jesus. He could have simply told them He was tired and hungry and then demanded his release…they have NO CASE!!! They knew he never actually desecrated the Sabbath or claimed to be God otherwise they would have used that against Him in the trial … they wanted Him dead!! So what happened? Jesus self-incriminates. He could have stopped simply with an affirmation that He was the Messiah. It has NEVER been a capital offense to believe one is the Messiah.. there have been many in Jewish history. Virtually every Jewish source I have checked has confirmed this. But note that Jesus does not stop there. He goes on to quote Psalms 110:1 and said they would see the Son of Man (Messiah figure of Danie 7) “sitting at the right hand of power/God/power of God” depending on which gospel you check. Yet these are substitutes for the actual name of God as used by David in Psalms 110:1 “YHWH said to my Lord sit at My right hand…” So here I disagree with Skip. I believe Jesus actually quoted the verse out loud and said the Name of God in the presence of the Sanhedrin. If you consult the Talmud you will find that unauthorized uttering out loud of the Name of God “according to the letters” merits a death sentence!! The High Priest is to rip his clothes at the hearing of this “blasphemy”. Note that is exactly what happened in Jesus’ trial. The High priest says “What need have we of witnesses, you have heard the blasphemy” And the Sanhedrin concurs and says “He is worthy of death”. Jesus knew he had to die; he told His disciples in advance as well. Yet HE NEVER BROKE ANY TORAH LAW ever! He was condemned according to Oral law principles alone. Something to ponder!
Amen HSB!
Great dialogue.
However, the thing that will keep this from being resolved – is that God chooses to BECOME MANIFEST in people’s lives. What part is God acting? What is simply the inspired person acting on God’s behalf? We can’t dissect these out from each other. We have a difficult time explaining how divine and human agency worked together to form scripture itself.
The closer Yeshua walked with God, the more indistinguishable he was from ‘God working directly’. We are not to worship men, and yet Yeshua was such a clear manifestation of the character of God — no wonder we have a difficult time settling the issue.
Right Carl! He is the King of glory!
(Psa 24:10 KJV) Who is this King of glory? The Yaweh of hosts, he is the King of glory. Selah.
(1Co 2:7 KJV) But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
Skip,
I am following (as in, really understanding) all your posts on the trinity question. My brain is leaping to ask you to please explain what is happening in John 1:1-14 ? Nobody taught me trinity. Having come out of an atheistic mindset at the age of 30, I read from Genesis 1 forward and did not know about this “jesus” until I started going to a sabbath-keeping church that preached against the trinity and for baptism into this guy named jesus christ who they said hung on a cross for me… honestly, that made zero sense to me because the Pentateuch made perfect sense to me, especially its “If” … “Then” … formula. I understood that Yahweh was for me if I would be for Him. Eventually, I prayed to Him for help understanding whether the preacher was correct (that I need jesus) and kept reading through the scriptures, page by page, and I came to John 1 and in that King James version I thought it was very clear that Yahweh the creator stooped to my level, coming through Mary’s womb to experience the frustrations of humanity while bringing light into the world and then took all our sins upon Himself as the final sacrifice, perfect because he never yielded to temptation and because later he could mercifully judge us.
That said, I am under the distinct impression that our Father Yah who is enthroned in the Heavens is not the same as the Yahweh who was sent to first create the world and then to save it (in the form of Yahshua). So I see perfectly well that Yahshua is NOT Yah Himself. Yahshua / Yahweh is the Son and Yah is the Father. That’s how I interpret things. You got one telling the other what to do, and then they share the Ruach haKodesh (which is called many many things throughout scripture and accomplishes many functions) which Spirit(s) they share with us and so all of us can be echad and there are WAY more than “three” manifestations of this One great big Yahsome reality.
So, anyway, I would love for you to explain why the first book of John does NOT prove that Yahshua is Yahweh in the flesh.
Thanks!
–Melissa Rawlins
To Rein: You said “I agree that too much has been made of the “I AM” statements, but the context of John 8:58 clearly shows that the people saw the statement of Yeshua as blasphemy.” Why is there no similar reaction in John 8:24 and 28? In verse 24 Jesus is quoted as saying “… for unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins” What is the reaction of the Pharisees to this apparent “blasphemy”? Do they pick up stones to kill Him? No actually they ask Him “Who are you?’ But didn’t Jesus just tell them He was God by saying “I am”? Fortunately the translators help us out here by ADDING a little “he” after I am. Same thing in verse 28. “When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am” Again no response from the Pharisees to a second “blasphemy”.
So let us look at 8:58 about Abraham and Jesus saying “I am”. Note that this interchange arises with “Jews who had BELIEVED in Him” according to verse 31. Jesus mentions the truth will make them free. They retort that they are Abraham’s descendents and have never been slaves in verse 33. Then more comments from Jesus to which they reply in verse 39 “Abraham is our father”. Jesus says “Do the deed of Abraham!” In verse 41 they claim “We are not born of fornication (wow is this a put down against Jesus?), we have one Father: God”. Jesus retorts in verse 44 that “Your father is the Devil!” Things are heating up!!! In verse 48 they accuse Jesus of “having a demon”. More talk in verse 52 of Abraham and again in verse 53 and 57 from the opponents of Jesus. Finally Jesus tells them “before Abraham was, I am” From my point of view Jesus is using “before” in terms of status/rank not historical time. This word can pertain to status, position or timing. After a lengthy interchange starting back in verse 31 with a whole lot of talk about Abraham, this declaration that Jesus is superior to/outranks Abraham is the final straw. They pick up stones but He walks away. No reference to blasphemy. That is reverse engineered by theologians to “prove” the preexistent deity of Jesus/Yeshua”.
HSB: What I agreed on is that you can’t argue that every instance of “I am” is a reference to the Name. I think that is what Skip meant.
You make a good point that he uses “I am” before. But it might be that it is only here in vs 58 that they made the link to Ex 3:14 since He used it in reference to being before Abraham. You don’t get stoned because you say your are greater than Abraham. He said that before.
I don’t understand that, in light of John’s overall gospel and letters, one can honestly belief that John didn’t believe He was HaShem; or at least the Angel of the Presence. Which is to me almost one and the same.
John applied this name “the Tzaddik” to Yeshua in 1 John 2:1-2.
Some really good food for thought here, Skip. I’m wondering how your post and some of the excellent comments stand up against Paul’s statement in Phil. 2:6-11.
“Though he was in the form of God, he did not regard equality with God something to be possessed by force. On the contrary, he emptied himself, in that he took the form of a slave by becoming like human beings are. And when he appeared as a human being, he humbled himself still more by becoming obedient even to death – death on a stake as a criminal! Therefore God raised him to the highest place and gave him the name above every name; that in honor of the name given Yeshua, every knee will bow – in heaven, on earth and under the earth – and every tongue will acknowledge that Yeshua the Messiah is Adonai [YHVH] to the glory of God the Father.” (CJB)
The key to most of this is to carefully distinguish how we use the word “divine” and how the bible uses the word. We tend to think that anyone who is divine is therefore “God” (capital G), but if we look at the way the biblical text uses the word, we must come to terms with the semantic domain in Scripture, not according to the Church. This requires putting aside our preconceptions as much as possible and asking what this would mean in the culture of origin. We have a long way to go — and I am traveling now in El Salvador, so comments may be a bit sparse.
I have been waiting two years for this subject to come up. This is what caused me ultimately to leave the Catholic church. It did the same thing for author Tom Harpur who was a tormented ordained Anglican priest and a Rhodes scholar who reads and understands Greek (and Hebrew if I remember correctly). He claims that private conversations with many other ordained clergy agree with him but cannot say so publicly because it is dogma.
I absolutely agree with you Skip and commend you for your knowledge, understanding and ability to explain the Trinity objectively as you have done. The literal OT Bible will never be agreeable with me but that’s OK. However the Trinity as promulgated by the early church and well beyond has been the most explosive, divisive, isolating issue in religious history which I cannot believe Jesus “God” would have intended. Yet there it is!
Well done Skip.
This discussion goes on and on….. I still love Isaiah 9:6: “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and the government shall be upon his shoulders, and he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” At the beginning of the week I had no idea where Skip was going to take his readers. Never dreamed it would take us to where it has now. (Which I am not even quite sure where that is – or how far it is going to go from here.) My prayer would be that it be for the furtherance of His kingdom and nothing else. “Now unto the king eternal, immortal, invisible the only wise God be honor and glory, for ever and ever. Amen.” II Timothy 1:17 In His Love, Linda K. Morales
So then, the Trinity is an invalid presumption? Tom
Not so fast. Let’s see what else we can discover about the texts before we draw conclusions.
Skip wrote,
“Finally, the audiences who heard his words and saw his deeds did not draw the conclusion that he was God.”
This is contrary to modern scholarship on the early Jesus communities.
Respected New Testament scholar Larry Hurtado, for example, writes that reverence of Jesus was an early innovation, predating Paul’s letters, likely appearing after Yeshua’s resurrection.
This idea that Messiah’s audience didn’t think him divine also goes against the gospels, which record the disciples worshiping him and calling him both Lord and God (John 20), and even praying to Yeshua (Acts).
Skip is right about one thing: the gospels show a distinction betweem Yeshua and the Father. That doesn’t preclude, however, Messiah’s divinity.
yes, but you missed the point. The early community recognized Yeshua as the Messiah and as divine, but that it not the same as saying that he is the equivalent of God (YHVH). Paul constantly distinguishes “our Lord and savior” from “God the Father.” Is Paul merely being redundant? Reverence for the Messiah, recognizing His authority, giving Him honor and glory is all consistent with the wishes of the Father, but this does not make him the Father. As long as we continue to think of “Messiah” as a pseudonym for “YHVH” we will not recognize that the authors of the text didn’t use the words as synonyms.
Skip, I would like your comments on Dr. Daniel Wallace’s discussion on John 1:1c. I think this is not an issue of Yeshua being divine. He is divine at the same level as the Father.
Here is the discussion from Dr Wallace Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, page 266-269
6. Application of Colwell’s Construction to John 1:1
John 1:1 states: Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. In the last part of the verse, the clause καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (John 1:1c), θεός is the PN. It is anarthrous and comes before the verb. Therefore, it fits Colwell’s construction, though it might not fit the rule (for the rule states that definiteness is determined or indicated by the context, not by the grammar). Whether it is indefinite, qualitative, or definite is the issue at hand.
a. Is Θεός in John 1:1c Indefinite?
If θεός were indefinite, we would translate it “a god” (as is done in the New World Translation [NWT]). If so, the theological implication would be some form of polytheism, perhaps suggesting that the Word was merely a secondary god in a pantheon of deities. The grammatical argument that the PN here is indefinite is weak. Often, those who argue for such a view (in particular, the translators of the NWT) do so on the sole basis that the term is anarthrous. Yet they are inconsistent, as R. H. Countess pointed out:
In the New Testament there are 282 occurrences of the anarthrous θεός. At sixteen places NWT has either a god, god, gods, or godly. Sixteen out of 282 means that the translators were faithful to their translation principle only six percent of the time. …
The first section of John-1:1–18-furnishes a lucid example of NWT arbitrary dogmatism. Θεός occurs eight times-verses 1, 2, 6, 12, 13, 18-and has the article only twice-verses 1, 2. Yet NWT six times translated “God,” once “a god,” and once “the god.”
If we expand the discussion to other anarthrous terms in the Johannine Prologue, we notice other inconsistencies in the NWT: It is interesting that the New World Translation renders θεός as “a god” on the simplistic grounds that it lacks the article. This is surely an insufficient basis. Following the “anarthrous = indefinite” principle would mean that ἀρχῇ should be “a beginning” (1:1, 2), ζωὴ should be “a life” (1:4), παρὰ θεοῦ should be “from a god” (1:6), Ἰωάννης should be “a John” (1:6), θεόν should be “a god” (1:18), etc. Yet none of these other anarthrous nouns is rendered with an indefinite article. One can only suspect strong theological bias in such a translation.
According to Dixon’s study, if θεός were indefinite in John 1:1, it would be the only anarthrous pre-verbal PN in John’s Gospel to be so. Although we have argued that this is somewhat overstated, the general point is valid: The indefinite notion is the most poorly attested for anarthrous pre-verbal predicate nominatives. Thus, grammatically such a meaning is improbable. Also, the context suggests that such is not likely, for the Word already existed in the beginning. Thus, contextually and grammatically, it is highly improbable that the Logos could be “a god” according to John. Finally, the evangelist’s own theology militates against this view, for there is an exalted Christology in the Fourth Gospel, to the point that Jesus Christ is identified as God (cf. 5:23;8:58; 10:30; 20:28, etc.).
b. Is Θεός in John 1:1c Definite?
Grammarians and exegetes since Colwell have taken θεός as definite in John 1:1c. However, their basis has usually been a misunderstanding of Colwell’s rule. They have understood the rule to say that an anarthrous preverbal PN will usually be definite (rather than the converse). But Colwell’s rule states that a PN which is probably definite as determined from the context which precedes a verb will usually be anarthrous. If we check the rule to see if it applies here, we would say that the previous mention of θεός (in 1:1b) is articular. Therefore, if the same person being referred to there is called θεός in 1:1c, then in both places it is definite. Although certainly possible grammatically (though not nearly as likely as qualitative), the evidence is not very compelling. The vast majority of definite anarthrous pre-verbal predicate nominatives are monadic, in genitive constructions, or are proper names, none of which is true here, diminishing the likelihood of a definite θεός in John 1:1c.
Further, calling θεός in 1:1c definite is the same as saying that if it had followed the verb it would have had the article. Thus it would be a convertible proposition with λόγος (i.e., “the Word” = “God” and “God” = “the Word”). The problem of this argument is that the θεός in 1:1b is the Father. Thus to say that the θεός in 1:1c is the same person is to say that “the Word was the Father.” This, as the older grammarians and exegetes pointed out, is embryonic Sabellianism or modalism. The Fourth Gospel is about the least likely place to find modalism in the NT.
c. Is Θεός in John 1:1c Qualitative?
The most likely candidate for θεός is qualitative. This is true both grammatically (for the largest proportion of pre-verbal anarthrous predicate nominatives fall into this category) and theologically (both the theology of the Fourth Gospel and of the NT as a whole). There is a balance between the Word’s deity, which was already present in the beginning (ἐν ἀρχῇ … θεὸς ἦν [1:1], and his humanity, which was added later (σὰρξ ἐγένετο [1:14]). The grammatical structure of these two statements mirrors each other; both emphasize the nature of the Word, rather than his identity. But θεός was his nature from eternity (hence, εἰμὶ is used), while σάρξ was added at the incarnation (hence, γίνομαι is used).
Such an option does not at all impugn the deity of Christ. Rather, it stresses that, although the person of Christ is not the person of the Father, their essence is identical. Possible translations are as follows: “What God was, the Word was” (NEB), or “the Word was divine” (a modified Moffatt). In this second translation, “divine” is acceptable only if it is a term that can be applied only to true deity. However, in modern English, we use it with reference to angels, theologians, even a meal! Thus “divine” could be misleading in an English translation. The idea of a qualitative θεός here is that the Word had all 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.
Please re-examine the origin of Colwell’s rule. You might discover that it came into existence to combat a particular reading of John 1:1, namely the reading supplied by Jehovah’s Witnesses. But if it arose only as a polemic, then is it still a “rule” of Greek grammar? And if this verse is so critical for the demonstration of the equality of the “Word” with “God,” then why doesn’t John (who certainly knew Greek) simply state it with the use of the definite article and settle the issue, especially since it would be a radical departure from his own Jewish context?
I think the answer is in the quote. It shouldn’t be definite but qualitative.
Yeshua is not the same as the Father but “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.”
I am not so sure that Colwell’s Rule is a polemic.
“E. C. Colwell completed his doctoral dissertation on “The Character of the Greek of John’s Gospel” in 1931. His intensive research into the grammar of John’s Gospel led to the discovery of his rule.”
This is based on research, on actual data. Even if Colwell had motives to start searching for this, it wouldn’t negate the rule. Every researcher starts with assumptions.
But this is really irrelevant. It wouldn’t negate Wallace’s arguments.
The rule states:
“Definite predicate nouns which precede the verb usually lack the article … a predicate nominative which precedes the verb cannot be translated as an indefinite or a ‘qualitative’ noun solely because of the absence of the article; if the context suggests that the predicate is definite, it should be translated as a definite noun… .”
Dr Wallace is actually arguing that it is qualitative, not definite!
While I have read and carefully studied Colwell’s “A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament” (Journal of Biblical Literature 52 [1933]: 12-21) for an article I wrote, I’ve not seen anything in that piece, or any other literature, to suggest he wrote this as some sort of polemic. Skip, can you cite some evidence for your assertion? Nonetheless, the work is flawed, as other scholars have noted (more on this below). In any case, as Rein notes, Wallace’s position is not that theos in John 1:1c is definite but, rather, qualitative. This comports with many who preceded Colwell, including Westcott:
Though Wallace rejects some of Colwell’s conclusions, he finds Colwell’s syntactical observations useful, calling them ‘Colwell constructions’. That is, when the predicate nominative (PN) precedes a copulative verb (CV)—verbs such as “be”, “become”—and the PN lacks the article, then it most times has a qualitative emphasis. He recasts Colwell’s ‘rule’ as: “An anarthrous pre-verbal PN is normally qualitative, sometimes definite, and only rarely indefinite” (p 262, bold added).
Now, to the position that the Gospel writer could have merely used the article in theos in 1:1c, this would not work syntactically. This would have made nonsense of the context, for the presence of article before theos here would mean that the logos was identical with/the same ‘person’ as ho theos of 1:1b (making a convertible A = B / B = A proposition). Since in 1:1c the subject is ho logos, the absolute best way to differentiate from ho theos of 1:1b is to place the subject after the CV and the PN before the CV, with the article absent from this PN. This is because all qualitative nouns are definite—that is, they refer to a specific entity in a class (as opposed to non-specific indefinite entities in a class)—which is why I prefer the designation qualitative-definite.
Moreover, a position that asserts that the lack of the article must make a noun indefinite soon runs into trouble, as Wallace notes regarding anarthrous (lacking the article) occurrences of theos in John’s prologue. To be fair, since I’d engaged with some JWs in the past, and one asserted that definite nouns do not always have the article in prepositional phrases, I’ll omit these from this discussion. This still leaves two: 1:12 would have to be “children of a god”, and 1:18 would have to be “No one sees a god ever”. Obviously, there is something more at play here.
Now, for completeness, I’ll state the issues with Colwell’s article. First of all, he doesn’t factor qualitative nouns into his discussion, claiming they are very rare. The author also is a bit generous in his assertions of definiteness in his anarthrous PN-CV constructions. More problematic is his use of the converse of his own rule—a circular illogic. And, disappointingly, there are not a few exegetes who misapply Colwell’s ‘rule’, resulting in faulty conclusions—and not just in John 1:1c. For example, Colwell and some after him misapply this ‘rule’ in John 5:27, which is why I wrote a 6-part article on this, concluding that the anarthrous PN-CV in this verse should be understood not as “the Son of Man” but as “son of man”, in other words (in nature/quality) “human”, which is how the anarthrous designation is understood throughout the LXX.
“In fact, Yeshua steadfastly refuses to allow others to worship him. ” Where are you getting this from please.
I don’t have a problem with YHVH submitting Himself to the limitations of a fleshly man in physical and mental ability while continually pointing back to His essence/source (Father) as authority. Can the supreme God not dwell simultaneously in multiple temporal/spatial segments? Or are we to believe that when God dwelt in the Mishkan/Hekal there was no one on the throne in heaven?
Thanks for the updates, I do have one thing I am not sure about though.
You write “Yeshua adopts the first century Jewish convention of avoiding the use of the divine name”.
I do not get that, why would they avoid doing something that YHVH explicitly told them TO do?
They were told to swear by the name, it is used over six thousand times in the OT so why would they not use it?
You are correct about the use of the name in the Tanakh and the instruction to swear by it, but Yeshua is also a part of his own culture, and in the first century orthodox Jews used the circumlocution “heaven” or “Adonai” rather than speak the divine name. You can see this by comparing Matthew and Luke. Matthew follows orthodox custom. Luke does not. They avoided the name for fear that they would somehow misuse it. Babylonian captivity was a powerful influence on practice from that point on.
This is good. But the last statement I cannot agree with.
When are where did Yeshua “steadfastly refuse to allow others to worship him”??