Theological Self-Contradiction
No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him. John 1:18 NASB
Begotten God – Read it slowly. John says that no man has ever seen God. We take that for granted. No man, not one single person in human form, has ever seen God. Never. That’s pretty much what it says, even in Greek. “No one” (oudeis) is as strong as it gets. “Seen” is the usual verb for “to see,” here in the perfect, active tense. Ongoing effects. Not only has no man ever seen God. No man ever will. And finally, “at any time” is popote, a combination that essentially means never or at any time.
So we are pretty clear that John believes no man ever saw God. How that fits with the verses in the Tanakh is a problem, but apparently it wasn’t a problem for John. He quite confidently asserts that whatever people saw as reported in the Tanakh was not God!
Now comes the very odd middle part of this verse: “the only begotten God.” Say what? God is begotten? But that simply isn’t possible. God is not begotten. Ah, the NASB rescues this obvious contradiction in a marginal note, telling us that “some later mms. read, Son.” But of course they do. The Son is the only begotten, not God. A quick examination of the fragments supporting each reading shows that the oldest fragment is from about 200 AD, but the remaining fragments spread across dates from the fourth to the ninth centuries, and readings with either word (theos or huios) are pretty much equally distributed. The general exegetical rule is that the oldest manuscripts are the more accurate, but notice the problem that the oldest manuscript (p66) creates. It’s the one that suggests “God” is the only begotten.
The obvious reading of this text, given the monotheism of the Jews, is that “the only begotten son” is to be preferred. Once again we encounter Trinitarian dilemmas. John certainly says that no man has ever seen God. Can he also insist that he has seen Yeshua who is God? That doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense, does it? Unless when John said, “No man has ever seen God” he really meant, “No man has ever seen the first person of the Trinity, the Father, the God in heaven, but we have seen the second person of the Trinity, the Son, who is really God on earth.” But, of course, he doesn’t say that, does he? And who would have ever thought of such a thing in the Jewish world of the first century? Everyone knew that “no man has ever seen God.” So what John saw, and what the disciples bore witness to, was the Son, the Messiah, not YHVH.
So why does the oldest fragment, and quite a few others from later centuries, use the word theos instead of huios? Ah, it’s a puzzle, isn’t it? But at least now you know this much: the choice of which word to translate didn’t actually depend on what John wrote. It depended on which set of manuscripts the translator considered more accurate; a choice, not a forgone conclusion.
Topical Index: Son, God, theos, huios, Trinity, John 1:18
Choice of the mss. does not eliminate the question: If God is ‘begotten’ then who ‘begotted’ him? It will be interesting to see a non-Trinitarian ‘solution’ to this question. 😉
Hmmm, where is the ‘like’ button 🙂
When and if we learn to ask the RIGHT questions….we will be granted the RIGHT ANSWERS
And quite often you still get the right answer to wrong questions. But sometimes you only learn to ask the right question after you’ve asked the wrong one first. 😉
Believe It or Not
The Controversial Christ –
~ No one has ever seen God. *God is (a) Spirit.* But the unique One, who is Himself God, is near to the Father’s heart. He has revealed God to us ~
I am happy to report “problems” too, in believing this text. But this isn’t all- no, not at all! Friend, ~ great (indeed) is the mystery of godliness! – or God (Himself) for that matter!
We try so hard to figure it out.. scientifically,- logically, of course! Or if not scientifically, then mathematically- yes, please- “explain” God to me! Hello Job!.. – Where were you when I formed the earth?” Uhh..
I have come to the peaceful and happy conclusion, my mind is too little! I cannot do it! Using an electrical metaphor (I am an electrician by trade) it would be like applying 13,000 volts to a 12v light bulb. Brain. Fried.
Ahh.. but there is a Book. And as I read this Book and hear it proclaimed and as it is lived in the hearts and lives of so many “witnesses”- including the man I shave every day- I know this Book to be true and faithful. I’ve (personally) never “caught God in a lie!” ~ Every word of God is pure! ~ It is so! Amen.
I have learned to depend upon His word. I believe the Bible to be the Word (and the words!) of God. Faith, (that which pleases God) comes from “exposure” to – the “hearing” of – the “doing of” the word(s) of God.
As I read these things and put them in to practice (daily practical living), as I “do” what He says to do.. as I live according to the clear, written instructions of YHWH- black print (sometimes red) on white paper- I find (up close and personal)- this Bible is a very practical, Heaven-sent, God-given, “inspired” (we seem to have forgotten about “inspired” – or God-breathed) “User’s Manual” for all things that pertain unto life (yes, this one) and godliness.
Long story, – short? (am I too late?)- “It is written.”
The will of God, the work of God, the witness of God, the wonder of God are all fully revealed for “whosoever will” in the word of God!
But wait! – There’s more! (so much more..)
The Word became flesh and lived among us.. Jesus (who is the) Christ, Yeshua Ha-Mashiach (the Messiah) has come “in the flesh”- as a human being, -“one of us” to reveal God to us. Fasten your seat belt- Deity has become humanity. (yes, – mind blown!)
Just the incarnation (itself) is a “show-stopper.” I agree!- How can God (El Elyon) “mighty God” humble Himself to become one of us? This is beyond my pay-grade and beyond my understanding.
~ But with God nothing shall be impossible ~
But wait! – There’s more! (so much more..) It ain’t over yet! Tell me more of this “only begotten One” born in a barn in Bethlehem! Tell me.. (please!)
~ Who is this King of glory? ~ Worthy is the Lamb who was slain! ~
“They” is “We..”
~ And they sang a new song, saying: “You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because You were slain, and with Your blood You purchased for God persons from every tribe and language and people and nation ~ (Revelation 5.12)
Yes, the Only begotten of the Father- He has declared Him!!
– and what has He declared/revealed unto us? God is Love!
We have rightly defined love (is this possible?) as “benevolence towards another at cost to myself..”
Then consider again (please) the cost of Calvary’s cross and Who it was we crucified.
**
NO MAN HAS SEEN GOD BECAUSE GOD IS SPIRIT.
GOD TO BE SEEN MUST BE manifested and HE WAS IN CHRIST JESUS
………And He must be seen in US everyday as HE was in CHRIST JESUS.
Oldest manuscripts… Why is it that everyone equates oldest as most correct?
“[…]the choice of which word to translate didn’t actually depend on what John wrote.”
This is a bit off-topic, but there seems to be an assumption here that we can remove all possible doubt about exactly what was written by the Beloved Disciple or any author of the Scriptures. We are forced to trust that the Almighty has watched over the transmission of the original words through the ages because the originals appear to be MIA. Or can you prove the oldest fragment is an accurate copy of the original?
“He who has seen Me has seen the Father.” Jn 14:9
AMEN.
First I want to say that I appreciate your willingness to examine and test the Trinity doctrine and its origins. It’s a bold move, but an important one, I think. I have utter confidence that if it is true, that truth will shine through no matter what problems arise with the various translations and differences in manuscripts. BUT, I have felt, throughout the process of dissection that you’ve been on for the past several months especially, that there has been a lot of dismantling without any reassembly. (Maybe that’s coming and I’m being impatient?) What I mean is, now that we have examined some verses about Yeshua possibly not being YHWH, it might help to examine and explore what Yeshua IS. You have mentioned that it doesn’t change or threaten his divinity or diety, it doesn’t minimize his role. Can we explore some verses that support that? It’s hard to take away such a central doctrine without “replacing” it with something. There’s a pretty big void for many Christians if you take away the idea that Jesus is God. It is understandable why this is a hard teaching that some can’t bear to hear. 😉 I am not expecting you to have all the right answers, but I would love to see this exploration of the Trinity doctrine go the direction of understanding the role of the Messiah within the Jewish/Hebrew paradigm, and how Yeshua is still divine, how he shares in the nature or essence of God, and how not being YHWH doesn’t lessen his place as the cornerstone.
Just my thoughts… 🙂
And good ones. We will reconstruct, but it will take some time. In the meanwhile, no more dismantling.
Whew!
I, personally am quite content to dismantle without having to replace. There are many questions that I am unsatisfied with the traditional answer to even though I am yet to discover the “right” answer. Just because I don’t know the answer doesn’t mean I want to go on believing something I just know to be untrue. Dismantle away in my opinion. I’ve started from scratch on more subjects than I can remember.
Revelation 22:8,9 “And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had seen and heard, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things. Then said he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.”
Exodus 20:3, 4, 5 “Thou shalt have no other gods before Me…Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, or serve them…”
Zech. 6:12,13 “…Behold the man whose name is The BRANCH; and he shall build the temple of the LORD: even he shall build the temple of the LORD; AND HE SHALL BEAR THE GLORY, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne; and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.”
Isaiah 48:11, 12 “For mine own sake, even for mine own sake, will I do it: for how should my name be polluted: AND i WILL NOT GIVE MY GLORY UNTO ANOTHER. Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last. Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: when I call unto them, they stand up together.”
Isaiah 48:16, 17 “Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me. Thus saith the LORD, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; I am the LORD thy God which teacheth thee to profit, which leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go.:
Revelation 4:11, 5:12, 13 “Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created…Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain TO RECEIVE POWER AND RICHES, AND WISDOM, AND STRENGTH, AND HONOUR AND GLORY, AND BLESSING. And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth on the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.”
If my paradigm, so to speak, is to be accused of being formed by something, then I humbly submit to the court that these scriptures, supported by all the others that I can find, all tell me one thing: I must not worship any but God, but that my God came in the flesh, and with my eyes I shall see Him, along with the prophet Job, and not another, and will bow my knee and fall before the Lamb and sing the Song of Moses. And I am guilty as charged of worshipping that Lamb, that King of Glory, the One who was crucified for the blasphemy of agreeing with His accusers that He was God, as my God. I guess that would make me as guilty as He? What an honor that would be!
As always Skip is stirring the water.
With what letter does the TORAH begins?
Most would say with the tentplan of course, but look closely with your inner eye on where the white ink is written: it is an oxhead!
The ALEPH preceeds the BEIT (BEN, the Son accommodating the AV and the RUACH); as
Begotten preceeds creation; as the
YAH is pre-eminate to the YHWH.
The most intriguing question is, who is the 4th entity in this Set Apart family (why limit it to 3!!!)…
The BAT COL or the Bride?
The debate on the Trinity is intriguing and interesting though it is hardly my favorite topic. And there is a danger that the endless debate can obfuscate God’s grand theology of sonship and daugherhood in His family that He is on process of creating. That is the destiny of all of humanity – the inheritance of becoming a spiritual member of the Family of God.
This is why I suspect this erroneous but widely believed theory that God is a trinity is a “doctrine of demons”. Scripture clearly teaches that God is creating this family of spirit composed children to His Glory, and to His Love. To limit God to a triune unit runs totally contrary to this mind boggling Scriptural notion.
So what do we have at this point?
Since this discussion began on TW nobody has proved from scripture that the Holy Spirit is a person. And tnobody will never do that because its not in the Scriptures. Even the Catholic Church admits that!
Scripture is very clear that we have a Father and a Son as distinct beings and distinct personalities with a distinct line of authority. Here are just two witnesses from the many Scriptures that support the notion:
“Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing; for whatever he does, that the Son does likewise.”
(John 5:19)
” You heard me say to you, ‘I go away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I.” (John 14:28)
So the Father sent the Son to earth to save us from the death penalty over out heads and He became the pioneer of our faith and model of our destiny. We are indebted to Paul for his wonderful elaborations on that:
” looking to Jesus the PIONEER and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God” ( Rom. 8:29-30)
“He who conquers shall have THIS HERITAGE, and I will be his God and he shall be my son. (Rev.21:7)
” For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the FIRST BORN AMONG MANY BRETHREN. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called; and those whom he called he also justified; and those whom he justified he also glorified.” (Rom.8:29-30) RSV emphasis mine
10 For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in BRINGING MANY SONS TO GLORY , should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through suffering.” (Heb.2:10) RSV emphasis mine
Instead of making an idol out of trinity theology, churches should be teaching the awesome sonship / daughterhood heritage and destiny of all of humanity. But perhaps it is hidden from them for now.
Friends, God is a Family composed of a Father and Son with millions of children to be added in three different squadrons (Paul’s words – see 1 Cor.15) over the remaining ages still up ahead
John 10: 30 I and the Father are one.
OK, I’ve got one, too: “…that all may be one, as You are in Me, Father, and I in You, that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me.”
(John 17:21 LITV)
My faith (active doing) in Yeshua and the Father, makes me ONE with them also, but I don’t assume that such belief (active doing) makes me of the same substance as YHVH.
I’m not meaning to pick on you Wai-Sze Tam; but really, how long must we all continue to exchange proof-texts? What good comes of it?
Perhaps we all need to restrain our hypersensitive judgement on this topic. Skip has said there is more to come, but it will be wasted on any who are unwilling to reconsider long-held and cherished beliefs. If dogma is true, it will stand up to questioning. Don’t be afraid to examine it.
I love that you are exploring this topic. Thank you.
What about Moses? Didn’t Moses see God?
Moses saw a manifestation of God in some kind of human form. But even according to God’s conversation with Moses, no man can see God in His glorified form.
With this comment my goal is to: (1) set the record straight regarding the meaning of the Greek word translated here “only begotten” (monogenēs), (2) more fully show the manuscript evidence in favor of theos (“God”), and (3) challenge the notion that theos cannot be a viable text in this context (the ‘only begotten’ God).
As for monogenēs, the word has two primary meanings: “only begotten”, or “one of a kind” / “unique” (one and only). Isaac was referred to as monogenēs in Hebrews 11:17; so, the term cannot mean “only begotten” in that context, for Abraham sired Ishmael as well. Currently, Wikipedia has a good article on the term. Monogenēs is an adjective, but it can function as a noun when the article (ho) precedes it, though the article does not necessarily have to be present for it to be used as a noun.
The following details the NT manuscript evidence for theos (“God”):
–ho monogenēs theos (the unique God): p75 (3rd c.), ℵ1 (variant in grp ℵ, 4th to 6th), 33 (9th)
–monogenēs theos (unique God): p66 (ca. 200), ℵ (4th), B (4th), C (5th), L (8th)
–ho monogenēs huios (the unique Son): A (5th) C3 (9th) K (9th) Γ (10th) Δ (9th) Θ (9th) Ψ (9th/10th) ƒ1 (7th), ƒ13 (13th), and more.
With the discovery of the papyri in the 1950s, which included p66 and p75, the evidence was tilted towards theos much more decisively. It was not uncommon for the article (ho) to be erroneously omitted (or added) in the act of copying, so its absence (and presence) in some above is not an important factor in determining what is most likely the original text.
While the earliest reading is not necessarily the original text, it seems difficult to imagine a scribe changing his exemplar (copy from which he is copying) from “Son” to “God”. However, it’s not difficult at all to conceive of a scribe changing the text from “God” to “Son” in conformity with John 3:16 and 3:18 (and 1 John 4:9), especially if he thought “God” was too strong. Scribes were not apt to ‘correct’ their texts, unless they felt they had a strong reason to do so. Thus, most likely, theos is the original text. But how does that work contextually and theologically?
In John 1:14 we find monogenēs, though, importantly, “son” is not at all present in this verse (not in any variant either), even though it is added in many translations: doxan hōs monogenous para patros, “glory as of [the] unique one from the Father” [the hōs here is not an article, but “as”, “like”]. In the immediate context of this verse, “glory” refers to the “Word”, specifically Word-become-flesh, who ‘tabernacled’ among us, who was seen by His contemporaries.
Yet John makes the point that “No one sees God ever”, no one can see the glory of God, as the Tanakh makes clear (Exodus 33:20). But reading Ex 33:18-23 more closely, is it true that no one sees God’s “glory”? Can the text mean that Moses witnessed God’s “glory” but did not see His “face”? There appears to be a bit of ambiguity here, perhaps even a distinction between the two. Whatever the case, orthodox Christianity asserts that God’s glory was veiled under the flesh of Jesus Christ. With this added background, let’s get back to 1:18.
If we accept that theos is the correct text from which to translate, how should this be exegeted? We’ll agree that “only begotten God” is a poor rendition. But how about “unique God”? This works grammatically: “No one sees God ever; the unique God, the one who is in the bosom of the Father…” Another possibility—a better one, I think—is to understand monogenēs as a noun in apposition to “God”, which is itself in apposition to the clause following it: “No one sees God ever; the unique one, God, the one who is in the bosom of the Father…” But, how is that to be understood in context?
The important thing here is to somehow connect “no one sees God ever” with the surrounding context. While the statement of this independent clause is true, what is the theological point John is trying to make by stating what appears on the surface to be an extraneous (though obvious) statement?
Understanding the first 18 verses of John as the prologue, as the lens through which to read the rest of the Gospel, provides the answer. Jesus was in constant communion with the Father; however, in response to the charge by hoi Ioudaioi (“the Jews”) that He was “making himself equal with God” (5:18), Jesus makes the startling claim that He does ‘only what He see His Father doing’ (5:19). And this is precisely what 1:18 tells the reader about Jesus: “No one sees God ever; the unique one, [(Himself)] God, the one who is in the bosom of the Father, this one has exegeted [Him = God].”
Craig, the first chapter of John went to a tremendous effort for SOMETHING, that is for sure, and it probably was NOT to ‘prove’ that Yeshua could not possibly have been the manifestation of the Creator in the flesh, come to save His own creation. That takes a tremendous amount of straining, I have noticed, not to mention a whole lot of interpreting.
I wonder if we could go into what “seeing” God could possibly be, for we have been promised one day to see Him face to face? If the Father’s face is always veiled, then only the Son can see Him, but if the Son is His manifestation in the flesh, perhaps that verse refers to the glory of God fully revealed when He takes the “throne of His glory” after the vanquishing of all evil. Perhaps we will see His face manifesting the glory of His Father?
Craig and Laurita: I really enjoy your comments! Here are a few little items to chew upon. Most theologians think John 1:14 simply means “God became a man”. So why didn’t John simply say that? It would have been so helpful. Why did John talk about Word in both verse 1 and 14 the way he did? Here is my take on it. There is considerable evidence that the general language of the people attending synagogue in the first century was Aramaic. The Torah passages were read weekly (likely on a three year cycle). A corresponding Aramaic Targum was read as well. This was not an exact translation –more of a paraphrase to help folks understand. I have just completed a fairly lengthy study of the five books of Moses and the targumim. The expression “word of the Lord” is mentioned only a few times in Hebrew (twice in Genesis concerning a dream, twice in Exodus about pharaoh’s court officials and once in Numbers and Deuteronomy). In all cases “word” can easily be replaced with “message”. None of this so far is particularly helpful. However in the accompanying Aramaic Targum I found no less than 265 cases where “word of the Lord” is employed. These are connected with anthropomorphisms. Whenever we have YHWH doing something like planting a garden, using a hand or arm, scattering enemies etc. we find the substitution use of “word of the Lord” or “word”. I believe the author of the targumim is using a simple flag for readers. When one encounters “word of the Lord/word” understand an anthropomorphism is at play in the original Hebrew. God does not have an arm, foot, or full body for that sake. He is Spirit! But He acts at times “as if” he was using human body parts or doing human activities like planting. So by this reasoning John is NOT saying God became a man. He is saying it is “AS IF” God had become a man. How so? Deuteronomy 18:18 indicates that YHWH Himself will raise up a prophet like unto Moses (not like unto Himself) God will put His own words in this prophet’s mouth. Listen to him!! Note that Peter specifically refers to this passage in Acts 3:22 and 7:37 about Jesus being the prophet/servant of YHWH. He does NOT say God was born (on Christmas Day or any other day for that matter).
HSB,
There’s no doubt a Jewish background for “word” in John 1 (and a Hellenistic Jewish / Greek background as well). There’s also no doubt of Peter’s usage in Acts 3 and 7. However, you are looking at this as an either/or thing, when the grammar of John 1 (1:1-14, and up through to 1:18) makes this both/and.
HSB, thank you. You always are able to give me something, usually scholarly, that I did not know, and that I need!
Back to the use of the word “word”.
I have noticed, thanks to Skip, that God is about function, with form following.
I have also noticed that we see the word ‘word” is used in the NT (according to Strong’s) to translate “logos”, “rhema”, “logikos” and “apaggello” and in the OT, we see it translated from “omer”, “imrah”, “dabar”, “me’mar”, “millah”, “peh”, “pithgam”. Now, not all of these uses mean “messenger”. Would we then conclude that “word” can have different uses according to context, or would we insist that all those various words just mean “messenger”? If we look at the function (usage) of something to determine its form (actual word used), then, even if the form stayed the same (“word”), the usage would change what it meant, would it not?
In John, the word “word” is given some mighty exalted uses! If it does indeed stay as “messenger”, then we might could conclude from these new and exotic functions that the title ‘messenger” has changed in a very fundamental way. The Greeks, however, who celebrated ideal forms, would say that the ideal form of “messenger” would determine the meaning of all uses of that form. Therefore, “word” would be LIMITED to that ideal form of ‘mere’ messenger, meaning that the function of the word “messenger” can never change. I want to ask, which is it?
Its embarrassing, but we are trained to think like Greeks, Skip has convinced me, so I have been learning to suspect it everywhere.
Thank you for helping me think.
Laurita: you make excellent points (and ask great questions) We are all on a journey… many of the folks on this blog are much further along the line than me for sure! All that to say I intend anything I post to be a humble offering. I do want to learn from others though. Here is a further thought on “word”. I have mentioned a study I have done on “word” in the 5 books of Moses primarily. Why just them? …Because they are the foundation of Torah, and the books that were read completely in the synagogue. The few examples I mentioned with “word” are easy to find. I think they are very straightforward in meaning. Basically a message comes from God…that is the word. Either this comes through a dream or the declared testimony of Moses in pharaoh’s court. But I am also aware that each week in the synagogue the Aramaic targums were read because that is what the people understood most. And when I reviewed verse by verse the 5 books of Moses in the targums, I was struck by the very frequent reference to “word of the Lord” or simply “word” (memra in Aramaic) Cheng’s book did some work in this area but I think he draws different conclusions. I may be totally wrong. I accept that possibility. But what I noticed are so many “actions of God” expressed as anthropomorphisms in the Torah. YHWH is my shield is obviously a metaphor. I think Moses meant “God is like a shield protecting us”. The shift to replace the name of God with “word of the Lord” reflects an attempt, I think, to safeguard respect for God. It no doubt seemed impudent to talk about God’s hand or arm doing things. IF this is correct, then I see the real possibility that John is doing exactly the same thing in chapter one of the gospel. Instead of saying “God became a man” he says the” The Word became flesh and dwelt among us”. The Greeks have no problem with god becoming a man. Think of Acts 14:11-13. Even the priest of Zeus is prepared to offer sacrifice to the god-man. I wondered for a moment if the Jews ever did that. Look up the story of Herod speaking in Acts 12:20-24. The crowd replies “The voice of a god and not of a man”. But it turns out the people are… Greeks from Tyre and Sidon. However I believe that the coming of the Messiah actually DOES represent the “coming of God Himself”. How? …By way of direct agency. Look up 1 Chron. 29:23. We know Solomon sat on the throne of David. But he was also sitting on the throne of YHWH! Both descriptions are correct. If Solomon can represent the rule of YHWH on earth how much more (!) the righteous Messiah Yeshua. As a final thought in Revelation 19:13 we read about the rider on the white horse has a title “Word of God”. I think this is John’s final example to us of anthropomorphism. God is in action through the coming of Messiah.
I also did a study of “word of the Lord” throughout the entire Bible. My focus though is the Old Testament because that represented the complete Scriptures to all the early believers. I did find one anthropomorphism in Psalms 33:6. It seems that the “word of the Lord” is the active entity in its own right in the first half of the verse. But look at the last half of the verse,… “by the breath of His mouth all their host (stars)”. Clearly that is an anthropomorphism. There is a definite parallel between the “heavens” to starry “host”. The “word of the Lord” parallels “breath of his mouth”. It’s all very poetic. I don’t think God used breath from His literal mouth to create the stars but it is “AS IF” He did. I will stop rambling now.
One quick note on the Greek. I can’t say to what extent Greek strictly celebrates ideal forms, but there are certainly some words with fluid definitions. Off the top of my head, in John 3 the Gospel writer records Jesus as explaining to Nicodemus that he would have to be born anōthen, which can mean either “born again” or “born from above”. Nicodemus gets hung up on the former, failing to see the latter, and in so doing he fails to comprehend Jesus’ double meaning. A similar thing occurs with the “I AM” statements by Jesus in 8:24 and 8:28. In both cases, Jesus stops at “I AM”, and the hearer/reader infers the predicate by the context; however, this is likely a case of the Gospel writer recording Jesus’ words as intending double meaning. In both instances, the added predicate is “the one I claim to be”. Of course, this reaches its climax in 8:58, in which his adversaries correctly understand Him, as evidenced by their reaction.
Laurita,
I’ve always interpreted the first clause of John 1:18 as a limitation that only pertains to humanity in mortal flesh; however, I’ve never pondered just what ‘seeing’ God “face to face” would be like (Rev 22:4). Somewhat recently, I’d looked at commentaries in Rev 22, which brought me to the attention of some peculiar grammar in Rev 22:3. In its immediate and larger context the Throne is said to be “of [the] God and of the Lamb” (22:1, 3), or alternatively, “[the] God’s and the Lamb’s Throne” (Throne belonging to both [the] God and the Lamb), and in last clause of verse 3 we find “they will serve Him”, the latter a singular pronoun. The antecedent for this pronoun is not absolutely certain—is it both [the] God and the Lamb? Or? One commentary (G. K. Beale, NIGNT) states that the pronoun could well be understood as a collective singular. If so, then in verse 4 they (His servants) will “see His face”—understood to be the face of [the] God and the Lamb. Yet, in verse 5 it’s “Lord [the] God” providing light.
So, to address your question, I’m not sure we can never “see” the Father’s face. And in light of Rev 1:12-18, and John the Revelator’s reaction in verse 17, as well as the grammatical ambiguity of Rev 22, I think it possible there will be a further unveiling of the Lamb (as compared to Rev 1).
Thank you, Craig. I have to think about what you say for a good while, as a rule.
Yeshua said if we have seen Him we have seen the Father. We can take that at least two different ways, according to the paradigm we are working out of, but if you are working out of the paradigm that Yeshua is the manifestation of God, then when He takes the “throne of His glory” (which He will only take after the vanquishing of evil), whose glory is it? If it is the Father’s full glory, then we will see that Father in the face of His Son, is what I am thinking.
I have also been reflecting on Christ’s assertion that He only did what He saw His Father do. Now, that is some mighty comprehensive access as well as some amazing sight ability if He had full access to all His Father’s doings! You cannot be “One”, which He said He was, without full communion, that’s for sure.
Laurita,
I must always take a while to reflect on what you write!
As a kid I enjoyed the Peter Gabriel-era Genesis (band), and one of the lyrics that always struck me—and I was reminded of just now—is in the surrealistic story in The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway. The concept album centers on Rael, with his brother John entering about midway through, though Rael experiences difficulty ascertaining reality from dream. Towards the end, John gets caught in rushing water, with Rael trying frantically to rescue him, and as he finally reaches his brother’s floating body, he discovers that “something’s changed, that’s not your face—it’s mine!” I see Scripture describing the inter-relationship of God / Father / Son / Word / Christ / Lamb / Alpha and Omega / First and Last, etc. in a somewhat similar way. Distinction yet common identity intertwine. Going too far with the former and polytheism obtains; too far on the latter yields modalism.
Skip: for what it is worth the Peshitta indicates the verse as “begotten (of) God” not “begotten God”. I am not sure if the grammar bears this out but at least that is what the translators put in the edition I have referenced.
HSB,
Both monogenēs (‘begotten’) and theos (God) are in the (subject) nominative case. So, either it’s an adjective modifying a noun (‘begotten’ God), or it’s two nouns in apposition (‘begotten’, God). For “begotten of God” to be a viable translation theos would have to be in the genitive (theou). “Begotten (of) God” could be an interpretation of ‘begotten son’, if one assumes “son” as the text over against “God” here (“begotten [son] (of) God”).