Partnership

All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him ^[a^]not even one thing came into being that has come into being.  John 1:3  NASB

Apart – chōris is an important Greek word, not only because it shows up in a critical text in John’s gospel but also because it is pivotal in Paul’s statements about law and righteousness in Romans 3:21 and 3:28.  When the Pauline verses are translated into English with the choice of “apart,” it seems as if Paul is clearly stating that obedience to Torah has nothing to do with righteousness before God.  On the basis of this understanding of the Greek word, the Church began its long history of separation from Jewish orthodoxy, despite Paul’s explicit denial that the Law was abolished (Romans 3:31).   Similarly, the Church’s reading of chōris in the opening verses of John’s gospel became a proof text for the doctrine of the Trinity.  Therefore, it’s essential that we understand the umbrella of possible translations of this Greek word.  Then we can consider the implications of alternative readings of the text.  Let’s start with some background:

chōris

χωρίς^a: χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν ‘not one thing came into existence without him’ Jn 1:3. It would be wrong to restructure Jn 1:3 to read ‘he made everything in all creation,’ for in the Scriptures God is spoken of as the Creator, but the creation was done ‘through the Word.’ If one must restructure Jn 1:3, it may be possible to say ‘he was involved in everything that was created’ or ‘he took part in creating everything.’ τὸ σῶμα χωρὶς πνεύματος νεκρόν ἐστιν ‘the body without the spirit is dead’ Jas 2:26; πάντα ποιεῖτε χωρὶς γογγυσμῶν καὶ διαλογισμῶν ‘do everything without complaining and arguing’ Php 2:14; οὔτε γυνὴ χωρὶς ἀνδρὸς οὔτε ἀνὴρ χωρὶς γυναικός ‘nor is woman without man, nor man without woman’ 1 Cor 11:11. In 1 Cor 11:11 χωρίς does not specify the particular relationship but only indicates the lack of relationship or involvement. This, of course, is negated by οὔτε, so that one may translate this portion of 1 Cor 11:11 as ‘nor is woman without some relationship to man, nor is man without some relationship to woman.’ In view of the overall context, one may then render the passage simply as ‘woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman.’ In some languages, however, it may be necessary to speak of ‘wife’ and ‘husband,’ since terms for ‘man’ or ‘woman’ may be wrongly interpreted in a strictly erotic sense. Because of the double negation in the rendering of 1 Cor 11:11, in some languages it may be necessary to employ a positive equivalent, for example, ‘woman is dependent on man and man is dependent on woman’ or ‘a wife is dependent on her husband and a husband is dependent on his wife.’ ᾧ ὁ θεὸς λογίζεται δικαιοσύνην χωρὶς ἔργων ‘whom God accepts as righteous apart from (any) works’ Ro 4:6. The expression ‘apart from any works’ in Ro 4:6 may be rendered in some languages as ‘and what a person does, does not count’ or ‘and this is not because of what one does.’^[1]

I’ve highlighted some important comments in this citation.  In John’s gospel, the suggestion “he was involved” significantly alters the meaning, especially when we recognize that the “word” can be understood as a neuter function, not a “person.”  If John begins with “In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and it was God,” the verse no longer suggests a Trinity but rather the function of God’s speaking.  Rabbinic exegesis recognizes the power of God’s word, claiming that the creation occurred through the Hebrew alphabet.  With an alternative reading of chōris in John, we could conclude that John is simply being rabbinic.

As for Paul’s use in Romans, since chōris doesn’t specify the relationship, but only the absence of a relationship, it is possible that Paul isn’t suggesting that the law has no relationship to God’s righteousness but rather that obedience to the Law does not replace God’s righteousness.  In other words, God is righteous in His actions regardless of Man’s obedience.  That does not mean obedience to the Law means nothing, for Paul specifically denies this.  What it means is that God’s character is independent of Man’s obedience.  They work in concert, not opposition.

The choice of translation is a matter of paradigm.  If we read these texts as though John and Paul were Christians, we will translate the texts to fit the dominant theology of the Christian Church, but if we recognize that John and Paul were Jewish Messianic believers, we will need to translate the texts within the paradigm of Jewish Orthodoxy.  The words in the Greek don’t change.  The translation changes—and along with it the significant theological implications.

Topical Index:  chōris, apart, unspecific relationship, translation, Romans 3:21, Romans 3:28, John 1:3

^[1] Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996). Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: based on semantic domains (electronic ed. of the 2nd edition., Vol. 1, p. 792). New York: United Bible Societies.