Need Greek help for defense of the Trinity...

jd.morrison · #1 (**permalink**) 09-28-2009, 10:50 PM

I am in a debate with a high school kid about the Trinity. This is what he has stated. My understanding of Greek is really non-existent at the present moment. Can anybody offer up some help with addressing what he has stated.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anti-Trinitarian States:

The Bible has plenty of verses that show Jesus as a distinct, seperate, and subordinate being, I won't list them here. Concerning John 1:1-5 proving Jesus is God is based on mistranslation.
"The Word was with God." (a person ca be with themsleves?)
When it says that the Word was God the word "god" is a different word than the word "god" earlier in... Read More the verse. The first word "god" or theos, has an article, "TON theos" (the God) whereas the second theos does not (god). Koine Greek has no indefinite article (like "a" or "an") so an indifinte article can be implied depending on context. In this verse the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun (theos) cannot be regarded as definite. So, the verse can more approprtiately be translated as "The Word was a god." as some Bibles read.

***fredtgreco*** · #2 (**permalink**) 09-28-2009, 11:08 PM

This is a classic Jehovah Witness tactic that has no basis in the Greek text. Greek often omits its article, and that does not mean that the word is then indefinite ("a" something). I'm not in my office, and won't be until Wednesday, but maybe someone else can find materials on this. I want to say Warfield has an excellent article on this issue.

Can anyone else provide Joshua with a reference or other article on point?

---Edit---

Ok, I found an article at Alpha Omega Ministries that quotes the Warfield article "The Person and Work of Christ" and even more important articles by AT Robertson (one of the most renowned Greek scholars of all time):

http://vintage.aomin.org/JOHN1_1.html

David G · #3 (**permalink**) 09-29-2009, 04:56 AM

J.D.,

Here’s DTS professor W. Hall Harris’s exegetical outline of John 1:1-18.

I’ll also recommend Komoszewski and Bowman’s Putting Jesus in His Place. It’s the best print resource for the lay reader I’ve seen on this and related topics, and it’s also apparently now on Kindle.

Best wishes on your upcoming conversation...

Exagorazo · #4 (**permalink**) 09-29-2009, 06:33 AM

Well, I can guarantee you that he's copying and pasting his argument, so he probably won't listen to anything you say. Someone who takes the time to write this:

Quote:

Koine Greek has no indefinite article (like "a" or "an") so an indifinte article can be implied depending on context. In this verse the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun (theos) cannot be regarded as definite.

Probably wouldn't type this:

Quote:

a person ca be with themsleves?

But I could be wrong

jason d · #5 (**permalink**) 09-29-2009, 07:06 AM

Here is some audio of my pastor going pretty in depth into the Greek on this because many attacks from cults come up about John 1:1: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/SJCC-...1_John_1_1.mp3

(source: Sovereign Joy Community Church | Sermon Podcast)

Archlute · #6 (**permalink**) 09-29-2009, 12:47 PM

I believe that Daniel Wallace also discusses this at length in his grammar.

JoelRadford · #7 (**permalink**) 09-29-2009, 07:24 PM

Wallace is excellent - cut and paste from his Greek Grammar, Beyond the Basics (sorry the Greek is mangled because of font problems):

Quote:

a. Is Qeo,j in John 1:1c Indefinite?

If qeo,j 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

page 267

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 qeo,j. At six*teen 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. Qeo,j occurs eight times–verses 1, 2, 6, 12, 13, 18–and has the arti*cle only twice–verses 1, 2. Yet NWT six times translated “God,” once “a god,” and once “the god.”28

If we expand the discussion to other anarthrous terms in the Johannine Pro*logue, we notice other inconsistencies in the NWT: It is interesting that the New World Translation renders qeo,j 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 avrch/| should be “a beginning” (1:1, 2), zwh, should be “a life” (1:4), para. qeou/ should be “from a god” (1:6), VIwa,nnhj should be “a John” (1:6), qeo,n 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 qeo,j 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 pred*icate 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 Qeo,j in John 1:1c Definite?

Grammarians and exegetes since Colwell have taken qeo,j 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 pre-verbal 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 con*text which precedes a verb will

page 268

usually be anarthrous. If we check the rule to see if it applies here, we would say that the previous mention of qeo,j (in 1:1b) is articular. Therefore, if the same person being referred to there is called qeo,j in 1:1c, then in both places it is definite. Although certainly pos*sible grammatically (though not nearly as likely as qualitative), the evi*dence 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 qeo,j in John 1:1\c.

Further, calling qeo,j in 1:1c definite is the same as saying that if it had fol*lowed the verb it would have had the article. Thus it would be a convertible proposition with lo,goj (i.e., “the Word” = “God” and “God” = “the Word”). The problem of this argument is that the qeo,j in 1:1b is the Father. Thus to say that the qeo,j in 1:1c is the same person is to say that “the Word was the Father.”29 This, as the older grammarians and exegetes pointed out, is embryonic Sabellianism or modalism.30 The Fourth Gospel is about the least likely place to find modalism in the NT.

page 269

c. Is Qeo,j in John 1:1c Qualitative?

The most likely candidate for qeo,j is qualitative. This is true both grammat*ically (for the largest proportion of pre-verbal anarthrous predicate nomi*natives 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 (evn avrch/| ) ) ) qeo.j h==n [1:1], and his humanity, which was added later (sa.rx evge,neto [1:14]). The grammatical structure of these two statements mirrors each other; both emphasize the nature of the Word, rather than his identity. But qeo,j was his nature from eternity (hence, eivmi, is used), while sa,rx was added at the incarnation (hence, gi,nomai 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 ref*erence to angels, theologians, even a meal! Thus “divine” could be mis*leading in an English translation. The idea of a qualitative qeo,j 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.31

I love that at the end! The way the Greek is constructed shows that Jesus is God, but not God the Father. If it had the definite article it would show that he is the exact same as the Father, which he is not. Pure gold!

**armourbearer** · #8 (**permalink**) 09-29-2009, 08:38 PM

Quote:

The most likely candidate for qeo,j is qualitative...

Such an option does not at all impugn the deity of Christ.

I disagree. Leon Morris is surely correct when he says "John is not merely saying that there is something divine about Jesus. He is affirming that He is God, and doing so emphatically as we see from the word order in the Greek." (Comm. in loc.)

The syntax clearly indicates that "God was the Word" is not possible, while still affirming a definite identification in "the Word was God." Reading "the Father" into "God" in 1:1c is arbitrary. "God" has a strong monotheistic referent in John and Jesus' claim to be "God" is the ultimate challenge to Judaism's rejection of His Messiahship.