morefaithrequired,
This questions betrays my ignorance. In fact there are other "basics" I dont fully comprehend/ embrace.
Also Jesus is also called the Son of Man"?
The Father is his Father? Yet Jesus is actually God, not His Son. Is it a metaphor for us? So we understand the depths of love a parents goes to sacrifice His Son? A connection to the OT story of Abraham sacrificing His son Isaac?
Isnt Jesus actually God sacrificing Himself for us? For our sins?
I honestly get confused sometimes. Should I pray to Jesus or like Jesus did, pray to His Father?
Is it useful to have different representations of God or just confusing?
Good Evening,
I think there is some slight confusion. Let's set things straight.
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
Notice the first clause of John 1:1 speaks of the λόγος ("the Word") existing in the beginning. The form of the word “was” (
ην), is a timeless word, signifying continuous or linear existence in the time period specified – “In the beginning” (John 1.1a). That is, it simply points to existence before the present time without reference to a point of origin — continual existence “In the beginning.” One can push back the “beginning” as far as you can imagine, and according to John, the Word still “was.”
Hone in on the second clause, John 1:1b. 1:1b does not say, “the Word was
in God,” nor does it say, “the Word was God’s,” rather, the preposition πρός (“pros”) is used – “the Word was
with God.” And not only was the λόγος “with” God, but because the preposition πρός is followed by a noun in the accusative case, it indicates that the λόγος was existing in a personal face-to-face communion with God, not as an attribute inhering within Him. One does not need to leave the first chapter of John to find examples in which πρὸς signifies a person near or moving towards another person (e.g. John
1:29, 42, 47). Obviously, had John wished to portray the λόγος as an attribute adhering within God, he could have employed the preposition ἐν, just as he does just a few words earlier in 1:1a – “
In the beginning…” (c.f. John
3:21, 1 John
1:10, 1 John 2:5).
Not only does John use πρός with reference to a person, but he also uses it with reference to Jesus’ return to heaven to be in the presence of God the Father!
“My little children, these things write I unto you that ye may not sin. And if any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ” (1 John 2:1)
Of course, this comports well with John 17:5, where Jesus speaks of His pre-existence with the Father. Notice that Jesus says in John 17:5a, καὶ νῦν δόξασόν με σύ Πάτερ παρὰ σεαυτῷ (“Now, Father, glorify Me together
with Yourself”), and continues to say in John 17:5b, τῇ δόξῃ ᾗ εἶχον πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι παρὰ σοί (“with the glory I had
with You before the world was”). Unitarian groups of the sort have a very difficult time with this text, because it is contra to their tradition. They cannot have a pre-existent Jesus, or else that will cause some very big problems for them theologically. Their interpretation of John 17:5 leaves them speaking out of both sides of their mouths. They argue that John 17:5b is speaking of Jesus existing “ideally” in the mind of God. However, they interpret the analogous expression παρὰ σεαυτῷ (“glorify Me together
with Yourself”) in John 17:5a in a literal sense. They interpret the expression παρὰ σεαυτῷ (“glorify Me together
with Yourself”) in John 17:5a very different from its analogous expression παρὰ σοί (“with the glory I had
with You before the world existed”) in John 17:5b. Why do they not interpret both clauses consistently? They interpret John 17:5a in a literal sense, but John 17:5b in a not-so-literal sense.
Next we come to the final clause of John 1:1c. This clause is a two-fold slap in the face to Unitarian Monarchians. Remember, Unitarians cannot have a pre-existent Jesus or that will cause all sorts of theological conundrums. And I'm in the mood to ruffle some feathers, so let's ruffle some, shall we? What is not apparent in our English versions is that the Greek term for “God” in John 1:1c is anarthrous — it’s purpose is two fold:
(1.) The fact that θεὸς in 1:1c is anarthrous weighs heavily against the Unitarian opposition to a pre-existent Jesus. Had John wished to identify the λόγος as an attribute existing in God then he would have used the articular θεὸς, in which John 1:1c would be identifying the λόγος as, or apart of τὸν θεὸν mentioned in John 1:1b. The way John has written John 1:1c makes for a type of distinction between the λόγος and τὸν θεὸν, one that I don’t think suites the Unitarian proposition.
(2.) The other purpose for the anarthrous θεὸς is that it is instrumental in capturing qualitative nuance/force intended by the author.
Take John 3:6 for example,
“That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.”
The idea here has absolutely nothing to do with identification of any sort (“
the spirit,” “
a spirit”), but everything to do with that of
predication. More specifically, the nouns (“flesh,” “spirit”) here function in a purely qualitative sense, without a definite or indefinite semantic force. The context of the passage in view is about the inherent
nature of sinful flesh (John 3:6a) in contrast to the new
nature of man in the process of regeneration (John 3:6b). Likewise, a similar idea being portrayed is found in 1 John 1:5 (“God is
light; in Him there is no darkness at all”), where it is God's essence and nature that is being described in contrast to “darkness.” That is, God has all the qualities, and attributes of light – He is just, holy, and good – therefore, light is an attribute/characteristic inhering within God. Further examples include, but are not limited to, John 6:63 (“The words I have spoken to you are
spirit and they are
life”), 1 John 4:8 (“…because God is
love”), Matthew 12:8 (“For the Son of Man is
Lord of the Sabbath” [not “
the Lord of the Sabbath,” or “
a Lord of the Sabbath”]), et al.
With that being said, John 1:1c does not emphasize the identity of the Word (thus, the reason for the anarthrous θεὸς), but stresses the nature of the Word. Call attention to what Henry Alford, a 19th c. Anglican theologian wrote in his commentary on this passage,
“The omission of the article before θεὸς is not mere usage; it could not have been here expressed, whatever place the word might hold in the sentence. ὁ λόγος ἦν ὁ θεὸς would destroy the idea of the λόγος altogether. θεὸς must then be taken as implying God, in substance and essence, -not ὁ θεὸς, ‘the Father,’ in Person. . . . as in σὰρξ ἐγένετο [John 1:14], σὰρξ expresses that state into which the Divine Word entered by a definite act, so in θεὸς ἦν [John 1:1c], θεὸς expresses that essence which was His ἐν ἀρχῇ [“In the beginning”]: -that He was very God.”—Henry Alford
The point Alford is driving at here in his comparison of vv. 1 (θεὸς ἦν), and 14 (σὰρξ ἐγένετο), is not only are the two parallel passages conveying similar thought, but John’s placement of the noun before the verb in each passage is significant in that it stresses the qualities or nature of the subject. The positioning of θεὸς before the verb ἦν is what is known as a preverbal predicate nominative. Since John has identified ὁ λόγος (“the Word”) as the subject of the verse, this means that θεὸς in John 1:1b is a subject complement which further identifies the subject. In other words, θεὸς serves to describe the nature and essence of the Word. Not that the Word’s identity is being stressed, rather, it is the intrinsic nature of the Logos that is being portrayed here. All the qualities, attributes, and nature of God – everything that makes God, God – the Word also possesses. This text then, is teaching the equality of nature between the Father, and the Son (c.f. Hebrews 1:3).
Translations such as those found in the TEV (“what God was, the Word was also”), GNB (“the Word was the very same as God”), Barclay (“the nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God”), Harner (“the Word has the same nature as God”), Moffat (“the Word was divine”), et al., help capture the qualitative nuance/force of John 1:1 that is not overly apparent when reading English versions such as the NASB, or ESV.
