Was Jesus the first man?
- Thread starter VickyK
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Keep in mind that in 1:1c, θεὸς is anarthrous. It is not stating that the Word is the one who He is "with" (John 1:1b), but stresses the qualities of the Word.
Had John wished to identify the λόγος the same person whom He was "with" (John 1:1b) then he would have used the articular θεὸς. The way John has written John 1:1c makes for a type of distinction between the λόγος and τὸν θεὸν that does not suite the Unitarian (Modalist or otherwise) proposition.
Take for example John 3:6,
“That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.”
The idea behind this 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, the Trinitarian approach to John 1:1 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, and this is precisely what we as Trinitarians believe. 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 (cf. Hebrews 1:3).
Had John wished to identify the λόγος the same person whom He was "with" (John 1:1b) then he would have used the articular θεὸς. The way John has written John 1:1c makes for a type of distinction between the λόγος and τὸν θεὸν that does not suite the Unitarian (Modalist or otherwise) proposition.
Take for example John 3:6,
“That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.”
The idea behind this 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, the Trinitarian approach to John 1:1 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, and this is precisely what we as Trinitarians believe. 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 (cf. Hebrews 1:3).
-
1
-
1
- Show all
This is incorrect.
There is only one God. True.
The reason the two 'reversed' statements above are not equally "assignable" is that 'God' refers to all-that-is-God and 'Word' does not.
In 'identity' terms, there is much more to 'God' than 'Word'; albeit, 'The Word is God.' is a correct statement.
Please read the OP of the following thread before you respond:
https://christianchat.com/bible-dis...of-god-word-father-son-and-the-trinity.72792/
There is only one God. True.
The reason the two 'reversed' statements above are not equally "assignable" is that 'God' refers to all-that-is-God and 'Word' does not.
In 'identity' terms, there is much more to 'God' than 'Word'; albeit, 'The Word is God.' is a correct statement.
Please read the OP of the following thread before you respond:
https://christianchat.com/bible-dis...of-god-word-father-son-and-the-trinity.72792/
-
1
- Show all
The context is the resurrection and this is the key to understanding what Paul means by "subdued, subject". The resurrection is where the saved and our Lord Jesus are seen glorified,
And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. vs.28
I already showed how it does.
The Word of God is the will of God. Though Jesus appeared as an ordinary man, he was still above all,
He that cometh from above is above all Jn.3:31
That was Paul's point. The superiority of Jesus over Adam,
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. vs.22
I'm showing the dual meaning, but where Adam failed, Christ, God in the flesh triumphed,
For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. vs.21
And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. vs.28
I already showed how it does.
The Word of God is the will of God. Though Jesus appeared as an ordinary man, he was still above all,
He that cometh from above is above all Jn.3:31
That was Paul's point. The superiority of Jesus over Adam,
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. vs.22
I'm showing the dual meaning, but where Adam failed, Christ, God in the flesh triumphed,
For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. vs.21
Not picky. 
Very detail-oriented.
Very detail-oriented.
-
1
- Show all
Phil 2v5-11: "Let the same disposition, attitude, purpose and mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus, who existed in the essential form of God, having always been God by nature. He did not deem His own equality with God a prize to be clung to, but emptied Himself and became like other men, taking upon Him the form of a slave, and became obedient unto death upon the cross for our salvation. Because of this astounding sacrificial love God has highly exalted Him and given Him a Name which is above every name, and that at His Name every knee is going to bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Yahweh to the glory of the Father."