From: Williams, Wes (Wes.Williams@echostar.com)
Date: Wed Dec 31 1997 - 17:26:18 EST
Jonathan wrote:
> I doubt very much that QEOS HN hO LOGOS can mean:
>
> a. "Jesus is a God, just like Yahweh, Zeus, and Athene"; this would be
> foreign to the world view of the entire Scripture;
> b. "Jesus is God, and God is Jesus"; it is clear in verse 1:18 that
> Jesus
> came from the bosom of the Father, and a distinction is consistently
> drawn
> between God the Father and the Son. As Robertson (and Paul Dixon) have
> pointed out, it would have said hO QEOS HN hO LOGOS if it meant to
> make
> that assertion.
>
>
[Williams, Wes] Jonathan, I agree with your above conclusions.
However, there is another possibility for "a god" which is frequently
misunderstood and it is not (a) above. Here is a quotation from a post
from http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek/archives/97-09/0319.html.
<begin quote>
The comment "The translation 'a god,' suggesting a god among
other true
gods," is not a conclusion to which "a god" necessarily points
and is
certainly NOT what I believe John had in mind when he penned his
words!
I refer to B-A-G-D, noting ALHQINOS ("true" as in "the only
_true_
God"):
ALHQINOS... 3. genuine, real... Of God in contrast to other
gods, who
are not _real_..._true_ in the sense of the reality possesed
only by the
archetype, not by its copies.
Therefore, if we agree that there is one "only true God" (cf.
John 17:3
- v.1, the Father), then "a god" could legitimately suggest a
representative of the archetype. This fits well with John 10:34
QEOI
ESTE, who were representatives of the archetype, God, but were
themselves called "gods". Also cf. Ps 8:5 LXX - Hebrews 2:7.
Therefore,
"a god" need not refer to the extreme conclusion suggested
above,
namely, that of many true gods.
<end quote>
> > As for QEOS acting as a pseudo proper name, Paul wrote in 1 Cor
> >8:5,6 hHMIN hEIS QEOS hO PATHR (there is to us one God, the Father).
> >Paul infrequently uses QEOS without the article in reference to the
> >Father, but his habitual use of language (QEOS c. 309 times)
> >distinguishes KYRIOS IESOUS CRISTOS from QEOS.
>
> I would agree with this.
>
> >[Jesus and the Father] are carefully distinguished both in Paul
> >and John (cf. John 1:1b, John 1:18b).
>
> I agree with this as well.
>
[Williams, Wes] To clarify even further, note that Jesus is
carefully distinguished in the two verses, not only from the _Father_,
but from _God_. This argues for the existence, not of one being (note
the use of "being" and not "person"), but two beings: (1) God, and (2)
one having the characteristics of God without being "the" God. This
second one is an adjectivally modified QEOS (MONOGENHS QEOS).
This is one among several reasons why I find that the BAGD
definition of QEOS as being a "representative of the archetype" is the
key to a consistent scriptural Christology, especially in the prologue
of John. Examine it as I frequently and humbly do, John 1:1, 18 does not
teach that there are two persons (or two modes) in a single being(ness)
unless one comes into the text with a predisposed belief about what a
being(ness) is. In both verses, there are two beings standing in a
relationship with each other, are there not?
> Jonathan
[Williams, Wes] Thanks for the examination Jonathan.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:43 EDT