29.03.2013 Views

JESUS CHRIST: GOD-MAN - Vital Christianity

JESUS CHRIST: GOD-MAN - Vital Christianity

JESUS CHRIST: GOD-MAN - Vital Christianity

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

197<br />

● ". . . how much more will the blood of Christ, who through an everlasing spirit offered<br />

Himself without blemish to God [to theo], cleanse our consciences from dead works<br />

that we may render sacred service to [the] living God [theo]?"<br />

● "If anyone speaks, [let him speak] as it were [the] sacred pronouncements of God<br />

[theou]; if anyone ministers, [let him minister] as dependent on the strength which<br />

God [ho theos] supplies; so that in all things God [ho theos] may be glorified<br />

through Jesus Christ . . ." (1 Pe 4:11-12).<br />

These examples, then, give evidence that a shift from ho theos to theos does not indicate<br />

a change in the meaning of the word.<br />

Jehovah's Witnesses translators who render Jn. 1:1 to read "a god" translate the exact<br />

same phrase as "God" in 94 percent of the other 281 instances. To be consistent, these should say<br />

"a god." This they fail to do in numerous passages (Mt 5:9; 6:24; Lk 1:35,78; Jn 1:6,12-13,18;<br />

Ro 1:7,17). This construction occurs 20 times in the gospel of John alone. Should John 1:18,<br />

then, be translated, "No one has seen a god at any time"? If the verse were to be translated "a<br />

god" then we would be faced with polytheism which is totally foreign to anything of the<br />

Christian faith.<br />

If Jesus is "a god," then there must be others. Calling Jesus "a god" among other gods<br />

would have been as unacceptable to the first-century reader as it is to the 20th century theist.<br />

John's contemporaries were thoroughly schooled in monotheism, and any departure from that<br />

well-established doctrine would have been rejected outright.<br />

Because "God" is definite in this instance in John 1:1, the God who was with the Word is<br />

the God who is the Word.<br />

The language and grammar of the gospel's opening statement are precise and<br />

incontrovertible. John could have used an extra article and have written, "The Word was the<br />

God," making "God" and "Word" completely identical and interchangeable. This is the case<br />

whenever two nouns with the article are connected by the verb "to be." In John 15:1 Jesus said,<br />

"My Father is the vinedresser" (literally, "the Father of Me is the vinedresser"). Invert the<br />

statement and the meaning does not change. The same is true of John 6:51 where Jesus says<br />

(literally), "The bread . . . is My flesh."<br />

However, if John had written, "The Word was the God," the meaning would be, "All that<br />

Jesus is, God is, and all that God is, Jesus is." This is the ancient heresy of Sabellianism which<br />

taught there are no distinctions between Jesus and the Father, and held that the Father even<br />

suffered on the cross.<br />

New Testament scholar C. K. Barrett explained:

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!