Why is Jesus called the Word?

[setst777]

Referring to Jesus: "He is God, and was with God." This needs careful explanation. Thank you.

I could give you a long explanation right from Scripture, and have done so, but in replying to you, I say that job was already done and summarized the best in the Nicene Creed.

Firstly, in regards to the Trinity (as to God's nature), I believe the Nicene Creed most accurate represents the truth of Holy Scripture. In the Nicene Creed, regarding that nature of God, I quote:

"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible;"

"And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-begotten, Begotten of the Father before all ages, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, Begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father, by whom all things were made:"

"And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, and Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified,"

In summary so far we learn that:
1) There is only one God, the Father (as Scripture teaches)
2) God (the Father) - as to His nature of being God - exists the Word and the Spirit.
3) Both the Word and the Spirit are of God's nature - both of whom God sends forth to do all things.
5) The Word and Spirit are 'persons' within God's nature.
4) Since the Word and Spirit are of God's nature, they are
both "God" or "deity" by necessity of being God's own
nature - for God cannot be less or greater than himself.

Now we are ready to tackle John 1:1-2...
John 1:1 In the beginning was THE (ho) Word.
And THE (ho) Word was with THE (ho) God.
And THE (ho) Word was God.

Notice that the definite article "ho" which is the Greek for "the" defines a person called THE Word, and a person called THE God.
However, in the last sentence, "THE Word was God," there is no definite article before God...

Therefore, "The Word" is not "The God" the Father whom the Word is with, but as to the Word's nature, the Word is God (deity).

So when we see the Word, we are seeing God.
When the Spirit of God dwells in us, then really God is dwelling in us.

That is why both the Spirit and the Word are called "Lord" and "God" in Holy Scripture, even though Scripture clearly declares that there is only one God, the Father.

John 17:3 Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

1 Corinthians 8:6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

Notice that:
1) all things are "from" and "for" the Father.
2) all things are "through" the Son.
3) God the Father creates all things "through" His Word (John 1:1-3).

Yet, when God is mentioned in Scripture in a general way - in His unity of oneness - we see that all things are "from," "through," and "for" God ....

Romans 11:35 “Who has ever given to God,
that God should repay them?”
36 For from him and through him and for him are all things.
To him be the glory forever! Amen.

Therefore, Romans 11:35 is a Passage from the Holy Scriptures that teaches me that:

1) God (the Father) commands all things to come into being (from whom all things are).

2) God (the Word - with the Spirit) physically makes all he commands (through whom all things are).

3) God does this for himself (for whom all things are).

So what can I deduce from this about God's nature of being God - so far?

1) There is only one true God, the Father. (John 17:1-4)

2) God has, within His nature of being God, the Word of God and the Spirit. (Psalms 33:6)

3) From God are all things, by God's own command. (Romans 11:36a)

4) The Word of God and the Spirit of God are the means by which God creates and accomplishes all things uniquely attributed to God alone. (Psalms 33:6, Romans 11:36b)

5) And all things are created for God. (Romans 11:36C)

6) God alone (Father by His Word and Spirit) created all things (from, through and for) so that God need not repay anyone for being involved, so the glory goes to God. (Romans 11:36)

7) So far, we see that the Word of God is not merely God's voice, but a personage within God's being, through whom all things are - John 1:10.

8) We also learn from Scripture that the Spirit is a personage within the nature of God that grieves, has a will, speaks, and accomplishes an inward change in the work of salvation. The Spirit works with the Word to do all things.

In summary, the Word is deity, in that the Word is of God's own nature of being God.

Blessings

 

[eleos1954]

Why is it alive and active? What makes it alive and active?

Because our savior lives.

 

[Danthemailman]

Because our savior lives.

Amen to that!

 

[setst777]

Because our savior lives.

"Why is it alive and active? What makes it alive and active?"

The Word is alive and active because the Word is the Sword of the Spirit. The Spirit (which is life) works with the Word -activating the Word - to convict the world of mankind.

 

[YeshuaFan]

Referring to Jesus: "He is God, and was with God." This needs careful explanation. Thank you.

Jesus always has eternally existed as the second person of the Trinity, God the Son, so is fully God, and yet not the same Person as the Father or Holy Spirit!

 

[ViaCrucis]

Why is it alive and active? What makes it alive and active?

Because He's a Person.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[W2L]

Why is it alive and active? What makes it alive and active?

The Holy Spirit makes it so.

 

[prodromos]

The Chinese have a similar concept of the "Word" which is known as the "Tao".
Hieromonk Damascene has compiled the research of Fr Seraphim Rose in the philosophy of Lao Tzu into a book titled "Christ the Eternal Tao"

 

[Radagast]

The Chinese have a similar concept of the "Word" which is known as the "Tao".

That's a concept so totally different that there is nothing in common.

 

[prodromos]

That's a concept so totally different that there is nothing in common.

Have you read the book?

 

[Radagast]

Have you read the book?

Yes.

 

[Radagast]

Are our words not part of us though?

Not at all.

And if you're suggesting that Christ is merely God's "speech," then that sounds like anti-Trinitarian Gnostic emanationism.

 

[Radagast]

Now we are ready to tackle John 1:1-2...
John 1:1 In the beginning was THE (ho) Word.
And THE (ho) Word was with THE (ho) God.
And THE (ho) Word was God.

Notice that the definite article "ho" which is the Greek for "the" defines a person called THE Word, and a person called THE God.
However, in the last sentence, "THE Word was God," there is no definite article before God...

Therefore, "The Word" is not "The God" the Father whom the Word is with, but as to the Word's nature, the Word is God (deity).

Thank you for sharing what seems to be the Jehovah's Witnesses interpretation of this passage, but your Greek grammar is wrong.

That last sentence says Theos ēn ho Logos (literally, God was the Word). Yes, there is only one definite article, but the rules of Greek grammar say that such a sentence with the verb "to be" almost never has two articles. The article in this case serves to identify the subject of the sentence. However, the fact that "Theos" is at the front of the sentence is a form of emphasis: the Word was GOD!

 

[Mark51]

Your explanation does not make sense to me and is not consistent with many, many other scriptures.

 

[W2L]

Not at all.

And if you're suggesting that Christ is merely God's "speech," then that sounds like anti-Trinitarian Gnostic emanationism.

No i never suggested that.

 

[setst777]

Thank you for sharing what seems to be the Jehovah's Witnesses interpretation of this passage, but your Greek grammar is wrong.

My Response:

Firstly:
Jehovah's Witnesses, in contrast to what I wrote, would write John 1:1 as follows (Bolding is mine):

"In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." New World Translation.

The Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the Word is a separate smaller god from the God he is with.

Secondly:
Your interpretation of John 1:1, the last sentence, as Theos ēn ho Logos (literally, God was the Word), implies that the Word is the God whom the Word is with, which is Unitarianism, which appears to mean that you do not believe in the Trinity. Is that your position?

Thirdly:
My translation of John 1:1 is the same translation that most Bibles have and shows that the Word is God in essence, but not the God he is with. This is pure Trinity doctrine.

My interpretation of John 1:1 has unanimous support from all Greek scholars.

Harner wrote concering John 1c in relation to the context of John 1a, 1b, and John 1:1-18 to get the context of John's usage...

Harner states that, as John has just spoken in terms of relationship and differentiation between ho logos and ho theos, that not only is John attributing the nature of THEOS to the LOGOS, but emphasizes that nature by placing THEOS at the head of the clause. The emphasis of THEOS would seem unaccountable if John intended an indefinite nuance, but is perfectly understandable if THEOS is qualitative, signifying that the Son's nature is that of God.

Dixon's statistical methodology, unlike Colwells', was to begin with anarthrous PNs (as opposed to only examining those PNs that were definite), and determine the semantic force of each. His statistical analysis substantiates Harner's findings: "When the anarthrous predicate nominative precedes the verb it is qualitative in 50 of 53 occurrences, or 94% probability" (Dixon).

Dixon concludes:

"We may conclude three things about John 1:1-2. First, Colwell's rule cannot be applied to the verse as an argument for definiteness. Colwell's rule says that definite predicate nominatives preceding the verb usually are anarthrous. The rule says nothing about definiteness. It does not say that anarthrous predicate nominatives preceding the verb usually are definite. This is the converse of the rule, and as such is not necessarily valid. Indeed, our thesis demonstrates just the opposite, that anarthrous predicate nominatives preceding the verb usually are qualitative, 94% of occurrences.

Second, on the basis of the contrast with 1:14 (where the humanity of Christ is stressed), we conclude that THEOS in 1:1c stresses quality.

Third, this thesis demonstrates that the statistical probability for THEOS being qualitative, rather than definite or indefinite, is quite high, 94% (IBID)."
End of Quote

Don Hartley, a student of Dan Wallace's and research assistant on Wallace's grammar, wrote his Master's of Theology thesis at Dallas Theological Seminary on the topic of Colwell's Construction and mass / count nouns. He also published a paper derived from his thesis.

I quote:
"Hartley's methodology is to examine every example of Colwell's Construction in the Greek New Testament. Hartley purposely leaves controversial or questionable nouns out of this sample. He then eliminates all factors that would unfairly weigh the sample towards one semantic force, such as mass terms. He carefully identifies all potential semantic forces - following Wallace, Hartley advocates qualitativeness as either a standalone semantic force, or as one that can coexist alongside definite or indefinite forces. He notes that all mass terms exude a purely qualitative force (John 1:14, for example, does not teach that the Logos became The Flesh or a flesh, but rather "flesh," signifying that all the Logos possesses all the qualities or attributes of "flesh"). He therefore concludes that qualitativeness is a valid semantic category apart from definiteness or indefiniteness, and argues that this force may be applied equally to mass or count terms.

Hartley's results demonstrate that in John's Gospel, a preverbal PN is usually qualitative (56%), as opposed to definite (11%), indefinite (17%), or qualitative-indefinite (17%). He concludes that from the standpoint of pure statistical analysis, THEOS in John 1:1c is most likely qualitative: "Thus, Jesus is God in every sense the Father is" (Hartley, p. 40)." End of Quote

Conclusion
While the scholars considered have some differences with regard to the applicability of Colwell's Rule to John 1:1c and the particular semantic force of THEOS in this clause, they are unanimous in regarding the proper understanding of John's meaning: "The Word" has all the qualities, attributes, or nature of God, the same God referenced in the previous clause. The absence of the article, all agree, is purposeful; John intends to remove any possibility of a convertible proposition.

The definite article signifies a personal distinction, thus the Person of God is in view in John 1:1b. The absence of the article signifies that the nature or essence of God is in view in 1:1c. John is not teaching that the Logos is the same Person as the Father. Nor, do the scholars believe, is John teaching that the Logos is a second god. All agree that the indefinite semantic force is unlikely.

Based on the evidence presented here, we may confidently take John's meaning as:

"In the beginning of all creation, the Word was already in existence. The Word was intimately with God. And the Word was as to His essence, fully God."

Wuest's The New Testament: An Expanded Translation: "And the Word was as to His essence absolute deity;"

The New English Translation: "and the Word was fully God."

Perhaps the most accurate English translation of John 1:1 has been offered by Robert Bowman: "In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the Deity, and the Word was Deity" (John, p. 27). This translation preserves the use and non-use of the article, and conveys the purely qualitative nuance of the anarthrous theos.

The Dana-Mantey grammar offers essentially the same translation, sans the capital letters:
"and the word was deity" (p. 148).

That the Word is deity as to His essence of belonging to God's nature is clearly expressed in the New Testament...

In Colossians 2:9, Paul uses a different grammatical construction to say much the same thing about Christ's Deity.

Colossians 2:9 For in him, the fullness of the Deity dwells bodily.

In Philippians 2:6 the qualitative rendering is again seen, although not the same grammiatical construction..

Philippians 2:6 "Who, being in very nature God"

 

[throughfiierytrial]

Because He's a Person.

-CryptoLutheran

Not certain on the delineation of person of Jesus here and His Word...He is the Word made flesh, yes. Revelation 1 has a depiction of the person of Jesus with a sharp, double-edged sword in His mouth or coming from His mouth. He also speaks of His Word, seemingly separately, in passages such as "my words shall never pass away". I for one do not have it entirely sorted out in my mind, but agree with you that He, Jesus, IS the Word made flesh.
As I noted earlier it is the anointing we receive from the Holy Spirit which teaches us about all things as per 1 John...the Comforter Jesus promises to send...and the Spirit with whom He baptizes us and enlightens us. The Holy Spirit works through God's Word to bestow faith. Am I only proving the Trinity here? Jesus and the Holy Spirit as One? Please comment. Someone?

 

[Radagast]

Your interpretation of John 1:1, the last sentence, as Theos ēn ho Logos (literally, God was the Word), implies that the Word is the God whom the Word is with, which is Unitarianism, which appears to mean that you do not believe in the Trinity.

No, it doesn't imply that at all. I was outlining the traditional, orthodox interpretation of the verse: the Logos is God in the same way that the Father is God.

I'm not going to reply in detail to your massive unattributed quote, because it's from an unreliable source. However, let me in turn quote:

A long string of writers has argued that because theos, 'God', here has no article, John is not referring to God as a specific being, but to mere qualities of 'God-ness.' The Word, they say, was not God but divine. This will not do. There is a perfectly serviceable word in Greek for 'divine' (namely theios). More importantly, there are many places in the New Testament where the predicate noun has no article, and yet is specific. -- D.A. Carson, The Gospel According to John

 

[Radagast]

As a side issue, the CF rules say: Faith groups and individuals that deny the full, eternal deity of Jesus Christ or His incarnation whereby He, as God, took on human flesh (becoming fully God and fully man in one person), are considered non-Christians at CF. Posts that deny the full, eternal deity of Jesus Christ or His incarnation are considered non-Christian theology and are not allowed in "Christians Only" forums. Discussions in all "Christians Only" forums must be in alignment with Trinitarian beliefs.

 

[ViaCrucis]

No, it doesn't imply that at all. I was outlining the traditional, orthodox interpretation of the verse: the Logos is God in the same way that the Father is God.

I'm not going to reply in detail to your massive unattributed quote, because it's from an unreliable source. However, let me in turn quote:

A long string of writers has argued that because theos, 'God', here has no article, John is not referring to God as a specific being, but to mere qualities of 'God-ness.' The Word, they say, was not God but divine. This will not do. There is a perfectly serviceable word in Greek for 'divine' (namely theios). More importantly, there are many places in the New Testament where the predicate noun has no article, and yet is specific. -- D.A. Carson, The Gospel According to John

Even the most amateur reader of the Greek will notice that there are plenty of occasions where the definite article doesn't appear with theos and yet the context makes it clear that theos means none other than the God. Otherwise we would have to state that YHVH is not "the God" but only "a god" or merely god-like. And yet, JW's and others who maintain these arguments would never argue this; and have no trouble recognizing theos without the definite article refers to YHVH.

The Church's confession, that the Logos is God even as the Father is God, on the basis of John's Prologue is clear. The Prologue mentions two: God and God. Indeed, we have God the Word who is in the beginning with God [the Father]. And for this reason, "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God".

-CryptoLutheran