Words of Death - Words of Life

1. You do not know me
2. You do not know where I am going
3. You do not know where I come from
4. You do not know my Father
5. You will die in your sin
6. You cannot come where I am going
7. You are from below
8. You are of this world
9. You will seek to kill me
10. You do what you have heard from your father the devil
11. You cannot bear to hear my word
12. You are of your father the devil
13. Your will is to do the devil’s desires
14. You are not of God
15. You dishonour me
16. You have not known God

Such is a brief summary of some of the words Jesus spoke to people in the Temple at Jerusalem.

A church sign near my home reads; “Out of faith? Come in for a fill-up.” Apparently this is intended to get bodies into the church building. Although it is just a sign, it signifies to me what so many want to do in order to win the lost – offer the meeting of felt needs.

In some cases, Jesus did appeal to people’s felt needs of spiritual emptiness, but never without identifying for them the false hopes in which they trusted. In many cases, that included words like He spoke above. Words that, by the way, were surrounded by invitation to come to Him and find life: “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light [that gives] life.”

People need to know their real condition, anything less than that is a lack of love on our part.

Jesus is God – Wayne Grudem Defends John 1:1 “the Word was God”

Further to my post quoting from D. A. Carson yesterday, I thought I would add this excellent defense of the deity of Jesus from the pen of Wayne Grudem. The following is taken directly from his Systematic Theology (Zondervan, 1994) pages 234-235. You can purchase this helpful volume from Westminster Books here.

-------------------------------------------------------

The translation “the Word was God” has been challenged by the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who translate it “the Word was a god,” implying that the Word was simply a heavenly being but not fully divine. They justify this translation by pointing to the fact that the definite article (Gk. ho, “the”) does not occur before the Greek word theos (“God”). They say therefore that theos should be translated “a god.” However, their interpretation has been followed by no recognized Greek scholar anywhere, for it is commonly known that the sentence follows a regular rule of Greek grammar, and the absence of the definite article merely indicates that “God” is the predicate rather than the subject of the sentence.’[1] (A recent publication by the Jehovah’s Witnesses now acknowledges the relevant grammatical rule but continues to affirm their position on John 1:1 nonetheless.)’[2]

The inconsistency of the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ position can further be seen in their translation of the rest of the chapter. For various other grammatical reasons the word theos also lacks the definite article at other places in this chapter, such as verse 6 (“There was a man sent from God”), verse 12 (“power to become children of God”), verse 13 (“but of God”), and verse 18 (“No one has ever seen God”). If the Jehovah’s Witnesses were consistent with their argument about the absence of the definite article, they would have to translate all of these with the phrase “a god,” but they translate “God” in every case.

John 20:28 in its context is also a strong proof for the deity of Christ. Thomas had doubted the reports of the other disciples that they had seen Jesus raised from the dead, and he said he would not believe unless he could see the nail prints in Jesus’ hands and place his hand in his wounded side (John 20:25). Then Jesus appeared to the disciples when Thomas was with them. He said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side; do not be faithless, but believing” (John 20:27). In response to this, we read, “Thomas answered him, ‘My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28). Here Thomas calls Jesus “my God.” The narrative shows that both John in writing his gospel and Jesus himself approve of what Thomas has said and encourage everyone who hears about Thomas to believe the same things that Thomas did. Jesus immediately responds to Thomas, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe” (John 20:29). As far as John is concerned, this is the dramatic high point of the gospel, for he immediately tells the reader—in the very next verse—that this was the reason he wrote it:

Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name. (John 20:30—31)

Jesus speaks of those who will not see him and will yet believe, and John immediately tells the reader that he recorded the events written in his gospel in order that they may believe in just this way, imitating Thomas in his confession of faith. In other words, the entire gospel is written to persuade people to imitate Thomas, who sincerely called Jesus “My Lord and my God.” Because this is set out by John as the purpose of his gospel, the sentence takes on added force.[3]

---

[1] This rule (called “Colwell’s rule”) is covered as early as chapter 6 of a standard introductory Greek grammar: See John Wenham, The Elements of New Testament Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965), P. 35; also, BDF, 273. The rule is simply that in sentences with the linking verb “to be” (such as Gk. eimi), a definite predicate noun will usually drop the definite article when it precedes the verb, but the subject of the sentence, if definite, will retain the definite article. So if John had wanted to say, “The Word was God,” John 1:1 is exactly the way he would have said it. (Recent grammatical study has confirmed and even strengthened Colwell’s original rule: see Lane C. McGaughy, Toward a Descriptive Analysis of EINAI as a Linking Verb in the New Testament [SBLDS 6; Missoula, Mont.: SBL, 1972], esp. PP. 49—53, 73—77; and the important review of this book by E. V. N. Goetchius in JBL 95 [1976]: 147—49.)

Of course, if John had wanted to say, “The Word was a god” (with an indefinite predicate, “a god’), it would also have been written this way, since there would have been no definite article to drop in the first place. But if that were the case, there would have to be some clues in the context that John was using the word theos to speak of a heavenly being that was not fully divine. So the question becomes, what kind of God (or “god”) is John talking about in this context? Is he speaking of the one true God who created the heavens and the earth? In that case, theos was definite and dropped the definite article to show that it was the predicate. Or is he speaking about some other kind of heavenly being (“a god”) who is not the one true God? In that case, theos was indefinite and never had a definite article in the first place.

The context decides this question clearly. From the other uses of the word theos to mean “God” in vv. 1, 2, 6, 12, 13, et al., and from the opening words that recall Gen. 1:1 (“In the beginning”), it is clear that John is speaking of the one true God who created the heavens and the earth. That means that theos in v. 2 must be understood to refer to that same God as well.

[2] ‘The argument is found in a detailed, rather extensive attack on the doctrine of the Trinity: Should You Believe in the Trinity? (no author named; Brooklyn, N.Y.: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1989). This group apparently deems this booklet a significant statement of their position, for page 2 states, “First printing in English: 5,000,000 copies.” The booklet first advances the traditional argument that John 1:1 should be translated “a god” because of the absence on the definite article (p. 27). But then it later acknowledges that Colwell’s rule is relevant for John 1:1 (p. 28) and there admits that the context, not the absence of the definite article, determines whether we should translate “the Word was God” (definite) or “the Word was a god” (indefinite). Then it argues as follows: “...when the context requires it, translators may insert an indefinite article in front of the noun in this type of sentence structure. Does the context require an indefinite article at John 1:1? Yes, for the testimony of the entire Bible is that Jesus is not Almighty God” (p. 28).

We should note carefully the weakness of this argument: They admit that context is decisive, but then they quote not one shred of evidence from the context of John 1:1. Rather, they simply assert again their conclusion about “the entire Bible.” If they agree that this context is decisive, but they can find nothing in this context that supports their view, they have simply lost the argument. Therefore, having acknowledged Colwell’s rule, they still hold their view on John 1:1, but with no supporting evidence. To hold a view with no evidence to support it is simply irrationality.

The booklet as a whole will give an appearance of scholarly work to laypersons, since it quotes dozens of theologians and academic reference works (always without adequate documentation). However, many quotations are taken out of context and made to say something the authors never intended, and others are from liberal Catholic or Protestant scholars who themselves are questioning both the doctrine of the Trinity and the truthfulness of the Bible.

[3] The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ booklet Should You Believe in the Trinity? offers two explanations for John 20:28: (1) “To Thomas, Jesus was like ‘a god,’ especially in the miraculous circumstances that prompted his exclamation” (p. 29). But this explanation is unconvincing, because Thomas did not say, “You are like a god,” but rather called Jesus “my God.” The Greek text has the definite article (it cannot be translated “a god”) and is explicit: ho theos mon is not “a god of mine” but “my God.”
(2) The second explanation offered is that “Thomas may simply have made an emotional exclamation of astonishment, spoken to Jesus but directed to God” (ibid.). The second part of this sentence, “spoken to Jesus but directed to God,” is simply incoherent: it seems to mean, “spoken to Jesus but not spoken to Jesus,” which is not only self-contradictory, but also impossible: if Thomas is speaking to Jesus he is also directing his words to Jesus. The first part of this sentence, the claim that Thomas is really not calling Jesus “God,” but is merely swearing or uttering some involuntary words of exclamation, is without merit, for the verse makes it clear that Thomas was not speaking into the blue but was speaking directly to Jesus: “Thomas answered and said to Him, ‘My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28, NASB). And immediately both Jesus and John in his writing commend Thomas, certainly not for swearing but for believing in Jesus as his Lord and his God.

Jesus is God - D.A. Carson defends John 1:1 "the Word was God"

Several months ago I was "evangelized" by a Jehovah's Witness over the telephone. The whole event was rather miserable - you can read about it here.
After this event I freshened up my understanding of John 1 and was greatly helped by D.A. Carson's brief comments from his Pillar Commentary. I thought the same might be of some help to you should you get a phone call one day. You could just let the guy talk while you run to the computer, log on to this blog, and search Carson, Jehovah's Witness, John 1, Jesus is God, or something like that. Now that those phrases are all part of this post, it should be pretty easy to find!

More, the Word was God. That is the translation demanded by the Greek structure, theos en ho logos. 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. Even in this chapter, ‘you are the King of Israel’ (1:49) has no article before ‘King’ in the original (cf. also Jn. 8:39; 17:17; Rom. 14:17; Gal. 4:25; Rev. 1:20). It has been shown that it is common for a definite predicate noun in this construction, placed before the verb, to be anarthrous (that is, to have no article; ...). Indeed, the effect of ordering the words this way is to emphasize ‘God’, as if John were saying, ‘and the word was God!’ In fact, if John had included the article, he would have been saying something quite untrue. He would have been so identifying the Word with God that no divine being could exist apart from the Word. In that case, it would be nonsense to say (in the words of the second clause of this verse) that the Word was with God. The ‘Word does not by Himself make up the entire Godhead; nevertheless the divinity that belongs to the rest of the God­head belongs also to Him’ (Tasker, p. 45). ‘The Word was with God, God’s eternal Fellow; the Word was God, God’s own Self.’ (Edmund P. Clowney, ‘A Biblical Theology of Prayer’, in D. A. Carson (ed.), Teach Us to Pray: Prayer in the Bible and the World (Paternoster/Baker, 1990).

Here then are some of the crucial constituents of a full-blown doctrine of the Trinity. ‘John intends that the whole of his gospel shall be read in the light of this verse. The deeds and words of Jesus are the deeds and words of God; if this be not true the book is blasphemous’ (Barrett, p. 156).

- Taken from, The Gospel According to John: Pillar New Testament Commentary (Eerdmans, 1991: page 117).

You can purchase this commentary from Westminster Books here - on sale for an amazing $25.30 as of this posting date!! (Regularly $46.00)