Re: LET " US " MAKE MAN<<< IN OUR IMAGE AfTER OUR LIKENESS, GEN 1:26...
Here is my part of my teaching outline in John 1. Perhaps this will help answer your question.
Chapter One
I. The Theology of John Chapter One
In John’s prologue, it seems that the Holy Spirit is more interested in dealing with the function of the Second Position than with the question of his identity. Although his identity is well established in the first two verses, it does not seem to be the primary focus. When we consider the language of this text, it is imperative that we do not allow history to define terms for us. It is not important that we understand how Plato, Philo or any other historian or philosopher of antiquity used the word Logos so I will not be wasting anyone’s time by offering their perspectives of the term Logos nor should we concern ourselves with how this word was used in the culture of the time in which John penned this gospel. It is very important, that we allow the Holy Spirit to elevate the language to explain a concept beyond what the words alone can express. This is the nature of all revelation. Remember, the Holy Spirit is the author, not John.
The Logos of John’s prologue is not just some benign abstract of ideas or reason. It is the personification of an eternal function of deity. The Logos functions as part of a linguistic triad who links the will of God to the mind of man. Since man does not have the capacity to reach beyond the boundaries of the natural world and look into the unseen dimension of God he must rely upon God to supply him with information. The Logos connects man to an unseen world that transcends the scope of human observation by functioning as the conduit for divine communication. What man will learn about God will come only through the function of the Logos. This is true not just in the incarnation of the Word. It is true in every instance in scripture where God communicates directly with man. The Logos is the avenue of communication between two parties in two dimensions. That which will be communicated is of course the will of God. The incarnation collapses the distance between the two worlds and brings man into direct contact with God in a very personal way.
II. Critical Linguistic Analysis of Verse One
εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος . This is the most concise theological statement ever made and it is the way in which John arranges this given set of words in verse one that makes it so.
A. The use of the article in verse one.
NT Greek normally drops the article in a prepositional phrase so the absence of the article in a prepositional phrase is normal and doesn't mean anything. It is when we find examples such as John 1:1 were the article is included in a prepositional phrase that is unusual and should therefore grab our attention. It is the inclusion of the article that is significant. For example, the prepositional phrase "εν αρχη" (in the beginning) doesn't contain an article in the Greek, but is still properly translated "in the beginning." The prepositional phrase "προς τον θεον," (with God) however, does include the definite article (τον). Since it was proper NOT to include it, the inclusion here means something. Generally speaking, the inclusion of an article when one is not expected means you are being specific, in this case a particular individual who is God. In order to fully understand how that affects this verse, we need to go to the last clause. To understand the implications of the last clause, one needs to understand Greek syntax. Greek distinguishes the role a noun plays in a sentence by changing the case. Generally, if the noun is the subject, it is in the nominative spelling. If it is the direct object, it is in the accusative spelling. However, there is a strange class of verbs that do not take a direct object, they take a predicate. There are three verbs that do this in NT Greek. This means that you have two nouns that are in the nominative case, where one is the subject, and one is the predicate nominative. So if both are in the same case, how do you know which is the subject, and which is the predicate? Here are the rules:
1. If BOTH nouns have the article attached then, the first is the subject and the second is the predicate.
2. If NEITHER noun has the article attached, then the first is the subject and the second is the predicate.
3. If ONE has an article but the other does not, then the one with the article is the subject, and the one without the article is the predicate. So, in the phrase "και θεος ην ο λογος" (and the Word was God), we see that λογος has an article (o) and θεος does not. Thus “o λογος” is the subject, while θεος is the predicate. The Word was God. So, in the phrase "και θεος ην ο λογος", we see that λογος has an article (o) and θεος does not. Thus, o λογος is the subject, while θεος is the predicate. The Word was God. θεος as the predicate, describes what the λογος is. Who he is, is the Word. What he is, is God. When translated into English, because λογος is the subject, we have to put it first, so this is properly translated "And the word was God." There are three things this could mean depending on the construction.
a. The word was a lesser god than the Father (τον θεον in the previous clause).
b. The word was the father.
c. The word was fully God, but was NOT the Father.
So, how do we determine which is the meaning of the text?
B. Understanding the implications of this syntax.
1. If John had written the clause: και ο λογος ην θεος, it would mean "the word was A god." That is, the word was a lesser god than the father. The reason is that since both nouns contain the article, λογος is the subject, and is first, there is no grammatical reason to leave the article off of θεος, thus its absence must mean something since even if we gave it the article, it would still be the predicate. Therefore, the absence of the article would mean "A" god. In other words, since the inclusion of the article would not change the grammatical function of θεος, the exclusion of the article must therefore change the meaning of θεος. The absence of the article in a position where the inclusion of the article would not change the word's grammatical function would tell us there is a difference in specificity: the λογος is not the same individual as the Father. Further, if it does not have an article, the position of θεος at the end of the sentence would tell us there is a difference in emphasis (θεος is being “deemphasized”): λογος is less of a god than the Father. Thus, "και ο λογος ην θεος" can only mean "the Word was a god." John did NOT use this construction.
2. If John had written the clause: και ο λογος ην ο θεος , it would mean "the word was THE God." That is, the word was exactly the same person as the Father. Meaning there is only ONE person, not two and would then stand as a solid case against the idea of a trinity. The Father and the Son would then be nothing more than manifestations of the same God and NOT separate individuals. This would support the case for monotheism. The construction "και ο λογος ην θεος" then would demand that there is one God who simply appears at times in different forms. The inclusion of the article with θεος would make it specific: the λογος was exactly the same individual as the Father (the exact same θεος just mentioned in the previous clause). Since both nouns have the article, θεος is grammatically locked into occurring after λογος. If it moved in front of λογος, it would change its grammatical function, and become the subject. Thus, in this construction, the position of θεος would not mean anything. It must appear there. Thus, the clause "και ο λογος ην ο θεος" can only mean "Jesus was THE God (the exact same individual as the Father)." John did NOT use this construction.
3. By writing it: και θεος ην ο λογος, John does two critical and clearly indicated things.
a. He leaves the article off of θεος indicating that the Word is not the same individual as the father.
b. He places θεος to the front of the clause, giving extra emphasis to that word. By doing that, he makes it clear by the increase in emphasis that the absence of the article does not mean "lesser." Since the absence of the article does not mean "lesser god," it leaves us only one choice as to what it can mean: Not exactly the same individual as the "τον θεον" (the God) of the second clause, but every bit as much God as the "τον θεον" of the second clause. Thus, the absence of the article tells us the θεος of the third clause is not the same individual as the τον θεον of the second clause. The position tells us that the absence of the article does not mean "lesser." By placing θεος in a position of emphasis, John is doing the equivalent of bolding it, underlining it, and adding an exclamation point: "The Word was God!" Now, we see why John included the article in the prepositional phrase "προς τον θεον." He was being very specific. The Word is with a specific being called "The God" (τον θεον). In the next clause, he then lets us know that the Word was completely equal with "The God" in divinity, but through the careful use of the articles, has shown us that the Word is not the same individual as "The God" of the second clause.