Bible Studies
- Thread starter KeithAB
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Some discussions are in depth on a range of subjects. Others are hardly discussed at all. Throw out a bait and see what bites.
In depth or what is called systematic Bible study is my interest, and I sponsor several threads for that purpose:
Apologetics - shares answers to questions atheists ask, beginning philosophically because atheists disbelieve Scripture.
The Kerygma/Christian creed - distinguishes between the essential Gospel/GRFS and doctrines that build on that foundation.
Systematic Bible Study - discusses NT teachings that go beyond the milk of the Gospel regarding how Christians should live.
The Holy Spirit - considers how God relates to believers via His Word taught by His Spirit.
The Teachings of Jesus and the Teachings of Paul - list the distinct teachings of our Lord and his apostle.
The History of Beliefs - summarizes the history of events and key beliefs during each era.
Hermeneutics - harmonizes teachings in Scripture that may appear to be contradictory in the attempt to achieve unity.
Hope to see you around!
I see this, it is best to read the entire Bible, with the motive to know whether or not God loves us all or not!
Not to pick and choose verses out as man does that and uses verses from in e place to the other to get across their view and have others follow the to a pit of her, making money off of you too.
Just being real, read the Bible to know God does just love us all, even though we all fail
Believe, God, receive from God and learn new in God for you too
Welcome aboard, and see God loves us all. God himself will reveal the truth to you too personally as does to each sincere child of his. /This I know after many years of personal study, reading and rereading to understand this amazing love and mercy for us all through the done work of Son first
Hid one time willing death to reconcile us all to himself as reconciled, forgiven by his love and mercy in the last shed blood os Son for us all to either believe it or not yet. So choose and then move forward and learn as you go in mistakes made to learn new from and not get angry anymore over it. Simply ask God for the truth in all things and you will know and be free as in Col 2 tells us we are
chatGPT has more knowledge than all the members and scholars of the world combined. Use it.
It's knowledge of the Greek and Hebrew, etc and ability to exegite every word and every translation is crazy.
a digital bible app, and AI together can grow your knowledge exponentially.
You can ask AI for commentary, in depth analysis, examples, biblical references.
It's knowledge of the Greek and Hebrew, etc and ability to exegite every word and every translation is crazy.
a digital bible app, and AI together can grow your knowledge exponentially.
You can ask AI for commentary, in depth analysis, examples, biblical references.
---------------------------------
I prefer short answers but most do not ask good questions
I would appreciate an in-depth study of John's use of NT Greek grammar as used in John 1:1c.
Thankyou for all for responding. I am looking for a place to chat and discuss things in God's word. I like to use the 1611 KJV bible and the Strongs Concordance as my 2 main study tools. A bit of history of myself I am married 50 years, I got saved while in the Navy in 1976, I learned my bible study habits form some Christians on the ship with me. They started me out with an understanding of Isaiah 28 which teaches us that we need to study line by line so that we can have a good understand of who is speaking, who they are speaking to, and what is the subject. then we studied the parables, and on into more of the meat. I looked forward to getting together every night, there was always something new to learn. Here I am 50 years later still studying still learning.
I saw a post yesterday after I first singed up but did not have the chance to respond and cannot find it. They were talking about the first 3 verses of Genisus and how the world was created in confusion and chaos.
I do not believe that to be the case, God is not the author of confusion, His word goes forth and it accomplishes that which He wants it to do. 2nd Petter 3 talks about the 3 different ages; the one that was, the one that is and the one to come.
God comes to Job in the whirlwind in chapter 38 and asks Job some very pointed questions about where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth, God goes on to ask him more questions and to give him insight as to what took place in that time period when all the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy. This would have included Satan before his fall from grace as the covering cherub before he tried to take over the mercy seat. In chapters 40 and 41 He describes behemoth; I thank this was the time of the dinosaurs; before the rebellion in heaven when Satan got tired of guarding the mercy seat and wanted to sit in it and take Gods place. You can read about it in Ezekiel 28 and on throughout the rest of the book.
I wish I could find that comment again. Please give me your thoughts
I saw a post yesterday after I first singed up but did not have the chance to respond and cannot find it. They were talking about the first 3 verses of Genisus and how the world was created in confusion and chaos.
I do not believe that to be the case, God is not the author of confusion, His word goes forth and it accomplishes that which He wants it to do. 2nd Petter 3 talks about the 3 different ages; the one that was, the one that is and the one to come.
God comes to Job in the whirlwind in chapter 38 and asks Job some very pointed questions about where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth, God goes on to ask him more questions and to give him insight as to what took place in that time period when all the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy. This would have included Satan before his fall from grace as the covering cherub before he tried to take over the mercy seat. In chapters 40 and 41 He describes behemoth; I thank this was the time of the dinosaurs; before the rebellion in heaven when Satan got tired of guarding the mercy seat and wanted to sit in it and take Gods place. You can read about it in Ezekiel 28 and on throughout the rest of the book.
I wish I could find that comment again. Please give me your thoughts
I suggested several places to discuss GW in post #3, saying I hoped to see you there, but I haven't, so I'm not sure what you want.
John 1:1
In a beginning (Ἐν ἀρχῇ) was (ἦν) the Word ( ὁ λόγος), and the Word (καὶ ὁ λόγος) was (ἦν) with the God (πρὸς τὸν θεόν), and a god/divine/God (καὶ θεὸς) was ( ἦν) the Word (ὁ λόγος).
1a) "In a beginning (Ἐν ἀρχῇ) was (ἦν) the Word (ὁ λόγος)..."
Although en archE is anarthrous (i.e. has no definite article), it is regularly translated as "in the beginning". Probably "at the time of the beginning of the creation of the heavens and the earth", well before incarnating as a human, "the Word was already existing".
In a beginning (Ἐν ἀρχῇ) was (ἦν) the Word ( ὁ λόγος), and the Word (καὶ ὁ λόγος) was (ἦν) with the God (πρὸς τὸν θεόν), and a god/divine/God (καὶ θεὸς) was ( ἦν) the Word (ὁ λόγος).
1b) "... and the Word (καὶ ὁ λόγος) was (ἦν) with the God (πρὸς τὸν θεόν)..."
The KoinE Greek preposition pros means toward, and here takes the accusative case (ton theon), indicating direction toward God. The same idea is sometimes conveyed using kata + accusative, instead of pros.
Gen 32:30
And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: εἶδον γὰρ (for I have seen) θεὸν (God) πρόσωπον (face) πρὸς (to) πρόσωπον (face) καὶ (and), and my life is preserved.
1Co 13:12
For now we see through a glass, darkly; τότε δὲ (but then) πρόσωπον (face) πρὸς (to) πρόσωπον (face): now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
2Jo 1:12
Having many things to write unto you, I would not write with paper and ink: but I trust to come unto you, and speak face to face (στόμα πρὸς στόμα ; mouth toward mouth) , that our joy may be full.
3Jo 1:14
But I trust I shall shortly see thee, and we shall speak face to face (στόμα πρὸς στόμα ; mouth toward mouth). Peace be to thee. Our friends salute thee. Greet the friends by name.
So John is here indicating that an intimate face to face, mouth to mouth, communication between God and the Word was happening in the beginning.
1b) "... and the Word (καὶ ὁ λόγος) was (ἦν) with the God (πρὸς τὸν θεόν)..."
The KoinE Greek preposition pros means toward, and here takes the accusative case (ton theon), indicating direction toward God. The same idea is sometimes conveyed using kata + accusative, instead of pros.
Gen 32:30
And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: εἶδον γὰρ (for I have seen) θεὸν (God) πρόσωπον (face) πρὸς (to) πρόσωπον (face) καὶ (and), and my life is preserved.
1Co 13:12
For now we see through a glass, darkly; τότε δὲ (but then) πρόσωπον (face) πρὸς (to) πρόσωπον (face): now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
2Jo 1:12
Having many things to write unto you, I would not write with paper and ink: but I trust to come unto you, and speak face to face (στόμα πρὸς στόμα ; mouth toward mouth) , that our joy may be full.
3Jo 1:14
But I trust I shall shortly see thee, and we shall speak face to face (στόμα πρὸς στόμα ; mouth toward mouth). Peace be to thee. Our friends salute thee. Greet the friends by name.
So John is here indicating that an intimate face to face, mouth to mouth, communication between God and the Word was happening in the beginning.
In a beginning (Ἐν ἀρχῇ) was (ἦν) the Word ( ὁ λόγος), and the Word (καὶ ὁ λόγος) was (ἦν) with the God (πρὸς τὸν θεόν), and a god/divine/God (καὶ θεὸς) was ( ἦν) the Word (ὁ λόγος).
1c) "... and a god/divine/God (καὶ θεὸς) was ( ἦν) the Word (ὁ λόγος)."
Normally we would expect the subject (the arthrous noun) to precede its predicate (the anarthrous noun). But here the anarthrous predicate precedes the subject. Why?
There are several different ways that the nouns, god and word, could be arranged in Greek. Let's look at the possibilities and what they would mean.
i) ... and the Word (καὶ ὁ λόγος) was ( ἦν) the God ( θεὸς)
And the Word was God. This equates the subject and the predicate exactly. The Word was everything God was. This would support unitarianism. The Word was all of God. The Father and Holy Spirit could not be distinct Persons in God apart from the Word. But John does not write like that.
ii) ... and the Word (καὶ ὁ λόγος) was ( ἦν) a god/divine ( θεὸς).
An anarthrous noun can indicate that the noun is one of a general class. This clause would be ambiguous, meaning either, the Word was one among others in the class of beings called gods. Or, an anarthrous noun can indicate that the noun is intended to be understood adjectivally. In other words, The word was divine. John maybe wanted to avoid people inferring the former, that the Word was one god among all the different beings called "gods".
iii) .... and a Word (καὶ λόγος) was ( ἦν) a god/divine ( the θεὸς).
Compare "and a senator was an honourable man". This is equivalent to "and all senators used to be an honorable men, but not any more." But the Word is still divine, so John does not write that.
iv) ... and the God (καὶ ὁ θεὸς) was ( ἦν) the Word (ὁ λόγος). This would equates the God and the Word: God was everything the Word was. and support unitarianism like i) above, John does not write that.
v) ... and a god/divine (καὶ θεὸς) was ( ἦν) the Word (ὁ λόγος).
This placement of the anarthrous predicate first emphasises the predicate as a surprising revelation. Compare -
"And a canine was the hero of the story," vs. "And the hero of the story was a canine." (Canine meaning a dog) Or ,
"And canine was the hero of the story," vs. "And the hero of the story was canine." (Canine meaning having the attributes characteristic of a canine)
John is declaring a surprising fact - That the Word was... Divine! - having the attributes characteristic of THE Divine. It would not be remarkable that the Word who was face to face with God in the beginning was a god. So, John uses the only construction that infers that the Word had the same attributes as God, but was not all of God. The one structure that accommodates God being more that one Divine Person.
One could infer from John’s structure here that the Word was "a god!" and not "the God". But such a reading would not account for the position of the anarthrous predicate theos before its arthrous subject (ho logos, the Word". If John had intended that, he could have used -
... and the Word (καὶ ὁ λόγος) was ( ἦν) a god/divine ( θεὸς). But he didn’t. Si he most likely meant to convey that the Word had thedivine attributes characteristic of the Divinity he was face to face with in the beginning.
1c) "... and a god/divine/God (καὶ θεὸς) was ( ἦν) the Word (ὁ λόγος)."
Normally we would expect the subject (the arthrous noun) to precede its predicate (the anarthrous noun). But here the anarthrous predicate precedes the subject. Why?
There are several different ways that the nouns, god and word, could be arranged in Greek. Let's look at the possibilities and what they would mean.
i) ... and the Word (καὶ ὁ λόγος) was ( ἦν) the God ( θεὸς)
And the Word was God. This equates the subject and the predicate exactly. The Word was everything God was. This would support unitarianism. The Word was all of God. The Father and Holy Spirit could not be distinct Persons in God apart from the Word. But John does not write like that.
ii) ... and the Word (καὶ ὁ λόγος) was ( ἦν) a god/divine ( θεὸς).
An anarthrous noun can indicate that the noun is one of a general class. This clause would be ambiguous, meaning either, the Word was one among others in the class of beings called gods. Or, an anarthrous noun can indicate that the noun is intended to be understood adjectivally. In other words, The word was divine. John maybe wanted to avoid people inferring the former, that the Word was one god among all the different beings called "gods".
iii) .... and a Word (καὶ λόγος) was ( ἦν) a god/divine ( the θεὸς).
Compare "and a senator was an honourable man". This is equivalent to "and all senators used to be an honorable men, but not any more." But the Word is still divine, so John does not write that.
iv) ... and the God (καὶ ὁ θεὸς) was ( ἦν) the Word (ὁ λόγος). This would equates the God and the Word: God was everything the Word was. and support unitarianism like i) above, John does not write that.
v) ... and a god/divine (καὶ θεὸς) was ( ἦν) the Word (ὁ λόγος).
This placement of the anarthrous predicate first emphasises the predicate as a surprising revelation. Compare -
"And a canine was the hero of the story," vs. "And the hero of the story was a canine." (Canine meaning a dog) Or ,
"And canine was the hero of the story," vs. "And the hero of the story was canine." (Canine meaning having the attributes characteristic of a canine)
John is declaring a surprising fact - That the Word was... Divine! - having the attributes characteristic of THE Divine. It would not be remarkable that the Word who was face to face with God in the beginning was a god. So, John uses the only construction that infers that the Word had the same attributes as God, but was not all of God. The one structure that accommodates God being more that one Divine Person.
One could infer from John’s structure here that the Word was "a god!" and not "the God". But such a reading would not account for the position of the anarthrous predicate theos before its arthrous subject (ho logos, the Word". If John had intended that, he could have used -
... and the Word (καὶ ὁ λόγος) was ( ἦν) a god/divine ( θεὸς). But he didn’t. Si he most likely meant to convey that the Word had thedivine attributes characteristic of the Divinity he was face to face with in the beginning.
PT wrote above:
One could infer from John’s structure here that the Word was "a god!" and not "the God". But such a reading would not account for the position of the anarthrous predicate theos before its arthrous subject (ho logos, the Word". If John had intended that, he could have used -
... and the Word (καὶ ὁ λόγος) was ( ἦν) a god/divine ( θεὸς). But he didn’t. Si he most likely meant to convey that the Word had thedivine attributes characteristic of the Divinity he was face to face with in the beginning.
...........................................................................
For Grammatical Rules "Proving" the Trinity
John 1:1c - English translation: "The Word was God [or 'a god']."
- NT Greek: θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
---------------"god was the word."
The NT Greek word for "God" and "god" is theos (θεὸς). In the writings of the Gospel writers (including John) when an unmodified theos (the form used for subjects and predicate nouns) is accompanied by the article, "the" (ὁ [pronounced ho] in Greek), and has no added phrases (e.g., "the god of this world"), then it always refers to the only true God. - See DEF study.
But Jn 1:1c has an unmodified "theos" without the article. Therefore, even some trinitarian scholars are forced to admit that this passage may be literally translated as "the Word was a god"!
This includes W. E. Vine (An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words);
Dr. C. H. Dodd (director of the New English Bible project);
Murray J. Harris (Jesus as God);
Dr. Robert Young (Young's Concise Critical Bible Commentary); Rev. J. W. Wenham, The Elements of New Testament Greek.
Of course, being trinitarians, they often insist that the correct interpretation of such a literal translation must be, somehow, trinitarian.
The usual trinitarian interpretation for John 1:1c ("the Word was God") is based on the fact that an unmodified theos is used as a predicate noun (predicate nominative) without a definite article (anarthrous) and comes before the verb in the New Testament (NT) Greek text. When you find an anarthrous predicate noun in that position, some trinitarians will say, it is to be interpreted differently ("qualitative" or "definite": i.e., as though it actually had the definite article with it) from a predicate noun which normally comes after the verb.
Although such a "reversed" word order is extremely rare in English, it is common in NT Greek because word order within a sentence has little significance in NT Greek!
In fact, one of the first things a beginning student of NT Greek learns is that word order has very little, if any, significance as far as the meaning is concerned. For example, respected NT Greek authorities, Dr. Alfred Marshall and Prof. J. Gresham Machen tell us in their NT Greek primers that, unlike English, NT Greek does not use word order to convey meanings but instead uses the individual endings on each word (inflections).
"The English translation must be determined by observing the [Greek word] endings, not by observing the [word] order." - p. 27, New Testament Greek For Beginners, Machen, The Macmillan Co. (Cf., pp. 7, 22, New Testament Greek Primer, Marshall, Zondervan)
And in a later example illustrating predicate nouns Prof. Machen gave this example: “ho apostolos anthropos estin [word-for-word translation: ‘the apostle man is’],” and he translated that sentence (which has an anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb as in John 1:1c) as “the apostle is a man.” - p. 50, New Testament Greek For Beginners, The Macmillan Company, 1951.
And In Exercise 8 (p.44) of the Rev. Dr. Alfred Marshall’s New Testament Greek Primer, the noted trinitarian scholar asks us to translate phoneus esti into English. (Notice that the predicate noun [phoneus, ‘murderer’] precedes the verb [esti, ‘he is’].) The answer is given on p. 153 where Dr. Marshall translates it as “He is a murderer.” – Zondervan Publishing House, 1962.
And Prof. N. Clayton Croy on p. 35 of his A Primer of Biblical Greek translates prophetes estin ho anthropos (literally, “prophet is the man”) as “The man is a prophet.” - Eerdmans Publ. Co., 1999. (Emphasis, as usual, is mine.)
In Learn New Testament Greek by John H. Dobson we find on p. 64 two interesting Greek clauses and their translations by Dobson: the clauses are: (1) prophetes estin and (2) prophetes en. In both of these the predicate noun (prophetes) comes before the verb (‘he is’ and ‘he was’).
Here is how Dobson has translated these two clauses: “He is a prophet.” And “He was a prophet.” – Baker Book House, 1989.
Also see p. 148, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, where trinitarians Dana and Mantey translate an example they admit is parallel to John 1:1c as “And the place was a market,” The Macmillan Company.
And noted trinitarian NT scholar, A.T. Robertson, when analyzing John 18:37b where the predicate noun “king” comes before the verb [“you say that king am I”], prefers this translation: “Yes, because I am a king.” - p. 294, Vol. 5, Word Pictures in the New Testament.
However, if truth means anything to us, instead of rejecting the trinitarian-devised John 1:1 rules strictly on the basis of the wishful interpretations of these NT Greek authorities, it would be much fairer and more certain to examine all the usages of a predicate noun found before its verb in John's writings that are as close to the example of John 1:1 as we can find.
(to be continued)
One could infer from John’s structure here that the Word was "a god!" and not "the God". But such a reading would not account for the position of the anarthrous predicate theos before its arthrous subject (ho logos, the Word". If John had intended that, he could have used -
... and the Word (καὶ ὁ λόγος) was ( ἦν) a god/divine ( θεὸς). But he didn’t. Si he most likely meant to convey that the Word had thedivine attributes characteristic of the Divinity he was face to face with in the beginning.
...........................................................................
For Grammatical Rules "Proving" the Trinity
John 1:1c - English translation: "The Word was God [or 'a god']."
- NT Greek: θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
---------------"god was the word."
The NT Greek word for "God" and "god" is theos (θεὸς). In the writings of the Gospel writers (including John) when an unmodified theos (the form used for subjects and predicate nouns) is accompanied by the article, "the" (ὁ [pronounced ho] in Greek), and has no added phrases (e.g., "the god of this world"), then it always refers to the only true God. - See DEF study.
But Jn 1:1c has an unmodified "theos" without the article. Therefore, even some trinitarian scholars are forced to admit that this passage may be literally translated as "the Word was a god"!
This includes W. E. Vine (An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words);
Dr. C. H. Dodd (director of the New English Bible project);
Murray J. Harris (Jesus as God);
Dr. Robert Young (Young's Concise Critical Bible Commentary); Rev. J. W. Wenham, The Elements of New Testament Greek.
Of course, being trinitarians, they often insist that the correct interpretation of such a literal translation must be, somehow, trinitarian.
The usual trinitarian interpretation for John 1:1c ("the Word was God") is based on the fact that an unmodified theos is used as a predicate noun (predicate nominative) without a definite article (anarthrous) and comes before the verb in the New Testament (NT) Greek text. When you find an anarthrous predicate noun in that position, some trinitarians will say, it is to be interpreted differently ("qualitative" or "definite": i.e., as though it actually had the definite article with it) from a predicate noun which normally comes after the verb.
Although such a "reversed" word order is extremely rare in English, it is common in NT Greek because word order within a sentence has little significance in NT Greek!
In fact, one of the first things a beginning student of NT Greek learns is that word order has very little, if any, significance as far as the meaning is concerned. For example, respected NT Greek authorities, Dr. Alfred Marshall and Prof. J. Gresham Machen tell us in their NT Greek primers that, unlike English, NT Greek does not use word order to convey meanings but instead uses the individual endings on each word (inflections).
"The English translation must be determined by observing the [Greek word] endings, not by observing the [word] order." - p. 27, New Testament Greek For Beginners, Machen, The Macmillan Co. (Cf., pp. 7, 22, New Testament Greek Primer, Marshall, Zondervan)
And in a later example illustrating predicate nouns Prof. Machen gave this example: “ho apostolos anthropos estin [word-for-word translation: ‘the apostle man is’],” and he translated that sentence (which has an anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb as in John 1:1c) as “the apostle is a man.” - p. 50, New Testament Greek For Beginners, The Macmillan Company, 1951.
And In Exercise 8 (p.44) of the Rev. Dr. Alfred Marshall’s New Testament Greek Primer, the noted trinitarian scholar asks us to translate phoneus esti into English. (Notice that the predicate noun [phoneus, ‘murderer’] precedes the verb [esti, ‘he is’].) The answer is given on p. 153 where Dr. Marshall translates it as “He is a murderer.” – Zondervan Publishing House, 1962.
And Prof. N. Clayton Croy on p. 35 of his A Primer of Biblical Greek translates prophetes estin ho anthropos (literally, “prophet is the man”) as “The man is a prophet.” - Eerdmans Publ. Co., 1999. (Emphasis, as usual, is mine.)
In Learn New Testament Greek by John H. Dobson we find on p. 64 two interesting Greek clauses and their translations by Dobson: the clauses are: (1) prophetes estin and (2) prophetes en. In both of these the predicate noun (prophetes) comes before the verb (‘he is’ and ‘he was’).
Here is how Dobson has translated these two clauses: “He is a prophet.” And “He was a prophet.” – Baker Book House, 1989.
Also see p. 148, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, where trinitarians Dana and Mantey translate an example they admit is parallel to John 1:1c as “And the place was a market,” The Macmillan Company.
And noted trinitarian NT scholar, A.T. Robertson, when analyzing John 18:37b where the predicate noun “king” comes before the verb [“you say that king am I”], prefers this translation: “Yes, because I am a king.” - p. 294, Vol. 5, Word Pictures in the New Testament.
However, if truth means anything to us, instead of rejecting the trinitarian-devised John 1:1 rules strictly on the basis of the wishful interpretations of these NT Greek authorities, it would be much fairer and more certain to examine all the usages of a predicate noun found before its verb in John's writings that are as close to the example of John 1:1 as we can find.
(to be continued)
Grammar as used in John 1:1c (continued)
There are known exceptions to the use of the article with a nominative noun:
“The article … is sometimes missing, especially after prepositions … and with a genitive which depends on an anarthrous noun (especially a predicate noun).” - Blass & Debrunner, p. 133, 135, University of Chicago Press, 1961.
“#1146. A substantive followed by an attributive genitive and forming with it a compound idea, usually omits the article.” - Smyth’s A Greek Grammar for Colleges.
Since John 1:1c does not have its predicate noun with a “prepositional” construction anyway, it is necessarily a part of proper research to select parallel examples (i.e., without “prepositional” constructions) in any attempt to show a similar effect as claimed for John 1:1c.
So when we examine all of John's uses of John's constructions which are parallel to John 1:1c, we need to be sure they do not contain exceptions.
To be most certain, we need such proper examples to have a subject (a noun which is "doing" the verb) coming after the verb and a predicate noun which has no article coming before the verb in the NT Greek exactly as found in John 1:1c.
In the following list if the p.n. has no article, it has "an." (anarthrous) written before it. "Art." means the article "the" is with it (articular). Improper examples have "prep.," "poss. pronoun" (possessive pronoun modifier), "abstract," "numeral," etc. written after them.
"Prep." indicates that the p.n. has a phrase joined to it (prepositional). "Abstract #": the p.n. is abstract and/or an indeterminate amount (a 'non-count' noun - see DEF 14-15). "No subject" means the subject is clearly understood, but only by the verb form used. "Participle" means the subject is not present and is only imperfectly identified by a participle ("having," "sleeping," etc.).
All Verses by John Where the Predicate Noun Precedes Its Verb
an. Jn 1:1 (verse under study)
an. John 1:12 - prep.
an. Jn 1:14 - plural (amount)
art. Jn 1:21
an. Jn 1:49 (b) - prep.
an. Jn 2:9 - accusative, not p.n
an. Jn 3:6 (a) - plural (amount)
an. Jn 3:6 (b) - abstract #
an. Jn 3:29 - participle
-an. Jn 4:9 (a)
an. Jn 4:9 (b) (adj.?)
#an. Jn 4:19
an. Jn 4:24 - abstr. # - NO VERB
an. Jn 5:27 - prep.
art. Jn 6:51 (b) - prep.
an. Jn 6:63 - abstract
-an. Jn 6:70
an. Jn 8:31 - prep.
an. Jn 8:33 - prep.
an. Jn 8:34 - prep.
an. Jn 8:37 - prep.
an. Jn 8:39 - prep.
an. Jn 8:42 - prep.
-an. Jn 8:44 (a)
an. Jn 8:44 (b) - no subject
#an. Jn 8:48
an. Jn 8:54 (a) - abstract
an. Jn 8:54 (b) - prep.
an. Jn 9:5 - prep
an. Jn 9:8 (a) - no subject
an. Jn 9:17 - no subject
-an. Jn 9:24
an. Jn 9:25 - no subject
an. Jn 9:27 - prep.
an. Jn 9:28 (a) - prep.
-an. Jn 10:1
an. Jn 10:2 - prep.
an. Jn 10:8 - plural
an. Jn 10:13 - no subject
art. Jn 10:21 - prep.
-an. Jn 10:33
an. Jn 10:34 - plural
an. Jn 10:36 - prep.
an. Jn 11:49 - prep.
an. Jn 11:51 - prep.
an. Jn 12:6 - prep
an. Jn 12:36 - prep.
an. Jn 12:50 - abstract
an. Jn 13:35 - (poss. pronoun)
art. Jn 15:1 (b)
an. Jn 15:14 - prep.
an. Jn 17:17 - abstract
an. Jn 18:26 - prep.
-an. Jn 18:35
#an. Jn 18:37 (a)
?an. Jn 18:37 (b) - no subject (except in TR and 1991 Byzantine text)
an. Jn 19:21 - prep.an.
art. Jn 20:15
art. Jn 21:7 (a)
art. Jn 21:7 (b)
an. 1 Jn 1:5 (b) - abstract #
an. 1 Jn 2:2 - prep.
an. 1 Jn 2:4 - participle
an. 1 Jn 3:2 - prep.
an. 1 Jn 3:15 - participle
an. 1 Jn 4:8 - abstract
an. 1 Jn 4:16 - abstract
an. 1 Jn 4:20 - no subject
an. 1 Jn 5:17 - abstract
art. 2 Jn :6 (b)
an. Rev. 1:20 (a) - prep.
an. Rev. 1:20 (b) - numeral
an. Rev. 2:9 - accusative, not p.n.
an. Rev. 3:9 - accusative, not p.n.
an. Rev. 13:18 - prep.
an. Rev. 14:4 - no subject/plural
an. Rev. 17:9 - numeral
an. Rev. 17:10 - numeral
an. Rev. 17:11 - numeral
an. Rev. 17:12 - numeral
an. Rev. 17:14 - prep.
an. Rev. 17:15 - plural
an. Rev. 18:7 - no subject
art. Rev. 19:8 - prep.
art. Rev. 19:9 - prep.
an. Rev. 19:10 (a) - prep.
art. Rev. 20:14 - numeral
an. Rev. 21:3 - prep.
an. Rev. 21:22 - prep.
art. Rev. 21:23 - prep. - NO VERB
an. Rev. 22:9 - prep.
_______________________
90 total (excluding John 1:1c)
The 3 (or 4 if we use the Received Text or the 1991 Byzantine text) closest examples to Jn 1:1c have the anarthrous predicate noun before the verb and the subject after the verb. These 3 proper examples are shown above with a numeral sign (#) before them. And they also exclude personal names, abstract nouns, numerals, prepositional constructions (prep.), "time/season" nouns, clauses in which the subject is missing [but clearly understood by the verb], clauses in which the subject is only uncertainly "represented" by a participle ["having," "stealing," "hating," etc.], plurals [especially plural/amount: 'blood,' 'wine,' 'flesh,' 'fat,' 'honey,' etc.]. These are proper exceptions to the rule. They must not be included among examples where the rule is being properly used.
Here, then, are ALL the proper examples (truly comparable to Jn 1:1c) from the writings of John (W and H text)[2] for an honest examination of "Colwell's Rule" (or any related rules, including Harner's "qualitative" rule, concerning the simple, unmodified anarthrous predicate noun coming before the verb):
H,W 1. John 4:19 - ("a prophet") - all Bible translations
H,W 2. John 8:48 - ("a Samaritan") - all translations
H,W 3. John 18:37 (a) - ("a king") - all
[H,W 4. John 18:37 (b) - ("a king") - from the Received Text (TR) and the 1991 Byzantine text]
H: Also found in Harner's list of "Colwell Constructions"
W: Also found in Wallace's list of "Colwell Constructions"
These are all indefinite nouns. All modern trinitarian Bible translations I have examined render them as indefinite!
(tbc)
There are known exceptions to the use of the article with a nominative noun:
“The article … is sometimes missing, especially after prepositions … and with a genitive which depends on an anarthrous noun (especially a predicate noun).” - Blass & Debrunner, p. 133, 135, University of Chicago Press, 1961.
“#1146. A substantive followed by an attributive genitive and forming with it a compound idea, usually omits the article.” - Smyth’s A Greek Grammar for Colleges.
Since John 1:1c does not have its predicate noun with a “prepositional” construction anyway, it is necessarily a part of proper research to select parallel examples (i.e., without “prepositional” constructions) in any attempt to show a similar effect as claimed for John 1:1c.
So when we examine all of John's uses of John's constructions which are parallel to John 1:1c, we need to be sure they do not contain exceptions.
To be most certain, we need such proper examples to have a subject (a noun which is "doing" the verb) coming after the verb and a predicate noun which has no article coming before the verb in the NT Greek exactly as found in John 1:1c.
In the following list if the p.n. has no article, it has "an." (anarthrous) written before it. "Art." means the article "the" is with it (articular). Improper examples have "prep.," "poss. pronoun" (possessive pronoun modifier), "abstract," "numeral," etc. written after them.
"Prep." indicates that the p.n. has a phrase joined to it (prepositional). "Abstract #": the p.n. is abstract and/or an indeterminate amount (a 'non-count' noun - see DEF 14-15). "No subject" means the subject is clearly understood, but only by the verb form used. "Participle" means the subject is not present and is only imperfectly identified by a participle ("having," "sleeping," etc.).
All Verses by John Where the Predicate Noun Precedes Its Verb
an. Jn 1:1 (verse under study)
an. John 1:12 - prep.
an. Jn 1:14 - plural (amount)
art. Jn 1:21
an. Jn 1:49 (b) - prep.
an. Jn 2:9 - accusative, not p.n
an. Jn 3:6 (a) - plural (amount)
an. Jn 3:6 (b) - abstract #
an. Jn 3:29 - participle
-an. Jn 4:9 (a)
an. Jn 4:9 (b) (adj.?)
#an. Jn 4:19
an. Jn 4:24 - abstr. # - NO VERB
an. Jn 5:27 - prep.
art. Jn 6:51 (b) - prep.
an. Jn 6:63 - abstract
-an. Jn 6:70
an. Jn 8:31 - prep.
an. Jn 8:33 - prep.
an. Jn 8:34 - prep.
an. Jn 8:37 - prep.
an. Jn 8:39 - prep.
an. Jn 8:42 - prep.
-an. Jn 8:44 (a)
an. Jn 8:44 (b) - no subject
#an. Jn 8:48
an. Jn 8:54 (a) - abstract
an. Jn 8:54 (b) - prep.
an. Jn 9:5 - prep
an. Jn 9:8 (a) - no subject
an. Jn 9:17 - no subject
-an. Jn 9:24
an. Jn 9:25 - no subject
an. Jn 9:27 - prep.
an. Jn 9:28 (a) - prep.
-an. Jn 10:1
an. Jn 10:2 - prep.
an. Jn 10:8 - plural
an. Jn 10:13 - no subject
art. Jn 10:21 - prep.
-an. Jn 10:33
an. Jn 10:34 - plural
an. Jn 10:36 - prep.
an. Jn 11:49 - prep.
an. Jn 11:51 - prep.
an. Jn 12:6 - prep
an. Jn 12:36 - prep.
an. Jn 12:50 - abstract
an. Jn 13:35 - (poss. pronoun)
art. Jn 15:1 (b)
an. Jn 15:14 - prep.
an. Jn 17:17 - abstract
an. Jn 18:26 - prep.
-an. Jn 18:35
#an. Jn 18:37 (a)
?an. Jn 18:37 (b) - no subject (except in TR and 1991 Byzantine text)
an. Jn 19:21 - prep.an.
art. Jn 20:15
art. Jn 21:7 (a)
art. Jn 21:7 (b)
an. 1 Jn 1:5 (b) - abstract #
an. 1 Jn 2:2 - prep.
an. 1 Jn 2:4 - participle
an. 1 Jn 3:2 - prep.
an. 1 Jn 3:15 - participle
an. 1 Jn 4:8 - abstract
an. 1 Jn 4:16 - abstract
an. 1 Jn 4:20 - no subject
an. 1 Jn 5:17 - abstract
art. 2 Jn :6 (b)
an. Rev. 1:20 (a) - prep.
an. Rev. 1:20 (b) - numeral
an. Rev. 2:9 - accusative, not p.n.
an. Rev. 3:9 - accusative, not p.n.
an. Rev. 13:18 - prep.
an. Rev. 14:4 - no subject/plural
an. Rev. 17:9 - numeral
an. Rev. 17:10 - numeral
an. Rev. 17:11 - numeral
an. Rev. 17:12 - numeral
an. Rev. 17:14 - prep.
an. Rev. 17:15 - plural
an. Rev. 18:7 - no subject
art. Rev. 19:8 - prep.
art. Rev. 19:9 - prep.
an. Rev. 19:10 (a) - prep.
art. Rev. 20:14 - numeral
an. Rev. 21:3 - prep.
an. Rev. 21:22 - prep.
art. Rev. 21:23 - prep. - NO VERB
an. Rev. 22:9 - prep.
_______________________
90 total (excluding John 1:1c)
The 3 (or 4 if we use the Received Text or the 1991 Byzantine text) closest examples to Jn 1:1c have the anarthrous predicate noun before the verb and the subject after the verb. These 3 proper examples are shown above with a numeral sign (#) before them. And they also exclude personal names, abstract nouns, numerals, prepositional constructions (prep.), "time/season" nouns, clauses in which the subject is missing [but clearly understood by the verb], clauses in which the subject is only uncertainly "represented" by a participle ["having," "stealing," "hating," etc.], plurals [especially plural/amount: 'blood,' 'wine,' 'flesh,' 'fat,' 'honey,' etc.]. These are proper exceptions to the rule. They must not be included among examples where the rule is being properly used.
Here, then, are ALL the proper examples (truly comparable to Jn 1:1c) from the writings of John (W and H text)[2] for an honest examination of "Colwell's Rule" (or any related rules, including Harner's "qualitative" rule, concerning the simple, unmodified anarthrous predicate noun coming before the verb):
H,W 1. John 4:19 - ("a prophet") - all Bible translations
H,W 2. John 8:48 - ("a Samaritan") - all translations
H,W 3. John 18:37 (a) - ("a king") - all
[H,W 4. John 18:37 (b) - ("a king") - from the Received Text (TR) and the 1991 Byzantine text]
H: Also found in Harner's list of "Colwell Constructions"
W: Also found in Wallace's list of "Colwell Constructions"
These are all indefinite nouns. All modern trinitarian Bible translations I have examined render them as indefinite!
(tbc)
If we wish to supply more examples, we must include some which are less perfect than these three (or four). The best we can do is to include ALL those constructions (Westcott and Hort text) which comply with the other qualifications above but which, unlike Jn 1:1c, have the subject noun before the verb also. Since trinitarian scholars themselves include such examples, they should not object if we also include ALL such examples.
When we add those constructions to our list, we have:
H.....1. John 4:9 (a) - indefinite ("a Jew") - all translations
H,W...2. John 4:19 - indefinite ("a prophet") - all
H,W...3. John 6:70 - indefinite ("a devil"/"a slanderer") - all
H,W...4. John 8:44 (a) - indefinite ("a mankiller/murderer") - al
H,W...5. John 8:48 - indefinite ("a Samaritan") - all
H,W...6. John 9:24 - indefinite ("a sinner") - all
H,W...7. John 10:1 - indefinite ("a thief and a plunderer") - all
H,W...8. John 10:33 - indefinite ("a man") - all
H,W...9. John 18:35 - indefinite ("a Jew") - all
H,W...10. John 18:37 (a) - indefinite ("a king") - all
[H,W..11. John 18:37 (b) - indefinite ("a king") - Received Text and 1991 Byzantine text]
These are all indefinite nouns (not definite, not "qualitative"). All trinitarian Bible translations I have examined render them as indefinite! We should have enough examples to satisfy the most critical (but honest) scholar now. (And I wouldn't strongly resist the use of the "no subject" examples above which clearly intend the subject as being a pronoun included with the verb, e.g., "[he] is," which would then bring our total of ALL proper examples to nearly 20.)
These would include:
H,W 12. Jn 8:44 (b) - indefinite (“a liar”) - all
H,W 13. Jn 9:8 (a) - indefinite (“a beggar”) - all
H,W 14. Jn 9:17 - indefinite (“a prophet”) - all
H,W 15. Jn 9:25 - indefinite (“a sinner”) - all
H,W 16. Jn 10:13 - indefinite (“a hireling/hired hand”) - all
H,W 17. Jn 12:6 - indefinite (“a thief”) - all
18. 1 Jn 4:20 - indefinite (“a liar”) - all
And, possibly,
H,W 19. 1 John 2:4 - liar (he) is.
So when all the proper (those most closely equivalent to the actual usage found at John 1:1c) examples found in John's writings are examined in various trinitarian Bibles (KJV, NASB, RSV, NIV, etc.), we find they are always translated with indefinite concrete nouns such as "you are a prophet" (Jn 4:19) which perfectly corresponds with a rendering of John 1:1c as "The Word was a god"!
Such a rendering is not only a grammatical probability (perhaps a certainty) as we have seen above, but it is not such a surprising concept as many modern members of Christendom might think. Other righteous persons and faithful angels have been called "gods" or "a god" by the inspired Bible writers - see the DEF (sections 13-19); TRUE (f.n. #1); and BOWGOD studies.
When we add those constructions to our list, we have:
H.....1. John 4:9 (a) - indefinite ("a Jew") - all translations
H,W...2. John 4:19 - indefinite ("a prophet") - all
H,W...3. John 6:70 - indefinite ("a devil"/"a slanderer") - all
H,W...4. John 8:44 (a) - indefinite ("a mankiller/murderer") - al
H,W...5. John 8:48 - indefinite ("a Samaritan") - all
H,W...6. John 9:24 - indefinite ("a sinner") - all
H,W...7. John 10:1 - indefinite ("a thief and a plunderer") - all
H,W...8. John 10:33 - indefinite ("a man") - all
H,W...9. John 18:35 - indefinite ("a Jew") - all
H,W...10. John 18:37 (a) - indefinite ("a king") - all
[H,W..11. John 18:37 (b) - indefinite ("a king") - Received Text and 1991 Byzantine text]
These are all indefinite nouns (not definite, not "qualitative"). All trinitarian Bible translations I have examined render them as indefinite! We should have enough examples to satisfy the most critical (but honest) scholar now. (And I wouldn't strongly resist the use of the "no subject" examples above which clearly intend the subject as being a pronoun included with the verb, e.g., "[he] is," which would then bring our total of ALL proper examples to nearly 20.)
These would include:
H,W 12. Jn 8:44 (b) - indefinite (“a liar”) - all
H,W 13. Jn 9:8 (a) - indefinite (“a beggar”) - all
H,W 14. Jn 9:17 - indefinite (“a prophet”) - all
H,W 15. Jn 9:25 - indefinite (“a sinner”) - all
H,W 16. Jn 10:13 - indefinite (“a hireling/hired hand”) - all
H,W 17. Jn 12:6 - indefinite (“a thief”) - all
18. 1 Jn 4:20 - indefinite (“a liar”) - all
And, possibly,
H,W 19. 1 John 2:4 - liar (he) is.
So when all the proper (those most closely equivalent to the actual usage found at John 1:1c) examples found in John's writings are examined in various trinitarian Bibles (KJV, NASB, RSV, NIV, etc.), we find they are always translated with indefinite concrete nouns such as "you are a prophet" (Jn 4:19) which perfectly corresponds with a rendering of John 1:1c as "The Word was a god"!
Such a rendering is not only a grammatical probability (perhaps a certainty) as we have seen above, but it is not such a surprising concept as many modern members of Christendom might think. Other righteous persons and faithful angels have been called "gods" or "a god" by the inspired Bible writers - see the DEF (sections 13-19); TRUE (f.n. #1); and BOWGOD studies.
Some of the many trinitarian sources which admit that the Bible actually describes men who represent God (judges, Israelite kings, etc.) and God's angels as gods include:
1. Young's Analytical Concordance of the Bible, "Hints and Helps...," Eerdmans, 1978 reprint;
2. Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, #430, Hebrew and Chaldee Dict., Abingdon, 1974;
3. New Bible Dictionary, p. 1133, Tyndale House Publ., 1984;
4. Today's Dictionary of the Bible, p. 208, Bethany House Publ., 1982;
5. Hastings' A Dictionary of the Bible, p. 217, Vol. 2;
6. The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon, p. 43, Hendrickson publ.,1979;
7. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, #2316 (4.), Thayer, Baker Book House, 1984 printing;
8. The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, p. 132, Vol. 1; and p. 1265, Vol. 2, Eerdmans, 1984;
9. The NIV Study Bible, footnotes for Ps. 45:6; Ps. 82:1, 6; and Jn 10:34; Zondervan, 1985;
10. New American Bible, St. Joseph ed., footnote for Ps. 45:7, 1970 ed.;
11. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures, Vol. 5, pp. 188-189;
12. William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, Vol. 1, pp. 317, 324, Nelson Publ., 1980 printing;
13. Murray J. Harris, Jesus As God, p. 202, Baker Book House, 1992;
14. William Barclay, The Gospel of John, V. 2, Daily Study Bible Series, pp. 77, 78, Westminster Press, 1975;
15. The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible (John 10:34 and Ps. 82:6);
16. The Fourfold Gospel (Note for John 10:35);
17. Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible - Jamieson, Fausset, Brown
(John 10:34-36);
18. Matthew Henry Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible (Ps. 82:6-8 and John 10:35);
19. John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible (Ps. 82:1).
20. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ('Little Kittel'), - p. 328, Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1985.
21. The Expositor's Greek Testament, pp. 794-795, Vol. 1, Eerdmans Publishing Co.
22. The Amplified Bible, Ps. 82:1, 6 and John 10:34, 35, Zondervan Publ., 1965.
23. Barnes' Notes on the New Testament, John 10:34, 35.
24. B. W. Johnson's People's New Testament, John 10:34-36.
(also John 10:34, 35 - CEV: TEV; GodsWord; The Message; NLT; NIRV; Pastor Jon Courson, The Gospel According to John.)
And, of course the highly respected and highly popular Jewish writer, Philo, had the same understanding for "God"/"a god" about the same time the NT was written.
And many of the earliest Christians like the highly respected NT scholar Origen (and others including Tertullian; Justin Martyr; Hippolytus; Clement of Alexandria; Theophilus; the writer of "The Epistle to Diognetus" - Staniforth, p. 181; and even super-trinitarians Athanasius and St. Augustine) also had this understanding for "a god." And, as we saw above, many respected NT scholars of this century agree. (For example, Ernst Haenchen tells us in his commentary on the Gospel of John:
"It was quite possible in Jewish and Christian monotheism to speak of divine beings that existed alongside and under God but were not identical with him. Phil 2:6-10 proves that. In that passage Paul depicts just such a divine being, who later became man in Jesus Christ". - John 1, translated by R. W. Funk, 1984, pp. 109, 110, Fortress Press.)
1. Young's Analytical Concordance of the Bible, "Hints and Helps...," Eerdmans, 1978 reprint;
2. Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, #430, Hebrew and Chaldee Dict., Abingdon, 1974;
3. New Bible Dictionary, p. 1133, Tyndale House Publ., 1984;
4. Today's Dictionary of the Bible, p. 208, Bethany House Publ., 1982;
5. Hastings' A Dictionary of the Bible, p. 217, Vol. 2;
6. The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon, p. 43, Hendrickson publ.,1979;
7. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, #2316 (4.), Thayer, Baker Book House, 1984 printing;
8. The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, p. 132, Vol. 1; and p. 1265, Vol. 2, Eerdmans, 1984;
9. The NIV Study Bible, footnotes for Ps. 45:6; Ps. 82:1, 6; and Jn 10:34; Zondervan, 1985;
10. New American Bible, St. Joseph ed., footnote for Ps. 45:7, 1970 ed.;
11. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures, Vol. 5, pp. 188-189;
12. William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, Vol. 1, pp. 317, 324, Nelson Publ., 1980 printing;
13. Murray J. Harris, Jesus As God, p. 202, Baker Book House, 1992;
14. William Barclay, The Gospel of John, V. 2, Daily Study Bible Series, pp. 77, 78, Westminster Press, 1975;
15. The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible (John 10:34 and Ps. 82:6);
16. The Fourfold Gospel (Note for John 10:35);
17. Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible - Jamieson, Fausset, Brown
(John 10:34-36);
18. Matthew Henry Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible (Ps. 82:6-8 and John 10:35);
19. John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible (Ps. 82:1).
20. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ('Little Kittel'), - p. 328, Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1985.
21. The Expositor's Greek Testament, pp. 794-795, Vol. 1, Eerdmans Publishing Co.
22. The Amplified Bible, Ps. 82:1, 6 and John 10:34, 35, Zondervan Publ., 1965.
23. Barnes' Notes on the New Testament, John 10:34, 35.
24. B. W. Johnson's People's New Testament, John 10:34-36.
(also John 10:34, 35 - CEV: TEV; GodsWord; The Message; NLT; NIRV; Pastor Jon Courson, The Gospel According to John.)
And, of course the highly respected and highly popular Jewish writer, Philo, had the same understanding for "God"/"a god" about the same time the NT was written.
And many of the earliest Christians like the highly respected NT scholar Origen (and others including Tertullian; Justin Martyr; Hippolytus; Clement of Alexandria; Theophilus; the writer of "The Epistle to Diognetus" - Staniforth, p. 181; and even super-trinitarians Athanasius and St. Augustine) also had this understanding for "a god." And, as we saw above, many respected NT scholars of this century agree. (For example, Ernst Haenchen tells us in his commentary on the Gospel of John:
"It was quite possible in Jewish and Christian monotheism to speak of divine beings that existed alongside and under God but were not identical with him. Phil 2:6-10 proves that. In that passage Paul depicts just such a divine being, who later became man in Jesus Christ". - John 1, translated by R. W. Funk, 1984, pp. 109, 110, Fortress Press.)
here is what I am seeing
Jesus is the word that came here to earth to first reconcile us all to himself. To present each and everyone to Father as if never sinned, that is done by Son first for us all, wow, woe is me, Isaiah 6:1-7. John 19:30, Hebrews 7:11-12, Hebrews 9:14-17, Col 1:21-23 and so many more.
Father in Son, Son as the way, the truth and new life to get given us, and Father does this to each person in sincere belief Son is risen for them to be new in the new life given them from/in Father's Spirit and Truth, for them, the Holy Spirit
John 4:23-24 he is risen alive, no more in flesh and blood as he was to save us through the resurrection of himself by Father approving it.
Thank you Father I am seeking you, I am trusting you, thank you, I may not see right now, yet I trust all your mysterious ways, thank you. How, you take things good or bad and make a way for us all, I at least see this and thank you, seeing what is meant now from you fulfilling Jeremiah 29:11 for us all those that choose to stand in belief to you, even through any and all adversities, to praise you even in any troubles anyone might be going through or have gone through and might go through again.
Evil lost at the resurrection after the death one time only first took away Sin, in your sight to us all Father. John 1:29, John 19:30, then Son being risen gives us new life in Spirit and Truth of Father alone for us to learn from any and all mistakes, seeing this love from Dad, Father, PaPa for us all, wow!!!!!!!!!! Romans 8 last section of Romans 8, best to read it all though, to me at least, to remain in context, nothing can separate anyone from this love of God through Son for us all, Nothing!
Thank you Father and Son as Won, now I need to learn new from you 1 John 2:27, thank you, I trust you, not even myself anymore. Phil 3:1-20