An argument against "Sabellianism"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Daniel_Marsh
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Daniel_Marsh

Guest
John 1:1 (King James Version)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

In short, the Word was Face to Face with God !!!

Quote:​

the Word was with God—The preposition translated** “with” **is pros. In Koine Greek pros (short for prosôpon pros prosôpon, “face to face” was used to show intimacy in personal relationships (see Matt. 13:56; 26:18; Mark 6:3; 14:49; 1 Cor. 13:12; 6:10; 2 Cor. 5:8; Gal.1:1 . Thus, for John to say “the Word was with God” was for him to mean “the Word was face to face with God” (see Williams’s translation) or “the Word was having intimate fellowship with God.” This speaks of the preincarnate Son’s relationship with the Father prior to creation—in fact, prior to everything (see 1:18; 17:5, 24)…

PROS

with the acc[usative] of a person, after verbs of remaining, dwelling, tarrying, etc. (which require one to be conceived of as always turned towards one)…after EIMI…Jn i.1 (Thayer).

be (in company) with someone…J 1:1f (BAGD).

a marker of association, often with the implication of interrelationships…‘the Word was with God’ Jn 1:1 (Louw & Nida)

Some commentators, such as JFB, above, see PROS in this verse as shorthand for the idiomatic expression PROSÔPON PROS PROSÔPON (**literally “face to face” **. This seems view is given weight by the context, in which the Son is said to be “in the bosom of the Father” (v. 1 , and thus in the ideal position to declare the Father to the world.

forananswer.org/John/Jn1_1.htm
forananswer.org/ABC_Index.htm

We have an early church manual called the Teaching of the Twleve which tells us exactly how they did baptism.

Quote:​

Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.​

earlychristianwriting…berts.html

John 1:1c is NOT saying the “Word was the Father” as they read it. For their interpretation to be vaild in the greek it would require an extra article in front of theos, God, it is not there.

In short, the use of theos is qualitative in grammar which means. John is saying that the nature of the logos, word is divine. John 1:1b plainly tells us that the “word was face to face with God” thus seperating him from the person of the God the Father.

The correct understanding of this text in the greek is,

“In the beginning of all creation, the Word was already in existence. The Word was intimately [face to face] with God. And the Word was as to His essence, God.”

To simpfly the greek argument, John 1:1c would have to read “the word is the God” or “ho logos en ho theos”, that is not in any greek manuscript.

Quote:​

ho logos en ho theos: The logos (the Word) and theos (God) are completely equivalent and interchangeable - they are identically the same. This is how most people mistakenly read the verse. If this had been what John had written, then we would not believe in the Trinity today. Rather, we would be monarchists.

**theos en ho logos: This is what John actually wrote. **This differs from (1) in that it makes the word theios qualitative. It’s meaning is something like the New English Bible’s translation: “What the Word was, God was.” Moffat, Goodspeed, and other scholars have translated the **qualitative **word “God” using words like “divine” or “deity” but what they are trying to express with these words is prone to misunderstanding. Their meaning is in keeping with the NEB, that “divine” or “deity” refers to the unique divinity of the one True God.

ho logos theos en: This would have the same meaning but a different emphasis than the previous list item. This version would put the emphasis on the Word rather than on the nature he possessed.

ho logos hen theos: This would mean that the word was a divine being of some kind - perhaps like an angel.

ho logos hen theios: Similar in meaning to the last clause. Uses an adjective theios rather than a noun theos.

 
for last quote above
columbia.edu/cu/augus…ohn1_1.htm

If you want to dig into the Greek Grammar deeper,
forananswer.org/John/Jn1_1.htm

Fact remains, John 1:1b correctly interpreted means “The word was face to face with God” the Father. John 1:1c tells us that the “Word by nature is God”, If their interpretation were correct they would be contradicting John 1:1b which seperates the person of the Word, Son of God from God the Father. The Second clause clearly says to anyone who knows Greek that they were Face To Face, thus seperate. Their interpretation requires an extra article in John 1:1c the Greek which is NOT there.

They must read their theology into the English text.

In English, if someone were to say “John is with Paul” any English reader will know beyond doubt that there are two people called John and Paul thus in English we still have two people. For their interpretation of John 1:1c to be correct the English would have to read “the Word was the God”, it is NOT translated that way by any complement Greek Scholar because they all understand that the use of theos is speaking of the nature of the word and not speaking of the Father as the word.

Bottom line, their interpretation does not have a leg to stand on here in John 1:1. Fact remains that the word “with” requires two people.

A. T. Robertson in his Word Pictures plainly says,

Quote:​

And the Word was God (kai qeoß hn o logoß). By exact and careful language John denied Sabellianism by not saying o qeoß hn o logoß. That would mean that all of God was expressed in o logoß and the terms would be interchangeable, each having the article. The subject is made plain by the article (o logoß) and the predicate without it (qeoß) just as in **John 4:24 **pneuma o qeoß can only mean “God is spirit,” not “spirit is God.” So in 1 John 4:16 o qeoß agaph estin can only mean “God is love,” not “love is God” as a so-called Christian scientist would confusedly say. For the article with the predicate see Robertson, Grammar_, pp. 767f. So in **John 1:14 **o Logoß sarx egeneto, “the Word became flesh,” not “the flesh became Word.”​

 
In short,

“the word was with God” means the Word was Face to Face with God the Father, indicating two persons. Even in English when we say “Peter is with Paul” we understand that to mean two persons called Peter and Paul.

“the word was God” means that the word** by nature** is God, and it does NOT mean that the Word is God the Father.

Jesus Only, Sabellianism would require “the word was God” to read, “The Word was The God” which would make God and Word interchangable which is not what the greek text is getting at.

Also, the Sabellian interpretation of John 1:1c creates a contradiction,

The Word was face to face with God { seperate persons }

The Word was The God { same person }

A. T. Robertson points out other passages where this greek grammar exists,

John 4:24
“God is spirit,” not “spirit is God.”

1 John 4:16
“God is love,” not “love is God”

John 1:14
“the Word became flesh,” not “the flesh became Word.”

forananswer.org/John/Jn1_1.htm
columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/sbrandt/john1_1.htm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top