Calling All Greek Scholars!

[Donald45]

I’ve been debating a unitarian on the doctrine of the Trinity, and we’ve been discussing John 1:1-18, and the nature of “the Word.” Among other things, I pointed out the numerous personal pronouns (“he”/“him”/“his”) used by John with reference to this “Word.” Here is my friend’s reply:

“In Greek, the word logos is a masculine noun. It doesn’t matter if it refers to something feminine, masculine, or neuter, it is required to only have masculine pronouns (he/him). Just as in Proverbs, wisdom is called ‘she.’ Not because the writer gave wisdom life, but because it is a feminine noun. Same reason a house in Greek is always called ‘he.’ And ‘spirit’ is always called ‘it,’ but again only because it’s a neuter noun, not masculine, and has nothing to do with real gender. John didn’t use ‘he’ [in Jn. 1:1-18] because logos was a person, but it’s how the language works.”

So, my unitarian opponent claims that John only uses masculine pronouns because logos is a masculine noun, and that these pronouns, therefore, do not establish “the Word” as a person (that is, as Jesus Christ).

I only know a little Greek, and this is a bit beyond me. If anyone out there can help with an analysis of this reasoning, and perhaps even a web citation or two, I would be eternally grateful.

God bless,

Don
+T+

 

[DaveBj]

I’ve been debating a unitarian on the doctrine of the Trinity, and we’ve been discussing John 1:1-18, and the nature of “the Word.” Among other things, I pointed out the numerous personal pronouns (“he”/“him”/“his”) used by John with reference to this “Word.” Here is my friend’s reply:

“In Greek, the word logos is a masculine noun. It doesn’t matter if it refers to something feminine, masculine, or neuter, it is required to only have masculine pronouns (he/him). Just as in Proverbs, wisdom is called ‘she.’ Not because the writer gave wisdom life, but because it is a feminine noun. Same reason a house in Greek is always called ‘he.’ And ‘spirit’ is always called ‘it,’ but again only because it’s a neuter noun, not masculine, and has nothing to do with real gender. John didn’t use ‘he’ [in Jn. 1:1-18] because logos was a person, but it’s how the language works.”

So, my unitarian opponent claims that John only uses masculine pronouns because logos is a masculine noun, and that these pronouns, therefore, do not establish “the Word” as a person (that is, as Jesus Christ).

I only know a little Greek, and this is a bit beyond me. If anyone out there can help with an analysis of this reasoning, and perhaps even a web citation or two, I would be eternally grateful.

God bless,

Don
+T+

Your friend’s grammatical analysis is okay, as far as it goes, but “as far as it goes” isn’t far enough. What’s important is in verse 1 ("…and the Word was God") and in verse 16 ("…and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us")

DaveBj

 

[Donald45]

Your friend’s grammatical analysis is okay, as far as it goes, but “as far as it goes” isn’t far enough. What’s important is in verse 1 ("…and the Word was God") and in verse 16 ("…and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us")

DaveBj

His reply would be that, since the personal pronouns do not establish “the Word” as a person, it is inappropriate to conclude from these verses that “Word” refers to the person of Jesus Christ.

Don
+T+

 

[YADA]

That begs the question then…to what “Word” is John speaking of?

What “Word” was Go?

'and what “Word” became “flesh and dwelt among us?”

To seperate Jesus from the passage renders the passage non-sensical and devoid of real meaning. If Jesus is not the “Word”, we Christians should still be searching for…

Just my :twocents:

Now that they have told you what is does not mean, the onous is on them to explain what is does…What is the word that became flesh? And what does became *flesh *mean?

 

[Donald45]

That begs the question then…to what “Word” is John speaking of?

What “Word” was Go?

'and what “Word” became “flesh and dwelt among us?”

To seperate Jesus from the passage renders the passage non-sensical and devoid of real meaning. If Jesus is not the “Word”, we Christians should still be searching for…

Just my :twocents:

Now that they have told you what is does not mean, the onous is on them to explain what is does…What is the word that became flesh? And what does became *flesh *mean

I think he would connect John’s use of the “Word” to Genesis 1, where God “speaks” in order to create things. In John, then, “Word” refers to God’s creative “word.”

Don
+T+

 

[Angelos]

Hi

Try rebutting your friend’s assertions by focusing on the syntactical structure of the whole chapter. Logos is always the subject of the sentences to the point of becoming the subject of the opening verse. Logos is equal to the Father because He was in the beginning (depicted as a distinct person existing in the beginning) He was with God (His union with God in the beginning), and He was God (here the word God has no article because it is used as a predicate). This is John’s amazing explanation of the mystery of the Trinity through the divinity of the second Person. A different person, but the same God in nature through unity!

More, if we replace the singular pronoun “He” with “Logos”, we get: “In Logos was Life and the life was the light of men”, “Logos came to His own, but Logos’ own did not accept Him.”

Logos became flesh and dwellt among us. We saw Logos’ glory! Ask your friend also to read **John 2:19

** Jesus replied, “Destroy this temple and in three days** I **will raise it up again.”

Jesus did not say the Father will raise it up! He used the first singular pronoun to proclaim His divinity!

Peace & blessings,

Angelos N.

 

[Northwind]

If your friend is discussing the Greek wording with you, what does he make of the fact that John 1:1 finishes by saying…‘and God was the word’. Our translations say…the word was God. I think it reflects better in the Greek as to what or who the logos is. Also, in verse 18 it says…

John 1:18
18 No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

But the Greek says; “God uniquley begotten”. The logos is a person face to face with God the Father in verse one, becomes flesh in verse 14 and begotten in verse 18. You simply cannot escape this. He has to do some linguistic gymnasitcs for this to mean otherwise…

 

[Donald45]

Thanks so much to all who have responded so far. You’ve been a big help, and I’ve gotten a better understanding of the overall picture in John 1:1-18.

Is there anyone who knows Greek well enough to specifically address my opponent’s argument against trinitarianism based on the personal pronouns in particular? He claims that the gender of the English pronouns simply mirror the gender of the Greek words themselves, and do not necessarily mean that “the Word” is a person.

Any thoughts, or even web and book references?

God bless,

Don
+T+

 

[Nate]

I think it is correct that you assign the correct gender to pronouns, but I am curious about whether he sticks to that argument in Mt 16:18 where Petros is the rock because you would not use petra to refer to a male person Peter, or whether he slithers off into some Protestant evasion.

 

[Frankk]

If you visit ibiblio.org/bgreek and register I am 100% certain you’ll get the answer you require.

I recently posed a query about the Greek Matt 28:19 and had Professors of NT Greek responding!

I think the respondents are all experts in NT Greek but they come from a variety of denominations.

 

[Knight4God]

Technically he is right in saying that the masculine personal pronoun is being used because logos is masculine. In general pronouns follow a rule of concord, where they agree with their antecedent in gender and number.

1. If anything back up a step and ask why St. John didn’t use the neuter of logos (logon) if he wanted to communicate an impersonal Word. Maybe he was merely using a common convention for the word logos, but the benefit of the doubt is on communicating personhood because a perfectly good neuter form was available and not used.
2. More importantly: The cry of the exegete is “context! context! context!”. The nature of what St. John is saying works against an impersonal word. The Word has life and through him all things where made (can this be said of an impersonal force?) “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us”, did an impersonal force become flesh and dwell among us? Note that it does not say the Word found flesh, or even took on flesh, or anything that might imply some impersonal force empowered a human, but that the Word itself became flesh. This word made flesh is latter said to be Christ, who is personal.
3. See Revelation 19:13, where the person of Christ is called the Word of God

Hope this helps!

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

John 1:14 (King James Version)
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

A word gets its meaning from its context. Ask him about the word was made flesh? who is that speaking about?

 

[Nita]

John 1:14 (King James Version)
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

A word gets its meaning from its context. Ask him about the word was made flesh? who is that speaking about?

And I’d go to the next verse also:

John 1:15 *John bore witness to him *(the Word made flesh in verse 14), *and said, “He who comes after me ranks before me, for he was before me”.*definitely referring to the person of Jesus) "*This is he of whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who ranks before me, for he was before me.’ " *

Nita

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

amen Nita

 

[papaspicy]

Yes, masculine pronouns would be used because Logos is masculine. However, just because Logos could refer to an impersonal idea, doesn’t mean it does.

If you really want to get into the Greek, I think the first verse explains it all: In the beginning, the Word was, the Word was with God, and the Word was God. It is clear that there is a separation of the Logos and the Theos. The third clause clearly identifies the Logos as Theos. In the second clause the preposition “with” (pros) is followed by its object Theos in the accusative case (which is proper). However, if the Theos who is the Word was completely equal to the Theos who the Word is with, then this type of prepositional construction would never have been used. Greek uses a middle voice, in which the verb’s subject does something with themselves. If the Logos was being with himself, then this type of construction would have been employed instead of a preposition. But, because the preposition is used, then there must be some recognizable difference between the Logos and the Theos. This is explained clearly by recognition that there are two separate entities being discussed. (One reservation that I have with my explanation is that it does seem to lead towards some idea of polytheism, but I think the rest of the Gospel dispels that idea pretty well.)

Why then does John go through this somewhat complicated explanation? He tells us in verse 10, “because the world did not know him.” It is as if John is saying, “by the way all you Jews who have worshipped God for so long, here is something we didn’t know about him.” And if the Word doesn’t refer to Jesus, then why introduce it at the start of a biography of Jesus?

By your friend’s way of interpreting Greek, the anthropos that refers to John the Baptist could be taken as female.

Maybe we really had a Joan the Baptist?

(I apologize if my explanation on Greek is too confusing, but I always struggle explaining grammar. Also, if I am completely wrong, please correct me; it has been a few years since my last Greek course.)