The deity of Christ in John

The Bible begins

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. (Genesis 1:1)

John introduces his gospel in a similar manner

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1)

The Greek in John uses the same initial two words as the Septuagint.

• ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν (Gen 1:1)
• ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (John 1:1)

This allusion testifies to the divinity of Jesus. Beyond the connection of the "Word" with "God" in John, John links God as creator in Genesis with the Word as creator in his gospel. Genesis states that God is creator of the heavens and the earth, a merism for everything,

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. (Genesis 1:1-2)

John tells us that the all things were made through the Word, and he emphasises this with the negative: there was nothing made without the Word,

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.

The first thing created within the new cosmos was light,

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day. (Genesis 1:3-5)

Still alluding to Genesis John informs us that just as light came into the world, the Word is light to mankind.

In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. (John 1:1-5)

John's use of Genesis makes it clear that the God who created the world is the Word.

The Word was God

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1)

Concerning the last clause of this verse some claim that the Greek implies that the Word is a god. This is not a valid claim. This has to do with grammatical construction in Greek. This is my understanding as a non-Greek reader.

In English we can have the sentence,

1. The dog chased the cat.

This is different from,

2. The cat chased the dog.

In sentence 1 the "dog" is the subject and the "cat" is the object. In sentence 2 it is the opposite. In English we get this from the word order. If we change the word order we have to rewrite the sentence, usually in the passive, to get the same meaning,

The cat was chased by the dog.

In several other languages including Greek the subject and object can be identified by the ending on the noun. So you could put either the subject or the object first (or even the verb!) depending on what you wish to emphasise. That is, word order doesn't give meaning in Greek the same way it does in English (in general).

The problem is the verb "to be" is an identifier, an equating verb. So both words are the subject. There is no object. Take,

The man is the father.

Both man and father are the subject as the "man" is identified with the "father". However the sentence,

The father is the man

while still equating the man and the father does not mean the same thing. In English this is not a problem as the word order gives us the meaning. There is a problem in Greek though because both the words are the subject, this means that the nouns have the same ending, this means we cannot tell which word is being identified with which. Take the Greek phrase (using English words)

God love be.

What would this mean? Does it mean?

"God is love"

or?

"Love is God"

Very different meanings! Therefore the Greek phrase

ο θεος ην ο λογος

the God to-be the Word

could actually mean (in English)

"The Word was God"

or

"God was the Word."

In Greek the definite article "the" is not included with the word which is being equated (predicate noun) if that word precedes the verb and the definite article is included when it follows the verb. So if we are equating "God" with the "Word" and the word "God" comes before the word "to be" we drop the definite article "the."

Thus, if the intention of the sentence is

The Word was God

then it would be written

θεος ην ο λογος (God to-be the Word)

Which is what we see. The lack of the article says nothing about Jesus being "a" god rather than "the" God. Incidentally, Greek has no indefinite article, we add it in English. Further the definite article is frequently used in Greek (eg. in front of personal names) but it is left off in English because that is not how English is spoken.

This is not the full story however. While the idea "the Word was God" is written in Greek as recorded in John 1, what is written there could also have other meanings. Thus if "a god" was intended it would possibly be written the same way. While the claim—that the construction of the clause proves that "a god" is intended—is a false claim; the counter claim—that it must mean "God"—is not sustainable. A refutation of a negative claim may not actually be a positive claim.

Others have claimed a further interpretation of this construction. The NET Bible notes state,

Furthermore, Colwell’s Rule did not deal with a third possibility, that the anarthrous [without the definite article] predicate noun may have more of a qualitative nuance when placed ahead of the verb. A definite meaning for the term is reflected in the traditional rendering “the word was God.” From a technical standpoint, though, it is preferable to see a qualitative aspect to anarthrous θεός in John 1:1c.

Thus the word order has implications in Greek (though different implications than English). The claim is that placing "God" before "to be" is qualifying the following word "Word" with itself; both words have a dual identity. Thus the meaning of the phrase would be,

What God was the Word was.

This has a slightly different meaning than, "The Word was God," though the implications are similar.

Monday quote

I agree that a man who thinks he is God... is a megalomaniac by definition. But a God who thinks He is God, is thinking what is only common sense.

John C. Wright (1961–).

Monday quote

If we had nothing but the reason of men to deal with, and that reason were pure and uncorrupted, it would then be a matter of no great skill or labour to convince another person of common mistakes, or to persuade him to assent to plain and obvious truths; but alas! mankind stand wrapt round in errors, and intrenched in prejudices; and every one of their opinions is supported and guarded by something else beside reason.

Isaac Watts (1674–1748), The Improvement of the Mind.

Priesthood and teaching

Micah speaks against rulers in Israel

Its heads give judgment for a bribe;/
its priests teach for a price;/
its prophets practice divination for money; (Micah 3:11)

Micah address the 3 ministries of kingship, priesthood, and prophet. Kings administer justice, priests represent people to God, and prophets represent God to people. Heads are leaders, kings and apostles are in similar positions. All 3 are rebuked for offering their services for money.

I have previously written about the role of fathers as priests. What I found interesting in this passage was the connection between teaching and priesthood. Part of our role as priests—the ministry of representing people to God—is to teach these people about God. While a prophet may bring a special message to a person or a people from God, it is the priestly role which is to be a teacher. So priest does not merely intercede for people before God, but teaches the same people what God requires of them. This differs from the prophet who brings specific demands to a person or people, often in connection with judgment. The priest teaches the general expectations God has for his followers.

Israel were to have been obedient to God thus set apart from the other nations: a kingdom of priests and a holy nation; teaching them the ways of God. This is a role that we have as the people of God.

But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. (1 Peter 2:9 ESV)

As a father it is in our role as priests that we teach to our children. As such it is not optional but a necessity. There may also be a connection between the position of elder and priestly duties given the focus on teaching ability as a qualification for eldership (1Ti 3:2; Tit 1:9), although eldership is also a leadership role.

Monday quote

The classical economists worked out instead, a different concept—the concept of functional prices and functional wages. Functional prices are those that encourage the largest volume of production and the largest volume of sales. Functional wages are those that tend to bring about the highest volume of employment and the largest real payrolls.

Henry Hazlitt (1894–1993), Economics in One Lesson.

The invisible hand and central planning

I have not read Adam Smith and it may be that his metaphor has been extended beyond the original intention; yet the invisible hand is frequently used in the context of free trade, with the suggestion that government leave alone.

By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was not part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good.

Freedom of trade in general leads to greater economic prosperity than that of a centralised economy: the invisible hand guides better than the economic planner.

I agree with this is general. It seems, however, that the metaphor implies that a less informative process is more productive than a more informative one; that a planner is less productive than no planner.

The thing is that there is planning, it is just that it is extended to all the buyers and sellers in a marketplace. All those minds making decisions about their economic options contain a vast wealth of information; more information than any group of planners could have. It is not an invisible hand that guides, it is an invisible collective knowledge that decides.

Monday quote

Now many writers have enumerated what are sometimes called qualifications to inerrancy: inerrancy is compatible with unrefined grammar, non-chronological narrative, round numbers, imprecise quotations, pre-scientific phenomenalistic description (e.g., “the sun rose”), use of figures and symbols, imprecise descriptions (as Mark 1.5, which says that everyone from Judea and Jerusalem went to hear John the Baptist). I agree with these points, but I do not describe them as “qualifications” of inerrancy. These are merely applications of the basic meaning of inerrancy: that it asserts truth, not precision. Inerrant language is language that makes good on its own claims, not on claims that are made for it by thoughtless readers.

John Frame

Artificial land scarcity

The median multiple house price is the median house price divided by median annual (household) income. This is a reasonable approach to assessing house prices. Problems with it are that it ignores different tax rates, household income may range from 1 to 2 persons, and people's expectations of what they are prepared to live in.

Countries and cites can be rated for median multiple house prices to assess housing affordability, an important contributor to standard of living as it is usually a family's largest asset expense.

Rating	Median Multiple
Affordable	0–3.0
Moderately Unaffordable	3.1–4.0
Seriously Unaffordable	4.1–5.0
Severely Unaffordable	5.1+

A recent international survey states that historically house price

has been remarkably similar in Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States, with median house prices having generally been from 2.0 to 3.0 times median household incomes (historical data has not been identified for Hong Kong), with 3.0 being the outer bound of affordability.

Yet this is now much higher especially outside North America. Of the 8 large cities surveyed in New Zealand, 3 had a multiple median house price of 4.1–5.0 and 5 were 5.1+.

And what is one of the major contributors to this? Land prices. Specifically the refusal to designate more urban zoning.

Overwhelming economic evidence indicates that urban containment policies, especially urban growth boundaries raise the price of housing relative to income. This inevitably leads to a reduced standard of living and increases poverty rates, because the unnecessarily higher costs of housing leave households with less discretionary income to spend on other goods and services. The higher costs ripple into rental markets, tightening the budgets of lower income households, who already suffer from lower discretionary incomes.

The principal problem is the failure to maintain a "competitive land supply." Brookings Institution economist Anthony Downs describes the process, noting that more urban growth boundaries can convey monopolistic pricing power on sellers of land if sufficient supply is not available, which, all things being equal, is likely to raise the price of land and housing that is built on it.

Urban containment policy has been associated with greater price volatility and greater speculation. Investors and speculators are drawn to metropolitan areas where "quick" money is to be made, because of the inflexibility of the supply market. Econometric research also identifies an association between slower economic growth and urban containment regulation.

In the Introduction, Bill English states as much,

Land has been made artificially scarce by regulation that locks up land for development. This regulation has made land supply unresponsive to demand. When demand shocks occur, as they did in the mid-2000s in New Zealand and around the world, much of that shock translates to higher prices rather than more houses. It simply takes too long to make new land available for development.

This is something I have been saying for years. If houses sell for approximately the cost they are to build then when demand goes up more houses get built. There seems no good reason to me why housing should have significant capital gain over inflation. Most assets decrease in value. New Zealand does not lack land, its population is less than 5 million, its land area is 268,021 km² (larger than the United Kingdom). It is amongst the least densely populated countries in the world and most of the land suitable for human habitation. Yet less than 2% of the land is designated urban/residential.

High house prices impact the poor the most. They are less likely to buy, more likely to rent. Rents are higher when housing is higher. And a higher percentage of their income goes toward house cost. New Zealand needs to drastically expand residential zones and open up land for housing

---

Question
If you add together the floor area of all the houses in New Zealand, the total area would be what compared to Lake Taupo?

A. About a quarter of Lake Taupo.
B. About half.
C. About the same.
D. Twice the size of Lake Taupo.
E. Ten times the size of Lake Taupo.

Monday quote

Reason faces no fortress more impenetrable than the minds of the righteously indignant.

John Trocke

Apostasy, weeds, and losing salvation

2 of the reasons that I don't agree with Calvinism are: that it seems to me to imply determinism and I cannot see how a deterministic God is not the author of sin; and I believe that saved men can subsequently reject the faith.

It is important to note that false believers, wolves in sheep's clothing, and antichrists can participate in the established church. There are people who would seem to be part of a church but who do not follow Christ and are not saved. Moreover there are men who would deceive others, draw them away from the faith, or use religion as a cover for personal gain. Some may deny Jesus is God. When Paul says to the Ephesians he fears some will arise to attack the flock (Act 20:29-30) and John speaks of those who left because they did not belong (1Jo 2:19) they are not generally speaking of apostates but of weeds. Men who have never entered the kingdom of God but who have infiltrated the church. These people may not be obvious to us, and we must be wary of removing them (Mat 13:29).

There are also apostates, those who started the journey but who no longer follow Christ. They are not those who struggle, or who are weak in the faith. They are men who had chosen the way of life, responded to the wooing of God, and turned their hand to the plow—then looked back. Those who have become entrapped in the false promises of the world once again. Having rejected God's Way they go their own way.

This is not to say that we can identify such people easily. We are to assess fruit, yet wheat looks like darnel and we mustn't harvest prematurely because no wheat is to be lost—of course darnel is indistinguishable from wheat until the fruit (grain) appears. Nor does this mean that apostates never become wolves however many apostates can be known when they declare themselves such.

Monday quote

A great deal of labor goes into the denial of the obvious: for the obvious is an affront to intellectuals whom it threatens with redundancy.

Theodore Dalrymple. "Dubai, Havana and Choosing Between Evils."

Is Arminianism a false gospel?

I came across a comment that Arminianism is a false gospel and I see that this idea occurs a number of times from Calvinists around the internet. I think this is both a false and serious charge.

We need to have a clear understanding of what the gospel is. It is unhelpful to define it so broadly such that all theological truth is the gospel. Every moral is theological, but the command not to murder is not the gospel.

Gospel (noun: ευαγγελιον, euangelion; verb: ευαγγελιζο, euangelizo) means "good news". The word appears over 100 times in the New Testament. Scripturally the word is linked to Jesus; specifically that man can be reconciled to God thru him. In various places the meaning is expanded as can be expected from a word that means "good news". Good news can be about many things; in Scripture we apply this to the news about Jesus' salvation. Gospel is variously attached to Jesus, and the kingdom of God, and other concepts. Paul frequently speaks of preaching the gospel and he tells us what the gospel is,

Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, (1 Corinthians 15:1-4)

Of first importance is that Jesus:

1. died for our sins
2. was buried
3. was raised on the third day

Paul then goes into a prolonged defence of the resurrection of believers. Elsewhere he tells us what we must do to be saved.

If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. (Romans 10:9-10)

In the first passage we learn that Jesus died for our sins, but little about how his death is for us. Then that Jesus was resurrected from the dead, but little about the nature of his resurrection or resurrection body. In the second passage we learn we must consider Jesus Lord, but how that fits with our concept of the trinity is not expanded. Then that we must  believe that he was indeed resurrected.

Now perhaps Paul expounded on this more when he first preached the gospel to the Corinthians, he was after all reminding them of what he previously said. Nevertheless, the core of the gospel is quite simple. Expounding the nature of faith and salvation and atonement is more complex, and we are to move on to the meat from the milk, yet the core of the gospel is that God offers salvation thru Jesus.

If this is the true gospel what is the false gospel? A false gospel is offering salvation thru other means. Offering salvation thru someone other than Christ, or adding requirements that are not required, specifically trying to earn salvation. Peter states,

And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12)

John adds,

Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also. (1 John 2:22-23)

Salvation is only offered thru Jesus. It is belief in his resurrection and confession of his lordship that brings salvation from God.

Elsewhere Paul denounces the Judaisers for adding requirements to the gospel,

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:6-9)

He describes how the circumcision party, whom he calls false brothers, had influenced even Peter therefore Paul rebuked him. What was the false gospel? Justification by works.

Yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified. (Galatians 2:16)

The true gospel is faith in Christ. The false gospel is trying to earn salvation. Of course God has works for us to do, and we are to work out our salvation with fear and trembling (Php 2:12) in obedience to Christ.

So does Arminianism require that man earn his salvation? No. The charge is false.

Arminianism believes that salvation comes thru Christ alone. God saves man thru Jesus. In order to be saved one must confess that Jesus is Lord and believe in his resurrection. It is thru faith by which we are saved, not works.

Of course Arminiansim holds to the concept that man has the ability to reject God's offer of salvation. And also that faith is a choice to trust in God, something man expresses and God commends him for, though God is always helping man in his frailty and keeping him safe from the enemy who would assail him. So part of the Arminian/ Calvinist debate is whether such faith is something man can have, or something given to man entirely from God. Calvinists would label such Arminian faith a work. This is unjustified, but even if such faith was a "work", it is not a work in the sense Paul is condemning. Paul condemns work that tries to earn. A person expressing faith is not an activity that is similar to activities that try to earn salvation. The Arminian concept of faith is not a work one does like getting circumcised, or tithing. Arminianism and Calvinism both preach salvation thru faith in Christ.

If we assume that Calvinism is true (for the sake of the argument), Arminianism is bad theology or heterodoxy. If would be a stretch to call it heretical. If it is false teaching it should be opposed. But to call it a false gospel is slander. I think Calvinism is a serious error, but is it hardly a false gospel.  Arminians are children of God. They preach a true gospel as do Calvinists. They call people to turn from their sins, to trust in Jesus who died for their sins, to follow Jesus who was raised from the dead, to commit to his Lordship in their lives and over this world.

To say that Arminianism is a false gospel is to slander God's children. Something that deeply offends God. God rebuked Job's friends for their false accusations and he continues to defend his people against those who falsely accuse them.

Tour of the International Space Station

Astronaut Sunita Williams gives a tour of the International Space Station. It is 25 minutes long, though held my interest. It covers provision of day to day requirements in a weightless environment: sleeping, eating, toileting, exercise, and a few other facts.

15 principles for translating the King James Version

Richard Bancroft, bishop of London (later Archbishop of Canterbury), set out fifteen principles for the translators of the King James Version of the Bible:

Rules to Be Observed in the Translation of the Bible

1. The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the Truth of the original will permit.

2. The names of the Prophets, and the Holy Writers, with the other Names of the Text, to be retained, as nigh as may be, accordingly as they were vulgarly used.

3. The Old Ecclesiastical Words to be kept, viz. the Word Church not to be translated Congregation.

4. When a Word hath divers Significations, that to be kept which hath been most commonly used by the most of the Ancient Fathers, being agreeable to the Propriety of the Place, and the Analogy of the Faith.

5. The Division of the Chapters to be altered, either not at all, or as little as may be, if Necessity so require.

6. No Marginal Notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek Words, which cannot without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed in the Text.

7. Such Quotations of Places to be marginally set down as shall serve for the fit Reference of one Scripture to another.

8. Every particular Man of each Company, to take the same Chapter or Chapters, and having translated or amended them severally by himself, where he thinketh good, all to meet together, confer what they have done, and agree for their Parts what shall stand.

9. As any one Company hath dispatched any one Book in this Manner they shall send it to the rest, to be considered of seriously and judiciously, for His Majesty is very careful in this Point.

10. If any Company, upon the Review of the Book so sent, doubt or differ upon any Place, to send them Word thereof; note the Place, and withal send the Reasons, to which if they consent not, the Difference to be compounded at the general Meeting, which is to be of the chief Persons of each Company, at the end of the Work.

11. When any Place of special Obscurity is doubted of, Letters to be directed by Authority, to send to any Learned Man in the Land, for his Judgement of such a Place.

12. Letters to be sent from every Bishop to the rest of his Clergy, admonishing them of this Translation in hand; and to move and charge as many skilful in the Tongues; and having taken pains in that kind, to send his particular Observations to the Company, either at Westminster, Cambridge, or Oxford.

13. The Directors in each Company, to be the Deans of Westminster, and Chester for that Place; and the King's Professors in the Hebrew or Greek in either University.

14. These translations to be used when they agree better with the Text than the Bishops Bible: Tyndale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's, Whitchurch's, Geneva.

15. Besides the said Directors before mentioned, three or four of the most Ancient and Grave Divines, in either of the Universities, not employed in Translating, to be assigned by the vice-Chancellor, upon Conference with the rest of the Heads, to be Overseers of the Translations as well Hebrew as Greek, for the better observation of the 4th Rule above specified.