@Earnest
Your argument that the use of nomina sacra (sacred abbreviations)
does not justify capitalizing "God" in English translations unless we
are consistent and capitalize all instances, even those referring to false
gods, overlooks a crucial distinction in theological context and usage. While
the uncial manuscripts do indeed capitalize all instances of the word
"god" (ΘΕΟΣ) or "lord" (ΚΥΡΙΟΣ) due to the nature of their
script, context and meaning determine how the word should be understood and
translated in modern languages.
The practice of using nomina sacra was not about creating ambiguity
between true and false deities. It was a theological and scribal convention
aimed at reverence for divine names, including terms like "God" (ΘΣ)
and "Lord" (ΚΣ). The use of nomina sacra does not mean that
these terms were treated equivalently when referring to the true God versus
false deities. In fact, the early scribes demonstrated care when distinguishing
between true and false gods, as seen in manuscripts where false gods are often
spelled out in full (e.g., θεοὶ or κύριοι), while nomina sacra was
reserved for references to the true God or Christ.
In John 1:1, the context clearly refers to the divine nature of the Word
(Logos). The statement "καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος" ("and the Word
was God") affirms the deity of Jesus Christ. The capitalization of
"God" in English reflects the qualitative nature of the Greek construction,
where "theos" without the article is used to emphasize divine
essence rather than to suggest a second, lesser god.
In contrast, passages like 2 Corinthians 4:4 (“the god of this world”)
or Acts 28:6 (“a god”) use the term "god" in a different context—referring
to false gods or beings wrongly regarded as divine. These instances do not
convey the same theological weight as when the term refers to the one true God
or Jesus Christ in His divine nature. The use of nomina sacra does not
eliminate this distinction.
In the uncial Greek manuscripts, where no distinction is made between
uppercase and lowercase letters, every word looks "capitalized" to
modern eyes. However, translation into modern languages requires interpreting
the text according to its context and meaning. This is where capitalization in
English comes into play: to help readers understand the theological
significance of the term. For example:
- In John 1:1, "God" is capitalized
because the context refers to the divine nature of Jesus as fully sharing
in the essence of the Father.
- In 2 Corinthians 4:4, "god" is
lowercase because it refers to Satan, a false god or power, not equal to
the one true God.
The decision to capitalize "God" when referring to the Father or
the Son in passages like John 1:1 or Philippians 2:6 is based on the divine
nature attributed to them in those passages. In contrast, false gods or lower
beings are rendered with lowercase "god" to distinguish them as inferior
or false deities.
If we were to follow your suggestion and capitalize all instances of
"god" where nomina sacra occur in those later
manuscripts, we would lose the critical theological distinction between the one
true God and the false gods mentioned in Scripture. This would obscure the clear
biblical teaching that there is one true God, and others are falsely called
gods (cf. 1 Corinthians 8:5-6).
Thus the use of nomina sacra in early Christian manuscripts reflects
reverence for divine names, but it does not imply that every use of the term
"god" should be capitalized in modern translations. The context of
each passage determines whether the term refers to the one true God or a false
god, and the capitalization in English reflects that theological distinction.
In passages where Jesus' deity is affirmed, such as John 1:1, capitalization is
appropriate to convey His divine nature. Conversely, when referring to false
gods, lowercase is used to reflect their inferior status. Thus, context and theological
meaning guide translation decisions, and the distinction between true and false
gods remains intact in both the original manuscripts and modern translations.
The suggestion that John
1:1, by using "a god" or "godly," somehow
introduces henotheistic overtones misrepresents both John's theological intent
and the audience's understanding. Henotheism implies the belief in many gods,
with only one being worshipped. However, John's Gospel was written within a
strict monotheistic Jewish context. The opening verses of John affirm that the "Word"
(Logos) was not merely a lesser deity but was intrinsically divine—sharing
in the very nature of God Himself. The phrase "the Word was God"
is not a statement that leaves room for multiple gods, nor does it fit into a
henotheistic framework. John explicitly establishes that the Logos has the same
divine nature as God. Early Christian theologians, including the author of
John, were extremely careful to preserve Jewish monotheism, while also
affirming Christ's deity. There is no evidence that John’s
audience—comprising Jews and early Christians—would have interpreted "the
Word was God" as anything other than a monotheistic statement about the
nature of Jesus.
You emphasize that because
"God" lacks the article in John 1:1c, it must be translated as "a
god" or something implying a qualitative aspect ("godly").
However, this interpretation misunderstands Greek grammar. In this context, the
absence of the article does not necessarily mean that "theos"
should be indefinite. In Greek, when a noun like "theos" is
placed before the verb, its article can be omitted to focus on the quality of
the noun rather than introducing a new entity. This is known as the qualitative
use of "theos" in John 1:1c. Greek scholars widely agree that
the lack of an article here does not suggest "a god" in the sense of
a lesser deity, but rather emphasizes the Word’s divine essence. The Logos is
fully God, though distinct person from the Father.
The translation "What
God was, the Word was" (as found in the Revised English Bible) is
sometimes offered as a more accurate rendering. While this might be a useful
paraphrase to explain the relationship between the Father and the Word, it
still affirms that the Word shares in the full divinity of God. This
translation emphasizes that the Word possesses the full essence and attributes
of God, which aligns with the traditional understanding that "the Word
was God." Saying "what God was, the Word was" affirms
that the Logos was fully divine, not a separate or lesser being. While this may
clarify the qualitative aspect of theos, it does not support an
indefinite reading like "a god."
The claim that John's
audience, particularly the Jews of the time, were henotheists is historically
inaccurate. Judaism was strictly monotheistic, and any references to other gods
were either polemical or metaphorical, often referring to false gods or idols
worshipped by surrounding nations. John's Gospel was written to affirm Jesus'
divine nature in the context of strict Jewish monotheism. The idea that the
audience would have been comfortable with a statement suggesting multiple gods ("a
god") contradicts the theological background of the Gospel. John was
addressing both Jewish and Hellenistic audiences, and his purpose was to affirm
the Word’s full divinity, not introduce henotheistic notions.
While John makes a
distinction between the Word and the Father (the Word was "with [the]
God"), this distinction is about their persons, not their essence. The
doctrine of the Trinity resolves this by teaching that the Father and the Son
are distinct persons but share the same divine nature. The traditional
translation ("the Word was God") does not confuse the Word
with the Father. Rather, it affirms the unity of their essence while preserving
the distinction of their persons. The Greek construction makes this clear by
using "pros ton Theon" (with [the] God) to indicate
distinction, and then stating "the Word was God" to affirm the
Word’s deity. This affirms the core of Trinitarian theology: one God in
three distinct persons.
The claim that John 1:1
introduces henotheistic ideas or implies a separate deity for the Word is
unfounded. The qualitative use of "theos" in John 1:1c affirms
the Word's full divinity, not a lesser or separate deity. The traditional
translation, "the Word was God," properly reflects this
without confusing the persons of the Father and the Son.
@slimboyfat
While it might seem, at first glance, that Philippians 2:9-11 indicates an
elevation of Jesus from a lower position to a higher one, this interpretation
does not fully align with the deeper theological context of both the passage
and the entirety of Christian doctrine. When Paul writes in Philippians 2:9 that "God
exalted him to the highest place," this is not implying that Jesus was
inferior in nature to the Father and then promoted to a higher status after His
earthly ministry. The exaltation is a public declaration and a restoration
of the glory Jesus already possessed before His incarnation. Consider
Jesus' prayer in John 17:5:
"And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had
with you before the world began."
Here, Jesus clearly indicates that He shared the Father’s glory before the
Incarnation and asks for its restoration. The exaltation in Philippians 2:9,
then, refers to the acknowledgment of Christ’s divine authority and glory after
His humble, obedient mission on earth—not a promotion to a higher status.
Your point that Paul did not know about the Trinity is a common claim, but
it does not hold up under closer examination of his writings. Paul clearly
distinguished between the Father and the Son, but he also ascribed divine
characteristics and titles to Jesus that would be blasphemous if Jesus were not
God. Let’s take 1 Corinthians 8:6 as an example:
“Yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and
for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all
things came and through whom we live.”
Here, Paul parallels Jesus Christ with God the Father, ascribing to Him
roles in creation and sustenance of life—functions that belong exclusively to
God. The term “Lord” (κύριος, kyrios) in this context reflects the same
usage in the Greek Old Testament (the Septuagint), where it is used as a title
for Yahweh. Paul, then, is equating Jesus with Yahweh, affirming His full
divinity. The same affirmation is found in Romans 10:9-13, where Paul
declares that confessing Jesus as Lord is a confession of His divine status.
Philippians 2:6-8 describes Christ's kenosis, or self-emptying. It
is critical to understand that this emptying was not a loss of His
divine nature but a voluntary concealment of His divine glory. Jesus, in
taking on human nature, did not cease to be God; rather, He chose not to
exploit His divine status for His own advantage during His earthly life. The
exaltation that follows in verses 9-11 is a vindication of His humility and
obedience, as God the Father declares to all creation that Jesus is Lord. Hebrews
1:3 echoes this understanding:
“The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of His
being, sustaining all things by His powerful word.”
Jesus did not lose this divine nature during His time on earth. His
exaltation is not a promotion, but rather the revelation of the glory that was
veiled during His earthly ministry.
In Philippians 2:9-11, Paul says that God “gave him the name that is
above every name” and that “every knee should bow... and every tongue
confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.” This exaltation points to Christ’s
universal reign and authority as both God and man. However, it's important to
note that the title of “Lord” is already inherent in Jesus due to His
divine nature. What happens here is a public recognition and acknowledgment of
His universal Lordship by all creation.
The worship of Jesus described in these verses—“every knee should bow”—is
drawn from Isaiah 45:23, where God declares that every knee will bow and
every tongue will swear allegiance to Him alone. For Paul to apply this text to
Jesus without any qualification shows that he understood Jesus to share in the
divine identity of Yahweh.
One common misunderstanding is that because Jesus is exalted and subject to
the Father, this somehow implies He is ontologically inferior. This is a
confusion between functional subordination and ontological equality:
- Functional subordination refers to Jesus’ voluntary submission to the
Father’s will during His earthly ministry and in the economy of salvation
(John 6:38, Luke 22:42). This does not imply a difference in nature but in
role.
- Ontological equality
affirms that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are equal in their divine
nature. Jesus’ voluntary submission does not mean He is a lesser being
than the Father. This distinction is central to understanding the dynamics
of the Trinity, where the Son eternally submits to the Father in His role,
yet shares the same divine essence.
In 1 Corinthians 15:28, where it says, "the Son himself will
also be subjected to Him who put all things under Him," this is
describing the end of Christ’s mediatorial role in redemption. Once His work of
redemption is complete, He delivers the Kingdom to the Father, not because He
is inferior in essence, but because the work of the Son as mediator between God
and humanity has been fulfilled.
Finally, Paul’s view of Jesus in Philippians 2 fits squarely within the
broader Pauline Christology, where Jesus is repeatedly described as preexistent
and divine:
- Colossians 1:15-20
presents Christ as the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all
creation, through whom all things were created.
- 1 Corinthians 8:6
presents Christ as the agent of creation, a role attributed to God alone
in Jewish monotheism.
- Romans 9:5 explicitly
calls Christ “God over all, forever praised.”
Paul consistently views Jesus not as a mere subordinate being, but as the
divine Son, fully participating in the divine identity and work.
In conclusion, Philippians 2 does not depict Christ as being promoted from
a lower status to a higher one in a hierarchical sense. Rather, it celebrates
His voluntary humility, His role as the suffering servant, and His subsequent
exaltation as the public acknowledgment of His divine authority and lordship.
Jesus is not elevated because He was inferior; He is exalted because He humbled
Himself for our sake, while remaining fully God. This passage, far from
undermining the doctrine of the Trinity, reinforces the profound mystery of the
Incarnation—God becoming man, yet never ceasing to be God.
