Un ministère de…

Auteur: Dr. Roger Pascoe, Président,
Email: [email protected]

I. Renforcement de la prédication par exposition : Prêcher la doctrine

Puisqu’il m’est impossible d’aborder tous les aspects de la prédication de la doctrine, j’ai décidé de me concentrer particulièrement sur l’application de la doctrine car cela me semble être l’un des grands défis de la prédication. Comment puis-je rendre la doctrine pertinente pour la vie et non simplement un concept à comprendre ? Comment puis-je enseigner la doctrine dans ma prédication de telle manière que les gens reconnaissent son importance et sa valeur dans leur vie, de telle sorte qu'elle façonne leur pensée, leur comportement, leurs décisions, leurs relations, leurs valeurs, etc. ?

En abordant ce sujet, je tenterai, dans cette édition et les suivantes de ce Journal, de vous donner…

A. Quelques facteurs de notre culture contemporaine qui ont un impact sur la prédication de la doctrine.

B. Trois étapes importantes dans la prédication de la doctrine.

C. Quelques exemples précis de l'application de la doctrine dans la prédication.

D. Conseils utiles pour prêcher la doctrine.

E. Quelques rappels concluants sur la doctrine de la prédication.

Tout d’abord, en guise d’introduction à ce sujet, permettez-moi de commenter…

A. Quelques facteurs de notre culture contemporaine qui ont un impact sur la prédication de la doctrine.

A1. L'impact de la musique chrétienne contemporaine sur la doctrine. La musique que nous entendons et chantons aujourd’hui à l’église est grandement influencée par la musique profane. On pourrait affirmer que cela a toujours été le cas, mais cela ne signifie pas que cela soit correct ni que cela devrait continuer ainsi. De nombreuses chansons chrétiennes contemporaines pourraient tout aussi bien être des chansons diffusées sur des programmes de radio profane, car elles sonnent de la même manière et ne contiennent, dans certains cas, aucune référence permettant de les identifier facilement comme chrétiennes.

Le genre de musique chrétienne n’est pas seulement une question de préférence. Il ne s’agit pas seulement de savoir si vous aimez les hymnes traditionnels ou la musique de d’adoration contemporaine. C’est une façon très superficielle de voir la musique. Certes, la musique que nous choisissons pour nos cultes d’adoration doit être sélectionnée sur la base de…

1. La théologie des paroles - leur intégrité théologique et leur instruction.

2. Son lien avec le thème du sermon, car, je dirais que tous les aspects d’un service dans l’église, devraient, être unifiés. En effet, un kaléidoscope de musique totalement sans rapport avec le thème du sermon produit un service décousu et déconnecte l’adoration en musique de l’adoration dans la Parole.

3. Son expression d'adoration envers Dieu

4. Son lien avec l'expérience de la vie chrétienne

5. Le style de la composition musicale et de l’instrumentation jouée.

6. Son lien avec notre histoire évangélique. Ce critère est souvent négligé, mais il d’une importance vitale, car l’avènement et la popularité de la musique chrétienne contemporaine met l’accent sur le « contemporain » et contribue à la déconnexion du passé qui s’est produite dans nos églises, à tel point que nous élevons en réalité une génération de jeunes aujourd'hui qui n'ont aucune connexion avec nos traditions théologiques, nos doctrines ou notre histoire.

Ainsi, lorsque nous parlons de doctrine de prédication, sachez que la prédication et l’enseignement de la doctrine ne se limitent pas au sermon. Nous devrions également enseigner la doctrine dans notre musique. Malheureusement, une grande partie de la musique contemporaine (pas la totalité) n’a soit aucun contenu doctrinal, soit une doctrine enracinée dans d’autres traditions ecclésiastiques qui peuvent être contraire à ce que nous croyons et pratiquons. Ainsi, la prolifération de musique d’église issue uniquement du genre contemporain, sans un peu de musique traditionnelle, exacerbe l’éloignement de la doctrine de la prédication et contribue à l’analphabétisme biblique et théologique d’un si grand nombre de nos fidèles, en particulier de nos jeunes.

A2. L'impact d'une vision contemporaine du monde sur la doctrine. La façon de penser de notre société en général se fraie généralement un chemin dans nos congrégations. La pensée culturelle contemporaine rejette l’idée selon laquelle il existe une vérité connaissable, absolue et qui fait autorité. Au lieu de cela, ceux qui soutiennent cette philosophie considèrent que toute vérité est relative et circonstancielle, en fonction de votre vision du monde et de votre expérience personnelle. Ils pensent que ces choses sont plus pertinentes et font autorité dans leur vie plus que les concepts abstraits. Ainsi, cette philosophie contemporaine a affecté l'attitude avec laquelle les gens écoutent les sermons, en particulier les sermons sur la doctrine biblique.

L’accent culturel mis aujourd’hui sur les droits et libertés individuels est étroitement lié à cette façon de penser, ce qui a également un impact sur la prédication de la doctrine. L’individualisme met non seulement l’accent sur les préférences privées, mais aussi sur l’autorité personnelle et individuelle qui dit : « Ce que je crois est mon affaire et personne d’autre ne me dira ce qui est bien ou mal. » Plutôt que de prêcher à des gens dont l’hypothèse fondamentale est que la Bible est vraie et exacte dans tout ce qu’elle affirme, de nombreuses personnes viennent aujourd’hui à nos cultes avec l’attitude selon laquelle : « Depuis quand la doctrine biblique est-elle l’autorité ultime pour ma foi et ma pratique ? Qui vous donne le pouvoir de me dire ce qui est vrai et ce qui ne l’est pas ? » En conséquence, nous avons des bancs remplis de personnes de convictions théologiques diverses, dont beaucoup n’ont aucune base biblique solide et, dans de nombreux cas, de personnes sans aucune conviction théologique.

De plus, de nombreux chrétiens considèrent l’Église, son ministère et ses programmes comme s’ils choisissaient un menu dans un restaurant ou faisaient leurs courses : « Lequel est-ce que j’aime le plus, répond le mieux à mes besoins, m’apporte le plus de bénéfices ? » Cet accent mis sur les préférences individualistes se manifeste aujourd’hui dans les niveaux de fréquentation irréguliers de nombreuses églises évangéliques. Comme me l’a dit un pasteur, la congrégation semble changer chaque semaine. Si l’horaire d’une autre activité (par exemple sportive) est en conflit avec et est considéré comme plus attrayant que d’assister à un service religieux, alors cette activité devient la priorité.

Une partie de cette mentalité égocentrique et orientée vers le consommateur réside dans la recherche d'une gratification instantanée, des fast-foods aux analgésiques. C’est sans doute la raison pour laquelle tant de livres chrétiens populaires qui remplissent les librairies chrétiennes sont si superficiels. Ils répondent à la demande d’une « solution facile en cinq étapes » aux questions complexes de la vie, depuis l’éducation des enfants jusqu’à la gestion des dettes et la connaissance de l’avenir.

Tout cela pour dire que l’exigence de solutions immédiates et l’accent mis sur les préférences privées se manifestent dans l’attitude générale à l’égard de la doctrine biblique. L’Église, pour une grande partie de la génération actuelle, n’est qu’un élément parmi d’autres sur la liste des choses qu’ils peuvent acheter et lorsqu’ils évaluent quelle église ou quel culte acheter, ils sont guidés par une vision matérialiste : « Qu’est-ce que cela m’apporte ? Quel est l’avantage pour mes enfants ?

Il ne fait aucun doute que la télévision et le cinéma ont eu un grand impact sur l’apparente incapacité des gens en général à interagir et à réfléchir aux questions philosophiques et théologiques. La télévision et Hollywood bombardent la culture avec leur philosophie et les gens l’absorbent inconsciemment. Ainsi, le défi pour nous, en tant que prédicateurs, est de veiller à ce que la théologie que nous enseignons ne reste pas dans le domaine d’un concept abstrait mais soit directement liée à la vie pratique.

Malheureusement, de nombreux prédicateurs sont devenus esclaves de cette culture matérialiste et, en réponse, ils prêchent des sermons qui satisfont la vision contemporaine du monde, tels que des sermons sur « le savoir-faire, » des sermons sur les « besoins ressentis, » ainsi que des sermons et des conseils de psychologie chrétienne, qui sont tous conçus pour apporter une valeur tangible et à emporter aux besoins perçus de l'auditeur, mais qui, en dernière analyse, sont dans l'ensemble des sermons anthropocentriques dépourvus, dans de nombreux cas, de toute focalisation sur Dieu et les doctrines de sa Parole. Nous devons nous rappeler que la théologie est et doit être fondamentalement pratique, sinon elle ne parviendra pas à faire une différence dans la vie des gens. Ainsi, lorsqu’ils prêchent la doctrine, les prédicateurs doivent s’assurer de préciser clairement comment cela devrait affecter la vie : nos relations, nos valeurs, nos priorités, nos croyances, notre moralité, etc.

Ainsi, le défi pour les prédicateurs dans ce contexte contemporain est le suivant : comment prêcher à des gens dont la pensée largement laïque détermine chaque aspect de leur vie, y compris ce qu’ils attendent de l’Église ? Comment prêcher efficacement à des personnes qui sont plus sensibles aux sentiments, aux images, aux sons, au toucher et à l’expérience qu’à la réflexion mentale sur la vérité propositionnelle ? Comment prêcher à ceux qui ne croient pas à la vérité absolue ? Comment prêchez-vous à des gens dont beaucoup pensent que ce qui est vrai pour vous ne l’est pas nécessairement pour eux ?

Je dirais qu’à mesure que le postmodernisme déconstruit progressivement la vision du monde de la société (à travers des concepts tels que le relativisme moral, le pluralisme social, l’humanisme évolutionniste), la doctrine chrétienne devient plus pertinente pour aider les gens à reconstituer leur vie et leur vision du monde. De plus, avant de pouvoir enseigner aux gens le « comment » du comportement chrétien, nous devons leur enseigner le « quoi » de la doctrine chrétienne. S’ils ne savent pas « ce que nous croyons » et « pourquoi » nous le croyons, ils ne peuvent pas comprendre « comment » l’appliquer à leur vie chrétienne. Comme l’exprime B. B. Warfield : « Le principe universellement reconnu selon lequel ce qu’une personne croit détermine son comportement souligne l’importance de prêcher une doctrine correcte » (« The Indispensableness of Systematic Theology to the Preacher », dans The Masters Seminary Journal, automne 1996). C’est l’un des problèmes des sermons anthropocentriques du « comment faire » ou des « besoins ressentis ». Ils essaient de changer la façon dont les gens vivent sans d’abord changer leur façon de penser sur la base de la vérité biblique.

A3. L'impact de l'analphabétisme biblique contemporain sur la doctrine. Il n’y a pas si longtemps (peut-être dès le début du milieu du XXe siècle), les prédicateurs pouvaient compter sur la majorité de leur congrégation connaissant les récits bibliques et comprenant et affirmant les doctrines bibliques, au moins à des degrés divers. Mais vous ne pouvez pas compter là-dessus maintenant. De moins en moins de fidèles connaissent leur Bible ou la doctrine biblique.

A mesure que prêcher de la doctrine devient de plus en plus nécessaire, de nombreux prédicateurs le trouvent de plus en plus difficile et de moins en moins attrayant à faire, peut-être parce qu'ils ne connaissent pas ou ne comprennent pas suffisamment la doctrine biblique, ou peut-être parce que prêcher de la doctrine biblique pourrait avoir un impact sur leur relation avec leur congrégation, dont beaucoup pourraient ne pas accepter ce qu'ils prêcheraient. Ainsi, le problème de l’analphabétisme biblique de nombreux fidèles a pour effet de faire craindre à de nombreux prédicateurs de prêcher une doctrine de peur d’être mal compris ou, pire encore, d’offenser leurs congrégations. Ainsi, dans de nombreux cas, ils hésitent à le faire.

La vie semble avancer à un tel rythme que ce qui était accepté il y a à peine dix ans est désormais surperflu et mis de côté pour faire place à du nouveau. Dans cette culture de changement à grande vitesse, l’histoire et la tradition ne sont plus importantes pour la jeune génération. Ils vivent pour le présent, isolés du passé et sans trop se soucier de l’avenir. L’évolution, qui est prêchée avec ferveur dans les écoles, à la télévision et dans d’autres formes de divertissement, a probablement eu l’un des impacts les plus importants sur ce type de pensée, car elle détache les gens de tout passé significatif et les laisses confuses quant à tout avenir significatif.

Nous devons maintenir un lien avec nos racines évangéliques et reconnaître leur impact sur l'Église. Je l’ai mentionné plus tôt à propos de la scène musicale religieuse, mais son impact va bien au-delà de la simple musique. Elle a également un impact sur les traditions doctrinales. Les doctrines que nous enseignons dans les églises évangéliques conservatrices sont le fruit d’une longue histoire de débats théologiques et d’études menées par des individus, des églises et des confessions. Ce que nous croyons aujourd'hui est, en grande partie, dû à l'érudition théologique de personnes dont Dieu a doté de capacités pour analyser, articuler et promouvoir une doctrine biblique solide, et nous remercions Dieu pour eux.

Remarques finales. Cette brève étude de contexte est conçue pour mettre en évidence certaines des influences laïques sur nos églises évangéliques contemporaines qui soulignent la nécessité de revenir aux sources à travers la prédication et l'enseignement de la doctrine biblique. Comme le soutient Timothy George : « Le rétablissement de la prédication doctrinale est essentiel au renouveau de l'Église… Le présupposé de la prédication doctrinale est que le Dieu qui est venu une fois pour toutes en Jésus-Christ et a parlé une fois pour toutes dans les Saintes Écritures vient encore et parle toujours à son peuple à travers la proclamation fidèle de sa Parole dans la puissance du Saint-Esprit » (« Doctrinal Preaching » dans Handbook of Contemporary Preaching, éd. Michael Duduit, pages 93 et 95).

Bien que beaucoup de gens diraient qu’ils veulent des sermons qui répondent à leurs « besoins ressentis », notre tâche est de délivrer des sermons qui répondent à leurs « besoins réels ». Leurs véritables besoins sont spirituels et leurs besoins spirituels doivent être satisfaits avant tout par un enseignement biblique solide, y compris la doctrine.

Ceci conclut ma discussion sur le premier élément (« A ») ci-dessus : « Certains facteurs de notre culture contemporaine qui ont un impact sur la prédication de la doctrine. » Je continuerai à discuter de divers autres aspects de la prédication doctrinale (voir « B » à « E » ci-dessus) dans les éditions ultérieures de ce NET Pastors Journal.

II. Renforcement du leadership biblique :
L'ordre dans l'Église, partie 4, 1 Timothy 2 :1-15

Comme nous l’avons remarqué la dernière fois, 1 Timothée est structuré autour de cinq « instructions » (points d’instruction) que l’apôtre Paul adresse au jeune pasteur Timothée, qui était le fils de Paul dans la foi et son protégé (élève, apprenti). Ces cinq instructions sont les suivantes :

A. Une instruction concernant la responsabilité pastorale (1 :3-20) : « Combat le bon combat ».

B. Une instruction concernant le culte public (2 : 1-15) : « Les hommes doivent prier… les femmes doivent apprendre en silence. »

C. Une instruction concernant le leadership pastoral (3 : 1-16) : « Comment doit-on se comporter dans la maison de Dieu ? »

D. Un conseil concernant le dévouement personnel (4 : 1-6 : 2) : « Veille sur toi-même et sur ton enseignement. »

E. Une instruction concernant les motivations pastorales (6 :3-21) : « Garde le commandement intact… garde le dépôt qui t’a été confié. »

Dans les trois éditions précédentes de ce Journal (NPJ 47, 48, 49), j'ai abordé la première instruction (« A ») concernant les responsabilités pastorales :

A1. La responsabilité de maintenir une doctrine pure (1 :3-11)

A2. La responsabilité de témoigner de la grâce salvatrice de Dieu (1 :12-17)

A3. La responsabilité de remplir votre mandat pastoral (1 :18-20).

Dans cette édition, nous étudierons la deuxième instruction dans 1 Timothée …

B. Une instruction concernant le culte public (2 : 1-15) : « Les hommes doivent prier… les femmes doivent apprendre en silence. »

Paul expose maintenant certains détails spécifiques et procéduraux concernant l’instruction générale donnée à Timothée qui est de remplir son mandat (1 : 18-20). Le premier élément est …

B1. Une exhortation à la prière en congrégation (2 :1-7). « J’exhorte donc, avant toutes choses, à faire des prières, des supplications, des requêtes, des actions de grâces, pour tous les hommes » (2 :1).

a) La primauté de la prière en congrégation (2 :1a). En disant : « J’exhorte donc, avant toutes choses… » Paul souhaite évidemment que Timothée, dans sa direction de l'église d'Éphèse, donne la première priorité à la pratique publique, collective et régulière de la prière. Paul n’exerce pas ici son autorité apostolique par le biais d’un commandement, mais il fait plutôt appel à la congrégation (en l’exhortant) à s’engager dans ce qui devrait être de première importance.

b) La nature de la prière en congrégation (2 :1b) est décrite ici en quatre termes – « des prières, des supplications, des requêtes, des actions de grâces » - tout cela devrait être exprimé dans les prières publiques de l’Église. Il est difficile de faire des distinctions claires entre ces différentes descriptions de la prière, mais, sans essayer d'être trop définitif, je pense qu'il existe des différences subtiles dans ces termes, peut-être comme suit :

“Supplications” - requêtes présentées à Dieu concernant des besoins spécifiques.

“Prières” – un terme général pour parler et entendre Dieu.

“Intercessions” – supplier Dieu en faveur de quelqu'un d'autre.

“Actions de grâce” – exprimer à Dieu notre gratitude pour les bénédictions reçues, la force dont Il a pourvu, la clarté qui nous a été donnée, les opportunités qui nous ont été présentées, les réponses attendues, etc. L'action de grâce devrait sûrement être notre attitude dans toutes nos prières.

La prière devrait donc non seulement avoir parmi nous la priorité et la régularité quant à sa pratique et inclure différents aspects quant à sa nature, mais il convient également de remarquer …

c) La portée de la prière en congrégation (2 :1c-2a) être universelle : « pour tous les hommes, pour les rois et pour tous ceux qui sont élevés en dignité. » la prière publique ne doit pas être limitée à nos besoins ou notre localité, elle doit être universelle (tous les) y compris ceux qui sont en position d’autorité (“pour les rois et pour tous ceux qui sont élevés en dignité”). En effet, ceux qui occupent des postes officiels plus élevés au sein du gouvernement, dans les forces de l'ordre, dans les tribunaux, etc., et sur nos lieux de travail, ont sûrement plus que jamais besoin de nos prières.

Cette exhortation devrait nous interpeller quant à savoir si la prière dans les églises dans lesquelles nous exerçons notre ministère est ainsi caractérisée. Il est si facile pour nous de devenir myopes dans notre vie de prière, n’est-ce pas ? Nous engageons-nous à faire des supplications et à des intercessions sérieuses dans un esprit d’action de grâce, non seulement pour nous-mêmes mais pour tous ? Nous souvenons-nous de prier publiquement pour les affaires du monde, la propagation de l’Évangile, le salut des perdus ? Ou sommes-nous plus préoccupés par nos propres besoins et désirs ?

d) L’objectif de la prière en congrégation (2 :2b) est : « afin que nous menions une vie paisible et tranquille, en toute piété et honnêteté. » Nos dirigeants, nos leaders et nos autorités font une différence significative dans les conditions dans lesquelles nous vivons en communauté et individuellement. Ceux qui nous gouvernent peuvent avoir un impact sur la qualité, la liberté et le témoignage de nos vies. Notre prière sincère devrait être que nous puissions vivre une vie « paisible et tranquille », sans opposition de nos voisins et des autorités et sans distraction de nos responsabilités chrétiennes, de telle sorte que notre témoignage chrétien soit « en toute piété et honnêteté ». Des prières en congrégation de cette nature et avec cet objectif auraient pour but ultime la propagation de l'Évangile à travers la liberté et la paix dont nous jouirions.

e) Les raisons de la prière en congrégation (2 :3-7). Paul donne trois raisons pour lesquelles la pratique de la prière en commun, telle qu’il l’a décrite, est si importante.

Premièrement, la prière en congrégation est importante parce que… la prière pour « tous les hommes » (2 : 1) est bonne « et agréable devant Dieu notre Sauveur » (2 : 3). Il est toujours « bon » de s'engager dans des pratiques qui « plaisent » à Dieu, et les prières qui plaisent à Dieu sont efficaces parce qu'elles s'accordent avec le désir de Dieu que « tous les hommes soient sauvés et parviennent à la connaissance de la vérité ». (2 :4). C’est une vérité merveilleuse que le cœur de Dieu, exprimé dans sa plénitude à la croix du Christ, a pour objectif le salut de tous les hommes.

Le dessein salvateur de Dieu a une portée universelle : personne ne pourra jamais dire que Dieu ne l’a pas aimé ou que Christ n’est pas mort pour lui. Néanmoins, malheureusement, certains ne seront pas sauvés, non pas à cause d’une déficience de la part de Dieu, mais à cause de leur refus obstiné d’accepter le salut qu’Il leur a destiné et qu’il leur offre en Christ. En effet, le désir de Dieu n’est pas seulement le salut de tous les hommes, mais qu’une fois sauvés, ils « parviennent à la connaissance de la vérité ». C’est certainement l’une des principales responsabilités du leadership pastoral : veiller à ce que les croyants apprennent les Écritures avec précision et clarté et soient formés à une vie chrétienne honnête, afin qu’ils progressent dans leur connaissance de la vérité et dans leur relation avec Dieu. (2 Tim. 3:16; Eph. 4:13-16).

Deuxièmement, la prière en congrégation est importante parce que… la prière pour le salut de tous renferme une base profondément doctrinale concernant la nature essentielle de Dieu et Sa relation avec la race humaine. La vérité selon laquelle « il y a un seul Dieu » (2 :5a) élimine toute notion païenne de dieux multiples ou que tous les chemins mènent au ciel. Et puisqu’il n’y a qu’un seul Dieu, il ne peut y avoir qu’« un seul médiateur entre Dieu et les hommes », et cette personne est «Jésus-Christ homme» (2 :5b). Seul le Christ Jésus, étant véritablement Dieu, pouvait fournir le moyen par lequel les personnes rebelles pouvaient se réconcilier avec Dieu (2 Cor. 5 : 14-21), objectif dans lequel il a servi de médiateur lorsque, à la croix, il « s'est donné lui-même en rançon pour tous » (2 :6a).

Remarquez une fois encore que le salut est prévu et accessible à tous par Christ, « qui est le témoignage rendu en son propre temps » (2 :6b), le moment où Christ est venu dans le monde, a vécu une vie parfaite et est mort comme un sacrifice parfait pour les péchés du monde, tout cela au bon moment dans l’histoire du monde (Galates 4 : 4). Cette courte déclaration de la doctrine chrétienne expose très succinctement les bases du salut et la motivation sous-jacente de prier pour le salut de tous.

Troisièmement, la prière en congrégation est importante parce que… la prière pour le salut de tous est la continuation du ministère de l’apôtre Paul. C’est pour cela que « j’ai été établi prédicateur et apôtre, je dis la vérité, je ne mens pas, chargé d’instruire les païens dans la foi et la vérité. » (2 : 7). Paul lui-même a été appelé par Christ (Galates 1 : 15) et établi apôtre pour prêcher et enseigner aux Gentils sur la base de sa foi personnelle et de la vérité objective de l’Évangile, ministère qu’il exhorte le pasteur Timothée (et nous) à poursuivre.

B2. Une instruction sur la conduite de la congrégation (2 :8-15). L’exhortation de l’apôtre à la prière en congrégation conduit à cette instruction concernant la distinction entre la participation et la conduite des hommes et des femmes dans l’Église.

a) La participation et la conduite des hommes dans la prière en congrégation (2 :8). « Je veux donc que les hommes prient en tout lieu, en élevant des mains pures, sans colère ni mauvaises pensées. » Le fait que l’apôtre adresse cette instruction spécifiquement aux « hommes » est remarquable et pertinent pour notre époque où il semble y avoir beaucoup de la confusion quant à savoir qui peut participer au culte public et comment.

Quant aux participants à la prière publique, l’apôtre Paul demande aux hommes de l’Église d’être actifs dans cet aspect du culte en congrégation. Cela soulève des questions évidentes, comme celle de savoir s'il veut dire que seuls les hommes peuvent prier exclusivement dans les services publics ou si les femmes peuvent prier également, puisque dans 1 Corinthiens 11 : 5-6, il déclare qu'une femme qui prie publiquement doit avoir soit la tête voilée ou les cheveux coupés. Cela soulève également la question de savoir si Paul s’adresse uniquement aux hommes de l’Église d’Éphèse ou à tous les hommes de chaque église.

Mon sentiment est que dans 1 Timothée 2, Paul n’attribue pas la prière publique exclusivement aux hommes, pas plus qu’il n’ordonne un comportement approprié aux femmes uniquement. Ici, dans 1 Timothée 2 : 8, il s’adresse simplement aux hommes, les exhortant à assumer leur responsabilité et leur rôle dans les cultes publics, dont l’un est la prière publique. Peut-être que les hommes de l’Église d’Éphèse manquaient à cette responsabilité. Puis, dans 2 : 9-10, il s’adresse aux femmes, les exhortant à se parer de vêtements appropriés et à être pieuses. Ce sont les questions spécifiques qu’il aborde dans le contexte de Timothée. De plus, l’introduction « de même… » (2 : 9) semble impliquer que les femmes peuvent également prier publiquement, mais ce n’est pas l’objet de ce chapitre. Cela ne contredit en rien ses instructions dans 1 Corinthiens 11, puisqu’une conduite ordonnée et des relations entre hommes et femmes dans le culte public doivent toujours être maintenues.

La manière dont les hommes prient publiquement est également importante pour l’apôtre. Ils devaient prier « en élevant les mains pures », ce qui, dans l’église du premier siècle, était une démonstration de révérence. Je pense qu'il est raisonnable de supposer qu'une telle façon de prier n'est pas nécessairement contraignante pour toutes les cultures et pour toujours. En effet, l’accent ne semble pas être mis sur le mode extérieur de prière publique mais plutôt sur la sainteté intérieure de la vie de l’homme, telle qu’elle se manifeste dans sa conduite extérieure – « sans colère ni mauvaises pensées. » (2 : 8).

Le comportement d’une personne en colère n’est pas propice à la sainteté. La colère est la racine interne des querelles externes. La colère est un manque de maîtrise de soi émotionnel, généralement dans la tentative de la personne de dominer les autres, de persuader les autres à se soumettre à sa volonté et à ses opinions. Si elle n’est pas jugée, cette attitude se transforme souvent en un comportement pécheur comme des querelles. Un homme en colère et querelleur est généralement connu de tous dans la congrégation comme tel, ce qui le rend incapable de prier efficacement au nom de la congrégation, dont certains ont probablement été affectés négativement par son comportement.

b) La participation et la conduite des femmes dans le culte de la congrégation (9-15). Il y a ici deux aspects dans l’instruction de l’apôtre :

Le premier aspect est leur comportement modeste dans le culte de la congrégation. (2 :9-10) : « ⁹ Je veux aussi que les femmes, vêtues d’une manière décente, avec pudeur et modestie, ne se parent ni de tresses, ni d’or, ni de perles, ni d’habits somptueux, mais qu’elles se parent de bonnes œuvres, comme il convient à des femmes qui font profession de servir Dieu. »

Ici, l’apôtre ne se concentre pas sur la participation des femmes à la prière (comme on pourrait s’y attendre, d’après ce qu’il vient de dire aux hommes), mais sur leur décorum général. La raison de cette instruction n’est pas donnée, nous ne spéculerons donc pas. Néanmoins, il semble évident que certaines femmes de l’église d’Éphèse se présentaient d’une manière qui attirait l’attention sur elles. Paul aborde cette pratique en enseignant aux femmes que leur comportement et leur tenue vestimentaire soient caractérisés par « la modestie et la maîtrise de soi » tant dans leur tenue vestimentaire que dans leur comportement, ce qui, compte tenu du contexte, a un impact direct sur le culte de la congrégation.

De peur que vous ne pensiez que Paul se concentre uniquement sur les aspects extérieurs, notez qu’avec les hommes comme avec les femmes, il relie directement l’extérieur à l’intérieur. Quant aux hommes, ils doivent « prier en levant les mains saintes » (externe) et le faire « sans colère ni mauvaises pensées » (interne). Quant aux femmes, elles doivent d’une manière décente « avec pudeur et modestie, ne se parent ni de tresses, ni d’or, ni de perles, ni d’habits somptueux » (extérieurs) mais « avec de bonnes œuvres, comme il convient à des femmes qui font profession de servir Dieu. » (interne).

Comme pour les hommes (2 : 8), ce qui se passe intérieurement dans l’esprit, le cœur et l’attitude d’une femme se manifeste extérieurement dans sa tenue vestimentaire et son comportement. C’est quelque chose qui est largement oublié dans la culture d’aujourd’hui, dans laquelle l’habillement et le comportement extérieurs ne sont souvent pas liés à l’attitude et au respect intérieurs. Mais il est certain que la façon dont nous nous présentons extérieurement lorsque nous nous réunissons en tant qu'église doit être cohérente avec l'occasion d'adorer Dieu - notre tenue vestimentaire et notre conduite sont le reflet de notre attitude envers le lieu et la personne que nous adorons ; c’est pour quoi rien dans notre comportement ne devrait être une distraction. Selon l’apôtre Paul, cela devrait être clairement manifesté par les chrétiens et les chrétiennes lors du culte public.

Plutôt que d’attirer l’attention sur elles dans le lieu de culte public par leurs parures extérieures, les femmes devraient se parer de « bonnes œuvres », comme cela est convenable pour des « femmes qui font profession de servir Dieu. » Ainsi, la sainteté intérieure du caractère se reflète toujours dans la modestie et le respect extérieurs.

Le deuxième aspect de l’instruction de l’apôtre aux femmes est leur attitude calme dans le culte public (2 :11-15) : « Que la femme écoute l’instruction en silence, avec une entière soumission. Je ne permets pas à la femme d’enseigner, ni de prendre de l’autorité sur l’homme ; mais elle doit demeurer dans le silence. » (2 : 11-12).

Ici, Paul personnalise son exhortation : « la femme » (plutôt que « les femmes ») doit apprendre tranquillement et en toute soumission (2 : 11). Le comportement d'une femme lors d'un culte public doit être celui d'une apprenante calme et soumise, en particulier par rapport aux hommes. Paul poursuit en nuançant ce qu'il vient de dire : « Je ne permets pas à la femme d’enseigner, ni de prendre de l’autorité sur l’homme ; mais elle doit demeurer dans le silence. » (2 : 12). C’est ce qu’il entend par apprenante calme et soumise – tout cela concerne les hommes à qui est assigné le rôle de leadership dans l’Église. Cette instruction semble soutenir l’idée selon laquelle il devait y avoir des femmes dans l’église d’Éphèse qui étaient tout sauf calmes et soumises aux hommes.

Paul soutient son instruction ici en citant deux facteurs …

1. L’ordre de la création : « Car Adam a été formé le premier, Eve ensuite » (2 : 13). Ève a été créée après Adam, à partir d'Adam et pour Adam (Genèse 2 :7 ; 2 :20-23 ; 1 Cor. 11 :8-9). Adam était son chef, et non l’inverse, et cet ordre dans la création doit être reconnu dans l’assemblée du peuple de Dieu lors du culte public. Ainsi, avant que le péché n’entre dans le monde, Dieu avait déjà établi une distinction dans la relation et les fonctions de l’homme et de la femme lors de la création.

2. L'ordre de la chute : « … et ce n’est pas Adam qui a été séduit, c’est la femme qui, séduite, s’est rendue coupable de transgression. » (2 : 14). Ceci est très instructif quant à la façon dont Paul déclare cela. D’une part, Ève fut la première à pécher, complètement trompée par Satan. D’un autre côté, Adam, à l’initiative d’Ève, a également péché, mais sciemment et volontairement. Il n’a pas été trompé comme Ève ; il savait exactement ce qu’il faisait, choisissant de désobéir aux instructions de Dieu. Le fait est qu’en usurpant le rôle de leader assigné à Adam par Dieu dans leur relation, Ève est devenue une transgresseuse et pour cela elle a été soumise au jugement de Dieu afin que, malgré son désir de régner sur son mari, il la domine (Gen. 3 : 16). Ceci constitue la base des instructions de Paul concernant la position des femmes dans le culte public – une position de subordination et de soumission, et non de leadership et d’autorité.

Néanmoins, une femme n’est pas condamnée à une position d’insignifiance : « Elle sera néanmoins sauvée en devenant mère, si elle persévère avec modestie dans la foi, dans la charité, et dans la sainteté. » (2 : 15). En conséquence directe de la transgression d’Ève, la femme (Ève en particulier, mais toutes les femmes par extension) a été maudite par la douleur lors de l’accouchement (Genèse 3 : 16). Néanmoins, malgré l’introduction du péché dans le monde et malgré la malédiction de la douleur lors de l’accouchement qui en résulte, les femmes ne sont pas hors de portée du salut. Au contraire, « Elle sera néanmoins sauvée en devenant mère. » Il y a ici plusieurs difficultés d’interprétation…

a) Qu’est-ce que la grossesse a à voir avec le salut d’une femme ? La référence à la procréation est liée à la malédiction sur les femmes à cause du péché – à savoir la douleur liée à la procréation. Le sentiment général semble être que malgré la malédiction, le péché d’Ève n’était pas irrémédiable. Au contraire, même si la conséquence de son péché a été pour toutes les femmes des douleurs lors de la procréation, les femmes peuvent et sont sauvées et la preuve de leur salut est leur persévérance dans « la foi, la charité et la sainteté… » Cette qualification est cohérente avec la doctrine de la persévérance, que ceux qui sont vraiment sauvés manifesteront une vie pieuse et persévéreront jusqu’à la fin.

Puisque ce verset contraste avec le verset précédent (« néanmoins » ou « encore »), contextuellement, il semble que Paul dit que le rôle principal des femmes mariées (à qui il s'adressait dans l'église d'Éphèse) est d'avoir des enfants (évidemment, seulement s’ils en sont capables), et non pas diriger l’Église. Autrement dit, le rôle de « leadership » d’une femme mariée consiste à avoir des enfants, ce pour quoi les femmes sont particulièrement douées et que les hommes ne peuvent pas faire.

« En devenant mère » ne signifie pas ici que la procréation est le moyen de salut d’une femme, mais plutôt qu’en conséquence de la procréation, elle assure le leadership et s’épanouit au foyer en donnant naissance et en élevant des enfants pieux.

b) À qui fait référence « elles » ? Le passage du singulier « elle » au pluriel « elles » est simplement la façon dont Paul passe de sa référence à Ève spécifiquement à toutes les femmes en général. Ainsi, « elles (toutes les femmes en général) seront sauvées dans la procréation si… ».

c) Que signifie « si elle persévère avec modestie dans la foi… » ? La contribution d’une femme mariée à l’édification de l’Église passe par son exemple de piété envers ses enfants – donc « s’elles persévèrent dans la foi ».

III. Plans de sermon

Titre : Apprendre de Jésus – Témoigner de sa divinité (Matthieu 27 :45-54)

Sujet : Cinq témoignages du Calvaire.

Thème : Dieu a donné la preuve claire au Calvaire que Jésus-Christ est son Fils.

Point I : Le témoignage de l'obscurité de midi (27 :45).

1. La particularité de l'obscurité.

a) Elle a éteint le soleil.

b) Elle a enveloppé la terre.

c) Elle manifesté la main de Dieu.

2. La symbolisaient des ténèbres.

a) Les ténèbres symbolisaient les souffrances du Christ.

b) Les ténèbres symbolisaient l'identité du Christ.

c) Les ténèbres symbolisaient l'isolement du Christ.

d) Les ténèbres symbolisaient la noirceur du péché.

e) Les ténèbres symbolisaient la colère de Dieu.

Point II : Le témoignage du voile du temple (27 :5a).

1. Le voile du temple était un avertissement de rester loin de Dieu parce qu'il est saint et que les hommes sont pécheurs.

2. Le voile déchiré du temple était une invitation à s'approcher de Dieu …

a) … parce que la dette du péché a été payée.

b) … parce que l'accès à Dieu a été ouvert à tous.

Point III : Le témoignage du tremblement de terre (27 :51b).

1. Le tremblement de terre a témoigné de l’importance de la mort du Christ.

2. Le tremblement de terre a accompli la prophétie de Jésus (Lk. 19 :40).

3. Le tremblement de terre était la réponse du Calvaire au Sinaï.

4. Le tremblement de terre était la réponse du Calvaire à Eden.

Point IV : Le témoignage des tombes ouvertes (27 :52-53).

1. Les tombes ouvertes symbolisaient la résurrection définitive des saints.

2. Les grâces ouvertes étaient une exposition publique.

Point V : Le témoignage des militaires (27 :54).

1. What they saw caused them to fear.

2. Their fear caused them to testify.

Служение института библейского проповедования…

Автор: Проф. Роджер Паскоу, президент,
email: [email protected]

I. Усиливая разъяснительную проповедь: проповедь доктрины

Поскольку я не могу охватить все аспекты проповедования доктрины, я решил особенно сосредоточиться на применении доктрины, поскольку это, как мне кажется, является одной из самых больших проблем в проповеди. Как мне сделать доктрину актуальной для жизни, а не просто концепцию, которую нужно понять? Как я могу преподавать доктрину в своей проповеди так, чтобы люди осознавали ее важность и ценность для своей жизни, чтобы она формировала их мышление, поведение, решения, отношения, ценности и т. д.?

Затрагивая эту тему, я постараюсь в этом и последующих выпусках журнала дать вам…

А. Некоторые факторы нашей современной культуры, влияющие на проповедь доктрины.

Б. Три важных шага в проповеди доктрины.

В. Некоторые конкретные примеры применения доктрины в проповеди.

Г. Helpful hints for preaching doctrine.

Д. Некоторые заключительные напоминания о проповедовании доктрины.

Сначала, в качестве введения в эту тему, позвольте мне прокомментировать…

А. Некоторые факторы нашей современной культуры, влияющие на проповедь доктрины.

А1. Влияние современной христианской музыки на доктрину. Музыка, которую мы сейчас слышим и поем в церкви, находится под сильным влиянием светской музыки. Вы можете возразить, что так было всегда, но это не означает, что так правильно и не означает, что так должно продолжаться. Многие современные христианские песни с таким же успехом могут быть песнями, исполняемыми в светских радиопрограммах, поскольку они звучат однообразно, и в некоторых случаях не содержат никаких слов, по которым их можно было бы легко определить, как христианские.

Жанр христианской музыки – это не просто вопрос предпочтений. Дело не только в том, любите ли вы традиционные гимны или современную музыку прославления. Это очень поверхностный взгляд на музыку. Конечно, музыку, которую мы выбираем для богослужений, нужно выбирать исходя из…

1. Богословие лов песен – их богословская целостность и наставление через них.

2. Ее связь с темой проповеди, ибо все аспекты церковной службы, я бы сказал, должны быть едиными. Действительно, калейдоскоп музыки, совершенно не связанной с темой проповеди, производит несвязанное служение и отделяет поклонение в музыке от поклонения в Слове.

3. Выражение поклонения Богу

4. Ее связь с христианским жизненным опытом.

5. Стиль музыкальной композиции и игра музыкальных инструментов.

6. Его связь с нашей евангелистической историей. Этот критерий часто упускается из виду, но он жизненно необходим, поскольку появление и популярность современной христианской музыки делает акцент на «современности» и способствует оторванности от прошлого, возникшей в наших церквях, настолько, что мы фактически воспитываем поколение молодых людей сейчас, которые не имеют никакого отношения к нашим богословским традициям, доктринам или к истории.

Итак, когда мы говорим о проповеди доктрины, имейте в виду, что проповедь и преподавание доктрины не ограничиваются только проповедью. Мы также должны преподавать доктрину в нашей музыке. К сожалению, большая часть современной музыки (не вся) либо не содержит никакого доктринального содержания, либо доктрины, укорененной в других церковных традициях, которые могут противоречить тому, во что мы верим и практикуем. Таким образом, распространение церковной музыки, принадлежащей только современному жанру, без какой-либо традиционной музыки, усугубляет отход от проповедующего учения и способствует библейской и теологической неграмотности многих наших прихожан, особенно нашей молодежи.

А2. Влияние современного мировоззрения на доктрину. То, как думает наше общество в целом, обычно проникает в наши собрания. Современное культурное мышление отвергает представление о том, что существует познаваемая, абсолютная, авторитетная истина. Вместо этого те, кто придерживается этой философии, считают всю истину относительной и ситуативной, зависящей от вашего личного мировоззрения и опыта, который, по их мнению, более важен и авторитетен в их жизни, чем абстрактные концепции. Таким образом, эта современная философия повлияла на то, с каким отношением люди слушают проповеди, особенно проповеди по библейскому учению.

С этим образом мышления тесно связан культурный акцент на правах и свободах личности, который аналогичным образом влияет на проповедь доктрины. Индивидуализм подчеркивает не только частные предпочтения, но и личный, индивидуальный авторитет, который говорит: «Во что я верю, это мое дело, и никто другой не будет говорить мне, что правильно, а что нет». Вместо того, чтобы проповедовать людям, чье основное предположение состоит в том, что Библия истинна и точна во всем, что она утверждает, многие люди сегодня приходят на наши церковные службы с таким отношением: «С каких это пор библейское учение стало высшим авторитетом для моей веры и практики? Кто дает вам право говорить мне, что правда, а что нет?» В результате на наших скамьях собрались люди самых разных богословских убеждений, многие из которых не имеют прочного библейского основания, а во многих случаях люди вообще не имеют богословских убеждений.

Вдобавок к этому, многие христиане смотрят на церковь, ее служение и программы так же, как выбирают что-то из меню в ресторане или покупают продукты: «Что мне больше всего нравится, лучше всего соответствует моим потребностям, приносит мне наибольшую пользу? » Этот акцент на личностных предпочтениях сегодня проявляется в нестабильном уровне посещаемости во многих евангелистических церквях. Как сказал мне один пастор, кажется, что собрание меняется еженедельно. Если есть другое мероприятие (например, занятия спортом) и оно противоречит служению в церкви и считается для людей более привлекательным, чем посещение церкви, то это мероприятие в приоритете.

Частью этого ориентированного на потребителя и эгоцентричного менталитета является стремление к мгновенному удовлетворению потребностей, от фаст-фуда до обезболивающих. Несомненно, именно поэтому так много популярных христианских книг, которые заполняют христианские книжные магазины, настолько поверхностны. Они отвечают требованию «пяти простых шагов» для решения сложных жизненных вопросов, начиная от воспитания детей и заканчивая решением долгов и знанием будущего.

Все это говорит о том, что потребность в немедленных решениях и акцент на личных предпочтениях проявляется в общем отношении и к библейской доктрине. Церковь по большей части нынешнего поколения — это просто еще один пункт в списке вещей, которые они могут купить, и при оценке того, какую церковь или церковную услугу получить, они руководствуются материалистическим взглядом: «Что это даст мне? Какая польза здесь для моих детей?»

Несомненно, телевидение и фильмы оказали большое влияние на кажущуюся неспособность людей в целом взаимодействовать и размышлять над философскими и теологическими проблемами. Телевидение и Голливуд бомбардируют культуру своей философией, и люди подсознательно ее впитывают. Итак, задача для нас, как для проповедников, состоит в том, чтобы убедиться, что богословие, которому мы учим, не осталось в сфере абстрактной концепции, а было напрямую связано с жизнью практически.

К сожалению, многие проповедники попали в плен этой материалистической культуры и в ответ говорят проповеди, которые удовлетворяют современному мировоззрению, такие как проповеди с практическими рекомендациями, проповеди, основанные на чувстве нужды, а также христианская психология и консультирование, все из которых призваны принести осязаемую, понятную ценность для осознанных потребностей слушателя, но которые, в конечном счете, представляют собой антропоцентрические проповеди, во многих случаях лишенные какого-либо внимания к Богу и доктринам Его Слова. Мы должны помнить, что богословие является и должно быть фундаментально практичным, иначе оно не сможет изменить жизнь людей. Таким образом, проповедуя доктрину, проповедники должны обязательно разъяснять, как это должно влиять на жизнь – на наши отношения, ценности, приоритеты, убеждения, мораль и т. д.

Итак, задача проповедников в современном контексте такова: как проповедовать людям, чье преимущественно светское мышление определяет каждую часть их жизни, включая то, чего они хотят от церкви? Как эффективно проповедовать людям, которые больше настроены на чувства, образы, звуки, прикосновения и переживания, чем на размышление своим умом об истине высказываний? Как проповедовать людям, которые не верят в существование абсолютной истины? Как вы проповедуете людям, многие из которых думают, что то, что верно для вас, не обязательно верно для них?

Я бы сказал, что по мере того, как постмодернизм постепенно деконструирует мировоззрение общества (через такие концепции, как моральную относительность, социальный плюрализм, эволюционный гуманизм), христианская доктрина становится все более актуальной, помогая людям снова соединить свою жизнь и мировоззрение. Более того, прежде чем мы сможем научить людей «как» в отношении христианского поведения, мы должны научить их «что» важно в христианской доктрине. Если они не знают, «во что» мы верим и «почему» мы в это верим, они не смогут понять, «как» применить это в своей христианской жизни. Как выразился Б. Б. Уорфилд: «Всеобщепризнанный принцип, согласно которому то, во что человек верит, определяет его поведение, подчеркивает важность проповеди правильного учения» («Незаменимость систематического богословия для проповедника», в журнале The Masters Seminary Journal, осень 1996 г.) Это одна из проблем антропоцентрических проповедей, посвященных тому, «как себя вести» или «как мы чувствуем». Они пытаются изменить образ жизни людей, не меняя сначала их образ мышления, который основан на библейской истине.

А3. Влияние современной библейской неграмотности на доктрину. Не так давно (вероятно, еще в начале-середине 20-го века) проповедники могли рассчитывать на то, что большая часть их прихожан знает библейские повествования, понимает и подтверждает библейские доктрины, по крайней мере, в той или иной степени. Но сейчас на это рассчитывать нельзя. Все меньше и меньше прихожан церкви знают свою Библию или библейское учение.

Поскольку проповедь доктрины становится все более и более необходимой, многие проповедники находят ее все более и более сложной и все менее привлекательной, возможно, потому, что они сами не знают или адекватно не понимают библейскую доктрину, или, возможно, потому, что проповедь доктрины может повлиять на их отношения со своей общиной, многие из которых могут не принимать то, что они проповедуют. Таким образом, проблема библейской неграмотности многих прихожан церкви приводит к тому, что многие проповедники боятся проповедовать доктрину, чтобы не быть неправильно понятыми или, что еще хуже, не оскорбить свою паству. Поэтому во многих случаях они уклоняются от этого.

Кажется, жизнь движется такими темпами, что то, что было принято еще 10 лет назад, теперь становится излишним и отбрасывается, уступая место новому. В этой культуре быстрых перемен история и традиции больше не важны для молодого поколения. Они живут настоящим, в отрыве от прошлого и без особой заботы о будущем. Эволюция, которую горячо проповедуют в школах, на телевидении и в других формах развлечений, вероятно, оказала одно из величайших воздействий на этот тип мышления, поскольку она эффективно отрывает людей от какого-либо значимого прошлого и оставляет их в замешательстве относительно какого-либо значимого будущего.

Мы должны поддерживать связь с нашими евангельскими корнями и осознавать их влияние на церковь. Я упоминал об этом ранее в отношении церковной музыкальной сцены, но его влияние более далеко зашедшее, чем просто музыка. Это также влияет на доктринальные традиции. Доктрины, которым мы обучаем в консервативных, евангелистических церквях, вышли из долгой истории богословских споров и изучения отдельными людьми, церквями и деноминациями. То, во что мы верим сегодня, во многом обусловлено богословскими знаниями людей, которым Бог даровал анализировать, формулировать и продвигать здравое библейское учение, и мы благодарим Бога за них.

Заключительные замечания. Этот краткий обзор предыстории призван подчеркнуть некоторые светские влияния на наши современные евангелистические церкви, которые подчеркивают необходимость возвращения к основам через проповедь и преподавание библейского учения. Как утверждает Тимоти Джордж: «Восстановление доктринальной проповеди необходимо для обновления церкви… Предпосылкой доктринальной проповеди является то, что Бог, раз и навсегда пришедший в Иисусе Христе и раз, и навсегда изреченный в Священном Писании, по-прежнему приходит и по-прежнему говорит со Своим народом посредством верного провозглашения Его Слова в силе Святого Духа» («Доктринальная проповедь» в «Справочнике современной проповеди», изд. Майкла Дудуита, стр. 93 и 95).

Хотя многие люди говорят, что им нужны проповеди, отвечающие их «ощущаемым потребностям», наша задача — произносить проповеди, отвечающие их «реальным потребностям». Их настоящие потребности духовны, и их духовные потребности должны удовлетворяться в первую очередь с помощью здравого библейского учения, включая доктрину.

На этом я завершаю обсуждение первого пункта («А») выше: «Некоторые факторы нашей современной культуры, влияющие на проповедь доктрины». Я продолжу обсуждать различные другие аспекты доктринальной проповеди (см. пункты «Б» – «Д» выше) в последующих выпусках этого журнала для пасторов NET.

II. Укрепление библейского лидерства:
Порядок в церкви, часть 4, 1 Тимофею 2:1-15

Как мы заметили в прошлый раз, первое послание к Тимофею построено вокруг пяти «обязанностей» (пунктов наставления), которые апостол Павел дает молодому пастору Тимофею, который был сыном Павла по вере и его протеже (учеником, подмастерьем). Эти пять обязанностей заключаются в следующем:

А. Обязанность, касающаяся пасторской ответственности (1:3-20): «Веди добрую битву»

Б. Обязанность относительно совместного поклонения (2:1-15): «Мужчины должны молиться… женщины должны учиться тихо».

В. Обязанность в отношении пасторского руководства (3:1-16): «Как должно вести себя в доме Божием».

Г. Обязанность относительно личного посвящения (4:1-6:2): «Внимательно следите за собой и за учением».

Д. Обязанность, касающаяся пасторских мотивов (6:3-21): «Храните заповедь незапятнанной… храните вверенный вам залог».

В трех предыдущих выпусках этого журнала (NPJ 47, 48, 49) я рассмотрел первое обвинение («А»), касающееся пасторских обязанностей:

А1. Ответственность сохранять чистоту учения (1:3-11)

А2. Ответственность свидетельствовать о спасительной благодати Божией (1:12-17)

А3. Ответственность за выполнение вашего пасторского мандата (1:18-20).

В этом выпуске мы изучим вторую обязанность в 1 Тимофею…

Б. Обязанность относительно совместного поклонения (2:1-15): «Мужчины должны молиться… женщины должны учиться спокойно».

Теперь Павел переходит к изложению некоторых особенностей и процедуры и деталей общего поручения Тимофею выполнить свой мандат (1:18-20). Первая тема – это…

Б1. Призыв к совместной молитве (2:1-7). «Итак, прежде всего призываю тебя молиться, просить, ходатайствовать и благодарить за всех людей» (2:1).

а) Первоочередность совместной молитвы (2:1а). Говоря: «Итак, прежде всего я призываю…» Павел, очевидно, хочет, чтобы Тимофей в своем руководстве церковью в Ефесе отдавал первоочередное внимание общей и регулярной практике молитвы для всех в общине. Здесь Павел не осуществляет свою апостольскую власть посредством повеления, а, скорее, обращается к собранию (побуждая их) заняться тем, что должно иметь первостепенное значение.

б) Природа совместной молитвы (2:1б) описана здесь в четырех терминах – «мольбы, прошения, ходатайства и благодарения», – все из которых должны выражаться в общихх молитвах в церкви. Трудно провести четкие различия между этими различными описаниями молитвы, но, не пытаясь быть слишком определенным, я думаю, что в этих терминах есть тонкие различия, возможно, следующие:

«Прошения» — просьбы, обращенные к Богу по поводу конкретных нужд.

«Молитвы» – общий термин, обозначающий обращение к Богу и слышание от Него.

«Ходатайства» – обращение к Богу за кого-либо.

«Благодарения» – выражение нашей благодарности Богу за полученные благословения, предоставленную силу, данную ясность, представленные возможности, ожидаемые ответы и т. д. Несомненно, благодарность должна быть нашим отношением во всех наших молитвах.

Таким образом, молитва должна не только иметь среди нас приоритет и регулярность в плане ее практики и включать в себя различные аспекты ее природы, но также обратите внимание…

в) Сфера совместной молитвы (2:1в-2а) должна быть универсальной: «…за всех людей, за царей и всех, находящихся у власти». Совместная молитва не должна ограничиваться нашими потребностями или нашей местностью, но должна быть универсальной («все люди»), включая тех, кто находится у власти («за царей и за всех, кто находится у власти»). Действительно, те, кто занимает более высокие официальные должности в правительстве, правоохранительных органах, в судах и т. д., а также на наших местах работы, несомненно, сегодня нуждаются в наших молитвах больше, чем когда-либо.

Это увещевание должно поставить перед нами вопрос о том, характеризуется ли молитва в церквях, в которых мы служим, именно так. Не правда ли, нам так легко стать близорукими в нашей молитвенной жизни? Принимаем ли мы серьезно прошения и ходатайства в духе благодарения не только за себя, но и за всех людей? Не забываем ли мы вместе молиться за ситуации в мире, распространение Евангелия, спасение заблудших? Или нас больше беспокоят наши собственные нужды и желания?

г) Цель совместной молитвы (2:2б) — «чтобы мы могли вести мирную и тихую жизнь, благочестивую и достойную во всех отношениях». Наши правители, лидеры и власти существенно меняют условия, в которых мы живем коллективно и индивидуально. Те, кто правят нами, могут повлиять на качество, свободу и свидетельство нашей жизни. Наша искренняя молитва должна заключаться в том, чтобы нам было позволено жить «мирной и спокойной» жизнью, не встречая сопротивления со стороны наших соседей и властей, и не отвлекаясь от наших христианских обязанностей, чтобы наше христианское свидетельство было «благочестивым и достойным во всех отношениях». Коллективные молитвы такого рода и с этой целью будут иметь своей конечной целью распространение Евангелия через свободу и мир, которыми мы будем наслаждаться.

д) Причины для совместной молитвы (2:3-7). Павел приводит три причины, почему практика совместной молитвы, как он ее описал, так важна.

Во-первых, совместная молитва важна, потому что… молитва «за всех людей» (2:1) «хороша и угодна Богу, Спасителю нашему» (2:3). Всегда «хорошо» заниматься делами, которые «угодны» Богу, а молитвы, угодные Богу, эффективны, потому что они согласуются с желанием Бога, чтобы «все люди спаслись и пришли к познанию истины». (2:4). Это чудесная истина: сердце Божие, выраженное во всей своей полноте на кресте Христовом, имеет своей целью спасение всех людей.

Спасительная цель Бога универсальна по своему масштабу – никто никогда не может сказать, что Бог не любил его или что Христос не умер за него. Тем не менее, к сожалению, некоторые не будут спасены не из-за каких-либо недостатков со стороны Бога, а из-за их упрямого отказа принять спасение, которое Он предусмотрел для них и предлагает им во Христе. Действительно, желание Бога заключается не только в спасении всех людей, но и в том, чтобы однажды спасаясь, они «пришли к познанию истины». Это, несомненно, одна из главных обязанностей пасторского руководства – гарантировать, что верующие обучаются Писанию точно и ясно, и обучаются праведной христианской жизни, чтобы они прогрессировали в познании истины и своих отношениях с Богом (2 Тим. 3:16; Еф. 4:13-16).

Во-вторых, совместная молитва важна, потому что… молитва о спасении всех людей имеет глубокую доктринальную основу, касающуюся сущностной природы божества и взаимоотношений Бога с человечеством. Истина о том, что «есть один Бог» (2:5а), устраняет любое языческое представление о нескольких богах или о том, что все дороги ведут на небеса. А поскольку есть только один Бог, может быть только «один посредник между Богом и человечеством», и этим человеком является «человек Христос Иисус» (2:5б). Только Христос Иисус, будучи истинным Богом, мог указать путь, посредством которого непокорные люди могут примириться с Богом (2 Кор. 5:14-21), и этой цели Он способствовал, когда на кресте «отдал Себя для искупления всех» (2:6а).

Обратите внимание еще раз, что спасение предусмотрено и доступно всем людям через Христа, «которое есть свидетельство, данное в нужное время» (2:6б), время, когда Христос пришёл в мир, прожил совершенную жизнь, и умер, как совершенная жертва, за грехи мира, сделанная в нужное время мировой истории (Гал. 4:4). Это краткое изложение христианской доктрины очень кратко излагает основу спасения и основную мотивацию молиться за спасение всех людей.

В-третьих, совместная молитва важна, потому что… молитва о спасении всех людей является продолжением служения апостола Павла. «Для сего поставлен я проповедником и Апостолом (истину говорю, не лгу), учителем язычников в вере и истине» (2:7). Сам Павел был призван Христом (Гал. 1:15) и назначен апостолом проповедовать и учить язычников, основываясь на своей личной вере и объективной истине Евангелия; и это служение он призывает пастора Тимофея (и нас) продолжать.

Б 2. Наставление о поведении в собрании (2:8-15). Призыв апостола к совместной молитве приводит к этому указанию относительно различия между участием и поведением мужчин и женщин в церкви.

а) Участие и поведение людей в совместной молитве (2:8). «Поэтому я желаю, чтобы в каждом месте люди молились, поднимая святые руки без гнева и ссоры». То, что апостол адресует это указание конкретно «мужчинам», примечательно и актуально для наших дней, когда, кажется, существует большая путаница в отношении того, кто и как может участвовать в публичном служении.

Что касается участников общественной молитвы, то апостол Павел наставляет мужчин в церкви проявлять активность в этом аспекте совместного богослужения. Это поднимает некоторые очевидные вопросы, например, имеет ли он в виду, что только мужчины могут молиться на общественных службах, или же женщины тоже могут молиться, поскольку в 1 Коринфянам 11:5-6 он утверждает, что женщина, которая молится публично, должна либо покрыть свою голову, либо остричь волосы. Это также поднимает вопрос о том, обращается ли Павел только к мужчинам в Ефесской церкви или ко всем людям в каждой церкви.

Я считаю, что в 1 Тимофею 2 Павел не предписывает публичную молитву исключительно мужчинам, равно как и не предписывает правильное поведение только женщинам. Скорее, здесь, в 1 Тимофею 2:8, он просто обращается к мужчинам, призывая их взять на себя должную ответственность и роль в общих служениях, одним из которых является соместная молитва. Возможно, мужчины в Ефесской церкви не справились с этой обязанностью. Затем, в 2:9-10, он обращается к женщинам, призывая их украшать себя соответствующей одеждой и благочестием. Это конкретные проблемы, которые он рассматривает в контексте Тимофея. Более того, вступительное слово «также…» (2:9), по-видимому, подразумевает, что женщины также могут молиться публично, но в этой главе он не уделяет этому внимания. Это никоим образом не противоречит его указаниям в 1 Коринфянам 11, поскольку порядок поведения и отношений между мужчинами и женщинами во время общего служения всегда должен поддерживаться.

Для апостола также важно то, как мужчины молятся публично. Они должны были молиться, «поднимая святые руки», что в церкви первого века было демонстрацией благоговения. Я думаю, разумно предположить, что такой способ молитвы не обязательно является обязательным для всех культур на все времена. Действительно, кажется, что акцент делается не на внешнем способе общественной молитвы, а скорее на внутренней святости жизни человека, которая проявляется в его внешнем поведении – «без гнева и ссоры» (2:8).

Поведение разгневанного человека не способствует святости. Гнев – это внутренний корень внешних ссор. Гнев — это недостаток эмоционального самоконтроля, обычно выражающийся в попытке человека доминировать над другими, убедить других подчиниться своей воле и своему мнению. Если оставить это без осуждения, такое отношение часто перерастает в греховное поведение, например, в ссоры. Злой, сварливый человек обычно известен всем в собрании как таковой, что делает его неспособным эффективно молиться от имени собрания, на некоторых из которых, вероятно, его поведение негативно повлияло.

б) Участие и поведение женщин в коллективном богослужении (9-15). Здесь есть два аспекта наставления апостола:
Первым аспектом является их скромное поведение во время совместного служения (2:9-10): « ⁹ Также и жеы должны украшать себя приличной одеждой, со стыдливостью и целомудрием, и не плетением волос, не золотом, и не жемчугом, или дорогими нарядами, ¹⁰но добрыми делами, как прилично женам, исповедующим благочестие».

Здесь апостол акцентирует внимание не на участии женщины в молитве (как можно было ожидать, следуя тому, что он только что сказал мужчинам), а на их общем приличии. Причина такого указания не указана, поэтому не будем гадать. Тем не менее кажется очевидным, что некоторые женщины в церкви в Эфесе вели себя так, что привлекали к себе внимание. Павел обращается к этой практике, наставляя женщин, чтобы их поведение и одежда отличались «скромностью и целомудрием» как в одежде, так и в поведении, что, учитывая контекст, оказывает прямое влияние на совместное служение.

Чтобы вы не подумали, что Павел сосредоточен только на внешнем, обратите внимание, что как у мужчин, так и у женщин он напрямую связывает внешнее с внутренним. Что касается мужчин, то они должны «молиться, подняв святые руки» (внешнее) и делать это «без гнева и ссоры» (внутреннее). Что касается женщин, то им следует одеваться «в приличную одежду, со скромностью и воздержанием, не с заплетенными волосами, ни в золото, ни в жемчуга, или дорогие одежды» (внешне), но «в добрые дела, как подобает женщинам, исповедующим благочестие». " (внутренне).

Как и в случае с мужчинами (2:8), то, что происходит внутри ума, сердца и поведения женщины, проявляется внешне в ее одежде и поведении. Это то, что в значительной степени забыто в современной культуре, в которой внешняя одежда и поведение часто не связаны с внутренним отношением и благоговением. Но, несомненно, то, как мы представляем себя внешне, когда собираемся в церковь, должно соответствовать случаю поклонения Богу: наша одежда и поведение являются отражением нашего отношения к месту и человеку, которому мы поклоняемся, от которого ничто в нашем поведении не должно зависеть, отвлекать. Это, по мнению апостола Павла, должно ясно проявляться, как мужчинами-христианами, так и женщинами-христианками в общем служении.

Вместо того, чтобы привлекать к себе внимание в месте общего служения внешними украшениями, женщинам следует украшать себя «добрыми делами», как «подобает женщинам, исповедующим благочестие». Таким образом, внутренняя святость характера всегда отражается во внешней скромности и благоговении.

Второй аспект наставления апостола женщинам — это их спокойное отношение к публичному служению (2:11–15): «¹¹ Женщина должна учиться тихо с полной покорностью. ¹²Я не позволяю женщине учить или руководить мужчиной; скорее, она должна молчать (2:11-12).

Здесь Павел персонализирует свое увещевание: «женщина» (а не «женщины») должна учиться тихо, со всякой покорностью» (2:11). Женщина на общем служении должна вести себя как тихая, покорная ученица, особенно по отношению к мужчинам. Павел продолжает уточнять то, что только что сказал: «Но я не позволяю женщине учить или руководить мужчиной; скорее, она должна молчать» (2:12). Вот что он имеет в виду под тихим, покорным учеником – все это по отношению к мужчинам, которым отведена роль лидера в церкви. Это наставление, по-видимому, подтверждает идею о том, что в церкви в Эфесе должны были быть женщины, которые не были тихими и покорными мужчинам.

Павел подкрепляет свое наставление, ссылаясь на два фактора…

1. Порядок творения: «Ибо сначала был создан Адам, потом Ева» (2:13). Ева была создана после Адама, от Адама и для Адама (Быт. 2:7; 2:20-23; 1 Кор. 11:8-9). Адам был ее главой, а не наоборот, и этот порядок творения следует распознавать в собрании народа Божьего во время публичного богослужения. Таким образом, прежде чем грех вошел в мир, Бог уже установил различие во взаимоотношениях и функциях мужчины и женщины при творении.

2. Порядок падения: «…и Адам не был обманут, но женщина поддалась лжи и совершила преступление» (2:14). Наиболее поучительно то, как об этом говорит Павел. С одной стороны, Ева согрешила первой, будучи основательно обманутой сатаной. С другой стороны, Адам по инициативе Евы тоже согрешил, но сознательно и добровольно. Он не был обманут, как Ева; он точно знал, что делал, выбирая непослушание Божьим указаниям. Дело в том, что, узурпировав назначенную Адаму роль руководителя в их отношениях, Ева стала преступницей и за это попала под суд Божий, чтобы, несмотря на ее желание властвовать над мужем, он властвовал над ней (Быт. 3: 16). Это составляет основу наставления Павла относительно положения женщин в общем служении – положения подчинения и покорности, а не лидерства и власти.

Тем не менее женщина не обречена на незначительное положение: «Но она спасется через рождение детей, если они пребудут в вере, любви и святости, в воздержании» (2:15). В результате проступка Евы женщина (в частности, Ева, а также все женщины в целом) была проклята на болезненные роды (Быт. 3:16). Тем не менее, несмотря на приход в мир греха и, несмотря на последующее проклятие болезненных родов, женщины не лишены спасения. Скорее, «она спасется через рождение детей». Здесь есть несколько трудностей толкования…

а) Какое отношение деторождение имеет к спасению женщины? Упоминание о деторождении связано с проклятием женщин из-за греха, а именно болями при деторождении. Общий смысл, похоже, заключается в том, что, несмотря на проклятие, грех Евы не был непоправимым. Скорее, даже несмотря на то, что последствием ее греха была боль при деторождении для всех женщин, женщины могут быть спасены и спасены, и свидетельством их спасения является их пребывание в «вере, любви и святости…». Это качество согласуется с доктриной стойкости, что те, кто по-настоящему спасены, проявят благочестивую жизнь и претерпят до конца.

Поскольку этот стих противопоставляется предыдущему стиху («тем не менее» или «пока»), по контексту кажется, что Павел говорит, что основная роль замужних женщин (к которым он обращался в церкви в Ефесе) — рожать детей (очевидно, только если смогут), а не руководить церковью. То есть «лидерская» роль замужней женщины — рождение детей, а это то, к чему женщины имеют уникальный талант, и чего мужчины не могут сделать.

«Через деторождение» здесь не означает, что деторождение является средством спасения женщины, но скорее то, что вследствие деторождения она осуществляет руководство и получает удовлетворение в доме, рожая и воспитывая благочестивых детей.

б) К кому относится слово «они»? Переход от единственного числа «она» к множественному «они» — это просто способ, которым Павел переходит от своего обращения к Еве конкретно ко всем женщинам в целом. Таким образом, «они (вообще все женщины) спасутся в деторождении, если…».

в) Что значит «если они пребудут в вере…»? Вклад замужних женщин в созидание церкви заключается в их благочестивом примере своим детям – следовательно, «если они продолжают верить».

III. План проповеди

Название: Учимся у Иисуса – Свидетельствуем о Его божественности (Матфея 27:45-54)

Тема: Пять свидетельств Голгофы.

Тема: На Голгофе Бог дал достаточно доказательств того, что Иисус Христос — Его Сын.

Пункт I: Свидетельство полуденной тьмы (27:45).

1. Особенность темноты.

а) Солнце погасло.

б) Оно окутало землю.

в) Это обнажило руку Божью.

2. Портрет тьмы.

а) Тьма изображала страдания Христа.

б) Тьма изображала личность Христа

в) Тьма изображала изоляцию Христа.

г) Тьма изображала черноту греха

д) Тьма изображала гнев Божий.

Пункт II: Свидетельство храмовой завесы (27:51a).

1. Завеса храма была предупреждением держаться подальше от Бога, потому что Он свят, а люди грешны.

2. Разорванная завеса в храме была приглашением приблизиться к Богу…

а) …потому что долг греха был уплачен.

б) …потому что доступ к Богу был открыт для всех.

Пункт III: Свидетельство землятрясения (27:51б).

1. Землетрясение свидетельствовало о значении смерти Христа.

2. Землетрясение исполнило пророчество Иисуса (Лк. 19:40).

3. Землетрясение было ответом Голгофы Синаю.

4. Землетрясение было ответом Голгофы Эдему.

Пункт IV: Свидетельство открытых гробниц (27:52-53).

1. Открытые гробы символизировали окончательное воскресение святых.

2. Открытые гробы были общественной выставкой.

Пункт V: Свидетельство солдат (27:54).

1. То, что они увидели, заставило их испугаться.

2. Страх заставил их свидетельствовать.

A ministry of…

作者: Roger Pascoe,博士，主席,
郵箱: [email protected]

I. 加強講解式講道：詮釋教義的講道

以教義為講道主題，這會觸發很多各方面的問題。如要在短時間之內，處理這麼多的事情，絕不是一件易情，我們倒不如專注在如何將教義的真理應用在我們日常生活上，這會來得更好。這是一個很富挑戰性的觀念。我們怎樣可以將教義應用在日常生活中，而不是只當作腦子裡的一個抽象研討問題？我們又怎樣可以在講道中，將教義講得清楚，使人得益，明白它對人生所起的重大作用，塑造人的思想、行為、並指引人生方向、培養人與人之間的關係，和明白其中要說明的價值觀等？

為要針對這些問題，我們將會嘗試在本期及以後的數期，給大家講解 …

1. 現代文化會影響我們詮釋教義的因素。
2. 三個詮釋教義的重要步驟。
3. 講道時，如何應用教義的例子。
4. 有用詮釋教義的方式。

6. 要注意的事項。

首先，作為一個引言，我們會在以下數方面作一個簡單介紹 …

A. 現代文化會影響我們詮釋教義的因素

A1. 現代流行基督教音樂對教義的影響。現今我們在教會所聽到和所唱的音樂深深受著時下社會流行音樂影響。你可能覺得自古到今都是這樣子的了，但這不一定是理所當然，也不值得我們效法下去。很多基督教的詩歌和世俗的流行曲一起在電台播放，因為他們音調相同，甚而有時候內容也相同，沒有明顯的字句說明這是一首聖詩。

不論你的喜好如何，傳統或流行的，選擇聖詩時一定要基於以下的原則 …

1. 歌詞的神學 – 神學的準確及教導

2. 詩歌是否和當天講道內容有關。所有崇拜程序都應該是一致性的。一個與講道主題無關的詩歌，不論這詩歌是多堂煌或多動聽，但因著音樂與講道內容不協調而產生一個不協調的崇拜氣氛

3. 對神敬拜的表達

4. 對基督徒生命的影響力

5. 音樂的形式和樂器的運用

6. 音樂和我們宣教歷史的關係。這個原則很重要，但卻常被忽視。因為時下 流行的聖詩只側重於“現代化”而和過往的宣教歷史脫節，結果這一代的青年人人和過往的神學傳統、教義，或歷史都脫了節，不能打成一片。

故此，當我們講及講解教義時，講道和教導不應只局限於講章的層面上，我們在唱詩時，也是在作著教義上的教導。但很可惜，現代流行的音樂（不是全部都是）可能缺乏了教義的內容，或是只側重在教條式的傳統，而違背了我們的信仰和實踐。所以，教會崇拜，如只側重現代的詩歌，而缺少傳統的音樂，便會慢慢偏離教義的講解，而導致會眾對聖經及神學的一無所知，尤其是年青的一代。

A2. 現代世界觀對教義的影響。現代社會流行的思想對會眾會影響深遠。現代流行的文化思潮都否定了宇宙間存在著一個可以給人理解、絕對、和有權威性的真理。抱持這想法的人，都認定所有真理都是相對和受環境影響，並要由個人的世界觀和經驗來決定它的存在與否。他們覺得這種想法更合適個人的需要，比那些抽象的觀念來得更實際。這種現代的哲學思想已經深入人心，直接影響他們對聽道，尤其是講解聖經教義時的承受力。

與此有密切關聯的是現今文化所追捧的個人權利和自由，這種思想也同樣影響著教義的講解。個人主義固然側重個人的愛好選擇，也強調個人的權威性。他們主張：“信仰是個人的抉擇，無人可以對我說三道四。”我們向人講解聖經時，便已堅守著聖經的真理是絕對無誤的，但今天很多人來到教會，便帶著一個態度：“從甚麼時候開始，聖經的教義便是我最終權威和行為的規範呢？你的權力從何而來，可以告訴我甚麼是對與錯？”結果，我們教會座椅上便坐滿了很多不同神學思想的人，其中很多是沒有牢固的聖經知識，更甚者，很多人壓根兒就沒有任何神學的水平。

另一方面，有很多基督徒視教會、事工、和教會的活動如餐牌，或是購物卷，他們要看的是：“那些東西是我最喜歡的，最適合我的，可以給我最多優惠的？”這以自我為中心的個人主義，可以從不穩定的教會崇拜出席人數見到一斑。一位牧者對我說，每週的聚會人數一直在轉變者。如果有一個活動（例如球賽）和聚會時間有衝突，而這活動是更具吸引力的，那麼它便會獲會眾優先考慮。

這種顧客式、自我中心的心態，部份原因是來自人對即時滿足感的渴求，就是那些好像快餐食物和止痛藥所帶來的快感。這無怪在基督教書店中，充斥著很多很膚淺的書籍。例如，很多書籍的內容，都是為要找到例如“五個容易解決方法”來處理人生難題，從撫養孩子開始，到處理債務，及對將來的展望不等。

這些即時的解決辦法和對私人喜好的強調便更顯示了人對聖經教義的一般看法。教會，在時下世代，只是購物卷上的一項，看看那所教會是值得購入。這都是物質主義的想法，就是“這裡有甚麼是適合我的？我的孩子可以得著甚麼益處？”

無可置疑地，電視和電影也給人在哲學思想及神學領域中產生很大的負面影響。電視和荷理活電影給人日以繼夜的疲勞轟炸，宣揚著它們的一套哲學思想，日子久了，觀眾便潛而默化，慢慢地便將這些歪理照單全收。故此，今日的牧者有一個艱巨的使命，就是如何將神學知識灌輸會眾，不是停留在抽象，難以理喻的層面上，而是直接可以應用在他們日常生活中。

很不幸地，很多講員都落在這物質主義的圈套裡，故此他們的講道，為了迎合時下思潮，講題便常常出現了如下的主題：“如何去做”、“如何處理各種感觀上的需要”，和其他基督徒心理及輔導等題目。這些都是專為著迎合聽眾的肉身需要。但想深一點，這些講題都是以人為本，而缺乏了以神為中心的說話。我們要緊記，神學是從基本上，可以很實際的供人使用出來，否則便不能夠改變人的生命。所以，在傳講教義時，講員一定要很清晰，不含糊的講解，這樣才可以影響人的生命 - 人倫關係、價值觀、優先次序、信仰、道德等。

所以，現今講員面對的難題是：如何跟一群屬肉體的人，甚而對教會的看法也是帶著屬世眼光的人，傳講神的話語？你如何可以有效地向只靠感觀，就是那些只靠感覺、眼睛要看到的、耳朵要聽到的，雙手要接觸到的，和曾經歷到的，而不是用心靈去領受真理的人講道？你如何向一些不相信有絕對真理的人傳講神的信息？你如何向一些不相信有絕對真理，對你是真，對他未必真的人傳揚神的真理？

我要指出，後現代主義已慢慢歪曲了社會的世界觀（藉著一些好像道德相對論、社會雙重標準論、人種進化論等的歪理），所以基督的真理便更形重要來幫助人認識如何將他們的生命和世界觀重新納入正軌。更甚者，在我們教導人們“怎樣”行出基督徒生命之前，一定要先教導他們“甚麼”是基督的真理。如果他們不了解“甚麼”是我們所相信的，“為甚麼”我們這樣相信，他們便無從入手，不知“怎樣”可以過一個基督徒的生活。華爾福（B.B. Warfield）說得好：“人相信的便決定了他的行為，由此可以見到宣講純正的道理是何等的重要”（“系統神學對講員的不可分割性 The Indispensableness of Systematic Theology to the Preacher”，Masters Seminary Journal, 1996秋季刊）。這就是只以人為本的“如何”和“感受”講章所常遇見的難題。他們意圖改變人生，但卻忽略了首要任務，就是先用聖經真理來改變會眾的思想。

A3. 現代人對基督道理的無知所帶來的影響。不久前（可能是在二十世紀中期），講員在最小程度上，還可以因著大部份會眾對聖經的認識來宣講聖經的真理。但現在便不同了，越來越少會眾認識聖經或其中的道理。

聖經真理的宣講己近燃眉之急，很多講員已看到這個需要，但卻是抱著一個不打緊的態度，這很可能是他們自己也不太內行，或者如果宣講教義，便會影響他們和會眾的關係，因為會眾可能不會接受他們所傳講的信息。由此可見，會眾對真理的不認識造成一個不良後果，就是講員都不敢公開傳講教義，免得他們被誤會，更恐防得罪會眾。因此，他們便乾脆不講了。

人生如白駒過隙，轉瞬即逝。十年前流行的，今天已被遺棄，轉移到其他更新的事物去。在這種快速轉變的大環境底下，歷史和傳統對於新的一代來說，已是過時的東西。他們活在當下，跟歷史隔絕，對未來不懷憧憬。進化論，這個學校課程、電視和其他娛樂媒體的熱門話題，可能就是產生這類思想的主要原因。以致現代人對與他們息息相關的過去漠不關心，對未來覺得迷茫，不知所措。

我們一定要緊緊跟隨我們宣教的最初理念，認清這對教會的影響。我們剛提過的教會現時流行的音樂，它的影響力比我們想像的更要深遠。它會影響到對傳統真理的詮釋。我們基要信仰是經過很長遠的神學辯證，由很多人、教會和不同宗派的努力才得出來的成果。我們今天的信仰，有大部份是由很多蒙神恩典，賦予特別恩賜的神學家，經過深思明辨，和將正確的聖經真理發揚光大出來的。我們為著這些人的努力感謝神。

結語。這個簡短的概覽，是為著將時下思潮對教會的影響而寫。我們勢必要藉著對聖經真理的教導回到基要的真道去。喬治提摩太說得好：“要復興教會，便先要從傳講真道開始 …大前提就是，神的道理是一次過的藉著耶穌基督和聖靈傳給我們，今天也是同樣地藉著聖靈的大能向世人宣揚開去” (“Doctrinal Preaching” in Handbook of Contemporary Preaching, ed. Michael Duduit, pages 93 and 95)。

雖然很多人想要的是能滿足他們“感官上的需要”的證道，我們的工作就是要宣講他們有“真正需要”的真道。他們真正的需要是在靈裡的，他們靈裡的需要一定要藉著純正的教導和真理優先處理。

這便概括了我在第一“A”項的討論：“現代文化會影響我們詮釋教義的因素”。我們仍會在本刊以後幾期中，繼續討論其他方面的問題（參閱上述B至E項）。.

II. 強化聖經中的領導才能
教會中的秩序，提摩太前書2:1-15, 第四部份

上文我們已提及，提摩太前書的結構是由五個“命令”（指示）組成，是使徒保羅給他屬靈的兒子，又是門生（學生、或學徒）的提摩太的囑咐。這五個命令可以歸納如下：

A. 有關牧者職責的命令（1:3-20）:“打那美好的仗。”

B. 有關公開崇拜的命令（2:1-15）:“男人…隨處禱告…女人要沉靜學道。”

C. 有關牧者領導的命令（3:1-16）:“可以知道在神的家中當怎樣行。”

D. 有關個人靈性的命令（4:1-6:2）:“你要謹慎自己和自己的教訓。”

E. 有關牧者行為的命令（6:3-21）:“要守這命令，毫不玷污 … 直到我們的主

耶穌基督顯現。”

在前三期（NPJ 47, 48, 49），我們已討論了第一個命令（”A”），是關於牧者職責的：

A1. 維護信仰純正的責任（1:3-11）

A2. 見證神救恩的責任（1:12-17）

A3. 盡忠職守的責任（1:18-20）

在本期，我們將會討論提摩太前書的第二個命令…

B. 有關公開崇拜的命令（2:1-15）：“男人…隨處禱告…女人要沉靜學道。”

保羅繼續向提摩太說明幾點特有殊性的，和其他一般性要完成的責任（1:18-20）。第一點是…

B1. 對會眾禱告的勸勉（2:1-7）。“我勸你，第一要為萬人懇求，禱告，代求，祝謝”（2:1）。

a) 第一要萬人禱告（2:1a）。經文中“我勸你，第一要為…”，保羅很直白的要求提摩太，在他牧養的以弗所教會，第一要做的，就是舉行公開，集體和經常的禱告聚會。保羅在這裡不是用他使徒的身份來命令提摩太這樣做，而是勸喻全會眾（即是請求他們）勉力遵行，這是最要緊的。

b) 會眾禱告的性質（2:1b）在這裡是用四個語句說明 – “懇求、禱告、代求、和祝謝”- 這都應在教會禱告會中行出來。這四個祈禱分類確實不是容易劃分有甚麼不同的地方，但雖如是，我們仍可稍作如下的說明，看出其中端倪 …

“懇求” – 將特別的需要呈獻在神面前。

“禱告” – 這是一般性的用語，與神談話和聆聽祂的說話。

“代求” – 為別人向神祈求。

“祝謝” – 感謝神給我們的恩典、力量、帶領、機會，和快將實現的各樣好處。無可否認地，感恩是我們每次禱告時所應有的態度。

因此，禱告不單是重要和經常要有的，同時也包含了各方面的性質，但也須注意 …

c) 公禱的範圍（2:1c-2a）是為全世界禱告：“…為君王和一切在位的。”公禱不應只局限於我們自身或本地的需要，更應延展到為全世界（即“萬人”）禱告，包括在高位的（“為君王和一切在位的“）。那些在政府機關、司法機構，法庭工作的人，確實比過往更需要我們這群底層的人用禱告來扶持他們。

這個教導給我們一個提醒，我們教會的禱告生活是不是常帶有為萬人禱告的特色。我們的禱告生活，很多時候都是目光淺短。我們有沒有藉著感恩的靈，誠懇地去作祈求和代禱的功夫，除了為自己之外，更要為別人禱告？試想一想，我們有沒有在公開場合，為著世界局勢，為著宣教工作，為著失喪靈魂的得救而祈禱？又或只是集中在自己的需要，和我們希望得到的而禱告？

d) 公禱的目的（2:2b）是“要我們可以平靜渡日，凡事神聖端莊的。”我們的國家領袖、單位領導，和權威人仕，可以使我們不論在群體或個人生活上，受到極大的影響。統治我們的可以影響到我們生活的質素、自由權利，和見證。我們要為一個“平靜”的生活而懇切禱告，不受鄰舍，及權威人仕的打擾，以致影響我們盡上基督徒的責任，例如我們的見證應是“在任何地方都是神聖端莊的”。這類的公禱和目的可以叫福音廣傳，並叫我們得以享受自由和平安的喜樂。

e)為萬民祈禱的原因（2:3-7）。保羅提出了三個原因，說明我們為何為萬民禱告是如此的重要。

第一，公禱是重要的，因為…為“萬人懇求”（2:1）是“好的，在神我們救主面前可蒙悅納”（2:3）。這是“好”的活動，是蒙神“悅納”的。禱告蒙神悅納，禱告便有效，因為這是合神心意的，“祂願意萬人得救，明白真道”（2:4）。這是奇妙的真理，神的心意，藉著耶穌基督釘在十架，完成了祂為世人定下的救恩。

神的救恩是普世性的 – 無人可以說神沒有愛過他們，或基督沒有為他們而死。但，不幸地，一些人真的是不可能得救的。這不是神無能，而是他們硬心，堅決拒絕接受神藉基督所賜下的救恩。神的心意，不只是萬人得救，更要“明白真道”。這是每個牧者最主要的職責之一 – 就是要教導每一位會眾都清楚和正確地明白聖經，過一個正直無偽的基督徒生命，更明白真道，與神更有密切關係（提後3:16; 弗4:13-16）。

第二，公禱是重要的，因為 … 為萬人的得救而禱告，這正乎合三位一體的真神與人類的密切關係。“只有一位神”（2:5a）的真理就駁斥了異教徒所說的泛神論，即是信奉任何一位神祗都無關痛癢，這就是所謂殊途同歸，條條大路通天堂的歪理。正因只有一位神，而“在神和人中間，只有一位中保”，這就是那位“為人的基督耶穌”（2:5b）。只有耶穌基督，就是那位真神，才能夠將悖逆的人與神和好（林後5:14-21），這就是“祂捨自己作人的贖價”（2:6a）的主要目的。

請再注意一下，這救恩是藉著基督而給與所有願意領受的人，“到了時候，這事必證明出來”（2:6b）。這裡所說的時候，就是基督來到世界，過著無罪的人生，卻甘願為全人類，作一個完全的犠牲。這就是在歷史上，時候到了滿足的時刻（加4:4）。這簡短的教義便直截了當的將救恩的來龍去脈，並且為什麼我們要為萬人禱告的原因，清楚說明出來了。

第三，公禱是重要的，因為 …藉著為萬人禱告，保羅的事奉便可以得以持久傳承下去。“我為此奉派，作傳道的，作使徒，作外邦人的師傅，教導他們相信，學習真道。我說的是真話，並不是謊言”（2:7）。保羅是蒙基督呼召（加1:15），成為使徒，向外邦人傳揚基督，用自己親身的見證，和客觀的福音真理。如今保羅要將這個事工交棒給提摩太，由他（和我們）繼續承擔下去。

B2. 對會眾行為操守的囑咐（2:8-15）。使徒在此完結為萬人禱告的勸勉後，便一轉筆鋒，開始討論男女會眾在教會的事奉和操守的問題。

a) 男人在公禱時應有的表現（2:8）。“我願男人無忿怒，無爭論。舉起聖潔的手，隨處禱告。”這裡使徒的囑咐是特別對“男人”說的。對今天來說，有時候我們會出現一些混亂的情況，就是誰應該參加，或在參加時我們應該怎樣做才算合乎體統的問題，這個囑咐是最適切不過的了。

對祈禱會的參與，保羅教導男人應活躍點參加。但這馬上便引起了一些很具爭議的問題。保羅是否說只有男人才可以參加公開的祈禱會，還是女人都可以呢？在林前11:5-6，他強調女人在公眾埸合禱告時，一定要蒙頭，或把頭髮剃掉。還有另外一個問題，就是保羅是否只是對以弗所教會的男人說話，還是對眾教會的男人說的。

我們覺得在提前二章，保羅不是說只有男人才可以參加公禱會，更不是要告訴婦人們如何保持行為端正。他卻是在提前2:8勸諭男人在崇拜中，應要承擔他們應有的責任，其中之一就是在禱告的事奉上盡忠。也許以弗所教會的男人都未盡上責任吧！到了2:9-10，保羅則是勸諭婦女廉恥，自守，和穿著合宜。這些都是向提摩太提出的幾點特別要注意的事項。再且，“又願…”（2:9）這句起首語，似乎是指婦女可以在公開場合禱告，但這不是保羅在本章要強調的。這跟林前11章沒有衝突，因為在公開崇拜場合中，男女會眾的行為，都應常常保持端莊恭謹的態度。　

男人在公眾場合如何禱告，對使徒來說是重要的。他們禱告時，是“舉起聖潔的手”，在第一世紀，這是表示尊敬的意思。故此我相信這種禱告方式，在以後的世代中，是不必要強制執行了。這裡的經文，不似是強調外在禱告的方式，而是強調外在的行為，是在表現出內心聖潔的生命 – “無忿怒，無爭論”（2:8）。

一個忿怒的人不可能有聖潔的行為。心裡藏著了怒氣的根，最終必然爆發出紛爭的果子。忿怒就是缺乏了情緒的自制能力。這情況通常是在一個人意圖說服別人跟隨他的意願時出現。如果沒有及時制止，這種凌駕別人的態度，便很容易導致諸如紛爭的不良後果。一個容易發怒，喜歡爭競的人，在會眾中，不似會為眾人迫切和有效的禱告。更甚者，有些會眾可能會因著他們而產生不良的影響。

b)婦女在公開崇拜聚會中的參與與行為守則（9-15）. 在這裡保羅有兩方面的囑咐：

第一方面是她們在崇拜時的衣著（2:9-10）：“⁹又願女人廉恥，自守，以正派衣裳為妝飾，不以編髮、黃金、珍珠，和貴價的衣裳為妝飾。¹⁰只要有善行，這才與自稱是敬神的女人相宜。”

在這裡，使徒不是著眼在婦女在祈禱會的參與（這可能是一般人所想的，因為剛才說完了男人祈禱的事情），而是在其他事情上。原因是什麼？這裡沒有交待，故此無須費神揣測。但很明顯地，在以弗所教會中，有些婦女常常故意矯揉造作，吸引別人的注意。保羅就是對這些婦女說話，勸誡她們不論在行為和衣著上，都要“自守和正派”，因為這對崇拜的氣氛是會產生直接的影響。

看起來保羅好像只是側重外在的表現，但事實上，保羅是把男人和女人外在的行為直接和內在的質素連接起來，一併討論。男人要“舉起雙手，隨處禱告”（外在的），而這樣做的時候，他們要“無忿怒，無爭論”（內在的）。而女人在衣著上要知“廉恥，自守，以正派衣裳為妝飾，不以編髮、黃金、珍珠，和貴價的衣裳為妝飾”（外在的），但“要有善行，這才與自稱是敬神的女人相宜”（內在的）。

跟男人一樣（2:8），有諸內而形於外，女人的心思意念和態度可以從她的衣飾和行為看到出來。這是現代文化所最常忽略的，一般人只看重外表，而不考慮內心的世界。但肯定的說，在崇拜時我們的衣著一定會反映出我們對神是否存在一個尊敬的態度。因此我們的衣著一定不可使人產生分心的現象。從這段經文，我們可以看見保羅所提倡的，就是不論男女，在崇拜時，都應穿著端莊得體。

在公眾崇拜中，婦女們無須用外表的妝飾來吸引別人的注意，她們的“善行，這才與自稱是敬神的女人相宜”。故此，內心的聖潔常會在外在的言行舉止看到出來。

保羅囑咐的第二方面，就是婦女應在公開崇拜場合中保持沉靜的態度(2:11-15)： “¹¹ 女人要沉靜學道，一味的順服。 ¹² 我不許女人講道也不許她轄管男人，只要沉靜，因為先造的是亞當，後造的是夏娃”（2:11-12）。

這裡的經文，保羅是說“一個女人”（不是“某一位女士”）要“沉靜學道，一味的順服”（2:11）。在崇拜時，婦女的衣飾正好是她沉靜學道，順服的表現。保羅繼續說道：“我不許女人講道，也不許她轄管男人，只要沉靜”（2:12）。這是一個沉靜學道，和順服的人應有的態度 – 這也是會眾和那位被差帶領教會的男性牧者之間應有的關係而說的。這些囑咐都可以說明在以弗所教會中，一定已經存在著一些沉靜學道和順服的女性。

保羅用以下兩個因素支持他的論點…

1. 創造的次序：”因為先造的是亞當，後造的是夏娃”（2:13）。夏娃是在亞當之後造出來，是從亞當而出，是為協助亞當而造的（創2:7; 2:20-23; 林前11:8-9）。亞當是她的頭，反之則不然，創造的先後次序應在崇拜時，也要表達出來。故此，罪還未進入世界，神已在創造的時候定規了男女之間的相互關係和功用。

2. 人墮落的次序：” …不是亞當被引誘，乃是女人被引誘，陷在罪裡” (2:14)。保羅在這裡已說得很清楚他為甚麼有這樣的囑咐。在一方面，夏娃是第一個犯罪，她是完全被撒但欺騙了。但另一方面，亞當亦因著夏娃的緣故也犯了罪，而且是明知故犯。他不是像夏娃那樣受騙，他是清楚知道他在做著甚麼，他選擇了違背神的命令。這裡特別要說明，夏娃犯罪是為要超越亞當作領導的地位，故此她被神審判定罪了。雖然她想轄制丈夫，最終卻被丈夫轄制了（創3:16）。這就是保羅在男女關係上的論點 – 順服，而不是領導和權力的問題。

然而，女人並不是被放置在一個不顯著的地位上：“女人若常存信心、愛心、又聖潔自守，就必在生產上得救”（2:15）。夏娃犯罪直接帶來的後果（因而牽涉所有女性），就是在生孩子時必多受苦楚（創3:16）。然而，雖然罪入了世界，婦女受了咒詛，生產時大受苦楚，但女人仍在救恩上有份，就是”在生產上得救”。但在釋經時，我們遇見幾個釋經的困難…

a 究竟女人生產和她得救有何關係？經文告訴我們，女人生產和她犯罪是有直接關係的 – 生產時飽受痛苦。雖如是，夏娃所犯的罪不是無法救贖的，因她所犯的罪，所有女人都因她而忍受生產之苦，但女人仍然可以得蒙拯救，證據就是她們仍然可以“常存信心、愛心、又聖潔自守…”。這和堅忍到底的道理同出一轍，這正反映出一個蒙恩得救的人，都是過著一個聖潔生活，至死不變。

這節經文和上一節便形成一個對比，保羅好像是說一個已婚婦女（他已在以弗所教會中特別提過的了）的最主要功用是生兒育女（很明顯地，只有她們才能夠做到這個功用），而不是帶領教會。這就是說，一個已婚婦女的“領導”才能就是生養孩子，這只有婦女才可辦到，男人卻是無能為力。

這裡所說“在生產上”不是說生育才是女人得救的方法，而是說藉著生育，她在家中便發揮了帶領的作用，培養一個快樂的家庭，作育敬神的兒女。

b) 這裡所說的“女人”是指誰說的？保羅將單數的“她”改成雙數的“女人”是保羅從夏娃而轉向所有的女性而言。故此，“女人（泛指所有女性）若 … 必在生產上得救。”

c) “若常存信心…”意思是甚麼呢？一個已婚婦女，對建立教會的貢獻就是將她們的信心作孩子的榜樣 – 就是要“若存信心” 。

III. 講道大綱

題目：學習主耶穌 – 見證祂的神性（太27:45-54）

主旨：加略山上的五個見證

主題：神已在加略山上給了很多明證，耶穌基督就是祂的兒子。

第一點：午正天黑的見證（27:45）

1. 不尋常的天黑

a) 太陽暗淡無光

b) 遍地黑暗

c) 看見神的手

2. 黑暗的描述

a) 黑暗表達了基督的受苦

b) 黑暗表達了基督的身份

c) 黑暗表達了基督的孤單

d) 黑暗表達了罪惡的黑暗權勢

e) 黑暗表達了神的憤怒

第二點：聖殿幔子的見證（27:51a）

1. 聖殿的幔子是警告世人不要挨近神，因為祂是聖潔，而人是罪惡的
2. 幔子裂開，是邀請世人來到神的面前…

a) … 因為罪債已付清

b) … 因為通往神的路已為全人類打通了

第三點：地震的見證（27:51b）

1. 地震顯示基督的死的重要性
2. 地震應驗了耶穌自己的預言（路19:40）
3. 地震是加略山對西乃山的回應
4. 地震是加略山對伊甸園的回應

第四點：墳墓打開了的見證（27:52-53）

1. 墳墓打開了，預表著聖徒最終的復活
2. 墳墓打開了，公開給人觀看

第五點：兵士的見證（27:54）

1. 他們看見了，就極其害怕
2. 他們的害怕催促他們作見證

Introduction¹

Increasingly Colwell is cited as evidence of a determinate semantic reading of John 1:1c.² Both orthodox and otherwise utilize Colwell’s rule to promote not only different but contradictory interpretations of this passage—obviously contradictory interpretations cannot at the same time and in the same way be true. Adding to this problem, otherwise careful scholars misstate and misunderstand Colwell’s rule. Worse yet, nothing innovating or revolutionary has come to bear regarding Colwell’s rule or construction in over twenty years.³ The time is ripe, therefore, for not only understanding Colwell’s rule, but for setting forth an entirely new paradigm from which to understand the construction per se.

The purpose of this article, then, is first to clearly articulate what has become known as Colwell’s rule, including its abuse, then to enunciate a revolutionary method by which to better understand the Colwell construction. This latter will be accomplished by the utilizing of the mass/count noun distinction.⁴ Finally we wish to apply these results to the New Testament as a whole, then to the Gospel of John in particular as a case study.⁵ It is hoped that this method can aid in a more scientific approach to this grammatical construction and assist in making a more surer semantic determination of the phrase καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος and other significant passages appearing in this construction.

Colwell’s Contribution to Anarthrous PNs

In 1933 Ernest Cadmen Colwell wrote his celebrated article on “A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament” in which he claimed, “Definite predicate nouns which precede the verb usually lack the article.”⁶ This brief assertion, spawning as the exception to regular articular definite nouns, respected the predictability of anarthrous but definite PNs that precedes the copulative verb—it is better known as Colwell’s rule. Since this monumental article is the basis for what follows, and is the object of much abuse, it is therefore incumbent to allow Colwell to speak for himself and then follow this by pointing out both the legitimacy of Colwell’s rule, as well as the methodological assumptions and/or flaws that pre-determined its outcome. The consensus that followed his article will be briefly noted along with the misunderstandings that have come to be associated with it. This historical evaluation will then prepare the way for an entirely different methodological approach from which to better treat the construction itself.

Colwell’s Rule

Colwell’s study began, according to his article, in response to Torrey who claimed that certain nouns, three of which were precopulative PNs, were anarthrous in John due to Semitic influence (1:49; 5:27; 9:5).⁷ So in part, Colwell wanted to dispel this notion in favor of a view that understood this phenomenon as part of NT usage rather than Semitic influence. It was the result of studying these passages that Colwell arrived at his rule(s) regarding the usual omission of the article in the pre-copulative PN construction.

He began with John 1:49 where both a post-copulative articular construction and a pre-copulative anarthrous construction were used with apparent semantic equivalence, i.e., with definiteness. Contextually the verse is the affirmation of Nathaniel to Jesus in response to the latter’s ability to supernaturally see him under a fig tree. Nathaniel exclaims, ῥαββί, σὺ εἶ ὁ υἱὸς θεοῦ, σὺ βασιλεὺς εἶ τοῦ ᾿Ισραήλ (1:49b). Colwell asked himself, “What reason is there for this difference” [i.e., semantical, grammatical or syntactical between the two PN constructions in σὺ εἶ ὁ υἱὸς θεοῦ and σὺ βασιλεὺς εἶ τοῦ ᾿Ισραήλ]? When the passage is scrutinized, it appears at once that the variable quantum is not definiteness but word-order.”⁸ Therefore, according to Colwell, “It seems probable that the article is used with ‘Son of God’ because it follows the verb, and it is not used with ‘King of Israel’ because it precedes the verb.”⁹ Confining himself to instances where the copula was expressed he states a rule: “A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb.”¹⁰

From this initial observation he then follows with several points of validation and ends with his classic statement of his rule, “Definite predicate nouns which precede the verb usually lack the article.”¹¹ Thus by assuming semantic equivalence (definiteness), Colwell shifted the focus on structure as determinate of the syntactic and grammatical difference—i.e., why in a post-copulative construction it is articular, and why in a pre-copulative construct it is anarthrous. The grammatical shift regards articularity or lack thereof, while syntactic refers to pre or post copulative occurrence.

Argument. First, Colwell felt that important to his argument, in demonstrating the validity of this rule, were verses which had the article and then did not have it.¹² What he appears to mean by this is that words such as “king” or “Son of God” used in contexts referring to Jesus which did not have the article, and then in other contexts referring to Jesus using the article, were vital in confirming the hypothesis underlying his rule—that definite PNs which preceded the copulative verb were usually anarthrous. Therefore, he argued the occurrence of like nouns validated the proposition of his rule, i.e., if the anarthrous construct appeared in one instance antecedent to the copulative verb while the articular construct appeared in another instance subsequent to the copulative verb with the identical semantic nuance, then the rule was legitimate. Therefore from the start Colwell begins with a semantic category of definiteness, a definiteness established by its post-copulative articular occurrences elsewhere, and proceeds to investigate for instances of its anarthrous occurrence in a pre-copulative construction.

He focused on several specific phrases which allegedly demonstrate this phenomena including “King of the Jews,” “King of Israel,” “Son of God,” “Son of Man,” “light of the world,” and the phrase “my mother,” where both syntactic and grammatical conditions were met. Of special interest was Matthew 13:37-39 where “in a series of seven clauses the predicate nouns follow the verb and take the article five times; while in the last two clauses equally definite predicate nouns precede the verb and do not have the article.”¹³ Again it must be stressed, semantic equivalence was assumed on the basis of this observation.

Second, Colwell offered proof of this phenomenon of word order as “easily obtained from the very grammarians who are unaware of its existence.”¹⁴ He notes Robertson’s admission that out of 41 occurrences of articular PNs, 38 follow the verb rather than the reverse.¹⁵ After then citing Blass-Debrunner,¹⁶ who incidentally list articular constructions following the verb, he states, “it is significant that they found them after the verb.”¹⁷ This second argument is really a confirming of the first but here the mere numerical preponderance of post-copulative articular PNs, as a rule, brings out the disproportion of the same in the pre-copulative occurrence. Again, his point is that the article in not needed because this variation (pre-copulative) impugned the lexeme with definiteness without need of recourse to the article.

A third argument came from an observation within the manuscript evidence in the nature of variants regarding the article. Here he argues the following:

Such a simple omission or addition [of the article] would of itself prove little for the theory advocated here, but when the omission or addition of the article is accompanied by a change of word-order, we have evidence of high value. Such evidence would seem to indicate that the relation between word-order and the use of the article was as real to the scribes who copied the MSS as it was to the original authors.

In the course of this study I noted three passages [John 1:49; Matt 23:10; Jas 2:19] in which the article issued by one group of MSS and omitted by another group with a change in word-order. In each of these passages Westcott and Hort’s Heavenly Twins (Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus) disagree; yet both of them support the rule stated in this paper. That is to say, their variation is from one to the other of the alternatives described in this rule . . . . It is interesting that B each time has the predicate before the verb without the article, while a each time has the predicate after the verb with the article . . . These are enough to indicate that the scribes felt that a definite predicate noun did not need the article before the verb and did need it after the verb.¹⁸

In all he tallied 254 occurrences of articular PNs noting 239 as post-copulative and only 15 pre-copulative.¹⁹ He also tallied the anarthrous occurrences totaling 139 of which 99 were pre-copulative and 40 were post-copulative (this included relative clauses).²⁰ Subtracting relative clauses he arrived at two different ways of examining these figures. ²¹

When a document is going to be converted to htm format for viewing on the web we can’t use any tabs, extra paragraph returns, or more than one space. Everything extra is eliminated when the file is converted so formatting has to be done via styles or tables. Here I put an equal symbol to separate the numbers, but you can change this however you want it.

I. Definite Predicate Nouns with Article . . . . . . . . . 244

A. After Verb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .229 = 94%

B. Before Verb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 = 6%

II. Definite Predicate Nouns without the Article . . . . . .123

A. After Verb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26 = 21%

B. Before Verb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .97 = 79%

I. Definite Predicates after the Verb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255

A. With the Article . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .299 = 90%

B. Without the Article . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 = 10%

II. Definite Predicates before the Verb . . . . . . . . . . . . .112

A. With the Article . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 = 13%

B. Without the Article . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 = 87%

Colwell noted that in his tabulations he had omitted qualitative nouns “since all such nouns (and their total in the New Testament is small) are not definite.”²² Thus Colwell has started with a semantic category of definiteness and proceeded to figure out the ratio of this to syntactic factors (pre or post-copulative) and grammatical features (articular and anarthrous). He notes two exceptions to his rule: (1) He found fifteen nouns which do precede the copulative verb and are articular,²³ and (2) He recorded 26 occurrences where the omission of the article after the verb which he nevertheless viewed as definite.²⁴ He also goes outside the NT including the LXX and the Didache with somewhat the same statistical ratio.

Conclusions. All this he concludes has implications for grammar, the text and translation or interpretation. In relation to grammar, predicate nominatives with the verb should not be regarded as regularly omitting the article, for two-thirds of definite predicate nouns have it. In regards to the article he gives two broad rules the second of which amounts to exceptions to his first:

(1) Definite Predicate nouns here regularly take the article. (2) The exceptions are for the most part due to a change in word order: (a) Definite predicate nouns which follow the verb (this is the usual order) usually take the article; (b) Definite predicate nouns which precede the verb usually lack the article; (c) Proper names regularly lack the article in the predicate; (d) Predicate nominatives in relative clauses regularly follow the verb whether or not they have the article.²⁵

For textual criticism the issue involves predicting deliberate scribal tendencies to amend the text. When the case involves finding a pre-copulative articular construction (a rarity) with other variants which, in their individual cases, have either the articular post-copulative rendering, or the pre-copulative anarthrous one, then separate rules apply. In the first, where a pre-copulative articular is found, it is to be preferred over the post-copulative articular one (cf. 2 Pet 1:17). That is, it is more likely that the former gave rise to the latter than the reverse since it is a rarer rendering. The second regards when articular PNs are found in a pre-copulative occurrence and other readings have the anarthrous pre-copulative PN rendering. In this case the latter anarthrous reading, with the understanding that the noun is clearly (or assumed) definite, is to be preferred as more than likely the original—i.e., more likely to give subsequent rise to the former rather than the reverse.²⁶

However it is the last area, translation and interpretation, that Colwell regards his rules as having the most value. He states in negative terms that

A predicate nominative which precedes the verb cannot be translated as an indefinite or a “qualitative” noun solely because of the absence of the article; if the context suggests that the predicate is definite, it should be translated as a definite noun in spite of the absence of the article. In the case of a predicate noun which follows the verb the reverse is true; the absence of the article in this position is a much more reliable indication that the noun is indefinite. Loosely speaking, this study may be said to have increased the definiteness of a predicate noun before the verb without the article, and to have decreased the definiteness of a predicate noun after the verb without the article.²⁷

With this in mind, therefore, he tackles John 1:1c regarding it as a definite noun arguing that its anarthrous occurrence does not argue necessarily for qualitativeness or indefiniteness. He supports this by referencing to the confession of Thomas, ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου (20:28).

Evaluating Colwell’s Rule

There are several problems with Colwell’s method of tabulation as well as statement of rules. To Colwell’s credit, however, he chose a wide base of samples, in fact he apparently included the entire NT.²⁸ Furthermore, we have found that the rule with which Colwell is most acclimated with (2b above) is actually a verifiable (and falsifiable) one. The method he used to gather this information is somewhat suspect, but the rule itself is valid.

But this leads us to consider some of the problems with Colwell’s method of investigation. First, he begins with a semantic category (definiteness) which is apparently established prior to the investigation of pre-copulative anarthrous constructs themselves, and proceeds to make an observation in regards to its articularity or lack thereof. Thus he omits obviously “qualitative” nouns up front. But presumably he acknowledges such do exist in the construction under discussion, for he mentions the clause ὁ θεὸς ἀγάπη ἐστιν (1 John 4:8).²⁹ So obviously he does not view all pre-copulative PNs as definite. But the criticism here, is his limitation to a specific semantic category rather than to the construction itself as the starting point.

Second, he determines definiteness of a pre-copulative anarthrous PN based on its articular occurrence in a post-copulative construction. Calculating to this semantic determination, however, assumes that the noun is fixed to a semantic nuance simply because it occurs in another construction (post-copulative) with articularity that is clearly (for the sake of argument) definite. That the same noun which occurs in a post-copulative articular construction, can be found in a pre-copulative anarthrous occurrence, on the one hand, does not rule out the identical semantic nuance being present, but on the other hand, the demonstration of semantic equivalence by Colwell is more presumed than demonstrated. His assumption has become prescriptive and is not based on the construction (pre-copulative anarthrous PNs) itself, but on a noun’s semantic occurrence elsewhere. By showing that the noun can be definite in a post copulative articular construction by no means demonstrates its semantic nuance in a pre-copulative anarthrous construction. In short, Colwell commits a grammatical as well as a syntactical category mistake.³⁰

Third, Colwell appears to be responsible, because of his application to John 1:1, for laying the groundwork of a logical blunder.³¹ Colwell’s rule “Definite predicate nominatives that precede the verb usually lack the article” came to be seen as “Anarthrous predicate nominatives that precede the verb are usually definite.” We have affirmed, based on our study, that Colwell’s original rule is valid but the converse of his rule is inductively falsifiable. In fact our study confirms that within the NT as a whole, this semantic category (definiteness) is certainly not the expected nuance of the construction, and not the predominant sense when it comes to singular count nouns as well. Thus this converse is neither true of the whole nor of its parts. So although definiteness is a possible semantic category, it is certainly not the probable one regarding anarthrous constructions. In addition, although the converse of Colwell’s rule is not formally illogical, it is inductively falsifiable.³²

Fourth, Colwell seems to have misunderstood what a definite semantic to the noun entailed linguistically.³³ His improper method of prescription, based on his analysis, led him to commit a category mistake by foisting a semantic upon a certain group of nouns (pre-copulative PNs) that he failed to appreciate on their own terms. Because of this, and apparently without considering the ramifications of what the semantic suggested, he applied it to John 1:1c and argued against the indefinite or qualitative sense. But this was an improper use of his own rule, for his rule was only to be applied post hoc to nouns clearly understood to be definite from context. But here is where the problem of his method shows up starkly. Because John 20:28 has the articular θεός, he assumes that its pre-copulative anarthrous occurrence bears the same semantic. But this is simply an example of pigeonholing a noun into a semantic box based completely on the semantics born out in a separate construction. Count nouns can bear different nuances without the article than it can with the article—Colwell has not properly understood this principle.³⁴ In short he begged the question by making his rule prescriptive rather than descriptive of the majority of cases involving definite nouns preceding the copulative verb.

Fifth, his initial conclusion of definiteness, in regards to John 1:49, did not take into consideration other factors which make the noun definite independent of word order, like the presence of genitive adjuncts.³⁵ Therefore, many of what he considers definite PNs in the pre-copulative construction can be attributed to other factors besides the transferal leap he makes, requiring semantic congruity based on its articular occurrence in post-copulative constructs. It is here that another methodological fallacy emerges. Grammatical analysis must carefully identify, within the batch of samples, any factors that would tend to slant the conclusions towards a predicted outcome independent of the actual focus of study. Thus Colwell should have omitted PNs which had genitive adjuncts, proper names, or monadic nouns—for these factors tend to definitize the head noun. Conversely, factors influencing the opposite semantic category should be omitted as well. Thus qualitative nouns should be identified and omitted from contaminating the statistical pool towards that semantic nuance.³⁶ It is the construction that we wish to understand, and its affect upon the semantics of the noun, a noun which has the possibility of multiple semantic options, that can bring out the semantic predilection of the construction itself. In short, the samples must be free of semantic bias. Colwell’s study fell short in this area.

Where he regarded his rule most important, in the area of translation and interpretation, is exactly where it is in fact most irrelevant yet ironically most dangerous, especially the latter. When his rule is applied prescriptively in the fashion he and others since him have, it is most damaging to the semantics of the pre-copulative anarthrous construction as a whole. For when it is determined that most pre-copulative anarthrous PNs are in fact not definite, then one has to ask what use the rule serves at all in determining such. It is one grand question begging venture, therefore, to cite his rule for ascertaining any semantic preponderance anywhere, not to mention disputable passages like John 1:1c.³⁷

Illegitimate Usage of Colwell

Thereafter Colwell’s conclusions were accepted nearly unanimously in the scholarly world.³⁸ Many evangelicals, because of the implications to John 1:1, unwittingly assumed, as Metzger did, the converse of Colwell’s rule which led to its abuse.³⁹ His actual rule states, “Definite predicate nouns which precede the verb usually lack the article.”⁴⁰ This statement, however, was taken to imply that anarthrous predicate nominatives that precede the verb are usually definite.⁴¹ This type of abuse bled into the commentaries on John as well. Later research seriously questioned this consensus of opinion by attempting to demonstrate that pre-copulative anarthrous PNs were predominately qualitative in nature,⁴² a fact not considered seriously enough within the semantic range of some, including Colwell.⁴³

The first ground breaking work subsequent to Colwell was done by Philip Harner.⁴⁴ He suggested that “anarthrous predicate nouns preceding the verb may function primarily to express the nature or character of the subject, and this qualitative significance may be more important than the question whether the predicate noun itself should be regarded as definite or indefinite.”⁴⁵ What was unusual about Harner’s thesis was the assertion of quality for the pre-copulative PN within a consensus of opinion that had assigned the construction to an either-or semantic situation, i.e., either indefinite or definite.⁴⁶ He found that Mark, for example, was a careful author who used various constructions deliberately to indicate specific semantic nuances. Mark uses the formula V + PN, for example, nineteen times to indicate an indefinite sense and the formula V + T + PN twenty times to indicate a definite sense. However, he uses the formula PN + V eight times with apparent intentional variation on word order for qualitative emphasis.

Looking at these eight passages⁴⁷ individually Harner reasoned that although the nouns could be either indefinite or definite, they could also simultaneously have a qualitative force due to the construction.⁴⁸ His conclusions, based on Mark’s Gospel, showed a preponderance of the construction away from that affirmed by Colwell and almost unanimously qualitative in force as the primary meaning. Evidently he included the possibility of quality independent of either the definite or indefinite nuances too, as his treatment of John 1:1 seems to indicate. In other words, he appears to include, open up or establish the proposition for distinct semantic alternatives to encompass both Q or I-Q and D-Q as viable qualitative semantic domains.

He next turned his attention to John’s Gospel where he found fifty three occurrences of the construction PN + V. He limited his focus to a handful of examples including John 1:1 καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. He first showed, as earlier with Mark, that John was familiar with other ways of structurally expressing the qualitative sense indicated in the formula V + PN. He uses this construction eighteen times with only one exception to the rule. Harner also indicates that John is equally familiar as Mark to the structural options possible for expressing definiteness indicated in the formula V + PN. He uses this particular construction some sixty times. Out of these, Harner viewed forty to be predominantly qualitative, over both indefinite and definite, as the primary or exclusive meaning. After examining a few passages (1:14; 8:31; 9:24) he concludes that “John used this type of syntactical construction in essentially the same way as Mark.”⁴⁹ However, it should be recognized that Harner did not make any distinction between mass and count nouns as seen in his treatment of John 1:14. Again, the fact that “flesh” is mass makes it qualitative irregardless of the construction, thus it is lexically qualitative irrespective to syntax.

Harner goes on to illustrate the semantic possibilities as syntactically available at the time to rule out some of the interpretive options to John 1:1. He lists five options in all. (1) ὁ θεός ἦν ὁ λόγος, represents a convertible proposition—leads to Sabellianism. (2) θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος, represents a subset proposition—the word has the nature of deity rather than something else. (3) ὁ λόγος θεὸς ἦν, represents a subset proposition—the word, rather than something else, has the nature of deity.⁵⁰ (4) ὁ λόγος ἦν θεὸς, represents a subset proposition—a god distinct but belonging to the same category of deity (Mormonism/Arianism). (5) ὁ λόγος ἦν θεῖος, represents a subset proposition—either a god or God having the attributes of deity (could support monotheism or polytheism). Regarding John 1:1 he concludes, “I think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite.”⁵¹

The important contribution of Harner’s study was the recognition that the lexeme, whether viewed ultimately as definite or indefinite, did not necessarily rule out qualitative aspects, and if a noun was viewed as qualitative this did not necessarily rule out indefiniteness or definiteness. What he categorically did not affirm was that qualitativenss always includes indefiniteness—although this might be assumed with some warrant.⁵² Thus he got past Colwell and others’ disjunctive fallacy and furthered the range of semantic possibilities.⁵³ What his contribution lacks, however, is the identification of lexically qualitative nouns. In other words, he includes within his tabulation nouns which are lexically already qualitative despite syntax. His study, therefore, opens up the avenue to search for nouns which cannot be indefinitized and which are exclusively qualitative. We hold that mass nouns fulfills the requirements for this search.

Qualitative Nouns

What is a Qualitative Noun?⁵⁴

A recent book has clouded the point of Harner’s article over the issue of the semantics of qualitative nouns.⁵⁵ It is true that Harner opened up the possibility that a qualitative noun could include within it a semantic addition of indefiniteness, but this in no way made qualitativeness intrinsically or necessarily bound to this semantic tag. Thus Harner showed that theoretically a noun could be, among other things, indefinite-qualitative (I-Q or Q-I) or simply qualitative (Q). However, to demonstrate the absurdity that a noun must be of the semantic category I-Q (Q-I) if affirmed as being of a qualitative nature (Q), one simply has to encounter the semantics of a mass noun. A mass noun, as we shall see below, is a noun that by definition cannot be semantically indefinitized or pluralized. Semantically, therefore, this noun is always qualitative and qualitativeness always implies a subset type proposition. If this can be acquiesced to, in lieu of the attempt to lay out the criteria for the determination of such below, then the idea that qualitativeness must entail indefiniteness falls to the ground.

Following successively this necessary progression in our argument, it opens up the treatment of count nouns, which can include indefiniteness (I), with the concurrent possibility of semantic qualitativeness (I-Q [or Q-I]) or without indefiniteness necessarily being involved at all (Q). Thus count nouns by definition are nouns which can be semantically indefinitized and semantically pluralized. Therefore, in contrast to mass nouns, which cannot be indefinite in any sense, count nouns proffer the possibility of being purely qualitative like mass nouns. That is, although retaining the lexical feature of possible semantic indefiniteness and/or plurality, the count noun also retains the potentiality of exhibiting neither but rather mimicking the semantic of the mass noun—it is thus a semantically versatile noun.⁵⁶

Thus, the establishment of mass nouns as exclusively qualitative provides the basis for the semantic idea of qualitativeness as distinct from indefiniteness without ruling out the fact that it is perfectly viable to have a noun that is both indefinite and qualitative at the same time (although the latter is impossible for a mass noun in either purely I or the blended I-Q). The contribution to understanding the semantics of mass nouns, then, regards the fact that there are nouns which exhibit purely/exclusively qualitative features without the possibility of indefiniteness within its semantic. Demonstrating this opens up the feasibility of the transferal of that semantic category to other nouns (count) which do have the prospect of indefiniteness without necessarily latching the latter semantic tag with it. Therefore, the study of mass nouns prior to count nouns is a logical one—Q is possible without inferring I-Q (Q-I). We want to preserve rather than blur, for the purposes of greater semantic clarity, this distinction.

Linguistic Analysis of Qualitative Nouns

What kind of a proposition does a qualitative noun in a PN construction imply? Usually the discussion revolves around convertibility verses non-convertibility. Convertibility refers to the interchangeability of subject and PN without a necessity in the change of referent. Non-convertibility, or a subset type of proposition, refers to a subject being a part of the larger category represented in the PN. An example of the former is “All bachelors are unmarried men.” An example of the latter is “All dogs are animals.” The former is convertible whereas the latter is not. In regards to subset type propositions, moreover, there is a difference between an indefinite and qualitative PN. In the statement “He is a man” where “man” indicates the class to which “he” belongs is different than “He is human” where “human” is the qualities that mark the “he” under discussion. Both are subset propositions, neither of which are mutually exclusive, but neither are they necessarily united.⁵⁷

Beyond this, however, something needs to be noted in regards to inferred subjects in relation to the explicit subject within subset type propositions. This will impact how one views John 1:1c and minimize the equivocation of the PN in relation to multiple (actual, implicit or possible) subjects. Moisés Silva has provided a sense-relation paradigm for nouns from which to view qualitative propositions as distinct from purely referential statements.⁵⁸ He has relations based on similarity including overlapping relations (proper synonymy), contiguous relations (improper synonymy), inclusive relations (hyponymy) and those based on oppositeness including binary relations (antonymy) and multiple relations (incompatibility).⁵⁹ For our purposes we will focus on relations based on similarity.⁶⁰

Type of proposition. In determining sense relations we want to focus on two questions. The first question pertains to what type of relationship exists between the S and the PN. Using John 1:1 as a guide the question is, What relation does the S, ὁ λόγος occupy in relation to the PN θεός in John 1:1c? If it is an overlapping relation or proper synonymy then the S = PN and PN = S, thus it is a convertible proposition. But if the referent to θεός has been contextually determined to be the Father (1:1a, 1b) then the referent to which the convertible sense inevitably points to is the Father only. Thus the λόγος = θεός (the Father) which amounts to Sabellianism. In other words, although the sense does not necessarily mean that the Word = the Father, the context determines that θεός has been used (twice) to refer to the Father. And if the proposition is determined to be convertible, there is no other contextual (extralingual) referent to infer otherwise as to who θεός would be but the Father.

The second alternative would be to propose a contiguous relation or improper synonymy where S ≠ PN. In other words, these terms never occupy a sense in which they are interchangeable but instead relate at a higher level. Therefore the ὁ λόγος is not θεός in any sense as identified by context that θεός has been. This contiguous relation is to be rejected outright because it denies a relationship to which the text clearly affirms there to be, namely that the Word is God. In other words, the S ὁ λόγος is clearly in some sense related to θεός. To affirm that the Word is not God is as silly as saying that walking is not traveling because flying has been used of traveling in context twice before. In short, the copulative verb excludes this sense relation entirely.

A better alternative is to propose an inclusive relationship or hyponymy where ὁ λόγος occupies the subset to the overarching PN θεός (superordinate). In this sense θεός could be stressing either the class (generic)—therefore ὁ λογός would be a member of that God-class, or understood as purely qualitative stressing the character of the subject but without diminishing either the nature of the PN or eliminating other members to which the PN in its qualitative sense can refer to. In regards to its previous occurrences (1:1a, 1b) θεός referred to the Father indirectly in distinction to the Word thus avoiding convertibility, whereas the latter it refers to an already explicit subject (ὁ λόγος) where it could not be taken as a convertible proposition (1:1c). To propose that θεός, as an overarching category, is other than the same characteristics assumed in its previous occurrences (apart from personal referentiality), is to foist unwarranted equivocation on the text.⁶¹

Relation of hyponyms. The second question we want to focus on is this: What relation does ὁ λόγος in John 1:1 occupy in relation to the Father if the PN θεός is the overarching category (superordinate) to which each hyponym (Word and Father) belong? In other words, if we assume that θεός in 1:1 always denotes, whether it is referring to the Father or the Word, the same characteristics, then we must assume they are within the same superordinate, and thus must ask what relationship they exercise in regards to each other. Do they exhibit an overlapping, contiguous, or inclusive relationship? In other words, if we assume that the proposition καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος is a subset type proposition where θεός occupies the paradigmatic slot of superordinate, while ὁ λόγος occupies the paradigmatic slot of hyponym, then the question focuses on the relationship between the Father (assumed from context) and ὁ λόγος (1:1c) to θεός (1:1c).

Again, if the relationship is overlapping then in some way the Word = the Father—a contextually difficult position to sustain in light of the distinction maintained by the phrase καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν. If the relationship is inclusive then somehow the Word is a subset of the Father or visa versa. This option is perhaps better left for the psychologist to deal with rather than the grammarian. But if the relationship is contiguitous, then a personal distinction can be maintained between the two (or perhaps more) hyponyms yet still affirm one superordinate to which each equally belongs. In other words, if both walking and running are part of the larger category of traveling then walking is not running, but neither does this rule out a third alternative such as jogging is traveling. This understanding leads one neither to equate the hyponyms (walking = running), or hyponym with superordinate (walking = traveling) nor to equivocate on the superordinate (traveling ≠ traveling). It is according to these types of sense relations that we believe John 1:1c exhibits linguistically.

With these two issues in mind, therefore, we shall lay out briefly the criteria for determining mass nouns, what this entails semantically and then proceed to tackle the issue of identifying count nouns. It is the latter that furnishes us with exegetically disputed passages. In the process semantic tags will be assigned to certain types of nouns quite independent of context but based solely on lexemic factors. In other words the reader will encounter a possibility of six semantic tags, which we deem to both clarify the issues more accurately and establish greater clarity in regards to the denotative idea of qualitativeness. The six semantic tags are Q-d (qualitative-definite), D-q (definite-qualitative), D (definite), Q (qualitative), I (indefinite) and I-Q (indefinite-qualitative or Q-I).⁶² After we examine mass nouns and establish a clear idea of what qualitativeness means, then we shall understand better why this apparent redundancy of semantic tags is necessary in the discussion. Finally, the NT as a whole and John’s Gospel in particular will be examined according to this scheme in order to consider what semantic preponderance is established for count nouns. The statistical results will be applied to the semantically disputed PN in John 1:1c—καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

Mass and Count Nouns

The purpose of this section regards the identifying of mass nouns linguistically and applying that criteria to the Greek of the New Testament with the goal of understanding them in the Colwell construction. The intention then is fourfold: (1) to identify mass nouns, (2) to demonstrate that pre and post-copulative mass nouns are semantically equivalent, (3) to partially account for mass nouns in the pre-copulative construct or at least have a working hypothesis, and (4) to isolate count nouns for detailed study.

The post-copulative anarthrous construct has been used as a “control group” to determine both the semantic weight of pre-copulative constructs and the exegetical weight afforded that construct by the New Testament authors. In order to clearly identify the Greek mass noun, it is necessary to understand the linguistic characteristics of it in general as outlined by various linguists and philosophers.⁶³ The following amounts to the justification for the classification of mass terms which are found in this paper.

The discussion below develops along three areas of focus: grammatical characterizations, philosophic characterizations and semantic interpretations based upon interactions among linguistic constructions.⁶⁴ The grammatical involves specifying the factors that identify mass nouns as opposed to count nouns. The philosophic involves understanding nouns from a sortal/nonsortal distinction, while the semantic deals with their behavior in a variety of constructs—including (for our purposes) pre and post-copulative occurrences with various adjuncts.

Criteria of Mass Nouns

Grammatically, Givon and Otto Jespersen each attempt to describe the phenomenon of mass verses count nouns. Givon states,

Mass nouns tend to take the form characteristic of singulars, as in the English words ‘water’, ‘blood’, ‘love’, ‘sand’ etc. In such cases if pluralization can be applied, it usually denotes different instances/batches of the mass.⁶⁵

To this Jespersen adds,

There are a great many words which do not call up the idea of some definite thing with a certain shape or precise limits. I call these “mass-words”; they may be either material [concrete], in which case they denote some substance in itself independent of form, such as silver, quick-silver, water, butter, gas, air, etc., or else immaterial [abstract], such as leisure, music, traffic, success, tact, common sense, and especially many “nexus-substances” like satisfaction, admiration, refinement, from verbs, or like restlessness, justice, safety, constancy, from adjectives.⁶⁶

Jespersen attempts a syntactic categorization of mass nouns in terms of English determiners used as opposed to those used with count terms.⁶⁷ Basically the syntactic criteria include the following: (1) Mass nouns are identified by the type of quantifiers they take as opposed to count nouns. Their quantifiers are called ammassives such as much, an amount of, a little, some (unstressed[sm]), while count nouns are marked by their quantifiers called enumeratives by words such as each, every, some (stressed [s^m]), few many, one, a(n).⁶⁸ (2) Mass nouns do not take the grammatical plural form, whereas count nouns do. (3) Mass nouns do not take cardinal modifiers whereas count nouns can.

After mentioning the specific quantifiers that mark mass/count nouns, Jespersen elaborates some exceptions: (1) Nouns that are grammatically plural but are treated as mass, such as victuals, dregs, lees, proceeds, belongings etc. (2) Nouns that in the singular are mass but in the plural are count, occasionally involving words that have several meanings. His examples include cheese, iron, cork, paper, talent, experience. (3) Count words becoming mass such as words made into names for countables including oak and fish. (4) Mass nouns becoming count: (a) mass nouns in English that become countable in other languages such as tin and bread;⁶⁹ (b) immaterial mass words that stand for a single act or instance of the quality like stupidity, follies, and kindnesses; (c) “when a nexus-substantive like beauty comes to stand for a thing (or a person) possessing the quality indicated.”⁷⁰ (d) When a mass word is meant to specify a kind of the mass from the other as in This tea is better than the one we had last week.⁷¹ These exceptions, therefore, have caused some tension among linguists about the legitimacy of syntactic characterization.

Muelen states that a purely syntactic characterization of what constitutes a mass noun is insufficient, based on the above exceptions. According to her, in the end Jespersen’s criteria doesn’t distinguish mass nouns from count nouns, but only demonstrates that count nouns can become mass nouns.

Most attempts at syntactic characterization of mass terms, describing their lack of plural form or their typical determiners ‘little’ and ‘much’, not only recognize that these criteria are not necessary and sufficient conditions for mass terms, but point out that almost any noun can be used as a mass noun. This indicates that the mass/count distinction is rather a matter of the interpretation of the language, and not so much reflected at the syntactic level of analysis.⁷²

Grammatical/Semantic Characterizations

It might be noted that in our classifications of mass and count nouns no dependence on the type of quantifiers used in a syntactic schema was deemed necessary.⁷³ Muelen is correct, in our view, in affirming that a reliance solely on syntactic characterizations is not a sufficient guide. However, grammatical features remain valid. For example, one of the continuously cited features of mass nouns includes grammatical singularity. Although this is not a sufficient proof of mass/count distinction it does mark some nouns as clearly mass. Examples of this in Greek include what we have labeled class A nouns, i.e., nouns that are mass which never appear in the grammatical plural.

We have identified 62 such nouns within a predicate construction.⁷⁴ A few examples illustrate this phenomenon. 1 Corinthians 1:30 reads, ἐξ αὐτοῦ δὲ ὑμεῖς ἐστε ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ, ὃς ἐγενήθη σοφία ἡμῖν ἀπό θεοῦ, δικαιοσύνη τε καὶ ἁγιασμὸς καὶ ἀπολύτρωσις. “Of whom [the Father] you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption.” John 17:17 ἁγίασον αὐτοὺς ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ· ὁ λόγος ὁ σὸς ἀλήθειά ἐστιν. “Sanctify them with your truth; your word is truth.”

However, we have also identified a strand of count nouns that never appear in the grammatical plural that no doubt are count in regards to their semantic function. In other words they have the ability, under the right circumstances, to be semantically (and grammatically) pluralized as well as have the ability to be indefinitized. We have labeled these nouns under class D. We have identified 42 occurrences of this type of noun.

A few examples illustrate the category. John 8:44 reads, ὑμεῖς ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ διαβόλου ἐστὲ . . . ἐκεῖνος ἀνθρωποκτόνος ἦν ἀπ ᾿ ἀρχῆς. “You are of your father the devil . . . he was a murderer from the beginning.” Hebrews 8:6 reads, νυνὶ δὲ διαφορωτέρας τέτυχεν λειτουργίας, ὅσῳ καὶ κρείττονός ἐστιν διαθήκης μεσίτης, ἥτις ἐπὶ κρείττοσιν ἐπαγγελίαις. “But now having obtained a more valuable ministry, and to the degree which he is a mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted upon better promises.” It is clear that these terms are count and could easily be both grammatically and semantically pluralized. For example, it is not hard to imagine “murderers” or “mediators.”

The purely syntactic way of describing the count/mass distinction has other short comings as well. For example, mass nouns are typically distinguished from count nouns by their inability to take numerals as determiners, for this supposedly encroaches upon singular-plural distinctions of count nouns. Yet examples of mass nouns with numeral determiners are recognized as referring, both in English and Greek, to mass terms. In English the word “oatmeal” appears to be a mass term, yet one can ask, How many oatmeals do you have in your kitchen? and get a response, Three oatmeals! without much confusion.⁷⁵ Likewise in Greek the cardinal adjective is used in the expression “one flesh” without confusion that what is under discussion is a mass term.⁷⁶ Another problem, alluded to earlier, relates to the inability of mass terms towards grammatical pluralization. Pluralization reportedly applies only to count terms whereas mass terms have an aversion to it. Yet, according to Pelletier, “there are mass terms that without change of sense admit of apparent (syntactical) pluralization: e.g., ‘beans’ and ‘potatoes’ (‘Pass the (mashed) potatoes’, etc.).”⁷⁷

Likewise, there are Greek terms that appear in a grammatically plural form but are deemed as semantically mass. For example, we have divided plural mass nouns into class B and C according to their semantic relations in regards to their grammatical (but not semantic) plurality. Class B nouns are nouns that appear in the grammatical plural but remain semantically singular. The Greek nouns ἄρτος and σάρξ are examples of this class of noun. According to our study ἄρτος appears in 8 verses, 2 anarthrous and 6 articular PN constructions, whereas σάρξ occurs in 4 verses, 3 anarthrous and 1 articular PN construction.⁷⁸ An illustration occurs in Matthew 4:3 where the Devil states, Εἰ υἱὸς εἶ τοῦ θεοῦ, εἰπὲ ἵνα οἱ λίθοι οὗτοι ἄρτοι γένωνται. “If you are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread.” The plural form is used but the sense is not “breads” or even the more acceptable “loaves” but simply “bread.”⁷⁹ In all we have identified 25 nouns of this mass type.

Class C nouns are mass nouns that are mass in their singular but become either semantically different in the plural or a substantive. This type of noun includes only 7 of which ἀγαπή is a representative.⁸⁰ Examples include John 4:8 where it states, ὁ θεὸς ἀγάπη ἐστίν. “God is love.” Or another passage, 1 Timothy 1:5 states, τὸ δὲ τέλος τῆς παραγγελίας ἐστὶν ἀγάπη, “But the end of the commandment is love.” The plural form of ἀγαπή carries with it the substantive usage of “beloved ones” elsewhere in the NT. Further, δόξα in the singular refers to “glory” whereas in the plural it usually takes on the substantized usage meaning “glorious ones” or, as class B nouns, it retains it’s semantic singularity. In all PN constructions, however, the singular referred to the mass usage.

The final category of nouns is the largest and refer to count nouns that appear in either singular-plural, or plural only. We have labeled these class E nouns.

CLASS OF NOUN		GRAMMATICAL DESCRIPTION
Mass	A B C	Never plural form Singular and plural forms—semantically equivalent Appear in singular and plural forms—only mass in singular
Count	D E	Never in plural form Appears in singular and plural or just plural forms

There are certain nouns that do not fit within the category of either count or mass nouns including proper names. However, although this is somewhat true in both English and Greek, certain names appear to come under the rubric of count, or despite their unique referential identity, retain qualitative features. For example, if someone was called “Judas” or “Benedict Arnold” the terms themselves would take on a pejorative-qualitative connotation. This can also be true of Greek only in a different sense. In our study of pre and post-copulative anarthrous constructions involving proper names, all 21 appear with the verb εἰμί, 3 are pre-copulative and 18 are post-copulative. We make the case that significance lies in the pre-copulative construct of proper names there (all in John).⁸¹

Philosophic Distinction

Before focusing on count nouns a discussion involving the difference between mass/count verses sortal/nonsortal should be briefly noted. This latter nomenclature roughly corresponds to the grammatical distinction of mass/count. However, the emphasis in this categorization scheme differs in that mass/count is strictly a grammatical appraisal whereas sortal/non-sortal is a philosophic assessment. This latter system distinguishes between those nouns which can be counted (sortal) verses those nouns which cannot be counted (non-sortal). Pelletier explains:

This distinction is supposed to divide predicates that “provide a criterion for counting” from predicates that do not provide such a criterion. In a space appropriate to the sortal ‘S’, we can count how many S’s there are in that space; but in a space appropriate to a non-sortal ‘M’ we cannot straightforwardly ask how many M’s there are. Thus we can ask how many men in a room, but not how many waters (without change of sense of ‘water’). Non-sortal terms are collective —if ‘M’ is a non-sortal term, them ‘M’ is true of any sum of things of which ‘M’ is true (down to a certain lower limit, the setting of which is generally an empirical matter).⁸²

Pelletier then goes on to explain the differences between mass/count (grammatical) and sortal/non-sortal (philosophical) with four distinctive elements: (1) Grammatical applies to nouns, whereas the philosophical applies to all monadic predicates; (2) Grammatical applies only to simple nouns, whereas the philosophical to complex terms; (3) Certain count nouns are classified as non-sortals (‘thing’, ‘object’, ‘entity’), although grammatically they are count; and (4) Grammatical takes abstract nouns and, depending upon their ability to be indefinitized, puts them into either mass or count categories, whereas, the philosophical distinction is vague on this point. Overall the distinction is one of starting point and focus.

The grammatical distinction is supposed to describe the syntax of our language—it tries, without theory, to show us how to tell the one kind of word from another. It is supposed to be a starting point for a theory—that is, it is supposed merely to describe some phenomenon that any general account (i.e., theory) of language must face up to. For this reason, in order to succeed, the distinction must not appeal to any theory, but only to surface structure and other pre-theoretic information.⁸³

What Pelletier is saying in effect, is that the starting point must be with the grammatical aspects rather than from metaphysics. The purpose of delving into this sortal/non-sortal distinction is simply to press the issue that it is grammatical characterization rather than metaphysical distinction that we have sought to follow.⁸⁴ Therefore, despite the shortcomings and exceptions to purely syntactic marks of identification for mass/count distinctions, we still regard the grammatical features legitimate and part and parcel of proper linguistic order.

Beyond this something must be said about the relation of mass nouns to abstract/concrete nouns. It would be a mistake to think that all abstract nouns are mass or that all concrete nouns are count. What is true, however, is that concrete mass nouns like “flesh” connote powerful abstract-qualitative ideas, so much so that Nigel Turner has called σάρξ “virtually an abstract noun.”⁸⁵ On the other hand, it is not difficult to imagine abstract count nouns either (thoughts, ideas, feelings, reasons etc.). Mass nouns, therefore, can cover either concrete or abstract nouns that share the characteristic of qualitativeness. Therefore mass nouns have an intrinsic qualitative feature combined with the inability to be indefinitized, hence qualitative-definite or Q-d. Thus the semantic designation of qualitative-definite (Q-d) appears most congenial to describe the semantics of the mass noun.

Count Nouns

Contrary to mass nouns, count nouns are open to all six possible semantic tags: definite, definite-qualitative, qualitative-definite, qualitative, indefinite and indefinite-qualitative (qualitative-definite).⁸⁶ These semantic categories are possible because count nouns, by definition, can be indefinitized—so the indefinite category is a viable option. Even (Q-d) is included but restricted to nouns in the plural form. The reason for this is due to the nature of count plurals. They tend to partly mimic the semantics of the mass noun in that they speak of a class and qualities along with the inability to be indefinitized (you can’t say “a brothers” for example). Therefore they have a generic-qualitative semantic about them rather than purely qualitative like the mass noun. They differ from mass nouns in that they are generic as opposed to purely qualitative.

Only singular count nouns are subject to the indefinitizing process and conversely cannot take the semantic label Q-d. This is due to the fact that singular count nouns themselves can be indefinitized. However, the category Q, which is semantically equivalent to Q-d, can be applied to the singular count noun. Mass nouns establish Q as a semantic category without indefiniteness being present, while singular count nouns offer the possibility of having that tag applied to it among other semantic options.

Semantic Tagging

As noted above we have listed six semantic tags as possible designations for mass and count nouns. Below we now describe more fully these semantic tags as in regards to their definition and limitations to certain types of nouns. Based on this we will then look at the NT as a whole and the Gospel of John in particular and ferret out mass nouns and plural count nouns for reasons enumerated above.

Categories

Indefinite-Qualitative (I-Q). This category indicates an indefinite noun that also retains the semantics of a qualitative noun. The member as well as the characteristics of that member are equally stressed. A key to identifying this type of noun is that it applies only to count nouns in cases where either only quality or only an indefinite sense would appear to omit an important semantic feature. Since it is equivalent to what we could label qualitative-indefinite (Q-I) the latter is forgone in the following discussion. Two types of nouns are excluded: mass nouns, because they cannot be indefinitized, along with plural count nouns for the same reasons. The first is excluded on lexemic grounds, while the latter on grammatical. This semantic presupposes a subset type of proposition.

Indefinite (I). This is the unmarked referent whose semantic associates the subject within a larger group, i.e., it lacks referential identity. The characteristics can be implied based upon the membership within this group but the qualities are not important and not stressed. Only count nouns occur with this semantic category. Furthermore, excluded from this category along with category I-Q, are plural count nouns due to their inability to be indefinitized. This semantic presupposes a subset type of proposition.

Qualitative-Definite (Q-d). Here quality, nature or essence is emphasized. However, the noun that occurs cannot be indefinitized and thus is labeled definite. Nearly all mass nouns fall within this category. We also tentatively put most plural count nouns here. The reason for the “-d” in this category is due to the fact that the noun cannot be indefinitized, a grammatical feature of mass nouns. Therefore, only two types of nouns will occur here, mass and plural count. This category is semantically identical with “Q” below when the former applies to a mass noun (the plural count is slightly different but retains the same Q-d tag). This semantic presupposes a subset type of proposition.

Qualitative (Q). The qualities, nature or essence of concepts, beings or things are stressed. It is usually associated with one member and usually without reference to class. Only singular count nouns that are qualitative will fall within this category. By definition count nouns can be indefinitized (only in their singular), thus they cannot be tagged as Q-d. This semantic presupposes a subset type of proposition.

Definite-Qualitative (D-Q). The identity of the individual is stressed where the proposition becomes convertible. However, the noun (PN) itself has qualitative features and will retain them within the construction. This can occur with mass nouns but oftentimes with count nouns that have additional qualitative features implicit within either the lexeme or brought out through contextual considerations. This proposition presupposes a convertible type of proposition.

Definite (D). This clearly marks an individual or thing apart from the others. It has unique referential identity without reference to quality or nature. This tag will occur with count nouns and proper names (usually). The test of this is whether the proposition can be inverted without change of referent, i.e., one necessarily implies the other—convertibility.⁸⁷ The fact that a statement is about identity does not necessarily demand convertibility.⁸⁸ This proposition presupposes, therefore, a convertible type of proposition.

Procedure⁸⁹

When making determination as to whether a noun is count or mass we must submit that noun to several queries. (1) Can it be grammatically pluralized? Answering in the affirmative does not necessarily determine for sure that it is a count noun. Thus, grammatical number must be narrowed to a semantical question. (2) Can it be semantically pluralized? If it can then it is a count noun, if it cannot then it is a mass noun. To confirm this a third question can be asked. (3) Can it be indefinitized? If so it is a count noun, if not it is a mass noun. Some nouns change from their singular occurrence to the plural form. Therefore, a final question involves asking, (4) Does the noun change when it is pluralized? If so you are probably dealing with a mass noun in the singular but a substantized form in the plural, hence it is only mass in the singular.

For any occasion of a singular count noun the semantic options are (D-Q, D, Q, I, or I-Q). However, if the count noun is plural then only two options are available (Q-d or D-Q). For a mass noun there remains only two possible semantic tags that are appropriate (Q-d or D-Q), the latter being rare. Thus to a certain extent, the lexemic criteria have served to limit the semantic options available. The disputable examples all come from singular count nouns. And the only way to determine if syntax plays a role in its semantic determination is to first examine both pre and post-copulative anarthrous constructions, next to establish a grouping of clear semantic preponderance based on clear passages in either construction, and then determine from this a distinctive statistical probability between the two. From this one can not only compare the syntactic semantical differences but leave disputed texts aside to be determined separately.

Statistical Distribution

Although PNs occur with several verbs, we have limited our analysis to three particular ones, εἰμί, γίνομαι, and ὑπάρχω. The most important and frequent is the first, while the second follows and finally the third. While εἰμί and ὑπάρχω are semantically identical, γίνομαι offers a distinct subset type of meaning. That is, the former verbs allow for both convertible and subset type of propositions, while the latter affords only the latter type. Before we consider John in particular, we have laid out the statistics for these verbs below in regards to the entire NT.

The Overall Picture

The Verb εἰμί. Of the 664 constructions involving this verb there are a total of 479 (72%) anarthrous PN constructions and 185 (28%) articular constructions. Of the articular constructions alone, 22 (12%) are pre-copulative⁹⁰ and 163 (88%) are post-copulative. Of the pre-copulative 3 were mass (14%) and 19 count (85%). Of the post-copulative 33 were mass (20%) and 130 were count (80%). Of the anarthrous constructions alone 224 (47%) are pre-copulative and 255 (53%) are post-copulative. Breaking this down, a look at pre-copulative anarthrous constructs alone indicate that 33 (15%) are mass and 191 (85%) are count while the post-copulative reveal 63 (24%) mass and 192 (76%) count.⁹¹

These structural statistics, from an overall point of view, reveal that a mass noun will most likely occur in a post-copulative anarthrous construct by nearly a 2-1 (66%) margin while the normal position of a count noun can be said to be equally distributed (if only anarthrous constructs are considered). However, given a pre-copulative anarthrous construction verses a post-copulative construct the percentage of count nouns appearing in a pre-copulative construct are 10% more likely to occur, (per number of occurrences of the total pre-copulative anarthrous PNs), than a count term appearing in a post-copulative anarthrous PN construction. The opposite can be said for mass terms, i.e., given the two constructions one is 10% less likely to find a mass term in a pre-copulative anarthrous construct than in a post-copulative construct.⁹²

The Verb γίνομαι. Considering the verb γίνομαι a few differences between this verb and εἰμί should be noted before moving to the former. First, the latter has the possibility of convertibility whereas the former does not.⁹³ Therefore, even relative clauses in the former do not render the phrase definite, nor do genitive adjuncts even though the PN in fact is definite. The nature of the verb militates against it. Second, if a subset proposition occurs the latter connects the subject constitutionally to the PN in such a way that they are indivisible whereas the former may or may not.

For example, A dog is an animal indicates that while the dog is an animal it does not cease to be a dog, only that all animals are not dogs. However, The stones became bread indicates a subset proposition where the constitutionality of one is subsumed by the other. When stones become bread they are no longer stones. However, The Word became flesh shows that although the same grammatical construction occurs (as in the latter) a totally different interpretation results. The Word has flesh added to it while remaining in identity the Word also. In one type a constitutional transference occurs, in the latter an addition takes place. These observations affect more the level of interpretation than grammar, for both are in the possible semantic range of the verb. However, a failure to distinguish between the two has given at least one cult a reason to deny the hypostatic union of Christ (World-wide Church of God).⁹⁴

Of the 97 PN constructions involving the verb γίνομαι there are a total of 92 (96%) anarthrous PN constructions and 4 (4%) articular constructions. Of the articular constructions alone, 1 (25%) is pre-copulative and 3 (75%) are post-copulative.⁹⁵ Of the anarthrous constructions alone, 46 (49%) are pre-copulative and 47 (51%) are post-copulative. Breaking this down, a look at pre-copulative anarthrous constructs alone indicate that 11 (26%) are mass and 34 (74%) are count while the post-copulative reveal 16 (34%) as mass and 31 (66%) as count.

For all practical purposes the distribution of mass and count nouns are roughly the same. The numbers reveal that it is only slightly less likely to find a pre-copulative mass noun than a post-copulative and slightly less likely to find a post-copulative count noun than a pre-copulative.

The Verb ὑπάρχω. The verb ὑπάρχω occurs a total of 13 times in the NT where they are convertible propositions (including subset). Of these only one is post-copulative and it is a count noun (Acts 17:24). The rest are pre-copulative. Of the 12 that are, 7 (58%) are count and 5 (42%) are mass. Because this verb is semantically equivalent to εἰμί when a PN is determined to be definite the proposition becomes convertible, or reciprocal.

Conclusions on εἰμί

First we will list the total semantic picture of an anarthrous PN with the verb εἰμί, then divert to consider both pre-copulative and then post copulative conclusions. Definitizing factors will be ruled out eventually and then an overall semantic situation will be presented. At first the conclusions will include all nouns in both constructs, then a breakdown into mass and count and finally to singular counts. All these are based on clear passages. In total 23 passages (16 in pre-cop count, 7 in post-cop count) were deemed either exegetically significant or disputed and are thus excluded in the following charts.

Chart 1: Semantic Situation for EIMI

Universal statistics. Considering both pre and post-copulative anarthrous constructions in combination the following chart reveals what one should expect having asked the question, “What semantic domain should an anarthrous PN construction with εἰμί lean towards?” That is given any anarthrous PN whether pre or post-copulative concerning the verb εἰμί, what general semantic domain predominates?

SEMANTICS	Q-d	D-Q	Q	D	I	I-Q	TOTAL
Pre-cop Mass	27	6	0	0	0	0	33
Pre-cop Count	53	38	24	22	4	34	175
Post-cop Mass	40	23	0	0	0	0	63
Post-cop Count	58	8	32	35	37	15	185
TOTAL	178	75	56	57	41	49	456
PERCENT	39%	16%	12%	13%	9%	11%	100%

According to our scheme of six possible semantic domains, the answer to the question is the following according to frequency: 39% Q-d, 16% D-Q, 13% D, 12% Q, 11% I-Q and 9% I. If one uses the previous semantic system of definite, qualitative and indefinite (D, Q, I) the semantic situation for the question asked would be the following: 29% definite, 9% indefinite and 62% qualitative. This is based upon those works cited earlier which put our category of I-Q into the category of Q thus making that category statistically high.⁹⁶ This is an overall category and no further subdivisions shall be drawn off this (no factoring out of mass nouns, plural counts, proper names, genitive modifiers or relative clauses). Below is a statistical breakdown of both the pre and post-copulative constructs individually.

Individuated statistics. For each individual construction the statistics are drawn from the overall statistics above but separated into the pre-copulative anarthrous construction involving εἰμί and then the post-copulative. This first chart answers the question, “What semantic situation should one find with εἰμί in a pre-copulative anarthrous PN barring any other considerations?”

SEMANTICS	Q-d	D-Q	Q	D	I	I-Q	TOTAL
Pre-cop Mass	27	6	0	0	0	0	33
Pre-cop Count	53	38	24	22	4	34	175
TOTAL	80	44	24	22	4	34	208
PERCENT	38%	21%	12%	11%	2%	16%	100%

The highest semantic for a pre-copulative anarthrous PN with εἰμί is the Q-d semantic. The order is as follows: 38% Q-d, 21% D-Q, 16% I-Q, 12% Q, 11% D and 2% I. The reason for the high Q-d factor is apparent when one deletes from this mass and plural count nouns which will be factored out shortly. The picture according to the old semantic scheme would be 32% definite, 2% indefinite and 66% qualitative. The next chart reveals the post-copulative situation.

SEMANTICS	Q-d	D-Q	Q	D	I	I-Q	TOTAL
Post-cop Mass	40	23	0	0	0	0	63
Post-cop Count	58	8	32	35	37	15	185
TOTAL	98	31	32	35	37	15	248
PERCENT	40%	13%	13%	14%	15%	6%	100%

Here the statistics are still a majority of Q-d. The breakdown is as follows: 40% Q-d, 15% I, 14% D, 13% for both D-Q and Q and 6% for I-Q. Comparing this with the pre-copulative statistics reveals that mass and plural count nouns are roughly equally distributed the two constructs (Q-d). However, the pre-copulative has a high rate of I-Q compared with the post-copulative, and the post-copulative has a high I (indefinite) compared to the former. The statistics according to the old semantic scheme are, 27% definite, 15% indefinite and 59% qualitative. What the statistics are beginning to show also is the slightly higher ratio of definites in the pre-copulative construct and the higher ratio of indefinites in the post-copulative construction.

The next step in getting down to an ontological meaning to the pre-copulative and post-copulative anarthrous construct is to omit all mass nouns from both.⁹⁷ This would take out many if not most of the Q-d category, but leave the plural counts intact. What is left is a semantic situation for all count nouns in both constructions. The following chart answers the question, “If we consider only count nouns, what should the semantic situation be like for εἰμί in a pre or post-copulative construct?” The first chart answers that for the pre-copulative construct.

SEMANTICS	Q-d	D-Q	Q	D	I	I-Q	TOTAL
Pre-cop Count	53	38	24	22	4	34	175
PERCENT	30%	22%	14%	13%	2%	19%	100%

Even with the omission of mass nouns, the prevalent semantic remains Q-d, no doubt due to the plural counts. The statistics in their order of priority would be as follows: 30% Q-d, 22% D-Q, 19% I-Q, 14% Q, 13% D and 2% I. The semantic situation according to the old scheme would be as follows: 35% definite, 2% indefinite, and 63% qualitative. The following chart represents the post-copulative situation.

SEMANTICS	Q-d	D-Q	Q	D	I	I-Q	TOTAL
Post-cop Count	58	8	32	35	37	15	185
PERCENT	31%	4%	17%	20%	20%	8%	100%

The semantic scheme in order of frequency would be as follows: 31% Q-d, 20% for both D and I, 17% Q, 8% I-Q and 4% D-Q. %. The statistics from the old scheme would be as follows: 24% definite, 20% indefinite and 56% qualitative. The picture compared with the pre-copulative marks significantly in the D-Q category (down 18%) but slightly higher in the D category (up 7%). Most significant is the post-copulative’s high statistics over the pre-copulative in the indefinite (I) category (up 18%) but lower in the I-Q category (down 11%). When comparing the old schemes, the indefinite category appears statistically minute for the pre-copulative construct. However, when one factors in the 6 category semantic scheme, the picture becomes different. The old scheme, therefore, can be deceptive.

The next step was to omit all plural count nouns from the statistics for εἰμί. This chart answers the question, “If we consider only singular count nouns, what should the semantic situation be like for εἰμί in a pre or post-copulative construct?” This first chart answers the question for the pre-copulative singular count nouns with εἰμί.

SEMANTICS	Q-d	D-Q	Q	D	I	I-Q	TOTAL
Pre-cop Count	0	38	24	17	4	34	117
PERCENT	0%	32%	21%	15%	3%	29%	100%

These statistics show a rise in the statistics in just about every category. The least statistical significance lies with the Indefinite category rising only 1% from the former chart. The definite category, although statistically higher than the previous chart has nevertheless dropped in it’s statistical increase compared with the other categories. The statistical phenomenon would be as follows: 32% D-Q, 29% I-Q, 21% Q, 15% D and 3% I. The old semantic scheme would be as follows: 47% definite, 3% indefinite and 50% qualitative. The following chart represents the post-copulative construct.

SEMANTICS	Q-d	D-Q	Q	D	I	I-Q	TOTAL
Post-cop Count	0	8	32	35	37	15	127
PERCENT	0%	6%	25%	28%	29%	12%	100%

Basically the ratio among post-copulatives has remained the same due to the fact that no plural counts were omitted from any category except the Q-d. The statistical phenomenon would be as follows: 29% I, 28% D, 25% Q, 12% I-Q and 6% D-Q. The old scheme would be as follows: 34% definite, 29% indefinite and 37% qualitative. The picture compared with the pre-copulative still shows significance in the D-Q category, 6% compared to the pre-copulative 32%, and significance is also to be seen in the Indefinite category, 29% compared to the pre-copulative 3%. The purely qualitative category appears basically the same while the I-Q category shows 29% for the pre-copulative and only 12% for the post-copulative. So while there is an increase of indefinites for the post-copulative construction by a 26% margin, there is simultaneously an increase of I-Q category for the pre-copulative construction by a 17% margin.

The next step is to omit from the singular count nouns any definitizing factors such as genitive adjuncts, proper names and (with regard to post-copulative constructs) relative clauses. Not all genitive adjuncts were omitted (nor all relative clauses) but only those which were proved to be clearly definite. The question the following charts attempt to answer is, “If all definitizing factors are omitted from singular count nouns, what semantic predominates?” This first chart represents the answer to that question for the pre-copulative construction.

SEMANTICS	Q-d	D-Q	Q	D	I	I-Q	TOTAL
Pre-cop Count	0	2	24	2	4	34	66
PERCENT	0%	3%	36%	3%	6%	52%	100%

The most significant decreases evidence themselves in both the D-Q and D categories as should be expected. With this decrease the particular semantic situation for εἰμί emerges. The predominant semantic lies with the I-Q category (52%) followed by the Q category (36%), the indefinite category (6%) and finally the D-Q category (3%). The old semantic scheme would be the following: 6% definite, 6% indefinite and 88% qualitative.⁹⁸ However, this later scheme does not reveal the I-Q category and is a bit deceptive. Before we jump ahead and apply this to John 1:1, however, a look at the post-copulative construction is necessary to conclude the study for the NT.

SEMANTICS	Q-d	D-Q	Q	D	I	I-Q	TOTAL
Post-cop Count	0	0	32	2	37	15	86
PERCENT	0%	0%	37%	2%	43%	17%	100%

Statistically, the most predominant semantic category is overwhelmingly the Indefinite (I) category at 43%, followed by the Q (37%), then the I-Q (17%) and finally the D category (2%). According to the old scheme it would be, 2% definite, 43% indefinite and 54% qualitative.⁹⁹ Comparing this with the pre-copulative construction reveals that a singular count noun (minus all definitizing factors), if definite (D-Q, or D), is 75% more likely to appear in a pre-copulative construct than the latter. The purely qualitative category (Q) is equally distributed (about 50/50) but the I-Q category is heavily tilted towards the pre-copulative construct, and is 69% more likely to appear in a pre-copulative construct than the latter. Of the indefinite category (I) the chances that it appears in a pre-copulative construct is only 9% with a 91% probability for a post-copulative occurrence.

The problem with these statistics is when exegetically significant passages are determined from them. For example, John 1:1 uses εἰμί with a singular count noun. Using the above statistics alone would mean the text would support the Jehovah Witnesses and their interpretation of that passage. However, below we demonstrate a contextually closer concentric circle to John 1:1 that is more determinative in it’s interpretation than this statistical phenomenon regarding the entire NT. Therefore, it is wise to reserve a semantic judgment until the book from which the verse arises has been statistically tallied. So although it is true that the predominant semantic for a singular count noun minus all definitizing factors in a pre-copulative anarthrous PN construct with εἰμί is statistically higher for the I-Q category, this is not the entire case for each book or author of the NT.

Conclusions on γίνομαι

The same procedure will be followed as with the verb εἰμί but a much shorter discussion. This is due to the fact that virtually no definites occur with this verb therefore no definitizing factors need ruled out.¹⁰⁰ Therefore a total semantic situation for γίνομαι will be presented below followed by a breakdown into pre and post-copulative counts, then lastly singular counts to indicate the semantic situation for that construction.

Chart 2: Semantic Situation for GINOMAI

Universal statistics. Considering both pre and post-copulative anarthrous constructions in combination the following chart reveals what one should expect having asked the question, “What semantic domain should an anarthrous PN construction with γίνομαι lean towards?” That is given any anarthrous PN whether pre or post-copulative concerning the verb γίνομαι, what general semantic domain predominates?

SEMANTICS	Q-d	D-Q	Q	D	I	I-Q	TOTAL
Pre-cop Mass	11	0	0	0	0	0	11
Pre-cop Count	22	1	3	0	0	8	34
Post-cop Mass	16	0	0	0	0	0	16
Post-cop Count	14	0	1	0	5	11	31
TOTAL	63	1	4	0	5	19	92
PERCENT	68%	1%	4%	0%	5%	20%	100%

According to our six scheme semantic system, the answer to the question is the following according to frequency: 68% Q-d, 20% I-Q, 5% I, 4% Q and 1% D-Q. If the previous semantic system is used the semantic situation for the asked question would be the following: 93% Q, 5% I and 1% D. What follows is a further breakdown into both pre and post-copulative constructs individually.

Individuated statistics. The next two charts represent separately the pre-copulative anarthrous construct and the post-copulative anarthrous construct with γίνομαι. They answer the question, “What semantic situation should one find with γίνομαι in a pre-copulative [then “post-copulative”] anarthrous PN construction barring any other considerations?”

SEMANTICS	Q-d	D-Q	Q	D	I	I-Q	TOTAL
Pre-cop Mass	11	0	0	0	0	0	11
Pre-cop Count	22	1	3	0	0	8	34
TOTAL	33	1	3	0	0	8	44
PERCENT	75%	2%	6%	0%	0%	18%	100%

The highest semantic for the pre-copulative anarthrous PN with γίνομαι is the Q-d category. The order is as follows: 75% Q-d, 18% I-Q, 6% Q and 2% D-Q. Several factors account for the high statistics of the Q-d category: (1) Eleven of the Q-d are mass nouns and (2) twenty-two are plural count nouns. The mass nouns will be factored out of the next charts, and the plural counts out of the second set. The semantic picture according to the old semantic scheme would be 98% Q and 2% D. The next chart reveals the post-copulative construction.

SEMANTICS	Q-d	D-Q	Q	D	I	I-Q	TOTAL
Post-cop Mass	16	0	0	0	0	0	16
Post-cop Count	14	0	1	0	5	11	31
TOTAL	30	0	1	0	5	11	47
PERCENT	64%	0%	2%	0%	10%	23%	100%

Here the statistics are still a majority of Q-d. However, the difference between this and the pre-copulative is the number of count nouns in this category. There are more mass nouns in the post-copulative construct than the pre-copulative construct (16 to 11) but more plural counts in the Q-d category for the pre-copulative than the post-copulative (22 to 14). The semantic breakdown is as follows: 64% Q-d, 23% I-Q, 10% I and 2% Q. Comparing this with the pre-copulative construction reveals an increase in the indefinite category (10% to 0%) and a slight increase in the I-Q category (23% to 18%). According to the old semantic scheme the statistics would be as follows: 90% Q and 10% I.

The next step is to omit all mass nouns and simply consider count nouns. The following charts answer the question, “If we consider only count nouns, what should the semantic situation be like for γίνομαι in a pre or post copulative anarthrous PN construct?” The first chart answers that question for the pre-copulative construct.

SEMANTICS	Q-d	D-Q	Q	D	I	I-Q	TOTAL
Pre-cop Count	22	1	3	0	0	8	34
PERCENT	65%	3%	9%	0%	0%	23%	100%

Even with the omission of mass nouns, the prevalent semantic remains Q-d, no doubt due to plural counts. The statistics in their order of priority would be as follows: 65% Q-d, 23% I-Q, 9% Q and 3% D-Q. The semantic situation according to the old scheme would be as follows: 3% D, 0% I and 97% Q. The following chart represents the post-copulative situation.

SEMANTICS	Q-d	D-Q	Q	D	I	I-Q	TOTAL
Post-cop Count	14	0	1	0	5	11	31
PERCENT	45%	0%	3%	0%	16%	35%	100%

Here the semantic scheme in order of frequency would be as follows: 45% Q-d, 35% I-Q, 16% I and 3% Q. The statistics from the old scheme would be as follows: 0% D, 16% I, and 84% Q. Comparing the post-copulative with the pre-copulative shows up most apparently in the I category. There are no examples of an indefinite in the pre-copulative construct at all and the I-Q category is only slightly higher in the post-copulative construct (35% to 23%). The Q category is only slightly higher in the pre-copulative (9% to 3%) and the Q-d category is quite a bit higher in the pre-copulative (65% to 45%). This latter merely indicates that pre-copulative count plurals out number the post-copulative counterpart.

Since there are no definitizing factors needed to be factored out from this verb the next chart simply gives the singular count noun it’s semantic situation with the γίνομαι verb. This chart answers the question, “If we consider only singular count nouns, what should the semantic situation be like for γίνομαι in a pre or post copulative construct?” The first chart answers the question for the pre-copulative singular count noun with γίνομαι.

SEMANTICS	Q-d	D-Q	Q	D	I	I-Q	TOTAL
Pre-cop Count	0	1	3	0	0	8	12
PERCENT	0%	8%	25%	0%	0%	67%	100%

The semantic situation, as with the εἰμί verb above, is predominantly leans towards the I-Q category—only here to a much greater extent. The semantic scheme would be as follows: 67% I-Q, 25% Q and 8% D. According to the old scheme it would be as follows: 8% D, 0% I and 92% Q.¹⁰¹ It seems apparent that the predominant pre-copulative semantic ontological significance to be attributed to this structure is the I-Q category. This has been completely overlooked by the previous studies. Below is the chart representing the post-copulative construct.

SEMANTICS	Q-d	D-Q	Q	D	I	I-Q	TOTAL
Post-cop Count	0	0	1	0	5	11	17
PERCENT	0%	0%	5%	0%	30%	65%	100%

The semantic situation for this construction indicates a heavy tilt towards the I-Q category (65%) followed by the I category (30%) and then by the Q category (5%). According to the old scheme the semantic situation would be as follows: 0% D, 30% I and 70% Q. The difference with this construction compared with the pre-copulative lies in the I category. The pre-copulative construct offered no examples of an indefinite sense. But if viewed from the old scheme this could be deceptive, for the predominant scheme in both constructions is the I-Q category (67% and 65%). So merely indicating that the pre-copulative construct does not have any indefinites doesn’t mean that the qualitative feature does not include an indefinite sense (hence the I-Q category).

We have not found any disputed texts with this verb. The point of showing the semantic situation was to help in confirming the ontology of the anarthrous PN construction in both pre and post-anarthrous constructs.

Conclusions on ὑπάρχω

The same procedure will be followed as with the previous verbs, but a shorter discussion. This is due to the fact that there are so few examples of this verb with convertible (subset) propositions (13 all together). Further, the post-copulative construction has only one example and it is a count noun. This makes it difficult to base any conclusions upon this verb and usage in the PN construction. It’s statistics are included because it semantically parallels the verb εἰμί and serves to conclude the study. Therefore a total semantic situation for ὑπάρχω will be presented below followed by a breakdown into pre and post-copulative counts then lastly singular counts to indicate the semantic situation for that construction. No disputed texts were identified with this construction.

Chart 3: Semantic Situation for UPARCW

Universal Statistics. Considering both pre and post-copulative anarthrous constructions in combination the following chart reveals what one should expect having asked the question, “What semantic domain should an anarthrous PN construction with ὑπάρχω lean towards?” That is, given any anarthrous PN whether pre or post-copulative concerning the verb ὑπάρχω, what general semantic domain predominates?

SEMANTICS	Q-d	D-Q	Q	D	I	I-Q	TOTAL
Pre-cop Mass	3	2	0	0	0	0	5
Pre-cop Count	2	1	0	0	3	1	7
Post-cop Mass	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Post-cop Count	0	0	1	0	0	0	1
TOTAL	5	3	1	0	3	1	13
PERCENT	38%	23%	8%	0%	23%	8%	100%

According to our six scheme semantic system, the answer to the question is the following according to frequency: 38% Q-d, 23% for both the D-Q and the I category and 8% for both the Q and I-Q categories. If the previous system is used the semantic situation for the asked question would be the following: 23% D, 23% I and 54% Q. What follows is a further breakdown into both pre and post-copulative constructs individually.

Individuated statistics. The next two charts represent separately the pre-copulative anarthrous construct and the post-copulative anarthrous construct with ὑπάρχω. They answer the question, “What semantic situation should one find with ὑπάρχω in a pre-copulative [then “post-copulative”] anarthrous PN construction barring any other considerations?”

SEMANTICS	Q-d	D-Q	Q	D	I	I-Q	TOTAL
Pre-cop Mass	3	2	0	0	0	0	5
Pre-cop Count	2	1	0	0	3	1	7
TOTAL	5	3	0	0	3	1	12
PERCENT	42%	25%	0%	0%	25%	8%	100%

The highest semantic for the pre-copulative anarthrous PN with ὑπάρχω is the Q-d category. The order is as follows: 42% Q-d, 25% for both D-Q and I, and 8% for I-Q. According to the old scheme it would be 25% D, 25% I and 50% Q. What is significant is that when compared with εἰμί, this verb has a much higher percentage of pre-copulative indefinites (25% to 2%) than would be expected. Also, no D category occurs (compared to εἰμί 11%) although the D-Q category is about the same as εἰμί (25% to 21%). The I-Q category is twice as low percentage wise (8% to 16%) and the Q category has none compared to 12% with εἰμί.¹⁰² The next chart reveals the post-copulative construction.

SEMANTICS	Q-d	D-Q	Q	D	I	I-Q	TOTAL
Post-cop Mass	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Post-cop Count	0	0	1	0	0	0	1
TOTAL	0	0	1	0	0	0	1
PERCENT	0%	0%	100%	0%	0%	0%	100%

It is fairly evident that the only category that this construction bears is the Q category due to the infrequency of the post-copulative construct. Since it involves a count noun it is not necessary to produce any further charts on this post-copulative construction. Below, therefore, attention is focused solely on the pre-copulative construct.

The next step is to omit all mass nouns from the pre-copulative construct and focus entirely on count nouns. The following chart answers the question, “If we consider only count nouns, what should the semantic situation be like for ὑπάρχω in a pre-copulative anarthrous PN construct?”

SEMANTICS	Q-d	D-Q	Q	D	I	I-Q	TOTAL
Pre-cop Count	2	1	0	0	3	1	7
PERCENT	29%	14%	0%	0%	43%	14%	100%

With the omission of mass nouns the predominant semantic switches to the I category. The statistics in their order of priority would be as follows: 43% I, 29% Q-d and 14% for both D-Q and I-Q. The semantic situation according to the old scheme would be as follows: 14% D, 43% I and 43% Q. Compared with the εἰμί verb the statistics for the I category are inordinately high (43% to 2%). The Q-d category is virtually the same (29% to 30%), the D-Q category is much less (14% to 22%), the I-Q is only slightly less (14% to 19%) but the Q and D category are empty compared with 14% and 13% for eijmiv respectively.

The next chart represents only the singular count nouns with this verb. It seeks to answer the question, “If we consider only singular count nouns, what should the semantic situation be like for ὑπάρχω in a pre-copulative construct?” The following chart attempts to answer that question.

SEMANTICS	Q-d	D-Q	Q	D	I	I-Q	TOTAL
Pre-cop Count	0	1	0	0	3	1	5
PERCENT	0%	20%	0%	0%	60%	20%	100%

Here the semantic situation gains a higher frequency towards the I category. The semantic scheme would be as follows: 60% I and 20% for both D-Q and I-Q. According to the old scheme the semantic situation would be as follows: 20% D, 60% I and 20% Q. Below is the final chart taking out all definitizing factors (only 1 verse) and thus presents the semantic situation for the singular count noun minus all definitizing factors.

SEMANTICS	Q-d	D-Q	Q	D	I	I-Q	TOTAL
Pre-cop Count	0	0	0	0	3	1	4
PERCENT	0%	0%	0%	0%	75%	25%	100%

The highest semantic has increased to 75% for the I category, followed by the I-Q category (25%). According to the old scheme the semantic situation would be as follows: 75% I and 25% Q.

The Fourth Gospel—A Test Case

We will confine our study of John to two verbs, εἰμί and γίνομαι. With respect to the former, we intend to focus on the semantics of John 1:1c. Therefore, we wish to lay out the total semantic picture and then proceed according to the set process as enunciated above, i.e., ferreting out mass nouns, plural counts, definitizing factors to end with a semantic situation regarding singular count nouns. It is hoped that this will provide a statistical predilection by which to categorize disputed texts.

The Overall Picture

The verb εἰμί. We start with the Gospel and its use of the verb ∏∞. Since John 1:1c uses this verb, we will confine ourselves to looking at the statistical picture both pre and post copulative in regards to count/mass nouns. According to our calculations, the verb appears 121 times in convertible propositions. Of these 52 (43%) are articular constructions and 69 (57%) are anarthrous. Of the articular constructions 7 (13%) are pre-copulative of which 1 (17%) is mass and 6 (83%) are count.¹⁰³ The 45 (87%) remaining are post-copulative of which 11 (24%) are mass and 34 (76%) are count.¹⁰⁴ Of the 69 anarthrous constructions, 50 (72%) are pre-copulative and 19 (28%) are post-copulative occurrences. In respect to the pre-copulative anarthrous occurrences, 42 (84%) are count and 8 (16%) are mass.¹⁰⁵ The post-copulative reveals 17 (89%) count and 2 (11%) mass nouns.¹⁰⁶ Up front, however, we mark as exegetically disputed texts 1:1c, 49b, 4:19, 9:17 and 10:33, 36. Each of these are in the Colwell construction and are singular count nouns.

The verb γίνομαι. John’s use of this verb is less pervasive than the former. In total there are 9 instances of the anarthrous usage in this Gospel, 7 (77%) pre-copulative and two post-copulative (23%). Of the former 3 (43%) are count and 4 (57%) are mass.¹⁰⁷ Of the post-copulative both are count nouns.¹⁰⁸ The usage of this verb is triply emphatic. First, the verb itself implies a subset type of proposition. Second, this is compounded semantically by the use of mass terms, and finally, its placement in a pre-copulative anarthrous construct begs questions. Thus it appears to present, in some contexts, a triple confirmation of qualitativeness. It is unquestionable that both a pre-copulative or post-copulative rendering with the first two criteria fulfilled would amount to an identical semantic. The question involves why the word order change to a pre-copulative anarthrous occurrence at all. We suspect it is in these instances that discourse reasons should account for its pre-copulative anarthrous occurrence.

Conclusions on εἰμί

First we want to list the total semantic picture of an anarthrous PN with the verb εἰμί, then divert to consider both pre-copulative and post-copulative occurrences. Mass, plural counts as well as definitizing factors will be ruled out eventually and then an overall semantic situation will be presented regarding singular count nouns. As noted above, disputed passages have been kept out of the statistical tabulations below, i.e., 6 passages were kept out of these statistics (1:1c, 49b; 4:19; 9:17; 10:33, 36).

Chart 4: Semantic Situation in John for EIMI

Universal statistics. Considering both pre and post-copulative anarthrous constructions in combination the following chart reveals what one should expect having asked the question, “What semantic domain should an anarthrous PN construction with εἰμί lean towards?” That is, given any anarthrous PN whether pre or post-copulative concerning this verb in John’s Gospel, which general semantic domain predominates?

SEMANTICS	Q-d	D-Q	Q	D	I	I-Q	TOTAL
Pre-cop Mass	8	0	0	0	0	0	8
Pre-cop Count	6	8	10	6	3	3	36
Post-cop Mass	2	0	0	0	0	0	2
Post-cop Count	2	1	2	6	5	1	17
TOTAL	18	9	12	12	8	4	63
PERCENT	29%	14%	19%	19%	13%	6%	100%

According to our scheme of six possible semantic domains, the answer to the question is the following according to frequency: 29% Q-d, 19% D, 19% Q, 14% D-Q, 13% I and 6% for I-Q. If one utilizes the previous semantic system of definite, qualitative and indefinite (D, Q, I) the semantic situation for the question asked would be the following: 54% qualitative, 33% definite, and 13% indefinite. This is the overall picture without regard to factoring out mass nouns, plural counts or definitizing factors. Below the ferreting process is laid out.

If we compare these overall statistics with the NT as a whole, several distinctions are already apparent. First in regards to individual semantic tags the following is to be noted: It is depreciably lower in John for the Q-d category (29% to 39%). It is slightly lower in D-Q (14% to 16%). The Q category is markedly higher in John than the NT as a whole (19% to 12%). Also, the D category is higher than the NT (19% to 13%). Interestingly, the I category is higher in John than the NT (13% to 9%). The I-Q category, however, is less in John than the NT as a whole (6% to 11%). Second, in respects to the old semantic scheme (D, Q, I), the following is to be noted: The Q category is highest in both but considerably higher in the NT than John (54% to 62%). The D category is second in both, but higher in John than the NT (33% to 29%). The I category is lowest in both but is slightly higher in John than the NT (13% to 9%).

It appears that the reason for the high Q and I in John, as compared to the NT, is the prevalence of singular count nouns in John, on the one hand, and a higher statistical occurrence of either mass and/or plural count nouns in the NT as a whole, on the other. Further individuated statistics below should account for this marked difference.¹⁰⁹

Individuated statistics. For each individual construction the statistics are drawn from the overall statistics above, but separated into the pre-copulative anarthrous construction involving εἰμί and then post-copulative. The first chart answers the question, “What semantic situation should one find with εἰμί in a pre-copulative anarthrous PN in John barring any other considerations?”

SEMANTICS	Q-d	D-Q	Q	D	I	I-Q	TOTAL
Pre-cop Mass	8	0	0	0	0	0	8
Pre-cop Count	6	8	10	6	3	3	36
TOTAL	14	8	10	6	3	3	44
PERCENT	32%	18%	23%	14%	7%	7%	100%

The highest semantic for a pre-copulative anarthrous PN with εἰμί is the Q-d semantic. The order is as follows: 32% Q-d, 23% Q, 18% D-Q, 14% D, 7% I and 7% I-Q. According to the old semantic scheme the following results occur: 62% Q, 32% D, and 7% I. The next chart reveals the post-copulative situation.

SEMANTICS	Q-d	D-Q	Q	D	I	I-Q	TOTAL
Post-cop Mass	2	0	0	0	0	0	2
Post-cop Count	2	1	2	6	5	1	17
TOTAL	4	1	2	6	5	1	19
PERCENT	21%	5%	10%	32%	26%	5%	100%

The highest semantic for a post-copulative anarthrous PN with εἰμί is the D category. The order is as follows: 32% D, 26% I, 21% Q-d, 10% Q, 5% D-Q and 5% I-Q. According to the old scheme the following results occur: 37% D, 36% Q, and 26% I.

If we compare these two charts there is evidence of a semantic difference between the two constructions. It is quite plain that in every category where qualitativeness is a factor, the pre-copulative has the higher statistical number. For example, given a definite nuance (D-Q or D), the pre-copulative puts statistically more in the former category than the latter as compared with the post-copulative occurrence. In this same regards is the issue of qualitative nuances (Q-d, Q and I-Q). In every case the pre-copulative is a higher statistical occurrence whereas the post-copulative is especially noteworthy in the I category (26% to 7%) and its slight statistical semantic Q (10% to 23%).

This is an important observation because at this juncture, given a disputable text involving a PN with εἰμί, we would combine Q-d with Q (because Q-d = Q) and leave the rest to survive in their distinct semantic categories. For example, if we were to judge John 1:1c based on the pure semantic preponderance of all pre-copulative PNs in John (w/o respect to whether a noun is plural count or mass), we would come up with a 55% probability of Q, 18% D-Q, 14% D, 7% I, and 7% I-Q. Thus if one were to forego the following process of elimination, the Q semantic would be fully established for John 1:1c. It is noteworthy, too, that both I and I-Q are least probable.

From this point on we are in the process of elimination. We will begin by factoring out mass nouns, then plural count nouns, and finally from singular count nouns any definitizing factors. Arguably, this process will inevitably push towards either the Q, I, or I-Q category for either pre or post-copulative constructions. The first chart below answers the question, “If we consider only count nouns, what should the semantic situation be like for εἰμί in John for a pre or post-copulative construct?” The first chart represents the pre-copulative situation.

SEMANTICS	Q-d	D-Q	Q	D	I	I-Q	TOTAL
Pre-cop Count	6	8	10	6	3	3	36
PERCENT	17%	22%	28%	17%	8%	8%	100%

With the omission of mass nouns, the prevalent semantic shifts to Q, despite the prevalence of plural counts. The statistics in their order of priority would be as follows: 28% Q, 22% D-Q, 17% Q-d, 17% D, 8% I and 8% I-Q. According to the old scheme it would be as follows: 53% qualitative, 39% definite, and 8% indefinite. The following chart represents the post-copulative situation.

SEMANTICS	Q-d	D-Q	Q	D	I	I-Q	TOTAL
Post-cop Count	2	1	2	6	5	1	17
PERCENT	12%	6%	12%	35%	29%	6%	100%

With the omission of mass nouns, the prevalent semantic basically remains the same. The statistics in their order of priority would be as follows: 35% D, 29% I, 12% Q-d, 6% D-Q and 6% I-Q. According to the old scheme it would be 41% definite, 30% qualitative and 29% indefinite.

These statistics are still quite significant. In regards to the comparison to the pre-copulative occurrences, the post-copulative is higher in categories lacking qualitative aspects. Significantly, it is higher in regards to the I category and D category. It is evident that if one inspects the semantic preponderance in John of count nouns in particular, it appears to indicate a semantic difference based on syntax alone, especially regarding qualitative aspects.

But there is a more important aspect in regards to John 1:1c. If we combine the Q-d and Q categories, we come up with the following probabilities for disputed count nouns: 45% Q, 22% D-Q, 17% D, 8% I and 8% I-Q. Thus if one were to factor out mass nouns from the sample pool from which the probabilities are to be drawn in regards to this verse, i.e., those nouns which are lexically qualitative, the statistics are still heavily tilted towards the Q category. It is worth noting again that both the I and I-Q categories are least likely to be the semantic determination to this particular PN.

Next we wish to factor out plural count nouns from the pool in regards to the verb εἰμί. The following charts answer the question, “If we consider only singular count nouns, what should the semantic situation be in John for εἰμί in a pre or post-copulative construction?” This first chart answers the question in regards to the pre-copulative construction.

SEMANTICS	Q-d	D-Q	Q	D	I	I-Q	TOTAL
Pre-cop Count	0	8	10	6	3	3	30
PERCENT	0%	27%	33%	20%	10%	10%	100%

These statistics show a predictable drop in Q-d but still the overwhelming category is Q. The statistical phenomenon is as follows: 33% Q, 27% D-Q, 20% D, 10% I and 10% I-Q. According to the old scheme the statistics would be as follows: 47% D, 43% Q, and 10% I. It is only according to this latter scheme and in this particular spot in the process that there is any warrant for Colwell’s converse being remotely applicable. Below is the post-copulative occurrences.

SEMANTICS	Q-d	D-Q	Q	D	I	I-Q	TOTAL
Post-cop Count	0	1	2	6	5	1	30
PERCENT	0%	7%	13%	40%	33%	7%	100%

The omission of plural counts show a predictable drop in Q-d category but a still surprisingly large bulk in the D semantic category. As it stands thus far the statistical phenomenon is as follows: 40% D, 33% I, 13% Q, 7% D-Q and 7% I-Q. According to the old scheme it is as follows: 47% definite, 33% indefinite, and 20% Q.

Both pre and post-copulative constructions have a high definite semantic predominant thus far. This semantic dominance is rather artificial, however, since the final calculation involves omitting all occurrences where adjuncts and such have tilted the construction towards definiteness. The differences between the pre and post-copulative occurrences, however, still lies in the first and second most frequent category. That is, the pre-copulative singular count nouns tend towards a qualitative category of some sort while the post-copulative tends away from that category—they are almost diametrically opposed semantically speaking.

How does this situation effect the rendering of John 1:1c? If we combine Q with Q-d (at this point there are no Q-d) then the statistical probabilities for this construction still favor the Q category by a 33% as opposed to 27% D-Q, 20% D, 10% I and 10% I-Q. It is still significant that both the I and I-Q categories are least probable to the semantics of this important verse.

Finally we omit all definitizing factors from the pool to both pre and post-copulative anarthrous singular count nouns. The question the following charts attempt to answer is, “If all definitizing factors are omitted from singular count nouns in John, what semantic predominates?” This first chart answers the question regarding the pre-copulative construction.

SEMANTICS	Q-d	D-Q	Q	D	I	I-Q	TOTAL
Pre-cop Count	0	0	10	2	3	3	18
PERCENT	0%	0%	56%	11%	17%	17%	100%

The most significant decrease has occurred in the D-Q and D categories, as would be expected. However, with this the I and I-Q have overtaken the definite semantic, with regard to singular count nouns, and subsumed a distant tie for second to the still dominant category of Q. Therefore, the semantic situation in John for singular count nouns minus all definitizing factors (genitive adjuncts, monadic nouns, or proper names) is the following: 56% Q, 17% I, 17% I-Q and 11% D. According to the old scheme it would be as follows: 73% qualitative, 17% indefinite and 11% definite. Rounding this off, a look at the post-copulative is the following.

SEMANTICS	Q-d	D-Q	Q	D	I	I-Q	TOTAL
Post-cop Count	0	0	2	0	5	1	8
PERCENT	0%	0%	25%	11%	63%	13%	100%

Here both the D-Q and D have shriveled to nothing while the indefinite category has significantly jumped to the highest statistical semantic. The order is 63% I, 25% Q, and 13% I-Q. According to the old scheme it would be 63% I and 38% Q.

Thus is appears that Colwell was correct when he insisted that when definites occur in a post-copulative construction they were usually accompanied by an article (but not always). This is not the case when it comes to the pre-copulative occurrences in John. There is still 11% definites remaining despite all factors of definiteness being excluded. Thus it is quite significant that a clear semantic possibility exists for that category when all other factors are omitted.

Now we look for a final time at John 1:1c with regards to εἰμί. When all is done to exclude lexically qualitative nouns (minus mass), grammatically generic nouns (plural counts), and on the other hand omitting definitizing factors (genitive adjuncts, monadic nouns, proper nouns) then the probability as to the semantic determination of John 1:1c is 56% for Q as compared to 17% I, 17% I-Q and 11% D. Although the I and I-Q categories have gained, they remain far behind the semantic category of Q. It is thus an improbable venture to continually cite either I, I-Q or D for John 1:1c.

Conclusions on γίνομαι

Since there are only 9 instances of this verb with a convertible (subset) proposition, no statistical situation need to be set forth as that with εἰμί. In particular, however, is the occurrences of this verb in cases where it appears connected within an extended discourse. The predictable pattern from which to gauge this would be in those cases where it involves a mass noun, especially if it is in the Colwell construction. In this case the question as to why this is needful presents a special problem and deserves added attention.

There are four occurrences of mass nouns that occur in the pre-copulative anarthrous PN construction (1:14; 2:9; 6:17; 16:20). Two of these cases can be excluded from the study either because it is a predicate accusative (2:9), or because it has a prepositional phrase (16:20). With this in mind we have two verses left to examine in light of our hypothesis (1:14; 6:17). With regards to 6:17 it reads, καὶ σκοτία ἤδη ἐγεγόνει, “And it was already dark.” Although this can be related back to 6:16, ὡς δὲ ὀψία, “When evening came . . .” it appears that the semantic requirements are lacking. In other words, the semantic ambiguity of either PN is not in dispute. Both utilize the same verb. A better scenario would involve ideally a mass noun in a pre-copulative anarthrous construction with γίνομαι in connection with an ambiguous singular count noun with the verb εἰμί. This ideal condition is fulfilled only once in John (1:1c, 14).

The only example in John where the connection appears to be discourse significant is in 1:14. Here the verse sums up the first 13 verses. When it is compared with 1:1c, it seems to be deliberately positioned to reinforce a qualitative semantic to the latter. In 1:1c the order is CC - PN - V - T - S, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος, in contrast to the order in 1:14 which is CC - T - S - PN - V, καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο. Whereas the article and subject in 1:1c follow the verb, they precede the verb in 1:14 thus forming a chiasm connecting the two thematically. Upon further examination, it appears that the pre-copulative semantic nuance is meant to be equated (thus Q = Q-d). This is confirmed by the fact that σὰρξ, being a mass noun, is qualitative (Q-d) irrespective of syntax. Its pre-copulative occurrence, therefore, is unaccounted for if not meant to be syntactically and semantically connected to 1:1.

The significance of this appears to be exemplified in what is called the principle of maximum redundancy.¹¹⁰ In other words, structures that are in parallel are more likely to reflect the same rather than different semantic nuances. In other words, if one fails to come to grips with the qualitative aspects argued throughout this paper from a grammatical point of view, then the discourse connection between 1:1 and 1:14 is left to disambiguate any misapprehensions up to this point. We simply refer to this as a confirmation of the semantic which we have arrived at quite independently of this additional observation.

Concluding Remarks

This study provides a reasonable and more objective criteria by which to make semantic determinations on nouns especially in conjunction with syntactic features such as the Colwell construction provides. This can help in several issues confronting the exegete.

First, it establishes objective criteria for determining whether a noun is either mass or count. The determination rests on criteria set forth by responsible linguists rather than left simply to the intuitions of the interpreter appealing simply to “context.” It is not context that determines whether a noun is count or mass, but lexemic or grammatical characteristics. Therefore it is quite reasonable to pre-determine nouns to be in one or the other category before a text, disputed or not, is even looked at.

Second it establishes that qualitativeness (Q) can exist independent of any other semantic tag. This is proven by the lexical identification of the mass noun. Since this type of noun is categorically unable in any sense to be indefinite, and because Q is indisputably a semantic category for mass nouns, this alone preempts the assertion that qualitativeness cannot be applied to count nouns in particular or that this semantic tag always entails, to some extent and sense, indefiniteness—thus we hold that Q ≠ I-Q (Q-I). The possibility must be open to the idea that qualitativeness can be applied in an exclusive fashion to count nouns and not a priori rejected outright.

Third, it restricts the area of disputable texts to singular count nouns. Plural count nouns can also be eliminated from semantic obscurity or ambiguity because, like mass nouns, they share the impossibility of indefinitization but differ slightly from the latter, besides being pluralized (grammatically and semantically), in that they emphasize more the class than the qualities of the class. So although we have listed both mass nouns and plural count nouns as Q-d we maintain a slight semantic distinction between the two. Thus by elimination of mass and plural count nouns, the exegete is more scientifically accurate in limiting significant semantic determinations to singular count nouns. That is, he can take singular count nouns and begin to establish a clear semantic preponderance based on a sampling of clear examples and proceed to assign with reasonable probability a semantic tag on disputed texts such as John 1:1c.

Fourth, it pre-empts the post hoc fallacy, i.e., this is qualitative and in the Colwell construction, therefore it is qualitative because it is in the Colwell construction. The identification and subsequent elimination of mass and plural count nouns is the only fair and logical method of analyzing the Colwell construction. Simply put, lexically qualitative nouns must be identified and eliminated from the discussion regarding the establishment of the semantics of singular count nouns. The designation of mass nouns, however, is categorically a statement about its semantic preponderance, thus syntactic variation (as shown above) is inconsequential. Since it is inconsequential it is question begging to cite passages that have these lexemic features in support for a construction as impugning qualitativeness to the noun in question.

Fifth, it shows the inadequacy of the three-fold semantic scheme (D-I-Q) as being subject to unwanted or unnecessary ambiguities. In the past scholars have typically placed nouns we listed as I-Q in the Q category, for example, thus artificially (in our view) inflating the statistical probabilities for Q. We have maintained a distinction between these two categories so that I-Q (Q-I) ≠ Q. Although expanding the semantic tags to distinguish between Q, I-Q and I (for singular count nouns) is potentially dangerous (to both Trinitarians, Sabellians and Arians) it is nevertheless a more exact methodology, and hence more accurate appraisal of the data. And the data should be allowed to speak unhindered by faulty logic, improper methodology or theological presuppositions.

Sixth, the issue of subjectivity, although not completely curtailed, is severely restricted.¹¹¹ This restriction to subjectivity is due to both lexically determined criteria (mass nouns) and a grammatically present criterion (plural counts). The establishment of qualitativeness apart from any other semantic tag is assured through the first.

Finally, it leaves more research to be done. In the process of this study, several elements have not been fully addressed. First, what is the difference between a mass noun and plural counts. We have listed both as Q-d but nevertheless have maintained a semantic distinction—the former qualitative the latter generic. Moreover, we have tagged some count nouns as Q and asserted that this is semantically identical with Q-d but with the assumption that it is the mass noun’s semantic label that we wish to transfer to the Q tag when singular counts are under discussion. This would not necessarily rule out that some singular count nouns could acquire the generic sense that the plural count noun exudes in its Q-d semantic.

Second, the question of why mass nouns or why plural count nouns are put into the Colwell construction has not been completely answered. If semantic equivalence is the same, despite syntactic occurrence, then why the syntactic variation at all? This is an ancillary issue to our main emphasis throughout this study but it is a necessary corollary of investigation for this subject to be complete. Our guess is that in the wider context, discourse reasons are partly to account for this phenomenon (cf. John 1:1, 14; 3:6 etc.). Thus in the space of a phrase or clause, simple variation might be the sole cause of this phenomenon. But in the larger context, semantic variation, especially involving a singular count noun with a lexically or grammatically qualitative noun (mass or plural count), might be due to semantic determinacy being at stake. In other words, the clear semantic of the mass or plural count noun, is meant to disambiguate the semantics of the singular count noun to which it is related in the discourse. We believe the best example of this occurs in John 1:1 with John 1:14. Therefore we add, tentatively, a final argument for the purely qualitative aspect to the PN in the phrase καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. Thus, Jesus is God in every sense that the Father is.

Appendix:
Semantic Compilation of Anarthrous PNs in John with EIMI

#	COUNT			MASS			VERSE	CLASS	CONSTRUCT	TAG
	s		pl	s	pl
1	√						1:1	E	C-Const.	Q
2	√						1:21a	proper	C-Const.	D-Q
3	√						1:25b	proper	Post-copulative	D-Q
4	√						1:39	E	C-Const.	Q
5	√						1:40	proper	Post-copulative	D
6	√						1:42	proper	Post-copulative	D
7	√						1:49b	E	C-Const.	D-Q
8				√			3:4	A	C-Const.	Q-d
9				√			3:6a	B	C-Const.	Q-d
10	√						3:6b	E	C-Const.	Q
11	√						3:29	D	C-Const.	D
12	√						4:18	E	Post-copulative	not listed
13	√						4:19	E	C-Const.	I-Q
14				√			4:34	C	C-Const.	Q-d
15	√						5:9	E	Post-copulative	Q
16	√						5:10	E	C-Const.	Q
17	√						5:27	E	C-Const.	D-Q
18	√						6:42	proper	Post-copulative	D
19				√			6:55a	A	Post-copulative	Q-d
20				√			6:55b	A	Post-copulative	Q-d
21	√						6:63b	E	C-Const.	Q
22				√			6:63c	A	C-Const.	Q-d
23		√					8:31	E	C-Const.	Q-d
24	√						8:33	E	C-Const.	Q-d
25	√						8:34	E	C-Const.	D-Q
26	√						8:37	E	C-Const.	D-Q
27	√						8:39a	proper	C-Const.	D-Q
28		√					8:39b	E	C-Const.	Q-d
29	√						8:42	E	C-Const.	D-Q
30	√						8:44b	D	C-Const.	I-Q
31	√						8:44c	E	C-Const.	I-Q
32	√						8:48	E	C-Const.	Q
33	√						8:54c	E	C-Const.	D
34	√						8:55	E	Post-copulative	I-Q
35	√						9:5	E	C-Const.	D-Q
36	√						9:8	D	C-Const.	Q
37	√						9:14	E	Post-copulative	Q
38	√						9:17	E	C-Const.	I-Q
39	√						9:24	E	C-Const.	Q
40	√						9:25	E	C-Const.	Q
41	√						9:28a	E	C-Const.	Q
42		√					9:28b	E	Post-copulative	Q-d
43	√						10:1a	E	C-Const.	I
44	√						10:1b	E	Post-copulative	I
45	√						10:2	E	C-Const.	D-Q
46		√					10:8a	E	C-Const.	Q-d
47		√					10:8b	E	Post-copulative	Q-d
48	√						10:12	E	Post-copulative	I
49				√			10:22	A	C-Const.	Q-d
50	√						10:33	E	C-Const.	I-Q
51		√					10:34	E	C-Const.	Q-d
52	√						10:36	E	C-Const.	D-Q
53	√						11:38	E	Post-copulative	I
54	√						11:49	E	C-Const.	D
55	√						11:51	E	C-Const.	D
56	√						12:6	E	C-Const.	I-Q
57				√			12:50	A	C-Const.	Q-d
58		√					13:35	E	C-Const.	Q-d
59				√			17:17	A	C-Const.	Q-d
60	√						18:13a	D	Post-copulative	D
61	√						18:13b	E	Post-copulative	D
62				√			18:18	A	C-Const.	Q-d
63	√						18:37a	E	C-Const.	I
64	√						18:37b	E	C-Const.	I
65	√						18:40	E	Post-copulative	I
66	√						19:21	E	C-Const.	D
67	√						19:31	D	C-Const.	Q
68	√						19:38	E	Post-copulative	I
69	√						19:40	E	C-Const.	D

†Bold represents disputed texts