Revisiting the Colwell Construction in Light of Mass/Count Nouns
Related MediaIntroduction1
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
|
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
1 This paper is a preliminary draft of an article to be published shortly.
2 See E. C. Colwell, “A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament,” JBL 52 (1933): 12-21.
3 Of the most important include, Philip Harner, “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,” JBL 92 (1973): 75-87; C. Kuehne, “The Greek Article and the Doctrine of Christ's Deity,” JT 15, no. 1 (1975): 8-22; idem, “A Postscript to Colwell's Rule and John 1:1,” JT 15, no. 2 (1975): 20-22 and Paul S. Dixon, “The Significance of the Anarthrous Predicate Nominative in John” (Th.M. thesis: Dallas Theological Seminary, 1975).
4 The Colwell rule is distinguished throughout from the Colwell construction. The Colwell rule is as follows: “Definite predicate nominatives which precede the copulative verb are usually anarthrous” whereas the Colwell construction is simply anarthrous predicate nominatives (hereafter referred to as PNs) which precede the copulative verb. The first makes a constructural observation after a semantic nuance has been predetermined, whereas the latter seeks to find a semantic preponderance based on a pure construction.
5 For a fuller treatment of this subject as it applies to the entire NT see Don E. Hartley, “Criteria for Determining Qualitative Nouns with a Special View towards Understanding the Colwell Construction.” (Th.M. thesis: Dallas Theological Seminary, 1996).
6 Colwell, “A Definite Rule,” 20. Colwell laid the basis for a circular argument.
7 C. C. Torrey, “The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel,” HTR 16 (1923): 323; Colwell, “A Definite Rule,” 12-13.
8 Colwell, “A Definite Rule,” 13.
9 Colwell, “A Definite Rule,” 13.
10 Colwell, “A Definite Rule,” 13.
11 Colwell, “A Definite Rule,” 20.
12 “An important part of this demonstration is found in those passages in which a phrase is used now with the article and now without it” (Colwell, “A Definite Rule,” 13). For a careful comparison and the complete list of PNs with each occurrence in the NT under a convertible (or subset) proposition, see Hartley, “Criteria for Determining Qualitative Nouns,” 98-106.
13 Colwell, “A Definite Rule,” 14. He also compares Matthew 23:8-10.
14 Colwell, “A Definite Rule,” 15.
15 Colwell, “A Definite Rule,” 13; See A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in The Light of Historical Research, 4th ed. (Nashville, Tenn: Broadman Press, 1934), 768-69, 794. It must be noted that Colwell used Robertson’s 3rd edition, but the pages on this matter are identical.
16 He actually quotes the German version but the information is found in the English as F. Blass, and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, trans. and rev. of the 9th-10th German ed. incorporating supplementary notes of A. Debrunner by Robert W. Funk (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press; Cambridge: At the University Press, 1961), §273.
17 Colwell, “A Definite Rule,” 15.
18 Colwell, “A Definite Rule,” 15-16, emphasis added.
19 In our tallying of articular PNs for εἰμί we arrived at a total of 185 occurrences. The breakdown is as follows: precopulative 22, post-copulative 163. Breaking this down into our mass/count distinction of the 22 pre-copulative articular PNs 3 were mass and 19 count. In the post-copulative articular occurrences 130 were count while 33 were mass. We have not attempted to account for this phenomena, but have instead focused on anarthrous PN constructions. The significance of our study to Colwell’s rule is this: to prove Colwell’s rule valid all that is required is to find at least 20 (assuming all 19 count pre-copulative articular occurrences are definite) anarthrous pre-copulative PNs that are definite to have the qualification (definite PNs preceding the verb are usually anarthrous) he made demonstrably verifiable. This is not hard to do, and our research confirms the validity of the rule in this form.
20 In our tabulation of anarthrous occurrences in the NT we have found the following: The verb εἰμί has 479 anarthrous constructions of a convertible (subset) type proposition, of which 224 are pre-copulative and 255 are post-copulative. The verb γίνομαι has a total of 93 anarthrous occurrences of which 46 are pre-copulative and 47 are post-copulative. The verb ὑπάρχω has 13 anarthrous constructions of which 12 are pre-copulative and 1 is post-copulative. Within these tabulations certain types of propositions were excluded including existential, descriptive and adverbial predicates in order to focus exclusively on equative types (see Richard A. Young, Intermediate New Testament Greek: A Linguistic and Exegetical Approach [Nashville, Tenn: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994], 207). In other words, if the clause did not have either an expressed or implied subject and a predicate that was a noun, then it was excluded. Like Colwell we confined all expressions to explicit rather than a-copulative constructions. For a complete statistical breakdown of these occurrences see Hartley, “Criteria for Determining Qualitative Nouns,” 106-54.
21 With regard to relative clauses he states, “Ten definite predicates appeared with the article in relative clauses, all after the verb. Sixteen definite predicates are used without the article in relative clauses, two before the verb (with the relative in the genitive) and fourteen after the verb (with the relative in the nominative). Thus only two out of twenty-six predicates precede in relative clauses” (Colwell, “A Definite Rule,” 16-17).
22 Colwell, “A Definite Rule,” 17. He gives no criteria by which he identified these qualitative nouns and furthermore, his identification seems to be for opposite purposes than our own. We wish to identify lexically qualitative nouns in order to exclude them from biasing the construction towards qualitativeness with which we wish to examine, not because they are not definite.
23 His list is as follows: Lu 4:41; John 1:21; 6:51; 15:1; 2 Pet 1:17; Rom 4:13; 1 Cor 9:1, 2; 11:3, 25; 2 Cor 1:12; 3:2, 17; Rev 19:8; 20:14 (see Colwell, “A Definite Rule,” 18).
24 His list for this group are as follows: Matt 20:16; Mk 4:32; 9:35; 12:28; Lu 20:33; 22:24; John 4:18; 18:13, 37; Acts 10:36; Rom 4:11, 16 [?]; 7:13; 8:16, 29; 11:6; 1 Cor 12:27; 16:15; 2 Cor 5:21; 6:16; Gal 4:31; 1 Thess 4:3; 1 Pet 5:12; Heb 11:1.
25 Colwell, “A Definite Rule,” 20.
26 Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond The Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 260, fn. 18.
27 Colwell, “A Definite Rule,” 20-21, emphasis added.
28 For an attempt to lay out a grammatical method/rationale regarding disputed passages see Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 1-11.
29 Colwell, “A Definite Rule,” 17, fn. 12.
30 For the classic essay on the category mistake see Gilbert Ryle, “Descartes’ Myth,” in 20th-Century Philosophy: The Analytic Tradition, ed. Morris Weitz, Readings in the History of Philosophy, eds. Paul Edwards and Richard H. Popkin (New York: The Free Press, 1966), 298-309. Colwell had stated earlier that definiteness was established by context and made no mention, to the contrary, that definiteness was established by a nominal's occurrence elsewhere in an articluar construction (Colwell, “A Definite Rule,” 20-21). It is this latter criterion that he uses for John 1:1c citing John 20:28 as his validation for definiteness. But this is a clear violation of his own methodology of establishing definiteness in his rule.
31 This was first brought out by Dixon, “The Significance of the Anarthrous Predicate Nominative in John,” 24-30. But he also appears to have accepted the validity of the converse himself. See Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 259.
32 Hartley, “Criteria for Determining Qualitative Nouns,” 18-22.
33 See below under “Linguistic Analysis of Qualitative Nouns” for an explanation of what definiteness and qualitative imply in propositional statements.
34 He is not the only one to fail to appreciate syntax in this discussion. The only way to demonstrate whether syntax does impugn to some extent upon the semantics determination of a noun is to inductively examine these occurrences. One cannot simply say yes or no either way unless and until this is performed.
35 For an understanding of the affects of genitive adjuncts have on head nouns see Standford D. Hull, “Exceptions to Apollonius’ Canon in the New Testament: A Grammatical Study,” TJ 7 (1986): 3-16.
36 Colwell did omit qualitative nouns but he offered no method of identifying them to his readers.
37 In re-reading his article, one is struck by the sudden illogical shift from describing the preponderance of definite PNs that happen to be anarthrous, to a prescription about anarthrous pre-copulative PNs towards definiteness.
38 See Bruce Metzger, “On the Translation of John i:1,” ExpTim 63 (1951-52), 125-26. He states, for example, that “they [sic] show that a predicate noun which precedes the verb cannot be translated as an indefinite or a ‘qualitative’ noun solely because of the absence of the article . . . the absence of the article does not make the predicate nominative indefinite or qualitative when it precedes the verb” (125).
39 See, Dixon, “The Significance of the Anarthrous Predicate Nominative in John,” 24-30.
40 Colwell, “A Definite Rule,” 20.
41 Colwell’s rule was indeed correct and legitimate, i.e., definite predicate nominatives that precede the copulative verb are usually anarthrous. However, as Dixon pointed out (chapter 3 of his thesis), most scholars have assumed the converse of his rule, i.e., “anarthrous pre-copulative verbs are usually definite.” It is important to notice (1) that these two statements are not the same, (2) that affirming the consequent is always a dangerous practice, and (3) that the converse is actually falsifiable. We disagree with Dixon’s method of indicating the converse is false, however. He states, “The rule does not say: an anarthrous predicate nominative which precedes the verb is definite. This is the converse of Colwell’s rule and as such is not a valid inference” (Dixon, “The Significance of the Anarthrous Predicate Nominative in John,” 11). But is this the converse of Colwell’s rule? The operative word missing from the definition on both counts is the word usually. It appears unfair, however, to strengthen the fallacy of affirming the consequent, by altering the consequent of the rule in terms that exclude the word “usually.” In essence a purely descriptive statement is turned it into a deductive one by the excising of this little adverb usually. When the word “usually” is retained, however, the affirming of the consequent actually reads, “Anarthrous predicate nominatives that precede the verb are usually definite.” Now this statement, although inductively falsifiable, is not deductively illogical. Furthermore, it is the actual converse of Colwell’s rule.
42 Harner, “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,” 75-87; and Dixon, “The Significance of the Anarthrous Predicate Nominative in John.”
43 One author commits the disjunctive fallacy of definiteness or indefiniteness to John 1:1c then ends by affirming the qualitative aspect. See J. Gwyn Griffiths, “A Note on the Anarthrous Predicate in Hellenistic Greek,” ExpTim 62 (1950-51): 314-16. Others, however, have insisted upon either Colwell’s original or rather assumed thesis—anarthrous pre-copulative PNs are usually definite. Those who argue for the definiteness of pre-copulative PNs as Colwell include the following: William Barclay, “An Ancient Heresy in Modern Dress,” ExpTim 65 (October 1957): 31-2, who states about the NWT of John 1:1 that it is “a translation which is grammatically impossible” (32); Edwin Blum, “Studies in Problem Areas of the Greek Article,” (Th.M thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1961); Kuehne, “The Greek Article and the Doctrine of Christ's Deity,” 8-22; Robert G. Bratcher, “A Note on υἱός θεοῦ (Mark xv. 39).” ExpTim 68 (October 1956-September 1957): 27-28; Bruce Metzger, “On the Translation of John i:1,” 125-26 and idem, “The Jehovah Witnesses and Jesus Christ,” TToday 10 (1953-54): 65-85. Metzger states concerning the New World Translation (NWT) of John 1:1 that “It overlooks entirely an established rule of Greek grammar which necessitates the rendering, ‘and the Word was God’” (75). He then supports his statement by referring to Colwell’s rule. We would state rather that definite PNs can precede the copulative verb and be anarthrous, but not affirm simply that all pre-copulative anarthrous PNs are definite or even usually definite. We would agree with Metzger’s translation, but the evidence he marshals forth in support of the understanding of that translation is based upon the converse of Colwell’s rule, not the rule itself.
44 Harner, “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,” 78-87.
45 Harner, “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,” 78.
46 He regarded as the starting point two main principles involving anarthrous and articular PNs: (1) The PN is anarthrous when it indicates a category or class of which the subject is a particular example, and (2) the PN is articular when it is interchangeable with the subject in a given context as either monadic, or well known or prominent (Harner, 78). These two broad rules are in general valid except within the case of change of word order, i.e., when it precedes the copulative verb. It is here that he will disagree with Colwell’s assumed definiteness and instead argue for a qualitative aspect as predominantly prevalent to the PN in Colwell’s construction (76). He also, however, saw that Colwell’s original rule was valid. He states,
In his study of this type of construction Colwell argued that the anarthrous predicates in these two verses [1:49; 9:5] should be regarded as definite. The parallels are indeed persuasive, and it is quite possible that Colwell is right at this point. An anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, that is, may be definite if there is some specific reason for regarding it as definite. But the present study would indicate that the nouns in these two verses are exceptional cases (Harner, 84).
47 In Mark he finds 8 examples (Mk 2:28; 3:35; 6:49; 11:17, 32; 12:35; 14:70; 15:39). See Harner, “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,” 76-81. He then focuses on the Gospel of John of which he spots 53 occurrences of pre-copulative anarthrous PNs (Harner, 82-3).
48 For example he notes that three distinct semantic categories without blend are possible. “In the next example the predicate noun could be interpreted as definite, indefinite or qualitative, depending on the particular meaning or emphasis which we understand the passage to have (Harner, 79). He also suggests a blending of categories. “In each case we shall ask not only whether the predicate noun is definite or indefinite, but also whether it has a qualitative force in indicating the nature or character of the subject.” Or regarding John 2:28 he notes that “The predicate noun has a distinct qualitative force, which is more prominent in this case than its definiteness or indefiniteness.” Or, “But I would judge that in 40 of these cases [in John] the qualitative force of the predicate is more prominent that its defininteness or indefiniteness” (Harner, 77 [bis], 83 emphasis mine). Concerning qualitativeness and definiteness he states, “The categories of qualitativeness and definiteness, that is, are not mutually exclusive, and frequently it is a delicate exegetical issue for the intepreter to decide which emphasis a Greek writer had in mind” (Harner, 87). Thus a blending of Q with both I and D are foundational for our designations of semantic categories below.
49Harner, “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,” 83.
50 We do not concur with Harner that there is any semantic difference between his second and third option simply based on the change in word order of the subject. That there is a discourse reason for the difference is not contested. For a study on the latter see John C. Callow, “Constituent Order in Copula Clauses: A Partial Study,” in Linguistics and NT Interpretation, ed. M. Black (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 68-89.
51 Harner, “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,” 87. However, he does leave open whether he regards this qualitativenss as predominately qualitative, thus some form of I-Q (Q-I), or whether he views it as purely Q. He obviously has rejected the definite semantic that Colwell sets forth for this verse. We have distinguished between all these semantic categories.
52 Two criticisms of Harner are in order: (1) Harner has perhaps not explicitly noted a category of qualitativeness without either definiteness or indefiniteness being involved. We think it a fair reading of his article to assume he did, but it could rightly be construed to give the opposite impression. Judging from hindsight, this kind of explicit statement to the category would have been helpful in avoiding abuses of his own findings. (2) He has included within his analysis of PNs those nouns which are lexically qualitative irrespective to syntax. Thus, unlike Colwell, he apparently made no attempt either to identify or exclude them. But beyond these criticisms, Harner has helped in seeing a blending of semantic categories that we deem important. A subsequent study by Dixon (“The Significance of the Anarthrous Predicate Nominative in John”) did not continue in Harner’s precedent of blended categories but presented his case using the traditional Q, D or I categories.
53He states, “The categories of qualitativeness and definiteness … are not mutually exclusive, and frequently it is a delicate exegetical issue for the interpreter to decide which emphasis a Greek writer had in mind.” However, he then goes on to state regarding John 1:1 that “the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite” (Harner, “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,” 87). Kuhne, however, misunderstands Harner, at this point, to indicate indefiniteness as the only alternative. See Kuehne, “A Postscript to Colwell's Rule and John 1:1,” 22. It is clear, however, that Harner did not indicate by his statement that indefiniteness was the only alternative to the lexeme. He appears rather to indicate precisely the opposite—that the lexeme became purely qualitative excluding either definiteness or indefiniteness altogether.
54 For an early study on qualitative nouns see A. W. Slaten, Qualitative Nouns in the Pauline Epistles and Their Translation in the Revised Version (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1918).
55 Greg Stafford, Jehovah Witnesses Defended: An Answer to Scholars and Critics (Huntington Beach, Ca: Elihu Books, 1998), 174-85, 341-43.
56 For purposes of clarity, yet without semantic distinction, a qualitative mass noun is labeled Q-d while a qualitative count noun is labeled Q. The purpose behind this is to make a distinction regarding lexemic qualitativeness (mass) verses grammatical/syntactic qualitativeness (count). In other words, a mass noun is always qualitative and incapable of being indefinitized, hence we label it Q (qualitative) and d (definite, or unable to be indefinitized). A count noun is able to be indefinitized and therefore we have to drop the latter “d” but yet it can be purely qualitative and without indefinite connotations, hence Q. Therefore, semantically speaking, Q = Q-d.
57 Another difference is that with an indefinite semantic, the overarching category is indirectly implied by the noun, i.e., the class of men is implied from the PN “a man.” With a qualitative noun the qualities are directly imputed to the subject without respect to class. Therefore, qualitative does not mean generic (cf. BDF §252 where generic is taken to mean ‘qualitative’ “particularly when the class is represented as a single individual”). As will be shown below, plural count nouns reflect a generic idea or class directly, whereas singular count nouns can express either a class indirectly (I), a class and characteristics or qualities (I-Q) or simply qualitities (Q).
58 Moisés Silva, Biblical Words and their Meaning, 119-35. For a discussion on degrees of referentiality see Silva, 101-17.
59 Silva, Biblical Words and their Meaning, 120-32.
60 Whereas Silva’s main purpose was asking why one noun is used instead of another (a paradigmatic question), his discussion in regards to subset type of meaning is something we deem important for viewing the relation between the S and PN within a convertible/subset proposition where qualitativeness is asserted as its semantic nuance. In other words, we propose a semantic relationship between the S and PN based on a relation of similarity.
61 In other words, if the Word and the Father are contiguous subsets of the identical superordinate, then it is equivocation to attribute different attributes to each hyponym subsumed under its unitary superordinate. Therefore, the Word must be viewed as “God” in the same sense as the Father is viewed as “God.”
62 See below under “Semantic Tagging.”
63 Various sources have been utilized for the study on mass nouns. See Otto Jespersen, The Philosophy of Grammar (London: George Allen & Aunwin LDT, 1924), 198-201; A. G. B. Meulen, Substances, Quantities and Individuals: A Study in the Formal Semantics of Mass Terms (Nijmegen: Max Planck Institut Fur Psycholinguistik, 1980); J. Hoepelman and C. Rohrer, “On Mass-Count Distinction and the French Imparfait and Passe Simple,” in Time, Tense and Quantifiers ed., Christian Rohrer (Tubingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1980), 85-112; F. J. Pelletier, ed., Mass Terms: Some Philosophical Problems (Dordrecht: Reidel, 1979); J. Hoeksema, Categorical Morphology (New York: Garland Publishing, 1985) and J. Lyons, Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968).
64 Muelen, Substances, Quantities and Individuals, 2. Although she downplays the first stating that “these [syntactic] criteria are not necessary and sufficient conditions for mass terms, but point out that almost any noun can be used as a mass term.” She then points out 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” (2). She bases this upon the English language and it is yet to be demonstrated that the syntactic analysis alone is insufficient in identifying mass/count nouns in Greek.
65 T. Givon, Syntax a Functional-Typological Introduction, vol. 1 (Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing company, 1984), 60.
66Jespersen, Philosophy, 198. His grammar is consistently cited as the starting point of many discussions on mass nouns by those in the field.
67 For a discussion on the three broad categories under which mass/count nouns occur in literature, see Pelletier, “Mass Terms, Count Terms, and Sortal Terms,” in Mass Terms, vii-xii.
68 The terms emmassive and enumeratives are borrowed from Robert X. Ware, “Some Bits and Pieces,” in Mass Terms, 15.
69 This has more to say about the so-called metaphysics that lie behind mass terms. Mass terms cannot be said to say anything about reality if that reality changes from one language to another. See Pelletier, “Editorial Introduction,” and Eddy Aemach, “Four Ontologies,” in Mass Terms, viii-ix, 55-62.
70 Jespersen, Philosophy, 200.
71 Jespersen, Philosophy, 200.
72 Muelen, Substances, Quantities and Individuals, 2.
73 And this is what Muelen means by ‘syntactic.’
74 See Hartley, “Criteria For Determining Qualitative Nouns,” 98-106.
75 Pelletier, “Non-Singular Reference,” in Mass Terms, 2.
76 Even where the term σάρξ is used in the plural form 8 times in the NT (Jas 5:3; Rev 17:16; 19:8; 19:21) it is obviously plural in a distributed sense not a semantic one.
77 Pelletier, “Non-Singular Reference,” in Mass Terms, 2.
78 For ἄρτος: Matt 4:3b; Lu 4:3; John 6:35, 41, 48, 50, 51a, 58. For σάρξ: Matt 19:6; John 1:14; 3:6a; 6:51b.
[79 Silva notes that “In the LXX the word ἄρτος, ‘bread,’ came under the influence of Hebrew lehem which could mean more generally ‘food’ (Isa. 65:25); the influence from the LXX and/or the fact that Palestinian Greek speakers may have been influenced by Aramaic lahma accounts for the use in Mark 3:20” (see, Silva, Biblical Words and their Meaning, 77).
80 Anarthrous constructions include: Gal 5:22a; 1 Tim 1:5; 1 John 4:8, 16. Articular constructions include: 1 John 5:3; 2 John 1:6a.
81 Actually there are a total of 26 occurrences of PN constructions, articular and anarthrous, involving proper names in the NT. In 3 instances it is articular post-copulative (Matt 13:39b; Acts 7:37a; Rev 20:2b); 19 instances it is post-copulative anarthrous (Matt 11:14; 14:2; 16:18; 27:37; Lu 1:19; 9:30a, 30b; John 1:25b, 40, 42; 6:42; Acts 9:5; 22:8; 26:15; 1 Cor 3:11; Gal 4:24b; 1 Tim 1:20a, 20b), one instance with γίνομαι (Rom 9:29b); 4 cases involve anarthrous pre-copulative constructions (Mk 6:15; John 1:21a; 8:39a), and one with the verb γίνομαι (Rom 9:29a). For a discussion on instances of pre-copulative anarthrous proper names see Hartley, “Criteria for Determining Qualitative Nouns,” 60-2. For a different perspective on John’s usage see G. D. Fee, “The Use of the Definite Article with Personal Names in the Gospel of John,” NTS 17 (1970-71): 168-83.
82 Pelletier, Mass Terms: Some Philosophical Problems, 3.
83 Pelletier, Mass Terms: Some Philosophical Problems, 4. See also J. P. Louw. Semantics of New Testament Greek (Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press, 1982), 76.
[84 It is always dangerous to impose a thought process upon the biblical material based upon the kinds of words used. For an extreme example of this see Thorleif Bowman, Hebrew Thought Compared with Greek, (New York: W. W. Norton & Company), 1960. For a rebuttal of this see Louw, Semantics of New Testament Greek, 5-16 and James Barr, Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961), 8-20.
85 James Hope Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. 3 Syntax, by Nigel Turner (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963), 177.
86 See below under “Semantic Tagging.”
87 Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 245 and Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament, 768.
88 Carson remarks, “Statements of identity are not necessarily reciprocal: ‘a dog is an animal’ does not imply ‘an animal is a dog.’” D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Book House, 1984), 61.
89 Linguistically, we are essentially posing a paradigmatic question when we ask, “What type of noun occupies the slot of the PN?” We are asking a syntagmatic question when we ask, “What position does it occupy in relation to the verb (pre or post copulative) and with regards to the article (anarthrous or articular)?” In the former we are exhibiting a contrasting relation (mass vs. count) whereas in the latter we are demonstrating a combinary relation (Silva, Biblical Words and Their Meaning, 119).
90 See Lane C. McGaughy, Toward a Descriptive Analysis of Εἶναι as a Linking Verb in New Testament Greek (Missoula: Society of Biblical Literature, 1972), 54. He misses quite a few but also mistakenly adds James 4:4 under a 1:3/2e type reading. However, this is a Colwell construct not an articular construction. The pre-copulative articular occurrences are as follows: Count—Matt 10:2; John 1:21; 10:21; 15:1b; 21:7a, 7b, 12; Acts 12:15; 1 Cor 9:1c, 2, 3; 11:3, 25; 2 Cor 3:2, 17; Eph 5:32; 2 Pet 1:17; 2 John 1:6b; Rev 19:8; Mass—John 6:51b; 2 Cor 1:12; Rev 20:14.
91 For a complete statistical breakdown of mass/count anarthrous nouns, see Hartley, “Criteria for Determining Qualitative Nouns,” 106-54.
92 Statistically, for a pre-copulative εἰμί construction 85% are count and 15% mass while the post-copulative is 75% count and 25% mass. Therefore, given each construction one should expect to see a 10% ratio of both count nouns and mass terms as compared with it’s opposite anarthrous construction.
93 This is most readily apparent by simply noting the occurrences of articular constructions with each verb. Of the former, 185 articular constructions were tabulated (both pre and post-copulative) while with the latter only 4. These tabulations were culled from a total of 3,213 occurrences with the three verbs utilized. The total occurrences for each verb is as follows: 2,482 for εἰμί, 671 for γίνομαι and 60 for ὑπάρχω. If the question were to be, “What percentage of these verbs occurrences are some sort of convertible proposition?” the answer would be as follows: 26% for εἰμί, 14% for γίνομαι and 21% for ὑπάρχω.
94 See Walter Martin, The Kingdom of the Cults (Minneapolis, Minn: Bethany House Publishers, 1965), 318-20.
95 The only pre-copulative articular occurrence is a mass noun (2 Cor 7:14). Three count nouns occur in the post-copulative articular occurrence (Matt 6:16; 17:2; 18:3). The first two occur with predicate adjectives whereas the latter is a PN within a ὡς clause. “If you do not turn and become as children . . .” or “. . . as the children are . . .” The ὡς clause usually, if not always, implies an indicative of the εἰμί verb.
96 Thus two factors included in our study preclude this problem: (1) The exclusion of lexically (mass) and grammatically (plural counts) qualitative (or generic) nouns, and (2) The addition of the semantic category of I-Q.
97 By ontological we simply mean that semantic preponderance that the syntax of the pre-copulative anarthrous tends to foist upon nouns which are semantically neutral, or ambiguous, and how this differs in comparison to the post-copulative anarthrous construction.
[98 This semantic scheme differs little from the previous studies of Dixon and Harner. However, using the 6 category semantic scheme, the situation reveals that many of the qualitatives are actually I-Q rather than purely Q. It is true that the post-copulative construction is reserved for the indefinite (I) category over the pre-copulative, but it does not follow that because the pre-copulative construction is predominately qualitative in nature that it does not have indefinite semantic connotations as this study reveals.
[99 This differs with the previous studies in two areas: (1) First, this later statistic considers only singular count nouns minus all definitizing factors whereas the former studies grouped them together. (2) Second, the old system combines into the Q category both the Q and I-Q giving a false impression that the most statistical predominant category to a post-copulative anarthrous PN is Q when in fact that is misleading. The predominant semantic is clearly, according to the 6-fold scheme, the indefinite category. The least likely in this construct is the D category.
[100 Only one possible definite semantic could be determined according to our study, and it’s semantic appears to be a D-Q (Lu 2:2).
[101 It was stated earlier that a γίνομαι verb could not have a definite semantic. However, we have listed one which has, due to the low frequency of this verb, disrupted the semantic situation a bit. If we exclude Luke 2:2 from the semantic situation of singular count nouns and list it as disputed, then the semantic situation would be as follows: 72% I-Q and 28% Q. According to the old scheme it would be 100% Q.
[102 A possible explanation for this could lie in the fact that only three authors use the count construction with this verb: Luke (5 times), Paul (1 time) and Peter (1 time). This result possibly represents only a sample of how each NT author used the construction. This hypothesis could easily be confirmed or negated by comparing the semantics of ὑπάρχω these authors usage of εἰμί. However, this is not deemed necessary here, but the reader could easily tabulate the semantic differences and nuances of each author or even each book of each author.
103 The pre-copulative articular mass occurrence is 6:51b, whereas the count occur in 1:21; 10:21; 15:1b; 21:7a, 7b, 12.
104 The post-copulative articular mass are the following: 6:35, 41, 48, 50, 51a, 58; 11:25a, 25b; 14:6b, 6c; 17:3; The post-copulative articular count are as follows: 1:20, 25a, 25c, 34, 49a; 3:10, 19, 28; 4:29, 42; 6:14, 29, 39, 40; 7:26, 40, 41; 8:12, 44e; 9:19, 20; 10:7, 9, 11, 14, 24; 11:27; 14:6a; 15:1a, 5, 12; 18:33; 20:31; 21:24.
105 Pre-copulative anarthrous count are as follows: 1:1, 21a, 39, 49b; 3:6b, 29; 4:19; 5:10, 27; 6:63b; 8:31, 33, 34, 37, 39a, 39b, 42, 44b, 44c, 48, 54c; 9:5, 8, 17, 24, 25, 28a; 10:1a, 2, 8a, 33, 34, 36, 49, 51; 12:6; 13:35; 18:37a, 37b; 19:21, 31, 40. The pre-copulative mass are as follows: 3:4, 6a; 4:34; 6:63c; 10:22; 12:50; 17:17; 18:18.
106 Post-copulative anarthrous count are as follows: 1:25b, 40, 42; 4:18; 5:9; 6:42; 8:55; 9:14, 28b; 10:1b, 8b, 12; 11:38; 18:13a, 13b, 40; 19:38. The post-copulative mass are as follows: 6:55a, 55b.
107 Count—1:12; 6:17; 12:36. Mass—John 1:14; 2:9 (pred. acc); 6:17; 16:20 (εἰς).
108 John 4:14; 15:8.
109 But this statistical phenomenon alone shows the danger of attempting to make judgments on particular corpi based on an overall whole. But it is equally meaningless to ascertain for a particular corpus a semantic preponderance and then to subsequently foist this upon other unrelated pieces of Biblical material.
110 See Moisés Silva, Explorations in Exegetical Method, 58 where he states, “This principle suggests that, in cases of doubt, the most likely meaning is not one that adds something new to the context but one that supports—and is in turn supported by—that context.”
111 In Stafford’s book, for example, an appendix based on the research of Al Kidd is purportedly to illustrate the subjectivity involved in determining mass nouns to begin with. However, it is clear from this reading that the author has not grasped either the nature of mass and count nouns, nor the criteria used to determine and distinguish such. Several issues attest to his lack of understanding:
(1) He assumes the argument surrounding Colwell’s construction has been based purely on syntax (the pre-copulative anarthrous PN construction) and therefore the sole determinant used in this discussion by those who espouse Trinitarianism. Of course this is not the case and he cites no evidence in support of this. In fact and unfortunately, the issue has centered more around semantics and a misunderstanding of Colwell and Harner among other things.
(2) He assumes that the determination of nouns as either count or mass is by way of context and interpretation rather than lexeme. Therefore his solution to the rampant subjectivity on determining whether a noun is count (or mass) is “context and interpretation”—hardly a less subjective solution. But this solution rings hallow in light of the fact that it is also the alleged problem! He states concerning count-nouns, for example, “The compiler [Al Kidd] does not see for those predicates a context that makes them to be count-noun predicates . . . I also do not see a count-noun classification for them, either” (see Stafford, Jehovah Witnesses Defended, 342, emphasis added). We categorically reject this idea, i.e., that context determines whether or not a noun is a count noun. Context does not determine mass/count distinction. On the contrary, count/mass distinction is determined on lexemic/grammatical criteria outlined above. Context and syntax comes into play only when one has already determined that he is dealing with a count noun, and singular at that. It does not come into play, however, in the determination of whether a noun is in fact count or mass.
(3) He includes in his examples of non-count nouns from John’s Gospel proper names (6:42; 8:39; 10:22 [?]; 11:2; 20:14), count nouns (1:49; 6:42; 8:37, 42, 54; 9:5; 13:30; 8:10; 19:21, 31) but only two, mass nouns (6:55a, 55b), thus illustrating his confusion as to what constitutes either count or mass. Besides this he fails to have either an exhaustive list in John’s Gospel of both pre and post-copulative anarthrous constructions, or clear passages by which to make semantical statistical predictions on disputed texts (see appendix on John). There appears to be no scientific rationale to his appendix at all. The only axiom he has demonstrated is that relying on context to determine whether a noun is count is surely a subjective enterprise.
(4) Finally, his whole semantic treatment proceeds on a misunderstanding of Harner that Q = I-Q. Harner, as was shown above, simply noted that qualitativeness was not inimical to indefiniteness thus opening the possibility for a category of I-Q or Q-I. That this is to be understood as all Q = I-Q (Q-I), is absurd, illogical and a misunderstanding and abuse of Harner’s study. Thus all his semantic categories (except 11:38 which he lists as indefinite) are tagged as Q-I (our I-Q). It is not surprising, then, not to see any reference to nor examples of mass nouns in his discussion. It would be quite absurd, for example, to insist on a Q-I category for such cases as John 3:6a, where it reads, τὸ γεγεννημένον ἐκ τῆς σαρκὸς σάρξ ἐστιν, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh.” However, he expresses that his readers might be surprised that σάρξ ἐστιν it is not listed as Q-I! But he is quick to assure his readers that “context” doesn’t support that determination. Thus by omitting any real discussion on mass nouns, he conveniently disregards the issue of a purely qualitative noun (without indefiniteness involved at all) from entering the discussion. And since it doesn’t enter the discussion, the fallacy of Q = Q-I continues to exercise sole influence over his understanding of John 1:1c.
Related Topics: Grammar
Q. Why Did Israel Reject Jesus As The Messiah? What Is Israel’s Future Hope?
Let me begin by affirming, from the Scriptures, that Israel, as a nation, not only rejected Jesus as their Messiah; they continue to reject Jesus as their Messiah to this day.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His own [the Jews], and those who were His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, 13 who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. 14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth (John 1:10-14, NAS).
16 However, they did not all heed the glad tidings; for Isaiah says, “LORD, who has believed our report?” 17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ. 18 But I say, surely they have never heard, have they? Indeed they have; “Their voice has gone out into all the earth, And their words to the ends of the world.” 19 But I say, surely Israel did not know, did they? At the first Moses says, “I will make you jealous by that which is not a nation, By a nation without understanding will I anger you.” 20 And Isaiah is very bold and says, “I was found by those who sought Me not, I became manifest to those who did not ask for Me.” 21 But as for Israel He says, “All the day long I have stretched out My hands to a disobedient and obstinate people” (Romans 10:16-21).[1]
Having said this, Paul is very careful to teach that Jews and Gentiles are equally lost:[2]
21 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:21-23).[3]
No one, Jew or Gentile, is predisposed to trust in Jesus as Messiah, and thus the salvation of both is the result of God’s grace, manifested in Jesus Christ.
1 And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, 2 in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. 3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. 4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6 and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places, in Christ Jesus, 7 in order that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, that no one should boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them (Ephesians 2:1-10).
21 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; 25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; 26 for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus (Romans 3:21-26).
Having said this, let us press on to our questions. FIRST, WHY DID ISRAEL REJECT CHRIST AS MESSIAH? Let’s begin with Israel’s leaders, who played a prominent role in turning the crowds against Jesus, and in pressuring Rome to execute Jesus, without cause.
Why Did Israel’s Leaders Reject Jesus?
Israel’s leadership lived, for the most part, in Jerusalem, which was their headquarters. Jesus, on the other hand, spent more of His time in Galilee. Matthew is the one who describes the distress of Israel’s leaders, and all Jerusalem, when the Magi arrive, seeking to know the whereabouts of the newborn “King of the Jews.”
1 Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, magi from the east arrived in Jerusalem, saying, 2 “Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we saw His star in the east, and have come to worship Him.” 3 And when Herod the king heard it, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him (Matthew 2:1-3).
It is not just Herod who was threatened by the announcement that Jesus, the “King of the Jews,” was born. It was all of those who were a part of the religious and political establishment who were distressed, because a new “King” would mean a new administration, and thus they would be out of a job, and out of power. This becomes very evident later, when the popularity of Jesus was growing, turning public sentiment and support towards Jesus:
43 And when He had said these things, He cried out with a loud voice, “Lazarus, come forth.” 44 He who had died came forth, bound hand and foot with wrappings; and his face was wrapped around with a cloth. Jesus said to them, “Unbind him, and let him go.” 45 Many therefore of the Jews, who had come to Mary and beheld what He had done, believed in Him. 46 But some of them went away to the Pharisees, and told them the things which Jesus had done. 47 Therefore the chief priests and the Pharisees convened a council, and were saying, “What are we doing? For this man is performing many signs. 48 “If we let Him go on like this, all men will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.” . . . 53 So from that day on they planned together to kill Him. . . 57 Now the chief priests and the Pharisees had given orders that if anyone knew where He was, he should report it, that they might seize Him (John 11:43-48, 53, 57).
The Pharisees therefore said to one another, “You see that you are not doing any good; look, the world has gone after Him” (John 12:19).
Even Herod understood what motivated the Jewish religious leaders:
16 And they were holding at that time a notorious prisoner, called Barabbas. 17 When therefore they were gathered together, Pilate said to them, “Whom do you want me to release for you? Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ?” 18 For he knew that because of envy they had delivered Him up (Matthew 27:16-18).
On top of this, Jesus publicly exposed the hypocrisy and wickedness of the scribes and Pharisees, and warned of the judgment that awaited them:
“For I say to you, that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:20; see Luke 18:9-14).
1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, 2 saying, “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; 3 therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things, and do not do them. 4 “And they tie up heavy loads, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger. 5 “But they do all their deeds to be noticed by men; for they broaden their phylacteries, and lengthen the tassels of their garments. 6 “And they love the place of honor at banquets, and the chief seats in the synagogues, 7 and respectful greetings in the market places, and being called by men, Rabbi.” . . .13 “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from men; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in. 14 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you devour widows’ houses, even while for a pretense you make long prayers; therefore you shall receive greater condemnation. 15 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you travel about on sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves. 16 “Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘Whoever swears by the temple, that is nothing; but whoever swears by the gold of the temple, he is obligated.’ 17 “You fools and blind men; which is more important, the gold, or the temple that sanctified the gold? 18 “And, ‘Whoever swears by the altar, that is nothing, but whoever swears by the offering upon it, he is obligated.’ 19 “You blind men, which is more important, the offering or the altar that sanctifies the offering? 20 “Therefore he who swears by the altar, swears both by the altar and by everything on it. 21 “And he who swears by the temple, swears both by the temple and by Him who dwells within it. 22 “And he who swears by heaven, swears both by the throne of God and by Him who sits upon it. 23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others. 24 “You blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel! 25 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of robbery and self-indulgence. 26 “You blind Pharisee, first clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, so that the outside of it may become clean also. 27 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness. 28 “Even so you too outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness. 29 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous, 30 and say, ‘If we had been living in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partners with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ 31 “Consequently you bear witness against yourselves, that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. 32 “Fill up then the measure of the guilt of your fathers. 33 “You serpents, you brood of vipers, how shall you escape the sentence of hell? (Matthew 23:1-7,13-33; see also Matthew 21:33-46)
Very early in Jesus’ ministry, the Jewish religious leaders determined that Jesus was a serious threat to their position and power, and thus they were determined to destroy Him:
1 And He entered again into a synagogue; and a man was there with a withered hand. 2 And they were watching Him to see if He would heal him on the Sabbath, in order that they might accuse Him. 3 And He said to the man with the withered hand, “Rise and come forward!” 4 And He said to them, “Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save a life or to kill?” But they kept silent. 5 And after looking around at them with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart, He said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” And he stretched it out, and his hand was restored. 6 And the Pharisees went out and immediately began taking counsel with the Herodians against Him, as to how they might destroy Him (Mark 3:1-6).
To sum it up, the Jewish religious leaders had many grievances with Jesus. Among these, were the following:
- Jesus associated with sinners, and not them, so much (Matthew 9:10-13).
- Jesus did not submit to their authority, but rather undermined it with His own authority (Matthew 7:28-29).
- Jesus declared that a person would have to be more righteous than the Pharisees to get into heaven (Matthew 5:20).
- The scribes and Pharisees considered themselves to experts in the Law, and yet Jesus challenged, and corrected their interpretations of the Law (Matthew 5:17-48; Mark 7:5-23; Luke 11:37-54).
- When the Jewish religious leaders asked questions of Jesus with the purpose of discrediting Him, they ended up looking foolish (Matthew 22:35-46; Mark 12:35-40).
- Jesus spoke kindly of the Gentiles, and made it clear that His salvation was available to them, as well as to Jews (see Luke 4:15-30).
Why Did The People Of Israel (The Crowds) Reject Jesus?
It wasn’t just Israel’s religious leaders who rejected Jesus; it was the crowds as well, who had no reservations, it seems, about following the directives given them by their leaders.[4] But in the end, when Jesus was arrested, put on trial, and crucified, the majority of Jews willingly went along with their elders in rejecting Jesus and calling for the release of Barabbas, and our Lord’s execution.
It Was Israel, All Israel, That Rejected Jesus As Messiah
It was not just Israel’s leaders who rejected Jesus as Messiah; it was the nation of Israel as a whole:
He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him (John 1:11).[5]
At the outset of our Lord’s public ministry, Jesus was widely sought and embraced by the people, particularly those who were in great need:
And great multitudes followed Him from Galilee and Decapolis and Jerusalem and Judea and from beyond the Jordan (Matthew 4:25; see also 5:1; 7:28; 8:1)
As time went on, and Jesus was openly opposed by the Jewish religious leaders, the crowds came to hold different opinions as to who Jesus was, with some believing in Jesus, and others rejecting Him.
14 And King Herod heard of it, for His name had become well known; and people were saying, “John the Baptist has risen from the dead, and that is why these miraculous powers are at work in Him.” 15 But others were saying, “He is Elijah.” And others were saying, “He is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old.” 16 But when Herod heard of it, he kept saying, “John, whom I beheaded, has risen!” (Mark 6:14-16; see also Luke 9:7-8)
But when His brothers had gone up to the feast, then He Himself also went up, not publicly, but as it were, in secret. 11 The Jews therefore were seeking Him at the feast, and were saying, “Where is He?” 12 And there was much grumbling among the multitudes concerning Him; some were saying, “He is a good man”; others were saying, “No, on the contrary, He leads the multitude astray.” 13 Yet no one was speaking openly of Him for fear of the Jews (John 7:10-13).
39 But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified. 40 Some of the multitude therefore, when they heard these words, were saying, “This certainly is the Prophet.” 41 Others were saying, “This is the Christ.” Still others were saying, “Surely the Christ is not going to come from Galilee, is He? 42 “Has not the Scripture said that the Christ comes from the offspring of David, and from Bethlehem, the village where David was?” 43 So there arose a division in the multitude because of Him (John 7:39-43; see also Luke 7:12-17; John 10:20-21).
Jesus was enthusiastically welcomed by many at His triumphal entry into Jerusalem, shortly before His death:
6 And the disciples went and did just as Jesus had directed them, 7 and brought the donkey and the colt, and laid on them their garments, on which He sat. 8 And most of the multitude spread their garments in the road, and others were cutting branches from the trees, and spreading them in the road. 9 And the multitudes going before Him, and those who followed after were crying out, saying, “Hosanna to the Son of David; Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest!” 10 And when He had entered Jerusalem, all the city was stirred, saying, “Who is this?” 11 And the multitudes were saying, “This is the prophet Jesus, from Nazareth in Galilee” (Matthew 21:6-11).
37 And as He was now approaching, near the descent of the Mount of Olives, the whole multitude of the disciples began to praise God joyfully with a loud voice for all the miracles which they had seen, 38 saying, “Blessed is the King who comes in the name of the Lord; Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!” (Luke 19:37-38)
The rejection of Jesus by the masses was prompted by His trial and execution. Just a few days after Jesus was welcomed as Israel’s hero, He was emphatically rejected by this same crowd at His trial and crucifixion:
20 But the chief priests and the elders persuaded the multitudes to ask for Barabbas, and to put Jesus to death. 21 But the governor answered and said to them, “Which of the two do you want me to release for you?” And they said, “Barabbas.” 22 Pilate said to them, “Then what shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?” They all said, “Let Him be crucified!” 23 And he said, “Why, what evil has He done?” But they kept shouting all the more, saying, “Let Him be crucified!” (Matthew 27:20-23)
And those passing by were hurling abuse at Him, wagging their heads, and saying, “Ha! You who are going to destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, 30 save Yourself, and come down from the cross!” 31 In the same way the chief priests also, along with the scribes, were mocking Him among themselves and saying, “He saved others; He cannot save Himself. 32 “Let this Christ, the King of Israel, now come down from the cross, so that we may see and believe!” And those who were crucified with Him were casting the same insult at Him (Mark 15:29-32).
How is it that the same crowds, who once welcomed Jesus, and even sought to make Him their king (John 6:15), suddenly turned against Him, demanding that Pilot release Barabbas, and crucify Jesus?
Reason One: Misinterpreting The Scriptures Led To Wrong Expectations Of Messiah
Then (back in ancient times), and now, men twist the Scriptures in an effort to make them say what they want (Acts 20:28-30; 1 Timothy 1:3-7; 2 Peter 3:14-16).[6] Thus, the promise that God made to Abraham (the Abrahamic Covenant, Genesis 12:1-3) was distorted so that it became a promise of blessings for Jews, and cursing for Gentiles. Likewise, the “Day of the Lord” was wrongly interpreted to be a promise of blessing for Israel (Amos 5:18-20), rather than one of judgment (see Joel 1:15; 2:1, 11, 31; 3:14).
God’s promise of a Savior, given to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3:15), would be fulfilled in two parts. The first part would be the sacrificial death of a sinless offspring of Eve (Jesus), who would suffer and die in the sinner’s place, bearing the punishment he or she deserved. The second part would be fulfilled by the second coming of Messiah to earth, to subdue His enemies and establish His kingdom.
We therefore find two different streams of prophecy in the Old Testament, both looking ahead to the coming of the Promised Messiah. The first stream was the promise of His coming to suffer and die in the sinner’s place:
But you will not go out in haste, Nor will you go as fugitives; For the LORD will go before you, And the God of Israel will be your rear guard. 13 Behold, My servant will prosper, He will be high and lifted up, and greatly exalted. 14 Just as many were astonished at you, My people, So His appearance was marred more than any man, And His form more than the sons of men. 15 Thus He will sprinkle many nations, Kings will shut their mouths on account of Him; For what had not been told them they will see, And what they had not heard they will understand.
Who has believed our message? And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed? 2 For He grew up before Him like a tender shoot, And like a root out of parched ground; He has no stately form or majesty That we should look upon Him, Nor appearance that we should be attracted to Him. 3 He was despised and forsaken of men, A man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; And like one from whom men hide their face, He was despised, and we did not esteem Him. 4 Surely our griefs He Himself bore, And our sorrows He carried; Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, Smitten of God, and afflicted. 5 But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed. 6 All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him. 7 He was oppressed and He was afflicted, Yet He did not open His mouth; Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, So He did not open His mouth. 8 By oppression and judgment He was taken away; And as for His generation, who considered That He was cut off out of the land of the living, For the transgression of my people to whom the stroke was due? 9 His grave was assigned with wicked men, Yet He was with a rich man in His death, Because He had done no violence, Nor was there any deceit in His mouth. 10 But the LORD was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief; If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, And the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand. 11 As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see it and be satisfied; By His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, As He will bear their iniquities. 12 Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great, And He will divide the booty with the strong; Because He poured out Himself to death, And was numbered with the transgressors; Yet He Himself bore the sin of many, And interceded for the transgressors (Isaiah 52:12-53:12; see also Psalm 22).
The second stream of prophecy foretold the second coming of Messiah to subdue His enemies and to reign as King on the earth:
1 Why are the nations in an uproar, And the peoples devising a vain thing? 2 The kings of the earth take their stand, And the rulers take counsel together Against the LORD and against His Anointed: 3 “Let us tear their fetters apart, And cast away their cords from us!” 4 He who sits in the heavens laughs, The Lord scoffs at them. 5 Then He will speak to them in His anger And terrify them in His fury: 6 “But as for Me, I have installed My King Upon Zion, My holy mountain.” 7 “I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to Me, ‘Thou art My Son, Today I have begotten Thee. 8 ‘Ask of Me, and I will surely give the nations as Thine inheritance, And the very ends of the earth as Thy possession. 9 ‘Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron, Thou shalt shatter them like earthenware.’” 10 Now therefore, O kings, show discernment; Take warning, O judges of the earth. 11 Worship the LORD with reverence, And rejoice with trembling. 12 Do homage to the Son, lest He become angry, and you perish in the way, For His wrath may soon be kindled. How blessed are all who take refuge in Him! (Psalm 2:1-12)
1 A Psalm of David . The LORD says to my Lord: “Sit at My right hand, Until I make Thine enemies a footstool for Thy feet.” 2 The LORD will stretch forth Thy strong scepter from Zion, saying, “Rule in the midst of Thine enemies.” 3 Thy people will volunteer freely in the day of Thy power; In holy array, from the womb of the dawn, Thy youth are to Thee as the dew (Psalm 110:1-3; see also Daniel 2:36-45).
Even John the Baptist struggled to clearly differentiate between the two appearances of Jesus on the earth. He spoke of Jesus as the “Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world:”
26 John answered them saying, “I baptize in water, but among you stands One whom you do not know. 27 “It is He who comes after me, the thong of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie.” 28 These things took place in Bethany beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing. 29 The next day he saw Jesus coming to him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! 30 “This is He on behalf of whom I said, ‘After me comes a Man who has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.’ 31 “And I did not recognize Him, but in order that He might be manifested to Israel, I came baptizing in water.” 32 And John bore witness saying, “I have beheld the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven, and He remained upon Him. 33 “And I did not recognize Him, but He who sent me to baptize in water said to me, ‘He upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, this is the one who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.’ 34 “And I have seen, and have borne witness that this is the Son of God” (John 1:26-34).
On the other hand, John spoke of Jesus as the coming King, who would defeat His enemies, judge sinners, and establish His kingdom on earth:
“And the axe is already laid at the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 11 “As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. 12 “And His winnowing fork is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clear His threshing floor; and He will gather His wheat into the barn, but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire” (Matthew 3:10-12).
Expectations ran high for the coming of Messiah, and it was wrongly assumed that this would soon come to pass:
And while they were listening to these things, He went on to tell a parable, because He was near Jerusalem, and they supposed that the kingdom of God was going to appear immediately (Luke 19:11).
But it was also widely assumed that our Lord would establish His kingdom through violence:
“Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has not arisen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. 12 “And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and violent men take it by force. 13 “For all the prophets and the Law prophesied until John. 14 “And if you care to accept it, he himself is Elijah, who was to come. 15 “He who has ears to hear, let him hear (Matthew 11:11-15).
It is hardly surprising, then, that the crowds would attempt to make Jesus their king, by force, expecting Him to likewise establish His kingdom by force:
13 And so they gathered them up, and filled twelve baskets with fragments from the five barley loaves, which were left over by those who had eaten. 14 When therefore the people saw the sign which He had performed, they said, “This is of a truth the Prophet who is to come into the world.” 15 Jesus therefore perceiving that they were intending to come and take Him by force, to make Him king, withdrew again to the mountain by Himself alone. 16 Now when evening came, His disciples went down to the sea, 17 and after getting into a boat, they started to cross the sea to Capernaum. And it had already become dark, and Jesus had not yet come to them (John 6:13-17).
When Jesus refused to resort to violence when the soldiers and the crowds came to arrest Him, the crowds (rightly) concluded that Jesus was not going to violently overthrow Rome, but would Himself be killed by Rome. This thought was not only unacceptable to our Lord’s disciples, it was abhorrent to the crowds. It is now much easier to see why the crowds would call for the release of Barabbas, instead of Jesus. Barabbas was just the kind of “Messiah” they had hoped for, and Jesus was not:
But the chief priests and the elders persuaded the multitudes to ask for Barabbas, and to put Jesus to death. 21 But the governor answered and said to them, “Which of the two do you want me to release for you?” And they said, “Barabbas.” 22 Pilate said to them, “Then what shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?” They all said, “Let Him be crucified!” 23 And he said, “Why, what evil has He done?” But they kept shouting all the more, saying, “Let Him be crucified!” 24 And when Pilate saw that he was accomplishing nothing, but rather that a riot was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the multitude, saying, “I am innocent of this Man’s blood; see to that yourselves.” 25 And all the people answered and said, “His blood be on us and on our children!” 26 Then he released Barabbas for them; but after having Jesus scourged, he delivered Him to be crucified (Matthew 27:20-26).
Reason Two: Law-Keeping, Rather Than Faith
If working hard at being righteous were the basis for salvation, then the Jews would be at the top of the list of likely candidates for salvation. But while the Jews did work hard at being righteous by law-keeping, it ends up being the reason why many Jews (not to exclude others) failed to trust in Jesus. They chose to trust in their works, rather than in Jesus’ saving work at Calvary. Listen to Paul’s assessment, contrasting Gentile faith with Jewish law-keeping:
30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith; 31 but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. 32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone, 33 just as it is written, “Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, And he who believes in Him will not be disappointed.”
Brethren, my heart’s desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation. 2 For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. 3 For not knowing about God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes (Romans 9:30-10:4).
No one grasped better than Paul the contrast between faith and works of law-keeping. Listen to what he says regarding his own experience:
. . . If anyone else has a mind to put confidence in the flesh, I far more: 5 circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee; 6 as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless. 7 But whatever things were gain to me, those things I have counted as loss for the sake of Christ. 8 More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish in order that I may gain Christ, 9 and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith, 10 that I may know Him, and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death; 11 in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead (Philippians 3:4b-11).
God’s work of saving Paul was not done for Paul’s glory, but rather it was done in order to bring greater glory to God:
12 I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who has strengthened me, because He considered me faithful, putting me into service; 13 even though I was formerly a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent aggressor. And yet I was shown mercy, because I acted ignorantly in unbelief; 14 and the grace of our Lord was more than abundant, with the faith and love which are found in Christ Jesus. 15 It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all. 16 And yet for this reason I found mercy, in order that in me as the foremost, Jesus Christ might demonstrate His perfect patience, as an example for those who would believe in Him for eternal life. 17 Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen. (1 Timothy 1:12-17)
There are a number of other reasons why the Jews rejected Jesus, and these would be the same for anyone, Jew or Gentile. I will only briefly mention some of these reasons for unbelief:
- Human inability to grasp the things of God apart from dependence on the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 2).
- False teachers (Galatians 1; 2 Corinthians 11)
- Satan’s opposition (Mark 4:3-4, 15)
- Blindness to the gospel (2 Corinthians 3:12-17; 4:3-4)
What Is Israel’s Hope For The Future?
27 And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel, “Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, it is the remnant that will be saved; 28 for the Lord will execute His word upon the earth, thoroughly and quickly.” 29 And just as Isaiah foretold, “Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left to us a posterity, We would have become as Sodom, and would have resembled Gomorrah” (Romans 9:27-29).
The first thing we must note, is that while the majority of Jews may be in unbelief, God has always guaranteed Israel’s hope of blessing by preserving a godly remnant of believing Jews. This was declared in the Old Testament, and highlighted by Paul in the New.
And now, in Romans chapter 11, Paul gives a much more detailed explanation of God’s purposes for Israel, as well as the Gentiles:
1 I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel? 3 “Lord, they have killed Thy prophets, they have torn down Thine altars, and I alone am left, and they are seeking my life.” 4 But what is the divine response to him? “I have kept for Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” 5 In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God’s gracious choice. 6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace. 7 What then? That which Israel is seeking for, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened; 8 just as it is written, “God gave them a spirit of stupor, Eyes to see not and ears to hear not, Down to this very day.” 9 And David says, “Let their table become a snare and a trap, And a stumbling block and a retribution to them. 10 “Let their eyes be darkened to see not, And bend their backs forever.” 11 I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? May it never be! But by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make them jealous. 12 Now if their transgression be riches for the world and their failure be riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their fulfillment be! 13 But I am speaking to you who are Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle of Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, 14 if somehow I might move to jealousy my fellow countrymen and save some of them. 15 For if their rejection be the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? 16 And if the first piece of dough be holy, the lump is also; and if the root be holy, the branches are too. 17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree, 18 do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” 20 Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear; 21 for if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will He spare you. 22 Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. 23 And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in; for God is able to graft them in again. 24 For if you were cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more shall these who are the natural branches be grafted into their own olive tree? 25 For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery, lest you be wise in your own estimation, that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fulness of the Gentiles has come in; 26 and thus all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, “The Deliverer will come from Zion, He will remove ungodliness from Jacob.” 27 “And this is My covenant with them, When I take away their sins.” 28 From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God’s choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; 29 for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. 30 For just as you once were disobedient to God, but now have been shown mercy because of their disobedience, 31 so these also now have been disobedient, in order that because of the mercy shown to you they also may now be shown mercy. 32 For God has shut up all in disobedience that He might show mercy to all. 33 Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! 34 For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who became His counselor? 35 Or who has first given to Him that it might be paid back to him again? 36 For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen. (Rom. 10:16-11:36 NAS)
In short, God made a covenant with Abraham, promising to bless his offspring, so that they might, in turn, be a blessing to the Gentiles.[7] God has always preserved a believing remnant of Jewish people who believe in Jesus.[8] As a nation, however, Israel has not trusted in Messiah, but this opened the door for the evangelization (blessing) of Gentiles. Their salvation is intended to provoke the Jews to jealousy, and thus ultimately to bring Israel to faith in Jesus, along with believing Gentiles. All of God’s covenant promises to the Jews (Israel) will thus be fulfilled, because God always keeps His promises. And those Jews who will be saved will be saved the same way that Gentiles are saved, by trusting in Jesus as Messiah, and embracing His sacrifice at Calvary and resurrection on their behalf. THERE IS HOPE FOR ISRAEL, THROUGH JESUS, THE MESSIAH!
[1] Paul was broken-hearted over the rejection of Jesus as Israel’s Messiah (Romans 9:1-6).
[2] It should probably be noted that in Romans 1-3, Paul does indicate that greater knowledge of the Scriptures and the gospel does make one more guilty than someone who has very little knowledge of God. Greater guilt deserves greater punishment (see Luke 12:43-48; 20:45-47).
[3] I believe that Paul is saying two things here. There is no distinction between those who are believers in Jesus Christ (see Galatians 3:25-29), and there is no distinction between those who are lost, apart from Christ (Romans 3:21-23).
[4] This is probably the place to call attention to the incredible authority the religious leaders had. The parents of the man born blind certainly feared these leaders (John 9:17-23), and so did others (John 7:12-13) – even Nicodemus (John 7:44-53), as well as other leaders (John 12:42-43).
[5] In reading through the Gospel of John, I find it particularly noteworthy that John chose to use the expression, “the Jews,” when the context makes it quite clear that the Jewish religious leaders are prominent in the context. See, for example, John 1:19; 2:18, 20; 5:10, 15-18; 7:1, 13.
[6] Not all misinterpretation of Scripture is deliberate. We all fail to fully comprehend certain portions of Scripture, and thus end up with wrong conclusions. But sometimes it is deliberate, such as we see in Matthew 2:1-8, or Romans 5:20—6:2ff.
Related Topics: Character of God, Ecclesiology (The Church), Election, Eschatology (Things to Come), Soteriology (Salvation)
Q. Has God Been Seen Or Not? And, Is Soul Sleep True?
I have a question about this verse. John 1:18 “No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him.” It says that no one has seen God—- at any time. Well, if souls are in heaven, then surely they would be able to see the Father in his full glory.
And then, in this verse, Jesus called out to the Father. Luke 23:46 Jesus called out with a loud voice, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.” When he had said this, he breathed his last. But if the spirit of Jesus went to heaven, then he would still have been in the bosom of the Father. Or if his spirit was alive in Hades, he also would have been in the bosom of the father, just as Lazarus’ spirit went to the bosom of Abaraham (Luke 16:22 and 23). I mean, there is a big difference between being in the bosom of the Father and being in the hands of the Father. Of course, the symbolism of Jesus committing his spirit into the “hands” of the Father would seem to indicate that he was relinquishing all control of his spirit while his spirit was dead. That is what I have been wondering while trying to decide if soul sleep is true or not. So how would you explain these two things?
Some members of my family are divided on this issue.
In Christ, ********.
Answer
Dear ********,
Let’s start with your first question.
No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him. (Jn. 1:18 NAS)
Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not appeared as yet what we shall be. We know that, when He appears, we shall be like Him, because we shall see Him just as He is. (1 Jn. 3:2 NAS)
The solution here is to take note of the tense of the verb. John 1:18 is a past tense: “has seen.” The tense of the verb in 1 John 3:2 is future.
Up until the time of our Lord’s incarnation, no one had seen God. Then, with the birth of Christ, God was manifested in human flesh. And, in eternity, we will see Him as He is.
As to the second question, I have several observations. In the first place (not importance-wise), you are making an assumption that “entrusting” or “committing” our Lord’s spirit to the Father is synonymous with being in the bosom of the Father. I’m not sure that these two expressions are synonymous.
But beyond this, two Scriptures come to mind:
“The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law. (Deut. 29:29 NAS)
“You blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel! (Matt. 23:24 NAS)
The reason why your family may differ over this matter of “soul sleep” may very well be because it is an obscure matter, with little biblical support. In other words, it may be one of those “secret things” which does not merit our attention, or fixation. In order to substantiate our views, we may have to “strain gnats.” But Jesus tells us to focus on the “camels,” the important matters, which have much biblical support and emphasis.
When I look at those texts which spend considerable effort to talk about what lies beyond death (texts like 1 Thessalonians and 1 Corinthians 15, I see no hint of “soul sleep.” Thus, I set it aside as a rabbit trail and a distraction (which I find tempting).
Consequently, I choose not to take the time to prove or disprove this matter. Truthfully, I am currently addressing the death of Christ, the Gospel according to Jesus (see home page of Bible.org), and the matter of suicide and unpardonable sin. It seems clear that these matters deserve much more attention than soul sleep. I don’t mean to sound harsh here, only to encourage you not to get side-tracked in your study of God’s Word.
Related Topics: Christology, Theology Proper (God)
NET Bible Download
The donors and supporters of the Bible.org ministry goal is to make the Bible available to everyone on the Internet To accomplish that goal we make the NET Bible without notes available in modules for various software platforms and various phone and computer platforms for free.
Help us in our goal to keep all the material on Bible.org free and the NET Bible without notes free Donate here
NET Without Notes - Free
ePub (iPhone/iPad/iPodTouch, Nook, anything but Kindle)
- iPad users click here and choose open in iBook Reader (desktop users can just right mouse click and choose "save as...")
- Download from iTunes bookstore
-
ePub file
(See bottom of this page for instructions)
Kindle
-
manual installation - click here to download
(see bottom of this page for instructions)
Phones
- iPhone and iPad users get the free NET Bible App from the itunes store
- You can buy the full notes version or download noteless from Olivetree Software
Chinese NET With Notes - Free (see our copyright statement for use and acknowledgements)
(unlike English ebooks, Neither Amazon or Barnes and Noble support Chinese so we are not able to upload to their stores and allow you to buy Chinese ebooks. As soon as we are aware that they support Chinese we will put the Chinese NET with full notes in their stores.
ePub (iPhone/iPad/iPodTouch, Nook, anything but Kindle)
Kindle
|
Windows/Mac Desktop ePub Reader
Chinese NET Bible PDF Files (Simplified and Traditional) |
Installation Instructions:
Galaxie Software makes our e-books. Visit their help page for installation instructions.
Related Topics: NET Bible
An Introduction To The Book Of Romans
Related MediaI. AUTHOR: The Apostle Paul
A. Externally1 and internally2 the evidence has been overwhelming in critical scholarship in favor of Pauline authorship of this letter.3 Once Pauline authorship is accepted for works like Galatians, and the Corinthian letters, then a work like Romans may also be ascribed Pauline since the topics are so similar, and there are no substantial difficulties4
B. Although some have denied Pauline authorship (e.g., Evanson, Bauer, Loman, Stek), it is no longer disputed5
C. Some consider Tertius to have composed Romans in accordance with Paul’s instruction (Romans 16:22), however it is more probable that Tertius was Paul’s secretary who either wrote the letter in long-hand from Paul’s dictation, or who first took Paul’s letter in shorthand and then wrote it out in long hand with Paul’s final approval6
II. DATE and DESTINATION: From Corinth in the winter of A.D. 56-57 to Rome
A. Date: Winter A.D. 56-57 from Corinth
1. A Relative Chronology: Romans was probably written during Paul’s third missionary journey from Corinth:7
a. The letter was written when Paul was about to set out for Jerusalem (15:25)
b. Paul also considers himself to have completed his missionary work among the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire (15:19,23)8, therefore, the journey is most probably the one recorded in Acts 20--21 which begins from Corinth (cf. Acts 19:21; 20:1-3).
c. Paul desired to go to Rome (1:10-13), but had been prevented (1:13; 15:22); now he hopes to go there on his way to Spain (15:23-28), but first he is going to Jerusalem with the offering for the poor from the Gentile churches (15:25-27)
d. Therefore, in view of Paul’s setting, Corinth seems to be the place from which Paul wrote (Acts 20:1-3)
Other indications that Paul wrote from Corinth are:
1) Paul commends Phoebe as a servant of the church in Cenchreae, Corinth’s eastern seaport (who probably carried the letter to the Romans) 16:1-2
2) Paul sends greetings from Gaius in whose house he was staying who may well have been the same Gaius mentioned in 1 Corinthians 1:14 as the one whom Paul baptized in Corinth 16:23
3) The greeting from Erastus the city treasurer may have been the Erastus who stayed in Corinth (cf. Acts 19:22; also 2 Tim. 4:20).
2. A More Absolute Chronology: Paul probably wrote Romans between A.D. 56-57
a. Paul seems to have stood before Gallio, the proconsul of Achaia, in the summer of A.D. 51 on his second missionary journey9
b. After staying many days in Corinth (Acts 18:18) Paul set out for Syria and remained some time in Ephesus (perhaps early fall AD 52; Acts 18:19-21)
c. Paul then returned to Caesarea, went down to Jerusalem, and then up to the church in Antioch where he spent some time (perhaps late fall of AD 52 through winter of 52/53; cf. Acts 18:22-23)
d. Paul began his third missionary journey from Antioch through the Galatian region (spring-summer of A.D. 53) and reached Ephesus in the fall of A.D. 53 where he remained for two to three years (AD 53-56; Acts 19:8,10; 20:31)
e. Therefore, Paul’s return to Corinth through Macedonia was probably in the spring or summer of AD 56 (Acts 20:2-3)
f. Paul probably arrived in Corinth in late fall of AD 56, and remained through early 57
Therefore, Romans, which was written from Corinth on the third missionary journey (see above), was probably written in the winter and early spring of AD 56-57.10
B. Destination: A Jewish/Gentile Church in Rome
1. There was an early church in Rome (possibly from before A.D. 49)
a. There was certainly a church already in Rome when Paul wrote the book of Romans (1:13; 15:23-24)
b. From a statement by Suetonius, there may be evidence that Christianity was in the capital of Rome by A.D. 4911
c. This church may well have been started through converts of Paul who lived in Rome12, rather than through any particular evangelistic effort13 since neither Paul (in Romans), nor Luke (in Acts),14 nor any other NT document mentions any.
2. The Composition of the church in Rome was probably mixed (Jewish/Gentile)
a. Rather than one large church, the Romans seem to have been made up of five household churches:
1) Five households are greeted (16:5,10,11,14,15)
2) Paul does not address the letter to the “Church” at (cf. 1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 1:1; 1 Thess. 1:1), but to “all that are at Rome”15 (1:7).
b. The Romans were made up of both Jews and Gentiles (with a probable emphasis upon Gentiles)
1) Paul writes to Gentiles
a) Paul was an apostle to the Gentiles (1:5; 11:3; Gal. 2:7-8)16
b) Paul speaks to Gentiles who receive mercy through Jewish unbelief (11:12-13)
c) Paul compares the Romans with other Gentiles, not just Gentiles (1:12-14)
d) Paul refers to the Jews as “my” brethren, and not “our” brethren (9:3)
e) Out of the twenty-four names in chapter 16, over one half are Latin and Greek
2) Paul writes to Jewish believers
a) Paul wrote with many references to the Old Testament (but see Galatians too)
b) Paul speaks of Abraham as “our” father in 2:1 (but see 1 Corinthians 10:1 where he does the same thing)
c) Chapters 9--11 are about the nation Israel (but they show that those who had privilege could lose it)
d) Paul describes a Jewish/Gentile problem in the church (“weak and strong”)
III. THE INTEGRITY OF THE BOOK OF ROMANS
A. The last two chapters of Romans are considered to be problematic to the integrity of the book
B. Chapter 16 has been considered to be, in whole or in part, a portion of an epistle sent to Ephesus; but, this is not a necessary conclusion17
1. Even though Paul had never been to Rome, he sent greetings to a large number of people there, and it would have been more reasonable if they were people from Ephesus where he was for three years. Also Paul does not mention these people from his later epistles sent from Rome
But Paul never concludes letters to churches which he personally knows with long addresses; rather, he only does this with the letter to Colossae (another church which he had never visited). This would have commended Paul well to the church since so many knew him
Paul probably does not mention these Romans in any of his other letters because there was no occasion, they were not his closest workers, and they had no connection with the churches to which he later wrote
2. It is unlikely that Priscilla and Aquila would have moved from Ephesus to Rome and back to Ephesus again (cf. 1 Cor. 16:19; 2 Tim. 4:19)
But extraordinary travel facilities connected to and from the capital of Rome; Aquila and Priscilla may have been well off, and even had a business establishment in both cities at once; they just appointed a Gentile manager while they left under the decree of Claudius18
3. The calling of Epaenetus the ‘first convert to Christ from Asia’ (Rom. 16:5) would have more meaning in Ephesus, than in Rome
But if Epaenetus did go to Rome, it would be natural for Paul to greet him, and to mention what he would naturally remember--that he was the first convert of Asia
4. If Paul was unknown to the church in Rome, than his recommendation of Phoebe would be of little value
But this is not a necessary conclusion since Paul was not an obscure person, and the writing of his letter speaks of a level of his authority with the Romans
5. The warnings of 16:17-19 appear to be more around the antinomianism of Ephesus than the Jewish-Gentile relationships of Romans
While there is no mention of these problems among the Romans, this does not mean that these words could have no relevance to them;--especially in view of Paul’s own struggles with them
6. Chapter 16 may have been a later appendix to the conclusion stated in chapter 15
But the ending of 15:33 is without precedent among Paul’s letters
7. Therefore, the evidence is inconclusive that chapter 16 is an appendage from an Ephesian letter. If there was an Ephesian letter, why did only its greetings survive? Also, there is no manuscript support that Romans ever circulated without the concluding chapter (even though the textual history is complicated). The Chester Beatty papyrus19 (P46) places the doxology (16:25-27) at the end of chapter 15, but still ends with chapter 16.
C. The Recensions of the Epistle: The enormity of textual evidence20 indicates that the letter did circulate in a shorter recension. Although a difficult issue, it was probably originally a longer letter which was shortened by Marcion21 and then copied by scribes who did not know of his editing. When the final chapters were found, they were added without editing the doxology at the end of chapter 15.
IV. REASONS WHY PAUL WROTE ROMANS:
A. Paul planned to do missionary work in Spain (15:24,28) and thus visit the Romans for prayer and financial support
B. Paul was interested in the Roman church, and intended to come for many years (1:13; 15:22-24,28-29; cf. Acts 19:21)
C. Paul wanted to preach the Gospel and impart a spiritual benefit to the Romans (1:11,15)
D. Since the book has so many doctrines, Paul wanted to instruct the Romans in their faith
E. Perhaps Phoebe was going to Rome so it was a good opportunity to write (16:1-2)
V. PURPOSE FOR THE BOOK OF ROMANS:
A. To create an interest in Paul’s Spanish mission; however, this does not account adequately for the theological nature of the mission
B. To present a full statement of Paul’s doctrinal position of the Gospel making this more of a treatise than a letter which arose from historical situations
C. Paul writes to address certain “intellectual” questions (especially concerning the place of a universal religion over against Jewish nationalism) which the saints in Rome are concerned about (which perhaps he learned about through Aquila and Priscilla)22
There may also have been practical difficulties which are reflected in Paul’s ethical injunctions in chapters 12--1523
D. To address tones of anti-semitism which might have arisen due the Claudius’ decree24
VI. THE THEME OF ROMANS
Paul desires to proclaim the gospel to the Romans because it is the power of God through which He reveals the righteous status of life25 for all people through faith 1:16-17
1 The Apostolic Fathers held to Pauline authorship: 1 Clement 32.2 (cf. Rom. 9:4f); 35.5 (cf. Rom. 1:29-32); 50.6f (cf. Rom. 4:7-9); Ignatius, Eph 19:3 (cf. Rom. 6:4); Magn. 6:2 (cf. Rom. 6:17); 9.1 (cf. Rom. 6:6); Trall. 9:2 (cf. Rom. 8:11); Smyrn. 1.1 (cf. Rom. 1:3f); Polycarp 3.3 (cf. Rom. 13:8-10); 4:1 (cf. Rom. 6:13 and 12:12); 6.2 (cf. Rom. 14:19 and 12); 10.1 (cf. Rom 12:10)
Every early list of NT books includes Romans among Paul’s letters.
2 Internally, the linguistic, stylistic, literary, historical, and theological evidence all support Pauline authorship.
3 C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Epistle to the Romans, 1:1-2.
4 See Harrison who writes, “From the postapostolic church to the present, with almost no exception, the Epistle has been credited to Paul. If the claim of the apostle to have written the Galatian and Corinthian letters is accepted, there is no reasonable basis for denying that he wrote Romans, since it echoes much of what is in the earlier writings, yet not slavishly” (Romans, EBC, pp. 3-4).
5 Cranfield, Romans, pp. 1-2.
6 Cranfield offers a lengthy discussion in Romans 1:2-4.
7 Much of this is dependent upon the integrity of chapters 15 and 16 to the letter (see below). Apart from this integrity, it is almost impossible to reconstruct the occasion for the epistle (see Guthrie, NTI, p. 396 n. 1).
8 From Jerusalem to Illyricum (the eastern shore of the Adriatic or modern Yugoslavia).
9 This absolute date is derived from the inscription found at Delphi which shows that Gallio was proconsul of Achaia in A.D. 52-[54] which means that he was probably proconsul of Achaia from mid-51 to mid-52, and Paul probably stood before him early in Gallio’s governorship since the Jews would be attempting to win a new governor to their side (see Cranfield, Romans, 1:12-13).
10 See also Cranfield’s computations from the replacement of Felix, as governor of Judea, backwards (Romans, 1:14-16).
11 Suetonius records that Claudius banished Jews from Rome in AD 49 Because there had been rioting at the instigation of one called Chrestus (“Claudius ‘Iudaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantes Roma expulit” [Claudius 25]) See Guthrie, NTI, p. 393; Cranfield, p. 16.
12 Guthrie suggests that the message spread from the Pentecost event in Acts where Jews and proselytes from Rome were present (cf. Acts 2:10; Guthrie, NTI, p. 394), but this is unlikely since there was no instruction for these believers. Nevertheless, their lack of clear instruction could explain why Paul writes such a lengthy treatise on the gospel.
It may be more probable that Paul “founded” the church through his converts because: (1) Paul mentions so many names, (2) Paul would not build upon another’s foundation, and (3) there is no evidence that Peter founded the church.
13 Some have identified the founding of the church with Peter, however, Paul never mentions Peter in Romans even though he mentions twenty-four other people. Paul also never mentions Peter in his prison epistles, or 2 Timothy which were written from Rome.
Also when Priscilla and Aquila came from Rome to Corinth, it was because of an edict from Claudius in AD 49-50 (cf. Acts 18:2-3), which would place their arrival before Peter moved from Jerusalem (e.g., he was in Jerusalem for the Jerusalem council in fall of AD 49; see also Guthrie, NTI, p. 394).
Tradition may have claimed both Peter and Paul as their apostles because they were both martyred in Rome (Cranfield, Romans, 1:17).
14 On the contrary, Luke implies that the gospel has already reached Rome before Paul arrives since believers come to meet Paul as he arrives (Acts 28:14-15).
15 The Greek reads: πᾶσιν τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν ῾Ρώμη.
16 But Acts also emphasizes that he was to go to all peoples--both Jews and Gentiles (Acts 9:15).
17 See Guthrie, NTI, pp. 400-404 for a more extensive discussion.
18 A possible reconstruction of their travels may be: (1) Acts 18:1-3--they left Rome in AD 49 because of Claudius’ edict, (2) They came to Corinth and met Paul on his second missionary journey; he was also a tent maker, (3) Paul arrived in Corinth in AD 51, (4) Paul left Corinth for Ephesus in AD 52, and went back to Jerusalem while Aquila and Priscilla remained in Ephesus, (5) Acts 18:26--Priscilla and Aquila correct Apollos in the knowledge of the gospel, (6) in spring of 56 they are still in Ephesus when Paul returns on his third missionary journey (1 Cor. 16:19), (7) in the winter of 56-57 they are in Rome when Paul writes to the Romans from Corinth, and (8) in the autumn of 67 they are in Ephesus again when Paul writes (2 Tim. 4:19).
19 See its description by Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (Second Edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 1968), pp. 37-38.
20 See Guthrie’s discussion (NTI, pp. 405-406).
21 Guthrie, NTI, pp. 409-413.
22 As Guthrie says, “For this reason Paul deals with the fundamental Christian principle of ‘righteousness’ as contrasted with the Jewish approach, and then discusses the problem of Israel’s failure and her relationship to the universal Christian Church” (NTI, p. 399).
Paul desires to promote unity in the body. Therefore he more fully defends his message against Judaizers in Rome. He himself is in a context of personal Jewish opposition (Acts 20:3). Paul does acknowledge the priority of the Jews (1:16; 2:9-10) as well as the advantage of being a Jew (3:1-2; 9:4-5), but he emphasizes that God is God of the Jews and the Gentiles (3:29-30), that God has temporarily halted His program for rebellious Israel (9--11), and that a believing remnant will continue (11:5) until the full number of Gentiles comes in (11:25). Therefore, God is seen as being good in his universal plan of salvation (3:26).
23 But this is also a natural pattern for Paul to address the theoretical (1--11) before the practical (12--15).
24 The decree from Claudius was against Jews living in Rome (Acts 18:2). Paul often addresses benefits of being a Jew throughout his letter (1:16; 2:9-10; 3:1-2; 9--11). Perhaps in doing this he was combating a natural movement among the Roman Gentiles.
25 This is interpreting the genative (θεοῦ) as objective (righteousness as God’s gift) rather than subjective (e.g., righteousness as God’s activity). This is a very difficult decision; see Cranfield for some in-depth discussion concerning these two views (Romans, 1:96-99). Righteousness is the moral character of God reflected in the gospel. All righteousness is a revelation of who God is. But Paul is emphasizing the righteous status which is given to men by God throughout the letter (cf. Rom. 5:17; 10:3; Phil. 3:9; 2 Cor. 5:21).
Related Topics: Introductions, Arguments, Outlines
1. Church Leadership: The Purposes Of The Church
Related MediaWhen discussing the topic of the philosophy of church leadership, we must understand first and foremost that we don’t make this up. We don’t sit down and try to put together our own philosophy or mission. Rather, we seek to follow the mandate for the church and its leaders as set out in the Scriptures.
It is imperative that, as pastors and church leaders, we understand and be able to articulate a biblical philosophy of ministry, since that is our vocation - if we don’t know what ministry is about, how can we effectively do it? Since the church is the entity in which we conduct our ministry, we need to understand the biblical theology of the church and its ministry in order to be able to lead it in conformity with its biblical mandate.
In order to properly formulate a biblical philosophy of ministry we begin with a biblical theology of the church (its origins; its purposes; its functions; its mandate). As Alex Montoya asks, “How can a pastor minister effectively if he cannot identify, clarify, simplify, and execute the purposes of the church he leads?” (Alex D. Montoya, “Approaching Pastoral Ministry Scripturally” in Rediscovering Pastoral Ministry (Nashville: W Publication Group, a division of Thomas Nelson Inc., 1995), 65).
A “Philosophy of Ministry” focuses us on what we are supposed to be doing. What do you think are the primary purposes of the church? The following texts will help you summarize the purposes of the church: Matt. 22:37-40; Matt. 28:19-20; Acts 1:8; Acts 2:41-47; Eph. 3:21; 4:12-16; Phil. 1:27-30; Col. 1:28; 1 Thess. 1:1-10; Heb. 13:15-16.
Alex Montoya lists 6 ministries of the Christian church:
(1) The ministry of the gospel (Acts 6:5; Rom. 15:16; 2 Tim. 4:6)
(2) The ministry of holy living (Rom. 12:1-2; 1 Pet. 1:12-16)
(3) The ministry of prayer (Acts 6:6; 13:2-3; 1 Tim. 5:5; Rev. 4:8, 10, 11)
(4) The ministry of serving others (Rom. 12:1-8; Phil. 2:17, 30; Heb. 13:16)
(5) The ministry of gratitude (Eph. 5:19-20; Col. 3:16-17; Heb. 12:28; 13:15)
(6) The ministry of giving (Rom. 15:27; 2 Cor. 9:12; Phil. 2:4; 4:18; Heb. 13:16).
By way of introduction to our topic and for the sake of simplicity, we will study the basic purposes of the church under the following four headings:
I. The Great Commandment
II. The Great Commission
III. A Great Church
IV. A Great Prayer
I. The Great Commandment (Matt. 22:37-40)
A. Worship - “You shall love the Lord with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind” (Matt. 22:37).
If you ask people what the number 1 task of the church is, they will often say: “To evangelize.” But I think the Bible makes clear that the first and foremost purpose of the church is not to evangelize people but to worship God (cf. Ex. 7:16; Eph. 1:6a, 12b, 14b). Worship comes before service, and worship generates service. It is among, through, and in his people that God is truly worshipped (1 Pet. 2:9), both individually (e.g. Ex. 34:8; Josh. 5:13-15) and corporately (Acts 2:42; 1 Cor. 5:4).
B. Service – “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Matt. 22:39).
Ministry is demonstrating God’s love to others by meeting their needs and healing their hurts in the name of Jesus, whether they are people who attend our church or non-churched people. Jesus said his ministry purpose in terms of serving: “I came not to be served but to serve” (Matt. 20:28; cf. Mk. 10:45; Jn. 13:1-17).
II. The Great Commission (Matt. 28:19-20).
The first step in making disciples is…
A. Preaching The Gospel (Evangelism, Missions).
“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations” (Matt. 28:19a). Making disciples really involves the whole spectrum of church ministry but it starts with evangelism. Evangelism is not optional - it is commanded by Jesus (cf. Matthew 28:19-20; Mark 16:15; Luke 24:47-40; John 20:21; Acts 1:8; also Jn. 17:18). Evangelism is a mandatory church ministry, first in its own immediate community (Jerusalem) and then beyond to other regions (Rom. 15:18-29). In its own community the entire Jerusalem church was involved with evangelism. In the regions beyond, certain men were commissioned to carry it out (Acts 13:1-3).
Evangelism is the responsibility of the church – not just individual evangelists. In Paul’s terms it is something we do, not just because we are commanded to do it but because we are internally compelled to share the gospel (1 Cor. 9:16-18). Evangelism is at the heartbeat of the church (Lk. 24:45-48). Evangelism is not merely sending money to missionaries overseas - that’s easy. It’s actually doing it ourselves. A significant part of pastoral ministry involves motivating the church to be engaged with and active in evangelism.
The fruit of evangelism is baptism: “…baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19b). Baptism is the public confession of one’s faith in Christ. Biblically, one’s verbal confession of faith and public confession of faith via baptism really go together.
So then, what is the purpose of baptism and what does it express? My answer is that baptism is the public, symbolic, and experiential declaration of the conscious reality of one’s salvation, expressed in two relationships…
a) Union with Christ. Baptism is the practical sign of salvation through symbolic union with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection.
b) Union with the body of Christ. Baptism is the public identification with, accountability to, and fellowship with other believers through incorporation into, identity and union with the body of Christ.
Baptism can be described as a sign, a seal, and a symbol:
a) A sign of salvation because it marks you as a disciple of Christ.
b) A seal of salvation because it is the experiential statement (confession) of faith, rather than only a verbal statement of faith.
c) A symbol of salvation because it represents our death and resurrection with Christ.
The second step in making disciples is…
B. Teaching The Truth (Edification, Discipleship).
“…teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Matt. 28:19c). The church exists to edify, build up, and educate God’s people. It is the church’s responsibility to develop people to spiritual maturity.
One of the church’s duties is “equip the saints for the work of the ministry” (Eph. 4:12) by utilizing each person’s gifts (cf. 1 Cor. 12:4-31; Eph. 4:11-16; 2 Tim. 4:2).
III. A Great Church (Acts 2:42-47)
The best example of the purpose of the church is found in the first church at Jerusalem described in Acts 2:1-47. They learned together, fellowshipped together, worshiped together, prayed together, served together, and evangelized together on a continuous basis.
Today the purpose of the church is unchanged. A great church is a Spirit-filled church ...
A. A Spirit-Filled Church Is Devoted To Continuous Learning.
“And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ doctrine” (2:42a). The apostles were their teachers and they persevered in what they learned. This is edification, discipleship.
Pastoral ministry must be committed to continuously teaching the Word. This is fundamental to the purpose of the church. It begins with teaching the apostles’ doctrine. (cf. Eph. 4:7-16; Col. 1:24-29).
B. A Spirit-Filled Church Is Devoted To Continuous Fellowship.
“And they devoted themselves to… the fellowship” (2:42b). What is fellowship? How do you create and encourage it? This has to do with mutual encouragement and relationships. Pastoral ministry must create an environment and the opportunity for fellowship among believers.
C. A Spirit-Filled Church Is Devoted To Continuous Worship.
“And they devoted themselves to…the breaking of bread” (2:42c). Worship is rendering to God his “worth-ship.” This is the exaltation of God. We were created to worship God (Eph. 1:6, 12, 14; 1 Pet. 2:4, 9). Our worship of God is first expressed in our love for God which manifests itself in total submission to him in thought, attitude, behavior, and speech. As John Piper puts it: “God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him” (John Piper, Desiring God, 9).
Worship is a lifelong, daily occupation. We worship God individually and collectively. The church is the collective community in which we worship and work together (cf. 1 Cor. 3:16; 1 Pet. 2:5). Robert Saucy says: “The ultimate purpose of the church is the worship of the one who called it into being” (Robert L. Saucy, The Church in God’s Program, 166).
D. A Spirit-Filled Church Is Devoted To Continuous Prayer.
“And they devoted themselves to…the prayers” (2:42d). “The” prayers refers to either specific prayers or prayer times. Prayer was the constant focus of their lives, a communal event – corporate, systematic, and intentional (cf. Acts 6:6; 13:2-3; 1 Tim. 5:5; Rev. 4:8, 10-11). Prayer is thus (1) The basic building block of the church; (2) The power that moves the church forward; and (3) The measuring rod of a church’s spiritual vitality and reality.
E. A Spirit-Filled Church Is Devoted To Continuous Unity (2:44-47).
1. Unity in caring (2:44-45). “And all who believed were together and had all things in common and they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need.”
They were united physically – they were “together.” They were united practically - “had all things common.” They worked together, caring for each other together, ministering to the community together. The tendency today is to forsake being together and stress individuality. Some people even think they don’t need to belong to a church or attend church to worship God. They think they can do it through a TV program. Evidently this also became a problem in the early church (Heb. 10:25). Fellowship and togetherness is vitally important in the ministry of the church.
2. Unity in testimony (2:46-47). Their united testimony was…
a) Public: “Day by day they attended the temple together.”
b) Private: “…breaking bread in their homes.”
c) Joyful and sincere: “…they received their food with gladness and generous hearts.”
d) Expressed in worship: “…praising God.”
e) Respected by the world: “…having favor with all people.”
f) Rewarded in conversions: “And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.”
Unity is both the strength and the weakness of the church. Why is it the strength of the church? Because unity enhances our energy (not spent on squabbling), preserves our enthusiasm (not distracted by extraneous activities), sharpens our focus (all pulling in the same direction), and accelerates our purpose (the sum of the parts is greater than the whole).
Why, then, is unity also the weakness of the church? Because our flesh prefers individual initiative over corporate purpose and because the church’s unity is Satan’s primary target of attack. He knows that his best offensive in attacking the church’s purposes is to destroy our unity.
With this in mind, Jesus prayed for the unity and protection of his people - of his disciples back then and of his people throughout the future age. Let’s look at that part of Jesus’ high priestly prayer that deals with the church’s unity in John 17:20-23...
IV. A Great Prayer For Unity (John 17:20-23).
Why do people unite? People unite for various reasons: common circumstances, common beliefs, common interests, common goals, common concerns (e.g. about social and governmental acts).
What happens when people unite? When people unite they focus on a common object, they gain strength from each other, their abilities are multiplied, their resources are expanded, their energies are shared.
When Christians unite we can do so much. We can accomplish tasks that individually we could never do. We can have a powerful impact on other people who would otherwise not take any notice.
In John 17, Jesus prays for Christian unity. This high priestly prayer divides into three parts:
1. Jesus prays for himself (17:1-5).
2. Jesus prays for his present disciples (17:6-19) – for their oneness (17:11) and for their preservation in the world (17:15).
3. Jesus prays for his future disciples (17:20-26).
Jesus’ emphasis in John 17 is that Christian unity is a formidable force to impact the world for God by continuing Jesus’ mission.
Christians are those who hold a common belief in Jesus: “I do not ask for these only (i.e. his original disciples) but also for those who will believe in me through their word” (17:20). It’s as though Jesus scans the centuries and sees all Christians – present and future (“those who will believe in me”) - just as if they had all been saved at that moment, that great spiritual community of faith that is held together by a common belief in Jesus. This belief in Jesus is made possible “through their word.” All future generations of disciples would believe the message that the original disciples had received from Jesus, a message that reveals God to us (vv. 6, 8), a message that has been recorded for us in holy Scripture and preached to all subsequent generations. That same message forms the basis of belief and proclamation for all Christians of all time.
Jesus’ desire is the unity of those who believe in him: “…that they may all be one” (17:21a). Notice that this statement is inclusive of “all” but it is exclusive to only “those who believe” (17:20).
Jesus knew very well that unity would be the Achilles’ heel of Christians, that we would bicker and fight and argue rather than serve, love, and obey. And so he prays that the entire body of all believers of all time (from the first disciples down through church history until the end) will be united in their testimony to the world.
Jesus prays for the unity of all Christians because…
A. Christian Unity Impacts The World For God Through The Presence Of Divine Life (17:21).
“…that they all may be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in You (17:21b).
1. It’s a unity like that of the Father and the Son (cf. 6:37; 14:10) - not temporal but eternal, not external but internal, not essentially physical in nature but spiritual, not merely an ethical unity (i.e. of duty or deed) but a unity so intimate, so vital, so personal that it is patterned after and based on the relationship which exists between the persons of the Trinity.
It’s a unity like the Godhead - distinct but inseparable. Jesus is at the same time one with the Father in being yet distinct from the Father in person. Jesus and the Father are one in thought, purpose, and action. There never was (nor ever will be) a difference or disunity between them. Of course, believers are not one in essence in the same way that the Father and Son are – they cannot be - but we can and must be one in thought, purpose, and action. This is the kind of unity Jesus prays for among believers - distinct in person (the church is not a cult where each individual’s personality gets lost in the crowd) but inseparable in thought, purpose, and action.
Christian unity, then, is like the unity of the Father and the Son, and ...
2. Christian unity finds its source in the Father and the Son. It isn’t simply that “they may be one” but “that they also may be one in us” (17:21c). This unity is only possible because of our inclusion in the unity of the Father and the Son as his sons and daughters by faith. Just as the branch abides in the vine (see John 15), derives its life from the vine and bears the fruit of the vine, so believers abide in the Father and Son. Our life is in them and the fruit of our lives bears testimony to that reality. We are dependent upon and inseparably united with the Father and Son for life and effectiveness in the world.
Only Christians are “in” the Father and “in” the Son. And only those who are in the Father and the Son are spiritually one - one in fellowship, testimony, purpose, belief. This unity is not created by an external organization, nor by a creed or customs, laws or liturgy. Rather, it is a deep, vital relationship the pattern of which is the Father and Son and the power that brings it about is the abiding of all believers “in us,” Jesus says.
The relationship that exists between Jesus and the Father must be reflected among Christian believers. We are to be living examples of the divine unity and divine life of the Father and the Son. It’s this foundation that gives God’s people stability, purpose, perseverance, endurance, and resistance to attack and discouragement.
Do you experience this unity in your church fellowship? A unity that supersedes normal human affinities and ties. A unity that is evidently formed on and established in something far beyond your abilities and expectation. A unity that is connected with the Godhead. A unity through the presence of divine life.
Is Jesus’ prayer answered in your church? Do you enjoy a unity that stems from your connection with the life of God, divine life itself? Christian unity impacts the world for God through the presence of divine life in us!
That’s what Jesus prays for, Christian unity. Christian unity is a unity like that of the Father and the Son. Christian unity finds its source in the Father and the Son, and …
3. Christian unity has as its purpose the transformation of the world: “...so that the world may believe that You sent Me” (17:21d). Jesus says in effect, “Christian unity will impact the world for God by continuing my mission,” a mission to convince the world that Jesus is the sent one from the Father.
Jesus wants the world to believe in his mission and message, that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world (1 Jn. 4:14), that the Father sent the Son to make God known to us. The united belief of Christians leads to belief in the world, belief in Christ’s mission and message, belief in the truth of who Jesus is, the sent one from God.
A united Christian community manifests to the world that the life of Christ (divine life itself) is in us. This is a powerful testimony that convinces the world of the truth of Christ’s redemptive mission in the world. When our unity expresses the unity of the Godhead, when our unity reflects the relationship between the Father and the Son and our relationship with them, when our unity displays the presence of divine life in us, then the world will believe our message. Then the world will be convinced of the reality of Christ’s redemption because that is the only plausible explanation for such unity.
Our unity must be of such a character that the world takes notice of it and draws the conclusion that Jesus must be who he said he was – God manifest in flesh, to whom we are inseparably united. The united life and testimony of God’s people should cause the world to want what we have and to believe what we believe, because in us they see the truth of Christ’s atoning death and the value of the Christian life.
When God's people present a common front, we can exert great power and influence in the world. When we show in our lives that we have been with Jesus, our attitudes and actions will point to him as the source of our strength. When we do that, the world will believe that Jesus is the sent one from God. But if we are divided by conflict, the world will discredit our testimony because a divided Christian community denies by its behavior the very message it proclaims.
The uniting factor, as Don Carson points out, “is not achieved by hunting for the lowest common theological denominator but by common adherence to the apostolic gospel, by love that is joyfully self-sacrificing, by undaunted commitment to the shared goals of the mission with which Jesus’ followers have been charged, by self-conscious dependence on God himself for life and fruitfulness” (D. A. Carson, “The Gospel According To John,” The Pillar New Testament Commentary, 568).
Is your unity like that? Is your church impacting the world for Christ? If I were to ask your community what their impression is of your church, what would they say? Is your union with the Father and the Son so visibly lived out as a community of believers that the world takes notice? The express purpose of Christian unity is to testify to the reality of the message that the Father sent the Son to make God and his redemption in Christ known. The more we manifest the life of Christ and the unity that comes from him the more we will correspond to the unity that Christ desires of us and the more we will impact the world around us. If there is one thing the world wants and desperately needs it’s unity - unity of relationship and unity of life.
So, Christian unity impacts the world for God through the presence of divine life in us. And...
B. Christian Unity Impacts The World For God Through The Evidence Of Divine Glory (17:4, 22-23, 28).
1. Jesus glorified the Father: “I have glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do” (Jn. 17:4). And again, “‘Father, glorify your name.’ Then came there a voice from heaven saying, ‘I have both glorified it and will glorify it again’” (Jn. 12:28). Indeed, in his person and his life Jesus was “the radiance of God’s glory” (Heb. 1:3).
The glory of the Father was “in” the Son. God was “in Christ” reconciling the world to himself (2 Cor. 5:19). They were “one” in this work. It was the glory of the Father that Jesus came to manifest to the world by displaying the very nature and character of God. He perfectly manifested the glory of the Father who was in him and in so doing he displayed their perfect unity.
So, too, we are to glorify God. The Son’s glory was to manifest the Father. And that same glory Jesus gives to his disciples – to manifest the life of God in us, which manifestation is evidence of our unity with God and with each other.
When all believers reveal the glory of the Son as the Son revealed the glory of the Father then Jesus’ prayer will become reality - we will be perfectly one; the chain will be complete; the Father in the Son and the Son in all believers.
We can and must reveal the glory of God…
a) … through displaying a united relationship with Him.
b) …through declaring a united message he has given us.
c) … through living a united life that bears witness to him. That’s our mandate before the world, our commission, to bear witness to Jesus in his relationship with the Father and our relationship with Him.
2. Jesus received glory from the Father: “The glory that you have given me… (17:22a). What was the glory that the Father gave to Jesus?...
a) Jesus received glory from God the Father on account of his person. Peter says of Jesus: “He received from God the Father honour and glory when that voice came to Him from the excellent glory: ‘This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased’” (2 Pet. 1:17).
b) Jesus received glory from God on account of his work. Peter says that God the Father gave Jesus glory when “he raised him from the dead” (1 Pet. 1:20-21). This was the glory of full acceptance by God of Jesus’ atoning sacrifice at Calvary’s cross.
c) Jesus received glory from God on account of his position. “God also has highly exalted him and given him a name that is above every name that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow” (Phil. 2:9-10).
d) Jesus received glory from God on account of his deity. “He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature” (Heb. 1:3) – i.e. Jesus fully and perfectly manifested God to the world.
So, first, Jesus glorified the Father. Second, Jesus received glory from the Father. And…
(3) Jesus has given that same glory to us: “The glory that you have given me I have given to them” (17:22). He has not only communicated to us his divine life but also his divine glory. The glory that God gave to the Son “has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 4:6). we have received the glory of God in Jesus Christ.
“The Word was made flesh, and dwelled among us (John says), and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth (Jn.1:14). Christians are to display that same grace and truth of Christ and as we do the world takes notice.
Paul puts it this way: “We all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord as in a mirror, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another” (2 Cor. 3:18). We are being transformed into the image of Christ (Rom. 8:29) and the world takes notice.
So, Jesus has given the glory of the Father to us and…
a) The evidence of divine glory in us unites us: “The glory that you have given me I have given them, that they may be one even as we are one” (17:22). The presence of divine life and evidence of divine glory in us testify to the world of a unity that finds its source in God. And the key to that unity is that Jesus himself is the connecting link between the Father and us: “I in them and You in Me” (17:23a). He is the connecting link in the chain of two overlapping unities: (1) The Father’s unity with Him; and (2) His unity with his people in the world (cf. 17:21; 14:20f).
And as a progression of thought, Jesus adds: “…that they may be made completely (perfectly) one” (17:23b). Not just any old oneness, not a oneness marred by human imperfections, but a oneness that is being “made perfectly one” by the mutual indwelling of the Father in Christ and Christ in us. That’s the link that fuses us into one perfect entity.
This perfection will take place when the unity of divine life and divine glory are both fully evident in us, when we will be knitted together as one - no chinks in the armor, no weak links in the chain.
Do you reveal the glory of God before the world? Do they see Christ in your unity in such a powerful way that they are convinced of who He is? Though we do not display that glory perfectly now, we will display it perfectly in a day to come “when he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints” (2 Thess. 1:10).
The evidence of divine glory in us not only unites us, but also…
b) The evidence of divine glory in us convicts the world. Jesus’ desire is now twofold. As before, he desires “that the world may know that you sent me” (17:23c). The evidence of his glory in believers (just like the presence of divine life in believers) convinces the world of the reality of Christ’s mission. The unity of Christians (through the evidence of God’s glory in us) will have such a powerful impact on the world that they will “know” (not just believe but know based on the evidence) that he came from God, that he is the self-revelation of God to the world.
And now Jesus adds: “...that the world may know (not only that you have sent me, but also) … that you have loved them (his disciples) as you have loved me” (17:23d). The unity of believers is evidence of the love of God for his own. It’s a love like the love of the Father for the Son, a deep, abiding, eternal love, a love because we are “in” the Son, secure, united with him and in him. Our unity is a public witness, an announcement to the world, that Jesus is God’s well-beloved Son and that God’s love rests upon us as on his own Son (cf. Eph. 3:17ff; Jn. 5:20; 14:21; 15:9). So the purpose of Jesus’ mission is complete, that “the world may believe” (17:21) and “know that you (the Father) sent me” (17:23). It’s the radiance of the life of Christ and the glory of God beaming from millions of Christian lives that convicts the world that God sent Jesus Christ to make himself known.
Do you realize how powerful that testimony is? Does the love of God radiate from your church and your life? Are you united in displaying this love to others? If you are, you will have a powerful effect on your community. Do you understand how this vitally affects your connection with the world? Do you see how Christian unity is a formidable force to impact the world for God by continuing Jesus’ mission? In fact, I believe that the united testimony of the New Testament is that the purpose of the church is to continue Christ’s work in the world.
Final Remarks
Jesus says he was not praying for the world “but for those whom you have given me” (Jn. 17:9) – i.e. “those who will believe in me through their word” (17:20). But Jesus had not abandoned or lost interest in the world. Rather, his prayer is that through the presence of divine life and through the evidence of divine glory, the unity of believers will be so convincing and convicting, that the world may believe (17:21) and know (17:23) that the Father sent the Son. His prayer is that Christian unity will impact the world for God by continuing His mission down here. God’s love for the world was the heartbeat of Jesus mission and his prayer is for those through whom his mission in the world would continue and expand, “bringing belief and knowledge to the world concerning God” (G. Campbell Morgan, “The Gospel According To John,” 273).
Notice that Jesus does not pray for uniformity of practice (i.e. the absolute similarity of organization, style, personality, appearance) or for unanimity of thought (i.e. the absolute agreement of opinion within a group of people) or for unity of denomination or creed (i.e. religious affiliation) or for unity of nationality, musical preferences, or educational backgrounds. Merril C. Tenney wrote: “Within the church of historic Christianity there have been wide divergences of opinion and ritual. Unity, however, prevails wherever there is a deep and genuine experience of Christ; for the fellowship of the new birth transcends all historical and denominational boundaries. Paul of Tarsus, Luther of Germany, Wesley of England, and Moody of America would find deep unity with each other, though they are widely separated by time, space, by nationality, by educational background, and by ecclesiastical connections.”
Jesus prays for a unity of spiritual life that binds us together, a oneness of heart in faith and purpose, a oneness that is based on a common belief, a oneness that is derived from a common divine life that fuses together each person’s being yet retains their individuality, a oneness which only the Holy Spirit can bring about and that is only achieved through faith in, and love for, Jesus Christ, a oneness that comes from life within not from pressure without. Remember, Christian unity is a formidable force to impact the world for God by continuing Jesus’ mission.
So let me encourage you to “keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:8), to pray that we, as the people of God, will be united in thought and object to glorify God with the express purpose of connecting with the world so that they may know and believe the message that “God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16).
Related Topics: Ecclesiology (The Church), Issues in Church Leadership/Ministry, Leadership
Biblical Models Of Christian Leadership
For a companion series by Roger Pascoe on Christian Leadership check out his series on Church Leadership here.
Related Topics: Issues in Church Leadership/Ministry, Pastors
Church Leadership
For a companion series by Roger Pascoe on Christian Leadership check out his series on Biblical Models Of Christian Leadership.
When discussing the topic of the philosophy of church leadership, we must understand first and foremost that we don’t make this up. We don’t sit down and try to put together our own philosophy or mission. Rather, we seek to follow the mandate for the church and its leaders as set out in the Scriptures.
It is imperative that, as pastors and church leaders, we understand and be able to articulate a biblical philosophy of ministry, since that is our vocation - if we don’t know what ministry is about, how can we effectively do it? Since the church is the entity in which we conduct our ministry, we need to understand the biblical theology of the church and its ministry in order to be able to lead it in conformity with its biblical mandate.
Related Topics: Ecclesiology (The Church), Issues in Church Leadership/Ministry, Leadership
2. Church Leadership: Formulating A Biblical Philosophy Of Church Ministry
Related MediaWe talk about ministry as though it is self-evident what that term means and implies. As a general statement, we could say that Christian ministry is the activity and responsibility of the local church in the fulfillment of its biblically defined mandate in the world.
In this article, I am going to try to briefly define my biblical philosophy of church ministry by addressing the following questions: What is the purpose of ministry? What is “church” all about? Why does the church exist? These are fundamental questions that a biblical theology of ministry must answer.
I. What Is Church Ministry?
Further to what we saw in Part 1 of this series, the purposes of church ministry in their most basic form may be summarized as follows…
A. Obeying Jesus’ Commands.
1. The Great Commandment (Matt. 22:37, 39).
a) Worship of God.
b) Service for God.
2. The Great Commission (Matt. 28:19-20).
a) Preaching the gospel.
b) Teaching the truth.
B. Imitating The Early Church (Acts 2:42-47).
1. Teaching the apostle’s doctrine
2. Engaging in fellowship
3. Commemorating the breaking of bread
4. Praying together
5. Caring for one another
6. Worshipping God together
7. Actively evangelizing the community
C. Equipping The Saints (Eph. 4:12-15).
1. For the work for the ministry (4:12a)
2. For the edifying of the body of Christ…
a) “…until we all come to the unity of the faith and the knowledge of God’s Son, to mature adulthood, to the measure of the stature of Christ’s fullness” (Eph. 4:12b-15).
b) “…so that we may present everyone mature in Christ” (Col. 1:28; cf. also 1 Thess. 2:19).
D. Fulfilling Jesus’ Prayer (John 17:20-23).
1. For Christian unity through the presence of divine life.
2. For Christian unity through the evidence of divine glory.
From these summary texts and the broad scope of Scripture, it is evident that Christian ministry has as its priority, the worship of God followed by service for God in (1) the proclamation of the gospel, the fruit of which is the baptism of repentant sinners, and (2) the edification of the saints, all of which must be done within the context of Christian unity. These parameters continue to be the basis of biblical, balanced ministry today.
II. Why Formulate A Biblical Philosophy Of Ministry?
The tendency is for us to make up our own philosophy of ministry, based on our own concept of what the church is supposed to do and be. The truth is, however, that God has clearly laid out for us in Scripture what the ministry of the church is. We don’t decide on the mandate of the church - why the church exists (its purpose) and what it is supposed to do (its mission) - because the mandate of the church is already addressed and defined in the Bible. The Head of the church has already prescribed for us who we are and what we are to do because the church is his body on earth, his household, his family, his living entity on earth, not ours!
Our responsibility is to determine how to most effectively and appropriately achieve the biblical mandate we have been given in our local community and around the world at our time and place in history.
A helpful way to approach this is (1) to outline the biblical mandate; (2) to compare the biblical mandate to your actual ministry; and (3) to set goals to fulfill what is missing and / or to improve what you are not doing well. As one commentator has said: “Ministry does not exist independent of the church but rather as the means for fulfilling the purpose of the church” (Alex D. Montoya, “Approaching Pastoral Ministry Scripturally” in Rediscovering Pastoral Ministry, 66). It would take another series of lectures to outline a process for analyzing your church’s present ministry, setting goals etc. Suffice it to say here that it is vital to formulate a biblical theology of ministry to enable your church leadership to conduct an objective analysis of your church’s ministry in the light of its biblical mandate in order to ensure that your church is ministering effectively and fully according to its biblical mandate and mission.
III. What Is A Philosophy Of Ministry?
A philosophy of ministry is…
1. A simple a statement that consolidates and synthesizes the biblical material on the subject in systematic form (i.e. under certain appropriate headings).
2. A yardstick by which to measure the progress of your ministry.
3. A benchmark by which to assess the degree to which you are achieving your ministry responsibilities.
4. A structure that helps you to decide every course of ministry action in your church.
IV. The Benefits Of Defining A Biblical Philosophy Of Ministry
(Adapted From Alex Montoya, Approaching Pastoral Ministry Scripturally, In “Rediscovering Pastoral Ministry,” John Macarthur Ed., 66-67)
1. It forces us to be biblical. This keeps us from making up our own philosophy which might be unbiblical. When we impose our own philosophy over the biblical teaching of ministry, we begin to move away from God’s foundation and become focused on our personal goals, pet ministries, etc.
2. It makes practical sense. It helps us set actual goals that are consistent with our biblical mandate (cf. 1 Cor. 9:26) so that our philosophy of ministry becomes practical in our culture and community in our time.
3. It improves efficiency by preventing us from spending time on activities which are not part of the biblical mandate for the church. It defines the limits (scope) of current ministries and it is a measuring stick by which to make decisions regarding potential new ministry activities.
4. It heightens our effectiveness. If we have no clearly defined operational or philosophical parameters, then we won’t have clearly defined, achievable goals that are consistent with those parameters. We won’t have a road map, therefore, we won’t know where we are going, and, consequently, we probably won’t get to where we need to be. The early church knew exactly why they existed and where they were going and all their activity was focused on achieving those ends.
5. It helps us, as pastors, to stay on track. Ministry is a vocation in which it is very easy to get caught up with activities that are not necessary or are not part of the church’s biblical program on earth. We need to keep on course in our own ministry, doing what God has called us, gifted us, and mandated us to do.
6. It motivates the church to conduct itself in accordance with God’s plan for the church.
III. My Personal Biblical Philosophy (Theology) Of Church Ministry
Taking into account the purposes of the church as we have already defined them above, I have organized my personal theology of church ministry under seven headings. The sequence in which these topics are presented is not intended to indicate their order of priority but simply to provide you with systematic headings for these essential aspects of a biblically-based church ministry.
A. The Foundation For Ministry Is The Authority Of Scripture (2 Tim. 3:16-17).
The Bible is our ultimate authority for faith and practice. Therefore, the accurate and relevant teaching and preaching of God’s Word is central to who we are and what we do (e.g. Acts 2:42a; 2 Tim. 4:2; Col 1:28; 1 Cor. 1:23; 2:1-5; 1 Tim. 4:11). The exposition and application of the Scriptures is fundamental to the spiritual growth and development of God’s people (2 Tim. 3:16-17; 4:2-4; Eph. 4:11-16; Col. 1:28).
It is the responsibility of the pastor (and others who have the gift of preaching and teaching) to instruct God’s people in the “whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27). This is best done by systematically preaching and teaching through books of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, so that the scope of Scripture is covered. Such preaching and teaching should…
1. Nourish God’s people with spiritual food that they need to “grow in grace and the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ” (2 Pet. 3:18).
2. Equip the saints “for the work of the ministry” (Eph. 4:12-16).
3. Build up the body of Christ in their “most holy faith” (Jude 20).
The pulpit ministry, while very important, is only part of the whole process of Christian education and nourishment. I believe that the education, exhortation, and encouragement of believers takes place in a balanced environment of personal study, small groups, individual mentoring and discipleship, and pulpit ministry. What is of paramount importance is that the Word is preached and taught accurately and relevantly. “If the Word is taught, the church will grow in faith and love (Rom. 10:17) … The church leaders must see to it that God’s people continually devote themselves to the study and practice of the Word of God” (Montoya, 78-79).
Expository preaching is the biblical model for the public proclamation of God's Word. The term “expository preaching” is often misunderstood and associated with the clinical, dry exegesis of Scripture. However, that is not fair or accurate. Expository preaching, properly defined and practiced, is “the proclamation of God's Word in the power of the Holy Spirit, that explains its meaning accurately and clearly, and that applies its message relevantly and concretely to contemporary life, with a view to generating a spiritually life-transforming response from the hearers” (my definition). Paul’s exhortation is probably the shortest and simplest definition of true expository preaching: “Preach the Word” (1 Tim. 4:23).
B. The Confidence For Ministry Is Prayer (Acts 2:42d).
An active and dynamic prayer ministry is vital for the survival and growth of each individual believer and the church body. A prayer ministry should be diverse in its form (e.g. small groups, prayer partners, corporate prayer), broad in its objectives, and widespread throughout the church body. Prayer should be part of the life of the church body on a consistent basis (cf. Acts 1:14; 3:1; 4:23-31; 6:4; 10:9; 12:5; 1 Thess. 5:17) and must begin with the example of the church leaders (Acts 6:4).
Among other things, the church is to pray for its leaders (1 Thess. 5:25; 2 Thess. 3:1), pray for one another (James 5:16), pray for the authorities (1 Tim. 2:1-2), pray for the widespread and bold proclamation of the gospel (Eph. 6:18-20; 2 Thess. 3:1), pray for those who are sick (James 5:14-16), and pray for the unity and testimony of the church (Jn. 17:11-23).
We can learn much about the form and content of our prayers from the example of the apostle Paul’s prayers (Eph. 1:15-23; 3:14-21; Phil. 1:2-11; Col. 1:3-14; 1 Thess. 5:23; 2 Thess. 1:3-5, 11-12).
C. The Power For Ministry Is The Holy Spirit (Acts 1:8).
The Holy Spirit alone can and does make the ministry of the church effective and powerful. He alone changes people’s lives by bringing people into submission to and faith in Christ. He alone changes people’s lives into conformity with the will of God and into the image of God's Son (Rom. 8:29; Col. 1:9). The Holy Spirit alone has the power (1) to convict people of sin (Jn. 16:8) and grant them new life in Christ (Jn. 3:5; Tit. 3:5); (2) to enable us to live holy lives (1 Cor. 6:19; 1 Pet. 1:2); (3) to pray effectively (Rom. 8: 26; Jude 20); (4) to minister the Word with power (1 Cor. 2:1-5; 1 Thess. 1:5-6); (5) to glorify God in our lives (1 Cor. 6:20); and (6) to illuminate our understanding of God's Word (1 Cor. 2:13-16; 1 Jn. 2:20, 27).
D. The Bond Of Ministry Is The Fellowship Of Believers (Acts 2:42-47).
Our common bond in Christ is the source of our fellowship and our unity. Through fellowship believers express the local representation of the body of Christ (1 Jn. 1:7; Rom. 12:5; Eph. 3:6; 4:15-16; 5:23; Col. 1:18, 24; 1 Cor. 12:27). When believers are interconnected through authentic, loving relationships, they form a unity that provides strength and stability to the church (Eph. 4:1-6). This fellowship is demonstrated practically by serving and caring for one another physically (e.g. visiting and caring for the sick and elderly), emotionally and psychologically by bearing one another’s burdens (Gal. 6:2), economically by supporting those in need through the gift of mercy (Rom. 12:8, 13) and, of course, spiritually by using our gifts for the benefit of all (Eph. 4:12-16).
The care of God’s people is the responsibility of the local, denominational, and worldwide church, in which all the members of the body care for the interests of each other, supporting each other in practical ways, in prayer, and in love (cf. Acts 4:32-37; 6:1ff.; 1 Cor. 12:25; Gal. 5:13; 6:2; Eph. 4:32; 5:21). As Gene Getz succinctly states it: “Christians cannot grow effectively in isolation! They need to experience each other” (in “Sharpening the Focus of the Church,” 164). Church leaders, therefore, should ensure that the church body engages in regular fellowship as a community of believers with a common life in Christ, common goals, common needs, and common interests.
E. The Expression Of Ministry Is Intimate Worship Of God (Heb. 13:15).
In worship the church expresses collectively its awe of God and its debt of gratitude to God for who he is and what he has done. Don Carson describes worship as “the proper response of all moral, sentient beings to God, ascribing all honour and worth to their Creator-God precisely because he is worthy, delightfully so” (“Worship by the Book,” ed. D.A. Carson, 12). Vibrant and dynamic worship is vital to the life and health of the church as a body and its members individually. Worship must be a lifelong, daily practice for all believers individually in order for corporate worship to be effective and meaningful.
What does public worship include? Public worship includes (1) praise to God in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs (Eph. 5:19); (2) reading Scripture (1 Tim. 4:13); (3) prayer (Acts 2:42; Eph. 6:18; 1 Tim. 2:1); (4) preaching the Word and our response to it (1 Cor. 1:21; Titus 1:1-3; 2 Cor. 5:19-20; Heb. 4:12); (5) observing the ordinances - communion (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 11:23-26; Matt. 26:26-28) and baptism (Acts 2:37-38; 22:16; Rom. 6:3-5; Matt. 28:19); and (5) public testimonies by believers of God's saving grace (Acts 22:1-21; 26:1-23; Gal. 1:11-24).
The Lord’s table is central to worship because it symbolizes the very basis for our existence as believers and as a church. It focuses us on the remembrance of Christ’s death from the perspective of his resurrection, and, therefore, looks forward to his return (1 Cor. 11:23-26). The event to which the entire O.T. looked forward and which is the fulcrum of redemptive history ought to be vitally important and a regular occurrence in our churches.
F. The Thrust Of Ministry Is The Salvation Of The Lost (Rom. 10:14-15).
Not only is practical Christian ministry expressed in caring for each other as believers, but also in caring for unbelievers. Christian ministry must be missional in its character just as Jesus’ ministry was. We are to boldly proclaim the goodness of God in the gospel in order to reach the lost for Christ (Acts 5:42; Mk. 16:15; Rom. 1:16; 10:14-15).
This should be done in culturally relevant ways, both individually and corporately. The message of “repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 20:21; Rom. 10:9-10) should be regularly preached from the pulpit and our people should be trained and motivated to tell others the way of salvation.
In this way the church and its members become a light for God in the community (Matt. 5:14). Through prayer and financial support, they can also contribute to world missions and evangelization. Church leaders and pastors should facilitate corporate outreach, encourage and train the members in personal outreach, and motivate participation in world missions.
G. The Task Of Ministry Is A Church Wide Responsibility (1 Pet. 2:5, 9).
Ministry is not the responsibility of only the pastor but of all members of the local church - this is the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers. Ministry is a task to which every believer has been called (Eph. 4:12; Rom. 12:4-8; 1 Pet. 4:10-11) and, therefore, it is a task in which every believer should participate in some measure. As Christians learn and grow, so they must use the gifts God has given them in his service and for the benefit of the whole church (1 Cor. 12:1-31).
Church leaders should help each person identify his or her gift, affirm them in their spiritual gifts, train them in the use of their gifts, provide them with opportunity to use their gifts, motivate them to do so (Eph. 4:11-16), and commission them for ministry (2 Tim. 1:6; 1 Tim. 2:7, 4:14; Acts 13:3) either within their church, on the mission field, or wherever God calls them. In this way, new leaders are also identified and trained to provide spiritual leadership.
Indeed, church-wide ministry is not limited to each individual local church but extends to the body of Christ in its broadest scope. Thus, churches of similar theological persuasion should co-operate together at a local, national, and international level to engage in the full scope of church ministry that a local church could not do on its own, to hold local churches accountable to a wider body, to give visible evidence of the truth that we do compose a united body, and to make united decisions on issues that might otherwise be divisive. This practice was evident in the early church in discipleship training (Acts 11:25-26), relief efforts (Acts 11:27-30), as well as important doctrinal and practical decisions (Acts 15:1-36).
If a church becomes self-focused and separatistic in its attitude it runs the risk of becoming cultish, if not an outright cult. It cuts itself off from the larger body of believers and it fails to operate in practice as a New Testament church.
IV. Summary: What Then Is Ministry About?
The purpose of ministry is (1) to bring people to saving faith in Christ and then assist them to grow in Christ-likeness; and (2) to bring people into a vital, authentic relationship with God through the grace of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit, such that every believer glorifies God in thought, word, and deed both in the church and in the world with the ultimate goal of presenting everyone complete in Christ (Col. 1:28; Eph. 4:13).
The purpose of ministry is not to “do” church. As Glenn Wagner points out, “The essence of the church must be more than just doing. The church must draw its essence from God and his righteousness and holiness. It must take shape based on his worth as Creator. It must reflect his glory as God, and when it meets and ministers, it ought to express back to God the glory due his name. There must be more to church than simple psychological encouragements, tips for improving interpersonal relationships, and helpful religious seminars.” (E. Glenn Wagner with Steve Halliday, “The Church You’ve Always Wanted,” 33).
Church ministry is not about ritual or routine religion but a living relationship with God, not about numerical growth but spiritual maturity, not about programs but about people. Ministry is about people who are wholly focused on God, powerfully filled with the Spirit, happily united in a community of grace, vibrantly exalt Christ, openly perform works of faith, accurately teach the truth, boldly proclaim the gospel, and authentically depend upon prayer.
Ministry is about people who are God-centred, Spirit-filled, gospel-driven, grace-related, Bible-based, Christ-exalting, community-focused; and prayer-dependent.
Soli Deo Gloria.
Related Topics: Ecclesiology (The Church), Issues in Church Leadership/Ministry, Leadership
3. Church Leadership: Christian Leaders And Leadership-- Their Definition And Characteristics
Related MediaWhether you serve a Christian ministry (a church, a para-church ministry, a mission agency) or whether you’re a leader in a secular organization, you probably have a leadership role, at some level, in that organization. Indeed, I would argue that everyone to some degree is a leader in that we all influence others in some way. For just under 20 years, I served in ministry as a bi-vocational pastor while at the same time working in a business management capacity. And I can tell you from personal, firsthand experience that the biblical principles we are going to learn in this article will stand you in very good stead no matter where you have leadership responsibility.
During my years in business management, I found that the biblical models of servanthood and shepherding (see my article at https://bible.org/series/biblical-models-christian-leadership) together with all the New Testament instructions on the moral and spiritual dimensions of a godly leader were the very same principles that were the most effective and the most beneficial in leading the business organization I served. I found that the more time I spent developing my own biblically-based and God-honoring practice of leadership, the more effective I became as a leader. I noticed that others (whether Christians or not) responded well to a leader who cared about them and who had their best interests and the best interests of the organization at heart. In fact, I found that the more time I spent teaching our employees Christian ethics and relationships as well as our corporate values and goals, the more they acted in an honorable way (toward each other and towards our customers and suppliers) and the more our customers and suppliers liked doing business with us.
You see there is something thoroughly compelling (both to the Christian and the non-Christian) about the leadership style of Jesus and the apostles. Obviously, non-Christians may not be aware that a biblical leadership style is what they like and, if they were aware, they may not admit it. But who would not like being served by someone who genuinely cares about them? Who would not like doing business with an organization whose employees practice honesty and respect and servanthood? Who would not like working for an organization whose leaders serve their employees by acting in their best interest?
So, no matter who you are or what your particular vocation is at the moment, this article will be beneficial for you in developing a philosophy of leadership that is distinctly Christian. I am challenging you today to relate the principles we talk about to your leadership situation, whether it is leadership in the church or a secular vocation.
What, then, do we mean by a biblical philosophy of leadership? Kenneth Gangel describes it this way: “The term ‘philosophy of ministry’ describes our understanding of how to serve effectively within the context of whatever ministry God has given us” (Kenneth O. Gangel, “Feeding & Leading,” 53). By the term “philosophy,” we simply mean a system of principles and concepts that guides us in our understanding and practice, in this case in our understanding and practice of leadership. By the term “leadership,” we simply mean those people who take the initiative and responsibility to ensure that the philosophy of the organization is put into practice.
An organization’s effectiveness usually depends on its leaders and leadership. You can have the best philosophy, the best vision, the best plans, the best intentions etc., but without good leaders and leadership principles they are not going to become reality.
God has always had his leaders. He has always instituted structure and organization among his people. God, of course, is the ultimate leader, but he has always used people to mediate his leadership, people like Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, the judges, the kings, the prophets, the apostles, and ultimately church elders and deacons (see Alex D. Montoya, “Leading” in “Rediscovering Pastoral Ministry,” 284).
In the church, then, we find that the apostles were the first leaders, assisted by seven men “of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom” (Acts 6:3). Then, as the church expanded from Jerusalem through Asia Minor and Europe, and as the apostles began to make preparations for the transfer of the church leadership to others after their deaths, they established elders (Acts 11:30; 14:23; 15:2), assisted by deacons (Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:8-13), to lead the church.
I. Definition Of Leadership
What is leadership? Gangel defines leadership as “the exercise of one’s spiritual gifts under the call of God to serve a certain group of people in achieving the goals God has given them toward the end of glorifying Christ” (Kenneth O. Gangel, “Feeding and Leading,” 31).
My definition of leadership: Leadership is the ability, responsibility, and authority exercised by one or more persons for the benefit of a group, with a view to ...
1. ... generating unity (= common relationships).
2. ... establishing direction (= common plans, vision).
3. ... defining values (= common standards, beliefs, ethics).
4. ... stimulating momentum (= common motivation).
5. ... achieving results (= common goals, purpose).
This definition is applicable to any organization whether secular or religious. Of course, in church ministry, while the definition of leadership would remain the same, the objectives would be different than in a secular organization. While we could cite many definitions of leadership, what they usually have in common is that “the leader is one who leads others to the accomplishment of a common goal” (Montoya, 283). In other words, a leader and his followers work together with a common purpose. If you do not have followers, you can hardly be said to be leading. If you don’t have a common purpose, you really don’t have a viable organization.
Without leadership an organization won’t know who it is (its identity), why it is here (its mission and existence), what it does (its function), what it stands for (its beliefs and values), or where it is going (its future, plans, and vision). The reality is that many churches do not know the answers to these issues.
What are leaders? Leaders are those who possess and put into practice the skills and aptitude for the discipline of leadership. Leaders are people who...
1. …inspire others (generate and attract followers).
2. …act decisively (don’t procrastinate; don't shrink from decision-making).
3. …see the big picture (don’t get side-tracked with details).
4. …have a sense of direction (know where they are going).
5. …have a strong desire to achieve results (people who get things done).
Put together, these characteristics mean that leaders are people who make things happen (cf. Ted Engstrom, “The Making of a Christian Leader,” 20; Aubrey Malphurs, “The Dynamics of Church Leadership,” 47ff.). Our North American image of someone who makes things happens is, perhaps, the loud-talking, desk thumping, charismatic autocrat who leads by a dominating personality and power. But such is not the image of biblical leadership.
II. Leadership Styles
The term “leadership style” refers to the way a leader carries out his leadership responsibilities, his leadership methodology.
Leadership style varies depending on...
1. The personality of the leader.
2. The environment that has influenced his style – e.g. home, training, mentors etc.
3. The type of organization in which he is carrying out his leadership - e.g. church, parachurch ministry, corporation, academia etc. Obviously, a military or paramilitary organization (like police services) cannot run properly with the same leadership style as, for example, a community service group. So the style of leadership has to fit the organization and its life situation.
4. The economic conditions. The leadership style required for an organization in crisis mode (e.g. facing bankruptcy or emerging from bankruptcy) will be very different from one that is enjoying times of prosperity (i.e. survival vs. success).
Ted Engstrom cites an American Management Association report that correctly concludes that “the most important single skill of an executive is his ability to get along with people” (Engstrom, 67). Therefore, I suppose it would be true to say that the best style of leadership is one that...
1. ... creates harmony among the people (relationships)
2. ... produces efficiency in the organization (productivity)
3. ... achieves the desired goals (progress, forward movement). Sadly, many churches don't have much, if any, forward movement. They just exist, going nowhere and achieving nothing.
Leadership style also reflects the leaders personality…
1. Positive vs. negative.
2. Optimistic vs. pessimistic.
3. Confident vs. timid.
4. Innovative vs. unimaginative.
5. Forward-looking vs. status quo.
6. Charismatic vs. bland, boring.
Not surprisingly, according to a study conducted by the Northwest Friends churches, “the leaders of dynamic situations were characterized as positive, confident, cheerful, and goal-oriented” (Engstrom, 70). Quite the opposite was true for churches that were stunted or declining.
Leadership styles generally range between a high degree of control to minimal control, as follows…
1. Authoritative leadership style: Large degree of control (micro-management) and centralized decision-making. Little or no input from or autonomy given to followers. Followers are pressured into agreeing with the leader and obeying orders.
2. Collaborative leadership style: Followers are given a great deal of input to decisions and the freedom to set goals and standards within prescribed limits. The leader inspires, motivates, and unites his followers with a view to their self-improvement.
3. Passive leadership style: Emphasis is on delegation. Allows people to set their own goals and standards with little or no input from the leader.
None of these styles accurately reflects the biblical pattern for leadership style and practice. I would argue that the ideal and primary leadership style in Scripture could be described as “shepherding” or “serving” with the goal of producing life transformation in the followers.
III. The Profile Of A Christian Leader
What does a Christian leader look like? Who is he in his person, character, abilities, attitudes, lifestyle etc.? Clearly, the starting point is the spiritual qualifications for a church leader which the apostle Paul outlines in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9. But this is only the starting point, it seems to me. This is by no means an exhaustive list, which, if a man meets, he is necessarily qualified to be a church leader. I don't think Paul intended this to be some sort of check list that we use without any other standards or requirements. This list says nothing about character traits like humility, courage, wisdom etc. which, surely, are important aspects of a church leader’s profile. Nor does it say anything about the gift of leadership (cf. Rom. 12:8), but surely an elder must be gifted as a leader - that’s a given.
So, what other aspects of character, personality, and ability do you think a church leader must have? I think, apart from the apostle Paul’s criteria, that there are embedded in Scripture certain inalienable character and personality traits that are necessary for church leaders. I think these are best understood by dividing them into three categories:
A. Those intangible “character” traits that enable them to consistently make good decisions.
B. Those “personality” traits that impact those they lead and inspire others to follow and obey.
C. Those “performance” traits that drive a leader to achieve results (e.g. self-discipline, perseverance).
A. Character Traits.
Here we are speaking of those inner virtues that enable leaders to consistently make good decisions. The top five on my list are wisdom, integrity, humility, courage, and vision.
1. Wisdom. Wisdom stands at the top of my list. This is the umbrella trait under which all the others are subsumed. Sadly, wisdom is the one trait that seems to be so lacking in church leaders today. There are not many wise men. Richard Davis, an HR consultant in Toronto, studied 10 years of performance reviews and the management histories of 200 senior executives with major Canadian and U.S. companies. He came up with 10 traits that were common to all of them that he describes in his book, “The Intangibles of Leadership, The Ten Qualities of Superior Executive Performance.” The number one most important trait, in his view, is wisdom. I agree. I think that’s biblical, for example…
a) Solomon did not ask God for riches but for wisdom (1 Kings 3:9)
b) Jesus “grew and became strong in spirit, filled with wisdom” (Lk. 2:40) and “he increased in wisdom and stature” (Lk. 2:52)
c) The leaders of Acts 6 were characterized by wisdom: “Seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom” (Acts 6:3). Paul affirms this: “… that you may be filled with the knowledge of His will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding” (Col. 1:9). Speaking of Christ, Paul says, “In whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Col. 2:3). We are to “walk in wisdom toward those who are outside, redeeming the time” (Col. 4:5).
Wisdom is one of those character traits that you know when you see it but which is hard to define. We know many of the habits of wise people. For example, wise people usually consult others, evaluate self-performance, engage in reflection, welcome challenging dialogue that stimulates their thinking and opinions. Wise leaders don't want “yes-men” around them but people who have initiative and independent thinking.
But how do you define wisdom? My best attempt to define wisdom is this: Wisdom is good judgement based on knowledge, experience, and maturity. Let me take these traits one at a time…
“Knowledge.” Knowledge is our understanding of and familiarity with facts, truths, principles etc. Knowledge is connected with learning. Special knowledge comes from our specific areas of expertise and learning, whether academic or on-the-job.
“Experience.” You cannot be wise without experience. There is no substitute for experience. After all, wisdom is earned and learned through life experience. So, make sure that you get experience on the job. Life’s school of experiential adversity knocks wisdom into you. While experience connotes age, some people gain experience faster than others by virtue of the variety of life situations to which they are exposed (be it at home, school, work, or society) and their aptitude for philosophical reflection which they synthesize into life principles. You could probably say that experience is where we put knowledge to work like an apprenticeship. After all, isn't the entirety of life, to some degree, an apprenticeship?
“Maturity.” Maturity is the ability to apply your experience and knowledge with wisdom to decisions, attitudes, circumstances, and relationships. Paul says: “We speak wisdom among those who are mature” (1 Cor. 2:6). Maturity has to do with self-responsibility, empathy, consideration of other’s views, reliability, emotional stability.
Maturity, like beauty, is hard to define but you know it when you see it: you certainly know its opposite, immaturity, when you see it. Maturity has to do with self-control, wise choices, and how we express ourselves. Maturity is an awareness of who we are and how we relate to others. Maturity has to do with considering short-term pain worthwhile to achieve long-term gain. Immature people don’t see things that way – they want immediate self-satisfaction. Maturity is making your word your bond, consistency, dependability.
There are three types of maturity, it seems to me: emotional, psychological, and physical maturity. Emotional maturity is acting like an adult not a child; not exhibiting temper tantrums when you don’t get your own way or when things go wrong; controlling your emotions. Psychological maturity is closely related to emotional maturity. It is the ability to think and act the way we expect responsible and sensible adults to think and act, drawing on our life experience and self-reflection. Physical maturity is the age when we stop growing, cutting teeth etc. and we look like an adult, so it’s much easier to recognize. It occurs without us doing anything and it develops over a fairly well-defined period of life. Whereas emotional and psychological maturity occur at different times of life for different people. Some older people never reach maturity - at 60 or 70 years old, they are still immature in their behavior, reactions, attitudes, speech, and decisions - while some younger people are quite mature for their age.
2. Integrity. Integrity is …
Impartiality: This means never making decisions to please people but to please God (Eph. 6:6-7; Col. 3:22-23), doing what is right regardless of the cost, never being caught in a conflict of interest, never favoring one person over another regardless of who is involved. This may mean turning down someone’s kind intent (e.g. to give or lend you money) so that you are not beholden to that person.
Transparency: This involves openness, no hidden agenda regardless of the consequences. This doesn’t mean that you tell everything you know necessarily (wisdom may dictate otherwise), but it does mean not hiding behind a veneer, being who you truly are - what you see is what you get.
Righteousness: Refers to uprightness in one’s dealings, moral rectitude, decency, fairness.
Sincerity: This goes hand-in-hand with integrity. Don’t be phony but be transparent, open, without guile.
Honesty: This is closely related to impartiality, transparency, righteousness, and sincerity. It involves showing respect to others, keeping your word, always telling the truth.
Credibility: Reliability, authenticity, trustworthiness, believability.
Moral purity: This is part of personal integrity. Integrity requires that you “Pay close attention to yourself” (1 Tim. 4:16). Why? Because you cannot lead others to faith, or lead the people of God in worship, or intercede on behalf of others unless your own life is morally upright and clean. A Christian leader must have moral integrity. Your whole life must hold together - no gaps, no inconsistencies but a unified whole.
3. Humility. Humility is …
Meekness: Meekness is not “power under control” as some like to define it. It is clearly defined in Scripture: “Not thinking more highly of yourself than you ought to think” (Rom. 12:3) – i.e. not arrogant. “Esteeming others better than yourself” (Phil. 2:3) – i.e. humility. It is the attitude of John the Baptist toward Jesus: “He must increase but I must decrease” (Jn. 3:30). It is the attitude of the apostle Paul: “I am the least of the apostles and do not deserve to be called an apostle” (1 Cor. 15:9; cf. Eph. 3:8; 1 Tim. 1:15). Meekness, therefore, is an attitude that embraces lowliness, gentleness, servanthood.
Fallibility: A truly humble person does not think they know everything. Everyone can and does make mistakes. You don’t have all the answers. Fallibility means that you are willing to acknowledge your weaknesses as well as your strengths. There is only one who is infallible, that is God himself.
Gentleness: Gentleness is not bullying others to get your own way. It is mildness of attitude, kindness in relationships and actions. It is tenderness towards others, showing compassion and mercy to others, regardless of their social or economic status.
Humility, then, is the opposite of pride. It’s easy to become proud in leadership, particularly if there are outward signs of success in worldly terms, such as increase in numbers or new buildings. Preaching, in particular, can be an exhilarating experience especially when people affirm your preaching – it can go to your head. The minute we begin to think it has anything to do with us (our credit, our merit, our ability) we are in trouble. Note these principles: “God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble” (Ja. 4:6; 1 Pet. 5:5). “Humble yourself therefore under the mighty hand of God that he may exalt you in due time” (1 Pet. 5:6). When it’s time, he will exalt you, not yourself.
Robert Murray McCheyne (1813–1843) is an example of humility. McCheyne was the pastor of a church in Scotland from 1835 to 1843. He died in the prime of his ministry at the age of only 29. He was gifted as a preacher and a musician. He was a scholar (educated in Latin, Greek, Hebrew), an artist, poet, and a gifted singer. While he was away from his church on sabbatical due to ill health, a young preacher called W. C. Burns came to fill the pulpit. During that time a revival broke out at the church and spread to other parts of Scotland. McCheyne couldn’t wait to get home to see and participate in what God was doing in the church. He was 26 at the time. He saw the great working of the Spirit of God as crowds now gathered to hear him speak. But three years later, he died. He had done the preparatory work for the revival but didn’t live to enjoy it.
Two particular aspects of his life brought the church to this point: His devout prayer life and his humility. McCheyne was content for the revival to break out under the preaching of another man. He had prayed for revival and God had answered his prayers. He was glad that revival broke out even though another man was used to initiate it. He wasn’t focused on numbers but on serving God, no matter who had the spotlight.
4. Courage. Courage is not in-your-face boldness, rudeness, or outspokenness. Courage is doing what’s right regardless of others’ opinions, opposition, criticism, failure, or discouragement. Courage is having a conviction as to a right course of action and carrying it out. Courage is standing for truth. Courage is confidence that with God’s help we can do it.
Remember, “God has not given us the spirit of fear, but one of power, love, and sound judgement” (2 Tim. 1:7). Oswald Sanders wrote: “Courage is that quality of mind that enables people to encounter danger or difficulty firmly, without fear or discouragement” (J. Oswald Sanders, “Spiritual Leadership,” 59). Courage is that character trait exhibited by Martin Luther when, on his journey to Worms to face questions about his teaching, he is reported to have said: “You can expect from me everything save fear or recantation. I shall not flee, much less recant.” That takes courage. Christian leadership isn’t easy - it takes courage.
It takes courage to make tough decisions, to do what is right regardless of the consequences, like Eric Liddell (“Chariots of Fire”), who wouldn’t compete in a race on Sundays. Courage is making clear, good decisions in dependence on God. This is the hallmark of a good spiritual leader, like Abraham during the crisis of Sodom and the rescue of Lot (Gen. 14:14f.); like Moses when he decided to give up Egypt’s pleasures and power; and like Paul when he spoke and acted confidently in the storm (Acts 27).
Every time you face a crossroads in decision-making, you will be an example of either courage or cowardice. Let me cite three examples (adapted from Bob Reccord and Randy Singer, “Made To Count,” 170-172) …
(1) When David was still quite young, tending his father’s sheep, he encountered wild animals coming to attack his father’s sheep and he decided to defend the sheep at the risk of his own life. Later, he encountered the giant Goliath, challenging the Israelite army to a dual to determine the victor of the battle. While all the other Israelite soldiers cowered in fear, David volunteered to take on the challenge and he slew the giant with one sling shot. David is a wonderful example of courage.
(2) Jonah refused to obey God and, instead of going to Nineveh to tell them of coming judgement, he caught a boat going to Tarshish instead. But God stopped Jonah’s attempt to escape by causing a violent storm that forced Jonah to confess his sin to the sailors who then threw him overboard, upon which he was swallowed by a great fish and vomited out on dry land. Then Jonah arose and went to Nineveh. By God’s grace, Jonah’s fear of delivering bad news was displaced by courage, which God rewarded with a great response of repentance from the Ninevites. Jonah is an example of cowardice that God transformed into courage.
(3) Daniel and his three friends were fearless in their stand for God. First, they refused the king’s food and insisted on conforming to God’s dietary laws. Second, the three friends bravely faced the fiery furnace rather than bow down to worship the king’s golden image. Third, despite an irrefutable law of the Medes and Persians, Daniel publicly and unashamedly continued to pray to God rather than submit his petitions to King Darius, for which he was cast into the lions’ den. In each case, God vindicated these men of extraordinary courage. They would not compromise or submit to any authority that put their testimony for God in jeopardy, despite the threat of death.
It takes courage to make tough decisions, and ...
It takes courage to deal with difficult situations, to face obstacles and attacks from people and from Satan. It takes courage to handle personal criticism and opposition. It takes courage to preach when you’ve been soundly criticized during the week. God said to Jeremiah: “Therefore, prepare yourself and arise, and speak to them all that I command you. Do not be dismayed before their faces, lest I dismay you before them. For behold, I have made you this day a fortified city and an iron pillar and bronze walls against the whole land – against the kings of Judah, against its princes, against its priests, and against the people of the land. They will fight against you but they shall not prevail against you. For I am with you,” says the Lord, “to deliver you.” (Jer. 1:17-19). That’s where our courage comes from to handle criticism and opposition.
Criticism is a formidable tool designed to wear you down. It amplifies your insecurities, takes your eyes off the task at hand and onto yourself, depletes your energy and enthusiasm, makes you defensive, and isolates you. That’s why negative, destructive criticism (judgementalism), I believe, is a tool of Satan. I believe in the biblical concepts of rebuke, exhortation, confrontation etc. (2 Tim. 4:2), but destructive criticism isn’t in there. Criticism is usually negative and destructive. It’s about what people don’t want and don’t like, not about what is honoring to God or beneficial to his people. Criticism can distort your view of ministry and of the people you minister to.
It takes courage to persevere in times of spiritual discouragement, to stay the course when discouragement sets in, when you think you’re a failure, when you work hard but it seems no one is listening or responding. Remember, three times God told Joshua to be strong and of good courage (Josh. 1:6, 7, 9). Why? Because he knew the temptations and tests Joshua would face might discourage him or induce him to take the easy way out.
5. Vision. Vision is not head-in-the-clouds dream world. It’s not your own aspirations or imaginations of greatness. No, vision is seeing what’s possible, “seeing the invisible” as Moses did (Heb. 11:27) and like the patriarchs who saw the promises afar off, even though they themselves did not receive them (Heb. 11:13). Vision is setting realistic and achievable goals and direction with a sense of optimism: “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me” (Phil. 4:13) – i.e. I can do the things that God calls me to do through the strength that Christ supplies.
These five character traits determine whether you, as a leader, will consistently make good decisions, impact those you lead in a powerful way, and drive you to accomplish goals for the glory of God and the blessing of his people.
These are not traits of arrogance or self-promotion. No, these are traits that God gives certain people which make them strong, upright, influential leaders. These are traits that enable certain people to overcome obstacles and keep pressing on when everything around them seems to be against them.
B. Personality Traits.
This is the ability to influence and inspire those you lead to follow and obey you. This is sometimes referred to as the “power of personhood.” You can’t learn this. You either have it or you don’t. It is charisma, not superficial but internal and genuine.
C. Performance Traits.
Performance traits are those that drive a leader to achieve results. These include traits like self-discipline, perseverance, endurance, and initiative. It’s the motivation to press on despite discouragement because you can see the goal, to encourage those on your team to go on. This comes from the internal drive to make a difference in your life and the lives of others.
Such drive to perform to the best of your ability does not spring from self-promotion or the desire for the adulation of others. No, this is the innate motivation to be the best you can be and achieve the most you can for the glory of God and the blessing of his people. This takes self-motivation to get up each day to move the organization forward in the accomplishment of its philosophy of ministry.
Final Remarks
Undoubtedly, much more could be written about leadership, its definition and characteristics. Leadership, as you can tell from this article, is difficult to define and leaders are often difficult to identify, particularly leadership in church ministry. When I was teaching at seminary, I often wondered how certain students would perform in church leadership. Strangely, some who showed very little leadership skills in the classroom ended up being quite successful in their own way in church ministry. I have often noticed that God takes people who superficially don’t seem suited to leadership and yet he uses them in great ways to achieve his purposes.
Nonetheless, I think that a person’s character, personality, and performance traits, along with their biblical qualifications, indicate whether they are suited to and have the gift for church leadership.
I remember one time travelling to Memphis to teach at the Stephen Olford Centre for Biblical Preaching. My flight took me from Ontario to Detroit and from Detroit to Memphis. In the Detroit airport I faced two seemingly insurmountable obstacles. First, my flight from Ontario was late arriving in Detroit. Second, the line up to get through immigration in the Detroit airport was extremely long. In front of me in the lineup was a group of high school students who had been to Europe on a school trip and were returning home. I got chatting with some of them and they asked me where I was going. In my response I told them that I was concerned that I would miss my connection because of being late and the long lineup. One of the students, a young girl of about 15 years old, immediately replied, “Come with me.” I followed her as she took me to the front of the line up where more of their fellow students and some teachers were waiting in line. She asked them if they would mind if I butted into the line as I might otherwise miss my connecting flight. They readily agreed and I made my flight. That was leadership – she had integrity, initiative, courage, and influence far beyond her years. That wasn’t something she learned at school. She may have learned it at home, but, essentially, it was part of her character, personality, and initiative.
Related Topics: Ecclesiology (The Church), Issues in Church Leadership/Ministry, Leadership