Discussion Jumpstarter
Study leader reference - not a definitive answer
Question 3
The teacher argues that in Greek, *theos* can function like “Adam” in Hebrew—sometimes a person-title (“God” = the Father) and sometimes a nature-description (“divine”). How does this linguistic claim reshape the way you read John 1:1, and what would you lose (or gain) doctrinally if English Bibles regularly rendered it as “the Word was divine” instead of “the Word was God”?
Another way to ask: He says *theos* can mean “God” (a person) or “divine” (a nature). How would that change how you read John 1:1, and what would change for you if it said “the Word was divine” instead of “the Word was God”?
Discussion Jumpstarter
Direct Answer
His linguistic claim reshapes John 1:1 by making it less like a statement that the Word is the same person as the Father and more like a statement that the Word shares the Father’s divine nature. Rendering it “the Word was divine” would, in his view, reduce confusion and guard the distinction between Father and Son while still affirming Christ’s full deity.
- He says *theos* is “normally… the person of the Almighty… Jehovah,” but can also describe “the nature of a being.”
- He compares this to Hebrew “Adam” meaning both a person (Adam) and a nature-category (man/human).
- He applies it directly: “the Word was with God” = *theos* as proper noun (the Father); “the Word was theos” = nature.
- He proposes a third English rendering: “the Word was divine,” saying it “would clear up a lot of confusion” and matches early Christian understanding.
- He insists early Christians still called Jesus “theos/God,” but “they don’t mean that he is the Father.”
- He ties “divine” to Col. 2:9’s “fullness of the divine quality.”