Making Sense of Ang Dating Daan

Introduction

Members of Ang Dating Daan (“The Old Path,” hereon referred to as ADD) call Eliseo Soriano (their presiding minister) “the only sensible, honest and straightforward evangelist today”.[1] They claim that his famous broadcast is “the only religious program which heightened the religious awareness of many people.”[2] and that half a million people already converted to their faith because of that program, which is aired not only nationwide but even worldwide through their own cable TV channel, a hundred radio stations and the Internet.  Thus, there is a need to discern whether the ADD is of God or not.  To meaningfully engage with the ADD, this paper will look into the birth of the group and its core beliefs. Then it will propose steps on how believers can effectively reach out to them by “speaking the truth in love” (Eph 4:15).[3]  Instead of resorting to sarcasm and character assassination, it will focus on doctrinal issues.

The Birth of Ang Dating Daan

In 1922, eight years after the founding of the Iglesia ni Cristo (Church of Christ, hereon referred to as INC), minister Nicholas Perez broke away from it due to doctrinal differences.  He later started his own group, Ang Iglesia ng Dios kay Kristo Hesus, Haligi at Suhay ng Katotohanan (The Church of God in Christ Jesus, the Pillar and Ground of Truth).  Soriano joined that group when he was 17 years old. 

Though Soriano was an honor student, he failed to finish high school because he got into an argument with a teacher regarding religious issues three months before graduation.  He then turned his attention to the Bible.  Immediately after his baptism in 1964, Soriano joined the ministerial class and since then rose from the ranks.  Perez groomed him to be his successor.  Only Soriano got the title “Minister” from Perez, “making him the only other minister in the Church at that time.”[4]   

When Perez died in 1975, a power struggle ensued.  The group had split into three groups.  Barely 30 years old, Soriano led a faction of 500 members, which they registered as Ang Mga Kaanib ng Iglesia ng Dios kay Kristo Hesus, Haligi at Saligan ng Katotohanan sa Bansang Pilipinas (The Members of the Church of God in Christ Jesus, the Pillar and Ground of Truth in the Philippines).  A protracted legal battle ensued over who has the legal claim to the name. Four years ago, the Supreme Court ordered Soriano to change the name of his group.  Today they call it “Members Church of God International.”

In 1980 Soriano launched his religious radio and TV program, Ang Dating Daan.  Since then, the ADD experienced so much growth.  In fact, an investigative report revealed that they baptize an average of 3,500 new members every month.[5]   

The Beliefs of Ang Dating Daan

The Bereans: Apologetics Research Ministry (http://thebereans.net) listed the ADD as one of the cults of Christianity or a group that claims to be Christian but goes against the historic teachings of Biblical Christianity.  Admittedly that is a serious charge.  This is not a question on the sincerity of the ADD members but on the veracity of their teachings.  The Bible itself labels a teaching “false” if it goes against the Word of God (1 John 4:1-3; 2 Peter 2:1).  In fact, the ADD invite people to examine their teachings for their “intention is to stir sensible scrutiny of [their] religious faith.”[6]  This paper is a response to that invitation.  This is not an exhaustive presentation of the teachings of the ADD but only a summary of the key doctrines of the ADD and then compares it with the teachings of the Bible.  To make it easy to remember, the author devised the acronym C.U.L.T.S.

Christology Deficient.  In their zeal to debunk the teachings of the INC, it appears that the ADD swung to the other extreme.  The INC teaches that Jesus is man, not God.  The ADD, on the other hand, teaches that Jesus is God, not man.[7]  This went against the Biblical teaching on the humanity of Christ (Rom 5:15, 18-19; 1 Cor 15:21; 1 Tim 2:5).  One of their proof-texts is Philippians 2:5-8.

5Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.

They believe that the words “form of a bondservant,” “likeness of men” and “appearance as a man” proves that Christ is not man. 

These verses clearly state that our Lord Jesus only assumed the form of man. And nobody can contest that! Therefore, to teach that our Lord Jesus Christ is a man is a big mistake. He is not a man by nature; He only assumed the form of a man. Don’t you have a common sense to comprehend that? [8]

Though they admit Jesus had a human body, they reason that that does not make the Lord human.  They then explain away verses that clearly called Jesus “man.”

Why did John 8:40 said [sic] that our Lord Jesus was a man? It is because, that incident happened at the time our Lord Jesus was assuming the form of a human being. The Bible said, He was made in the likeness of men. In other words, He lived like a man.[9]

Unorthodox hermeneutics.  The ADD is against hermeneutics or the rules of Bible interpretation.  They claim all people have to do is to read the Bible, not to interpret it. 

There are preachers who think that, through hermeneutics they can rightfully understand the Bible. We believe that the laws of men do not apply here. They do not contribute in developing correct interpretation and understanding of the Bible.[10]

But, because the Bible is not only the words of God but also of man, reading is an interpretation by itself:  “From the standpoint of the Bible as literature, the simplest error of reading is the failure to consider the immediate context of the verse or passage in question.”[11]  In reading a passage, there is a need to properly interpret the meaning of words.  How a word is used in its context determines its meaning.  The meaning of a word then may be different in meaning now.

For example, the ADD misinterpreted the word “form” in Philippians 2:7 to mean “outward appearance.”  But Paul used the Greek word morphe for “form,” which means “something intrinsic and essential as opposed to… [that] which is merely outward”.[12]  That is why the New International Version translated “form” into “very nature.”  Thus, the ADD erred in understanding “likeness” and “appearance” (vv. 7-8) because they already misread “form.” 

If Jesus Christ was a real man, why did he have to be made in the likeness of men? All it needs is common sense to understand this. If he was already a man, why did He have to be made in the likeness of men? That only proves that our Lord Jesus Christ is a god, who assumed the form of a man.[13]

But the intended meaning of “form” should guide our understanding of “likeness” and “appearance” and not the other way around.  It simply means that by nature Christ is like every man but, since He did not sin, He is unlike any man.

Their denial of the humanity of Christ actually watered down the Gospel. “Anything less than real humanity would detract from the value of the cross”.[14]  The parallelism that Jesus is the second Adam would be pointless if He is not really a man (Rom 5:12-19; 1 Cor 15:21-22, 45-49).  “Jesus was our representative and obeyed for us where Adam had failed and disobeyed.”[15]  So if Jesus is not human, then it follows that Adam is also not human for “Jesus had to be a man in order to be our representative and obey in our place.”[16]

Low View of God.  The failure of the ADD to follow hermeneutics led them to employ proof-texting to support an assumption.  But they lifted the texts out of context so this resulted not just in a defective view of Christ but an aberrant view of God as well.

Many religious groups believe that God can do everything and anything because He is omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient. But, do you know that there is something, which God cannot do?[17] 

It is impossible for God to lie; He cannot lie. Let us not believe those who say that nothing is impossible with God. That is a deceit meant to mislead you.[18]

By quoting Titus 1:2 and Hebrews 6:18, the ADD thought they could dismiss the Biblical teachings on the nature of God (like Jeremiah 32:17 and Luke 18:27).  They misunderstood omnipotence or that God is “all-powerful,” for example.  It does not mean that “God can do everything and anything” as they alleged.  “It is not absolutely everything that God is able to do, but everything that is consistent with his character.”[19]  Errors like this happen when people isolate a verse and pit it against other verses in the Bible.

True Church Mentality.  The ADD hail Soriano as “God’s humble messenger in these last days.”[20]  They claim he already memorized the entire Bible.  He wows them by quoting verses in answering questions on any topic under the sun.  For them, this is proof that Soriano is a “sugo” (sent-one) or that God commissioned him in a special way like that of the apostles.

There is no secret in the Bro. Eli’s being unique, singular, and distinctive. The Bible gives its’ own explanation in John 3:34 as him being sent, therefore speaks the words of God, who gave him unlimited spirit…[21]

When a group thinks its leader is “the messenger of God”,[22] they end up with a “true church” mentality or the belief “that they alone are saved or will be saved”.[23]  One sign of such mentality is they believe the founder or the group was prophesied in the Bible.  

For example, the ADD saw the three-way split that the group suffered as a fulfillment of Zechariah 13:8-9.[24] 

8“And it shall come to pass in all the land,” Says the Lord, “That two-thirds in it shall be cut off and die, But one-third shall be left in it: 9I will bring the one-third through the fire, Will refine them as silver is refined, And test them as gold is tested. They will call on My name, And I will answer them. I will say, ‘This is My people’; And each one will say, ‘The Lord is my God.’ ”

But again, poor hermeneutics played a part.  Context show that the “land” Zechariah referred in v. 8 is the nation Israel (v. 1).  So this prophecy does not apply in any way to the ADD.  Memorizing Scriptures is laudable.  But, even if a person can quote it verbatim from memory, misinterpretations belie his claim to divine commission. 

Salvation by works.  For the ADD, faith is not enough for salvation and one must fulfill requirements to qualify for eternal life such as joining the church.  But that goes against the Biblical teaching of salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone (John 3:16; Acts 4:12, 16:31; Eph 2:8-10).  The ADD even questions the term “personal savior.”

If Jesus Christ is a Personal Savior to anyone, it will be unethical, illogical, and unbiblical to share Him with anybody else; Furthermore, it may sound that He is exercising favoritism if anybody claims that Jesus Christ is his personal savior.[25]

A personal property, in the strictest sense of ethics and personal hygiene, can not be lent to anybody like your toothbrush and personal garments.[26]

But that is not what evangelicals meant when they say Jesus is a “personal savior.”  The word “personal” means “Done, made, or performed in person”.[27]  That means no person can proxy for anyone when it comes to receiving Christ as savior (John 1:12; Col 2:6)  

The ADD had set this standard:

…a messenger of God does not teach self-made doctrines. That is why his doctrines are flawless. However, if you find out that the doctrines of a particular organization of faith are erroneous, that is a proof that such an organization is not of God.[28]

After examining the key beliefs of the ADD, it is now up to the readers to conclude whether the organization is of God or not.

The Burden for Ang Dating Daan

The Bible calls believers to defend the faith (1 Pet 3:15; Jude 3).  But there is a need to be careful in the approach.  2 Timothy 2:23-26 spells out the R.E.A.C.H. strategy.

Refrain from a combative stance.  In discussions with people like the ADD, keep in mind that “a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all… [and] patient” (2 Tim 2:24).  Remember that “a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.” The approach is as important as the arguments.  In the online forum of The Bereans, there is an attempt to provoke through insults or name-calling.  Never go down to that level.  Even if one may not win the ADD member, he can win the hearts of the people who are listening in the discussion.  People tend to listen more when engaged “in humility” (v. 25) for those who come across as proud turns them off.   “You can always tell who is losing an argument by checking out who is yelling the loudest.”[29] The Filipino saying applies here: “Ang pikon talo.”  (“He who loses his patience loses it.”) 

Equip the saints.  Now more than ever there is a need to train and retrain pastors on what and why they believe so that they would be “able to teach” (v. 24).  Then they can equip their members “so that they may know the truth” (v. 25).  According to a recent study, “16% churches without pastors plus 39% churches with untrained pastors translates into a need to train pastors for 55% of the churches in the Philippines.”[30]  In fact, it can even go as high as 63%.[31]  There is a need to equip the church so that they “should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine” (Eph 4:12-16. See also Titus 1:9-11).

But pastors tend to avoid doctrinal topics for fear of boring their people or being labeled “irrelevant.”  Yet the ADD showed that one can be doctrinal and still experience phenomenal growth.  In fact, this is one of the reasons why people are attracted to the ADD.

Teaching information in the Bible has genuine importance to Bro. Eli that he makes sure his listeners understand why. So he makes connections between day-to-day experiences and truth, and conveys the importance and usefulness of what he’s teaching. He would help his learners see rules, structure and patterns in the Bible with whatever they are learning.[32]

Thus, it is important to train pastors to communicate the Word in a way that is simple, practical and authoritative.  There are no boring subjects, only boring speakers.

Always show interest for the person.  Avoid personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.  They are not the enemies.  Satan deceived them, “having been taken captive by him to do his will” (2 Tim 2:26c).  Thus, they need to “escape the snare of the devil” (v. 26b).  Engage in a respectful way.  In doing so, one earns the right to be heard.  Ask the person why he got converted to the group.  He could have joined the group for reasons other than spiritual hunger.  If the person joined the group out of a social need, then befriend him.  Keep in mind that “people do not care how much we know unless they know how much we care.”  

Concentrate on major issues.  Discuss only the essentials of the faith with the ADD and avoid “foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels” (v. 24, NIV).  Move away from minor issues like tithing.  Even equally competent Bible scholars disagree on these matters.  Focus on fundamentals topics such as the deity and humanity of Christ.  Keep the discussion on track by summarizing the points already discussed.  In discussions, the ADD tends to veer away and jump from one topic to another.  So pull them back to the original topic.

Help them to think.  In “correcting those who are in opposition,… [the goal is] that they may come to their senses” (v. 25).  If they misquote a verse, show them its context.  Explain how to arrive at its proper interpretation.  As an example, this paper spent much space on the right understanding of Philippians 2:6-8.  Do not pit one verse against another.  This would appear to be dodging the issue.  Challenge them to think for themselves and not just accept blindly everything that the ADD teaches them.

Conclusion

Last year the author met a believer who was an active worker of the ADD.  She became an employee of a company that holds a regular Bible study.  At first, she would join it to debate with the person who facilitates the group.  People may be asking, “Did she become a Christian because the Bible study leader gave an argument that she could not refute?” Actually she got convicted because of the way the leader lovingly responded to her attacks.  Because of that, she opened her mind and decided to accept Christ in her heart.  The ADD may not be won overnight.  But if they are led to rethink their positions, a foothold is gained. It is the prayer of the author that “God… will grant them repentance” (2 Tim 2:25).


© 2012 Bible Exposé Apologetics Ministry. To know more about us, click here.

NOTE: We have moved to our new home, http://bibleexpose.org/.

________________________________

[1]“About The Book,” Ang Dating Daan Bible Exposition Online, 9 June 2004, available from http://www.angdatingdaan.org/about/about_leav.htm; Internet; accessed 10 August 2005.

[2]“About This Site,” Ang Dating Daan Bible Exposition Online, 15 June 2004, available from http://www.angdatingdaan.org/about/about_us.htm; Internet; accessed 10 August 2005.

[3]Unless otherwise specified, Scripture references are from the New King James Version. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

[4]“Our Presiding Minister,” Ang Dating Daan Bible Exposition Online, 2004, available from http://angdatingdaan.org/about/about_ministers.htm; Internet; accessed 18 January 2006.

[5]Jet Damazo, “Ang Dating Daan: An Unbeaten Path,” Newsbreak, 15 April 2002,  available from http://www.inq7.net/nwsbrk/2002/apr/15/nbk_3-1.htm;  Internet;  accessed 6 August 2005.

[6]“Biblical Topics,” Ang Dating Daan Bible Exposition Online, 2004, available from http://www.angdatingdaan.org/biblicaltopics/bibtopics.htm; Internet; accessed 18 January 2006.

[7]Although we should do another study about what Soriano really teaches about the deity of Christ.  Soriano teaches that Jesus is a Mighty God but not the Almighty God.  It appears that he fell for the same error of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, another cult group.

[8]Eliseo Soriano, “How the ‘Iglesia ni Cristo’ made our Lord Jesus Christ a Man,” Ang Dating Daan Bible Exposition Online, 11 July 2004, available from http://www.angdatingdaan.org/segments/seg_incm_1_pf.htm; Internet; accessed 6 August 2005.

[9]Ibid.

[10]Eli Soriano, “Should the Bible be interpreted?” Bible Guide, 11 July 2004, available from http://www.kaanib.net/bible/bible_study.html; Internet; accessed 6 August 2005.

[11]James W. Sire, Scripture Twisting (IL: InterVarsity, 1980), 52.

[12]Alva J. McClain, “The Doctrine of Kenosis in Philippians 2:5-8,” The Master’s Seminary Journal 9/1 (Spring 1998): 90.

[13]Soriano, “How the ‘Iglesia ni Cristo’ made our Lord Jesus Christ a Man.” Note that by calling Jesus “a god,” Soriano appears to subscribe to polytheism or the belief in many gods.  In fact, he teaches that by appealing to verses such as Ps 82:6 and 138:1.

[14]Donald Guthrie, New Testament Theology (IL: Inter-Varsity, 1981), 226.

[15] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (MI: Zondervan, 1994), 540.

[16]Ibid.

[17]“There is something that God cannot do,” Ang Dating Daan Bible Exposition Online, 2004, available from http://angdatingdaan.org/biblicaltopics/bib_issues_13_pf.htm; Internet; accessed 17 January 2006.

 18]Ibid.

[19]Grudem, 216.

[20]“Our Presiding Minister,” Ang Dating Daan Bible Exposition Online, 2004, available from http://www.angdatingdaan.org/about/about_ministers.htm; Internet; accessed 18 January 2006.

[21]“Super Preacher In Our Times,” The Old Path Magazine, Vol. 1, No. 3, 2005, available from http://angdatingdaan.org/publications/pub_top_2b.htm; Internet; accessed 18 January 2006. 

[22]Cults 101. 

[23]Ibid. 

[24]“Church History,” Ang Dating Daan Bible Exposition Online, 2004, available from http://www.angdatingdaan.org/about/about_chistory.htm; Internet; accessed 18 January 2006.

[25]“Leaving Behind the Fundamental Doctrines of Christ: Chapter One: Faith in Christ,” Ang Dating Daan Bible Exposition Online, 2004, available from http://www.angdatingdaan.org/about/about_leav_1_pf.htm; Internet; accessed 18 August 2005.

[26]Ibid.

[27]American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000, available from http://www.bartleby.com/61/90/P0209000.html; Internet; accessed 27 January 2006.

[28]Eliseo Soriano, “The Jesus and Christ of the Bible is not God, the Father,” Ang Dating Daan Bible Exposition Online, 2004, available from http://angdatingdaan.org/biblicaltopics/bib_christ_1_pf.htm; Internet; accessed 19 January 2006.

[29]Steve Brown, How To Talk So People Will Listen (Phil: OMF, 1993), 104.

[30]Manfred Waldemar Kohl, The Church in the Philippines: A Research Project with Special Emphasis on Theological Education (Phil: OMF, 2005), 19.

[31]Ibid, 19.

[32]Super Preacher in our Times. 

Tinawag nga ba ang Panginoong Jesu-Cristo na "tunay na Diyos, at buhay na walang hanggan" sa 1 Juan 5:20?

NOTE: We have moved to our new home, http://bibleexpose.org/.

Mahalaga ngunit kontrobersyal ang katuruan ng pagka-Diyos ng Panginoong Jesu-Cristo. Sa isang giyera, pinagbubuwisan ng buhay ang bawat hakbang pasulong. Gayon din naman, mainit na pinagtatalunan ang bawat talata na tumatalakay sa naturang paksa.

Isa sa naturang mga talata ay ang 1 Juan 5:20. "At alam natin na naparito ang Anak ng Diyos at binigyan niya tayo ng pagkaunawa upang ating makilala siya na totoo; at tayo'y nasa kanya na totoo, sa kanyang Anak na si Jesu-Cristo. Ito ang tunay na Diyos, at buhay na walang hanggan." [1]

Ang malaking isyu patungkol sa talatang ito ay kung tinawag nga ni Juan ang Panginoong Jesus na "tunay na Diyos, at buhay na walang hanggan." Kung gayon nga, ang 1 Juan 5:20 ang isa sa mga pinakamalinaw na talata tungkol sa Kanyang pagka-Diyos. Ngunit may mga sumasalungat dito, na nagsasabing ang Diyos Ama ang talagang tinutukoy ng apostol.

Sumulat si apostol Juan upang ipaliwanag kung ano ang kahulugan ng pananampalataya sa Panginoong Jesus bilang Tagapagligtas. Malinaw niyang ipinahayag ang mga layunin kung bakit siya sumulat sa mga unang nakabasa ng kanyang liham. (Pansinin ang mga katagang "Isinusulat namin ang mga bagay na ito" o "Ang mga bagay na ito ay isinulat ko sa inyo..." sa naturang liham.) Una, sumulat siya upang malubos ang kagalakan ng mga sinaunang mananampalataya sa kanilang kaligtasan (1:4). Sumulat siya upang mamuhay sila ng isang buhay na may pagsunod (2:1), may pagmamahal sa iba (2:7) at may katiyakan (2:12-14; 5:13) bilang tugon sa kanilang kaligtasan. Sumulat din siya upang magbigay-babala laban sa mga maling katuruan tungkol kay Cristo (2:26). Inilaan niya ang mga pinakamaaanghang na salita laban sa mga nagkakalat ng mga hidwang pananampalataya tungkol sa Panginoon. Tinawag niya silang mga "anti-Cristo" (2:18; 4:3), "sinungaling" (2:22) at "mga bulaang propeta" (4:1).

Ang pinaka-konteksto ng ating tinatalakay na talata ay patungkol sa katiyakan ng kaligtasan ng mga nananampalataya sa Panginoong Jesus (5:11-13). Nagdudulot ito sa atin ng kapanatagan sa pananalangin (vv. 14-15), nagpapaalaala sa atin laban sa pamumuhay ng isang makasalanang pamumuhay (vv. 16-19) at nagbibigay sa atin ng katiyakan na tayo ay binigyan na ng pagkaunawa kay Cristo (v. 20). Kapansin-pansin ang huling binitiwan na babala ni Juan: "Mga munting anak, lumayo kayo sa mga diyus-diyosan." (v. 21). Kung kaya upang maranasan natin ang ganitong pinagpalang katiyakan, kailangan nating tiyakin na nananampalataya tayo sa tamang Cristo. Kung bulaan ang ating Cristo, isang diyus-diyosan ang pinanghahawakan natin. Ang diyus-diyusan ay ang maling pananampalataya sa kung sino si Jesus. Malinaw na nagbabala si Juan laban sa mga ipinagkakaila na si Jesus ay siyang Cristo (2:22) at sa mga nagpapahayag na hindi Siya naparito sa laman (4:2-3). Sa kanyang buong liham, tinawag ng apostol si Jesus na "Anak" (1:3), "Tagapagtanggol sa harap ng Ama," "matuwid" (2:1), "ang kabayaran para sa ating mga kasalanan" (v. 2), "Cristo" (v. 22), "ang Anak ng Diyos" (3:8) at "Tagapagligtas ng sanlibutan" (4:14). Kaya nga lumalabas na marapat lamang na sa bandang huli ay tawagin Siya ni Juan na "tunay na Diyos, at buhay na walang hanggan." (5:20)

Ang pinakamahalagang bahagi ng ating talata ay kung si Cristo nga ang "antecedent" o siyang tinutukoy ng nagpapatotoong panghalip ("demonstrative pronoun") na "ito ang tunay na Diyos, at buhay na walang hanggan" (Dagdag ang pagbibigay-diin). [2] Kung si Cristo nga ang tinutukoy ng "Ito," malinaw kung gayon na tinawag nga Siyang Diyos sa talatang ito. Lumalabas na ganoon na nga sapagkat ang panghalip na "Ito" ay kasunud na kasunod lamang ng katagang "Jesu-Cristo." Kaya, kung gramatika na rin lang ang pag-uusapan, ang Panginoong Jesus ang tinawag ni Juan na "tunay na Diyos, at buhay na walang hanggan."

At, isinulat ni Juan na, nang naparito si Jesus, "binigyan niya tayo ng pagkaunawa upang ating makilala siya na totoo" (v. 20a). Pagkatapos, kanyang binigyang-diin na tayo ay kaisa Niya o "tayo'y nasa kanya na totoo" (v. 20b). Ang tanong ay, "Sino ang tinutukoy na 'siya na totoo'?" Ang sagot ay nasa "subordinate clause" o sugnay na pantulong: "sa kanyang Anak na si Jesu-Cristo." (v. 20c) Si Jesus ang sinasabing "siya na totoo." Kaya nga tinawag Siya ni Juan na "tunay na Diyos".  Siya ang magpapaunawa sa mga tao na kilalanin Siya na kabuuan ng katotohanan, "ang tunay na Diyos" na laban sa mga diyus-diyosan o mga maling katuruan tungkol sa Cristo. Binigyang-diin din ni Juan na ang buhay na walang hanggan "ay nasa kanyang Anak," na walang iba kundi si Jesus (v. 11). Kung mananampalataya tayo sa Kanya, tayo ay may buhay na walang hanggan. Ang dahilan kung bakit magagawa Niya na magbigay ng buhay na walang hanggan ay sapagkat Siya mismo ang "buhay na walang hanggan" (v. 20d). Siya ang pinagmumulan ng buhay.

 Kaya, malinaw sa konteksto pa lamang, si Jesus ang tinawag ni Juan na "tunay na Diyos, at buhay na walang hanggan." Kung kaya ang 1 Juan 5:20 ang isa sa mga pinakamalinaw na talata tungkol sa pagka-Diyos ni Cristo.

Sa ebanghelyo na kanyang sinulat, paulit-ulit na binigyang-diin ni apostol Juan ang pagka-Diyos ni Cristo (Juan 1:1, 18; 5:18; 8:58; 10:30; 20:28). Kaya walang salungatan nang tawagin niya si Jesus na "tunay na Diyos" sa kanyang unang liham. Sa katunayan, batay sa pinakalumang mga manuskrito o kopya ng Bagong Tipan, tinawag sa Juan 1:18 si Jesus na "Diyos na tanging Anak." [3] Ipinahayag ng Panginoong Jesus na Siya "ang katotohanan, at ang buhay" (14:6), na akmang-akma kapag inihahambing sa "tunay na Diyos, at buhay na walang hanggan" sa 1 Juan 5:20. Sa Pahayag 3:7, tinawag si Jesus na "totoo". Kinilala din ng mga apostol Pablo at Pedro na Diyos ang Panginoong Jesus at hayagan Siyang tinawag na "Diyos" (Tito 2:13; 2 Pedro 1:1).

Tinawag ng Bible Knowledge Commentary ang 1 Juan 5:20 na "isang dakilang pagpapatunay sa pagka-Diyos ni Cristo." [4] Subalit hindi lahat ng dalubhasa o "scholars" ay sang-ayon dito. Ayon kay Vincent, ang "demonstrative pronoun" ay tumutukoy sa Diyos Ama.[5] Ngunit inamin din nito na "Gayunpaman, maraming nagsasabi na tumutukoy ito sa Anak." [6] Ito ang dahiln kung bakit isinulat ni Wallace na "sapat nang sabihin dito na walang gramatikang kadahilanan para itanggi na 'ang tunay na Diyos' ay kumakatawan kay Jesu-Cristo." [7]

Ipinaliwanag naman ng mga hindi sang-ayon na si Cristo ang "antecedent" ng "ito" sa 1 Juan 5:20 na Siya mismo ang nagsabi na ang Diyos Ama ang "iisang Diyos na tunay" (juan 17:3). Dalawang beses lamang na ginamit ni Juan ang katagang αληθινος Θεος (isinalin na "Diyos na tunay" sa Juan 17:3 at "tunay na Diyos" naman sa 1 Juan 5:20). Kaya nga may pagtatalo kung pareho silang tumutukoy sa Ama o ang Ama ang tinutukoy sa Juan 17:3 at ang Anak naman ang tinutukoy sa 1 Juan 5:20. Ngunit, gaya nang aking sinabi na, tinawag si Jesus na "Diyos na tanging Anak" sa Juan 1:18. Hindi sa dalawa ang Diyos. Tanging ang katuruan ng Trinity lamang ang makakaresolba sa animo'y salungatan na ito. Iisa lamang ang "tunay na Diyos." Sapagkat si Jesus ay kapantay ng Ama (Juan 5:18; 10:30).

Hindi rin sang-ayon ang mga hidwang pananamplataya na itinatanggi ang pagka-Diyos ni Cristo na tinawag ni Juan na "tunay na Diyos" si Jesus. Halimbawa, ayon sa Iglesia ni Cristo, "Ang angkinin na si Jesus ang tunay na Diyos sa huling pangungusap habang inaamin na ang Ama ang tunay na Diyos sa unang pangungusap ng 1 Juan 5:20 ay tila pagsasabi  na sa talatang ito pa lamang, mayroong dalawang mga tunay na Diyos, ang Ama at ang Anak." [8] Gaya nang aking naisulat na, ang Trinity ang pinaka makapagpapaliwanag dito at si Cristo ang tinutukoy na "siya na totoo." Pinalaki masyado ng grupong ito ang inamin ni Wallace na "maraming dalubhasa ang nakikita na ang [Diyos] sa halip na si [Cristo] ang 'antecedent,' kahit na ang [Cristo] ang mas malapit." [9] Dagdag pa dito, masyado nilang binigyang diin ang sinabi ni Wallace na, "Ang isyung ito ay hindi madedesisyonan sa pamamagitan ng gramatika lamang." [10] Ngunit lumalabas na binaluktot ng Iglesia ni Cristo ang mga sinabi ni Wallace. Sa isang banda, isyu kung sino talaga ang "antecedent." Sa kabilang banda, ibang isyu naman ang pagbaluktot sa mga sinabi ni Wallace. Tinatanggap natin na pare-parehong magagaling at makadiyos ang mga dalubhasa ang nagsasalungatan sa kung sino ang "antecedent." Gayunpaman, ang pagbaluktot o ang pagsitas ng labag sa konteksto ay isang bagay na kinakikitaan ng kawalan ng katapatan. Sa kanyang personal na "email" sa akin, ikinalungkot ni Wallace ang ginawang pagbaluktot sa kanyang mga sinulat, "Bakit hindi niya sinitas ang lahat ng patunay na sumusuporta sa argumento [na si Cristo ang 'antecedent']?" [11] Sinabi pa niya na  pinilipit ng Iglesia ni Cristo ang lahat ng sinulat niya patungkol sa 1 Juan 5:20.

Isang "screenshot" ng buong paliwanag ni Daniel Wallace patungkol sa 1 Juan 5:20

sa kanyang "Greek Grammar Beyond the Basic" (Pradis Bible Software)

Kabilang sa mga patunay na sumusuporta sa argumento ni Wallace (na hindi sinitas ng Iglesia ni Cristo) ay ang katotohanan na ang "buhay" ay "isang katawagan na hindi saanman ginamit patungkol sa Ama." [12] At, itinuro ni Wallace na ang "demonstrative pronoun" nagpapatotoong panghalip na "Ito" (Sa Griego ay οὗτος) sa tuwing gagamitin ito ni Juan "sa Ebanghelyo at sa mga Sulat ni Juan ay mukhang ginagamit sa isang mayamang teolohikal na kaparaanan." [13] Idinagdag niya sa may 70 beses na ginamit ni Juan ang naturang "demonstrative pronoun" para pantukoy sa sinuman, "hanggang sa apatnapu't apat sa mga ito (halos dalawang-ikatlo ng mga pagkakataon] ay tumutukoy sa Anak." [14] Ang mga ito ay direktang personal na pantukoy. Karamihan sa mga natitirang ikatlong bahagi ay hindi man tuwiran pero patungkol pa rin kay Cristo. Kaya para kay Wallace, ang "Ito" sa 1 Juan 5:20 ay direktang pinatutungkulan si Cristo. Idinagdag pa niya na, "Ang pinakamahalagang dapat bigyang diin ay hindi kainlanman ginamit [ang naturang 'demonstrative pronoun' na nasa 1 Juan 5:20] patungkol sa Ama." (Sa kanya ang diin) [15]

Kaya may napakalaking suporta sa mga ebidensya ay itinuturo na tinawag nga ang Panginoong Jesu-Cristo na "tunay na Diyos, at buhay na walang hanggan" sa 1 Juan 5:20. Ang pagka-Diyos ni Cristo ay mahalaga hindi lamang bilang katuruan na dapat ipagtanggol kundi bilang katotohanan na dapat isapamuhay sa araw-araw na pamumuhay.

© 2012 Bible Exposé Apologetics Ministry. To know more about us, click here.

NOTE: We have moved to our new home, http://bibleexpose.org/.

NOTE: Ito ay salin mula sa English ng "Did 1 John 5:20 Really Call Jesus "the true God and eternal life"? Anumang mungkahi kung paano mas magiging malinaw ang pagkakasalin ay maari ninyong i-email sa bibleexpose@gmail.com. 
________________________________

[1] Malibang nakasaad, mula sa Ang Biblia, 2001 ang lahat ng talata ng Salita ng Diyos.

[2] Sa ibang salin ng Biblia,  ang οὗτος ay isinalin na "Siya."

[3] Ganito ang nakasaad sa ibang manuskrito: "Ang tanging Anak, na Diyos." (Talibaba o "footnote" ng Ang Biblia, 2001) Ayon naman sa Magandang Balita Biblia, "Kailanma'y walang nakakita sa Diyos, subalit ipinakilala siya ng bugtong na Anak ng Diyos--siya'y Diyos--na lubos na minamahal ng Ama."

[4] "grand affirmation of the deity of Christ”. John F. Walvoord, Roy B. Zuck and Dallas Theological Seminary, The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1983-c1985), 2:903-904.

[5] Marvin Richardson Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2002), 2:374.

[6] "Many, however, refer it to the Son." Ibid.

[7] “suffice it to say here that there are no grammatical reasons for denying that [true God] is descriptive of Jesus Christ.” Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 327.

[8] “To claim that Jesus is the true God in the last sentence while admitting that the Father is the true God in the first sentence of I John 5:20 is short of saying that in this verse alone, there are two true Gods, the Father and the Son.” Jose Ventilacion, “Who Is the True God According to 1 John 5:20? The Father or the Son?” Pasugo, Aug. 2004, Vol. 56, No. 8, (Quezon City, Manila: Iglesia ni Cristo, 2004).

[9] “many scholars see [God] rather than [Christ] as the antecedent, even though [Christ] is closer.” Ibid.

[10] “The issue cannot be decided on grammar alone.” Ibid.

[11] "Why didn't he cite all the data that support the argument [that Christ is the antecedent]?" Daniel Wallace, Dallas, Texas, USA, December 23, 2005, email to the author, Quezon Cty, Phil, 1. Re: Your work used by a cult.

[12] "an epithet nowhere else used of the Father." Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 327.

[13] "in the Gospel and the Epistles of John seems to be used in a theologically rich manner." Ibid.

[14] "as many as forty-four of them (almost two-thirds of the instances) refer to the Son.” Ibid.

[15] “What is most significant is that never is the Father the referent [of the demonstrative pronoun used in 1 John 5:20].” Emphasis his. Ibid.

Was Eli Soriano Correct In His Criticism of Hermeneutics?

There is a right handling of the Word of God. The Bible tells us that God commends those who do so. “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.” (2 Tim. 2:15)[1] We evangelicals call the correct handling of the Scriptures “hermeneutics,” which is “the science (principles) and art (task) by which the meaning of the biblical text is determined.”[2] That means that there is also an incorrect handling the Bible. Thus, hermeneutics is essential in understanding it.

            However Eli Soriano, preacher of the famous radio and TV religious program, Ang Dating Daan (in English, “The Old Path,” hereon referred to as ADD), rejects hermeneutics.

There are preachers who think that, through hermeneutics they can rightfully understand the Bible. We believe that the laws of men do not apply here. They do not contribute in developing correct interpretation and understanding of the Bible. We do not have to follow any set of principles formulated by men…[3]

 So, was Soriano correct in his criticism of hermeneutics? Is hermeneutics merely “the laws of men” that we apply on the Bible and does not really help at all in Bible interpretation?

            According to a study of the state of theological education here in the country, “16% churches without pastors plus 39% churches with untrained pastors translates into a need to train pastors for 55% of the churches in the Philippines.”[4] One of the basics that a pastor has to learn is hermeneutics. I heard enough horror stories of pastors mangling the Word in their preaching. The want of training on Bible interpretation weakens the pulpit ministry and worsens the Bible illiteracy among believers. Thus, cults such as ADD are on the rise, capitalizing on such ignorance of the Word. Its members claim that ADD is “the only religious program which heightened the religious awareness of many people”[5] and that millions have already converted to their faith because of that program, which is aired not only nationwide but even worldwide through their own cable TV channel, a hundred radio stations and the Internet. Hence, we need to defend hermeneutics against the criticisms of people like Soriano. We need to teach pastors how to interpret the Bible so that they could equip their people to know what and why they believe “so that [they] may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes.” (Eph. 4:14)

            I believe that every passage has one intended meaning though it has many applications. We draw out that intended meaning through hermeneutics. One can rightly apply the Word only if he has rightly interpreted it. Thus, I am committed to “grammatico-historical interpretation,” which focuses on “both the language in which the original text was written and to the specific cultural context that gave rise to the text.”[6] I also believe in “the analogy of faith” or “the rule that Scripture is to interpret Scripture”.[7] It means “that no part of Scripture can be interpreted in such a way as to render it in conflict with what is clearly taught elsewhere in Scripture.”[8] I hereby venture further that, in order for the Bible to interpret the Bible, it even modeled for us how to do so. The Scripture itself taught us that there are rules for its interpretation and provided us some of those rules. Therefore, hermeneutics is no mere man-made rules imposed on the Word of God.

            God gave every believer the right and the privilege to interpret the Bible. This is based on the doctrine of the priesthood of the believer. That means that “all Christians have some ability to interpret Scripture and some responsibility to seek God’s wisdom in applying it to situations.”[9] Sproul declared that one “of the great legacies of the Reformation [was] the principle of private interpretation”.[10] He clarified what he meant with the term.

Private interpretation never meant that individuals have the right to distort the Scriptures. With the right of private interpretation comes the sober responsibility of accurate interpretation. Private interpretation gives license to interpret but not to distort.[11]

            But Soriano questions private interpretation. He claims “the Bible is already an interpreted book... [so] the only thing that we have to do is, read the Bible.”[12] But, this is a simplistic approach to the Bible.  Because the Bible is not only the words of God but also of man, reading is an interpretation by itself. As Zuck cautioned, “What was clear to the writer may not be immediately clear to the reader.”[13] One must be aware that when he reads the Bible he tends to tap into his vocabulary for example which is usually different from the vocabulary of the Biblical authors and the original readers. Somebody wrote, “Even if they use our vocabulary, they have a different dictionary.” Merely quoting verses may actually result to proof-texting.

The proof-text model often relies on a naïve reading of the text. It may disregard the purpose for which the text was written, the historical conditioning in which it is set, and the genre conventions that shaped it. Consequently, this method is vulnerable to allegorization, psychologization, spiritualization, and other forms of quick-and-easy adjustments of the scriptural words to say what one wishes them to say in the contemporary scene, ignoring their intended purpose and usage as determined by context, grammar, and historical background.[14]

Watching just one broadcast of ADD would suffice to convince a careful interpreter of the Bible that what Soriano dubs as “reading the Bible” is actually mere proof-texting.

           As his proof-text, Soriano quoted 2 Peter 1:20 in the King James Version which says, “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.”[15] Crucial to our discussion then is a proper understanding of 2 Peter 1:20. Does it really rule out hermeneutics? Was Peter actually talking about hermeneutics when he mentioned “private interpretation”? There are at least two views on 2 Peter 1:20. The first view says that the verse explains “the origin of the prophecies of the OT Scripture”.[16] The second view says that it is “speaking of how OT prophecies are to be interpreted”.[17] Soriano appears to be leaning on the latter view. But the context of our text leans in favor of the former view.

            In view of his imminent death, the apostle Peter was reminding his readers about the truth that they received from him (2 Pet. 1:12-15). He assured them that they “did not follow cleverly devised myths” (v. 16). They got it from reliable sources. They heard it directly from eyewitnesses such as Peter.  He personally saw the transfiguration of the Lord and heard the voice of God along with the apostles James and John (vv. 17-18). But Peter affirmed that they have an even better source of revelation: “And we have something more sure, the prophetic word” (v. 19a) Then he wrote “that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation” (v. 20). It appears that, based on the context, what Peter meant with the word “interpretation” was the origination or revelation of the prophecies. The next verse supported that line of thought. “For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” (v. 21. Emphasis added.) What he was saying was that the prophets did not make it up but instead made known what they received from God. That is why the NET Bible® goes like this: “No prophecy of scripture ever comes about by the prophet’s own imagination, for no prophecy was ever borne of human impulse; rather, men carried along by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.” (Emphasis added)

            Therefore, Soriano misinterpreted 2 Peter 1:20. The verse did not actually rule out hermeneutics. Peter was not even talking about hermeneutics. It was just unfortunate that scholars like Sproul used the term “private interpretation” which is the exact phrase that the King James Version used in 2 Peter 1:20. But there was no connection at all and different definitions were intended in the usage of the phrase. Same vocabulary but different dictionary.

            Now we set out to establish that the Bible itself taught us that we should observe rules for its interpretation and gave us some of those rules. Second Timothy 2:15 reminds us that there is a right way and a wrong way of handling the Bible. The words “rightly handling” literally mean “to cut straight.”[18] As a tentmaker, Paul would stitch together animal skins. The parts had to be cut the right size so that they would have the right fit when patched to each other. It is the same with the Word. We cannot just patch verses together without making sure their contexts fit even if they have a common word or wordings. The part (verse) must fit the whole tent (the entire Bible). This supports analogy of faith. An interpretation of a part of the Bible should not contradict with what it teaches in other parts of it. Thus, here we see an assumption that there are rules for cutting the Word straight. Without those rules, we may end up cutting it crooked.  

            In 1 Corinthians 4:6, Paul reminded the believers “not to go beyond what is written”. In this passage, he exhorted them not to judge their leaders beyond what the Bible says. He taught them to evaluate their leaders based on what the Bible teaches about church leadership in general. But this “proverb [perhaps] common among the rabbis”[19] appears to be an interpretive rule that the apostle follows as well. (Even Soriano loves to quote this verse again and again.) To mark it as a rabbinical saying, the New International Version even placed it in quotation marks.  

Although we are not aware of any wording quite like this [“not to go beyond what is written”] elsewhere, clearly Paul and his readers were, and the phrase ‘what is written’ is a common enough way in which Paul referred to the Old Testament Scriptures; he uses it sixteen times in his letter to the Romans alone, and more than thirty times at all.[20]

But it is not just limited to quoting verses since that saying is “directing attention to the need for conformity to Scripture.”[21] Based on the way Paul mentioned it in 1 Corinthians, he is not just teaching them to remain Scriptural, that is, paying attention on what is actually written, but also to remain Biblical, that is, on what it really teaches, either by its precepts (commands) or principles.

We must always distinguish between something that is contrary to Scripture and something that is not in Scripture; a thing may be non-scriptural without being against Scripture. We are allowed to do things not specifically mentioned in Scripture provided they are not contrary to Scripture; that is, provided they are in harmony with scriptural principles.[22]

            When we affirm what the Bible affirms and when we deny what it denies, we are not going beyond but staying within the Word. Due to the limited scope of this paper however, we need not debate whether we are free or not to do things that the Bible is silent about or does not discuss at all. But it is enough to point out that the “not to go beyond what is written” proverb is a hermeneutical rule that the Word of God gave us. Also, it is a scriptural support for the analogy of faith.[23]  

            In Mathew 4, we see the Lord Jesus model analogy of faith for us. When the enemy tempted Him to jump off the apex of the temple by misquoting Psalm 91:11-12, He countered with a quotation from Deuteronomy 6:16. He even prefaced it with “Again it is written” (Matt. 4:7) Here we see that Scripture interprets Scripture. One cannot claim divine protection when he foolishly puts himself in harm’s way. Christ balanced the promise of Psalm 91 with the prudence of Deuteronomy 6.

            Other than observing the analogy of faith, the Lord Jesus also interpreted the Scripture based on the intent of the author. Determining the authorial intent is another important hermeneutical rule.

What a passage means is fixed by the author and is not subject to change by readers… Meaning is also definite in that there are defined limits by virtue of the author's expressed meaning in the given linguistic form and cultural context. Meaning is determined by an author; it is discovered by the readers.[24]

In Matthew 19, the Pharisees tried to drag Jesus into the ongoing debate at that time about divorce and its grounds. When He quoted Genesis 2:24, His opponents argued against it by quoting Deuteronomy 24:1-4. When the Lord concluded that “What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate” (v. 6b), they countered it by asking, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” (v. 7) He then clarified that Moses did not actually command divorce but just consented to it on clear-cut grounds. “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.” (v. 8) It was not the intent of Moses to abolish marriage by allowing divorce. Note also that He had put more weight on Genesis 2:24 than Deuteronomy 24:1-4, that the former determines the meaning of the latter, by saying “but from the beginning it was not so.” (v. 8b) He surfaced the intent of the ultimate Author of the Scripture, God Himself.

            Another rule that the Bible gave us is to interpret it according to the rules of grammar. We call this “grammatical interpretation”. Zuck gave much emphasis on its importance.

Thoughts are expressed through words, and words are the building block of sentences. Therefore to determine God’s thoughts we need to study His words and how they are associated in sentences. If we neglect the meaning of words and how they are used, we have no way of knowing whose interpretations are correct. The assertion, “You can make the Bible mean anything you want it to mean,” is true only if grammatical interpretation is ignored.[25]

            Galatians 3:16 in its discussion of “the promises… made to Abraham and to his offspring” shows us grammatical interpretation in action: “It does not say, ‘And to offsprings,’ referring to many, but referring to one, ‘And to your offspring,’ who is Christ.” Paul built his argument on the number indicated in the noun “offspring” in Genesis 13:15 and 17:8. The fact that God made the promise to a singular offspring and not plural (“offsprings”) led him to conclude that it referred to Christ. “Paul’s willingness to make an argument using a singular noun in distinction from its plural form (which occurs in other OT verses) indicates a high level of confidence in the trustworthiness of the small details of the OT text.”[26]

            Even Jesus Himself observed grammatical interpretation. In Matthew 22, the Sadducees tried to trap Him with a trick story that they usually used as their argument against resurrection. But He answered them, “And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God: ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the living.’” (Vv. 31-32) Christ based his counter-argument on the present tense of “I am” in Exodus 3:6 to prove the resurrection. His conclusion that God is the God of the living and not of the dead agrees with the tense of “I am.” It shows the great trust He had even in the minutia of the Bible, just like Paul. No wonder Zuck wrote, “Only grammatical interpretation fully honors the verbal inspiration of the Scripture.”[27] If grammatical interpretation is good enough for the Lord Jesus and the apostle Paul, it is good enough for all of us.

             I believe that hermeneutics is a biblical set of rules for understanding the biblical set of rules for understanding the Word of God. I deny that it is merely man-made interpretive laws imposed on the Scripture. Scripture truly interprets Scripture.

            God commends workers who would commit to correctly handle His Word (2 Tim. 2:15). To rightly handle the Scripture is to rightly interpret it. Thus, the Bible itself taught us that we should observe rules for its interpretation. The Lord Jesus Christ and the apostle Paul themselves have modeled for us those hermeneutical rules. We are to follow their example. Not to do so would be condemnable, not commendable. To hone my skills in understanding the Word of God is to honor the God of the Word.

© 2012 Bible Exposé Apologetics Ministry. To know more about us, click here.

NOTE: We have moved to our new home, http://bibleexpose.org/.

     

________________________________

                        [1]Unless otherwise noted, Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

                        [2]Roy B. Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation, (Colorado Springs: Victor, 1991), 19.

                        [3]Eli Soriano, “Should the Bible be interpreted?” Bible Guide, 11 July 2004, http://www.kaanib.net/bible/bible_study.html (accessed August 6, 2005).

                        [4]Manfred Waldemar Kohl, The Church in the Philippines: A Research Project with Special Emphasis on Theological Education (Phil: OMF, 2005), 19.

                        [5]“About This Site,” Ang Dating Daan Bible Exposition Online, 15 June 2004, http://www.angdatingdaan.org/about/about_us.htm (accessed August 10, 2005).

                        [6] Walter Kaiser, Jr. and Moises Silva, An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1994), 19.  

                        [7]R.C. Sproul, Knowing Scripture (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1977), 46.

                        [8]Ibid.

                        [9]Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1994), 933.

                        [10]Sproul, 34.

                        [11]Ibid, 35-36.

                        [12]Soriano. Emphasis his.

                        [13]Zuck, 26.

                        [14]Kaiser, 31-32.

                        [15]Soriano.

                        [16]Wayne Grudem, gen. ed., ESV Study Bible (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Bibles, 2008), 2420.

                        [17]Ibid. Emphasis his.

                        [18]James Strong, The Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible: Showing Every Word of the Text of the Common English Version of the Canonical Books, and Every Occurrence of Each Word in Regular Order, electronic ed. (Ontario: Woodside Bible Fellowship., 1996), G3718.

                        [19]Kenneth Barker, gen. ed., NIV Study Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1995), .

                        [20]Brian H. Edwards, Nothing but the Truth (Great Britain: Evangelical Press, 1993), 103.

                        [21]Ibid.

                        [22]Ibid, 96-97.

                        [23]1 Corinthians 4:6 (specially the clause “not to go beyond what is written”) is an excellent supporting verse also for the doctrine of the sufficiency of the Scripture.

                        [24]Norman Geisler, “Explaining Hermeneutics: A Commentary on The Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics Articles of Affirmation and Denial” Biblical Hermeneutics, http://hermeneutics.kulikovskyonline.net/hermeneutics/csbh.htm (accessed December 10, 2009).

                        [25]Zuck, 99.

                        [26]ESV Study Bible, 2250.  

                        [27]Zuck, 99.

What Does John 1:1 Say About The Nature of Jesus Christ?

NOTE: We have moved to our new home, http://bibleexpose.org/.

          
Cults that deny the Trinity focus on denying the deity of Christ. It is because a belief in the deity of Christ could lead to a belief in the Trinity. Thus, they try to water down verses that clearly teach that Jesus is God such as John 1:1.

           The key clause in this verse is “the Word was God.”[1] To deaden the impact of that clause, the Jehovah’s Witnesses in their NWT[2] rendered it, “the Word was a god.” On the other hand, the Iglesia ni Cristo argues that the meaning of λόγος or “Word” is merely a concept. So, they claim that Christ was just an idea or a plan of God. This study will show that “the Word was God” in its literary context teaches that by nature Jesus is God. Though we cannot build the doctrine of the Trinity on one verse, an exegetical analysis of John 1:1 in its grammatical-historical context is a necessary part of that teaching.

            Our passage is part of the prologue of the Gospel of John (1:1-18). It talked about the preexistence of the Word who became man. Here we see that “the only Son” (v. 14) is also called “the only God” (v. 18). The author expressly stated that the purpose why he wrote this book was that “[we] may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing [we] may have life in his name.” (20:31) To believe that Jesus is the Son of God is to believe that He is God. He started with introducing that “the Word was God” (1:1c) and ended with Thomas declaring Him, “My Lord and my God!” (20:28) This Gospel is full of references to the deity of Christ. For example, the Jews sought to kill Jesus because He claimed to be equal with God by “calling God his own Father” (5:18), by claiming the Divine Name for Himself (8:58), and by confessing that He and the Father are one (10:30). Therefore, to say that the clause “the Word was God” teaches that Jesus is God is really consistent with the whole tenor of the Gospel of John.

            Was John talking about a principle or a person when he talked about ὁ λόγος in John 1:1? As far as Greek philosophers are concerned, this generic Greek for “word” “stands usually for ‘reason’”.[3] This fits the interpretation that the Word refers to a mere principle. But, it appears the apostle John had a person in mind rather than reason when he used the term. From verses 1 to 14, John repeatedly used personal pronouns such as “he,” “him,” and “his” to refer to the Word. So, he was not talking about a principle or even a personification but about the person of Christ. Walls wrote, “But one refers naturally to Philo’s logos as ‘it,’ to John’s as ‘he.’”[4] Plus, not only that it shows the Word as the subject, the use of the definite article ὁ (“the”) shows that John was not just talking about any word but the Word. According to the TDNT, “Only in the Prologue do we find ho logós in the absolute.”[5] Here in this Gospel, only in this pericopé was Christ called the Word. After the Word became man in verse 14, He was no longer called the Word for the rest of the Gospel. The next time we see John called Jesus as the Word is in 1 John 1:1 where the apostle described Him as someone they related to. Then, the last time is in Rev. 19:13 where John said that “the name by which he is called is The Word of God.” Here we see that the Word is one of His titles. In all these usages of λόγος, he always referred to the person of Christ. In fact, it seems that only John referred to Jesus as the Word. However, the apostle Paul may be alluding to this term when he wrote that Christ is “the wisdom of God” (1 Cor. 1:24, 30) since the λόγος “expression takes its suitability primarily from the OT connotation of ‘word’ and its personification of wisdom.”[6] Therefore, in its use of λόγος, John 1:1 was not talking about a concept but about the Christ. Yet, despite of this clear Johannine usage, the Iglesia ni Cristo insists that John 1:1 was talking about an idea in the mind of God. In their official magazine they declared, “before God created the world, Christ was foreknown or was already in God’s mind because He had planned to create the Messiah or Christ.”[7] In their desire to deny the pre-existence of Christ, this cult group committed a basic error in word study by sticking to a dictionary meaning that favors their bias against the deity of Christ and then insisting on that meaning alone in any context. But the context of the word clarifies its meaning. As already noted above, John was talking in ὁ λόγος about Christ Himself, not just an idea about Him. Also, John wrote, “In the beginning was the Word” (v. 1a). The copulative verb εἰμί (“was”) is in the imperfect, which “expresses continuous timeless existence”.[8] Christ was not from the beginning but He already existed even before the beginning. Both Genesis 1:1 in the Septuagint and John 1:1 in the Greek New Testament used exactly the same prepositional phrase Ἐν ἀρχῇ and exactly the same parsing (preposition + noun-dative-singular-feminine), showing that “there is a deliberate allusion to Gen 1:1 here”.[9] So, the first clause of John 1:1 proves that the person of Christ pre-existed. In addition to that, according to John 1:1b, “the Word was with God”. The preposition πρὸς (“with”) shows “accompaniment”, that is, that the Word has a close, interpersonal relationship with God the Father.[10] He did not simply exist in the mind of God. The Word was not “in” God but “with” Him.

            The main focus of the debate regarding John 1:1 is with the last clause: καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (“and the Word was God”). Does it prove His deity? The first clause (“In the beginning was the Word”) directly proves the pre-existence of Christ but only implied His deity. Though the Iglesia ni Cristo might dispute His pre-existence, the Jehovah’s Witnesses can just simply say it reinforces their belief that Jesus “is the first of God’s creations, that he had a beginning.”[11] But John 1:1a does not say that Christ had a beginning but that He was already there in the beginning. He was not created but He was the creator (1:2-3). Nevertheless, John 1:1a talks about His pre-existence explicitly and His deity implicitly. The next clause (“the Word was with God,” 1:1b) proves that the person of the Word is distinct from the person of God the Father but not the deity of the Word. Both the Iglesia ni Cristo and the Jehovah’s Witnesses would happily agree with us when we affirm that our Lord Jesus is not God the Father. For them, that proves that Christ is different by nature from God. But we are only saying that He is distinct by personhood from the Father. Still, the second clause deals with His distinction and not His deity. So, the issue is with the third and last clause of John 1:1.

            The noun θεὸς (“God”) in 1:1c is in the emphatic which “stresses [the] essence or quality”[12] of the λόγος. So, the Word has the same nature as God. Translators have attempted to draw out this particular meaning. The NEB[13] goes this way: “and what God was the Word was.” While the translators of the NET Bible conceded in its footnote of John 1:1 that the NEB has “perhaps the most nuanced rendering,” yet instead for the sake of clarity it translated the third clause as “the Word was fully God.” The NET Bible did bring out the force of its emphatic position. While λόγος has the article ὁ (“the”), θεὸς does not and, therefore, it is anarthrous (that is, without an article). John carefully worded the third clause in such a way that, while affirming the equality of the nature of the Word with God, he consistently distinguished the person of Jesus from the person of the Father just as he did in the second clause. So the Word is by nature God Himself. The third clause gave much sense to the first two clauses of John 1:1. The Word pre-existed because He is God. Though He is distinct from God, the Word is of the same essence as God.

            As mentioned above, the Jehovah’s Witnesses rendered 1:1c in the NWT as, “the Word was a god.” They defended their translation by arguing that θεὸς is anarthrous. So, they interpreted θεὸς as indefinite. But Wallace labels such rendition as “weak”, “simplistic”, and has “an insufficient basis.”[14] To be consistent, the NWT should have translated every anarthrous θεὸς in John 1 as “a god” but instead they rendered it as “God” (vv. 6, 12, 13 and 18). Plus, for the sake of argument, if the NWT was correct in its translation, the Greek construction of 1:1c should have been καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν θεὸς instead of καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.[15] The word order upholds the nature of the Word as equal with God. This is consistent with the language of John (“making himself equal with God.” 5:18c). Now the next question would be, if θεὸς is not indefinite, then does it follow that it is definite? The answer is also no. It is neither definite nor indefinite but actually qualitative. Harner argues that “the anarthrous predicate in [1:1c] has primarily a qualitative significance and that it would be definite only if there is some specific indication of definiteness in the meaning or context.”[16] But the context rule out definiteness because that it would make it appear that the Word is God the Father. Wallace explained that “calling θεὸς in 1:1c definite is the same as saying that if it had followed the verb it would have had the article.”[17] It is also interesting to note that the Jehovah’s Witnesses admitted that θεὸς is qualitative, that the anarthrous “points to a quality about someone.”[18] But, despite that, they still argued that “the text is not saying that Word (Jesus) was the same as the God with whom he was but, rather, that the Word was godlike, divine, a god”.[19] Sadly, they read their theological bias into the text rather than allowing the text to speak for itself. It appears the Jehovah’s Witnesses fell for the same (wrong) mindset of the Iglesia ni Cristo, that to say Jesus is God is tantamount to saying that Jesus is the Father. But that was the exact impression that John intended to avoid in his careful sentence construction of verse 1. Simply put, for John, Jesus is of the same essence with the Father but He is not Him.

            Putting it all together, in one compact verse, John expounded on the deity of Christ. He existed in eternity before the beginning of everything. He enjoyed a close, personal relationship with God the Father. His person is distinct from the person of the Father and yet Jesus definitely shares the same nature with Him.

            This study has shown that “the Word was God” in its literary context teaches that by nature Jesus is God. Instead of watering it down, we should allow the full force of John 1:1 to bear on our Christology. He is not just a god or a mere godly concept. He is God. Though it is not a surefire guarantee that believing in the deity of Christ would automatically lead to believing the Trinity because there are those who ended up thinking that He and the Father are one in person. But, as we have seen, Jesus is distinct in person from God but equal with God. They are equal in respect but not in aspect. Yet still, a belief in the deity of Christ forces us to seriously consider the belief in the Trinity. Thus, in view of that, we are left with only one option: That God is a triune God. Such confession is the only worthy way to worship God in truth (John 4:24).

© 2012 Bible Exposé Apologetics Ministry. To know more about us, click here.

NOTE: We have moved to our new home, http://bibleexpose.org/.

________________________________


            [1]All Bible verses are from The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Standard Bible Society, 2001) unless otherwise noted.

            [2]New World Translation.

       
            [3]A. F. Walls, “Logos,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2d ed., ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1984, 2001), 696.

            [4]Ibid, 697. Emphasis his.

            [5]Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament: Abridged in One Volume, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985), 513.

            [6]Elwell, 697.

            [7]Ruben D. Aromin, “Did Christ have Pre-existence,” Pasugo: God’s Message, November 2005, 12-3. 

            [8]Cleon L. Rogers, Jr. and Cleon L. Rogers III, The New Linguistic and Exegetical Key to the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998), 175.

            [9]Ibid.

            [10]Ibid.

            [11]“Trinity,” Reasoning from the Scriptures (Brooklyn, NY: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1985, 1989), 409.

            [12]William D. Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek 2d ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1993, 2003), 27.

            [13]New English Bible.

            [14]Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 266-7. 

            [15]Mounce, 28.

            [16]Philip B. Harner, “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,” Journal of Biblical Literature 92, no. 1 (March 1973): 84.

            [17]Wallace, 268.

            [18]“Jesus Christ,” Reasoning, 212.

            [19]Ibid. Emphasis theirs.