Matthew 12:36: Giving an Account

Christians rightly take great solace in passages like 1 John 1:9: “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” I've found that the closer I come to God and more I study His word, then the more I can see my own sin. I see myself as one of the debtors in Luke 7:41-43 – the one who is forgiven the most will be the one who loves the most. Sometimes, though, we are haunted by passages like Matthew 12:36: “But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.” If our sins have been forgiven, do we still have to give an account?

For a long time, I saw this passage as a source of dread. For some people, I suppose it is. But in the context of the entire passage, Jesus talks about people who are justified and people who are condemned. When the unsaved are called to give an account, what will they say? They still owe a price for each idle word. How terrible it will be when they see how tremendous the cost will be for their sins.

For the saved, this will be an entirely different experience. As God accounts for each item, we can confidently say, “It is forgiven!” Every lie - “forgiven!” Every boast - “forgiven!” Every blasphemy, every lust, and every idle thought - “forgiven!” This will not be some divine “dressing down.” This will not be some cosmic humiliation that we must endure. Instead, it will be a realization of the tremendous price Christ has paid for our redemption. It will be a reminder of the preciousness of our salvation. We will not be forever ashamed but rather Christ will be forever glorified when we see exactly how large was our debt that was canceled!

Luke 7:46-48 tells us about the woman who anointed the feet of Jesus. Jesus praised her saying she loved much because she was forgiven much. How great will our love for Jesus be throughout eternity after we've seen exactly how much He forgave us!

Dr. Laura Needs a Lesson on the First Amendment

Dr. Laura has always received a lot of flack from the leftist types, primarily because she's seen as “conservative.” She may be more conservative than most folks in her profession but she is nowhere near being a political pundit. She's Laura Schlessinger not Laura Ingram. Frankly, I never could stand listening to Dr. Laura for more than a few minutes. Maybe it's her callers that bother me; I just can't stand listening to people whine. Anyway, Dr. Laura's been in especially hot water lately after the “racially insensitive” remarks she made to a caller. It was that proverbial drop of blood in the water that now has the sharks of the political left worked into a frenzy. It seems it's Dr. Laura's turn to whine. I've heard her on news shows more than a few times apologizing for her comments but also lamenting that people have taken away her First Amendment rights by protesting her, writing/calling the stations that carry her, and threatening to boycott her sponsors.

A lot of people misunderstand the First Amendment but it's usually people on the left. In this case, though, Dr. Laura doesn't quite get it either. Regarding free speech, the First Amendment protects an individual's speech from infringement by the government. Private individuals are not obligated to guarantee another persons free speech. I'm not immune, for example, from the criticism of other people. If they want to rant, rave, protest, and attempt everything legal thing possible to silence me, they can try. Indeed, that is their First Amendment right! Free speech goes both ways. If I don't like something a radio or TV personality says (someone like Keith Olberman), I very well might contact his station or call his sponsors. Under what premise could he stop me? He could argue that it's his right to speak offensively but that same right allows me to tell his sponsors that I think he's a jerk. To suppose he's free to speak but I am not free to object is a characteristic trait of liberals – they're hypocrites. It's unfortunate that Dr. Laura would invoke the same argument.

By the way, liberals also seem to forget that free speech particularly includes political speech. We've seen a conspicuous omission of this obvious fact recently when Democrat leaders spoke out against protestors at Town Hall meetings. Our so-called “representatives” called it un-American, even Nazi-like, to raise our voice in protest. See my post, Oh the Irony!

Opposing view points and heated debate are the heartbeat of free speech. If there is ever any attempt by the government to “referee” or to insure “fairness” in the debate, it is only then that our free speech becomes jeopardized. Early on in the Obama administration there was some talk about imposing a “Fairness Doctrine” (see my blog here). Esentially, this would require radio stations (and only radio stations) which carry shows like Rush Limbaugh to devote equal time for liberals to express opposing views. Imagine if there were a law that required me to devote equal space on my blog to an atheist to write whatever he wanted to rebut me. Or worse yet, consider this analogy: imagine if, at the time before the American Revolution, King George III had required Thomas Paine to devote equal space in his pamphlet, Common Sense, to views sympathetic to England? It's absurd!

This is my blog and I have my right to express whatever views I wish. If someone else disagrees, let him have his own blog where he disagrees with me (trust me, they're out there). We will battle it out in the arena of ideas and hopefully I will be the more persuasive. That the way free speech works; ideas rise and fall on their merits. I wouldn't have it any other way. It doesn't have to be “fair.” Dr. Laura has already made her bed so it might be too late for advice but, for what it's worth, my advice would be to either stick by her guns or apologize and move on. Dr. Laura, stop whining about how shrill your dissenters are being and certainly stop whining that your First Amendment Rights are being violated. They're not!

Now that I've said that, let me make one other observation: Obama recently made a stir of his own by seeming to support the building of a mosque at Ground Zero. He's done a little back-peddling now but you can hear his comments yourself here. It seems to me that when these Muslims do something extremely offensive to a majority of Americans, the President is very careful to point out they have a First Amendment right to do it but when a conservative says something extremely offensive about a minority group, liberals aren't as quick point out the same? I think it's clear that liberals aren't as concerned as much about the First Amendment as they are about their own political ideology.

John 1:1c: Is the Word “God” or “a god”?

I had a recent visitor who goes by the name, JohnOneOne. Gee, do you think he has an agenda? Anyway, John left a couple of comments concerning my treatment of John 1:1 in my last post. His first comment was little more than spam so I basically ignored it but his second had a little more substance. John 1:1 was really not the topic of my last post but I get so few comments on my posts dealing with Greek and John 1:1 is certainly worthy of discussion so I was inspired to write a more formal response.

When I write about Greek, I try to do it in such a way that non-Greek readers can still understand the gist of what I'm saying. This subject, though, gets a little complicated so it might be a little more technical than usual. I apologize in advance.

The debate is over the correct translation of John 1:1c, “καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.” Most modern translations render this as, “and the word was God.” John disagrees and defends the NWT translation of, “and the word was a god.” Now, in John's defense, I did characterize the NWT translation as “amateurish”, which was perhaps a bit hasty. Jehovah's Witnesses have gone to great lengths and much research to justify their translation. I still believe it is wrong, notwithstanding.

It's difficult to discuss John 1:1 without Colwell's Rule coming up. Colwell basically said that when a predicate nominative precedes the copula, and which is apparently definite, it usually lacks an article. If θεὸς in John 1:1c is definite, then it certainly fits Colwell's rule. However, if we assume θεὸς is definite then we are assuming the very thing we are trying to determine! In this regard, Colwell's rule is often abused – especially in the case of John 1:1c. Colwell's rule deals with definite nouns being anarthrous yet people cite it as though it's evidence for anarthrous nouns being definite. In other words, they are arguing the inverse of the rule as though it's a rule. Let me give an analogy: suppose I make a rule that says, “all dogs are mammals.” This is absolutely true without any exception. However, the inverse of this rule, namely that “all mammals are dogs,” would not be true. Therefore, we cannot say that the anarthrous θεὸς in John 1;1c is definite according to Colwell's rule.

However, JohnOneOne seems to suggest something completely contrary to Colwell's rule. He would have us believe that since θεὸς is “a singular anarthrous predicate noun (meaning, without the Greek definite article), but one which is also *preceding the verb and subject noun (implied or stated)*” [which is a fairly close paraphrase to Colwell's rule] then it is necessarily indefinite. In my analogy above, this would be akin to arguing that no mammal is ever a dog!

John cited several verses where predicate, nominative, anarthrous nouns are translated in mainstream Bible versions with an indefinite article. I don't have time to discuss all of them but let us consider the first in his list (John 4:19). Here, the Samaritan woman (the woman at the well) says to Jesus:

Κύριε, θεωρῶ ὅτι προφήτης εἶ σύ., “Lord, I see that you are a prophet.”

Because the word for “prophet” (προφήτης) here is anarthrous, it seems to be indefinite and the English translation has been modified by the indefinite article, “a.” Some people might understand this to mean the woman intended to include Jesus in a class of prophets (i.e. he is another of any number of prophets). It would be in the same manner as saying Jesus is “a carpenter.” In this sense, the use of the indefinite article would include Him into a class of people. This isn't really the correct understanding. Rather, the word prophet here is a qualitative noun describing a characteristic of Jesus. She could perceive that He had the gift of prophecy. She could describe Him in this way even if there were no other prophets. This might be hard to grasp so let's look at a another verse from this same passage that might make it easier to understand.

John 4:24 states πνεῦμα ὁ Θεός. This has been translated as “God is a spirit” and also as “God is spirit.” Either way, the meaning is the same. Spirit is a qualitative noun that describes the nature of God. He is spirit or He is a spirit. He is not simply another in a class of spirits. Likewise, the woman saw that Jesus possessed the gift of prophecy. It was something qualitative about Him; not general.

Θεός in John 1:1c is a qualitative noun in the same category. Ironically, I could live with the translation “a god” if it is understood to be qualitative: that is, Jesus is divine. He is not one of a class of gods but instead has the very nature of God. What God is, the Word is also.

Mounce has described this more succinctly. He said concerning John 1:1:

In brief,[1] its emphatic position stresses its essence or quality: "What God was, the Word was" is how one translation brings out this force. Its lack of a definite article keeps us from identifying the PERSON of the Word (Jesus Christ) with the PERSON of "God" (the Father). That is to say, the word order tells us that Jesus Christ has all the divine attributes that the Father has; lack of the article tells us that Jesus Christ is not the Father. John's wording here is beautifully compact! It is, in fact, one of the most elegantly terse theological statements one could ever find. As Martin Luther said, the lack of an article is against Sabellianism; the word order is against Arianism.

To state this another way, look at how the different Greek constructions would be rendered:

καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν ὁ θεός
"and the Word was the God"
(i.e., the Father; Sabellianism)

καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν θεός
"and the Word was a god"
(Arianism)

καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
"and the Word was God"
(Orthodoxy).

What more can I say? Amen!!

Further reading:

Revelation 13:18: What is the Number of the Beast?

What is the Name of God? A Look at the Tetragrammaton

Revelation 13:18: What is the Number of the Beast?

“And he causeth all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free and the bond, that there be given them a mark on their right hand, or upon their forehead; and that no man should be able to buy or to sell, save he that hath the mark, even the name of the beast or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. He that hath understanding, let him count the number of the beast; for it is the number of a man: and his number is Six hundred and sixty and six.” Revelation 13:16-18

This passage has been an enigma to those who study the Bible. What is the number, 666? What does it represent? Who does it represent? I certainly would not be able to unravel what has confounded scholars for centuries nor will I try. Instead, I only hope to bring to your attention another point to be considered in the debate.

I wish to draw particular attention to v. 18b. In the KJV it reads, “Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man;” Note the use of the indefinite article, “a man.” Most mainstream translations render this the same way.

One of the many differences between Greek and English is that Greek lacks an indefinite article. In English, the definite article is “the” and the indefinite article is “a”. In Greek, nouns will either have a definite article (ὁ, ἡ, or τό ) or it will have no article. Greek nouns lacking an article are called anarthrous nouns.

To our English thinking minds, nouns lacking a definite article should be indefinite by default. It's seems only common sense. However, in the following example we can see how this is not necessarily the case: “For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath” (Matthew 12:8). The word “Lord” in this sentence lacks any article but certainly Jesus is not “a Lord” of the Sabbath, as though there any others. He is THE Lord of the Sabbath. Even without an article we can be sure the word “Lord” is definite.

One reason the Greek language prospered so long without an indefinite article is that there wasn't much of a demand for one. Certainly indefinite nouns existed but it would be wrong to assume that anarthrous nouns are automatically indefinite. Quite the opposite is true. If a Greek noun lacks an article, it should assumed to be definite unless context absolutely demands it.

There are many cases where the Greek lacks the definite article and we are forced to insert one into our English translations. Consider John 1:1, “In [the] beginning was the Word.” The word “beginning” (ἀρχή) in this verse in anarthrous but certainly there aren't any other beginnings so it would not be appropriate to say “a beginning.” Neither does it make sense in English to omit the article: “In beginning...” Thus, we insert the word, “the”.

Sometimes, though, we insert the indefinite article when we ought not. In the New World Translation, which denies the deity of Christ, the indefinite article is inserted before the anarthrous word for “God” (θεός) in John 1:1c: “the word was a god.” They argue, amateurishly, that since it lacks an article then it is indefinite. We've already seen why that isn't necessarily so.

Keeping these things in mind, let us consider Revelation 13:18. In the latter part of the verse, the word “man” is anarthrous. The question must be asked: should we add the indefinite article? Perhaps instead of saying, “it is the number of a man” it should read, “it is the number of man.” In other words, perhaps the number 666 is not the number of a particular man but is the number representing mankind. What a difference a single letter can make.

I think the beast described here in Revelation is a real person who will rise to power sometime in the future. Instead of searching for some numerical value in his name which reveals his identity (as some have done with villains of the past such as Nero), the Bible is merely telling us that this character will be an iconic representative of mankind. He may seem powerful. Some may worship him like a god. He may even want to be God. But he isn't God. However impressive this person will be, his name is still numbered among men.

As I have said, I don't hope to unravel the mystery of who this person is. I merely want to give some more food for thought about the subject.

Further reading:

John 1:1c: "Is the Word "God" or "a god"?

Revelation 3:11: Taking Our Crown

Revelation 17: Is the Harlot of Babylon the Catholic Church?