3

In two later New Testament writings we find different explicit statements about God: God is Spirit... (John 4:24); ...God is light... (1 John 1:5); ...God is love (1 John 4:8, 16).

  • God is Spirit: πνεῦμα ὁ θεός
  • God is Light: ὁ θεός φῶς ἐστιν
  • God is Love: ὁ θεός ἀγάπη ἐστίν

God is light and God is love are composed as one would expect: God, ὁ θεός, the attribute φῶς/ἀγάπη, followed by the verb ἐστίν. The literal phrase is, [the] God light/love is.

God is Spirit, πνεῦμα ὁ θεός was composed differently. Spirit is placed before God and there is no verb.

Does the phase πνεῦμα ὁ θεός have more than one meaning or is it multivalent? Is it saying something only about God or does it also say something about Spirit? How does the meaning in 1 John 1:6, 4:8, 18, contrast with the meaning in πνεῦμα ὁ θεός?

Revelation Lad
  • 16,645
  • 7
  • 46
  • 104
  • 1
    Your use of terminology is confusing. This is a comment not an answer. I don't think the constituent order in the quoted material has anything to do with the valency. Could be wrong about that. End of that topic.

    Observations about the quoted texts. πνεῦμα ὁ θεός is very different from both ὁ θεός φῶς ἐστιν and ὁ θεός ἀγάπη ἐστίν. πνεῦμα ὁ θεός is a question about BEING. The other two are metaphors. This doesn't address your question. It is just a comment.

     – C. Stirling Bartholomew Apr 13 '23 at 19:03
  • @C.StirlingBartholomew Thank you. I'd be happy to use a different word if you think there is a better one. Multivalent is defined as having or susceptible of many applications, interpretations, meanings, or values. – Revelation Lad Apr 13 '23 at 20:12
  • 1
    Ok, I understand. In syntax discussions verbs have valency, For example a verb with a subject and object is bivalent. – C. Stirling Bartholomew Apr 13 '23 at 21:00
  • I explained the same here with Dan Wallace book reference, about the identification of subject and predicate, and what takes priority. The specific or particular noun is the subject, and the generic broader noun is the predicate noun. Here God is particular/definite, and Spirit a general, generic thing. God is spirit. The article also helps to determine God is the subject, not spirit. https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/81792/romans-1423-should-it-be-translated-whatever-is-not-of-faith-is-sin-or-sin-i/83828#83828 – Michael16 Apr 14 '23 at 10:29
  • @Michael16 What is the verb in πνεῦμα ὁ θεός? From what I see, it is worship by others. In context then it seems to say true worshippers are those who worship πνεῦμα ὁ θεός. – Revelation Lad Apr 14 '23 at 15:25
  • There's no verb in it, it's translated depending on context either predicative God is spirit by supplying "is" or taking it as in attributive position "God the Spirit". Search about attributive adjectives. – Michael16 Apr 14 '23 at 15:56
  • @Michael16 I don't think you can treat the phrase as something which stands alone as if we are getting a definitive statement in which God is identified: God is Spirit or God is a Spirit. I think the phrase is made in the context of true worship, an act by people done in spirit and truth. Hence there seems (to me) to be more to understand than a limited statement about God. In context of worship "God is a Spirit" falls short IMO. – Revelation Lad Apr 14 '23 at 16:42
  • That's just wrong, in context it is clearly a predicative. There is no sense in interpreting it as attributive, God-the-spirit or God Spirit. Refer to various examples for better understanding. – Michael16 Apr 14 '23 at 16:45
  • @RevelationLad You must imply that it is possible that in this sentence the θεός features as a definer of the πνεύμα, so as to get: "Spirit is God". But the context is rather about explaining the nature of God, not of Spirit, so "God is spirit" is a better rendering. – Levan Gigineishvili Apr 15 '23 at 18:44

2 Answers2

2

'Spirit, the Deity' (pneuma ho theos) is stating an equivalence. The question uses the term 'monovalent'. I would say that John 4:24 is an 'equivalent'.

We see another equivalent in scripture, where the concept is quoted in Greek as an equivalence : 'our God consuming fire' is stated as an equivalence, Hebrews 12:29 : 'also for the God of us fire consuming' is the literal.

The one thing is as the other. No verb, no grammar, no construction intrudes.

Two things are stated. They are equivalent.

The other two texts are of slightly different construction.

'God light is' and 'God love is' convey something that is expressed. The former, 'consuming fire' conveys an attribute. So does 'Spirit the Deity'.

'God' and 'consuming fire' are equivalent. 'Spirit' and 'God' are equivalent.

'Light' is something that God expresses, so is 'love'.

There is a subtle difference between stating an equivalence of attribute and stating a fundamental expression of being.

Nigel J
  • 30,958
  • 3
  • 38
  • 84
  • 1
    Perhaps multivalent is not a good word but if I understand you correctly, then the answer is yes. The equivalence between Spirit and God means the phrase says something about Spirit and God and it also says the something about God and Spirit. Those two are equivalent. – Revelation Lad Apr 14 '23 at 16:29
1

Absolute category statements about God are quite rare. Here are the ones I could find. Their meaning is always the same, that God is placed in the category as stated.

  1. God is Love, Ὁ Θεὸς ἀγάπη ἐστίν, 1 John 4:8, 16

This states that God is in the category of being whose being is essentially Love. [In this respect, Christians are to imitate God; but that is another question.]

  1. God is One, Θεὸς εἷς ἐστιν, Gal 3:20, James 2:19, 1 Tim 2:5

This is simply an allusion to the Shema in Deut 6:4 and numerous others such as Isa 44:6, 45:5, 6, etc. See also 1 Cor 8:4, etc.

  1. God is Light, ὁ Θεὸς φῶς ἐστιν, 1 John 1:5

This is stating that God is in the category of beings whose essential being is light. John appears to use this is two senses: - God is literally light and God is the source of truth, the latter meaning that all spiritual truth surrounds the true identity of God.

  1. God is spirit, Πνεῦμα ὁ Θεός, John 4:24. Compare 2 Cor 3:18

This is a quintessential Hebraism to omit the verb "to be"; but the meaning is clear: God is in the category of beings that are "spirit". Other beings in this category include angels (Heb 1:14), demons (Luke 4:33, 8:2, 1 Tim 4:1, Acts 16:18, etc).

[We note that there is no question about what is the subject of this abbreviated sentence, because only theos/God has the article and pneuma/spirit does not.]

APPENDIX - One more?

There is also another "almost" category statement in the NT consiting of:

Heb 3:4 - For every house is built by someone, but the One having built everything is God.

The last part of the sentence could be translated:

... God is the builder of everything.

However, the greek construction is not as simple as above and more elliptical.

Dottard
  • 104,076
  • 4
  • 44
  • 149
  • 2
    I think we are mixing different kinds of statements. Where as Θεὸς εἷς ἐστιν and Πνεῦμα ὁ Θεός are talking about BEING. Ὁ Θεὸς ἀγάπη ἐστίν is not a statement about BEING. It is a metaphor because we only know human love and the attribute of GOD which ἀγάπη is indirectly pointing to isn't something we can look at in the current state of the world we have to take it on authority. The problem of evil is a contemplation of what it means to say God Is Love in the world we see here and now. – C. Stirling Bartholomew Apr 13 '23 at 22:06
  • 1
    @C.StirlingBartholomew - I and many others would beg to differ - I strongly believe that "God is love" is NOT metaphorical but a statement about the core essence of God's nature. Indeed, Barnes observes: "He is not merely benevolent, he is benevolence itself." – Dottard Apr 13 '23 at 22:10
  • @C.StirlingBartholomew - the Cambridge commentary also observes this: "God is love. This is the third of S. John’s great statements respecting the Nature of God: ‘God is Spirit’ (John 4:24); ‘God is light’ (1 John 1:5), and ‘God is love’. See on 1 John 1:5. Here, as in the other cases, the predicate has no article, and expresses not a quality which He possesses, but one which embraces all that He is." – Dottard Apr 13 '23 at 22:13
  • @C.StirlingBartholomew - The Pulpit commentary also sates this: Love is not a mere attribute of God; like light, it is his very nature. As "God is Light" sums up the Being of God intellectually considered, so "God is Love" sums up the same on the moral side." – Dottard Apr 13 '23 at 22:14
  • We should have John Samuel Feinberg chime in on this. He was my first reader on my thesis while he was writing his dissertation on the Problem of Evil. I never read his dissertation. I don't know where he would come down on this issue. C.S. Lewis was rather bothered by this question and I have read everything by C.S. Lewis but 50 years ago. I sure you have a host of people in agreement with you. I am not one of them and I have been thinking about it and reading about it forever. – C. Stirling Bartholomew Apr 13 '23 at 22:18
  • 1
    ὁ Θεὸς φῶς ἐστιν is another metaphor. Light in the phenomenal world is a created entity and cannot be an essential statement because the Creator of light cannot be both the creator and the created entity. – C. Stirling Bartholomew Apr 13 '23 at 22:22
  • Let us continue this discussion in chat. – Dottard Apr 13 '23 at 22:40
  • Light cannot be both the Creator and the created entity. Bullseye. – Alex Balilo Apr 14 '23 at 02:16
  • @AlexBalilo - I am not saying it was - that is your construction based on a false assumption. Light always existed exited because "God is light". – Dottard Apr 14 '23 at 02:27
  • @Dottard. " Let there be light" on my comment. My commendation of a comment was not directed or addressed to you. – Alex Balilo Apr 14 '23 at 03:15