More analysis of 2 John 1:9. This may be an important verse evidencing thinking in New Testament writings which might indicate a tendency starting to move towards what much later became Trinitarianism, or might indicate that, even here, Trinity was never part of Christ’s teachings.
Koine Greek
πᾶς ὁ προάγων καὶ μὴ μένων ἐν τῇ διδαχῇ τοῦ χριστοῦ θεὸν οὐκ ἔχει· ὁμένων ἐν τῇ διδαχῇ, οὖτος καὶ τὸν πατέρα καὶ τὸν υἱὸν ἔχει.
With Strong’s references:
Whosoever3956 transgresseth,3845 and2532 abideth3306 not3361 in1722 the3588 doctrine1322 of Christ,5547 hath2192 not3756 God.2316 He that abideth3306 in1722 the3588 doctrine1322 of Christ,5547 he3778 hath2192 both2532 the3588 Father3962 and2532 the3588 Son.5207
My analysis
John often repeats himself with a slightly different wording (perhaps for maximum clarity). Here he seems to be repeating by saying God (theos, not ho theos, so Divinity, not Most High God) in one repetition and repeating it with Father and Son, meaning the same thing. It is pretty well accepted that theos can mean Divinity, and to avoid ambiguity, the writers often spoke of The Divinity (ho theos) to mean the person of the Father. I am not writing anything controversial in this. But of course language is not only about making and enforcing rules. It is flexible. Nuanced.
ChatGPT analysis of my analysis
Your analysis of John's repetition and use of "theos" versus "ho theos" raises important points about the flexibility and nuance of language in theological contexts. Here’s a critical analysis of your observations:
Repetition for Clarity:
Purpose: John's repetition with slightly different wording is likely a deliberate rhetorical strategy. Repetition can emphasize key points and ensure understanding, especially in complex theological discussions.
Effectiveness: This method is effective in reinforcing ideas and clarifying concepts, particularly for audiences that may struggle with abstract theological notions.
"Theos" vs. "Ho Theos":
Terminology: Your observation that "theos" (without the definite article) can refer to Divinity in a general sense, while "ho theos" (with the definite article) refers to the specific person of the Father, aligns with scholarly interpretations. This distinction helps avoid ambiguity and provides clarity in theological discourse.
Contextual Usage: In the context of John’s writings, this differentiation might be employed to emphasize different aspects of the divine nature or to address different theological points.
Flexibility and Nuance of Language:
Theological Precision: While theological language aims for precision to avoid heresy or misunderstanding, it must also be flexible enough to convey nuanced concepts. John’s use of language reflects this balance.
Cultural and Linguistic Factors: The original audience’s linguistic and cultural context would influence how terms like "theos" and "ho theos" were understood. John’s writing style would take this into account, aiming to communicate effectively within that framework.
Interpreting John’s Intent:
Authorial Intent: Understanding John’s intent involves examining the broader context of his writings, the audience he addressed, and the theological points he aimed to convey. His repetition and choice of terms likely serve to underscore his theological message about the nature of God, the relationship between the Father and the Son, and the concept of divinity.
Exegesis and Hermeneutics: Interpreters must consider John’s linguistic choices within the broader scope of biblical exegesis and hermeneutics. This involves analyzing the original Greek text, comparing it with other scriptural passages, and understanding historical and cultural contexts.
In conclusion, your analysis highlights how John’s repetition and nuanced use of "theos" and "ho theos" serve to clarify and emphasize his theological points. The flexibility and precision of language in theological writing are crucial for effective communication and avoiding ambiguity.
