Towards, unto, into and in Theos

As we have established that we are now enquiring after Theos. It is critical that we consider the expression of himself, that is the word of Theos.

The expression of the spirit or mind which is Theos, that is the word, is spirit and is Theos.

In the beginning was the word and the word was towards Theos and the word was Theos. The same was in the beginning towards Theos. (Ioh.1.1,2)

And:

But the hour comes, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the father seeks such to worship him. Theos is spirit and they that worship him must worship in spirit and in truth (Ioh.4.23,24)

So the word and Theos are the same yet the word is also in a reciprocal relationship towards him. That is, it goes out from him, being him, and returns to him. The word is the expression of spirit. Theos is spirit.

Furthermore, because the word is Theos and Theos is without fault, then the word is also without fault. Man, contrariwise is full of faults. The word which is Theos, is of Theos and returns to Theos is faultless. The copying and enunciating of it by man is not without fault.

Furthermore, the pure and faultless word which is Theos needs to be sought out by man.

The glory of ‘elohym to conceal a word and the glory of kings to seek out a word (Prov.25.2)

The expression of his spirit is seen in the 66 books of the Bible. 39 of which, in the Old Testament were written in Hebrew, with the exception of portions of Dany’el and ‘Ezra’ which were written in Aramaic. The Hebrew which we have is written in a square Aramaic script that seemed to have emerged from Babylon from around the time of Dany’el and ‘Ezra’. Whereas the originals were probably written in paleo (or proto) Hebrew, a kind of Phoenician alphabet and, possibly, in the case of the first 5 books of the bible a script some refer to as proto-sinaitic. In any case all of these scripts are slightly different representations of the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet. The 27 books of the New Testament are written in koine (or common) Greek.

We are constantly in a process of trying to refine our association with this revealed word to try to get to the original expression of spirit which is Theos. If we use a modern English translation we are further away from that distilled spirit than if we are looking at Greek and Hebrew biblical manuscripts. If we are further away from receiving the pure spirit of Theos then we are further away from reciprocating it and, therefore, further away from him. Clearly, the word of Theos, being Theos, is only present in its pure form in heaven but, nevertheless, we must strive to attain unto that mind.

Furthermore, following on from the points made above about the purity and originality of texts in an attempt to get close to that ideal this blog will be based on analysis of the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia text for the Hebrew Old Testament with the proviso that it is understood that the original written form would not only have been written predominantly in paleo-hebrew script but would have also been written without pointing and accents as also is the case for the Greek New Testament for which we will reference the 26^th Edition of the Nestle-Aland Text and the Hodges/Farstad 2^nd edition of the Majority Text, which not only would have been unaccented but also written in uncial (capital) form.

Why should we use the greek word Theos (θεος), the Hebrew word ‘el (אל) or any of the other words used to describe the creator in the Bible, rather than the commonly used term ‘God’?

The habit of the Roman empire was to assimilate local deities and customs (feasts etc) into the empire as it was present in a particular locality. This made various nations and tribes less hostile to the empire as they were not under the impression that the empire had utterly subdued them, destroying their customs and, therefore, their cultural identity, but had merely modified the names and feasts of their tradition.

In the early 4th century AD, during the reign of Constantine the Great, christianity became the official religion of the Roman empire. In the same century Bishop Ulfilas (311-383) translated the Bible into Gothic, the language (whose alphabet, it is argued, he largely created from Greek and Latin) of the Visigoths and Ostrogoths who were then resident in central Europe. In this translation, or perhaps more accurately in this first presentation of the Bible in the newly created Gothic language, he substituted the Greek term Theos (θεος) and/or the Latin term Deus with the Gothic ‘Gudan’. This term was also the term used to describe a proto-Germanic deity and may have been the origin for the term Goth. It is one of a number of deities shared with the Scandinavian nations where the Goths emerged from where he was called Odin and in the British Isles as Wodan. Eventually, as German developed, the term became Gott, which today is still used (in German) as the noun ‘God’.

We can see, therefore, that the use of the term ‘God’ originates in the habit of Romans of assimilating nations and their deities into the prevailing Roman culture and, in this case, religion. Its presence indicates a compromised position where a Norse/Gothic deity has been confused with the one revealed in the bible. As is the case in assimilation and compromise the values of the two become confused and their qualities bleed into one another.

If language is the expression of a mind then by using the term ‘God’ we are, however unwittingly, part of an expression which the creator of the heavens and earth did not choose for himself, therefore we are not expressing his mind but the mind of a false understanding of another, mythological, deity. We should therefore prefer to use the term he uses and the meaning underpinning it.

And perhaps also why in that order? As mentioned in the previous blog the motivation for starting this journey, several years ago, was the realisation that one of the words translated ‘God’ in the Old Testament was the Hebrew word ‘el (אל) which is the same word as ‘to’ or ‘unto’. Also that the main word translated ‘God’ in the New Testament is the Greek word Theos (θεος). We might conclude, therefore, that there is an equivalence between the two.

In the new testament there are two primary words for forward direction. These are pros (προς) and eis (εις). They are both translated ‘to’ and ‘unto’ but carry further senses. Particularly, pros (προς) which is also translated as ‘before’ and ‘with’. The second word – eis (εις) – is most usually translated as ‘unto’ or ‘into’. A good way of seeing them both and differentiating their meanings is to think of a journey to a house. Pros (προς) is the journey taken that ends up with you standing before, or in front of, the house whereas eis (εις) is the journey taken that ends up with you in, that is inside, the house.

We can see, therefore, that this journey starts out facing a direction, embarking on it and following the path until we come face to face and then, finally, in Theos. Theos is the one we must turn our head towards, aim towards, draw near to and, finally, become one with. We can see therefore the journeying element of ‘el (אל) combining with the set place, or final destination, of Theos (θεος).

The phrases pros ton Theon (προς  τον θεον) – towards/before the Theos; pros Theon (προς θεον) – towards Theos; eis ton Theon (εις τον θεον) – unto/into the Theos; and eis Theon (εις θεον) – unto/into Theos are all used in the New Testament. We will come to these in another blog.

For now we will move onto our first prerequisites blog dealing with the question of why we should use the term Theos and not God.

Whom therefore you ignorantly worship, him I declare unto you (Acts 17.23)

This blog is an attempt to follow a pathway towards understanding who Theos is. In fact it is evident that presupposing the path, or indeed the questions we should ask, may be presumptuous. So, for example the question may be to understand who Theos will be, or indeed, what is Theos?

What seems clear, however, is that the one that Paulos was declaring unto the Athenians in Acts 17, whom they ignorantly worshipped is, almost certainly, still largely unknown.

The impetus for beginning this journey was a realisation some years ago that one of the Hebrew words translated ‘God’ in the Old Testament was exactly the same word as the word ‘to’ or ‘unto’. A similar term also translated ‘God’ in the New Testament is the greek word Theos. This term is derived from a verb meaning ‘to set’ or ‘to place’. We will explore these meanings in the upcoming blogs.

An advantage of a blog is that, unlike a book, it does not have to take a formal structure, and we can move back and forth, going over new and revisited ground repeatedly as our understanding progresses. In that sense it is like the human mind (or spirit) which grows, and diminishes, in forward and backward steps and repeated surges of renewed resolution.

The first sections I have called ‘prerequisites’ because they are presumed understanding required before progressing. However, in a sense, all understanding is like this. That is, we come to a body of understanding with knowledge that has been accrued previously and provides building blocks to progress and create the edifice we are constructing. The edifice, like the journey, of course is never completed but always in the progress of being built and, while on the way, may need partial or complete rebuilding.