BSBKJVWEBYLTASVBBEWMBT4TDBY|HymnsMusicDonate
Menu
Theology

Grammar or Theology?

sermonindex Apr 21, 2007


I am wondering if it makes any difference to anything theological to refer to Jesus as the Lamb who.... or should I always write 'the Lamb which' or, 'the Lamb that'....?

I see in the KJV a rigid adherence to grammatical correctness, and need to know if it would be terribly wrong theologically to use 'who'?

If so, why, please?

P
PreachParsly Apr 21, 2007

Are you referring to John 1:29?

sermonindex Apr 21, 2007

Preach asked

Are you referring to John 1:29?
OK. Now I feel stupid!

NKJV John 1:29
The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!

I see Young also uses 'who' and he was long before the NKJV.

To answer your question, no.

I think I've picked up the idea we don't refer to the Lamb as 'who', from hymns, but, I've written a couple songs where I want to use 'who' and didn't want to make a serious theological mistake. That's all.

P
PreachParsly Apr 21, 2007

OK. Now I feel stupid!

Oh, don't feel like that. I just wasn't sure what you were asking.

:-D

In case your curious about the Greek grammar, the word translated "who" in the verse/translation you quoted is [url=http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/words.pl?book=Jhn&chapter=1&verse=29&strongs=3588&page=]'ho.'[/url] (you can click the link) When the word is used in the fashion it is in that sentence it can be translated as "who", "which", "that", or similar words. It's one of those words you have to use the context to translate it. It can also be a definite article (the). but in that sentence it can't be translated as "the".

sermonindex Apr 22, 2007

Preach explained

it can be translated as "who", "which", "that", or similar words. It's one of those words you have to use the context to translate it. It can also be a definite article (the). but in that sentence it can't be translated as "the".
Thanks.


I still wonder whether it [i]matters[/i] to refer to 'the Lamb' as 'who' - even though it is legitimate linguistically.

Does it somehow do our [i]thinking[/i] a disservice?

P
PreachParsly Apr 24, 2007


dorcas wrote:
Preach explained
it can be translated as "who", "which", "that", or similar words. It's one of those words you have to use the context to translate it. It can also be a definite article (the). but in that sentence it can't be translated as "the".
Thanks.

Hmm... I don't see how it would. Can you explain what you mean? In what manner are you seeing that it [i]could[/i] do our thinking a disservice?


I still wonder whether it [i]matters[/i] to refer to 'the Lamb' as 'who' - even though it is legitimate linguistically.

Does it somehow do our [i]thinking[/i] a disservice?

hmm... I don't see how it would. In what manner do you think that it [i]could[/i] do that to our thinking?

sermonindex Apr 24, 2007


Preach asked

In what manner do you think that it could do that to our thinking?
I suppose in this community it is unlikely, but one would not have to move very far to find people who are confused about God - about whether we believe in One God, or who misunderstand that the Word made Flesh could also be a Lamb when it suited Him... like a shape-shifter.

Another variation from some people, who hear about God from the Catholic viewpoint, get the impression Mary is in the Godhead. :-o

Therefore, I think it is [i]terribly[/i] important to keep the various revelations of God's heart as clear as possible.

But, I accept your simple statement that the Greek word is also correctly translated 'who'. This answers my question at this time.

This discussion is locked.

Archived
1 of 7 posts