Mark 8:22-26

“Then they came to Bethsaida. They brought a blind man to Jesus and asked him to touch him. He took the blind man by the hand and brought him outside of the village. Then he spit on his eyes, placed his hands on his eyes and asked, “Do you see anything?” Regaining his sight he said, “I see people, but they look like trees walking.” Then Jesus placed his hands on the man’s eyes again. And he opened his eyes, his sight was restored, and he saw everything clearly. Jesus sent him home, saying, “Do not even go into the village.””

— ‭‭Mark‬ ‭8‬:‭22‬-‭26‬‬

Can be a very difficult passage. This is the only miracle in any gospel that is not immediate (or at least not described as an immediate healing). Was Jesus’ power somehow limited? Did He need a do-over? What’s the point?

I don’t claim to have all or even some of the answers. But this MAY be one more example of how gospels work. I don’t have any firm conclusions on how the miracle actually took place. Was Jesus making a point with a two-step miracle? Was the man actually healed immediately? I don’t know (and this is one of the “Bible questions” where I don’t think it really matters. Strong inerrantists may fight for a two stage healing because that’s what it says. I haven’t even read enough of progressive interpretations to know what they would say—question Jesus’ power?—So I tend to think it could go either way as to what “actually happened,” and I don’t really care). 

This is one of those cases where the literary structure of Mark and the theology he presents in the following sections helps. When we take a step back and see Mark’s structure in the section of the book, we may have an idea of what’s going on.

Bartimaeus is another blind man that Jesus heals in 10:46-52. This goes more like we are accustomed to in the gospels. There’s a crowd. The blind man cries out for Jesus. Jesus heals him instantly. Bartimaeus “follows” Jesus. These two healings of blind men bracket or bookend the middle section of Mark. This middle section transitions from the first half which demonstrates the person and character of Jesus to the section half which shows the mission and purpose of Jesus’ life. (All of which describes the kingdom of God in some way).

Perhaps the most important hint of what Mark is up literarily is that the passage directly after the two-stage healing is Peter’s confession of Jesus as Messiah. This would be one of the highest points of Peter’s discipleship. All the other opinions of Jesus, and Peter got it right. Yet, it only takes a few verses later for Jesus to address him as the devil. How come? Because Peter rebuked Jesus for talking about death, crucifixion, and ruining Peter’s idea of what a Messiah is. Peter had the wrong idea of what Jesus’ Messiahship meant. 

He had the right identity but the wrong idea of the mission.

Within these two chapters, Jesus will predict His death and resurrection two more times, and the disciples never understand.  (9:30-32; 10:32-34).

How do I know they don’t understand? The disciples make poor decisions throughout the gospels, but Mark has made a point to gather a bunch of them within these three chapters. Back to back to back to back, we see the disciples reeking of immaturity.  (Peter wants to honor Moses/Elijah with Jesus; disciples can’t heal a boy; discussing who is the greatest; rebuke someone who tries to follow Jesus; turn little children away; brag about leaving everything for Jesus; James and John request highest honor in kingdom). 

Mark is repeating the same theme of Peter’s initial error. The journey of discipleship is marrying a proper view of Jesus’ identity with the impact of His mission. Jesus came to serve and give His life (10:45). He did not come to sit on the throne and receive gifts/fame/honor—yet.

The journey of discipleship accepts Jesus’ Messiahship on His terms. If we simply agree that He is Messiah but don’t “see” His mission clearly, then we may have a fuzzy vision for a while. The two stage healing is a picture for some difficult lessons we as disciples must learn.

Bartimaeus was healed, and then he followed Jesus. What a picture of true discipleship. And post-resurrection, the disciples gained a full perspective, and their lives changed forever. They did follow Jesus as Messiah and continued His mission of service and suffering. 

May we do the same.

1 Timothy 3:16

 1 Timothy 3:16

This is one of the major passages where people who hold tightly to the KJV will condemn other versions of “removing God” from the Bible. More specifically, if you open all the versions and compare the opening words (within the context of the chapter), the KJV highlights the deity of Jesus, while it is quite easy to judge other versions of eliminating this doctrine from the text.

(Not to mention the hundreds of other passages where we can argue for the deity of Christ, but I digress on that point.)

This is, however, not only a good example to show the issue at hand but also a key text to illustrate what’s really occurring. And when we get to the bottom of it, we’ll see how these “modern versions” can be so obviously different.

It’s simply a matter of textual criticism—and there are other posts about the practice of textual criticism, the methods, the manuscripts, the reliability of the NT, etc. The point here is simply that the KJV is based on manuscripts that say “God” in 1 Timothy 3:16, while most of the other versions are based on manuscripts that have the Greek word for “who.”

It’s easy to say, “Well, that’s ridiculous. Why would anyone want a Bible that doesn’t say, ‘God’?” The issue is not what we want. The practice of textual criticism strives to be bias free, searching for the original words of the author’s manuscript. Since all we have are copies, this can be difficult. Actually, in this text, it’s not very difficult at all.

Below is the external evidence and internal evidence (i.e., style, grammar) for each of the major readings.

θεός (theos, “God”)

    External evidence: Byzantine text along with these manuscripts: ℵc Ac C2 D2 Ψ [88 pc] 1739 1881 M vgms

    Internal arguments: The only possible reason “God” makes sense in the original is because there is no antecedent for “who.” See below.

Another argument here would be that “God” was considered a nomina sacrum (basically an abbreviation for words often repeated or significant words). So all four letters would not be written out, just the theta and the sigma with a line over it. A capital theta and a capital omicron look very similar. One could make a more plausible argument that a scribe got confused between these forms. The words for “God” and “who” would look very similar then.

ὅς (hos, “who”)

    External evidence: ℵ* A* C* F G 33 365 pc Did Epiph. This is very strong support, since the second correctors of these manuscripts often changed readings to match other medieval manuscripts.

    Where are the Western witnesses? Nearly all of them, including D*, support the neuter relative pronoun. Though not the masculine “who,” this reading supports this relative pronoun, since there is no logical way to change ὅ to θεός.

    Internal arguments: It is highly unlikely—maybe even impossible—that a scribe would take “God” (ascribing deity to Jesus) and change it to “who.” However, a scribe is more more likely to change a relative pronoun to “God,” whether intentionally or unintentionally. By the time of our first manuscripts with this change, Christ’s deity had been recognized and debated, as well as deemed an essential church doctrine. It would be easy to go back through the manuscripts and insert the doctrine wherever readings allowed for it.

What about not having an antecedent for “who?” Colossians 1:15 and Philippians 2:6 are also examples of early hymns that biblical authors stuck into their passages. This is stylistic. We don’t need to look for an antecedent. We obviously know it’s about Jesus.

Conclusion: The fact that the Western manuscripts have the neuter pronoun is significant. Per the NET, this means that the “God” variant is not early enough to be in any of the Western witnesses. It originated after the 2nd century. The external evidence is very strong for the masculine relative pronoun, and the neuter pronoun is a correction to agree with “mystery” earlier in the passage.

The relative pronoun seems to be more supported on both external and internal evidence. When we read “who” in modern versions, we must guard against decrying the heresy of removing Jesus’ deity from the Bible. It’s more like we are depending on more accurate witnesses and logic of scribal tendencies. We are not denying Christ’s deity. Jesus is God. But 1 Timothy 3 says “who.”

1 John 4:1-6

“Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to determine if they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses Jesus as the Christ who has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God, and this is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming, and now is already in the world. You are from God, little children, and have conquered them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world. They are from the world; therefore they speak from the world’s perspective and the world listens to them. We are from God; the person who knows God listens to us, but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of deceit.”

— ‭‭1 John‬ ‭4‬:‭1‬-‭6‬‬

 This is one of three self-contained units in 1 John, as in there are only loose connections with what comes before and after (per the NET). These six verses focus on a single topic.

It’s true that 1 John emphasizes love for one another as a major sign of disciples, but the confession of Jesus as the Messiah is the other. Certainly, the Holy Spirit is not the only active spirit in the world, and the author is giving a key filter through which to interpret the message of teachers/preachers of the day. 

Again 1 John 2:18-19 is a major verse when we begin talking about those who leave the church/faith. There were opponents/secessionists from this church, and the heresy to nail down in 1 John can be difficult. There’s a major NET note around confessing “Jesus as the Christ,” because grammar allows for three different options. It could be similar to Rom 10:9-10 where it’s more of an object-complement idea, or it could be all of the idea of Jesus as Christ and coming in flesh. That’s the confession, because these heretics also denied Jesus as having physical body (proto-Gnostics).

We can fill out that debate at a later time, but the point is that their message of Jesus was lacking. And this was the main identifier of a message from the true Spirit or a demonic spirit. 

John calls this the message of the antichrist. It’s already in the world. It’s been around for thousands of years, and so we can debate “timelines” all we want. We can argue over figures of history or who will fill roles, but the function of being against Jesus and His people has been in business for a long time. All one has to do is deny Jesus’ deity or humanity and he/she is anti-Christ.

Conquering: How do we conquer? War? Might? Winning arguments? John says we’ve already conquered. We have the spirit inside. We can rest in truth, knowing the Christ. 

By this: the entire preceding paragraph. The prophet test. What does he/she say? In the OT, there was the test of if his prophecies came true. Even one false prophecy would cost someone his life. But there was also the prophet test of if he would support idolatry. This is closer to the latter. Will these teachers promote false teaching? Or do they teach the full person and being of Jesus?

This is the essence of truth. And this is how we know to whom to listen. Most of the rest of 1 John is practical, because who teach Jesus in fullness…love.

Matthew 16:13-20

“When Jesus came to the area of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” They answered, “Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “You are blessed, Simon son of Jonah, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father in heaven! And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever you release on earth will have been released in heaven.” Then he instructed his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.”

‭‭Matthew‬ ‭16‬:‭13‬-‭20‬ ‭NET‬‬

I know I’m weird, but I enjoyed going to school and learning new things. I was grateful for most (haha) of my teachers/professors, and I always knew they had my best interest in mind. You hear these stories about these mean, impossible professors that make a living off of failing students, and their lectures are unbearable, and your entire grade depends on one final exam, which for me was never the case. My professors were for the most part rather friendly and bearable to listen to. 

Exams were a big part of my grade but weighted just like high school, and of course the requirements and information is harder, but you’re prepared for it. But I was worried, because I heard these horror stories of these philosophy teachers that would pass out these exams, which your whole grade depended on, and it would be one question. And you have to write, like a whole semester worth of stuff, logically and coherently, about whatever topic they chose from that semester, in a certain amount of time. Or the question would simply be the word, “Why?” And you have to philosophize about the existence of all things. There’s another one about a professor putting a chair in the front of the room, and your final exam after a whole semester of notes and lectures is simply to prove that the chair exists. 

My favorite is the story of the CEO of Charles Schwab. When he was in business school, he was taking his final exam. So after studying, and preparing, and going all semester, it comes down to one test. The professor passes out the exam, and there’s one question. He was kind of shocked, because they clearly covered a lot of material, and this is business school. You need to know a lot of stuff to be successful, right? The question was this: What’s the name of the lady who empties the trash in the hallway every day? That determined much of their grade for that class, and it taught Charles a valuable lesson, but that’s not the point of this post. 

My point is sometimes a lot of weight and pressure is placed on one question, and your answer can have drastic implications. All these stories in the gospels to this point have built up to this moment. And there’s a one question test. And this is the only question that matters for any person that’s ever lived.

Now this is about the halfway point of Jesus ministry (ish). And the city that Jesus takes them to is actually pretty significant. It’s farther north in Israel, and this city belonged to the tribe of Dan, which was one of the most pagan tribes historically. It continued to absorb the pagan ideas and beliefs and customs of its neighbors, and throughout the Greek and Roman empires into Jesus’ day this city which had now been renamed Caesarea Philippi was a very pagan city. It was known for worshipping the Greek god Pan, a fertility god, which any time there’s a fertility god involved you can imagine the behavior of people and their forms of worship.

I’ve never been there, but I’ve read that in Caesarea Philippi, there’s a hill with a water fall that’s stopped up that used to flow into a series of lakes. And around that place was a series of shrines to a number of gods, but most importantly to Pan. But behind the water fall was a deep, dark cave and the people believed that it led to the underworld. It was a mysterious place. A religious place, but not in a good way. And it’s there that Jesus asks His disciples, So what are people saying about me?

John the Baptist and Jeremiah go together because these would have to be resurrected figures. We know of Herod who thought Jesus was John the Baptist. So people are thinking Jesus was a strong prophet, proclaiming God’s kingdom. Elijah: it could be that they thought the real Elijah was coming back to life, but there’s a prophecy of someone like Elijah coming later, so an end times figure, a great awesome prophet to bring in the coming age. People are in the right ball park, but they don’t quite get it. 

Then Jesus offers the one question exam to the disciples. VV. 15-16 You guys have been with me for maybe a year by now. You’ve seen the exorcisms. You’ve heard me preach. You’ve seen me shut up the religious leaders. What do you think about me? 

And Peter aces the test to the best of his ability to this point. He takes all the evidence and puts it together. 

Of course, Jesus says God has revealed it to him and helped him articulate such a truth, but Peter says, I know that you are the Messiah. Remember, “Son of God” = Davidic King to the first century audience (cf Psalm 2 and 2 Sam 7). Jesus, you are the agent working on God’s behalf. You are the promised one Sent from God. This goes back to Matt 14:33, where Jesus walked on the water, Peter tried and sank, Jesus saved him, and when they got back into the boat, the disciples all said, “You are the Son of God.” This implies, You are bringing God’s kingdom. You are especially empowered and enabled as the promised one. And as we go along in the story, we’ll get more information, like in the next paragraph, but Jesus praises Peter for his answer. 

VV 17-20

These are some pretty debated verses, so I won’t be too dogmatic here. “This rock” could be referring to Peter. This is usually frowned upon because that’s how the Catholics conclude that Peter was the first pope. So a lot of people choose the other main option which is seeing Peter’s confession, “Jesus is the Messiah” as the “rock” on which the church is built. This is also legitimate, but I tend to think Jesus was talking about Peter, making a wordplay on his name. 

In either case, Jesus is going to make a new community, a gathering, an assembly of people with Peter and the other disciples as the first representatives. We know that. Ephesians 2:20 says the apostles were the foundation of the church. And in Acts 2, 3, and on, Peter is clearly the leader of the early church, but it’s also true that those who enter the kingdom are characterized as people who get it right when it comes to Jesus. They are the types of people who acknowledge what? Who He is. If they were asked, who do you say I am, they have the correct answer, just like Peter did.

And this universal body of believers will grow over time. They are the representatives of Jesus’ kingdom that grows like yeast in a lump of dough. He talks about that in Matthew 13. But Jesus, so what? Look where we are. Paganville. Greco-roman society that is filled with many many gods. How are we supposed to survive following just one god, let alone You who are going to end up claiming to be God become man? You’ve done some awesome things, but we’re going to take some heat for following you.

And then in the next paragraph you are going to tell us about how you’re going to die? And rise again? No, no, no. Jesus you have this wrong. See, that’s not how this Messiah thing is supposed to work. In fact, Peter is the one that pulls Jesus aside and says, “Jesus, you will not die!” And all of a sudden, Jesus’ praise of Peter turns to a curse. He even calls him Satan. This is one reason we know this event happened. This I think meets the criterion of embarrassment. When you call the founder of the early church the devil. 

v. 20. Jesus commanded them to be quiet about the confession. Don’t go telling people I’m the Messiah…yet. Why? Because you guys don’t really know what you’re talking about, yet. You don’t understand what type of Messiah I am, one that has to suffer and die and become a sacrifice and then be raised to conquer death and offer life and then be a king. If you go telling people I’m the Messiah now, people are going to get all sorts of wrong ideas about me.

Now we know the whole story. Jesus did suffer. He was beaten. He was crucified, and buried, and then He rose in victory, to conquer sin, death, the grave, and He is the reigning King. He is God’s anointed Messiah. We now know that He is God. He is exalted in heaven at God’s right hand waiting to return to earth to complete what He began and to make God’s kingdom visible and final. 

I get asked pretty frequently about spiritual stuff or Bible passages. I get asked about minor debates that don’t matter. A lot of times people wonder if they’re going to heaven; if they really made the decision to accept Jesus. If they said the right words, if they really meant it. I mean death is a scary thing, and knowing that once it happens, your chances are over, that’s a sobering thought. So no matter if you’re super confident in your salvation or a little uneasy, or know someone who is flat out pagan, the one question exam is the same: What do you believe about Jesus? Right now. In this moment. 

We’ve established that He existed. That’s good. He did miracles. That’s good. He taught some awesome things and was a very moral person. Perfect even. But do you believe in Easter? Do you believe that He rose from the grave? Do you believe that He’s God? All those are the same question to some extent. And that one question is the most important question of your life, and it has infinite implications. 

You say, Yes, Kevin, I know Jesus is God. I know He died for me. And rose! I know I’m forgiven and have entered the kingdom. Jesus is the Savior, and I love Him. Awesome! I’m happy for you. BUT… If Jesus is God, then He cannot simply be Savior. He must also be Lord. 

Jump down to vv. 24-25. It’s not easy following Jesus. The One who promised His own path to suffering in essence promised a difficult path for us, too. In addition to the regular frustrations of life, we have the burden of wearing the target of Christianity. But if Jesus is God, and He rose from the grave, then who else can I follow? He has rescued me from my own guilt and shame and failure and inability to live life with any joy and peace on my own. I must follow the one true King. He demands my allegiance. 

And it’s true. I am a foreigner in this world now. I don’t belong here, and yet I have a mission to spread the influence of the gospel as far as I can before I die. And you know, there’s a lot of things that oppose this new community that Jesus formed, called the church: disease, demons, persecution, even death. But what did Jesus say? V. 18: The gates of Hades/Sheol will not prevail against it. That’s the grave. The underworld, maybe even reference that same spot where the disciples were standing. This terrible world, the supernatural one, and even the one most feared… death itself… will not conquer us, because Jesus rose. This week gives us hope that we, too, will rise, and God’s kingdom will spread. Satan’s already conquered. 

Now how does this really affect me? Am I committed to Jesus the Lord and King, or is my view of Jesus pretty incomplete? His demands are heavy, but it flows from Who He is. If you believe it, you will follow. 

The church is mentioned here directly in step with the character of Jesus. If you go back and read vv. 19-20, Peter and by extension the church were given a high responsibility to represent the activity of God on earth. This again is found in Acts and beyond, but we also must be committed to the mission that God has given us, of following Jesus, of making disciples. And by focusing on the physical and spiritual needs of others and not our own, we will imitate the attitude and mindset of Jesus. We will be more willing to share our faith. We will serve. And God will be glorified. 

But none of this occurs unless you settle in your mind: Who is Jesus?

Granville Sharp Rule

 Granville Sharp proposed a grammatical rule in 1798 regarding the Greek article. He restricted this rule to a very specific construction. Two substantives (same case but can be nouns, adjectives, participles) are joined by καί and the article precedes the first substantive only. Both nouns must be singular, refer to personal entities, and be improper.

When all these requirements are met, the two nouns refer to the same person. They have equal identity.

οὐχ οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ τέκτων, ὁ υἱὸς τῆς Μαρίας καὶ ἀδελφὸς Ἰακώβου "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James" Mark 6:3

ἀναβαίνω πρὸς τὸν πατέρα μου καὶ πατέρα ὑμῶν καὶ θεόν μου καὶ θεὸν ὑμῶν "I ascend to my father and your father and my God and your God" John 20:17

Those who have analyzed each construction that matches Granville's restrictions have confirmed that every occurrence contains multiple substantives that have the same referent.

This is significant for some key passages like Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1, where the deity of Jesus is confirmed by using this construction. Some object that "god" is a proper name, but this is simply not the case. Proper names can't be pluralized.

So what happens when people start applying this rule to constructions that don't follow Granville's limitations? They can reach erroneous conclusions. Don't try to make the rule do more than intended.

If proper names are joined by "and," it doesn't matter. They always refer to unique individuals.

If plural nouns are joined by "and," the groups could be identical (see Rev 1:3), but more likely the groups are either distinct (Matt 3:7), or one group is a subset of the other (Matt 9:11; Mark 2:16). In these cases, though, the groups are still related to one another. They either act in unison, or they are part of the same socio-economic circles, etc. We just can't say they are equal unless context allows it.

Impersonal nouns joined by "and" rarely (maybe one instance) have the same referent. More likely, the nouns are referring to distinct entities, or one noun is a subset of the other. Again, the fact that two nouns are joined by a single article indicates some sort of relationship, though. 

Some texts are interesting to debate and wonder how close that relationship is, but concluding that the referents are identical is unlikely unless the nouns meet Granville's limitations.

Cf Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 270-90, for a more exhaustive explanation and examples from biblical and extrabiblical sources.

Colwell's Rule and John 1:1

 E.C. Colwell (1933) wrote an article in JBL concluding that a definite preverbal predicate nominative is usually anarthrous. Lots of words there, and if you do not love language or grammar, let’s break it down.

• Definite: specific entity in reality
• Preverbal: the word in question is written before the verb in the sentence
• Predicate Nominative: In a sentence with “is” or “become” as the verb (usually), there’s a subject and either predicate adjective or predicate noun. The predicate nominative/noun renames the subject. E.g., The painting is a masterpiece.
• Anarthrous: does not have the article

In English, word order is often crucial. The subject is typically before the equative verb/verb of being, and the predicate noun/adjective is after the verb. Greek word order doesn’t matter for syntax, while it may affect emphasis or semantics. 

Colwell noticed that when a definite predicate nominative is in front of the verb, it usually does not have the article. His point was that just because a predicate nominative doesn't have the article, one cannot assume it should be translated with "a" instead of "the." Context must decide the words definiteness. His key illustration was John 1:49, σὺ εἶ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, σὺ βασιλεὺς εἶ τοῦ Ἰσραήλ (If you are the son of God, you are the king of Israel). Both subjects are the second person pronoun “you.” This leaves “the son of God” and “the king of Israel” as the predicate nouns in the first and second clauses, respectively. The first one has the article, and the second one does not. Jesus is not “a king of Israel,” but “the king of Israel.” One will notice, though, that context indicated the definiteness of the predicate noun "king.”

The problem is that many after Colwell misunderstood what he had concluded and reversed the rule. They stated that an anarthrous preverbal predicate nominative is usually definite.

The key text used for support has always been John 1:1 καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. “And the Word was a god/the God/god”

A couple studies in the 70s (Harper and Dixon, specifically), showed how Colwell restricted his study to passages where predicate nouns were definite. The semantic understanding of the predicate noun, therefore, was already decided by the context before looking at the structure. Harner further argued that 80% of Colwell’s constructions contain qualitative nouns. That is, the noun incorporates some attribute or characteristic of an object or person. These studies also focused on word order and how the structure of a sentence affects the spectrum of indefiniteness to definiteness. Basically, they sharpened Colwell's conclusions so students could use them more practically.

Here is one example of each kind of noun in Colwell’s construction:

• Definite: John 1:49, σὺ εἶ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, σὺ βασιλεὺς εἶ τοῦ Ἰσραήλ (see above)
• Qualitative: John 1:14, ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο (“the word became flesh” --not a flesh or the flesh)
• Indefinite: (most likely one in the NT) θεωρῶ ὅτι προφήτης εἶ συ (“I perceive that you are a prophet”—could be “the prophet” of Deut 18 but debatable)

In light of these studies, we can revise Colwell’s rule to apply to structures as we find them in the Greek NT: "An anarthrous pre-verbal Predicate Nominative is normally qualitative, sometimes definite, and only rarely indefinite." (See Wallace, Greek Grammar, 262)

What about John 1:1?

John 1:1 fits Colwell’s construction, but its semantics must be defined by context. Indefinite is the most rare meaning for this structure, and it would be nearly impossible for John to see Jesus as “a god.” 

Definite is unlikely. Most of the time, definite anarthrous preverbal predicate nouns are in genitive constructions, are proper names, or refer to a one-of-a-kind noun (e.g., sun). Having a definite noun for "god" here would also make "Word" convertible or precisely equal to its predicate. Essentially, the "Word" would be the same being as "the God," which would be difficult to distinguish from "God the Father" in a natural Jewish context. This is modalism, though John does have the strongest statements about Jesus' equality with the Father throughout the book (I and the Father are one; anyone who has seen Me has seen the Father).

A qualitative noun here fits John's theology and the structure of the construction best. Translation: "The Word was divine/deity." This allows balance between the Word's deity and His humanity in 1:14. The Word has the characteristics or nature of God. Their essence is identical, but He is not the Father.

Cf Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 256-70, for a more exhaustive explanation and examples from biblical and extrabiblical sources.

1 John 2:18-23

“Children, it is the last hour, and just as you heard that the antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have appeared. We know from this that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us, because if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us. But they went out from us to demonstrate that all of them do not belong to us. Nevertheless you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you all know. I have not written to you that you do not know the truth, but that you do know it, and that no lie is of the truth. Who is the liar but the person who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This one is the antichrist: the person who denies the Father and the Son. Everyone who denies the Son does not have the Father either. The person who confesses the Son has the Father also.”

— ‭‭1 John‬ ‭2‬:‭18‬-‭23‬‬

Author of these epistles (presumably John the apostle) shows tenderness to his audience. 

We repeatedly see the early church identify their generation as the “last days.” We have done more damage to our current generations by assuming world has gotten way worse (though, yes, I understand Jesus and Paul’s warnings of how wars will progress and false teaching will arise, etc.) The point is humans have been pretty awful since the beginning. And in the first century, they were just as expectant of Jesus’ return as we are. There is nothing hindering that. The “end times” began at the resurrection. This cannot be emphasized enough.

“The antichrist” has many titles in NT. Son of Perdition/ Man of Lawlessness. But there’s debate if AD 70 fulfilled this portion of these prophecies. Could be pattern fulfillment for multiple blasphemous people throughout history, and perhaps culminating in one terrible person at the end. Not really trying to get into the “beast from the sea” in Rev 13. Beasts typically refer to kingdoms, not individuals throughout Jewish literature, like Daniel 7.

Many antichrists have appeared, and not just appeared from outside in the culture. These have gone out from the church. 

This passage is used in nearly every conversation about preservation of saints, assurance of salvation, losing salvation, etc. I like to focus on God’s sovereignty and faithfulness to His people. This is what preservation means. He will get His people from Point A to Point B. He never loses any (John 10:27-28), and He will complete the work (Phil 1:6). 

But we know of people all the time who were in church, heavily involved, even pastors who turn away from faith, Jesus, ministry everything. 1 John 2:18 helps. They went out because they were not really of us. If they were of us, they would have remained.

Can they come back? Sure. I know Hebrews 6 says it’s impossible for them to repent. But I would say if they repent, then they haven’t really left. We like to debate. We like to find loopholes and make up weird situations to label people or make it difficult for either people to find God or the Bible to be true. 

First, let each Bible author say what he wants to say to HIS audience for THEIR situation. Second, these people were facing persecution and opposition from teacher that we can sort of relate to but not really. They were still wrestling with deity of Christ, the expansion of the gospel for all nations, and how all this works together. We have scores of other issues. 

But many of the biblical authors, John perhaps at the top, makes it fairly simple. Someone is either following Jesus or they aren’t. Revelation basically makes God’s team and the devil’s team. We can make up all sorts of practical scenarios of switching back and forth and leaving one and going back or taking a break. But John doesn’t mess around. You’re life as a whole…for or against. Period.

John echoes the confidence of Hebrews’ warning passages. His people have an anointing from above. They have received the truth. The lies they are hearing about Jesus’ deity. The opponents who have left are saying Jesus was not the Messiah. The one sent by God to rescue His people. And then John switches from plurals to singular—the antichrist. 

You can tell similar vocabulary and phrasing between this passage and John’s gospel. He who has the Son has the Father. Jesus reveals God perfectly.