It’s definitely fascinating to explore how early translations captured deep theological truths in different languages. The Syriac term “Miltha” indeed has rich meaning—yes, it can mean word, utterance, matter, or even manifestation or reality, depending on the context.
Now, regarding the Biblical Unitarian interpretation—that Miltha doesn't imply a divine person but only a concept or expression of God’s will—we need to look at a few key things:
-
Even in Syriac tradition, many early Christians (including Syriac-speaking Church Fathers) did not deny the personhood or divinity of Christ. They still affirmed that the Miltha (Word) in John 1:1 was more than just a “plan” or “concept”—it was a divine person who was with God and was God, as the rest of John 1 clearly shows (especially verses 3 and 14).
-
Grammar notes: Yes, Miltha is a feminine noun in Syriac, but grammatical gender doesn’t determine actual personhood. Just because a word is feminine doesn't mean it can't refer to a masculine person. For example, in Hebrew and Greek, we also have gendered nouns, yet they can still point to personal beings—like Ruach (Spirit) being feminine in Hebrew but clearly referring to a personal Holy Spirit.
-
John 1:14 says, “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.” This is a clear statement that the Miltha/Logos wasn’t just an idea—it became a human being, Jesus Christ. That can’t be understood as just a metaphor. The language is incarnational.
-
Syriac lexicons, like Payne Smith and Brockelmann, even note that Miltha in John 1:1 is the divine Logos—not merely a spoken word or idea, but a divine reality that took on flesh. So, the historical Christian understanding of Miltha actually supports the belief in Christ’s divine pre-existence.
So, while I get the angle the Unitarian view is coming from—that Miltha could be seen as just God’s expression or will—that’s only a partial picture. The context of John 1 and the broader New Testament teaching point to a divine person, Jesus, not just an abstract concept.
And that’s why from the early church up to today, most Christians—whether they read John 1:1 in Greek as Logos or in Syriac as Miltha—have believed that Jesus is the eternal Word of God, not just an idea, but the living God in human form.
Here’s a comparison chart showing the similarities and nuances between the Greek term Logos and the Syriac Miltha, especially in the context of John 1:1, along with how early Christians and Church Fathers understood them:
Comparison of LOGOS (Greek) vs. MILTHA (Syriac) in John 1:1
| Aspect | LOGOS (Λόγος – Greek) | MILTHA (ܡܶܠܬ݂ܳܐ – Syriac) | Early Church Understanding |
|---|---|---|---|
| Literal Meaning | Word, reason, speech, discourse | Word, utterance, expression, manifestation, reality | Both refer to a divine agent of creation and revelation |
| Grammatical Gender | Masculine Noun | Feminine Noun | Grammatical gender does not dictate personal identity |
| John 1:1 Translation | “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” | “In the beginning was the Miltha, and the Miltha was with God, and God was the Miltha.” | Both clearly state that the Word was with God and was God |
| John 1:14 | “The Word became flesh…” | “Miltha became flesh…” | Implies incarnation of a divine person, not just a concept |
| Philosophical Background | Influenced by Greek philosophical thought (e.g., Philo) but transformed in Christian theology to mean divine person | Draws from Aramaic and Hebrew context; “Miltha” implies a manifested reality, not just abstract thought | Understood as God's self-expression made personal in Christ |
| Church Fathers | Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Athanasius taught that Logos = preexistent Christ, co-eternal with the Father | Syriac Fathers like Ephrem the Syrian affirmed Miltha as the divine Word who became incarnate | Uniform belief: Jesus is the divine Logos/Miltha, not a created idea |
| Biblical Role | Creator (John 1:3), Revealer of God (John 1:18), Incarnate Savior (John 1:14) | Same roles applied to Miltha | Personal, divine role – not just a metaphor or plan |
| Modern Error (Biblical Unitarian) | Interprets Logos as merely a plan or idea in God’s mind | Interprets Miltha as non-personal expression or message | This minimizes the incarnation and denies the divinity of Christ |
Conclusion:
-
Both Logos and Miltha refer to Jesus Christ as the divine Word of God.
-
The Unitarian interpretation that Miltha is just an abstract "idea" or "concept" goes against both the grammar and the context of John 1.
-
Whether in Greek or Syriac, the early Christians believed the Word was a divine Person, not just an impersonal force.
-
John 1:14 seals the truth: “The Word became flesh”—a real, divine person became human.
Former Adventists Philippines
No comments:
Post a Comment