Does 1 John 4:8 Teach Pantheism (Part 2)

This post is the continuation of an earlier one. Read that first for a bit of context before coming here. 

In our last post we covered an introduction to the topic of the nominative case in Greek, and consequently, the predicate nominative. We explained how we can identify a subject in Greek and gave a basic gist of how the predicate nominative functions with a provisional definition. If you have skipped that post and came straight here, then you are here for the refutation of the argument that 1 John 4:8 teaches pantheism. Although most of the grammar was reserved for the first post, I still must cover some minor points here. If you still wish to ignore the grammar, you can scroll to the end of this post to see a refutation of the argument :)

Here, we will answer the questions left at the end of the last post to transition into the last bit of grammar: “So how do we distinguish something like 1Jn 4:8 from our earlier examples? What are the various ways a predicate nominative and a subject can function? How can we distinguish between the predicate nominative and the subject in any given clause?” 

The reason for these questions lies in the fact that the argument, “1Jn 4:8 teaches pantheism,” relies on a faulty, if not altogether foolish, assumption about predicative statements. The error is that any statement with an equative verb (is, was, are) can be treated as a convertible statement (A=B, B=A). Therefore, in order to adequately treat the objection, we will have to know a bit about the predicate nominative.

Question 1 - What are the various ways a predicate nominative and a subject can function?

I ask this question first, because, in order to know the answer to, “How do we distinguish 1Jn 4:8 from our earlier examples,” we need to know the categories that distinguish the different use of a (S) and (PN) relationship. Also, the question about 1 John 4:8 will be answered by dealing with the argument in the final section of this paper, so it does not need to be treated individually. *S=subject/PN=pred. nom. 

There are two general ways a (S) and a (PN) can relate together. 

They can relate to each other in (1) Subset Propositions, and (2) Convertible Propositions 

A Subset Proposition (SP) is saying the (S) has the quality/attribute/or is in the larger category of the (PN). A Convertible Proposition (CP) says that the (S) and the (PN) share an identity and are interchangeable terms, they are coreferential. 

Question 2 - How can we distinguish between the predicate nominative and the subject in any given clause?

    Before we give examples of the two types of (S)/(PN) relationships, a question may be asked, "How are you able to tell which noun is the (S) and which is the (PN)?". To answer, it must be known that there are three "grammatical tags" to identify what a subject is when two nouns appear in the nominative case and are joined by an equative verb. *If only one of the "tags" appears, then by default the sentence will be an (SP) and not a (CP), that is to say, if only one "tag" appears, then it will not be a convertible proposition where the terms are interchangeable. (this will be relevant for later)

These three tags to identify subjects are:

1. The subject will be a pronoun. If there are two nouns with an equative verb in the nominative case, and one is a pronoun, it will take precedence as the subject.
2. The subject will be articular. The noun that appears with an article before it will take precedence as the subject. (articular meaning ‘with the article’; If a subject appears without the article it is then considered “anarthrous”)
3. The subject will be a proper name. If there is a proper name as one of the two nominative nouns, then it will take precedence as the subject.

An important note

    

A question may arise if we are met with a scenario in which both nouns meet one of these "tags". As an example, if we are met with a clause that has a pronoun and a proper name, what are we to do? How do we then identify the subject? These are great questions, however, our consideration of 1 John 4:8 does not concern these very particular issues. If you wish to read more about this, consult Daniel Wallace's Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, pp. 44-45.

Now, the following section will show examples from the NT that demonstrate these two kinds of grammatical functions [SP/CP] with the (S) and the (PN).  

Examples from the NT

“ὥστε Κύριός ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου καὶ τοῦ σαββάτου” - Mark 2:28

“Thus it is even so that the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”

See how here, “Lord of the Sabbath'' and “Son of Man '' are coreferential terms. They are statements about identity and therefore interchangeable. Thus, this is a (CP).

However, an example of a (SP) would look like this.

"ἔργα τῶν χειρῶν σού εἰσιν οἱ οὐρανοί"- Hebrews 1:10

“The heavens are the works of your hands."

Or

"Πνεῦμα ὁ Θεός" - John 4:24

"God is Spirt."

Here in these examples, the subjects are not interchangeable with their predicate nominatives. The examples above citing the verses John 4:24 and Hebrews 1:10, show a (SP) relationship. How do we know this? Because only one of the grammatical tags is present here. In Hebrews 1:10, there is only an articular noun with no pronoun or proper name, thus "οἱ οὐρανοί" (the heavens) takes precedence for being the subject in the sentence "ἔργα τῶν χειρῶν σού εἰσιν οἱ οὐρανοί".

Similarly, in John 4:24 we are met with only one articular noun and no pronoun or proper name with the phrase "Πνεῦμα ὁ Θεός", thus, "ὁ Θεός" is assumed as the subject and not the word "Πνεῦμα" (Spirit).

Again, it must be noted that if only one of these grammatical tags is present then the (S) and the (PN) share a subset proposition relationship, which is to say that the (PN) is either a quality/attribute/or larger category to which the (S) belongs.

The argument from 1 John 4:8

Now, we are met with what you have been waiting for after sludging through most of that grammar. The argument could be summarized this way:

1 John 4:8 says, "God is love", but if "God is love", that can also mean that "love is God", or the verse is said in such a way that "love is God" is a legitimate translation of the passage. But, if love is God and God is love, then that is to say that God is something found in nature, for God to share identity with nature is pantheism, therefore 1 John 4:8 teaches pantheism.

Now, if some are reading this and thinking "Surely this cannot be the argument", I assure you, it is. Most of this could be dismissed without the consideration of Greek. Further, it can be shown how the argument assumes a deductive style of argumentation and then switches to an argument from induction, making its conclusion weak. Also, while the second premise claims (wrongly so) the potential interchangeability of "love" and "God" in 1 John 4:8, it makes a leap in asserting that "God is something found in nature" based on this interchangeability. The argument assumes that if two terms are joined by an equative verb, they must be interchangeable in a statement, and they must share identical properties or attributes, such as being "found in nature." This assumption is not logically sound. If I say "The apple is red," can I say, "Red is the apple?" No, because it is not the case that every instance of redness could be attributed to an apple.

Regardless of that, those I have heard use this argument will mention something about how the Greek supports this ridiculous claim. Now most of the time, people can get away with this because there aren't any who know the language to challenge the assertion. Here, that is not the case.

To simply refute this argument, let us bring the Greek text of 1 John 4:8 and harken back to our earlier principles aforementioned.

"...ὅτι ὁ θεὸς ἀγάπη ἐστίν" - 1 John 4:8

"...that God is Love"

Now, it is true that both the terms "God" and "love" appear in the nominative case in Greek, but if we recall our three grammatical tags for discerning what a subject is in any clause, we can know what the subject must be here in this verse. Firstly, we have no pronoun, secondly, we have no proper name, leaving us with "ὁ θεὸς" and "ἀγάπη". If the previous two tags are not present, we are left with only one tag to identify the subject, which is the articular noun. In this instance, it would be "ὁ θεὸς" (God) and not the word "ἀγάπη" (love). Further, we know that if only one of the tags is present, then the clause by default is a subset proposition. Meaning that 1Jn 4:8 is not a statement about God's identity to the concept of "love", but rather a statement that he is love qualitatively/attributively. Therefore, because “God” must be the subject, “love” cannot possibly be it. Meaning “love is God” is not a possible sense of what the verse is attempting to communicate. 

Conclusion 

To summarize, in no way could this passage ever be legitimately translated as "love is God", or be understood to be a statement that is positing God and love are coreferential terms as a statement of identity of a convertible proposition.

I should note that the verse signifies that love is an inherent aspect of God's identity, inseparable from His essence. This statement reflects the nature of God's benevolence, indicating that His love is a fundamental characteristic of His being. It is only in this sense that "love" and "identity" are related here though.

*For further reading consult Dan Wallace's "Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics" and his section on nouns, the nominative case, and predicate nominatives.