Luke 20:38 | "God" or "a god"

This came up in the comments of another thread (see Does John 1:6, 12, and 13 refute John was influenced by Philo's writing on the Logos?), but how should θεος be translated in Luke 20:38?

Θεὸς δὲ οὐκ ἔστιν νεκρῶν ἀλλὰ ζώντων πάντες γὰρ αὐτῷ ζῶσιν

He is not θεος of the dead but [θεος] of the living, for all live by him

In "Truth In Translation," BeDuhn argues that it should be treated as an indefinite due to the lack of the article, even though many translations treat it as the definite "God."

I agree with BeDuhn's analysis that here Jesus is categorizing/characterizing God - answering the implicit question: "who is He (God) a god of?"

I would further suggest that if we were to understand θεος as definite, then we have introduced a new definitive God into scripture - and Jesus is then clarifying which of the two definitive gods that is being spoken of. ie: "He is not God of the dead, but God of the living." Who then is this "God of the dead?"

Is this analysis correct, or am I missing something such that it should be treated as a definitive reference?

EDIT: This is an entirely distinct passage from John 1:1 and doesn’t carry the same theological implications. This means people should be able to discuss this objectively instead of being hung up on defending preconceived doctrine. I have also added in my own argument independent of BeDuhn. For these reasons, therefore, it is not the same as the suggested questions or answers. And attempting to close this question just because you don’t like that you can’t substantiate your position betrays the un-objective and anti-academic currents within this online community; shameful.

Luke 20;38 | "God" or "a god

Luke 20:38 should be God. There is neither an implied definite article to be had here in Luke, nor is there an implication to be had to the indefinite article. The previous verse, in Luke, takes all preference.

There is no "God of the dead". When it comes to the Almighty God, He is only to be seen as the "God of the living". That, of course, is to include those who have been - resurrected from the dead (to spiritual life in the heavenly abode) - See v.v. 35, 36 & 37, for further enlightenment.

OK - here is an answer that does not need to get into the subtleties of the Greek definite article grammatical rules.

The structure of the single sentence of Luke 20:38a is actually quite simple - let me set it out in a structured way (with my very literal translation):

Now, He is not God of dead but living. For all to Him live.

It is only the first sentence that concerns us here. Essentially, we have a compound sentence - one subject, "God", and two objects - "dead" and "living".

Now, whatever one says about one must say about the other because both objects, "dead" and "living" are the objects of the initial part of the sentence; that is Jesus' statement is saying:

Thus, if one insists that because the Greek has no article before "God" and so must be translated as "a god", then so must the other part of the sentence which would give, "a god of the living" - an impossible result!

Thus, the only consistent way to translate Luke 20:38a is something like:

Now, He is not the God of the dead, but He is the God of the living."

It is significant that support of Dr. BeDuhn has been mentioned regarding this question on Luke 20:38. He may be better known for arguing against "God" with a capital G where John says "and the Word was God" (John 1:1c). Those who support "the Word was a god" translations like to cite him in support of their grammatical reasons for that.

Dr. BeDuhn received his Master of Arts in Theological Studies from Harvard Divinity School. This degree requires an intermediate level of competence in Greek. BeDuhn's PhD from the University of Indiana is in Comparative Religious Studies, not in Biblical languages. He is not recognized in the scholarly community as an expert in Biblical Greek. He taught Greek at Northern Arizona University, I understand.

Dr. BeDuhn should not be dismissed lightly, of course. He is certainly knowledgeable in Greek, working on untranslated Greek texts. He argues from a grammatical standpoint. Also, he says that he is not a theologian, by which he likely means that he is not biased in favor of one theological viewpoint but, rather, approaches the text purely from a grammatical standpoint. But approaching any text from a professed "non-theological" standpoint does not guarantee freedom from bias; nor that a theological commitment necessarily precludes an objective analysis. To my knowledge, Dr. BeDuhn's views contradict the majority of scholarship on this topic (God, or a god, whether in Luke 20:38 or John 1:1). Further, his statement that the traditional rendering of "God" "narrows the meaning from a quality or category (god/divine) to an individual (God)" seems a strawman argument.

As stated by the O.P., Dr. BeDuhn has written Truth in Translation. But there's no point delving into the author's details about either Luke 20:38 and/or John 1:1 in that book. How could a short answer here even begin to counteract Dr. BeDuhn's arguments? Fortunately, some answers have already shown the simple illogicality involved.

Finally, when the O.P. says, "I agree with BeDuhn's analysis that here Jesus is categorizing/characterizing God - answering the implicit question: "who is He (God) a god of?" it might be worth noting that Jesus only ever spoke of the one, true God, so any suggestion that in Luke 20:28 he referred to "a god of the dead," would be to lend credence to pagan polytheistic religions that had their various "god(s) of the dead". Jesus clearly meant that the Father is God of the living, and context shows that. He was counteracting those who did not believe in the resurrection of the dead. Jesus even said of himself:

"I am the resurrection and the life. He that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live." John 11:25 K.J.V.

Context shows that Moses, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were alive to God, even though the resurrection of their bodies had not yet occurred. This means that correct understanding of Luke 20:38 begins with context, and that Greek grammar fits nicely into place as perfectly understandable. Further, the word Theos is only stated once in the verse, not twice, not even by implication:

"For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him." K.J.V.

If Jesus had spoken of "a god of the dead", he would have been accused of either endorsing pagan polytheism, or giving some credence to that wrong belief. The whole of his statement in verse 38 speaks only, ever, of the one true God.

Just as in John 1:1, θεὸς does not have the direct article Luke 20:38 because it is a predicate nominative rather than the subject.

In John 1:1c, should the Greek word θεὸς be translated into English as “a god” or “God”?

Short Answer: Yes, we "can" translate it "a god". However! I think the question shouldn't be "can" it be translated "a god", but "should" it be translated in such a way.

Luke 20:38 - King James Version

For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him.

Luke 20:38 - Emphatic Diaglott New Testament (a Unitarian Bible version)

A God now not he is of dead ones, but of living ones; all for to him live.

Luke 20:38 - New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (Jehovah’s Witnesses Bible)

He is a God, not of the dead, but of the living, for they are all living to him.”

Here's a table of different translations:

First we must note that the noun θεός (theos, "God") as a predicate noun in Greek can can appear in various combinations depending on its placement relative to the to-be verb and the presence or absence of the definite article ὁ (ho).

The noun θεός (theos, “God”) can be used as a predicate noun (i.e., a noun that is part of the predicate part of the main clause and that names, identifies, or describes the subject) preceding or following the to-be verb. It can also be used with or without the article ὁ (ho, popularly called the definite article). Occurrences with the article are called articular; occurrences without the article are called anarthrous. These two factors yield four scenarios: a preverbal articular use, a preverbal anarthrous use, a postverbal articular use, and a postverbal anarthrous use. 1

Consider the four scenarios:

Example: ὁ θεός ἐστιν (theos is) - "The God is"

Implication: What we would see is that the definite article ὁ makes the noun θεός specific, referring to "the God". We still see the definiteness in the identity of God.

Example: θεός ἐστιν (theos is) - "God is"

Implication: Without the article, the noun can be understood as qualitative or indefinite. However, this of course is dependent on context. In a majority cases, it is used for the nature or quality of being God rather than identifying a specific deity.

Example: ἐστιν ὁ θεός (is the God) - "is the God"

Implication: The definite article after the verb makes the noun specific, again referring to "the God". This structure would affirm the identity of God as the specific, known deity.

Example: ἐστιν θεός (is God) - "is God"

Implication: Without the article, the noun may be understood as qualitative or indefinite. When this case is used it can also be for the quality of being divine or godly, rather than pointing to a specific entity

θεός appears before the verb ἔστιv in Luke 20:38, and the manuscript evidence unequivocally demonstrates that the article is not utilized.

Let's keep in mind the context.

Jesus is addressing a Jewish religious faction known as the Sadducees. The Sadducees denied resurrection from the dead. We see this in their hypothetical inquiry concerning a lady who had been married to seven brothers, all of whom had passed away. Their question was: If there is a wife in the hereafter, whose she would be?

Consider the context of first-century Judean monotheism. Among this group was the theological belief in the singularity and uniqueness of God. Does it make sense that Jesus would refer to "a god" as if there was a plurality? Considering his audience that doesn't sound reasonable to me. In this light, without the article, θεός might be understood as referring to the one and only God in a definitive sense, rather than an abrupt suggestion of the existence of multiple gods.

While, we see is that there are variations in translating θεός (God) in Luke 20:38 (and its parallel passages in Matthew 22:32 and Mark 12:27), the differences are very subtle. In this case, translating θεός as "God" or "the God" would essentially convey the same meaning, with "the God" being idiomatic in English.

The big question: The wording "a God," although it may be grammatically permissible, cannot imply a plurality of gods. In context, it means "His status as God is in relation to the living, not to the dead." Therefore, it is better to translate θεός as "God" to avoid any misinterpretation of polytheism. This works better with both Jesus' and the Sadducee's belief in the one true God.

Finally, we must consider the logic of Christ’s argument. It requires that θεός, based on his conclusion, to have the same meaning as it does in his reference to Exodus 3:6. When the Lord is called “the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob,” the title "God" implies that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are among the living, because the Lord is not called "God" in relation merely to the dead. Whether the article occurs before θεός does not change its meaning (in this case).

Hence, translating θεός as "God" rather than "a God" is appropriate, as the indefinite meaning is not implied. Most translators agree with this, rendering θεός as “God” to maintain clarity and consistency.

BeDuhn's use of Luke 20:38 to justify translating John 1:1c demonstrates the danger of allowing Greek grammar (the application of which is debatable in both passages) to override common sense reading and ignore a writer's intent in how they chose to compose a statement.

It ignores common sense reading because the reader is going to have an immediate understanding of what is written. They are not going to withhold judgment in order to engage in a grammatical argument like we do today. Moreover, since they lack ability, as the English God/god, to simply conceptualize a difference, the immediate understanding will come from the general flow of what the writer composed.

θεὸς δὲ οὐκ ἔστιν νεκρῶν ἀλλὰ ζώντων πάντες γὰρ αὐτῷ ζῶσιν [Literally] God now not He is of dead but of living all for to Him live.

This statement is going to be taken as speaking about the God of the living.

In addition, to get "a" God of the dead, one must first accept the premise there is more than one God of the dead. This is grammatically contrary to both ἔστιν, He is, third person singular and αὐτῷ, to Him also third person singular. God is the subject; the verb is third person singular; the pronoun is also third person singular. There is nothing in this statement to justify a claim the original audience would think Jesus was not referring to God but some nebulous group of many Gods of the dead.

BeDuhn also ignores the preceding passage which clearly identifies the people to whom Jesus was speaking to:

There came to him some Sadducees...But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed, in the passage about the bush, where he calls the Lord the God of Abraham and God of Isaac and God of Jacob. (Luke 20:37)

Jesus is speaking to Sadducees. Therefore, BeDuhn's "a god" of the dead not only requires accepting the general concept of of multiple "gods of the dead;" it specifically requires Sadducees holding that belief. Regardless of any grammatical rule(s) BeDuhn believes justifies "a god of the dead" such an understanding in the context of who Jesus addresses is impossible.

Furthermore, Jesus corrects the Sadducees saying, "You must know the dead are raised because He identified Himself to Moses as the Lord, the God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob, God now not He is of dead but of living all for to Him live." It is unreasonable, if not preposterous, to claim the reader is going to engage in a debatable grammatical exercise to override the common sense meaning and arrive at an understanding which is theologically absurd in the context of a discussion with Sadducees.

There is a significant aspect to BeDuhn's claim Luke 20:38 can be used to interpret John 1:1c. From the standpoint of composition the original writer knows it might be possible for the reader to misunderstand the meaning of the first sentence in the Gospel which declares the deity of the Word. Therefore, if that is not the meaning the writer intends the proper composition would be like that of Luke 20:38.

Now he is not God of the dead... θεὸς δὲ οὐκ ἔστιν νεκρῶν

...the Word was not God or ...now the Word was not God ...θεὸς οὐκ ἦν ὁ λόγος or ...θεὸς δὲ οὐκ ἦν ὁ λόγος

No writer who believed θεὸς δὲ οὐκ ἦν ὁ λόγος would ever compose θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος which opens the door for a reader to come to the opposite conclusion unless that is what the writer intends. This can be stated differently, according to BeDuhn, the writer of John deliberately avoided an explicit statement, as in Luke 20:38 which would deny the Word was God. Instead they composed something which can easily, and according to many scholars correctly, be understood as declaring Word is God.

On the other hand, John composed θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος choosing not to say θεὸς δὲ οὐκ ἦν ὁ λόγος because he believes and wants us to know the Word was God.