top of page

There is no Trinity NT

Ich bin ein Textabschnitt. Klicke hier, um deinen eigenen Text hinzuzufügen und mich zu bearbeiten.

NT

Matthew  Isaiah 7:14 – Immanuel – God with Us  Matthew 27:18 – Jesus Knew Why

Matthew 1:23 - Immanuel Means "God is With Us" (2016-12-05)

Matthew 4:7

Jesus Received Worship

Matthew 12:8

Matthew 12:8 - Lord of the Sabbath (2008-11-08)

Matthew 12:25 (2008-10-10)

Matthew 16:13-16  Son of Man and Son of God (2017-10-21)

Matthew 18:20

Matthew 18:20 (2008-10-08)

Matthew 27:18

Matthew 28:18 and All Power

Matthew 27:18 – Jesus Knew Why

Matthew 28:18 - Was This God the Son Speaking? (2016-03-13)

Matthew 28:19 – The One Name

 

Mark

Mark 2:7 – Only God Can Forgive Sins? (2018-12-25)

Mark 2:28

Mark 14:61-63 – Jesus’ Claim to be the Messiah

 

Luke 1:35

Luke 1:35 and the Trinity (2016-02-04)

Luke 1:68; 7:16 – God Visited His People

Luke 2:11 – Jesus – “Christ The Lord” (2017-06-15)

Luke 4:12

Luke 6:5

Luke 8:38,39 -- Great :Proof that Jesus is God?

Luke 24:39 - Jesus' Appearances in the Locked Room (2017-05-15)

 

John

John 1:1

John 1:1; Jesus as god

John 1:1 — What Beginning?

John 1:1 - The Hebraic Usage Applied to the Word (2016-03-06)

John 1:1 Regarding “Was” and Eternity (moved to Jesus and His God) (2016-10-05)

John 1:1 and the Son of God, Immanuel (2013-11-15)

John 1:1 - In the Beginning (2016-11-24)

John 1:1 and Trinity Assumptions (2017-05-17)

John 1:1- "Theos" As Applied to the Logos (2016-12-07)

John 1:1 Regarding "Was" and Eternity (2016-12-11)

John 1:1,2 (MMcelhaney) (2008-09-30)

John 1:1,2 - The Word was Mighty (2008-08-23)

John 1:1,2 - Is Jesus "God" Whom He was With? (2016-12-07)

John 1:1,2 - Is Jesus "God" Whom He was With?

John 1:1-3 - The Logos Was Theos (2016-12-11)

John 1:1-3 - The Logos Was Theos

John 1:3 - The World Made Through the Logos (2016-12-18)

John 1:1,5 - Light, Darkness and the Logos (2016-11-23)

John 1:1-15 - The Word Is Not an "It" (2017-05-07)

John 1:12 - The Right To Become God's Children (2016-12-11)

John 1:13,14 - Was Jesus Born "of the Logos?" (2018-11-17)

John 1:14 - The Logos Was Made Flesh (2016-12-11)

John 1:14 - Was God Almighty Made Flesh?

John 1:18 - Only Begotten Theos (2013-11-21)

John 1:18

John 1:18 - The Only Begotten God

John 1:18 - The Only Begotten God (2016-12-11)

John 2:24 (2008-10-10)

John 2:19-22 - Did Jesus Raise Himself from the Dead? (2016-11-28)

John 3:13 and Jesus' Supposed Omnipresence (2017-02-24)

John 4:26 - EGO EIMI and Jesus' Claim to be the Messiah (2016-05-14)

John 5:18 - The Jewish Leaders' "Cause" to Kill Jesus (2017-03-30)

John 5:23 – Honor The Son As The Father (2018-09-20)

John 5:23 – The Honor Due Jesus

John 5:27 Son of Man and Son of God (2017-10-21)

John 6:45 - Jesus and His God as Teachers (2017-03-15)

John 6:62; 17:5 - Jesus' Return to Where He Was Before (2016-10-12)

John 8:58

Why do Trinitarians take John 8:58 out of context in regards to the trinity? (2014-03-29)

John 8:58 - Is "I Am" as Used by Jesus the Divine Name of God?

John 8:58 and Other "I Am" Statements by Jesus

John 8:58 – Did Jesus Use the Holy Name?

John 8:58,59; 10:30-33 - The Real Reason the Jews Sought to Kill Jesus - c (2017-03-15)

John 10:11; genuine shepherd

John 10:30

John 10:30 - Jesus is One With the Father

John 10:30 - The One of Jesus With His God

John 10:38

John 10:11,14 - The Good Shepherd (m-jesus) (2008-10-19)

John 10:11,14 - The One Shepherd (2016-11-26)

John 10:30 - Jesus and His Father are One (2010-02-01)

John 10:30 - The Oneness of Jesus and His God (2016-10-19)

John 10:30 – The Son is One With His Father

John 10:38; 14:10,11 - The Father in His Son (2015-12-28)

John 12:41 - Isaiah Saw His Glory (2016-10-29)

John 14:7-10 - Seeing the Father in Jesus (2017-03-25)

John 14:10

John 14:11

John 17 - Glory Notes (2017-05-01)

John 17:3 - Did Jesus Really Say That the Father is the Only True God? (2017-04-20)

John 17:5 - Jesus' Glory Before the World Existed – c

John 20:28 - Did Thomas Referred to Jesus as the Supreme Being?

 

Acts 2:17-21 – Did Peter Apply God’s Holy Name To Jesus? (2017-08-05)

Acts 5:3,4 - Ananias Lied to God, Not to Men (2016-09-24)

Acts 7:59 - Did Stephen Call Upon God?

Acts 9:5; 26:14-18 – Who Are You, Lord? - c

Acts 13:33 - Jesus' Begettal From Death (2018-11-17)

Acts 17:31 - The Man That God Ordained (2017-10-21)

Acts 20:28 – Whose Blood? (2017-11-06)

 

Romans 8:9; 1 Peter 1:11 - Spirit of God and Spirit of Christ (2017-03-29)

Romans 8:11 – Spirit Of Him Who Raised Up Jesus

Romans 9:5 - The God Who is Over All (2016-10-29)

Romans 9:32,33; 1 Peter 2:7,8 – Stone Of Stumbling – Jehovah Or Jesus? (2018-06-05)

Romans 10:13 – Whoever Will Call On The Name Of Jehovah (2017-09-05)

 

1 Corinthians 2:8 – Lord Of Glory

1 Corinthians 10:4 - That Rock Was Christ

1 Corinthians 12:3 - Jesus is Lord

 

2 Corinthians

2 Corinthians 1:21,22 – Christ, God And The Spirit (2018-10-26)

2 Corinthians 3:17 – Jehovah, The Spirit (2018-10-30)

2 Corinthians 5:19 - God in Christ (2017-04-18)

2 Corinthians 13:14 – Trinity? 

 

Philippians

Philippians 2:5-7 - Humility of Mind

He Existed in the Form of God - Philippians 2:5-11 (2008-07-12)

Philippians 2:5-11 — Jesus' Exaltation to a Name Above All Names (2017-06-11)

philippians 2:6

Philippians 2:6 - Examining the Greek Word "Morphe" (2017-04-21)

philippians 2:7

Philippians 2:9,  Is Jesus the God of the Old Testament? (2017-04-17)

Philippians 3:20,21 and Jesus’ Ability

 

Galatians 3:20 - Is God the Mediator? (2018-03-08)

 

Ephesians

Ephesians 1:23 - Is Jesus the Fullness of Him Who Fills All? (2017-02-20)

Ephesians 3:20 and Jesus’ Power

 

Colossians

Colossians 1 – Study Of EN And DIA In Colossians 1

Colossians 1:15 - Did Jesus Have a Beginning? - c (2016-12-13)

Colossians 1:15 – Firstborn Of The New Creation? (2017-11-01)

Colossians 1:15, Revelation 3:14, and Jesus' Beginning (2016-12-13)

Colossians 1:16 -- Is Jesus Designated the Originator of Creation? (2017-05-15)

Colossians 1:17  https://jesusnotyhwh.blogspot.com/2016/12/originator.html

Colossians 2:9 - The Fullness of Deity (2017-04-29)

Colossians 2:9 - The Plenitude of Deity (2017-05-17)

Colossians 2:9 – Pleroma, Theotes and Somatikos

Colossians 2:9 - Tes Theotetos

Colossians 2:9 - The Plentitude of Deity

Colossians 2:9 - The Fullness of Deity

 

1 Timothy

1 Timothy

1 Timothy 2:5 – The Man Christ Jesus

1 Timothy 2:5,6 – There Is One God (Deuteronomy 6:4; Galatians 3:20; Ephesians 4:6; 1 Corinthians 8:6) (2018-07-14)

1 Timothy 2:5,6 - Did Jesus Have to Be Both God and Man in Order to be the Mediator? (2017-04-17)

1 Timothy 3:16 – God in the Flesh?

Is Jesus the Archangel? Part 1 (Daniel 8:25; 9:25,26; 10:13,21; Jude 1:9; 1 Thessalonians 4:16) (2016-12-04)

 

1 Thessalonians 5:23 – Is Man A Trinity? (Genesis 1:26,27) (2018-07-13)

1 Thessalonians 5:23

1 Timothy 3:16 - God in the Flesh? (2008-08-20)

1 Timothy 3:16 - Mystery of Devotion (2018-09-12)

1 Timothy 3:16 - Mystery of Godliness Revealed (2016-11-04)

1 Timothy 3:16 - Mystery of the Godhead? (2016-11-04)

1 Timothy 6:15,16 – The Only Ruler Who Possesses Immortality (2018-10-19)

 

Titus 2:13 - The Great God (2016-11-02)

 

Hebrews 1: What Does Hebrews 1 Say About "God"? (2016-10-29)

Hebrews 1:1-3 - The Unipersonal God Speaks Through His Son (2017-04-12)

Jesus Received Worship

Hebrews 1:8 - Why is Jesus called "Elohim" and "Theos"? Psalm 45:6,7 (2016-09-18)

Hebrews 1:10-12- Does Jehovah Speak to Jehovah? (2016-09-24)

Hebrews 7:3 - Melchizedek and Jesus' Priesthood (2017-06-02)

Hebrews 13:8 (2008-09-22)

Hebrews 13:8 - Jesus Remains the Same (2019-01-05)

 

James 2:19 - God is One (2008-10-19)

 

1 Peter 2:3 – Tasted That The Lord Is Gracious (2017-11-20)

1 Peter 3:15 – Sanctify Christ As Lord (2017-07-31)

2 Peter 1:1 – Our God And Our Savior (2018-08-05)

 

1 John

1 John 1:1-3 – That Which Was From The Beginning (2018-04-04)

1 John 2:20,27 – No Need For Anyone To Teach (2018-03-31)

1 John 2:22-24 – Was John Writing About Denial That Jesus Is Jehovah? (2018-04-27)

1 John 3:16 - Did God Almighty Lay Down His Life For Us? - c 

1 John 4:2; 2 John 1:7 -- "Is Come" or "Coming" (2017-03-15)

1 John 4:3 - Jesus Has Come in the Flesh –c

1 John 5:7 - One God Who is Three?

1 John 5:7 - Three That Bear Record

1 John 5:7 – Biblical Oneness Versus Trinity

1 John 5:20 - This is the True God (2017-05-10)

 

Jude 1:4 – The Only Despotes (2017-07-31)

Is Jesus the Archangel? Part 1 (Daniel 8:25; 9:25,26; 10:13,21; Jude 1:9; 1 Thessalonians 4:16) (2016-12-04)

 

Revelation

Revelation 1:4 - Who Is, Was, To Come - Jesus? (2016-11-15)

Revelation 1:8

Revelation 1:8 - Is Jehovah or Jesus Being Quoted?

Revelation 1:8 – The God of Jesus Speaks

Revelation 1:8 - The Lord God, Who Was, Is, and Is to Come (Video Script) (2017-02-05)

Revelation 1:8 - The Unipersonal God Speaks (2016-10-23)

Revelation 1:11- Alpha And Omega In Some Translations

Revelation 1:17,18; 2:8 - The First and the Last (2017-02-05)

Revelation 2:8 - The First and the Last Was Dead (2017-02-05)

Revelation 2:23; trinitarian dogma

Revelation 2:23 - Jesus Searches the Hearts (2008-10-10)

Revelation 2:23 – He Who Searches Hearts

Revelation 3:9 Jesus Received Worship

Is Jesus the Archangel? Part 2 (Daniel 12:1; Jude 1:9; 1 Thessalonians 4:16; Revelation 12:7) (2016-12-04)

Revelation 17:14 - Lord of Lords and King of Kings; Revelation 19:16 (2016-12-28)

Revelation 21:6

Revelation 21:6 – God Who Sits on the Throne

Revelation 22:3 - His Servants -- Is This Proof that Jesus is Jehovah? –c

Revelation 22:13

Revelation 22:13   I am Alpha and Omega

Revelation 22:13 – I am Alpha and Omega

Revelation 22:13 – Response to Neil

Revelation 22:13 – Objections

revelation 22:16

Revelation 22:16 (2008-09-20)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

NT

Matthew  Isaiah 7:14 – Immanuel – God with Us  Matthew 27:18 – Jesus Knew Why

https://sonofyah.wordpress.com/category/scriptures/matthew/

 

Isaiah 7:14 – Immanuel – God with Us

Isaiah 7:14 – Therefore [Jehovah]* Himself giveth to you a sign, Lo, the Virgin is conceiving, And is bringing forth a son, And hath called his name Immanuel. (Note: The Great Isaiah Scroll has the holy name in Isaiah 7:14)

Isaiah 8:8 – and it shall sweep onward into Judah; it shall overflow and pass through; it shall reach even to the neck; and the stretching out of its wings shall fill the breadth of your land, Immanuel.

Matthew 1:23 – “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son. They shall call his name Immanuel;” which is, being interpreted, “God with us.”

 

This scripture is evidently cited by trinitarians and oneness believers because it has the name, Immanuel, and since Matthew applies the statement in Isaiah 7:14 to Jesus, and since the name Immanuel means “God is with us”, it is being imagined and assumed that this is proof that Jesus is Jehovah, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the only Most High. Trinitarians would further imagine and assume that two persons of their alleged triune God are being spoken of in Isaiah 7:14, one who is the alleged “first person” of their alleged triune God, and another who is the alleged “second person” of their alleged triune God.

Of course, simply bearing the name expressing that “God is with us” does not mean that the one bearing that name is the God that the name declares is with us. The bearer of any name in which God is declared as being or doing something does not mean that the bearer of the name is God who is being declared by those names as being or doing whatever is being spoken of. Many in the Old Testament bore names that declared God as being or doing something, and no one thinks to apply the meaning of the name to the bearer so as to make the bearer of the name into God who is declared to as being or doing by the name.

In other words, for example, the name “Jehu” means “He is Jehovah” or “Jehovah is He.” Je is a short form for “Jehovah” and “hu” is third person masculine singular pronoun meaning “he”. Copulative verbs, such as “is”, are not often expressed in Biblical Hebrew or Greek but are usually added by English translators. Some who do not like to use a form of God’s Holy Name change its meaning to “He is God,” which is false, since no form of the world often transliterated as EL (Strong’s 410) appears in the name. Nevertheless, since the name says “He is Jehovah,” does that mean the man who bore the name Jehu is, in reality, Jehovah? We can look at another name, “Elnathan“, meaning “God has given”; does it mean that the bearer of this name is God who does the giving? When Abraham called the place where he sacrificed the ram “Jehovah-jireh“, meaning “Jehovah sees”, or “Jehovah provides,” was he saying that the place was Jehovah Himself? Did the name Daniel, meaning “God is my judge,” mean that Daniel was God?

Advertisements

REPORT THIS ADPRIVACY

The name “Immanuel”, however, is not the personal name of Jesus, for the scriptures as translated by most translations show that personal name in English as “Jesus“, meaning “Jehovah is savior”. The name acknowledges Jesus’ God, Jehovah (Micah 5:4) was being savior. In effect, the name “Jesus” attributes salvation to the God and Father of Jesus. Likewise, the name “Immanuel” is a titular name, not the personal name of the one being spoken of being born.

Why should Immanuel be a name given to Jesus? Because by means of Jesus, God is with his people, and through Jesus, God saves his people from the condemnation with Adam. How so?

The scriptures tell us in Acts 10:38; “How God anointed him with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him.” Here “God” is depicted as one doing the anointing of Jesus, and is said to be with Jesus. (See Isaiah 61:1) If God was with Jesus, then, through Jesus, God was with his people. Bearing the titular name Immanuel does not mean that Jesus was his God who was with Jesus.

In the greatest sense, for God to be with His people would require reconciliation with God. Mankind was alienated from God through Adam’s sin, but God sent His Son as human so that Jesus could offer his body of flesh with its blood to his God for sin of the world, thereby making the way for mankind to be reconciled to Jesus’ God. For more with scriptural references, see: The Basis for Atonement

Additionally, Isaiah 8:8 is speaking of Sennacherib, a king of Assyria, would “pass through Judah.” This prophecy refers to King Sennacherib, for Tiglath-pileser, who slew Pekah and Rezin, did not pass through Judah. Through Isaiah, the people of Judah were told that Jehovah would take care of them and they were not even to defend themselves. The army of Sennacherib did come to Judah. After prophesying about Tiglath-pileser, Isaiah abruptly starts to prophesy about Sennacherib and uses the same language. Sennacherib would overflow into Judah; in fact, he flooded the land almost to the capital (“the neck”), and there he had his spokesman call up to the people, “You had better give in and submit peaceably because your God is not able to defend you.” Isaiah counseled the people not to worry, for God would fight the battle. King Sennacherib was likened to a tremendous bird such as an eagle or a vulture. So large was the bird that “the stretching out of his wings shall fill the breadth of thy [Immanuel’s] land.” Thus, we conclude that to those hearing the prophecy in Isaiah’s day, “Immanuel” was Judah. The land of Judah was pictured as a person, the neck or head being Jerusalem. The name “Immanuel” depicts how God was with Judah. Judah was delivered from Sennacherib not by battle instruments but by Jehovah’s destroying angel in one night. Thus God was with Judah in that God fought for Judah. Thus, the name Immanuel as used in Isaiah 8:8 is evidently speaking of God being with his people, that his favor and strength was with his people so as to deliver his people, not that God was a man dwelling among the people.

Advertisements

REPORT THIS ADPRIVACY

Outside the Bible, we cannot say for sure whether any baby in Bible times was ever named “Immanuel” or not. We know that in later Jewish history, several have held the name Immanuel, without any thought that the bearer of the name was God Almighty.

For further study, see:
https://jesusnotyhwh.blogspot.com/p/immanuel.html

************

Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Coded with Strong’s Concordance Numbers

Advertisements

REPORT THIS ADPRIVACY

RATE THIS:

Rate This

1 Comment

Posted in Christ is Not GodImmanuelIsaiahJesus is not GodMatthewTrinity

Tagged immanuelJesus is not JehovahJesus is not Yahwehtrinity dogma

Matthew 27:18 – Jesus Knew Why

Posted on October 10, 2008 | 3 comments

For he knew that because of envy they had delivered him up. — Matthew 27:18, World English Bible translation

In this verse, Matthew declares that the Son of Jehovah knew why the Jewish leaders had delivered him up to die, the reason being “envy.” How did the Son of Jehovah know this? There are those who claim that Jesus, the Son of God, knew this, because Jesus is God Himself. Their reasoning is that only the Supreme Being could know of this, and thus they will present this scripture as proof that the Son of the Supreme Being is the Supreme Being. In lists presented by trinitarians, this scripture may also be presented as proof that Jesus was omniscient, knowing absolutely everything in the universe.

In reality, both thoughts are assumptions that have to be added to and read into what Matthew said. In effect, the argument that this scripture offers proof that Jesus is Jehovah is based upon the assumptions added to and read into the scripture, rather than on anything that is actually stated. (Indeed, this is true of every scripture that is presented to allegedly prove that Jesus is Yahweh.)

The more scriptural way of viewing what Matthew said is to apply scriptural revealing with scriptural revealing. From other scriptures we read that the Son of Jehovah is given his authority and power from the only true God.  All things — all power and authority — have been given to Jesus (with the evident exception of God himself — 1 Corinthians 15:27), yet the exercise of this power and authority by Jesus is all to the praise of Jehovah, the God and Father of the Lord Jesus. The Bible writers never claimed that Jesus is the ultimate “source” of his own power. — Psalm 2:6-8; 45:7; 110:1,2; Isaiah 9:6,7; 11:2; 42:1; 61:1-3; Jeremiah 23:5; Daniel 7:13,14; Matthew 12:28; 28:28; Luke 1:32; 4:14,18; 5:17; John 3:34; 5:19,27,30; 10:18,36-38; Acts 2:22; 10:38; Romans 1:1-4; 1 Corinthians 15:27; 2 Corinthians 13:4; Colossians 1:15,16; 2:10; Ephesians 1:17-22; Philippians 2:9-11; Hebrews 1:2,4,6,9; 1 Peter 3:22.

Just as Jesus could “cast out demons” by means of the power that he received from God’s spirit (Matthew 12:27), so Jesus could use that same spirit of his God to know why the Jewish leaders wanted him dead.

There is nothing in this, however, that offers any proof that the Son of Jehovah is Jehovah.

RATE THIS:

Rate This

3 Comments

Posted in Christ is Not GodMatthewTrinity

Tagged Is Jesus GodMatthew 27:18omniscentomniscienceTrinity Doctrine

 

 

 

 

-------------------------------

------------------------------

Matthew 1:23 - Immanuel Means "God is With Us" (2016-12-05)

https://jesusnotyhwh.blogspot.com/2016/12/immanuel.html

Matthew 1:23 - Immanuel Means "God is With Us"

"Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son. They shall call his name Immanuel;" which is, being interpreted, "God with us." -- Matthew 1:23, World English Bible version

See, the virgin will become pregnant and give birth to a son, and they will name Him Immanuel , which is translated "God is with us." -- Matthew 1:23, Holman Christian Standard Bible version 

 

Matthew quotes Isaiah and states that Jesus would be called "Immanuel", "God with us". (Matthew 1:23Isaiah 7:148:8) As both Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Greek do not always show copulative verbs (such as "is", "am", "are", etc.), so in the name Immauel, there is no verb, but usually such names are presented as a sentence with a copulative verb.

But is this names supposed to mean that Jesus is Jehovah? Such is reading into this an extra-Biblical concept. Jehovah, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Exodus 3:14,15), who spoke through the prophets of old, is identified as being only one person in Hebrews 1:1,2. It is doubtful that anyone would even think such a thing from this titular name if it were not for a prevailing theory that Jesus was actually an incarnation of Jehovah himself. The scripture does not say, as many would wish it to say, that Jesus is God with us; rather it says "they shall call his name Immanuel, which is, being interpreted, 'God is with us.' " We should note that the Messiah's personal name as given to him by his Father is "Jesus" (Yahshua), not Immanuel. Immanuel is a titular "name," not his personal name. The name "Immanuel" is to be understood in the light of Acts 10:38; "How God anointed him with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him." The scripture does not say that Jesus was God Almighty in the flesh, but that God Almighty was with Jesus, thus "God" who was with Jesus is being spoken of as one person; Jesus is not God Almighty who was with him. In other words, "God" in Acts 10:38 is only one person, and He is distinguished from being Jesus, whom He anointed, in agreement with Isaiah 61:1,2 and Micah 5:4.

If one chooses to use the logic of those who wish to read the scripture as saying that Jesus was God Almighty in the flesh, then consider the name "Jehu". The "Je" part of this name is a short form of the name "Jehovah". "Hu" is the third person, masculine pronoun meaning "he". Thus, in Hebrew, this name means "He Jehovah", or with the copulative verb added, "He is Jehovah" or "Jehovah is He." "Does that mean the man who bore the name Jehu is, in reality, Jehovah? Likewise, with the name Eliathath, which means "God has come". Are we to think that the man who bore the name Eliathath is God Almighty because of the name given to him? Other names could also be cited that could be interpreted in some manner that would make the bearer of the name Jehovah if one were to follow the same logic as many would apply to the name "Immanuel" in Matthew 1:23. God, being with Jesus, is with his people through Jesus. Having the titular name Immanuel, signifying that God is with his people, does not mean that Jesus is God Almighty.

 

By this titular name Jesus' office as Jehovah's representative is indicated -- Jesus comes in the name of and speaks on behalf of his God, Jehovah (Deuteronomy 18:15-19Matthew 23:39Mark 11:9,10Luke 13:35John 3:2,17,32-354:345:19,30,36,436:577:16,288:26,28,3810:2512:49,5014:1015:1517:8,2620:17Acts 2:22,34-36Romans 15:62 Corinthians 1:38:611:31Colossians 1:3,152:9-12Hebrews 1:1-3Revelation 1:1); this view is corroborated absolutely by the Apostle Paul, who after quoting from Old Testament prophecies and pointing to their fulfilment in the destroying of Adamic death during the Millennium says -- "Thanks be unto God who giveth us the victory [deliverance -- triumph] through our Lord Jesus Christ." (1 Corinthians 15:57) As such a representative Jesus is the proof that God is on our side, that God will deliver his church and that God will deliver the world of mankind by him.

The following scriptures, taken from the King James Version of the Bible, give examples of this usage (The Holy Name, Jehovah, supplied by us at the appropriate places where it appears in the Hebrew):

Exodus 10:10: And he said unto them, Let [Jehovah] be so with you, as I will let you go, and your little ones: look to it; for evil is before you.


Deuteronomy 20:4 For [Jehovah] your God is he that goeth with you, to fight for you against your enemies, to save you.


Numbers 14:9: Only rebel not ye against [Jehovah], neither fear ye the people of the land; for they are bread for us: their defence is departed from them, and [Jehovah] is with us: fear them not.


Numbers 14:43: For the Amalekites and the Canaanites are there before you, and ye shall fall by the sword: because ye are turned away from [Jehovah], therefore [Jehovah] will not be with you.


Judges 6:13: And Gideon said unto him, Oh my Lord, if [Jehovah] be with us, why then is all this befallen us? and where be all his miracles which our fathers told us of, saying, Did not [Jehovah] bring us up from Egypt? but now [Jehovah] hath forsaken us, and delivered us into the hands of the Midianites.


Ruth 2:4: And, behold, Boaz came from Bethlehem, and said unto the reapers, [Jehovah] be with you. And they answered him, [Jehovah] bless thee.


1 Chronicles 22:17,18: David also commanded all the princes of Israel to help Solomon his son, saying, Is not [Jehovah] your God with you? and hath he not given you rest on every side? for he hath given the inhabitants of the land into mine hand; and the land is subdued before [Jehovah], and before his people.


2 Chronicles 13:12: And, behold, God himself is with us for our captain, and his priests with sounding trumpets to cry alarm against you. O children of Israel, fight ye not against the [Jehovah] God of your fathers; for ye shall not prosper.


2 Chronicles 15:2: And he went out to meet Asa, and said unto him, Hear ye me, Asa, and all Judah and Benjamin; [Jehovah] is with you, while ye be with him; and if ye seek him, he will be found of you; but if ye forsake him, he will forsake you.


2 Chronicles 20:17: Ye shall not need to fight in this battle: set yourselves, stand ye still, and see the salvation of [Jehovah] with you, O Judah and Jerusalem: fear not, nor be dismayed; to morrow go out against them: for [Jehovah] will be with you.


2 Chronicles 32:8: With him is an arm of flesh; but with us is [Jehovah] our God to help us, and to fight our battles. And the people rested themselves upon the words of Hezekiah king of Judah.


2 Kings 8:57: [Jehovah] our God be with us, as he was with our fathers: let him not leave us, nor forsake us:


Isaiah 8:10: Take counsel together, and it shall come to nought; speak the word, and it shall not stand: for God is with us.


Psalm 46:7: [Jehovah] of hosts is with us; the God of Jacob is our refuge. Selah.


Psalm 46:11: [Jehovah] of hosts is with us; the God of Jacob is our refuge. Selah.


Jeremiah 42:11: Be not afraid of the king of Babylon, of whom ye are afraid; be not afraid of him, saith [Jehovah]: for I am with you to save you, and to deliver you from his hand.


Amos 5:14: Seek good, and not evil, that ye may live: and so [Jehovah], the God of hosts, shall be with you, as ye have spoken.


Haggai 1:13: Then spake Haggai [Jehovah]'s messenger in [Jehovah]'s message unto the people, saying, I am with you, saith [Jehovah].


Haggai 2:4: Yet now be strong, O Zerubbabel, saith [Jehovah]; and be strong, O Joshua, son of Josedech, the high priest; and be strong, all ye people of the land, saith [Jehovah], and work: for I am with you, saith [Jehovah] of hosts:


Philippians 4:9: Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do: and the God of peace shall be with you.


2 Thessalonians 3:16: Now the Lord of peace himself give you peace always by all means. The Lord be with you all.


The following are the words of P. L. Read, taken from Herald of Christ's Kingdom, November/December, 1997
http://www.heraldmag.org/1997/97nd_9.htm - words in brackets are added by us.

This is the great message of the New Testament to the church, and eventually to the world: Emmanuel, God with us. God was with his ancient people, and spoke to them often and unmistakably by the mouth of his angels and his prophets. He was there in the burning bush, in the Shekinah of the tabernacle, and in the pillar of cloud and fire, as well as in the angel of Jehovah, whom many believe was the pre-human Logos. But he came into new and closer relationship when he sent his Son, and when the mighty Logos became flesh. Jesus Christ was "God made manifest in the flesh (1 Tim. 3:16); he was so true and accurate a manifestation of God, so at one with the Father (in purpose and in spirit-not in person [or being]) that he could truthfully say, "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father" (John 14:9). This was a fulfillment of the prophecy, "God with us," indeed-it was the fulfillment before which the earlier one fades into relative insignificance.

"God is with us" in the life of the church, for Jesus laid its foundations in his blood, and became himself its cornerstone, and the bishop of our souls. "God is with us" in our personal experiences, or Christ Jesus is our brother and Savior, our refuge under the consciousness of sin, our strength in temptation, a very present help in trouble. Therefore with the psalmist we say, "We will not fear," whatever may be our present lot, and whatever may befall us. "God is with us" under our present burden and in the unknown events of the future. "God is with us" in life, in death, in time, and in eternity.

God is with us as represented in Jesus similar to the way God was with the faithful ones of old.

Something else we might note is that Isaiah's prophecy possibly had its first fulfillment in one of Isaiah's sons, and, of course, Isaiah's son was not Jehovah. Note the following:

In the Old Testament God's presence with his people Israel was particularly evident in the tabernacle (Exod 25:8), but the glory that filled the tabernacle was surpassed by the personal presence of God the Son as he revealed the Father during his ministry on earth. Christ's glory was revealed through the miracles he performed (John 2:11).

The birth of Immanuel to the virgin Mary fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14, the sign given to Ahaz about seven hundred years earlier. At that time the wicked Ahaz ignored Isaiah's advice and appealed to the king of Assyria for help in a political crisis. Both the context of Isaiah 7 and the use of "Immanuel" two more times in chapter 8 (vv. 8, 10) raise the distinct possibility that the sign had a near fulfillment that affected Ahaz directly. Such a possibility is supported by the two verses immediately after 7:14 that tell us that the boy will still be young when Ahaz's enemies-the kings of Samaria and Damascus-will lose their power (a prediction fulfilled in 732 b.c.). The birth of a boy who would serve as a sign to Ahaz appears to be closely linked to the birth of Isaiah's son Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz in 8:1-4. Both Immanuel in 7:15-16 and Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz in 8:4 are young children when Damascus and Samaria collapse. And in 8:8 the two boys may be identified as Isaiah addresses Immanuel as if he were already present in Jerusalem. Verse 10 contains another occurrence of "Immanuel" in the words "God is with us." The prophet was challenging Ahaz to trust God, who was "with" his people just as he had promised to be with them constantly. In Numbers 14:9 Joshua and Caleb had urged the Israelites to acknowledge that the Lord was with them and to begin the conquest of Canaan, but just like Ahaz the people chose the path of unbelief with its tragic consequences. An earlier king of Judah, Abijah, believed that God was with his people as they faced the numerically superior army of Jeroboam. Abijah's faith was honored as the Lord gave him a resounding victory (2 Chron 13:12-15). 

 If "Immanuel" was another name for Isaiah's son, the use of "virgin" for Isaiah's wife refers to the time when she was his fiance. The sign of Isaiah 7:14 constitutes a blessing on an upcoming marriage, predicting that a virgin who was engaged to be married would be able to have a child early in the marriage. Unlike Mary she was not a virgin after she became pregnant. It is likely that Isaiah's marriage to a prophetess is in fact briefly described in 8:1-3. Matthew's use of this verse was extraordinarily appropriate in light of Mary's unique virginity and the incarnation of Jesus, who was God in the flesh. Matthew ends his Gospel with Jesus' own assurance to his disciples that he was Immanuel: "And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age" (28:20).

Elwell, Walter A. (Editor). "Entry for 'Immanuel'". "Evangelical Dictionary of Theology".
https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionaries/bakers-evangelical-dictionary/immanuel.html.
1997.

Of course, we do not agree with the above description of Jesus as "God the Son", but we quote this only to show that the name Immanuel should not be understood to mean that the bearer of the name is God Almighty. There is therefore no reason to believe that the titular name, Immanuel, meaning "God with us," should be understood to mean that Jesus is God Almighty.

See Also

Isaiah 7:14 – Immanuel – God with Us

Matthew 1:23 - Does This Mean That Jesus is God?

 

Related:

Biblical Names that End with EL

*****************

 

By Ronald Day at December 05, 2016  

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

Labels: ImmanuelJesus as "God"

 

 

-------------------------------

------------------------------

Matthew 4:7

https://notrinity.blogspot.com/search/label/Matthew%204%3A7

 

Matthew 4:7 and Luke 4:12

The World English translation is used throughout this study, unless otherwise noted. The "Holy Name," Yahweh, is supplied in the New Testament at appropriate places.

Matthew 4:7 - Jesus said to him, "Again, it is written, 'You shall not test [Yahweh], your God.'" King James has "the Lord, your God."

Luke 4:12 - Jesus answering, said to him, "It has been said, 'You shall not tempt [Yahweh] your God.'"

Deuteronomy 6:16 - You shall not tempt Yahweh your God.

The above scriptures are being presented as proof that Jesus is God, that is, that Jesus is allegedly a person of the only true God (trinitarian).

A few of the sites where this claim is made:
http://scripturecatholic.com/jesus_christ_divinity.html
http://groups.msn.com/DiscussionForum/general.msnw?action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message=4936&all_topics=0
http://fellowcatholic.blogspot.com/search/label/CHRISTOLOGY
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080525094053AAEQjXV
http://br.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080211112726AAxq3F2
http://www.churchofhopeontheweb.org/God/son.htm
http://markcephastan.blogspot.com/2006/10/jesus-new-moses-who-else.html
The above sites are given, not because we believe what they present but for reference only.

Actually, if Satan thought that Jesus was God Almighty then he would have known how fruitless it would have been to try to deceive God so as to provoke God to sin. However, there is no indication whatsoever that Satan thought that he was trying to get Yahweh to sin.

Satan did not think that Jesus was God, but rather the son of God:

"If you are the Son of God." -- Matthew 4:3,6Luke 4:9.

This was the emphasis that Satan himself was putting on his tests of Jesus, that is, in effect, Satan was saying to Jesus: "I want you to prove that you are son of God by doing this...." In reality, it was Satan's hopes to trick Jesus, to deceive Jesus, into being disobedient. Satan was not asking Jesus to prove that Jesus was God. Certainly Satan would have known if Jesus was Yahweh, and knowing that, would have also known that it would fruitless to try to deceive Yahweh into disobeying or denying Himself.

Let us read the context:

Matthew 4:5 - Then the devil took him into the holy city. He set him on the pinnacle of the temple,
Matthew 4:6 - and said to him, "If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down, for it is written, 'He will give his angels charge concerning you.' and, 'On their hands they will bear you up, So that you don't dash your foot against a stone.'"
Matthew 4:7- Jesus said to him, "Again, it is written, 'You shall not test Yahweh, your God.'"

What did Jesus say? Jesus did not appeal to Himself, so as to tell Satan, I am your God whom you should not test," but rather Jesus appeals on his own behalf to written Word of his God: "Again, it is written, 'You shall not test [Yahweh], your God'" (Matthew 4:7), thereby showing his denial to submit to the temptation of Satan. The expression "your God" refers to Yahweh as the God of Israel, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Exodus 3:14,15), who is also the God of Jesus, the God who sent Jesus. -- Deuteronomy 18:15-19Matthew 4:4 (Deuteronomy 8:3Luke 4:4); Matthew 4:7 (Deuteronomy 6:16); Matthew 4:10 (Exodus 20:3-534:14Deuteronomy 6:13,1410:20Luke 4:8); Matthew 22:29-40Matthew 26:42Matthew 27:46Mark 10:6 (Genesis 1:27Genesis 2:7,20-23); Mark 14:3615:34Luke 22:42John 4:35:306:3817:1,320:17Romans 15:62 Corinthians 1:311:31Ephesians 1:3,17Hebrews 1:910:71 Peter 1:3Revelation 2:73:2,12.
http://tinyurl.com/yukbvs
http://godandson.reslight.net/jesusnotyhwh.html

Jesus was referring to the Law as given to Israel, Deuteronomy 6:16, which words were spoken to the nation of Israel, which was the only nation which had Yahweh as their God by covenant relationship. (Exodus 19:5,6Deuteronomy 7:6Amos 3:2) Thus, the words "your God" are in reference to the Israel's God. Was Jesus here claiming that he [Jesus] was Yahweh, and was Jesus telling Satan that he [Jesus] was Satan's God (as though Satan were under the Law through Moses) and that Satan should not be testing Satan's God? In reality, such an idea has to be added to and read into what Jesus said, and such an idea would actually take what Jesus said out of the context of the quote that Jesus gave, so as to apply Jesus as being Satan's God.

On the other hand, Jesus was, by birth, an Israelite, born under the law. (Galatians 4:4) Jesus knew who his God was. Jesus was applying the verse to himself as an Israelite, that he [Jesus], who worshiped Yahweh as his God, should not test Yahweh by submitting to the stunt that Satan was telling him to do.

Therefore, in reality, the fact is that Jesus was not saying to Satan that Jesus was "Yahweh, your God," the God that Satan was not to test.

Click Here for some recommended Bibles.

-------------------------------

------------------------------

Jesus Received Worship

https://jesusnotyhwh.blogspot.com/2016/11/rec-worship.html

Jesus Received Worship

Matthew 4:10 - "You must Worship Jehovah your God and you must serve him only."

Hebrews 1:6 - "And let all the angels of God worship him."

 

It is claimed by some that the fact that our Lord Jesus received worship without rebuke signifies that he is Jehovah. Our Lord's words above quoted from Matthew 4:10 are supposed by many to imply that for any being but Jehovah to receive worship would be wrong. We answer, Not so! To so interpret these words is to think into them a meaning which they do not contain, and to set Jesus' words up as being contradictory to many other scriptures. Jehovah's decree respecting Christ, "You are my Son, this day I have begotten you," had already been recorded through the prophets; and also his decree, although not directly stated as such, "Let all the angels of God worship him." (Psalm 2:7Daniel 7:14,27Hebrews 1:5,6) Our Lord Jesus knew this. He also knew that the angelic messengers of Jehovah had in the past been worshiped as representatives of Jehovah; and that he himself was the chief of the messengers, the Only Begotten Son, as well as the "Messenger of the Covenant," whom the Father had sanctified and sent into the world: he knew consequently that whoever honored him honored the Father also.

Indeed, his own words were, "He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him." -- John 5:23Malachi 3:1.


 

The main Greek word translated worship in the New Testament is proskuneo, which literally signifies "to kiss the hand," as a dog licks the hand of his master. However, when viewing its usage, we see that it is used in the same manner as its Hebrew and Aramaic equivalents, not only of Jehovah, but also of men and angels, with significance of homage, bowing down, obeisance, worship.

See:
http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/kjv/proskuneo.html

 

Other Greek words sometimes translated as "worship" are:

 

Ethelothreskeia (Strong's Greek #1479)

This word is used only once (Colossians 2:23), and has no relevance to our discussion.

http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/kjv/ethelothreskeia.html

Eusebeo (Strong's Greek #2151)

This word is used twice: Acts 17:23 and 1 Timothy 5:4, where the King James Version translates it as "worship" and "piety" respectively. It has no relevance to our discussion.
 

http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/kjv/eusebeo.html

 

Sebazomai (Strong's Greek #4573)

http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/kjv/sebazomai.html
This word only appears once (Romans 1:25), and has no relevance to our discussion.


 

Latreuo (Strong's Greek #3000)

http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/kjv/latreuo.html

 

The basic meaning of this word as used in the Bible is "sacred service". It is mostly used in the Bible of God, or of servitude to idols or service in the temple. This is the word that Jesus used in Matthew 4:10, which is usually rendered as "serve".

 

Matthew 4:10 - "You must Worship Jehovah your God and you must serve [latreuo] him only."

Jesus spoke these words in response to Satan's temptation: "I will give you all of these things [all the kingdoms of the world -- verse 8], if you will fall down and worship me."

The Greek word for serve - latreuo -- here is usually only used in the New Testament of the Father [except in idolatrous servitude -- Acts 7:42Romans 1:25], or in relation to service to the Father. One could see Hebrews 8:513:1 as exceptions, although one could also see that also as being service to the Father. Some claim that in Revelation 22:3, this word is used of the Lamb, but in view of its usage in Revelation 7:15, it should be realized that it is referring to service to "God".

However, outside the Bible the Greek word is used in many different ways. It is not used exclusively of service to God or false gods. 


 

Liddell-Scott-Jones Definitions

λατρ-εύω,


 

Elean λατρείω (q.v.),


 

1. work for hire or pay, Sol. 13.48: to be in servitude, serve, X. Cyr. 3.1.36; παρά τινι Apollod. 2.6.3.


 

2. λ. τινί to be subject or enslaved to, S. Tr. 35, etc.: c. acc. pers., serve, E. IT 1115 (lyr.), f.l. in Id. El. 131: metaph., λ. πέτρᾳ, of Prometheus, A. Pr. 968; μόχθοις λατρεύων τοῖς ὑπερτάτοις βροτῶν S. OC 105; λ. νόμοις obey, X. Ages. 7.2; λ. καιρῷ, = Lat. temporibus inservire, Ps.-Phoc. 121; τῷ κάλλει λ. to be devoted to.., Isoc. 10.57; λ. ἡδονῇ Luc. Nigr. 15.


 

3. serve the gods with prayers and sacrifices, λ. Φοίβῳ E. Ion 152 (lyr.): c. acc. cogn., πόνον λ. τινί render due service, ib. 129 (lyr.); πόνον.. τόνδ' ἐλάτρευσα θεᾷ IG 2.1378.
https://www.studylight.org/lexicons/greek/3000.html
 


Additionally, the Hebrew word for "serve" in Deuteronomy 10:20 is used in many different ways, and is not applied solely to service of God or false gods.
https://www.studylight.org/lexicons/hebrew/5647.html

This gives further indication that the application of the Greek word latreou only to the Father in the New Testament may be simply coincidence, and may not be mean that this word could only be used of the true God.  This would further lead us to believe that the word "only" as used by Jesus in Matthew 4:10 is referirng to a uniqueness of worship that restricted to Jehovah versus the gods that are not in harmony with Jehovah, such as Satan. In other words, one should give service to angels (who are gods), and others to whom service is due, as long as it does not call upon serving a false god, an idol, or a god that is not in harmony with Jehovah.

Revelation 22:3


And no curse shall be any more; and the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve [Latreuo, Strong's #3000] him. -- Darby Translation.

 

This is the only scripture that a form of the Greek word Latreuo may be read as applying to Jesus, although more than likely "his" in the phrase "his servants" refers back to "God", not to Jesus. It is being claimed that in Revelation 22:3 that Jesus is being worshiped with the worship that is only due to God alone, and thus this proves that Jesus is God. Actually, "God" in this verse speaks of only one person, and the Lamb of God is not being depicted as God, thus the Lamb is not being depicted as being worshiped with the worship that only belongs to his God. If "his" in the phrase "his servants" does refer to Jesus, it still does not mean that Jesus is receiving the worship that only belongs to the God of Jesus, since the word for serve is not necessarily used exclusively of rendering sacred service to God.  Crosswalk's Lexicon cited above gives among meanings, the following: "to serve, minister to, either to the gods or men and used alike of slaves and freemen." See also the usage of this word in Hebrews 8:5 and Hebrews 13:10 (Are we to think that the tabernacle of God IS God, or that the tabernacle is a person of God?)

 

In reality, we need to remember that Koine Greek does not necessarily follow any rule of nearest antecedent of a pronoun.* It should be evident that "his" refers back to God himself, with the Lamb being added in the middle. This would be in keeping with the way that the word is usually used in the New Testament writings.
=====
*As an example, see the ending "he saw" Revelation 1:2 of the KJV; is "he" referring to Jesus, or is it referring to John?

 

God's symbolic throne is also the Lamb's symbolic throne, even as Solomon sat on Jehovah's throne (1 Chronicles 29:23), and yet it is also referred to as Solomon's throne (1 Kings 1:37), as well as the throne of David. (1 Kings 2:12) Furthermore, not only did Jesus say that he sits on the throne of his Father, but he also said that all the overcomers of this age would also sit with him on his throne (which is also the throne of his God and Father. -- Revelation 3:12,21


Sebomai (Strong's Greek #4576)

http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/kjv/sebomai.html

Translated in the KJV as "worship", "devout" and "religious". It is never directed toward Jesus, so we do not include it in our discussion.


 

Shachah (Strong's Hebrew #7812)


The major Hebrew word rendered as worship in the Old Testament is often transliterated as shachah and signifies to bow down.

See:
http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/kjv/shachah.html

 

The word shachah occurs 170 times and only about one-half of this number refer to the worship of Jehovah. But this fact is hidden from the English reader of the King James Version by reason of its having been 74 times translated bow down, bowed himself, did reverence, did obeisance, etc., when referring to homage to great earthly beings. We will give examples:

 

Abraham "bowed himself [shachah] toward the ground, and said, My Lords [adonai]...let a little water be fetched and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree." These words and acts were while he thought them merely "three men." -- Genesis 18:2-4.

 

Lot "bowed down [shachah]" to two of the same three. -- Genesis 19:1.

 

Abraham "bowed himself [shachah]" to the people of Canaan. -- Genesis 23:7,12.

 

Isaac blessed Jacob, saying, "Let nations bow down [shachah - worship] to you;...and let your mother's sons bow down [shachah - worship] to you." -- Genesis 27:29.

 

"David stooped and bowed himself [shachah] to the earth" to king Saul. -- 1 Samuel 24:8.

 

Abigail "bowed herself [shachah] to the ground" to David; and again to David's representatives. -- 1 Samuel 25:23,41.

 

The woman of Tekoah "fell on her face...and did obeisance [shachah - worshipped]" to king David. And Joab and Absalom did likewise, translated "bowed himself [shachah -worshipped]." -- 2 Samuel 14:4,22,33

 

"When Mephibosheth...was come unto David, he fell on his face and did reverence [shachah -- worshipped]." -- 2 Samuel 9:6

 

Isaiah 60:14 and Revelation 3:9 offer conclusive proof that it is permissible to give relative worship to [give homage to] God's representatives, as the Israelites did to Jehovah's angels who came to them with God's message. (Genesis 18:219:1Joshua 5:13-15) Hence, Jesus' receiving homage by God's sanction no more implies that he is God Almighty, than the Church, the herald angels, David, etc., receiving homage by God's sanction are thereby proven to be God Almighty.

 

From these evidences it should be apparent to all that the prohibition of the First Commandment -- "You must not bow yourself down [shachah] to them nor serve them," was not understood, nor meant to be understood, as a prohibition of reverence, homage, etc., to the honorable, or to those in honored positions among men. Nor did the Jews err in giving such a relative reverence [shachah] to angels who came with messages in Jehovah's name and acknowledging him. And such reverence was approved -- never reproved. The Commandment warns against image worship or any worship of any rival gods. This Jehovah cannot tolerate. Hence there was no impropriety for any Jew who recognized Jesus as the "Sent of God" to do him reverence, obeisance; and much more proper is it for all those who recognize our Lord Jesus according to his claims -- as the Son of God.

Daniel 7:14,27 - Pelach (Strong's Aramaic #6399)

 

The word used in Daniel 7:14,27, and which is evidently alluded to in Hebrews 1:6, is transliterated as pelach. It is an Aramaic word, and is translated "serve" or "minister" in the KJV. -- Ezra 7:24Daniel 3:12,14,17,18,286:16,207:14,27.
 

http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/kjv/pelach-aramaic.html

Atsab (Strong's Hebrew #6087)

 

Strong's #6087 is rendered worship in the KJV at Jeremiah 44:19, whereas the NASB is probably more correct in translation. However, this has no relevance to our study.

http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/kjv/atsab.html

 

The only other Hebrew word that is translated as "worship" is the Chaldean s'geed (Strong's #5457). It is only used in the book of Daniel: 2:46; 3:5,7,6,10,11,12,14,15,18,28. It is relevant only to show that Daniel received such "worship" from Nebucadnezzar. (Daniel 2:46) It does appear to be used interchangeably with Strong's #6399.
 

http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/kjv/cegid-aramaic.html
 

But there are some who insist that the Greek word proskuneo (Strong's Greek #4352) is always used in the New Testament in the sense of worship of God Almighty, not in the sense of homage toward men. But is this true? Let us examine some instances in the New Testament where the Greek word proskuneo is used similarly to the Hebrew word shachah, wherein worship of God is not intended.

 

Matthew 2:2-11

 

The wise men who came to see Jesus as a child bowed (proskuneo) before him as a king, not as God Almighty. -- Matthew 2:2-11.

 

Herod claimed that he wanted to bow before this newborn King; there is nothing in the scripture that would lead us to think that Herod was talking about worshiping God Almighty. -- Matthew 2:8.

 

In Matthew 9:18, we find a rich young ruler who came and bowed (proskuneo) before Jesus. It stretches the imagination to suppose that this rich young ruler supposed that he was actually worshiping the Almighty Jehovah. The crowds early gave the praise to God, who had given the power to Jesus to perform these works, saying: "A great prophet has arisen among us!'. (Matthew 9:8Luke 7:16,17) Thus they believed him to a be a prophet of God, and did not claim Jesus as God Almighty, nor do we have any reason to believe that Jairus would think Jesus was God Almighty.

 

We have no more reason to believe that Jairus thought he was bowing before God Almighty than when the Shunammite woman bowed [Strong's Hebrew #7812 - worshiped] to Elisha. -- 2 Kings 4:37

 

Some have attempted to say that Jairus bowed before Jesus as God Almighty, since he expected Jesus to raise his daughter from the dead. We should note that when Jairus first approached Jesus, it was with the hope that he would heal his daughter as she had not yet died. -- Mark 5:21-43Luke 8:40-56.

 

Nevertheless, some have argued that Jairus was worshiping Jesus as God Almighty, since Jesus was healing and raising the dead. This, of course, has to be read into the text, evidently only to satisfy the doctrine that Jesus is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The fact that Jesus healed and raised the dead does not mean that he was Jehovah. The authority and power to heal and raise the dead was *given* to Jesus by his Father, the only true Supreme Being. (Matthew 11:2728:18Luke 10:22John 3:355:19-22,25-2713:317:2) The authority to heal and raise the dead was also given by Jesus to the apostles. Does this mean we should imagine and assume the apostles are God Almighty? -- Luke 9:1Acts 3:6,15,16: 4:7-11; 9:36-41; 20:7-12.

 

After performing the miracle of raising Jairus' daughter, two blind men spoke of him, not Jehovah, nor as "God," but as "the Son of David." -- Matthew 9:27.

 

Some note that they called Jesus, "Lord." (Matthew 9:28) The use of the title Kurios does not in itself carry any meaning of Jehovah. The same Greek word (kurios) is used in Revelation 7:14, where John address the elder who spoke to him. It is also used in Acts 16:30, when the jailer spoke to Paul and Silas. Thus the blind men's use of this word toward Jesus as a man was not unusual. Similarly, the young man who came to David with the news of Saul's death bowed down (shachah - worshiped) before him and called David "Lord" -- Adon. -- 2 Samuel 1:2-10. See our study: "Lord" in the New Testament.

 

In Matthew 14:33, we find that after Jesus calmed the winds, the men in the ship came and bowed (proskuneo) before Jesus, calling him, not God Almighty, but "Son of God" -- Son of the Supreme Being.


 

In Matthew 15:22-28, we read of the Phoenician woman who came to Jesus. She did not call Jesus God Almighty, but rather "Son of David." Then she bowed (proskuneo) before him to plead on her daughter's behalf. There is nothing here for us to suppose that this Phoenician woman really believed that she was bowing before the Almighty God of the universe! Again, we read that the crowds glorified the God of Israel for the miracles being performed through Jesus. -- Matthew 15:31.

 

Matthew 18:26 - "The servant therefore fell down and kneeled before [proskuneo, Strong's Greek #4352] him, saying, 'Lord, have patience with me, and I will repay you all.'" These words are part of a parable. Many believe the King in the parable to be Jesus, or God Almighty. However, it is important to note that not all translations render proskuneo in this verse as "worshipped". The World English Bible translation at least shows here that proskuneo does not always mean the worship that only belongs to Jehovah by rendering proskuneo here as "kneeled before". The New American Standard Bible translation renders it as "prostrated himself". The New King James Version renders it as "fell down before". The Third Millennium Bible translation renders it as "did homage to". The New Living Translation gives it as "fell down before". The New Revised Standard Version and The Good News Translation translate proskuneo in this verse as "fell on his knees before". The Revised Standard Version reads "fell on his kness, imploring". Young's Literal Translation renders the words as "having fallen down, was bowing to". All of these translations acknowledge that proskuneo is in the parable itself used in a sense other of the worship that only belongs to Jehovah. Likewise, we have no reason to believe that proskuneo , in reference to the Son of God, carries the meaning of the worship that is only due to God.


 

 

In Matthew 20:20-23 we read of the mother of Zebedee's children who came to Jesus and, bowing (proskuneo), asked that her two sons sit beside him in his kingdom. That she bowed before him, not because she thought Jesus was God Almighty,  but as the rightful heir of the kingdom should be apparent from the scripture itself. We need to note that Jesus' heirship to God's kingdom does not include dominion over Jehovah himself; Jesus continues to be in subjection to his Father, Jehovah. -- 1 Corinthians 15:27,28Revelation 1:13:125:7.


 

In Matthew 28:9 we read of the women who went to the tomb where Jesus' body lay, found it empty and to whom an angel appeared who told them to go tell his disciples of the risen Jesus. Jesus met them on the way and the women held onto his feet, and bowed down (proskuneo) to him. In this instance, the text implies that the women had simply bowed before Jesus at his feet, and there is nothing to suggest that they were worshiping him as the Almighty Jehovah.


 

In Mark 15:16-19, we read of the soldiers who mockingly called him "King of Jews" and who bowed their knees and [mockingly] gave homage (proskuneo) to Jesus. These soldiers certainly did not have any idea of "worshipping" Jesus as Almighty God. They were mocking the claim that Jesus was King of the Jews, not that he was God Almighty! In their mocking, they were bowing before him as one would bow before a king.


 

In John 9:35-38 the blind whom Jesus healed, when finding out who Jesus was, bowed down (proskuneo) before him. Jesus did not present himself to this once blind man as the Supreme Being, but rather the Son of the Supreme Being (Textus Recptus), or more than likely as the Son of the Man (Westcott & Hort Text). There is no indication that this man thought that he was bowing before the Supreme Being.

 

And note that over and over it is the God and Father of Jesus, to whom the glory is given:

 

"But when the multitudes saw it, they marvelled, and glorified God, which had given such power unto men." -- Matthew 9:8.

 

"Insomuch that the multitude wondered, when they saw the dumb to speak, the maimed to be whole, the lame to walk, and the blind to see: and they glorified the God of Israel." -- Matthew 15:31.

 

"They were amazed, and glorified God." -- Mark 2:12.

 

"And immediately he rose up before them, and took up that whereupon he lay, and departed to his own house, glorifying God. And they were all amazed, and they glorified God." Luke 5:25,26.

 

"And immediately she was made straight, and glorified God." -- Luke 13:13.

 

"When he saw that he was healed, returned, and with a loud voice glorified God." -- Luke 17:15.

 

"And immediately he received his sight, and followed him, glorifying God. And all the people, when they saw it, gave praise to God." -- Luke 18:43.

 

"Now the Son of Man is glorified, and God is glorified in him." -- John 13:31.

 

Indeed, we may be sure that those Pharisees who took up stones to kill our Lord because they found fault with his claim to be the Son of God would have been wild beyond bounds, and not only have stoned our Lord Jesus, but also his worshipers, claiming idolatry, had they entertained as a people any such extreme thought of worship, obeisance (proskuneo), as is entertained by those whose extreme views respecting this word we are combating and have proven to be erroneous.

 

Nevertheless, the scriptures also reveal a kind of reverence, obeisance or worship that is rendered to a e recognized representative of a false god -- as a pseudo-Christ or false Christ -- Antichrist. Homage to the popes would, we believe, come under this head of false or wrong worship; because in his office he claims falsely to be "Vicegerent Christ." It was on this ground that our Lord Jesus refused to acknowledge Satan and his great power in the world. It was an actively evil power, directly opposed to the laws of Jehovah. Hence the proposition that by not opposing evil, by respecting or reverencing evil customs already established under Satan's regime, Satan would cooperate with our Lord in the establishment of his kingdom, was at once declined and Jesus' answer signified -- I am in full accord with Jehovah God and therefore in full accord with the prophetic declaration: "You must reverence Jehovah your God and him you must serve" -- and since you are his willful opponent I can render no reverence to you or your methods, nor could I either serve your cause or cooperate with you. Our causes are distinctly separate. I will have nothing to do with you. -- Compare Matthew 4:10Deuteronomy 10:20,21.

 

Had our Lord Jesus set himself up as a rival to Jehovah instead of accepting himself as Jehovah's Son and servant, any homage to him would have signified disrespect to the Father and would have been sinful -- idolatrous. On the contrary, however, while accepting homage as the Son of God he declared most positively and publicly, "The Father is greater than I," and taught his disciples to make their petitions to the Father, saying, "Whatsoever you shall ask of the Father in my name, he will give it you." -- John 16:23.

 

Revelation 3:9 - "Behold, I give of the synagogue of Satan, of those who say they are Jews, and they are not, but lie. Behold, I will make them to come and worship [proskuneo] before your feet, and to know that I have loved you." We have mentioned this earlier, but we want to make some further comments concerning this. The New American Standard Bible translation, The New Revised Standard Version, The Revised Standard Version, The Good News Translation and the New Living Translation render proskuneo here as "bow down". The New Century Version , Young's Literal Translation and the God's Word Translation render the word as "bow". The Complete Jewish Bible renders it as "prostrate themselves." Again, these translations give evidence that the translators recognize the word proskuneo as not always referring to the worship that only belongs to God, and fall back on the Hebraic usage.


 

The Message translation renders the word proskuneo as "forced to acknowledge." While this translation is questionable, it still shows that the translators considered the word to mean other than the worship due only to God.

 

However, an argument has been put forth concerning this verse that would have the worship being given to God, not the saints. Evidently this would have Revelation 3:9 read: "I will make them to come and worship God before your feet." The thought appears to be that those in the Synagogue of Satan would come to the Philadelphia church to worship God, due to the door opening as mentioned in Revelation 3:7. In actuality, that is not what the verse states; it does state that those of the synagogue of Satan will bow before the saints, who will have dominion with Jesus in the age to come. (Daniel 7:14,22,27Revelation 20:1-6) "For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly... but he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart." (Romans 2:2829) These false "Jews", liars, are not now worshipping God in spirit and truth in this age, but are still blinded by Satan. (2 Corinthians 4:4Revelation 12:9) The synagogue of Satan, very evidently, is made up of professing Christians, picked or selected by Satan, to falsify the doctrines of Christ; being a part of the permission of evil. They oppose the spiritually-enlightened ones, and brotherly love is not in them. Usually these claim some eternal doom upon any who do not accept their added dogma. As those who crucified the Lord will yet be eventually -- in the age to come -- caused to confess and abhor their wickedness, so the oppossers of this period will have the shame of seeing, and confessing their wrong doing; and yes, they will worship God, by bowing before and acknowledging the righteousness authority of God's appointed kings and rulers in the age to come. This is further confirmed by Isaiah 60:14. When the blessings are flowing out to all the earth, it will seem to be impossible not to bow before Jesus and his saints to the glory of God. -- Philippians 2:10.


 

Revelation 22:8,9

 

Then why did the angel refuse to accept the homage from John as recorded by John at Revelation 22:8,9? We know that earlier in the book of Revelation, proper homage (Greek, Proskuneo, worship) given to God's representatives is not condemned. (Revelation 3:9) Evidently John was giving the angel worship that should only be given to Jehovah, or that he was giving to the angel such worship that detracted from the worship of Jehovah. The angel recognizing this told him that this was not to be done. Likewise, when Cornelius worshipped Peter (Acts 10:25); evidently Peter recognized this as worship that should only be due to God, for most certainly, as we have seen, various men were worshipped, or given homage to, in the Old Testament, without any thought that this kind of homage was that which was only due to God. Peter, realizing that Cornelius was not just giving him homage as a man given authority, or as an apostle, etc., but more so as that which should belong only to God, thus rebuked Cornelius.

Or, in Revelation 22, the action of John and the angel is designed to be prophetic of how Christians may wish to worship various ones who have taken presented various truths from the Bible, such as Arius, Martin Luther, John Wesley, etc. It may be a prophetic warning not to bow down to the any such messenger as though the messenger were infallible, so as to limit our thinking only to what any such messenger has presented.

 

God's people are to love and esteem each other, and that in proportion as they recognize in each other the spirit of God, the spirit of Christ, the spirit of holiness and devotion to truth and righteousness; as the Apostle says, the faithful should be esteemed "very highly for their work's sake" (1 Thessalonians 5:13); but while there may be danger that some will fail to render "honor to whom honor is due" (Romans 13:7), there is undoubtedly danger also that some might render too much honor to human (or angelic) instruments, whom God is pleased to use in connection with the service of presenting various truths from the Bible. Thus we note the danger of man-worship or angel worship. (Colossians 2:18,19) This matter is very forcibly brought to our attention in Revelation 22:9. John, who, representing the living saints all down through the Gospel age, is caused to see unfolding the various features of the divine plan, in conclusion falls down to worship the angel who showed him those things. So there has been and is a tendency on the part of many to give more than love, respect and honor to the servants of God who from time to time have been used as special servants of God in bringing to the attention of the Church things new and old, or to the particular brother or sister who was the means of conversion or other spiritual benefit. There was this disposition in the early Church, some exalting one Apostle and some another as their chief and master, and naming themselves as his disciples, saying, "I am of Paul;" or "I am of Apollos;" or "I am of Peter," etc. (1 Corinthians 3:4) The Apostle Paul assures them that this disposition indicates a measure of carnality, and he inquires, who then are Paul, Apollos and Peter, but merely the servants or channels through whom God has been pleased to send you the blessings of the truth. (1 Corinthians 3:5) "Neither is he that planteth anything, neither he that watereth, but God that giveth the increase." (1 Corinthians 3:6) He indicates thus that they should recognize, not the channels through whom the blessings came, but Jehovah, the Author of their blessings, and loyally believe in the name of him who died for and redeemed them. -- 1 John 3:234:115:13.

 

Likewise, when the Church began to get rid of the gross darkness of the dark ages under the help and instruction of the reformers, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and others, they naturally and properly had great respect for those whom God had honored as the instruments in the work of reformation. But again the tendency to "worship" the messengers, the human agents, was manifested, and today there are hundreds of thousands who call themselves by the name of Luther, Calvin, Wesley, Campbell, and others, and who give more respect to the teachings and writings of these men than to the Word of God, and this with corresponding injury to themselves.

 

Likewise, today, in the light of truths revealed through the Bible itself, no doubt there is need to be on guard against this carnal tendency which has had so deleterious an influence in the past.


When John fell down to worship the angel who had shown him the wonders of the divine plan, the angel's refusal to accept worship should be a lesson to all ministers (servants -- messengers) of God. He said, "You must not do that; for I am thy fellow-servant [not the "one God" of whom are all -- 1 Corinthians 8:6], and [fellow-servant] of your brothers the prophets, and [fellow-servant] of [all] them who keep the sayings of this book. Worship God [the source from which come all these blessings and all this light]." All servants of God are fellow-servants regardless of the time or extent of their service (including Jesus). The Apostle calls attention to this tendency towards creature-worship in his epistle to the Colossians (2:18,19), saying, "Let no man allure you of your reward, in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels [messengers]." The intimation is that this temptation will come insidiously, craftily, and not by brazen demands for reverence. Such is the reverence accorded in general to the ministry of the nominal churches. Many ministers who seem very meek, and who would not think of demanding reverence or worship, nevertheless accept of their flocks titles of exaltation, such as "Reverend", "Right Reverend", etc., and encourage it, and feel offended if reverence or worship of this sort is not rendered. The effect has been and still is to injure the household of faith, to give an over-confidence in the judgment and word of the minister in spiritual things, so that many neglect to prove their faith by God's Word, and to trust implicitly to its authority.

 

And there is danger among those who do not use titles of exaltation. It should always be remembered that control resides in the congregation and not in self-appointed leaders, whether they seek to serve a dozen or thousands. The churches of Christ should recognize the leading of their Head, and know that if the congregation is following scriptures in selecting their leadership, such leaders will be of his choice (See Hebrews 13:7,17,24, Diaglott), but they should beware of any disposed to usurp the rights of the congregation or to ignore those rights by taking the place of leaders without the specific request of the congregation; alluring the company into supposing that the leader alone is competent to judge and decide for the congregation as to the Lord's choice, and thus failing to hold the Head (Christ) as the only real teacher, who is able and willing to guide all the meek in judgment, because they are his Church -- "his body."

 

Nor is this alluring of the attention of the flock, away from the only Shepherd, to a fellow sheep always the fault of the "leaders:" there seems to be a general tendency on the part of all who have the true, humble, sheep nature to follow someone, and if the sheep have not developed maturity in the spirit, they may easily succumb to carnal worship of human leaders. It is a lesson, therefore, for all to learn, -- that each sheep recognize as leaders only such as are found in full accord with the voice and spirit of the Chief Shepherd (Christ), and the under-shepherds (the Apostles), and that each sheep see to it that he eats only "clean provender" and drinks only "pure water" as directed by the Shepherd. (See Ezekiel 34:17-19.) This implies the exercise of the individual conscience of each member of Christ's flock on matters of doctrine and practice, and tends to keep each one in sympathy and fellowship with the Shepherd, who knows each sheep and "calls his own sheep by name." The same intimate relationship of the individual Christian with the Lord is illustrated in the figure of Christ the Head and the Church as members of his body. -- 1 Corinthians 12:12-27Ephesians 4:15,16.

John 5:23

"That all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father."

 

Many claim that Jesus the above means that we should give to Jesus the worship that only belongs to the Most High. We agree that Jesus is to be honored by our exalting him highly in our motives, thoughts, words and deeds, and is to receive our worship in a relative sense. This is illustrated in 2 Chronicles 29:20: "David said to all the assembly, Now bless Jehovah your God. All the assembly blessed Jehovah, the God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped Jehovah, and the king." Both Jehovah and the king are worshipped, but are we to claim that the worship only due to Jehovah is also being given the king, or that the king is equal to Jehovah?


Jesus is to receive the honor spoken of in John 5:23, not as being the Most High, but as the Father's representative and plenipotentiary. As a result of the honor given to Jesus, it will result in giving "glory to God in the highest," that is, it will be to the glory of the only true Supreme Being (Luke 2:14Philippians 2:11Revelation 5:1315:3,4Ephesians 1:121 Corinthians 15:28John 17:1,3). The honor due to Jesus is a high, honor being the next to the highest honor due to any being, since only his God is to receive a higher honor. The expression "as they honor the Father," does not mean that the Son is to be honored in the same degree, but as a matter of fact as the Father, because he is the Father's Vicegerent. That it does not mean that the Son is to receive equal honor with the Father can be seen from the following scriptures: Philippians 2:9-11Ephesians 1:19-231 Corinthians 15:28Revelation 5:13. Thus they honor him as the Father in the sense that he is the Representative of Jehovah.

So have claimed that the Greek word often transliterated as Kathos -- translated "as" in our text -- means equivalent, and thus it is claimed that Jesus and his God and Father or equal, and further claimed that this means that Jesus is God. Actually, the Greek word does not necessarily mean this, as can be seen by its usage all through the New Testament. Indeed, if the same reasoning were used with some scriptures, this would make the church also the Supreme Being, and/or equal in power to Jesus. (See: John 17:11,22Ephesians 5:25,291 John 4:17) A survey of the usage of this word should convince one that rarely, if ever, is it used in the sense of exact equivalency. Indeed, so far the only scripture that we have seen anyone try to apply this definition is John 5:23.

==========

Thayer and Smith. "Greek Lexicon entry for Kathos". "The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon".
http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/kjv/kathos.html.

 

The context shows that this honor is due Jesus because of the authority and power that has been given to him by God, not because he is God. If he were God, the above statement would be totally meaningless, because Jesus recognized his God and Father as the only true God -- the only true Power. (John 17:1,3) After his resurrection and exaltation, Jesus was given even greater power than he had before. (Ephesians 1:17-23Philippians 2:9,10Daniel 7:141 Peter 3:22) Jesus received his power from the only true source of all Power. If Jesus received his power from Jehovah, then this indicates that at one time he did not have this power, and needed to have the power given to him. Jesus is given this power, not because he is the Almighty, but because he carries out the work that the Almighty has given him to do. -- John 5:3610:25,37Acts 2:22.

 

We might add in this regard that Joseph is usually recognized as a type of Jesus. Thus, we find in the relationship of the Pharaoh of Egypt to Joseph to be a type of Jesus' relationship with the Father. -- Genesis 41:39-41Psalm 105:20,21.

 

Some object that to give this honor to Jesus would be idolatrous, if Jesus is not God Almighty. Despite the fact that "honor" (Greek, "Timao", Strong's #5091*) is not an exact synonym for worship, the idea that to give honor to Jesus in the same manner as we are to honor the son is in no way idolatry. Since Jehovah the only Most High (John 17:1,3) who made the laws concerning idolatry put these words in the mouth of Jesus, then he who made the laws concerning idolatry does not recognize this honor given to Jesus, his Son, as idolatry. (Deuteronomy 18:18,19John 3:325:437:168:26,28,4012:4915:1517:8,14) Jesus in the one who was sent by Jehovah, and Jesus speaks for Jehovah, he is not Jehovah. (Deuteronomy 18:15,18Matthew 23:39Mark 11:9,10Luke 13:35John 3:2,175:19,436:577:16,288:26,28,3810:2512:49,5014:1015:1517:8,26Hebrews 1:1,2Revelation 1:1) Jesus is the one anointed by Jehovah, he is not Jehovah. (Psalm 2:245:7Isaiah 61:1Acts 2:36) Jesus puts his trust in Jehovah. He is not Jehovah in whom he trusts. -- Hebrews 2:13Psalm 16:1

==========

*Thayer and Smith. "Greek Lexicon entry for Timao". "The NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon".
http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/kjv/timao.html. 1999.

 

When Jehovah told Moses concerning Joshua: "You shall put of your honor on him, that all the congregation of the children of Israel may obey." this did not make Joshua into Moses. (Numbers 27:20) Nor does it necessarily mean that the honor given to Joshua is equal to that which is given to Moses. Moses was the mediator of the Law Covenant; Joshua was not. Nor does giving honor to Joshua take away from Moses the special honor that is to be given to Moses as the lawgiver and as the one who led Israel out of Egypt. Likewise, the honor that is given to Jesus is not equal to the honor that is given to the God of Jesus.


 

On the other hand, if we honor Jesus in an equal sense as God Almighty, that is, to promote an honor him that only belongs to God Almighty as the Supreme Being, rather than to honor after the manner that we honor God Almighty, then this could be idolatry; this is indicated in the scripture where John bowed before an angel sent by God through Jesus, evidently with the heart intent of worshiping the angel as God Almighty, thus exalting the angel to a higher honor than was due to him. The angel did not condemn John, but he did rebuke the act of John in what he did. -- Revelation 22:8,9

Philippians 2:10

"That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things under the earth."

 

This scripture indeed shows that every knee will bow to Christ; but it is to him as God's representative, and not to him as the final goal of every creature's honor, as Philippians 2:11 shows: "And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." Thus Christ's exaltation is a means to a higher end -- that God be the one finally worshiped and glorified. But as we have seen, a divinely pleasing [relative] worship is not a thing given exclusively to Jehovah; for God says that he will cause the enemies of the Church to worship her [in a relative manner]. -- Isaiah 60:14Revelation 3:9.


Hebrews 1:6 and Psalm 97:7


 

Hebrews 1:6 is often claimed to be quoting Psalm 97:7. The claim appears to be that since Psalm 97:7 is telling the gods to worship Jehovah, that this means that its application to Jesus in Hebrew 1:6 means that Jesus receives worship as being Jehovah. Such would have to be an indirect quote, to say the least.

First let us examine Psalm 97:7.

Psalms 97:7 - Let all them be put to shame that serve graven images, That boast themselves of idols: Worship him, all ye gods. -- American Standard Version.

Here this speaks of those who serve graven images , and then addresses some whom he calls "gods", and tells them to worship Jehovah. 

Evidently due to context, some appear to conclude that the gods are the graven images. This really would not make sense, since Isaiah 44:9-121 Corinthians 8:10 and several other scriptures tell us that the idols are not god (mighty); they are truly nothing, having no might or power to even think, reason, speak, hear etc. Galatians 4:8 refers to the man-made idols of the heathen, which by nature have no mightiness or power. How are such "gods" supposed to worship Jehovah? 

In view of what is stated in Deuteronomy 32:17 and 1 Corinthians 10:20, some have thought that perhaps it is speaking of the demons, the angels that sinned. (2 Peter 2:4) These demons certainly have power that they received from God, but which they misuse. We note that the evil spirit that impersonated Saul is called "a god", that is mighty being. (1 Samuel 28:13) In that all who are in heaven and earth will eventually bow in the name of Jesus to the glory of Jehovah, they will indeed eventually be forced to worship Jehovah. 

However, we do not believe that Psalm 97:7 is speaking about the demons.

Brenton's translation from the Christianized Septuagint reads:

Let all that worship graven images be ashamed, who boast of their idols; worship him, all ye his angels.

Many claim that Hebrews 1:6 is actually quoted from the LXX of the first century. The truth is that we do not have the LXX of the first century, but we doubt very highly that the Bible writers ever quoted from the Septuagint. It is possible that this is speaking of the angels, but we don't think so.
 
More than likely the command to worship Jehovah is directed to the sons of God -- the saints -- on earth, since the context is pertaining to engraved images that would be here on earth. (Psalm 82) They are instructed to worship God, that is, Jehovah, not these idols.

 

Beza says that these gods refer to "all who are esteemed in the world".


 

Beza, Theodore. "Commentary on Psalms 97". "The 1599 Geneva Study Bible". https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/gsb/psalms-97.html. 1599-1645.


 

There is definitely no direct statement in the Old Testament where Jehovah says to the angels that they are to worship Jehovah's anointed one.


 

More than likely, however, Hebrews 1:6 is a paraphrase of the prophecies of Daniel, where all dominions, which would include the angels, are foretold to serve Jesus. -- Daniel 7:14,27.

 

Revelation 4:11 and 5:8,9,12,13


 

"You are worthy, O Jehovah, to receive glory and honor and power; for you have created all things, and for your pleasure they are and were created." -- Revelation 4:11.


"And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, every one of them with harps, and golden vials full of odors, which are the prayers of the saints. And they sung a new song, saying: 'You are worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof, for you were slain, and have redeemed some for God by your blood, out of all families, and language, and people, and nation.'" -- Revelation 5:8,9.


"Saying with a loud voice: 'Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honor, and glory and blessing.' And every creature that is in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, and those which are in the sea, and all that are them, I heard saying: 'Blessing, and honor, and glory, and power, be to Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb forever and ever.'" -- Revelation 5:12,13


Many have read into these scriptures that Jehovah and Jesus are receiving the same exact worship and glory, etc.

 

The fact that similar words are used both of the respect given to Jehovah and Jesus does not mean they are the same being. If one is consistent in such reasoning, one should also have David and  the same being: "And David said to all the assembly, Now bless Jehovah your God. And all the assembly blessed Jehovah, the God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped Jehovah, and the king." (1 Chronicles 29:20, American Standard Version ) No one would think that when they worshiped Jehovah and the King, that the same worship due the King would be equal to that of Jehovah, and then from that conclude that the King is another person who is also God; neither should we think that of the homage given to Jehovah (the Father == the only one who is the source of all -- 1 Corinthians 8:6) and his Son Jesus.

 

The Lamb is not the one seated on the throne of Revelation 4:9,10. He stands between the throne and the four living creatures. (Revelation 4:6) He takes the scroll from the One seated on the throne. (Revelation 4:7) The lamb was slain (God is never slain nor can he die). (5:9,12) The lamb joins with Jehovah, the only true Supreme in receiving honor and glory. Jesus receives his position as an inheritance received from his Father, Jehovah. (Psalm 2:8110:4Luke 22:28-30Revelation 2:27) The Father and Son are later joined by the joint-heirs who sit on the throne with the Lamb. These too are counted worthy of the kingdom and the glory of God and are to receive homage (worship); thus are they also to be considered God Almighty? -- John 17:221 Thessalonians 2:12Revelation 3:9.

 

Bibliography:


Epiphany Studies in the Scriptures, Series I: God, by Paul S. L. Johnson, pages 485, 534-536.


"Worshiping Fellow Messengers," (Zion's Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence ),
December 15, 1896, page 305 - Reprint 2079; Available online from:

https://www.htdbv8.com/1896/r2079.htm#S156484


Studies in the Scriptures, Series V: The Atonement Between God and Man, by Charles Taze Russell, pages 72-74.


Related RL Studies

The Worship Due Jesus

Abraham and the Three Angels

Michael the Archangel

The Son of Jehovah is Not Jehovah

-------------------------------

------------------------------

Matthew 12:8

https://notrinity.blogspot.com/search/label/Matthew%2012%3A8

Matthew 12:8 - Lord of the Sabbath

The following scriptures are presented as proof that Jesus is his God, since Jesus said that he is "lord of the sabbath." It is claimed that this means that Jesus is "lord" over God's law, and that since he is lord of God's law, this means that jesus is God (Jehovah, Yahweh).

From the World English translation:

Matthew 12:8 - For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.

Mark 2:28 - Therefore the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath.

Luke 6:5 - He said to them, "The Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath."

The idea that what Jesus said here means that Jesus is his God has to be added to, read into the scriptures by way of assumptions, and then reading those assumptions into what Jesus said. The assumptions are made that since Jesus said that he is lord of the sabbath, that this means that he is lord over God's law, and this further means that Jesus is his God. And the assumptions are made for the purpose of serving the assumption that Jesus is Yahweh.

Jesus said that all things that he has had been given to him by his Father. (Matthew 28:18Luke 10:22) Jesus further identified his God and Father as the only true God. (John 17:1,3) Thus whatever lordship that Jesus has was given to Jesus by the only true God. Peter said: "God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified." (Acts 2:36) This agrees with Isaiah 61:1, where the promised one is depicted as stating: "Yahweh has anointed me." The word "Christ" means "anointed one." The only true God, Yahweh, has made Jesus "lord" -- ruler, master -- of all things, excluding God Himself, and this includes the antitype of the "shadow" sabbaths. (Galatians 4:1Colossians 2:16,171 Corinthians 15:27Ephesians 1:3,17,20-22) Being the the promised son of the man (Matthew 19:2825:3126:64Mark 2:1014:62Luke 18:3121:2722:69), that is, the promised Son, (seed, offspring) of David (Psalm 89:36132:11Isaiah 9:6,7Isaiah 11:1Jeremiah 23:533:15Matthew 1:1John 7:42Acts 2:30Romans 1:3), Jesus is made lord and given dominion over all -- excluding God, who gives this dominion to Jesus. (Psalm 2:6-845:7110:1,2Isaiah 9:6,711:242:161:1-3Jeremiah 23:5Daniel 7:13,14Matthew 12:2828:28Luke 1:324:14,185:17John 3:345:19,27,3010:18,36-38Acts 2:2210:38Romans 1:1-41 Corinthians 15:272 Corinthians 13:4Colossians 1:15,162:10Ephesians 1:17-22Philippians 2:9-11Hebrews 1:2,4,6,91 Peter 3:22) This does not mean that Jesus is the only true God who has made Jesus "lord."

It is also true that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob had used Jesus in the making of the ages (Hebrews 1:1,2), which brings up the possibility that Jesus was used by the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in giving the Law to Moses, and that, in this sense he could be referred to as "Lord of the sabbath." If this assumption is correct, however, such an application still does not mean that Jesus is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Nevertheless, "Lord" in the Greek is anarthrous; it does not have the definite article. It is not saying that Jesus is "the" Lord of the sabbath, but rather, Jesus is simply called "Lord" or "Master" of the sabbath. Jesus was "master" of the sabbath, not because he was God, but because he, as the son of the man, that is, as the promised son of the man, David (see scriptures above), being born under the Law (Galatians 4:4), obeyed the Law without failure. Had he disobeyed that law in one small part, he could not have actually fulfilled the Law, and thus he would have nothing to sacrifice, since he would be just as guilty and in need of redemption from condemnation as any other man. (Matthew 5:17James 2:10) Jesus was therefore, as the promised son of the man, David, master of the sabbath, obeying God's laws concerning the sabbath perfectly. Jesus' obedience, and his sacrifice of right to human life gained by that obedience, fulfilled the Law, and thus the Law was figuratively nailed to the stauros with Jesus. -- Colossians 2:14.

The offering in sacrifice of Jesus' blood and body brought forth the inauguration of another covenant, called the "New Covenant." (Matthew 26:28Mark 14:2422:201 Corinthians 11:25Hebrews 10:14,2912:2413:20) Through faith in his blood, the Jew can become counted as dead to the Law (Romans 7:4), counted as having died with Jesus (Romans 6:8,11), so as to belong to Jesus, being imputed justification and sanctified through the blood of the new covenant. -- Romans 3,4.

Additionally, Jesus knew from his God and Father (John 8:28) what was really in observance of the law, and what it was "lawful" to do on the sabbath, as opposed to the strict applications that Jews were making concerning the sabbath. Jesus said "it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath day." (Matthew 12:12) Some parts of the law apply over other parts of the Law, as Jesus illustrated by David's eating of the shewbread, which was, strictly speaking, unlawful. But "mercy" in the Law is of greater importance in some instances, so that what would otherwise be "unlawful" would be "lawful" -- permitted by the law.

Click Here for some recommended books on the christology.


CLICK HERE to post comments, questions, etc. on our "Jesus and His God" Discussion Board

at November 08, 2008 No comments:  

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

Labels: Luke 6:5Mark 2:28Matthew 12:8

 

 

-------------------------------

------------------------------

Matthew 12:8 - Lord of the Sabbath (2008-11-08)

https://notrinity.blogspot.com/2008/11/lord-sabbath.html

Matthew 12:8 - Lord of the Sabbath

The following scriptures are presented as proof that Jesus is his God, since Jesus said that he is "lord of the sabbath." It is claimed that this means that Jesus is "lord" over God's law, and that since he is lord of God's law, this means that jesus is God (Jehovah, Yahweh).

From the World English translation:

Matthew 12:8 - For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.

Mark 2:28 - Therefore the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath.

Luke 6:5 - He said to them, "The Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath."

The idea that what Jesus said here means that Jesus is his God has to be added to, read into the scriptures by way of assumptions, and then reading those assumptions into what Jesus said. The assumptions are made that since Jesus said that he is lord of the sabbath, that this means that he is lord over God's law, and this further means that Jesus is his God. And the assumptions are made for the purpose of serving the assumption that Jesus is Yahweh.

Jesus said that all things that he has had been given to him by his Father. (Matthew 28:18Luke 10:22) Jesus further identified his God and Father as the only true God. (John 17:1,3) Thus whatever lordship that Jesus has was given to Jesus by the only true God. Peter said: "God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified." (Acts 2:36) This agrees with Isaiah 61:1, where the promised one is depicted as stating: "Yahweh has anointed me." The word "Christ" means "anointed one." The only true God, Yahweh, has made Jesus "lord" -- ruler, master -- of all things, excluding God Himself, and this includes the antitype of the "shadow" sabbaths. (Galatians 4:1Colossians 2:16,171 Corinthians 15:27Ephesians 1:3,17,20-22) Being the the promised son of the man (Matthew 19:2825:3126:64Mark 2:1014:62Luke 18:3121:2722:69), that is, the promised Son, (seed, offspring) of David (Psalm 89:36132:11Isaiah 9:6,7Isaiah 11:1Jeremiah 23:533:15Matthew 1:1John 7:42Acts 2:30Romans 1:3), Jesus is made lord and given dominion over all -- excluding God, who gives this dominion to Jesus. (Psalm 2:6-845:7110:1,2Isaiah 9:6,711:242:161:1-3Jeremiah 23:5Daniel 7:13,14Matthew 12:2828:28Luke 1:324:14,185:17John 3:345:19,27,3010:18,36-38Acts 2:2210:38Romans 1:1-41 Corinthians 15:272 Corinthians 13:4Colossians 1:15,162:10Ephesians 1:17-22Philippians 2:9-11Hebrews 1:2,4,6,91 Peter 3:22) This does not mean that Jesus is the only true God who has made Jesus "lord."

It is also true that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob had used Jesus in the making of the ages (Hebrews 1:1,2), which brings up the possibility that Jesus was used by the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in giving the Law to Moses, and that, in this sense he could be referred to as "Lord of the sabbath." If this assumption is correct, however, such an application still does not mean that Jesus is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Nevertheless, "Lord" in the Greek is anarthrous; it does not have the definite article. It is not saying that Jesus is "the" Lord of the sabbath, but rather, Jesus is simply called "Lord" or "Master" of the sabbath. Jesus was "master" of the sabbath, not because he was God, but because he, as the son of the man, that is, as the promised son of the man, David (see scriptures above), being born under the Law (Galatians 4:4), obeyed the Law without failure. Had he disobeyed that law in one small part, he could not have actually fulfilled the Law, and thus he would have nothing to sacrifice, since he would be just as guilty and in need of redemption from condemnation as any other man. (Matthew 5:17James 2:10) Jesus was therefore, as the promised son of the man, David, master of the sabbath, obeying God's laws concerning the sabbath perfectly. Jesus' obedience, and his sacrifice of right to human life gained by that obedience, fulfilled the Law, and thus the Law was figuratively nailed to the stauros with Jesus. -- Colossians 2:14.

The offering in sacrifice of Jesus' blood and body brought forth the inauguration of another covenant, called the "New Covenant." (Matthew 26:28Mark 14:2422:201 Corinthians 11:25Hebrews 10:14,2912:2413:20) Through faith in his blood, the Jew can become counted as dead to the Law (Romans 7:4), counted as having died with Jesus (Romans 6:8,11), so as to belong to Jesus, being imputed justification and sanctified through the blood of the new covenant. -- Romans 3,4.

Additionally, Jesus knew from his God and Father (John 8:28) what was really in observance of the law, and what it was "lawful" to do on the sabbath, as opposed to the strict applications that Jews were making concerning the sabbath. Jesus said "it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath day." (Matthew 12:12) Some parts of the law apply over other parts of the Law, as Jesus illustrated by David's eating of the shewbread, which was, strictly speaking, unlawful. But "mercy" in the Law is of greater importance in some instances, so that what would otherwise be "unlawful" would be "lawful" -- permitted by the law.

Click Here for some recommended books on the christology.


CLICK HERE to post comments, questions, etc. on our "Jesus and His God" Discussion Board

at November 08, 2008  

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

Labels: Luke 6:5Mark 2:28Matthew 12:8

 

 

-------------------------------

------------------------------

Matthew 12:25 (2008-10-10)

https://notrinity.blogspot.com/2008/10/mat12-25.html

Matthew 12:25

Matthew 12:25—“Jesus knew their thoughts.”

This is one of the scriptures that many trinitarians offer as proof that Jesus is omniscient, and thus from this line of reasoning they would like for us to think that Jesus is the Supreme Being, knowing absolutely everything in the universe, and then from this they would like for us to believe that the trinity dogma is true.

(World English Bible translation):
Matthew 12:23 - All the multitudes were amazed, and said, "Can this be the son of David?"
Matthew 12:24 - But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, "This man does not cast out demons, except by Beelzebul, the prince of the demons."
Matthew 12:25 - Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said to them, "Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand.
Matthew 12:26 -If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand?
Matthew 12:27 - If I by Beelzebul cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they will be your judges.
Matthew 12:28 - But if I by the Spirit of God cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come on you.


That Jesus knew the thoughts of the Pharisees does not mean that Jesus is "all-knowing," and that Jesus is the Supreme Being. It simply means that Jesus was given this power to know the thoughts of men through God's holy spirit. Jesus declared that he cast our demons by [Greek instrumental "en" -- Strong's #1720, by means of] the Spirit of his God. Likewise, I am sure that he could have also said that he knew their thoughts by means of the Spirit of his God.

The reasonable conclusion would be that Jesus received his knowledge from the only true God who sent him, even as the scriptures and Jesus himself stated many times. -- Deuteronomy 18:15,18Matthew 23:39Mark 11:9,10Luke 13:35John 3:2,175:19,437:16,288:26,28,3810:2512:49,5014:1015:1517:8,26Hebrews 1:1,2Revelation 1:1.

However, I know that many would like add to and read into these scriptures so as to split Jesus up into two sentient beings, one being who is God the Supreme Being and another being who is man -- a human being, and claim that when the scripture says that in "knowing their thoughts," that this was the God-being, while when Jesus said, "by the Spirit of God," that this was the human being speaking. This, in effect, would make Jesus himself be two persons, not one, since one of these beings would be omniscient in sentiency, while the other would not have that same sentiency. the In reality, there is no reason to add this splitting into the scriptures.

at October 10, 2008  

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

No comments:

Post a Comment

Newer PostOlder PostHome

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

 

 

-------------------------------

------------------------------

Matthew 16:13-16  Son of Man and Son of God (2017-10-21)

https://jesusnotyhwh.blogspot.com/2017/10/son-man.html

Son of Man and Son of God

 

What does "Son of Man" mean as related to "Son of God"? Do these two expressions mean that Jesus has two natures of existence at the same time, one of being God (Supreme Being) and the other of being man (human being)?
==================

Son of Man Vs. Son of the Man

Many do not realize that there are two different expressions in the are usually rendered in translations as "Son of Man." The actual phrase "son of man," with the indefinite "man," as applied to Jesus only appears in the Bible in a very few instances, usually referring to Jesus in the likeness of a son of man. Jesus himself -- in the Gospels -- uses the anarthrous "son of man," or "son of a man," of himself only one time as recorded in John 5:27. (See below) Only in this one verse does Jesus identify himself as being a human being. All the rest of the instances where we find "Son of Man" in most translations of the Gospels, it is not the anarthrous term used in John 5:27, but rather it is definite, "Son of the Man." 

 

The indefinite form of "son of a man" is also found in Daniel 7:13,14, which speaks prophetically of the Messiah. However, here is it qualified with "likeness," or some translations simply use "like." The prophecy is speaking of Jesus at a future time when God was to exalt Jesus with a bodily glory far above the angels (Acts 2:33,365:31Philippians 2:9Ephesians 1:3,17-231 Corinthians 15:27Hebrews 1:4,61 Peter 3:22), and he would no longer in the days of his flesh, a human being of flesh, a little lower than the angels.  (Hebrews 2:95:7) By qualifying the term "likeness of a son of man," it is not saying that Jesus was still to be a man, and yet Jesus was in a "likeness" of a son of a man. In what way? Jesus, while in the days of his flesh (Hebrews 5:7), had experienced the pain, suffering, temptations, and sorrow as all other men, yet without sin. Thus, Jesus will forever be like a son of man, although he is no longer actually a human being, with earthly, fleshly glory that is a little lower than the angels. -- 1 Corinthians 15:39-41Hebrews 2:9.

 

The expression most often used by Jesus of himself, however, is not the anarthrous son of a man, but in the Greek it has the definite article before "man," which means that it could be rendered as "Son of the Man." Why does Jesus apply this title to himself? The claim often made is that this designates him to Jesus because he was begotten of a man, and thus it is alleged to designate Jesus as a man. The phrase Jesus often used by Jesus of himself is not the same as the phrase used in Psalm 8:4; of Ezekiel many times, or as used in Hebrews 2:6. "Son of man" in Psalm 8:4 and through Ezekiel as also in Hebrews 2:5 is without a definite article, which could be translated as "son of a man." The phrase Jesus often used of himself was with the definite article, which could be rendered as "Son of the Man." Most translations, however, do not show this distinction, but render both phrases as "Son of Man."

 

It should be apparent that Jesus -- in using the phrase "Son of the Man," of himself -- was speaking of himself as the Son of one man in particular. Who was this? We believe that it refers to his being the son of the man, David, of the seed of David. 

 

Psalms 89:36 - His seed will endure forever, His throne like the sun before me. -- World English.

 

Jesus is that promised seed of David. The prophets of old foretold many times of a coming Messiah who was sit on David's throne. (Isaiah 9:6,711:1Jeremiah 23:533:15Psalm 132:11) The New Testament tells us that Jesus was that seed of David, who sits on the throne of David. (Luke 1:32;  John 7:42Acts 2:30Romans 1:32 Timothy 2:8)  Thus, we conclude that the title "Son of the Man", is a Messianic title designating Jesus as being the promised son of the man, David.  Indeed, a comparison of scriptures reveals that "Son of the Man" is a Messianic title designating Jesus as the promised son of the man, David. -- Matthew 1:19:6,2710:2311:1912:8,23,32,4013:37,4116:13,27,2817:9,12,2218:1119:2820:1822:4224:27,30,37,39,4425:13,3126:2,2426:45Luke 1:32,693:31John 7:42Acts 13:34Romans 1:32 Timothy2:8Revelation 3:722:16 -- not an exhaustive list.

 

See also our study:
Seed of David

 

Son of God

 

Jesus is referred to as the Son of God, both while he was in the days of his flesh (Hebrews 5:7; (See Matthew 3:1717:5)), and also after he had been exalted far above all dominion, with the exception of his God. (Ephesians 1:3,17-231 Corinthians 15:27Hebrews 4:14)  Referring to before he came into the world of mankind, Jesus said:


John 10:36 - Do you say of him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You blaspheme,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God?' 

 

Also, Jesus spoke of being with his Father before the world of mankind had been made. -- John 17:1,5.

 

This would indicate that Jesus, before he became flesh, was known as the Son of God in heaven before his Father sent him into the world of mankind. The scriptures reveal that at the beginning of the world of mankind that there were many "sons of God" in heaven. (Job 38:4-7) Jesus was the firstborn Son of God, and it was through that firstborn son that all of the other angelic "sons of God" were created. (Colossians 1:15,17) Thus, this would make Jesus the only "son" directly created by God. His being the firstborn, therefore, gives him preeminence over all the other spirit sons of God. - Colossians 1:18.

Links to studies related to Colossians 1:15-18

We will conclude with the words of Benjamin Wilson (names of Bible books expanded):

If Christ was the Son of God only as we are sons of God, then he was not the son of God, but a son; nor would there be any more reason in confessing him to be the Son of the living God, as Peter and all the apostles did, than in confessing some other believer to be God’s son. But Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, and consequently the Messiah. He also required his disciples to believe this truth. (See John 9:35-3710:36) The belief that Jesus, the Son of Man, was also the Christ, the Son of the living God, lies at the very foundation of Christianity — on it the Church was to be built. (Matthew 16:16-18) Jesus was more than an adopted son by faith–was more than a begotten son by the word of truth; he was “the only begotten of the Father,” (John 1:143:161 John 4:9). The Father with audible voice, proclaimed him as his beloved Son, (Matthew 3:1717:5). Paul calls him God’s own Son, and his dear son, (Galatians 4:4-5Colossians 1:13).

See also links to some of our  related studies.

---------------------------------

Son of Man a Common Jewish Title

One objects that the term “son of man” was a common title used by Jews that meant that the person was simply a human. According to this reasoning, Jesus was both “son of man” — a human being, and “Son of God” — alleged to mean that he was also the Supreme Being. The argument is usually vaguely put forth, yet sometimes declared to “clearly” show that Jesus was both man and the Supreme Being. We have never seen any attempt to explain how Jesus was and is supposedly still two “beings” at once: the Supreme Being as well as a human being. This would, in effect, mean that Jesus is two persons with two different sentiencies, one which is limited to that of being a man, a little lower than the angels, and another that is the omniscient sentiency of the Supreme Being.

Of course, we do believe that the Greek anarthrous expression “son of man” does in a general way refer to an offspring of a human being. Nevertheless, there is scriptural proof that in the Greek the definite expression “son of the man” refers to a certain offspring of a certain man, that is, it refers to[ the long waited for Messiah, who was to a son of a man in a special way, that is, the son of the man, David. In the Messianic sense as related to the promises, “son of man”, “Son of God”, as well as “Son of David”, are expressions that are used almost interchangeably.

Once Jesus asked his disciples: “Who do people say that the Son of  [the ] Man is?” (Matthew 16:13, New American Standard — NAS) Notice how the title is used. It is not used as though it were speaking of any son of any man, but it is used as though it was being understood as referring to a specific son of a certain man. Thus, we can see that this title was indeed being used by the Jews in a specific way, that is, as referring to promises related to one who was to come as the son of a specific man, that is, the Son of David.

The disciples responded: “Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.” (Matthew 16:14, NAS) From this we can see that the Jews did have a specific application of the term “the Son of Man” in mind, that is, the promised Messiah. They were not expecting the Messiah to be the Supreme Being and also a human being.

Jesus then asked them: “But who do you say that I am?” (Matthew 16:15) Peter answered: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” (Matthew 16:16) From his answer, we determine that the expression “Son of the Man” was being considered as related to the promises concerning the Messiah and “Son of the Living God.” In other words, “the Son of the Man” is made equal to “Son of the Living God”. It was evidently an expression being used by the Jews in general as denoting the promised one, the promised Messiah, the Son of David. 

John 5:27

Another objection is that Wilson stated: “The phrase [Son of the Man] as used by Jesus is always in the emphatic form, though our English versions do not show it.” Yet John 5:27 are the words of Jesus, but in this place, the expression is anarthrous, and could be rendered “son of a man”. Doesn’t this show that Jesus was being given the judgment because, not only was he the Supreme Being, but he was also a son of a man, that is, human?

John 5:27 states: “He also gave him authority to execute judgment, because he is a son of man.” (World English Bible translation) We answer that yes, Wilson evidently did overlook that this instance Jesus did not use the definite article. Jesus several times refers to himself as “Son” and to the only true Supreme Being (John 17:1,3) as his Father in the context of John 5:27. Nothing in the context shows that Jesus is being referred to as Supreme Being. Nevertheless, our trinitarian neighbors wish to read into the two expressions that somehow this makes Jesus a hypostatic union — both the Supreme Being and human being. In reality, there is no need to read such into what Jesus said. The statement is that God, the only true Supreme Being, the God and Father of Jesus, gave to the Son the authority to execute judgment “because” he is a son of man. We are left wondering why there would be any merit of Jesus’ simply being the son of any man that would be the “cause” that he would receive authority to execute judgment. The point seems to be that as pointed out in Hebrews 2:175:8, he was made like his brothers, and, his sufferings while his full obedience qualified him to be given the authority to judge. Nevertheless, this was not simply “because” Jesus was the son of any man, such as Joseph, his “foster” father, for if he had been, he would have been a sinner just as Joseph; rather Jesus was counted as the promised Son of David, to whom the promises belong, having been given a special body untainted by the sin of Adam. (Romans 5:12-19Hebrews 10:5) Thus, we have no reason to believe that Jesus intended the expression “Son of Man” in John 5:27 to mean that he was simply of a son of any man, for such a generalization would additionally make him a sinner as all men.  It is to the Son of David the promises are made concerning authority and judgment. — Psalm 2:6-9132:11Isaiah 9:6,711:1Jeremiah 22:3023:5Matthew 9:612:825:31Matthew 26:6428:18Mark 2:10,2813:2614:52Luke 1:325:246:521:2722:69John 5:273:13Acts 13:34Ephesians 1:15-23Philippians 2:9-11Hebrews 1:2.

Son of Adam?

Some say that the expression “Son of Man” simply means that Jesus was the Son of Adam, basing this on the idea that the Hebrew word for “Adam” means “man”, as used in Daniel 8:17. Others claim that Jesus spoke in Hebrew and used the exact term as recorded in Daniel 8:17. While we might consider that Jesus was indeed counted, or reckoned, as a son of Adam, due to the lineage of his foster father, and his mother, from the usage of the phrase in the New Testament, we highly doubt that this is what Jesus had in mind by the expression, “Son of the Man”, as he applied this to himself. There are some who go off into even greater extremes and claim that this title means that Jesus was actually a reincarnation of Adam. How this phrase should show that Jesus is a reincarnation of Adam is vaguely argued, to say the least, for how can stating that one is the son of a person mean that the son is the one of whom he is the son? At any rate, we believe it best to simply stay by the scriptures, rather than add all this extra-Biblical philosophy to the scriptures.

Nevertheless, we need to bear out that if Jesus had been the son of Adam in the sense that all mankind is, this would have made him also a sinner like all of us. Jesus actually had no father on earth, and thus was not contaminated with Adamic sin that pervades mankind. (Romans 5:12-19) Adam lost the dominion for man because of his sin, so that now we do not yet see all things in subjection to man. (Hebrews 2:8) Jesus did come as a human, a little lower than the angels, crowned with glory, and provided the redemption price to restore this glory and dominion to man (not to angels). — Hebrews 2:9.

Although Jesus was not actually under the condemnation through Adam (in him was life — John 1:4), he did willingly submit to undergoing the penalty of the condemnation in order to take the condemnation off Adam and the race in Adam’s loins. (Romans 5:12-191 Corinthians 15:21,221 Timothy 2:5,6Hebrews 2:9) It is in this manner that he who knew no sin was sin for us. — 1 Corinthians 5:21.

Thus the term, the Son of the Man, is not being used to represent one in condemnation, which would be the case had Jesus actually been born simply as a “son of Adam” just as the rest of the human race, for the human race are children of Adam, and through Adam are sinful flesh, dying (1 Corinthians 15:22Romans 5:12-19 – See New American Standard), since through Adam the many — the whole human race descended from Adam — are made sinners. Had Jesus been of such sinful stock, he could not have had life (John 1:4), nor could he have died for our sins.  As the son of the man, having received a specially prepared body from God (Hebrews 10:5), Jesus in the days of his flesh was indeed, the Son of God, as was Adam before Adam sinned, the sinless Adam being a type of the Messiah. (Luke 3:38;  Romans 5:14) Nevertheless, the title, the Son of the Man, refers more especially to the inheritance of the higher dominion that is to restore man’s glory and dominion over the animal kingdom. — Daniel 2:35,44Isaiah 2:2-411:6-9Matthew 1:19:2712:2315:2216:13,2720:30,3121:29,1522:42Mark 10:47,4812:35Luke 1:3218:38,39Romans 1:32 Timothy 2:8Revelation 5:520:1-5.

Jesus was counted, or reckoned, as the seed of David because of his parents, having been born of woman under the Law, even though Jesus’ actual father was God in heaven. Jesus was therefore that antitype of Adam, who, before he sinned, had God as his Father, (Luke 3:38Romans 5:12) Jesus’ human soul, including his body and his blood, was not tainted by the sin of Adam, as are the rest of mankind. How did Jesus’ body come down from heaven? Does this mean that Jesus was a human with a body of flesh before coming into the world? We know that Jesus’ body was formed in the womb of Mary, but the conception of the flesh was from the God of Jesus by means of the holy spirit. (Matthew 1:20) This does not mean that the flesh that was conceived  — begotten — was God Almighty, but rather, the scripture says that Jesus’ body was prepared for him by his God (Hebrews 10:5), for the purpose of its being an offering for sin. (Hebrews 10:10John 6:51) Jesus spoke of his body, his flesh, in John 6:32 as symbolically the “bread of life” that was from the only true God, his Father, who sent Jesus. “My Father gives you the true bread out of heaven.” (John 17:1,3) Thus, while his body was formed in the womb of Mary, the God of Jesus was the one who prepared his body. His body was not tainted by the sinful flesh of mankind. (Romans 8:3) Jesus was without sin, he never fell short of the glory of God, as those who are dying “in Adam”. (Romans 3:231 Corinthians 5:21Hebrews 4:151 Peter 2:221 John 3:5) He was not ‘by nature a child of wrath’ as mankind in general, due to the sin of Adam. (Ephesians 2:3) Having no sin, the was the “bread of life”. In him was life, a sinless life, equal ot that of Adam’s before Adam sinned, which he could offer in sacrifice for the world of mankind dying in Adam — the just for the unjust. (John 1:41 Corinthians 15:31 Peter 3:18) He could offer his flesh — his humanity — as a sacrifice for sin, and thus by our symbolically eating and partaking of his flesh, through faith in him, we can have life.

Matthew 16:13-16

Matthew 16:13 Now when Jesus came into the parts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, “Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?”
Matthew 16:14 They said, “Some say John the Baptizer, some, Elijah, and others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.”
Matthew 16:15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
Matthew 16:16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

The thought is presented that these scriptures present Jesus’ alleged dual natures above, one “nature” being that of a human being, “the Son of Man”, and another nature being that of the God being, represented in the expression “the Son of the living God.” What is being imagined is that “Son of Man” means his humanity, while “Son of God” means that he is the Most High.

Actually, there is nothing at all in the verses given that give us any reason to think Jesus possesses two levels of sentiency at once, one alleged to be that of the only Most High, while the other would be that of a human being, confined to a body of flesh.

The expression “Son of Man”, as already shown, should actually be “the son of the man”; the expression represents Jesus as the promised son of the man, David, who was to be the one Anointed by the only true God.

Peter stated to Jesus: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”  “The Christ” — the Anointed One — obviously refers to an event that is performed by “the [unipersonal] living God”, and Peter’s later statement agrees with this:

Acts 2:36 — “Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.”

Was Jesus “made … Christ” in his humanity, or was he made Christ in his alleged being like the Most High? The trinitarian, if he agrees that it was in his humanity that Jesus was “made Christ”, logically, would have to further create assumptions so as to separate Peter’s expression “You are the Christ” from “the Son of the Living God” as to apply “You are the Christ” to his humanity and then apply “the Son of the Living God” to his alleged Supreme God being. If one claims that it was the alleged Supreme Being Jesus who was anointed, then one has to create many assumptions beyond what is written and add these assumptions to the scriptures in order to have the scriptures appear to say that it was one person of the Supreme Being who anointed another person of the Supreme Being as “the Christ”.

Actually, Peter does not say that Jesus is “God”, but rather that Jesus is “the Son of the Living God”.  The word “God” here refers to only person, and “the Son” is excluded from being “the Living God” who is referred to. Jesus is not “the Living God” of whom he is the Son.

Daniel 7:13,14

Some claim that in Daniel 7:13,14, the anarthrous “son of a man” is applied to Jesus’ return in the “clouds”.  We have given attention to this in our study “Ancient of Days“, which please see. Suffice it to say that the most scriptural conclusion is that ‘son of a man’ in Daniel 7:13 simply refers symbolically of Jesus’ being the likeness of a son of a man, having obtained from his past human experience characteristics of man which enables him to sympathize with humans, not that he actually would be a son of a man. We know that Jesus gave his human existence in sacrifice for our sins (Hebrews 10:101 Peter 3:18); Jesus is no longer a son of a man, for he is, then he would still be a little lower than the angels, rather than exalted high above the angels. — Psalm 8:4,5Acts 2:335:31Ephesians 1:3,17-23Philippians 2:9Hebrews 1:62:6,7,91 Peter 3:22.

The idea that Jesus has two “natures”, or levels of being, at once, has to be imagined, assumed, added to, and read into, what is stated in Daniel 7:13 as well as any other scripture.

 

For links to some of our studies related to the alleged "dual natures"/"hypostatic union" of Jesus.

 

 

By Ronald Day at October 21, 2017  

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

Labels: Son of Man

-------------------------------

------------------------------

Matthew 18:20

https://notrinity.blogspot.com/search/label/Matthew%2018%3A20

Matthew 18:20

Matthew 18:20

For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there I am in the midst of them.

World English Bible translation

Matthew 28:20

"Teaching them to observe all things which I commanded you. Behold, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen.

World English Bible translation

 

The above words of Jesus are offered as proof that Jesus is omnipresent, one of the acclaimed incommunicable attributes that belong only to the Supreme Being.

At most, however, the scriptures only prove that the God and Father of Jesus has given to Jesus power to be in more than one place at once. That Jesus has been given by his God the power to be present in more than one place at once is not denied. (Matthew 28:18Luke 10:22John 3:355:22-271 Corinthians 15:27) As the one appointed by God as "Lord" over the church (Acts 2:3610:42Ephesians 1:22Hebrews 1:93:2), Jesus would of necessity need to be present in some way with his followers.

And yet the scriptures also say:

Acts 3:19 Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, that so there may come times of refreshing from the presence [face, person] of [Yahweh],
Acts 3:20 and that he may send Christ Jesus, who was ordained for you before,
Acts 3:21 whom the heaven must receive [or, take hold of] until the times of restoration of all things, whereof God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets that have been from ancient times.

So in some way also Jesus is received, held by, heaven, until the times of restoration of all things.

How is Jesus present with the disciples? The scriptures indicate that he is present by means of the holy spirit, which spirit Yahweh has given to Jesus. -- 1 John 3:244:13Acts 1:42:33John 15:26; See also: John 14:17,26Acts 1:5,89:31Romans 8:1,9-171 Corinthians 3:166:192 Corinthians 1:223:312:18Philippians 2:12 Timothy 1:14.

There is nothing, however, in Matthew 18:2028:20 that offer any proof that Jesus has an incommunicable attribute of Yahweh. The idea has to be added to and read into these scriptures.

at October 08, 2008 No comments:  

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

Labels: Matthew 18:20

 

 

-------------------------------

------------------------------

Matthew 18:20 (2008-10-08)

https://notrinity.blogspot.com/2008/10/mat1820.html

Matthew 18:20

Matthew 18:20

For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there I am in the midst of them.

World English Bible translation

Matthew 28:20

"Teaching them to observe all things which I commanded you. Behold, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen.

World English Bible translation

 

The above words of Jesus are offered as proof that Jesus is omnipresent, one of the acclaimed incommunicable attributes that belong only to the Supreme Being.

At most, however, the scriptures only prove that the God and Father of Jesus has given to Jesus power to be in more than one place at once. That Jesus has been given by his God the power to be present in more than one place at once is not denied. (Matthew 28:18Luke 10:22John 3:355:22-271 Corinthians 15:27) As the one appointed by God as "Lord" over the church (Acts 2:3610:42Ephesians 1:22Hebrews 1:93:2), Jesus would of necessity need to be present in some way with his followers.

And yet the scriptures also say:

Acts 3:19 Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, that so there may come times of refreshing from the presence [face, person] of [Yahweh],
Acts 3:20 and that he may send Christ Jesus, who was ordained for you before,
Acts 3:21 whom the heaven must receive [or, take hold of] until the times of restoration of all things, whereof God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets that have been from ancient times.

So in some way also Jesus is received, held by, heaven, until the times of restoration of all things.

How is Jesus present with the disciples? The scriptures indicate that he is present by means of the holy spirit, which spirit Yahweh has given to Jesus. -- 1 John 3:244:13Acts 1:42:33John 15:26; See also: John 14:17,26Acts 1:5,89:31Romans 8:1,9-171 Corinthians 3:166:192 Corinthians 1:223:312:18Philippians 2:12 Timothy 1:14.

There is nothing, however, in Matthew 18:2028:20 that offer any proof that Jesus has an incommunicable attribute of Yahweh. The idea has to be added to and read into these scriptures.

at October 08, 2008  

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

Labels: Matthew 18:20

 

 

 

-------------------------------

------------------------------

Matthew 27:18

https://sonofyah.wordpress.com/2008/10/10/mat27-18/

Matthew 27:18 – Jesus Knew Why

Posted on October 10, 2008 | 3 Comments

For he knew that because of envy they had delivered him up. — Matthew 27:18, World English Bible translation

In this verse, Matthew declares that the Son of Jehovah knew why the Jewish leaders had delivered him up to die, the reason being “envy.” How did the Son of Jehovah know this? There are those who claim that Jesus, the Son of God, knew this, because Jesus is God Himself. Their reasoning is that only the Supreme Being could know of this, and thus they will present this scripture as proof that the Son of the Supreme Being is the Supreme Being. In lists presented by trinitarians, this scripture may also be presented as proof that Jesus was omniscient, knowing absolutely everything in the universe.

In reality, both thoughts are assumptions that have to be added to and read into what Matthew said. In effect, the argument that this scripture offers proof that Jesus is Jehovah is based upon the assumptions added to and read into the scripture, rather than on anything that is actually stated. (Indeed, this is true of every scripture that is presented to allegedly prove that Jesus is Yahweh.)

The more scriptural way of viewing what Matthew said is to apply scriptural revealing with scriptural revealing. From other scriptures we read that the Son of Jehovah is given his authority and power from the only true God.  All things — all power and authority — have been given to Jesus (with the evident exception of God himself — 1 Corinthians 15:27), yet the exercise of this power and authority by Jesus is all to the praise of Jehovah, the God and Father of the Lord Jesus. The Bible writers never claimed that Jesus is the ultimate “source” of his own power. — Psalm 2:6-8; 45:7; 110:1,2; Isaiah 9:6,7; 11:2; 42:1; 61:1-3; Jeremiah 23:5; Daniel 7:13,14; Matthew 12:28; 28:28; Luke 1:32; 4:14,18; 5:17; John 3:34; 5:19,27,30; 10:18,36-38; Acts 2:22; 10:38; Romans 1:1-4; 1 Corinthians 15:27; 2 Corinthians 13:4; Colossians 1:15,16; 2:10; Ephesians 1:17-22; Philippians 2:9-11; Hebrews 1:2,4,6,9; 1 Peter 3:22.

Just as Jesus could “cast out demons” by means of the power that he received from God’s spirit (Matthew 12:27), so Jesus could use that same spirit of his God to know why the Jewish leaders wanted him dead.

There is nothing in this, however, that offers any proof that the Son of Jehovah is Jehovah.

 

 

-------------------------------

------------------------------

Matthew 28:18 and All Power

https://jesusnotyhwh.blogspot.com/2019/09/mat28-18.html

Matthew 28:18 - Jesus and All Power

 

Matthew 28:18 – Jesus came to them and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth.”

Matthew 28:18 is often quoted as proof that Jesus is Jehovah by advocates of both the trinity and oneness doctrines. Some translations read “all power” instead of “all authority”; the Greek word, however, refers to “all authority”. It is from the standpoint, however, of those who cite this scripture in an effort to support the idea that Jesus is the Almighty that we in this study are examining what this would mean.



One of the “oneness” believers states concerning this that if Jesus has “all power” then nobody else can have any. This, of course, is absurd. Taken as the thought is given, it would deny that anyone else can have any power at all! You have no power to stand, walk, talk, write a letter, or perform your any work to make a living. And, according to this statement, Satan no longer has any power! The angels no longer have any power! The demons no longer have any power! The God and Father of Jesus no longer has any power! Human rulers no longer have any power to rule! If taken to the extreme, it would mean that no living thing has any power to walk, to eat, to work, to think, breath, etc. We highly doubt, however, that this is what the writer had in mind in stating that “all power” given to Jesus means that no one else had any, but we are just giving the logical conclusions that can be drawn from such a statement. The oneness writer stated this, we are sure, in an effort to support the claim that in some vague way Jesus is or became the Father (the only true God — John 17:1,3), an idea that we do not find anywhere in the entire Bible. Matthew 28:18 shows that this "authority" was given to Jesus from someone else who is not Jesus.



The idea that Jesus was claiming no one else has any power at all has to be assumed and added to what Jesus said. Paul does not so assume, for he says that it is “evident” that the One who subjected all things to Jesus is excepted from the “all” that has been subjected to Jesus. (1 Corinthians 15:27)  Thus the God and Father of Jesus did not, has not, nor will he ever, give to Jesus the power and the glory that only belongs to the God and Father of Jesus, the being of the only Most High God Almighty. (Genesis 14:2217:1Exodus 6:3Isaiah 42:8) When Jesus stated, however, that all power has been given to him, he is not saying that no one else has any power, but that the power that has been given to him, as the one sitting next to the Most High, exceeds the power that has been given by the Jehovah (whom Jesus sits at the right hand of — Psalm 110:1) to anyone else, so that all things are made subject to him. In this relationship, it is evident that all the power given to Jesus by Jehovah does not include the being of Jehovah, on whose right hand Jesus has been made to sit. — Ephesians 2:20-22.



Often trinitarians as well as oneness believers will present a long list of scriptures which they claim supports or proves the trinity or oneness doctrines, and they will often include Matthew 28:18 in that list. Usually no real explanantion is made of the scriptures, but rather the trinity doctrine or the oneness doctrine is presumed upon the scriptures.

Many seem to be absorbed with the expression “all power” in Matthew 28:18, and thus appear to overlook the word “given”; some trinitarians try to explain that the power given here is not the eternal power of the (alleged) second person of the (alleged) trinity, but a special power given from the (alleged) first person of the (alleged) trinity to the (alleged) second person of the (alleged) trinity. If this is so, then there is nothing in this verse that offers any proof of the trinity. Actually, there is nothing in the scriptures at all about a triune God, or that Jesus is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, or that Jesus is a person, mode, etc., of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is always presented as being one person, and is never presented as being more than one person.

We also need to examine the word that is render “all” regarding “all” power that is given to Jesus, which is transliterated as “pasa”. It is a form of the Greek “Pas” (meaning: all, every, whole, etc.), and all forms of this word look to context as well common evidence for what is included or excluded. As in English, "all" is always limited to the "all" being referred to. As shown above, it is evident that the God and Father of Jesus is excluded, as Paul states in 1 Corinthians 15:27. A Biblical study of this word all through the New Testament shows that, even when our translators add the word “things” to it, it rarely refers to absolutely “all” things in the whole universe, which would include the Most High Himself. It is always qualified by the context and common evidence. Although regarding Matthew 28:18, we can see from other scriptures that the “all power” that has been given to Jesus does include the subjection of all power in the whole created universe, but it does not include the Supreme Power of the Creator Himself.
http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3956

Trinitarians, likewise, like to refer to Matthew 28:18 as proof that Jesus is God, but, as yet, we have not seen any genuine explanation as to how this is claimed to support their position. Much that we have stated above also applies to the trinitarian arguments that use this scripture to support their doctrine.

It is often listed as proof that Jesus is alleged to be “omnipotent“. They seem to want Jesus to say: “Since I am the Most High, I have all power in heaven and earth”, while ignoring that this power is given to Jesus from someone who is not Jesus. Some claim that the power is given from the Father to the Son, but, if this power is meant to prove that Jesus is God, or omnipotent, then the scripture would mean that before being given all this power, the Son was not God, and was not omnipotent (as many alleged Jesus to be), until this power was given to him. If they say that this power was given to Jesus as a man, and yet still use this scripture as proof that Jesus is God, then, in effect, they would be saying the human being Jesus became the God being. It would declare the flesh of Jesus as being the alleged “God nature” that they claim Jesus has. It would declare that flesh of Jesus is with the glory that higher than the angels. The word man, in the Bible, when applied to humanity, refers to a glory that is a little lower than the angels (Psalm 8:5,6Hebrews 2:7-9), to a glory that has fleshly, earthly, substance, not celestial, spiritual substance. -- 1 Corinthians 15:39-41.



In actuality, Jesus, in saying his words in Matthew 28:18, offers proof that Jesus is not his God, never has been his God, and never will be his God. Jesus is, and always will be, the Son of the Most High. He will never be the Most High of whom he is the son. — Genesis 14:22Psalm 7:1783:1892:1Luke 1:32John 13:16.

While both trinitarian and “oneness” believers continue to present long lists of scriptures alleged to prove that Jesus is Jehovah, yet in reality, one has to assume, add to, and read that thought into all of the scriptures presented.

Search terms: All-Powerful, Almighty, Deity, Dual Natures, Hypostatic Union, Matthew, Oneness, Scriptures, trinity, christology, is jesus god, Jesus is God, Jesus is Jehovah, Jesus is not Jehovah, Jesus is not Yahweh, Jesus is Yahweh, Matthew 28:18, omnipotent, Omniscience, trinity, trinity doctrine, Yahweh is the only true God

Ronald R. Day, Sr. -- Restoration Light Bible Study Services (ResLight)

 

********

 

By Ronald Day at September 04, 2019  

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

Labels: Almighty

 

 

-------------------------------

------------------------------

Matthew 27:18 – Jesus Knew Why

https://sonofyah.wordpress.com/2008/10/10/mat27-18/

Matthew 27:18 – Jesus Knew Why

Posted on October 10, 2008 | 3 Comments

For he knew that because of envy they had delivered him up. — Matthew 27:18, World English Bible translation

In this verse, Matthew declares that the Son of Jehovah knew why the Jewish leaders had delivered him up to die, the reason being “envy.” How did the Son of Jehovah know this? There are those who claim that Jesus, the Son of God, knew this, because Jesus is God Himself. Their reasoning is that only the Supreme Being could know of this, and thus they will present this scripture as proof that the Son of the Supreme Being is the Supreme Being. In lists presented by trinitarians, this scripture may also be presented as proof that Jesus was omniscient, knowing absolutely everything in the universe.

In reality, both thoughts are assumptions that have to be added to and read into what Matthew said. In effect, the argument that this scripture offers proof that Jesus is Jehovah is based upon the assumptions added to and read into the scripture, rather than on anything that is actually stated. (Indeed, this is true of every scripture that is presented to allegedly prove that Jesus is Yahweh.)

The more scriptural way of viewing what Matthew said is to apply scriptural revealing with scriptural revealing. From other scriptures we read that the Son of Jehovah is given his authority and power from the only true God.  All things — all power and authority — have been given to Jesus (with the evident exception of God himself — 1 Corinthians 15:27), yet the exercise of this power and authority by Jesus is all to the praise of Jehovah, the God and Father of the Lord Jesus. The Bible writers never claimed that Jesus is the ultimate “source” of his own power. — Psalm 2:6-8; 45:7; 110:1,2; Isaiah 9:6,7; 11:2; 42:1; 61:1-3; Jeremiah 23:5; Daniel 7:13,14; Matthew 12:28; 28:28; Luke 1:32; 4:14,18; 5:17; John 3:34; 5:19,27,30; 10:18,36-38; Acts 2:22; 10:38; Romans 1:1-4; 1 Corinthians 15:27; 2 Corinthians 13:4; Colossians 1:15,16; 2:10; Ephesians 1:17-22; Philippians 2:9-11; Hebrews 1:2,4,6,9; 1 Peter 3:22.

Just as Jesus could “cast out demons” by means of the power that he received from God’s spirit (Matthew 12:27), so Jesus could use that same spirit of his God to know why the Jewish leaders wanted him dead.

There is nothing in this, however, that offers any proof that the Son of Jehovah is Jehovah.

 

 

-------------------------------

------------------------------

Matthew 28:18 - Was This God the Son Speaking? (2016-03-13)

https://notrinity.blogspot.com/2016/03/mat-28-18-speaking.html

Matthew 28:18 - Was This God the Son Speaking?

 

One makes the claim that when Jesus spoke at times it was GOD speaking and at times the Flesh speaking, evidently applying the alleged "dual natures" philosophy. Jesus' words spoken in Matthew 28:18 is given as evidence of this, since Jesus stated that all power in heaven and earth had been given to him. The question is raised to how this could be, and the answer is supplied that this Was God (incarnated in Jesus) who was speaking.

Jesus came to them and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth. – (Matthew 28:18)


 

I will first note that some translations put “power” here instead of “authority”; the correct rendering, however, is “authority”.

It should be evident that "all authority" that is given to Jesus has been given to him from someone else. Other scriptures show that that Jesus receives this authority from the "one God" that Paul wrote about, He who is the source of all. (1 Corinthians 8:6Deuteronomy 18:15-19Psalm 2:6-845:7110:1,2;Isaiah 9:6,711:242:161:1-3Jeremiah 23:5Ezekiel 34:23,2437:24Daniel 7:13,14Micah 5:4Matthew 12:2828:18Luke 1:324:14,185:17John 3:345:19,27,3010:18,36-38Acts 2:22,363:13-2610:38;Romans 1:1-41 Corinthians 15:272 Corinthians 13:4Colossians 1:15,162:10Ephesians 1:3,17-23Philippians 2:9-11Hebrews 1:2,4,6,91 Peter 3:22.) Rather than offering any evidence that it was the alleged "God Jesus" who spoke these words, the truth is that what Jesus stated shows that he was NOT speaking as the Most High, since the Most High, being the source of all power and authority (1 Corinthians 8:6), has no need to be given any authority from someone else.

What Jesus stated as recorded in Matthew 28:18 is in harmony with 1 Corinthians 8:6, as well as Ephesians 1:317-23, where we find that the God and Father of Jesus subjected the all to Jesus, but as Paul stated in 1 Corinthians 15:27, it is evident that He who subjected the all to Jesus is excepted.

Since the Bible is fully at harmony with itself without imagining, adding, and reading the assumption of "dual natures" of Jesus into the scriptures, I have no scriptural reason to add the assumption to any scripture.

See my study related to the “all power” that the only true God has given to Jesus.

 

at March 13, 2016  

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

Labels: All PowerDual Natures

 

 

-------------------------------

------------------------------

Matthew 28:19 – The One Name

https://sonofyah.wordpress.com/2008/09/19/mat-2819/

Matthew 28:19 – One Name

Posted on September 19, 2008 | 8 Comments

Matthew 28:19 – Go, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. — World English.

Many trinitarians would like for us to note that there is one “name,” and supposedly three persons who have this one name. From this they would like for us to think that there are three persons in one God.

The word “name” carries various shades of meaning. One of the meanings is “cause or reason,” as “in the cause of,” etc.
http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3686

In the Hebrew scriptures, for one to act “in the name” of Jehovah (or another) meant to act in the authority of Jehovah (or whoever it was that a person came “in the name of”).  — Deuteronomy 18:5,7,22; 21:5; 25:6; 1 Samuel 17:45; 20:42; 25:9; 2 Samuel 6:18; 1 Kings 18:32; 22:16; 2 Kings 2:24; 1 Chronicles 16:2; 21:19; 2 Chronicles 18:15; 33:18; Ezra 5:1; Psalm 20:5; Psalm 118:10,11,12,26; 129:8; Jeremiah 11:21; 26:16,20; Zechariah 13:3.

However, Matthew 28:19 is not talking about the ones being baptized as coming in the name of, but of their acceptance of the name, authority, cause of, the ones being mentioned, thus, the usage is similar to: Psalm 124:8; Isaiah 50:10; Micah 4:5, except that in Matthew 28:19, it is denoting the acceptance of/belief upon, the “name” (authority, cause) common to each, similar to the New Testament usage in Matthew 10:41; John 3:18,36; Acts 2:38; 10:48; 1 John 5:13.

The word translated as “in” Matthew 28:19 is the Greek word transliterated as “eis” (Strong’s #1519), which usually carries the meaning of “into.” This word is also used in John 3:18,36; 4:39 and 1 John 5:13. Given this meaning, those being baptized would be baptized into an agreement with the name/cause/authority of the Father, of the Son, and of the holy spirit.

However, one of the meanings of the Greek word “eis” (Strong’s #1519), is “for,” as denoting “regarding” (Matthew 3:13; 9:4; 10:19; Mark 3:29; 6:11); applying this meaning, one would be baptized ‘for’ the name/cause/authority of the Father, of the Son and of the holy spirit.

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=1519&version=kjv

Notwithstanding, many scholars point out that Eusebius’ earlier quotes of Matthew 28:19 do not contain this baptismal formula, but simply refer to being baptized in the name of Jesus; for this and some other reasons, some scholars believe that the wording as we have received was changed to add the baptismal forumla as we now have it.* Assuming that the words as they appear in the extant Greek NT manuscripts actually express the words of Jesus, the word “name” here signifies the cause or authority, not a singular appellation. The cause/authority is used in a distributive sense, in the cause or authority of the Father, in the cause or authority of the Son, and in the cause or authority of the holy spirit. It does express a singularity of cause and authority, as all three are in agreement. There is no indication that this means three persons in one God.
==========
*Analysis of Matthew 28:19 by Randall Duane Hughes
A Collection of the evidence… by A. Ploughman
The Eusebian Form of the Text of Matthew 28:19 – by Fred Conybeare

Advertisements

REPORT THIS ADPRIVACY

If it is speaking of a singular appellation, then one would need to know what that singular appellation is, if we were to baptized in that singular name. We know the appellative personal name of the Father, the only true God who sent Jesus, is Jehovah. (Some prefer Yahweh or some other form; Exodus 3:15, Deuteronomy 18:15-19; John 17:1,3; Acts 3:13) The scriptures assign no personal appellation to the holy spirit. Nor can it be said that the appellation of all three is “Jesus”, since “Jesus” is never given as the name of the Father, nor of the Holy Spirit, and to reason that the name of the Father is Jesus would result in a tremendous amount of self-contradiction. The name of the only true God is not “Jesus”, but rather the name “Jesus” is given to the one whom the only true God sent. (Isaiah 61:1,2; John 17:1,3) Since the name Jesus means “Jehovah is savior”, it signifies that Jesus is the one whom Jehovah sent as savior. The one who was sent by the only true God (John 17:1,3) has the personal name, Jesus. Therefore, what would be the singular “name” of all three, if, by the word “name,” it is expressing an singular appellation, such as in the usage of a personal name?

Nevertheless, in the New Testament, there is no indication that the expression as found in Matthew 28:19 was ever used as a baptismal formula. Instead, baptisms were performed in the name of the Lord Jesus. (Acts 2:38: 10:48; 19:5) In effect, being baptized in the name of Jesus would be the same as being baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the holy spirit. How so? Jesus was made christ and lord by his God and Father (Acts 2:36), and having been given all authority (Matthew 28:19, with the exception of Jesus’ God — 1 Corinthians 15:27), including authority over God’s holy spirit. (Acts 2:33) Jesus spoke of the holy spirit as being sent by the Father in his name (John 14:26; 15:26). On the other hand, Jesus acts and speaks in the name of Jehovah, his God and Father, who sent him. (Deuteronomy 18:15-19; Matthew 22:32; 23:39; Mark 11:9,10; 12:26; Luke 13:35; 20:37; John 3:2,17,32-35; 4:34; 5:19,30,36,43; 6:57; 7:16,28; 8:26,28,38; 10:25; 12:49,50; 14:10; 15:15; 17:8,26; 20:17; Acts 2:22,34-36; 3:13,22; 5:30; Romans 15:6; 2 Corinthians 1:3; 8:6; 11:31; Colossians 1:3,15; 2:9-12; Hebrews 1:1-3; Revelation 1:1) Thus, to properly be baptized in the name of Jesus would be a recognition of the God and Father of Jesus as well God’s holy spirit, the power of God, that Jesus has been given authority to make use of. However, Jesus’ name is not the name of the Father, nor is Jesus’ name the name of the holy spirit. The word “name” in Matthew 18:19 should, therefore, be applied in the sense that “name” represents “cause” or “authority,” not as a singular appellative that is given to all three.

Regardless, what the trinitarian has to assume and add to this is that the three mentioned are three persons of one God.  He has to imagine and assume and add to the scripture that each one mentioned is a separate and distinct person of one God, which is not at all stated in the words as we have them.

Ronald R. Day, Sr.

See also:

Matthew 28:19 & the Baptismal Name

Related Books and Aids

-------------------------------

------------------------------

Mark

https://sonofyah.wordpress.com/category/scriptures/mark/

Mark 14:61-63 – Jesus’ Claim to be the Messiah

Posted on December 30, 2008 | 1 comment

This is Part 3 in response to:

Blog of the Good Shepherd’s Question and Answer: The Trinity

The assertion is made that Jesus claimed to be God. If Jesus had so claimed, then it would mean, in effect, that Jesus was claiming to be his God who sent Jesus.

This claim is alleged to have support from Jesus’ words recorded at Mark 14:61-63:

Mark 14:61 – But he was silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?”
Mark 14:62 – And Jesus said, “I am; and you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.”
Mark 14:63 – And the high priest tore his garments, and said, “Why do we still need witnesses? — Revised Standard Version.

The question was asked of Jesus if he was the Messiah, the Anointed One of Yahweh, the Son of the Yahweh; the high priest did not ask Jesus if the he was the anointer of Messiah.  Jesus responded that he  was indeed the anointed one of Yahweh, and that the time was to come when they would see the Son of the Man (the son of the man David) seated at the right hand of Yahweh (Dunamis – Power – has evidently been substituted here for the holy name).  Jesus answered this by referring to Psalm 110:1, where we read:

Yahweh says to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand, Until I make your enemies your footstool for your feet.”

It should be very obvious that Jesus was claiming to be, not Yahweh, but the one who was to sit at the right hand of Yahweh.

Nor by saying “I am” was Jesus proclaiming himself to be Yahweh. In answer the question, he was saying “I am” the messiah, the one anointed by Yahweh. In the prophetic statement of Isaiah 61:1, Jesus is depicted as saying “Yahweh has anointed me,” that is, “Yahweh is the One who has made me Christ, Messiah.”  This was all that Jesus was affirming when he said “I am”. — See also Psalm 45:7; Acts 2:36; 4:27; 10:38; Hebrews 1:9.

What we do not find at all anything that even implies that Jesus was claiming to the only true God whom he claimed had sent him. — John 17:1,3.

Advertisements

REPORT THIS ADPRIVACY

The high priest, believing that Jesus as a sinner making himself out to be the promised one was thus so angry at that he tore is garments, and proclaimed Jesus guilty of blasphemy. Not one word is said in any of the verses about Jesus’ allegedly claiming to his God. Such a thought has to be assumed, added to, and read into what Jesus said.

Nor is there anything special about Jesus’ saying “I am” in answering the affirmative to question that there is for me or you or anyone else who might do the same.  If someone asks Joe, who is a plumber, if he is a plumber, and he answers by saying “I am,” Joe is not saying that he is Yahweh.

For more information on Jesus’ “I am” statements, see:

http://godandson.reslight.net/i-am.html


http://reslight.net/forum/index.php/topic,304.0.html

 

 

 

-------------------------------

------------------------------

Mark 2:7 – Only God Can Forgive Sins? (2018-12-25)

https://jesusnotyhwh.blogspot.com/2018/12/mark2-7.html

Mark 2:7 – Only God Can Forgive Sins?

Who can forgive sins but one: God? — Mark 2:7.

Who is this who speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone? — Luke 5:21.

 

The above quotes from Mark 2:7 and Luke 5:21 are often taken out of context as proof that God cannot give anyone authority to forgive sins, and therefore, according that that reasoning, in order for Jesus to forgives sins, Jesus has to be the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Thus it is being asserted that Jesus has to be God Almighty, since 'only God can forgive sins.'

 

However, if we note the context, the ones who are saying this are the Jewish leaders; these are the same Jewish leaders described as lying and deceiving, offspring of vipers, etc. (Mark 2:7), and they are saying this because of envy, as an excuse to charge Jesus with blasphemy, in an effort to find some reason to justify — before the eyes of the people — killing him. — Matthew 27:821:37,38Luke 20:1922:2.

 

But note this:

1 He entered into a boat, and crossed over, and came into his own city. 2 Behold, they brought to him a man who was paralyzed, lying on a bed. Jesus, seeing their faith, said to the paralytic, “Son, cheer up! Your sins are forgiven you.” 3 Behold, some of the scribes said to themselves, “This man blasphemes.” 4 Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said, “Why do you think evil in your hearts? 5 For which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven;’ or to say, ‘Get up, and walk?’ 6 But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins…” (then he said to the paralytic), “Get up, and take up your mat, and go up to your house.” 7 He arose and departed to his house. 8But when the multitudes saw it, they marveled and glorified God, who had given such authority to men. — Matthew 9:1-8, World English

Matthew 9:8 reveals that Jesus, as a man among men, received this authority from his God and Father.

 

Peter, in speaking to the Jews, described Jesus as “a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by [Greek instrumental “en”, "by means of," -- Strong’s #1722] him in the midst of you.” (Acts 2:22) The “God” that Peter refers is evidently not Jesus whom “God” approved, so Peter must be referring to the God and Father of Jesus (1 Peter 1:3), and in doing this he is presenting “God” as one person, that is the Father. This agrees with Paul's statement that there is "one God of whom are all," and Paul identifies that "one God" as being the Father of Jesus. -- 1 Corinthians 8:6.

 

At the same time, the unipersonal God that Peter is referring to is “The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob” (Acts 3:13), the God who spoke to Moses. (Exodus 3:15) It was this same God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob who spoke of sending a prophet like Moses, which prophet was to speak the words of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and come in the name of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. — Deuteronomy 18:15-22.

 

Throughout the scriptures, Jesus' power and authority is given to him from his God and Father. Jesus is not Jehovah  who gives him this dominion, all authority and power (with the evident exception of the position of being the Most High himself -- 1 Corinthians 15:27). The God and Father of Jesus is the source of Jesus' power, since Jesus is not the "one God" of whom are all. (1 Corinthians 8:6) Nevertheless, Jesus' uses the power and authority that his God has given to to the praise of his God, Jehovah, his God and Father. The Bible writers never claimed that Jesus is the ultimate "source" of his own power. -- Deuteronomy 18:15-19Psalm 2:6-845:7110:1,2Isaiah 9:6,711:242:161:1-3Jeremiah 23:5Ezekiel 34:23,2437:24Daniel 7:13,14Micah 5:4Matthew 12:2828:18Luke 1:324:14,185:17John 3:345:19,27,3010:18,36-38Acts 2:22,363:13-2610:38Romans 1:1-41 Corinthians 15:272 Corinthians 13:4Colossians 1:15,162:10Ephesians 1:3,17-23Philippians 2:9-11Hebrews 1:2,4,6,91 Peter 3:22.

 

There is nothing in the fact that the only true God who sent Jesus (John 17:3) gave to Jesus authority on earth (Matthew 9:8) to forgive sins that means that Jesus is the only true God who sent him.

By Ronald Day at December 25, 2018  

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

Labels: Is Jesus God

 

 

-------------------------------

------------------------------

Mark 2:28

https://notrinity.blogspot.com/search/label/Mark%202%3A28

Matthew 12:8 - Lord of the Sabbath

The following scriptures are presented as proof that Jesus is his God, since Jesus said that he is "lord of the sabbath." It is claimed that this means that Jesus is "lord" over God's law, and that since he is lord of God's law, this means that jesus is God (Jehovah, Yahweh).

From the World English translation:

Matthew 12:8 - For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.

Mark 2:28 - Therefore the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath.

Luke 6:5 - He said to them, "The Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath."

The idea that what Jesus said here means that Jesus is his God has to be added to, read into the scriptures by way of assumptions, and then reading those assumptions into what Jesus said. The assumptions are made that since Jesus said that he is lord of the sabbath, that this means that he is lord over God's law, and this further means that Jesus is his God. And the assumptions are made for the purpose of serving the assumption that Jesus is Yahweh.

Jesus said that all things that he has had been given to him by his Father. (Matthew 28:18Luke 10:22) Jesus further identified his God and Father as the only true God. (John 17:1,3) Thus whatever lordship that Jesus has was given to Jesus by the only true God. Peter said: "God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified." (Acts 2:36) This agrees with Isaiah 61:1, where the promised one is depicted as stating: "Yahweh has anointed me." The word "Christ" means "anointed one." The only true God, Yahweh, has made Jesus "lord" -- ruler, master -- of all things, excluding God Himself, and this includes the antitype of the "shadow" sabbaths. (Galatians 4:1Colossians 2:16,171 Corinthians 15:27Ephesians 1:3,17,20-22) Being the the promised son of the man (Matthew 19:2825:3126:64Mark 2:1014:62Luke 18:3121:2722:69), that is, the promised Son, (seed, offspring) of David (Psalm 89:36132:11Isaiah 9:6,7Isaiah 11:1Jeremiah 23:533:15Matthew 1:1John 7:42Acts 2:30Romans 1:3), Jesus is made lord and given dominion over all -- excluding God, who gives this dominion to Jesus. (Psalm 2:6-845:7110:1,2Isaiah 9:6,711:242:161:1-3Jeremiah 23:5Daniel 7:13,14Matthew 12:2828:28Luke 1:324:14,185:17John 3:345:19,27,3010:18,36-38Acts 2:2210:38Romans 1:1-41 Corinthians 15:272 Corinthians 13:4Colossians 1:15,162:10Ephesians 1:17-22Philippians 2:9-11Hebrews 1:2,4,6,91 Peter 3:22) This does not mean that Jesus is the only true God who has made Jesus "lord."

It is also true that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob had used Jesus in the making of the ages (Hebrews 1:1,2), which brings up the possibility that Jesus was used by the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in giving the Law to Moses, and that, in this sense he could be referred to as "Lord of the sabbath." If this assumption is correct, however, such an application still does not mean that Jesus is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Nevertheless, "Lord" in the Greek is anarthrous; it does not have the definite article. It is not saying that Jesus is "the" Lord of the sabbath, but rather, Jesus is simply called "Lord" or "Master" of the sabbath. Jesus was "master" of the sabbath, not because he was God, but because he, as the son of the man, that is, as the promised son of the man, David (see scriptures above), being born under the Law (Galatians 4:4), obeyed the Law without failure. Had he disobeyed that law in one small part, he could not have actually fulfilled the Law, and thus he would have nothing to sacrifice, since he would be just as guilty and in need of redemption from condemnation as any other man. (Matthew 5:17James 2:10) Jesus was therefore, as the promised son of the man, David, master of the sabbath, obeying God's laws concerning the sabbath perfectly. Jesus' obedience, and his sacrifice of right to human life gained by that obedience, fulfilled the Law, and thus the Law was figuratively nailed to the stauros with Jesus. -- Colossians 2:14.

The offering in sacrifice of Jesus' blood and body brought forth the inauguration of another covenant, called the "New Covenant." (Matthew 26:28Mark 14:2422:201 Corinthians 11:25Hebrews 10:14,2912:2413:20) Through faith in his blood, the Jew can become counted as dead to the Law (Romans 7:4), counted as having died with Jesus (Romans 6:8,11), so as to belong to Jesus, being imputed justification and sanctified through the blood of the new covenant. -- Romans 3,4.

Additionally, Jesus knew from his God and Father (John 8:28) what was really in observance of the law, and what it was "lawful" to do on the sabbath, as opposed to the strict applications that Jews were making concerning the sabbath. Jesus said "it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath day." (Matthew 12:12) Some parts of the law apply over other parts of the Law, as Jesus illustrated by David's eating of the shewbread, which was, strictly speaking, unlawful. But "mercy" in the Law is of greater importance in some instances, so that what would otherwise be "unlawful" would be "lawful" -- permitted by the law.

Click Here for some recommended books on the christology.


CLICK HERE to post comments, questions, etc. on our "Jesus and His God" Discussion Board

at November 08, 2008 No comments:  

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

Labels: Luke 6:5Mark 2:28Matthew 12:8

 

 

-------------------------------

------------------------------

Mark 14:61-63 – Jesus’ Claim to be the Messiah

https://sonofyah.wordpress.com/2008/12/30/mark14-62/

Mark 14:61-63 – Jesus’ Claim to be the Messiah

Posted on December 30, 2008 | 1 Comment

This is Part 3 in response to:

Blog of the Good Shepherd’s Question and Answer: The Trinity

The assertion is made that Jesus claimed to be God. If Jesus had so claimed, then it would mean, in effect, that Jesus was claiming to be his God who sent Jesus.

This claim is alleged to have support from Jesus’ words recorded at Mark 14:61-63:

Mark 14:61 – But he was silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?”
Mark 14:62 – And Jesus said, “I am; and you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.”
Mark 14:63 – And the high priest tore his garments, and said, “Why do we still need witnesses? — Revised Standard Version.

The question was asked of Jesus if he was the Messiah, the Anointed One of Yahweh, the Son of the Yahweh; the high priest did not ask Jesus if the he was the anointer of Messiah.  Jesus responded that he  was indeed the anointed one of Yahweh, and that the time was to come when they would see the Son of the Man (the son of the man David) seated at the right hand of Yahweh (Dunamis – Power – has evidently been substituted here for the holy name).  Jesus answered this by referring to Psalm 110:1, where we read:

Yahweh says to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand, Until I make your enemies your footstool for your feet.”

It should be very obvious that Jesus was claiming to be, not Yahweh, but the one who was to sit at the right hand of Yahweh.

Nor by saying “I am” was Jesus proclaiming himself to be Yahweh. In answer the question, he was saying “I am” the messiah, the one anointed by Yahweh. In the prophetic statement of Isaiah 61:1, Jesus is depicted as saying “Yahweh has anointed me,” that is, “Yahweh is the One who has made me Christ, Messiah.”  This was all that Jesus was affirming when he said “I am”. — See also Psalm 45:7; Acts 2:36; 4:27; 10:38; Hebrews 1:9.

What we do not find at all anything that even implies that Jesus was claiming to the only true God whom he claimed had sent him. — John 17:1,3.

The high priest, believing that Jesus as a sinner making himself out to be the promised one was thus so angry at that he tore is garments, and proclaimed Jesus guilty of blasphemy. Not one word is said in any of the verses about Jesus’ allegedly claiming to his God. Such a thought has to be assumed, added to, and read into what Jesus said.

Nor is there anything special about Jesus’ saying “I am” in answering the affirmative to question that there is for me or you or anyone else who might do the same.  If someone asks Joe, who is a plumber, if he is a plumber, and he answers by saying “I am,” Joe is not saying that he is Yahweh.

For more information on Jesus’ “I am” statements, see:

http://godandson.reslight.net/i-am.html


http://reslight.net/forum/index.php/topic,304.0.html

-------------------------------

------------------------------

Luke 1:35

https://notrinity.blogspot.com/search/label/Luke%201%3A35

Luke 1:35 and the Trinity

Luke 1:35 - The angel answered her, "The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore also the holy one which is born from you will be called the Son of God. -- World English

This scripture is sometimes presented by trinitarians as a proof-text that is alleged to speak of the trinity. The angel is identified as the "angel of Jehovah"* in Luke 1:11 and as Gabriel in Luke 1:19. Gabriel in verse 35 is speaking to Mary.
--------
*In the Old Testament, we never find the expression "angel of the Lord", but it is actually, "angel of Jehovah (or, as some prefer, angel of Yahweh). It should be obvious that in the extant NT manuscripts that in this expression the Holy Name has been changed to a form of the Greek word for "Lord". See also my studies related to "Angel of Jehovah"


Most often, trinitarians simply cite the verse, without comment, and evidently, based on their presumption that the trinity is the default reasoning, imagine that the scripture is speaking of their trinity. According to Walter Martin, the trinity appears in Luke 1:35. (Kingdom of the Cults, 2003 edition, page 83) One claims that one of the things Gabriel accomplished was "to assure Mary that God is Triune"; however, since no idea at all is presented in Luke 1:35 that "God is triune", that idea has to be thought beyond what is stated, and then affixed to, and read into, what is actually stated.

Evidently what the trinitarian is imagining and assuming in this verse is that "the Most High" ("the Highest" in some translations) is not the triune God, but rather is referring to only one person of the triune God, and similarly respecting the "Holy Spirit" and "the Son of God". The "Most High" is definitely speaking of only one person, and that one person is identified in Luke 1:32 as being Jehovah God of Isaiah 9:7Luke 1:32 thus differentiates Jehovah God from the Son to whom Jehovah gives the throne of David. Jesus is never referred to anywhere in the Bible as being the "Most High".

Additionally, in Luke 1:35 itself, we find that the word "God" -- in the expression, "Son of God" -- is referring to only one person, not three persons. Jehovah God is not in Luke 1:35 or anywhere else in the Bible  revealed to be more than one person. Despite what trinitarians may conceive and read into the scriptures, we have no scriptural reason to think that the word "God" in Luke 1:6Luke 1:8Luke 1:16Luke 1:19Luke 1:26Luke 1:30Luke 1:32Luke 1:37Luke 1:47Luke 1:64Luke 1:68Luke 1:78 is speaking of more than one person as "God'; all these verses are speaking of the same one person as being "God", and no where in Luke 1 or anywhere else in the Bible is the only Most High ever presented as being more than one person. Jesus himself identified the "the only true God" as being Jehovah, the one whom he referred to as his father. -- Isaiah 61:1John 17:1,3.

While God surely made use of his holy spirit in the conception of Mary, and thus Mary gave birth to His Son, this does not mean that we need read the triune God dogma into what is stated.

 

at February 04, 2016  

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

Labels: Luke 1:35

 

 

-------------------------------

------------------------------

Luke 1:35 and the Trinity (2016-02-04)

https://notrinity.blogspot.com/2016/02/luke-135.html

Luke 1:35 and the Trinity

Luke 1:35 - The angel answered her, "The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore also the holy one which is born from you will be called the Son of God. -- World English

This scripture is sometimes presented by trinitarians as a proof-text that is alleged to speak of the trinity. The angel is identified as the "angel of Jehovah"* in Luke 1:11 and as Gabriel in Luke 1:19. Gabriel in verse 35 is speaking to Mary.
--------
*In the Old Testament, we never find the expression "angel of the Lord", but it is actually, "angel of Jehovah (or, as some prefer, angel of Yahweh). It should be obvious that in the extant NT manuscripts that in this expression the Holy Name has been changed to a form of the Greek word for "Lord". See also my studies related to "Angel of Jehovah"


Most often, trinitarians simply cite the verse, without comment, and evidently, based on their presumption that the trinity is the default reasoning, imagine that the scripture is speaking of their trinity. According to Walter Martin, the trinity appears in Luke 1:35. (Kingdom of the Cults, 2003 edition, page 83) One claims that one of the things Gabriel accomplished was "to assure Mary that God is Triune"; however, since no idea at all is presented in Luke 1:35 that "God is triune", that idea has to be thought beyond what is stated, and then affixed to, and read into, what is actually stated.

Evidently what the trinitarian is imagining and assuming in this verse is that "the Most High" ("the Highest" in some translations) is not the triune God, but rather is referring to only one person of the triune God, and similarly respecting the "Holy Spirit" and "the Son of God". The "Most High" is definitely speaking of only one person, and that one person is identified in Luke 1:32 as being Jehovah God of Isaiah 9:7Luke 1:32 thus differentiates Jehovah God from the Son to whom Jehovah gives the throne of David. Jesus is never referred to anywhere in the Bible as being the "Most High".

Additionally, in Luke 1:35 itself, we find that the word "God" -- in the expression, "Son of God" -- is referring to only one person, not three persons. Jehovah God is not in Luke 1:35 or anywhere else in the Bible  revealed to be more than one person. Despite what trinitarians may conceive and read into the scriptures, we have no scriptural reason to think that the word "God" in Luke 1:6Luke 1:8Luke 1:16Luke 1:19Luke 1:26Luke 1:30Luke 1:32Luke 1:37Luke 1:47Luke 1:64Luke 1:68Luke 1:78 is speaking of more than one person as "God'; all these verses are speaking of the same one person as being "God", and no where in Luke 1 or anywhere else in the Bible is the only Most High ever presented as being more than one person. Jesus himself identified the "the only true God" as being Jehovah, the one whom he referred to as his father. -- Isaiah 61:1John 17:1,3.

While God surely made use of his holy spirit in the conception of Mary, and thus Mary gave birth to His Son, this does not mean that we need read the triune God dogma into what is stated.

 

 

 

-------------------------------

------------------------------

Luke 1:68; 7:16 – God Visited His People

https://jesusnotyhwh.blogspot.com/2019/05/luk1-68.html

Luke 1:68; 7:16 – God Visited His People

 

{Luke 1:68} “Blessed be Jehovah, the God of Israel, for he has looked upon and prepared redemption for his people;

{Luke 1:69} and has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David. — American Standard Improved Version.

{Luke 7:16} Fear took hold of all, and they glorified God, saying, “A great prophet has arisen among us!” and, “God has looked upon his people!” — American Standard Improved Version.


Many refer to the above scriptures and claim that Jehovah God himself became flesh as Christ so as to redeem Israel. Such have to explain away the fact that Luke (in Luke 1:68,69) distinguishes Jehovah, the God of Israel, from Jesus, since it is Jehovah of verse 68 who raises up “a horn of salvation” in verse 69. It is generally conceded that this “horn of salvation” in verse 69 is Jesus. Since it is Jehovah of verse 68 who raises up this “horn” spoken of in verse 69,  the default conclusion should be that “Jehovah” is not Jesus. — Deuteronomy 18:15-19Acts 3:13-26.

 

Of course, our trinitarian neighbors have created an array of assumptions which they add to, and read into, the above verses, so as to make these verses seem to be in harmony with their assumed trinitarian philosophy. Likewise with the modalists (or oneness believers).

Most translations read that Jehovah  (although they present God's Holy Name as "the Lord") “visited” his people, which, when placed in the context of trinitarian or oneness claims that Jesus is Jehovah, could seem to make it appear that Jehovah did indeed become flesh in order to redeem Israel. However, if one looks up the meaning of the Greek word, it means to look upon, in the sense of giving attention to. The Greek word rendered “visited” is borrowed from the Hebraic usage in the Old Testament, wherein forms of the Hebrew word transliterated as “Paqad” are used. For various usages/applicatons of the Hebrew word "paqad":

https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/kjv/paqad.html

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/6485.htm

Some examples, using the World English:

Exodus 3:16 – Go, and gather the elders of Israel together, and tell them, ‘Yahweh, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, has appeared to me, saying, “I have surely visited [paqad – turned attention to] you, and seen that which is done to you in Egypt”

Numbers 14:18 – 18 Yahweh is slow to anger, and abundant in lovingkindness, forgiving iniquity and disobedience; and that will by no means clear [the guilty], visiting [paqad] the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and on the fourth generation.

Ruth 1:6 Then she arose with her daughters-in-law, that she might return from the country of Moab: for she had heard in the country of Moab how that Yahweh had visited [paqad] his people in giving them bread.

1 Samuel 2:21 Yahweh visited Hannah, and she conceived, and bore three sons and two daughters. The child Samuel grew before Yahweh.

Psalm 89:32 Then I will punish [paqad] their sin with the rod, And their iniquity with stripes.

Isaiah 23:17 It shall happen after the end of seventy years, that Yahweh will visit [paqad] Tyre, and she shall return to her hire, and shall play the prostitute with all the kingdoms of the world on the surface of the earth.

Jeremiah 6:15 Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? nay, they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush: therefore they shall fall among those who fall; at the time that I visit [paqad] them they shall be cast down, says Yahweh.

These are only a few examples.

 

In Luke 1:687:16, the corresponding Greek word is a form of the word transliterated as “Episkeptomai”. This word also carries a variety of meanings and usages:
https://biblehub.com/greek/1980.htm

https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/kjv/episkeptomai.html

Thayer gives the Greek form as used in Luke 1:687:16 the following meaning:

Hebraistically, to look upon in order to help or to benefit, equivalent to look after, have a care for, provide for, of God: τινα, Luke 7:16Hebrews 2:6 (Genesis 21:1Exodus 4:31Psalm 8:5Psalm 79:15 (); Sir. 46:14Judith 8:33, etc.); followed by a telic infinitive Acts 15:14; absolutely (Sir. 32:21 (Sir. 35:21)) yet with a statement of the effect and definite blessing added, Luke 1:68; ἐπεσκέψατο (WH Tr marginal reading ἐπισκέψεται) ἡμᾶς ἀνατολή ἐξ ὕψους a light from on high hath looked (others, shall look) upon us (cf. our the sun looks down on us, etc.), i. e. salvation from God has come to us, Luke 1:78. (In the O. T. used also in a bad sense of God as punishing, Psalm 88:33 (); Jeremiah 9:25Jeremiah 11:22, etc.)
https://biblehub.com/greek/1980.htm

The above definitions do apply to the way the word form is used in Luke 1:68,787:16, and the definitions given, do correspond with the way paqad is often used in the Old Testament scriptures. Regardless, Luke 1:687:16 are definitely not saying the “prophet” of Jehovah (Deuteronomy 18:15-19) is Jehovah Himself! Any such idea has to be imagined and assumed and then read into what these scriptures state.


Consequently, in Luke 1:68,78 where Zechariah speaks of God’s turning his attention to his people, He does this by sending Jesus. It is Jehovah, the God of Israel, who had prepared and sent his Son to provide redemption (Hebrews 10:5,10); thus it is Jehovah who worked redemption through Jesus. This agrees with Paul’s thought in 1 Corinthians 8:6,7, as God is the source, and Jesus is the means. Just as Jehovah gave the Law through Moses, so he has given grace and truth through His Son, for the one person who is God reconciles us to Himself through someone who is not Himself, that is, Jesus. Jesus is the promised prophet of Jehovah who is like Moses. — Deuteronomy 18:15-20John 1:17Acts 3:13-262 Corinthians 5:18Hebrews 1:1,2.

Some, noting that Zechariah’s words in context are related to the birth of John, have suggested that Zechariah thought John was to deliver Israel from the Romans. This is not clearly stated, and this is most likely not what is meant. Nevertheless, it is possible that Zechariah, like the prophets in the Old Testament, did not understand the words he spoke as given to him through God’s Holy Spirit. Regardless what Zechariah may have thought concerning his words is not as important as understanding that Jehovah redeems His people through, by means of, the one He has appointed, his Son Jesus the Messiah. — John 3:17Acts 3:24,2513:39Romans 5:9Colossians 1:13,14Ephesians 1:3-71 Peter 3:18.

At any rate, there is nothing in the words of either Luke 1:68,69,78 or Luke 7:16 about Jehovah being more than one person, or that gives any indication that Jesus was the Almighty Himself, and certainly nothing that gives us any reason to think that Jesus came in the flesh as a person of the Almighty.

Originally published October 7, 2011; Edited and republished August 9, 2015; Edited 1/9/2022.

 

 

By Ronald Day at May 25, 2019  

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

Labels: God in the Flesh

 

 

 

-------------------------------

------------------------------

Luke 2:11 – Jesus – “Christ The Lord” (2017-06-15)

https://jesusnotyhwh.blogspot.com/2017/06/Lu2-11.html

 

Luke 2:11 – Jesus – “Christ The Lord”

Did the angel declare Jesus to be Jehovah in Luke 2:11?

Luke 2:11- For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.
Unless otherwise stated, all Bible quotations are from the World English Bible version.

 

Luke 2:11 is often referred to as proof that Jesus is Jehovah, since, as through misunderstanding, or distortion, of certain scriptures such as Deuteronomy 6:4Zechariah 14:9Matthew 6:24Luke 16:13 and 1 Corinthians 8:6, they falsely conclude that the word  “Lord” applied to Jesus must mean that Jesus is Jehovah. We have addressed this kind of argument in other studies, and will not address them again here.

 

See our studies:

1 Corinthians 8:6 – One God, One Lord; Deuteronomy 6:4

Ephesians 4:5 – One Lord

 

Luke 2:11 is often also cited as proof that Jesus is a savior, with the false assumption that if Jesus is our savior, then Jesus must be Jehovah, since, according to their reasoning, as they use scriptures such as Isaiah 45:12 and Hosea 13:14, they evidently conclude that Jehovah cannot possibly send a savior who is not Himself, although the scriptures speak of many saviors whom Jehovah did send who are not Himself. Again, this has been discussed in other studies, so we will not go into this in this study.

 

See our study:

Isaiah 43:11 – Besides Jehovah There is No Savior

 

One, in presenting what he believes to be a refutation of the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, presents a detailed discussion of how the NWT was not consistent in using the Hebrew translations of the New Testament for restoring God’s name to the NT. He argues that according the Appendix of the NWT, 1984 edition, “The use of the definite article ha before the title `A-dhohn’ limits the application of this title exclusively to Jehovah God.’ We have a pdf of the 1984 edition, and we did a digital search,  but could not find this statement in its Appendix. We did find the statement on the jw.org website. The online quote appears to be in reference to the Masoretic Hebrew text of the Old Testament.

 

We are not with the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and are not necessarily wishing to defend their "New World" translation. Evidently, however, the quote is being applied to various Hebrew translations of the New Testament. I see nothing in the statement, however, that is presented as a rule for restoring the Holy Name in the New Testament using Hebrew translations of the New Testament. Our purpose here is not to defend the New World Translation, but something that attracted our attention was the conclusion that the author reaches for what the New World Translation should have read in Luke 2:11 if they had followed this alleged rule: “Because there was born to YOU today a Savior, who is Christ Jehovah, in David’s city.” Since the author presented this as support of the trinity, this line of argument, although presented in a round-about manner, would end up claiming that the Greek CHRISTOS KURIOS should mean “Christ Jehovah”, thereby making it appear that Jesus is Jehovah. Therefore some have thought that in Luke 2:11 Jesus is somehow being called “Jehovah/Yahweh”. 

 

 

The claim is made:

 

Translations of the Greek Scriptures have been made into Hebrew. The Watchtower Society is well aware of these translations. It uses them to determine where to place the Hebrew name for God, ... in the Greek Scriptures of the New World Translation. When the Hebrew for God's name YHWH appears in these translations, the New World Translation uses the word "Jehovah". The Society has used the word "Jehovah" 237 times and slavishly followed these Hebrew translations....

There are at least 72 places where the word ha-Adhohn is found in the Hebrew translations within the Greek Scriptures where, instead of saying "Jehovah" the *New World Translation* translates the word merely as "the Lord." -- *What the Watchtower Society Doesn't Want You to Know*, by Wilbur Lingle.

We have studied very closely what the translators of the New World Translation have stated regarding their attempts to restore the Holy Name in the New Testament, and one should realize that Mr. Lingle's statement does not actually reflect the methods used for the translators of the New World Translation.  I have not found any place where they claim to follow the Hebrew translations of the New Testament. Indeed, most of those translations were made by trinitarians for the very purpose of promoting the trinity to Jews. They cannot be used as a guide for where God's name appears, and certainly cannot be used as a guide regarding their usage of "ha Adhohn". It seems to take a statement made about the Masoretic Hebrew Text and claim it as being the rule of the NWT for determining where to place "Jehovah" in the New Testament, based on translations of the New Testament into Hebrew. While I am aware that the NW translators did make use of such Hebrew translations as supportive of many places where it is apparent that the Holy Name was changed in the New Testament, this does not mean that they were using such translations as a guide for determining where the name should be restored, and the quote given does not present any rule by which they were following for determining where the Holy Name should be restored.

 

While it is possible that KURIOS in Luke 2:11 is replacing God’s Holy Name, Jehovah — such would not based on how some Hebrew translators have rendered it into Hebrew, but it could be reasoned to have been replaced in this instance because of the Greek expression itself; nevertheless, rather than calling Jesus “Jehovah”, it would designate Jesus as the Christ [Anointed One] of Jehovah, as designated in Psalm 2:645:7; and Isaiah 61:1. Jehovah gave Jesus as the son who is to sit upon the throne of David, and thus he is the Anointed of Jehovah. — Isaiah 9:6,7Luke 1:32,33.

 

Someone has stated, in effect, that Acts 2:36 does not mean that there was a time when Jesus became “Lord”, since, according to what is being claimed, Jesus has always been Lord, and that there was never a time when he was not Lord. It is claimed that he was already “Lord” before his human birth. Luke 2:11 is one of the scriptures given to support this assumption. This one has also claimed that there cannot be two Lords/Masters, and therefore when Jesus is called “Lord”, this means that he and his Father are one God.

 

1 Corinthians 8:6 – One God, One Lord; Deuteronomy 6:4

 

In the study linked to above, we have shown that in the scriptures, the Greek word for “Lord” is used of many different ones and with many different shades of meaning, even when it is used of Jesus.

 

Of course, even if Jesus had already been made “Lord” before becoming human, this does not mean that there never was a time when he was not Lord. Jesus was indeed in a sense “anointed” from the time of the Garden of Eden, destined to become the seed of the woman. (Genesis 3:15) He was later anointed, preordained, to be the seed of Abraham, and the seed of David. The fulfillment of the ordination has took place in phases. Jesus was born into this world as the Anointed King who was to sit on the throne of David forever (Luke 1:32,33); thus he could be called “Christ [Anointed] the Lord”, having been anointed as “Lord” in the sense of having been anointed as the promised King from before the time of his conception in the womb of Mary.

 

The scriptures do indicate that Jesus, before he became Jesus, had already been lord, ruler, prince, of the host of God’s angels. — Joshua 5:14.

 

Jesus was certainly made lord and christ [anointed one] by means this anointing from Jehovah, and the original anointing certainly took place at some time. God, of course, foreknew his purposes before he began the creation of the world of mankind, thus the original anointing could be said to have been long before the world of mankind was made. Jesus indicates that he was sanctified for this purpose before being born into this world. (John 10:36) Any other times that he is appointed would be the carrying out of the original ordination.

By Ronald Day at June 15, 2017  

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

Labels: Jesus as "Jehovah"Jesus as Lord

 

 

-------------------------------

------------------------------

Luke 4:12

https://notrinity.blogspot.com/search/label/Luke%204%3A12

Matthew 4:7 and Luke 4:12

The World English translation is used throughout this study, unless otherwise noted. The "Holy Name," Yahweh, is supplied in the New Testament at appropriate places.

Matthew 4:7 - Jesus said to him, "Again, it is written, 'You shall not test [Yahweh], your God.'" King James has "the Lord, your God."

Luke 4:12 - Jesus answering, said to him, "It has been said, 'You shall not tempt [Yahweh] your God.'"

Deuteronomy 6:16 - You shall not tempt Yahweh your God.

The above scriptures are being presented as proof that Jesus is God, that is, that Jesus is allegedly a person of the only true God (trinitarian).

A few of the sites where this claim is made:
http://scripturecatholic.com/jesus_christ_divinity.html
http://groups.msn.com/DiscussionForum/general.msnw?action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message=4936&all_topics=0
http://fellowcatholic.blogspot.com/search/label/CHRISTOLOGY
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080525094053AAEQjXV
http://br.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080211112726AAxq3F2
http://www.churchofhopeontheweb.org/God/son.htm
http://markcephastan.blogspot.com/2006/10/jesus-new-moses-who-else.html
The above sites are given, not because we believe what they present but for reference only.

Actually, if Satan thought that Jesus was God Almighty then he would have known how fruitless it would have been to try to deceive God so as to provoke God to sin. However, there is no indication whatsoever that Satan thought that he was trying to get Yahweh to sin.

Satan did not think that Jesus was God, but rather the son of God:

"If you are the Son of God." -- Matthew 4:3,6Luke 4:9.

This was the emphasis that Satan himself was putting on his tests of Jesus, that is, in effect, Satan was saying to Jesus: "I want you to prove that you are son of God by doing this...." In reality, it was Satan's hopes to trick Jesus, to deceive Jesus, into being disobedient. Satan was not asking Jesus to prove that Jesus was God. Certainly Satan would have known if Jesus was Yahweh, and knowing that, would have also known that it would fruitless to try to deceive Yahweh into disobeying or denying Himself.

Let us read the context:

Matthew 4:5 - Then the devil took him into the holy city. He set him on the pinnacle of the temple,
Matthew 4:6 - and said to him, "If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down, for it is written, 'He will give his angels charge concerning you.' and, 'On their hands they will bear you up, So that you don't dash your foot against a stone.'"
Matthew 4:7- Jesus said to him, "Again, it is written, 'You shall not test Yahweh, your God.'"

What did Jesus say? Jesus did not appeal to Himself, so as to tell Satan, I am your God whom you should not test," but rather Jesus appeals on his own behalf to written Word of his God: "Again, it is written, 'You shall not test [Yahweh], your God'" (Matthew 4:7), thereby showing his denial to submit to the temptation of Satan. The expression "your God" refers to Yahweh as the God of Israel, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Exodus 3:14,15), who is also the God of Jesus, the God who sent Jesus. -- Deuteronomy 18:15-19Matthew 4:4 (Deuteronomy 8:3Luke 4:4); Matthew 4:7 (Deuteronomy 6:16); Matthew 4:10 (Exodus 20:3-534:14Deuteronomy 6:13,1410:20Luke 4:8); Matthew 22:29-40Matthew 26:42Matthew 27:46Mark 10:6 (Genesis 1:27Genesis 2:7,20-23); Mark 14:3615:34Luke 22:42John 4:35:306:3817:1,320:17Romans 15:62 Corinthians 1:311:31Ephesians 1:3,17Hebrews 1:910:71 Peter 1:3Revelation 2:73:2,12.
http://tinyurl.com/yukbvs
http://godandson.reslight.net/jesusnotyhwh.html

Jesus was referring to the Law as given to Israel, Deuteronomy 6:16, which words were spoken to the nation of Israel, which was the only nation which had Yahweh as their God by covenant relationship. (Exodus 19:5,6Deuteronomy 7:6Amos 3:2) Thus, the words "your God" are in reference to the Israel's God. Was Jesus here claiming that he [Jesus] was Yahweh, and was Jesus telling Satan that he [Jesus] was Satan's God (as though Satan were under the Law through Moses) and that Satan should not be testing Satan's God? In reality, such an idea has to be added to and read into what Jesus said, and such an idea would actually take what Jesus said out of the context of the quote that Jesus gave, so as to apply Jesus as being Satan's God.

On the other hand, Jesus was, by birth, an Israelite, born under the law. (Galatians 4:4) Jesus knew who his God was. Jesus was applying the verse to himself as an Israelite, that he [Jesus], who worshiped Yahweh as his God, should not test Yahweh by submitting to the stunt that Satan was telling him to do.

Therefore, in reality, the fact is that Jesus was not saying to Satan that Jesus was "Yahweh, your God," the God that Satan was not to test.

Click Here for some recommended Bibles.

 

 

-------------------------------

------------------------------

Luke 6:5

https://notrinity.blogspot.com/search/label/Luke%206%3A5

Matthew 12:8 - Lord of the Sabbath

The following scriptures are presented as proof that Jesus is his God, since Jesus said that he is "lord of the sabbath." It is claimed that this means that Jesus is "lord" over God's law, and that since he is lord of God's law, this means that jesus is God (Jehovah, Yahweh).

From the World English translation:

Matthew 12:8 - For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.

Mark 2:28 - Therefore the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath.

Luke 6:5 - He said to them, "The Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath."

The idea that what Jesus said here means that Jesus is his God has to be added to, read into the scriptures by way of assumptions, and then reading those assumptions into what Jesus said. The assumptions are made that since Jesus said that he is lord of the sabbath, that this means that he is lord over God's law, and this further means that Jesus is his God. And the assumptions are made for the purpose of serving the assumption that Jesus is Yahweh.

Jesus said that all things that he has had been given to him by his Father. (Matthew 28:18Luke 10:22) Jesus further identified his God and Father as the only true God. (John 17:1,3) Thus whatever lordship that Jesus has was given to Jesus by the only true God. Peter said: "God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified." (Acts 2:36) This agrees with Isaiah 61:1, where the promised one is depicted as stating: "Yahweh has anointed me." The word "Christ" means "anointed one." The only true God, Yahweh, has made Jesus "lord" -- ruler, master -- of all things, excluding God Himself, and this includes the antitype of the "shadow" sabbaths. (Galatians 4:1Colossians 2:16,171 Corinthians 15:27Ephesians 1:3,17,20-22) Being the the promised son of the man (Matthew 19:2825:3126:64Mark 2:1014:62Luke 18:3121:2722:69), that is, the promised Son, (seed, offspring) of David (Psalm 89:36132:11Isaiah 9:6,7Isaiah 11:1Jeremiah 23:533:15Matthew 1:1John 7:42Acts 2:30Romans 1:3), Jesus is made lord and given dominion over all -- excluding God, who gives this dominion to Jesus. (Psalm 2:6-845:7110:1,2Isaiah 9:6,711:242:161:1-3Jeremiah 23:5Daniel 7:13,14Matthew 12:2828:28Luke 1:324:14,185:17John 3:345:19,27,3010:18,36-38Acts 2:2210:38Romans 1:1-41 Corinthians 15:272 Corinthians 13:4Colossians 1:15,162:10Ephesians 1:17-22Philippians 2:9-11Hebrews 1:2,4,6,91 Peter 3:22) This does not mean that Jesus is the only true God who has made Jesus "lord."

It is also true that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob had used Jesus in the making of the ages (Hebrews 1:1,2), which brings up the possibility that Jesus was used by the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in giving the Law to Moses, and that, in this sense he could be referred to as "Lord of the sabbath." If this assumption is correct, however, such an application still does not mean that Jesus is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Nevertheless, "Lord" in the Greek is anarthrous; it does not have the definite article. It is not saying that Jesus is "the" Lord of the sabbath, but rather, Jesus is simply called "Lord" or "Master" of the sabbath. Jesus was "master" of the sabbath, not because he was God, but because he, as the son of the man, that is, as the promised son of the man, David (see scriptures above), being born under the Law (Galatians 4:4), obeyed the Law without failure. Had he disobeyed that law in one small part, he could not have actually fulfilled the Law, and thus he would have nothing to sacrifice, since he would be just as guilty and in need of redemption from condemnation as any other man. (Matthew 5:17James 2:10) Jesus was therefore, as the promised son of the man, David, master of the sabbath, obeying God's laws concerning the sabbath perfectly. Jesus' obedience, and his sacrifice of right to human life gained by that obedience, fulfilled the Law, and thus the Law was figuratively nailed to the stauros with Jesus. -- Colossians 2:14.

The offering in sacrifice of Jesus' blood and body brought forth the inauguration of another covenant, called the "New Covenant." (Matthew 26:28Mark 14:2422:201 Corinthians 11:25Hebrews 10:14,2912:2413:20) Through faith in his blood, the Jew can become counted as dead to the Law (Romans 7:4), counted as having died with Jesus (Romans 6:8,11), so as to belong to Jesus, being imputed justification and sanctified through the blood of the new covenant. -- Romans 3,4.

Additionally, Jesus knew from his God and Father (John 8:28) what was really in observance of the law, and what it was "lawful" to do on the sabbath, as opposed to the strict applications that Jews were making concerning the sabbath. Jesus said "it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath day." (Matthew 12:12) Some parts of the law apply over other parts of the Law, as Jesus illustrated by David's eating of the shewbread, which was, strictly speaking, unlawful. But "mercy" in the Law is of greater importance in some instances, so that what would otherwise be "unlawful" would be "lawful" -- permitted by the law.

Click Here for some recommended books on the christology.


CLICK HERE to post comments, questions, etc. on our "Jesus and His God" Discussion Board

-------------------------------

------------------------------

Luke 8:38,39 -- Great :Proof that Jesus is God?

https://jesusnotyhwh.blogspot.com/2019/07/luke8-39.html

Luke 8:38,39 -- Great :Proof that Jesus is God?

Luke 8:38,39 is sometimes referred to as proof that Jesus is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Luke 8:38 - But the man from whom the demons had gone out begged him that he might go with him, but Jesus sent him away, saying,


Luke 8:39 - "Return to your house, and declare what great things God has done for you." He went his way, proclaiming throughout the whole city what great things Jesus had done for him.

According to one author the man from whom Jesus expelled the demons "credited the exorcism to Jesus, although he was told to credit it to God, and he was doing exactly what he was told to do. It seems to me that this man viewed Jesus as God."
https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/219112/proof-jesus-deity-using-nwt-one-simple-scripture

Another claims Luke 8:39 is great proof that Jesus is God.

In reality, there is absolutely nothing at all in Luke 8:39, or anywhere else in the Bible, that gives us any reason to imagine and assume that Jesus IS the Supreme Being. Jesus plainly and distinctly identified his God and Father as being the only true Supreme Being, and by saying that the only true Supreme had sent him, Jesus directly denied being the only true Supreme Being. (John 17:1,3) Who sent Jesus? Prophetically, the Messiah says, "Jehovah ... has sent me." (Isaiah 61:1) In Isaiah 61:1, "The Lord Jehovah" is presented as being only one person, not more than one person, and Jehovah anoints and sends another person who is not Himself.



Additionally, the one who was anointed and sent is never once spoken of in the Bible as being a person of Jehovah, the only true God. Nevertheless, Isaiah 61:1 agrees with John 17:1,3, where Jesus identifies his God and Father as being the "only true God". the only true Supreme Being. The "one God" of the Old Testament is the God and Father pf our Lord Jesus (1 Corinthians 8:6Ephesians 1:3). That one person who spoke through his prophet of Isaiah is identified as one person in Hebrews 1:1,2, and Jesus is distinguished from being that one person.

In Luke 11:20, Jesus stated, "I by the finger of God cast out demons." (World English) Therein, he speaks of "God" as being, not himself, but another, and he speaks of the unipersonal God as being the source of the power by which he casted out demons.



Often in the scriptures we read of various servants of God who performed great acts on behalf of God. Nevertheless, at the same time the scriptures may refer to these acts as being performed by Jehovah himself. Regarding this, let us look at a set of scriptures pertaining to Moses and Jehovah: Exodus 12:51 - It happened the same day,
that Yahweh brought the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt by their hosts. Jehovah alone did lead him [Israel/Jacob - verse 9], There was no foreign god with him. -- Deuteronomy 32:12.

Exodus 15:22: Moses led Israel onward from the Red Sea, and they went out into the wilderness of Shur; and they went three days in the wilderness, and found no water.

Does this mean that since both Moses and Jehovah both delivered the Isralites out of Egypt, that this must mean that Moses is Jehova? No one seriously claims that Moses is Jehovah, yet according to the reasoning of those who wish to scriptures such as Luke 8:38,49 to prove that Jesus is Jehovah, it would seem that these scriptures should definitely prove that Moses is Jehovah. Of course, in reality, Jehovah often takes the credit for what his servants do in his name. Just because one scripture says Jehovah did this or that, and another scripture says that Moses, Gideon, Jesus, or another of God;s servants did the same, does not mean that any of these are Jehovah.

Likewise regarding the Messiah whom Jehovah sent.

So how is it that it can be said that both Moses and Jehovah delivered Israel? Taking the Bible as a whole we learn:

Psalm 77:20: You [Jehovah] led your people like a flock, By the hand of Moses and Aaron.



Hosea 12:13: By a prophet Jehovah brought Israel up out of Egypt, And by a prophet he was preserved.

In this manner it could be said that both Jehovah and Moses brought Israel out of Egypt; it is likewise with the greater Moses, Jesus. -- Deuteronomy 18:15-19.

How well this illustrates also how Jehovah, speaks and performs works by means of his Son, Jesus (John 1:173:345:3610:25,3214:10Ephesians 3:9, KJVTitus 3:6), and delivers the world from sin and death through Jesus, the one like Moses who is also sent by Jehovah.

The unipersonal Most High Jehovah (Luke 1:32,35), having sent His Messiah, does all things through, by means of, Jesus, his son, the one whom He has ordained, appointed and anointed, and our salvation is from the unipersonal God, through the son of the unipersonal God, all to the glorification of the unipersonal God. -- Psalm 2:645:7Isaiah 61:1Matthew 11:2728:18Luke 10:22John 1:173:3513:316:15Acts 4:27Romans 3:241 Corinthians 8:615:272 Corinthians 5:18Ephesians 1:3,17,20-22Philippians 2:11Colossians 1:3,13,20Hebrews 1:1,21 Peter 4:11.

Now, did the man from Jesus expelled the demons think that Jesus himself was the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? Those demons recognized Jesus, not as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but as the Son of the Most High God. (Luke 8:28) The most logical reasoning is that this man thought that God had performed this miracle through Jesus, not that Jesus himself is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

We should definitely note in Luke 8 "God" is always presented as being one person, and not even once as being more than one person.

By Ronald Day at July 11, 2019  

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

Labels: Jesus is not Jehovah

 

 

-------------------------------

------------------------------

Luke 24:39 - Jesus' Appearances in the Locked Room (2017-05-15)

https://jesusnotyhwh.blogspot.com/2017/05/locked-room.html

Luke 24:39 - Jesus' Appearances in the Locked Room

By Ronald R. Day, Senior

 

When we point out that Jesus was put to death in the flesh, but raised in the spirit (1 Peter 3:18), trinitarians and some others claim that Luke 24:39 proves that Jesus was raised in his human body from the grave, and that Jesus is still a human being of flesh and bones to this day. It is claimed that the nature of Christ is twofold, one of God-being and another of human-being. It is claimed that only his human being died, while his God being continued to exist, and some claim that it was his God-being that raised his human body from death.

Jesus certainly did raise his body for the appearances in the locked room; however, we need to distinguish his raising up his body for such appearances from his being raised in the spirit. There is no scripture that says that Jesus arose in his human body from the grave.


Jehovah, the God and Father of Jesus (Ephesians 1:3), is the Only one who is the source of all (1 Corinthians 8:6), and hence the only one person who is the Supreme Being, Jehovah is He who anointed and sent Jesus (Isaiah 61:1John 17:1,3), prepared a body of flesh for Jesus (Hebrews 10:5), and made Jesus a little lower than the angels so that Jesus could offer that body of flesh with its blood to Jehovah his God for our sins.  -- Matthew 26:26-28Luke 22:19Romans 3:25Colossians 1:14Ephesians 5:2Hebrews 2:99:1410:101 Peter 2:243:181 John 1:7Revelation 1:5.

It is the God and Father of Jesus who has made Jesus both Lord and Christ (Ezekiel 34:23,24Isaiah 61:1,2Acts 2:36), and has exalted him to the highest position in the universe, far above the angels, next to the only Most High.-- Acts 2:33,365:31Philippians 2:9Ephesians 1:3,17-231 Corinthians 15:27Hebrews 1:4,61 Peter 3:22.Indeed, Jesus, himself, was not raised as a human being, with the terrestrial bodily glory that is a little lower than the angels. Jesus, in being raised from the grave, was given a body by his father as is true of all who are to be raised from the dead in the last day. (1 Corinthians 15:35-38) The body given to Jesus when he was raised from death is not the glory of a human being, which is lower than the angels (Hebrews 2:9), since Jesus is not still a human being a little lower than the angels. (Hebrews 2:9) Jesus is no longer in the "days of his flesh." (Hebrews 5:7) He is now a "life-giving spirit". -- 1 Corinthians 15:45New American Standard translation.

All must agree that Jesus is now a spirit being. The trinitarian claims that Jesus is indeed God, and thus Jesus must be an invisible spirit being, since God is spirit. (John 4:24Colossians 1:15) So even from the trinitarian standpoint, Jesus is a spirit being. However, many trinitarians, and some others, will contradict this by quoting Jesus' statement: "a spirit doesn't have flesh and bones, as you see that I have," and then claim that Jesus was saying that he is not a spirit being, but a human of flesh and bones. They do no seem to reason very well on this, for if he is not a spirit, then he must not be God, and he must only be a human of flesh and bones. Of course, Jesus is indeed a spirit being, even as God is a spirit being. Jesus was not saying that he was not a spirit being here, because he most definitely was raised as a spirit being. -- 1 Peter 3:18.

So what did Jesus mean when he said "a spirit doesn't have flesh and bones, as you see that I have?"
He certainly could not have been denying that he is a spirit being. Our trinitarian, as well as our "oneness" neighbors, even claim that he is God, who is indeed spirit in being. We should look to the context of Luke 24:39 to see what Jesus was speaking of.  The context, and other scriptures, help us to gain some understanding, by comparing what God has revealed through his holy spirit, comparing spiritual revealing with spiritual revealing. -- 1 Corinthians 2:10,12,13.

Of course, spirit beings usually do not have a flesh and bone body. However, angels, who are spirits (Hebrews 1:7,14; Psalm 104;4) have appeared many times with flesh bodies. In such cases, they were not flesh, but they did manifest themselves in such a way that they were called "men," even eating and drinking. Were they actually men? No. But in their appearance, in their manifestation, they were 'men'. -- Genesis 18:219:1,8,12,15Judges 6:11-2213:11,20Joshua 5:13-15.

We know that the angels that sinned also were allowed to take on a form of humans before the flood of Noah's day. Evidently, this privilege was taken away from them, since we do not see them doing this today. Instead, these spirits at times make appearances as phantoms, without bodies of bones and flesh.

While we can see the possibility that Jesus was actually in his own fleshly body in which he died at this scene, for he could have produced it for this purpose, even though he was a spirit being, in a manner similar to the angels who appeared as men as recorded in the Hebrew Scriptures, we should not assume that this means that Jesus was raised from death back to his body of flesh.

 

So let's return to our question concerning Jesus' statement, "a spirit does not have flesh and bones", and note carefully the context of Luke 24:39 in order to understand what had happened before and also similar experiences in other scriptures, comparing spiritual revealing with spiritual revealing.

 

"But they were terrified and affrightened, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have." -- Luke 24:37-39.

 

The disciples were afraid because they thought they had seen a spirit, the word "spirit" is being used as a phantom -- a manifestation, a resemblance, produced by a wicked spirit, usually pretending to be the spirit of a dead person. (Luke 24:37) The disciples were aware of God's law forbidding communicating with such spirits (Leviticus 19:3120:6Deuteronomy 18:10,11), and that it was forbidden for a spirit medium to be in the land of Israel (Leviticus 20:27Deuteronomy 18:10,111 Samuel 28:7-9); thus they had reason for concern that such a spirit might appear to them. They certainly would not want to be used as a medium by such spirits.* Matthew 12:12,18 identifies such spirits a unclean spirits, demons.
==========
*See the Dawn study on "Spiritualism -- Its Claims"
http://www.dawnbible.com/booklets/spiritualism.htm


On a different occasion, we read: "But when they saw him [Jesus] walking upon the sea, they supposed it had been a spirit, and cried out." (Mark 6:49) Matthew reports the same incident as: "And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear." (Matthew 14:26) The Greek word translated "spirit" in these accounts is Strong's #5326, phantasma, meaning "a mere show", or "simulacrum", as in an appearance or apparition like a human form made by a wicked spirit.

In Luke 24:37, the wording is similar, "But they were terrified and filled with fear, and supposed that they saw a spirit." However, the Greek word translated "spirit" here is not *phantasma*, but rather Strong's 4151, *pneuma*, meaning, breath, or in usage, force, energy, spirit, and has a variety of applications. It is the word used in Matthew 24:12,18 of demons.


The following is a list of some of the scriptures where *pneuma* is used of demons: Matthew 8:1610:112:43,45Mark 1:23,26,273:11,305:2,8,136:77:259:17,20,25Luke 4:33,366:187:218:2,559:39,42Luke 10:2011:24,26Acts 5:168:716:16,1819:12,15,16Ephesians 6:211 Peter 3:19Revelation 16:13,14.


Since the flood of Noah's day we only read of God's obedient angels being permitted at times to materialize in the form of men, as in Judges 13:3-20, where an angel of Jehovah appeared to the mother and father of Samson. They thought they were talking to a man, but it was an angel, because he ascended in the flame of the altar and disappeared. Likewise, we read in Genesis 18:2-19;25, when Abraham lifted up his eyes and saw three men coming to him, and he greeted them, he made them welcome, and prepared a meal, and they ate and talked with Abraham. Paul, mentioning them, said that we should not forget to entertain strangers, because some had entertained angels without knowing it. In other words, because these angels appeared with a body of bones and flesh, they were assumed to be men, not spirit beings. (Hebrews 13:2) Paul is referring to exactly what Abraham did when he entertained those angels without knowing they were angels. They appeared as men, and they were men to all intents and purposes until they had performed their work, and then they dematerialized the fleshly form of man and returned to the spirit realm. So just as the angels of Jehovah appeared to Abraham, ate with him, and talked with him, and had all the functions of men, just so with the angels prior to the flood. All the angels had this power, and not merely the good angels, for they were all originally good.


But some of God's angels disobeyed God, left their original estate as angels, and materialized in the form of men. They preferred not only to materialize in the human form to appear to man, but preferred to live as human beings. They left their habitation, the spirit realm, and lived as men in the world, and they had wives. They raised families.* Their children were spoken of as "men of renown." They were gigantic in size. God saw that the whole earth was being corrupted by the influence of these disobedient angels. The imagination of the human mind was evil, and only evil, and that continually. Therefore God said: "I will destroy man from the face of the earth." "The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and behold, I will destroy them with the earth." (Genesis 6:7,13) So Jehovah destroyed those giants as well as all mankind, save Noah and his wife, his two sons and their wives.
==========
See the study, "Thousands of Demons Infest Earth's Atmosphere":
http://mostholyfaith.com/Beta/bible/Harvest_Gleanings_3/HG131.asp?xRef=HGL467:8


Peter and Jude tell us that those angels who sinned at that time were sentenced by God. (2 Peter 2:4Jude 1:6) They were restrained in chains -- not literal chains, but chains of darkness, so that they could not materialize in the form of man, so that they could not come out, so to speak, during the day.

These demons, or disobedient angels, had been cast out by Jehovah from his realm of spiritual light into a realm of spiritual darkness. Today, as in the days of Jesus, these demons are still not permitted to materialize in the form of human flesh. But often they do something else: they take possession of human bodies. They get into a person's body in order to continue themselves in their desires to live as humans, and in so doing they continue themselves as servants of the original serpent, Satan the Devil. We read that on one such occasion, there was a legion of these demons in one man. They said: "My name is Legion, for we are many." God has given all of us a will whereby we may resist these intrusions. These demons are working more active today than ever before. They represent themselves as being "ghosts", "disembodied spirits", "aliens from other planets", and they even possess a person when he is a near-death condition, giving them "visions" of "heaven", "hell", "Paradise", "Jesus", "Mohammed", "Buddha", or whatever else a person might have a tendency to believe in. They know all about people who have died, so they can easily impersonate a dead person. Likewise, they can give persons all sorts of visions, or false "memories" about things that never really happened, or of another person's life hundreds or even thousands of years before you were born. All of this activity is happening in order to keep people from looking into the truth about the only way provided by Jehovah to come to him, that is, through his Son, Jesus, less any might come to a knowledge of the truth, and, especially to keep any from developing into receiving joint-heirship with Christ. If the thought that the number of 144,000 is to be taken literally, or that this number represents a limitation, regardless of how many, who are to become joint-heirs, then we can see why it would be of concern to the fallen angels to keep as many as possible under deception, for once the number is sealed, then the time for their abyssment and judgment will shortly follow.

With this background, we can understand that Jesus demonstrated that his appearance or manifestation (Strong's 5319 -- used in Mark 16:12,14John 21:1,14) was not that of a demon, by producing his fleshly body and temporarily inhabiting the fleshly body he had died in (not his resurrection body, his heavenly, spiritual body.) The flesh he used for these appearances no longer had the life or soul in it, and thus Jesus does not refer to its blood (the life [nephesh, sentiency, soul] of the flesh in in the blood -- Leviticus 17:11), so instead of describing it as a body of flesh and blood, Jesus described it as a body of flesh and bones. (verse 39) This is appropriate because Jesus was now a spirit being, and did not take back his human soul (Hebrew, nephesh, Greek, psyche) which he had made an offering for humanity's sin. (Isaiah 53:10,12Matthew 20:28Mark 10:45John 10:11,15,1713:3715:13 - The Greek word for soul, psuche, is often translated as "life") He only temporarily incarnated himself into his former human body for the purpose of demonstrating that it was actually him, and not some demon spirit impersonating him.

Thus we see that there is nothing in Jesus' appearance that would lead us to believe that Jesus, although now exalted above the angels, is yet encumbered with a human body of flesh lower than the angels. Paul, in speaking of resurrection bodies, and in answer to the question as to what kind of body one is raised with (1 Corinthians 15:35), after describing flesh bodies here on earth (1 Corinthians 15:39), makes a sharp distinction between heavenly bodies, and earthly bodies, using illustrations of the sun, moon and stars, to describe the glories of heavenly bodies. (1 Corinthians 15:40,41) Instead of saying, "Don't you know that you will receive back your present body, only glorified with a spiritual body, he speaks of a seed, as though developing into the body that will be, according to what was sown. Those who sow earthly fruitage only receive earthly bodies. Those who go beyond the earthly seed into the heavenly seed receive heavenly, spiritual bodies. Paul does not mix the two. Earthly bodies are earthly. Heavenly bodies are heavenly. The Christian, in whom the seed of righteousness is sown, receives either one or the other in the resurrection, according to the level of sowing.
==========
See: "The Manner of the Resurrection"

Therefore, when the disciples thought they had seen an apparition of a wicked spirit, Jesus did materialize his body of flesh in order to show them that he is not such a wicked spirit, for the demons are restrained from taking on the form of flesh.

The Empty Tomb

Some refer to the empty tomb of Jesus as proof that Jesus' body was raised from the dead. Actually, the fact that the tomb was empty does not prove anything concerning his body one way or the other. All it was designed to prove was that Jesus was raised from the dead.

The apostles at this time had not yet received any understanding of a resurrection of anything other than a physical body. The spirit of truth had not yet been given to them. (John 7:3916:31Acts 1:6) Even after receiving the revealing through the holy spirit, while the truth was revealed especially to the apostles (John 16:4-13Galatians 1:12; Ephesian 3: 5; 2 Timothy 2:2), many still had problems with understanding what kind of body one is raised with. -- 1 Corinthians 1:23:1Hebrews 5:12.

The disciples had seen Jesus raise various ones to life, and in each instance the body of the individual became alive again. Thus, the apostles during the period before the outpouring of the holy spirit, would have associated the resurrection with the body. Although the apostles apparently had begun to preach something concerning a spiritual body in the resurrection, this evidently was causing some confusion amongst believers, since the questions were raised: How are the dead raised?" and, "With what kind of body do they come?" (1 Corinthians 15:35) The apostle Paul showed that there are two basic kinds of bodies in the resurrection, that of a heavenly, spiritual body, and that of an earthly, physical body. He showed that Jesus now has a spiritual body, that he is now a "life-giving spirit". Thus it seems probable that it was some time after Jesus' ascension that it became clear that Jesus was raised, not in a physical, earthly body, but with a mighty spirit body.

 

Thus, when Jesus appeared to the disciples in the locked room, the disciples probably had no concept of anyone being raised with a spiritual body. The scriptural account shows that Thomas was not present when Jesus first appeared to the disciples. To convince them that he had indeed been raised, Jesus showed his apostles "his hands and his side." (John 20:20Luke 24:39) This he did because they thought they were seeing a spirit -- a phantom, a demon who was impersonating Jesus. (Luke 24:38) Thomas, later hearing of this, said, "Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe." -- John 20:25.

It has been suggested that perhaps Thomas felt hurt and left out at being the last to witness the resurrection; regardless, he was being a little stubborn concerning this whole matter. In effect, his demand insinuated that the others had not required enough proof, and they may have been deceived. This also fits the above argument concerning the apostles fear that they had seen a spirit -- a demon masquerading as Jesus -- instead of actually seeing Jesus. However, Thomas should have remembered Jesus' earlier testimony concerning himself, "they will kill him; and when he is killed, on the third day he will rise again." (Mark 9:31) Extreme though Thomas may have been, when Jesus presented himself in his body, and showed the marks Thomas requested, Thomas believed fully.


Thomas demonstrated a lack of faith by insisting upon being able to put his hand into the side of Jesus, but it does demonstrate how much thought was associated with the "body" regarding the resurrection, a thought that had to be later removed through the apostle Paul. How easily the church later was led astray in believing the resurrection of the body rather than the soul, which they had come to believe was immortal. That is one the great mistakes to take root in the church - The Apostle's Creed, while correct in every other matter, errs in this matter - stating "I believe in the resurrection of the body." After receiving the enlightenment of the holy spirit, Paul says, "You foolish one [one fooled] ... God gives it [the seed sown] a body [in the resurrection day] even as it pleased him, and to each seed a body of its own." -- 1 Corinthians 15:36,38.


After being raised from the dead, we fint that Jesus possibly did not always use the same form (morphe) when he made his appearances, manifestations. (phaneroo) After these things he was revealed (phaneroo) in another form (morphe - outward appearance) to two of them, as they walked, on their way into the country. -- Mark 16:12. (Some claim that this verse was not written by Mark. However, even if it was not written by him, whoever wrote it showed that he/she thought that Jesus appeared in different forms, and that such a thought existed at some time in the early church.) Afterward, he was revealed (phaneroo) to the eleven themselves as they sat at the table, and he rebuked them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they didn't believe those who had seen him after he had risen. (Mark 16:14) After these things, Jesus revealed (phaneroo) himself again to the disciples at the sea of Tiberias. He revealed (phaneroo) himself this way. (John 21:1) This was the third time that Jesus was revealed (phaneroo) to his disciples, after he had risen from the dead. -- John 21:14


But what about the witnesses of Jesus' resurrection? Did they not see Jesus' body being raised? Actually, there were no human witnesses of the actual moment of Jesus' resurrection. Read all the accounts given in the Bible, and you will not find one human witness of the actual event of his resurrection. All that any human witnessed was the empty tomb after the resurrection of Jesus. What we have recorded for us is recorded in Acts 2:31, that "neither was his soul left in Hades, nor did his flesh see decay." We also have recorded that there were women and then later Mary who were witnesses of the empty tomb. Later Peter and John also saw the empty tomb. There was also a soldier who confirmed that the tomb was empty. But none of these witnesses actually witnessed the resurrection of Jesus.

When Jesus was buried we read that his body was "bound ... in linen cloths with spices, as the custom of the Jews." (John 19:40) Had it been understood, they would have known that Jesus' body did not need any spices, for it was foretold that his body would not see corruption, decay. (Psalm 16:10) After the Sabbath, the two Marys, evidently with some others, brought more spices to anoint his body (Mark 16:1Luke 24:1), an angel appeared and rolled away the stone from the door. (Matthew 28:2) Luke speaks of two angels who asked them: ""Why do you seek the living among the dead?" (Luke 24:5) One of the angels told them that Jesus had risen. -- Mark 16:5,6.

Later two of the disciples came to the tomb, and they saw the linen cloths in the tomb. (Luke 24:12John 20:5,6) No mention is made of the spices.

After being raised from the dead, Jesus "appeared to over five hundred brothers at once." (1 Corinthians 15:6) Last of all he was seen of Paul as one born out of due season, shining above the sun at noonday. -- 1 Corinthians 15:6-8,

We need to note something very important regarding Jesus' appearances: all of these appearances were to those who accepted him as the Messiah sent by God; not once did he appear to non-believers. If Jesus had appeared to Annias, Caiaphas, the Sanhedrin, Pilate, Herod, Caesar, the Roman Senate, he certainly could have put the "fear of God into their hearts", as some say. Why didn't he appear to others? Because the truth is not for the non-believers, it is only for believers. Of the unbelieving religious leaders, Jesus said: "They are blind guides of the blind. If the blind guide the blind, both will fall into a pit." But to his disciples, he said: "To you it is given to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven, but it is not given to them." (Matthew 13:11) Additionally, if the enemies of Jesus had seen, then out of their evil hearts they could have borne evil testimony (Matthew 12:3415:19), or God's purposes could have been otherwise twarted. In due time, the world will understand, but for the present the world is kept in darkness.
==========
See our study:
Understanding Kingdom Mysteries

Had Jesus' body been left in the tomb, then Jesus' enemies could have displayed the body as proof that he had not been raised. The scriptures reveals that they posted guards to make sure that his body was not removed. is to prevent any of Jesus' enemies from showing proof that The empty tomb was bad news for Jesus' enemies. They had it guarded to prevent the body from being carried away. When the angel rolled away the entrance to Jesus' tomb, we read that that "the guards shook, and became like dead men." (Matthew 28:4) The body was gone. Some of the guards went into the city and told the chief priests what had happened. (Matthew 28:11) The evil heart of these priests can be seen in that they bribed these guards to spread the rumor that the "his disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept." (How could they know what happened if they were sleeping? -- Matthew 28:12-14) But, had Jesus' body remained in tomb, they could have offered it as proof that Jesus had not been raised. Nevertheless, it is noted that they did not send out any kind of search party in an effort to try to find the body, which they surely would have done had they disbelieved the guard's report. There is nothing in the scriptures that indicates that they actually believed that Jesus' body was stolen. Thus the empty tomb did provide a problem for these enemies, who evidently did recognize the truth of implications, that Jesus had been raised from the dead, but sought to cover up that truth.

 

Nevertheless, it evidently was not Jesus' purpose to demonstrate at that time that he had been raised without his former body. His disciples, at that time, were not looking for a risen Jesus in a spiritual body (1 Peter 3:181 Corinthians 15:45), but they were looking for a flesh and blood Jesus. Thus, the empty tomb provided evidence of the resurrection.

Ronald R. Day, Sr., Restoration Light (RlBible, ResLight) Bible Study Services. This study may be reproduced and distributed for non-profit purposes.

 

For links to some our studies related to Jesus' resurrection body:
https://ransomforall.blogspot.com/p/jesus-resurrection-body.html

 

****************

The Interlinear Bible: Hebrew-Greek-English (English, Hebrew and Greek Edition) 

By Ronald Day at May 15, 2017  

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

Labels: Resurrection of Jesus

-------------------------------

------------------------------

John

https://sonofyah.wordpress.com/category/scriptures/john/

John 10:30 – The Son is One With His Father

Posted on December 30, 2013 | 8 comments

John 10:30 – I and my Father are one.

Jesus and the only true God, whom Jesus was with before the world (kosmos) of mankind was made (John 1:1,10; 17:1,3,5), are ‘one.’ Jesus was not saying that he and the only true God whom he was with are one only true God.

In the Greek manuscripts of John 10:30, the Greek form that Jesus used for the adjective “one” is transliterated as “hen” [which is neuter]. If Jesus had meant that he and the only true God whom he had been with are “one God,” he would not have used the Greek form “hen”, but he would have used the Greek form “heis” (masculine), as Paul does in 1 Corinthians 8:6. Since the Greek word Theos is masculine, it requires the masculine form of the adjective, not the neuter form. Nor is speaking of substance, as trinitarians use that term, “three persons in one being.” If Jesus was talking about “one being,” he would not have used the Greek form “hen”, but rather he would have used the Greek form, “mia,” as in the trinitarian statement: treis hypostaseis en mia ousia (three persons in one being). Since “ousia” is feminine, it requires the feminine form of the adjective, not the neuter form. Thus, when Jesus said that he and the only true God are “one”, he was neither speaking of “one God” nor “one substance.”

Nevertheless, we find further in the book of John where Jesus uses the Greek form “hen” several times:

Jesus prays for his followers to be one [hen], just as he is with his God and Father. — John 17:11.

Jesus prays that his followers may all be one [hen], just as he is one with his God and Father. — John 17:21.

Jesus prays that his followers may be one [hen] in himself and his Father, just as he is with his God and Father. — John 17:21.

Jesus prays that his followers may one [hen], just as he is one with his God and Father. — John 17:22.

It should be obvious that Jesus was not praying that his followers become one “God” with him and his Father, nor is he praying that they become “one substance” with him and his Father. He is speaking in terms of unity, agreement. Likewise, when Jesus said that he and the only true God (John 17:1,3) are one, he is speaking of agreement. There is nothing in John 10:30 that means that Jesus was claiming to be the only true God.

In Micah 5:4, we read from the American Standard Verstion, regarding the promised Messiah (Anointed One): “And he shall stand, and shall feed his flock in the strength of Jehovah, in the majesty of the name of Jehovah his God: and they shall abide; for now shall he be great unto the ends of the earth. ” Since Micah identifes Jehovah as being the God of Messiah, and that the Messiah stands in the strength of Jehovah, his God, the default reasoning should be that Jesus is NOT Jehovah, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. 

For more regarding John 10:30, see:
Studies Pertaining to John 10:33

Regarding John 10:33, see:
The Real Reason the Jews Sought to Kill Jesus

Bible Hub’s Greek Analysis of John 10:30

RATE THIS:

10 Votes

8 Comments

Posted in Christ is Not GodJesus is not GodJohn

Tagged Is Jesus GodJesus is GodJesus is JehovahJesus is not GodJesus is not JehovahJesus is not YahwehJesus is YahwehJohn 10:30

 

 

 

-------------------------------

------------------------------

John 1:1

https://notrinity.blogspot.com/search/label/John%201%3A1

John 1:1 - The Hebraic Usage Applied to the Word

 

Probably the first scripture trinitarians point to in an effort to support their triune God dogma is John 1:1. Actually, there is nothing at all about a triune God presented in that verse, so whatever is thought concerning a triune God has be imagined beyond what is written, then added to, and read into what is stated.

Paul lets us know that there is only one who is the source of all, and thus that there is only one who is "God" (with a capital "G" -- the Supreme Being  -- 1 Corinthians 8:6). Peter lets us know that it is the one Supreme Being who made Jesus to be both Lord and Christ (anointed one). The prophetic words of Messiah in Isaiah 61:1 lets us know that it is Jehovah who anointed and sent Jesus. Jesus lets us know that Jehovah who sent him is his God and Father, the only true God (Supreme Being). In effect, Jesus denies that he is God -- the Supreme Being -- by his words in John 17:1,3.

John 1:1 is only scripture that I can definitely agree that the Greek or Hebrew word for "god/God" in the Bible is applied to Jesus. There may be a very few other scriptures, but all others I cannot be sure of. At any rate, it should be apparent that in John 1:1, or any other scripture where "God/god" is thought to apply to Jesus, it is not being used in the sense of the Supreme Being, but rather in the sense of might, strength, power (the basic Hebrew meaning of the Hebrew word for "God/god". In effect, the Biblical Hebraic usage of the word for "God/god" do not exactly match the English usage of "God/god".

The King James Version (KJV) shows Biblical Heraic usage for the word "god" by rendering the Hebrew word for "God/god" in different ways: The Hebrew word for God/god is rendered as "mighty" in the following verses: Genesis 23:6Exodus 9:28Psalms 50:182:189:6Ezekiel 31:11. The KJV renders the Hebrew word God/god as "power" in the following verses: Genesis 31:29Proverbs 3:27Micah 2:1. The KJV renders the Hebrew word for God/god as "might" in Deuteronomy 28:32. The KJV renders it as "strong" in Ezekiel 32:21. This is only a sampling of the Hebraic usage as shown in the Bible; nevertheless, it demonstrates that the Hebrew meaning for God/god can be used of men, without meaning that they are the Supreme Being or that they are false gods. As meaning the Supreme Being, it only applies to the God and Father of Jesus, since only the God of Jesus is the source of all might. (1 Corinthians 8:6) Therefore, what is presented above shows that the Hebrew word for God/god does not exactly correspond to the English usage of the word God/god, else the KJV could have rendered Genesis 31:29 as "It is in the god of my hand."  As it is, however, English, and most other Romantic languages, do not make use of the word "god" in this manner.

Consequently, due the common modern concept of God/god, whenever it is applied to others than the Supreme Being or of false gods, it would be best to render it as the KJV as presented earlier (and all other translations I have examined in many of the scriptures) with some form of might, power, etc. Jesus words recorded in John 10:34-36 shows that the meaning is being brought over into the Greek word often transliterated as THEOS, for Jesus was not saying the sons of the Most High are the Supreme Being, nor was he saying that they are false gods.

Applying the Hebraic usage in John 1:1 would give us the English, "the Word was mighty", not the Word was God (as meaning, "Supreme Being"). This would correspond with the way the King James Version the Hebrew word for "God/god" in Psalm 82:1 ("mighty").The ONLY reason for not doing so with THEOS as applied to the Logos in John 1:1 is due to man's preconceived notion that Jesus is the Suprenme Being, and the further assumption that Jesus is one of three persons of the Supreme Being. This being so, any usage of John 1:1 as an alleged proof of a triune God (which concept is no where ever once presented in the entire Bible) is circular, that is, because we believe that Jesus is the Supreme Being, we believe that THEOS applied to the Logos in John 1:1 means that he is the Supreme Being, thus because of what we believe, John 1:1 is proof that Jesus is the Supreme Being.

Again, 1 Corinthians 8:6 shows that there is only one person who is the source of all, which certainly includes the source of all might, power, strength.

See also some of my studies related to John 1:1:
http://jesus-rlbible.com/?page_id=4871

 

-------------------------------

------------------------------

John 1:1; Jesus as god

https://notrinity.blogspot.com/search/label/John%201%3A1%3B%20Jesus%20as%20god

John 1:1,2 (MMcelhaney)

MMcelhaney has responded to some of the things written on this site in his blogsite at:

http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com/2008/09/bible-basics-trinity-part-2-redux.html

In this post, I will address what he stated concerning the post on this site at:

http://notrinity.blogspot.com/2008/08/john-112-word-was-mighty.html

MMcelhaney states that I said that TON THEON and THEOS in John 1:1,2 are two different words. I never said that they are two different words, but, at least as far as spelling, they are two different words. However, I did not address them as two different words, since THEON is usually considered but a form of THEOS and therefore thought of as the same word. What I addressed was the fact that TON THEON applied to the God of Jesus does not carry the same meaning or application as THEOS applied to the Word of God. Even most trinitarians will admit there is a difference, else they would have Jesus as his own Father whom he was with.

Trinitarians, however, have to add to and read into what John said the thought that TON THEON refers to their alleged first person of the trinity, while "the Logos was theos," refers to their alleged second person of the trinity, and thus have it read, in effect, "In the beginning was the second person of the trinity, and the second person of the trinity was with the first person of the trinity, and the second person of the trinity was with the qualities of first person of the trinity. In other words, they do not wish it to be thought of as "the second person of the trinity was the first person of the trinity." Thus, some argue that THEOS applied to Logos is a qualitative usage, and from that they would like for it to be understood that THEOS applied to the trinity means that Jesus had all the qualities of the TON THEON whom he was with. (Well, not quite all, they would deny that Jesus is the Father of Jesus, thus they would claim that THEOS would mean all the qualities that would make one God, which, they evidently assume, would not include the quality of being "God the Father". ) In effect, however, this ends up being a circular arugment for the trinity, saying, since we believe that THEOS applied to the LOGOS means that the LOGOS "was" all of the qualities of TON THEON whom he was with, which we believe because we believe that Jesus was God Almighty, then because of this, John 1:1,2 proves that Jesus is God Almighty.

The quality of being THEOS, as far as the Biblical tradition, is that of special power, strength, might. This is the basic meaning of the Hebrew word "EL," and all its forms, which is why its being used of another than Yahweh does not mean that such usage is denoting Yahweh. Only as applied to Yahweh, however, does take on the meaning of the Supreme Might, the Supreme Being. Jesus definitely excludes himself from being the only true God (Supreme Being) whom he was with, thus any application of THEOS to Jesus would have to be in the general sense of the quality of being mighty, or of being a mighty one.

It is claimed that the scriptures cited wherein the words for "God" are rendered in the KJV by words such as mighty, strong, etc. -- (Geenesis 23:6 (mighty); Genesis 30:8 (mighty); Genesis 31:29 (power); Deuteronomy 28:32 (might); 1 Samuel 14:15 (great); Nehemiah 5:5 (power); Psalm 8:5 (angels); Psalm 36:6 (great); Psalm 82:1 (mighty); Proverbs 3:27 (power); Psalm 29:1 (mighty); Ezekiel 32:21 (strong); Jonah 3:3 (exceeding) -- cannot be applied to Jesus because "no man other than Jesus has ever had the divine name applied to Himself of claimed for by Him." In reality, no where in the Bible does Jesus claim the name of his God and Father, nor does anyone else claim the name of Jesus' God and Father for Jesus. It is only as man reads such an idea into the scriptures that such a claim be made, which, in reality is the claim of uninspired men, not of Jesus, nor of any Bible writer. Since it is something has to be assumed and read into the scriptures, then this likewise is a circular argument.

John 8:58 is often cited as proof that Jesus claimed the holy name for himself, but in reality there is nothing there about a name at all. The idea has to be added to, and read into, the scripture.
http://godandson.reslight.net/i-am.html
http://reslight.wordpress.com/2007/09/15/i-am-in-john-858/
http://reslight.net/forum/index.php?topic=304.0
http://reslight.net/forum/index.php?topic=449.0

Laying aside the imaginative suppositions that man would read into the scriptures, I have never found any place in the Bible where the holy name of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is applied to anyone other than the God and Father of the Lord Jesus, except perhaps representatively as an angel of Yahweh might speak for, act for, and thus be addressed as though the angel were Yahweh. (Similar to an interpreter in a courtroom.) This does not mean that an angel of Yahweh, who spoke and acted for Yahweh, is Yahweh who sent the angel.* Jesus claimed to have been sent by Yahweh, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (the same as Moses was sent by the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob), as well as did all of the Bible writers. Jesus never claimed to be the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God who sent him. -- Exodus 3:15Deuteronomy 18:15-19Isaiah 6:1Matthew 22:3223:39Mark 11:9,1012:26Luke 13:3520:37John 3:2,17,32-354:345:19,30,36,436:577:16,288:26,28,3810:2512:49,5014:1015:1517:8,2620:17Acts 2:22,34-363:13,225:30Romans 15:62 Corinthians 1:38:611:31Colossians 1:3,152:9-12Hebrews 1:1-3Revelation 1:1.

*http://godandson.reslight.net/aoy.html

Since, in reality, the holy name of the God and Father of Jesus is never applied to Jesus, and since Jesus is definitely shown in the Bible not to be the only true God that Jesus was with. (John 1:1,217:1,3,5), then the most direct way of applying the meaning of THEOS to the LOGOS is that of might, strength, power, "the Word was mighty," in keeping with the Biblical usage.

This is in harmony with what Jesus said in John 17:3,5, where he was speaks of a glory that he had with the only true God before the world of mankind was made. The glory "was" -- past tense -- his, but he did not have that glory at the time that he prayed the prayer of John 17, else why would he ask for that glory? That glory was a celestial (heavenly) glory. (1 Corinthians 15:40) At the time that Jesus said the words of John 17, he had the glory of the terrestrial, earthly, not the celestial, heavenly. Jesus, being a sinless human being, was crowned with the full glory of a man, a little lower than the angels. (Romans 3:23Hebrews 2:9) It was this crown of human glory, given to Jesus by God through a special preparation of Jesus' body (Hebrews 10:5), that the writer John wrote of in John 1:14.

See also:
http://reslight.net/forum/index.php?topic=168.0
http://godandson.reslight.net/i-am.html
http://reslight.wordpress.com/2007/09/15/i-am-in-john-858/
http://reslight.net/forum/index.php?topic=304.0
http://reslight.net/forum/index.php?topic=449.0
http://godandson.reslight.net/john-1.html

Ronald R.

at September 30, 2008 No comments:  

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

Labels: John 1:1; Jesus as god

Saturday, August 23, 2008

John 1:1,2 - The Word was Mighty

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God [TON THEON], and the Word was God [THEOS]. The same was in the beginning with God [TON THEON]. -- John 1:1,2, World English - transliterations from the Westcott & Hort Interlinear.

Obviously, John is not, by using the Greek word THEOS as applied to the Word, saying that the Word was TON THEON whom the Word was with. One is not "with" an individual, and at the same time that individual whom he was with. What the trinitarian has to do in order to force the trinitarian dogma into John's statement is to assume that TON THEON refers to the alleged "first person of God," that is, God the Father, and that THEOS applied to the Word refers to their alleged second person of God, God the Son. John does not speak of the holy spirit, so they have to assume and add the holy spirit.

I have no doubt that TON THEON refers to the God and Father of Jesus, for Jesus identifies who he was with (John 17:5), and Jesus also lets us know that his God and Father is the only true God. (John 17:3) This we can verify by comparing spiritual revealment with spiritual revealment.

The trinitarian claims that since Jesus is called THEOS (god) in John 1:1, and since there is only one true God, then Jesus has to be that only true God, or else he has to be a false god. This disregards the Hebraic tradition that allows the usage of the words for "God" in a more general sense of might, power, authority, etc. Thus, according to their line of reasoning, if Jesus is "god", then he is either the one true God, or else a false god.

However, even most Bible language scholars who believe in the trinity do recognize a usage of the words for God in the general sense of might, power, etc. Even the translators of the King James Version recognized such usage. This can be demonstrated in such verses where the KJV renders the word for "God" (forms of EL and ELOHIM in the Hebrew) so as to denote strength, power, might, rulership, etc., such as in the following verses: Genesis 23:6 (mighty); Genesis 30:8 (mighty); Genesis 31:29 (power); Deuteronomy 28:32 (might); 1 Samuel 14:15 (great); Nehemiah 5:5 (power); Psalm 8:5 (angels); Psalm 36:6 (great); Psalm 82:1 (mighty); Proverbs 3:27 (power); Psalm 29:1 (mighty); Ezekiel 32:21 (strong); Jonah 3:3 (exceeding). If one were to substitute "false god" in these verses, we would have some absurd statements. This proves that these words are used in a sense other than the only true God, or as "false god."

In Psalm 82:1, as noted above, the KJV renders one of the words for "God" as "mighty." Jesus quotes from part of this Psalm -- Psalm 82:6,7 -- in John 10:34,35, rendering the Hebrew word ELOHIM by the Greek words "THEOI," a plural form of THEOS, which word is used of the Logos in John 1:1. Jesus was not saying that the sons of God to whom the Word came are false gods, but he is using the word in sense of authority. The sons of God to whom the Word (the Logos) came were indeed given power, authority, to become sons of God. (John 1:12) With this authority, they can thus rightly be called ELOHIM, THEOI. They are not "false gods," but they are given their authority from God through Jesus.
For more concerning Psalm 82:6,7, see:
http://godandson.reslight.net/you-are-gods.html

Likewise, Jesus, being the firstborn son of God (Colossians 1:15), can also be called THEOS. Thus, the suggested rendering of John 1:1 in reference to the Word is "The Word was mighty."

For more concerning John 1:1,2, see:
John 1:1 and the Trinitarian
James White and "een" in John 1:1
John 1:1 and THEOS
The Logos as THEOS
In the Beginning
John 1:1 and the Logos of God

Response to

Bible Basics Trinity - Part 2 Redux

It is being claimed that we stated that Jesus in John 1:1,2 is not being called God, but mighty. This is not exactly what we say, and is deceptive. What we say is that the application of the Greek word for "God" as applied to the Logos in John 1:1,2 is a Hebraism which, in English, should be understood as meaning "mighty". John was a Hebrew and certainly would have knowledge of such Hebraic usage. Indeed, since John emphasizes the second time that Jesus was with TON THEON, (the God), the default reasoning would be that Jesus was not TON THEON whom he was with, and thus, that the application of THEOS to Jesus is not as the only true God whom he declared himself to be with (John 17:1,3,5), but rather that John was assigning to the Jesus the glory of might that "was" [past tense] while he was with his God and Father before the world of mankind had been made through him (John 1:10), and which glory Jesus did not possess while he was in the days of his flesh. -- Hebrews 5:7. Indeed, in view of the context and the rest of the Bible, the default reasoning should be to imagine and assume that John was saying that Jesus "was" his God, but rather the default reasoning should be to apply that which God has revealed by means of his Holy Spirit, as has been done above, to see in what manner the word THEOS should be understood as applied to the Logos.

See:
Hebraic Usage of the Titles for “God”

Indeed, one has to call heavily upon the spirit of human imagination in order to "see" the trinity dogma in what John wrote in John 1:1,2. This has been discussed at:

John 1:1 and Trinity Assumptions

It is being claimed that the Hebraic application of "mighty" does not apply to Jesus since it is being further claimed that "no man other than Jesus has ever had the divine name applied to Himself of claimed for by Him." The first claim is dependent on the second claim that Jesus applied God's Holy Name to himself, and that others applied God's Holy Name to Jesus. Both claims we deny. It is only by the addition of human imagination that any scripture can be thought to be applying God's Holy Name to God's Son in any manner that would mean that Jesus is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob who sent Jesus. (Exodus 3:14,15Deuteronomy 18:15-19Acts 3:13-26Hebrews1:1,2) God's name, however, is called upon all who are in covenant relationship with Him (2 Chronicles 7:14Isaiah 43:765:1Jeremiah 7:10,11,13,4025:932:3434:15Amos 9:12Acts 15:14), and Jesus declared that his God has a made a covenant with him. (Luke 22:29, Rotherham)

Jesus, of course, being sent by Yahweh, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, did speak for, and act in behalf of, his God, in a way that no other human has ever done, although many prophets and judges did the similar in the Old Testament times. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, by means of his holy spirit, reveals through the scriptures that Jesus was sent by Yahweh, speaks for Yahweh as his unipersonal God and Father, represents Yahweh, and was raised and glorified by the unipersonal God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Jesus never claimed to be, nor do the scriptures present Jesus as, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, whom Jesus represents and speaks for. -- Deuteronomy 18:15-19Matthew 22:3223:39Mark 11:9,1012:26Luke 13:3520:37John 3:2,17,32-354:345:19,30,36,436:577:16,288:26,28,3810:2512:49,5014:1015:1517:8,2620:17Acts 2:22,34-363:13-265:30Romans 15:62 Corinthians 1:38:611:31Colossians 1:3,152:9-12Hebrews 1:1-3Revelation 1:1.

The scriptures abound with cases where Yahweh uses various servants but is given the credit for their actions, since he was the directing force, very similar to Jesus. — Exodus 3:10,1212:1718:10Numbers 16:28Judges 2:6,183:9,106:3411:2913:24,2514:6,1915:14,1816:20,28-302 Kings 4:27Isaiah 43:1145:1-6; etc.

For discussions of scriptures for which it is often claimed that God's Holy Name is attributed to Jesus, see:


The Holy Name
The Holy Name Page 2

See also:

Focus on the Holy Name

Directly, God's Holy Name is only applied to the unipersonal God and Father of Jesus.

See:
The God (Supreme Being – The Might) of Jesus (Scriptures)

at August 23, 2008 No comments:  

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

Labels: John 1:1; Jesus as god

Friday, August 22, 2008

The Father is the Only True God

 

Many of our neighbors who believe in the trinity doctrine, the oneness doctrine, or similar doctrines, will tell you that the scriptures say that there is only one God, and since the words for "God" are applied also to Jesus, then Jesus is that one God. Such actually disregard the usage of the words that are usually translated as God, and, if taken to its logical conclusion, would have Moses (Exodus 7:1), the judges of Israel (Exodus 21:622:8,9,28; See Acts 23:5), all the angels (Psalm 8:5 compared with Hebrews 2:7), the sons of God to whom the Logos came (Psalm 82:1,6John 10:34,35), the rulers of Babylon (Ezekiel 32:21), and many others, as well as some "things," all as being the one true God.

 

It is difficult to say that only the God and Father of Jesus is "god" in a general sense since the words that are translated as "god" can take on the sense of general mightiness. In other words, the Hebrew/Greek words for 'God/god" do not always mean the Supreme Being or false gods. We can definitely say that we are told in the Bible by Jesus himself that the God and Father of Jesus -- the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who sent Jesus, is the only true God in the sense of Supreme Might, the Supreme Being. -- John 17:3; see also 1 Corinthians 8:6

 

The Hebrew word for "God" is "EL" and various forms of this word, and the Greek word is "THEOS," and various forms of this word. Form of EL are used not only to designate the Supreme Mighty One, Jehovah of false gods, but it is used of many others and in many ways that do not mean the Supreme Being. Others -- even things -- in the Bible, including the one sent by the only true God, may have the forms of the words EL and THEOS applied to them in a more general sense of might or power, in the sense of the basic meaning of mightiness, power, and/or authority as given to them by the only true MIGHTY ONE of the universe, whose is innately mighty, but this kind of application of the words in a more general sense of mightiness does mean the only true God. Only when applied to the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and Jesus do the words take on the sense of THE MIGHT, the Supreme Being. 

 

 Many translations have recognized this usage, but it is not readily apparent to most readers of these translations. For instance, when considering the Hebrew word *EL* (Strong's #410), which is most often rendered "God", the King James translators recognize the usage of this word in its basic meaning many times. Carefully note the following texts from the King James Version, in which English translations of the Hebrew word El (and its variations) are in denoted by *..*: "It is in the *power* of my hand." (Genesis 31:29) "There shall be no *might* in thine hand." (Deuteronomy 28:32) "Neither is it in our *power*." (Nehemiah 5:5) "Like the *great* mountains." (Psalm 36:6) "In the *power* of thine hand to do it." (Proverbs 3:27) "Who among the sons of the *mighty*." (Psalm 89:6) "God standeth in the congregation of the *mighty*." (Psalm 82:1) "Who is like unto thee, O Lord [Jehovah] among the *Gods* [mighty ones or ruling ones]?" (Exodus 15:11) "Give unto the Lord [Jehovah] of ye *mighty*." (Psalm 29:1) "The *mighty* God even the Lord [Jehovah]." (Psalm 50:1) "The *strong* among the mighty shall speak." (Ezekiel 32:21) In none of these verses would anyone think of putting forth the challenge of whether the word EL is in reference to the only true God or to a false god. 

 

In the above sense of general might, power, authority, rulership, etc., that Jehovah gives to Jesus, we can say that Jesus is god (mighty, powerful, strong, ruler, etc.), but he is not the only true God, the Supreme Being of the Universe. The Supreme Being does not have one who is Supreme Being over him. Jesus does have one who "God," the Supreme Being over him. Likewise, the Hebrew word "elohim" (Strong's #430) can mean "mighty" or "great" as can be seen by the way the KJV translators have rendered it in various verses. Again, the word(s) that are used to express the Hebrew word "elohim" are denoted by **: "a *mighty* prince" (Genesis 23:6) "And Rachel said, With *great* wrestlings have I wrestled with my sister, and I have prevailed: and she called his name Naphtali." (Genesis 30:8) "It was a very great trembling." (1 Samuel 14:15) "Now Nineveh was an exceeding *great* city of three days' journey." -- Jonah 3:3.  One can verify these usages in most Lexicons, Strong's Concordance, or by using the KJV with Strong's numbers at biblehub.com or studylight.org. 

Strong's 410

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/410.htm

https://studylight.org/lexicons/eng/hebrew/410.html

 

Strong's 430
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/430.htm
https://studylight.org/lexicons/eng/hebrew/430.html

 

 ELOHIM, when used in a singular setting, takes on the sense of superiority or the superlative, often called the plural intensive usage of a word. However, forms of the word ELOHIM can also designate a plural usage in a plural setting. Such a case is in Psalm 82:1,6. The King James Version renders ELOHIM in Psalm 82:1 in the first instance as "God," but in the second instance as "gods". The KJV renders the Hebrew word EL in Psalm 82:1 as "mighty." Jesus refers to Psalm 82:6 in his defense concerning his being called the son of God, and the Greek text in John 10:34,35 renders ELOHIM into the Greek as THEOI (plural form of THEOS). The "sons of God" to whom the Logos came are referred to as ELOHIM, THEOS. Should we think of this in terms of being "false gods" or the "true God?" We don't think so, else Jesus' statement would have been meaningless, and his appeal to what God's Word stated would have been of no help to him. Jesus was showing the scriptural legitimacy for using the word involved to others than the only true God, Yahweh, in a sense other than meaning the Most High, Supreme Being, and thus, that his claim to be "the son of God" certainly did not break any of the rules of the scriptural usage. Thus, in John 1:1,2, John, by twice stating that the Logos in his prehuman existence was with God, is definitely not stating that the Logos was the only true God whom the Logos was with. The words of Jesus in John 17:3,5 show that Jesus was with the only true God -- he was not that only true God whom he was with. Therefore, THEOS in John 1:1, as applied to the Logos should be viewed with the general Hebraic meaning of "mighty," "the Logos was mighty." 

 

 We, therefore, conclude that in the very few instances in the Bible where the words THEOS, EL, or ELOHIM are applied to Jesus, it is in this general sense of might, power, etc., not in the sense as the only true God versus false gods. Such usage does not give us reason to think that Jesus is the only true God who sent Jesus.

 

Jesus has a God; the Supreme Being does not have anyone who is Supreme over him. -- Psalm 45:7Isaiah 61:1,2Micah 5:4Ephesians 1:3Hebrews 1:9.

Only the God and Father of Jesus is spoken of as being the "one God" of whom are the all. -- 1 Corinthians 8:6.

 

Only the God and Father of Jesus is given the designation of being the "only true God." -- John 17:1,3.

 

It was the one true God that Jesus came to declare. -- John 1:181 John 5:20.

 

For links to studies related to this, see our resource page:
One God

-------------------------------

------------------------------

John 1:1 — What Beginning?

https://sonofyah.wordpress.com/2008/12/08/john-11a/

John 1:1 – What Beginning?

Posted on December 8, 2008 | 26 Comments

John 1:1 – In the beginning

It is usually thought that “the beginning” in John 1:1 refers to the beginning of absolutely all creation. However, the scriptures indicate otherwise. Notice how “the beginning” is used in other scriptures, and how it is used regarding the human world, not of the angels.  — Matthew 19:4,8; 24:21; Mark 10:6; 13:19; John 8:44; 2 Peter 3:4.

“The beginning” refers not to the beginning of the universe, nor the beginning of the spirit world where the angels live, but the “beginning” of the world of mankind into which Jesus came. It was this “world” that was made through Jesus, before the creation of which Jesus was with his God and Father. (John 1:10; 17:1,3,5; 2 Corinthians 11:31; Ephesians 1:3,17; 1 Peter 1:3) The Greek word for “world” is usually transliterated as “kosmos.” This word, also, usually refers, not to the angels, nor even to the physical universe as such, but to the world of mankind, as can be seen by its usage throughout the New Testament.
http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2889

The words related to creation in the New Testament are almost always used in relation to the world of mankind, and not regarding the invisible heavens, or even the physical universe. For instance, that creation which has been subjected to futility, and which is to be released therefrom is the world of mankind.  –Romans 8:19-22.

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/NewTestamentGreek/grk.cgi?number=2937

Jesus is never called the creator the Bible, but rather, the Bible shows that all in this world was made “through” Jesus. (John 1:3,10) Nothing in this world was made without Jesus. Jesus identified his God and Father as the Creator. (Mark 10:6; 13:19) John simply identifies “the Word” as the agent that God used in that creation.

For further study on this, see:

The Beginning and the Creation of the World

In The Beginning

The Six Days of Creation

Is Jesus the Creator?

The Word of God

Related Books

 

 

-------------------------------

------------------------------

John 1:1 - The Hebraic Usage Applied to the Word (2016-03-06)

https://notrinity.blogspot.com/2016/03/john-11-hebraic.html

John 1:1 - The Hebraic Usage Applied to the Word

 

Probably the first scripture trinitarians point to in an effort to support their triune God dogma is John 1:1. Actually, there is nothing at all about a triune God presented in that verse, so whatever is thought concerning a triune God has be imagined beyond what is written, then added to, and read into what is stated.

Paul lets us know that there is only one who is the source of all, and thus that there is only one who is "God" (with a capital "G" -- the Supreme Being  -- 1 Corinthians 8:6). Peter lets us know that it is the one Supreme Being who made Jesus to be both Lord and Christ (anointed one). The prophetic words of Messiah in Isaiah 61:1 lets us know that it is Jehovah who anointed and sent Jesus. Jesus lets us know that Jehovah who sent him is his God and Father, the only true God (Supreme Being). In effect, Jesus denies that he is God -- the Supreme Being -- by his words in John 17:1,3.

John 1:1 is only scripture that I can definitely agree that the Greek or Hebrew word for "god/God" in the Bible is applied to Jesus. There may be a very few other scriptures, but all others I cannot be sure of. At any rate, it should be apparent that in John 1:1, or any other scripture where "God/god" is thought to apply to Jesus, it is not being used in the sense of the Supreme Being, but rather in the sense of might, strength, power (the basic Hebrew meaning of the Hebrew word for "God/god". In effect, the Biblical Hebraic usage of the word for "God/god" do not exactly match the English usage of "God/god".

The King James Version (KJV) shows Biblical Heraic usage for the word "god" by rendering the Hebrew word for "God/god" in different ways: The Hebrew word for God/god is rendered as "mighty" in the following verses: Genesis 23:6Exodus 9:28Psalms 50:182:189:6Ezekiel 31:11. The KJV renders the Hebrew word God/god as "power" in the following verses: Genesis 31:29Proverbs 3:27Micah 2:1. The KJV renders the Hebrew word for God/god as "might" in Deuteronomy 28:32. The KJV renders it as "strong" in Ezekiel 32:21. This is only a sampling of the Hebraic usage as shown in the Bible; nevertheless, it demonstrates that the Hebrew meaning for God/god can be used of men, without meaning that they are the Supreme Being or that they are false gods. As meaning the Supreme Being, it only applies to the God and Father of Jesus, since only the God of Jesus is the source of all might. (1 Corinthians 8:6) Therefore, what is presented above shows that the Hebrew word for God/god does not exactly correspond to the English usage of the word God/god, else the KJV could have rendered Genesis 31:29 as "It is in the god of my hand."  As it is, however, English, and most other Romantic languages, do not make use of the word "god" in this manner.

Consequently, due the common modern concept of God/god, whenever it is applied to others than the Supreme Being or of false gods, it would be best to render it as the KJV as presented earlier (and all other translations I have examined in many of the scriptures) with some form of might, power, etc. Jesus words recorded in John 10:34-36 shows that the meaning is being brought over into the Greek word often transliterated as THEOS, for Jesus was not saying the sons of the Most High are the Supreme Being, nor was he saying that they are false gods.

Applying the Hebraic usage in John 1:1 would give us the English, "the Word was mighty", not the Word was God (as meaning, "Supreme Being"). This would correspond with the way the King James Version the Hebrew word for "God/god" in Psalm 82:1 ("mighty").The ONLY reason for not doing so with THEOS as applied to the Logos in John 1:1 is due to man's preconceived notion that Jesus is the Suprenme Being, and the further assumption that Jesus is one of three persons of the Supreme Being. This being so, any usage of John 1:1 as an alleged proof of a triune God (which concept is no where ever once presented in the entire Bible) is circular, that is, because we believe that Jesus is the Supreme Being, we believe that THEOS applied to the Logos in John 1:1 means that he is the Supreme Being, thus because of what we believe, John 1:1 is proof that Jesus is the Supreme Being.

Again, 1 Corinthians 8:6 shows that there is only one person who is the source of all, which certainly includes the source of all might, power, strength.

See also some of my studies related to John 1:1:
http://jesus-rlbible.com/?page_id=4871

 

 

-------------------------------

------------------------------

John 1:1 Regarding “Was” and Eternity (moved to Jesus and His God) (2016-10-05)

https://notrinity.blogspot.com/2016/10/een.html

 

John 1:1 Regarding “Was” and Eternity (moved to Jesus and His God)

John 1:1 Regarding “Was” and Eternity (moved to Jesus and His God)

This study has been moved to: http://jesusnotyhwh.blogspot.com/2016/12/white.html

Three-Headed Trinity?

Trinitarians often claim that trinitarians do not believe in a "three-headed trinity". While it may be true that most trinitarians...

John 4:26 - EGO EIMI and Jesus' Claim to be the Messiah

Some trinitarians are using John 4:26 connected with Isaiah 43:10-12 and/or Isaiah 52:6 as proof that Jesus is Jehovah. The assumption is th...

1 Thessalonians 5:23 - Is Man a Trinity?

1 Thessalonians 5:23, along with Genesis 1:26,27, is often presented by trinitarians as an alleged proof of their trinity dogma. Evidently, .

 

 

-------------------------------

------------------------------

John 1:1 and the Son of God, Immanuel (2013-11-15)

https://notrinity.blogspot.com/2010/11/responding-to-winging-it.html

John 1:1 and the Son of God, Immanuel

This is in response to:
My Trinity Question

I am not here addressing what is stated there in detail, but mostly giving links to where I have discussed the points before. Please note that I am not just addressing what is present in the original post, but rather what is presented in the comments.

Preliminary:

Jesus is Not Yahweh

The God (Supreme Being – The Might) of Jesus (Scriptures)

Who is Jesus?

John 1:1

John 1:1 proves that Jesus was deity (mighty) with (or towards) the only true Might of the universe (John 1:1,3,5), the source of all might; it does not prove that Jesus is in the only might of the universe.

If Jesus is the Might whom he is with, then Jesus is the Father, for Jesus identified whom he was with in John 17:1,3,5. Jesus was with the only true God, thus, the default is that Jesus is not the only true God whom he was with. Even most trinitarians say that the first theos in John 1:1 is not being used in the same manner as the second theos, for they use their imagination and form the assumption that the first theos is not speaking of three persons, but rather of one of the alleged persons of their triune God, while the second theos does not speak of the three persons, but the alleged second person of their triune God. Nevertheless, it is obvious that the second theos is not used in the same manner as the first theos. In the text John emphasizes the difference between his usage of theos by repeating that the Logos was with God, thus indicating that the Logos was NOT "God" whom he was with, and that "god" applied to the Logos means something different than expressing "the only true God" (John 17:5).

There is Only One True God

The Logos of God

What Beginning?

John 1:1 and Trinitarian Assumptions

The Logos was Theos

John 1:1 - In the Beginning

Hebraic Usage of the Titles for “God”

If Jesus is the Might whom he is with, then Jesus is the Father, for Jesus identified whom he was with in John 17:1,3,5. Jesus was with the only true God, thus, the default is that Jesus is not the only true God whom he was with. Even most trinitarian say that the first theos is not being used in the same manner as the second theos, for they use their imagination and form the assumption that the first theos is not speaking of three persons, but rather of one of the alleged persons of their triune God, while the second theos does not speak of the three persons, but the alleged second persons of their triune God. Yes, it is obvious that the second theos is not used in the same manner as the first theos. In the text John emphasizes the difference between his usage of theos by repeating that the Logos was with God.
http://jesus.rlbible.com/>=tag=john-11

Romans 9:5

See:

Who is Over All

2 Corinthians 3:17

Yahweh, the Spirit

1 Timothy 6:15,16

The Only Ruler Who Possesses Immortality

ELOHIM

Elohim – Does This Word Indicate a Plurality of Persons in a Godhead?

Genesis 1:26 – Let Us and Elohim

Hebrews 1:8 – Why is Jesus called “Elohim” and “Theos”? Psalm 45:6,7

Genesis 1:1 – Elohim

Emmanuel

Matthew 1:23 – Immanuel, God with us

Son of God

In the expression, Son of God, the word "God" signifies one person, not a triune God, which agrees with the usage of the singular word "God" all through the Bible. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is always presented as one person, and not once as more than one person. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is always presented as a distinct individual from His son.

The Unipersonal God Spoke Through His Son

Son of God and Son of Man

John 5:18

The Jewish Leaders' "Cause" to Kill Jesus

I Am

“I am”

Creator

The "all" that the unipersonal God (Colossians 1:2,13-15) created by means of Jesus does not include the first born creature, since it is evident (1 Corinthians 15:27) that God is not created at all, and that Jesus was created before that "all" which was created through, by means of, him. -- Colossians 1:15,17.
http://jesus.rlbible.com/?tag=colossians-116


The all that came into being through Jesus in John 1:3 refers to the world of mankind, as described in John 1:10, and which Jesus refers to in John 17:5. Paul refers to this world in Romans 5:12, showing how it had become corrupted through sin. (see 2 Peter 1:4) Paul again refers to this world in Romans 8:19-22 and refers to this as "all creation" in verse 22. This "all creation", however, does not include the angels, for the angels who see the face of God (Matthew 18:10) have not been subjected to futility. -- Ecclesiastes 1:2,13-15.
http://jesus.rlbible.com/?tag=john-13

Yes, there is only one being in the universe so has not been created. The Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, identifies that one being as one person, and never as more than one person. Nevertheless, while it may be that the thought of self-existence is included in Ehyeh (I am, I will be) and Yahweh (He is, He will be), I believe that the Holy Name declares that the Creator is and will be Who He is, that is, He is and will who He is and thus does not deny Himself (2 Timothy 2:13); His word is trustworthy. -- Isaiah 55:11Titus 1:2Hebrews 6:18.
Focus on the Holy Name

Originally posted 11/13/2010; Updated 11/15/2013

 

 

-------------------------------

------------------------------

John 1:1 - In the Beginning (2016-11-24)

https://jesusnotyhwh.blogspot.com/2016/11/john1beginning.html

John 1:1 - In the Beginning

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
Genesis 1:1
"In the beginning was the LOGOS, and the LOGOS was with TON THEON, and the LOGOS was theos." -- John 1:1; transliterations obtained from Westcott & Hort Interlinear

Unless otherwise noted, all quotations from the Holy Bible are from the World English bible translation.

 

This study has not yet been updated. Links may not work.

 

 

We will, in this study, examine what is the "beginning" spoken of in Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1, as well as what is included in the "panta" [all things] spoken of in John 1:3. One claims: "By saying that the Word was in the beginning, John implies that the Logos already existed before the beginning talked about in Gen 1:1, namely, the beginning of created reality. This means that the Logos must be uncreated and eternal." This is usually the concept that most apply to the word "beginning" in John 1:1 and Genesis 1:1, and then, from this it is assumed the the Logos had no beginning.

One might say that the word "beginning" refers to the beginning of creation, which is true, but then we need to ask: What creation? One might say the creation of the "heavens and the earth", as spoken of in Genesis 1:1. But then, we need to ask, What is included in the heavens and earth that is spoken of there? Does it include the heavens where the angels are who always see the face of God? (Matthew 18:10) Doesn't Job 38:4-7 speak the angels as "sons of God", and thus show that they were already in existence before the beginning of the heavens and the earth of Genesis 1:1? Was the heaven wherein God's throne exists ever created? -- Isaiah 66:1Matthew 5:34.

Some, claiming that the "beginning" refers to absolutely all creation, view the beginning in John 1:1 as referring to the beginning of the firstborn creature. Others seem to think that the Logos in John 1:1 is not a creature at all, but simply the word or thought of God. These usually hold that the beginning of John 1:1 is before absolutely all creation, whether living or non-living, even including the creation of the material universe. One claims that the verb transliterated as "en" (Strong's #1511) means "come into being", and thus that John 1:1 should be rendered as: "In the beginning, the Word came into being, and the Word existed at the God, and the Word occurred to God." This latter view seems to deny that personal prehuman existence of Jesus.

The verb form transliterated as "en" or "een" (Strong's #1511), however, is an imperfect form of the verb which simply denotes existence, in the sense of having been in existed, or having existence. It is almost always rendered into English as "was" (however, the English form "was" does not always correspond in meaning to the Greek word "een".) The idea that it means "come into being" has to be assumed beyond its actual meaning. A study of the usage of this word, however, shows that its best translation is "was".
See our study:
Regarding "Was" in John 1:1

Getting to back to the word "beginning", we ask: What was the general thought of the New Testament writers when they spoke of the "beginning" of creation, or of the world? We need to examine some scriptures to see, and thereby compare spiritual with spiritual. -- 1 Corinthians 2:13.

The first scripture we will examine is Matthew 19:4:

He answered, "Haven't you read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, ..."

We can learn from this that Jesus associated "the beginning" with the time of the creation of Adam and Eve. This agrees with Exodus 20:11: "In six days Yahweh made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them." This shows that the "beginning" spoken of in Genesis 1:1 is the six days that are described in Genesis 1:3 through Genesis 2:1. Adam and Eve's creation was on the last of the six days of creation in which God created the heavens and the earth. Thus, the "beginning" spoken of in Genesis 1:1 is regarding the six days of creation.

However, do these six days include the creation of the planet earth, the sun, the moon, the stars and the angels? No. Let us see why this is so.

Before getting into the creation of the heavens and the earth -- the six days -- we read: "the earth was formless and empty." (Genesis 1:2) It should be apparent here that "earth" is referring to the planet. That which is later called "earth", the land masses", had not yet come into being. Thus, the planet earth already "was" before the first day of creation, thus before the beginning spoken of in Genesis 1:1, as verified by Exodus 20:11. Thus, "earth" in verse 1, which refers to the six days of creation, must mean something different than the planet earth.

So what was the "earth" that is spoken of that was created in the "beginning"? Genesis 1:9,10 tells us:

God said, "Let the waters under the sky be gathered together to one place, and let the dry land appear," and it was so. God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters he called Seas. God saw that it was good.

Notice that was not the planet that was created on the third day, but dry land. This is the "earth" that was created in the beginning spoken of in verse one. "Earth" in the Bible, however, also designates the society of people who are living on the dry land. We read that "The earth also was corrupt before God." (Genesis 6:11) Does this mean that the planet itself was corrupt? No, it is speaking of mankind and his society upon the earth: "the earth was filled with violence." And:

And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth. -- Genesis 6:13.

Here God says he will destroy all flesh with the earth. Did he mean that the planet earth would be no more? No, but he did destroy the order of things that man had made upon the earth. Thus, we should be able to see that the word "earth" can refer to the human society on the planet earth, and not to the planet itself.

Likewise, Abraham called Jehovah the "Judge of all the earth." (Genesis 18:25) Did he mean that the planet itself was to be judged by Yahweh? No, he is speaking of mankind upon the planet. More scriptures could be cited, but these give a basis for showing that the "earth" referred to in Genesis 1:1 is not the planet, but rather the things upon the land.

What about the heavens -- what is included in the statement that in the beginning God created the heavens? Very evidently "heavens" does not include the heavens that is God's throne, and where the angels see the face of God. (Isaiah 66:1Matthew 5:3418:10) The scriptures seem to indicate that the invisible heavens where God throne is has always been. (Psalm 93:2103:19Isaiah 66:1Acts 7:45) So what heavens is being referred to?

The word "heaven", like the word "earth", is used in different ways in the Bible.

The Hebrew word Shamayim, usually rendered "heavens" in Genesis 1:1, is precisely the same word that used in Genesis 1:8. Often it is rendered by many translations in the singular in Genesis 1:8; however, it is plural in both instances in the Hebrew -- it is exactly the same word used in both instances. This indicates that "heavens" spoken of as being created in Genesis 1:1, is that expanse, or firmament, that is spoken of in Genesis 1:8. However, as the beginning involves the full of the six days, the heavens includes all that is in these heavens -- the hosts of heaven -- as seen from the earth, the flying creatures, and even the sun, moon and stars that were made to appear in the fourth day (Genesis 1:14,152:1; Note: We do not understand Genesis 1:14,15 to mean that the sun, moon and stars, as physical bodies, were created on the fourth day, but that they were made to appear in the heavens as seen from the surface of the earth). We should note further that the word "heavens" can also refer to the spiritual ruling powers that had been set in place by God through Jesus, which heavens -- spiritual ruling powers, having come under the control of wicked spirits - is to pass away. -- Psalm 102:25Ezekiel 28:12-15Matthew 4:8,9John 12:3114:3016:112 Corinthians 4:4Ephesians 2:26:12Hebrews 1:8,101 John 5:19.
==========
See: Why is Jesus Called "Elohim" and "Theos"?

And what about the "beginning" in John 1:1? It is speaking of the beginning of the world of mankind and not the creation of the spirit world or even of the stars and planet systems. (We should take note that there is a single "day" of creation spoken of in Genesis 2:4, which "day" includes the "six days" in which he created the heavens [skies] and the earth [land masses]. -- Exodus 20:13; see also Matthew 19:4,5, which refers to the beginning when Adam and Eve were created.) The angels were already in existence in the spirit world at the creation being spoken of. -- Job 4:11-17Mark 10:6.

So we conclude that at the "beginning" spoken of in John 1:1 and Genesis 1:1, the angels were already in existence, as well as the LOGOS. Again, by comparing spiritual with spiritual, we find verification for this in the way the word "beginning" is used in the NT, as related to creation.

In Matthew 24:21, Jesus speaks of the "beginning of the world."

For then will be great oppression, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, nor ever will be.

Is he here speaking of the world of the angels? No, he is speaking of the world of mankind.

On this point, we need to note, however, that the one referred to as "the Word" was already in existence at the "beginning of the world", for we read that "the world was made through him." (John 1:10) Since the one called "the Word" is identified in John 1:14-17 as the one was later name "Jesus", then we know that the prehuman Jesus was created before the beginning of the world that Jesus spoke of in Matthew 24:21. From John 1:10, we also reason that the "beginning" of John 1:1 is referring to the same beginning that Jesus spoke of in Matthew 24:21.

Mark 10:6 makes this even clearer:

But from the beginning of the creation, 'God made them male and female.'

So the beginning of creation here is not the beginning of the creation of the spirit world; the angels -- the spirit sons of God -- were already in existence at the creation that Jesus spoke of. -- Job 38:4-7; see Job 1:62:1.

Let us also notice some usages of the word "creation" (Hebrew, ktisis; Strong's #2937) that show that it usually (although not always) was used in the NT times to refer to human creation, and not angels, sun, moon, stars, etc.

Mark 16:15 - He said to them, "Go into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation."

The whole creation here does not include the angels, nor the sun, the moon, the stars, etc. The "creation" being spoken of is the human creation. The word translated "whole" in the Greek is transliterated as "pasee", a variation of the word transliterated as "pas". (Strong's #3956 -- This word is discussed in the latter part of this study.) The usage here further illustrates that "pas" in all its variations does not necessarily refer to absolutely everything in the universe. Here it is limited to the human creation, as it is also in John 1:3. It is speaking of the world of mankind into which Jesus came, the world that God made through Jesus. -- John 1:10.

Romans 1:20 - For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse.

It should be obvious here that the "world" being spoken of is the visible world -- the world of mankind here on earth, and not the invisible world of the angels, etc.

Romans 8:19 - For the creation waits with eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed.
Romans 8:20 - For the creation was subjected to vanity, not of its own will, but by reason of him who subjected it, in hope...

Similarly, it should be apparent that the spirit world is not subjected to the vanity spoken of here, but it is the world of mankind.

Now getting back to the "beginning" spoken of in Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1, by a comparison of spriritual revealment with spiritual revealment we can see that this beginning is not speaking of everything in the entire universe, but it can be seen to be limited especially to the world of mankind, into which Jesus came. It is of the world of mankind that John speaks of John 1:3 as "panta" -- all. TON THEON made the all of the world of mankind, through Jesus, and without him none of this world was made.

However, many read in John 1:3 that not one thing was made without the Logos and thus conclude that the "beginning" in John 1:1 refers to the absolute beginning of everything that was created.

John 1:3 - All things [Greek, panta, Strong's #3956] were made through [Greek, di, Strong's #1223] him. Without him was not anything [oude hen, Strong's #3761, 1520] made that has been made.

The word translated "all things" in the Greek is "panta". Literally, it means "all." The word "things" is supplied by translators. The word panta is a variation of the word "pas". This word always looks to context and common evidence for what should be included and what should not be included. It rarely, if ever, means absolutely everything that exists.

If one were to do a search through the NT occurences of variations of the Greek word "pas", and try to replace it with "absolutely everything in the universe", one could see it just does not fit. One can do this by using a Greek transliterated text that can be searched. However, it is easier if one searches for Strong's #3956. The Westcott & Hort text is available online by which one can do such a search.
==========
http://qbible.com/greek-new-testament/.

Let us look at a few scriptures to demonstrate this principle of evident inclusion and exclusion.

"There went out to him all the country of Judea, and all those [Strong's 3956] of Jerusalem. They were baptized by him in the Jordan river, confessing their sins." (Mark 1:5) Pantes [a variation of "pas"] is here rendered "all those". Does this mean that absolutely every person who lived in the country of Judea and in Jerusalem came to John and was baptized by him? Absolutely not.

Mark 1:5
kai exeporeueto pros auton pasa hee ioudaia
AND WAS GOING THE WAY OUT TOWARD HIM ALL THE JUDEAN
2532 1607 4314 0846_7 3956 3588 2449
chwra kai hoi ierosolumeitai pantes kai
COUNTRY AND THE JERUSALEMITES ALL, AND
5561 2532 3588 2415 3956 2532
ebaptizonto hup autou en tw iordanee potamw
WERE BEING BAPTIZED BY HIM IN THE JORDAN RIVER
0907 5259 0846_3 1722 3588 2446 4215
exomologoumenoi tas hamartias autwn
OPENLY CONFESSING THE SINS OF THEM.
1843 3588 0266 0846_92
Westcott & Hort Interlinear, as obtained from the Bible Students Library DVD

To make greater sense in English, this would be better rendered: "And there went to him those of all the land of Judea, and Jerusalemites. All these were baptized by him in the Jordan River, openly confessing their sins." The Good News Translation, although it is paraphrased, captures the sense by expressing it: "Many people from the province of Judea and the city of Jerusalem went out to hear John. They confessed their sins, and he baptized them in the Jordan River."

"And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables." (Mark 4:11, King James Version) Here in the KJV, the phrase "ta panta" [literally, 'the all'] is shown as "all these things". This is a good example of how qualifiers added by translators may help the reader understand the usage of the word "all". Not only did the KJV translators add the word "things", but they also added the word "these".

"With Onesimus, a faithful and beloved brother, who is one of you. They shall make known unto you all [Strong's 3956] things which are done here." (Colossians 4:9) Here it is evident from the context that "all" is limited the things "which are done here." The word "things" in English is added by the KJV translators.

And then we have the example of the usage of "ta panta" in Hebrews 2:8, where Paul quotes Psalm 8 regarding mankind: "'You have put all things in subjection under his feet.' For in that he subjected all things to him [man], he left nothing that is not subject to him [man]. But now we don't see all things subjected to him, yet." What are the "all things" -- ta panta: the all -- that was subjected to mankind? Psalm 8:7 answers: "All sheep and oxen, Yes, and the animals of the field, The birds of the sky, the fish of the sea, And whatever passes through the paths of the seas." (See Genesis 1:26,28) It is evident that ta panta here does not mean absolutely everything in the universe, but that it includes all the things being spoken of that was subjected to man.

In Colossians 1:20 we read that through Jesus, God is reconciling "all things" [ta panta] to himself, "whether things on earth or things in heaven." Does this mean that absolutely everything in the universe is out of harmony with God, and thus through Jesus absolutely everything in the universe needs to be reconciled to God? Does this mean that the obedient angels need to be reconciled with God? Does this mean that Satan himself will be reconciled with God? The things that come to peace with God directly through the blood of Jesus is man, first of all the seed of Abraham, and then those take of the waters of life in the millennium. (Romans 5:12-191 Corinthians 15:21,22) However, Jesus and his joint-heirs especially, will not only rule over mankind, but also over the angels -- over all dominions, so that eventually all must either repent and come into harmony with God, or else be destroyed. The end result is that all creation then remaining both in heaven and earth that had been out of harmony with God will be reconciled to God, but the point is that the term "all things" does not totally refer to absolutely everything in the universe, since not all things in the universe are out of harmony with God so that they would need to be reconciled.
==========
See also:
http://www.heraldmag.org/archives/1941_11.htm#_Toc31126780

Therefore, The word panta (as well as all the variations of the Greek pas -- Strong's Greek #3956) is used in connection with what is spoken of, thus all the things of which we are speaking. It does not necessarily mean absolutely everything that exists, else God himself would have to be included.
==========
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/NewTestamentGreek/grk.cgi?number=3956.

So we conclude that the word panta (usually translated in John 1:3 as "all things") and the words "oude hen" (usually translated as "not one thing") need to be viewed relative to what is being spoken of, that is, the world of mankind into which the Logos came and was not recognized by. (John 1:1017:5) The words "things" and "thing" are supplied by the translators. Without adding the supplied word "things" and "thing", the verse would read: "All through him came to be, and without him not one came to be."

Now, regarding the phrase "not one thing". A similar usage may be found in Hebrews 2:8 (already discussed above), in connection with his quotation from Psalm 8:5,6. Paul is referring to the subjection of "all things" to mankind. And then he says "For in that he [God] subjected all things to him [man], he left nothing that is not subject to him." In saying that God left nothing that is not subject to man, did Paul mean that there is nothing in the whole universe that was not made subject to man? Absolutely, not! Paul is speaking concerning realm of the earth. And this is what can be seen from Psalm 8:6-8:

Psalm 8:6 You make him ruler over the works of your hands. You have put all things under his feet: Psalm 8:7 All sheep and oxen, Yes, and the animals of the field, Psalm 8:8 The birds of the sky, the fish of the sea, And whatever passes through the paths of the seas.

Likewise, by context, and from the rest of the scriptures, we can determine that "not one thing" in John 1:3 refers the creation of the world of mankind, not to everything in the universe.

Having all this evidence from what is revealed through the holy spirit in the scriptures, it is our conclusion that the "beginning" spoken of in Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1 is not pertaining to the angels, nor even to the physical earth, stars and planets; that these were already in existence at the "beginning" spoken of both in John 1:1 and Genesis 1:1, and that this beginning refers to the beginning of the world of mankind, as spoken of in John 1:1017:5.

Related RL Studies

John 1:1 - What Beginning?

John 1:10 – The World Made Through Jesus

Is Jesus the Creator?

Is Jesus Designated the Creator?

John 1:3 – Without Jesus Christ Absolutely NOTHING Was Created?

Light, Darkness and the Logos

Isaiah 44:24 – Yahweh Stretched Forth the Heavens Alone

What Does Hebrews 1 Say About God?

The Six Days of Creation

By Ronald Day at November 24, 2016  

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

Labels: BeginningCreationJesus as "Creator"Logos

-------------------------------

------------------------------

John 1:1 and Trinity Assumptions (2017-05-17)

https://jesusnotyhwh.blogspot.com/2017/05/assumptions.html

John 1:1 and Trinity Assumptions

 

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God [TON THEON], and the Word was God [THEOS]. The same was in the beginning with God [TON THEON]. -- John 1:1,2, World English - transliterations from the Westcott & Hort Interlinear.

 

In order to get trinity into John 1:1, the trinitarian has to assume and read into the verse several things: (1) That Jehovah, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, is more than one person; (2) that Jesus is a person of God; (3) that two persons of the trinity-god are being spoken of here, and (4) that God whom the Logos was with is their alleged "first person" of the trinity, and (5) that THEOS applied to the Logos is their alleged "second person" of the trinity. Then, (6) they have to add to these assumptions that these two alleged persons of their trinity are both the same one true God, and not two Gods (as it actually reads in most translations). Rather than assuming and adding such to the scriptures, it is best to simply let the scriptures have their own say, applying spiritual revealing with spiritual revealing. -- 1 Corinthians 2:10,13.

 

The word THEOS is being applied to the LOGOS in John 1:1, but this does not mean that John was saying that Jesus was the only true God whom the LOGOS was with, as it should be apparent since twice John states that the LOGOS was with God. Jesus declares that One whom he was with before the world was made was the only true God (John 17:1,3,5), thus the scriptures make it plain that John is not saying that the Logos was the only true God whom the Logos was with. Paul distinguishes Jesus from being the "one God" of whom are all in 1 Corinthians 8:6. The God of Abraham, Isaaac, and Jacob, who spoke through the prophets of old, is presented as only one person and distinguished from his Son in Hebrews 1:1,2Isaiah 61:1,2 and Micah 5:4 presents Jehovah as the ELOHIM (God) of the Messiah. The default scriptural reasoning should be that Jesus is not Jehovah, his God. Therefore, the term THEOS as applied to the Logos should be applied with the general meaning of the Hebraic words for deity/divinity (forms of EL, ELOHIM), that is, of strength, power, or might.

 

While most translations render "kai theos een ho logos" as "the Word was God," Moffat renders this phrase as "the Word was divine." Julius Mantey declares that the phrase means "the Word was deity." We should have no objection to rendering theos as divine or deity, if one applies the terms divine and deity with the general meaning of strength, might, power, rather than as Supreme Being -- the Might of the Universe. James Parkinson, in his footnote of the American Revised Version Improved and Corrected, suggests "mighty was the Word." This would be the better rendering, or a rendering such as "the Word was mighty," both of which would distinguish the Word from the only true God whom the Logos was with. This would be in agreement with the rest of the scriptures, where the words for deity / divinity are applied to persons (and even things) who are not Jehovah in a general sense of might, power or strength.

 

The best point to begin with to show this usage is with John 10:34,35, where Jesus quotes/references Psalms 82:1,6, where both forms of the Hebrew word EL and ELOHIM are applied to the sons of the Most High, the sons to whom the Logos came (as Jesus explained). In John 10:34,35, the word ELOHIM is rendered as THEOI, a plural form of THEOS. According to the King James Version, God [ELOHIM] standeth in the congregation of the mighty [EL]. (Psalm 82:1) In reference to the sons of the Most High, the KJV renders the term EL as "the mighty." I believe that the KJV is correct in this rendering. Applying this scriptural principle to THEOS in John 1:1, we would likewise have "the Logos was mighty", or the "the Logos was a mighty one". Jesus, before he became flesh with the earthly glory of a sinless man that is a little lower than the angels (Psalm 8:51 Corinthians 15:39-41Hebrews 2:910:5), as indeed a mighty spirit being when he was with his God in the beginning of the world of mankind. -- John 17:1,3,5.

 

Of course, Psalm 82:1 is not the only place that the KJV renders forms of the words EL (Strong's Hebrew #410)  and ELOHIM (Strong's Hebrew #430) with terms showing mightiness or strength. Here are a few scriptures: Genesis 23:6 (mighty); Genesis 30:8 (mighty); Genesis 31:29 (power); Deuteronomy 28:32 (might); 1 Samuel 14:15 (great); Nehemiah 5:5 (power); Psalm 8:5 (angels); Psalm 36:6 (great); Proverbs 3:27 (power); Psalm 29:1 (mighty); Ezekiel 32:21 (strong); Jonah 3:3 (exceeding). The point is the King James translators, in all these verses, did not render the word for deity/divinity [EL] as "God" or as "god", but with terms of might, strength, great, power and might.

 

All of the spirit beings, by "nature" of the superior might given to them by the Almighty are scripturally designated as el or elohim, and thus can be spoken of as divine -- mighty -- in being. -- Psalm 8:5 (compare Hebrews 2:9; also Psalm 50:1 and 96:4 could be speaking of angels as elohim); 45:6,7; Isaiah 9:6,7John 1:1,2Acts 2:335:31Ephesians 1:20,22Philippians 2:9-11Hebrews 1:2-4,81 Peter 1:213:22.

 

Likewise, the firstborn creature (Colossians 1:15), who existed before all the creation that was created by means of him (Colossians 1:17), can certainly also have the term theos applied to him without meaning that he is the only true God who sent him. Indeed, before he became a man, he "was" a mighty spirit being, having a heavenly glory that he did not possess while he was a human. -- John 17:51 Corinthians 15:40.

 

See: Links to studies related to John 1:1

Links to studies related to Colossians 1:15

 

By Ronald R. Day, Sr.

 

 

-------------------------------

------------------------------

John 1:1- "Theos" As Applied to the Logos (2016-12-07)

https://jesusnotyhwh.blogspot.com/2016/12/john-1-1-theos.html

John 1:1- "Theos" As Applied to the Logos

John 1:1,2 with John 17:1,3,5 distinguishes the "only true God" from the Logos, Jesus. John emphasizes that Jesus is with (or toward, in service of) God twice; the default reasoning should be that the Logos is not the only true God whom the Logos was with, and thus the usage of THEOS as applied the Logos must be used with the Hebraic meaning of "mighty" or "mighty one". Jesus was, before he became flesh, a mighty spirit being when he had the celestial glory (1 Corinthians 15:39-40) before God made the world of mankind through Jesus. -- John 1:3,1017:5.

I believe that John used the Greek structure for the purpose of showing that THEOS, as applied to the Logos, is meant to differentiate THEOS as applied to the only true Supreme Being; indeed, this should be the default reasoning. Trinitarian scholars themselves do not all agree on exactly what the Greek syntax means, although they, in some way, agree that it means that Jesus is the Supreme Being, to which they would imagine, asssume, add to, and read into, the scripture, that this means that Jesus is a separate and distinct person of the Supreme Being. Regardless of how one views the Greek syntax from strictly the Greek itself, the default conclusion should be that the Logos is not the Supreme Being whom he was with.



The basic Hebraic meaning of the forms of the word that is often transliterated as EL is might, strength, power, etc. Forms of the word often transliterated as THEOS in the New Testament corresponds with forms of EL in the Old Testament. Since it should be obvious that the Logos is not the only true God in John 1:1, as John emphasized twice that the Logos was with, or toward, the only true God, and which Jesus later confirmed (John 17:1,3,5), the most basic and obvious reasoning would be that the Jesus the NOT the only true Mighty One, that is, He who is of Himself the Might of the universe, the source of all might.

Jesus, in effect, acknowledged that usage of theos by this words in John 10:34,35, in which he quotes the Old Testament and applies a plural form of THEOS to the sons of the Most High, to whom the Logos came. (Psalm 82:1,6) Jesus was not saying all these sons of God were persons of the Most High; he was saying that these sons of the Most High were 'gods' in the sense that they had received power and might by means of God's Holy Spirit. (Acts 1:8) Psalm 82 describes the difficulty of the sons of the Most High to overcome the sinful flesh, so as to not being misjudging, etc. The point, however, is that Jesus recognized the usage of theos in the manner. The King James Version refers to these sons of the Most High collectively as "mighty" in Psalm 82:1, where the Hebrew word EL is rendered as "mighty". Likwise, Jesus, being the only begotten son of God is "mighty", but he is not the Almighty Jehovah, who is the Mighty One Absolute, the source of all might, power, authority, etc. -- 1 Corinthians 8:6.



The KJV translators rendered forms of the Hebrew EL in various ways when they believed it was not speaking of Yahweh or false idol gods:  Genesis 23:6 (mighty); Genesis 30:8 (mighty); Genesis 31:29 (power); Deuteronomy 28:32 (might); 1 Samuel 14:15 (great); Nehemiah 5:5 (power); Psalm 8:5 (angels); Psalm 36:6 (great); Psalm 82:1 (mighty); Proverbs 3:27 (power); Psalm 29:1 (mighty); Ezekiel 32:21 (strong); Jonah 3:3 (exceeding). Most other translations also recognize this usage.

If such Hebraic usage is applied to Jesus (who is shown to not be the only true God — John 17:1,3) in John 1:1, we would have “the Word was mighty,” and all makes perfect sense without adding all of the imaginations and assumptions that would have to accompany viewing the scripture through the tint of the trinity doctrine. Jesus was indeed a mighty one with the only true Supreme Being -- the source of all might -- before the world of mankind was made. -- John 1:1017:1,3,51 Corinthians 8:6.

See my studies on my websites:
Trinitarian Assumptions
http://defendbiblefaith.com/?p=19
John 1:1-3 - The Logos Was Theos
http://jesus-rlbible.com/?p=372

I hope to eventually repost this to:
http://jesus-rlbible.com/?p=6367

By Ronald Day at December 07, 2016  

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

Labels: Jesus as "God"The Logos

No comments:

Post a Comment

 

Newer PostOlder PostHome

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Related Links

Is Jesus Now Flesh?

Jesus and His God (RL Forum)

Ransom and the Trinity

Studies Resource Page

We do not necessarily agree with all that may appear in links provided by Google ads and Amazon. As an Amazon associate, we earn a fee for qualifying purchases made through this site. We are in the process of removing all Amzaon ads.

Donate

Formularbeginn

 

Formularende

Translate

Sprache auswählenDeutschAfrikaansAlbanischAmharischArabischArmenischAserbaidschanischBaskischBelarussischBengalischBirmanischBosnischBulgarischCebuanoChichewaChinesisch (traditionell)Chinesisch (vereinfacht)DänischEsperantoEstnischFilipinoFinnischFranzösischFriesischGalizischGeorgischGriechischGujaratiHaitianischHausaHawaiischHebräischHindiHmongIgboIndonesischIrischIsländischItalienischJapanischJavanischJiddischKannadaKasachischKatalanischKhmerKinyarwandaKirgisischKoreanischKorsischKroatischKurdisch (Kurmandschi)LaoLateinischLettischLitauischLuxemburgischMalagasyMalayalamMalaysischMaltesischMaoriMarathiMazedonischMongolischNepalesischNiederländischNorwegischOdia (Oriya)PaschtuPersischPolnischPortugiesischPunjabiRumänischRussischSamoanischSchottisch-GälischSchwedischSerbischSesothoShonaSindhiSinghalesischSlowakischSlowenischSomaliSpanischSundanesischSwahiliTadschikischTamilTatarischTeluguThailändischTschechischTürkischTurkmenischUigurischUkrainischUngarischUrduUsbekischVietnamesischWalisischXhosaYorubaZulu

Powered by Google Übersetzer

Featured Post

Jesus is Not Jehovah (Yahweh)

By Ronald R. Day, Senior It is not our object in this series of summaries to refute all the arguments used by many who try to prove tha...

 

Print This Page

 

Notice

Due to the fact that I have been transferring studies from the old site to this site, and many other things I have to do, it may take me a long time to respond to comments. Additionally, many of the studies have been transferred here with many links to the old site that is no longer in existence. Please bear with me as it may take me a very long time to update all these links. -- Ronald R. Day, Sr

Subscribe (Feed Reader)

 Posts

 Comments

Subscribe (Email)

Formularbeginn

Get new posts by email:

Subscribe

Formularende

 

 

Jesus and Jehovah website is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a way for websites to earn advertising revenues by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.

Blog Archive

►  2022 (16)

►  2021 (35)

►  2020 (22)

►  2019 (14)

►  2018 (25)

►  2017 (60)

▼  2016 (85)

▼  December (28)

Zechariah 2:11 - Jehovah Sends Jehovah?

Revelation 17:14 - Lord of Lords and King of Kings...

1 Corinthians 12:3 - Jesus is Lord

"Most High" Scriptures

Isaiah 44:24 - Jehovah Alone Stretched Forth the H...

John 1:3 - The World Made Through the Logos

Trinity Definitions

Jehovah & His Son

Colossians 1:15, Revelation 3:14, and Jesus' Begin...

Colossians 1:15 - Did Jesus Have a Beginning?

Genesis 18:1-3 - Abraham and the Three Angels

John 1:18 - The Only Begotten God

John 1:14 - The Logos Was Made Flesh

John 1:12 - The Right To Become God's Children

John 1:1-3 - The Logos Was Theos

John 1:1 Regarding "Was" and Eternity

Who Is The Originator of Creation?

Malachi 2:10 - Is the "One God" Three Persons?

John 1:1- "Theos" As Applied to the Logos

John 1:1,2 - Is Jesus "God" Whom He was With?

Matthew 1:23 - Immanuel Means "God is With Us"

Zechariah 3:2 - Does Jehovah Ask Jehovah to Rebuke...

Angel of Jehovah

Trinitarians and Michael the Archangel

Jesus is Michael

Is Jesus the Archangel? Part 2 (Daniel 12:1; Jude ...

Is Jesus the Archangel? Part 1 (Daniel 8:25; 9:25,...

Genesis 12:7 - Jehovah's Appearances in Genesis

 

 

 

-------------------------------

------------------------------

John 1:1 Regarding "Was" and Eternity (2016-12-11)

https://jesusnotyhwh.blogspot.com/2016/12/white.html

John 1:1 Regarding "Was" and Eternity

The following is an excerpt from James White’s dissertation on “Germans, JW’s and John 1:1”. While we are not associated with the JWs, we have had this quote presented to us:

Quote from: James White

Some refer the “beginning” here to that of Genesis 1.1, and this may be so, but the verb “was” (Gr: en, imperfect of eimi) takes us before whatever “beginning” we may wish to choose. The continuous action in the past of the imperfect tense of the verb indicates to us that whenever the “beginning” was, the Word was already in existence. In other words, the Word is eternal – timeless – without a “beginning.”

James White claims the Greek word transliterated as *een* (Strong's #1510, Imperfect Indicative Active), in effect, would mean eternity, at least in John 1:1. It is evidently being assumed that “beginning” refers to absolutely everything in the created universe, and thus, since the Word “was” before such, then the Word was never created, and thus, has always been. We believe that the “all” of John 1:3 refers to, not the whole created universes, but rather to the world of mankind that was created through the Word. Jesus “was” (Strong's #1510, Present Indicate Active), indeed, in existence before the beginning of the world of mankind was made through him. — John 1:1017:5.

See: Jesus and Creation

On the other hand, White places a lot of emphasis on the word “was”. If the word itself designates eternity, then in John 1:10 where we find the same word used, Jesus is eternally in the world of mankind which did not recognize him. In actuality, there is no reason to add to the scriptures that only in John 1:1 should the word *een* be understood to denote eternity, except that one has a preconceived idea of such an eternity. In other words, the argument becomes circular, in effect, saying: “Since we believe that Jesus is uncreated, then *een* in John 1:1,2 means that Jesus always existed in all eternity past, and thus this gives proof that Jesus has always existed.” The word *een* can, of course, in all the realms of possibilities, be used of one who has had no beginning, even as our English word “was” can, in all the realms of possibilities, be also used in such a way. This is not, however, an inherent meaning of either word. Comparing spiritual revealing with spiritual revealing, the usage of *een* all through the NT provides an abundance of testimony that such an idea is not inherent in the word.

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=2258

Nevertheless, we believe that it would a mistake to assume that Jesus was created exactly at the beginning of the world of mankind. We do believe that Jesus was already existing with his God and Father before the beginning of world of mankind. (John 1:1017:1,3,5) The idea that Jesus was eternally existing before the world of mankind was made, however, has to be added to and read into the scriptures.

However, there is nothing at all in John 1:1 that states that Jesus had always existed from all eternity past; that idea has to read into what is actually stated.

See: Studies Related to John 1:1


 

By Ronald Day at December 11, 2016  

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

Labels: James WhiteJesus as "God"LogosUncreated

 

 

-------------------------------

------------------------------

John 1:1,2 (MMcelhaney) (2008-09-30)

https://notrinity.blogspot.com/2008/09/john-112-mmcelhaney.html

John 1:1,2 (MMcelhaney)

MMcelhaney has responded to some of the things written on this site in his blogsite at:

http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com/2008/09/bible-basics-trinity-part-2-redux.html

In this post, I will address what he stated concerning the post on this site at:

http://notrinity.blogspot.com/2008/08/john-112-word-was-mighty.html

MMcelhaney states that I said that TON THEON and THEOS in John 1:1,2 are two different words. I never said that they are two different words, but, at least as far as spelling, they are two different words. However, I did not address them as two different words, since THEON is usually considered but a form of THEOS and therefore thought of as the same word. What I addressed was the fact that TON THEON applied to the God of Jesus does not carry the same meaning or application as THEOS applied to the Word of God. Even most trinitarians will admit there is a difference, else they would have Jesus as his own Father whom he was with.

Trinitarians, however, have to add to and read into what John said the thought that TON THEON refers to their alleged first person of the trinity, while "the Logos was theos," refers to their alleged second person of the trinity, and thus have it read, in effect, "In the beginning was the second person of the trinity, and the second person of the trinity was with the first person of the trinity, and the second person of the trinity was with the qualities of first person of the trinity. In other words, they do not wish it to be thought of as "the second person of the trinity was the first person of the trinity." Thus, some argue that THEOS applied to Logos is a qualitative usage, and from that they would like for it to be understood that THEOS applied to the trinity means that Jesus had all the qualities of the TON THEON whom he was with. (Well, not quite all, they would deny that Jesus is the Father of Jesus, thus they would claim that THEOS would mean all the qualities that would make one God, which, they evidently assume, would not include the quality of being "God the Father". ) In effect, however, this ends up being a circular arugment for the trinity, saying, since we believe that THEOS applied to the LOGOS means that the LOGOS "was" all of the qualities of TON THEON whom he was with, which we believe because we believe that Jesus was God Almighty, then because of this, John 1:1,2 proves that Jesus is God Almighty.

The quality of being THEOS, as far as the Biblical tradition, is that of special power, strength, might. This is the basic meaning of the Hebrew word "EL," and all its forms, which is why its being used of another than Yahweh does not mean that such usage is denoting Yahweh. Only as applied to Yahweh, however, does take on the meaning of the Supreme Might, the Supreme Being. Jesus definitely excludes himself from being the only true God (Supreme Being) whom he was with, thus any application of THEOS to Jesus would have to be in the general sense of the quality of being mighty, or of being a mighty one.

It is claimed that the scriptures cited wherein the words for "God" are rendered in the KJV by words such as mighty, strong, etc. -- (Geenesis 23:6 (mighty); Genesis 30:8 (mighty); Genesis 31:29 (power); Deuteronomy 28:32 (might); 1 Samuel 14:15 (great); Nehemiah 5:5 (power); Psalm 8:5 (angels); Psalm 36:6 (great); Psalm 82:1 (mighty); Proverbs 3:27 (power); Psalm 29:1 (mighty); Ezekiel 32:21 (strong); Jonah 3:3 (exceeding) -- cannot be applied to Jesus because "no man other than Jesus has ever had the divine name applied to Himself of claimed for by Him." In reality, no where in the Bible does Jesus claim the name of his God and Father, nor does anyone else claim the name of Jesus' God and Father for Jesus. It is only as man reads such an idea into the scriptures that such a claim be made, which, in reality is the claim of uninspired men, not of Jesus, nor of any Bible writer. Since it is something has to be assumed and read into the scriptures, then this likewise is a circular argument.

John 8:58 is often cited as proof that Jesus claimed the holy name for himself, but in reality there is nothing there about a name at all. The idea has to be added to, and read into, the scripture.
http://godandson.reslight.net/i-am.html
http://reslight.wordpress.com/2007/09/15/i-am-in-john-858/
http://reslight.net/forum/index.php?topic=304.0
http://reslight.net/forum/index.php?topic=449.0

Laying aside the imaginative suppositions that man would read into the scriptures, I have never found any place in the Bible where the holy name of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is applied to anyone other than the God and Father of the Lord Jesus, except perhaps representatively as an angel of Yahweh might speak for, act for, and thus be addressed as though the angel were Yahweh. (Similar to an interpreter in a courtroom.) This does not mean that an angel of Yahweh, who spoke and acted for Yahweh, is Yahweh who sent the angel.* Jesus claimed to have been sent by Yahweh, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (the same as Moses was sent by the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob), as well as did all of the Bible writers. Jesus never claimed to be the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God who sent him. -- Exodus 3:15Deuteronomy 18:15-19Isaiah 6:1Matthew 22:3223:39Mark 11:9,1012:26Luke 13:3520:37John 3:2,17,32-354:345:19,30,36,436:577:16,288:26,28,3810:2512:49,5014:1015:1517:8,2620:17Acts 2:22,34-363:13,225:30Romans 15:62 Corinthians 1:38:611:31Colossians 1:3,152:9-12Hebrews 1:1-3Revelation 1:1.

*http://godandson.reslight.net/aoy.html

Since, in reality, the holy name of the God and Father of Jesus is never applied to Jesus, and since Jesus is definitely shown in the Bible not to be the only true God that Jesus was with. (John 1:1,217:1,3,5), then the most direct way of applying the meaning of THEOS to the LOGOS is that of might, strength, power, "the Word was mighty," in keeping with the Biblical usage.

This is in harmony with what Jesus said in John 17:3,5, where he was speaks of a glory that he had with the only true God before the world of mankind was made. The glory "was" -- past tense -- his, but he did not have that glory at the time that he prayed the prayer of John 17, else why would he ask for that glory? That glory was a celestial (heavenly) glory. (1 Corinthians 15:40) At the time that Jesus said the words of John 17, he had the glory of the terrestrial, earthly, not the celestial, heavenly. Jesus, being a sinless human being, was crowned with the full glory of a man, a little lower than the angels. (Romans 3:23Hebrews 2:9) It was this crown of human glory, given to Jesus by God through a special preparation of Jesus' body (Hebrews 10:5), that the writer John wrote of in John 1:14.

See also:
http://reslight.net/forum/index.php?topic=168.0
http://godandson.reslight.net/i-am.html
http://reslight.wordpress.com/2007/09/15/i-am-in-john-858/
http://reslight.net/forum/index.php?topic=304.0
http://reslight.net/forum/index.php?topic=449.0
http://godandson.reslight.net/john-1.html

Ronald R.

-------------------------------

------------------------------

John 1:1,2 - The Word was Mighty (2008-08-23)

https://notrinity.blogspot.com/2008/08/john-112-word-was-mighty.html

John 1:1,2 - The Word was Mighty

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God [TON THEON], and the Word was God [THEOS]. The same was in the beginning with God [TON THEON]. -- John 1:1,2, World English - transliterations from the Westcott & Hort Interlinear.

Obviously, John is not, by using the Greek word THEOS as applied to the Word, saying that the Word was TON THEON whom the Word was with. One is not "with" an individual, and at the same time that individual whom he was with. What the trinitarian has to do in order to force the trinitarian dogma into John's statement is to assume that TON THEON refers to the alleged "first person of God," that is, God the Father, and that THEOS applied to the Word refers to their alleged second person of God, God the Son. John does not speak of the holy spirit, so they have to assume and add the holy spirit.

I have no doubt that TON THEON refers to the God and Father of Jesus, for Jesus identifies who he was with (John 17:5), and Jesus also lets us know that his God and Father is the only true God. (John 17:3) This we can verify by comparing spiritual revealment with spiritual revealment.

The trinitarian claims that since Jesus is called THEOS (god) in John 1:1, and since there is only one true God, then Jesus has to be that only true God, or else he has to be a false god. This disregards the Hebraic tradition that allows the usage of the words for "God" in a more general sense of might, power, authority, etc. Thus, according to their line of reasoning, if Jesus is "god", then he is either the one true God, or else a false god.

However, even most Bible language scholars who believe in the trinity do recognize a usage of the words for God in the general sense of might, power, etc. Even the translators of the King James Version recognized such usage. This can be demonstrated in such verses where the KJV renders the word for "God" (forms of EL and ELOHIM in the Hebrew) so as to denote strength, power, might, rulership, etc., such as in the following verses: Genesis 23:6 (mighty); Genesis 30:8 (mighty); Genesis 31:29 (power); Deuteronomy 28:32 (might); 1 Samuel 14:15 (great); Nehemiah 5:5 (power); Psalm 8:5 (angels); Psalm 36:6 (great); Psalm 82:1 (mighty); Proverbs 3:27 (power); Psalm 29:1 (mighty); Ezekiel 32:21 (strong); Jonah 3:3 (exceeding). If one were to substitute "false god" in these verses, we would have some absurd statements. This proves that these words are used in a sense other than the only true God, or as "false god."

In Psalm 82:1, as noted above, the KJV renders one of the words for "God" as "mighty." Jesus quotes from part of this Psalm -- Psalm 82:6,7 -- in John 10:34,35, rendering the Hebrew word ELOHIM by the Greek words "THEOI," a plural form of THEOS, which word is used of the Logos in John 1:1. Jesus was not saying that the sons of God to whom the Word came are false gods, but he is using the word in sense of authority. The sons of God to whom the Word (the Logos) came were indeed given power, authority, to become sons of God. (John 1:12) With this authority, they can thus rightly be called ELOHIM, THEOI. They are not "false gods," but they are given their authority from God through Jesus.
For more concerning Psalm 82:6,7, see:
http://godandson.reslight.net/you-are-gods.html

Likewise, Jesus, being the firstborn son of God (Colossians 1:15), can also be called THEOS. Thus, the suggested rendering of John 1:1 in reference to the Word is "The Word was mighty."

For more concerning John 1:1,2, see:
John 1:1 and the Trinitarian
James White and "een" in John 1:1
John 1:1 and THEOS
The Logos as THEOS
In the Beginning
John 1:1 and the Logos of God

Response to

Bible Basics Trinity - Part 2 Redux

It is being claimed that we stated that Jesus in John 1:1,2 is not being called God, but mighty. This is not exactly what we say, and is deceptive. What we say is that the application of the Greek word for "God" as applied to the Logos in John 1:1,2 is a Hebraism which, in English, should be understood as meaning "mighty". John was a Hebrew and certainly would have knowledge of such Hebraic usage. Indeed, since John emphasizes the second time that Jesus was with TON THEON, (the God), the default reasoning would be that Jesus was not TON THEON whom he was with, and thus, that the application of THEOS to Jesus is not as the only true God whom he declared himself to be with (John 17:1,3,5), but rather that John was assigning to the Jesus the glory of might that "was" [past tense] while he was with his God and Father before the world of mankind had been made through him (John 1:10), and which glory Jesus did not possess while he was in the days of his flesh. -- Hebrews 5:7. Indeed, in view of the context and the rest of the Bible, the default reasoning should be to imagine and assume that John was saying that Jesus "was" his God, but rather the default reasoning should be to apply that which God has revealed by means of his Holy Spirit, as has been done above, to see in what manner the word THEOS should be understood as applied to the Logos.

See:
Hebraic Usage of the Titles for “God”

Indeed, one has to call heavily upon the spirit of human imagination in order to "see" the trinity dogma in what John wrote in John 1:1,2. This has been discussed at:

John 1:1 and Trinity Assumptions

It is being claimed that the Hebraic application of "mighty" does not apply to Jesus since it is being further claimed that "no man other than Jesus has ever had the divine name applied to Himself of claimed for by Him." The first claim is dependent on the second claim that Jesus applied God's Holy Name to himself, and that others applied God's Holy Name to Jesus. Both claims we deny. It is only by the addition of human imagination that any scripture can be thought to be applying God's Holy Name to God's Son in any manner that would mean that Jesus is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob who sent Jesus. (Exodus 3:14,15Deuteronomy 18:15-19Acts 3:13-26Hebrews1:1,2) God's name, however, is called upon all who are in covenant relationship with Him (2 Chronicles 7:14Isaiah 43:765:1Jeremiah 7:10,11,13,4025:932:3434:15Amos 9:12Acts 15:14), and Jesus declared that his God has a made a covenant with him. (Luke 22:29, Rotherham)

Jesus, of course, being sent by Yahweh, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, did speak for, and act in behalf of, his God, in a way that no other human has ever done, although many prophets and judges did the similar in the Old Testament times. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, by means of his holy spirit, reveals through the scriptures that Jesus was sent by Yahweh, speaks for Yahweh as his unipersonal God and Father, represents Yahweh, and was raised and glorified by the unipersonal God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Jesus never claimed to be, nor do the scriptures present Jesus as, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, whom Jesus represents and speaks for. -- Deuteronomy 18:15-19Matthew 22:3223:39Mark 11:9,1012:26Luke 13:3520:37John 3:2,17,32-354:345:19,30,36,436:577:16,288:26,28,3810:2512:49,5014:1015:1517:8,2620:17Acts 2:22,34-363:13-265:30Romans 15:62 Corinthians 1:38:611:31Colossians 1:3,152:9-12Hebrews 1:1-3Revelation 1:1.

The scriptures abound with cases where Yahweh uses various servants but is given the credit for their actions, since he was the directing force, very similar to Jesus. — Exodus 3:10,1212:1718:10Numbers 16:28Judges 2:6,183:9,106:3411:2913:24,2514:6,1915:14,1816:20,28-302 Kings 4:27Isaiah 43:1145:1-6; etc.

For discussions of scriptures for which it is often claimed that God's Holy Name is attributed to Jesus, see:


The Holy Name
The Holy Name Page 2

See also:

Focus on the Holy Name

Directly, God's Holy Name is only applied to the unipersonal God and Father of Jesus.

See:
The God (Supreme Being – The Might) of Jesus (Scriptures)

 

 

-------------------------------

------------------------------

John 1:1,2 - Is Jesus "God" Whom He was With? (2016-12-07)

https://jesusnotyhwh.blogspot.com/2016/12/logos-god.html

John 1:1,2 - Is Jesus "God" Whom He was With?

The forms of the Hebrew and Greek words are English-transliterated throughout.

In the beginning was the Word [LOGOS], and the Word [LOGOS] was with God [TON THEON], and the Word [LOGOS] was God [THEOS]. The same was in the beginning with God [TON THEON].
John 1:1,2 -- transliterations taken the Westcott & Hort Interlinear, as found in the Bible Students Library DVD.


 

 

Was John in his words of John 1:1,2 saying that Jesus is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? Since Jesus identified his Father as the only true God whom he had been with before the beginning of the world of mankind, it should be obvious that by using the word THEOS of the LOGOS, John was not saying that the LOGOS was the only true Supreme Being who sent the LOGOS into the world of mankind. (John 1:10,1410:3617:1,3,51 John 4:9) This "God" who raised Jesus up as the prophet like Moses is identified in Acts 3:13-26 as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob of Exodus 3:14,15 (See Deuteronomy 18:15-20). The default reasoning should be to understand that the Logos is not "God" whom the Logos was with.


 

John, by his emphasis twice that the LOGOS was "with" TON THEON, in effect, shows that his usage of THEOS regarding the LOGOS was not intended to be understood in the same manner as it is applied to the only true God who sent the LOGOS into the world. Additionally, by putting this in the past, "the LOGOS *was* THEOS, John is agreeing with Jesus' statement that this glory that he had with the only true God before the world of mankind was made, was something that Jesus did not have while he was in the days of his flesh (Hebrews 5:7), else why would he ask for this glory to be given to him again? -- John 17:1,3,5.
========
See our studies:
Did Jesus Really Say That the Father is the Only True God?
Jesus' Two Glories


 

Nor is it, as we have demonstrated elsewhere, enough to say that since the Greek word THEOS is used of Jesus, that this would mean that Jesus is either the only true God, or that he is a false god (See our study: True God Versus False God = False Dichotomy). This is most often, however, the assumption the trinitarian makes, and then, assuming such to be true, he usually will call upon the spirit of human imagination so as imagine and assume that the first instance of THEOS [TON THEON above] must not mean the triune God, but only one person of the triune God, and then he imagines that it must mean the first person of the triune God. Similarly, regarding THEOS as applied to the LOGOS, he most often will imagine and assume that it means, not the triune God, but rather only one person of the triune God, and then further imagine and assume that it means the "second person" of the triune God. -- See our study on "Trinitarian Assumptions"

 

Rather than adding to the scriptures a fable of three persons in one God, we should look at John's words in harmony with the rest of the scriptures, and note how the Hebrews used forms of the Hebrew word transliterated as EL (God), and the corresponding word in Greek, transliterated as THEOS, as they are used of others than the only true God. Jesus himself presents this alternative usage of the word "theos", when he uses the plural form of this word (theoi) in John 10:34,35:

 

John 10:34 - Jesus answered them, "Isn't it written in your law, 'I said, you are gods?'
John 10:35 - If he called them gods, to whom the word [LOGOS] of God came (and the Scripture can't be broken),

 

Jesus' reference here is to Psalm 82, which details God's chastisement of the sons of Most High, whom God Himself refers to by the Hebrew words for "god", el and elohim, and to whom Jesus said the Logos of God came. Was Jesus referring to these sons of God as false gods? No, for that would have actually have been pointless, and even also a self-contradiction, since it would make these sons of the Most High not be sons of the Most High but rather sons of wrath. (Ephesians 2:2,3) Jesus is pointing out that those spirit-begotten sons of God to whom he came are also referred to as gods, which is the record of the scriptures that cannot be disputed, thus there was no reason for those Jewish leaders to be upset at his claim to be the Son of God.
See:
Who Are the Gods?

 

But the trinitarian may ask: "But how can these be called gods, except that they be so illegimately, since there is only one true God?" By examining the Hebraic usage given above we can see how others may be legitimately referred to as "gods", and yet not be one true God, the one true Supreme Being is God without receiving might, power from any outside source. This is only so because of the way the Hebrews used the word forms that are used of "God", as revealed in the scriptures. The basic Hebraic meaning of the Hebrew word for "God" is might, strength. The word may designate either might or strength in general, or it may designate the one source of all might and strength. (1 Corinthians 8:6) All Hebrew forms of the word for "God" are derived from the simple form, EL, Strong's Hebrew #410. One may see the meanings of this word at:
http://studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=410 (There is also a listing of all the scriptures wherein this word is used, and how it is translated, both by the King James Version, and the New American Standard.)


 

Many translations have recognized this usage, but it is not readily apparent to most readers of these translations. For instance, when considering forms of the Hebrew word *EL* (forms of Strong's Hebrew #410), which are most often rendered "God", the King James translators recognize the usage of this word in its basic meaning many times. Carefully note the following texts from the King James Version, in which English translations of the Hebrew word El (and its variations) are in denoted by *..*: "It is in the *power* of my hand." (Genesis 31:29) "There shall be no *might* in thine hand." (Deuteronomy 28:32) "Neither is it in our *power*." (Nehemiah 5:5) "Like the *great* mountains." (Psalm 36:6) "In the *power* of thine hand to do it." (Proverbs 3:27) "Who among the sons of the *mighty*." (Psalm 89:6) "God standeth in the congregation of the *mighty*." (Psalm 82:1) "Who is like unto thee, O Lord [Yahweh] among the *Gods* [mighty ones or ruling ones]?" (Exodus 15:11) "Give unto the Lord [Yahweh] of ye *mighty*." (Psalm 29:1) "The *mighty* God even the Lord [Yahweh]." (Psalm 50:1) "The *strong* among the mighty shall speak." -- Ezekiel 32:21.


 

Likewise, the forms of the Hebrew word "elohim" (Strong's Hebrew #430, which is actually a form of #410) can mean "mighty" or "great" as can be seen by the way the KJV translators have rendered it in various verses. Again, the word(s) that are used to express the Hebrew word "elohim" are denoted by **: "a *mighty* prince" (Genesis 23:6) "And Rachel said, With *great* wrestlings have I wrestled with my sister, and I have prevailed: and she called his name Naphtali." (Genesis 30:8) "It was a very great trembling." (1 Samuel 14:15) "Now Nineveh was an *exceeding* [false god?] great city of three days' journey." -- Jonah 3:3.


 

Many scholars recognize theos as applied to the LOGOS in John 1:1 is that of a noun being used as adjective. Applying this principle, then, the phrase could be rendered as "the Logos was mighty", since it is obvious that the Logos is not the only true God who sent the Logos into the world of mankind. Taking THEOS as being applied as a noun, then it could be rendered, "a mighty one". Jesus *was* (past tense) indeed "mighty", a mighty spirit being with the only true God before the world of mankind was made, and before he became flesh in a body that the only true God prepared for him. -- Hebrews 10:5.


 

One trinitarian has claimed that in John 1:1,2 the word "God" is 'interchangeable throughout.' While we can see how a oneness believer, or perhaps in a Unitarian believer, might conclude such, it is incongruent with the "orthodox" trinitarian dogma to say that the Son, identified by trinitarians as the LOGOS in John 1:1,2, as being the Father. If the application of the word "GOD" is interchangeable throughout, then the logical conclusion from such reasoning would be that the Son is the Father whom he is said to be with before the world of mankind had been made. (John 1:1017:1,3,5) Trinitarians, however, maintain that the Son is not the Father, nor is the Father the Son.


 

Thus, most trinitarian scholars will deny that John was saying the LOGOS was the One whom the LOGOS was with, because the One whom the Logos was with is identified as the Father. (John 17:1,3,5) If the LOGOS had been TON THEON whom the LOGOS was with, then, this would mean that Jesus was his Father before coming into the world of mankind, since Jesus was with his Father before the beginning of the world of mankind. Nevertheless, many trinitarians scholars advance the idea that John was indeed saying that Jesus was "God" in the qualitative sense as supposedly having all the attributes of "God", including being uncreated and being the Supreme Being. This, of course, is basically pure supposition that has to be added to and read into what John wrote, and such leads one to add more and more philosophy to many other scriptures in order to get those scriptures to appear to harmonize with the added-on philosophy that Jesus is Jehovah, in order to avoid the simplicity of Christ (2 Corinthians 11:3) as the Son of the Living God. -- Matthew 16:16John 6:69.


 

James White, while he is convinced that Jesus is a person of the One God whom the Bible identifies as the God of Jesus, states concerning John 1:1,2:

What he [John] wishes to emphasize here is the personal existence of the Logos in some sense of distinction from "God" (i.e., the Father). The Logos is not the Father nor vice-versa - there are two persons under discussion here.
***
Hence, the term "God" is the predicate nominative, and it functions just as "love" did in 1 John 4:8 - it tells us something about the Logos - and that is, that the nature of the Logos is the nature of God, just as the nature of God in 1 John 4:8 was that of love. Now, John does emphasize the term "God" by placing it first in the clause - this is not just a "divine nature" as in something like the angels have - rather, it is truly the nature of Deity that is in view here (hence my translation as "Deity"). Dr. Kenneth Wuest, long time professor of Greek at Moody Bible Institute rendered the phrase, "And the Word was as to His essence absolute Deity."

The provision of the above and the link provided does not mean that we agree with everything Mr. White states. Indeed, we disagree with most of his conclusions. We do wish to point out that, in effect, James White denies that THEOS, applied to the LOGOS, is interchangeable with TON THEON, applied to the Father, whom the LOGOS was with.


 

Oddly enough, many, perhaps most, Bible Students would agree with most of the exact statements of White as given above, but would not see in any of this that John was saying that the LOGOS is the Most High Jehovah, or that John was using THEOS as "diety" any a sense other than as applied to angels, or that the LOGOS is a person of the Most High Jehovah, as Mr. White presents the matter. The conclusion that THEOS as meaning deity would mean that Jesus is Jehovah has to be imagined beyond what John wrote. While we are sure that Mr. Wuest uses the term "absolute Deity" as meaning having the nature of being the Supreme Being, we do not see the scriptural need to read such an assumption into the word THEOS as applied to the LOGOS.


 

The Bible does reveal the simple truth that Jehovah (Yahweh) is the only true God, the God and Father of the Lord Jesus. (1 Corinthians 8:6Ephesians 1:31 Peter 1:3) The scriptures show that Jesus has One who is the Supreme Being over him. The default reasoning should be that Jesus is not his Supreme Being whom he worships, prays to, and who sent him, and whose will he carried out in willful obedience. -- Deuteronomy 18:15-19Matthew 4:4 (Deuteronomy 8:3Luke 4:4); Matthew 4:7 (Deuteronomy 6:16); Matthew 4:10 (Exodus 20:3-534:14Deuteronomy 6:13,1410:20Luke 4:8); Matthew 22:29-40Matthew 26:42Matthew 27:46Mark 10:6 (Genesis 1:27Genesis 2:7,20-23); Mark 14:3615:34Luke 22:42John 4:35:306:3817:1,320:17Romans 15:62 Corinthians 1:311:31Ephesians 1:3,17Hebrews 1:910:71 Peter 1:3Revelation 2:73:2,12.


 

The most simple and straightforward way of viewing THEOS as applied to the LOGOS in John 1:1 is by applying the Hebraic usage of the title to a person or thing that is not Jehovah, that is, in the sense of being mighty or powerful, since it is obvious that John was not saying that the LOGOS was TON THEON whom the LOGOS was with, thus, in keeping with the rest of the scriptures, the LOGOS was mighty (as one who receives power and might from the source of all -- 1 Corinthians 8:6). The idea that John was saying that Jesus is Yahweh, the God of Jesus, has to be added to and read into what John said. One does not have to make use of the spirit of human imagination so as to add a tremendous amount of extra-Biblical philosophy. However, the simple, straightforward view as we have expressed above is in complete harmony with the entire Bible. Especially, it is in harmony with the atonement philosophy as revealed in the scriptures, whereas the trinitarian dogma would have it that Jesus is still a man of flesh, thus denying that Jesus actually sacrificed his flesh, his human body, for us.


 

This study was originally published on May 29, 2012; last updated March 18, 2022; May 27, 2022.

By Ronald R. Day, Sr.

 

Links to studies related to John 1:1

 

 

-------------------------------

------------------------------

John 1:1,2 - Is Jesus "God" Whom He was With?

https://jesusnotyhwh.blogspot.com/2016/12/logos-god.html

 

 

-------------------------------

------------------------------

John 1:1-3 - The Logos Was Theos (2016-12-11)

Jhttps://jesusnotyhwh.blogspot.com/2016/12/logos-god.html

 

ohn 1:1,2 - Is Jesus "God" Whom He was With?

The forms of the Hebrew and Greek words are English-transliterated throughout.

In the beginning was the Word [LOGOS], and the Word [LOGOS] was with God [TON THEON], and the Word [LOGOS] was God [THEOS]. The same was in the beginning with God [TON THEON].
John 1:1,2 -- transliterations taken the Westcott & Hort Interlinear, as found in the Bible Students Library DVD.


 

 

Was John in his words of John 1:1,2 saying that Jesus is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? Since Jesus identified his Father as the only true God whom he had been with before the beginning of the world of mankind, it should be obvious that by using the word THEOS of the LOGOS, John was not saying that the LOGOS was the only true Supreme Being who sent the LOGOS into the world of mankind. (John 1:10,1410:3617:1,3,51 John 4:9) This "God" who raised Jesus up as the prophet like Moses is identified in Acts 3:13-26 as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob of Exodus 3:14,15 (See Deuteronomy 18:15-20). The default reasoning should be to understand that the Logos is not "God" whom the Logos was with.


 

John, by his emphasis twice that the LOGOS was "with" TON THEON, in effect, shows that his usage of THEOS regarding the LOGOS was not intended to be understood in the same manner as it is applied to the only true God who sent the LOGOS into the world. Additionally, by putting this in the past, "the LOGOS *was* THEOS, John is agreeing with Jesus' statement that this glory that he had with the only true God before the world of mankind was made, was something that Jesus did not have while he was in the days of his flesh (Hebrews 5:7), else why would he ask for this glory to be given to him again? -- John 17:1,3,5.
========
See our studies:
Did Jesus Really Say That the Father is the Only True God?
Jesus' Two Glories


 

Nor is it, as we have demonstrated elsewhere, enough to say that since the Greek word THEOS is used of Jesus, that this would mean that Jesus is either the only true God, or that he is a false god (See our study: True God Versus False God = False Dichotomy). This is most often, however, the assumption the trinitarian makes, and then, assuming such to be true, he usually will call upon the spirit of human imagination so as imagine and assume that the first instance of THEOS [TON THEON above] must not mean the triune God, but only one person of the triune God, and then he imagines that it must mean the first person of the triune God. Similarly, regarding THEOS as applied to the LOGOS, he most often will imagine and assume that it means, not the triune God, but rather only one person of the triune God, and then further imagine and assume that it means the "second person" of the triune God. -- See our study on "Trinitarian Assumptions"

 

Rather than adding to the scriptures a fable of three persons in one God, we should look at John's words in harmony with the rest of the scriptures, and note how the Hebrews used forms of the Hebrew word transliterated as EL (God), and the corresponding word in Greek, transliterated as THEOS, as they are used of others than the only true God. Jesus himself presents this alternative usage of the word "theos", when he uses the plural form of this word (theoi) in John 10:34,35:

 

John 10:34 - Jesus answered them, "Isn't it written in your law, 'I said, you are gods?'
John 10:35 - If he called them gods, to whom the word [LOGOS] of God came (and the Scripture can't be broken),

 

Jesus' reference here is to Psalm 82, which details God's chastisement of the sons of Most High, whom God Himself refers to by the Hebrew words for "god", el and elohim, and to whom Jesus said the Logos of God came. Was Jesus referring to these sons of God as false gods? No, for that would have actually have been pointless, and even also a self-contradiction, since it would make these sons of the Most High not be sons of the Most High but rather sons of wrath. (Ephesians 2:2,3) Jesus is pointing out that those spirit-begotten sons of God to whom he came are also referred to as gods, which is the record of the scriptures that cannot be disputed, thus there was no reason for those Jewish leaders to be upset at his claim to be the Son of God.
See:
Who Are the Gods?

 

But the trinitarian may ask: "But how can these be called gods, except that they be so illegimately, since there is only one true God?" By examining the Hebraic usage given above we can see how others may be legitimately referred to as "gods", and yet not be one true God, the one true Supreme Being is God without receiving might, power from any outside source. This is only so because of the way the Hebrews used the word forms that are used of "God", as revealed in the scriptures. The basic Hebraic meaning of the Hebrew word for "God" is might, strength. The word may designate either might or strength in general, or it may designate the one source of all might and strength. (1 Corinthians 8:6) All Hebrew forms of the word for "God" are derived from the simple form, EL, Strong's Hebrew #410. One may see the meanings of this word at:
http://studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=410 (There is also a listing of all the scriptures wherein this word is used, and how it is translated, both by the King James Version, and the New American Standard.)


 

Many translations have recognized this usage, but it is not readily apparent to most readers of these translations. For instance, when considering forms of the Hebrew word *EL* (forms of Strong's Hebrew #410), which are most often rendered "God", the King James translators recognize the usage of this word in its basic meaning many times. Carefully note the following texts from the King James Version, in which English translations of the Hebrew word El (and its variations) are in denoted by *..*: "It is in the *power* of my hand." (Genesis 31:29) "There shall be no *might* in thine hand." (Deuteronomy 28:32) "Neither is it in our *power*." (Nehemiah 5:5) "Like the *great* mountains." (Psalm 36:6) "In the *power* of thine hand to do it." (Proverbs 3:27) "Who among the sons of the *mighty*." (Psalm 89:6) "God standeth in the congregation of the *mighty*." (Psalm 82:1) "Who is like unto thee, O Lord [Yahweh] among the *Gods* [mighty ones or ruling ones]?" (Exodus 15:11) "Give unto the Lord [Yahweh] of ye *mighty*." (Psalm 29:1) "The *mighty* God even the Lord [Yahweh]." (Psalm 50:1) "The *strong* among the mighty shall speak." -- Ezekiel 32:21.


 

Likewise, the forms of the Hebrew word "elohim" (Strong's Hebrew #430, which is actually a form of #410) can mean "mighty" or "great" as can be seen by the way the KJV translators have rendered it in various verses. Again, the word(s) that are used to express the Hebrew word "elohim" are denoted by **: "a *mighty* prince" (Genesis 23:6) "And Rachel said, With *great* wrestlings have I wrestled with my sister, and I have prevailed: and she called his name Naphtali." (Genesis 30:8) "It was a very great trembling." (1 Samuel 14:15) "Now Nineveh was an *exceeding* [false god?] great city of three days' journey." -- Jonah 3:3.


 

Many scholars recognize theos as applied to the LOGOS in John 1:1 is that of a noun being used as adjective. Applying this principle, then, the phrase could be rendered as "the Logos was mighty", since it is obvious that the Logos is not the only true God who sent the Logos into the world of mankind. Taking THEOS as being applied as a noun, then it could be rendered, "a mighty one". Jesus *was* (past tense) indeed "mighty", a mighty spirit being with the only true God before the world of mankind was made, and before he became flesh in a body that the only true God prepared for him. -- Hebrews 10:5.


 

One trinitarian has claimed that in John 1:1,2 the word "God" is 'interchangeable throughout.' While we can see how a oneness believer, or perhaps in a Unitarian believer, might conclude such, it is incongruent with the "orthodox" trinitarian dogma to say that the Son, identified by trinitarians as the LOGOS in John 1:1,2, as being the Father. If the application of the word "GOD" is interchangeable throughout, then the logical conclusion from such reasoning would be that the Son is the Father whom he is said to be with before the world of mankind had been made. (John 1:1017:1,3,5) Trinitarians, however, maintain that the Son is not the Father, nor is the Father the Son.


 

Thus, most trinitarian scholars will deny that John was saying the LOGOS was the One whom the LOGOS was with, because the One whom the Logos was with is identified as the Father. (John 17:1,3,5) If the LOGOS had been TON THEON whom the LOGOS was with, then, this would mean that Jesus was his Father before coming into the world of mankind, since Jesus was with his Father before the beginning of the world of mankind. Nevertheless, many trinitarians scholars advance the idea that John was indeed saying that Jesus was "God" in the qualitative sense as supposedly having all the attributes of "God", including being uncreated and being the Supreme Being. This, of course, is basically pure supposition that has to be added to and read into what John wrote, and such leads one to add more and more philosophy to many other scriptures in order to get those scriptures to appear to harmonize with the added-on philosophy that Jesus is Jehovah, in order to avoid the simplicity of Christ (2 Corinthians 11:3) as the Son of the Living God. -- Matthew 16:16John 6:69.


 

James White, while he is convinced that Jesus is a person of the One God whom the Bible identifies as the God of Jesus, states concerning John 1:1,2:

What he [John] wishes to emphasize here is the personal existence of the Logos in some sense of distinction from "God" (i.e., the Father). The Logos is not the Father nor vice-versa - there are two persons under discussion here.
***
Hence, the term "God" is the predicate nominative, and it functions just as "love" did in 1 John 4:8 - it tells us something about the Logos - and that is, that the nature of the Logos is the nature of God, just as the nature of God in 1 John 4:8 was that of love. Now, John does emphasize the term "God" by placing it first in the clause - this is not just a "divine nature" as in something like the angels have - rather, it is truly the nature of Deity that is in view here (hence my translation as "Deity"). Dr. Kenneth Wuest, long time professor of Greek at Moody Bible Institute rendered the phrase, "And the Word was as to His essence absolute Deity."

The provision of the above and the link provided does not mean that we agree with everything Mr. White states. Indeed, we disagree with most of his conclusions. We do wish to point out that, in effect, James White denies that THEOS, applied to the LOGOS, is interchangeable with TON THEON, applied to the Father, whom the LOGOS was with.


 

Oddly enough, many, perhaps most, Bible Students would agree with most of the exact statements of White as given above, but would not see in any of this that John was saying that the LOGOS is the Most High Jehovah, or that John was using THEOS as "diety" any a sense other than as applied to angels, or that the LOGOS is a person of the Most High Jehovah, as Mr. White presents the matter. The conclusion that THEOS as meaning deity would mean that Jesus is Jehovah has to be imagined beyond what John wrote. While we are sure that Mr. Wuest uses the term "absolute Deity" as meaning having the nature of being the Supreme Being, we do not see the scriptural need to read such an assumption into the word THEOS as applied to the LOGOS.


 

The Bible does reveal the simple truth that Jehovah (Yahweh) is the only true God, the God and Father of the Lord Jesus. (1 Corinthians 8:6Ephesians 1:31 Peter 1:3) The scriptures show that Jesus has One who is the Supreme Being over him. The default reasoning should be that Jesus is not his Supreme Being whom he worships, prays to, and who sent him, and whose will he carried out in willful obedience. -- Deuteronomy 18:15-19Matthew 4:4 (Deuteronomy 8:3Luke 4:4); Matthew 4:7 (Deuteronomy 6:16); Matthew 4:10 (Exodus 20:3-534:14Deuteronomy 6:13,1410:20Luke 4:8); Matthew 22:29-40Matthew 26:42Matthew 27:46Mark 10:6 (Genesis 1:27Genesis 2:7,20-23); Mark 14:3615:34Luke 22:42John 4:35:306:3817:1,320:17Romans 15:62 Corinthians 1:311:31Ephesians 1:3,17Hebrews 1:910:71 Peter 1:3Revelation 2:73:2,12.


 

The most simple and straightforward way of viewing THEOS as applied to the LOGOS in John 1:1 is by applying the Hebraic usage of the title to a person or thing that is not Jehovah, that is, in the sense of being mighty or powerful, since it is obvious that John was not saying that the LOGOS was TON THEON whom the LOGOS was with, thus, in keeping with the rest of the scriptures, the LOGOS was mighty (as one who receives power and might from the source of all -- 1 Corinthians 8:6). The idea that John was saying that Jesus is Yahweh, the God of Jesus, has to be added to and read into what John said. One does not have to make use of the spirit of human imagination so as to add a tremendous amount of extra-Biblical philosophy. However, the simple, straightforward view as we have expressed above is in complete harmony with the entire Bible. Especially, it is in harmony with the atonement philosophy as revealed in the scriptures, whereas the trinitarian dogma would have it that Jesus is still a man of flesh, thus denying that Jesus actually sacrificed his flesh, his human body, for us.


 

This study was originally published on May 29, 2012; last updated March 18, 2022; May 27, 2022.

By Ronald R. Day, Sr.

 

Links to studies related to John 1:1

John 1:1-3 - The Logos Was Theos (2016-12-11)
https://jesusnotyhwh.blogspot.com/2016/12/logos-theos.html
John 1:1-3 - The Logos Was Theos
In the beginning was the Word [LOGOS], and the Word [LOGOS] was with God [TON THEON], and the Word [LOGOS] was God [THEOS]. The same was in the beginning with God [TON THEON]. All things were made through him. Without him was not anything made that has been made. -- World English with transliterations from the Westcott & Hort Interlinear.
John 1:1-3

 


John in the context makes it plain that the Logos was with Ton Theon in the beginning, stating this twice. Thus it should be evident that John is not saying that the Logos was Ton Theon with whom he was with in the beginning. Therefore, in saying that the Logos was *theos*, it should also be evident that John is not using *theos* as he applies it to the Logos in the same manner as he speaks of Ton Theon with whom the Logos was with in the beginning.

Psalms 82:6 - I said, "You are gods [elohim, Strong's Hebrew #430, a form of Strong's #410], All of you are sons of the Most High. -- World English.

John 10:34 - Jesus answered them, "Isn't it written in your law, 'I said, you are gods [theoi, plural form of Strong's Greek #2315]?'
John 10:35 - If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture can't be broken).
John 10:36 - Do you say of him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You blaspheme,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God?' -- World English.


In the Bible, the Greek word THEOS most often is used of the "one God" of whom are all, and meant to designate the  "Supreme Being," the one who is the source of all might. (1 Corinthians 8:6). However, the word itself can be used in other ways than to mean the Supreme Being or a false god. That there is a  meaning that is given to the word *theos* is shown by Jesus' quotation of Psalm 82:6 as recorded by John in John 10:34,35. Jesus said these "gods" (Greek, theoi, plural of *theos*) are those to whom the Logos of God came. But why does God refer to His sons as "gods"? Is he saying that they are idols, or false gods? No, there is nothing to give us any reason to believe this. Rather, we believe that he is showing that there is more than one way that the word THEOS can be used. Theos does not always mean God Almighty -- EL SHADDAI. Theos in the NT does reflect the Hebraic meaning of words EL and ELOHIM, that is, might, strength, power. Thus, THEOS in the NT, like the Hebrew EL and ELOHIM of the OT, when applied to others than Jehovah, does not mean Supreme Being. John emphasizes twice that the LOGOS is not TON THEON, by stating that the LOGOS was with TON THEON. Jesus himself speaks of his having a glory with the only true God before the world of mankind was made. (John 17:1,3,5) Thus, we need to apply John's usage of THEOS here as to one who is not Jehovah, the only true God. Jesus shows this an application of the words for "god" to others than Jehovah when he applies "theoi" [plural of THEOS] to the sons of God to whom the Logos came. (Psalms 82:1,6,7; John 10:34,35) Jesus was with Ton Theon but he was not Ton Theon whom he was with. He was, however, one of might, one of power, having a glory with his God and Father before the world of mankind was made. -- John 17:5.



Since the word "theos" in the phrase "the Word was God [theos]" is not preceded by the article "ho" (the God), as are the other two uses of theos in verses 1 and 2, it can be understood as an adjective rather than a noun; "the Word was mighty", which would be our preferred way to translate the phrase. Theos is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew word "elohim" which can be rendered as "mighty" as the King James Version does in Genesis 30:8; 1 Samuel 14:15, and Psalm 82:1. This usage would be similar to way that elohim is applied to Moses in Exodus 7:1. Thus, in keeping within what has been revealed by the holy spirit in the scriptures, we believe the proper thought of John 1:1 should be: In the beginning was the LOGOS and the LOGOS was with TON THEON, and the LOGOS was mighty.
==========
See our studies:
Hebraic Usage of the Titles for "God"
Who Are the "Gods"?

The Logos, of course, came to his own, who didn't receive him. (John 1:11) But as many as did receive him, he gave power to become sons of God. (John 1:12) With this he also gave special power to those whom he sent out to with power and authority heal, cast out demons, etc. -- Matthew 10:1,8; Mark 3:14,15; 6:12,13; Luke 9:1,2; 10:1,17.

Now let us look at another whom God called "god", that is, Moses.


Exodus 7:1 - And Jehovah saith unto Moses, `See, I have given thee a god [elohim, plural intensive] to Pharaoh, and Aaron thy brother is thy prophet; - Young's Translation.
Jehovah did not make Moses a "false god", nor did he make Moses a "Supreme Being" to Pharaoh. It is easy to see that Moses is referred to as "a god" to Pharaoh in a sense different than the word "God" is used of Jehovah. It should be easy to see the same is true concerning Jesus, but, due to the strong influence that those who fell away from the truth who have insisted that Jesus is God Almighty, it is difficult for most to apply this concept to Jesus. Likewise, when Jesus spoke of the sons of God to whom the Logos came as "gods" (theoi) (John 10:34,35), he was showing from Hebraic heritage that the word *theos* could be legitimately used in a secondary sense.

The basic meaning behind the Hebrew word for GOD (EL, Strong's #410) is that of might, power, strength. As applied to Jehovah, it takes on the meaning of the one who Mighty Supreme, the source of all might and power in the universe. Those who will do a little study in the scriptures can see the Hebrew words from which *theos* is translated (EL and ELOHIM), when not used of Jehovah or of false gods (idols), take on the general meaning of "strength, might, power", etc.

******** Below has not yet been edited; links may not work.

The "beginning" (Strong's #746) spoken of in John 1:1 is usually thought to be the beginning of all creation, including the unseen spirit world, but in connection with the context, as well as the rest of the Bible, we conclude that it is speaking of the beginning of the world of mankind. We say this partly because of verse 10, which speaks of the world into which the Word came, the world which was made through him, and which rejected him, which is the world of mankind. However, if John is speaking of the creation of all the spirit world and material world, then the beginning could refer to the creation of Jesus as the Logos, or it could be referring to a point in time after the creation of Jesus. The latter would seem more correct, as the Greek word een seems to indicate that Jesus was already there in the beginning spoken of. This definitely is not referring to Jehovah's beginning, since he had no beginning. Jesus was not with the Father before the beginning of absolutely every creation, for he himself was "the beginning of the creation of God", "the firstborn of every creature." -- Proverbs 8:24; Colossians 1:18; Revelation 3:14.



Nevertheless, the "beginning" in John 1:1 appears to be referring to the same beginning as in Genesis 1:1, which refers to the beginning of things pertaining to the physical earth and mankind (including all six days of creation -- Exodus 20:11; 31:17), and not the creation of the spirit world or even of the stars and planets. (We should take note that there is a single "day" of creation spoken of in Genesis 2:4, which "day" includes "six days" in which he created the heavens [skies] and the earth [land masses]. -- Exodus 20:13; see also Matthew 19:4,5, which refers to the beginning when Adam and Eve were created.) The angels were already in existence in the spirit world at the creation being spoken of in John 1:1; Genesis 1:1; Exodus 20:11; 31:17. -- Job 4:11-17; Mark 10:6.

Thus the Logos, the Word, existed with God his Father before the beginning of the world's creation (Proverbs 8:25-27; John 17:5), as mentioned in Genesis. He was the first living creature to be created, being the firstborn creature of the Father -- the first that the Father gave life to, as well as the first or highest in rank. -- Colossians 1:15l

The translation of "toward", as given in the Westcott & Hort Interlinear, is a basic meaning of the Greek word pros; nevertheless, in English it is often rendered as "with" as in "alongside of". It can also be used in the sense of being in service of another, which is probably the meaning meant in John 1:1. Some have argued that the Greek word pros (Strong's #4314) means more than just being with, as it indicates movement. We agree in that in the beginning the LOGOS was actively with his God in movement, with God when the spirit beings were being created, and before the "beginning" of the earthly creation spoken of. Some have seen in this word -- pros -- a thought not there: that time itself was created thus producing motion in time. Of course, the Greek word pros is used throughout the New Testament without any indication of such a meaning, but rather with the common meaning of "to" (as in joining or coming to a person, place or thing), "with" or "alongside of".
==========
See:
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4314


http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/gwview.cgi?n=4314

In 1 John 1:1, John describes Jesus as the "Word [Logos] of Life." Likewise, Jesus is called "the Word" in his pre-human form in John 1:1. In John 1:14 he is further called the "Word" at his first advent. Jesus could also have been referring to himself as the "Word" in John 10:35. In Revelation 19:13 he is called the "Word" in his exalted glory. Thus in all three stages of his existence he is still the Logos, or Word of God. He is never depicted as his God for whom he serves as the Logos.

The Greek word "Logos" has many different shades of meaning, with the basic meaning of "speech". John uses it in the sense of the expression of God as represented by the personage with that title, the one who came to earth with the name "Jesus." When John wrote of the Logos, there had been several heathen writers and at least one Jewish writer who had written concerning the Word or "Logos" of God. We are not so concerned with the philosophies presented by the extra-Biblical writers, but we are concerned with how the Bible itself describes Jesus as the Logos.
See:
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=3056
http://www.bju.edu/bible/g/3050.html#3056

We believe that the term "Logos" in John 1:1 describes Jesus as the divine, or mighty -- "mouthpiece" of Jehovah, before he became flesh. An example of this usage of "word" is found in ancient Abyssinia, where there was an officer referred to as Kal Hatze, which phrase means "The word or voice of the King", who stood always at the steps of the throne, at the side of a lattice window, in which there was a hole, covered in the inside with a curtain of green taffeta. Behind this curtain the King would sit: and spoke through the aperture to the Kal Hatze, who communicated his commands to the officers, judges and attendants. [Bruce's Travels, 1873 Edition, page 130].

Similarly, Jehovah made Aaron the word or "mouth" or "prophet" of Moses. (Exodus 4:16; 7:1) The Hebrew word rendered "prophet" in Exodus 7:1 is "Nabiy'" which means "spokesman, speaker, prophet"*. Thus we can also see that Jesus, who came in the name of Jehovah, and as the promised prophet of Jehovah, served Jehovah in a comparable manner. -- Deuteronomy 18:15-19; John 1:45; 4:34; 8:28; 12:49,50.
==========
Brown, Driver, Briggs and Gesenius.
"Hebrew Lexicon entry for Nabiy'".
"The KJV Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon".
http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=5030&version=kjv.

In Old Testament times, we read that God spoke by means of the prophets. (Hebrews 1:1) Certain scriptures seem to imply that Jehovah was speaking directly to these human prophets, but a comparison of scriptures show that Jehovah was actually speaking through or by means of his angel(s). (Exodus 3:2-4 [see Acts 7,35]; Genesis 16:7-11,13; 22:1,11,12,15-18. Only in the case of Moses did Jehovah appear "face to face", so to speak, so Moses caught a glimpse of his form. This has led some to claim that the "angel of Jehovah" was actually the prehuman Jesus, acting as the Logos, and, not only this, many claim that this angel of Jehovah was actually Jehovah, since the angel of Jehovah is called "Jehovah". We have shown that Jesus is considered a prophet -- a spokesman -- for Jehovah. (Deuteronomy 18:18; John 1:45; 4:34; 8:28; 12:49,50; see also Matthew 13:57; Mark 6:4; Luke 4:24; 24:19; Acts 3:22,23; Hebrews 1:1,2) While we believe, as indicated in John 1:1, that Jesus in his prehuman existence was active as the "mouthpiece" of Jehovah, we highly doubt that any "angel of Jehovah" in the Old Testament times was indeed Jesus. In some cases, an angel of Jehovah in the Old Testament could possibly have been Gabriel, just as in Luke 1:11,19,26. Nevertheless, it very well could have been that the same chain of communication was employed in the Old Testament days as was employed in Revelation: From Jehovah to the Logos to the angel of Jehovah. -- Revelation 1:1; Genesis 16:7-11; 22:11; 31:11; Exodus 3:2-5; 23:20-23; Judges 2:1-4; 6:11,12; 13:3.
See our study: The Angel of Jehovah

We have further to consider that John records that Jesus was sent by, speaking for, and doing the works of the God of Israel, not that he was God Almighty in the flesh. (John 3:16,17; 4:34; 5:23,24,30,36-38; 6:29,38,39,40,44,57; 7:16,18,28,29,33; 8:16,18,26,29,42; 9:4; 10:25,32,36,37; 11:42; 12:44,45,49,50; 13:20; 14:10,24; 15:21; 16:5; 17:3,18,21,23,25; 20:2) Before coming to the earth, he was God's "master workman." (Proverbs 8:30) Through him the world was created. (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16) It was in this manner that Jesus was "Word" or "Logos" of God. Likewise, the entire testimony of the scriptures indicate that Jesus was the image of God, spoke for Jehovah, made him known, and took action in the name of Jehovah. (Deuteronomy 18:15-19; Matthew 11:27; 23:39; Mark 11:9,10; Luke 10:22; 13:35; John 1:14,18; 3:2,17; 5:19,43; 6:57; 7:16,28; 8:26,28,38; 10:25; 12:49,50; 14:10; 15:15; 17:8,26; 2 Corinthians 4:6; Colossians 1:15; Hebrews 1:1-3; 2:3; 1 John 5:20; Revelation 1:1) Thus we conclude that Jesus, being the Logos of Jehovah, serves as his mouthpiece, expressor, to speak for Jehovah, and to act on behalf of Jehovah.

According to one author, "God the Father commanded (spoke the 'word') and Christ (the 'Word'--logos) created all things." The following scriptures are given to support this theory: Genesis 1:3-7,20, 24; 2:7. "God [the Father] said [i.e. spoke the "word"], 'Let there be light,' and there was light . . . God [i.e. the "Word"] divided the light from the darkness . . . God [the Father] said [i.e. spoke the "word"], 'Let there be an expanse' . . . God [i.e. the "Word"] made the expanse . . . God [the Father] said [i.e. spoke the "word"], 'Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures . . . And God [i.e. the "Word"] created the large sea creatures, and every living creature that moves . . . God [the Father] said [i.e. spoke the "word"], 'Let the earth bring forth the living creature after their kind' . . . God [i.e. the "Word"] made the animals of the earth after their kind . . . God [the Father] said [i.e. spoke the "word"], 'Let us make man.' . . . So God [i.e. the "Word"] created man . . . Jehovah God formed man from the dust of the ground."
We have no doubt that Jehovah did use the Logos in the creation of the "all things" that are spoken of in Genesis 1 and 2. This is confirmed in John 1:1-4. The above claims, however, appear to see a lot in the scriptures that we have no reason to believe was meant to be read into them. It is simply an effort to see into the scriptures that the commands of Jehovah are in themselves the Logos, and thus the Logos is actually Jehovah, which we deny.

We note that in the beginning the LOGOS was with or toward TON THEON. As Strong points out, the definite article often emphasizes the Supreme Deity [Power]. This usage roughly corresponds with the singular usage of ELOHIM of the Old Testament, where ELOHIM, the plural of EL (meaning power, strength, mighty) is used in a singular setting to represent Supremacy in the realm being spoken of. These words are thus used, not only of the only true God, but also of men and of the Son of God, to denote their supremacy in the realm spoken of.
See: Elohim - Does This Word Indicate a Plurality of Persons in a Godhead?
and
Hebraic Usage of the Titles for "God"

The Logos was with the only true Supreme Being in the beginning. (John 17:3,5) Here we see beautifully the close relationship existing in the very remote past between the heavenly Father and the heavenly Son. This also sets the context for the phrase that follows.

The final part of John 1:1 reads from the Westcott & Hort Interlinear (as found on the Bible Students' Library CD): KAI THEOS EEN HO LOGOS = AND GOD WAS THE WORD.

Was John here telling us that the Logos was the very God with whom he was with in the beginning? Even many trinitarian scholars would not say this. Trinitarians usually do not wish be understood as believing that Jesus is the Father, but if the above meaning should be given to the phraseology used in the Greek text, then the only conclusion one could reach is that Jesus is the Father with whom he was with in the beginning of the world of mankind. (John 17:5; John 1:1,2) On the other hand, many of our neighbors who believe in the "oneness" teaching believe that Jesus is the Father, thus they would be willing to have this scripture say that the Logos was the very God with whom he was with. The most straightforward understanding of this verse, we believe, is in the context of the usage of "theoi" (the plural of theos"), as Jesus used it in John 10:34,35. Thus Theos as applied to the Logos in John 1:1 should be read in the light of the Hebraic Old Testament background and usage, not according to Greek philosophy or the later-developed trinitarian dogma with its unique but often vague definitions of terms, which definitions then have to read back into the scriptures, and then not applied consistently.

Probably no other phrase in the Bible is more disputed than this phrase. Translations of this phrase usually take one of the following three forms: (1) "and the Word was God"; (2) "and the Word had the same nature as God", or, "and the Word was divine", or "and what God was, the Word was", or "he was the same as God"; (3) "and the word was a god". Before we begin, we might state that each translation has some support, and each translation has some weaknesses. We should also note that none of the translations should be viewed as being exactly what John said, since John did not write in English, but in Greek. The translations should be viewed as translator's renderings, according to what they believe John meant to say, rather than what he actually said. We will discuss each view with pros and cons.
Translation #1: "and the Word was God"

This is often the preferred translation by many trinitarians, even though it tends to make the Word the Father, which they deny. Some point to what has come to be called Colwell's Rule concerning the absence of the definite article before the word theos. The Rule states: "In sentences in which the copula is expressed, a definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb." (E. C. Colwell, "A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament," Journal of Biblical Literature 52, 1933, page 20; See Summary at: http://searchpdf.adobe.com/proxies/0/12/10/96.html)

Many have misused this rule by claiming that it states that whenever the predicate noun precedes the verb, it is understood to be definite, which is not what Colwell said. According to Donald E. Hartley of Dallas Theological Seminary: "Both orthodox and otherwise utilize Colwell's rule to promote not only different but contradictory interpretations of this passage -- obviously contradictory interpretations cannot at the same time and in the same way be true. Adding to this problem, otherwise careful scholars misstate and misunderstand Colwell's rule." (Revisiting the Colwell Construction in Light of Mass/Count Nouns, Donald E. Hartley, 1998, http://www.bible.org/docs/nt/topics/colwell.htm) Colwell did his study mainly in an effort to disprove that the usage of theos in the phrase we are discussing was due to Hebraic influence. His contention was that this usage of theos in John 1:1 had to do with NT Greek grammar, not any Hebraic influence. Several scholars (both trinitarian and non-trinitarian) have found some fault with Colwell's methods and his conclusions. As to Colwell's rule, we will reproduce a quote from a website:

A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb. . . . The opening verse of John's Gospel contains one of the many passages where this rule suggests the translation of a predicate as a definite noun. The absence of the article [before theos] does not make the predicate indefinite or qualitative when it precedes the verb; it is indefinite in this position only when the context demands it. The context makes no such demand in the Gospel of John, for this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas [John 20, "My Lord and my God"]. (E. C. Colwell, "A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament," Journal of Biblical Literature, LII (1933), 12-21. Cf. also B. M. Metzger, "On the Translation of John 1:1," Expository Times, LXIII (1951-52), 125 f., and C. F. D. Moule, The Language of the New Testament, Inaugural Lecture, delivered at Cambridge University on May 23, 1952, pp. 12-14.)

The quote above is quoted as proof that Jesus is divine [with the meaning of uncreated, etc.]. However, notice very carefully that it says that "the absence of the article before Theos does not make the predicate indefinite or qualitative when it precedes the verb; it is indefinite in this position only when the context demands it." Then upon the assumption that John is presenting in a context that Jesus is God Almighty throughout, the author states: "The context makes no such demand in the Gospel of John, for this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas [John 20]." In other words, the author is assuming that the context of the whole book of John supports the idea that Jesus is God Almighty, thus because of this there is no question that theos applied to the Logos in John 1:1 is definite and then from this one further would assume that John is showing that Jesus is God Almighty. It is circular reasoning: "We believe that John in context is saying that Jesus is God Almighty thus this must be what it means in John 1:1, thus John 1:1 proves that Jesus is God Almighty." Whether the context demands that it be definite, qualitative or indefinite in reality then boils down to how one interprets what John was saying. Was John saying what later theologians claimed, or was he simply using a Hebraic expression, and emphasizing this by stating that the Logos was with Ton Theon? Using the Hebraic background for usage of EL and ELOHIM would be the simplest way to explain this; trying to force the idea that John was saying that the Logos was in fact the Supreme Being only confuses the matter, which confusion led to the formulation of the trinitarian tale of three persons in one God.

Regardless, whether one views Theos as applied to the Logos, it really makes no difference, for with either the best way of understanding what John was saying in harmony with the Hebraic usage of EL and ELOHIM (in the sense that Jesus makes us of theoi in John 10:34,35) -- that is, in the sense of mightiness or power, not by adding to the scriptures that Jesus is Jehovah the Most High or the story of three persons in one God.

Nevertheless, Colwell's Rule is mistaken 13% of the time even by his own reckoning. It is also pointed out that Colwell did not examine the indefinite predicate noun. Philip B. Harner tells us that of 53 times in John that the anarthrous [without the definite article] predicate noun appears before the verb, more than 47% are not definite, and maybe as many as 70%. (Philip B. Harner, "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1," Journal of Biblical Literature, page 83, as referred to in The Great Debate Regarding the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, Robert Wagoner).

As stated earlier, many trinitarian scholars do not like the rendering as it appears in the King James Version because it would tend to make Jesus the same person with whom he was with. This can be more apparent when we compare John 1:1 with John 17:5,24. These texts are written by the same author and have a similar expression. John 1:1 says that the Logos with "with God" and John 17:5 says that Jesus was 'with the Father.' Thus it becomes apparent that Jesus was with God the Father in the beginning, and if the meaning of John 1:1 is to make the last THEOS be the exact same as TON THEON, then Jesus would in actuality be the Father.

Professor W. G. Moorehead of Xenia College, who was a trinitarian, points this out: "If John had inserted the article the before the term God in the third clause of the verse, then the word would have embraced the entire Godhead, and a distinction of the Persons in the Trinity would have been obliterated. Had he written (to follow again the example of the Dawn translation), 'and the Word was the God,' then Christ would have been the whole of the Trinity. He might as well have written, 'The Son is the Father,' for that would have been the exact equivalent." -- "A New Rendering of John 1:1", an article by John Moorehead that appeared in The Watch Word and Truth, circa 1902, as reprinted in The Watch Tower, September 15, 1902.

Translation #2: "and the Word had the same nature as God", or, "and the Word was divine", etc.
Concerning this, Harner wrote (Page 87): "In John 1:1 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite."
We also find the following in Newman and Nida's A Translator's Handbook on the Gospel of John:
He was the same as God appears in most translations as "the Word was God" [Revised Standard Version (RSV), JB, NAB]. NEB renders by "what God was, the Word was" and Mft "the Logos was divine." [Goodspeed (Gdsp) "the Word was divine."] Zücher Bibel (Zür) has "the Word was God," with a footnote indicating that this means the Word possessed a divine nature.
These many differences in translation are due to the Greek sentence structure, as well as the viewpoints of whether Jesus is God Almighty or not. In this type of equational sentence in Greek (A=B) the subject can be distinguished from the predicate by the fact that the subject has the article before it and the predicate does not. Since "God" does not have the article preceding it, "God" is clearly the predicate and "the Word" is the subject. This means that "God" is here the equivalent of an adjective, and this fact justifies the rendering he (the Word) was the same as God. John is not saying that "the Word" was God the Father, but he is affirming that the same divine predication can be made of "the Word" as can be made of the Father, and so "the Word" can be spoken of as God in the same sense.| -- page 8, 1980 edition.
Thus many trinitarians point out that in this type of sentence structure, the predicate noun may be treated as adjective. Although our trinitarian neighbors wish to give the word theos a higher meaning in the context than we would, we have no serious objection to this translation, for Jesus was and is theos -- mighty. The question is does this warrant saying that Jesus is God Almighty, or to add to the scriptures a story about three persons in one being? There is no need for such, for from the rest of the scriptures we realize that the power and glory of the Logos are given to him by his Father, Jehovah, the only true Supreme. (If the glory given to him after being raised is given to him by his God, so we have reason to believe that the glory he had with the Father before coming to the earth was given to him by his God.) -- Matthew 13:35; John 3:11,13,17,34,35; 5:19; 6:37-40,62; 8:26,28,29; 10:36; 12:49; 17:1-5,7,8,22,24; 1 Peter 1:17-21.

Thus, since the word "theos" in the phrase "the Word was God [theos]" is not preceded by the article "ho" (the God), as are the other two uses of theos in verses 1 and 2, it can be understood as an adjective rather than a noun; "the Word was mighty", which would be our preferred way to translate the phrase. Theos is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew word "elohim" which can mean "mighty" as shown in the King James Version in Genesis 30:8; 1 Samuel 14:15, and as applied to Moses in Exodus 7:1. It can also be translated from the Hebrew word *el*, which likewise is translated in the King James Version as "might", "mighty", "power", "great", etc. (Genesis 31:29; Deuteronomy 28:32; Nehemiah 5:5; Psalm 36:6; Psalm 29:1; 82:1; 89:6 -- see below) Thus we believe the proper thought of John 1:1 should be: In the beginning was the LOGOS and the LOGOS was with TON THEON, and the Logos was mighty.
Translation #3: "and the Word was a god"

Of all the translations, this is probably the most controversial, as to many English readers this would be tantamount to belief in polytheism. However, if one has in mind that the Hebrew words for "god" and "gods" [especially, EL and ELOHIM] are applied to men and angels who are in power, as well as other usages, then we would either have to accuse the Old Testament of being polytheistic, or else recognize that there are various usages of the words for "god". In view of the context stating that the Logos was with God in the beginning spoken of, we believe that there is no need to add to the scriptures a tale about three persons in one God, for certainly the Logos, in his prehuman condition, was certainly a mighty being - EL - much more so than were the angels. -- Psalm 8:5; Hebrews 2:7.

The Hebrew word for "god" -- EL -- has as its basic meaning: "strength, power, might." In its broad application it can be used of anything that is powerful. That the word is thus used may be readily seen by anyone who will carefully note the following texts from the King James Version, in which English translations of the Hebrew word El are in denoted by *..*: "It is in the *power* of my hand." (Genesis 31:29) "There shall be no *might* in thine hand." (Deuteronomy 28:32) "Neither is it in our *power*." (Nehemiah 5:5) "Like the *great* mountains." (Psalm 36:6) "In the *power* of thine hand to do it." (Proverbs 3:27) "Pray unto *a god* [mighty one] that cannot save." (Isaiah 45:20) "Who among the sons of the *mighty*." (Psalm 89:6) "God standeth in the congregation of the *mighty*." (Psalm 82:1) "Who is like unto thee, O Lord [Jehovah] among the *Gods* [mighty ones or ruling ones]?" (Exodus 15:11) "Give unto the Lord [Jehovah] of ye *mighty*." (Psalm 29:1) "The mighty *God* [ruler] even the Lord [Jehovah]." (Psalm 50:1)

Thus certain men and angels are also called ELOHIM: Exodus 4:16; 7:1 -- The KJV adds the words "instead of" before "God" in Exodus 4:16, which words do not appear in the Hebrew; Psalm 8:5 {compare Hebrews 2:9}; 86:6-8; 95:3; 50:1; Psalm 82:6,7 (See John 10:34,35; 1 John 3:2) Likewise, we read of the anointing of Jesus as elohim by his elohim -- his God: Psalm 45:6,7 (Hebrews 1:8,9; Isaiah 61:1)

We can be sure that John was aware of the Hebrew usage of the words EL and ELOHIM, as he refers to Jesus' defense in using Psalm 82 at John 10:34,35. Thus it would not be unusual for him to bring this usage into Greek by using the word *theos* in reference to the Son of God.

We might note that Strong gives the definition of *theos* as: "of uncertain affinity; a deity, especially (with 3588) the supreme Divinity; figuratively, a magistrate; by Hebraism, very: --X exceeding, God, god(ly, ward)", thus implying that the word, like its Hebrew counterpart, can be used of one in power, as a magistrate.

Some have claimed, usually using Colwell's Rule as a basis (which we discussed earlier), that it does not represent the Greek to use the translation of "a god" here. (Remember Colwell's purpose was to discredit any Hebraism in John 1:1.) However, many point out that the same form is used in many places, such as John 4:19; 6:70; 8:44; 9:28; 12:6; and possibly John 18:37. No one questions the presence of the indefinite article in most of these texts; it is only questioned simply because of its usage in the John 1:1.

Some produce an argument that if the definite article in John 1:1 denotes God Almighty and theos without the article should be translated "a god", that everyplace throughout the Greek New Testament theos without the article should be translated "a god". They point to scriptures such as Matthew 5:9; 6:24; Luke 1:35; Luke 1:78; 2:40; John 1:6,12,13,18; 3:2,21; 9:16,33; Romans 1:7,17,18; 1 Corinthians 1:30; 15:10; Philippians 2:11,13; Titus 1:1, etc., and state: To be consistent in this rendering of "a god", the anarthrous theos should be so translated as "a god" in every instance where the article is absent. Of course, no one claims that the anarthrous theos should always be translated as "a god", and such actually throws attention away from the contextual usuage of the predicate nominative in John 1:1. Even Colwell notes that the context needs to considered in whether to consider the predicate nominative as definite or indefinite: "A predicate nominative which precedes the verb cannot be translated as an indefinite or a 'qualitative' noun solely because of the absence of the article; if the context suggests that the predicate is definite, it should be translated as a definite noun in spite of the absence of the article." (Colwell, "A Definite Rule," 20-21) Of course, Colwell believed and argued from the standpoint that the context was stating that the Logos was God Almighty; we see no reason to agree with him on this, as the context clearly shows that the Logos was with God, thus was not the God who he was with.
Additionally, it is argued that the four oldest and best manuscripts in John 1:18 read, "the only begotten god...," which favors adding the indefinite article in verse one to read "the Word was a god."

We should note that many translators, being trinitarian, avoid this translation. Usually the actual reason for the rejection is that it runs counter what is generally accepted as Christian doctrine. Some translations and/or scholars that render or give support to the latter *theos* as "a god" in John 1:1 are: The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures Watchtower Bible and Tract Society; The New Testament in an Improved Version (Unitarian translation based upon Archbishop Newcome's New Translation - Edited by John Thompson in 1808); The New Testament in Greek and English (A. Kneeland - 1822); A Literal Translation Of The New Testament (H. Heinfetter - 1863); The Coptic Version of the New Testament (G. W. Horner, 1911); Epiphany Studies in the Scriptures, Vol, I, GOD (Paul S. L. Johnson - 1938)

Philip B. Harner, in the work quoted earlier (pages 84-85) tells us that John could have written any of the following:

A. ho Logos en ho theos (The Word was the God);
B. Theos en ho Logos (God was the Word -- as appears in John 1:1);
C. ho Logos Theos en (the Word God was -- less emphatic than B);
D. ho Logos en Theos (the Word was a god);
E. ho Logos en Theios (the Word was divine).

He states: "John evidently wished to say something about the logos that was other than A and more than D and E."

Thus Harner expresses that if John had wanted to say that Jesus was the actual being of the God, he could have used the definite article to definitely say so. He could have shown that he was definitely not including Jesus as the God by putting the word theos after the verb and ho logos before the verb. He, in effect, rules out the first translation above (and the Word was God) and favors something in between translations A and B.

At any rate, the arguments against translation A appear to us to be stronger than against translations B or C. If one considers that the word theos is not a name, but a descriptive title based on Hebrew usage of the word EL and ELOHIM, meaning "mighty" or "mighty one", the choice of translation might be between "The Word was a mighty One," or "The Word was mighty." Although Harner never even considers these renderings, these are our preferred renderings.

John 1:2
The same was in the beginning with God.
Here John adds this phrase with the evident intent to show that he does not reckon the Logos to be same being or person with whom he was with in the beginning. To make sure the reader understood this, he added the phrase to the effect that the Logos with or toward TON THEON in the beginning, and thus he was not TON THEON with whom he was with.
John 1:3
All things [Greek, panta, Strong's #3956] were made through [Greek, di, Strong's #1223] him. Without him was not anything [oude hen, Strong's #3761, 1520] made that has been made.
John 1:4
In him was life, and the life was the light of men.
"All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people." -- John 1:3,4, New Revised Standard Version
John 1:3,10 speaks of the creation of the world of mankind, not of absolutely everything in the universe. Thus the word panta (usually translated in John 1:3 as "all things") and the words "oude hen" (usually translated as "not one thing") need to viewed relative to what is being spoken of, that is the world of mankind into which the Logos came and was not recognized by. (John 1:10) The words "things" and "thing" are supplied by the translators. Without adding the supplied word "things" and "thing", the verse would read: "All through him came to be, and without him not one came to be." Where to end the sentence has been disputed for centuries. Many would extend the sentence to include the rest of verse 3: "All through him came be, and without him not one came to be which has come to be." Others would put the last part of verse 3 with the next sentence. Either way, one has to consider the context, which speaks of that which was made through the Logos as the world of mankind into which the Logos came.
The above would be in harmony with several scriptures where creation is spoken with reference to creation of mankind, not the angels, stars, etc. -- Mark 10:6; Romans 8:20,22; 2 Peter 3:4.
We might add that many Bible Students have thought that the "all" here refers to angels, cherubim, seraphim, worlds, etc., as well as mankind. (R3475:1; R5351:6; R5372:1) Nonetheless, from the context of John 1:3 (as well as the rest of the scriptures), and the actual wording that John used, we are enabled to conclude that the "panta" -- all -- that is being spoken of is the creation of the things of the world of mankind, and not that of the angels, etc. At any rate, it should be apparent that the one through whom the things are made would of necessity not be included in the things that being spoken of as made, even if he had been brought into existence before the things being referred.
Jesus is not being called the Creator here, as some have assumed. In the King James Version we read in John 1:3: "All things were made by him." The word translated "by" in the KJV is the Greek word di (Strong's #1223). Its basic meaning is "through", as an instrument or container being used. Thus, in connection with the context, Ton Theon created all the things being spoken by means of the Logos. Many trinitarians realize that this is speaking of the Logos as the agent of God. Regarding this verse, Newman and Nida states: "This statement is literally 'all things through him came into being.' The Greek phrase through him indicates that the Word was the agent in creation, but at the same time the context clearly implies that God is the ultimate source of creation." -- A Translator's Handbook on the Gospel of John, by Barclay M. Newman and Eugene A. Nida, 1980 edition, page 10.
Many, noting that some translations refer to the LOGOS as "it", conclude that the LOGOS is not a person, but an "it". Usually, this thought is presented in connection with the idea that Jesus did not have a pre-human existence as a person, but that the LOGOS was with God only in the "mind of God", "in the counsels of God", or in the Torah, or some similar thought. Many unitarians, as well as many oneness believers, often present this or some similar thought.
Tyndale's translation, reads: ""All thinges were made by it and with out it was made nothinge that was made. In it was lyfe and the lyfe was ye lyght of men." Several other translations read similar to this. Does this mean that the LOGOS is an "it", and not a person? To reason so, would make the application of LOGOS only to Jesus before his birth, but, as we have shown above, the word LOGOS is applied to Jesus while on earth, as well as, after his ascension. Those who support the above often quote the scripture, as quoted above, ending with verse four. Evidently the thought is that before the world was made, that all things were made through God's spoken word, and in some vague manner that in that spoken word "was" life, and that "life" was the light of men. This, we believe, is a misapplication of the scripture. Why? As shown above, the term LOGOS also refers to Jesus as a human, and also after his exaltation. In 1 John 1:1, John describes Jesus as the "Word [Logos] of Life." In John 1:14 he is further called the "Word" at his first advent. It is also probable that Jesus was referring to himself as the Logos of God whom he spoke of as coming to the sons of God in John 10:35; Psalm 82:1,6,7; John 1:12). In Revelation 19:13 he is called the "Word" in his future glory. Thus in all three stages he is still the Logos, or Word of God. In Greek, the word Logos itself is neuter; this does not mean the Logos was, or is not, a title of a living person. Most translations recognize this, and thus use masculine pronouns in reference to the Logos, not to the neuter "it".
Furthermore, the LOGOS "was" life and the light of men while on earth, not before the world of mankind was made, as many would like to apply John 1:4. Why do we say this? Let us look at the verses, and other related scriptures, comparing spiritual revealing with spiritual revealing.
John 1:4 - In him [the LOGOS] was life, and the life was the light of men.
When was the LOGOS the "light of men"? John partly answer this when he said:
and the light in the darkness did shine, and the darkness did not perceive it. -- John 1:5, Young's Literal Translation.
More directly, Jesus said:
As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world. -- John 9:5.
Jesus narrows this down to the time that he was in the world of mankind. While he was in the world of mankind, he was the light of the world. Therefore, John 1:4,5 is speaking about the LOGOS as a person while on the earth, that in this person was life, and that he was the light of men, the light of this world.
The Logos came to earth by means a miracle. Unlike all of dying mankind around him, he had life, the crown of glory that Adam originally had. (Psalm 8:5; Hebrews 2:7,9) Mankind, however, still does not have the glory and dominion originally given to him (Genesis 1:25,28; Psalm 8:5-8), thus Paul says: "now we don't see all things subjected to him [man], yet." (Hebrews 2:8) But, Paul adds, we do "see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man." Jesus, having been totally obedient to his God, did not fall short of the glory of God as did all mankind. (Romans 3:23) Thus, "in him was life", and that life offered "light" to men.
Was Jesus as LOGOS while in the world an "it"? Only in that you could refer to him with the title of "LIGHT" as an "it", but this does not mean that Jesus was not a person. The LOGOS as the "light of men" was indeed a person walking around on the earth. The LOGOS was most definitely a person while in the flesh, and is most definitely a person after being exalted.
Now we examine another related scripture, pertaining to "where" Jesus was, as spoken of in John 1:1, before coming to the earth. Jesus said:
John 6:62 - What if you would see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?
The "where" that the LOGOS is spoken of as being in John 1:1 is the same "where" that the LOGOS 'returned' to. Where is that Jesus ascended? To heaven to be with his God. (Mark 16:19; Luke 24:51; John 13:1; 16:28; 17:3; Acts 3:21; Hebrews 9:24) So wherever the LOGOS returned to is the same "where" that he was in John 1:1. Jesus returned, as a person, to be with his God, where he has been exalted as a mighty ruler, at the right hand of the Most High himself. Thus the spiritual revealment is that Jesus, as a person, was with his God before coming into the world of mankind. And, that is what is confirmed in John 17:1,3,5. If Jesus was not a person before he came to earth, then he must not be a person after his ascension, since Jesus returned to same "where" that he was before he came into the world of mankind.  ---- Ronald R. Day, Sr.

See also Links to Studies Related to John 1:1

Some Links to Related Writings

We are providing these links because we believe there is good information that supports what we have stated. This does not necessarily mean that we agree with all conclusions given by the authors, nor does it mean that the authors necessarily agree with all we have stated.
Herald of Christ's Kingdom
Editors' Journal - He That Built All Things is God
http://www.heraldmag.org/1998/98ja_9.htm
The Doctrine of Christ
http://www.heraldmag.org/bookstore/booklet_doctrine.htm
The Made Maker
http://www.heraldmag.org/2001/01so_2.htm
by Richard Kindig
The Doctrine of the Trinity - Mystery or Confusion?
http://www.heraldmag.org/1999/99nd_3.htm
by David Rice
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/contents/doctrine/fshspirit.htm
The Image of the Invisible God
http://www.heraldmag.org/2001/01so_3.htm
by Jeff Mezera
Genesis and Geophysics
http://www.heraldmag.org/2000/00ja_5.htm
by Richard Doctor
Criticisms of Pastor Russell and the International Bible Students Association Examined from a Scriptural Standpoint
http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/contents/history/criticisms%20of%20pastor.htm
Compiled by M. C. Bradley, Chicago, August, 1914.
Corrections to the New International Version of the English New Testament
http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/contents/reference/niv_corr.pdf
This is a PDF file.
ZWT References
Charles Taze Russell's Response to W. G. Moorehead of Xenia College
http://www.biblestudents.com/htdbv5/r3073.htm#x21711
The Author of the Atonement
http://www.biblestudents.com/htdbv5/htdb0123.htm
The Only Begotten One
http://www.biblestudents.com/htdbv5/htdb0124.htm
Jehovah Our God is One
http://www.biblestudents.com/htdbv5/r5747.htm
The Logos Made Flesh
http://www.biblestudents.com/htdbv5/r5351.htm
The Light and Life of Men
http://www.biblestudents.com/htdbv5/r3474.htm#x20208
The True Light that Lighteth Every Man
http://www.biblestudents.com/htdbv5/r2408.htm
Others
JOHN 1:1c: "God," "divine" or "a god"?
http://mysite.freeserve.com/newworldtranslation/john1.1c.htm
also:
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/newworldtranslation/colwell.htm
"Inconsistencies
in the Translating of QEOS in the New World Translation
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/newworldtranslation/inconsistjohn1.1.htm - A rebuttal of Clifton Burton's criticisms of the NWT.
More about the New World's Translation's
"...the Word was a god"-John 1:1
http://mysite.freeserve.com/newworldtranslation/morejohn1.htm
Discusses the NWT criticisms of Mantey, Metzger, Mikolaski, Kaufman, Feinberg, and others concerning the NWT rendering of John 1:1.
"Inconsistencies in the Translating of QEOS
in The New World Translation Bible"
http://mysite.freeserve.com/newworldtranslation/inconsistjohn1.1.htm
Critique of claims made by Cliff Burton.
Metzger, Colwell , John 1:1 and the New World Translation
http://mysite.freeserve.com/newworldtranslation/metzgercolwell.htm
Also:
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/newworldtranslation/metzgercolwell.htm
An Example of 'Blatant Ignorance'?
http://mysite.freeserve.com/newworldtranslation/brownjohn1.1.htm
An examination of claims concerning the NWT and John 1:1 made by Ian Brown in the book: "Sixty Questions Every Jehovah's Witness Should Be Asked"
A Refutable "Irrefutable" Argument
http://mysite.freeserve.com/newworldtranslation/refutablejohn1.htm
Discusses the alleged paraphrase of John 1:1,2: "In the beginning was EVE, and EVE was with MAN, and EVE was MAN. SHE was in the beginning with MAN."
John 1:1c "a god" and Deuteronomy 32:39
http://mysite.freeserve.com/newworldtranslation/john1.1c_deut32.htm
Harmonizing these scriptures.
How Monotheism and the "a god" rendering of the anarthrous QEOS at John 1:1 is theologically (biblically) sound
http://mysite.freeserve.com/newworldtranslation/monotheism.htm
John 1:1c, Wallace, Countess and the New World Translation
http://mysite.freeserve.com/newworldtranslation/wallace.countess.john1.1.htm
Colwell's Rule and the "a god" Rendering
http://mysite.freeserve.com/newworldtranslation/colwell.htm
EIMI of John 1:1 - 'eternal existence' re the "Word"?
http://mysite.freeserve.com/newworldtranslation/john1.1_eimi.htm
Dr.J.Beduhn and R.Hommel: A Discussion upon the translation of John 1:1c.
http://mysite.freeserve.com/newworldtranslation/beduhn_hommel.1.htm
(originally on the Christian Apologetics Research Ministry JW discussion board during Jan/Feb, 2002 and continuing later elsewhere. There are 4 parts in total to this discussion.
"The Word was a god" and Qualitative Nouns
http://mysite.freeserve.com/newworldtranslation/qeosqualitative.htm
"and the Word was divine"
http://mysite.freeserve.com/newworldtranslation/beduhn_divinejohn1.1.htm
Jason BeDuhn
John 1:1c, "a god" and Isaiah 43:10
http://mysite.freeserve.com/newworldtranslation/john1.1c_Is.43.htm
Is It Grammar or Interpretation?
http://jehovah.to/exegesis/translation/nwt/colwell.htm
"Don Hartley's Misunderstanding of My View of Qualitative Nouns and P. B. Harners JBL Article
http://jehovah.to/exegesis/logs/don_hartley.htm
by Greg Stafford
Partial Response to Hartley
http://jehovah.to/exegesis/logs/partial_to_hartley.htm
by Greg Stafford
Greg Stafford's Response to Hartley's Theory
http://jehovah.to/exegesis/logs/stafford_hartley_52699A.htm
by Greg Stafford
Greg Stafford to Hartley: Clairy, Please
http://jehovah.to/exegesis/logs/stafford_hartley_52699B.htm
Greg Stafford's reply to Robert Hommel, regarding Dr. J. R. Mantey's letter to the WTB&TS, concerning matters relating to the use of his grammar, and various issues concerning translations found in the NWT.
http://jehovah.to/exegesis/logs/hommel.htm
Part 1: Greg Stafford's Second Reply to Robert Hommel, in response to his submission regarding issues relating to Dr. J. R. Mantey's letter to the WTB&TS
http://jehovah.to/exegesis/logs/hommel1.htm
Part 2: Continuation of the above
http://jehovah.to/exegesis/logs/hommel2.htm


Admin

Admin
 

 

Broj postova : 4363
Registration date : 10.09.2008

John 1:1-3 - The Logos Was Theos
https://jesusnotyhwh.blogspot.com/2016/12/logos-theos.html
In the beginning was the Word [LOGOS], and the Word [LOGOS] was with God [TON THEON], and the Word [LOGOS] was God [THEOS]. The same was in the beginning with God [TON THEON]. All things were made through him. Without him was not anything made that has been made. -- World English with transliterations from the Westcott & Hort Interlinear.
John 1:1-3

John in the context makes it plain that the Logos was with Ton Theon in the beginning, stating this twice. Thus it should be evident that John is not saying that the Logos was Ton Theon with whom he was with in the beginning. Therefore, in saying that the Logos was *theos*, it should also be evident that John is not using *theos* as he applies it to the Logos in the same manner as he speaks of Ton Theon with whom the Logos was with in the beginning.



Psalms 82:6 - I said, "You are gods [elohim, Strong's Hebrew #430, a form of Strong's #410], All of you are sons of the Most High. -- World English.

John 10:34 - Jesus answered them, "Isn't it written in your law, 'I said, you are gods [theoi, plural form of Strong's Greek #2315]?'
John 10:35 - If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture can't be broken).
John 10:36 - Do you say of him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You blaspheme,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God?' -- World English.
In the Bible, the Greek word THEOS most often is used of the "one God" of whom are all, and meant to designate the "Supreme Being," the one who is the source of all might. (1 Corinthians 8:6). However, the word itself can be used in other ways than to mean the Supreme Being or a false god. That there is a meaning that is given to the word *theos* is shown by Jesus' quotation of Psalm 82:6 as recorded by John in John 10:34,35. Jesus said these "gods" (Greek, theoi, plural of *theos*) are those to whom the Logos of God came. But why does God refer to His sons as "gods"? Is he saying that they are idols, or false gods? No, there is nothing to give us any reason to believe this. Rather, we believe that he is showing that there is more than one way that the word THEOS can be used. Theos does not always mean God Almighty -- EL SHADDAI. Theos in the NT does reflect the Hebraic meaning of words EL and ELOHIM, that is, might, strength, power. Thus, THEOS in the NT, like the Hebrew EL and ELOHIM of the OT, when applied to others than Jehovah, does not mean Supreme Being. John emphasizes twice that the LOGOS is not TON THEON, by stating that the LOGOS was with TON THEON. Jesus himself speaks of his having a glory with the only true God before the world of mankind was made. (John 17:1,3,5) Thus, we need to apply John's usage of THEOS here as to one who is not Jehovah, the only true God. Jesus shows this an application of the words for "god" to others than Jehovah when he applies "theoi" [plural of THEOS] to the sons of God to whom the Logos came. (Psalms 82:1,6,7; John 10:34,35) Jesus was with Ton Theon but he was not Ton Theon whom he was with. He was, however, one of might, one of power, having a glory with his God and Father before the world of mankind was made. -- John 17:5.



Since the word "theos" in the phrase "the Word was God [theos]" is not preceded by the article "ho" (the God), as are the other two uses of theos in verses 1 and 2, it can be understood as an adjective rather than a noun; "the Word was mighty", which would be our preferred way to translate the phrase. Theos is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew word "elohim" which can be rendered as "mighty" as the King James Version does in Genesis 30:8; 1 Samuel 14:15, and Psalm 82:1. This usage would be similar to way that elohim is applied to Moses in Exodus 7:1. Thus, in keeping within what has been revealed by the holy spirit in the scriptures, we believe the proper thought of John 1:1 should be: In the beginning was the LOGOS and the LOGOS was with TON THEON, and the LOGOS was mighty.
==========
See our studies:
Hebraic Usage of the Titles for "God"
Who Are the "Gods"?

The Logos, of course, came to his own, who didn't receive him. (John 1:11) But as many as did receive him, he gave power to become sons of God. (John 1:12) With this he also gave special power to those whom he sent out to with power and authority heal, cast out demons, etc. -- Matthew 10:1,8; Mark 3:14,15; 6:12,13; Luke 9:1,2; 10:1,17.

Now let us look at another whom God called "god", that is, Moses.


Exodus 7:1 - And Jehovah saith unto Moses, `See, I have given thee a god [elohim, plural intensive] to Pharaoh, and Aaron thy brother is thy prophet; - Young's Translation.
Jehovah did not make Moses a "false god", nor did he make Moses a "Supreme Being" to Pharaoh. It is easy to see that Moses is referred to as "a god" to Pharaoh in a sense different than the word "God" is used of Jehovah. It should be easy to see the same is true concerning Jesus, but, due to the strong influence that those who fell away from the truth who have insisted that Jesus is God Almighty, it is difficult for most to apply this concept to Jesus. Likewise, when Jesus spoke of the sons of God to whom the Logos came as "gods" (theoi) (John 10:34,35), he was showing from Hebraic heritage that the word *theos* could be legitimately used in a secondary sense.

The basic meaning behind the Hebrew word for GOD (EL, Strong's #410) is that of might, power, strength. As applied to Jehovah, it takes on the meaning of the one who Mighty Supreme, the source of all might and power in the universe. Those who will do a little study in the scriptures can see the Hebrew words from which *theos* is translated (EL and ELOHIM), when not used of Jehovah or of false gods (idols), take on the general meaning of "strength, might, power", etc.

******** Below has not yet been edited; links may not work.

The "beginning" (Strong's #746) spoken of in John 1:1 is usually thought to be the beginning of all creation, including the unseen spirit world, but in connection with the context, as well as the rest of the Bible, we conclude that it is speaking of the beginning of the world of mankind. We say this partly because of verse 10, which speaks of the world into which the Word came, the world which was made through him, and which rejected him, which is the world of mankind. However, if John is speaking of the creation of all the spirit world and material world, then the beginning could refer to the creation of Jesus as the Logos, or it could be referring to a point in time after the creation of Jesus. The latter would seem more correct, as the Greek word een seems to indicate that Jesus was already there in the beginning spoken of. This definitely is not referring to Jehovah's beginning, since he had no beginning. Jesus was not with the Father before the beginning of absolutely every creation, for he himself was "the beginning of the creation of God", "the firstborn of every creature." -- Proverbs 8:24; Colossians 1:18; Revelation 3:14.



Nevertheless, the "beginning" in John 1:1 appears to be referring to the same beginning as in Genesis 1:1, which refers to the beginning of things pertaining to the physical earth and mankind (including all six days of creation -- Exodus 20:11; 31:17), and not the creation of the spirit world or even of the stars and planets. (We should take note that there is a single "day" of creation spoken of in Genesis 2:4, which "day" includes "six days" in which he created the heavens [skies] and the earth [land masses]. -- Exodus 20:13; see also Matthew 19:4,5, which refers to the beginning when Adam and Eve were created.) The angels were already in existence in the spirit world at the creation being spoken of in John 1:1; Genesis 1:1; Exodus 20:11; 31:17. -- Job 4:11-17; Mark 10:6.

Thus the Logos, the Word, existed with God his Father before the beginning of the world's creation (Proverbs 8:25-27; John 17:5), as mentioned in Genesis. He was the first living creature to be created, being the firstborn creature of the Father -- the first that the Father gave life to, as well as the first or highest in rank. -- Colossians 1:15l

The translation of "toward", as given in the Westcott & Hort Interlinear, is a basic meaning of the Greek word pros; nevertheless, in English it is often rendered as "with" as in "alongside of". It can also be used in the sense of being in service of another, which is probably the meaning meant in John 1:1. Some have argued that the Greek word pros (Strong's #4314) means more than just being with, as it indicates movement. We agree in that in the beginning the LOGOS was actively with his God in movement, with God when the spirit beings were being created, and before the "beginning" of the earthly creation spoken of. Some have seen in this word -- pros -- a thought not there: that time itself was created thus producing motion in time. Of course, the Greek word pros is used throughout the New Testament without any indication of such a meaning, but rather with the common meaning of "to" (as in joining or coming to a person, place or thing), "with" or "alongside of".
==========
See:
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4314


http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/gwview.cgi?n=4314

In 1 John 1:1, John describes Jesus as the "Word [Logos] of Life." Likewise, Jesus is called "the Word" in his pre-human form in John 1:1. In John 1:14 he is further called the "Word" at his first advent. Jesus could also have been referring to himself as the "Word" in John 10:35. In Revelation 19:13 he is called the "Word" in his exalted glory. Thus in all three stages of his existence he is still the Logos, or Word of God. He is never depicted as his God for whom he serves as the Logos.

The Greek word "Logos" has many different shades of meaning, with the basic meaning of "speech". John uses it in the sense of the expression of God as represented by the personage with that title, the one who came to earth with the name "Jesus." When John wrote of the Logos, there had been several heathen writers and at least one Jewish writer who had written concerning the Word or "Logos" of God. We are not so concerned with the philosophies presented by the extra-Biblical writers, but we are concerned with how the Bible itself describes Jesus as the Logos.
See:
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=3056
http://www.bju.edu/bible/g/3050.html#3056

We believe that the term "Logos" in John 1:1 describes Jesus as the divine, or mighty -- "mouthpiece" of Jehovah, before he became flesh. An example of this usage of "word" is found in ancient Abyssinia, where there was an officer referred to as Kal Hatze, which phrase means "The word or voice of the King", who stood always at the steps of the throne, at the side of a lattice window, in which there was a hole, covered in the inside with a curtain of green taffeta. Behind this curtain the King would sit: and spoke through the aperture to the Kal Hatze, who communicated his commands to the officers, judges and attendants. [Bruce's Travels, 1873 Edition, page 130].

Similarly, Jehovah made Aaron the word or "mouth" or "prophet" of Moses. (Exodus 4:16; 7:1) The Hebrew word rendered "prophet" in Exodus 7:1 is "Nabiy'" which means "spokesman, speaker, prophet"*. Thus we can also see that Jesus, who came in the name of Jehovah, and as the promised prophet of Jehovah, served Jehovah in a comparable manner. -- Deuteronomy 18:15-19; John 1:45; 4:34; 8:28; 12:49,50.
==========
Brown, Driver, Briggs and Gesenius.
"Hebrew Lexicon entry for Nabiy'".
"The KJV Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon".
http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=5030&version=kjv.

In Old Testament times, we read that God spoke by means of the prophets. (Hebrews 1:1) Certain scriptures seem to imply that Jehovah was speaking directly to these human prophets, but a comparison of scriptures show that Jehovah was actually speaking through or by means of his angel(s). (Exodus 3:2-4 [see Acts 7:30,35]; Genesis 16:7-11,13; 22:1,11,12,15-18. Only in the case of Moses did Jehovah appear "face to face", so to speak, so Moses caught a glimpse of his form. This has led some to claim that the "angel of Jehovah" was actually the prehuman Jesus, acting as the Logos, and, not only this, many claim that this angel of Jehovah was actually Jehovah, since the angel of Jehovah is called "Jehovah". We have shown that Jesus is considered a prophet -- a spokesman -- for Jehovah. (Deuteronomy 18:18; John 1:45; 4:34; 8:28; 12:49,50; see also Matthew 13:57; Mark 6:4; Luke 4:24; 24:19; Acts 3:22,23; Hebrews 1:1,2) While we believe, as indicated in John 1:1, that Jesus in his prehuman existence was active as the "mouthpiece" of Jehovah, we highly doubt that any "angel of Jehovah" in the Old Testament times was indeed Jesus. In some cases, an angel of Jehovah in the Old Testament could possibly have been Gabriel, just as in Luke 1:11,19,26. Nevertheless, it very well could have been that the same chain of communication was employed in the Old Testament days as was employed in Revelation: From Jehovah to the Logos to the angel of Jehovah. -- Revelation 1:1; Genesis 16:7-11; 22:11; 31:11; Exodus 3:2-5; 23:20-23; Judges 2:1-4; 6:11,12; 13:3.
See our study: The Angel of Jehovah

We have further to consider that John records that Jesus was sent by, speaking for, and doing the works of the God of Israel, not that he was God Almighty in the flesh. (John 3:16,17; 4:34; 5:23,24,30,36-38; 6:29,38,39,40,44,57; 7:16,18,28,29,33; 8:16,18,26,29,42; 9:4; 10:25,32,36,37; 11:42; 12:44,45,49,50; 13:20; 14:10,24; 15:21; 16:5; 17:3,18,21,23,25; 20:2) Before coming to the earth, he was God's "master workman." (Proverbs 8:30) Through him the world was created. (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16) It was in this manner that Jesus was "Word" or "Logos" of God. Likewise, the entire testimony of the scriptures indicate that Jesus was the image of God, spoke for Jehovah, made him known, and took action in the name of Jehovah. (Deuteronomy 18:15-19; Matthew 11:27; 23:39; Mark 11:9,10; Luke 10:22; 13:35; John 1:14,18; 3:2,17; 5:19,43; 6:57; 7:16,28; 8:26,28,38; 10:25; 12:49,50; 14:10; 15:15; 17:8,26; 2 Corinthians 4:6; Colossians 1:15; Hebrews 1:1-3; 2:3; 1 John 5:20; Revelation 1:1) Thus we conclude that Jesus, being the Logos of Jehovah, serves as his mouthpiece, expressor, to speak for Jehovah, and to act on behalf of Jehovah.

According to one author, "God the Father commanded (spoke the 'word') and Christ (the 'Word'--logos) created all things." The following scriptures are given to support this theory: Genesis 1:3-7,20, 24; 2:7. "God [the Father] said [i.e. spoke the "word"], 'Let there be light,' and there was light . . . God [i.e. the "Word"] divided the light from the darkness . . . God [the Father] said [i.e. spoke the "word"], 'Let there be an expanse' . . . God [i.e. the "Word"] made the expanse . . . God [the Father] said [i.e. spoke the "word"], 'Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures . . . And God [i.e. the "Word"] created the large sea creatures, and every living creature that moves . . . God [the Father] said [i.e. spoke the "word"], 'Let the earth bring forth the living creature after their kind' . . . God [i.e. the "Word"] made the animals of the earth after their kind . . . God [the Father] said [i.e. spoke the "word"], 'Let us make man.' . . . So God [i.e. the "Word"] created man . . . Jehovah God formed man from the dust of the ground."
We have no doubt that Jehovah did use the Logos in the creation of the "all things" that are spoken of in Genesis 1 and 2. This is confirmed in John 1:1-4. The above claims, however, appear to see a lot in the scriptures that we have no reason to believe was meant to be read into them. It is simply an effort to see into the scriptures that the commands of Jehovah are in themselves the Logos, and thus the Logos is actually Jehovah, which we deny.

We note that in the beginning the LOGOS was with or toward TON THEON. As Strong points out, the definite article often emphasizes the Supreme Deity [Power]. This usage roughly corresponds with the singular usage of ELOHIM of the Old Testament, where ELOHIM, the plural of EL (meaning power, strength, mighty) is used in a singular setting to represent Supremacy in the realm being spoken of. These words are thus used, not only of the only true God, but also of men and of the Son of God, to denote their supremacy in the realm spoken of.
See: Elohim - Does This Word Indicate a Plurality of Persons in a Godhead?
and
Hebraic Usage of the Titles for "God"

The Logos was with the only true Supreme Being in the beginning. (John 17:3,5) Here we see beautifully the close relationship existing in the very remote past between the heavenly Father and the heavenly Son. This also sets the context for the phrase that follows.

The final part of John 1:1 reads from the Westcott & Hort Interlinear (as found on the Bible Students' Library CD): KAI THEOS EEN HO LOGOS = AND GOD WAS THE WORD.

Was John here telling us that the Logos was the very God with whom he was with in the beginning? Even many trinitarian scholars would not say this. Trinitarians usually do not wish be understood as believing that Jesus is the Father, but if the above meaning should be given to the phraseology used in the Greek text, then the only conclusion one could reach is that Jesus is the Father with whom he was with in the beginning of the world of mankind. (John 17:5; John 1:1,2) On the other hand, many of our neighbors who believe in the "oneness" teaching believe that Jesus is the Father, thus they would be willing to have this scripture say that the Logos was the very God with whom he was with. The most straightforward understanding of this verse, we believe, is in the context of the usage of "theoi" (the plural of theos"), as Jesus used it in John 10:34,35. Thus Theos as applied to the Logos in John 1:1 should be read in the light of the Hebraic Old Testament background and usage, not according to Greek philosophy or the later-developed trinitarian dogma with its unique but often vague definitions of terms, which definitions then have to read back into the scriptures, and then not applied consistently.

Probably no other phrase in the Bible is more disputed than this phrase. Translations of this phrase usually take one of the following three forms: (1) "and the Word was God"; (2) "and the Word had the same nature as God", or, "and the Word was divine", or "and what God was, the Word was", or "he was the same as God"; (3) "and the word was a god". Before we begin, we might state that each translation has some support, and each translation has some weaknesses. We should also note that none of the translations should be viewed as being exactly what John said, since John did not write in English, but in Greek. The translations should be viewed as translator's renderings, according to what they believe John meant to say, rather than what he actually said. We will discuss each view with pros and cons.
Translation #1: "and the Word was God"

This is often the preferred translation by many trinitarians, even though it tends to make the Word the Father, which they deny. Some point to what has come to be called Colwell's Rule concerning the absence of the definite article before the word theos. The Rule states: "In sentences in which the copula is expressed, a definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb." (E. C. Colwell, "A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament," Journal of Biblical Literature 52, 1933, page 20; See Summary at: http://searchpdf.adobe.com/proxies/0/12/10/96.html)

Many have misused this rule by claiming that it states that whenever the predicate noun precedes the verb, it is understood to be definite, which is not what Colwell said. According to Donald E. Hartley of Dallas Theological Seminary: "Both orthodox and otherwise utilize Colwell's rule to promote not only different but contradictory interpretations of this passage -- obviously contradictory interpretations cannot at the same time and in the same way be true. Adding to this problem, otherwise careful scholars misstate and misunderstand Colwell's rule." (Revisiting the Colwell Construction in Light of Mass/Count Nouns, Donald E. Hartley, 1998, http://www.bible.org/docs/nt/topics/colwell.htm) Colwell did his study mainly in an effort to disprove that the usage of theos in the phrase we are discussing was due to Hebraic influence. His contention was that this usage of theos in John 1:1 had to do with NT Greek grammar, not any Hebraic influence. Several scholars (both trinitarian and non-trinitarian) have found some fault with Colwell's methods and his conclusions. As to Colwell's rule, we will reproduce a quote from a website:

A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb. . . . The opening verse of John's Gospel contains one of the many passages where this rule suggests the translation of a predicate as a definite noun. The absence of the article [before theos] does not make the predicate indefinite or qualitative when it precedes the verb; it is indefinite in this position only when the context demands it. The context makes no such demand in the Gospel of John, for this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas [John 20:28, "My Lord and my God"]. (E. C. Colwell, "A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament," Journal of Biblical Literature, LII (1933), 12-21. Cf. also B. M. Metzger, "On the Translation of John 1:1," Expository Times, LXIII (1951-52), 125 f., and C. F. D. Moule, The Language of the New Testament, Inaugural Lecture, delivered at Cambridge University on May 23, 1952, pp. 12-14.)

The quote above is quoted as proof that Jesus is divine [with the meaning of uncreated, etc.]. However, notice very carefully that it says that "the absence of the article before Theos does not make the predicate indefinite or qualitative when it precedes the verb; it is indefinite in this position only when the context demands it." Then upon the assumption that John is presenting in a context that Jesus is God Almighty throughout, the author states: "The context makes no such demand in the Gospel of John, for this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas [John 20:28]." In other words, the author is assuming that the context of the whole book of John supports the idea that Jesus is God Almighty, thus because of this there is no question that theos applied to the Logos in John 1:1 is definite and then from this one further would assume that John is showing that Jesus is God Almighty. It is circular reasoning: "We believe that John in context is saying that Jesus is God Almighty thus this must be what it means in John 1:1, thus John 1:1 proves that Jesus is God Almighty." Whether the context demands that it be definite, qualitative or indefinite in reality then boils down to how one interprets what John was saying. Was John saying what later theologians claimed, or was he simply using a Hebraic expression, and emphasizing this by stating that the Logos was with Ton Theon? Using the Hebraic background for usage of EL and ELOHIM would be the simplest way to explain this; trying to force the idea that John was saying that the Logos was in fact the Supreme Being only confuses the matter, which confusion led to the formulation of the trinitarian tale of three persons in one God.

Regardless, whether one views Theos as applied to the Logos, it really makes no difference, for with either the best way of understanding what John was saying in harmony with the Hebraic usage of EL and ELOHIM (in the sense that Jesus makes us of theoi in John 10:34,35) -- that is, in the sense of mightiness or power, not by adding to the scriptures that Jesus is Jehovah the Most High or the story of three persons in one God.

Nevertheless, Colwell's Rule is mistaken 13% of the time even by his own reckoning. It is also pointed out that Colwell did not examine the indefinite predicate noun. Philip B. Harner tells us that of 53 times in John that the anarthrous [without the definite article] predicate noun appears before the verb, more than 47% are not definite, and maybe as many as 70%. (Philip B. Harner, "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1," Journal of Biblical Literature, page 83, as referred to in The Great Debate Regarding the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, Robert Wagoner).

As stated earlier, many trinitarian scholars do not like the rendering as it appears in the King James Version because it would tend to make Jesus the same person with whom he was with. This can be more apparent when we compare John 1:1 with John 17:5,24. These texts are written by the same author and have a similar expression. John 1:1 says that the Logos with "with God" and John 17:5 says that Jesus was 'with the Father.' Thus it becomes apparent that Jesus was with God the Father in the beginning, and if the meaning of John 1:1 is to make the last THEOS be the exact same as TON THEON, then Jesus would in actuality be the Father.

Professor W. G. Moorehead of Xenia College, who was a trinitarian, points this out: "If John had inserted the article the before the term God in the third clause of the verse, then the word would have embraced the entire Godhead, and a distinction of the Persons in the Trinity would have been obliterated. Had he written (to follow again the example of the Dawn translation), 'and the Word was the God,' then Christ would have been the whole of the Trinity. He might as well have written, 'The Son is the Father,' for that would have been the exact equivalent." -- "A New Rendering of John 1:1", an article by John Moorehead that appeared in The Watch Word and Truth, circa 1902, as reprinted in The Watch Tower, September 15, 1902.

Translation #2: "and the Word had the same nature as God", or, "and the Word was divine", etc.
Concerning this, Harner wrote (Page 87): "In John 1:1 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite."
We also find the following in Newman and Nida's A Translator's Handbook on the Gospel of John:
He was the same as God appears in most translations as "the Word was God" [Revised Standard Version (RSV), JB, NAB]. NEB renders by "what God was, the Word was" and Mft "the Logos was divine." [Goodspeed (Gdsp) "the Word was divine."] Zücher Bibel (Zür) has "the Word was God," with a footnote indicating that this means the Word possessed a divine nature.
These many differences in translation are due to the Greek sentence structure, as well as the viewpoints of whether Jesus is God Almighty or not. In this type of equational sentence in Greek (A=B) the subject can be distinguished from the predicate by the fact that the subject has the article before it and the predicate does not. Since "God" does not have the article preceding it, "God" is clearly the predicate and "the Word" is the subject. This means that "God" is here the equivalent of an adjective, and this fact justifies the rendering he (the Word) was the same as God. John is not saying that "the Word" was God the Father, but he is affirming that the same divine predication can be made of "the Word" as can be made of the Father, and so "the Word" can be spoken of as God in the same sense.| -- page 8, 1980 edition.
Thus many trinitarians point out that in this type of sentence structure, the predicate noun may be treated as adjective. Although our trinitarian neighbors wish to give the word theos a higher meaning in the context than we would, we have no serious objection to this translation, for Jesus was and is theos -- mighty. The question is does this warrant saying that Jesus is God Almighty, or to add to the scriptures a story about three persons in one being? There is no need for such, for from the rest of the scriptures we realize that the power and glory of the Logos are given to him by his Father, Jehovah, the only true Supreme. (If the glory given to him after being raised is given to him by his God, so we have reason to believe that the glory he had with the Father before coming to the earth was given to him by his God.) -- Matthew 13:35; John 3:11,13,17,34,35; 5:19; 6:37-40,62; 8:26,28,29; 10:36; 12:49; 17:1-5,7,8,22,24; 1 Peter 1:17-21.

Thus, since the word "theos" in the phrase "the Word was God [theos]" is not preceded by the article "ho" (the God), as are the other two uses of theos in verses 1 and 2, it can be understood as an adjective rather than a noun; "the Word was mighty", which would be our preferred way to translate the phrase. Theos is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew word "elohim" which can mean "mighty" as shown in the King James Version in Genesis 30:8; 1 Samuel 14:15, and as applied to Moses in Exodus 7:1. It can also be translated from the Hebrew word *el*, which likewise is translated in the King James Version as "might", "mighty", "power", "great", etc. (Genesis 31:29; Deuteronomy 28:32; Nehemiah 5:5; Psalm 36:6; Psalm 29:1; 82:1; 89:6 -- see below) Thus we believe the proper thought of John 1:1 should be: In the beginning was the LOGOS and the LOGOS was with TON THEON, and the Logos was mighty.
Translation #3: "and the Word was a god"

Of all the translations, this is probably the most controversial, as to many English readers this would be tantamount to belief in polytheism. However, if one has in mind that the Hebrew words for "god" and "gods" [especially, EL and ELOHIM] are applied to men and angels who are in power, as well as other usages, then we would either have to accuse the Old Testament of being polytheistic, or else recognize that there are various usages of the words for "god". In view of the context stating that the Logos was with God in the beginning spoken of, we believe that there is no need to add to the scriptures a tale about three persons in one God, for certainly the Logos, in his prehuman condition, was certainly a mighty being - EL - much more so than were the angels. -- Psalm 8:5; Hebrews 2:7.

The Hebrew word for "god" -- EL -- has as its basic meaning: "strength, power, might." In its broad application it can be used of anything that is powerful. That the word is thus used may be readily seen by anyone who will carefully note the following texts from the King James Version, in which English translations of the Hebrew word El are in denoted by *..*: "It is in the *power* of my hand." (Genesis 31:29) "There shall be no *might* in thine hand." (Deuteronomy 28:32) "Neither is it in our *power*." (Nehemiah 5:5) "Like the *great* mountains." (Psalm 36:6) "In the *power* of thine hand to do it." (Proverbs 3:27) "Pray unto *a god* [mighty one] that cannot save." (Isaiah 45:20) "Who among the sons of the *mighty*." (Psalm 89:6) "God standeth in the congregation of the *mighty*." (Psalm 82:1) "Who is like unto thee, O Lord [Jehovah] among the *Gods* [mighty ones or ruling ones]?" (Exodus 15:11) "Give unto the Lord [Jehovah] of ye *mighty*." (Psalm 29:1) "The mighty *God* [ruler] even the Lord [Jehovah]." (Psalm 50:1)

Thus certain men and angels are also called ELOHIM: Exodus 4:16; 7:1 -- The KJV adds the words "instead of" before "God" in Exodus 4:16, which words do not appear in the Hebrew; Psalm 8:5 {compare Hebrews 2:9}; 86:6-8; 95:3; 50:1; Psalm 82:6,7 (See John 10:34,35; 1 John 3:2) Likewise, we read of the anointing of Jesus as elohim by his elohim -- his God: Psalm 45:6,7 (Hebrews 1:8,9; Isaiah 61:1)

We can be sure that John was aware of the Hebrew usage of the words EL and ELOHIM, as he refers to Jesus' defense in using Psalm 82 at John 10:34,35. Thus it would not be unusual for him to bring this usage into Greek by using the word *theos* in reference to the Son of God.

We might note that Strong gives the definition of *theos* as: "of uncertain affinity; a deity, especially (with 3588) the supreme Divinity; figuratively, a magistrate; by Hebraism, very: --X exceeding, God, god(ly, ward)", thus implying that the word, like its Hebrew counterpart, can be used of one in power, as a magistrate.

Some have claimed, usually using Colwell's Rule as a basis (which we discussed earlier), that it does not represent the Greek to use the translation of "a god" here. (Remember Colwell's purpose was to discredit any Hebraism in John 1:1.) However, many point out that the same form is used in many places, such as John 4:19; 6:70; 8:44; 9:28; 12:6; and possibly John 18:37. No one questions the presence of the indefinite article in most of these texts; it is only questioned simply because of its usage in the John 1:1.

Some produce an argument that if the definite article in John 1:1 denotes God Almighty and theos without the article should be translated "a god", that everyplace throughout the Greek New Testament theos without the article should be translated "a god". They point to scriptures such as Matthew 5:9; 6:24; Luke 1:35; Luke 1:78; 2:40; John 1:6,12,13,18; 3:2,21; 9:16,33; Romans 1:7,17,18; 1 Corinthians 1:30; 15:10; Philippians 2:11,13; Titus 1:1, etc., and state: To be consistent in this rendering of "a god", the anarthrous theos should be so translated as "a god" in every instance where the article is absent. Of course, no one claims that the anarthrous theos should always be translated as "a god", and such actually throws attention away from the contextual usuage of the predicate nominative in John 1:1. Even Colwell notes that the context needs to considered in whether to consider the predicate nominative as definite or indefinite: "A predicate nominative which precedes the verb cannot be translated as an indefinite or a 'qualitative' noun solely because of the absence of the article; if the context suggests that the predicate is definite, it should be translated as a definite noun in spite of the absence of the article." (Colwell, "A Definite Rule," 20-21) Of course, Colwell believed and argued from the standpoint that the context was stating that the Logos was God Almighty; we see no reason to agree with him on this, as the context clearly shows that the Logos was with God, thus was not the God who he was with.
Additionally, it is argued that the four oldest and best manuscripts in John 1:18 read, "the only begotten god...," which favors adding the indefinite article in verse one to read "the Word was a god."

We should note that many translators, being trinitarian, avoid this translation. Usually the actual reason for the rejection is that it runs counter what is generally accepted as Christian doctrine. Some translations and/or scholars that render or give support to the latter *theos* as "a god" in John 1:1 are: The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures Watchtower Bible and Tract Society; The New Testament in an Improved Version (Unitarian translation based upon Archbishop Newcome's New Translation - Edited by John Thompson in 1808); The New Testament in Greek and English (A. Kneeland - 1822); A Literal Translation Of The New Testament (H. Heinfetter - 1863); The Coptic Version of the New Testament (G. W. Horner, 1911); Epiphany Studies in the Scriptures, Vol, I, GOD (Paul S. L. Johnson - 1938)

Philip B. Harner, in the work quoted earlier (pages 84-85) tells us that John could have written any of the following:

A. ho Logos en ho theos (The Word was the God);
B. Theos en ho Logos (God was the Word -- as appears in John 1:1);
C. ho Logos Theos en (the Word God was -- less emphatic than B);
D. ho Logos en Theos (the Word was a god);
E. ho Logos en Theios (the Word was divine).

He states: "John evidently wished to say something about the logos that was other than A and more than D and E."

Thus Harner expresses that if John had wanted to say that Jesus was the actual being of the God, he could have used the definite article to definitely say so. He could have shown that he was definitely not including Jesus as the God by putting the word theos after the verb and ho logos before the verb. He, in effect, rules out the first translation above (and the Word was God) and favors something in between translations A and B.

At any rate, the arguments against translation A appear to us to be stronger than against translations B or C. If one considers that the word theos is not a name, but a descriptive title based on Hebrew usage of the word EL and ELOHIM, meaning "mighty" or "mighty one", the choice of translation might be between "The Word was a mighty One," or "The Word was mighty." Although Harner never even considers these renderings, these are our preferred renderings.

John 1:2
The same was in the beginning with God.
Here John adds this phrase with the evident intent to show that he does not reckon the Logos to be same being or person with whom he was with in the beginning. To make sure the reader understood this, he added the phrase to the effect that the Logos with or toward TON THEON in the beginning, and thus he was not TON THEON with whom he was with.
John 1:3
All things [Greek, panta, Strong's #3956] were made through [Greek, di, Strong's #1223] him. Without him was not anything [oude hen, Strong's #3761, 1520] made that has been made.
John 1:4
In him was life, and the life was the light of men.
"All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people." -- John 1:3,4, New Revised Standard Version
John 1:3,10 speaks of the creation of the world of mankind, not of absolutely everything in the universe. Thus the word panta (usually translated in John 1:3 as "all things") and the words "oude hen" (usually translated as "not one thing") need to viewed relative to what is being spoken of, that is the world of mankind into which the Logos came and was not recognized by. (John 1:10) The words "things" and "thing" are supplied by the translators. Without adding the supplied word "things" and "thing", the verse would read: "All through him came to be, and without him not one came to be." Where to end the sentence has been disputed for centuries. Many would extend the sentence to include the rest of verse 3: "All through him came be, and without him not one came to be which has come to be." Others would put the last part of verse 3 with the next sentence. Either way, one has to consider the context, which speaks of that which was made through the Logos as the world of mankind into which the Logos came.
The above would be in harmony with several scriptures where creation is spoken with reference to creation of mankind, not the angels, stars, etc. -- Mark 10:6; Romans 8:20,22; 2 Peter 3:4.
We might add that many Bible Students have thought that the "all" here refers to angels, cherubim, seraphim, worlds, etc., as well as mankind. (R3475:1; R5351:6; R5372:1) Nonetheless, from the context of John 1:3 (as well as the rest of the scriptures), and the actual wording that John used, we are enabled to conclude that the "panta" -- all -- that is being spoken of is the creation of the things of the world of mankind, and not that of the angels, etc. At any rate, it should be apparent that the one through whom the things are made would of necessity not be included in the things that being spoken of as made, even if he had been brought into existence before the things being referred.
Jesus is not being called the Creator here, as some have assumed. In the King James Version we read in John 1:3: "All things were made by him." The word translated "by" in the KJV is the Greek word di (Strong's #1223). Its basic meaning is "through", as an instrument or container being used. Thus, in connection with the context, Ton Theon created all the things being spoken by means of the Logos. Many trinitarians realize that this is speaking of the Logos as the agent of God. Regarding this verse, Newman and Nida states: "This statement is literally 'all things through him came into being.' The Greek phrase through him indicates that the Word was the agent in creation, but at the same time the context clearly implies that God is the ultimate source of creation." -- A Translator's Handbook on the Gospel of John, by Barclay M. Newman and Eugene A. Nida, 1980 edition, page 10.
Many, noting that some translations refer to the LOGOS as "it", conclude that the LOGOS is not a person, but an "it". Usually, this thought is presented in connection with the idea that Jesus did not have a pre-human existence as a person, but that the LOGOS was with God only in the "mind of God", "in the counsels of God", or in the Torah, or some similar thought. Many unitarians, as well as many oneness believers, often present this or some similar thought.
Tyndale's translation, reads: ""All thinges were made by it and with out it was made nothinge that was made. In it was lyfe and the lyfe was ye lyght of men." Several other translations read similar to this. Does this mean that the LOGOS is an "it", and not a person? To reason so, would make the application of LOGOS only to Jesus before his birth, but, as we have shown above, the word LOGOS is applied to Jesus while on earth, as well as, after his ascension. Those who support the above often quote the scripture, as quoted above, ending with verse four. Evidently the thought is that before the world was made, that all things were made through God's spoken word, and in some vague manner that in that spoken word "was" life, and that "life" was the light of men. This, we believe, is a misapplication of the scripture. Why? As shown above, the term LOGOS also refers to Jesus as a human, and also after his exaltation. In 1 John 1:1, John describes Jesus as the "Word [Logos] of Life." In John 1:14 he is further called the "Word" at his first advent. It is also probable that Jesus was referring to himself as the Logos of God whom he spoke of as coming to the sons of God in John 10:35; Psalm 82:1,6,7; John 1:12). In Revelation 19:13 he is called the "Word" in his future glory. Thus in all three stages he is still the Logos, or Word of God. In Greek, the word Logos itself is neuter; this does not mean the Logos was, or is not, a title of a living person. Most translations recognize this, and thus use masculine pronouns in reference to the Logos, not to the neuter "it".
Furthermore, the LOGOS "was" life and the light of men while on earth, not before the world of mankind was made, as many would like to apply John 1:4. Why do we say this? Let us look at the verses, and other related scriptures, comparing spiritual revealing with spiritual revealing.
John 1:4 - In him [the LOGOS] was life, and the life was the light of men.
When was the LOGOS the "light of men"? John partly answer this when he said:
and the light in the darkness did shine, and the darkness did not perceive it. -- John 1:5, Young's Literal Translation.
More directly, Jesus said:
As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world. -- John 9:5.
Jesus narrows this down to the time that he was in the world of mankind. While he was in the world of mankind, he was the light of the world. Therefore, John 1:4,5 is speaking about the LOGOS as a person while on the earth, that in this person was life, and that he was the light of men, the light of this world.
The Logos came to earth by means a miracle. Unlike all of dying mankind around him, he had life, the crown of glory that Adam originally had. (Psalm 8:5; Hebrews 2:7,9) Mankind, however, still does not have the glory and dominion originally given to him (Genesis 1:25,28; Psalm 8:5-8), thus Paul says: "now we don't see all things subjected to him [man], yet." (Hebrews 2:8) But, Paul adds, we do "see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man." Jesus, having been totally obedient to his God, did not fall short of the glory of God as did all mankind. (Romans 3:23) Thus, "in him was life", and that life offered "light" to men.
Was Jesus as LOGOS while in the world an "it"? Only in that you could refer to him with the title of "LIGHT" as an "it", but this does not mean that Jesus was not a person. The LOGOS as the "light of men" was indeed a person walking around on the earth. The LOGOS was most definitely a person while in the flesh, and is most definitely a person after being exalted.
Now we examine another related scripture, pertaining to "where" Jesus was, as spoken of in John 1:1, before coming to the earth. Jesus said:
John 6:62 - What if you would see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?
The "where" that the LOGOS is spoken of as being in John 1:1 is the same "where" that the LOGOS 'returned' to. Where is that Jesus ascended? To heaven to be with his God. (Mark 16:19; Luke 24:51; John 13:1; 16:28; 17:3; Acts 3:21; Hebrews 9:24) So wherever the LOGOS returned to is the same "where" that he was in John 1:1. Jesus returned, as a person, to be with his God, where he has been exalted as a mighty ruler, at the right hand of the Most High himself. Thus the spiritual revealment is that Jesus, as a person, was with his God before coming into the world of mankind. And, that is what is confirmed in John 17:1,3,5. If Jesus was not a person before he came to earth, then he must not be a person after his ascension, since Jesus returned to same "where" that he was before he came into the world of mankind. ---- Ronald R. Day, Sr.

See also Links to Studies Related to John 1:1

Some Links to Related Writings

We are providing these links because we believe there is good information that supports what we have stated. This does not necessarily mean that we agree with all conclusions given by the authors, nor does it mean that the authors necessarily agree with all we have stated.
Herald of Christ's Kingdom
Editors' Journal - He That Built All Things is God
http://www.heraldmag.org/1998/98ja_9.htm
The Doctrine of Christ
http://www.heraldmag.org/bookstore/booklet_doctrine.htm
The Made Maker
http://www.heraldmag.org/2001/01so_2.htm
by Richard Kindig
The Doctrine of the Trinity - Mystery or Confusion?
http://www.heraldmag.org/1999/99nd_3.htm
by David Rice
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/contents/doctrine/fshspirit.htm
The Image of the Invisible God
http://www.heraldmag.org/2001/01so_3.htm
by Jeff Mezera
Genesis and Geophysics
http://www.heraldmag.org/2000/00ja_5.htm
by Richard Doctor
Criticisms of Pastor Russell and the International Bible Students Association Examined from a Scriptural Standpoint
http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/contents/history/criticisms%20of%20pastor.htm
Compiled by M. C. Bradley, Chicago, August, 1914.
Corrections to the New International Version of the English New Testament
http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/contents/reference/niv_corr.pdf
This is a PDF file.
ZWT References
Charles Taze Russell's Response to W. G. Moorehead of Xenia College
http://www.biblestudents.com/htdbv5/r3073.htm#x21711
The Author of the Atonement
http://www.biblestudents.com/htdbv5/htdb0123.htm
The Only Begotten One
http://www.biblestudents.com/htdbv5/htdb0124.htm
Jehovah Our God is One
http://www.biblestudents.com/htdbv5/r5747.htm
The Logos Made Flesh
http://www.biblestudents.com/htdbv5/r5351.htm
The Light and Life of Men
http://www.biblestudents.com/htdbv5/r3474.htm#x20208
The True Light that Lighteth Every Man
http://www.biblestudents.com/htdbv5/r2408.htm
Others
JOHN 1:1c: "God," "divine" or "a god"?
http://mysite.freeserve.com/newworldtranslation/john1.1c.htm
also:
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/newworldtranslation/colwell.htm
"Inconsistencies
in the Translating of QEOS in the New World Translation
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/newworldtranslation/inconsistjohn1.1.htm - A rebuttal of Clifton Burton's criticisms of the NWT.
More about the New World's Translation's
"...the Word was a god"-John 1:1
http://mysite.freeserve.com/newworldtranslation/morejohn1.htm
Discusses the NWT criticisms of Mantey, Metzger, Mikolaski, Kaufman, Feinberg, and others concerning the NWT rendering of John 1:1.
"Inconsistencies in the Translating of QEOS
in The New World Translation Bible"
http://mysite.freeserve.com/newworldtranslation/inconsistjohn1.1.htm
Critique of claims made by Cliff Burton.
Metzger, Colwell , John 1:1 and the New World Translation
http://mysite.freeserve.com/newworldtranslation/metzgercolwell.htm
Also:
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/newworldtranslation/metzgercolwell.htm
An Example of 'Blatant Ignorance'?
http://mysite.freeserve.com/newworldtranslation/brownjohn1.1.htm
An examination of claims concerning the NWT and John 1:1 made by Ian Brown in the book: "Sixty Questions Every Jehovah's Witness Should Be Asked"
A Refutable "Irrefutable" Argument
http://mysite.freeserve.com/newworldtranslation/refutablejohn1.htm
Discusses the alleged paraphrase of John 1:1,2: "In the beginning was EVE, and EVE was with MAN, and EVE was MAN. SHE was in the beginning with MAN."
John 1:1c "a god" and Deuteronomy 32:39
http://mysite.freeserve.com/newworldtranslation/john1.1c_deut32.htm
Harmonizing these scriptures.
How Monotheism and the "a god" rendering of the anarthrous QEOS at John 1:1 is theologically (biblically) sound
http://mysite.freeserve.com/newworldtranslation/monotheism.htm
John 1:1c, Wallace, Countess and the New World Translation
http://mysite.freeserve.com/newworldtranslation/wallace.countess.john1.1.htm
Colwell's Rule and the "a god" Rendering
http://mysite.freeserve.com/newworldtranslation/colwell.htm
EIMI of John 1:1 - 'eternal existence' re the "Word"?
http://mysite.freeserve.com/newworldtranslation/john1.1_eimi.htm
Dr.J.Beduhn and R.Hommel: A Discussion upon the translation of John 1:1c.
http://mysite.freeserve.com/newworldtranslation/beduhn_hommel.1.htm
(originally on the Christian Apologetics Research Ministry JW discussion board during Jan/Feb, 2002 and continuing later elsewhere. There are 4 parts in total to this discussion.
"The Word was a god" and Qualitative Nouns
http://mysite.freeserve.com/newworldtranslation/qeosqualitative.htm
"and the Word was divine"
http://mysite.freeserve.com/newworldtranslation/beduhn_divinejohn1.1.htm
Jason BeDuhn
John 1:1c, "a god" and Isaiah 43:10
http://mysite.freeserve.com/newworldtranslation/john1.1c_Is.43.htm
Is It Grammar or Interpretation?
http://jehovah.to/exegesis/translation/nwt/colwell.htm
"Don Hartley's Misunderstanding of My View of Qualitative Nouns and P. B. Harners JBL Article
http://jehovah.to/exegesis/logs/don_hartley.htm
by Greg Stafford
Partial Response to Hartley
http://jehovah.to/exegesis/logs/partial_to_hartley.htm
by Greg Stafford
Greg Stafford's Response to Hartley's Theory
http://jehovah.to/exegesis/logs/stafford_hartley_52699A.htm
by Greg Stafford
Greg Stafford to Hartley: Clairy, Please
http://jehovah.to/exegesis/logs/stafford_hartley_52699B.htm
Greg Stafford's reply to Robert Hommel, regarding Dr. J. R. Mantey's letter to the WTB&TS, concerning matters relating to the use of his grammar, and various issues concerning translations found in the NWT.
http://jehovah.to/exegesis/logs/hommel.htm
Part 1: Greg Stafford's Second Reply to Robert Hommel, in response to his submission regarding issues relating to Dr. J. R. Mantey's letter to the WTB&TS
http://jehovah.to/exegesis/logs/hommel1.htm
Part 2: Continuation of the above
http://jehovah.to/exegesis/logs/hommel2.htm
By Ronald Day at December 11, 2016
Email This
BlogThis!
Share to Twitter
Share to Facebook
Share to Pinterest
Labels: Jesus as "God", Logos

-------------------------------

------------------------------

John 1:3 - The World Made Through the Logos (2016-12-18)

https://jesusnotyhwh.blogspot.com/2016/12/john1-3.html

John 1:3 - The World Made Through the Logos

 

(All Greek and Hebrew words are presented with English transliterations. We do not claim that the transliterations actually represent the original Koine Greek or the ancient Hebrew pronunciations.)

Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.  -- John 1:3World English.

He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. -- John 1:10World English.

The claim is often made that John 1:3 tells us that without Jesus Christ (the Word) absolutely nothing was created.  An author on one site states:

Some heretical cults deny Christ’s eternal existence, claiming that He was a created Being. In contrast to this false doctrine, the Bible presents Him as the uncreated Creator: “All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made” (John 1:3). In the beginning He was not created or made. In the beginning He already was (John 1:1-2)! The Apostle Paul declares that “He is before all things” (Col. 1:17)."

Thus, according to this reasoning, Jesus could not be created since absolutely nothing was created without him. However, this reasoning evidently overlooks that the other spirit "sons of God" were also present at the beginning of the world mankind that God created through his firstborn Son. -- Job 38:4-7John 1:10.

The fact is that there is nothing in John 1:3 that presents Jesus as uncreated; he is being presented as the instrument that God used in the creation being spoken of.

We wish to first point out that the word "creator" is never used of Jesus in the Bible.  The Bible nowhere, not even once, presents Jesus as the "uncreated Creator." That thought is being imagined, assumed, added to, and read into the scriptures. Jesus himself applied the words "creator" and "creation" to his God and Father, but never to himself.  -- Mark 10:613:19.

The verse reads from the Westcott & Hort Interlinear:

panta di autou egeneto kai chwris autou
ALL (THINGS) THROUGH HIM CAME TO BE, AND APART FROM HIM
3956 1223 0846_3 1096 2532 5565 0846_3
egeneto oude hen
CAME TO BE NOT BUT ONE (THING).
1096 3761 1520
ho gegonen
WHICH HAS COME TO BE
3739 1096
Westcott & Hort Interlinear

Actually, what John said was that without the Word not one was created. Notice that the words "things" and "thing" are in parenthesis above. This is because those words are not actually in the Greek text. Adding these words at least appears to most readers to make it appear to be all-inclusive of absolutely everything created.

Regardless, the creation being spoken of was "of God" -- the God and Father of Jesus (2 Corinthians 11:31;  Ephesians 1:3,171 Peter 1:3) through,  by means of,  Jesus.  -- 1 Corinthians 8:6.

The word "one" is in Greek neuter form -- hen -- of the word "heis"; and "all" -- Greek, panta  -- is a form of the Greek "pas". (The words "things" and "thing" are added by the translators.)

Another form of the Greek word "pas" is used in Romans 8:22: "For we know that all [pasa] creation groans and travails in pain together until now." The "all creation" or "whole creation" that is being referred to in Romans 8:22 does not include the angels, the stars, the sun, the moon, etc., but rather it refers only to the world of mankind that has been subjected to vanity (Romans 8:20) due to Adam's sin. (Romans 5:12-19) Thus, absolutely "all creation" in the universe is not included in "all creation", neither in Romans 8:20, nor in what is said in John 1:3. Indeed, if one does a study of the usage of all forms of the word "pas" in the New Testament, one will see that this word rarely means absolutely everything in the universe, but that it is always understood in the context as well as common evidence. John 1:10 indicates that in John 1:3, the "all" that is being referred to is the world of mankind, as it is in Romans 8:22.  The only true God (John 17:1,3) is the Creator (Mark 10:613:19); the prehuman Jesus is the instrument -- the agent -- that the Creator used to bring into being the creation that is being spoken of.

Additionally, the negative usage of terms such as "not one" is also subject to what is being spoken of. In Hebrews 2:8, for instance, in speaking of what has been subjected to man as spoken of in Psalm 8:6, we read: "For in that he subjected all things to him, he left nothing that is not subject to him. But now [due to the sin of Adam, man has been subjected to futility -- Romans 5:12-198:20] we don't see all things subjected to him, yet." Note that the scripture says that God left nothing that is not subject to him (man). Does this mean that God subjected absolutely everything in the entire universe to man? Absolutely not! Psalm 8:7,8 describes the "all things" that were subjected to man, which corresponds with Genesis 1:26,28. All that was subjected to man pertains to all the earth, not absolutely all in the universe.

The Greek word "hen" refers to "the beginning" spoken of in John 1:1, which is the beginning, not of the universe, but of the world (kosmos spoken of in John 1:10), the six days of the creation of the land (earth) and the sky (heavens) and the things in them as seen from the surface of the planet. (Genesis 1:1,3-31Exodus 20:1131:17)

The Greek "hen" -- one --  is a neuter adjective and probably refers to the Greek noun plasma or poiema, that is, of being formed.

The Greek word "panta" -- all -- always looks to the context and common evidence for what is included or excluded. The all being referred to is that which is spoken of as "the beginning",  all pertaining to the six days of creation.

The beginning in John 1:1 is the same "beginning" that is spoken of in Genesis 1:1. That "beginning" is shown by Exodus 20:11 and Exodus 31:17 to be the entire "six days" spoken of in Genesis 1:3-31. (This "beginning" then is after Yahweh had created the universe.) The "beginning" is not in reference to the "beginning" of the material universe, and not even the planet earth itself. We need to realize that the word "earth" has more than one meaning in the scriptures, and also that the word heaven(s) has more than one meaning. The heavens where God and the angels live (1 Kings 8:30,392 Chronicles 20:6Psalm 11:4Matthew 5:16,45,486:1,918:1022:3024:36Mark 12:2513:32; ) already existed before that first day, but the heavens -- the sky -- above the dry land and the things and living creatures related to that "heavens" did not begin to exist until the second "day". (Genesis 1:6-8) Before the creative acts of 'day one' began, the planet earth already "was" (Genesis 1:2), but the "earth" -- the dry land -- upon that planet, and the things included upon that earth, did not begin to appear until the third day. (Genesis 1:9-13) It is the "heavens and earth" that are described as being created during the six days that is the "beginning" that is spoken of in Genesis 1:1, and also in John 1:1.

When speaking of creation, what does the expression "the beginning" usually refer to in the New Testament? Matthew 19:4Mark 10:6 refer to "the beginning" in reference to the creation of the man and woman, which took place on the sixth day of creation as related in Genesis 1:26-31. In Matthew 19:8 "the beginning" refers to the original marriage arrangement as provided by God after creating Eve, which was also part of the sixth day of creation. Matthew 24:21 and Mark 13:19 refer to the beginning of the world (kosmos); this world is described in John 1:10 as the world into which the Word came, but which world did not recognize the Word in their midst. The Greek word "kosmos" as used in the Bible, almost always refers to the world existing upon the planet earth; indeed, we have no reference where is it is used to refer to the entire universe. Thus, it is speaking of the world of mankind, not the entire material universe, nor of the angels. This is the "world" that the Word came into, and that did not recognize him. (John 1:10) Thus, it can be seen that the NT writers in connection with "the beginning" of creation understood that this beginning was in reference to things upon the planet earth, not to the entire universe itself.

Please note that the 'creation' spoken of in Colossians 1:15,16 includes the living creation both in heaven and earth, while the beginning spoken of in John 1:1 and the creation spoken of in John 1:3,10 refer only to the world  (Kosmos) of mankind, the creation that has been subjected to vanity, futility, because of Adam's sin. -- Romans 5:128:20.

Since the angels were already in the existence (Job 38:4-7) at the beginning spoken of in Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1, we conclude the created spirit beings were created before that "beginning", which would include Jesus as the firstborn. (Colossians 1:15) In Isaiah 44:24, however, we read of the creation of the material universe (the big bang?), and it appears that Yahweh was alone when he created the material universe; therefore we conclude the material universe was created before the spirit world. Thus, the first of the creations recorded in the Bible would be the material universe; the second -- but the first living creature would be the pre-human Jesus; then through the prehuman Jesus, the rest of the living dominions, both visible and invisible, in heaven and on earth, were created through, by means of, the prehuman Jesus, so that Jesus was created before all.  -- Colossians 1:16,17.

For links to more of our studies related to Jesus and Creation:

Jesus and Creaton

For links to some of our studies related to creation:

Creation

**********

 

 

-------------------------------

------------------------------

John 1:1,5 - Light, Darkness and the Logos (2016-11-23)

https://jesusnotyhwh.blogspot.com/2016/11/light-dark.html

John 1:1,5 - Light, Darkness and the Logos

By Ronald R. Day, Sr.

The thought is sometimes given that in some vague manner the Logos of John 1:1,5 is the "light" spoken of in Genesis 1:4,5 and that the "darkness" of John 1:5 is the darkness of Genesis 1:2. It should be obvious, however, that in Genesis 1:2 that physical darkness is being referred to, while in John 1:5, the darkness is related to darkness that has come upon the world due to sin and disobedience. Likewise, the "light" refers to Jesus, while he was in the days of his flesh, and not a light that came into existence on the first day of the world that came into existence through the Logos. (John 1:10) Many, e do not seem to think reasonably along this line of thought, and end up claiming that the Logos came into existence in the first day of the world that was created through the Logos, which is self-contradictory. If would have the Logos coming into existence as a result that what which came into existence through the Logos. -- John 1:10.


 

We do believe that Jesus was the beginning of God's creation, more specifically, the beginning of God's living creation. -- Colossians 1:15Revelation 3:14.


 

However, the thought appears to be that Jesus was being alleged to have been the light that was created as spoken of in Genesis 1:3,4, which we have several problems with such a view.

Jesus said, as recorded in Matthew 19:4:


 

He answered, "Haven't you read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, ..."


 

We can learn from this that Jesus associated "the beginning" with the time of the creation of Adam and Eve. This "beginning" of Genesis 1:1 is further shown in Exodus 20:11: "in six days Jehovah made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them." This shows that the "beginning" spoken of in Genesis 1:1 is the six days that are described in Genesis 1:3 through Genesis 2:1. Adam and Eve's creation was on the last of the six days of creation in which God created the heavens and the earth. Thus, the "beginning" spoken of in Genesis 1:1 is regarding the six days of creation. Jesus, was already with his God and Father (John 17:1,3,5) *before* the "beginning" spoken of in Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1,2, and thus before the first of the six days of creation, before the world of mankind was made.


 

The six days of creation are speaking of the creation of the "heavens and earth", the sky, the "up above", as seen from the surface, and the land masses and things on those land masses.

See the studies:

The Six Days of Creation
In the Beginning
Without Jesus Absolutely Nothng Was Created?
Beginnings in the Bible


 

The Genesis account tells nothing about the creation of the planet Earth itself. It says, "In the beginning the Earth was -- without form and void" -- shapeless, empty. It was upon this planet that there was darkness over waters. There were neither mountains nor valleys, trees nor shrubs, rivers nor oceans, but the Earth was. How long before that it had been created, is not stated. The account of the Days of Creation given in Genesis does not relate to the construction of our globe, but to the ordering of it for human habitation. Thus, the scriptures refer to these six days, the beginning, creation, in reference to the creation of the world of mankind (not the sun, moon, stars, etc.), into which world the Logos came. -- Matthew 19:4,824:21Mark 10:613:1916:15John 1:1,2,1017:5Romans 1:208:19-22Colossians 1:23Hebrews 9:112 Peter 3:4.


 

It was that "heavens and earth" that John 1:10 and John 17:5 speaks of as the "world" that was made "through the Logos," and into which the Logos came. If the light of Genesis 1:3,4 is speaking of the creation of the prehuman Jesus, then it would mean that Jesus created himself, since the "light" spoken of there is part the world that was created through Jesus.

Job 38:4-7 shows that the angelic sons of God were already in existence before the creation of the heavens and earth during the six days of creation.


 

In the first day, the "brooding" of Holy Energy developed a light of some kind -- but not sunlight. The "light" could have come from the regions of the surface of the waters, as this time element would have a lot of underwater volcanic activity, which may have provided the source for such light. We do not know for sure where this light came from; we are informed that on Day One some form of light was provided, and that it was distinguished from the darkness.


 

The Sun, however, did not appear in the sky until the Fourth Day, nor are 24-hour "days" actually mentioned until then. We are not to think that the sun, moon, and stars were "created" as an physical bodies on Day Four, but it was it at that time that the fields above the earth became thin enough so that they could be seen in the sky above, as though from man's standpoint upon the earth. The fourth day is actually the first mention of a "days" as we know 24-hour days. (Genesis 1:14-19)  One could assume that the 12-hour day (John 11:9) may have been mentioned earlier on the first day, when God made light to appear on the waters. This light probably was sunlight, but the sun had not yet appeared in the sky until the fourth creative day.
http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/kjv/shamayim.html


John 1:14 - The Logos as the Light of Men

John tells us of the Logos that "in him was life, and the life was the light of men." (John 1:4) John says that "we" -- John speaking of himself and the other disciples at that time -- saw his glory, the glory of the Logos. (John 1:14) Thus, the "life" spoken of in John 1:4, which provided the "light of men", the "light of the world", does not refer to the celestial glory that Jesus had before he came into the world of mankind (John 1:1017:51 Corinthians 15:39-41), for none of the disciples ever saw that glory, but rather it speaks of the sinless, incorrupt, crown of terrestrial glory that Jesus had as the human son of God, for his terrestrial glory as a human never fell short of the glory of God by sin. -- Romans 3:23Philippians 2:8Hebrews 2:9.


 

While in the days of his flesh (Hebrews 5:7), the Logos had the terrestrial, the earthly glory, but he did not, while in the days of his flesh, have the celestial glory that he had with his Father before the world of mankind was made. If, while in the days of his flesh, Jesus had the celestial glory, why would he ask for that glory to be given to him? (John 17:5) Jesus did indeed again receive that celestial glory when he was raised from the dead, but it would be misleading to say that the glory that he now has is the exact same level of glory that he had with his Father before the world was made, if one does not at the same time show that this could only be true in the sense of a restored glory -- celestial glory in a general senses. While Jesus, before he became flesh had the celestial bodily glory and he again had the celestial bodily glory in his resurrection, the scriptures also show various levels of glory within the celestial glory, and thus the scriptures indicate that the glory that Jesus now has excels the glory he had with his God and Father before the world was made, for now he has been given "the plenitude of mightiness" in his present celestial body of glory that he did not possess when he was with his God and Father before the world was made. (Colossians 2:9,10)  It was the only true God [Supreme Being], the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who sent Jesus (Exodus 3:14,15Deuteronomy 18:15-19Isaiah 61:1John 17:1,3Acts 3:13-26) who also exalted Jesus to a position higher than anyone excluding the glory of being Most High Himself. -- John 17:1,3Acts 2:335:311 Corinthians 15:27Ephesians 1:3,17-23Philippians 2:9Hebrews 1:41 Peter 3:22.


 

Jesus, as a human, as most know the scriptures say, was without sin. (Hebrews 4:15) Unlike dying mankind, Jesus had life, thus in him was life! How thankful we can be that the great Logos, the Word of God, the only direct living creation of God, the one through whom all things were made, when the offer was made, and the "joy set before him," said to his God, "Lo I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me) to do thy will, 0 God." (John 1:1-3, Diaglott Literal; Hebrews 10:712:2Revelation 3:14). The life and personality of the Logos was then transferred and he became the babe of Bethlehem. "He was made flesh and being found in fashion [likeness] as a man [of sinful flesh --Romans 8:3] he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." - John 1:14Philippians 2:8Hebrews 2:14.


 

Jesus' human body was not prepared from sinful human stock, but Jesus is depicted as saying to his God: "But a body did you prepare for me." (Hebrews 10:5,9) It is thus this sinless human body, having sinless life, that Jesus willingly offered in sacrifice. (Hebrews 10:10) Yes, in the Logos, during the days of his flesh, *was* life -- human life, crowned with the glory of a sinless man, who by his full obedience to his God had not fallen short of the glory of God. -- Romans 3:23Philippians 2:8Hebrews 2:9.


 

John 9:5 and 2 Timothy 1:10 are thus related. Since Jesus, unlike Adam, was totally obedient, his sinless human life offered light to the dying race of mankind. Thus Jesus said: "As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world." (John 9:5, New King James version) The good news is that Jesus came with a sinless human life that he could offer in sacrifice to his God on man's behalf in order to atone for the sin of the world. Thus Jesus, while a man, possessed life, and by his continued obedience brought life and incorruption to light. (2 Timothy 1:10) Jesus condemned sin in the flesh by showing that a sinless, incorrupt human can obey God's laws. (Romans 8:32 Timothy 1:10) Jesus, of course, never actually participated in sinful flesh, but he did have the likeness of sinful flesh in that he suffered and died as a though he were a sinner in order to pay the price for sin.


 

The word "light" is used in many different ways in the Bible, and is applied in several different ways. In the Old Testament, it was the Law Covenant through which one offered life (Romans 10:5), and thus the Law Covenant is described as a light, a lamp, etc. However, no one was justified by the Law, due to man's sinful flesh. (Romans 3:208:3Galatians 2:163:11) Thus, most of Psalm 119 could not fully apply to anyone until Jesus came, since no one before Jesus kept that law perfectly. Thus, the Logos, while in the days of his flesh, was fully obedient to the Law and to all that God desired of him, by which he brought life and incorruption to light for mankind.


 

Of course, Jesus now, like his Father, dwells in the "unapproachable light; whom [which] no man has seen, nor can see" (1 Timothy 6:16), but as such he is not the light of the world, since no human has seen the glory of his present celestial body. (1 Corinthians 15:40) This celestial light, Paul says, no human has seen, nor can see. And yet Paul [as Saul] saw a light as recorded in Acts 26:13, which must have been some kind of manifestation of the light of Jesus' celestial glory, but not the actual substance. At any rate, that light left Paul blinded, so that if he did get a glimpse of that light, it actually shows that no man can look upon that light.


 

One has claimed, related to Genesis 1:2, that "this wicked world begins and ends it’s day in darkness". Is this scriptural? The world began in darkness, but was it wicked when it began? Actually, this wicked, or "evil age" (Galatians 1:4) did not begin until Adam had sinned. It was not until Adam sinned that sin entered into the world that God had made through His Logos. (John 1:3,10Romans 5:12) It would only be so that if by "world," one means the present age that began with Adam's sin and ends when Satan is abyssed. (Revelation 20:3) Once Satan is abyssed, the world will no longer under the rule of darkness. Likewise, God did not make Adam unjust (crooked, corrupted), but he made him just, upright. (Ecclesiastes 7:29) It is only as a result of the sin that came into the world (Romans 5:12) that was made through Jesus (John 1:10) that the world was become corrupted through lust (2 Peter 1:4), and thus sin and its related darkness came cover the earth as a veil of blindness. (Isaiah 25:760:22 Corinthians 4:3,4) As a result of Adam's disobedience, the world came to be corrupted, and the darkness of the evil age began, but that darkness came long after the darkness that is spoken of in Genesis 1:2.


 

Some claim related to John 1:4 that God is light, and that light begets light, evidently with the thought that this would mean that Jesus is God, the Supreme Being. We do not know of any scripture that speaks of light begetting light. The idea of "like begets like" is based on the law of reproduction that God placed upon the living creation on the earth. (Genesis 1:11,12,21,25) Trinitarians and some others use that idea to promote the idea that God can only beget God, and thus anything begotten by God has to be God. In reality there is nothing in the Bible that says that the Supreme Being is subject to such an idea, or that the creation of the Logos came by being begotten of the light that is spoken of in Genesis 1:3,4. Furthermore, in the realm of terrestrial reproduction, if a Father begets a son, that son would not be the same human being as the Father -- it results in two human beings. To apply this to "light begets light" would result in two lights, not one light.


 

At any rate, the "world" that was made through the Logos (Jesus) does not include the Logos. The "light" that was created on the first day of the creation of the world that was made through the Logos is not the Logos through whom the Light was created. The light refers to the surface of the waters on the planet earth, and not to the Logos Himself. This is not to say that Jesus could not have been considered "light" before he became flesh, nor that he is not that he is not now "light", but it is only as flesh that he could fulfill the Law of Jehovah, and bring life and incorruption to light. It is only as flesh that Jesus could be seen in the world, even though the world did not recognize him. (Those who did recognize him became as though "not of the world" due to their becoming new creatures (sons of God), and, as such belong to Christ and the age to come, when all things are made new, and not to this world of darkness -- the present heavens and earth -- that is under condemnation. -- John 1:1112:4615:1917:14Romans 5:12-172 Corinthians 5:171 Thessalonians 5:5Hebrews 5:52 Peter 3:7,13Revelation 21:1-5.


 

As we have pointed out in other studies, however, Jesus is begotten three times:

(1) as the firstborn creature. -- Colossians 1:15Proverbs 8:22-25.
(2) of the holy spirit as a human. -- Matthew 1:20.
(3) from the dead when raised from the dead. -- Psalm 2:7Acts 13:33Colossians 1:18Hebrews 1:55:5.


 

If the idea of light begetting light should be applied, such a thought could be applied to all three begettals, since in all three of his begettals he was never under any condemnation of sin. As Jesus is now, it would be applied to his third begettal in his resurrection. In his original begettal, which was before the laying of the foundation of the present heavens and earth (Proverbs 8:26), which was laid by means of him (Hebrews 1:10), it would have been as the firstborn of all creation. (Colossians 1:15) As a human, he had the full crown of glory as a human being, which glory could be appreciable seen by his disciples, a glory that was never marred by sin. -- Romans 3:23Hebrews 2:9.


 

All of the sons of God become sons of light (John 12:361 Thessalonians 5:5), and, as new creatures (2 Corinthians 5:17), are considered the light of the world in this age (Matthew 5:14), and will also be so in the age to come when the world is blessed when those sons of God are made manifest to the world. -- Isaiah 2:4-530:2642:6,1660:3,19Romans 8:19Revelation 21:4.


 

However, none of this means the exactly the same "light" referred to in Genesis 1:3,4, which is part of the creation of the heavens and earth, the world, that was made through Jesus, except that one could use those scriptures in a typical way, as typifying the coming time when the light of Jehovah will illuminate the earth through Jesus and the saints. Jesus, the Logos, being the means by which Jehovah created the light that is spoken of in Genesis 1:3,4 is not that light that was created through Jesus.


 

Nevertheless, the scriptures, in speaking of Jehovah as "light", are not usually speaking of his substance -- his being, but they speak symbolically of the illumination of truth, justice and knowledge that proceeds from Jehovah. (Psalm 13:318:2827:136:984:11118:2750:1060:19James 1:171 John 1:5Revelation 21:23) Likewise, with Jesus and the saints; they reflect the light of truth and justice from Jehovah.


 

On the other hand, it also appears that light can also refer to the shining glory of God's substance, and thus would illustrate the plane of existence. This is probably what is being referred to in 1 Timothy 6:16. The light in Acts 9:3 and 22:6-11 is not actually stated to be Jesus, but Paul does refer to the glory of that light which he could not see, thus, we can conclude that the light that shone was in some way the glory of Jesus in his celestial body (1 Corinthians 15:40), regardless of whether that light was a manifestation of that glory or whether it was the actual glory. Whether that light was actually Jesus, or a manifestation of his presence, is beside the point, however. That light signified Jesus' glory as a result of his being begotten as the firstborn from the dead, and does not signify that Jesus is being spoken of as the light in Genesis 1:3-4, nor is there anything in the creation of light as part of the six days of the creation of the heavens and earth (Exodus 20:1131:7) that were created through Jesus (John 1:10Hebrews 1:10) mean that Jesus is a part of that creation that was created through him, which is, in reality, a self-contradiction. Jesus was created before "the beginning" of the world (which world became corrupt due to sin) spoken of in Genesis 1:1Matthew 24:21Mark 10:613:19John 1:1,1017:5Romans 5:12Ephesians 2:2,3Hebrews 1:104:3 (this verse shows that the "world" is in reference to "the heavens and earth" of Genesis 1:1; compare Genesis 1:31Exodus 20:11); 2 Peter 1:42:203:41 John 4:9,14.


 

Genesis 1:2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness covered the surface of the watery depths, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters.
Genesis 1:3 Then God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
Genesis 1:4 God saw that the light was good, and God separated the light from the darkness.
Genesis 1:5 God called the light "day," and He called the darkness "night." Evening came, and then morning: the first day. -- Holman Christian Standard Bible translation.


 

One should at least not question that the light and the darkness referred to in Genesis 1:3-5 is relative to the darkness that is spoken of in Genesis 1:2, which is speaking of the physical world, not the spiritual world. The darkness and the light is spoken of relative to the planet earth, which was covered with water, and darkness. The light spoken of in Genesis 1:3 is still concerning that same place, the earth and the darkness over the waters.


 

That darkness over the surface of the waters is believed to have been caused by a layer of gases or dust particles (or a mixture of both) surrounding the earth above, keeping the light of the sun from shining upon the surface of those waters. Such a canopy would have been kept in place by a strong magnetic field.


 

The "day" and the "night" spoken of in Genesis 1:5 could be the the (averaged) 12-hour days and 12-hour nights (John 11:9) that we are generally speak of, since God created the material universe, including the sun, moon, the planet earth and all stars, long before the "beginning" that spoken of in Genesis 1:1.  One of the explanations for this light is that the canopy above dispersed enough at this point to allow the sunlight through, but as yet, the sun itself was not made to appear in the sky; the sun was made to appear in the sky on the fourth day.


 

In each stage to the six days of creation, God worked with already existing materials; the six days of creation is not about the bringing forth out of nothing physical creations. The six days are about the ordering of the earth and its heavens (sky), the founding of the world that was made through Jesus.


 

On the first day, the planet earth already was, and the darkness already existed on the planet earth, which was void and covered with liquid.


 

On the second day, God does not bring anything forth out of nothing, but he works with the already existing materials, causing a separation between the vapors below and above, creating an expanse, why he calls the heavens, the sky. On the third, again the "land" was already in existence below the depths, but it was not "dry" land until God brought that land to the surface. It was not until it became "dry land" that it was called "earth."


 

All six days, including the first day is describing the founding, the ordering, of the earth and its sky, as shown in Exodus 20:11: "In six days Jehovah made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day." (See also Exodus 31:17Hebrews 4:3 speaks of this same event, saying that God's "works were finished from the foundation [the act of putting into place] of the world." The word "world" in Hebrews 4:3, in effect, replaces the term "heavens and earth" as given in Genesis 1:1. This word is a translation of the Greek word usually transliterated as "Kosmos." (Strong's #2889) This word refers to an "arrangement of things", and thus speaks of the arranging of the heavens and earth, including the things and dominions therein. It is this "world" that has became corrupted through Adam's sin. (2 Peter 1:4) It is also this same "world", that was created through Jesus. (John 1:3,10Hebrews 1:10) Since this world was created during the six days, the first day is included in that creation. Since that creation was created through Jesus, then Jesus was not a part of that creation, but had already been created earlier.


 

Placing spiritual revealing with spiritual revealing, we can conclude that creation took place in the following order: First, the creation of the material universe. Isaiah 44:24 indicates that Jehovah was all alone at this creation. Thus, this creation came into existence before there was any other living creature. Second, the firstborn creature was brought into existence, before the rest of the living creation. (Colossians 1:15-17) Third: Since the angelic sons of God are spoken of as already existing when the ordering of the earth had begun (Job 38:4-7), we can conclude that these were brought forth through the firstborn creature before the "beginning" spoken of in Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1. Fifth: the creation of the heavens and earth -- the world, kosmos -- as spoken of in Genesis 1:1Exodus 20:1131:17John 1:3,10Hebrews 1:104:3. It is this latter "creation" that is usually referred by the term "creation" in the New Testament. The only exceptions appear to be Colossians 1:15-17, which includes the invisible living creation also, the references to one who belongs to Christ as a new creation. (2 Corinthians 5:17Galatians 6:15; possibly Hebrews 4:13) in second 2 Peter 2:13, the word is used in reference to ordinances create); and the one to Jesus as the beginning of God's creation. (Revelation 3:14) To repeat, most instances where the Greek word for "creation" -- ktisis -- appears in the New Testament occurs, it does not include the angelic sons of God; in all other instances, it is referring to the visible world of mankind. (Mark 10:613:1916:15Romans 1:20,258:19,20,21,22Colossians 1:23Hebrews 4:139:112 Peter 3:4; in 1 Peter 2:13, the word is used in reference to ordinances created by man) Also, it is this latter "creation" -- the visible world of mankind -- that is usually referred to by the use of the word "kosmos" (world) in New Testament.


 

It is claimed that the light is not physical light since the sun was created until the fourth day. This has already been discussed. But if the "light" of Genesis 1:3 is "spiritual light" rather than "physical light", then what about the "darkness" that was upon the physical earth, covering the physical liquid? To assume that the first day in Genesis 1:1 is being spoken of in some spiritual sense, however, is an assumption, and if assumed, to be consistent, the entire six days would become spiritual rather than physical -- no physical separating of the waters above from the waters below; no physical bringing forth of dry land, no physical bringing forth of sea creatures, flying creature, land creature, no physical creation of man from physical dust, etc. (And there are some who claim this; if however there was no first man Adam through whom sinned enter into the world, then there is no basis for the ransom sacrifice of Jesus.) However, the context, as well as the testimony of the entire Bible, shows that this light is related to the darkness that was covering the physical watery depths, and that this light caused a separation in that darkness.


 

While we believe that each of the six days of creation are literal, we believe that each of these days cover thousands of years according to the way we usually reckon time.


 

On the fourth day, God made the sun, moon and stars in the sky. As with the other days, it is not referring to the actual physical bodies as being created on that day, but God made them to appear in the sky. Applying this to the canopy theory, the gases/dust surrounding the earth allowed the sun, moon and stars to be appear in the sky at that time. It is only in reference to the vantage point of the surface the earth that they are called "sun", "moon" and "stars" in the Bible. They were made, brought forth in the sky -- heavens -- the up above -- on the fourth day.


 

If one wishes to think that the darkness of Genesis 1:2-5 is speaking about a spiritual/religious darkness related to the present wicked evil age (Greek transliterated:Aion) (Galatians 1:4), this would imply that the corrupted world was already in existence before the first day of the world that was made through Jesus, a self-contradiction. And, if the light is supposed to refer to the creation of the Logos, then it would further imply that the Logos was created to offset that the darkness of the corrupted world, which would have been in existence before Jesus was created to offset their darkness. And since evil would imply intelligent beings who were instigating such evil, it would further imply that these were other living beings created before Jesus, and these living beings were involved in spiritual religious darkness. Further, it would imply that the world (kosmos) was already corrupted before the six days of creation and that this present evil age was in existence before the six days of creation. In effect, it would mean that Jehovah was lying when he said that the world that was created through Jesus was "good" (not "evil"). (Genesis 1:4,12,18,21,25,31) Good is contrasted with the idea of evil in Genesis 2:9,173:5,22. I am not sure how the idea that the darkness and light in Genesis 1:2-5 can be related to such a religious spiritual darkness, and yet be in keeping with the context of the scripture, as well be in harmony with the rest of the scriptures. True light from the scriptures is seen from by comparing spiritual revealing with spiritual revealing (1 Corinthians 2:13), not by confusing the scriptures to such an extent that they are made to appear to be self-contradictory and in confusion with one another. We should recognize how what God has revealed in the scriptures should be in viewed harmoniously, to the glory of the God of peace (1 Corinthians 14:23Romans 15:1Jeremiah 13:16), and to avoid any view that would take the light God has revealed in the scriptures and confuse the scriptures in such a way that they are no longer in harmony.

 

It has been claimed that the light in Genesis 1 refers to the revealing of the glory of the Messiah from the foundation of the world. We do not know of any scripture that refers to that light in Genesis 1 as revealing the glory of messiah before the foundation of the world. To whom was the glory being revealed, if at that time, Jesus, being the first creation, the beginning of the creation, was all alone among creation? Was his glory being revealed to his Creator in the darkness of the Creator? Was the Creator in darkness? Who was he revealed to before the world was made through Jesus, if Jesus was all alone among creation, being the beginning of God's creation? Of course, we do believe that Jesus was the beginning of God's creatures, that is, of his living creation, but Jesus was not created in, or as a part of, the present world of spiritual darkness. He, as well as the other spirit beings, were already in the existence at the beginning spoken of in Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1. Jesus' creation was not part of that "beginning", since all the things pertaining to that "beginning" were created through Jesus. There was no spiritual, or more correctly symbolic, darkness at the beginning of the first day of creation. That darkness spoken of in Genesis 1:2-5 was upon the surface of the waters of the physical planet earth.


 

Simply, the six days of creation relate to the physical things upon the planet earth that were created through, by means of, the one who was to become the Messiah. Jesus was not the Messiah, nor the light of the world, until he became flesh so that he could be that light of the world. Jesus was not the light of the world when God created that Light that is spoken of in Genesis 1 through the one who was become the light of the world.


 

It is being claimed that God spoke the Logos into existence on the first day of creation, when he said "Let there be light."  Although we hear or read of those who say that God “spoke” the Logos into existence, or, that God spoke the world into existence, as yet what that is supposed to mean is not at all made clear. Nevertheless, the scriptures do not say that God spoke the Logos into being. The Logos was already in existence at the beginning spoken of in John 1:1 and Genesis 1:1. That beginning, in which God created the heavens and earth, is stated to include all six days of creation, including the first day. (Exodus 20:1131:17) The first day was not before the beginning of the world that was made through the Logos, but the first day was included in the beginning of the world that was made through the Logos. (John 1:1017:5) The Logos was was not brought into being as part of the creation through the Logos on the first day.


 

See the following studies:

What Beginning?
Without Jesus Absolutely Nothing Was Created?
Is Jesus Designated the Creator?
What About 2 Timothy 1:10?
How God’s Son Condemned Sin the Flesh
The Seed of David
Jesus Died a Human Being – Raised a Spirit Being
The Six Days of Creation
Beginnings in the Bible
Jesus' Prehuman Glory

Related study:

The World Will See Me No More

 

One has commented that it is quite evident that "natural light" was not created until the fourth creative day. (Genesis 1:14-19) We do not believe this to be true, and we have already given the reasons above as to why we believe that this is not true. We suggest that one re-examine what we have already presented, and the links to other studies regarding creation. One first needs to realize that the “beginning” spoken of in Genesis 1:1 is not speaking of the material universe, nor of the creation of “light” itself, but of “light” as it would be seen on the planet earth. One needs to realize that the making of the sun, moon and stars to appear on the fourth day is not speaking of the creation of the sun, the moon and star themselves, but of the creation of the sun, the moon and stars as seen in the sky (heavens) of from the surface of the planet earth.

By Ronald Day at November 23, 2016  

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

Labels: CreationJesus' Prehuman ExistenceLight

-------------------------------

------------------------------

John 1:1-15 - The Word Is Not an "It" (2017-05-07)

https://jesusnotyhwh.blogspot.com/2017/05/word-it.html

John 1:1-15 - The Word Is Not an "It"

 

By Ronald R. Day, Sr.
(This may still need some editing)

I am posting this in response to a video entitled "The Trinity,JW, Pre-Existence belief Heresy- Jesus and the Old Testament."

The speaker in this video repeatedly claims that the Word is not a person, but an "it". I am not a trinitarian, nor am I with Jehovah's Witnesses, nor am I a oneness believer. I do, however, believe that Jesus, as the Son of God, was in existence before he became flesh. I do not believe that Jesus, before he became flesh, was an "angelic being", but rather that he was a step above the angelic beings.

See my study:
With What Kind of Body Will We Be Raised?
https://bible-hope.blogspot.com/2016/11/body.html
Also my studies at:
http://jesusnotyhwh.blogspot.com/p/posts.html

Regarding the claims that the Word of John 1 is an "it":

He who has the name of "the Word of God" is not an "it." I have no reason to think that the "Word" -- the Logos -- as used in John 1:1-14 is any different than it is used in Revelation 19:13.



The Word who was the light of the world while he was in the world of mankind that God made through the Word was not an "it". I have no reason to think that the Word who is the "light" in John 1:5,9,10 is any different from he who is the light of John 8:129:5.

The Word who lived among his disciples was not an "it". I have no reason think that the Word who lived among his disciples was not a person until he became flesh so as to live among his disciples. -- John 1:14.

The Word whose human glory the disciples saw was not an "it". I have no reason to think that the Word became a person only after he had the sinless glory of a human being, a little lower than the angels. -- John 1:141 Corinthians 15:39-41Hebrews 2:910:5.



The Word in whom could be seen glory as of the only begotten Son of the Father was not an "it". Again, I have no reason to think that the Word who had a glory when he was with his Father, the only true God, before the world of mankind had been made, was not a person. -- John 1:1,2,1417:1,3,5.

The Word of whom John the Baptizer testified, saying, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has surpassed me, for he was before me,'" was not an "it". Jesus was certainly a person with a glory greater than the terrestrial glory (1 Corinthians 15:39-40) before John the Baptizer was a person. -- John 1:1,2,1517:1,3,5.

The Word who came to those whom he gave authority to be Sons of God, Sons of the Most High, was not an "it". (Psalm 8:6John 1:1210:35) Likewise, I have no reason to think that the Word, before he came into the world of mankind, was not also a person.

One may wish to see my study:
http://jesusnotyhwh.blogspot.com/2016/09/john-175.html

The "where" that Jesus was before he became flesh, and to which has now returned, is not compatible with the idea that the Jesus was an "it". -- John 6:62.
One may wish to see my study at:
http://jesusnotyhwh.blogspot.com/2016/10/prehuman01.html

He who could tell of heavenly things because he descended from Heaven was certainly not an "it" either before or after he descended. -- John 3:12,13.
One may wish to see my study at:
http://jesusnotyhwh.blogspot.com/2017/02/john3-13.html

The Word did indeed become flesh, and in doing so, he gave up his former divine, heavenly, celestial glory (John 17:51 Corinthians 15:39-41), that which he "was" before he became flesh, and when he became flesh, he then had a glory that is lower than the angels, a terrestrial glory. -- John 1:11 Corinthians 15:39-412 Corinthians 8:9Philippians 2:6,7Hebrews 2:9.
One may wish to see my study at:
http://jesusnotyhwh.blogspot.com/2016/09/john-175.html

DABAR and LOGOS

As far I have been able to determine, no where in the Old Testament does the Hebrew word often transliterated as Dabar (Strong's 1097) refer to someone as a name as the Greek word often transliterated as "LOGOS" is sometimes used in the New Testament. I say "sometimes", because most often in the New Testament, the Greek word transliterated as Logos is NOT referring to anyone as a name, and in such cases one could certainly say that the word is being used as an "it". Such usage does not mean that the word "LOGOS" always means that it can never be used as a name of a person. Quoting a lot of scriptures from the Old Testament in order to claim that "Logos" when used as a name in the New Testament is simply referring to an "it" is meaningless. It should be obvious that in John 1, the word "Logos" is being used to designate a person with the name as given in Revelation 19:13.
One might with to see my related study:
http://jesus-rlbible.com/?p=6367

Firstborn and Begotten

The speaker in the video makes some claims concerning Acts 13:33

Acts 13:33 - God hath in full completed this to us their children, having raised up Jesus, as also in the second Psalm it hath been written, My Son thou art -- I to-day have begotten [Greek transliterated, gennao, Strong's #1080] thee.
-- Young's Literal.

This refers to the resurrection of Jesus as the firstborn of the dead. The argument presented in the video seems vague concerning this. The argument appears to be that Paul was claiming that this is the only time that Jesus was ever begotten. Does Paul say that Jesus was only begotten "one time"? Paul did not say anything at all to that effect. Such a thought has to be imagined beyond what is written, added to, and read into, what Paul stated. To recognize

I will also say that there are many forms of the Greek word for "begotten/born". Sometimes it refers to the time of conception, and sometimes to the actual birth, or it may carry many other shades of meaning, although all are related in some way to something being brought forth, offspring from such, etc. Strong's gives many different numbers to forms of this word, so I may not have them all:


http://www.studylight.org/lexicons/greek/gwview.cgi?n=1096
http://www.studylight.org/lexicons/greek/gwview.cgi?n=1080
http://www.studylight.org/lexicons/greek/gwview.cgi?n=1081
http://www.studylight.org/lexicons/greek/gwview.cgi?n=1083
http://www.studylight.org/lexicons/greek/gwview.cgi?n=1084
http://www.studylight.org/lexicons/greek/gwview.cgi?n=1085
One can check the usage of these in the links provided, both from the New Testament, the LXX, and other sources. At the bottom of each page are the scriptures where the various forms listed by Strong's number are used and one may look up those scriptures to see how these forms are being used.

Strong's 5088, often transliterated as tikto, is an alternative form for "begotten" which is used in the expression often transliterated as prototokos -- firstborn, as in Colossians 1:15,18) are used of Jesus in Matthew 1:16,20,252:1,2,4Luke 1:352:1,47,117:12John 1:14,183:16,1818:37Acts 13:33Romans 8:29Hebrews 1:5,61 John 4:9 and probably some others that I may have missed. It is inconceivable to think that in all these instances it is referring to Jesus' resurrection. The use of this form in Colossians 1:18 shows that it is being used in the same sense of "gennao" in Acts 13:33. They are both referring Jesus' begettal when he was raised from the dead.


http://www.studylight.org/lexicons/greek/4416.htmlhttp://www.studylight.org/lexicons/greek/5088.html

In Colossians 1:15, however, Jesus, as firstborn, is not in reference to his being the first to be brought forth from death, but as first to be brought forth as a creature of God. The word "creature" is evidently referring to living creature. Because he is the firstborn creature, God used him to make the other sons of God that are spoken of in Job 38:7, the dominions invisible, in heaven, before the beginning of the creation of the world of mankind, all that is visible and on earth. -- Colossians 1:16.

Thus, Jesus was begotten -- brought forth -- at least three times:

(1) as the firstborn creature. — Colossians 1:15Proverbs 8:22-25.


(2) of the holy spirit as a human through Mary. — Matthew 1:20*,25; Luke 1:35.
(3) from the dead when raised from the dead. — Psalm 2:7Acts 13:33Colossians 1:18Hebrews 1:55:5.
========
*Many translations render the word for begotten in Matthew 1:20 as "conceived", or by some other word. However, it is the same word used in Acts 13:33.

To recognize that Jesus was begotten before he was raised from the dead does not disagree with what Paul stated as recorded in Acts 13:33Acts 13:33 does not say that Jesus was begotten only one time.

The Name Jesus

As to the name Jesus: Of course, he who is spoken of as the Word when he was with his God and Father before the world of mankind had been made through him (John 1:1,2,1017:1,3,5) did not have the name Jesus (meaning, Jehovah is savior, or savior of Jehovah; that name designates Jesus as the savior sent by Jehovah) until he became flesh and dwelled among men on the earth. (Matthew 1:21) It is only as a man that he could be savior of the world (Romans 5:12-191 Corinthians 15:21,221 Timothy 2:5,6); he could not be that savior until he became a man, and, once proven he had himself incorruptible, he could offer to God his humanity as an offering for our sins. Thus, one should not expect to find him addressed as "Jesus/Joshua", etc., in the Old Testament. Nevertheless, since God did not choose to reveal His Son in the times of the Old Testament (Ephesians 3:4,5), there really isn't much reason to expect to see His Son mentioned in the OT, except prophetically.

Regarding Genesis 1:

Job 38:4-7 lets us know that the "sons of God" -- spirit beings -- were already in existence "in the beginning" that is spoken of in Genesis 1:1. This does not mean that these spirit sons of God always existed from eternity past; it does mean that they were brought forth into existence sometime before the "beginning" of Genesis 1:1Exodus 20:1131:17; and John 1:1. Nevertheless, the firstborn of these sons of God is the Son of God (Colossians 1:15); the conclusion is that the firstborn was brought therefore forth before the rest of the sons of God of Job 38:7.

I see nothing in Genesis 1:26,272:5-7 that would mean that God did not create the world of mankind through his Son. It does not have to be stated that God made use of His Son in the creation. There is nothing in those verses that says that Jesus was not there. Indeed, Genesis 1:26 shows God as speaking to someone who is not Himself and Job 38:4-7 shows that there were spirit sons of God before the beginning of Genesis 1:1.

Often in the scriptures we read of various servants of God who performed great acts on behalf of God. Nevertheless, at the same time the scriptures may refer to these acts as being performed by Jehovah himself. For an example, let us look at a set of scriptures pertaining to Moses and Jehovah:

Exodus 12:51 – It happened the same day, that Jehovah brought the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt by their hosts

Jehovah alone did lead him [Israel/Jacob - verse 9], There was no foreign god with him. — Deuteronomy 32:12.

Exodus 15:22: Moses led Israel onward from the Red Sea, and they went out into the wilderness of Shur; and they went three days in the wilderness, and found no water.

Taking one scripture without the others could lead to the wrong conclusion. Taking them together and with other scriptures, we see the that:

Psalm 77:20: You [Jehovah] led your people like a flock, By the hand of Moses and Aaron.

Hosea 12:13 – By a prophet Jehovah brought Israel up out of Egypt, And by a prophet he [Israel] was preserved.

Throughout the Bible, God often takes the credit for what His servants do. (Exodus 3:10,1212:1718:10Numbers 16:28Judges 2:6,183:9,106:3411:2913:24,2514:6,1915:14,1816:20,28-302 Kings 4:27Isaiah 43:1145:1-6; etc.) Yes, Jehovah did indeed create man; Jehovah is the source, Jesus is the instrument. -- John 1:13,101 Corinthians 8:6.

Hebrews 11:3

Hebrews 11:3
pistei nooumen kateertisthai tous aiwnas
TO FAITH WE ARE MINDING TO HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED DOWN THE AGES
4102 3539 2675 3588 0165
rheemati theou eis to mee ek phainomenwn
TO SAYING OF GOD, INTO THE NOT OUT OF (THINGS) APPEARING
4487 2316 1519 3588 3361 1537 5316
to blepomenon gegonenai
THE (THING) BEING LOOKED AT TO HAVE OCCURRED.
3588 0991 1096 -- Westcott & Hort Interlinear.

Hebrews 11:3 - by faith we understand the ages to have been prepared by a saying of God, in regard to the things seen not having come out of things appearing. --Young's Literal.

Although God did indeed create the material universe, I agree that that Hebrews 11:3 is not speaking of the creation of the material universe. The word "Logos" is not used in this verse, nor is Jesus directly mentioned. I agree that the Greek word transliterated above as "aiwnas", as used in the Bible, is always referring to time. The faithful of old mentioned in context, living in the age before Christ had come, of course, did not see or actually know of the things Christ did while one earth, although they could see dimly by faith. Likewise, those who belong to Christ in this age cannot actually see the things yet to come, except somewhat obscurely by the eye of faith, as they have been revealed in the Bible.

It is claimed regarding Hebrews 11:3 that the Word here is an "it"; in reality, the Greek word often transliterated as "Logos" does not even appear in this verse, and thus making a such a claim is actually irrelevant to the usage of the Greek word Logos as a name of a person.

Nevertheless, Hebrews 1:1,2 reveals that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob made (appointed) these ages through His Son (Jesus). In harmony with many other scriptures, this indicates that Jesus (although he did not have the name "Jesus" at that time) did exist before the world of mankind had been made.

Thus, seen, Jesus was first brought forth into being as firstborn Son of God before any other of God's sons. -- Colossians 1:15Job 38:7Proverbs 8:22-25

However, as a spirit Son of God, Jesus could not be man's redeemer. The redemption price needed to offset the condemnation through Adam was another man, as was Adam before Adam sinned. -- 1 Corinthians 15:21,22Romans 5:12-191 Timothy 2:5,6.

Thus, Jesus left his "rich" condition as a spirit Son of God, in order to be begotten in the womb of Mary, so that he could die as a man for our sins. -- Matthew 1:202 Corinthians 8:91 Timothfy 2:5,6; Hebrews 2:9.

While Jesus, as a man, is dead forever, Jesus, as a person, did not remain dead forever, but he was begotten from the dead, not in the flesh, but in the spirit. --  Psalm 2:7Acts 13:33Colossians 1:18Hebrews 1:55:51 Peter 3:18.

Acts 13:33

It is claimed that Acts 13:33 shows that Jesus is the firstborn of all creation as spoken of in Colossians 1:15. This would mean that Jesus did not become the firstborn of every creature, those visible and invisible, until God raised him form the dead. In reality, this would mean that God did not create the visible world of mankind, nor the invisible domain of the angels, until after Jesus was raised from the dead, or else that Jesus was not actually first one to be brought forth at all.

Acts 13:33 does relate to Colossians 1:18, which related that he was the firstborn from dead, since he (as being the firstborn creature) should have preeminence. (See my earlier discussion related to this.)

Evidently, it is being thought that Acts 13:33 is saying that Jesus did not become the "Son of God" until he was raised from the dead. That is not what is stated (although some translations make it appear to be that way). Jehovah does refer to Jesus as His son, but he does not say that Jesus did not become His son until he was begotten (brought forth) from death. Such an idea has to be assumed, and actually would not harmonize with the rest of the Bible.

We certainly have many scriptures that speak of Jesus as being the Son of God while he was in the days of his flesh. (Matthew 3:1711:2714:3316:1617:521:37Mark 1:113:119:712:614:61,6215:39Luke 1:32,353:239:3522:70John 1:18,34,493:16,17,183:35,366:699:3511:4Hebrews 5:7) Although there would have been no need to have a scripture to directly speak of Jesus as being God's Son before he became flesh, some scriptures indicate that Jesus was the Son of his Father before he became flesh. -- John 3:1710:3611:2717:1,3,51 John 4:9.


Gender of the Word

As best as I can tell it is being claimed that all Bibles before the KJV used "it" in John 1:3,4 rather than "him"? If so, this is not true.

As far as I know, all the Greek extant manuscripts of John 1:3,4 are masculine, not neuter.

John 1:3
panta di autou egeneto kai chwris autou
ALL (THINGS) THROUGH HIM CAME TO BE, AND APART FROM HIM
3956 1223 0846_3 1096 2532 5565 0846_3
egeneto oude hen
CAME TO BE NOT BUT ONE (THING).
1096 3761 1520
ho gegonen
WHICH HAS COME TO BE
3739 1096
John 1:4
en autw zwee een kai hee zwee een to phws twn
IN HIM LIFE WAS, AND THE LIFE WAS THE LIGHT OF THE
1722 0846_5 2222 1511_3 2532 3588 2222 1511_3 3588 5457 3588
anthrwpwn
MEN;
0444

Of course, however, rules of gender in the Koine Greek do not necessarily designate that being referred by any word as being either a person or not being a person. This is also true in many other languages, but this is usually NOT true of English, although, in some cases we do refer to inanimate objects as "she" or "he".

Wycliffe (1395) reads:

John 1:3-4 - Alle thingis weren maad bi hym, and withouten hym was maad no thing, that thing that was maad.[4] In hym was lijf, and the lijf was the liyt of men; and the liyt schyneth in derknessis,

As far as translations before the KJV in other languages, I haven't taken the time to find and study them to know if they give the Word either masculine or neuter gender in John 1:3,4. Nevertheless, the Latin Vulgate gives it a masculine gender it John 1:3,4.

Matthew 1:18-20
It is stated that the Word became flesh when "it" became a baby. The Word, however, as a baby was definitely not an "it" rather than a person. Matthew 1:18-20 is given to explain how the Word became a baby. It is then denied that this baby is the Word, which in effect, would mean that the Word never became flesh, the Word never lived among the disciples, etc., as reported in John 1:14,15. In reality, there is no reason to imagine, assume, add to, and read into the scripture that the Word ceased being the Word when the Word became flesh; in reality, it would mean that the Word never became flesh, but ceased to be the Word before so that it would not become flesh, which is all in contradiction to what the Bible actually states.

The Birth of Jesus

{Matthew 1:18} Now the birth of Jesus Christ was like this: after his mother, Mary, was engaged to Joseph, before they came together, she was found pregnant by the Holy Spirit.
{Matthew 1:19} Joseph, her husband, being a righteous man, and not willing to make her a public example, intended to put her away secretly.
{Matthew 1:20} But when he thought about these things, behold, an angel of Jehovah appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to yourself Mary, your wife, for that which is begotten in her is of the Holy Spirit. -- Restoration Light Improved Version.

It is claimed that the begettal of Jesus in Mary was the product of the Holy Spirit, not the Word. I am not sure why this is stated, since I do not know of anyone who would claim that the begettal of Jesus was the product of the Word. It is not explained how this begettal of Jesus is the womb of Mary is the begettal spoken of in Acts 13:33, as it was previously claimed that Acts 13:33 presents the only begettal of Jesus. Indeed, the word "birth" in Matthew 1:18 is a form of the same word used in Acts 13:33, which, according to what was stated earlier is only applicable to when he was raised from the dead, although nothing in Acts 13:33 tells us that Jesus was not begotten before he was brought forth from the dead.

Luke 1:31-37 is quoted:

{Luke 1:31} Behold, you will conceive in your womb, and bring forth a son,
and will call his name 'Jesus.'
{Luke 1:32} He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High. Jehovah God will give him the throne of his father, David,
{Luke 1:33} and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever. There will be no end to his Kingdom."
{Luke 1:34} Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, seeing I am a virgin?"
Luke 1:35} The angel answered her, "The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore also the holy one who is born from you will be called the Son of God.
{Luke 1:36} Behold, Elizabeth, your relative, also has conceived a son in her old
age; and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren.
{Luke 1:37} For everything spoken by God is possible."

I agree that there is nothing here about a "second person of the trinity". Otherwise, however, I am not sure of the point; there is nothing here that would mean that the Word did not become flesh, or that the Word did not live among the disciples, or that the glory of the Word was not seen by the disciples, etc.

Of more concern to me is that how one can quote this and claim that Jesus was not begotten until he was raised from the dead. Although the Greek word translated as conceive in Luke 1:31 and Luke 1:36 is not the word for "beget/born" as used in Acts 13:33, we do find a form of the word used (in Luke 1:31,36) in the expression "firstborn from the dead" in Colossians 1:18 is translated as "birth" in Luke 1:31. However, if Jesus was not brought forth until he was raised from the dead, how is that he is being "brought forth" in birth 33 years earlier?

Nevertheless, much ado is made about God's spirit making Mary pregnant, and that it was not the Word that made her pregnant, although I don't know of anyone that makes the claim that Word made Mary pregnant.

Nor do I see how the fact that God made use of His Holy Spirit to impregnate Mary means that the Word did not remain the Word in the flesh. It was indeed the Word of John 1:1 that God made flesh by means of His holy spirit; it was indeed the Word of John 1:1 that lived among the disciples; it was indeed the Word of John 1:1 whose glory the disciples saw, and it was the Word of John 1:1 that appeared to the disciple with such glory as of the only begotten Son of the Father, etc.

The claim is continued that Jesus was not begotten when he was conceived despite the fact that the word most translations render as conceived in Matthew 1:20 is the same word that translated begotten (in most translations) in Acts 13:33. Likewise the word that is translated as "born" in "firstborn" of Colossians 1:18 is the same word that is translated as "birth" in Luke 1:31.

Proverbs 8:22

In Proverbs 8:22, we read that Wisdom personified states:

Proverbs 8:22 - Jehovah possessed me in the beginning of His way, from then, before His works.
-- Green's Literal.
Proverbs 8:22 - [Jehovah] created me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old.
-- Revised Standard, Holy Name restored.

Wisdom is personified as a woman in earlier verses; the subject in those earlier verses do not appear to be about Christ, until we get to Proverbs 8:22. Of course, I would not be dogmatic about it, but I believe that in verse 22, it does describe God's Son, who is the ultimate personification of wisdom that those who accept him can appreciate.

We know that Jehovah had no beginning, and that there has never been a beginning of Jehovah's own wisdom. Thus the expressions "the beginning" and "His way" do not refer to the beginning Jehovah's own wisdom, and therefore the conclusion is that this is speaking of Wisdom personified in the firstborn Son of God (Colossians 1:15). "His way" then is evidently referring to the beginning of Jehovah's way of creating other life forms than Himself --- and yet creation before His works of creation of other spirit sons of God and the world of mankind.

If these words of Proverbs 8:22,23 are applied to the firstborn creature (Colossians 1:15), then it is desginating that the Logos -- personified and presented under the figure of Wisdom -- was brought forth into being before any other of God's living creatures. With the creation of his firstborn creature, the beginning of Jehovah's way (derek) toward other intelligence than his own had begun. At the same time, this was before Jehovah had created "his works" (plural) of bringing into being many spirit sons of God, as well as before the beginning of Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1Job 38:4-7 lets us know that the spirit "sons of God" were created before the "beginning" spoken of in Genesis 1:1.

The Revised Standard:

The Lord [that is, Jehovah] created [qanah] me at the beginning of his work [derek], the first of his acts of long ago. Ages [olam] ago I was set up, at the first, before the beginning of the earth — New Revised Standard Version, Hebrew words transliterated.

As a living creature under the figure of Wisdom in this translation, speaks of Jehovah as having "created" him. Again, one should realize that God's wisdom itself, of course, does not need to be created, but the firstborn creature who is represented under the figure of Wisdom did need to be created.

For more related to this, one might see:
Proverbs 8:22,23 – Proof that Jesus Existed For All Eternity Past?
http://jesusnotyhwh.blogspot.com/2017/05/prov8-22.html
and
Colossians 1:15 – Did Jesus Have a Beginning?
http://jesusnotyhwh.blogspot.com/2016/12/col1-15.html

 

John 1:12 - The Right To Become God's Children (2016-12-11)

https://jesusnotyhwh.blogspot.com/2016/12/john1-12.html

John 1:12 - The Right To Become God's Children

But as many as received him, to them he gave the right to become God's children, to those who believe in his name. -- John 1:12.

The above scripture is sometimes presented to prove that the Logos is God evidently because he gave those who received him the right to become God's children. We have not found a clear explanation of how his verse is thought to be proof of the triune God philosophy, but we surmise that the thought is that the Almighty could not give to his Son this authority, except that the Son of God is God Himself. In reality, all power and authority that Jesus has is that which has been given to him by the Source of All Power and Might, that is, his God and Father. To quote what we have written earlier concerning this:

The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, by means of his holy spirit, reveals through the scriptures that Jesus receives his inheritance and dominion (power) from Yahweh. His power and authority is given to him by his God, his unipersonal Supreme Being. Jesus is not Yahweh [his unipersonal God and Father] who gives him this dominion, all authority and power (with the evident exception of the position of being the Most High himself — 1 Corinthians 15:27), yet the exercise of this power and authority by Jesus is all to the praise of Yahweh, the unipersonal God and Father of the Lord Jesus. The Bible writers never claimed that Jesus is the ultimate “source” of his own power. — Psalm 2:6-845:7110:1,2Isaiah 9:6,711:242:161:1-3Jeremiah 23:5Daniel 7:13,14Matthew 12:2828:18Luke 1:324:14,185:17John 3:345:19,27,3010:18,36-38Acts 2:2210:38Romans 1:1-41 Corinthians 15:27; 2 Corinthians 13:4; Colossians 1:15,162:10Ephesians 1:17-22Philippians 2:9-11Hebrews 1:2,4,6,91 Peter 3:22.

Jesus is Not Yahweh (Jehovah)

Jesus, having become flesh (John 1:14), a little lower than the angels (Hebrews 2:9), while during the days of flesh (Hebrews 5:7), proved his full obedience to his God and Father, by which is the good news that he brought life and incorruption to light for mankind. (2 Timothy 1:10) In other words, Jesus was the first human being to prove that he was incorruptible. However, before Christ came, we do not find in general the thought of becoming God’s children; why not? Because Jesus had not yet come and brought life and incorruption to light. It was thus only prospective of Christ’s sacrifice (before Christ came) or retroactively (after Christ came) that justification, and/or sonship, can be applied to those of faith before Christ came.

The purpose of sonship in this age is to because of the selection out of the world those who become Abraham’s seed. This seed does not consist only of Jesus, but also all who have become sons of God through faith in Jesus. (Galatians 3:16,26-28) The purpose of this selection of the seed of Abraham is that all these might participate with Jesus in blessing all the nations of the earth in the age to come. We will quote from our earlier statements:

(8)  "In that day," the 1,000-year reign of Messiah, when He will judge mankind, "the earth will be full of the knowledge of Yahweh, as the waters cover the sea." Then it will be said: "Look, this is our God. We have waited for him, and he will save us . . . . We will be glad and rejoice in his salvation." -- Isaiah 11:9,1025:6-940:552:10Jeremiah 31:34Habakkuk 2:14.
(9)  The word judge as used in the Scriptures does not mean merely to sentence, but includes -1- instruction (Psalm 19:7-1125:8,9: 106:3; 119:108; Isaiah 33:556:159:4,8-15Ezekiel 22:2Matthew 12:18-2023:23Colossians 2:16), -2- testing (Psalm 26:1-3, compare 139:23,24; Jeremiah 11:20, compare 20:12; 2 Thessalonians 1:4,5), -3- chastisement for correction (Isaiah 26:91 Corinthians 11:31,32 -- compare Luke 12:47,48Hebrews 12:5-11Revelation 3:19), and -4- passing a sentence. -- Matthew 7:1,2John 7:24Deuteronomy 1:16Psalm 17:2.
(10)  Jesus "will judge (by these four processes) the living and the dead at (during) his appearing and his kingdom." "He must reign [in his thousand-year reign] until he has put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that will be destroyed is death." -- 2 Timothy 4:1; 1 Corinthians 15:24-26; Psalm 72:1-4Isaiah 11:1-632:1Jeremiah 23:5,6Hosea 13:14Revelation 20:11-15.


(11)  The saints [dedicated ones] will rule with him over the earth in 1,000-year judgment day and assist in judging the world, offering to them "the water of life freely." -- Daniel 7:22,271 Corinthians 6:2Obadiah 21Matthew 19:28Luke 22:29,30Romans 8:16-212 Timothy 2:11,12Revelation 3:215:9,1020:4,622:17.
(12)  According to Yahweh's oath-bound promise, Abraham's seed, that is, Christ and all the "sons of God", will bless "all the families of the earth." This blessing will come to the world during the 1,000-year reign. -- Genesis 12:322:16-18Galatians 3:7-9,16,29Hebrews 6:13-20Acts 3:19-25.
(13)  Those who are to be blessed include the dead as well as the living -- the dead will be awakened from their "sleep" in death (Psalm 6:5146:4Daniel 12:2John 5:28,29 NASV; 11:11-14; 1 Thessalonians 4:142 Peter 3:4) and will then be given an exact knowledge of the truth and a full opportunity to live eternally.
(14)  Eventually "God will wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there will be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither will there be any more pain; for the former things [things of Satan's reign, including the curse of sin and death] are passed away." -- Revelation 21:1-422:1-3Isaiah 35:1065:17-25.

The Day of Judgment

What a glorious prospect!

See also:

Psalm 82:6 – Who Are the Gods?
How God’s Son Condemned Sin in the Flesh

By Ronald Day at December 11, 2016  

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

Labels: Jesus as "God"Logos

-------------------------------

------------------------------

OD

John 1:13,14 - Was Jesus Born "of the Logos?" (2018-11-17)

https://jesusnotyhwh.blogspot.com/2018/11/john1-13.html

DO

John 20:28 - Did Thomas Referred to Jesus as the Supreme Being?

https://jesusnotyhwh.blogspot.com/2016/09/john-2028.html

-------------------

Acts 2:17-21 – Did Peter Apply God’s Holy Name To Jesus? (2017-08-05)

https://jesusnotyhwh.blogspot.com/2017/08/acts2-17.html

Acts 20:28 – Whose Blood? (2017-11-06)

https://jesusnotyhwh.blogspot.com/2017/11/acts20-28.html

-------------------------------

------------------------------

Romans 8:9; 1 Peter 1:11 - Spirit of God and Spirit of Christ (2017-03-29)

https://jesusnotyhwh.blogspot.com/2017/03/spirit-christ.html

 

-------------------------------

------------------------------

Revelation 22:16 (2008-09-20)

https://notrinity.blogspot.com/2008/09/revelation-2216.html

bottom of page