Some have cited the earlier manuscripts of John 1:18 as proof that Jesus is Yahweh, since some of these manuscripts have "monogenes theos" (transliterated). Yes, there are ancient manuscripts that have "monogenes theos" in John 1:18. Most manuscripts have *huios* (son), but then most of these manuscripts are of more recent dates.
For earlier manuscripts that give support for either rendering,
See:
http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/contents/reference/mscript1.pdf
http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/bsl/Library/Referenc/AVCor/AVcorr.pdf
I couldn't make out some of the coding but I came up with at least the following manuscripts that have "monogenes theos" in John 1:18:
Papyrus 66 containing John 1:1-21:9
Papyrus 75 containing Lk 3:18-Jo 15:8
Vatican 1209
Sinaiticus
Bohairic Coptic
Therefore, we assume that John 1:18 was originally 'only-begotten god [theos, one of might]", which would mean that in the Bible Jesus is not only referred to as the only-begotten son, but also as the only-begotten mighty one [theos]. We should note that there are still other verses than John 1:18 that speak of Jesus as "only begotten son". (In the NAS, see John 3:16,18; Hebrews 11:17) His being "only-begotten mighty one" would not do away with his being "only begotten son," nor contradict each other, nor does it mean that Jesus possesses an alleged "dual nature" of being the Most High and also the son of the Most High. -- Luke 1:32,35.
Before being begotten as a human, Jesus was indeed begotten as the only-begotten THEOS, having been brought forth as the firstborn of every creature (Colossians 1:15), as a mighty spirit being, similar to, but of greater rank than the angels who are called ELOHIM in Psalm 8:5 (see Hebrews 2:7,9). The angels are mighty spirit beings, and thus they are called elohim, which is the same word that is rendered as God [plural intensive, where the plural is used in a singular setting as denoting superiority or the superlative] or gods [plural]. None of these elohim, however, were begotten, brought forth into being, directly by Yahweh, but all these powers of heaven were created through, by means of, the pre-human Jesus. -- Colossians 1:16.
In order to take the meaning of being brought forth into being out of monogenes, some have argued that the word monogenes only signifies "uniqueness", not that Jesus was actually brought forth into being.
Kittel's THEOLOGICAL DICTlONARY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT (Vol. 5, pp. 738-741) 1967, a work produced by trinitarians, observes that monogenes can have a broader meaning than only begotten. However, it goes on to state that when monogenes is used in the New Testament, "It means 'only begotten' in (John 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9; John 1:18 the relation of Jesus is not just compared to that of an only child to its father. It is the relation of the only begotten to the father. In John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9 monogenes denotes more than the uniqueness or incomparability of Jesus. In all these verses He is expressly called the Son, and He is regarded as such in John 1:14. In John monogenes denotes the origin of Jesus. He is monogenes as the only begotten."
As Kittel notes, monogenes is used in reference to Jesus in John 1:14,18; 3:16,18; 1 John 4:9. The word monogenes is used of others than Jesus in Luke 7:11,12; 8:41,42; 9:38; Hebrews 11:17.
The instances in Luke confirms Kittel's observation that in the New Testament usage, monogenes does generally denote an only begotten son or daughter. Hebrews 11:17 is used of Isaac as the only-begotten son of Abraham, Ishmael no longer being present, and was not counted as heir. -- Genesis 21:10,12; Galatians 4:22,23,30.
Believing that John 1:18 did originally have the word THEOS, does this mean that John was saying that Jesus is Yahweh, the only Most High? No, it only means that John was attributing to Jesus the might, strength, power that he had before coming into the world of mankind to declare his God, and additionally John could also have been referring to the might and power that has been given to him after his resurrection. (Psalm 45:7; Matthew 28:18; Hebrews 1:2,6,9; Philippians 2:9; Colossians 2:10; Psalm 2:7,8; 110:1,2; Isaiah 9:6,7; Luke 1:32; Jeremiah 23:5; Daniel 7:13,14) We need to remember that the Hebrews used the same words for "God" of others than the Most High, but in a secondary sense of might, strength, power.
Realizing that Jesus ascended to the only true God, not that Jesus is the only true God, should tells us that John is not using THEOS of Jesus as he did of the God and Father of Jesus.
See:
Hebraic Usage of the Titles for “God”
Jesus in his pre-human existence, indeed, was "a mighty one" who received life (was "begotten") from the Father (Colossians 1:15; John 17:1,3,5), and, not only that, at the time that John wrote his Gospel, Jesus had been raised from death as a mighty spirit being, and was indeed "a mighty one" residing in heaven with his God and Father, and thus figuratively, was in the bosom of his God and Father. -- John 17:11, 22; 20:21,17.
See also my studies:
The Only Begotten God
Did Jesus Have a Beginning?
Some studies written by others:
"The Only Begotten God"
God's Only Begotten Son
Thursday, November 21, 2013
Friday, November 15, 2013
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 55:11; Titus 1:2; Hebrews 6:18.
Focus on the Holy Name
Originally posted 11/13/2010; Updated 11/15/2013
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 55:11; Titus 1:2; Hebrews 6:18.
Focus on the Holy Name
Originally posted 11/13/2010; Updated 11/15/2013
Deuteronomy 6:4 - Elohim and Echad
This is in response to the post entitled:
The Big Bang Theory, The Yankees vs the Tigers, and How can 3=1?
(1) ELOHIM does not ALWAYS refer to a singular God. Nor does its plural usage mean persons or parts of one God, but rather it designates more than one God, that is, "gods", as in Genesis 31:30; 35:2; Exodus 12:12; 15:11; 18:11; 20:3,23; 22:28; 23:13,24,32,33; 32:1,4,8,23,31; 34:15,16,17; Psalm 82:6, and many, many, other scriptures.
(2) ELOHIM as applied to Jehovah (Yahweh) is used as a plural intensive, that is, with an emphatic singular meaning. Some call this the majestic plural, or emphatic plural, etc. Whatever the usage may be called, it still designates a singular, but intensified or magnified, meaning to a plural form of a word. The usage never designates more than one person or individual as combined in one being.
(3) There are no plural verbs or adjectives in Deuteronomy 6:4 that attend the word "ELOHIM", not unless one refers to the word "our", which reflects the plurality of the people of Israel, not ELOHIM. In verse 3, the Hebrew form (Strong's Hebrew #1696) for "speak, commanded, promised" is singular, "he spoke, commanded, promised", not they spoke, commanded or promised.
See:
Elohim – Does This Word Indicate a Plurality of Persons in a Godhead?
Let Us and Elohim
Why is Jesus called “Elohim” and “Theos”?
One God, One Lord
Hebraic Usage of the Titles for "God"
and
Elohim Created
(4) The application of "compound unity" to the alleged triune God dogma would mean that the Father is NOT GOD, but a part of God; it would mean that the Son is NOT GOD, but a part of God, and that Holy Spirit is NOT GOD, but a part of God. In a compound unity, the various parts do not equal the whole. A grape in one cluster IS NOT THE CLUSTER, but only a small part of the cluster. A grape alone would not be the cluster. Likewise, to apply compound unity to the alleged trinue God would not fit the trinitarian definition of the trinity.
See:
The Meaning of Echad
**
In reality, the Bible no where ever mentions a triune God, not even once. From Genesis to Revelation, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is ALWAYS presented as one individual, one person, and never once is He presented as more than one person or individual. Any such idea as a triune God has to imagined with the spirit of human imagination, assumptions have to be formed beyond what is written, and then what is imagined and assumed has to be added to, and read into, any and every scripture that is thought to teach trinity.
On top of that, the trinity dogma would negate the role of Jesus as the one who condemned sin the flesh. -- Romans 8:3.
See:
How God's Son Condemned Sin in the Flesh
**
In respects the trinitarian teaching that Jesus is still a human being of flesh, this denies the very basis of redemption in the sacrifice of Jesus, for it would mean that either Jesus never completed his offering of himself in sacrifice to his God, or that he took that offering back -- either way it denies the reason that Jesus became flesh.
See:
Jesus Has Come in the Flesh
Jesus Died as a Human Being - Raised As a Spirit Being
Did Jesus Need to be Uncreated to Pay the Price for Sin?
*******
Related:
E.LO.HIM' -- Many Gods in One God? - Chapter 10 of the book, Should Christianity Abandon the Doctrine of the Trinity?
Originally posted: November 18, 2012; Updated: November 15, 2013.
Sunday, May 20, 2012
Three-Headed Trinity?
Trinitarians often claim that trinitarians do not believe in a "three-headed trinity". While it may be true that most trinitarians would not think of the trinity in those terms, yet, in history, many trinitarian artists did depict the alleged triune God with three heads. I am providing some links below that confirm this:
(1) Abraham and the Trinity, (c.1270-80) inserted at the front of a fourteenth-century Psalter (English). It is claimed that this is a "Biblical" illustration, although the Bible itself never once presents the God of Abraham as being three persons. Indeed, the Bible only presents the God of Abraham as being one individual or person. -- Exodus 3:14,15; Deuteronomy 18:15-20; Acts 3:13-26.
(2) The Three Headed Trinity, (c1260) Salisbury Cathedral.
(3) Three-Faced Trinity, (c1750-70), Peru (Canvas painting)
(4) Trinity_by_Jeronimo_Cosida (c1570) From Cistercian Monastery of Tulebras, Navarra, Spain.
(5) Three-Faced Trinity (unidentified)
If anyone knows of more, please leave a comment below.
Evidently, there have been trinitarian artists who interpreted the idea of "three persons in the Godhead" to mean three persons, three heads, that make up the trinitarian idea of the Godhead.
(1) Abraham and the Trinity, (c.1270-80) inserted at the front of a fourteenth-century Psalter (English). It is claimed that this is a "Biblical" illustration, although the Bible itself never once presents the God of Abraham as being three persons. Indeed, the Bible only presents the God of Abraham as being one individual or person. -- Exodus 3:14,15; Deuteronomy 18:15-20; Acts 3:13-26.
(2) The Three Headed Trinity, (c1260) Salisbury Cathedral.
(3) Three-Faced Trinity, (c1750-70), Peru (Canvas painting)
(4) Trinity_by_Jeronimo_Cosida (c1570) From Cistercian Monastery of Tulebras, Navarra, Spain.
(5) Three-Faced Trinity (unidentified)
If anyone knows of more, please leave a comment below.
Evidently, there have been trinitarian artists who interpreted the idea of "three persons in the Godhead" to mean three persons, three heads, that make up the trinitarian idea of the Godhead.
Friday, October 14, 2011
Isaiah 9:6 - He Doth Call His Name
For a Child hath been born to us, A Son hath been given to us, And the princely power is on his shoulder, And He doth call his name Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace. -- Isaiah 9:6, Young's Literal Translation.
As given in Young's translation, it shows that the titles are anarthrous, without the definite article "the" before each title. Of course, the capitalization of these "titles" are also added be the translators. In the Hebrew, the phrase rendered "Mighty God" is usually transliterated as "EL GIBBOR".
If "mighty God" should be understood as being a title of Jesus in this verse, we should note how such a title would apply to one who is not Yahweh, rather than to assume that Jesus is here being referred to as Yahweh. Since it is Yahweh, the only true God who, in context (Isaiah 9:7), is performing these things, the default assumption should be that child being given by Yahweh is not Yahweh. The scriptures present to us the fact that it is Yahweh, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who anoints the Messiah -- thus making the one sent by Yahweh into the Messiah. (Isaiah 61:1; Acts 2:36; 10:38) Again, the default reasoning should be that Yahweh is not the Messiah who was sent by Yahweh.
But, how could the title "mighty god" be applied to the Messiah, if the Messiah is not Yahweh? What many do not realize is that there is a Hebraic usage of the words that are often rendered as "God" wherein the words are used in more general sense of "might", "strength", or "power." Form of the word "EL", as can be seen by consulting any good Hebrew concordance, is often translated by various words of general designation of might, power, etc. Such a usage is shown in the King James rendering of the same phrase (EL GIBBOR, only in a plural form) in Ezekiel 32:21. We do not know of any translation that renders the expression in Ezekiel 32:21 as "Mighty Gods", but it usually rendered similar to the King James Version, which renders it as "The strong (a form of the Hebrew EL) among the mighty (a form of the Hebrew Gibbor)." Thus, in Isaiah 9:6, if this expression as "mighty god" is assumed to be a title for the Messiah, the anointed of Yahweh, who, by default, should be assumed to therefore not be Yahweh, then it should also be understood as in Ezekiel 32:21, "a strong one among the mighty." Jesus is indeed a strong one among the mighty, but he is not his Supreme Being.
Likewise, if the title "everlasting father," is to be understood as being applied to the Messiah, it should be understood in light of what Messiah became after his resurrection, the "last Adam," who "became the life-giving spirit," who, in effect, is takes Adam's place as the life-giver to the world. Unlike Adam, who disobeyed and became father only to a dying race (1 Corinthians 15:21,22), Jesus becomes father forever, thus "everlasting father."
However, the prophecy of Isaiah 9:6 depicts a singular name; it does not depict a series of names or titles as is given by most translations of this verse. That singular name is usually transliterated as Pelejoezelgibborabiaadarshalom. Often such a "name" given to a human or a thing is describing attributes of God/Yahweh, and the application of such a name does not designate the human or thing as being God/Yahweh. Thus, for instance, when Jacob called a certain altar by the name, El-Elohe-Israel, which could be read as a series of titles: God, The God, Israel, we realize that this is not what Jacob meant by this. Rather, we understand that he was not saying that the altar was "God," or that the altar was "the God," nor that the altar was Israel, but rather that the name of the altar was meant to say something about Jacob's (Israel's) God. Thus, this name is usually given a meaning something like: "God is the God of Israel," or probably more likely, the first EL should be understood with the general meaning of might, strength, power, etc., thus: "Poweful is the God of Israel." Likewise in Isaiah 9:6, since it is directly stated in the singular as a name, not plural, as "names", we believe it more correctly to be understood as describing Yahweh, not the Messiah who comes in the name of Yahweh. Some editions of the JPS give this name the following meaning: "Wonderful in counsel is God the Mighty, the everlasting Father, the Ruler of peace." From this perspective, this singular name that is given to Messiah would be describing the God and Father of Messiah, not the Messiah himself.
Nevertheless, as I have shown above, even if Isaiah 9:6 should be viewed as a series of titles describing the Messiah himself, it still does not mean that Jesus is Yahweh who sent Jesus. There is definitely nothing in the verse about three persons in one God, the trinity.
Related Studies That I Have Posted Elsewhere:
The Singular Name of the Son Given
The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father
Studies by Other Bible Students
Pastor C T Russell Discusses The Day - C.T. Russell
The Story of Jesus - C.T. Russell
Mighty God, Everlasting Father - C.T. Russell
The Mighty God - Mark Tribble
Unto Us a Child is Born - Robert Seklemian
Wonderful Counselor - David Stein
The Prince of Peace - Mark Grillo
Material Written By Others
Why Is Jesus Called "Mighty God" at Isaiah 9:6?
The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father
Studies by Other Bible Students
Pastor C T Russell Discusses The Day - C.T. Russell
The Story of Jesus - C.T. Russell
Mighty God, Everlasting Father - C.T. Russell
The Mighty God - Mark Tribble
Unto Us a Child is Born - Robert Seklemian
Wonderful Counselor - David Stein
The Prince of Peace - Mark Grillo
Material Written By Others
Why Is Jesus Called "Mighty God" at Isaiah 9:6?
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
No Savior Besides Jehovah
(God's Holy Name is presented as "Jehovah," regardless of translation used.)
- Isaiah 43:11 -- WEB
I, even I, am [Jehovah]; and besides [Bil`adey, apart from, except, without] me there is no savior.
- Isaiah 45:21 -- WEB
Declare you, and bring [it] forth; yes, let them take counsel together: who has shown this from ancient time? who has declared it of old? Haven't I, [Jehovah]? and there is no God else besides [Bil`adey, apart from, except, without] me, a just God and a Savior; there is no one besides me.
- Hosea 13:4 -- WEB
"Yet I am [Jehovah] your God from the land of Egypt; And you will know no god but me, And besides [Biltiy, excepting] me there is no savior.
(1) Although there are hints related to in the context of some of the prophecies of the coming salvation by means of Jesus, Jehovah is not directly speaking of himself as being the savior of the world, but directly as the deliverer of Judah and Israel. -- Isaiah 43:1,3,12; 45:4,5,11,15,25; Hosea 13:1,2,4
(2) Jehovah is speaking of himself as compared to the false would-be saviors (idol-gods, kings, etc.) of the heathen nations, or even their own kings (Isaiah 43:9; 45:21; Hosea 13:1,2,10) that the Israelites seemed to be constantly going to for deliverance, as apart from Jehovah.
(3) The Hebrew words for besides means "except, without, etc.," and does preclude the thought that Jehovah could send another who is not Himself as savior of Israel. Indeed, Jehovah sent many saviors to Israel, all of which were not apart from, or in exception of, Jehovah, but were in accord with Jehovah. Saviors sent by Jehovah are not “apart from” Jehovah, nor are they “without” Jehovah. Nevertheless, by their being sent by Jehovah and coming in his name signifies that Jehovah is still the only ultimate savior, thus it could still be said that there is no savior besides (without, apart from) him. -- Judges 2:18; 3:9-15; 1 Samuel 12:10,11; Nehemiah 9:27; 2 Kings 13:5; 14:27.
(4) There is no savior apart from Jehovah, but being the savior, He does appoint others as saviors -- not that they apart from Jehovah, bur rather that Jehovah is with them. Likewise, this same manner he sent his son as savior of the world. However, this does not deny that besides, or apart from, Jehovah there is no savior, since Jehovah is the one who is the ultimate source of the salvation he provides by means of such saviors, including his Son. Jehovah's son is not besides, aside from, Jehovah, since Jehovah, the God of Jesus, sent him. (Isaiah 61:1,2; Micah 5:4) It is as Samson stated to Jehovah: “You have given this great deliverance [salvation] by the hand of your servant.” (Judges 15:18) And Jehovah spoke of David: “By the hand of my servant David I will save my people Israel out of the hand of the Philistines.” (2 Samuel 3:18) And Psalmist said: “You led your people like a flock, By the hand of Moses and Aaron.” (Psalm 77:20) Thus, God sent Jesus that “the world should be saved through him” (John 3:16,17) so that “the free gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Romans 6:23) In Romans 6:23, the word "God" signifies one person, not three. Rather than being apart from the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, we read that "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." (Acts 10:38; See Isaiah 61:1) In Acts 10:38, the word "God" signifies one person, not three. The salvation from God by means of Jesus is not apart from Jehovah, for Jehovah is the one who has provided the salvation through Jesus. "All things are of God, who reconciled us to himself through Jesus Christ." (2 Corinthians 5:18) "God" in 2 Corinthians 5:18 refers to one person, not three persons, and that one person is held as distinct from "Jesus Christ (meaning anointed one, the one anointed by Jehovah, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob -- Exodus 3:14,15; Isaiah 61:1)."
Monday, February 1, 2010
John 10:30 - Jesus and His Father are One
<><><><><><><><>
Jesus is one with his God and Father. -- John 10:30.
Many wish to imagine that when Jesus said that he was one his God and Father, that he meant that he and his Father are one God, or one being. In reality, there is nothing in what Jesus said that indicates that he was saying that he was the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. One has to use the spirit of human imagination to make the scripture mean such. There is certainly nothing in the scripture that gives any indication that Jesus was saying that he was a person of a triune God.
Jesus prays for his followers to be one, just as he is with his God and Father. -- John 17:11.
Jesus prays that his followers may all be one, just as he is one with his God and Father. -- John 17:21.
Jesus prays that his followers may be one in himself and his Father, just as he is with his God and Father. -- John 17:21.
Jesus prays that his followers may one, just as he is one with his God and Father. -- John 17:22.
Nothing in any of this means that Jesus is Yahweh, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who sent Jesus.
The Greek word for the adjective "one" is hen [which is neuter], not mia [feminine], as in the trinitarian formula: treis hypostaseis en mia ousia (three persons in one being). Notice that ousia is feminine, and thus the Greek calls for the feminine form of the word for one, that is, mia. Nor is it speaking of "one God", for then Jesus would have used the word heis (masculine) in order to match the Greek word for God (which is masculine), as Paul does in 1 Corinthians 8:6. Likewise, if Jesus meant that he and his Father were one Father, then he would have used the masculine heis, since the Greek word 'AB is masculine. His choice of the Greek neuter indicates that he is using the adjective "one" to describe a relationship that is defined by a Greek neuter word. More than likely, in view of the way Jesus uses same word in connection with his and his father's relationship to the followers of Jesus, Jesus is referring a union that reflects his being in agreement with his God and Father, as perhaps "one mind", as in Revelation 17:13, or one spirit (as disposition), as Philippians 1:27.
Jesus is one with his God and Father. -- John 10:30.
Many wish to imagine that when Jesus said that he was one his God and Father, that he meant that he and his Father are one God, or one being. In reality, there is nothing in what Jesus said that indicates that he was saying that he was the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. One has to use the spirit of human imagination to make the scripture mean such. There is certainly nothing in the scripture that gives any indication that Jesus was saying that he was a person of a triune God.
Jesus prays for his followers to be one, just as he is with his God and Father. -- John 17:11.
Jesus prays that his followers may all be one, just as he is one with his God and Father. -- John 17:21.
Jesus prays that his followers may be one in himself and his Father, just as he is with his God and Father. -- John 17:21.
Jesus prays that his followers may one, just as he is one with his God and Father. -- John 17:22.
Nothing in any of this means that Jesus is Yahweh, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who sent Jesus.
The Greek word for the adjective "one" is hen [which is neuter], not mia [feminine], as in the trinitarian formula: treis hypostaseis en mia ousia (three persons in one being). Notice that ousia is feminine, and thus the Greek calls for the feminine form of the word for one, that is, mia. Nor is it speaking of "one God", for then Jesus would have used the word heis (masculine) in order to match the Greek word for God (which is masculine), as Paul does in 1 Corinthians 8:6. Likewise, if Jesus meant that he and his Father were one Father, then he would have used the masculine heis, since the Greek word 'AB is masculine. His choice of the Greek neuter indicates that he is using the adjective "one" to describe a relationship that is defined by a Greek neuter word. More than likely, in view of the way Jesus uses same word in connection with his and his father's relationship to the followers of Jesus, Jesus is referring a union that reflects his being in agreement with his God and Father, as perhaps "one mind", as in Revelation 17:13, or one spirit (as disposition), as Philippians 1:27.
See also:
and
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)