Matthew quotes Isaiah… Read [...]]]> “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

The following are the words of P. L. Read, taken from Herald of Christ’s Presence, November/December, 1997
http://www.heraldmag.org/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 just as God was with the faithful ones of old.

Something else we might note is that Isaiah’s prophecy probably had its first fulfillment in one of Isaiah’s sons, and, of course, Isaiah’s son was not Yahweh. 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). — Elwell, Walter A. “Entry for ‘Immanuel’”. “Evangelical Dictionary of Theology”.

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. “Entry for ‘Immanuel’”. “Evangelical Dictionary of Theology”. http://www.biblestudytools.net/Dictionaries/BakerEvangelicalDictionary/bed.cgi?number=T366.
1997.

Of course, we do not agree with the above that describes Jesus as “God the Son”, but we quote this only to show that the name Immanuel does not necessarily 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.

Updated: December 17, 2004; January 15, 2010.

Matthew 4:7 – Jesus said to him, “Again, it… Read [...]]]> 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), and/or that Jesus is Yahweh/Jehovah (Mormon, oneness, and some others).

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 say that Jesus was his God, but rather the son of God:

“If you are the Son of God.” — Matthew 4:3,6; Luke 4:9.

The demons referred to Jesus, not as the Most High, but rather as “son of the Most High” (Mark 5:7; Luke 8:28), which is confirmed to be spoken of the babe Jesus in Luke 1:32.

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, to the Law Covenant that was made with the children of Israel, recognizing himself as belonging to that covenant with Israel: “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 18:15-19; Matthew 4:4 (Deuteronomy 8:3; Luke 4:4); Matthew 4:7 (Deuteronomy 6:16); Matthew 4:10 (Exodus 20:3-5; 34:14; Deuteronomy 6:13,14; 10:20; Luke 4:8); Matthew 22:29-40; Matthew 26:42; Matthew 27:46; Mark 10:6 (Genesis 1:27; Genesis 2:7,20-23); Mark 14:36; 15:34; Luke 22:42; John 4:3; 5:30; 6:38; 17:1,3; 20:17; Romans 15:6; 2 Corinthians 1:3; 11:31; Ephesians 1:3,17; Hebrews 1:9; 10:7; 1 Peter 1:3; Revelation 2:7; 3:2,12.
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 19:5,6; Deuteronomy 7:6; Amos 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? Was Jesus, in effect, claiming that Satan was in covenant relationship  (through Moses) with Yahweh, and thus should not tempt his — 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 to 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.

Updated: May 30, 2009.

Click Here for some recommended Bibles.

Jesus said these things, and lifting up his eyes to heaven, he said, “Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may also glorify you…. This is eternal life, that they should know

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

… Read [...]]]>

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.

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 and 1 Samuel 14:15, and as 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 study:
Hebraic Usage of the Titles for “God”

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 to Pharaoh, and Aaron thy brother is thy prophet; – Young’s Translation.

Jehovah did not make Moses a “false god” to Pharoah. 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 as 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.

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 Yahweh or of false gods (idols), take on the general meaning of “strength, might, power”, etc.

The “beginning” (Strong’s #746) spoken of here 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 (Strong’s #1722) seems to indicate that Jesus was already there in the beginning spoken of. This definitely is not referring to Yahweh’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 planet systems. (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. — Job 4:11-17; Mark 10:6.

Thus the Logos, the Word, existed with God his Father before the beginning of earth’s creation (Proverbs 8:25-27; John 17:5; 1 John 1:1,2), as mentioned in Genesis. He was both the first 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 1:15

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 usually translated as “with” as in “alongside of”. 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
and
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0058%3Aentry%3D%2328306

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. In Revelation 19:13 he is called the “Word” in his future 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” describes Jesus as the divine, or mighty — “mouthpiece” of Yahweh. 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].

Similarly, Yahweh 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 Yahweh, and as the promised prophet of Yahweh, served Yahweh 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 the prophets. (Hebrews 1:1) Certain scriptures seem to imply that Yahweh was speaking directly to these human prophets, but a comparison of scriptures show that Yahweh 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 Yahweh 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 Yahweh” was actually the prehuman Jesus, acting as the Logos, and, not only this, many claim that the angel of Yahweh was actually Yahweh, since the angel of Yahweh is called “Yahweh”. We have shown that Jesus is considered a prophet — a spokesman — for Yahweh. (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 Yahweh, we highly doubt that the “angel of Yahweh” in the Old Testament times was indeed Jesus. More than likely, the angel of Yahweh in the Old Testament was Gabriel, just as in Luke 1:11,19,26. 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 Yahweh to the Logos to the angel of Yahweh. — 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 Yahweh

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 Yahweh, made him known, and took action in the name of Yahweh. (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 Yahweh, serves as his mouthpiece, expressor, to speak for Yahweh, and to act on behalf of Yahweh.

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 . . . Yahweh God formed man from the dust of the ground.”

We have no doubt that Yahweh 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 Yahweh are in themselves the Logos, and thus the Logos is actually Yahweh, 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 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 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 Heraic 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 Yahweh 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 and 1 John 1:1,2. 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, Yahweh, 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 [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* [ruler] even the Lord [Yahweh].” (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 #1 and #2.

At any rate, the arguments against translation #1 appear to us to be stronger than against translations #2 or #3. If one considers that the word theos is not a name, but a 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.”

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.

See also our study on Self-Existence regarding John 1:4.

Is the Logos an “It”?

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.

Furthermore, the LOGOS “was” life and the light of men while on earth, not before the world of mankind was made. Why do we say this? Let us look at the verses, and other related scriptures, comparing spiritual revealment with spiritual revealment.

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”? Yes, in the same way 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.

See also:

http://tinyurl.com/rl-john1-1

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

Last update of this study: March 3, 2007.

… Read [...]]]> For in Him all the fullness of Deity [Greek, Theotes; Strong's #2320] dwells in bodily form and in him you are made full, who is the head of all principality and power. Colossians 2:9,10 New American Standard Bible translation

This scripture is often cited by trinitarians to offer proof of their two "natures" of Jesus theory. In actuality, there is nothing here about Jesus possessing two natures at once. Such an idea has to be read into what Paul stated.

If we remember that the Hebrew words EL and ELOHIM have the basic meaning of "strength, power, might"*, we can see what Paul is saying here. The fullness [abundance] of deity [strength, power, might] dwells in him bodily [his heavenly spirit body, not his body of flesh]. Seeing the word THEOTES as based on Hebrew usage of EL and ELOHIM, in the sense of power and authority, allows us to understand that Paul is saying that all this power and authority dwells in Jesus bodily. All the power and authority spoken of, however, is given to Jesus by the Almighty Yahweh. This agrees with Paul elsewhere says: "Therefore God also highly exalted him, and gave to him the name which is above every name." (Philippians 2:9 -- Thus Jesus is not God who exalted him.) "For, 'He put all things in subjection under his feet.' But when he says, 'All things are put in subjection,' it is evident that he is excepted who subjected all things to him." (1 Corinthians 15:27) "The God of our Lord Jesus Christ.. raised him from the dead, and made him to sit at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule, and authority, and power, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come. He put all things in subjection under his feet, and gave him to be head over all things to the assembly, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all." (Ephesians 1:17,20-23) "He is the head of the body, the assembly, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence." (Colossians 1:18) Peter agrees with this: "Jesus Christ, who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, angels and authorities and powers being made subject to him." -- 1 Peter 3:21,22. ========== *See our study on Hebraic Usage of the Titles for "God"

Yes, God has given to Jesus all the plentitude, abundance of godship -- mightiness, so that he "is the head of all principality and power." -- Colossians 2:9,10.

Jesus proceeded forth and came from God (John 8:42). But Jesus is not God; he is the image of God. (2 Corinthians 4:4; Colossians 1:15) He stated that he is inferior (John 10:29; 14:28); he worshiped God; he prayed to God (John 11:41, 42; 17:1-26); he submitted to God; he called upon God for help with things he could not do himself; he accepted God's will as his own; he affirmed that God heard his prayers; and unlike God, who must by definition be perfect in every way, Jesus was made complete as a high priest through sufferings, and learned deeper levels of obedience by the things which he suffered (Hebrews 2:10; 5:8,9). Jesus of Nazareth was just what the scriptures style him: the Only-Begotten, the Son of the Highest, the First-Born of all Creation. -- John 1:18; Luke 1:32; Revelation 3:14.

The fullness of divine glory (Colossians 1:19) - the plenitude of love, wisdom, grace, and power- makes Jesus the able executor of the Father's wonderful plans. All this power in heaven and earth belongs to Jesus especially since his resurrection (Matthew 28:18; Acts 2:33; 5:31; Philippians 2:9). The counsels of God, before kept secret (Mark 13:32), are now entrusted to his care (Revelation 5:1-5). We look forward with rejoicing to the day when all mankind will join the heavenly chorus, singing, "Blessing, and honor, and glory, and power, be to him that sits upon the throne, and to the Lamb for ever and ever." - Revelation 5: l3

We should also note that "all the fullness of God" is said to include the members of the church (Ephesians 3:19), who are partakers of the Christ, being members of the body of Christ. Does this mean that they are or will become God Almighty? The fullness of God dwelling in believers, of course, is not equal to the fullness of godship dwelling in Jesus, since Jesus has godship over the church. Nor do we understand the apostle Paul to mean the same thing when he speaks of the fullness of God in believers as when he spoke of the fullness of deity dwelling bodily in Jesus. Nevertheless, some trinitarians make a big ado about this fullness being in the plural, and not of a single person. Paul speaks of the fullness of God in the believers, because he is speaking to all of the ecclesia in Ephesus, and not to one single member of that ecclesia. Although Paul speaks to the believers in the plural, it is apparent that he is saying this of each individual believer from the context, for each individual must be rooted and grounded in love, be strengthened to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know Christ's love which surpasses knowledge, that he/she may be filled to all the fullness of God.

Ephesians 3:16-19: that he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, that you may be strengthened with power through his Spirit in the inward man; that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; to the end that you, being rooted and grounded in love, may be strengthened to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know Christ's love which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled to all the fullness of God.

Regardless, the Godship -- deity -- (as used for the power or authority of rulership) of God's kingdom will include Jesus and all the saints. -- Psalm 2:6,8; 82:1,6,8; Isaiah 11:1-9; 32:1; Daniel 2:44; 7:22,27; Acts 17:31; 1 Corinthians 6:2,3; Colossians 2:9,10,19; 2 Timothy 2:12; Revelation 2:26,27; 20

Of course, Jesus and the church do receive from Yahweh the power and authority through the holy spirit of Yahweh. -- Mark 13:11; John 3:34; 7:39; 20:22; Acts 1:2,8; 2:4,33,38; 5:32 (Darby); 8:15,17; Romans 5:5; 1 Corinthians 2:12; 12:8; 2 Corinthians 5:5; 1 Thessalonians 4:8; 1 John 3:24; 4:13; Revelation 22:17. Addendum 1

It has been stated: "Since the word Trinity is used to represent God as a triune being, what is triune? Noah Webster defined the word triune to mean, "three in one." This means that God, a singular being, exists in a plural manner. This is why the term Godhead is often used in scripture (Acts 7:19, Romans 1:20, Colossians 2:9, etc.)."

Our Response: We often hear trinitarians speak of three persons in the "Godhead" in this manner. They do not stop to reason that if Godhead means plural in number, as designating three persons in one Godhead, this would mean that Jesus himself is more than one person, for "Godhead" is said to dwell in Jesus bodily. Actually "Godhead" simply means "godship", or from Hebraic background, having power and authority. Addendum 2

One has stated: "Your suggestion that Col. 2:9 only refers to present tense, or His current state, is definitely not supported by the rest of the book which tells us that the fullness of the eternal Creator also dwelt in His corruptible human nature (1:16, 19,20)."

It is not our belief that Colossians 2:9 refers to God Almighty dwelling in Jesus, so the above is not applicable to what we have stated. Yet, there are some similarities. Yes, God was in Jesus as a human. (John 10:38; 14:10,11) The scriptures also say Jesus and God are in the believer through God's spirit, and that the believer is in Jesus and God. (Matthew 10:20; John 14:20,23; 15:4; 17:21-24; Romans 8:9-11; 1 Corinthians 6:16; 2 Corinthians 13:5; Colossians 1:27; 1 John 2:24; 3:24; 4:13,16; see also 1 John 1:3,7; Ephesians 2:22) None of this makes either Jesus or the believers God Almighty, nor does it make the believers become Jesus.

Someone comments that what we say does not "mesh with the rest of Scripture which tells us that the eternal Word of God was made flesh (John 1:1, 14), or Phil. 2:6-8 which tells us that the eternal, immutable nature of God which Christ possessed took on the corruptible nature of human flesh."

There is nothing either in John 1:1,14 nor Philippians 2:6-8 that speaks of an "eternal, immutable nature of God which Christ possessed [that] took on the corruptible nature of human flesh." John 1:1,14 is discussed in our study on John 1:1-3. Philippians 2:6-8 is discussed in our study on Humility of Mind.

This study was updated April 30, 2004

“Your throne, O Mighty One [elohim, theos -- god], is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your Kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; Therefore God, Your God [Elohim, that is, Yahweh],… Read [...]]]>

Like many of the Psalms, many believe that there is an original minor typical application as well as the major antitypical application of Psalm 45. Some scholars say that the original application of this Psalm was to Solomon. (see NASB footnote) We read that Solomon “sat on the throne of Yahweh.” (2 Chronicles 29:23; see also: 1 Kings 1:13) Likewise, Jesus’ throne is also God’s throne (Revelation 3:21), which he receives from his Father, the only true God. — Psalm 2:4-6; Daniel 7:13,14; Acts 2:29-31; John 17:1,3.

Yahweh is the God [Supreme Being] of Jesus. Jesus was anointed by his God. Who is the Supreme Being over the Anointed One that is spoken of in Psalm 45:7 and Hebrews 2:9? The scriptures provide the answer in other scriptures. Another prophecy, provides the answer, in Isaiah 61:1, which has the Messiah prophetically saying: “Yahweh has anointed me.” It is the Supreme Being — Yahweh — the God [Supreme Being] of Jesus, who did the anointing, and who called Jesus theos (translated from elohim — Psalm 45:6,7; See also Luke 4:18; Acts 10:38; Matthew 27:46; Mark 15:34; John 17:1,3; 20:17; 2 Corinthians 1:3; 11:31; Ephesians 1:3,17; 5:20; Colossians 1:3; Hebrews 1:9; 1 Peter 1:3 Revelation 2:7; 3:2,13). Thus elohim who received the anointing is not the Supreme Being, since Yahweh is referred to as his Supreme Being. Thus, we should realize that elohim as being applied to the One Anointed does not carry the same meaning as it does for the One who did the anointing.

Jesus is prefigured by Moses, who is also called elohim, as well as “as” elohim. “And you [Moses] shall speak to him [Aaron], and you [Moses] shall put the words in his [Aaron's] mouth. And I [Jehovah] will be with your mouth, and with his mouth, and I will teach you wht you shall do. And he shall speak for you to the people. And it shall be, he shall be a mouth for you, and you shall be a god [elohim] for him.” (Exodus 4:16, Jay Green’s A Literal Translation of the Bible, 1985) “And Jehovah said to Moses, Come, see I have made you a god [elohim] to Pharaoh.” (Exodus 7:1, Jay Green’s A Literal Translation of the Bible, 1985) — Deuteronomy 18:18,19; Acts 3:19-23.

From this and other usages of the Hebrew words for “god”, we determine that its meaning does not always mean the restriction of “Supreme Being”, or the Almighty; nor does its usage of others mean that the others to whom it is applied are necessarily “false gods”. Remembering that the basic meaning of Hebrew words for God is “strength” or “power”*, we need to note that Elohim is applied to Moses in this sense, that is, that God gave to Moses power, or strength, over Aaron and Pharaoh. Only Yahweh, the God and Father of Jesus, is God as the Supreme Being, or the exclusive Source of All Power. Moses was not this exclusive source of power, thus it would be false to refer to him as “God” with the restricted meaning of “the Supreme Being”, but he was called elohim, since Yahweh gave him special powers.
*See our document:
Hebraic Usage of the Titles for “God”

and:

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=0430

Indeed, the spirit that impersonated Samuel is also called elohim. “The king said to her, Don’t be afraid: for what do you see? The woman said to Saul, I see a god [Hebrew, elohim] coming up out of the earth.” (1 Samuel 28:13, World English) However, it should be apparent that elohim here applied to this spirit is not in the same manner as it is applied to Yahweh. This spirit does have power granted by God, even though he is misusing the power as a spirit being. Recognizing this some translations render elohim here as:

*divine being* (New American Standard; New Revised Standard Version)

*spirit* (New King James Version; Good News Translation; New Century
Translation; The Message translation; Contemporary English Version)

*godlike being* (Jewish Publication Society Bible).

Others render it as “a god” and some render it as plural “gods”. Of course, how it is rendered in English does not change the word used in the Hebrew.

Likewise, the word is used in the plural sense as applied to the angels. It should be apparent that elohim applied to the angels is not in the same manner as applied to Yahweh. — Psalm 8:5; Hebrews 2:7.

The sons of God to whom the Word of God came likewise are also called elohim, but again we can see that they are not elohim in the same manner as the word is applied to Yahweh. (Psalm 82:6) Jesus, in quoting this Psalm, used the plural form of the Greek word THEOS, thus showing that he considered the Greek word THEOS in the same manner as the Hebraic usage of EL and ELOHIM when applied to others than the only true God.
http://godandson.reslight.net/you-are-gods.html

Likewise, it should be apparent that in Hebrews 1:1,5,8 (Psalm 45:6) that theos (elohim) applied to the Son is with a different meaning than applied to Yahweh. Paul definitely shows that it is God that is speaking of his Son, thus the Son who being spoken to is not “God” who does the speaking. There is definitely nothing in either Hebrews 1 or Psalm 45 about three persons in one God. The word *elohim* in the Old Testament usually refers to Yahweh, but as a general descriptive word it is often applied to others, which would include Jesus, the Son of Yahweh. In giving all power to Jesus, it is evident that the One who gave this power to Jesus is excepted. (1 Corinthians 15:27) The very fact that this power over his fellows is given to Jesus by Yahweh’s anointing shows that Jesus is not equal to Yahweh, and thus that Elohim, as applied to Jesus, is not in the exclusive meaning as it is applied to Yahweh, for only Yahweh is the source of all power.

In the above scriptures we see three individual beings who are called elohim: Yahweh, Jesus and Moses. Only Yahweh has the position of Supreme Being, however, since both Moses and Jesus receive their power from Yahweh. We have no reason to believe that the author of Hebrews chapter one understood Psalm 45 in any other way than it had been viewed at the time it was written. The wording of the psalm draws a clear distinction between the one and only Ultimate Power, the Father (Creator) Who is the Majesty On High, — and the secondary “Power”, the son who was sent by Yahweh and to whom learned to obey though what he suffered. (Hebrews 1:1,2; 3:2; 5:8) Therefore, the Ultimate Power, the Creator of the first-born of creation, has anointed His obedient son (who offered up both petitions and entreaties to the One able to save him from death — Hebrews 5:7) above his peers.

Alternatively, we might also note how some translations render Hebrews 1:8 and Psalm 45:6:

Hebrews 1:8

Today’s English Version: Your kingdom, O God,will last forever! You will rule over your people with justice.

Revised Standard Version, margin: God is thy throne for ever and ever.
as obtained from:

http://www.bbie.org/WrestedScriptures/B08Trinity/Hebrews1v8.html

Moffatt translation (1922): he says of the Son, “God is Thy throne for ever and ever.”

Daniel Mace New Testament (1729): but to the son he saith, “God is thy throne for ever and ever; the sceptre of thy kingdom is a sceptre of equity.

Twentieth Century translation: while of the Son he said–’God is thy throne for ever and ever

Psalm 45:6

Revised Standard Version: Your divine throne endures for ever and ever. Your royal scepter is a scepter of equity.

Good News translation: The kingdom that God has given you will last forever and ever. You rule over your people with justice.

New Jerusalem Bible – You throne is from God, forever and ever.

The Message translation: “Your throne is God’s throne, ever and always; The scepter of your royal rule measures right living.”

JPS Version: Thy throne given of God is for ever and ever; a sceptre of equity is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

New English Bible translation: Your throne is like God’s throne

Either way, however, there is nothing in Hebrews 1:8 or Psalm 45:6,7 that would lead us to think that Jesus is Yahweh. There is certainly nothing about three persons in one God.

Updated slightly, June 2007.

Hebrews 1:8 – A discussion of The New World Translation’s rendering of this verse. There are some good references on this page.

Yahweh is the Only Elohim

Hebrews 1:8 Comments by Wes Williams.

Conversations on the Trinity – You will need to search this page for the section concerning Psalm 45:6 and Hebrews 1:8.

Related Books

Inclusion of books below does not mean we endorse everything presented in the books. Click on titles for current pricing, availability, or more information.

See Quotes