Deuteronomy 6:4 says, "Hear, O Israel! Yahweh is our God, Yahweh is one [echad]!"
The Hebrew word "echad" is used most often as a unified one, and sometimes as numeric oneness. For example, when God said in Genesis 2:24 "the two shall become one [echad] flesh," it is the same word for "one" that was used in Deut. 6:4.
A different word, "yachid," the main Hebrew word for solitary oneness, indisputably means an absolute numeric one. Anti-Trinitarians would naturally expect such a word to be commonly used of God, but it is never used to describe God.
Add to this plural pronouns like: "let US make man in OUR image" and Trinitarians have irrefutable evidence of the Trinity in the Old Testament.
We find exactly the same in the New Testament as we do in the Old, namely, a combination of words meaning unified versus numeric oneness being employed to describe God's oneness. While yachid is never used of God’s oneness in the Old Testament, the corresponding Greek word "mono" is used of God’s oneness in the New Testament. But this is exactly what Trinitarians would expect to be the case because there are three persons in the one God.
Perhaps one of the strongest arguments the Trinitarian can use in the discussion of the words "echad" and "yachid" is the fact that Jews, shortly after the rise of Christianity, removed "echad" from Deut. 6:4 and added in its place the word "yachid". If the use of "echad" instead of "yachid" in Deut. 6:4 gave no help to the early Christians in proving to the Jews that Yahweh of the Old Testament was a multi-personal God, then Jews would not have felt compelled to change the word. If it is really that insignificant, then they would have told us the argument Christians were using to prove the Trinity is invalid to native Hebrews who know and speak the language. But instead, the Jews responded by changing the word in Deut. 6:4 from the unified oneness (echad) to the numeric oneness (yachid).
Jesus quoted Deut 6:4 in Mk 12:29 and chose the "unified oneness" word "hen" which is the same word used by Jesus in Mt 19:5, "the two shall become one (hen) flesh. It is significant that Jesus did not use "mono" in Mk 12:29. The word "hen" directly corresponds to "echad" which was used in Deut 6:4. Both texts used "unified oneness" words rather than absolute numeric oneness to the exclusion of all others.
Five different words for "one" in the Bible:
Echad (OT) - (Unified one: Gen. 2:24; Deut. 6:4) (Absolute numeric one: Ezekiel 33:24) - Used of God’s oneness
Yachid (OT) - (Always absolute numeric one: Judges 11:34) - Never used of God’s oneness
Bad (OT) - (Absolute numeric one: Isaiah 37:20) - Used of God’s oneness
Hen (NT) - (Unified one: John 10:30; Matthew 19:5; Mk 12:29) (Absolute numeric one: Galatians 3:20) - Used of God’s oneness
Monos (NT) - (Absolute numeric one: Matthew 24:36; 1 Timothy 1:17) - Used of God’s oneness
Following are a number of Old Testament passages that are either directly quoted in the New Testament, or contain parallel thoughts:
Two shall become one flesh (Echad, Old Testament: Gen. 2:24) (Matt. 19:5)
God is one (Echad, Old Testament: Deut. 6:4) (Hen, New Testament: Mark 12:29,32; John 10:30; 1 Cor. 8:4; Eph. 4:6)
One people (Echad, Old Testament: Gen. 11:6; Gen. 34:16; Gen. 22) (Hen, New Testament: John 11:52; Gal. 3:28)
One heart (Echad, Old Testament: 2 Chron. 30:12; Jer. 32:39) (Hen, New Testament: Acts 4:32; Phil. 1:27; Phil. 2:2)
Two objects becoming one (Echad, Old Testament: sticks: Ezek. 37:17) (Hen, New Testament: flocks: John 10:16)
Assembly as one (Echad, Old Testament: Ezra 2:64) (Hen, New Testament: Romans 12:5, 15:6; 1 Cor. 12:5,12)
(the above information is from: Bible.ca)
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
652 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 600 of 652 Newer› Newest»(cont.)
Having contemplated this future judgment we look again at the judgment Jesus exercises in the present (5:30). This verse repeats the themes of verse 19, thus tying this section together. All Jesus does--speaking, giving life and judging--comes from the Father and therefore reveals the Father. His life is entirely at the disposal of the Father, which is to say, he models true discipleship. The opponents are not able to "make a right judgment" (he dikaia krisis) because, unlike Jesus, they do not will to do God's will (7:17).
Jesus judges by his very presence--the light comes and exposes. Since people judge themselves by their response to the light, Jesus can say that he himself does not judge or condemn. But in a sense Jesus does judge in that he draws peoples' attention to how they respond to him. By exposing their response he makes them all the more culpable. Thus, in what follows he will say that their rejection of him means they do not know God (vv. 37-38). He says this not to condemn them and harden them in their sin, but so they may be saved (v. 34). But there is something wrong with their hearts--they do not will to come to him (v. 40). It is not their will to do God's will, no matter how much they claim the contrary. Jesus will keep pointing this out in various ways from here through chapter 12.
(Most of this is from "IVP New Testament Commentaries.")
Jeff,
Hope you had a great weekend. Been visiting family and did not have internet service from my laptop. I did manage to write a few responses though. Not long ago I had a discussion with a Trinitarian I met at a coffee shop. He wrote me:
“The word First Born is Prototokos, this again can not mean that Christ was born it would be taking the meaning away from the word. “This statement makes absolutely no sense. The word firstborn means “one born or begotten first.” How could saying that the word means what it means lexically take away from the meaning of the word?
The word for "firstborn" occurs 128 times in the Septuagint and 8 times in the NT. How is it understood? The only lexical meaning ascribed to the word in Liddell and Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, 9th Edition, as well as BAGD, (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature) and NIDNTT is “firstborn.”
Furthermore, a check in any concordance of the OT for the use of the word “firstborn” will show that it is predominantly used to indicate temporal priority, (An excellent example of this usage is Joshua 6:26, where the “firstborn” is contrasted with the “youngest” child). Again the only lexical meaning of prototokos is ‘firstborn."
Having said this, with all their ingenuity, those seeking a meaning other than “the one who is born first” will often list one repeatedly cited example, and that is Psalm 89:28, “And I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth.”
This Psalm, however, does not give a new lexical meaning to prototokos, but simply tells about the result of God putting the mentioned person in the position of a firstborn (compare 1 Chronicles 26:1-2 and 2 Chronicles 21:3).
-continued
-continuing
As an illustration we may point to the fact that the priests of Israel would also serve as physicians, but this did not add the meaning “physician” to the word “priest”. Having gone through all the Biblical passages that use prototokos, I have found no example which has the meaning “supreme” or even something similar, not even a passage which might be construed with such a meaning! Rather, in all of the examples used of individuals, in a sense other than where one is “placed” as though he were the firstborn, they take as a point of departure the notion of one who is born first.
As previously mentioned in Colossians 1:18, for example, we find the expression “firstborn from the dead,” evidently meaning “the first one to experience a resurrection with the prospect of never dying again or the first to have received a heavenly resurrection. (John 3:13)
The meaning of the word "firstborn" should not be intentionally slighted to simply mean no more than "pre-eminent." The Son that became flesh was before all things but the word "firstborn" means more than "preeminient." He is preeminient because he is the firstborn out of the dead and because all things were created through the Son that became flesh, Jesus. The Son is first in time of all creation and first in position of all creation.
My question to you is: “If Jesus was not literally the firstborn of God then who was”? I person with such a prominent, important position certainly would have been revealed in Scripture.
Respectfully,
Nick
Hi Jeff,
Jesus absolutely NEVER claims equality with God. The Bible clearly teaches us that and even Jesus said it. "Nothing is impossible with God" (Luke 1:37), and Christ himself also acknowledged "the Son (Jesus) can do nothing by himself" (John 5:19).
Does that sound like someone who thinks they are God and equal to him??? However, you pointed out that the King James Version of the Holy Bible in Philippians 2:6, as proof that Jesus did not think it was wrong to be equal to God. But, this is not the case.
Is the KJV accurate here? If we check modern versions with modern scholarship we will find that Jesus thought it NOT right to be equal with God.
Looking to some other translations we see that the use of "robbery" is stretching the Greek grammar a little too far. If we look at what other translations say we will get a better understanding of this. Here are a few.
"who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped,"—American Standard Version.
"who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped."
—Revised Standard Version.
"Let this disposition be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus, who, though being in God's form, yet did not meditate a usurpation to be like God."—The Emphatic Diaglott
"Have the same attitude that Christ Jesus had. Though he possessed the nature of God, he did not grasp at equality with God."—An American Translation
"For let this mind be in you which was in Christ Jesus also: who, being in the form of God, did not eagerly grasp at the resemblance to God."—The New Testament in an Improved Version
"The same thing esteem in yourselves which also in Christ Jesus ye esteem, who in form of God subsisting, not a thing to be seized accounted the being equal with God."—The Emphasized Bible
"Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not think that equality with God was some thing to be grasped."—The Riverside New Testament
"who, being in the form of God, did not regard it as a thing to be grasped at to be on an equality with God." The New Testament, by G. R. Noyes.
"He—truly of divine nature!—never self-confidently made himself equal to God." Das Neue Testament, revised edition, by Friedrich Pfäfflin.
"who, although being in the form of God, did not consider being equal to God a thing to greedily make his own." La Bibbia Concordata.
"He always had the nature of God, but he did not think that by force he should try to become equal with God." Today's English Version.
"Who, being in the form of God, did not count equality with God something to be grasped." The New Jerusalem Bible.
-continued
-continuing
What do we see here? That other Bible translations translate this verse to show that Jesus did not grasp at equality with God.The truth is Jesus did not think he was equal to God, either in heaven or on earth. This thought never crossed his mind. He did not follow the example of Satan the Devil, although Christ could have done this if he had wanted to. This is what the Bible consistently teaches.
But what about the Greek text itself? The translators of the KJV were bending the rules of Greek to support the Trinitarian views they held. The Greek word translated "robbery" by the KJV is “harpagmon.”
The Expositor's Greek Testament says: "We cannot find any passage where [har•pa'zo] or any of its derivatives [including har•pag•mon'] has the sense of 'holding in possession,' 'retaining'. It seems invariably to mean 'seize,' 'snatch violently'. Thus it is not permissible to glide from the true sense 'grasp at' into one which is totally different, 'hold fast.'"—(Grand Rapids, Mich.; 1967), edited by W. Robertson Nicoll, Vol. III, pp. 436, 437.
In this regard, Ralph Martin, in The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians, says of the original Greek: "It is questionable, however, whether the sense of the verb can glide from its real meaning of 'to seize', 'to snatch violently' to that of 'to hold fast.'"
In other words, it’s not correct to translate the word “harpagmon,” into something like "to snatch violently", but it must mean to "grasp at". Even though Jesus was of divine nature he being "the firstborn of the creation of God," he did not think it was right to "grasp at" equality with God.
A word-for-word rendering of the Greek text reads this way: "who in from of God existing not snatching he considered the to be equal (things) to God," Or, "who existing in the form of God, he did not consider being equal to God." So one of the best renderings of this text I have found are in the RSV: "who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God, a thing to be grasped."
The Son of God was in God's form as a heavenly spirit person, but did not try to make himself equal to God. (Hebrews 1:3) He was in God’s form in that he was like his Father who was a spirit. (John 4:24) He would humble himself leaving his glorious position in heaven and become like us humans “in the flesh” taking on a completely different form or appearance.
Philippians 2:6 does not make me believe that Jesus was equal to His Father in anyway. Where do we see Jesus trying to be equal to God anywhere in Scripture?
Respectfully,
Nick
Hello Jeff,
You shared with me John 5:23. Here is how it looks in the NIV, “That all may honor the Son they honor the Father.” JUST AS is “kathos” in the Greek. You are implying that if we honor the Son just as we honor the only true God (in the person of the Father), then we are honoring him as God!
However,”kathos” simply does not have to mean “exactly equal” as you want me to believe. There is no proof that John 5:23 has to mean that the honor given to the Son has to be exactly equal in quantity and quality as that given to the Father.
Let’s look at some examples of how “just as” or “kathos” is used in Scripture.
“just as” (kathos) Moses lifted up the copper serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up" ( John 3:14, NRSV)
These two events are hardly exactly equal. There is a degree of similarity only. Just as there was a "lifting up" in one part of the comparison, there was also a "lifting up" (of a different kind and to a different degree) in the other part. We know Moses didn't lift up a timber as large and heavy as the one Jesus died on.
We know he didn't swing it up and anchor one end in a hole in the ground until the copper serpent died a horrible death. We know that the one act was much more important than the other in all respects. It was a similar act only in a certain respect and to a certain degree.
Here’s another, Luke 11:30:
“Just as” (kathos) Jonah became a sign to the people of Ninevah, so the Son of man will be to this generation," (NRSV)
This does not mean the two signs are equal either literally or figuratively. The details of the sign to the Ninevites were very different from the sign of Jesus' death and resurrection. The degree of importance of the sign of Jonah was much less than that of Jesus!
Looking at John 17:16:
"(Jesus followers) are not of the world, just as (kathos) I am not of the world." (NKJV)
It would be foolish to insist that, in every aspect of the phrase, Jesus' followers were not of the world precisely as he was not. We could, in such a case, end up `proving' that Jesus' followers had been created in heaven as spirit persons before all the rest of creation, just as he had been. Or as you believe, they had always existed as God Himself from all eternity.
-continued
-continuing
It seems evident from context alone that “kathos,” as used by Jesus in all the above examples at least, merely means that one event or circumstance is just as certain as the other event:
"Just as certainly as Moses lifted up the copper serpent in the desert, so must the Son of man be lifted up."
"Just as surely as Jonah became a sign ..., so the Son of man will be to this generation."
"(Jesus followers) are not of the world, just as surely as I am not of the world."
"That all may honor the Son just as surely as they also honor the Father."
There are many such examples where the NIV uses “like” as seen in John 13:15; 17:18; 1 John 4:17. They also illustrate the fact that the honor of the Son may be of a lesser degree and/or kind than that of the Father in spite of "just as" (kathos) at John 5:23.
Consider to Matthew 5:48 where it says, “You (true worshipers of God) must therefore be perfect, just as your heavenly father is perfect.” (NJB) But God (and only God) is absolutely perfect. So what happens when you apply the same type of Trinitarian reasoning to this scripture?
The same thing happens if you insist on interpreting “kathos” at John 17:18 with the "exactly equal" understanding: You would be forced to say that Jesus' followers, in that case, were spirit creatures in heaven before the creation of the earth and equally God, and Jesus sent them to earth to assume fleshly bodies and to die sacrificial deaths to ransom all of mankind! Surely such an interpretation of “kathos” in this scripture is unacceptable to anyone professing to be Christian.
Another interpretation for John 5:23 for those who will not acknowledge the truth of the above grammatical and contextual evidence, but insist on an "absolute equality of honor" interpretation is this: Just as an official representative or ambassador sent from a king was to be treated by the king's subjects with the same honor as the king himself (when the ambassador was acting in his official capacity) in those times, so Jesus (sent by God himself) was to be given the same honor in his capacity as God's appointed judge as God himself would expect.
Although the honor actually due the individual ambassador in his own right may have been very little (if any), when he was representing the king, the honor given to him was considered to be actually given through this representative to the king himself!
Honoring Jesus' judgments would be honoring the one who sent him. "He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him." ( John 5:23)
Hope this helped.
Nick
Hi Jeff,
You told me:
“Arius arrived at this theory because he did not fully comprehend the Scriptures, and he sought to supply an answer for a question that he could not figure out: how Christ is both God and man, never ceasing to be either, yet true to each Nature.”
What was the Biblical understanding all before this talk on how Jesus was part of a Trinity God?
In his book, Christianity and the Roman Empire, by noted Roman Catholic scholar William Edward Addis, gives us an insight into the religious turmoil caused by the attempt to introduce the notion that God was more than one person.
The bulk of Christians, had they been let alone, would have been satisfied with the old belief in one God the Father, and would have distrusted ‘the dispensation,’ as it was called, by which the sole deity of the Father expanded itself into the deity of the Father and the Son....Tertullian...‘All simple people,’ he writes, not to call them ignorant and uneducated, (and these always form the greater part of believers) since the rule (of faith) itself transfers them from the many gods of the world to the only true God, take fright at the dispensation....They will have it that we are proclaiming two or three Gods. We, say they, hold to the rule of One....It became, however, more and more clear that the old belief in the sole godhead of the Father was no longer tenable in the church. (London, The Sunday School Association, 1893, p. 174.)
On this, one might well ask: Why was “the old belief in the sole godhead of the Father” no longer tenable in the church? This was the original Christian belief: Why now change it? The “old belief in the sole godhead of the Father” was that which had led new believers out of the pagan false teachings into the light of Christianity. The “old belief in the sole godhead of the Father” was, and still is, the Biblical belief! (Ephesians 4:6)
Arthur Weigall has written in The Paganism in Our Christianity: “The early Christian mind stopped short before the revolutionary doctrine that Jesus was God...Throughout the First Century, indeed nobody would have dreamed of regarding Jesus as God...for all the Christians of the First Century and most of those of the Second Century would have regarded it [the Nicene-Athanasian Creed] as sheer blasphemy.” (New York and London, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1928, pp. 181, 186, 189, 190)
Historian Philip Schaff recounted: “The victory of the council of Nicea over the views of the majority of the bishops was a victory only in appearance...An intermediate period of great excitement ensued, during which council was held against council, creed was set forth against creed, and anathema against anathema was hurled. “ (History Of The Christian Church, Grand Rapids, Wm. Eerdmans Publishing Company, original of 1910, re- printing of 1979, Vol. III, p. 6.)
You then made this glaring inaccurate comment:
“The Council of Nicaea drew a line once and for all between the theological double talk of the Arians and the straight pronouncement of the Bible. Council of Nicaea solved the mystery of the Trinity or ended the Arian controversy, for it continued to flare for some years thereafter, but it did serve to reveal one important and wonderful truth, which the Christian Church has held inviolate throughout the ensuing ages. This truth candidly states and affirms that there is one eternal God subsisting in three separate and distinct Persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit; yet one in agreement of will, unity of Substance and equality of power: “neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the Substance.”
-continued
-continuing
The Council of Nicaea DID NOT SOLVE the mystery of the Trinity, it went beyond what God’s inspired written Word. They allowed Greek culture and philosophy to provide the infrastructure of modern “Christian” thought.
In that book, he unhesitantly admits: “Almost all the prominent Church Fathers considered the Greek elements most useful, and they borrowed them from the Greek classical antiquity, using them as a means to understand and correctly express the Christian truths.”
Nicaea, though, did represent a turning point. It opened the door to the official acceptance of the Son as equal to the Father, and that paved the way for the later Trinity idea. The book Second Century Orthodoxy, by J. A. Buckley, notes:
“Up until the end of the second century at least, the universal Church remained united in one basic sense; they all accepted the supremacy of the Father. They all regarded God the Father Almighty as alone supreme, immutable, ineffable and without beginning…”
He went on to say: “With the passing of those second century writers and leaders, the Church found itself... slipping slowly but inexorably toward that point... where at the Council of Nicaea the culmination of all this piece-meal eroding of the original faith was reached. There, a small volatile minority, foisted its heresy upon an acquiescent majority, and with the political authorities behind it, coerced, cajoled and intimidated those who strove to maintain the pristine purity of their faith untarnished.” (Second Century Orthodoxy, by J. A. Buckley, 1978, pages 114-15.)
Did the Council of Nicaea establish, or affirm, the Trinity as a doctrine of Christendom? Many assume that this was the case. But the facts show otherwise. The creed promulgated by that council did assert things about the Son of God that would allow various clergymen to view him as equal to God the Father in a certain way. Yet, it is enlightening to see what the Nicene Creed did not say. As originally published, the entire creed stated:
“We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible;”
“And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten from the Father, only-begotten, that is, from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father, through Whom all things came into being, things in heaven and things on earth, Who because of us men and because of our salvation came down and became incarnate, becoming man, suffered and rose again on the third day, ascended to the heavens, and will come to judge the living and the dead;”
-continued
-continuing
“And in the Holy Spirit.”
Does this creed say that Father, Son, and holy spirit are three persons in one God? Does it say that the three are equal in eternity, power, position, and wisdom? No, it does not. There is no three-in-one formula here whatsoever. The original Nicene Creed did not establish or affirm the Trinity. That creed, at most, equates the Son with the Father in being “of one substance.” But it does not say anything like that about the holy spirit. All it says is that “we believe... in the Holy Spirit.” That is not Christendom’s Trinity doctrine. Nicaea did not clarify the role of God’s holy spirit in Trinitarian theology.
Even the key phrase “of one substance” (homousios) did not necessarily mean that the council believed in a numerical equality of Father and Son. The New Catholic Encyclopedia states:
“Whether the Council intended to affirm the numerical identity of the substance of Father and Son is doubtful.” (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Volume VII, page 115.) Had the council meant that the Son and the Father were one numerically, it would still not be a Trinity. It would only be a two-in-one God, not three-in-one as required by the Trinity doctrine.
It wasn’t until 381 C.E., the Council of Constantinople affirmed the Nicene Creed. And it added something else. It called the holy spirit “Lord” and “life-giver.” The expanded creed of 381 C.E, which is substantially what is used in the churches today and which is called “the Nicene Creed,” shows that Christendom was on the brink of formulating a full-blown Trinitarian dogma. Yet, not even this council completed that doctrine. The New Catholic Encyclopedia acknowledges:
It is interesting that 60 years after Nicaea, the Council of Constantinople avoided (homoousios) in its definition of the divinity of the Holy Spirit.” Many “scholars” have been puzzled by the apparent mildness of expression on the part of this creed; its failure, for example, to use the word “homoousios” of the Holy Spirit as consubstantial with the Father and Son.
Research shows that Emperor Theodosius established the creed of the Council of Nicaea as the standard for his realm and convened the Council of Constantinople in 381 C.E. to clarify the formula. That council agreed to place the holy spirit on the same level as God and Christ. For the first time, Christendom’s Trinity began to come into focus.
Yet, even after the Council of Constantinople, the Trinity did not become a widely accepted creed. Many opposed it and thus brought on themselves violent persecution. It was only in later centuries that the Trinity was formulated into set creeds. The Encyclopedia Americana notes: “The full development of Trinitarianism took place in the West, in the Scholasticism of the Middle Ages, when an explanation was undertaken in terms of philosophy and psychology.”
You can believe what you like Jeff, but as for me, I will stick to the BIBLICAL CREED and definition clearly expressed centuries earlier. (Ephesians 4:4-6; 1 Corinthians 8:5, 6)
Sincerely,
Nick
Hi Jeff,
You submitted 4 scriptures for my consideration. Here is the first one:
Micah 5:2-"Bethlehem...out of you will come...ruler over Israel, whose goings out are from of old, from days of eternity."
We already went over this text and what did we see. Just as you shared in this reference:
“The Interlinear Hebrew-English Old Testament translates it literally as, "from aforetime from days of eon." One dictionary definition of "eon" is "An indefinitely long period of time." And one dictionary definition for "indefinite" is "without fixed or specified limit; unlimited." One dictionary definition of "unlimited" is "infinite." One definition of "infinite" is "endless." And one synonym for "endless" is "eternal."
You seem to somewhat understand that the Hebrew word used which is, “Oh-lahm,” does not HAVE TO mean “eternity” as many Trinitarians insist. It doesn’t. It can mean “to time indefinite or forever” but it can also just mean “of old” or “a long time ago” and quite acceptably rendered “of early or ancient days.”
The Lexicographer Gesenius defines it as meaning “hidden time, i.e. obscure and long, of which the beginning or end is uncertain or indefinite.” (A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, translated by E. Robinson, 1836, p. 746)
Bible encyclopedia, “Insight on the Scriptures” you don’t seem to mind quoting from shows acute awareness of how this word is used. It said: “However, the Hebrew expression ‛oh•lam′ does not in itself mean “forever.” It often refers to things that have an end, but the period of such things’ existence can be said to be ‘to time indefinite’ because the time of their end is not then specified. For example, the ‘indefinitely lasting’ Law covenant came to an end with Jesus’ death and the bringing in of a new covenant. (Ex 31:16, 17; Ro 10:4; Ga 5:18; Col 2:16, 17; Heb 9:15) And the ‘indefinitely lasting’ Aaronic priesthood similarly came to an end.—Ex 40:15; Heb 7:11-24; 10:1.” (p. 1102)
-continued
-continuing
Previously, we considered a number of Trinitarian translations of Micah 5:2. (E.g., "O Bethlehem ..., from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days" (RSV) See also, the JB, NEB, REB, NAB, NIV, AT, Mo, NRSV, NJB, Byington, and Young's.) Not only does this verse not teach that Jesus has always existed, it even speaks of his ORIGIN in very ancient times. (Origin: "a coming into existence" - Webster's New World Dictionary, 1973.)
Why would these Trinitarian translations admit such a thing? Perhaps because it is difficult to honestly translate the Hebrew “motsaah” with a word that does not include this understanding. Even when "goings forth" is the rendering, it appears it should also be with the understanding of "originating."
For example, if we said "the command went forth from the King," we obviously mean the command originated with - or sprang from - the king! And when Micah 5:2 says of the Messiah: "O Bethlehem ..., from you shall come forth (the Messiah)," it can only mean that, in his earthly existence, he originated in Bethlehem!
Obviously for so many respected Trinitarian translators to choose this meaning ("origin") they must feel there is no other honest choice! The only meanings given by Gesenius for this word in his highly-respected Lexicon are "origin, springing" ( #4163, Gesenius - cf. Micah 5:1 in The Jewish Publication Society's Bible translation, Tanakh.)
It would make no sense to interpret this as meaning the Messiah's human origin springs from ancient times. We have just been told that in Micah's time the Messiah's human origin was to be a future event and would take place in Bethlehem. Also there are no humans who haven't sprung from the very first pair in ancient Eden. It would be ridiculous to make the point that the human Messiah came from ancient stock since every human has done so.
It must mean that his pre-existence as a spirit person in heaven originated in very ancient times (as the very beginning of God's creation - Rev. 3:14; Prov. 8:22). The Bible Greek of the ancient Septuagint, in fact, at Micah 5:2 says: "and his goings forth were from the beginning [arkhe], from ancient days [aionos]."
The NIV Study Bible, in a footnote for Micah 5:2 explains: "origins...from of old. His beginnings were much earlier than his human birth."
“Much earlier” can simply mean he came from ancient times, days of old, that he had a prior existence earlier from his human birth (since he had a pre-human existence) but not necessarily from ETERNITY.
Sincerely,
Nick
Hi Jeff,
You said:
“John 16:15 says, "All the things that the Father has are mine." (New World Translation)
If Christ possesses all that the Father has, does He not possess His titles and thereby share His intrinsic deity also?”
It is good practice that when you give a verse in an attempt to prove the Trinity, you should provide also the context of that verse. Isolated verses mean nothing since they can be used to "prove" anything without their contexts.
The verse and its context are John 17, where Jesus is praying to his Father. That alone destroys any genuine attempt to link the verse (John 17:10) to any equality of Father and Son. Jehovah does not pray to anyone, nor does He need to. He has no head, but "the head of Christ is God." (1 Corinthians 11:3)
The context also shows clearly that what Jesus has is only what Jehovah has GIVEN to him. (Same chapter 17, verse 9).
Please read and consider the whole context: (John 17:6-10)
"I have manifested Your name to the men whom You gave Me out of the world; they were Yours and You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word. Now they have come to know everything You have given Me is from You; for the words which You gave Me I have given to them; and they received them and truly understood that I came forth from You, and they believed that You sent Me. I ask on their behalf; I do not ask on behalf of the word, but of those whom You have given Me; for they are Yours; and all things that are Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine; and I have been glorified in them." (New American Standard version; emphasis added)
Reading those verses in context shows that Jehovah, the Giver, is superior to Jesus, the receiver, and that whatever Jesus has is only what he received from his Father, since Jesus represented his Father, and came to do his Father's will, not his own: "I can do nothing on My own initiative. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me." (John 6:30; NASB
Context is key. Stick to the context.
Sincerely,
Nick
Nick,
It appears you are still in denial that others cannot receive
“proskuneo” in a proper, acceptable way. They can. We must understand that it is a “proskuneo” with a particular attitude of heart and mind
that should be directed only toward God. This doesn’t mean that others cannot be given it in a lower sense.
Can you tell me what you think of 1 Chronicles 29:20 exactly? It might help you to understand in what sense the great King Jesus can receive “worship.” Please be as specific as possible so I can fully understand you. Maybe I didn’t catch it but you seemed to bypass an explanation of this verse.
First of all, 1 Chron. 29:20 obviously cannot mean that David was worshiped equally with God. This would be blasphemy. Therefore, it is best to translate the word Hebrew word "shachah" as "pay homage," or "bow down" as is attested to by other translations.
"Then David said to all the assembly, "Now bless the Lord your God." And all the assembly blessed the Lord, the God of their fathers, and bowed low and did homage to the Lord and to the king," (NASB).
"Then David said to the whole assembly, "Praise the LORD your God." So they all praised the LORD, the God of their fathers; they bowed low and fell prostrate before the LORD and the king," (NIV).
"Then David said to all the assembly, "Now bless the Lord your God." So all the assembly blessed the Lord God of their fathers, and bowed their heads and prostrated themselves before the Lord and the king," (NKJV).
"Then David said to all the assembly, "Bless the Lord your God." And all the assembly blessed the Lord, the God of their fathers, and bowed their heads and paid homage to the Lord and to the king," (ESV).
Is it legitimate to translate the verse this way? Yes, it is, because it is consistent with Hebrew dictionaries which tell us that the word "shachah" can mean worship, bow down, obeisance, reverence, fall down, crouch, prostrate oneself, (Enhanced Strong's Lexicon, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1995.) See the same thing stated in The Abridged Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew-English Lexicon of the Old Testament, Richard Whitaker, Editor, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997). This would easily demonstrate that David was not being worshiped. Instead, homage was being paid to him as was also being paid to God -- though, of course, there is no confusion about who is God and who is not. But, if that weren't enough, the New World translation translates the Hebrew word "shachah" in 1 Chron. 29:20 as "prostrate."
"And David went on to say to all the congregation: "Bless, now, Jehovah YOUR God." And all the congregation proceeded to bless Jehovah the God of their forefathers and bow low and prostrate themselves to Jehovah and to the king," (NWT).
Therefore, even the New World Translation recognizes that King David, though greatly revered by the people, was not worshiped. Instead, both God and David were revered by the people by prostration, not worship.
(cont.)
(cont.)
But even if we were to say that Jesus could be honored the same way that David was honored, in a lesser sense than God, this does not mean that Jesus is not God. Jesus is both God and man. As a man, people would bow down to Him. As God, He was worshiped. In addition, it is said of Jesus that He knew all things (John 21:17), that He would be with the disciples wherever they went (Matt. 28:20), etc. He is called God by Thomas in John 20:28 and by the Father in Heb. 1:8. The divinity of Christ is well attested to in the New Testament and only the Jehovah's Witnesses with their preconceived idea that Jesus is not divine, will twist the scriptures to suit their own needs.
The Bible says, "In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God...and the word became flesh and dwelt among us," (John 1:1,14). Clearly, Jesus is the word made flesh and as it says in Col. 2:9, all the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily in Jesus. Jesus is not a created thing, but the creator of all things (Col. 1:16-17), just as God alone is the creator of all (Isaiah 44:24). He is both God and man. This is called the Hypostatic Union.
The Jehovah's Witnesses are wrong and their continued attempt to dethrone Christ will continue to fail as the truth of God's word is revealed.
Nick,
You just told me I don't have everlasting life. What nerve,what audacity. Where in the Bible am I suppose to believe in a Trinity to have everlasting life? Where???
Do you believe that Jesus died for your sins, and that He rose again physically?
If you do not know Jesus as God the Son, then you do not know the true Jesus. If you do not believe in the Trinity, then you are believing in a false god.
"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Preached among the Gentiles, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory." (1 Timothy 3:16)
Ephesians chapter 1 is one of the places that the Trinity is shown. The work of the Father in Election is shown in verses 3-6.
The work of the Son via Redemption is shown in verses 7-12.
The work of the Holy Spirit is shown in verses 13-14.
Nick, I'm not trying to insult you or be condescending toward you. But I am trying to be honest with you. If you were to die tonight, I know in my heart that God would say to you, "I never knew you. Depart from Me," and His holy angels would cast you into everlasting hellfire, where you would be tormented forever and ever, without end. I would be doing you an injustice if I did not warn you. I would not be compassionate if I did not try to show you the Truth. But Hell is a place that I would not want anyone to go to, and the only reason for me to keep on living is to tell other people how to escape eternal damnation, and how to have everlasting life in Heaven.
“For how can the human mind measure off the measureless essence of God according to its own little measure, a mind as yet unable to establish for certain the nature of the sun’s body, through men’s eyes daily gaze upon it? Indeed, how can the mind by its own leading come to search out God’s essence when it cannot even get to its own?” (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, I:XIII:21)
“The Trinity is the highest revelation God has made of himself to His people.” (p. 14, “The Forgotten Trinity,” James R. White)
“…God revealed this truth about himself more clearly, and most irrefutably, in the Incarnation itself, when Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God, took on human flesh and walked among us.” (Ibid)
“To know Christ truly is to know the Trinity, for God has not revealed himself in such a way as to allow us to have true and balanced knowledge of the Father outside of such knowledge of the Son, all of which comes to us through the Spirit. A person who want to “know Jesus” must, due to the nature of God’s revelation, know Him as He is related to the Father and the Spirit.” (Ibid, p. 15)
“…the Trinity is the greatest of God’s revealed truths.” (Ibid)
“True worship must worship God as He exists, not as we wish Him to be. The essence of idolatry is the making of images of God…We may not bow before a statue or figure, but if we make an image of God in our mind that is not in accord with God’s revelation of himself, then we are not worshiping in truth.”
(p. 18, “The Forgotten Trinity,” James R. White)
Nick,
All the Bible tells us is this: "And this is the witness given, that God gave us everlasting life, and this life is in his Son. He that has the Son has this life; he that does not have the Son of God does not have this life." (1 John 5:10, 11; NASB)
Yes, and if you do not believe that Jesus is God Almighty, then you do not 'have the Son.' You do not know the true Jesus. Therefore, you do not have everlasting life.
Nick,
1 John 4:15 tells me, "I must confess that Jesus is the Son of God.."
Yes, but Jehovah's Witnesses twist the meaning of "Son of God." Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus is a created being, not God the Son.
Matthew Henry's Commentary puts it this way: "He who thus confesses Christ, and God in him, is possessed by the Spirit of God." (p. 1960)
Jesus is God Almighty revealed to us in human flesh.
Let's leave that judgment to God and Christ.
The Bible says that Christians will judge angels. It also says to judge against false teachers.
"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves." (Matthew 7:15)
"Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world." (1 John 4:1)
"The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one." (1 Corinthians 2:15)
You are being deceived by the Watchtower. They are lying to you. One day, you will come to realize this, but I hope it will not be too late.
Nick, I know the truth. I have been born again. I have been saved from my sins. I have eternal life. I know God personally, because I have a personal relationship with Him. I can recognize a counterfeit, because I know the real thing. Therefore, I know that you are on your wall to everlasting damnation in Hell, unless you repent of your sins, believe in the real Jesus, and accept Him as your personal Savior and the Lord of your life, and surrender your life to Him, and follow Jesus.
Nick, your "good works" are but filty, disgusting rags to God. (Isaiah 64:6) They are despicable to Him. All the things you are trying to do to become acceptable to God will not work; they will fall short. Only through accepting Jesus for Who He is, God the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity, can you truly know and recognize Him, and come to believe in Him.
"For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes." (Romans 10:4)
I do not know when or if you will ever get saved, Nick. Only God knows that. But I do know that, right now, you are not saved.
Nick,
My question to you is: “If Jesus was not literally the firstborn of God then who was”? I person with such a prominent, important position certainly would have been revealed in Scripture.
To answer simply, God first created the angels. Then, according to Genesis, He created Adam. Then He created the animals (including birds, fish, etc.). Then He created Eve. Jesus was not created. Jesus, as well as the Holy Spirit, has existed from eternity past.
Nick,
Jesus is God in the flesh.
John 5:18 - "For this cause therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God."
John 8:24 - "I said therefore to you, that you shall die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you shall die in your sins."
Note: In the Greek, "He" is not there.
John 8:58 - "Jesus said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.'"
Exodus 3:14 - "And God said to Moses, 'I AM WHO I AM'; and He said, Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’"
John 10:30-33 - "I and the Father are one." The Jews took up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, "I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?" The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God."
John 20:28 - "Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!"
Col. 2:9 - "For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form."
Phil. 2:5-8 - "Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore also God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those who are in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."
Heb. 1:8 - "But of the Son He says, "Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever, and the righteous scepter is the scepter of His kingdom."
Quoted from Psalm 45:6, "Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever; a scepter of uprightness is the scepter of Thy kingdom."
Jesus said to worship God only, yet He receives worship.
Matt. 4:10 - "Then Jesus said to him, 'Begone, Satan! For it is written, "You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only."’"
Matt. 2:2 - "Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we saw His star in the east, and have come to worship Him."
Matt. 2:11 - "And they came into the house and saw the Child with Mary His mother; and they fell down and worshiped Him; and opening their treasures they presented to Him gifts of gold and frankincense and myrrh."
Matt. 14:33 - "And those who were in the boat worshiped Him, saying, "You are certainly God’s Son!"
Matt. 28:9 - "And behold, Jesus met them and greeted them. And they came up and took hold of His feet and worshiped Him."
John 9:35-38 - "Jesus heard that they had put him out; and finding him, He said, "Do you believe in the Son of Man?" He answered and said, "And who is He, Lord, that I may believe in Him?" Jesus said to him, "You have both seen Him, and He is the one who is talking with you." And he said, "Lord, I believe." And he worshiped Him."
Jesus is prayed to.
Acts 7:55-60 - "But being full of the Holy Spirit, he gazed intently into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God; and he said, "Behold, I see the heavens opened up and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God." But they cried out with a loud voice, and covered their ears, and they rushed upon him with one impulse. And when they had driven him out of the city, they began stoning him, and the witnesses laid aside their robes at the feet of a young man named Saul. And they went on stoning Stephen as he called upon the Lord and said, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!" And falling on his knees, he cried out with a loud voice, "Lord, do not hold this sin against them!" And having said this, he fell asleep."
1 Cor. 1:1-2 - "Paul, called as an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother, to the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours."
The phrase, "to call upon the name of the Lord" is a phrase used to designate prayer. For example:
1 Kings 18:24 - "Then you call on the name of your god, and I will call on the name of the Lord, and the God who answers by fire, He is God." And all the people answered and said, "That is a good idea."
Zech. 13:9 - "And I will bring the third part through the fire, refine them as silver is refined, and test them as gold is tested. They will call on My name, and I will answer them; I will say, ‘They are My people,’ and they will say, ‘The Lord is my God.’"
Rom. 10:13-14 - "for 'whoever will call upon the name of the Lord' will be saved." How then shall they call upon Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him whom they have not heard?" (Paul is speaking of calling upon Jesus. (The phrase "Call upon the name of the Lord" is a quote from Joel 2:32)).
Joel 2:32 - "And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call." (LORD here is YHWH, the name of God as revealed in Exodus 3:14. Therefore, this quote, dealing with God Himself is attributed to Jesus.)
Jesus is the First and the Last (He is the Beginning and the End---He is God Almighty)
Isaiah 44:6 - "Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: ‘I am the first and I am the last, and there is no God besides Me."
Rev. 1:17-18 - "Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last, and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades."
Nick,
If Jesus is a created being, how could he have created anything, when Genesis 1:1 says that God created the heavens and the earth, and then chapters 1 and 2 go on to tell how God Almighty created all the plants, animals and humans?
According to Genesis, God created everything.
Nick,
Clement of Alexandria wrote about John 1:1 in 190 AD:
“When [John] says: 'What was from the beginning [1 John 1:1],' he touches upon the generation without beginning of the Son, who is co-equal with the Father. 'Was,' therefore, is indicative of an eternity without a beginning, just as the Word Himself, that is the Son, being one with the Father in regard to equality of substance, is eternal and uncreated. That the word always existed is signified by the saying: 'In the beginning was the Word' [John 1:1].”
Clement’s interpretation of John 1:1 is consistent with the Trinity view and it was written at least 135 years before the Council of Nicaea. Clement also is not alone in this belief. Theophilus wrote in AD 160:
"For the divine writing itself teaches us that Adam said that he had heard the voice but what else is this voice but the word of God, who is also his Son."
We can see that historic Christianity agrees with Christianity's modern interpretation of Scripture. They testify to the deity of Christ. He was the Word of God, the Word was God, and He eternally existed together with God. Jesus is equal with God. This is verified in Scripture and by the testimonies of those who received the Scriptures directly from the apostles.
Nick,
Throughout the New Testament, Jesus is given attributes that Jehovah of the Old Testament identified for Himself. For example, God stated that He would judge the world in the Old Testament, yet the New Testament states that, “For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son” (John 5:22).
Nick,
Is the name "Jehovah" in fact the true name of God?
The term "Jehovah" is actually a false reading of the Hebrew pronunciation of God, or YAHWEH. The words in the Hebrew Old Testament contained no vowels. The words were constructed of consonant letters only. The Scribes knew what vowels to use in the pronunciation of the words by the construction of the consonants, the context, and memory. It was written this way until the fifth century, when the Masoretes added the vowels under the consonants in their version of the Old Testament known as the Masoretic Text.
The name of God in the Old Testament spelled YHWH, was considered holy, and was not to be read aloud. Instead, when the Hebrews came upon YHWH, they would say ADONAY, which means "Lord." In order to indicate this substitution, the Massoretes placed the vowels of ADONAY or the English equivalent of e, o, and a, underneath the consonants of YHWH. Later some Christian translators mistakenly combined the vowels of ADONAY with the consonants of YHWH, producing the word "Jehovah." Now the term is recognized to be a late hybrid form never used by the Jews. That's the origin of the word "Jehovah." OK, so let's look at what other scholars say about the name "Jehovah."
Webster's Collegiate Dictionary: "Jehovah" -- False reading of the Hebrew YAHWEH.("Jehovah," Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 1973 ed.)
Encyclopedia Americana: "Jehovah" -- erroneous form of the name of the God of Israel.(Encyclopedia Americana, vol. 16., 1972 ed.)
Encyclopedia Britannica: The Masoretes who from the 6th to the 10th century worked to reproduce the original text of the Hebrew Bible replaced the vowels of the name YHWH with the vowel signs of Adonai or Elohim. Thus the artificial name Jehovah came into being.("Yahweh," The New Encyclopedia Britannica, vol. 12, 1993 ed.)
The Jewish Encyclopedia: "Jehovah" -- a mispronunciation of the Hebrew YHWH the name of God. This pronunciation is grammatically impossible.("Jehovah," The Jewish Encyclopedia, vol. 7, 1904 ed.)
The New Jewish Encyclopedia: It is clear that the word Jehovah is an artificial composite.("Jehovah," The New Jewish Encyclopedia, 1962 ed.)
According to the Encyclopedia Judaica, p. 680, vol. 7, "the true pronunciation of the tetragrammaton YHWH was never lost. The name was pronounced Yahweh. It was regularly pronounced this way at least until 586 B.C., as is clear from the Lachish Letters written shortly before this date."
Therefore, for Jehovah's Witnesses to insist Jehovah is the true name of God and that one is saved only if he calls on that name, is an error. Also remember, God uses many names for Himself such as, King of Kings, the Lion of Judah, the Alpha and the Omega, and others.
Nick,
The meaning of the word "firstborn" should not be intentionally slighted to simply mean no more than "pre-eminent." The Son that became flesh was before all things but the word "firstborn" means more than "preeminient." He is preeminient because he is the firstborn out of the dead and because all things were created through the Son that became flesh, Jesus. The Son is first in time of all creation and first in position of all creation.
“FIRST-BORN” MEANS SUPREMACY OF POSITION:
PSALM 89:27: David, who was the last born son of Jesse (1 Samuel 16:11), is called “first-born.”
JEREMIAH 31:9: Ephraim, who was born after Manasseh (Genesis 41:51-52), is called “first-born.”
EXODUS 4:22: Israel is called God’s “first-born” son.
JOB 18:13: An illness is called “the first-born of death.”
It was the Hebrew custom that the position of the “first-born” son held special privileges within the family. “He received the special family blessing, which meant spiritual and social leadership and a double portion of the father’s possessions—or twice what all the other sons received (Deut. 21:17). He could lose this blessing through misdeeds (Gen. 35:22) or by selling it (Gen. 25:29-34).” [Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, 1985, (Thomas Nelson Publishers), p. 83 (Hebrew portion of this one-volume edition)]
Context determines whether the term “first-born” in a particular passage should be interpreted as referring to supremacy of position as the preeminent one or the first one physically born. Since the whole context of Colossians chapter one is speaking about the supremacy of Christ as being the Creator rather than being of the creation [In order to make this passage compatible with their doctrine of Christ having been created, the Watchtower inserts the word “other” four times into their translation of Colossians 1:16-17 found in their New World Translation, thus reading that “all [other] things” were created through Christ.” Nevertheless, at John 1:3 we read that Christ created “all things” — not all other things], it is in this sense that Christ is called the “firstborn” or preeminent one of creation. Indeed, “…He is the beginning, the first-born from the dead; so that He Himself might come to have first place in everything. For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fulness to dwell in Him.…” —Colossians 1:18-19
Nick,
Having gone through all the Biblical passages that use prototokos, I have found no example which has the meaning “supreme” or even something similar, not even a passage which might be construed with such a meaning! Rather, in all of the examples used of individuals, in a sense other than where one is “placed” as though he were the firstborn, they take as a point of departure the notion of one who is born first.
If the Apostle Paul had intended to convey the concept that Jesus was the first creature created by Jehovah, he would have used the term protoxtioti (prwtoctioti) which means “first-created” rather than using the term prototokos (prwtotokoV) which means “firstborn” or “preeminent one.” According to Hebrews 7:3, Melchizedek, who was a picture of Christ, had “neither beginning of days nor end of life…like the Son of God.” [Melchizedek king of Salem was a high priest of God to whom Abraham bestowed his tithe (Genesis 14:18-20). Melchizedek’s name means “Righteous King” Priest of Salem (Peace). Thus, he is one of the people in the Old Testament that God used to be a picture of Christ to the Israelites. Just like Jesus Christ as God has always existed, so Melchizedek was “without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life” in the sense that this information was not recorded in Scripture so that Melchizedek would better represent the eternal nature of Jesus Christ our High Priest/Mediator.] Indeed, our eternal High/Priest Mediator, Jesus Christ, has no “beginning of days,” for nothing that was created came into being “apart from Him.” (John 1:3)
Nick,
A common trait in religions that claim to be the only way to God is to compile a list of unique requirements that they believe proves that they are the one and only true religion. Mormons, for example, produced a pamphlet for prospective converts entitled, “17 Points of the Only True Church.” Since the Mormon Church is the only church that claims to meet all of these 17 requirements that they list in their pamphlet, Mormons believe one cannot obtain salvation in the highest level of glory apart from joining their Church.
Jehovah’s Witnesses are no different than Mormons in this respect. In many of the brochures designed to attract potential converts to their religion, the Watchtower sets forth a unique list of criteria to determine what they call “the Truth.” To Jehovah’s Witnesses, this criteria proves that the Watchtower organization is the only true Christian religion on earth today.
The following is a list of criteria the Watchtower gives to determine the “one true religion.” This particular list is found on pages 26-27 of the 1996 Watchtower publication, What Does God Require of Us?:
1. Avoid War and Politics
2. Avoid Pagan Holidays
3. Reject the Trinity Doctrine
4. Reject the Immortality of the Soul and Hell
5. Must Preach the Kingdom
6. Must Proclaim the Name “Jehovah” for God
The Watchtower claims that this criteria proves that its religion is the only true religion, but is this criteria unique to the Watchtower organization? No, it is not, for the following religions also embrace these doctrines:
* Assemblies of Yahweh
* Assemblies of the Called out Ones of Ya
* House of Yahweh
* Assembly of YHWH Yeshua
* Christadelphians
Since the Watchtower claims that there is only one true Christian religion, how can its criteria to determine “the Truth” prove that it is the only true religion, when other religions also fulfill its criteria? It is evident by the fact that the Watchtower religion is not unique in its beliefs and practices on what it calls “the Truth,” the criteria it gives cannot be used to determine that it is the “only true religion.”
(cont.)
While it is important to believe the teachings of the Bible in order to come into “the Truth,” the Bible does not point to a certain religion or religious organization as being “the Truth.” On the contrary, it points to a Person, rather than a religion as being “the Truth.” At John 14:6, Jesus proclaimed, “I am …the truth,” and in His prayer to the Father, He said, “Sanctify them by means of the truth; your word is truth.” (John 17:17, New World Translation - NWT) Who is the living “Word” who is “Truth”? John 1:14 tells us, “…the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father.” (John 1:14, NWT) Not only do we see Jesus being identified in Scripture as “the Truth,” but He proclaims at John 5:39-40 that all of Scripture was written to “bear witness” about Him!
The apostle Peter did not say “to what” shall we go away to. No! He said, “Lord, whom shall we go away to? You [Jesus] have sayings of everlasting life.” (John 6:68, NWT) He recognized that with the coming of Christ, God’s arrangement changed from operating through an organization (Jewish system), to operating directly through His Son Jesus Christ (Hebrews 1:1-2) and the guidance of His Holy Spirit (John 16:13). No longer do we need a priestly organization to bring us to Jehovah God. We now have direct access through Jesus Christ as our only “High Priest” and “Mediator” between us and God (Hebrew 7:25-26; 2 Timothy 2:5).
(cont.)
Instead of leading people to “the Truth,” the Watchtower sets itself up in the place of Christ by proclaiming, “Jesus Christ, is not the Mediator between Jehovah God and all mankind. He is the Mediator between his heavenly Father, Jehovah God, and the nation of spiritual Israel, which is limited to only 144,000 members.” (Worldwide Security Under the “Prince of Peace,” 1986, p. 10) Rather than to encourage Jehovah’s Witnesses to go to Jesus alone for “the Truth” and “eternal life” (John 10:28; 14:6), the Watchtower proclaims that its organization is “the Truth” and tells Jehovah’s Witnesses that one must “come to” it “for salvation.” (The Watchtower, November 15, 1981, p. 21). The Watchtower claims “there is nowhere else to go for divine favor and life eternal,” (The Watchtower, November 15, 1992, p. 21), but nothing could be farther from the truth.
Not only does the Watchtower exclude Jehovah’s Witnesses from eternal life by preventing them from coming to Jesus as their “mediator,” but the Watchtower cuts them short of Jehovah’s approval when it tells Jehovah’s Witnesses that the “New Covenant” does not apply to them and that they are not permitted to be “adopted” into God’s spiritual family (The Watchtower, February 1, 1998, pp. 19-20). Romans 8:8-9, proclaims that unless one has God’s Spirit which one receives only through “adoption” (Romans 8:14-16), one cannot “please God,” nor does he “belong to Christ.” Thus, Watchtower teaching leaves Jehovah’s Witnesses with no hope for divine favor or eternal life!
(cont.)
A common trait of false religions is to set themselves up as “mediator” between their followers and God. Whether we’re talking about Mormonism with its prophet Joseph Smith and subsequent prophets, Islam with its prophet Mohammed, New Age with its gurus and spirit-guides, or Jehovah’s Witnesses with the so-called “Faithful and Discreet Slave” organization, Satan’s tactic is always the same: Convince people that they cannot receive communication directly from God and require them to look to human leaders for spiritual guidance and support. But the Bible says, “As for you, the anointing that you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to be teaching you; but, as the anointing from him is teaching you about all things, and is true and is no lie, and just as it has taught you, remain in union with him.” (1 John 2:27, NWT). We do not need an organization to “teach” us spiritual truth for we (Christians) have Christ and the “anointing” of His Spirit to lead us. Just like first-century Christians, God’s Holy Spirit is the one who “guides” us into “all truth” (John 16:13).
(cont.)
Contrary to the claims of the Watchtower organization, when we look at Scripture, we see that no “governing body” in Jerusalem existed to lead first-century followers of Jesus. Congregations and individuals were led directly through the guidance of the Holy Spirit as the following Scriptures illustrate:
* At Acts 13:2-4, we see the Holy Spirit directing the congregation at Antioch to send Paul and Barnabas out on their first missionary journey without any approval from a “governing body” in Jerusalem.
* When they returned from their missionary journey at Acts 14:26-28, they did not report to a “governing body” in Jerusalem, but rather, to the congregation at Antioch which had sent them out.
* In the same way, at Acts 18:22, we see Paul and Silas returning from Paul’s second missionary journey—not to a “governing body” in Jerusalem—but to the congregation at Antioch. At Acts 18:23 Paul went out again on his third missionary journey from this same congregation. If a “governing body” in Jerusalem existed, where was its leadership in all of this?
* Who commissioned Philip at Acts 8:5 to preach to the city of Samaria? It wasn’t until verse 14, that the “apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God.” At Acts 8:26, 29, and 40, we read that the Holy Spirit is the One who directed Philip to the territories he preached in.
* Who prevented Paul and Silas from preaching in Asia at Acts 16:6-7? Was it a “governing body” in Jerusalem or was it the “Spirit of Jesus”?
As can be seen by the above passages, it was Christ’s Spirit (the Holy Spirit) who directed the preaching work of first-century Christians, but what about the passages that the Watchtower appeals to for support of their view of a “governing body” in Jerusalem? At Acts 15, Paul and Barnabas went up to the apostles and elders in Jerusalem to settle a dispute involving the circumcision of Christian non-Jews, and at Acts 16:4, Paul and Silas delivered the “decrees” that the apostles and elders in Jerusalem had determined. Does this prove that a “governing body” in Jerusalem existed? No, it does not.
If we look carefully at Acts 15:1-2, we see that the dispute had arisen when men from the area of Jerusalem (i.e., Judea) had come down to the congregation at Antioch and proclaimed that these believers needed to be circumcised according to Jewish custom. Is it any wonder they went to Jerusalem to settle the dispute that had been caused by men from that area? At Acts 16, these “decrees” that Paul and Silas were delivering had to do with the decision that had just been reached concerning circumcision. There is no indication that these “decrees” involved any other issue. Thus, we see that there is no basis for the claim that an “organization” is needed to lead God’s people today.
(cont.)
At Matthew 24:45-51, Jesus describes two types of slaves (or servants) who were put in charge of their master’s belongings while their master was away. Upon his master’s return, one slave was found “faithful” and rewarded by being appointed over “all” of his master’s possessions. The other slave proved unfaithful in his tasks and when his master arrived, he was thrown out with the hypocrites. The point of Jesus’ parable is that we all are to strive to be a “faithful” to our Lord so that when our King Jesus comes for His people, He will find us “faithful” and reward us with more authority and responsibility. Nothing in this passage indicates that the faithful “slave” is speaking prophetically of an organization that would be “appointed” over Jehovah’s belongings. On the contrary, just as any individual can become part of the evil “slave” group by being unfaithful to God, so anyone can become part of the faithful “slave” group by being faithful in the tasks given by the Holy Spirit.
Indeed, we place our souls in great peril if we entrust our eternal destiny to the hands of human leaders for spiritual security. The Bible says, “Cursed is the man who trusts in mankind and makes flesh his strength.” (Jeremiah 17:5). The only One we are to look to for eternal life and spiritual Truth is Jesus Christ. He declares, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me.” (John 14:6)
Hi Jeff,
I made this comment:
“With those keys, the glorified Jesus will unlock the gates of Hades and thus release all those being held in mankind’s common grave. (John 5:28, 29) Yes, hades or (hell) will be emptied out and actually itself be destroyed. "Hell" does not last forever whatever we believe it to be. I know this is another discussion.”
You then said:
”Yes, because the word sometimes translated "Hell" in the Old Testament is often not the same word translated "Hell" in the New Testament. There is Hades, Sheol and Gehenna, so most of the words in the Bible translated as "Hell" do not mean 'the grave.' The Bible talks about the Lake of Fire, for example, and it talks about everlasting darkness (presumably from the smoke or from sulphur) and eternal suffering, where 'their worm never dies' and the fire never goes out. They will gnash (grind) their teeth together because of the intense agony, and they will never know relief. The everlasting Hell might be compared to an incinerator or a garbage dump where the garbage is always being burned---but, since the person's soul is everlasting, it cannot die, and therefore the souls of the lost will suffer forever (but I know that Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe this, so this, too, would be an entirely new discussion). Satan, the fallen angels, and all who are enemies of Christ (i.e., all who have not been reborn/regenerated, and therefore do not have their sins forgiven) will be tormented forever, without end. Jesus Himself verified this. If the lost and the fallen angels were simply annihilated, then God would not be a just God, because He would be letting them off easy, and they would never have to fully pay for their sins, because only a holy, sinless one can truly pay for sins, and therefore, the sins of anyone who was simply 'annihilated' would be left unpaid...which, as I said, would mean that God would be a pretty lousy Judge. But, like you said, the subject of "Hell" is an entirely different discussion, as is the subject of the human soul.”
Can you tell me clearly what equals what? This is what Jehovah’s Witnesses believe.
Hebrew Sheol=Greek Hades (hell-latin). Gehenna = “Lake of fire” This will be helpful in our future upcoming discussion.
You told me, “Most of the words in the Bible translated as “Hell” do not mean ‘the grave.’ Actually, all the words in the Bible translated “hades”or “hell” mean the grave. Only ONE time does “hades or hell” in the Greek appear to have activity but many Bible students understand it being used figuratively in a parable or illustration. All other times where the Greek word is used it denotes the common grave of mankind.
Sheol is merely a synonym of the grave. So since Hell is equivalent to Sheol or Hades. Hell is simply the grave. At death, BOTH wicked and righteous ones go there.
It is good that we accurately understand these terms because as the Encyclopedia Americana says under “Hell”: “Much confusion and misunderstanding has been caused through the early translators of the Bible persistently rendering the Hebrew Sheol and the Greek Hades and Gehenna by the word hell.” Let’s clear up the confusion of the definition of these words FIRST.
Yes, the Bible does speak about the Lake of Fire which is symbolic of irreversible destruction. The highly symbolic book of Revelation actually tells us it means or symbolizes something, the second DEATH. The outcome of the unrepentant is clearly described by Jesus in John 3:16. See also 2 Peter 3:9.
You went on to mention:“…eternal suffering, where 'their worm never dies' and the fire never goes out. They will gnash (grind) their teeth together because of the intense agony, and they will never know relief.”
-continued
Non-Witness,Steve Scianni easily explains what gnashing or grinding of teeth mean? He wrote in his “Everlasting Torment: An Examination:”
"The phrase "grinding of teeth" appears many times in the OT (see Job 16:9; Ps 35:16; 37:12; Lam 2:16), and it always pictures someone so angry at another that he grinds his teeth in rage, like a mad animal straining at the leash. We see the same usage in the NT, where Stephen's enemies "gnashed their teeth at him" (Acts 7:54). Traditionalist interpretation has ignored the Biblical usage of this phrase and has homiletized instead on souls grinding their teeth eternally in excruciating
pain. In the Bible, however, the teeth grind in rage, not particularly in pain-
though there may well be time for that along the way. Psalm 112:10 is instructive concerning the wicked's end in this regard. The verses just before it describe the final glory of God's people. Verse 10 then says: "The wicked man will see and be vexed, he will gnash his teeth and waste away; the longings of the wicked will come to nothing." Gnash his teeth as he may, the wicked man's rage does him no good in the end. Even as he grinds his teeth, he comes to nothing (the KJV has "melt away"). Traditionalists make "gnashing of teeth" into conscious unending torment. The Bible pictures it as horrible rage, rage that is frustrated by the wicked's own inexorable destruction."
Something else you said: “The everlasting Hell might be compared to an incinerator or a garbage dump where the garbage is always being burned..”
More correctly, GEHENNA is compared to a “garbage dump” not hell or hades. Those who are in the Bible “hell, the grave” can and do come out.
Those in Gehenna, don’t. Their life is snuffed out. Gehenna was a garbage dump “where the dead bodies of criminals, and the carcasses of animals, and every other kind of filth was cast.” (Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible)
The fires were kept burning by adding sulfur to burn up the refuse. Jesus used that valley as a proper symbol of everlasting destruction. That is what his first-century listeners understood it to mean.
Gehenna was a very fitting symbol of death without hope of a resurrection. Jesus drove this point home when he warned that God “CAN DESTROY BOTH SOUL AND BODY IN GEHENNA.” (Matthew 10:28, New American Bible)
Destruction, not literal torture, is the outcome of anyone or anything tossed in Gehenna. There would be no chance of resurrection, they would never see life again. Those for example who willing sinned against God’s holy spirit, would not be forgiven, would experience Gehenna not hades or hell.
Just as there are modern expressions that would be meaningless to persons living in ancient times because they would not know the background of our age, so there are words from Bible times that are meaningless to us unless we learn the facts behind them. One day, try taking something to the garbage dump, burn it, and see if it remains. When you throw something in the fire it is consumed!
You also added: “…but, since the person's soul is everlasting, it cannot die, and therefore the souls of the lost will suffer forever (but I know that Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe this, so this, too, would be an entirely new discussion).”
-continued
-continued
(what else is new? You admit you don't have time to answer or comment on my points yet you continue to bring up entirely unrelated topics, which is purely 'red herring' as anyone can see)
Anyway, like most people, you fell for the lie told by the original liar way back in the garden of Eden. Adam became a living soul. God told him he would positively die. Satan said you would NOT die. What happened? Where did Adam RETURN? I realize that 99.9% of religions teach that the soul is immortal, it lives on forever. Jehovah’s Witnesses teach otherwise. What does the Bible teach? Is the soul IMMORTAL? The Scriptural answer is no. Man is not inherently immortal. Man was not promised automatic immortality for his sin, but death. Death is the extinction of life for the whole person.
And there are scores of Scriptures to confirm that the soul is the life, the being, the totality of a person. I await a straight-forward discussion later. In the mean time here is one Scripture that could not be more explicit. See Ezekiel 18:4. Yes, the Bible itself overturns this misleading thinking.
Writing in Presbyterian Life, David G. Buttrick, Associate Professor in Church and Ministry, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, says it like it really is, he states: “I find nothing in Scripture to back up the idea that souls have ‘an immortal subsistence.’” Regarding the significance of the word “soul,” this scholar observes: “When the Bible does use that word soul, it usually means ‘life’ or ‘livingness,’ and not some separate part of us. So think it out: When the Bible tells us we are mortal, it is saying that we die—we really die.”
Continuing his line of argument, he says: “If we had immortal souls, we wouldn’t need God—our immortality would do the trick. But the Bible contradicts such vain hope: we are mortal and so we must cling to God’s love alone. Christians do not believe in continuation, but in resurrection.”
-continued
-continuing
We need the resurrection! The soul does die but the remedy for death is the resurrection. So we see what leaves man at death is not the immortal soul but the life-force sent by God. Accurately understanding the Bible teaching on “soul” helps expose the false teaching that disembodied immortal souls can be tortured forever “without end,” in a burning place or “hell” as you now know it.
Speaking of the wicked, you stated: “He (God) would be letting them off easy, and they would never have to fully pay for their sins, because only a holy, sinless one can truly pay for sins, and therefore, the sins of anyone who was simply 'annihilated' would be left unpaid...which, as I said, would mean that God would be a pretty lousy Judge.”
Death is the penalty of sin. (Romans 6:23) Is the wages of sin death or is the wages of sin everlasting torment for those who cannot die? What does Romans 6:7 clearly say? Since death acquits one from sin, it would not be within God’s justice to add eternal torment. A sinner receives what Adam did. What was the result for Adam since he brought sin into the world and we inherited sin because of him? The Bible repeatedly tell us that God will “destroy” unrepentant ones. Just one example, in Obadiah it tells us that the outcome of the wicked and ungodly.
“Just as you drank on my holy hill, so all the nations will drink continually; they will drink and drink and be as if they had never been.” (Obadiah 1:16; NIV)
I like the way the NASB puts it: "Because just as you drank on My holy mountain, All the nations will drink continually. They will drink and swallow and become as if they had never existed.” (Obadiah 1:16)
-continued
-continuing
One last thing. Later, asked me what should happen to a person who did horrible, disgusting things.
So you are telling me that God would be justified to behave in a similar manner. That person torture people so God should imitate his unspeakable behavior???
People were doing sick things as described in Jeremiah 7:31 tells us. How did Jehovah feel about it?
“And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart.” (King James Version)
Think about this. If the idea of roasting people in fire had never come into God’s heart, does it seem reasonable that he created a fiery hell for those who do not serve him? The Bible says, “God is love.” (1 John 4:8) Would a loving God really torment people forever? Would YOU do so? Most people know God is love and that God is good but they feel that he is also a God of torture.
What if a person who commits such acts is a good person but has another side of them that is dark and sadistic. Would we be attracted to such a person? Would we want to call him our friend? Take for example, Hitler. Say there was a side of him that seemed positive and good. He calls his mother, he goes on picnics with his family on the weekend, he gives to charity but then there is a side of him that tortures people in despicable ways. Would you be drawn to such a person or would such acts repel you away from him?
The reason you cringe at the thought of ever knowing anyone you love being roasted alive is quite normal. It is just hard to imagine God doing this to anyone. It goes against all we know about our Heavenly Father. He does not stay resentful forever. This is how we know:
Micah 7:18 tells us, “God will certainly not hold onto his anger forever, for he is delighting in loving-kindness.”
Psalms 103:9, “God will not for all time keep finding fault, neither will he to time indefinite keep resentful.”
Isaiah 57:16, “For it will not be to time indefinite that I shall contend, nor perpetually that I shall be indignant..”
The doctrine of eternal torment is not compatible with God’s personality. A Judge can punish someone for crimes, even sentencing someone to capital punishment. But never everlasting punishing or torture. We would question his actions and those who carried out such a despicable act as being extreme wouldn’t you say? I really think you need to take a walk around this doctrine with greater scrutiny. I have dedicated much time hearing both sides of the issue and welcome any of your thoughts.
Respectfully,
Nick
Hi Jeff,
I see I missed a point you attempted to make. You said, “..where 'their worm never dies' and the fire never goes out.”
This is speaking of what takes place in GEHENNA. It actually has been mistranslated “hell.” The Greek word “hades” does not appear there but instead, “Gehenna.”
Steve Scianni also wrote in his “Everlasting Torment: An Examination” something that might prove helpful in understand this passage. Please read below:
Mark 9:43-48 “…it is better for you to enter life crippled, than…to go into hell, into the unquenchable fire…where ‘their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.’”
(1) The Greek word here translated ‘hell’ is Gehenna. This is a reference to the Valley of the Sons of Hinnom which lay to the south of Jerusalem where it was commonly used as a garbage receptacle. Worms consumed decaying material, and fires burned to dispose of trash, carcasses, and all types of waste.
(2) The language of ‘worm’ and ‘fire’ comes directly from Isaiah 66:24, “Then they will go forth and look on the corpses of the men who have transgressed against Me. For their worm will not die and their fire will not be quenched; and they will be an abhorrence to all mankind.” The image is one of dead bodies rotting, being consumed by worms and fire. Note those agents are not tormenting living people, they are destroying corpses.
(3) Jesus, once again, offers life as the reward, compelling us to interpret ‘going into Gehenna’ as a death sentence. It is not between alternatives of bliss or torment; it is, as biblically usual, 'life' and 'death.' It is better to lose an eye, or a hand, and still be living (9:43), then to go into ‘Gehenna’ where the entire body will be lost.
We further note that nothing in the passage would lead us to think Jesus is attempting to communicate images of torment. Gehenna was not a prison of torture it was a trash dump of putrefaction. A reference to Gehenna, then, would evoke images, not of pain, but of destruction and death.
In particular, fire in both testaments, I repeat, is a consistent and clear tool for consumption and especially so in this context of refuse and debris. Moreover, worms do not torture or inflict pain – that is senseless. To interpret it that way leads to the absurdities of there being immortal worms in hell that torture the living; in addition to making the Bible choose a worm as a means to communicate pain and agony. Such an idea is simply foolish; at variance with Biblical thought, the specific context, the very definition of the Greek word itself (skolex), and common sense.
The burden of proof, therefore, falls on the Orthodox again to show that ‘worm’ and ‘fire’ in this context are meant to connote ‘torment’ and not ‘consumption,’ and once again the history of Gehenna, the reference in Isaiah to ‘corpses,’ and the contrasting of life with death make this an impossibility.
-continued
-continuing
(4) Doesn’t ‘unquenchable fire’ mean an eternally burning fire? No, this has to be read back into the language once everlasting torment has been assumed. The phrase means to communicate the strength of a blaze, not its duration. In other words, ‘unquenchable’ has nothing to do with how long the fire burns, but is used to qualify its sheer intensity. It is the hottest conceivable fire that will not and cannot be quenched while it does its job of burning to ashes.
This can be seen vividly in Matthew 3:12, “…He will gather His wheat into the barn, but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.” Can it be any plainer, then, what
‘unquenchable fire’ does and means to communicate? It would be nonsense to speak of this fire as being everlasting and tormenting. Fire, consumes, burns up, and reduces to ashes – it is a simple and clear concept. It does not ‘torment’ the chaff; it ‘burns up’ the chaff. And if it weren’t clear enough, Jesus in Matthew 13:40, speaking of final judgment in a parable says, “…just as the tares are gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be at the end of the age.” Jesus compares the sinner’s fate with weeds being burned in a fire. Are we to conclude that whatever happens to weeds when they are gathered and burned with fire is not what is going to happen to sinners? The picture is unpleasant, but it is unmistakable – weeds are reduced to nothing by a fire, not preserved and tormented, and so shall it be at the end of the age for the wicked.
-continued
-continuing
(5) Does ‘their worm will not die’ and ‘the fire will not be quenched’ mean these will be eternal? Quite simply, to say ‘their worm will not die’ or ‘the fire will not be quenched’ does not necessitate a fire will always be burning and worms will always be living. Once again, this is language for the effectiveness, not the time extension of the worm and fire. It emphasizes the finality of the sentence, that there is no second chance, that the worms are not going to die and the fire is not going to be extinguished before it does its job reducing the carcasses to nothing. This is verbiage to guarantee death and total consumption – succumbing to these agents is inevitable precisely because they are not going to expire or be quenched.
That is to say, there is not one ray of hope the worms will crawl away or the fire will blow out and preserve something of the body. Instead, the worms are going to feed and the fire is going to consume until there is nothing left of the corpse, and there is nothing that will impede these forces. Anything subjected to such effective destroyers cannot escape complete destruction. Thus, the wicked will not enjoy an honorable burial; they will lose their entire body in a grisly cremation, tossed as garbage into Gehenna. And that is Jesus’ point – that it is better to lose an eye or a hand and live, then to die and have your entire body devoured by worms and fire. Moreover, when used elsewhere in scripture, this exact language bears the sense of destruction: “Say to the southern forest: ‘…I am about to set fire to you, and it will consume all your trees…the blazing flame will not be quenched, and every face from south to north will be scorched by it.’” (Ezekiel 20:47-48). Also, “‘…I will kindle an unquenchable fire in the gates of Jerusalem that will consume her fortresses’” (Jeremiah 17:27; see also Jeremiah 7:20, Isaiah 1:31 and Luke 3:17). Notice that the blazing flame and unquenchable fire are for consuming and scorching, and that it would be meaningless to assert that the southern forest or the fortresses will be eternally ablaze after being burnt up. The consistent usage and meaning of these phrases describe the strength and quality of the fire for temporal judgments. Never once do they refer to an endless duration of the flame, and never do they ascribe a tormenting purpose for this fire. Instead, its function is to consume and destroy.
(6) Lastly, an inconsistency must be noted in the use of language by the Traditionalist. When they say the “worm will not die,” clearly they mean to indicate the worm will not “cease to be” taking the word die at its natural and primary meaning. However when it is said that the sinner will “die,” they do not mean “cease to be.” Instead by the same word they want to communicate two entirely different meanings, in this case, the sinner will suffer an endless existence in torment taking on an unwarranted, figurative sense of the word. Such a sense is without justification on three grounds, (a) there is no reason to attach a figurative sense to the word die and ignore its primary meaning in clear prose, (b) a metaphorical sense must have some association to the primary sense – in this case, there is not the slightest relationship between the primary sense of die and its figurative sense of ‘endless life in torment,’ and (c) there is no lexical or linguistic evidence to suggest that die can even support a metaphorical meaning of ‘endless torment.’ Such a loose and arbitrary imposition on the word is a gross error without equivalent.
Hi Jeff,
I see you are still riding the train of this faulty reasoning. You just said:
"Jesus said to worship God only, yet He receives worship."
You then gave examples such as this: “John 9:35-38 - "Jesus heard that they had put him out; and finding him, He said, "Do you believe in the Son of Man?" He answered and said, "And who is He, Lord, that I may believe in Him?" Jesus said to him, "You have both seen Him, and He is the one who is talking with you." And he said, "Lord, I believe." And he worshiped Him."
In this account of the man blind from birth whom Jesus healed, we see that man giving “proskuneo” to Jesus at John 9:38. The ASV, in a footnote for John 9:38, says,
"The Greek word (proskuneo) denotes an act of reverence, whether paid to a creature, as here (Jesus), or to the Creator.”
The Trinitarian A Dictionary of the Bible, James Hastings, Vol. 4, p. 943, says the following about worship in the New Testament:
"Christian worship in NT times is usually offered to God as Father through Jesus Christ as His Son (see Ro. 1:8, Eph. 1:3; 3:14). The Aramaic 'Abba' ['Father'] appears to have been adopted as the peculiar title for God in the Churches (see Ro. 8:15)."
This trinitarian work, not unexpectedly, goes on to suggest that worship may have also been offered to Christ, but:
"some indefiniteness attaches to this subject, partly owing to the two senses in which the Gr[eek] word [proskuneo] is used, and partly owing to the ambiguous usage of the title ['Lord']."
It further admits that although some trinitarians insist such scriptures as Mt 2:11; 8:2; 9:18; 14:33; 15:25; 17:14,15; 20:20 28:9,17; Lk 7:37,38; 17:15,16; 24:51,52; Jn 9:35-38; 20:17 prove that Jesus was 'worshiped,' (as you just did)
"it cannot be proved that in any of these cases ... more than an act of homage and humble obeisance is intended."
So this respected trinitarian reference work admits that the Father is definitely (and most often) given the exclusive worship that is due God alone, but that there are uncertainties that such is really the case with Jesus.
It is really something to see you completely ignore all the other passages that show others besides Jesus receiving "proskuneo" without being the same being as God.
Respectfully,
Nick
Hi Jeff,
Earlier I said: "1 John 4:15 tells me, "I must confess that Jesus is the Son of God.."
You then told me: "Yes, but Jehovah's Witnesses twist the meaning of "Son of God." Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus is a created being, not God the Son.
Matthew Henry's Commentary puts it this way: "He who thus confesses Christ, and God in him, is possessed by the Spirit of God." (p. 1960)"
No my friend. You are twisting 1 John 4:15. It tells us to believe that Jesus is the Son of God, it does not say to confess that Jesus is “God the Son,” as you are insisting. The Bible never uses that expression or tells us we must believe in “God the Son” to have everlasting life.
I do have faith in Christ and God as two separate individuals. Jesus tells us, “Do not let your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe ALSO in Me.” (John 14:1; NASB)
NOWHERE does the Bible teach we must believe in a 3 in 1 God or a Trinity to have salvation. NOWHERE does the Bible teach someone is on the road to hell if they don’t accept such a “mysterious” concept.
Sincerely,
Nick
Hello Jeff,
I have to thank you for responding to 1 Chronicles 29:20. How you feel about "shachah" is exactly how Jehovah's Witnesses feel. It is also the exact way we understand "proskuneo" to be used in Scripture. Incidentally, the Greek Septuagint or LXX uses "proskuneo" in 1 Chronicles 29:20. Jehovah and the King BOTH receive it but it goes without saying that Jehovah receives it much more than the King.
Take care,
Nick
Hi Jeff,
Again, you revert back to this passage to prove Jesus was "GOD" manifested in the flesh:
"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Preached among the Gentiles, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory." (1 Timothy 3:16)
Although the KJV translates 1 Timothy 3:16 with "God" as above, nearly all other translations today use a word which refers, not to God, but to Jesus: "he" (NIV; RSV; NRSV; JB; NJB; REB; NAB; AT; GNB; CBW; and Beck's translation), "he who" (ASV; NASB; NEB; MLB; BBE; Phillips; and Moffatt), "who," or "which." Even the equally old Douay version has "which was manifested in the flesh."
All the very best modern NT texts by trinitarian scholars (including Westcott and Hort, Nestle, and the text by the United Bible Societies) have the NT Greek word oV ("who") here instead of qeoV ("God"). Why do the very best trinitarian scholars support this NON-trinitarian translation of 1 Timothy 3:16?
Noted trinitarian Bible scholar Dr. Frederick C. Grant writes:
"A capital example [of NT manuscript changes] is found in 1 Timothy 3:16, where `OS' (`who') was later taken for theta sigma with a bar above, which stood for theos (`God'). Since the new reading suited …. the orthodox doctrine of the church [trinitarian, at this later date], it got into many of the later manuscripts – though the majority even of Byzantine manuscripts still preserved the true reading." (p. 656, Encyclopedia Americana, vol. 3, 1957 ed. (This same statement by Dr. Grant was still to be found in the latest Encyclopedia Americana that I examined – the 1990 ed., pp.696-698, vol. 3.)
-continued
-continuing
A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament by the United Bible Societies (1971 ed.) tells why the trinitarian UBS Committee chose oV as the original reading in their NT text for this verse:
"it is supported by the earliest and best uncials." And, "Thus, no uncial (in the first hand [by the ORIGINAL writer]) earlier than the eighth or ninth century supports qeoV ["God"]; all ancient versions presuppose oV ["who" - masc.] or o ["which" - neut.]; and no patristic writer prior to the last third of the fourth century [370 A.D.] testifies to the reading qeoV. The reading qeoV arose either (a) accidentally, through the misreading of OC as QC, or (b) deliberately...." (p.641)
Trinitarian scholar Murray J. Harris also concludes:
"The strength of the external evidence favoring OC [`who'], along with considerations of transcriptional and intrinsic probability, have prompted textual critics virtually unanimously to regard OC as the original text, a judgment reflected in NA(26) [Nestle-Aland text] and UBS (1,2,3) [United Bible Societies text] (with a `B' rating) [also the Westcott & Hort text]. Accordingly, 1 Tim 3:16 is not an instance of the Christological [`Jesus is God'] use of qeoV." - Jesus as God, (p. 268, Baker Book House, 1992)
And very trinitarian (Southern Baptist) NT Greek scholar A. T. Robertson wrote about this scripture:
"He who (hos [or OC in the original text]). The correct text, not theos (God) the reading of the Textus Receptus ... nor ho (neuter relative [pronoun]), agreeing with [the neuter] musterion [`mystery'] the reading of Western documents." (p. 577, Vol. 4, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Broadman Press)
And even hyper-trinitarian NT Greek scholar, Daniel B. Wallace uses the relative pronoun oV (`who') in this scripture and tells us:
"The textual variant qeoV in the place of oV has been adamantly defended by some scholars, particularly those of the `majority text' school. Not only is such a reading poorly attested, but the syntactical argument that `mystery' (musthrion) being a neuter noun, cannot be followed by the masculine pronoun (oV) is entirely without weight. As attractive theologically [for trinitarians, of course] as the reading qeoV may be, it is spurious. To reject it is not to deny the deity of Christ, of course; it is just to deny any explicit reference in this text." [italicized emphasis is by Wallace]. (pp. 341-342, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Zondervan, 1996)
What do the earliest and best manuscripts show? If you continue to quote 1 Timothy 3:16 to support that “GOD” was manifested in the flesh it only weakens your case and you continue to deceive yourself and those who listen to you.
Sincerely,
Nick
Hello Jeff,
I almost fell off my chair when I read this one:
"Is the name "Jehovah" in fact the true name of God?
The term "Jehovah" is actually a false reading of the Hebrew pronunciation of God, or YAHWEH."
What then about Jesus? Does not Jesus mean "Jehovah is salvation"?
You are so inconsistent Jeff.
Sincerely,
Nick
Nick,
If Jesus was a created being, and he lived a morally perfect life, never committing a single sin in thought, word or deed, I suppose he could possibly, theoretically, die in the place of one person, in exchange for them, to pay for their sins. But he could never pay for the sins of mankind. It would take an infinite, and infinitely holy God to pay the price for mankind's sins.
And you, no matter how many so-called "good deeds" you do in your lifetime, can never erase a single sin you have committed, on your own. For example, if a man stood before an earthly judge, and he had committed murder, no matter how many times the man had helped old ladies across the street, and no matter how many times that guy had given money to charity, and no matter how many times that man had given money to homeless people, the judge would not simply excuse him just because he had done some "good deeds." He would still go to prison.
And, if Jesus were merely a created creature, who happened to be executed, no matter how "good" a life he lived, there would be no hope for mankind, and you would never be accepted by God.
No matter how many "good deeds" you do, Nick, you will never be good enough to be accepted by God. That is why God Himself came down as a human being to die for our sins. No creature could have accomplished that. And, being that God Himself did it, there are no "good works" that we have to add to His completed work, in order to be accepted and forgiven by Yahweh God. Since nothing we can do can add to that finished work (and since any "good deeds" we do are nothing more than filthy rags to God, i.e., Isaiah 64:6), then the only way that everlasting life can become ours is by faith in God the Son, Who is God Almighty.
Nick,
As you may have noticed, I have been really busy, and have not had much time. So, I am publishing your comments as I have time to get to them. In other words, you are no longer the only one playing 'catch-up.'
You wrote:
Looking to some other translations we see that the use of "robbery" is stretching the Greek grammar a little too far.
The Zondervan Parallel New Testament in Greek and English (The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament) disagrees with you.
The literal translation that it gives from the Greek for Philippians 2:6 (the verse to which you are referring) is:
"who in [the] form of God subsisting not robbery deemed [it] the to be equal things with God"
Nick,
The truth is Jesus did not think he was equal to God, either in heaven or on earth. This thought never crossed his mind.
This is a blatant falsehood.
Here is an overall summarized (though non-comprehensive) review:
Jesus clearly claimed to be the Messiah and Son of God:
* Jesus told the Samaritan woman that he is the Messiah (Jn 4:25-26)
* Jesus affirmed Peter's statement that he is the Messiah and Son of God (Mt 16:15-17, see also Mk 8:29-30, Lk 9:20-21)
* Jesus told the high priest that he is the Messiah and Son of God (Mk 14:61-62, Mt 26:63-64, Lk 22:70)
The Jews understood that this meant Jesus was equating himself with God: "he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God" (Jn 5:17-18).
Other places where Jesus equated himself with God:
* Jesus told the Jews, "I and the Father are one." (Jn 10:24-38)
* Jesus told the disciples, "You call me 'Teacher' and 'Lord,' and rightly so, for that is what I am." (Jn 13:13)
* Jesus forgave sins, which only God had the authority to do (Mk 2:5-11, Lk 5:20-24)
* Jesus said that he had seen Abraham and that he is eternal: "'I tell you the truth,' Jesus answered, 'before Abraham was born, I am!'" (Jn 8:57-58)
* Jesus said that he had seen God, which no one else could do (Jn 6:46)
Some people have used Matthew 22:41-46 (also Mk 12:35-37, Lk 20:41-44) to say that Jesus denied he was the Messiah:
While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, "What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?"
"The son of David," they replied.
He said to them, "How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him 'Lord'? For he says, "'The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet."' If then David calls him 'Lord,' how can he be his son?" No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions.
Actually, this passage demonstrates that the Messiah has to be divine. The way to resolve the apparent contradiction between Psalm 110 and Isaiah 11 is for the Messiah to be divinity in human form: biologically a descendant of David, but divine and thus David's Lord.
Nick,
So one of the best renderings of this text I have found are in the RSV: "who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God, a thing to be grasped."
I would hardly call that one of the best renderings. However, even working with that translation, if "grasped" is understood as "held onto," then I would call it an acceptable way to explain it, since Christ, being God (the Son) from infinity past/eternity past, did not consider His deity/Godhood as something that He had to continuously hold onto, but instead, for the sake of mankind, He left Heaven and came to earth to be born as a man, in fulfillment of prophecy, and because He knew that there was no way that we could make it to Heaven on our own. He stepped down from being the Supreme Being, to become lower than the angels, for our sake, because of His love for us. This was the greatest act of love in history (and, BTW, if Jesus is not God Almighty, then Jesus out-did Jehovah in showing love, and showed that He is more loving than Jehovah!).
Nick,
The Son of God was in God's form as a heavenly spirit person, but did not try to make himself equal to God. (Hebrews 1:3)
Again, I want to do a summarized review:
The Claims of Jesus
* His claims to pre-existence
1. Jesus claimed the have been pre-existent before his birth--he was around before Abraham (Jn 8.58-59)
2. Jesus claimed to have been pre-existent in heaven with glory before His incarnation (Jn 3.13; Jn 6.33; Jn 6.38; Jn 6.62; Jn 8.23; Jn 8.42; Jn 10.30-39; Jn 16.28; Jn 17.5)
* His claims relative to worship, glorification, exaltation, object of religious faith, title of "God".
1. Jesus promised to come in 'the glory of the Father' (Mark 8.38)
2. Jesus held himself out as a legitimate object for religious faith (Mark 9.42; Jn 3.15; Jn 9.35f) even to the same extent as the Father (Jn 14.1)
3. He NEVER corrects those who accuse him of making himself equal to God (Mr 2.5ff; Jn 5.17ff; Jn 8.58-59; Jn 10:30-39) nor those who called him "GOD" (Jn 20.28).
4. He claims loyalty greater than ALL human loyalties (Mt 10.37)
5. Jesus claims that he should be honored co-extensively with the Father! (Jn 5.17f)
6. He claims the Father is seeking Jesus' glory (Jn 8.50 with 8.54b; Jn 13.31) and that the two are linked (Jn 11.4)
7. He uses the divine epithet "I AM" (Jn 8.58-59, 24, 28)
8. He accepts worship without rebuke, and even with commendation (Jn 9.35-38)
* His claims to authority
1. Jesus claimed to be able to forgive sins (Mark 2.5ff; Lk 7.48f)
2. Jesus had authority over the Sabbath (Mark 2.28; Mt 12.8)
3. Jesus claims that the elect are his, and that the angels are his (Mr 13.26f)--either in possession or authority over
4. He implied that he had the ability/authority to abolish the law (Mt 5.21)
5. He implied by his "but I say to you..." passages a divine authority (Mt 5)
6. He had the authority to give authority over evil to others (Lk 10.19)
7. He claims to have universal authority (Jn 17.2)
8. He has authority to confer a kingdom--in the SAME MANNER that the Father does (Lk 22.29f)
9. He claims to have authority to send/give the Holy Spirit of God! (Lk 24.49; Jn 4.10 with 7.37-39; Jn 15.26; Jn 16.7)
(cont.)
(cont.)
* His claims to IDENTITY/EQUALITY with the Father
1. Jesus claims that one's response to Jesus is equated to one's response to God (Jn 15.23).
2. Jesus claims that to see Him is to see the Father! (Jn 14.9)
3. He claims to be, and is repeatedly called, the potentially blasphemous title "Son of God" (Mr 14.62 et. al. )
4. He NEVER corrects those who accuse him of making himself equal to God (Mr 2.5ff; Jn 5.17ff; Jn 8.58-59; Jn 10:30-39) nor those who called him "GOD" (Jn 20.28).
5. He claims to be on a par with the Father and the Holy Spirit (Mt 28.19)
6. He claims that his coming was the same as God's coming (Lk 19.43ff)
7. He claims to operate co-extensively with the Spirit (Mk 21.14-15 with Mt 10 and Mr 13)
8. He claims to operate co-extensively with the Father (Jn 5.17ff; Jn 10.30-39; Jn 15.9)
* His claims to a UNIQUE relationship to the Father
1. Jesus considered His Sonship-relation with the Father to be ABSOLUTELY unique (Mr 12.1-11; Jn 20.17)
2. He claims to be the unique Heir of God (Mr 12.1-11)
3. He claims to have EXCLUSIVE knowledge of the Father (Mt 11.27; Jn 7.28-29)
4. He claims to have been the only one to have seen the Father (Jn 6.46; Jn 8.38)
5. He claims to be absolutely perfect/sinless-he ALWAYS pleases the Father (Jn 8.29; Jn 8.46)
* His exalted nature and powers
1. Jesus is often linked to the word 'Lord' (Mr 11.3; Mr 5:19-20)
2. Jesus claimed to be greater than King David (Mr 12.35-37), than the Temple (Mt 12.6), than the prophet Jonah (Mt 12.41), than King Solomon (Mt 12.42).
3. He claims that his rank in the universe is superior to the angels (Mr 13.32)
4. He implies that he is, or will be, omnipresent (Mt 18.20; Mt 28.19)
5. He claims to have access to knowledge of the future, and events occurring in heaven (Lk 22.31).
6. He claims to be able to give freedom (Jn 8.36)
7. He claims to be able to raise himself from the dead! (Jn 10.17ff)
* Claims of Jesus which make NO SENSE if He were not God
1. Jesus claims that his words will outlast time itself! (Mr 13.31)
2. He claims that the eternal destiny of people depend on their response to HIM! (Mt 7.21ff; Mt 25.17ff)
3. He claims to have been the only one to have seen the Father (Jn 6.46; Jn 8.38 with Ex 33.20)
4. He claims to be absolutely perfect/sinless-he ALWAYS pleases the Father (Jn 8.29; Jn 8.46)
5. Jesus makes statements that are completely ludicrous, if he is not God. (Jn 14.28; Jn 15.5; Jn 17.10)
(cont.)
(cont.)
How those around Christ responded to Him
1. God calls him "Son" and declares that He is "pleased" with Jesus (Mt 3.16)
2. God tells some of the disciples to pay attention to Jesus (Mt 17.5)
3. Evil spirits knew he was the Son of God (Mt 8.28-29; Mr 3.11ff) and the Holy One of God (Mr 1.23f)
4. His enemies knew he was claiming to be God (Mt 9.3; Mt 26.63ff; Jn 5.18; Jn 10.33)--and accused him of blasphemy.
5. Some of the general populace called/considered him God (Lk 7.16; Lk 8.39-40)
6. John the Baptist recognized Jesus' RADICAL superiority to himself (Mt 3.13; Jn 1.26-30 w/.34)
7. The disciples and those whose lives He touched WORSHIPPED Him (Mt 14.33; Jn 9.35ff)
8. He was repeatedly called the Son of God (Mt 14.33; Mt 16.16; Jn 1.26-30 w/.34; Jn 1.49; Jn 11.27)
9. He was called "God" directly (Jn 20.27f)
10. Later Rabbinical writings 'remember' some of these exorbitant claims of Jesus.
How the Church understood the claims of Jesus and the events of His life/death/resurrection
* His pre-existence and His role in creation.
1. He is described as pre-existent in glory with the father (Gal 4.4; I Cor 15.47; 2 Cor 8.9; Rom 8.3; I Tim 1.15; Eph 4.9; Col 1.15-17; 2 Tim 1.9; Heb 1.2; Jn 1.2-3; Jn 1.14; Jn 3.31-32; I Jn 1.2; I Jn 3.8; I Jn 4.2, 9;) and active at the time of Moses (Heb 11.26)
2. He created ALL things in the universe, including angels (Col 1.15-17; Heb 1.2; Jn 1.2-3; Jn 1.10)
* The appropriateness of worshipping Him and of the title of "GOD" applied to Him
1. Citations from the OT in the NT show that Jesus was YHWH (Rom 10.9; Mt 11:10; I Cor 10.26; Rom 10.9-13; Eph 4.8; Heb 1.8ff; Heb 1.10ff)
2. The earliest materials (e.g. hymns, blessings, prayers, formulas, doxologies) indicate that the early church recognized Jesus as God, equal with the Father (Phil 2:6-11; Col 1.15-20; I Tim 3.16; Mt 28.19; I Thess 3.11; 2 Thess 2.16; I Cor 16.21)
3. Jesus is often singled out for glorification by the Church (Heb 13.20-21; 2 Peter 3.18; Rev 1.5-6)
4. Jesus is CONSISTENTLY called "Lord"--a VERY misleading title if He were not God (close to 200 times!)
5. The angels belong to Him (2 Thess 1.7) and are to worship Him (Heb 1.6)
6. He is described in words like 'glorious' and 'Lord of Glory' etc. (Js 2.1; I Cor 2.8)
7. Jesus is called Savior (Titus 1.4; 2.13; 3.6) AS IS the Father (I Tim 1.1; 2.3; 4.10).
8. He is to be co-extensive with the Father in being praised (Rom 1.25 with Rom 9.5; Phil 1.20; Rev 5.12ff ) and in worship and glory (2 Tim 4.18; 2 Pet 3.18; Heb 1.6; Rev 5.12ff ) and even in being offered a sacrifice! (Rev 14.4)
9. He explicitly is called "God" (I Tim 3.16--in the best texts--, Acts 20.28; Rom 9.5; Titus 2.13; Jn 20.28; 2 Pet 1.1; Heb 1.8ff; John 1.1; Jn 1.18; I John 5.20 w/1.2; Rev 1.1 with 22.6,16 ) or some derivative thereof (Col 2.9; Phil 2.6-11)
10. The churches' use of the substitute epithet "The Name" and the nomina sacra demonstrate a firm and early belief in the deity of Jesus.
(cont.)
(cont.)
* His authority
1. The angels belong to Him (2 Thess 1.7) and are to worship Him (Heb 1.6)
2. His is Lord of ALL (Acts 10.36).
3. The Father put ALL things under His feet (I Cor 15.27)
* His identify/equality with God the Father (and the Spirit)
1. Jesus is described at the co-source of grace and peace, with the Father, in the benedictions (2 Cor 13.14; Rom 1.7; 2 Cor 1.2; 1 Cor 1.3; Eph 1.2; Phil 1.2; Eph 6.23; Gal 1.3 ).
2. He is sometimes mentioned alone in such benedictions (Rom 16.20, I Cor 16.23; Rev 1.4) as is the Father sometimes (2 Cor 1.3-4)
3. Citations from the OT in the NT show that Jesus was YHWH (Rom 10.9; Mt 11:10; I Cor 10.26; Rom 10.9-13; Eph 4.8; Heb 1.8ff; Heb 1.10ff)
4. The "Spirit of Christ" is identified with the "Spirit of God" (Gal 4.6; Rom 8.9-11; Phil 1.19; I Pet 1.11) and the "mind of the Lord" with the "mind of Christ" (I Cor 2.16)
5. He is described co-ordinately with the Father in our obligations to him, and co-extensively with the Father in actions (I Cor 7.17)
6. Jesus is called Savior (Titus 1.4; 2.13; 3.6) AS IS the Father (I Tim 1.1; 2.3; 4.10).
7. He is to be co-extensive with the Father in being praised (Rom 1.25 with Rom 9.5; Phil 1.20; Rev 5.12ff ) and in worship and glory (2 Tim 4.18; 2 Pet 3.18; Heb 1.6; Rev 5.12ff ) and even in being offered a sacrifice! (Rev 14.4)
8. How one responds to Jesus equates to how one responds to the Father--they are identified that strongly (I Jn 2.22-23)
9. The wholesale identification of the titles, names, roles, actions, commitments of the OT YHWH and the NT Christ was made and lived by the early church.
* His UNIQUE relationship with the Father
1. He is repeatedly called God's unique Son (Gal 1.15; Gal 3.20; I Thess 1.9--et. al.--over 40 times)
2. He is the reason the universe was created (Col 1.15-17)
* His exalted nature and powers
1. He created ALL things in the universe, including angels (Col 1.15-17; Heb 1.2; Jn 1.2-3; Jn 1.10)
2. He sustains the universe (Col 1.15-17; Heb 1.3)
3. He has super-creaturely characteristics (Eph 3.16ff; Eph 1.10, 22; 4.10; 6.8; Col 2.2ff; Heb 1.10ff; Heb 10.12ff; Jn 3.34; I Jn 2.2)
* His difference from 'mere humans'.
1. Jesus is contrasted with mere men (Gal 1.1)
2. He is described as being sinless (2 Cor 5.21; I Pet 2.22; I Pet 3.18)
3. There are a number of passages that talk about Christ's "human nature" or "physical body"--implying that there was something "more" about Him (Rom 1.3-4; Rom 8.3; Rom 9.5; I Tim 3.16; Col 1.22; Heb 2.14; Jn 1.14; I Jn 4.2; 2 Jn 7)
If we step back from the data at this point, and look at it in its entirety, we cannot but be overwhelmed by the massiveness of it! We might be able to try to argue away a little here, and a little there (as you keep attempting to do, by twisting Scripture and grasping at straws), but the sheer bulk of this cannot be moved. One cannot stop an avalanche 'one rock at a time'. We come face to face with the reality that the Son of God shared ALL of the attributes, glory, and status of God the Father, and that this reality was disclosed in the life and words of Jesus Christ.
There are simply no other ways to account for this. The earliest texts have a full-blown divine Christ.
Nick,
Where do we see Jesus trying to be equal to God anywhere in Scripture?
Although I've already answered that, since you are stressing it, let me point it out in a different way, because I know that the doctrine of the Trinity is the hardest thing for Jehovah's Witnesses to understand or accept.
Jesus self-understanding--His words in the Synoptics (do they reflect a consciousness of being deity?)
* Passages in Mark (since some think Mark has the 'lowest' Christology, let's start there!):
- Mark 1.38: Jesus replied, "Let us go somewhere else -- to the nearby villages -- so I can preach there also. That is why I have come."--there is a hint of pre-existence in the end of the sentence.
- Mark 2.5ff: When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven." 6 Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves, 7 "Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?" 8 Immediately Jesus knew in his spirit that this was what they were thinking in their hearts, and he said to them, "Why are you thinking these things? 9 Which is easier: to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up, take your mat and walk'? 10 But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins...."--A rather strong statement of divine authority, and the context SHOWS that it was a blasphemous assertion IF He was NOT God!. Notice that He does not answer their charges with a "Hold on now! I am not claiming to be God! I am claiming something less!"--not at all!
- Mark 2.28: So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath."--Notice: Jesus has the authority to override the laws of the Sabbath.
- Mark 8.31: He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again. --Notice: very early identification with the messianic Servant of Isaiah.
- Mark 8.38: If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father's glory with the holy angels."--Notice: Jesus identifies Himself with the exalted 2nd coming--even linked to the Father's glory (cf. Is 42.8: "My glory I will not give to another" said YHWH).
- Mark 9.41: I tell you the truth, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to Christ will certainly not lose his reward.--Notice: Jesus makes an explicit claim to Messiahship here ("Christ").
- Mark 9:42: "And if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, --Notice that He is endorsing Himself as an appropriate object of religious faith! A rather important clue as to deity--cf. Jer 17.5: This is what the LORD says: "Cursed is the one who trusts in man.
- Mark 10.45: For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." A hint of pre-existence.
- Mark 11.3: If anyone asks you, `Why are you doing this?' tell him, 'The Lord needs it and will send it back here shortly.'" Notice how closely Jesus is linked to 'the Lord'. We cannot tell in the passage if it refers to Him or to His Father. [The same is true in 5.19-20...Jesus tells the demoniac to tell his family "what the Lord has done for him", and he tells them "what the Jesus did for him"--exact same linguistic construction and words!]
(cont.)
(cont.)
- Mark 12.1-11: The parable of the Tenants. In this passage Jesus differentiates Himself from the religious leadership of Israel (i.e. "the wicked tenants"), with a claim to a UNIQUE Sonship-Heirship. So "He had one left to send, a son, whom he loved. He sent him last of all, saying, 'They will respect my son.' "But the tenants said to one another, 'This is the heir. Come, let's kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.' 8 So they took him and killed him, and threw him out of the vineyard.. He interprets this messianically in v.10-11, as does His enemies around Him (v.12). He is the UNIQUE Son and Heir of God--a rather high claim!
- Mark 12.35-37: While Jesus was teaching in the temple courts, he asked, "How is it that the teachers of the law say that the Christ is the son of David? 36 David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared: "'The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet."' 37 David himself calls him 'Lord.' How then can he be his son?"--Notice: this is the classic text on the two natures of Christ...Jesus, as messiah, is greater even than David!
- Mark 13.26-27: "At that time men will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. 27 And he will send his angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens.--Notice: Jesus identifies himself with the Divine figure in Daniel 7.13, talks of his coming with 'great glory', calls the angels 'HIS angels', calls the elect "HIS elect", and somehow is able to gather them together from all places on the globe. There are quite a few strong deity claims in this little passage!
- Mark 13.31: Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.--Notice--a rather exorbitant claim for a mere creature, eh?!
- Mark 13.32: "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.--Notice this claim--the order of words suggests that the Son is greater than the angels!
- Mark 14.27: "You will all fall away," Jesus told them, "for it is written: "'I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered.' --Notice Jesus applies the messianic passage Zech 13.7 to himself.
- Mark 14.62: Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?" 62 "I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."--Notice Christ claims to be both Son of God and the messianic Son of Man in Dan 7.13! Notice also that the High Priest in the next verse proclaims that this is blasphemy--an ascription of deity to that which is not god! Jesus' claims to be the Danielic messiah and to be the Son of God were understood by the 1st century Palestinian Jew to be claims to deity!
- Mark 15.2: "Are you the king of the Jews?" asked Pilate. "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied.--Not a claim to deity, but certainly a claim to Messiahship (which was linked to deity, as we observed in the section on OT).
Summary of Mark's accounts of Jesus words: Jesus claims to be the Messiah, the Suffering Servant of Isaiah, the Divine Eschatological Son of Man (from Daniel), the Unique Son of God, Lord of the Sabbath, Forgiver of Sins, appropriate object of religious faith, Unique Heir of God, greater than David, possessor of angels and the elect, speaker of eternally binding words, King of the Jews. He is repeatedly accused of blasphemy (i.e. making Himself GOD) by His enemies and He never corrects this viewpoint. Jesus words in Mark, as a 'low' Christology, are surprisingly HIGH!
Passages in Matthew (in addition to those in Mark):
* Mt 5.17: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.--Notice: this would be the most ridiculous of statements if made by a mere man!
* Mt 5: The "you have heard...but I say to you" passages are generally considered to be statements of divine authority [RF: 240-241].
* Mt 7:21-23: "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23 Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'--Notice that Jesus makes people's eternal destiny contingent upon HIS approval of them! What an incredible claim! (cf. also Mt 10:32-33)
* Mt 10.34-35: -- "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.--Notice: a hint of pre-existence.
* Mt 10.37: "Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me--Notice that Jesus claims allegiance and loyalty GREATER than the strongest of relationships--the family. Only a relationship with God supersedes those relationships! This is a sublime statement of deity.
* Mt 11.10: Jesus applies the Mal 3.1 passage to John the Baptist, which would put Jesus in the role of YHWH in those passages (e.g. 'the LORD will come to His temple').
(cont.)
(cont.)
* Mt 11.27: No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.--Notice: Jesus claims to be the ONLY person who knows the Father! And to be the only distributor of that knowledge! This is a claim to unique Sonship and relationship to God if there ever was one!
* Mt 12.6: I tell you that one greater than the temple is here. 7 If you had known what these words mean, `I desire mercy, not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent. 8 For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath."--Notice: We have already encountered this passage in Mark, but I wanted to point out that Jesus refers to himself as 'one greater than the temple' here.
* Mt 12.41-42: The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now one greater than Jonah is here. 42 The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon's wisdom, and now one greater than Solomon is here.--Notice Jesus claims to be greater than Jonah and Solomon.
* Mt 18.20: For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."--Notice: this is nothing short of a claim to omni-presence! That is the ONLY way this could be true, with the expanding church.
* Mt 23.34: Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town.--Notice: Jesus will send prophets/teachers.
* Mt 25.17-46 ("The Sheep and the Goats"): "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. 34 "Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'--Notice these exalted claims! The eternal destiny of those people depend upon how they responded to Jesus! The references to 'his throne', 'in glory', 'he will separate', 'King'...all high, high references--beyond that of creatures.
* Mt 28.18ff: "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."--Notice: ALL authority (in heaven!) given to Him, his name is linked equally with the Spirit and the Father(!) with the single word "name", and the promise of omni-presence!
Summary of additional data from Matthew's accounts of Jesus words: Jesus claims to be able to abolish the Old Testament scriptures, to have divine authority over the interpretation of the OT, that peoples' eternal destiny hinges on their response to Him, to be worthy of higher loyalty than family, to have exclusive knowledge of the Father, to be the exclusive distributor of that knowledge, to be greater than the Temple, greater than Jonah and Solomon, to be the sender of prophets, to have ALL authority in heaven, to be omnipresent and one with/equal to the Father and the Spirit. Again, this is VERY high stuff!--superhuman, superangelic, divine.
Passages in Luke (in addition to those in Mark & Matthew):
* Lk 7.48-49: Then Jesus said to her, "Your sins are forgiven." 49 The other guests began to say among themselves, "Who is this who even forgives sins?"--Notice: this is just another passage that points out Jesus claims to forgive sins, and the response of those around him.
* Lk 10.19: I have given you authority to trample on snakes and scorpions and to overcome all the power of the enemy; nothing will harm you.--Notice: He somehow had the authority to 'transfer' authority over evil!
* Lk 12.49: "I have come to bring fire on the earth--Probably a statement of pre-existence (vs. 'I have appeared')
* Lk 19.10: For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost."--Probably a statement of pre-existence also.
* Lk 19.43ff: The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. 44 They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God's coming to you."--Notice: They did not recognize "GOD'S" coming to them. YHWH was supposed to come to His temple (OT prophecy), which of course happens in the NEXT section of Luke. Jesus is making a clear claim to deity here.
* Lk 21.14-15: But make up your mind not to worry beforehand how you will defend yourselves. 15 For I will give you words and wisdom that none of your adversaries will be able to resist or contradict.--Notice: in this version of the end-time persecution prophecy, Jesus says that HE will give them the words to say, but in Mt 10 it has 'Spirit of your Father' and in Mr 13 it was 'the Holy Spirit'. This is a rather clear and close association (besides a statement of supernatural power to be able to do that, and omnipresence to BE there!)
* Lk 22.29f: And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me--Notice: he has the authority to 'confer a kingdom' JUST AS the Father does--equality of action/authority.
* Lk 22.31: "Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you as wheat. 32 But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers."--Notice that somehow Jesus has knowledge of what goes on in the throneroom of Heaven! (cf. Job 1). He either is so "tuned in to" the Father or is somehow 'linked to' the Father (requiring Jesus' permission also), as to have access to this information. (Cf. Heb 7.25).
* Lk 24.44: He said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms."--Notice this explicit statement that Jesus was the messiah of prophecy.
* Lk 24.49: I am going to send you what my Father has promised--Notice: Jesus has authority to SEND the Holy Spirit?! Is this not deity?!
Summary of additional data from Luke's accounts of Jesus' words: Jesus claims to have authority to grant authority over evil to humans, actually claims to be "God" visiting them, to be interchangeable (or co-extensive in operation) with the Holy Spirit/Spirit of the Father, omni-present, to have special knowledge of what goes on in the Father's throneroom in heaven, and to have the authority to SEND the Holy Spirit to the apostles. Again, rather exalted claims if He were a mere creature (even a very exalted one!)
Summary: The claims of Jesus in the Synoptics:
1. To be the Messiah, the King of the Jews, the Suffering Servant of Isaiah
2. To be the divine, eschatological Son of Man of Daniel 9 (considered blasphemous)
3. To be the UNIQUE Son of God (considered blasphemous)
4. To be Lord of the Sabbath
5. To be able to forgive sins (considered blasphemous)
6. To be an appropriate object of religious faith
7. To be the Heir to God
8. To be greater than King David, Solomon, Jonah, the Temple
9. To be 'owner' of the angels and the Elect
10. To speak eternally binding and existent sayings--own His OWN authority
11. To be "able" to abolish the OT scriptures
12. To be the authoritative interpreter of the OT
13. To be the issue upon which the eternal destinies of humans depend(!)
14. To be worth higher loyalty and commitment that the family
15. To have EXCLUSIVE knowledge of the Father, and the SOLE 'dispenser' of that knowledge
16. To send prophets
17. To be omnipresent
18. To be of equal status with the Father and the Spirit, and to share 'the Name' with them
19. To be able to grant derivative authority over evil spirits
20. To be able to grant kingdom authority IN THE SAME WAY the FATHER does(!)
21. To be "God" visiting them (as promised in the OT messianic prophecies)
22. To be co-operative/interchangeable in some operations with the Spirit
23. To have special knowledge of heavenly events
24. To have ALL authority in HEAVEN
25. To have authority over the Holy Spirit(!)
Conclusion: The claims above are simply TOO NUMEROUS, TOO 'HIGH', TOO consistently understood as being claims to deity (and hence, deserving the term 'blasphemy' by the Jewish religious establishment of the day). The data is quite clear--Jesus reflected a self-consciousness of being God. There are times, predictably, in the economy of redemption, in which His humanity and servant-nature revealed itself, but those passages CANNOT 'explain away' the import of the above mass of data. The Synoptic gospels consistently portray a Jesus who understood Himself as the divine Son of God and eschatological Son of Man.
Because my last several comments have been so long, Nick, I will try to let a few of your comments go without replying to them (though I will read them), to allow you to catch up a little more (hmmm...I may not be able to hold myself to that; instead, let me say that I will not reply to every statement you make); otherwise, we'll never catch up to each other.
But I want to show one more thing for the moment, regarding the Trinity, and I'll begin that in my next comment.
The NT Witness: The Ancient Church Formulas in the NT
As we turn to the NT data (and related historical documents), we get tons more data, but still of the same 3-fold type:
1. Creedal/liturgical formulas that 'suggest' or even make explicit plurality within God;
2. Portrayal of multiple agents as "being God" and portrayal of those same agents as "interacting with God";
3. These agents will be appropriately treated as deity (e.g. prayed to , worshipped), whereas attempts to treat OTHER agents so will result in rebuke or censure.
Methodologically, then, we will need to look first for creedal/hymnic materials in the NT. This material is generally considered to be the OLDEST data we have, preserving material that existed in fixed-form BEFORE whatever document in which they occur was written. (Refs: NTLE:192ff, MNT:74-75, GNTI: 632f, Schaff-Creeds of Christendom, vol 2.5-8)
The hymnic/creedal materials of the NT include:
1. benedictions and blessings
2. creedal statements/confessions
3. hymns
4. liturgical formulas (i.e. prayers, baptismal forms, eucharistic forms)
5. doxologies
6. other passages in which the terms are co-located
(cont.)
(cont.)
When we look at these for any patterns in them suggestive of plurality in unity, we find that the 'incipient' plurality in the OT is expanded into VERY explicit 'multiple person' statements!
1.Benedictions and blessings: Whereas in the OT the benediction form was STRICTLY that of YHWH, in the NT, the 'multiple agents' creep in.
Old Testament examples:
* May God be gracious to us and bless us and make his face shine upon us, (Ps 67.1)
* Say to them: "The LORD bless you and keep you; the LORD make his face shine upon you and be gracious to you; the LORD turn his face toward you and give you peace." (Num 6.23f)
* Eli would bless Elkanah and his wife, saying, "May the LORD give you children by this woman (I Sam 2.20)
* (But compare the benediction/prayer of Jacob in Gen 48: "Then he blessed Joseph and said, 'May the God before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked, the God who has been my shepherd all my life to this day, the Angel who has delivered me from all harm -- may he bless these boys. '"// here we have the Angel, but it is obvious from the construction that the three-fold phrases are ALL the same agent--'he'.)
(cont.)
(cont.)
New Testament cases:
* 2 Cor 13.14: May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. (2 Cor 13.14) [Notice the source of blessing has 'expanded' to a trinitarian source!]
* Rom 1.7 (and 2 Cor 1.2, 1 Cor 1.3, Eph 1.2, Phil 1.2): Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ. (Notice the double source of grace/peace)
* Rom 16.20: The grace of our Lord Jesus be with you. (notice: grace comes from Jesus alone?)
* I Cor 16.23: The grace of the Lord Jesus be with you.
* Rev 1.4: Grace and peace to you from him who is, and who was, and who is to come, and from the seven spirits before his throne, and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. (Notice: grace comes from BOTH again)
* Eph 6.23: Peace to the brothers, and love with faith from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. (Notice: dual source)
* 2 Cor 1.3-4: Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort (Note: single-source, the Father)
* Gal 1.3: Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, 4 who gave himself for our sins to rescue us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, 5 to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. (Notice: dual-source)
Summary: the benedictions move in and out of single-Father, single-Christ, dual-Father/Son, triune statements.
(cont.)
(cont.)
2. Creedal statements and confessions
* The confession of Nathanael--John 1.49: Then Nathanael declared, "Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the King of Israel." (Notice: Jesus is titled 'rabbi' and 'THE Son of God'--no plurality data, except maybe 'Son')
* The confession of Peter in Mt 16.16: Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." (Notice: Jesus is called 'messiah' and 'THE Son of the living God'--no plurality data, except maybe 'Son', although we noted in our study of the OT that some passages portrayed a divine messiah)
* The confession of Peter in John 6.68: Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God." (Notice: "Holy One of God" was simply a messianic title--no plurality data)
* The confession of Thomas--John 20.28: Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!" (Notice: Jesus is called both 'Lord' AND 'God' in one statement, without rebuke, without qualification, without reflection. VERY STRONG plurality data--at least data for the deity of Jesus.)
* Rom 10.9: That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," (Notice: only Jesus is featured here, and the confession is ambiguous--it CAN be referring to the OT Lord--generally YHWH--or it can be referring to "Lord of history and cosmos, reigning for YHWH"--the NT usage of the word often. If the first case, STRONG plurality data; if the second, not much.)
* I Cor 15.3-4: For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures... (Notice: no plurality data)
* I Cor 8.6: yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. (Notice: explicit confession including both Father and Lord, but in an economic-agency relationship. It is interesting to note that the appellative 'the Father' becomes standard usage in the NT, perhaps to distinguish from God the Son?--cf. "the only-begotten God" of John 1.18! At any rate, this verse CERTAINLY makes Jesus into much 'more than man'--preexistent, creator of the universe, agent of redemption.)
Summary: The creedal/confessional data is aimed at OTHER topics generally, but one or two DO add some support for the plurality position--esp. the Confession of Thomas-- (and NONE for the unitarian positions per se.)
(cont.)
(cont.)
3. Hymns
And, hey, I'll even use a translation/word that you said you preferred for this one! ("grasped"):
* Phil 2.6-11: Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death -- even death on a cross! 9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
This incredible hymn is one of the OLDEST witnesses to what the very early church believed. Although it is used in Philippians (which was written around 60ad), Paul probably picked it up in his early years in the churches in which he worshipped--late 30's (MNT:74). This passage is so heavily trinitarian that it is amazing. In this hymn, we have a pre-existent Jesus who is the very nature (gk: morphe, "outward manifestation that corresponds to the essential nature") of God, as contrasted with a mere appearance ( 2.7, gk: schema, "outward appearance, which may be temporary") [Refs: Kent/EBC, DNTT s.v. 'morphe', EDNT s.v. 'morphe, et. al.] He was 'equally God' (the word 'equal' is the adverbial form, yielding 'he did not consider the being equally God to be something to be held on to..."), but did not consider that status something to be 'selfishly protected'. Instead, He descended to the utmost humility. This pre-existence as equally-God is stated in the present tense (i.e. participle), indicating continuing existence in this state--it was NOT a temporary state. After the steps of descent to humiliation, God (the Father, v. 11) exalts Him, giving him the Name that is above all Names (i.e. YHWH!). This brief hymn contains the most exalted description of Christ's nature (even more so than a simple 'god' --theo-- word-choice would have done)! This is VERY VERY STRONG data for the deity of Jesus, and hence for trinitarian thought.
(cont.)
(cont.)
* Col 1.15-20: He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
This is another ancient, but exalted, high Christology. In this case, we have Jesus--preexistent and the Creator of the universe, both material and immaterial. He also somehow 'holds the universe together'. And, when this pre-existent One came to earth to build the community of the redeemed, He lost NONE of his nature--all the 'fullness of God' was present in his body (cf. 2.9: For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form). This is rather strong data for the deity of Jesus, as well.
* I Tim 3.16: Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory. (Notice: we have a pre-existent Christ, and is the object of preaching and trust in the world.)
* Eph 2.14-16: For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15 by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, 16 and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. (Notice: this hymn adds no data to the deity of Christ (except perhaps the implications of redemptive-ability), but it does differentiate God from Christ.
* Eph 5.14: This is why it is said: "Wake up, O sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you." (No data for plurality.)
Summary: The hymns afford a surprisingly strong witness to the deity of Christ and the interactions between Him and His Father. The passages from Col. and Phil. are VERY explicit as to the exalted nature, and even divine nature, of Jesus the Christ.
(cont.)
(cont.)
4. Liturgical formulas
* The baptismal "formula"--Mt 28.19: Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, (Notice: this is an explicit statement of three-in-one: it is ONE 'Name', but THREE agents! This linking of the Son with the divine names of God and Holy Spirit is quite a statement!)
* The Eucharist commemoration -- I Cor 11.23-26: For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
* Faithful saying -- 2 Tim 2.11-13: Here is a trustworthy saying: If we died with him, we will also live with him; 12 if we endure, we will also reign with him. If we disown him, he will also disown us; 13 if we are faithless, he will remain faithful, for he cannot disown himself.
* Faithful saying -- Tit 3.4-7: But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, 6 whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life. 8 This is a trustworthy saying. (Notice: this saying is VERY trinitarian--with all three agents playing separate roles in the redemptive process--with echoes of John 14-17! Notice also that 'God our Savior' and 'Jesus Christ our Savior' are in this passage together, and that the Holy Spirit is responsible for our renewal.)
Summary: The liturgical formulas, when they deal with the topic at all, present a STRONG indication of trintarian belief on the part of the earliest church--so early that there would not have been time for them to 'create the myth'.
(cont.)
5. Doxologies
* Rom 11.36: For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen. (Notice this is to the Father, but the phrase 'through him' is also applied to the Son in I Cor 8.6.)
* Gal 1.5: according to the will of our God and Father, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. (Notice: 'glory' is ascribed to the Father.)
* Phil 4.20: To our God and Father be glory for ever and ever. Amen. (Notice: this is a very full version, and to the Father.)
* 2 Tim 4.18: The Lord will rescue me from every evil attack and will bring me safely to his heavenly kingdom. To him be glory for ever and ever. Amen. (In this passage it is not clear WHO is intended by the phrase 'Lord'. If 'every evil attack' hearkens back to the phrase 'deliver us from the evil one' of Matt 6.13, then the 'Lord' could be a reference to the Father. However, this is unlikely. "Lord" is used consistently of Jesus in the epistles, and this passage is MORE CLOSELY paralleled to 2 Ths 3.3 than to the Matt 6.13 passage. In the 2 Thess passage, it is Jesus Christ who is 'Lord', and if this identification holds for the 2 Tim passage, then the doxology is applied to CHRIST.)
* 1 Pet 4.11: ... so that in all things God may be praised through Jesus Christ. To him be the glory and the power for ever and ever. Amen. (Notice: The NIV translation given here leaves it ambiguous as to the referent of "To him be the glory"--Jesus or God. The NAS translation does NOT: "so that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom belongs the glory and dominion forever and ever...". If the NAS is correct, then we have a doxology applied to Christ, with the Father right there in the passage. Notice that all glory goes to the Son, who in turn glorifies the Father.)
(cont.)
(cont.)
* Rom 16.27: -- to the only wise God be glory forever through Jesus Christ! Amen. (Notice: the glory is to God, through Jesus--an functional relationship in time.)
* Eph 3.20: Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us, 21 to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever! Amen. (Notice: a doxology to God).
* I Tim 1.17: Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen. (Notice: This doxology is to the Father (cf. 6.15-16), and is a strong monotheistic statement--'the only God'...remember, the trinitarian position is still only ONE GOD. But also note that Jesus refers to himself as King-different-than-the-Father in Matt 25.)
* Heb 13.20-21: May the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep, 21 equip you with everything good for doing his will, and may he work in us what is pleasing to him, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. (Notice: like I Pet 4.11, this passage is somewhat ambiguous as to the referent of the glory. The most natural, linguistically, is Jesus, but the most natural theologically is the Father. Not enough data.)
* 2 Peter 3.18: But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and forever! Amen. (Notice: Blum, EBC in. loc. "The closing doxology is notable for its direct ascription of 'glory' to Christ. For a Jew who has learned the great words of Isaiah 42:8--"I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not give my glory to another"--this doxology is a clear confession of Christ (cf. John 5.23: "that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father"). ")
* Jude 25: to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen. (Notice: here we have the doxa to God, but the glory is "through" Jesus.)
* Rev 1.5-6: To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, 6 and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father -- to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen. (Notice: this recipient of a doxology (1) is separate from 'his God and Father' and (2) has blood...this is none other than our Lord Jesus Christ! And this figure is said to fulfill commitments made by YHWH in Exodus 19.6 and Isaiah 61.6.]
Summary: The doxologies, which are appropriate to GOD ALONE, sometimes ascribe this glory to the Son of God!
(cont.)
6. Other passages in which the terms are co-located.
* I Cor 12.4-6: There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5 There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. 6 There are different kinds of working, but the same God works all of them in all men. (Notice: All three agents are here, in parallel, with NO qualifications.)
* Eph 4.4-6: There is one body and one Spirit -- just as you were called to one hope when you were called -- 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. (Notice: "one Spirit", "one Lord", "one God and Father")
* 2 Thess 2.13-14: But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth. 14 He called you to this through our gospel, that you might share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. (Notice: all three are here, linked to redemptive history, and with a special focus on the glory of Jesus.)
* 1 Peter 1.2: who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood (Notice: all three here, in redemptive history, with the phrase "God the Father" present.)
* Acts 2.32: God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact. 33 Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear. 34 For David did not ascend to heaven, and yet he said, "`The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand 35 until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet."' 36 "Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ." (Notice: the first sermon of the Church!--the distinction of the persons, some of their relationships, and messianic understanding of Ps 110!)
(cont.)
(cont.)
* I Cor 15.24ff: Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he "has put everything under his feet." Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all. (Notice the interplay between the Son and the Father, and that Christ is doing the reigning now! So exalted is the Son's reign that the apostle has to make sure the readers don't believe the Son is OVER the Father! And in verse 28, you have the incredible implication that the Son is NOT 'subject to Him' during this special time of ruling! Can this even be remotely ascribable to a mere creature?!)
* Gal 1.1: Paul, an apostle -- sent not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, (Notice: Paul was sent by Jesus and the Father, co-operatively...and somehow Jesus was 'NOT a mere man'!)
* Gal 4.6: Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, "Abba, Father." (Notice: all three, but that the Spirit NOW called the 'Spirit of his Son' is also known as the "Spirit of God" in a similar passage in Rom 8:14-17. This is a strong identification of the Son with the Father.)
* Eph 5.18f: Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit. 19 Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord, 20 always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. (Notice: all three present.)
* I Thess 1.1 (also 2 Thess 1.1): To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: (Notice that the church, instead of just being 'in Christ' is ALSO 'in God the Father'--a very strange, but CLOSE, link.)
(cont.)
(cont.)
* I Thess 1.3f: We continually remember before our God and Father your work produced by faith, your labor prompted by love, and your endurance inspired by hope in our Lord Jesus Christ. 4 For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you, 5 because our gospel came to you not simply with words, but also with power, with the Holy Spirit (Notice: all three again, in redemption.)
* I Thess 3.11: Now may our God and Father himself and our Lord Jesus clear the way for us to come to you. (Notice: the co-ordinate work, and BOTH as recipient of prayer! BTW, prayer is supposed to be to God alone.)
* 2 Thess 2.16ff: May our Lord Jesus Christ himself and God our Father, who loved us and by his grace gave us eternal encouragement and good hope, 17 encourage your hearts and strengthen you in every good deed and word. (Notice: Co-ordinate work, and BOTH as recipient of prayer.)
* Ephesians 2.18: For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit. (Notice: all three, economically related. Father and Son, equally mentioned --without the word "God" applied to the Father alone.)
* I John 1.3: And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. (Notice: Father and Son, equally mentioned --without the word "God" applied to the Father.)
* I John 2.22: Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist -- he denies the Father and the Son. 23 No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also. (Notice: Son and Father, without the word God, equally linked, rejected or acknowledged simultaneously.)
* I John 4.14: We know that we live in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit. 14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. (Notice: all three present, and 'Father' is used without 'God'.)
Summary: There are a huge multitude of passages in which the persons of the trinity are linked in the life of the believer and in the history of redemption. Sometimes it is very difficult to sort out what roles they are playing, and what the relationships between them are. But the spiritual experiences of the early church and her leaders NATURALLY BROUGHT TO THEIR LIPS the three Persons of the Godhead.
This survey of the ancient forms imbedded in the New Testament reveal a surprisingly robust 'theology', with an especially exalted Christology. The Spirit of God is predictably linked closely to the Father, but the exalted terms and pre-existence of the Son, along with the extent of His responsibilities, perfection, and identification with deity, is amazing, given the limited vision and faith of the disciples even up to the Resurrection (cf. Luke 24.25; Mrk 16.14). The supernatural event of Pentecost--the outpouring of the Spirit--as promised by Jesus the night before He died, so transformed the interpretive grid of the apostles that Peter was able on that very day to preach a high-Christology sermon, and draw upon OT texts for support!
This belief in Father, Son, and Spirit was somehow experienced, intuited, and drawn from OT texts and words of Jesus. It was not derived from theological ruminations. These liturgical forms above represent the pre-reflective confession of the church--their response to the disclosive acts of God in history. Thomas' response of "My Lord and my God" might have been 'softened' if he had had time to critique his words from his background theology! But as such they describe an irreducible core belief in the plurality of God--esp. the deity of Jesus Christ.
Hello Jeff,
A second text you shared to try to prove Jesus, the Son, was eternal was this statement:
“John 1:1-In the beginning was the Word [Creation is not mentioned until vs.3].”
Often Trinitarians will point to the word “beginning” or “was” claiming that the author of “the Johannine Prologue” speaks of the ETERNAL Word, but the only relevant evidence for this is ones interpretation of the words “in the beginning” and “was.”
“Beginning” (arche) means a certain point in time, and despite all the terminology, verbose speculation, and wishful thinking, it still remains a set point in time. It does not indicate eternal (for which the scripture writers had adequate terms when they wished to use them). “In the beginning” can refer to numerous things, but it never means that thing existed before.
For example: “In the beginning, John was afraid to jump out the airplane door.” This has nothing to do with eternity. It is a single point in time when John first attempted to jump from an airplane.
“In the beginning” at John 1:1 may refer to the point in time, before the angels were created. Or more likely, it refers to the point in time when the universe (or the earth) was created. In any case, the Word could have existed for some time prior to that time, but would not necessarily have existed eternally!
Yes, if John had wished to mean “eternal” he would have said “from eternity the Word was” or its equivalent.
Jesus is called the “beginning of God's creation.” (Revelation 3:14) Not the “beginner.” He is simply the first to be created by God and is himself a part of God’s creation.
Right now, let’s just look at one example in John 8:44 that might help us to see how “beginning” is used in Scripture. It tells us of Satan: "that (one) man-killer or manyslayer, was (en) from the beginning.” According to the same reasoning of some concerning the “eternal” (en) or “was” “in the beginning” of Jesus at John 1:1, Satan himself must be “eternal,” and by this deceptive reasoning must, therefore, be God Himself! Either “was” (en) in this scripture does not mean an eternal existence, or, if it does, then Jesus can certainly be just as “eternal” as Satan himself and still not be God! Of course, Satan had a beginning and will have an end!
The word (en), simply shows existence. It obviously does not indicate the length of that existence.
There are so many examples where such uses of "was" which clearly show that the word seldom, if ever, denotes eternal existence, but are clearly shown to be describing a point in time or a period of time which had a beginning. If you want me to send them to you I gladly will. The appeal to the meaning of “in the beginning” and “was” in John 1:1 as somehow showing that the Word had an eternal existence is totally specious.
Respectfully,
Nick
Hello Jeff,
You also shared this third text to demonstrate the Son must be eternal.
“Col 1:17-He is before ALL things.”
Yes, he is before ALL things but not before His God and Father. “All things” are also in subjection to the Son WITH THE EXCEPTION of His God and Father. (1 Corinthians 15:24-28) This cannot be minimized. Obviously, the Son is before all creation that was brought into existence through him.
Lastly, you shared this fourth point in an attempt to prove Jesus is eternal:
“Heb 7:3-[Melchizedek]...having neither beginning of days...like the Son of God.”
Since Melchizedek was evidently a descendant of Adam, did he, in fact, have a beginning of days though unknown? And, how do we read Hebrews 7:3 against Revelation 3:14 where the same Greek word is used? Moreover, when Hebrews 7:3 says that like Melchizedek he was “fatherless” how does this fit the traditional Trinitarian scheme in which we have three distinct persons in one God, one of whom is the FATHER?
All of these statements make clear that neither Melchizedek is actually not eternal, but only Jehovah. Christ's office as King-Priest is eternal once he is installed, only in the sense that he has no predecessor nor successor, exactly as was true of Melchizedek.
Israelite high priests eventually died. But Jesus “has become a high priest according to the manner of Melchizedek forever.” (Hebrews 6:19, 20; 7:3) So the cessation of Jesus’ office as a mediating High Priest toward mankind does not end his life. The good effects of his service as King and High Priest will remain with mankind forever, and humans will be eternally indebted to him for his having served in these capacities. Throughout eternity Jesus will take the lead in the pure worship of Jehovah. (Philippians 2:5-11)
-continued
-continuing
We know Melchizedek was a real human, as real as Abraham, with whom he had direct dealings.(Genesis 14:17-20; Hebrews 7:4-10) That being so, Melchizedek must have had parents, a father and a mother, and he might have had offspring. So, as a human he had a genealogy, or family tree. He also had an end of his physical life. At some point Melchizedek died, in line with the apostle Paul’s statement at Romans 5:12, 14. But since we do not know when Melchizedek died and so ceased to serve as priest, in that respect he served without any known end.
In Hebrews, Paul made comments about Melchizedek when discussing Jesus Christ’s role as a superior High Priest.
Referring to Melchizedek as a type, or pattern, of Jesus in this priestly role, Paul said: “Jesus… has become a high priest according to the manner of Melchizedek.” (Hebrews 6:20) In what sense?
Paul must have realized that the Bible record does not give details about Melchizedek’s family lineage—his ancestors or any possible descendants. That information is just not a matter of Biblical record. From the standpoint of what Paul knew or we know, therefore, Melchizedek could correctly be said to be “without genealogy” (ASV), or with “no family tree.” (J. B. Phillips)
The names of his father and mother are not furnished, his ancestry and posterity are not disclosed, and the Scriptures contain no information about the beginning of his days or the end of his life. So, Melchizedek could fittingly foreshadow Jesus Christ, who has an unending priesthood.
As Melchizedek had no recorded predecessor or successor in his priesthood, so too Christ was preceded by no high priest similar to himself, and the Bible shows that none will ever succeed him.
Although Jesus was born in the tribe of Judah and in the kingly line of David, his fleshly ancestry had no bearing on his priesthood, nor was it by virtue of human ancestry that the offices of both priest and king were combined in him. These things were as a result of Jehovah’s own oath to him.
The fact remains that Melchizedek’s nationality, genealogy, and offspring are left undisclosed in the Scriptures, and that with good reason, for he could thus typify Jesus Christ, who by Jehovah’s sworn oath “has become a high priest according to the manner of Melchizedek forever.” (Hebrew 6:20)
That's all I have time for today. Just curious, what church or group are you associated with? I don't have to know where, just which one if any?
Respectfully,
Nick
Hi Jeff,
Before I go I have to tell you that there are many respected Trinitarians do not think the texts you describe below are absolute "proof texts" to support a Trinity God.
You stated:
"He explicitly is called "God" (I Tim 3.16--in the best texts--, Acts 20.28; Rom 9.5; Titus 2.13; Jn 20.28; 2 Pet 1.1; Heb 1.8ff; John 1.1; Jn 1.18; I John 5.20 w/1.2; Rev 1.1 with 22.6,16 ) or some derivative thereof (Col 2.9; Phil 2.6-11)"
I already demonstrated the problems encountered with using 1 Timothy 3:16, Hebrews 1:8; 1 John 5:20, among others.
How can Acts 20:28 be understood?
Is it really God's own blood or God's own Son that gave his precious blood to redeem mankind?
Think it through.
Nick
Hello Jeff,
I just wanted to tell you I will get to your other comments and questions once we wrap up our discussion on the Trinity doctrine and whether it is really taught in Scripture.
Thanks,
Nick
Hi Jeff,
One more thing. Someone sent me this passage below to prove that "God" gave "his own blood."
Here it is:
"God has purchased our freedom with his blood and has forgiven all our sins." (Colossians 1:14; NLT)
Wanted also to bounce this text off of you? The way this is worded it would seem an explicit statement to me that God gave his own blood.
What are your thoughts?
Nick
Hi Jeff,
As I wait for you to comment on Act 20:28 let’s take a look at what you say is an explicit proof that Jesus is being referred to as God in Romans 9:5 which some translations say, “Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.” (AV) “Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.”(NIV)
Vincent Taylor notes that there are differences of opinion, but adds: “I think the balance of opinion falls on this side, and that Christ is not addressed as God.”
The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology states: “Rom. 9:5 is disputed. . . . It would be easy, and linguistically perfectly possible to refer the expression to Christ. The verse would then read, ‘Christ who is God over all, blessed for ever. Amen.’ Even so, Christ would not be equated absolutely with God, but only described as a being of divine nature, for the word theos has no article. . . . The much more probable explanation is that the statement is a doxology directed to God.”
A footnote to Romans 9:5 in the New Oxford Annotated Bible points out: “Whether Christ is called God here depends on the punctuations inserted.”
Similarly, the following observation is found in The Interpreter’s Bible: “The issue appears from a comparison of our two English texts. Is God over all, blessed forever (or the one who is over all, God blessed forever)…The question cannot be answered on the basis of the Greek since it is a matter almost entirely of punctuation, and Greek MSS in the early period were not punctuated. There is even another possibility, viz., ‘…flesh, who is over all. God be blessed forever’…”
The translators of the New American Bible viewed the last part of verse five as an independent expression of praise directed not to Christ but toward God. In context, the passage would read:
“…my conscience joins with the holy Spirit in bearing me witness that I have great sorrow and constant anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed and separated from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kin according to the flesh. They are Israelites; theirs the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; theirs the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, is the Messiah. God who is over all be blessed forever. Amen.”
Here is the footnote in the (NAB) states: “Some editors punctuate this verse differently and prefer the translation, ‘of whom is Christ according to the flesh, who is God over all.’ However, Paul’s point is that God who is over all aimed to use Israel, which had been entrusted with every privilege, in outreach to the entire world through the Messiah.”
-continued
-continuing
The Translator’s Handbook observes:
"Since the earliest New Testament manuscripts were without any systematic punctuation, it is necessary for scholars to punctuate the text according to what seems appropriate to syntax and the meaning. Basically, the question is whether the doxology has reference to God (TEV May God, who rules over all, be praised forever!), or to Christ (TEV alternative rendering ‘And may he, who is God ruling over all, be praised forever!’). Although there are strong grammatical arguments to the contrary, the UBS textual committee prefers the reading represented in the TEV (so RSV, NEB, NAB, Goodspeed, Moffatt), but some do prefer the rendering represented in the alternative rendering of the TEV (so JB and Phillips)."
The Interpreter’s Bible states: “the choice is probably to be made between the KJV and the RSV translations. The majority of modern commentators favor the latter because of the unlikelihood of Paul’s having here referred to Christ as ‘God’…”
It would be difficult for one to raise a convincing objection to what is observed here, concerning the “unlikelihood” of Paul referring to Christ as “God.” This is so because in the book of Romans, Paul always distinguishes between “Jesus Christ” and “God.”
It is not IMPOSSIBLE that Christ is called God here; it is, however, UNLIKELY in light of Paul’s regular manner of expression found throughout the whole of his writings.
When we compare other passages like Galatians 1:4, 5; Paul speaks of “God our Father, to whom be the glory forever more. Amen.” I believe that Romans 9:5 is an obvious parallel. Over 500 times in Paul’s letters Paul uses the word “God/theos.” It should be noted that there is not a single UNAMBIGUOUS instance in which it applies to Christ.
Another Trinitarian, F. F. Bruce, although preferring the translation that applies “theos,” to Christ, nevertheless pointed out:
“It is, on the other hand, impermissible to charge those who prefer to treat the words as an independent doxology with Christological unorthodoxy. The words can indeed be so treated, and the decision about their construction involves a delicate assessment of the balance of probability this way and that.”
In the start of this letter I quoted the NIV’s translation of Romans 9:5. Although the NIV (1984) translates the verse so that Christ is called God in the main text, in the footnote attention is called to an alternative rendering: Or, Christ, who is over all. God be forever praised!
-continued
-continuing
Translations that also view the last part of the verse as an independent expression of praise directed toward God the Father have rendered the verse in the following ways below.
It is worth noting that all of the translators below were Trinitarian in their background so as that it cannot be claimed that the kind of translation given was motivated out of a desire to deny the ‘deity’ of Christ. This is why I am not including the New World Translation that reads similar. See below:
“To them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed forever. Amen.” (Revised Standard Version)
“Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them, in natural descent, sprang the Messiah. May God, supreme over all, be blessed forever! Amen.” (New English Bible)
“The patriarchs are theirs, and from them by natural descent came the Messiah. May God, supreme above all, be blessed for ever! Amen.” (Revised English Bible)
“…they are descended from the patriarchs, and Christ, as a human being, belongs to their race. May God, who rules over all, be praised forever! Amen.” (Today’s English Version)
“They have those famous ancestors, who were also the ancestors of Jesus Christ. I pray that God, who rules over all, will be praised forever! Amen.” (Contemporary English Version)
“Theirs are the fathers, and in human descent it is from them that the Messiah comes. God who is over all be blessed forever! Amen.” (The New Testament, by William Barclay)
“…the patriarchs are theirs, and theirs too (so far as natural descent goes) is the Christ. (Blessed for evermore be the God who is over all! Amen.)” (The Bible, A New Translation by James Moffatt)
“…the patriarchs, and from them physically Christ came. God who is over all be blessed forever! Amen.” (The Bible, An American Translation)
“The patriarchs are theirs, and so too, as far as human descent goes, is Christ himself, Christ who is over all. May God be blessed forever. Amen.” (Phillip’s Modern English)
“Great men of God were your fathers, and Christ himself was one of you, a Jew so far as his human nature was concerned, he who now rules over all things. Praise God forever!” (The Living Bible- paraphrased)
“…theirs are the fathers and of their race is Christ in his human nature. (Blessed be God who is over all for ever, Amen.)” (The New Testament in Plain English, Charles Kingsley Williams)
When modern translations commonly render the text in this way, it does make a clearer distinction between God and Christ.
There is simply no basis in demanding that the text speak of Christ as the God who is over all.
In fact, we must conclude that the most reasonable way to understand this text is as a doxology to God. Every other text within the same epistle finds “theos,” to be a reference to the Father some eighty-seven times. The weight of this point cannot easily be set aside.
Context is king as the context clearly displays who Paul considered to be “God,” in this letter to the Romans. Even the following verse, 6, using “theos,” would be a reference to ‘the Father.”
Do you think Titus 2:13 can legitimately be understood in a different way you are thinking grammatically?
I will comment on that text tomorrow.
Respectfully,
Nick
Hello Jeff,
Today I would like to go over just one text by the Apostle and that is Titus 2:13. It certainly is a passage that actually can be understood in a completely different, yet consistent light.
When we read Titus 2:13, in the King James Version, this would appear as an explicit description of Jesus Christ being called, "the great God." But can this verse legitimately be translated in a way so that two persons are spoken of?
If we read just a few verses before in Titus 1:4, we find this, it reads, "May there be undeserved kindness and peace from God the Father AND Christ Jesus our Savior." (Caps on 'AND' is mine)
Can we find similar passages that read alike?
1 Timothy 1:2, "May there be undeserved kindness, mercy, peace from God [the] Father and Christ Jesus our Lord."
Galatians 1:3, "May YOU have undeserved kindness and peace from God our Father and [the] Lord Jesus Christ."
2 John 3, "There will be with us undeserved kindness, mercy [and] peace from God the Father and from Jesus Christ the Son of the Father, with truth and love."
And for translators who render Titus 2:13 in a way to promote that Jesus is the "great God," how do they translate 2 Thessalonians 1:12 which is written quite similar?
2 Thessalonians 1:12, "in order that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in YOU, and YOU in union with him, in accord with the undeserved kindness of our God and of the Lord Jesus Christ."
I do believe that Titus 2:13 is a passage where neither the lexical contents of the words nor the context or the syntax are decisive. The only thing left is the translator’s theology.
The Bible translator will have 2 possibilities either to choose a rendering that makes Jesus identical with God or adopt a rendering that differentiates between the two.
Titus 2:13, however, can NOT be used as “an absolute proof text,” since it could be translated in another way even by TRINITARIANS.
-continued
-continuing
I spoke with a Catholic apologist about this passage recently.
Interestingly, the Roman Catholic New American Bible and Philip’s Modern English Translation, both produced by Trinitarian scholars, render the verse so that God and Christ are the subject.
PME: “the glorious denouement of the Great God and of Christ Jesus our saviour.” (Titus 2:13)
NAB: “the glory of the great God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ.” (Titus 2:13)
What we are seeing is the translators were not driven by the “wish,” or biased, theological desire to deny the divinity of Christ, but by what is allowable grammatically and what probably made sense to them contextually. (In the immediate sense, or in the larger, overall, biblical sense.) Since both translations are grammatically justifiable, no one should dogmatically claim that the other is “mistranslating,” the verse.
Even the footnote in the Catholic Jerusalem Bible states regarding Titus 2:13, “This verse is regularly accepted by the Fathers as a statement of the divinity of Christ…but possibly translate ‘…God, and of our saviour Christ Jesus”. For Christ as ‘the brightness of the glory of the Father’. Cf. Heb 1:3.”
I’m not telling you what you must believe regarding this passage. All I am trying to convey to you is that it is critical to understand that, when Trinitarian theologians call Jesus “God,” the meaning is not as simple as it might appear on the surface.
I do believe that there is not one unambiguous example in the Pauline writings where Christ is called “God” and an abundance of examples where Christ is distinguished from “God” are all points that would weigh in favor of the translation where both God and Christ are in view.
Paul’s clear presentation of the identity of God in relation to Christ, and his consistently discernable mode of expression and use of language, are very significant factors that cannot be casually set aside.
The facts show that Titus 2:13 may legitimately be translated in a way so that two persons are spoken of, God AND Christ.
Respectfully,
Nick
Hello again Jeff,
When reading the Bible as we do we come across Scripture after Scripture where Christ and God are clearly seen as two separate beings, or individuals.
Case in point:
Ephesians 5:5 (English Standard Version)
5For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.
There is a passage found at 2 Peter 1:1, like Titus 2:13 and Romans 9:5, that many Trinitarians as you have point to as decisive proof that Jesus is being addressed explicitly as God himself.
2 Peter 1:1 (English Standard Version)
1Simeon Peter, a servant[and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:
This verse is generally translated one of two ways: “Our God and Savior Jesus Christ” (ESV, NIV, etc.) or “God and our Savior Jesus Christ.” (KJV)
Although it is possible that the word “God” is here being used in its lesser sense, of someone with divine authority, it is more likely that it is referring to the true God as distinct from Jesus Christ. This is certainly the way the context is leading, because the very next verse speaks of them separately.
2 Peter 1:2 (English Standard Version)
2 May grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord.
Here we can both clearly see a distinction between God and Christ as we do also in verse 17 of the same Chapter.
Even many Trinitarian Bible translations fairly show that 2 Peter 1:1 can be translated to show two subjects being addressed instead of one. In the footnotes we see:
Or: ‘and [our] Saviour.’
—Rotherham’s Emphasized Bible
Or, our God and the Saviour
—Revised Version
Or of our God and the Savior Jesus Christ.
—Revised Standard Version
Or of our God and the Savior Jesus Christ.
—New Revised Standard Version
Or ‘of our God and of the saviour Jesus Christ’.
—Jerusalem Bible
-continued
-continuing
The following versions translate the verse a similar way but actually in the main text:
…to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ —King James Version
...to them that have obtained a like precious faith with us in the righteousness of our God and the Saviour Jesus Christ. —American Standard Version
…to those who are chancing upon an equally precious faith with us, in the righteousness of our God, and the Saviour, Jesus Christ —Concordant Literal New Testament
To the people who have received a faith which is like our precious faith. It came through the righteousness of our God and of our Savior, Jesus Christ.
—The Simple English Bible, New Testament
To: those who, through the righteousness of our God and of our Deliverer Yeshua the Messiah —Jewish New Testament, Translation by David A. Stern
To those who by the beneficence of our God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ have obtained a faith equal in privilege to ours. —The Original New Testament, Schonfield
To the people who have received a faith which is like our precious faith. It came through the righteousness of our God and of our Savior, Jesus Christ.
—The International English Bible translation
To those to whom there has been allotted a faith of equal privilege with ours through the righteousness of our God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ —New Testament in Modern Speech, Weymouth
…to those who have obtained a precious faith with us in the righteousness of our God, and our Savior Jesus Christ —The New Simplified Bible
There is absolutely no reason to force this verse to make Jesus Christ into God. It is the opening verse of the epistle, and reading all of the epistles will show that it is customary in the New Testament to introduce both God and Christ at the opening of each one.
Furthermore, it is through the righteousness of both God and Christ that we have received our precious faith. It was through God in that it was He who devised the purpose of salvation and was righteous in His ways of making it available to us.
It was through Christ in that by his righteous life he carried out the plan so that we can have what we now have. Both God and Christ had to be righteous in order for us to enjoy our current status in the faith, and we think the evidence is conclusive that they are both present in the verse.
Even Roman Catholic scholar and Trinitarian Karl Rahner puts 2 Peter 1:1 in the same category with 2 Thessalonians 1:12, explaining that in the Greek, theos “here is clearly separated from ‘Christ.”-Theological Investigations, Vol. 1 by Karl Rahner, Third printing: 1965, pages 136, 137.
Understanding the grammatical issues that surround this passage cause me to reject that the construction of 2 Peter 1:1 demands a reference to one individual. More can be said but I think you can see why this passage is especially difficult.
With deep respect,
Nick
Nick,
I've been very busy, plus I've been sick the past couple days, so I have not gotten to your comments yet. But I will probably have some time later today.
In the meantime, you may be interested in this:
Six Screens of the Watchtower Conference Call
The live telephone conference call is attracting many participants including active Jehovah's Witnesses.
Tonight at 7PM EST (and every two weeks on Saturday night at 7pm EST), 712 432-8710 pin number 9925#. No cost other than your long distance.
http://www.sixscreensofthewatchtower.com/sixscreens-conferencecall.html
Hi Nick,
I'm still not 100% back to health, and I'm still going to be busier than I was, so it is going to take some time, I'm sure, to slowly reply to your comments. And I will probably only reply a little at a time, since I don't have the time that I did previously.
Anyway, you said:
However,”kathos” simply does not have to mean “exactly equal” as you want me to believe. There is no proof that John 5:23 has to mean that the honor given to the Son has to be exactly equal in quantity and quality as that given to the Father.
The thing is, you are saying, like you have said regarding other verses, that it doesn't have to mean a certain thing. But just because a word has more than one meaning does not mean you can simply excuse it. I suppose that is why contracts and laws are generally written by legal experts---so that a person can't claim, "Well, those words don't have to mean that," and then use that as a loophole to evade the law or not honor the contract. It seems to me that the "proof texting" that Jehovah's Witnesses do is very similar to the person who finds a loophole in a law, in order to evade or bypass or work around that law. Now, I'm not saying that you are necessarily doing that on purpose, because I believe you are only doing what you were taught to do, and I suspect that you probably are being sincere. But I assure you, Nick, that you are being deceived by the Watchtower. The Watchtower has claimed to be a "prophet" for God in the past, but they have made numerous false prophecies. They excuse it by saying that they are only human, and that humans make mistakes, but according to God's Word, the way to test to see if someone is a true or false prophet is whether or not their prophecy comes true. If it doesn't come true, then they are acting as a false prophet. I use that same test on televangelists or those in the Charismatic movement, for example, who claim that they are prophets or have the gift of prophecy. If they claim to foretell something, and that thing does not come to pass, I never say that they just "made a mistake." I know that they are *not* then a prophet as they claim, and that when they make that claim, it is a false doctrine and a false claim. Now, they may be a true Christian (as far as I know), but they are following after some doctrines that are false. I would apply this same test to the Watchtower.
Not only that, but even ignoring the fact that the Watchtower has failed the biblical test of a true prophet, and just going by their excuse that they have "made some mistakes," then, if the Watchtower has made numerous mistakes in the past, in what other areas have they made mistakes? How can you completely trust them if they have constantly made mistakes regarding the things of God?
Nick,
If Jesus and Jehovah are not one God, then why, according to Acts 2:21 in the New World Translation ("And everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved"), is Jehovah the name which brings salvation, while Acts 4:10-12 says that only the name of Jesus brings salvation (i.e., in verse 12, "for there is not another name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must get saved")?
Hello Jeff,
I understand you are busy but why can't you post my comments and get to them later? It seems you always have to have the last word.
Also, what does all the numerous non-related topics you bring up have to do with our discussion? We are talking about whether or not the Trinity doctrine is Scriptural. I am quoting other Trinitarians on all of the the Scriptures we discuss and not even using the New World Translation. You are building so many 'strawmen' it is getting ridiculous.
Any reasonable person can see what you are trying to do. It feels like you are just talking over me. What does that accomplish? Can anything productive come from that? This interaction is about the worst I have seen. You should seriously think about changing your approach. Why can't we go over one point at a time. As I have been saying we will eventually address anything you bring up.
Sincerely,
Nick
Hi Jeff,
I'll try to stay current and respond to your Trinity related questions and go back later and catch with some others.
As Christians, Jehovah’s Witnesses believe our salvation belongs to Yahweh or Jehovah. We believe Jesus, God’s Son, is the agent used to save mankind.
Revelation 7:10 definitely proves that we owe are salvation BOTH to ‘God (the Father Yahweh) and to the Lamb (Christ Jesus). (John 1:29) As I brought out the very name "Jesus" points to God as the source of salvation. It means "Jehovah Is Salvation" and thus
honors the Father as the Savior to whom even the Son looked.
We whole-heartedly agree with what is stated in Acts 4:12. In no other name “UNDERHEAVEN” can any man be saved. (Acts 4:12) There is absolutely only one Savior appointed by God to save all of mankind, God states this Himself, and Jesus Christ has been identified as this Savior.
Jesus is God's instrument of salvation. We have then, the instrumental Greek preposition, "en" used here.
So as we can see, Acts 4:12 can better be understood as it is in C.B. Williams NT as "There is no salvation BY anyone else, for no one else in all the wide world has been appointed among men as our only medium by which to be saved."
In other words, apart from him (Christ) no one on earth can be saved from sin and death. He alone is God’s means of saving mankind. Only Jesus being the “second Adam” or “last Adam” could be the equivalent of what our original father Adam lost for us in the Garden of Eden. Only he, the Messianic chosen one, could redeem mankind from it’s bondage of sin and death.
The Scriptures clearly establishes that Jesus’ role as Savior was assigned to him by his Father.
The Christian apostle John wrote: “We ourselves have beheld and are bearing witness that the Father has sent forth his Son as Savior of the world.” (1 John 4:14)
Aged Simeon, on seeing the babe Jesus at the temple, exclaimed: “Now, Sovereign Lord, you are letting your slave go free in peace according to your declaration; because my eyes have seen your means of saving. (Luke 2:29, 30)
In the capacity of the sacrificial Lamb of God, Jesus Christ provided the basis for saving or liberating them from sin, the “sting producing death,” and therefore also from death. (1 Corinthians 15:56)
Those desiring to gain divine approval must acknowledge that salvation proceeds from the Father through his Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.
“This is fine and acceptable in the sight of our Savior, God, whose will is that all sorts of men should be saved and come to an accurate knowledge of truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus, who gave himself a corresponding ransom for all.” (1 Tim. 2:3-6).
This does in no way make Jesus a rival Savior. He alone was used by God to save mankind. The Scriptures unite in telling us that Jehovah is uniquely God in the absolute sense, he is our unique Savior, the SOURCE of Salvation. He alone provided his Son. And Jesus alone responded to our rescue!
Jesus is uniquely God's Son and our Lord and Savior in a way that no others are.
Hope this helps,
Nick
Nick,
I happened to just now glance at just the first sentence of your latest comment regarding publishing all of your comments at once. So, instead of replying to your next comment in line, I will address that comment first. I understand that you may be anxious to see your comments published, but I am not doing that for several reasons. First, even though I do have a Spam folder, I currently have 11,140 unread emails, and I am trying to get through them just a few at a time (though I am certain I am not going to read all of them). Besides being sick, which got me even more backed up, I have been backed up with doing projects, desperately looking for work, emails, replying to comments from others (including having a couple of long conversations, one for almost 2 weeks, and another for a few days, with a couple of Muslims online, which has also taken up much of my time), and other things. I haven't even had time to post a new blog article for some time, which bothers me. So I have actually been (up to this point, at least) prioritizing replying to your comments even before posting a new blog article (though I hope to post one very soon). Second, if I publish them all at once, then when new ones come in (to my email), I won't be able to tell which ones I have published; and if I publish them all and then delete them from my email, then I won't know which of your questions I have answered and which ones I haven't. The only way I would be able to do so would be to search through the comments on my blog site each time and find where I left off, which would be incredibly time-consuming and confusing. So, commenting on them one at a time, and publishing them one at a time, makes it much easier for me to keep track. And finally, because it's my blog site, so I'll do things the way I want to do them.
I also wanted to make another comment on the name "Jehovah," before I forget. As I think I basically said before in one of my comments, according to the Watchtower book "Aid to Bible Understanding" (copyright 1969-1970, pp. 884-885), the name "Jehovah" is a mixture of two words: the tetragrammaton "YHWH" (Yahweh) and the vowels of "Adonai." So, "Jehovah," or "Yehovah," is a combination of the consonants and vowels by later scribes to remind readers of the tension between what was written and what was spoken: YHWH, the tetragrammaton which was written ("Yahweh") and Adonai ("the Lord") which is what was spoken (because the Jews were and are legalistically careful not to take the name of the Lord God in vain). The first recorded use of this form dates from the year 1270 (13th century) when Raymundus Martini, a Spanish monk of the Dominican Order, used it in his book, "Pugeo Fidei." Therefore, the name "Jehovah" was invented/fabricated by a Catholic monk of the Dominican order and was used for the first time in 1270 C.E.! Now, the name "Jehovah" has become common because of popular usage, but since Jehovah's witnesses are so keen on using the proper name of God, it seems very strange and ironic and even hypocritical that they would use a name for God that even the Watchtower itself admits is not correct (i.e., "The Watchtower," Feb. 1, 1980, pp. 6-7, says, "Nevertheless, many Hebrew scholars say that "Yahweh" is more correct..." and, from "New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures," copyright 1950, p. 25, "While inclining to view the pronunciation "Yah.weh" as the more correct way...") and not the most accurate of the words we know of. Following the Watchtower's reasoning, even though the name "Jehovah" is admittedly false and not the most correct pronunciation of the pronunciations that we have available to us today, Jehovah's Witnesses (who insist on using the correct name of God) should still use it, simply because it is more widely known and used. What a hypocritical compromise this is! In other words, Jehovah's Witnesses are really using a word invented by the Catholic church, which I understand the Watchtower itself has called Babyon the great, the empire of false religion! How is that not hypocritical?
So...is "Jehovah" the most accurate and correct name of God that we know of today? Even the Watchtower admits the answer is "No!" So why are they still using it? And why, even though they are compromising and using a name that a Catholic monk made up, do they still insist on using the correct name of God, when they themselves---knowingly---are not using the correct name of God?
As far as using the excuse that the name "Jesus" is not exactly as it was pronouced originally, it is a translation, from the Hebrew "Yeshu'a" (meaning "salvation," and the concatenated form of Yahoshua, which is "Lord who is Salvation") to the Greek "Iesous," transliterated to the Latin "Iesus," to the English "Jesus. So, the name "Jesus" is a transliteration.
All proper names in the Old Testament were transliterated into English according to their Hebrew pronunciation via the Latin, but when English pronunciation shifted to what we know today, these transliterations were not altered. Thus, such Hebrew place names as ye-ru-sha-LA-yim, ye-ri-HO, and yar-DEN have become known to us as Jerusalem, Jericho, and Jordan; and Hebrew personal names such as yo-NA, yi-SHAI, and ye-SHU-a have become known to us as Jonah, Jesse, and Jesus."
In contrast, the name "Jehovah" is a man-made hybrid.
Hi Nick,
Because I am so backed up, I read through 9 or 10 of your comments and Published them without replying on the things you said (if I had commented on them, I probably would have only gotten through only one of your comments). Even that was a fair bit of reading, and took some time, and it is very late, so I think that's going to be it for now.
Nick,
OK, I just published, out of order, because I was glancing at a couple of your most recent comments, the one that contained the following quote:
This interaction is about the worst I have seen. You should seriously think about changing your approach.
Please don't act like a jerk. This is my blog site, so show some respect. If you want to continue conversing with me, then please don't make childish comments. Maybe you were momentarily very frustrated, but such a comment is totally uncalled for. If this is how the Watchtower teaches you to act, then they are apparently even worse than I have heard.
I am not going to promise to strictly stick to not going beyond the boundaries of one topic at a time. Sorry, but you do not get to set the rules for my blog site. I have been giving you all kinds of time to reply to my various comments and questions, and, because I have been very busy for several days and also sick for a few days, you have had a lot of time to reply. If you can't handle it, then you are free to go elsewhere.
Hi Jeff,
As I said it is also just a matter of conjecture that "Yahweh" is a better guess than "Jehovah." Yahweh is found in NO ancient Hebrew manuscript, and is really based on Greek transliterations of what early Greek church fathers said that they heard. (Iaoue, IaBe, etc.)
Greek transliterations of Hebrew names in the Septuagint often do not accurately represent the same sounds of the names in Hebrew.
Despite what you have been lead to believe, there is justification for the use of "Jehovah" (which would be "Yehowah" or "Yahowah" when "de-Latinized" or "de-Anglicized") beyond the obvious ones of tradition and common English usage. It is very similar to the almost universal acceptance of "Jesus" except "Jehovah" is probably much closer to the original ("Yahowah"?) than "Jesus" is to the original "Yehoshua."
You pretend that Jesus is much more accurate than Jehovah. When this name was translated by Hebrew scholars themselves around 200 B. C. into Greek, it was rendered "IhsouV" ("Yesous") which was probably pronounced "Yay-soos" - Joshua 1:12, The Septuagint, Zondervan Publishing. So "Yeh-hoe-shoo-uh" became "Yay-soos" in the transliteration from Hebrew to Greek.
Since the actual name of the successor to Moses (Yehoshua, sometimes abbreviated to "Yeshua") was identical to that of the Messiah, we find that name rendered "Yaysoos" in the original Greek of both the Septuagint and the NT manuscripts.
For example, "Joshua" is originally written as "Yaysoos" at Joshua 1:12 (written IhsouV in the Greek) and Hebrews 4:8. And "Jesus" is originally written as "Yaysoos" at Matt. 3:16 (written IhsouV in the Greek).
When it is all said and done, I think what Steven T. Byington said is what really matters. He said:
"God's Name...the spelling and the pronunciation are not highly important. What is highly important is to keep it clear that this is a personal name. There are several texts that cannot be properly understood if we translate this name by a common noun like ‘Lord’..." (Steven T. Byington,The Bible in Living English (p. 7)
Could it be Jeff that you “are straining out the gnat but gulping down the camel,” when it comes to knowing,using and pronouncing God’s Name Yahweh/Jehovah?
Sincerely,
Nick
Hi Jeff,
I am sorry you are very sick. Please get better. There is no need to get offended if I made some candid statements and observations about our discussion. I am not "acting like a jerk" as you state. That is an unkind and unchristian remark and is unnecessary. This spoils the spirit of Christian dialogue.
Have you ever talked to someone and they are looking the other way or if you ask them a question they bring up a completely non-related subject? What do you think? We haven't even touched on many topics you bring up but you keep shifting the discussion to other topics that I don't mind you bring up but why now when you haven't even begin to address the many others.
If you have time to make another statement why not just go over the others first? This is all I am saying. I am not trying to control your blog or this conversation just letting you know how I feel. I really do believe you should take a walk around yourself on how you handle future dialogues with Jehovah's Witnesses or any other person you talk with, that's all.
It's not that "I can't handle it" it is how I believe you should handle future dialogue. It is my opinion and I am just expressing it. It is food for thought you perhaps can take to heart. So please calm down, keep your emotions in check, and try not tobecome easily provoked. This was not my intention.
Respectfully,
Nick
Nick,
One last thing. Later, asked me what should happen to a person who did horrible, disgusting things.
So you are telling me that God would be justified to behave in a similar manner. That person torture people so God should imitate his unspeakable behavior???
God is the Creator. He created everything out of nothing. He has the right to do anything He wants with what He created.
The issue is understanding the level of God's holiness and the depth of our sinfulness. We have offended a holy God. We have mutinied against our holy, sovereign Maker. Such an offense, to turn against the One Who created you, especially when that One is perfect holiness and perfect love, is unfathomably offensive.
Another issue is that we, as corrupted sinners, can never fully finish paying for our sins, and that is why Hell is eternal. Only a sinless, holy sacrifice can pay for sin. Just like a penniless man can never pay his own fine or debt to get out of prison. The only way for him to get out is to have someone pay that fine/debt for him, and that is what Jesus has done for us.
Nick,
You said:
Would a loving God really torment people forever? Would YOU do so?
My doing so would be wrong, because I would be hurting those who were my equals, and I am sinners just like they are. So I have no right to hurt others. Also, I did not create other people, so I have no right to do with them as I please.
However, people are not God's equals, and God is not a sinner like people are, and God did create them. As Paul said, doesn't the potter have the right to use the pot he made for any purpose he wants to? And doesn't he have the right to smash it if he wants to?
Someone told me once that God throwing people into Hell for eternity would be like a father holding his little child's hand against a hot stove, just because the child stole a few cookies. He said, 'If a good earthly father would never do that to his son, then how could God do that to His children?' First, those who have not been regenerated in Christ are not God's children. They are God's enemies. At the Judgment, God will say to them, "I never knew you." Second, our offenses against an infinitely holy, righteous God are infinitely more offensive than a child taking a few cookies without permission.
Nick,
Most people know God is love and that God is good but they feel that he is also a God of torture.
God (the Son) died on the cross so that we would not have to go to Hell. That is what He did so that we would not have to be 'tortured.' He gave His own life for us. The Father takes sin so seriously that He crushed His own Son at the cross---that is how seriously He takes sin. And Yahweh God loves us so much that He performed the greatest act of love in all of history, taking our sins upon Himself and paying our penalty for us, just so we would not have to go to Hell. This is hardly a God of torture. This is a level of love that I cannot even fully comprehend.
I just now posted your latest comment, again out of order, since a response to it would seem to be more "timely" than the others, I think.
You said:
Have you ever talked to someone and they are looking the other way or if you ask them a question they bring up a completely non-related subject? What do you think?
Yes, I have had people look the other way, or get distracted, when I'm talking to them. And I don't get mad at them. I have also had people bring up a non-related subject that has nothing to do with what we are talking about, and again, I don't get mad when they do that. I really don't ever remember getting frustrated. But Nick, you came onto my blog site talking about something (the word "echad") that has to do with the Trinity. We are now at something like 635 or so comments, and you are still insisting that we stay one the subject of the Trinity. During those 635 or so comments, I have asked questions about several or more other topics, all related to God and religion. Do you seriously think that it is right for you to get offended, upset, or frustrated because we have talked about related subjects, instead of sticking strictly and specifically and only to the subject of the Trinity, after about 635 comments? I mean, come on! If you talk to one of your friends or relatives for 5 or 6 hours straight, are you going to tell me that you will get frustrated with them if they talk about more than one subject? If we reach 1000 comments here, are you still going to get frustrated if I ask questions about something other than the Trinity? We have been commenting back and forth for 48 days, Nick. 48 days!! And you are getting frustrated because I am asking questions that are outside the strict boundary of the Trinity doctrine?? Think about that.
Well, now Blogger is showing 483 comments. Earlier it was showing 633 comments. But it now shows "601-483 of 483," which makes no sense. So, Blogger seems to have a bug. Therefore, I'm not sure what the exact number is. In any case, it has been going on for 48 days.
Nick,
If you have time to make another statement why not just go over the others first?
Because making a personal comment about something like that takes a minute or two at the very most, or maybe even seconds. Commenting on topics of doctrine is much more time-consuming.
Nick,
I really do believe you should take a walk around yourself on how you handle future dialogues with Jehovah's Witnesses or any other person you talk with, that's all.
And I really feel you should try not to be so condescending, demanding, pushy and dogmatic. A little humility goes a long way. I find myself acting tougher with you than I do with other bloggers that I comment with, and it is because you come across as so dogmatic and condescending.
I'll be honest with you, Nick. Talking about one specific, narrow topic for a long time, over and over, gets boring fast for me. It feels like a broken record going over and over the same thing again and again, just saying the same thing multiple times using different words.
When I study the Bible on my own, I like to study all the different little details and study all the little things that are related. I don't like to do a surface study; I like to go into more detail. And researching such details often takes me to studying related topics, which helps me understand better the main topic I am studying, especially when I see how it all ties together. It makes it more fun, interesting and exciting for me.
I have been to Bible studies where you are supposed to write in the answer to a question, and when they go around the class, many people will often give the obvious, simple answer. To me, that is boring and almost a waste of time. I like to go much deeper in depth, and find out why it is what it is. I like to study about things that are related to that obvious answer, and to get a deeper understanding of why the answer is what it is.
Nick,
It's not that "I can't handle it" it is how I believe you should handle future dialogue.
It sounds like you are telling me how to run my life when you say that. I have heard that the Watchtower is a totalitarian, dictatorial organization, but please don't treat me like the Watchtower apparently treats its members.
I have heard that the Watchtower teaches you to act like a teacher, which I would conclude means, then, to treat others like students, and it seems that is just how you are acting. But it comes across as condescending.
The doctrine of eternal torment is not compatible with God’s personality.
It is most certainly compatible with God's infinite holiness and justice.
And God dying on the cross for us is compatible with God's love.
So, God demonstrates His justice on those who go to Hell, and God demonstrates His love on those who have everlasting life in Heaven. In addition, God finally then deals with the problem of evil in the world, because evil is finally and ultimately punished and taken care of. Sin must be punished, and annihilation does not punish sin.
Nick,
You left 3 long comments regarding Hell, Gehenna, etc.
OK, so, if Hell does not exist, but is simply a complete annihilation of the person in which there is no conscious awareness, why does Jesus say in Mark 14:21 that it would be better for Judas if he had never been born?
And again, in Matthew 26:24, Jesus said it would have been better if Judas had never been born. Jesus' words make no sense if Judas was only going to be annihilated.
Nick,
A friend of mine addressed the issue of annihilation one time, and the following, in basically a summarized form, is from what he said:
"God is perfectly holy.
-Erickson writes that God is totally separate from his creation. Erickson (1994: 284).
-Erickson lists Exodus 15: 11, 1 Samuel 2: 2 and Isaiah 57: 15.
-God is absolutely pure and good; God is not evil. Erickson (1994: 285).
-Erickson lists Job 34: 12, Habakkuk 1: 13 and James 1: 13
Human beings are sinful.
-Jeremiah 17: 9, Romans Chapter 1-3, Romans 3: 23, Romans 6: 23.
Sin must be atoned.
-God is the administrator of justice and cannot justly simply forgive sins. Erickson (1994: 816). God is equally the God of love and justice. Justice is therefore not ignored for the sake of love, as a holy God must be just.
Christ as infinite God outlasted finite sin in the atonement.
-As God, Christ’s death has infinite worth. Erickson (1994: 804). As God he can atone for all finite human sin.
Christ as a perfect man was sacrificed for imperfect persons in the atonement.
-As a human, Christ could redeem other humans. Erickson (1994: 804). Christ redeemed all of human nature through the atonement. Erickson (1994: 804).
Those outside of Christ cannot justly be annihilated as their sins are never atoned.
-Biblically, all persons exist port-mortem (Revelation, Chapter 20). Unfortunately, it could be reasoned that everlasting punishment exists as finite unregenerate persons continue to attempt to atone for their sins in hell, but can never fully cover their sins without Christ. Therefore they cannot justly be annihilated. Earthly sins are not covered, and post-mortem sins (rejecting God and related) in disembodied and resurrection states also remain uncovered.
ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House."
Nick,
If there is no eternal punishment, and the fiery furnace in Matthew 13:42 and 13:50 is just a symbol of total annihilation, in which a person will completely go out of existence and have no conscious awareness, then how could they weep and gnash their teeth (i.e. "There is where [their] weeping and the gnashing of [their] teeth will be")?
Nick,
Matthew 5:22 (NWT) speaks of "the fiery Gehenna." "Gehenna" is a Hebrew word that means the place where people go in the afterlife. The name is derived from a geographical site in Jerusalem known as the "Valley of Hinnom," one of the two main valleys surrounding the Old City. Initially, it was the site where idolatrous Jews sacrificed their children to the god Molech (2 Chronicles 28:3, 33:6; Jeremiah 7:31, 19:2-6). The valley later became the common waste yard for all the garbage and rubbage of Jerusalem. It is where the dead bodies of animals and criminals and garbage were cast, and burned by a constant fire. It was a garbage dump that was more or less like an incinerator. In time, it became the image of the place of everlasting destruction in Jewish tradition. However, Jewish tradition suggests the Valley had a 'gate' which led down to a molten lake of fire.
Nick,
Revelation 20:10 says, "And the Devil...the wild beast and the false prophet [already were]; and they will be TORMENTED day and night FOREVER AND EVER." This event will occur after the 1,000 year reign of Christ (Rev. 20:7). Where will the Devil, the wild beast, and the false prophet be "tormented day and night forever and ever"?
Also, what does the word "tormented" mean to you?
Nick,
Revelation 14:9-11 says, "...If ANYONE worship the wild beast...he shall be TORMENTED with fire and sulphur...And the smoke of their torment ascends FOREVER AND EVER..." Where could "anyone" be "tormented...forever and ever"?
Nick,
The word 'Hell' is generally used in the Old Testament to translate the Hebrew word 'Sheol,' which really means, simply, 'the place of the dead,' without reference to happiness, or the reverse. (Genesis 37:35, 42:38; 1 Samuel 2:6; Job 14:13.) In other passages, there is an idea of punishment. In the New Testament, the word 'Hell' is used to translate two words: Hades, generally meaning the same as Sheol, the place of the dead (Acts 2:21; 1 Cor. 15:55; Rev. 20:13). The other word is Gehenna, the place of retribution for evil deeds.
Nick,
The word 'Gehenna' is used (the garbage dump with a continuous burning of trash) in Mark 9:43 (and following) and Matthew 10:28 as the place of punishment of unquenchable fire.
Nick,
Luke 16:23 says, "And in Hades he lifted up his eyes, he EXISTING IN TORMENTS, and he saw Abraham afar off and Lazarus in the bosom [position] with him." Why does this say he was "existing in torments"? Obviously, he was consciously being tormented in Hades.
Nick,
Luke 16:26 says (NWT), "And besides all these things, a great chasm has been fixed between us and You people, so that those wanting to go over from here to You people cannot, neither may people cross over from there to us."
Where is this place where people cannot cross over?
Nick,
Matthew 25:30 (NWT) says, "...There is where [his] weeping and the gnashing of [his] teeth will be." This talks about weeping, or crying, and gnashing, or grinding of a person's teeth together. When does a person cry and grind their teeth together?
And where do you think this place is?
Nick,
Mark 9:42 states (NWT), "But whoever stumbles one of these little ones that believe, it would be finer for him if a millstone such as is turned by an ass were put around his neck and he were actually pitched into the sea." If the punishment of the wicked is merely annihilation, and there is no eternal or everlasting torment in Hell, then why is this verse implying that it would be better for a person to suffer a violent death, than to cause one of these little ones who believe, to stumble? What could be worse than a violent death?
Nick,
If there is only annihilation instead of eternal and everlasting punishment in Hell, then why does Jesus say it would be better to cut off your hand, or cut off your foot, or gouge out your eye, rather than go "into Gehenna, into the fire that cannot be put out," in Mark 9:43-48?
And if there is only annihilation, then why do those same verses say (in the NWT) that the fire cannot be put out, and "their maggot does not die"? Why would the fire not be put out, and the maggots not die, if the torment was not eternal and everlasting?
Nick,
If annihilation is true, and there is no eternal and everlasting torment in Hell, then why does Revelation 14:10-11 say, "the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever, and day and night they have no rest"?
The same thing with Revelation 20:10---it says that in "the lake of fire and sulphur," "they will be tormented day and night forever and ever." This speaks of eternal and everlasting torment---"forever and ever"---not annihilation.
Nick,
You said:
I do have faith in Christ and God as two separate individuals. Jesus tells us, “Do not let your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe ALSO in Me.” (John 14:1; NASB)
Why would Jesus say "believe also in Me" if He were only a created being? Why would it be important to believe in Him if He were merely a creature?
Nick,
You asked me,
Just curious, what church or group are you associated with? I don't have to know where, just which one if any?
I currently attend a non-denominational church. I was raised in a Lutheran church, and stayed in that church for over 12 years. I have also attended and have been a member of Baptist churches, Christian and Missionary Alliance churches, and Charismatic churches. I have also visited Presbyterian churches. I went one time to an Episcopal church, and one time to a Catholic church, just to see what they were like. I have even visited a Mormon church, as part of an agreement with a Mormon friend, who said he would visit my church in exchange.
As far as my beliefs, I disagree with many things that Catholics believe. And obviously, I disagree with almost everything that Mormons believe.
Many Christians see themselves as 'Baptist only,' or 'Methodist only,' or whatever. For me, I do not limit myself to one specific denomination. I look more at what that specific Pastor of that church teaches.
Nick,
You said:
How can Acts 20:28 be understood?
Is it really God's own blood or God's own Son that gave his precious blood to redeem mankind?
Think it through.
The Father and the Holy Spirit are and always have been spirit, and never flesh and blood. Blood is of flesh. Therefore, the Father does not have blood, because He does not consist of physical matter. Neither does the Holy Spirit. However, the Son was incarnated, or made into flesh, since He was born as a man. Therefore, the Son, being God Almighty in the flesh, shed His blood to redeem mankind.
So, when you ask, 'Was it God's own blood,' yes, it was. It was not the Father's blood, because the Father has never had blood. It was not the Holy Spirit's blood, because the Holy Spirit has never had blood. It was the Son's blood, because the Son was incarnated. And, since God is not only a Being consisting of three Persons, but also omnipresent, it is no problem for Him to be on earth and in Heaven at the same time.
Nick,
You asked:
"God has purchased our freedom with his blood and has forgiven all our sins." (Colossians 1:14; NLT)
Wanted also to bounce this text off of you? The way this is worded it would seem an explicit statement to me that God gave his own blood.
What are your thoughts?
Obviously, that is not a direct quote of that verse, in the New Living Translation. The verse states that Jesus purchased our freedom and forgave our sins. However, since Jesus is God Almighty, the statement, although not a direct quote of that verse, is not an incorrect statement as far as its truthfulness.
When taken along with the previous verse (13) in that same translation, it states:
"For he has rescued us from the kingdom of darkness and transferred us into the Kingdom of his dear Son, who purchased our freedom and forgave our sins."
In the NWT, it says it this way:
"He delivered us from the authority of the darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of the Son of his love, by means of whom we have our release by ransom, the forgiveness of our sins."
Let me ask you a question. It mentions "the Kingdom of his dear Son" (or, in the NWT, "the kingdom of the Son of his love"). What kingdom does the Son have?
To say "the kingdom of Jeff" would make no sense, because I don't have a kingdom. To say "the kingdom of the archangel Michael" would make no sense, because Michael does not have a kingdom.
Nick,
You said:
When reading the Bible as we do we come across Scripture after Scripture where Christ and God are clearly seen as two separate beings, or individuals.
Case in point:
Ephesians 5:5 (English Standard Version)
5For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.
Related to my previous comment, who has a kingdom? A king has a kingdom. Does any kingdom have two kings? No. Who is the ruler of the kingdom of darkness? Satan. Who is the ruler of the kingdom of light? God Almighty. A kingdom does not have two rulers. Something to ponder.
Nick,
I am noticing a pattern in many of your answers regarding Bible verses. You generally say things something like "there is no reason to force it to mean," or "it could also mean," or "it does not have to mean," or, "it is more likely that," or things of that nature. In many cases, you are implying that it is possible to render the verse to mean something different than what the Watchtower would teach. Could it then be possible that the Watchtower's interpretation of such scriptures could be wrong?
Nick,
You said:
And Jesus alone responded to our rescue!
Jesus is uniquely God's Son and our Lord and Savior in a way that no others are.
Think about this. Moses was called the deliverer. But when Moses delivered the Israelites from bondage, it was clearly God doing the delivering, not Moses. The ten plagues were clearly God. The dividing of the Red Sea and drowning the army of Pharaoh was clearly God. The fire by night and cloud by day in the desert were clearly God. Moses was merely an instrument, just as the staff of Moses was merely an instrument. God was the hero. God was obviously the One Who delivered Israel from the Egyptians with His mighty power.
However, with Jesus, He gave His very life. His own blood purchased mankind. He was not merely an instrument or a tool. His own body and blood paid for mankind. He took on the curse of mankind. He was made sin for us. He Himself was the hero. He Himself paid for us.
So, how is it that Jesus delivered mankind with Himself? How is it that Jesus is the hero? How is it that Jesus is the Savior of all mankind? The Father did not die on the cross. The Father is not the hero in this act. And yet, this was the greatest act in all of history. The Father did not pay for us.
Basically, what I'm asking is what I asked in a previous comment. How could a creature outdo God Almighty in an act of love? The Father never performed any act of love that was as great as what Jesus did for us on the cross.
Nick,
We have talked about how Jesus, on multiple occasions, referred to Himself by the Name of YHWH that was revealed to Moses, which is "I Am." For instance, you have made comments such as this one in the past:
An “alternate rendering,” when it comes to a Scripture text depends on who you are asking. You recently brought up, “I AM,’ in John 8:58.
I recently shared with you “an alternate rendering,” of John 8:58 in the past by the NASB since you seem to have high regard for it. "I am," or "ego eimi," in the Greek, has been understood “legitimately” to mean, "I am he," or "I have been."
In John 18:5, the Wycliffe New Testament says, "They answered to him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith to them, I am. And Judas that betrayed him, stood with them." Some translations render it as "I am he." Young's Literal Translation puts the "he" in brackets, indicating that the word is not in the original: "they answered him, `Jesus the Nazarene;' Jesus saith to them, `I am [he];' -- and Judas who delivered him up was standing with them." The Darby Translation puts "he" in brackets as well, showing that the word "he" is not actually there. And, according to The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament (The Zondervan Parallel New Testament in Greek and English), which uses Eberhard Nestle's Novum Testamenum Graece, 21st Edition, based on the study and critical research of generations of scholars, the literal translation of John 18:5 is:
"They answered him: Jesus the Nazarene. He tells them: I am. Now stood also Judas the [one] betraying him with them."
Not only that, but in the following verse, verse 6, in the literal translation, it states:
"When therefore he told them: I am, they went away back and fell on the ground."
The "they" was a large crowd, including a detachment of soldiers. Auxiliary police or servants of the court assigned to the task of maintaining public order beyond the precincts of the temple, along with some of the Roman cohort of soldiers, were in the arresting group, as well as officers of the temple guard., armed with swords and clubs. According to Jamieson, Fausset & Brown: "The detachment of the Roman cohort on duty at the festival for the purpose of maintaining order" [WEBSTER and WILKINSON]. "Officers from the chief priests and Pharisees"--captains of the temple and armed Levites.
Why did they fall backward?
Again, according to Jamieson, Fausset & Brown: "and fell to the ground"--struck down by a power such as that which smote Saul of Tarsus and his companions to the earth ( Act 26:14 ). It was the glorious effulgence of the majesty of Christ which overpowered them. "This, occurring before His surrender, would show His power over His enemies, and so the freedom with which He gave Himself up" [MEYER].
(cont.)
(cont.)
W. Hall Harris III says, in part, in his Exegetical Commentary on John 18, "But Jesus makes this affirmation of his identity using a formula which the reader has encountered before in the Fourth Gospel, e.g., 8:24, 28, 58. Jesus has applied to himself the Divine Name of Exod 3:14, “I AM”. This amounts to something of a theophany which causes even his enemies to recoil and prostrate themselves, so that Jesus has to ask a second time, “Whom are you seeking?” This is a vivid reminder that even in this dark hour, Jesus holds ultimate power over his enemies and the powers of darkness, because he is the One who bears the Divine Name."
The Exposition of the Gospel of John, Chapter 61, Christ In The Garden, says, regarding this:
"Among them were five hundred Roman soldiers, yet they retired before His single "I am." They fell back in consternation, not forward in worship! All He said was "I am"; but it was fully sufficient to overawe and overpower them. It was the enunciation of the ineffable Name of God, by which He was revealed to Moses at the burning bush (Ex. 3:14). It was a display of His Divine majesty. It was a quiet exhibition of His Divine power. It was a signal demonstration that He was "the word" (John 1:1)! He did not strike them with His hand—there was no need to; He simply spoke two monosyllables and they were completely overcome.
But why, we may ask, should our Lord have acted in such a manner on this occasion? First, that it might be clearly shown He was more than "Jesus of Nazareth": He was "God manifest in flesh," and never was this more unmistakably evidenced. Second, that it might appear with absolute dearness that He voluntarily delivered Himself up into their hands—that it was not they who apprehended Him, but He who submitted to them."
(cont.)
(cont.)
Regarding the book of John, Ray Stedman, in "The Gospel of John: Who Is This Man?" writes:
"A great deal is made of this term, "Son of God" today, as though there were a distinction to be made between God and the Son of God, but no Hebrew would ever understand it that way. To the Hebrews, to call someone a "son" of something was to say he is identified with, identical with, that thing or person. Barnabas was named the "Son of Consolation." That is the meaning of the name Barnabas. Why? Because he was that kind of man---an encouraging, consoling kind of fellow. His nickname meant that he was the very epitome of consolation. He was the expression of it.
To the Hebrews, the use of this term, the Son of God, meant, "This one is God." That is why invariably, when our Lord used that term of himself, he was challenged by the unbelieving scribes and Pharisees, saying, "who are you? What do you make yourself out to be? Why, you make yourself to be equal with God." Of course he did. That is what the title means."
(cont.)
(cont.)
He continues:
"Then in his Gospel, John picks up seven great words of our Lord that prove that statement. He bases it all on the great name of God which was revealed to Moses at the burning bush. When Moses saw the bush burning and turned aside to learn its secret, God spoke to him from the bush and said, "I am who I am." (Ex. 3:14) That is God's nature. That is, "I am exactly what I am. I am nothing more. I am nothing less. I am the eternal I am." Seven times in his Gospel John picks this word up and uses it about our Lord. In fact, seven times these words came from our Lord's own lips. These constitute the proof that he is Deity."
"Listen to them: "I am the bread of life." (6:35) That is, I am the sustainer of life, the One who satisfies life. "I am the light of the world" (8:12), the illuminator of life. "I am one [to borrow a phrase from Paul] in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge," the explainer of things, the one who casts light upon all mysteries and enigmas and solves them.
"I am the door" (10:7), Jesus said; that is, the opportunity into life, the open way. Whenever you are confronted with a sense of lack, some hungering after something more, these are the words you need to hear. "I am the good shepherd" (10:11); that is, the guide of life, the only one properly equipped to take an individual and safely steer him through all the problems and chasms that yawn on every side, to lead him safely through life. ("The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want.")
Then, "I am the resurrection and the life." (11:25) That is, the power of life. Do you realize that resurrection power is the only kind that works when nothing else will? It works in the midst of death. Resurrection power is the only kind that needs no outside props, no process of learning. It does not need anything to initiate it, shore it up or bolster it in any way. When nothing else can be done, then it comes in and begins to act. "I am the resurrection and the life," Jesus says.
"I am the way, the the truth, and the life." (14:6) That is, I am ultimate reality. I am the real substance behind all things. "I am the vine...apart from me, you can do nothing. "(15:5). I am the producer of fruitfulness, the source of fellowship and of identity and communion.
Thus our Lord takes the great, revealing name of God and, linking it with these simple symbols, enables us to understand God. "The Word," John says, "became flesh and dwelt among us." He pitched his tent among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory of God become man. That is the tremendous theme of this book. There is not a greater theme in all the universe than the fact that when we stand in the presence of the humanity of Jesus we suddenly discover that, for the first time, we also stand in the presence of God. This is what God is like. This one who heals, loves, serves, waits, blesses, dies and rises again---this is God. That is what John reveals."
Hello Jeff,
I am reading your recent comments now. Thanks for your time once again. Just to let you know I am going tomorrow to Maui for a Bible study convention and will be back Tuesday night so I may not respond to some of your statements but I eventually will.
Wanted to tell you that I am not talking down to you or trying to be your teacher. Of course I am going to challenge statements that I feel our not backed by Scripture. I have not said anything disrespectful and I definitely am not anymore dogmatic than you are so let’s be real. And I am not frustrated in no way, perhaps a bit disappointed that are discussions have become so scattered.
As I told you I am not trying to be controlling but since I don't want to make you a "bored-again Christian," I will go with it and just make surface comments without going as deep on a particular subject at this time.
One thing I would like to say is you have labeled us a cult and virtually told me I do not have everlasting life and you do so who is coming off stronger than the other? I realize blogging can come off more blunt and pointed than if we were just having a conversation so I will try to be more conscience of how I word things and perhaps you can be less sensitive as well.
Something I notice you keep saying is that “hell” is eternal. That is not what the Bible teaches? This is the common consensus among those who advocate the God dishonoring hellfire doctrine.
What does the Bible tell us is the final outcome of "Hades/hell"? Doesn’t “hell” itself become thrown into the lake of fire? (Revelation 20:14, 15) Doesn't "hades" come to an end like death? They appear to me to share the same outcome. Revelation 21:4 simply tells us "death will be no more."
-continued
-continuing
As you get back to me on my “Hell” questions, could I ask you to give this some prayerful thought.
Suppose for a moment that a wonderful man, “Mr. Right” offers a marriage proposal to the woman he loves.
"Marry me," he says, "and I will give you a life like you've never dreamed of before. You will be loved with the greatest commitment and passion that any woman has ever known. I will give you the finest house with all of the wonderful things you've ever wanted, and you will be happy for the rest of your days!"
Now suppose the woman is very flattered by the proposal, but is uncertain about whether or not she is ready for such a commitment.
Asking for a few more days to think it over, Mr. Right answers, "You are welcome to take more time, but it's only fair that I warn you what will happen if you decline my generous offer. Your only option, other than spending paradise with me, is to be thrown into my underground dungeon, have your eyeballs plucked from their sockets, your fingers and toes cut off, and continually be burned with a soldering iron every hour, on the hour, for the rest of your life."
What do you suppose would be going through the young woman's mind at a time like this? I imagine that would change the way she feels about the man considerably.
She might have previously accepted Mr. Right's proposal because of her love for him, but is there much chance of that now?
Surely not. If she takes him seriously, she'll undoubtedly marry him, but not as much for love as out of genuine terror at the alternative.
Is this God's way of doing things? Does God want His people to turn to Him out of fear that they will be tortured otherwise? Where is the love in that? If everyone really believed in this doctrine, wouldn't that properly tarnish their concept of the Savior? I would imagine some might even have a hard time calling Him "Savior" at all.
How merciful can it really be to create a never-ending torture chamber for those who do not want to know or love him? Could you please get back to me and let me know how you would feel if you were in a blissful place but you knew your family was being tortured?
I see your other comments on "hell" and will go over them with you later.
Sincerely,
Nick
Hi Jeff,
It is getting late here but will take one question you asked. You said:
“OK, so, if Hell does not exist, but is simply a complete annihilation of the person in which there is no conscious awareness, why does Jesus say in Mark 14:21 that it would be better for Judas if he had never been born? And again, in Matthew 26:24, Jesus said it would have been better if Judas had never been born. Jesus' words make no sense if Judas was only going to be annihilated.”
This text has no weight at all as proof of a "hell-fire" doctrine. It simply means that it would have been better if Judas "the son of destruction" never existed than to use his life to eventually bring harm and betrayal to the Messianic Son. Because of his betrayal he was a truly "good for nothing" man who made a bad name for himself. Judas would spurn his opportunity for everlasting life and be destroyed forever instead. What a waste.
Respectfully,
Nick
Nick,
What does the Bible tell us is the final outcome of "Hades/hell"? Doesn’t “hell” itself become thrown into the lake of fire? (Revelation 20:14, 15) Doesn't "hades" come to an end like death? They appear to me to share the same outcome. Revelation 21:4 simply tells us "death will be no more."
Obviously, death and Hades are not living beings. Therefore, this obviously is somewhat symbolic or allegorical. In the New Testament there are two Greek words that the King James Version often translated as "hell" — hades and gehenna. The term "hades" comes from Greek mythology. It was the world of the dead and Hades was the God of the underworld (Pluto was the Roman equivalent). In 1 Cor 15:55 the KJV actually translates it as "grave": "O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?" Hades is cast, with death, into the lake of fire (Rev 20:14), so is not equivalent to the final punishment.
According to Wesley's Notes for Rev. 20:14, "And death and hades were cast into the lake of fire - That is, were abolished for ever; for neither the righteous nor the wicked were to die any more: their souls and bodies were no more to be separated. Consequently, neither death nor hades could any more have a being."
Therefore, in reality, this speaks against annihilation.
Nick,
She might have previously accepted Mr. Right's proposal because of her love for him, but is there much chance of that now?
Surely not. If she takes him seriously, she'll undoubtedly marry him, but not as much for love as out of genuine terror at the alternative.
Is this God's way of doing things? Does God want His people to turn to Him out of fear that they will be tortured otherwise? Where is the love in that? If everyone really believed in this doctrine, wouldn't that properly tarnish their concept of the Savior? I would imagine some might even have a hard time calling Him "Savior" at all.
How merciful can it really be to create a never-ending torture chamber for those who do not want to know or love him? Could you please get back to me and let me know how you would feel if you were in a blissful place but you knew your family was being tortured?
First of all, the Bride of Christ will never be cast into Hell. Only those who are enemies of Christ will be cast into Hell.
You asked, "How merciful can it really be to create a never-ending torture chamber for those who do not want to know or love him?"
The lake of fire was not created for mercy. It was created for justice. The mercy of God was demonstrated when Jesus died on the cross. God's approved and only way of receiving His mercy is to acknowledge that you are a wicked sinner deserving of Hell, repent of your sins, and turn to Jesus for salvation, accepting Him as God the Son, and as your personal Lord and Savior, and following Him. When someone repents and turns to Christ, their 'heart of stone' is turned into a 'heart of flesh,' to use Old Testament prophecy terminology. They become a brand new creature, to use the way the New Testament puts it. Their sins are washed white as snow, and cast away as far as the East is from the West. They are perfectly and completely cleansed. The sinless, holy, righteous life that Jesus lived on this earth is imputed to their account, so that they are now considered by God to be holy and righteous. And, being now a holy, righteous saint, God the Holy Spirit comes to live inside them, and they have now become a living temple, housing God Almighty (the Holy Spirit) within them.
You also asked me, "Could you please get back to me and let me know how you would feel if you were in a blissful place but you knew your family was being tortured?"
You do not realize how personal a question you are asking. My dad died several years ago, and it was the hardest thing I have ever gone through in my entire life. What made it all the worse was that I was not, and still am not, sure whether he was a Christian or not. Sometimes he said things or did things that made me think he might be a Christian, but other times he said things (like, for example, saying that he was not sure that Jesus ever came to earth or not) that made me think that he could not be a Christian.
Because of this, I wrestled with God's 'goodness,' I suppose you could say, harder than I have ever had to in my life. I tried to figure out whether my dad was in Heaven or Hell, but thinking about the possibility of him being in Hell was so incredibly horrible that I had to just stop thinking about it altogether. Finally, I just had to acknowledge that God is sovereign, and God can do as He will to the creatures that He created. And, since we are sinful and wicked and corrupt, God is perfectly justified in casting wicked, evil beings in Hell forever, just as He is perfectly justified in casting Satan and his demons in Hell forever. God is a holy God, and sin must be punished. If I see my dad in Heaven when I get there, that will be the most awesome, incredible thing, and I almost feel that may be the highlight of my getting there. But, if my dad is not there, then I must accept God's sovereignty, and realize that I, as an imperfect, sinful creature, cannot judge God. A wicked, sinful, rebellious creature cannot judge a perfect, holy, just, righteous Being Who created me, and who is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-sufficient.
The truth of the matter is that every one of us fully deserves to be cast into the eternal Lake of Fire. It is only because of God's goodness and mercy that not all of us will be. God has no obligation to save any of us. It is fully within His right as Creator of us all to do with us as He wills. And, as a perfectly just and righteous God, with each and every one of us being wicked, evil and sinful, it would be perfectly just and right for Him to throw us all into the Lake of Fire for all eternity. In fact, if God were to save all of us, He would not be perfectly just, because He would be letting sin go unpunished among the human race. But the fact that He does indeed save a remnant demonstrates His mercy.
Nick,
It simply means that it would have been better if Judas "the son of destruction" never existed than to use his life to eventually bring harm and betrayal to the Messianic Son. Because of his betrayal he was a truly "good for nothing" man who made a bad name for himself. Judas would spurn his opportunity for everlasting life and be destroyed forever instead. What a waste.
Your answer makes no sense. In Mark 14:21, the NIV says, "But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born." The New Living Translation says, "But how terrible it will be for the one who betrays him. It would be far better for that man if he had never been born!" God's Word Translation says, "But how horrible it will be for that person who betrays the Son of Man! It would have been better for that person if he had never been born." Other translations say similar. "How terrible it will be," "Woe to that man," and "how horrible it will be" can hardly mean that his life was merely a sad waste. Just because someone's life was a waste, or because they made a bad name for themselves, can hardly be worthy of saying how horrible or terrible it will be. How is it going to be horrible for someone who has been annihilated? If people say negative things about them after they die, they won't know it or be aware of it. They will care less, because they will be unaware of it.
Hello Jeff,
Back again. I will try to take a point or two each day. You shared:
“In John 18:5, the Wycliffe New Testament says, "They answered to him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith to them, I am. And Judas that betrayed him, stood with them." Some translations render it as "I am he." Young's Literal Translation puts the "he" in brackets, indicating that the word is not in the original: "they answered him, `Jesus the Nazarene;' Jesus saith to them, `I am [he];' -- and Judas who delivered him up was standing with them."
I agree that “I am” is the literal translation. But adding “he” is understood. It is a Bible translator's task to convey the true meaning while staying as closely as possible to the source language. Words, of necessity, are commonly “added” in just about every Bible translation and there is a linguistic rationale for adding “he” as the NASB does. However, there is no connection to what Yahweh/Jehovah said in Exodus 3:14.
The Wycliffe NT also does the same thing regarding the blind man who said the exact same expression Jesus made, “ego eimi,” in John 9:9, “Other men said, That this it is; and other men said, Nay, but he is like him. But he said, I am [he].”
Remember the Samaritan woman at the well? When asking if Jesus was the Messiah Jesus told her, "ego eimi," to establish he was the long-awaited Messiah, the Christ. (John 4:25, 26) It can simply be translated, “Jesus said to her, "I who speak to you am He."
Depending on context, “ego eimi,” can also mean what a well-known Trinitarian William Temple states:
"The words I AM [in John 8:58] need not of necessity mean more than an assertion of existence; they need not be the Divine Name revealed to Moses at the Bush (Exodus iii, 14). It cannot be said that He has explicitly affirmed his Deity." (Readings in St. John's Gospel (First and Second series), Macmillan and Co, London 1947, page 150.)
-continuing
-continuing
I realize many Trinitarians point to "I am," "ego eimi," as a statement by Jesus claiming to be equivalent with God's "I am" statement in Exodus 3:14.
The reality is that the two statements are very different. While the Greek phrase in John does mean "I am," the Hebrew phrase in Exodus actually means "to be" or "to become." In other words God is saying, "I will be what I will be." So the "I am" in Exodus is actually a mistranslation of the Hebrew text, so the fact that Jesus said "I am" does not necessarily mean he was saying he was the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob.
Jesus did not say, as did the only true God in Exodus 3:14, that his name is EHYEH, nor was he speaking about his name at all, but rather he was talking about his age in time in relation to Abraham’s existence. As I said previously he was telling them that he had seniority over Abraham not telling these men he was the same being as Jehovah, His God and Father.
But could it be that Jesus was quoting the Greek Septuagint Version (LXX) of Exodus 3:14 when he says EGO EIMI in John 8:58?
Hardly, since in the Greek Septuagint Version, the short name of EHYEH is rendered as HO OHN, not EGO EIMI. The full form is rendered as a sentence: EGO EIMI HO OHN, which means “I Am the being.”
The Septuagint gives EGO EIMI a predicate, but the short form is simply HO OHN, “The Being.” So if Jesus quoted the LXX, he would have used HO OHN, not EGO EIMI, which, of course, in context would have made no sense at all. Still further, if he were quoting the LXX from the long form EGO EIMI HO OHN, then he left the subject and verb “I am” without a predicate, which indicates that he was not quoting the LXX.
However, what about the text you bring up in John 18:5-6 which some Trinitarians point to as proof that Jesus must be God due to the response Jesus gave. But does this really demand that Jesus be identified as God himself? Such reasoning is based upon a theological assumption and it does not allow the text to speak for itself.
The context of this passage presents these men in search of Jesus. When they approach him Jesus asks who they are looking for. Not recognizing who Jesus is, they respond by saying that it is "Jesus the Nazarene." When they state this, he responds by saying "I am," or "I am he". Who is he claiming to be?
-continuing
-continuing
Not God Almighty, but Jesus the Nazarene. This is who they were looking for and this is who he claimed to be. The pronoun clearly refers back to this identification and to say otherwise is to only distort a very simple text.
The taking of a natural reading for this text is not limited to those who deny the doctrine of the Trinity. In fact, some of the most renowned Trinitarian commentators have found their falling to the ground to be a matter of Jesus' demeanor and openness in confirming his identity.
For example, I found this statement by John Gill.
He states: "They were confounded, surprised, and intimidated, and seemed as if they would have chose rather to have fled from him, than to have apprehended him; and as they retired and went backward, they fainted away, as it were, either at the majesty of his looks, or at the power of his words, or both, so that they became like dead men, falling to the ground. Sometimes the majesty of a man's person, or his fame for some remarkable things done by him, or the innocence and uprightness of his cause, have had such an influence upon his enemies, that they have not been able to execute upon him what they intended."
Albert Barnes comments along a similar line: "The frank, open, and fearless manner in which Jesus addressed them may have convinced them of his innocence, and deterred them from prosecuting their wicked attempt. His disclosure of himself was sudden and unexpected; and while they perhaps anticipated that he would make an effort to escape, they were amazed at his open and bold profession."
Yes, one thing we do know is that Jesus had no fear of men. His hope was in Jehovah! He was calm but courageous, always in perfect control! Those seeking to arrest Jesus were surprised, caught completely off guard. To read more into this is special pleading.
No one fully knows exactly how the account in John 18:5-8 went down.
We know Jesus was "the lion of Judah" and those present certainly felt the roar of his courage.
Trinitarian, L. Morris says that "it is possible that those in front recoiled from Jesus' unexpected advance, so that they bumped those behind them, causing them to stumble and fall" This might have happened.
They certainly could have felt a nudge of the holy spirit that would of knocked down anyone present, 1 or 100.
But it would also be good to consider what some soldiers said earlier when they tried to arrest Jesus. What did they say?
In John 7:46 they said, "No one ever spoke the way this man does." NIV
The reaction of the mob in 18:6 is no surprise given the confident, sudden self-identification Jesus makes. The soldiers present likely remembered hearing about how impressive Jesus was in his earlier encounter with the officers who were sent to "get hold of him," but failed to do so because of "the way he spoke."
The context shows that Jesus' words caused the crowds to conclude, "This is the Christ." (John 7:41) The words "they drew back and fell to the ground" need mean no more than that the men who came to make the arrest, some of whom at least did not previously know Jesus even by sight, were so overcome by his moral ascendancy that they recoiled in fear.
Most likely, when Jesus unhesitatingly revealed himself as the one whom they sought, those coming to arrest him, who had no doubt heard of the many miracles he had performed, stories about this man, were taken aback by his fearless demeanor.
It is not difficult at all to imagine that those present in John 18:5-6 would react the way they did when coming to arrest him.
However, for you or anyone else to equate the common words "I am" as a claim to be YHWH is indeed a big stretch of the imagination.
To hinge the Trinity doctrine on an assumption is indeed a weak argument.
Respectfully,
Nick
Nick,
The context shows that Jesus' words caused the crowds to conclude, "This is the Christ." (John 7:41) The words "they drew back and fell to the ground" need mean no more than that the men who came to make the arrest, some of whom at least did not previously know Jesus even by sight, were so overcome by his moral ascendancy that they recoiled in fear.
"...his moral ascendancy..."??
So are you seriously telling me that the mere moral persuasion of someone (who at least some of them had never even seen before), just because he is held beyond suspicion of evil design and malicious agenda, is going to make 500 well-trained, disciplined Roman soldiers, plus officers of the temple guard, from the Chief Priests and Pharisees (strict, moral, upright religious leaders), armed with swords and clubs---a very large, armed crowd who had come to arrest him---be so overcome with fear that they actually fall to the ground like dead men?? Simply because he has a clean moral record??
Most likely, when Jesus unhesitatingly revealed himself as the one whom they sought, those coming to arrest him, who had no doubt heard of the many miracles he had performed, stories about this man, were taken aback by his fearless demeanor.
So this huge crowd of armed men who had come to arrest him were so terrified of him, just because he had performed miracles, that the entire crowd fell down as if they were dead? Why was no one ever terrified of Jesus before when He performed miracles? Why didn't Herod, who had also heard of the miracles Jesus performed, also fall down when Jesus stood before him? Why did no one fall down when Jesus healed the ear of Malchus, a servant of the high priest, whose ear Peter cut off? The Pharisees had been around Jesus plenty of times, and had seen the miracles He performed. Why had they never fallen down when they were around Him? Why didn't the Israelites, or even the Egyptian army, or Pharaoh himself, fall down when Moses performed the ten plagues, or parted the Red Sea?
I have seen people who showed fearlessness before, and I have never heard of anyone falling down like dead people in front of them, in extreme fear and terror, just because they stood before someone who was fearless...and especially not a huge crowd of armed soldiers and others.
Hi Jeff,
You shared:
“Matthew 5:22 (NWT) speaks of "the fiery Gehenna." "Gehenna" is a Hebrew word that means the place where people go in the afterlife. The name is derived from a geographical site in Jerusalem known as the "Valley of Hinnom," one of the two main valleys surrounding the Old City. Initially, it was the site where idolatrous Jews sacrificed their children to the god Molech (2 Chronicles 28:3, 33:6; Jeremiah 7:31, 19:2-6). The valley later became the common waste yard for all the garbage and rubbage of Jerusalem. It is where the dead bodies of animals and criminals and garbage were cast, and burned by a constant fire. It was a garbage dump that was more or less like an incinerator. In time, it became the image of the place of everlasting destruction in Jewish tradition. However, Jewish tradition suggests the Valley had a 'gate' which led down to a molten lake of fire.”
Actually, most people go to “sheol or hades” (Ecclesiasted 9:10) not Gehenna which is reserved for those unworthy of a resurrection, like those who have sinned against the holy spirit.
I appreciate SOME OF THE FACTS you brought out about Gehenna. My wife and I a couple of years ago visited the “Valley of Hinnom,” also known as Topheth which lies outside the walls of Jerusalem.
As you might know, the Greek word “Gehenna” is a transliteration of the Hebrew expression Gei-Hinnom, meaning “the valley of Hinnom.” In a Bible encyclopedia it explains that in the Greek word Gehenna the syllable “Ge” stands for the Hebrew word Ga, meaning “Valley,” and the addition “henna” stands for Hinnom, the name of a man in the days of Judge Joshua.
Our guide explained to us while we were in Topheth that the reason why this place was called Topheth was because some apostate Israelites, including Kings Ahaz and Manasseh, made their children pass through the fire in a terrible custom of sacrifice to the false god Molech. They would strike “tambourines” so not to hear the screams of their own children. Despicable isn’t it? They even deep inside inherently knew it was detestable.
If that bothers you and I do you know how Jehovah must have felt about this? Jeremiah 7:31 tells us: “And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart.” (King James Version)
Why did Jehovah had his faithful king Josiah put a stop to this morbid practice? In 2 Kings 23:10 it says of Josiah: “And he made unfit for worship Topheth, which is in the valley of the sons of Hinnom, that no one might make his son or his daughter pass through the fire to Molech.”
That was disgusting to God then and it is disgusting to God now. God has not changed. By the time Jesus was on earth, this valley was turned into a garbage dump, “where the dead bodies of criminals, and the carcasses of animals, and every other kind of filth was cast.” (Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible)
-continued
-continuing
The fires were kept burning by adding sulfur to burn up the refuse. Jesus used that valley as a proper symbol of everlasting destruction. That is what his first-century listeners understood it to mean. No LIVE CRIMINALS were thrown in this burning valley, only those who they felt were not worthy of a burial.
So we can see why Gehenna was a very fitting symbol of death without hope of a resurrection. Jesus drove this point home when he warned that God “can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna.” (Matthew 10:28, New American Bible)
Destruction, not literal torture, is the outcome of anyone or anything tossed in Gehenna. There would be no chance of resurrection, they would never see life again. Those for example who willing sinned against God’s holy spirit, would not be forgiven, would experience Gehenna not hades or hell.
Just as there are modern expressions that would be meaningless to persons living in ancient times because they would not know the background of our age, so there are words from Bible times that are meaningless to us unless we learn the facts behind them.
There are many who have argued that hell is from Gehenna. They do not really know what this old English word “hell” means.
Remember I recently quoted what the Encyclopedia Americana says under “Hell”: “Much confusion and misunderstanding has been caused through the early translators of the Bible persistently rendering the Hebrew Sheol and the Greek Hades and Gehenna by the word hell.”
The Encyclopedia Britannica gives us the derivation of the word “Hell”, saying: “Old English hel, a Teutonic word from a root meaning ‘to cover,’ compare German Hoelle, Dutch hel.”
Webster’s New International Dictionary, 2d edition, unabridged, corroborates the above derivation, saying: “Hell [AS.; akin . . . to Anglo-Saxon helan to conceal, Latin celare, Greek kalyptein, Old Irish celim I conceal, Sanskrit śarman protection. See HALL; compare CELLAR, CLANDESTINE, COLOR, CONCEAL, HEL, HELE, HELMET, HULL, OCCULT, SUPERCILIOUS.]”
Now every honest person must admit, in the face of this evidence, that the basic meaning of “hell” is to cover or conceal. That is why this same Webster’s dictionary shows that “hell” is used as a verb meaning, not to torment in fire, but to “cover”; as when the Old English dialect spoke of “helling potatoes”, not meaning to roast them in fire, but meaning to put them in the ground as a cellar. “Hell” corresponds with “Hades”, for “Hades” means “invisible, obscure, dark."
For this reason it is wrong for men to translate the Greek word Gehenna as “Hell,” They are absolutely wrong in saying that hell/hades is Gehenna. All authorities agree that hell/hades represents a covered or concealed place and hence hell corresponds with the grave, which is the place where we cover or conceal our dead.
On the other hand, Gehenna means “valley of Hinnom”. And if anyone knows anything about the Gehenna which lay outside the western and southern walls of Jerusalem in Jesus’ day, they would know it was NOT a concealed or covered place but was a very open, uncovered place which Jerusalem used as an open dump.
There they cast sometimes the corpses (not living bodies) of criminals not deserving of a burial to be cremated in the fires mixed with sulphur or to be consumed by the maggots.
So again, to clarify, there is a very big difference between “hades/hell” and Gehenna. Gehenna is the state of being destroyed absolutely forever. For those in sheol or Hades there is hope and a coming resurrection. In the mean time, those in sheol or “hell/hades” are not in paradise, are not in limbo, or purgatory but are asleep awaiting to hear the voice of Christ telling them to wake up.
My pointed question to you is, “Is hades or hell the lake of fire?” I believe the Bible says it is NOT.
Sincerely,
Nick
Hello Jeff,
After sharing this:
When reading the Bible as we do we come across Scripture after Scripture where Christ and God are clearly seen as two separate beings, or individuals.
Case in point:
Ephesians 5:5 (English Standard Version) "For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God."
You told me: “Related to my previous comment, who has a kingdom? A king has a kingdom. Does any kingdom have two kings? No. Who is the ruler of the kingdom of darkness? Satan. Who is the ruler of the kingdom of light? God Almighty. A kingdom does not have two rulers. Something to ponder.”
I see what you are trying to get at but you must then overlook many Scriptural facts. Jehovah appointed the kings of his people, and they were to act as his royal agents, sitting, not on their own thrones, but on “the throne of the kingship of Jehovah,” that is, as representatives of his theocratic rule. Check out 1 Chronicles 28:5; 29:23.
A king is a sovereign who has authority to rule over others. Obviously, Jehovah is the supreme King, possessing unlimited power and authority. The kings of Judah were subordinate kings who represented His sovereignty on earth. Like them, Jesus Christ is a subordinate King, but with far greater power than those earthly kings, because Jehovah has put him in the position of ruling the universe. (Philippians 2:9-11)
For instance, that is why we can say that Jesus Christ has been made “King of kings and Lord of lords.” (Revelation 19:16)
Those who are select to rule with Christ in God’s Kingdom are also appropriately considered, “kings.” In 2 Timothy 2:12-13 it tells us, “if we go on enduring, we shall also rule together as kings; if we deny, he also will deny us”
In Revelation 5:10 it actually says, “and you made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God, and they are to rule as kings over the earth..”
Amazingly Revelation 3:21 reveals, “To the one that conquers I will grant to sit down with me on my throne, even as I conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne..”
What you have stated is a good example of a false dilemma. As we just seen your reasoning does not stand up under closer evaluation.
Respectfully,
Nick
Hi Jeff,
Thanks for defining “hell” or “hades/Greek” with the equivalent word “sheol/hebrew.”
You told me: “The word 'Hell' is generally used in the Old Testament to translate the Hebrew word 'Sheol,' which really means, simply, 'the place of the dead,' without reference to happiness, or the reverse. (Genesis 37:35, 42:38; 1 Samuel 2:6; Job 14:13.)”
Yes, "the place of the dead" is the grave. Sheol or hades/hell is not a fiery place but a place of inactivity. A place of rest not torture. Those who go to "hell" await a coming resurrection despite what most people in church have been told.
Let's look at the texts you quoted:
Genesis 37:35 (New International Version) "All his sons and daughters came to comfort him, but he refused to be comforted. "No," he said, "in mourning will I go down to the grave [a] to my son." So his father wept for him."
Grave=sheol
Genesis 42:38 (English Standard Version) "But he said, "My son shall not go down with you, for(A) his brother is dead, and he is the only one left.(B) If harm should happen to him on the journey that you are to make,(C) you would bring down my gray hairs with sorrow to Sheol."
Sheol=grave
1 Samuel 2:6 (New American Standard Bible) "The LORD kills and makes alive; He brings down to Sheol and raises up."
Sheol=grave
Job 14:13 (New American Standard Bible) "Oh that You would hide me in Sheol,That You would conceal me until Your wrath returns to You, That You would set a limit for me and remember me!"
sheol=grave
Job 14:13 (King James Version) "O that thou wouldest hide me in the grave, that thou wouldest keep me secret, until thy wrath be past, that thou wouldest appoint me a set time, and remember me!"
Job expressed hope of a resurrection from sheol or hades/hell. So “sheol” is understood to be the grave. This means “hades” is also understood to be the grave in every instance in the Bible with the exception of a PARABLE Jesus gave in Luke which we will discuss further in detail.
In the meantime, can you tell me what is the condition of those in SHEOL according to Ecclesiastes 9:10? I will go ahead and quote it for you:
Ecclesiastes 9:10 (New American Standard Bible) "Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might; for there is no activity or planning or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol where you are going."
This is highly important that we establish this undeniable truth in our “hell” discussion.
Sincerely,
Nick
Hi Jeff,
The sources I cited were from “Trinitarian” commentaries regarding John 18:1-6 where the officers and soldiers fell down when Jesus identified himself by saying “ego eimi.”
Personally, I believe what trinitarian A.T. Robertson had to say. He asks what caused these hundreds of officers and soldiers to fall. One suggestion was "supernatural power exerted by Jesus" (which seems most likely). He continues by admitting that one of the very oldest complete manuscripts (300's A.D.), Uncial Manuscript B, "adds Iesous which must mean simply: 'I am Jesus.'" (Word Pictures in the New Testament, p. 284, vol. v.)
Dr. William Barclay, famed trinitarian NT scholar and translator, also tells us about this incident:
"The officers, therefore, were the Jewish police force. But there was a band of Roman soldiers there too." He continues by telling us that even if we take the smallest number of Roman soldiers indicated by the NT Greek words used, it would still amount to two hundred men. ( p. 222, The Gospel of John, vol. 2, The Daily Study Bible Series, Westminster Press, 1975.)
Barclay explains the event: "(ii) It shows us his [Jesus'] authority. There he was, one single, lonely, unarmed figure; there they were, hundreds of them, armed and equipped. Yet face to face with him, they retreated and fell to the ground. There flowed from Jesus an authority which in all his loneliness made him stronger than the might of his enemies. (iii) It shows us that Jesus chose to die. Here again it is clear that he could have escaped death if he so wished." (p. 223)
There is this to be recognized from Barclay's information:
Two hundred (at least) Roman soldiers were there who probably didn't understand Jesus' language. And even if they did understand, they surely wouldn't understand that a mistranslation of a Jewish OT word (ehyeh, Heb. or ho own, Sept.) meant that Jesus was claiming to be God (nor would they even care if he really did claim to be that Jewish God).
And yet, these, 200 Roman soldiers were tumbled over along with the others. It could not be because they recognized “ego eimi” as meaning Jesus was really the true God of the universe! These were Roman soldiers!
It must be, as suggested, that Jesus (or the Father in heaven) applied an actual force to knock them down to show that Jesus could escape them if he so wished. Jesus had God's spirit at his disposal. "...God was with him." (John 3:2)
Respectfully,
Nick
Nick,
You said:
A king is a sovereign who has authority to rule over others. Obviously, Jehovah is the supreme King, possessing unlimited power and authority. The kings of Judah were subordinate kings who represented His sovereignty on earth. Like them, Jesus Christ is a subordinate King, but with far greater power than those earthly kings, because Jehovah has put him in the position of ruling the universe. (Philippians 2:9-11)
If "Jehovah is the supreme King, possessing unlimited power and authority," then how could Jehovah (Yahweh) put Jesus "in the position of ruling the universe"? If Jesus rules the universe, then that would mean that Jehovah (Yahweh) would be under Jesus...unless Jesus and Yahweh are one and the same God.
Nick,
Take a look at this verse:
"But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death." (Revelation 21:8)
According to Scofield Reference Notes:
"[2] second death
Second death, Summary: "The second death" and the "lake of fire" are identical terms Rev 20:14 and are used of the eternal state of the wicked. It is "second" relative to the preceding physical death of the wicked in unbelief and rejection of God; their eternal state is one of eternal "death" (i.e. separation from God) in sins Jn 8:21,24. That the second death is not annihilation is shown by a comparison of Rev 19:20 20:10. After one thousand years in the lake of fire the Beast and False Prophet are still there, undestroyed. The words "forever and forever" ("to the ages of the ages") are used in Heb 1:8 for the duration of the throne of God, eternal in the sense of unending."
According to the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary:
"second death-Re 20:14: "everlasting destruction," 2Th 1:9; Mr 9:44, 46, 48, "Where THEIR worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."
Nick,
There have been near-death experiences where people have described Hell. There have also been cases where people have witnessed a person dying, and that person was screaming horribly about flames or torment just before they died.
Bill Wiese, in his book, "23 Minutes in Hell" (which I have read), describes an experience he says he had---he describes it as a vision or possibly something similar to what Paul says in 2 Corinthians 12:2-3. In his book, he says that he saw the searing flames of hell, felt total isolation, and experienced the putrid and rotting stench, deafening screams of agony, terrorizing demons, and finally, the strong hand of God lifting him out of the pit. He said that he was so upset and traumatized from the fear that it took him a year to calm down, which included prayer. Here is a quote from his book:
"You desperately long for even a few moments of rest, but you never, ever get that privilege. Imagine for a moment how terrible you feel after forty eight hours of no sleep. In hell you never sleep, rest or find a quiet moment. No rest from the torments, the screams, the fear, the thirst, the lack of breath, the stench, the heat, the hopelessness. You are isolated from contact with any other people".
Mark Cahill, in his book, "One Heartbeat Away" (another book that I have read and own), related this:
"A respiratory nurse who works in an emergency room told me about a patient who had gone “code red” – he flat lined. She and some other medical personnel rushed over with the defibrillator to try and bring him back to life. They applied the paddles and revived him. She said that he started screaming and shouting “the heat, the heat!” then his heart stopped again. They brought him back a second time. He shouted “The flames, the flames!” They lost him again. Four times the man flat lined and was brought back, each time shouting about the heat or the flames. After the last time, he died and they could not bring him back. She said all the doctors and nurses just stood there for a few minutes and stared at the body. They all knew that man went to hell."
The following was related by French dancer Janine Charrat:
"But what was now revealed to me made me cry in terror. I was alone in a strange and unfamiliar world, surrounded by huge licking flames. The flames got bigger, and their incandescent redness so glaring that I thought I would perish in fear. It really and truly had to be hell! The thick curtain of fire had to be the devil's work for how else were the leaping flames being fed? They seemed to be coming in a wild dance out of the interior of the earth, their bizarre shapes constantly changing The ground under me was incandescent, a lava-like, boiling mud."
- From "Glimpses of the Beyond: The Extraordinary Experiences of People Who Have Crossed the Brink of Death and Returned," by Jean-Baptiste Delacour (1973); translated from German in 1974 by E.B. Garside.
Here is a doctor's testimony:
"Each time he regained heartbeat and respiration, the patient screamed, "I am in hell!" He was terrified and pleaded with me to help him. I was scared to death...Then I noticed a genuinely alarmed look on his face. He had a terrified look worse than the expression seen in death! This patient had a grotesque grimace expressing sheer horror! His pupils were dilated, and he was perspiring and trembling - he looked as if his hair was "on end."
- Dr. Maurice Rawlings, Specialist, Internal Medicine
Here is a testimony from Christine Eastell, apparently "Christian" in name only (and there are plenty of them), who Went into a cardiac arrest after a serious car accident:
"In the darkness I became aware of an even more evil presence than I had already felt and there, high above anything, was this creature I just know was Satan. I didn't know what to do because this wasn't just a dream, this was reality. In my terror I screamed out, "I'm a Christian and I belong to Jesus. I shouldn’t be here", but Satan looked down and laughed a hideous laugh that I will always remember, and said, " When I tempted you, you gave in to me, you belong to me now", and at that moment I knew it was true. What could I do? There I was in Hell, with Satan, and in total despair. I had thought I was a Christian, but I had not committed my life to Jesus."
This is from a study on Near Death Experiences:
“A heart specialist from Chattanooga, Tennessee, has just finished a study of more than 100 patients brought back to life after being clinically dead. The Good News, he said, is that some of them had a blissful encounter with a being of light. The bad news, however, is that over half of the patients had a perfectly appalling time, walking through dimly-lit caverns and seeing fiendish figures brandishing pitchforks beside a smoking, sulfurous lake surrounded by moaning bodies. The doctor now firmly believes hell exists. Reluctantly, he said, I have come to the conclusion it may not be safe to die."
- May | June 1979 issue of "Parapsychology Review"
Here is a quote from a nurse:
"You're the gutsy one who talks about negative near-death experiences. Keep doing it. Don't stop." I was so startled by her comment, I momentarily slowed my pace and yelled back, "Who are you? What do you mean by that?" Her answer surprised me. "I'm a surgical nurse at a hospital in Phoenix, Arizona. We have lots of near-death cases there, and almost all of them are the negative kind. You know what I mean people who wind up in hell!"
- P.M.H.Atwater, L.H.D., Ph.D - (92, "Journal of Near-Death Studies," Vol.10, No.3)
In 1948, George Godkin of Alberta, Canada, related a despairing near-death affair in the midst of a prolonged critical illness:
"I was guided to a place in the spirit world called Hell…. The darkness of Hell is so intense that it seems to have a pressure per square inch. It is an extremely black, dismal, desolate, heavy, pressurized type of darkness. It gives the individual a crushing, despondent feeling of loneliness. The heat is a dry, dehydrating type. Your eyeballs are so dry they feel like red hot coals in their sockets. Your tongue and lips are parched and cracked with the intense heat. The breath from your nostrils as well as the air you breathe feels like a blast from a furnace. The exterior of your body feels as though it were encased within a white hot stove. The interior of your body has a sensation of scorching hot air being forced through it."
Nick, eternity is an awfully long time. Make sure you've got the right answer.
Nick,
You said:
In the meantime, can you tell me what is the condition of those in SHEOL according to Ecclesiastes 9:10? I will go ahead and quote it for you:
Ecclesiastes 9:10 (New American Standard Bible) "Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might; for there is no activity or planning or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol where you are going."
Remember that the Bible is comprised of books containing law, poetry, history, prophecy, epistles (letters), etc. So, first, you have to look at what kind of book Ecclesiastes is.
Ecclesiastes was written by an old man (very likely Solomon), most of whose life was meaningless because he had not himself relied on God. With his life largely behind him, he takes a reflective look at the world as he experienced it, as being full of enigmas, the greatest of which is man himself. It is a book written from the human viewpoint of man's earthly perspective, and about earthly life, from birth to death. It is not a book about eternity, Heaven, Hell or the afterlife. It talks about death from the perspective of a horizon beyond which man can't see. It examines man's capabilities, showing that human wisdom has limits and cannot find out the larger purposes of God or the ultimate meaning of man's existence.
The Bible teaches that the soul survives death in a state of conscious awareness. The passages that say there is no knowledge or remembrance after death are speaking of no memory in this world, not of no memory of this world. Solomon clearly qualified his comment by saying it was "in the grave" that there was "no remembrance" (Ecclesiastes 9:5) or "no activity or planning or knowledge or wisdom" (9:10). He also said that the dead do not know what is going on "under the sun" (9:6). The dead know nothing so far as their bodily senses and worldly affairs are concerned. However, while they don't know what is happening on earth, they certainly do know what is going on in Heaven. For example: "When the Lamb broke the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God, and because of the testimony which they had maintained." (Revelation 6:9) So, these texts refer to human beings in relation to life on earth. They say nothing about the life to come immediately after this one.
Nick,
The sources I cited were from “Trinitarian” commentaries regarding John 18:1-6 where the officers and soldiers fell down when Jesus identified himself by saying “ego eimi.”
Ah. OK, but since you provided them, I was looking at them as explanations that you agreed with.
Personally, I believe what trinitarian A.T. Robertson had to say. He asks what caused these hundreds of officers and soldiers to fall. One suggestion was "supernatural power exerted by Jesus" (which seems most likely).
Well, then it seems that we apparently agree on that point, that it was supernatural power.
Two hundred (at least) Roman soldiers were there who probably didn't understand Jesus' language. And even if they did understand, they surely wouldn't understand that a mistranslation of a Jewish OT word (ehyeh, Heb. or ho own, Sept.) meant that Jesus was claiming to be God (nor would they even care if he really did claim to be that Jewish God).
And yet, these, 200 Roman soldiers were tumbled over along with the others. It could not be because they recognized “ego eimi” as meaning Jesus was really the true God of the universe! These were Roman soldiers!
I agree that it was supernatural power that knocked them down. And I agree that they did not fall down simply because they heard Jesus say that He was God. If that was all it was, the Romans would have probably just laughed at Him, and the Jews would have become even more infuriated against Him.
I believe that it was Jesus calling Himself by the Name of Almighty God, the Name that was revealed to Moses, and that authoritative, supernatural power was displayed, knocking down all those soldiers and guards, demonstrating that Jesus was indeed God Almighty, who has all authority over men, angels and all of creation.
Hi Jeff,
You told me:
"If "Jehovah is the supreme King, possessing unlimited power and authority," then how could Jehovah (Yahweh) put Jesus "in the position of ruling the universe"? If Jesus rules the universe, then that would mean that Jehovah (Yahweh) would be under Jesus...unless Jesus and Yahweh are one and the same God."
Again, when you give someone “power of attorney” do they become you? God simply delegates such power and authority to his Son this does not mean he has power or authority over his God and Father Yahweh/Jehovah.
What does Jesus do after God’s will and purpose is finally accomplished? Read 1 Corinthians 15:24-28. Yes, Jesus exercises authority of “all THINGS” but not over SOMEONE! You have to understand there is an EXCEPTION. What or rather, WHO, is the exception according to 1 Corinthians 15:24-28? What is the SCRIPTURAL answer to your question? Please answer.
Sincerely,
Nick
Hi Jeff,
I am sorry about hearing about the death of your father. Rest assured that the heavenly father does not have any desire to torture him forever. This might sound strange but he is asleep in hell (latin) or hades (greek) awaiting a resurrection. (John 5:28, 29) There is nothing in ourselves that “lives on.” The soul that sins dies. (Ezekiel 18:4)
This would challenge your statement, “The Bible teaches that the soul survives death in a state of conscious awareness.”
There is something you are not recognizing. At least it appears that way to me. You said:
“Solomon clearly qualified his comment by saying it was "in the grave" that there was "no remembrance" (Ecclesiastes 9:5) or "no activity or planning or knowledge or wisdom" (9:10)
The word “in the grave” is sheol! There is no activity, knowledge, etc. in sheol! Sheol is equivalent to hades or hell (the common grave of man).
Appreciate you recognizing that hell/hades is not the lake of fire. Hades or hell is not Gehenna which is the lake of fire. Like death it gets thrown into the lake of fire. Hades is not eternal. Like death it is brought to nothing. (1 Corinthians 15:26; Revelation 21:4)
I will go over with you what happens in the lake of fire shortly. But what must we acknowledge in Matthew 10:28? Remember, the greek word used there is NOT “hades.” Hades is not Gehenna or the lake of fire. It is mistranslated in the KJV, NIV, and even the NASB among others.
Respectfully,
Nick
Hi Jeff,
In the past I have studied Bill Wiese book "23 Minutes in Hell." I am sure he made a bundle on it. People claim all sorts of wacky things. There are many books on people who talk about their reincarnation experiences in a very matter a fact way.
The Bible cautions us about being gullible regarding fantastic stories. We can believe what men say or what God says. Beware of ideas or teachings based on Satan’s first lie, “you positively will not die.” (Genesis 3:1-5) Accept what God’s Word teaches, that when a man dies “his thoughts do perish.” (Psalm 146:4)
Accept, too, that the sleeping dead will rise during the glorious rule of God’s Kingdom, for which many pray, when “there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous.” (Acts 24:15) Hell or hades will be emptied out and then thrown into the lake of fire, gone forever!
Sincerely,
Nick
Hi Jeff,
In the past I have studied Bill Wiese book "23 Minutes in Hell." I am sure he made a bundle on it. People claim all sorts of wacky things. There are many books on people who talk about their reincarnation experiences in a very matter a fact way. The Bible cautions us about being gullible regarding fantastic stories. We can believe what men say or what God says. Beware of ideas or teachings based on Satan’s first lie, “you positively will not die.” (Genesis 3:1-5) Accept what God’s Word teaches, that when a man dies “his thoughts do perish.” (Psalm 146:4) This is not just good poetry but is Scriptural fact and God's inspired writer wrote the truth on the condition of the dead. Scripture after Scripture tell us the dead are "asleep."
Accept, too, that the sleeping dead will rise during the glorious rule of God’s Kingdom, for which many pray, when “there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous.” (Acts 24:15) Hell or hades will be emptied out and then thrown into the lake of fire, gone forever!
Sincerely,
Nick
Hi Jeff,
You told me:
“The dead know nothing so far as their bodily senses and worldly affairs are concerned.”
Satan tried to say back in the garden of Eden that we don’t REALLY die. God says we positively do die. Was anything mentioned to disobedient Adam that another part of him would continue to exist? Would he go to heaven after he disobeyed him or would Adam go to a literal fiery torture chamber forever if he sinned? Where is Adam today? Where did God say he would return??? (Genesis 3:19)
Nick
Hi Jeff,
You went on to tell me:
“However, while they don't know what is happening on earth, they certainly do know what is going on in Heaven. For example: "When the Lamb broke the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God, and because of the testimony which they had maintained." (Revelation 6:9)”
As we know the Bible doesn’t tell us one thing one place and another thing in another. You are quoting an often figurative and symbolic book that cannot always be taken literally. You know that. In Revelation 6:9 and 10 does say that “souls” are seen under the alter that have been slaughtered and they cry out asking their blood be avenged.
There it says:
“When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne. "They cried out with a loud voice, "O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before you will judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?" (English Standard Version)
Here we are dealing with symbolisms, with which the Book of Revelation is filled. In view of what Leviticus 17:11 says about the life or soul as being in the blood, it is quite evident that John’s words here mean that he saw the blood of faithful Christians who had been slaughtered because of their faithfulness to God and his Word.
How do their souls, or blood, cry out for vengeance? Well, did not righteous Abel’s blood cry out after Cain murdered him? God then said to Cain: “What have you done? Listen! Your brother’s blood is crying out to me from the ground.” (Genesis 4:10, 11; Hebrews 12:24)
It was not that Abel’s blood was literally uttering words. Rather, Abel had died as an innocent victim, and justice called out for his murderer to be punished. Similarly, those Christian martyrs are innocent, and in justice they must be avenged. (Luke 18:7, 8)
The cry for vengeance is loud because many thousands have died. (Compare Jeremiah 15:15, 16)
Instead of turning to a highly symbolic book to prove that souls are immortal or do not die why not first consider what all the rest of the times that Bible clearly tells us the soul dies and it itself is put to death? This is what the Bible combines to teach.
Sincerely,
Nick
Aloha Jeff,
I read this quote and thought you would appreciate it as well. It is brief but worth contemplating.
"It is all too easy to read the traditional interpretations we have received from others into the text of Scripture. Then we may unwittingly transfer the authority of Scripture to our traditional interpretations and invest them with a false, even an idolatrous, degree of certainty. Because traditions are reshaped as they are passed on, after a while we may drift far from God's Word while still insisting all our theological opinions are 'biblical' and therefore true…Many local Bible teachers and preachers have never been forced to confront alternative interpretations at full strength; and because they would lose a certain psychological security if they permitted their own questions, aroused by their own reading of Scripture, to come into full play, they are unlikely to throw over received traditions." –D.A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, pp. 17, 19.
Jeff,
I wanted to commend you on some of your comments on Acts 20:28. Last week one Trinitarian from Calvary Chapel Bible college told me that the Bible tell us that God “split His blood.”
This is NOT true as you point out. The Father did not give his life but his own Son, the beloved Jesus, did.
I think Trinitarian and Scholar Mr. Krodel correctly points out this truth when he writes:
"...he has 'purchased' or obtained it with the blood of his own Son. This translation of v. 28 in the second edition of the RSV is better than that found in the first edition, The Greek text does not contain the word Son, but reads 'his own.' Like 'the Beloved'. (Eph. 1:6), so "his own" refers to the Son of God. Only once in Acts does Luke speak of the saving efficacy of the death of Jesus (cf. Rom. 3:25; 1 Cor. 15:3; 1 Peter 2:24; 3: l8) by using a traditional formulation. God redeemed his people, the church, through the atoning death of his Son, Therefore the church is God's possession."
Respectfully,
Nick
Hello Jeff,
Next time I write I plan to talk about some passages in Revelation and others you bring to the discussion. I will be off Island for a 2 day Bible study assembly in Lanai this weekend. Will probably write you next on Monday.
Before I go I wanted to briefly talk about what took place in Sodom, Gommorah and Edom since it pertains to our discussion. The Word of God makes mention of fire and sulphur first in connection with the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah. (Genesis 19:24)
This is what is interesting, the Bible writer Jude states that “Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities about them… are placed before us as a warning example by undergoing the judicial punishment of everlasting fire.” (Jude 7)
But what really happened to those cities? Jesus himself said:
Luke 17:29 (King James Version)"But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and DESTROYED them all." (caps mine)
For the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah the fire and sulphur meant death. The actual, literal fire stopped burning thousands of years ago. But the destroyed, desolate condition of the cities continues till this very day.
Using similar language the prophet Isaiah foretold concerning the downfall of Edom: “Her torrents must be changed into pitch, and her dust into sulphur; and her land must become as burning pitch. By night or by day it will not be extinguished; to time indefinite its smoke will keep ascending. From generation to generation she will be parched; forever and ever no one will be passing across her.” (Isaiah. 34:5, 9, 10)
According to the same prophecy, wild desert creatures were to take up residence in that devastated land. (Isaiah 34:11-17) That being so, the fire whose smoke keeps ascending to time indefinite cannot be literal. Instead, it represents total and lasting destruction of the once prosperous Edom.
Those judgments inflicted on Sodom and Gomorrah as well as Edom are a standing, perpetual, or ‘eternal’ admonition, warning example for us today . The effect of the fire that destroyed these cities are everlasting.
Okay, that is it for now. Enjoy the weekend.
Nick
Nick,
You said:
Again, when you give someone “power of attorney” do they become you?
Power of Attorney can hardly be compared to a supreme King.
What does Jesus do after God’s will and purpose is finally accomplished? Read 1 Corinthians 15:24-28. Yes, Jesus exercises authority of “all THINGS” but not over SOMEONE! You have to understand there is an EXCEPTION. What or rather, WHO, is the exception according to 1 Corinthians 15:24-28? What is the SCRIPTURAL answer to your question? Please answer.
As I have stated in earlier comments, Jesus, the Son of God, is eternally submissive in role to the Father, though they are equal in essence.
God exists as a tri-unity, and all three "Persons" are co-equal. However, the Holy Spirit glorifies the Son, the Son glorifies the Father, and the Father glorifies the Son.
I may have said this before, but, as a very imperfect and very limited example, the human body is one body. Yet your arm is submissive to your brain; however, both the arm and the brain are part of one body.
A wife is, biblically, submissive to her husband, yet both are co-equal.
Of course, just as with any other earthly analogy to the Trinity, these examples fall apart if taken too far, because God is completely unique and infinitely more complex than anything He created.
Nick,
You said:
I wanted to commend you on some of your comments on Acts 20:28. Last week one Trinitarian from Calvary Chapel Bible college told me that the Bible tell us that God “split His blood.”
This is NOT true as you point out. The Father did not give his life but his own Son, the beloved Jesus, did.
This is, of course, in reference to what you originally said, which was:
One more thing. Someone sent me this passage below to prove that "God" gave "his own blood."
Here it is:
"God has purchased our freedom with his blood and has forgiven all our sins." (Colossians 1:14; NLT)
Wanted also to bounce this text off of you? The way this is worded it would seem an explicit statement to me that God gave his own blood.
What are your thoughts?
I replied,
"Obviously, that is not a direct quote of that verse, in the New Living Translation. The verse states that Jesus purchased our freedom and forgave our sins. However, since Jesus is God Almighty, the statement, although not a direct quote of that verse, is not an incorrect statement as far as its truthfulness."
So when you say, "this is NOT true as you point out," it sounds like you are misrepresenting what I said. Note that what I said was that the wording of it was not an exact quote of the verse. But also note that I said that it was nevertheless a true statement---that God did spill His own blood. The Father did not spill His blood, but Jesus spilled His blood. Since Jesus is God Almighty, God did spill His blood. But, since God is a tri-unity, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinct from one another, and I was pointing out this distinction. I am aware of the error of Sabellianism, or modalism, the belief that God exists in three "manifestations," and, especially in case the "someone" who sent you that passage was a Oneness Pentecostal or someone who believed in modalism, I wanted to be careful that my answer was clearly distinct from that. So, yes, obviously it was Jesus Who died on the cross, and not the Father; but please don't make it appear like, or make an implication, that I said that God did not die on the cross. I just want to make sure we are clear on this.
Nick,
You said:
Before I go I wanted to briefly talk about what took place in Sodom, Gommorah and Edom since it pertains to our discussion. The Word of God makes mention of fire and sulphur first in connection with the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah. (Genesis 19:24)
This is what is interesting, the Bible writer Jude states that “Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities about them… are placed before us as a warning example by undergoing the judicial punishment of everlasting fire.” (Jude 7)
But what really happened to those cities? Jesus himself said:
Luke 17:29 (King James Version)"But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and DESTROYED them all." (caps mine)
For the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah the fire and sulphur meant death. The actual, literal fire stopped burning thousands of years ago. But the destroyed, desolate condition of the cities continues till this very day.
Obviously, the people and cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were earthly, and therefore temporal and not eternal. Neither is any fire on earth eternal. So, obviously, nothing on this earth is eternal. So Jude 7 serves as an example as an illustration to the fact that God will see to it that the unrighteous will be consigned to everlasting punishment on Judgment Day. The burning sulphur that God poured out on Sodom and Gomorrah is merely a foretaste of the everlasting fire that is to come.
You also said:
Using similar language the prophet Isaiah foretold concerning the downfall of Edom: “Her torrents must be changed into pitch, and her dust into sulphur; and her land must become as burning pitch. By night or by day it will not be extinguished; to time indefinite its smoke will keep ascending. From generation to generation she will be parched; forever and ever no one will be passing across her.” (Isaiah. 34:5, 9, 10)
According to the same prophecy, wild desert creatures were to take up residence in that devastated land. (Isaiah 34:11-17) That being so, the fire whose smoke keeps ascending to time indefinite cannot be literal. Instead, it represents total and lasting destruction of the once prosperous Edom.
You stated earlier about Revelation that "you are quoting an often figurative and symbolic book that cannot always be taken literally," and yet you seem to refuse to apply the same principle to certain passages in Isaiah. Isaiah, which contains mixed metaphors and imagery, as well as prophecy, is a book that talks about God's judgment and salvation, and is associated in the New Testament with Christ's Second Coming and the accompanying judgment. Isaiah also uses personification. Treading the winepress is a picture of judgment (63:3). To drink God's "cup of wrath" is to stagger under His punishment (51:17). Isaiah uses the name "Rock" to describe God (17:10), and Leviathan and Rahab represent nations (27:1; 30)7; 51:9). Isaiah contains apocalyptic sections stressing the last days. So, Edom's smoke going up forever and ever could refer to the smoke of Babylon going up forever and ever in Revelation 19:3. Generally, the destruction of the ungodly is everlasting. And if the only consequences for sin are in this life, or if the only penalty for sin is temporary, then sinners have won out over God.
Nick,
Back to something you said:
In the meantime, can you tell me what is the condition of those in SHEOL according to Ecclesiastes 9:10? I will go ahead and quote it for you:
Ecclesiastes 9:10 (New American Standard Bible) "Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might; for there is no activity or planning or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol where you are going."
This is probably a more direct answer than the answer I gave before:
Once in Sheol, all experiences related exclusively to physical life are no longer possible. Those in Sheol do no marry and procreate children because they do not have bodies. Neither do they plan and execute business transactions. Once in Sheol, they cannot attend public worship in the temple and give sacrifices and praise. There are no bodily pleasures such as eating or drinking. Those in Sheol do not have any wisdom or knowledge about what is happening in the land of the living. They are cut off from the living. They have entered a new dimension of reality with its own kind of existence (Ps. 6:5; Eccl. 9:10, etc.). (Death and The Afterlife, Robert Morey, p. 78-80)
Those in Sheol are pictured as conversing with each other and even making moral judgments on the lifestyle of new arrivals (Isa. 14:9-20; 44:23; Ezek. 32:21). They are thus conscious entities while in Sheol. (Death and The Afterlife, Robert Morey, p. 78-80)
While bodies are unconscious in the grave, those in Sheol are viewed as being conscious (Isa 14:4-7; 44:23; Ezek. 31:16; 32:21). (Death and The Afterlife, Robert Morey, p. 78-80)
Nick,
Earlier you said:
The word “in the grave” is sheol! There is no activity, knowledge, etc. in sheol! Sheol is equivalent to hades or hell (the common grave of man).
There exists in Hebrew a specific word for the grave: "kever." When the biblical authors wanted to speak of the grave, they used the word kever. (The term for womb is “kever” in Hebrew and can also be translated ”tomb”. So 'womb' and 'tomb' are related concepts spiritually.) That they did not view kever and Sheol as synonymous is clear from the way these words are used throughout the Old Testament. For example, in Isa. 14:19, the king is cast out of his grave (kever) in order to be thrown into Sheol, where the departed spirits can rebuke him (vv.9,10). In this passage, Sheol and kever are opposites, not synonyms.
This distinction is maintained in the Septuagint as well. In the Septuagint, Sheol is never translated as mneema, which is the Greek word for grave. It is always translated as Hades, which meant the underworld.
Many distinctions exist between kever and Sheol. While bodies are unconscious in the grave, those in Sheol are viewed as being conscious (Isa. 14:4-7; 44:23; Ezek. 31:16; 32:21). While touching a grave brings ceremonial defilement (Num. 19:16), the Scriptures never speak of anyone being defiled by Sheol. While we can enter and leave a tomb or grave (2 Kings 23:16), no one is ever said to enter and then leave Sheol. Many other such distinctions can be found in the Hebrew scriptures.
'Hades' is the Greek name for the place of departed spirits. Hell and Hades are two different places at two different times. Departed spirits of men go to Hades and await judgment. After judgment, the wicked will be cast into Hell. Hades is a Greek word used in the New Testament to denote the realm of conscious departed spirits, and never refers to the grave. If Hades referred to the grave, then saying “death and Hades” in Rev. 20:14 would make little sense. Sheol is a Hebrew word in the Old Testament that is generally equivalent to Hades.
Not once is Hades the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew word for grave (kever). Not once does it mean nonexistence or unconsciousness. The times it is used for words other than Sheol, it clearly means the world of spirits. There is, therefore, no way to escape the conclusion that the translators of the Septuagint clearly understood that Hades referred to the realm of disembodied souls or spirits; and, we must emphasize, that the translators of the Septuagint did not obtain this concept from Platonic Greek thought but from the Hebrew concept of Sheol itself. (Death and The Afterlife, Robert Morey, Dualist, p. 82)
Hey, Nick,
I was just now thinking about annihilation, and sort of meditating on the idea, so I just wanted to jot down some ponderings on the subject, unusual though they may be.
When I was young, there were a couple or so times when I wished I had never been born. At those low moments in my life, if someone had offered me annihilation, I might have gladly accepted it. After all, if you totally cease to exist, then you have no more responsibility, no more worries, no more troubles, and no more cares.
And, if I had been some horribly evil person, like Hitler or something, and I just had a desire to kill and hurt people, I imagine I might prefer simply ceasing to exist over living for a thousand years under the dictatorial rule and domination of Jesus, especially if that meant I had to act good all the time. And I imagine I might consider living for the rest of eternity on earth pretty boring after a while. I mean, getting to play with lions and other wild beasts might be fun for a while, but who really wants to stay on this earth for the rest of eternity? Sure, there is not supposed to be any crime, murder, hatred, etc. any more, but I've already lived on this earth all my life, and just because all the crime and pain goes away doesn't necessarily mean it won't be boring after the first several hundred years or so. I imagine someone could even possibly start to yearn to be annihilated after several thousand years, or maybe several millions of years, of living on this earth.
So anyway, those were just some thoughts I was having.
Hi Jeff,
I just got back last night from what turned out to be a 2 week trip around the Islands here in Hawaii. My wife made me leave my personal laptop at home. :) Will pick up where we left off. I am much more settled now.
Hope you are well,
Nick
Hi Nick.
Thanks. I was wondering what happened, since you stopped commenting.
Hi Jeff,
I can see why you would be wondering that. All of a sudden I go from writing daily to nothing. And after I have got back been trying to take care of some last minute things before we take off to California on way back to Italy next week.
I also have over a dozen questions I needed to respond to from others I correspond with so thanks for your patience. I will take one of your past questions today.
You said: “If there is only annihilation instead of eternal and everlasting punishment in Hell, then why does Jesus say it would be better to cut off your hand, or cut off your foot, or gouge out your eye, rather than go "into Gehenna, into the fire that cannot be put out," in Mark 9:43-48?”
I was just reading Matthew 5:29, 30 and thought of what you said here in the parallel account Gospel account in Mark 9.
Did you hear about the eighteen-year-old student at the University of Washington who gouged out his right eye and cut off his right hand. Campus police say that, en route to the hospital, the youth quoted these words:
“If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.” (Matthew 5:29, 30, “Revised Standard Version)”
Some who read the newspaper report of the mutilation incident may wonder how this statement by Jesus Christ is to be understood. The plucking out of the eye and the cutting off of the hand are here not to be applied literally.
The application to be made is stated in Colossians 3:5-7:
“Deaden, therefore, your body members that are upon the earth as respects fornication, uncleanness, sexual appetite, hurtful desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. On account of those things the wrath of God is coming. In those very things you, too, once walked when you used to live in them.”
So, the proper course is, not to mutilate oneself, but to deaden one’s body members toward sin. (1 Corinthians 9:27)
People are often willing to sacrifice a literal limb that is diseased in order to save their lives. But according to Jesus, it is even more vital to ‘throw away’ anything, even something as precious as an eye or a hand, to avoid immoral thinking and actions. Otherwise, Jesus explains, such persons will be thrown into Gehenna which symbolizes eternal destruction.
From this language we see that Jesus used in a symbolical manner the ancient Gehenna that was located outside the walls of Jerusalem. Jesus did not mean that his followers should pluck out a literal eye or chop off a literal right hand like that confused, distraught young man who amputated his own members.
Rather, Jesus was talking about something precious that causes us to sin with the right eye or the right hand. Accordingly, then, as the eye and right hand were spoken of symbolically, Gehenna must also have been spoken of in a symbolical way, not literally.
Will be getting back to you more later on other points and scriptures you shared.
Respectfully,
Nick
Nick,
Jesus did not mean that his followers should pluck out a literal eye or chop off a literal right hand like that confused, distraught young man who amputated his own members.
Yes, cutting off your hand or cutting out your eye will not stop a person from sinning. Amputees, crippled people and blind people are still sinners. And the root of sin does not come from a hand or an eye or a foot; it comes from what we refer to as your "heart" (though even this is symbolic, because we do not literally mean the physical organ that pumps blood). Christianity teaches that sin comes from an inherent sin nature---the desires and thoughts and passions of the unregenerate person are corrupted, ever since Adam sinned, and his corrupted nature was passed down to the entire human race. So yes, hyperbole is apparently used in Mark 9:43-48 to show the need for drastic action. But the question is, why such drastic action? Continuing this same thought, you also said:
People are often willing to sacrifice a literal limb that is diseased in order to save their lives. But according to Jesus, it is even more vital to ‘throw away’ anything, even something as precious as an eye or a hand, to avoid immoral thinking and actions. Otherwise, Jesus explains, such persons will be thrown into Gehenna which symbolizes eternal destruction.
Yes, better to cut off a leg than to have gangrene spread, for example. Yet, why would it be "even more vital to ‘throw away’ anything, even something as precious as an eye or a hand," if a person will merely be annihilated?
To emphasize what I mean, go one verse back, to Mark 9:42, where it says, "And if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck." If Annihilation is true, then why would it be better "to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck" than to be annihilated?
Hi Jeff,
You also told me:
“And if there is only annihilation, then why do those same verses say (in the NWT) that the fire cannot be put out, and "their maggot does not die"? Why would the fire not be put out, and the maggots not die, if the torment was not eternal and everlasting?”
Take a look at Isaiah 66:24 which foretells that persons having God’s favor “will actually go forth and look upon the carcasses of the men that were transgressing against God; for the very worms upon them will not die and their fire itself will not be extinguished, and they must become something repulsive to all flesh.”
Clearly this is not a picture of conscious torment but of a terrible destruction. What are left are, not conscious souls or persons that are alive,” but dead “carcasses.”
The scripture shows that it is, not the humans, but the maggots or worms upon them that are alive. Also, no mention is made here of any “immortal soul.” (Ezekiel 18:4) And again, the imagery of fire symbolizes complete destruction.
In the prophecy of Jeremiah the Valley of Hinnom is similarly linked with a destruction of faithless humans. “‘Look! there are days coming,’ is the utterance of Jehovah, “when this place will be called no more Topheth and the valley of the son of Hinnom, but the valley of the killing. And I will make void the counsel of Judah and of Jerusalem in this place, and I will cause them to fall by the sword before their enemies and by the hand of those seeking for their soul. And I will give their dead bodies as food to the flying creatures of the heavens and to the beasts of the earth.” (Jeremiah 19:6, 7)
Note that Jeremiah’s reference to the Valley of Hinnom contains no hint of conscious torment after death. The picture drawn is one of total destruction, the “dead bodies” being consumed by scavenger birds and beasts.
I will keep visiting with comments until I finally catch up to your expressions.
Respectfully,
Nick
Hi Jeff,
One thought regarding Mark 9:42:
"Mark 9:42, where it says, "And if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck." If Annihilation is true, then why would it be better "to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck" than to be annihilated?”
I think you are reading into this verse something that is not there. In Mark 9:42, Jesus says nothing about eternal torment in hell. And in the verse(s) about Gehenna, nothing is said about eternal torment either.
Nothing living was cast into the literal Gehenna, the incinerator in the Valley of Hinnom in ancient Jerusalem. Therefore, nothing was alive to be tormented in the literal garbage-dump Gehenna, and Gehenna was not a symbol of any kind of torment.
Rather, whatever was cast into the literal Gehenna was totally consumed, and Gehenna became a symbol of complete destruction, not torment. It is irrelevant whether the "fire" goes out or not, Gehenna was not a symbol of torment.
Eternal destruction and loss of God's favor is indeed a severe punishment, especially when the option is eternal life in a perfect Paradise.
Regardless of how man looks at it, we have to accept God's judgment. And He specifically says in the Bible that burning people in the fire is something that never came into His mind, Jeremiah 7:31: "And they have built the high places of Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, in order to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, a thing that I had not commanded and that had not come up into my heart."
Sincerely,
Nick
Hi Jeff,
You said correctly:
“So yes, hyperbole is apparently used in Mark 9:43-48 to show the need for drastic action. But the question is, why such drastic action?”
The “eye” spoken of by Jesus represents the power or ability to focus our attention on something, and the “hand” relates to what we do with our hands. If care is not exercised, these body parts may cause us to “stumble” and cease ‘walking with God.’ (Genesis 5:22; 6:9)
When tempted to disobey Jehovah, then, we need to take strong action, figuratively tearing out an eye or cutting off a hand.
You seem to understand that Jesus was not here teaching self-mutilation, something that would have been in opposition to the principles of God’s law to the Jews. But he knew that the eye is capable of kindling a covetous spirit and the hand can be used to manipulate matters for selfish gratification.
At the same time, Jesus knew that the eye and the hand are useful for many godly activities when controlled by a mind nourished upon godly teaching. Instead of the fleshly members directing the thinking, the mind should have those members under control.
If one allows the eyes and the hands to get the best of them they forfeit everlasting life, that means everlasting death. They would be destroyed forever. (See Matthew 7:13, 14; 2 Peter 3:9)
Those who experience Gehenna will be snuffed out of existence. Says “The New Bible Commentary (page 779): “Gehenna was the Hellenized form of the name of the valley of Hinnom at Jerusalem in which fires were kept constantly burning to consume the refuse of the city. This is a powerful picture of final destruction.”
Okay, gotta go. Will respond to your "sheol, hades, and torment" comments soon.
Nick
Nick,
You also told me:
“And if there is only annihilation, then why do those same verses say (in the NWT) that the fire cannot be put out, and "their maggot does not die"? Why would the fire not be put out, and the maggots not die, if the torment was not eternal and everlasting?”
Take a look at Isaiah 66:24 which foretells that persons having God’s favor “will actually go forth and look upon the carcasses of the men that were transgressing against God; for the very worms upon them will not die and their fire itself will not be extinguished, and they must become something repulsive to all flesh.”
Clearly this is not a picture of conscious torment but of a terrible destruction. What are left are, not conscious souls or persons that are alive,” but dead “carcasses.”
The scripture shows that it is, not the humans, but the maggots or worms upon them that are alive.
The NIV footnote for Isaiah 66:24 says, in part, "worm will not die. There will be everlasting torment."
The NIV footnote for Mark 9:48 says, in part, "As the final word of Isaiah's message, the passage became familiar as a picture of endless destruction. worm does not die. Worms were always present in the rubbish dump.
Nick,
Also, no mention is made here of any “immortal soul.” (Ezekiel 18:4)
As we have discussed in the past, words can have different meanings in different contexts. The word for soul (nephesh) is an example. In Ezekiel 18:4, "soul" indeed is used in the sense of "living person" or "person." However, just because the word is used in this one way in Ezekiel 18:4 does not mean the word must mean the same thing in every other verse. In Genesis 35:18, "soul" apparently refers to man's immaterial nature: "And it came about as her soul was departing (for she died), that she named him Ben-oni; but his father called him Ben-jamin." This verse recognizes the soul as distinct from the physical body which dies. Other examples which also imply the soul as distinct from the physical body:
"Yes, we are fully confident, and we would rather be away from these earthly bodies, for then we will be at home with the Lord. So whether we are here in this body or away from this body, our goal is to please him. For we must all stand before Christ to be judged. We will each receive whatever we deserve for the good or evil we have done in this earthly body." (2 Corinthians 5:8-10)
"I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far." (Philippians 1:23)
"When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God and the testimony they had maintained. They called out in a loud voice, "How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?" Then each of them was given a white robe, and they were told to wait a little longer, until the number of their fellow servants and brothers who were to be killed as they had been was completed." (Revelation 6:9-11)
Why does it say that there is no rest day or night in the following verse?
"...he, too, will drink of the wine of God's fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. He will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his image, or for anyone who receives the mark of his name." (Revelation 14:10-11)
How can there be weeping and gnashing [grinding] of teeth [together] if they are annihilated?
"and throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." (Matthew 13:50)
If there is no existence away from our bodies, then what does the following verse mean?:
"I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago, whether in the body I do not know, or out of the body I do not know, God knows such a man was caught up to the third heaven." (2 Cor. 12:2)
If a Jehovah's Witnesses believes that he ceases to exist when he dies and that he will be resurrected at the Judgment Day, then is he really being resurrected? In other words, if he was alive and then has ceased to exist, he is in the same state he was before he was created. That is, he isn't. He has no existence. He is gone. The only remnant of this person would be in the memory of God (not counting family and friends, etc.). Only God would know if this Jehovah's Witness was good enough for Paradise Earth. If he was, then the reward would be a new creation of someone in the exact image of the Jehovah's Witness who previously lived and did all the works mandated by the Watchtower Organization. But, it wouldn't be the exact same person, because that person ceased to exist, and there is no continuity, no continuance of the person, since he has ceased to be.
Therefore, on Judgment day, how can he be resurrected? That is, how is he, as the same person, resurrected when he doesn't exist anymore? Is he the exact same person or has God make an exact copy of the person upon which to shower the blessings of Paradise Earth?
If annihilation is true, how could they be tormented forever and ever?:
"And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever." (Revelation 20:10)
Eternal destruction and loss of God's favor is indeed a severe punishment, especially when the option is eternal life in a perfect Paradise.
By "eternal destruction," I know you mean annihilation. I disagree that annihilation would be a severe punishment for those who don't love God. I have met people on the Internet that have a hatred and/or a grudge against God, and would never want to spend eternity with God. So, for them, being annihilated would be a far, far better choice than having to stay around and obey God and be accountable to God. Being annihilated means that you have no more responsibility, no more accountability, no more worries, and you can be 'at peace' forever.
And He specifically says in the Bible that burning people in the fire is something that never came into His mind, Jeremiah 7:31: "And they have built the high places of Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, in order to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, a thing that I had not commanded and that had not come up into my heart."
That verse is talking about sacrificing children to pagan gods. Of course God never commanded anyone to sacrifice their children to pagan gods. Burning their sons and daughters in the fire was prohibited in the law of Moses.
Nevertheless, the "Valley of Hinnom," Hebrew ge' hinnom, from which came "Gehenna," Greek geenna, is consistently translated in the New Testament as "hell," and is an earthly picture of the place of eternal, fiery punishment for all who die without having trusted Christ Jesus, God the Son, as their Savior.
Nothing living was cast into the literal Gehenna, the incinerator in the Valley of Hinnom in ancient Jerusalem.
Incorrect. Besides being a garbage dump, it was also a place for sacrificing children to pagan gods. It was practiced by Ahaz (2 Kings 16:2-3) and Manassah (2 Kings 21:1,6).
Therefore, nothing was alive to be tormented in the literal garbage-dump Gehenna, and Gehenna was not a symbol of any kind of torment.
Rather, whatever was cast into the literal Gehenna was totally consumed, and Gehenna became a symbol of complete destruction, not torment. It is irrelevant whether the "fire" goes out or not, Gehenna was not a symbol of torment.
Again, living children were thrown into there, so it was indeed a symbol of torment.
Hi Jeff,
Meant to write an expression yesterday but had a late night basketball game. Boy, feeling the effects today.
After sharing this text:
“Ecclesiastes 9:10 (New American Standard Bible) "Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might; for there is no activity or planning or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol where you are going."
You told me:
“Those in Sheol are pictured as conversing with each other and even making moral judgments on the lifestyle of new arrivals (Isa. 14:9-20; 44:23; Ezek. 32:21). They are thus conscious entities while in Sheol. (Death and The Afterlife, Robert Morey, p. 78-80)
It appears we have two choices: That the Bible text in Ecclesiastics 9:5. 6, 10 is untrue and not part of the inspired scripture, or the text in Isaiah 14 is pictorial and simply emphasizes the extent of debasement that Babylon would suffer, just as Jesus Illustration in Luke about the Rich Man and Lazarus is pictorial or symbolic, which even the context leading up to it shows that Jesus enemies listening understood it to be symbolic and about them.
Isaiah 14:4 makes clear that what Isaiah was about to says was a “proverbial saying,” this passage is clearly allegorical which can be see because inanimate things are conversing . Jeff, check out Judges 9:8-15 and tell me what you think.
Isaiah 44:23 says: “Shout for joy, O heavens, for the LORD has done it! Shout joyfully, you lower parts of the earth; Break forth into a shout of joy, you mountains, O forest, and every tree in it; For the LORD has redeemed Jacob And in Israel He shows forth His glory.” (NASB)
We see that “sheol” is not mentioned but if you think “lower parts of the earth,” sheol is meant here, how should we understand this text? Do mountains, forests, and trees literally shout for joy?
We also find Ezekiel lifted up dirges about Pharaoh and the descent of Egypt into Sheol but all is said is these will be like those who go down in death into “the land down below,” yes, “into the pit” of burial. (Ezekiel 31:14)
The Bible commentary edited by Schaff-Lange says: “The use of the word belongs predominantly to the poetic language of the Old Testament . . . Sheol appears as the aggregate of all graves. Who could venture to deny this aspect of the matter, at least for the 31st and 32d chapters of Ezekiel? It is the universal grave, which calls down to itself all earthly life, how high soever it may have reached.”
You do correctly point out that “sheol” does not simply mean “the grave,” (Kever). One of our publications, “Insight on the Scriptures,” (Volume 2; pages 922-923) states this from the outset. Perhaps you can take a look below. My comments will be sporadic this weekend as I find time as we say goodbye to family and friends.
Take care,
Nick
-continuing
Throughout the inspired Scriptures, Sheol is continually associated with death and not life. (1Sa 2:6; 2Sa 22:6; Ps 18:4, 5; 49:7-10, 14, 15; 88:2-6; 89:48; Isa 28:15-18; also compare Ps 116:3, 7-10 with 2Co 4:13, 14.) It is spoken of as “the land of darkness” (Job 10:21) and a place of silence. (Ps 115:17) Abel apparently was the first one to go to Sheol, and since then countless millions of human dead have joined him in the dust of the ground.
On the day of Pentecost 33 C.E., the apostle Peter quoted from Psalm 16:10 and applied it to Christ Jesus. Luke, in quoting Peter’s words, used the Greek word hai′des, thereby showing that Sheol and Hades refer to the same thing, mankind’s common grave. (Ac 2:25-27, 29-32) During the Thousand Year Reign of Jesus Christ, Sheol, or Hades, is emptied and destroyed, through a resurrection of all of those in it.—Re 20:13, 14; see GRAVE; HADES; HELL.
Jonah and Sheol. In the account about Jonah, it is stated that “Jonah prayed to Jehovah his God from the inward parts of the fish and said: ‘Out of my distress I called out to Jehovah, and he proceeded to answer me. Out of the belly of Sheol I cried for help. You heard my voice.’” (Jon 2:1, 2) Therefore, Jonah was comparing the inside of the fish to Sheol. He was as good as dead inside the fish, but Jehovah brought up his life from the pit, or Sheol, by preserving him alive and having him disgorged.—Jon 2:6; compare Ps 30:3.
Jesus compared Jonah’s being in the belly of the fish with what would happen in his own case, saying: “For just as Jonah was in the belly of the huge fish three days and three nights, so the Son of man will be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights.” (Mt 12:40) Although Jesus did not here use the word “Sheol” (Hades), the apostle Peter did use the word “Hades” when referring to Jesus’ death and resurrection.—Ac 2:27.
Regarding the word “Sheol,” Brynmor F. Price and Eugene A. Nida noted: “The word occurs often in the Psalms and in the book of Job to refer to the place to which all dead people go. It is represented as a dark place, in which there is no activity worthy of the name. There are no moral distinctions there, so ‘hell’ (KJV) is not a suitable translation, since that suggests a contrast with ‘heaven’ as the dwelling-place of the righteous after death. In a sense, ‘the grave’ in a generic sense is a near equivalent, except that Sheol is more a mass grave in which all the dead dwell together. . . . The use of this particular imagery may have been considered suitable here [in Jonah 2:2] in view of Jonah’s imprisonment in the interior of the fish.”—A Translators Handbook on the Book of Jonah, 1978, p. 37.
"Insight on the Scriptures"-SHEOL
(She′ol).
The common grave of mankind, gravedom; not an individual burial place or grave (Heb., qe′ver, Jg 16:31; qevu•rah′, Ge 35:20), nor an individual tomb (Heb., ga•dhish′, Job 21:32).
While several derivations for the Hebrew word she’ohl′ have been offered, apparently it is derived from the Hebrew verb sha•’al′, meaning “ask; request.” Regarding Sheol, in A Compendious Hebrew Lexicon, Samuel Pike stated that it is “the common receptacle or region of the dead; so called from the insatiability of the grave, which is as it were always asking or craving more.” (Cambridge, 1811, p. 148) This would indicate that Sheol is the place (not a condition) that asks for or demands all without distinction, as it receives the dead of mankind within it.—Ge 37:35, ftn; Pr 30:15, 16.
The Hebrew word she’ohl′ occurs 65 times in the Masoretic text. In the King James Version, it is translated 31 times as “hell,” 31 times as “grave,” and 3 times as “pit.” The Catholic Douay Version rendered the word 63 times as “hell,” once as “pit,” and once as “death.” In addition, at Isaiah 7:11 the Hebrew text originally read she’ohl′, and it was rendered as “Hades” in the ancient Greek versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, and as “hell” in the Douay Version.—See NW ftn.
There is no English word that conveys the precise sense of the Hebrew word she’ohl′. Commenting on the use of the word “hell” in Bible translation, Collier’s Encyclopedia (1986, Vol. 12, p. 28) says: “Since Sheol in Old Testament times referred simply to the abode of the dead and suggested no moral distinctions, the word ‘hell,’ as understood today, is not a happy translation.” More recent versions transliterate the word into English as “Sheol.”—RS, AT, NW.
Regarding Sheol, the Encyclopaedia Britannica (1971, Vol. 11, p. 276) noted: “Sheol was located somewhere ‘under’ the earth. . . . The state of the dead was one of neither pain nor pleasure. Neither reward for the righteous nor punishment for the wicked was associated with Sheol. The good and the bad alike, tyrants and saints, kings and orphans, Israelites and gentiles—all slept together without awareness of one another.”
While the Greek teaching of the immortality of the human soul infiltrated Jewish religious thinking in later centuries, the Bible record shows that Sheol refers to mankind’s common grave as a place where there is no consciousness. (Ec 9:4-6, 10) Those in Sheol neither praise God nor mention him. (Ps 6:4, 5; Isa 38:17-19) Yet it cannot be said that it simply represents ‘a condition of being separated from God,’ since the Scriptures render such a teaching untenable by showing that Sheol is “in front of” him, and that God is in effect “there.” (Pr 15:11; Ps 139:7, 8; Am 9:1, 2) For this reason Job, longing to be relieved of his suffering, prayed that he might go to Sheol and later be remembered by Jehovah and be called out from Sheol.—Job 14:12-15.
-continued
Nick,
Jeff, check out Judges 9:8-15 and tell me what you think.
The NIV footnote says:
"9:8 trees went out. Fables of this type, in which inanimate objects speak and act, were popular among Eastern peoples of that time (see 2 Kings 14:9)."
It is easy to see that this is an allegory. Trees don't talk. However, you also said, ...just as Jesus Illustration in Luke about the Rich Man and Lazarus is pictorial or symbolic... Jesus never used any actual person's name in His parables, so the fact that He uses the name of a person, "Lazarus," tells me that this is not a parable, but an actual account.
Hell, biblically, is the place and condition of retribution for unredeemed man. Those who refuse to accept the biblical fact that Hell is a place of everlasting torment are going to be in for a very rude awakening when they face God at the Judgment.
“…it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than to have two hands or two feet and be cast into the eternal fire.” (Matthew 18:8b, NASB)
The fire of Hell is unquenchable.
“His winnowing fork is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clear His threshing floor; and He will gather His wheat into the barn, but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire." (Matthew 3:12)
“where THEIR WORM DOES NOT DIE, AND THE FIRE IS NOT QUENCHED.” (Mark 9:44, NASB, caps original)
“But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, 'You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.” (Matthew 5:22) As you already know, Nick, the Greek word for ‘Hell’ here is ‘Gehenna,’ which derives its name from a deep ravine south of Jerusalem, the “Valley of (the Sons of) Hinnom” (Hebrew “ge hinnom”), and during the reigns of the wicked Ahaz and Manassah, human sacrifices to the Ammonite god Molech were offered there. It became a sort of perpetually-burning city dump, and later a figure for the place of final punishment.
Post a Comment