Sunday, 10 March 2024
John14:14 demystified.
John 14:14 "Ask me"
Robert Bowman in his Understanding Jehovah’s Witnesses, Baker Book House, 1991:
"John 14:14 should also be mentioned. In the NWT this reads: “If YOU ask anything in my name, I will do it.” The Greek text in the KIT [Kingdom Interlinear Translation], however, has me after ask, so that it should be translated: “If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it.” It is true that some later Greek manuscripts omitted this word, but most of the earlier ones included it, and most modern editions of the Greek New Testament include it. At the very least, the NWT ought to have mentioned this reading in a note." - pp. 67-68.
But at John 14:14 'me' is omitted after 'ask' in the following trinitarian Bibles:
ASV; CBW; Darby; GNV; JB; KJ21; KJV; MLB; NEB; REB; NKJV; LB; MKJV (Green); NLV; RSV; WEB; WE; Young’s.
Many of them do not mention an alternate reading of 'me' in a note! And, likewise, many of the Bibles which do translate ‘ask me’ in this verse do not mention an alternate reading without ‘me’!!
The prestigious The Expositor’s Greek New Testament (Vol. 1, p. 824) also omits “me” from its text and does not even bother to address the matter in its voluminous notes. Bible Analyzer calls this 5-volume work “The Premier Greek Resource.”
This is a disputed text. There exists manuscript evidence that ‘me’ may not have been used by the original writer. (Also see http://sahidicinsight.blogspot.com/ - Nov. 2, 2010 - where ‘Memra’ explains the importance of the ancient Coptic translation of this verse.)
However, there is no such dispute about John 16:23 where John wrote: “... whatever you ask the Father for, he will give you in my name.” We should ask the Father (not the Son) in Jesus’ name. Therefore 'me' at John 14:14 is even more in doubt.
Bowman has access to a copy of (and is quite familiar with) the 1984 NWT Reference Bible. He repeatedly quotes from it and refers to notes in it in both this 1991 publication (Understanding Jehovah’s Witnesses) and his 1989 publication, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jesus Christ, and the Gospel of John.
Yes, the 1984 NWT Reference Bible (which does have notes, of course) says in a footnote for John 14:14:
14* “Ask,” ADIt and in agreement with 15:16 and 16:23; P66 [Aleph]BWVgSy(h,p), “ask me.”
So for Bowman to pretend here that the NWT does not even mention that some Greek manuscripts have the word ‘me’ in this verse is simply inexcusable!
Posted by Elijah Daniels
John20:28 demystified.
MY GOD:
John 20:28 - “My God”
John 20:19 - “On the evening of that day [when the resurrected Jesus was first seen], the first day of the week, the doors being shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, ‘Peace be with you.’
(:20) - “When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. THEN [upon seeing this] the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord.
(:21) - “Jesus said to them again, ‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’
(:22) - “And when he had said this he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit.
(:23) - “‘If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.’
(:24) - “Now Thomas, one of the twelve, called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came.
(:25) - “So the other disciples told him, ‘We have seen the Lord.’ But he said to them, ‘Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails [as the other disciples had already seen], and place my hand in his side, I will not believe.’
(:26) - “Eight days later, his disciples were again in the house, and Thomas was with them. The doors were shut, but Jesus came and stood among them, and said, ‘Peace be with you.’
(:27) - “Then he said to Thomas, ‘Put your finger here, and SEE my hands; and put your hand, and place it in my side; do not be faithless, but believing.’
(:28) - “Thomas answered him, ‘My Lord and my God!’
(:29) - “Jesus said to him, ‘Have you believed because you have SEEN me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.’
(:30) - “Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book;
(:31) - “but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God” - John 20:19-31, RSV.
John 20:28 (“Thomas answered, ‘My Lord and my God [ho kurios mou kai ho Qeos mou]’”) is one of the favorite trinitarian “proofs” of the trinity doctrine. In fact, Dr. Walter Martin, the famous Trinity-defender and “cult-buster,” calls this scripture “the greatest single testimony recorded in the Scriptures” of the “Deity of Christ.” - KOTC, p. 95.
To examine it properly we should (1) discuss the context, (2) discuss the implications if “my God” was not meant to apply directly to Jesus, (3) discuss the implications if those words were meant to be applied directly to Jesus, (4) discuss the use of the definite article with theos ('God') in this verse, and (5) examine the evidence that Thomas was speaking about TWO different persons: Jesus ('my Lord') and God ('my God').
(1) Thomas had said (verse :25) that unless something happened he would “not believe.” What was it that Thomas refused to believe? Was it that he refused to believe that Jesus was equally God with the Father? There is certainly no hint of this before or after Thomas’ statement at John 20:28.
If the disciples had learned, upon seeing the resurrected Jesus, that he was God, certainly they would have indicated this! But notice, neither before nor after receiving Holy Spirit (:22) did they kneel or do any act of worship such as one would certainly do upon coming aware of being in the presence of God!
Notice that the disciples who had seen Jesus earlier did not tell Thomas that Jesus was God (:25)! This is an incredible oversight if they had really believed they had seen God! Certainly, if they had discovered that Jesus was really God when they saw him resurrected, they would have talked of nothing else!
If, on the other hand, they had already known that Jesus was God even before seeing his resurrected form, then Thomas, too, would have already known about it and certainly would not have meant: “Unless I see ... the print of nails [etc.] ... I will not believe [Jesus is God].”
No, the context of John 20:24, 25, and 29 shows that Thomas refused to believe that Jesus had been resurrected from the dead. (See footnote for John 20:8 in The NIV Study Bible, Zondervan, 1985: “John did not say what [the disciple who saw the empty tomb of Jesus] believed, but it must have been that Jesus was resurrected.” - Also see Barclay’s The Daily Study Bible Series: The Gospel of John, Revised Edition, Vol. 2, p. 267, and pp. 275, 276.)
Certainly, being resurrected from the dead does not make you God. Other persons in the Scriptures had been resurrected from the dead before (and after) Jesus, and no one, for a moment, ever suspected them of being God! In fact, being resurrected from the dead would have been used as evidence that a person was not God, since God has always been immortal and cannot die in the first place!
Furthermore, Jesus’ statements before and after Thomas’ exclamation (“my Lord and my God!”) show not only that Jesus wanted Thomas to believe that he had been resurrected to life but that he could not possibly be God!!
Jesus’ command to Thomas to literally touch his wounds and actually see his hands proves that he meant, “See, I am the same person you saw die, but now I am alive ... be believing that I have been resurrected to life” (not, “see, these wounds prove I am God ... be believing that I am God”).
Notice that the reason given for Thomas to “be believing” is that he can see Jesus’ hands and their wounds. Likewise, after Thomas says “My Lord and my God,” Jesus reaffirms that Thomas now believes (as did the other disciples after seeing - Jn.20:20) that Jesus has been resurrected (not that he is God) “because you have seen me” (:29).
Certainly Jesus wouldn’t mean, “you believe I am God because you can see me.” Instead, this is proof that Jesus, Thomas, John, and the other disciples did not believe Jesus was equally God with the Father! How? Because John himself has made it manifestly clear that “no one [no human] has ever seen God” - 1 John 4:12, RSV. (See the SF study; also OMN 3-5.)
“For the NT God is utterly invisible (Jn. 6:46; 1 Tim. 1:17; 6:16; Col. 1:15). ‘God does not become visible; He is revealed,’ ... yet the resurrection narratives especially stress that the risen Christ is visible.” - The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, p. 518, Vol. 3, Zondervan, 1986.
Therefore, since no man has ever directly seen God (who is the Father only - John 5:37, 6:46; 17:1, 3) but men have only indirectly “seen” God through representations such as visions, dreams, etc., Jesus is saying: “Believe I have been resurrected and that I am obviously not God because you see me directly (and even touch me so you can be sure I’m not a vision or an indirect representation).”
What about the rest of the context? (1) As noted before, Thomas did not bow down, worship, etc. upon learning that it was really Jesus and saying 'my lord and my god.' He could not have just discovered that he was in the presence of God and acted the way he did! (2) It’s also obvious that Jesus did not understand Thomas to be calling him equally God with the Father in heaven. But did John, in spite of the incredible contradiction of a previous statement (like 1 John 4:12 above) at John 1:18 that “no man hath seen God at any time,” somehow think that Thomas understood Jesus to be God?
Well, no other disciple of Jesus ever made a statement to him which could honestly be construed as meaning Jesus is God! So, (3) if John had, somehow, understood Thomas’ statement that way, he certainly would have provided some follow-up clarification and emphasis in his own comments.
Surely John would have shown Thomas prostrating himself before “God” and worshiping him (but he doesn’t!). So how does John summarize this incident? - “But these were written that you may believe [Believe what? That Jesus is God? Here, then, is where it should have been written if John really believed such a thing:] that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.” - John 20:31, RSV. (Be sure to compare 1 John 5:5.)
Or, as the trinitarian The NIV Study Bible, Zondervan, 1985, states in a footnote for this scripture:
“This whole Gospel is written to show the truth of Jesus’ Messiahship and to present him as the Son of God, so that the readers may believe in him.”
Obviously, neither Jesus’ response, nor Thomas’ responses (before and after his statement at John 20:28), nor John’s summation of the event at 20:31 recognizes Thomas’ statement to mean that Jesus is the only true God!
So it is clear from context alone that neither Jesus, nor John, (nor Thomas) considered the statement at John 20:28 to mean that Jesus is equally God with the Father. (Remember this is the same Gospel account that also records Jesus’ last prayer to the Father at John 17:1, 3: “Father,.... This is eternal life: to know thee who alone art truly God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.” - NEB. It is obvious from this scripture alone that Jesus and the writer of the Gospel of John do not believe Jesus is equally God with the Father!)
This may be, then, one of those places where the idioms of an ancient language are not completely understood by modern translators.
As the Encyclopaedia Britannica, 14th ed., vol. 13, p. 25, puts it:
"And it is not certain that even the words Thomas addressed to Jesus (Jn. 20:28) meant what they suggest in the English Version." - (Britannica article by Rev. Charles Anderson Scott, M.A., D.D. Dunn Professor of New Testament, Theological College of the Presbyterian Church of England, Cambridge.)
And John M. Creed, as Professor of Divinity at the University of Cambridge, wrote:
“‘my Lord and my God’ (Joh.xx.28) is still not quite the same as an address to Christ as being without qualification God, and it must be balanced by the words of the risen Christ himself ... (v.17): ... ‘I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and my God and your God.’” - The Divinity of Jesus Christ, J. M. Creed, p. 123.
Yes, think about that very carefully: After Jesus was resurrected, he continued to call the Father in heaven “my God”! (Even after he was fully restored to heaven and seated at the right hand of God - Rev. 3:2; 3:12.) So if we must insist, as many trinitarians do, that the single instance of Thomas’ saying “MY God” in Jesus’ presence, with all its uncertainties, means that Jesus is superior in every way to Thomas (in essence, eternity, authority, etc.), what do Jesus’ even clearer statements that the Father is his God actually mean? -
“He who conquers, ... I will write on him the name of MY God, and the name of the city of MY God, ... and my own name.” - Rev. 3:12, RSV (Compare Rev. 14:1).
You can’t have it both ways. If Thomas’ statement (“my God”) can only mean that Jesus is ultimately superior to Thomas in all respects, then Jesus’ repeated and even clearer statements that the Father is his God can only mean that the Father is ultimately superior to Jesus in all respects. If Thomas really understood that Jesus was equally God with the Father, it is certainly blasphemous for John and other inspired Bible writers to turn around and call the Father the God of the Christ! - Micah 5:4; 1 Cor. 11:3; 2 Cor. 11:31; Eph. 1:3, 17; 1 Peter 1:3; Rev. 3:12.
.............................................................
Micah 5:4 - American Standard Version (ASV)
“And he [the Messiah] shall stand, and shall feed his flock in the strength of Jehovah, in the majesty of the name of Jehovah his God:”
1 Corinthians 11:3 - New American Standard Bible (NASB)
“But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.”
2 Corinthians 11:31 - New American Standard Bible (NASB)
“The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, He who is blessed forever, knows that I am not lying.”
Ephesians 1:3 - New American Standard Bible (NASB)
“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ,”
Ephesians 1:17 - New American Standard Bible (NASB)
“that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of Him.”
1 Peter 1:3 - New American Standard Bible (NASB)
“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,”
Revelation 3:12 - New American Standard Bible (NASB)
“He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he will not go out from it anymore; and I will write on him the name of My God, and the name of the city of My God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God, and My new name.”
Also see Ro. 15:6; 2 Cor. 1:3; Col. 1:3; Rev. 1:6; 3:2.
Colossians2:9 demystified.
"Fulness of Deity" - Col. 2:9
Col. 2:9 - "For in him [Jesus] the whole fulness [Gr. pleroma] of deity [theotes] dwells[1] bodily" - RSV.
The word theotes appears only this once in the entire New Testament [NT] (and never in the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament [OT]). It has been rendered in various trinitarian translations as follows: "Godhead" - KJV, ASV, NEB, REB, MLB; "deity" - RSV, NASB, NRSV, NIV, NAB, CBW, Mo, By; "divinity" - JB, NJB. It should be remembered also that "Godhead" as found in the older English Bibles (such as KJV) had a different meaning than it has come to have in modern English. "In older English ['Godhead'] was a synonym for divinity"[2] - p. 221, Vol. 2, A Dictionary of the Bible, Hastings, 1988 printing; and p. 362, An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, Liddell and Scott, Oxford University Press, 1994 printing.
Theotes simply does not literally mean "godhead," and the use of "godhead" by the KJV translators was not intended as some would understand it today.[3] Actually, the heavenly Father, alone, is the closest thing to a literal "Godhead" to be found anywhere in the inspired Scriptures - see 1 Cor. 11:3.
Col. 2:9 is also rendered by noted trinitarian scholars with these translations of theotes: "The full content of divine nature" - TEV and GNB (also see Barclay); "God's whole being" - Beck (NT); "God's nature" - AT; "Yet it is in [Christ] that God gives a full and complete expression of himself (within the physical limits that he set himself in Christ)." - Phillips; "In him resides all the fulfillment of the divine" - Lattimore.
* * * * *
The trinitarian argument that Col. 2:9 proves that Jesus is God overlooks the common understanding of "fulness of ..." and "filled with ..." by those who used those common phrases in New Testament times. For example, the person who became "filled with Holy Spirit" (Eph. 5:18) was greatly influenced by that spirit, but he certainly did not become the Holy Spirit.
And having "the fulness" of someone or something could similarly mean being greatly influenced by that person or thing. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology says:
"Just as a person can be full of pain, joy, love, and virtue, he can also be said to be filled with God ..., i.e. possessed and inspired by God." - Vol. 1, p. 734.[4]
Surely we wouldn't expect anyone who is "filled with" God or who receives the "fulness of" God to actually be God! Nor would we expect anyone who has the "fulness of" Christ to actually be Christ! In fact it clearly shows that he is NOT the person with whom he is "filled"!
So, when we read Eph. 1:22, 23 - "the church, which is his body, the fulness of him who fills all in all" - we do not think that all real Christians are actually Christ. The New Oxford Annotated Bible (1977) tells us in a footnote for this scripture:
"the Church, as the fulness of Christ, is the complement of his mystic [figurative] person; he is the head, the Church is his body."
The noted trinitarian NT Greek scholar, W. E. Vine, explains:
"Fill, Fill Up": "... (a) of the members of the Church, the Body of Christ, as filled by Him", Eph. 1:23 (`all things in all the members'); ... in 3:19, of their being filled ... `with' all the fulness of God; of their being 'made full' in Him, Col. 2:10." - p. 426, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.
Yes, at Eph. 3:19 we actually see Paul expressing the thought "that you [Ephesian Christians] may be filled with all the fulness of God" - RSV. And at Eph. 4:13 we find - "until we all attain ... to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ" - RSV
.
Even the trinitarian reference work, the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, commenting about the word "fullness" at Col. 2:9 ("In his [Jesus'] body lives the fullness of divinity" - JB), tells us:
"this fullness which is described in Col. 1:15-18 is entirely related to Christ's cross (v. 20), death (v. 22), and resurrection (v. 18). For this reason believers also have this fullness in him (2:10)." - Vol. 1, p. 740, Zondervan, 1986. - See AT, CBW, NAB (especially 1991 ed.).
"Outside the NT the word occurs in Ignatius in a sense which is clearly influenced by the NT, and apparently in the meaning of the Divine fulness, as going forth and blessing and residing ["dwelling"] in the Church [the congregation]" - p. 1, Vol. 4, A Dictionary of the Bible, James Hastings, ed., Hendrickson Publ., 1988.
For exactly the same reasons that we don't allow such figurative language to persuade us that all true Christians actually are (or may become) God or Christ, we should not let it persuade us that Christ is actually God!
The Bible tells us how essential to eternal life it is to know God and Jesus (John 17:3 and 2 Thess. 1:8, 9). Therefore, if one "knows" Jesus as God and "knows" God as three (or two) persons and such "knowledge" turns out to be false, then he is certainly not on the road to eternal life!
And as we saw above, if Christians can be "filled with" God and receive the "fulness of" God, we know by this very wording that they are not God! And we know that those Christians who had the "fulness of" Christ could not actually be Christ! The very wording itself shows that someone else is "filling" (or influencing) the person who is being "filled" (influenced). In fact it clearly shows that he CANNOT be the person (or thing) with whom he is "filled"!
Therefore, those Christians who are "filled with" or have the "fulness" of God are not God! Those Christians who are "filled with" or have the "fulness" of Christ are not Christ! Those men and women who are "filled with" or have the "fulness" of the Holy Spirit are not the Holy Spirit!! And even if we interpret Col. 2:9 as meaning that Christ has the fullness of "Godhood" in him, it still cannot mean Christ is God!!
............................................
Notes
1. What about things and persons "dwelling" in us? Does this mean we are those things or persons? Of course not! Compare "dwell" at Ro. 7:20 (sin `dwells' in people); 8:9,11 (holy spirit `dwells' in us); 1 Cor. 3:16 (holy spirit "dwelling" in Christians); Eph. 3:17 (Christ "dwells" in our hearts); 2 Tim. 1:5 (faith "dwelt" in her); 2 Pet. 3:13 (righteousness "dwells"). Actually, the word "dwell" shows we cannot be those things or persons who "dwell" in us!
It is similar to the term "image of ...." If someone is the image of something or someone else, then he cannot be that person or thing. For example, men being the image of God (Gen. 1:26; 1 Cor. 11:7; 2 Cor. 3:18) proves, in itself, that none of them actually is God! No one and no thing actually are their own images! Therefore, when scripture tells us that the resurrected, heaven-dwelling Jesus Christ is "the image of God," it is certain that he is not God! - 2 Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15. [Also "reflection" or "refulgence" in Heb. 1:3, RSV, NRSV, NJB, AT, MLB, GNB, CBW, NAB (`70), NAB (`91).]
2. "Divinity" is a word with various meanings and levels of meanings: "divinity ... 1. a being divine 2. a god 3. theology - the Divinity: God." - Webster's New World Dictionary, 1973.
3. "Godhead" has various meanings in modern English besides that of "the nature of God esp. when regarded as triune". In Webster's 3rd New International Dictionary (Unabridged) the #1 definition is "1: the quality or state of being divine" - 1962 ed. And the derivation of the word "godhead" shows that it originally meant "godhood" not "godhead": "fr[om] god + -hed, -hede - hood (akin to ME -hod, -had - hood)" - Webster's 3rd New Int.
"divine ... 1a: of or relating to God: proceeding from God ... b: of or relating to a god: having the nature of a god .... 2a: devoted or addressed to God: religious, holy, sacred ... 3a: Supremely good or admirable ... b: having a sublime or inspired character" - Webst. 3rd New Int.
4. Even in modern English idiom we say things like: "He is full of the Devil." But we don't intend to say he literally is the Devil or even equal to the Devil in the fullest sense. We merely mean that he may, in some respects, show certain "devil-like" or "devil-influenced" qualities! (Cf. Jn 6:70 and Mark 8:33 footnotes in NIVSB.)
Posted by Elijah Daniels
Saturday, 9 March 2024
John 8:58 demystified.
A certain group of Judean Jews had decided to kill Jesus. They said to Jesus,
(8:53) " 'Surely you are not greater than our father Abraham, who died?' ... (:54) Jesus answered, 'If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing; it is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say, "He is our God"; (:55) and you have not come to know him, but I know him; and if I say that I do not know him I shall be a liar like you, but I do know him, and keep his word. (:56) Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day; and he saw it and was glad.' (:57) The Jews therefore said to him, 'You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?' (:58) Jesus said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I AM.' (:59) Therefore they picked up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple." - John 8:53-59 New American Standard Bible (NASB).
Some trinitarians claim that Jesus was declaring himself to be Jehovah God because he said "I AM" (ego eimi [eyw eimi] in the original NT Greek) at John 8:58.
Their reasoning goes like this: Exodus 3:14 in some English Bible translations has Jehovah God revealing himself as "I AM WHO I AM" and "I AM." So, they say, Jesus' statement at John 8:58 shows him revealing himself by the same exclusive title (name? description?) as Jehovah ("I AM" at Exodus 3:14) and, therefore, he is Jehovah God!
Furthermore, some of these trinitarians say, the Jews understood perfectly that Jesus was claiming to be Jehovah when he used those two words because they immediately took up stones to kill him. [1]
But these Jews of Judea had already decided beforehand to kill Jesus! (John 7:1, 25) They needed no further incentives. Nothing that Jesus said or did at this point would have made any difference to them.
If the Jews had really understood the phrase "I AM" (ego eimi) to mean the speaker was claiming to be Jehovah and that they should therefore kill him, they would have immediately stoned Jesus at John 8:24 or :28. (The actual Greek in the ancient Bible manuscripts is identical to John 8:58, ego eimi, but many English Bible translations properly add "he" so that it can be understood as "I am he" in English.)
We know that even his disciples didn't believe Jesus was God simply because he said ego eimi, for he identified himself to them with these same words at John 6:20 (usually rendered into English as "It is I"), and their reaction was certainly not that of those who had come into the presence of God! - Cf. the parallel Matt. 14:27.
Before we examine this "proof" in detail, we should understand that the name "Jehovah" in English (or "Yahweh" in one suggested Hebrew form) is the only personal name of God (see Ex. 3:15 and Ps. 83:18). This name is declared by God to be his very own name thousands of times in the Bible (see #3068 in Strong's Concordance or the New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance, or Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, or many others). Being a personal name (like "Jesus," "John," "Mary," etc.) this name belongs to a single individual. This single person who is God is not the Holy Spirit. He is not the Son of God. He is the Father alone! (Is. 63:16; Is. 64:8, ASV; Deut. 32:6, ASV; Ps. 89:26, 27 [cf. Heb. 1:5 and Ps. 2:7, ASV].)
He is never called "the Son," "the Firstborn," "Only-begotten," "High Priest of God," the "Messiah" or "Christ" as Jesus is.
It is obvious that the one person with the personal name of Jehovah cannot be the Messiah (who has the personal name "Jesus"). Merely study the following scriptures (preferably in a Bible that honestly translates God's personal name as "Jehovah" [ASV, NWT, KJIIV, Young's Literal Translation of the Holy Bible, and Byington's The Bible in Living English] or "Yahweh" [Jerusalem Bible, NJB, and Rotherham's The Emphasized Bible] in all the 6900 places it's found in the original manuscripts instead of the mistranslated "LORD" found in nearly 7000 places in many translations).
These are some of the scriptures which show the relationship of Jehovah to the Messiah: Psalm 110:1 (compare Acts 2:33-36 and Eph. 1:17, 20); Micah 5:4; Psalm 2:1, 2 (compare Acts 4:25-27); Psalm 2:7 (compare Acts 13:33; Heb. 5:5); Is. 53:10 (all Christian organizations recognize that all of Is. 53 refers to the Messiah). These all clearly show that Jesus is not Jehovah.
Let's examine, then, the "I AM" (ego eimi) "evidence" which trinitarians say somehow disproves this often-repeated, clearly-taught scriptural knowledge of the only true God and of Jesus Christ (John 17:3).
The words ego eimi formed a phrase that was in very common use by first century Christians and Jews and in New Testament scriptures. It was certainly not understood (by Jews or Christians) as declaring one's Godhood! If it could have been understood that way, we can be sure the Jews would have never applied it to themselves (as they did so frequently)!
Notice, for example, how the former blind man (John 9:9) actually identifies himself by saying "ego eimi," but none of the other Jews present, even for a moment, understood him to be claiming to be Jehovah!
And Jesus earlier ( in John 6:20 mentioned above) clearly identified himself by saying to his frightened disciples: ego eimi. None of his disciples considered that to mean that Jesus was claiming to be God. In fact, most trinitarian-translated Bibles render Jesus’ words identifying himself here as “It is I.” E.g., ASV; AMP; CJB; DARBY; DRA; ESV; GNT; GNV; HCSB; ISV; JB; KJV; KJ21; TLB; MEV; MLB; MOUNCE; NAB; NASB; NCV; NEB; NET; NIV; NKJV; NLV; NRSV; REB; RSV; WEB; and WE.
It is simply impossible that the Jews would say Jesus was claiming to be the Almighty God. It is virtually certain, instead, that one of three things was meant by the phrase "before Abraham came into being ego eimi" spoken by Jesus at John 8:58:
(1) "Even before Abraham was born, I was (the Christ)."
(2) "I existed before Abraham was born."("I was"; "I existed"; "I have been")
(3) "I came into existence before Abraham was even born."
This paper will examine why Jn 8:58 cannot mean "I am God" or its equivalent and why one of the three other interpretations listed above must be what was originally intended.
Why Stones?
As for the charge that the Jews were going to stone him because he claimed to be God, we should be aware that the Jews stoned people for many offenses. For example, a person pretending to be a "wizard" was to be stoned to death according to the Law (Lev. 20:27 - KJV, RSV, ASV, LB). Today's Dictionary of the Bible, 1982 ed., tells us:
"Wizard, a pretender to supernatural knowledge and power .... such a one was forbidden on pain of death to practice his deceptions ... Lev. 20:26, 27." - p. 654.
We also know that some of the Jews wanted Jesus killed for blasphemy because he admitted to being the Messiah (Christ) - see Matt 26:59-68 and footnotes for Matt 26:65 and Luke 22:71 in The NIV Study Bible, Zondervan Publ., 1985.
"But powerful forces in the Jewish congregation, jealous of his popularity, incensed by his denunciation of some of them, and bitterly critical of his disregard for formalism, his willingness to violate some of the minor laws of the Jews, and his heretical claim that he was the Son of God, repudiated him, conspired to kill him, saw him crucified, and after his death, persecuted his followers." - The Portable World Bible, Viking Press, p. 230.
It was even forbidden for others to say that Jesus was the Messiah - John 9:22. And, in fact, that was obviously why Stephen was stoned to death.
At Acts 7:55-58, Stephen looked up 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 and the Son of man [synonymous with the Messiah, not God] standing at the right hand of God.' But they [the Jews] ... cast him out of the city, and stoned him." - RSV.
Stephen was stoned, not because he claimed to be God, nor because he claimed Jesus was God (quite the contrary, in fact, as his quoted statement clearly shows: Jesus "standing at the right hand of God") but because he was proclaiming Jesus to be the Messiah (Christ)! See The NIV Study Bible footnotes for Acts 7:56 and Mk 8:31.
The New American Bible, St. Joseph edition, tells us in a footnote for Acts 7:55 -
"Stephen affirms to the Sanhedrin that the prophecy Jesus made before them has been fulfilled (Mk 14:62)."
And Mk 14:61-64 shows Jesus declaring he is the Christ and that the Jews will see him (the son of man) at the right hand of God. This "blasphemy" of claiming to be the Messiah (whom the Jews never considered to be God) caused the Jews to condemn Jesus to death - see footnotes for Mk 14:61, 63 in The NIV Study Bible.[2]
The trinitarian The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible also tells us about the Messiah expected by the Jews at this time:
"The figure of the 'Son of Man' ... was, moreover, in accord with ... that of a pre-existent, heavenly angelic being who, at the end time, will appear at the side of God as judge of the world." - p. 364, Vol. 3, Abingdon Press, 1962.
Therefore, when Jesus claimed, at John 8:58, to have lived long before his first century human existence, the Jews could have perceived him as a false prophet, or a self-proclaimed "wizard," or, more likely, as one claiming to be the Christ or Messiah (the Son of Man) and tried to stone him because of that.
"I Was the Christ"
The Gospel writers have clearly shown Jesus applying the term ego eimi to himself and meaning "I am the Christ." Mark 13:6 shows Jesus saying, "I am he [literally just ego eimi alone, 'I AM']" - NEB. The parallel account at Luke 21:8 agrees. But the other parallel account by Matthew shows what Jesus actually meant by the "absolute" ego eimi in those parallel accounts of Mark and Luke: "I am the Messiah" - Matt. 24:5 - NEB.
So we see Jesus using the "absolute" ego eimi at Mark 13:6 and Luke 21:8 (see any interlinear). And Matthew explains that Jesus means "I am the Messiah"! Also see John 8:24, Living Bible - "I am the Messiah," C. B. Williams - "I am the Christ," and see Jn 4:26; 13:19 (esp. Living Bible, and translations by C. B. Williams and Phillips.) Notice how Jesus admitted to being the Messiah when the Jews decided to kill him: "'Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?' 'I AM [ego eimi],' said Jesus." - Mark 14:61-62. Again the 'absolute' ego eimi ("I am") as used by Jesus means "I am the Christ" and spurs the Jews to condemn him to die!
In fact, even some trinitarian scholars have admitted that they believe that Jesus' statements at John 8:56 and 8:58 are statements proclaiming himself to be the Messiah. Trinitarian scholar William Barclay admits in his popular Daily Study Bible Series:
"So when Jesus said that Abraham had seen his day, he was making a deliberate claim that he was the Messiah. He was really saying 'I am the Messiah Abraham saw in his vision.' " - p. 35, The Gospel of John, Vol. 2, 1975, The Westminster Press. (Cf. footnote for Jn 8:56 in The New Oxford Annotated Bible, 1973 ed., Oxford University Press.)
The footnote for John 8:58 in the very trinitarian Holy Bible: Easy-to-Read Version says:
"...it can also mean 'I am he (the Christ).' " - World Bible Translation Center, 1992.
And famous trinitarian scholar Robert Young (Young's Analytical Concordance to the Holy Bible) in explaining John 8:58 tells us that Jesus was proclaiming himself by these words (ego eimi) to be "the promised Messiah." - Young's Concise Critical Bible Commentary, p. 61, 1977 ed., Baker Book House.
When we really analyze the "parallel" (according to some trinitarians) uses of ego eimi by Jesus found in the Gospel of John "which culminate in the 'I Am' of John 8:58," we find they all (and we should start with the very first such instance at Jn 4:26) show Jesus' identity (as "Jesus" or "the Christ")! If these are really "parallel" uses of ego eimi by Jesus, as many trinitarians insist, then 8:58 should be understood as "I am [or 'have been'] the Christ"!
[The phrase "I, I am" {ego eimi} occurs many other times in the New Testament, and; is often translated as "I am he" or some equivalent ("I am he" in Mark 13:6; Luke 21:8; John 13:19; 18:5, 6, 8; "it is I" in Matt 14:27; Mark 6:50; John 6:20 and; "I am the one I claim to be" in John 8:24, 28.).
It is obvious that these translations are quite correct, but it is interesting that the phrase is translated as "I am," ONLY once i.e. in John 8:58. If the phrase in John 8:58 were translated "I am he" or "I am the one" (like all the others), it would be easier to see that Christ was speaking of himself as the Messiah of God (as indeed he was), spoken of throughout the Old Testament. - From a post by alanwcorrie on 'TrinityQuestion'.]
Surely if even the highly trinitarian scholars who translated the Living Bible and CBW can interpret the "absolute" ego eimi at John 8:24 as "I am the Messiah (Christ)" - cf. 8:28, LB, CBW, then it would not only be proper but maybe even probable that it should be so translated again at John 8:58: "Even before Abraham was born, I am the Messiah. Therefore [since he claimed to be the Messiah] they picked up stones to throw at him."
Capitalization
Even most trinitarian Bible translations deny any connection between God's statement at Exodus 3:14 and Jesus' reply to the Jews at John 8:58. They do this through the modern English usage of capitalizing personal names and exclusive titles. For example, "Word" at Jn 1:14; "Lamb" at Jn 1:36 and Rev 5:8; and "Son" at Jn 8:36.
Nearly all the trinitarian Bible translations (24) that I have checked have capitalized the words in question at Ex. 3:14 ("I AM;" or "I Will Be;" or "I Will Become;" etc.) to show their interpretation that this is a title or name of God. However, most of those same translations do not capitalize the words in question at John 8:58 ("I am;" "I was;" or "I have existed;" etc.): KJV; Douay Version; RSV; NRSV; ASV; NIV; NEB; REB; MLB; LB; NLV; The New Testament in the Language of the People (CBW); Young's Literal Translation of the Holy Bible; Rotherham; Beck; and Byington.
Therefore, the vast majority of trinitarian-translated Bibles obviously show Ex. 3:14 as giving a title or name for God (as properly indicated by the use of capitalization in English), but they do not show the same understanding for John 8:58 (nor Isaiah's uses of "I am" by God [3])! All those trinitarian scholars above, therefore, are saying (by not capitalizing "am") at Jn 8:58 that Jesus did not claim the same name or exclusive title that God used at Ex. 3:14.
Even though Bible text compilers add the punctuation and capitalization that they personally prefer, the basic Greek texts as compiled by trinitarians Westcott and Hort, and the trinitarian United Bible Societies, the Nestle text, and even the Received Text by the Trinitarian Bible Society (1976) do not capitalize ego eimi at John 8:58 ! (As compared to the capitalized "Alpha and Omega" title at Rev. 1:8, for example.)
Cross-References in Trinitarian Reference Bibles
Some trinitarian editors and publishers of trinitarian Bibles have added cross-references to the original translations. That is, they have superscripts and notes which refer one scripture to one or more other scriptures. The reference may indicate an actual quote from the OT found in the NT. Or it can indicate a similar meaning, event, or even just similar wording found in other scriptures. For example, in the New American Standard Bible (NASB), Reference Edition, Foundation Press, 1975, the trinitarian NT editors chose John 1:1; 17:5, 24 as all the references for John 8:58. Not one reference to Ex. 3:14 or Isaiah or any other OT scripture where God says "I am"! Obviously these trinitarian scholars did not accept the extremely poor "I AM" evidence! (The trinitarian OT editors, however, did choose this approach at Ex. 3:14.) And the very trinitarian Revised Standard Version, American Bible Society, 1971 ed. also has only Jn 1:1; 17:5, 24 as references for John 8:58! (In this case the trinitarian OT editors also did not refer Ex. 3:14 or verses in Isaiah, etc. to Jn 8:58!) These trinitarian scholars, therefore, did not accept the "I AM" argument as valid!
Other Translations
Some of those trinitarian translators go even further than merely not capitalizing at John 8:58 and further clarify the probable meaning in English and thereby refute the deceptive "I AM" interpretation of a few trinitarians.
These translations (most by trinitarians) render ego eimi at John 8:58 as:
(1) “I HAVE BEEN”[4] - alternate reading in 1960 thru 1973 reference editions of NASB
(2) “I HAVE BEEN” - The New Testament, G. R. Noyes
(3) “I HAVE BEEN” - “The Four Gospels” According to the Sinaitic Palimpsest, A. S. Lewis
(4) “I HAVE ALREADY BEEN” - The Unvarnished New Testament
(5) “I HAVE EXISTED” - The Bible, A New Translation, Dr. James Moffatt
(6) “I EXISTED” - The New Testament in the Language of Today, 1964 ed., Beck
(7) “I EXISTED” - An American Translation, Goodspeed
(8) “I EXISTED” - The New Testament in the Language of the People, Williams
(9) “I EXISTED” - New Simplified Bible
(10) “I WAS IN EXISTENCE” - Living Bible
(11) “I WAS ALIVE” - The Simple English Bible
(12)“I WAS” - Holy Bible - From the Ancient Eastern Text, Lamsa
(13)“I WAS” - Young’s Literal Translation of the Holy Bible, 1st ed. (Also see Young’s Concise Critical Commentary, p. 61 of “The New Covenant.”).
(14) “I WAS” - The Syriac New Testament, Jas. Murdock
(15) “I WAS” - H. T. Anderson
(16) “I WAS” - Twentieth Century New Testament
(17) "I EXISTED" - New Living Translation (NLT)
Additional (found in an on-line post):
The Living New Testament:
"The absolute truth is that I was in existence before Abraham was ever born."
The 20th Century New Testament:
"before Abraham existed I was."
Parker, P.G. Clarified N.T.:
Jesus answered, before Abraham existed, I existed.
Cotton Patch Version (1970):
To this Jesus replied, I existed before Abraham was born.
Good News for the World (1969)
Jesus answer, I tell you the truth. I already was before Abraham was born.
New Believers Bible, New Living Translation:
"I existed before Abraham was even born."
The New Testament, Kleist and Lilly:
"I am here-and I was before Abraham."
Wakefield, G. N.T. (1795)
Jesus said unto them: Verily verily I say unto you, before Abraham was born, I am He.
The Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels, Burkitt & The Old Georgian Version of the Gospel of John, Blake & Briere:
"Before Abraham came to be, I was."
The New Testament Or Rather the New Covenant, Sharpe:
"I was before Abraham was born."
The New Testament, Stage:
"Before Abraham came to be, I was."
The Documents of the New Testament, Wade:
"Before Abraham came into being, I have existed."
Noli, M.F.S. N.T. (1961)
Jesus answered them: Well, well, I tell you, I existed before Abraham was born.
The Concise Gospel and The Acts, Christianson:
"I existed even before Abraham was born."
The Original New Testament, Schonfield: "I tell you for a positive fact, I existed before Abraham was born."
The Complete Gospels Annotated Scholars Version,
Miller: "I existed before there was an Abraham."
Swann, G. N.T. (1947)
Jesus said to them, verily, verily I say unto you, I existed before Abraham was born
International English Version (2001)
"I was alive before Abraham was born"
http://robertangle.com/ruminations/2012/01/john-858-various-english-translations-that-recognize-jesus-did-not-say-i-am/
It's interesting to see that even the paraphrase Bible, the Living Bible (also published as The Word and The Book), which often takes great liberties with the literal text in order to better bring out trinitarian interpretations, denies an " 'I' AM' = God" interpretation for John 8:58. It brings out, instead, the obvious intended meaning of John 8:58 as: "the absolute truth is that I was in existence before Abraham was ever born!" ' not "I was God before Abraham...."
The point is that numerous trinitarian scholars would not ignore a popular 'Jesus is God' proof if it were not in doubt.
Even the oldest English translations do not render this as "I am":
Joh 8:58 Se hælend cwæð to him. ic was [was] ærþam þe abraham was [was] - Anglo-Saxon Gospels, Manuscript 140, Corpus Christi College circa 1000 by Aelfric.
Joh 8:58 Se hælend cwæð; to heom. Ic wæs ær þonne þe abraham wære. - Anglo-Saxon Gospels, Hatton Manuscript 38, Bodleian Library circa 1200 by unknown author.
Old English for “I am” - “Ic (or ‘Ich’) eom.” See John 8:18, 28 for example.
It's a basic part of every Jehovah's Witness' faith that Jesus (who is their King and Savior) was the very first creation by God (Col. 1:15 ASV; Rev. 3:14 ASV; and Prov. 8:22 NIV, JB) and that he then acted as God's workman (Prov. 8:30 ASV, JB, NIV) and made everything else that has come into existence - so God created everything through Jesus (1 Cor. 8:6 and Hebrews 1:2).
Therefore, since God spoke to Jesus in the beginning and said, "Let us make man in our own image" - Gen. 1:26, JB, it's certainly no surprise to find Jesus telling the Jews that he existed before Abraham existed!
Why have these respected trinitarian scholars so translated ego eimi at John 8:58 whereas most of the time they have translated ego eimi as "I am" in other verses? Certainly they know how important this verse (as interpreted by a few trinitarians, at least) is in the catalog of "proofs" of the trinity! Why have they not, therefore, rendered it in a "trinitarian" way?
One reason for this refusal of so many trinitarian scholars to join the ranks of the "I AM" tradition is that the context of John 8:58 simply does not allow for the "Name of God" interpretation.
"I Existed Before Abraham Was Born."
Those Jews had asked how Jesus could have possibly known Abraham who had died nearly 2000 years before. Jesus¡¯ reply was obviously an explanation that he had been in existence even before Abraham had been born and was not merely an explanation of identity.
It is ludicrous to interpret this verse with the understanding that Jesus is using the personal name ("Jehovah") or an exclusive title (such as "Most High" - Luke 6:35; Luke 1:32; Ps. 83:18 ASV, KJV) to identify himself: "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, Jehovah." Or, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, the Most High." So, the immediate context simply does not allow a "title of God" interpretation for the use of ego eimi in this verse![5]
The Jews had angrily implied that Jesus was a liar for claiming to be older than his apparent years. "You're not even 50 years old and yet [you say] you have seen Abraham!" Jesus' most likely response, then, would have been about his age --- his actual existence 1900 years before being born in Bethlehem (so that he actually could have "seen Abraham"). Therefore he would have said: "Before Abraham was even born, I existed."
It would be more appropriate (although still clearly false), in light of the context, to show that the person whom the crowd is trying to identify at John 9:9 is claiming this "title" (ego eimi), for that is his reply to those who were questioning his identity (not his earlier existence) - see John 9:9 in any Interlinear New Testament.
Some other uses of ego eimi which may be found in any interlinear Greek-English New Testament are Matt. 26:22, 25; Acts 22:3; Acts 26:29; Acts 27:23. Also, if you have the Greek Septuagint Bible you might examine these uses of ego eimi: 2 Kings (2 Samuel in Hebrew scriptures) 2:20; 15:26; Is. 6:8.
Another reason for the different renderings of John 8:58 by these trinitarian scholars is based on NT Greek grammar. There are a number of reasons why a present tense verb in NT Greek (such as ego eimi) may be rendered properly in a different tense in English (see Introduction to the Gospel of John in The NIV Study Bible, 1985 ed.). It is difficult to say exactly which reason was used by the various translators of the trinitarian Bibles quoted above. However, it appears that the highly respected trinitarian scholar Dr. James Moffatt may have translated in accordance with the reason cited by the Watchtower Society in its footnote to John 8:58 in the 1969 edition of the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures: "(ego eimi) [is] after the a'orist infinitive clause ['before Abraham to become'] and hence properly rendered in the perfect tense ['I have been']." - Also see subheading "Perfect Indefinite Tense" below. Moffatt also renders ego eimi at John 8:58 in the perfect tense: "I have existed."
Elijah Daniels
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)