A Survey of the Old Testament Law--Numbers 22-24 (Part 2)

Numbers 22:36-41—36 Now when Balak heard that Balaam was coming, he went out to meet him at the city of Moab, which is on the border at the Arnon, the boundary of the territory. 37 Then Balak said to Balaam, "Did I not earnestly send to you, calling for you? Why did you not come to me? Am I not able to honor you?" 38 And Balaam said to Balak, "Look, I have come to you! Now, have I any power at all to say anything? The word that God puts in my mouth, that I must speak." 39 So Balaam went with Balak, and they came to Kirjath Huzoth. 40 Then Balak offered oxen and sheep, and he sent some to Balaam and to the princes who were with him. 41 So it was, the next day, that Balak took Balaam and brought him up to the high places of Baal, that from there he might observe the extent of the people. Balaam was indeed a prophet, one through whom God spoke. And Balak thought Balaam was coming to him to bring him good news that he had cursed the Israelites. So he made a great sacrifice, while at the same time being miffed that Balaam had not come sooner. But what does Balaam tell Balak? "Look, I have come to you! Now, have I any power at all to say anything? The word that God puts in my mouth, that I must speak." Even this pagan spoke only what YHVH put in his mouth. He knew that YHVH was the Almighty God over all creation, and despite living in the pagan land of Moab, he knew that Chemosh could not work the wonders that YHVH could do. Could Chemosh put a message in a prophet’s mouth? Could Chemosh cause a messenger to stand before a donkey and turn him to the side? Could Chemosh cause that donkey to talk? No, he could do none of these things. And Balaam knew this. But YHVH could do these things, and Balaam also knew this. 

This was one of the problems the people of Israel faced in the land where they were. They were beset on every side by nations who worshipped idols. Edom with Qos, and Egypt with its pantheon, to the south. The Amorites to the east with their pantheon. The Hittites with their pantheon and the Ammonites with Molech to the north. The Moabites with Chemosh. The Jebusites with Sedeq and Salem. Then you had the Ba'al worship going on in Canaan, the land they were to settle in. And you can see they were surrounded by pagan worship. And it continued until the days of the early church. The Greeks had their gods, the Romans had theirs (which were just Greek gods co-opted by Rome). Paul would tell the men of Athens, who had built an altar to “An Unknown God”, that they worshipped Him even though they did not know Him (Acts 17:23). It was better, to the Athenian mind, to set up shrines to gods they didn’t know than to offend them by leaving them out of their pantheon.

So it was, the next day, that Balak took Balaam and brought him up to the high places of Baal, that from there he might observe the extent of the people. Much like Satan took Jesus high upon a hill that he may show the Son of God all the kingdoms he would give Him, if only He would worship the serpent of old. Well did our Lord call him “a liar and the father of it” (John 8:44). And here, Balak shows that he too is a liar, showing this man who spoke the truth from God all the land that Balak would rule over if only Balaam would curse the people of Israel. A thought that would be echoed by our Adversary in Matthew 4:9—“All these things I will give You if You will fall down and worship me.” Satan is indeed the god of this world (2nd Corinthians 4:4), the Prince of the power of the air (Ephesians 2:2), the Accuser of the Brethren (Revelation 12:10). But that is the limit of his power—this world. He wanted Jesus to lay claim to this world and all its limitations, rather than the Kingdom of His Father, and all the precious souls with it. He wanted Jesus to worship him instead of His Father. Which is what Balak was telling Balaam here. “Don’t listen to what YHVH says. Curse these people and look at all the land we will possess!”

Numbers 23:1-10—1 Then Balaam said to Balak, "Build seven altars for me here, and prepare for me here seven bulls and seven rams." 2 And Balak did just as Balaam had spoken, and Balak and Balaam offered a bull and a ram on each altar. 3 Then Balaam said to Balak, "Stand by your burnt offering, and I will go; perhaps the LORD will come to meet me, and whatever He shows me I will tell you." So he went to a desolate height. 4 And God met Balaam, and he said to Him, "I have prepared the seven altars, and I have offered on each altar a bull and a ram." 5 Then the LORD put a word in Balaam's mouth, and said, "Return to Balak, and thus you shall speak." 6 So he returned to him, and there he was, standing by his burnt offering, he and all the princes of Moab. 7 And he took up his oracle and said: "Balak the king of Moab has brought me from Aram, from the mountains of the east. 'Come, curse Jacob for me, and come, denounce Israel!' 8 How shall I curse whom God has not cursed? And how shall I denounce whom the LORD has not denounced? 9 For from the top of the rocks I see him, and from the hills I behold him; there! A people dwelling alone, not reckoning itself among the nations. 10 Who can count the dust of Jacob, or number one-fourth of Israel? Let me die the death of the righteous, and let my end be like his!" No matter how many times Balaam went to God to receive a word, it always came back the same. “You shall not curse Israel”. One cannot undo what God has done. We do not have that much power or authority. If God says something is done, it is done. If He says something is going to happen, it is going to happen. We obey kings and presidents because of their position. We yield to law enforcement officers because of the power they hold. If any of these says “so let it be done”, it should be done. How much more should we listen to and obey the Creator of everything! And not only that, should we also not believe Him? He told Abram in Genesis 12:3—“I will bless those who bless you, and I will curse him who curses you.” What we see Balaam speak to Balak may not be the extent of everything God said to Balaam. He may very well have included these words He spoke to Abram. 

And God met Balaam, and he [Balaam] said to Him [God], "I have prepared the seven altars, and I have offered on each altar a bull and a ram." So Balaam asked Balak to prepare seven altars. Balak most likely thought they were to be altars to Chemosh, but Balaam meant them for sacrifice to YHVH. Doesn't that so often happen? What the ungodly mean for bad, God turns it around and uses it to fulfill His own plans? Jacob snatching the blessing from Esau. Joseph’s brothers selling him to the Midianites. In fact, after Joseph and his brothers bury Jacob and his brothers think the worst is about to happen and that Joseph will exact revenge, he tells them “But as for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, in order to bring it about as it is this day, to save many people alive” (Genesis 50:20). And here, what Balak means for evil, God means it for good. 

9 “A people dwelling alone, not reckoning itself among the nations. 10 Who can count the dust of Jacob, or number one-fourth of Israel?” The Apostolic Bible Polyglot renders verse 9: “For from the top of mountains I shall see him; and from hills I shall pay attention to him. Behold, a people alone shall dwell, and among nations they shall not be reckoned together.” The Jewish Publication Society translation says: “For from the top of the rocks I see him, and from the hills I behold him: lo, it is a people that shall dwell alone, and shall not be reckoned among the nations.” Different translations render this verse differently than others, and the divide is about 50/50. This last rendering is closes to the original intent. Balaam had to be on the top of the highest rocky jut to see the vastness of the nearly one million people. Yet this people would live “alone”, as they would be a self-contained group. And they would not be “reckoned among the nations”; they would not be as the other nations, worshipping false gods and being part of their rituals (for the time being, anyway)—they would be holy, set apart to God for His purposes.

“Who can count the dust of Jacob, or number one-fourth of Israel?” “Just one quarter of their population has to be a quarter of a million people! Who can fathom such a great nation!” What was considered to be one of the surest signs of blessing from a deity in the Middle East at this time? Children. So obviously the people of Israel, as the thought went, must have been highly blessed to have had so many children that their numbers would swell, even in the desert. The same could be said of national Israel today. Is there a nation of Hittites? Of Moabites? Of Jebusites or Edomites? All these nations have gone under and exist only in books and in studies of archaeology. Yes, Egypt remains, but the Amorites and Canaanites are gone, save for a few pockets here and there. Yet “Who can count the dust of Jacob?” Did not God tell Abram that his descendants would be “as the dust of the earth; so that if a man could number the dust of the earth, then your descendants also could be numbered” (Genesis 13:16). Next time you go to the beach, pick up a handful of sand. Then count the number of grains of sand, if you are able. That is how numerous the descendants of Abram have been, are, and will be. As I said before, if God says something is going to happen, it’s going to happen.

Numbers 23:11-24—11 Then Balak said to Balaam, "What have you done to me? I took you to curse my enemies, and look, you have blessed them bountifully!" 12 So he answered and said, "Must I not take heed to speak what the LORD has put in my mouth?" 13 Then Balak said to him, "Please come with me to another place from which you may see them; you shall see only the outer part of them, and shall not see them all; curse them for me from there." 14 So he brought him to the field of Zophim, to the top of Pisgah, and built seven altars, and offered a bull and a ram on each altar. 15 And he said to Balak, "Stand here by your burnt offering while I meet the LORD over there." 16 Then the LORD met Balaam, and put a word in his mouth, and said, "Go back to Balak, and thus you shall speak." 17 So he came to him, and there he was, standing by his burnt offering, and the princes of Moab were with him. And Balak said to him, "What has the LORD spoken?" 18 Then he took up his oracle and said: "Rise up, Balak, and hear! Listen to me, son of Zippor! 19 God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should repent. Has He said, and will He not do? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good? 20 Behold, I have received a command to bless; He has blessed, and I cannot reverse it. 21 He has not observed iniquity in Jacob, nor has He seen wickedness in Israel. The LORD his God is with him, and the shout of a King is among them. 22 God brings them out of Egypt; He has strength like a wild ox. 23 For there is no sorcery against Jacob, nor any divination against Israel. It now must be said of Jacob and of Israel, 'Oh, what God has done!' 24 Look, a people rises like a lioness, and lifts itself up like a lion; it shall not lie down until it devours the prey, and drinks the blood of the slain." 

"Please come with me to another place from which you may see them; you shall see only the outer part of them, and shall not see them all; curse them for me from there." Balak thought that by seeing their entire number, Balaam was afraid to curse Israel for their vast numbers. He thought that if he saw just a tiny fraction of them, he would be more inclined to lay a curse on them. So he takes the prophet to the top of Mt. Pisgah, also known as Mt. Nebo. From here, Balaam could see a small sliver of the people, and Balak thought that here his wishes would come to fruition. But, alas…

“God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should repent.” So many skeptics and liberals and progressives try to use this verse to say that Jesus was not God. “It says in Numbers that God is not a son of man! How can Jesus be God if He is called ‘The Son of Man’?” The fact that this question even needs to be answered is frustrating. Balaam is not talking here about Jesus. This is not the Book of Mormon where things were written into the text in 1820 in order to fit in with biblical history. Balaam here is talking about the only One the Jews knew as God, that being the Father. Jesus had not been born yet, and would not be for another 1400 or so years. So no, when Balaam said this, Jesus, even though He did exist (John 17:5), had not yet become incarnate and was not, yet, Son of Man. (There is debate about if He was Son of God at this time, but we will leave that to the philosophers). What Balaam is saying here is this: That God is not a man (sorry not sorry, Mormons), and He was not born of a man, but that He has existed forever (Psalm 92:1), that He is dependent upon nobody for His existence, that He does not change His mind 100 times in a day as man does.

“But doesn’t it say in some places, like before the flood and after the repentance of the people of Nineveh, that God repented (Genesis 6:6 (KJV); Jonah 3:10)?” And here we go again. Answering questions from people who have never read or studied the Bible and who do not want anything to do with reading or studying the Bible. Does God know the end from the beginning? Absolutely. Isaiah 46:9-10—“9 Remember the former things of old, for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me, 10 declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things that are not yet done, saying, 'My counsel shall stand, And I will do all My pleasure'” So why would God change His mind? “Then why do we pray?” EM Bounds said in his book “The Reality of Prayer”, 

The law of prayer, the right to pray, rests on sonship. “Our Father” brings us into the closest relationship to God. Prayer is the child’s approach, the child’s plea, the child’s right. It is the law of prayer that looks up, that lifts up the eye to “Our Father, Who art in Heaven.” Our Father’s house is our home in Heaven. Heavenly citizenship and heavenly homesickness are in prayer; Prayer is an appeal from the lowness, from the emptiness, from the need of earth, to the highness, the fullness and to the all-sufficiency of Heaven. Prayer turns the eye and the heart heavenward with a child’s longings, a child’s trust and a child’s expectancy. To hallow God’s Name, to speak it with bated breath, to hold it sacredly, this also belongs to prayer.

Prayer is how we conform our will to God’s will. It is how we seek God for how to live our lives according to the way He wants us to live. It is not so we can get great riches and fame; it is not so we can make a happy life for ourselves according to how the worlds views happiness. True happiness and joy come from being accepted in the Beloved (Ephesians 1:6)—not by health, wealth or prosperity.

“God is not a man, that He should lie.” And of course we know that God cannot—not merely that He does not—lie. He cannot lie (Hebrews 6:18; Titus 1:2). That should be to us the most comforting of all of God’s attributes—that He is faithful and just, even when we are not faithful. We lie, we cheat, we defraud our neighbor. And He knows this. And yet He is patient with us. Oh, the eternal patience of God! We get angry and yell at our children when they misbehave. We get angry when someone cuts us off in traffic. We talk ill of others when they do us wrong. Yet God—they very God to whom we owe our lives—does not cast us aside when we do those things that grieve His heart. In his song “Unchanging One”, Todd Agnew sings:

You know when I wake, when I rise

When I pray, when I curse You

And You love me the same

And You know when I stumble and fall

And You're there through it all

The only Unchanging One

And let’s clear up one more fallacy: The “Ransom Theory” of the Atonement. This is the mistaken belief that God gave up His Son as a payment to Satan to let His people free. This theory says that Adam and Eve’s sin caused all of humanity to belong to Satan, which is far from the truth. According to this theory Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross was a trick played out by God, knowing that Jesus would rise from the dead. God said to Satan that He would give him a sacrifice for our sins, but then He yanked that sacrifice away with the Resurrection. Robin Collins describes it thusly:

“Essentially, this theory claimed that Adam and Eve sold humanity over to the Devil at the time of the Fall; hence, it required that God pay the Devil a ransom to free us from the Devil's clutches. God, however, tricked the Devil into accepting Christ's death as a ransom, for the Devil did not realize that Christ could not be held in the bonds of death. Once the Devil accepted Christ's death as a ransom, this theory concluded, justice was satisfied and God was able to free us from Satan's grip.”

First of all, this theory makes God a liar and deceiver, and He is neither of those things. Second, God owed Satan nothing.  This theory was espoused by Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, St. Basil the Great, and even such great theologians as Athanasius and Augustine. You even see it played out in “The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe” by CS Lewis. Here are some quotes from the early proponents of this theory.

Origen:

“But to whom did He give His soul as a ransom for many? Surely not to God. Could it, then, be to the Evil One? For he had us in his power, until the ransom for us should be given to him, even the life (or soul) of Jesus, since he (the Evil One) had been deceived, and led to suppose that he was capable of mastering that soul, and he did not see that to hold Him involved a trial of strength greater than he was equal to.”...“It is clearly shown that a certain spirit, from his own (free) will and choice, elected to deceive, and to work a lie, in order that the Lord might mislead the king to his death, for he deserved to suffer.”

Gregory of Nyssa:

“In order to secure that the ransom in our behalf might be easily accepted by him who required it, the Deity was hidden under the veil of our nature, that so, as with ravenous fish, the hook of the Deity might be gulped down along with the bait of flesh.”

However, William Lane Craig rebuffs this theory (as did the church as of the writings of Anselm in about 1000AD):

“As Origen’s statement revealed, the fathers typically thought of this arrangement between God and Satan as a very clever ruse on God’s part. He tricked Satan into making this exchange. You see, as the second person of the Trinity, the Son of God could not possibly have been held captive by Satan. But by his incarnation – by becoming a man – Christ appeared to be just as weak and vulnerable as other human beings who were under Satan’s control, and it was only after the captives had been freed by Satan that the Son of God manifested his full divine power by rising from the dead and breaking the bonds of death and hell and thus escaping from Satan's power.”

God did not use deceit to buy us out of Hell. His Son came as a substitute for us, paid the penalty we owed, bore the punishment we deserved, and God laid His hands on Him and transferred our sins to Him, and gave us His righteousness. 1st Peter 2:24—Who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness—by whose stripes you were healed. Hebrews 9:28—Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. He bore our sins with His one sacrifice, took His blood into the Holy of Holies in the Heavens, made propitiation for us and cleansed us from all unrighteousness!

Drooping souls no longer mourn/Jesus still is precious;

If to Him you now return/Heaven will be propitious;

Jesus now is passing by/Calling wanderers near Him;

Drooping souls, you need not die/Go to Him and hear Him!

He has pardons full and free/Drooping souls to gladden;

Still He cries—“Come unto me/Weary, heavy-laden!”

Though your sins, like mountains high/Rise, and reach to heaven,

Soon as you on Him rely/All shall be forgiven.

Precious is the Saviour’s name/Dear to all that love Him;

He to save the dying came/Go to Him and prove Him;

Wandering sinners, now return/Contrite souls believe Him!

Jesus calls you, cease to mourn/Worship Him; receive Him.

(“Heaven is Propitious” by Thomas Hastings)

“He has not observed iniquity in Jacob, nor has He seen wickedness in Israel.” “Whoa! What about all the times Israel grumbled in the wilderness and incurred His anger?” Yes, this is a difficult passage on first glance. That is why we do not simply do a cursory reading of Scripture, but exposit it so we can better understand it. This is not talking about individuals, since we have seen in Leviticus all the things that needed to be done to expiate sins and the Day of Atonement. Here Balaam is talking about Israel as a nation—the nation has not turned to other gods, the nation has not cried out to Ba'al or Chemosh. As a nation, Israel is righteous before God, and they belong to Him. Have individuals in the nation sinned? Yes. Have individuals in Israel complained when things didn’t go their way? Yes. Has the nation of Israel ceased to be a nation before Him; has Israel as a nation turned to worship other gods or commit other abominations that the surrounding nations have done? No. That is an important distinction. That of the difference between the nation of Israel and individuals in the nation. So what does this mean for us as Christians? The key phrase we need to remember is “in Christ”. If we are saved, we are in Christ. Romans 8:1—There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus. 1st Corinthians 1:30—But of Him you are in Christ Jesus. Galatians 3:28—There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Ephesians 2:13—But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. John 17:21—“That they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us.” “So we are in Christ; what does this have to do with this passage in Numbers?” Only everything!

God saw no iniquity in the nation of Israel. Does God see any iniquity in Christ? So if we are in Christ, will God see iniquity in us? Were not our sins forgiven as Jesus hung on the tree? Was He not offered up as a substitute for us? Galatians 3:13—Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us. 2nd Corinthians 5:17, 21—Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new…He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came to Earth, took our sins upon Himself, gave His life and His righteousness to us, and took upon Himself the curse and the sin that was ours. He was not a ransom paid to Satan then snatched away by a deceitful God. He was our Substitute.

Part 3 next week

Jesus Christ is Lord.

Amen.

What exactly does John 1:1 mean, anyway?

Disclaimer: I do not claim to be a Greek scholar. But I do know how to pay attention to men who are. For this post, I have been very careful to only speak on matters that I have properly researched, investigated, and which I properly understand. Any technical aspects of biblical Greek included in this post are taken from reputable, (small 'o') orthodox sources who have spent years studying biblical Greek.


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

Of all the biblical passages that get debated by orthodox and heretic, John 1:1 ranks within the top 3--if not holding the #1 spot. It is one of the clearest declarations of the Deity of Christ, written by one who received revelations from God concerning the end of all things--many of which could not be expressed in the vocabulary of the day. He was the apostle that Jesus loved (John 13:23, John 19:26, John 20:2, John 21:7, John 21:20). He wrote more about the heart of Jesus than any of the other gospel writers.

And to begin his reckoning of the person of Christ, he begins in, of all places, the beginning. He shows us that not only was Jesus there; he shows us that Jesus was with God--and he shows us that Jesus was, indeed, God. However, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (hereafter referred to as 'WTBTS') decided some time back to mistranslate this verse in accordance with their theology, and render it quite wrongly. And so, whenever you get a knock on the door, and the person tells you they are with the Jehovah's Witnesses (hereafter referred to as JW or JW's), they will very confidently whip out their little pamphlet entitled "Should You Believe in the Trinity?" and they will tell you why they think that you believe in a pagan God. Therefore, the aim of this post is to give you a biblical basis, founded upon the Greek, for believing in the deity of Christ.

So, what exactly does this verse say? How should it read? Let's find out. Following is the Greek of this verse:

εν αρχη ην ό λóγος και ό λóγος ην πρoς τoν θεoν και θεος ην ό λóγος
en archē ēn o logos kai o logos ēn pros ton theon kai theos ēn o logos

Let's take this one phrase at a time and understand what the Holy Spirit is saying to us through the apostle. And before we begin, I would like to make this statement: do not try to take the rules of English grammar and apply them to biblical Greek (hereafter referred to simply as "Greek"). It won't work. There are some rules that the two have in common, but there were many rules, grammatical structures, verb tenses, noun cases, and other technical aspects of Greek that do not translate exactly into modern (or any other type of) English. We will see this shortly.

1) εν αρχη (en archē). In the beginning. There is another passage of Scripture that begins with the words In the beginning. Of course, that would be Genesis 1:1--the very beginning of the Scriptures. Do you think it was by accident that John was moved to commence with these words? To take us all the way back to before the foundation of the world by using a phrase his Jewish readers would be well familiar with? No, with God, there is no such thing as "coincidence." In fact, it is with these same Greek words (εν αρχη, en archē) that the Septuagint--the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures--begins the first book of Moses.

2) εν αρχη ην ό λóγος (en archē ēn o logos). In the beginning was the Word. Not only do we see in this brief opening clause a glimpse of the eternality of Christ, but also a deliberate statement to show that Jesus did not come into existence owing to natural relations between Mary and Joseph (or, as the skeptics like to tell us today, a Roman soldier). Yes, His body was conceived in her womb, but Jesus Himself has existed from before the foundation of the world. Matthew and Luke carry out this picture in longer narratives (Matthew 1:18-25; Luke 1:26-2:14). Here John shows the reader that, even before He covered Himself in flesh and walked the earth in human form, The Word of God--was.

Now, in the hubris surrounding the third clause of this first verse, there are some other key words that often get overlooked. Was is one of them. It would not be incorrect to read this phrase thus: In the beginning, the Word was. This is one of those places where English tends to fail the intended meaning. The word ην (ēn, was) is in what is known as the "imperfect tense." In the English it is usually rendered as a simple "past tense." However, in Greek it carries with it the implication of a previous, continuing action. The imperfect of the verb "to be" denotes the act of existing. One may ask, "OK, the Word was. The Word was what?" Simple: The Word was. Much like Decartes' famous quote, "cogito, ergo sum"--"I think, therefore I am." Did anyone question Descartes about what he was? No. By this statement, Descartes was stating that because he can think, he exists--he is. (Or, rather, was.) So, in short, what the apostle is telling us is, In the beginning, the Word was being. "Was being what?" He was being! He was existing. He was.

Paul uses this form of ειμι (eimi) to communicate an essential characteristic, not to simply describe a person's temporary condition or location. For some examples of this verb in the past tense:

Romans 5:13--(For until the law, sin was in the world...)
Galatians 2:6--But from those who seemed to be something—whatever they were, it makes no difference to me...

And when John uses ην (ēn, was) to say the Word was, he was not simply stating that Jesus was existing--he was describing Jesus as being existent.

Before we leave this phrase, I would be remiss if I didn't bring up a couple more points. Namely:

1. The phrase In the beginning is to be differentiated from the phrase From the beginning (see John 8:44; 1st John 2:7; 1st John 3:8). John uses the phrase "from the beginning" to denote things that were true from the earliest days of the world--but things that happened after creation. By using the phrase In the beginning, with the imperfect ην (ēn), John intimates that Jesus had been existing before the time written of by Moses at the beginning of Genesis. "In the beginning, the word had been existent."
2. If John had meant to say that In the beginning the Word came to be, there was a simple tool at his disposal. He could have simply used the word αρχομαι (archomai), as Luke did in Luke 3:23--And Jesus himself began to be (αρχομαι ην, archomai ēn) about thirty years of age... He "began to be about 30 years old," but Jesus did not "begin to be." He was. Period. Which is why John uses the word εγενετο (egeneto) in verse 14--And the Word became (εγενετο [egeneto]) flesh... The Word was God...the Word became flesh. As a parallel, Paul says of Christ, in Philippians 2:6-7 that Christ, being in the form of God...took upon him the form of a slave...

3) και ό λóγος ην προς τον θεον (kai o logos ēn pros ton theon). ...and the Word was with God... The JW points to this and asks, "OK, if Jesus is God, then how could He be 'with God?'" Again, the deficiency of English. The word προς (pros) means, "at, near, by; to, towards, with, with regard to." Most times in the NT it means "to," as in Mark 10:49-50--Then they called the blind man, saying to him, “Be of good cheer. Rise, He is calling you.” And throwing aside his garment, he rose and came to (προς [pros]) Jesus.
It is also rendered, at times, "toward":

2nd Corinthians 1:12--For our boasting is this: the testimony of our conscience that we conducted ourselves...by the grace of God, and more abundantly toward [προς (pros)] you.
1st Thessalonians 5:14 (KJV)--Now we exhort you, brethren, warn them that are unruly, comfort the feebleminded, support the weak, be patient toward [προς (pros)] all men.

In short, when the word προς (pros) is used to say that one person was "with" another person or group of people, it denotes more than simply being in close proximity to that other person or group of people. It means more than just being in the general area. It almost implies a sense of action by being "toward" and even being united with that person or persons. Take, for example, Mark 10:7--"‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to [προς (pros)] his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’"

John is being very careful with his words, as προς (pros) is a strengthened form of the preposition προ (pro), which means "before"--not in terms of location ("I see before me...") but of time ("He got here before I did"). Also, τον θεον (ton theon, God) is in the accusative case, being the direct object of the action "was with." According to A.T Robertson,

"Pros with the accusative presents a plane of equality and intimacy, face to face with each other."

Vincent's Word Studies:

With does not convey the full meaning, there is no single English word which will give it better. The preposition πρός, which, with the accusative case, denotes motion towards, or direction, is also often used in the New Testament in the sense of with; and that not merely as being near or beside, but as a living union and communion; implying the active notion of intercourse.

In other words, it is not simply a matter of being in the same geographical area as someone else. It carries with it the sense of being constantly with that other person. Some other uses of προς (pros) with the accusative:

Mark 6:3 (KJV)--"Is this not the carpenter, the Son of Mary, and brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And are not His sisters here with [προς (pros)] us?"
Matthew 17:17--"O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with [προς (pros)] you?"
1st John 1:2--...we...declare to you that eternal life which was with [προς (pros)] the Father and was manifested to us...

These uses are not simply expressing the idea of being in the same place or even simply being in someone's company. They are conveying the idea of being in constant communion and being amongst and within. If John had meant to simply demonstrate that the Word was in the general vicinity of God, he could have very easily used the Greek μετα (meta, with) as these verses do:

Matthew 4:21--Going on from there, He saw...James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, in the boat with (μετα [meta]) Zebedee their father...
Mark 5:24--So Jesus went with (μετα [meta]) him, and a great multitude followed Him and thronged Him.
John 4:27--And at this point His disciples came, and they marveled that He talked with (μετα [meta]) a woman.

Also keep in mind that John uses the same verb "was" (ην , ēn) to denote that this constant communion and perfect company Jesus had with the Father was not simply something that began at a certain point in time but had been going on since before the beginning. So, to summarize this section, John is not saying that Jesus was simply existing at the same time as God. We could read it like this, God possessed the Word within Himself. John is telling us that, as James White says,

Their fellowship and relationship precedes all else, and it is timeless.

4) και θεος ην ό λóγος (kai theos ēn o logos). And the Word was God.

And here.....we.....go!

Five little Greek words that have caused such conflict for so many years. But if we examine it in light of truth, I believe we shall see that the traditional rendering ("and the Word was God") is the true one. Before we head down this road, let me make one thing abundantly clear: We who believe in the orthodox Trinity DO NOT BELIEVE that the Father is the Son, or that the Son is the Father, or that the Spirit is the Father, etc. That thinking is a doctrine known as "Sabellianism" (which, along with Arianism, was also refuted as a heresy by the early church). Today we call it "Oneness Pentecostalism" or "Modalism." This is NOT a true belief either. Jesus was NOT "praying to Himself" in Gethsemane. He was praying to His Father, who is a separate and distinct Person from the Son.

Clement of Alexandria (writing more than 100 years before the Council of Nicea):

"There was, then, a Word importing an unbeginning eternity; as also the Word itself, that is, the Son of God, who being, by equality of substance, one with the Father, is eternal and uncreate." (Clement, Fragments, Part I, section 3, 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].” (fragment in Eusebius History, Book 6 Ch 14; Jurgens, p. 188)

Melito of Sardis, writing in 177 AD (nearly 150 years before Nicea):

Being God and likewise perfect man, he gave positive indications of his two natures: of his deity, by the miracles during the three years following after his baptism… he concealed the signs of his deity, although he was the true God existing before the ages" (Anastasius of Sinai's, The Guide 13).

So, let's go ahead and dive into the text. Laying aside the English grammar we have known since we were children, we need to notice the arrangement of the words. And we have to understand some things about biblical Greek. One thing is the use of "articles." There is a difference between "definite articles" and "indefinite articles." In Greek, when you see a lone "o" before a word, that is a "definite article" and is translated "the." (There are variations of "o", depending on person, case, and number.)

And, occasionally, we will run across words that do not have a "definite article" in the Greek, and which do not get an indefinite article (such as "a" or "an") when translated into English. The way John structures this part of the verse is very deliberate. He has two nouns joined by a copulative verb. A copulative verb is a verb that joins a subject noun with a predicate noun with no action either way (e.g., "The teacher is a coach"), requiring the nominative case for both nouns. An example of a similar type of structure to that found in John 1:1 is found in John 6:63--

τα ρηματα α εγω λελω υμιν πνευμα εστιν και ζωη εστιν
ta rēmata a ego lelo umin pneuma estin kai zoē estin
the words which I speak to you spirit are and life are

If you take out the phrase "which I speak to you" it would read "The words...are spirit and are life." Notice in this verse that the word ρηματα (rēmata, words) has the definite article τα (ta, the), while the words πνευμα (pneuma, spirit) and ζωη (zoē, life) do not. Also, πνευμα (pneuma, spirit) and ζωη (zoē, life) come before the verb εστιν (estin, are) in this verse. And all three nouns are in the nominative case. So when you bring πνευμα (pneuma, spirit) and ζωη (zoē, life) into English, they do not get a definite article. Not only that, but neither would they get an indefinite article, since it would not make sense to say that the words Jesus spoke were A spirit and A life.

This is important. Because in John 1:1, after the word και (kai, and), we see the word θεος (theos, God), followed by the verb ην (ēn, was) and then, last, the subject noun ό λóγος (o logos, the Word). And because of this construction, ό λóγος (o logos) is the subject noun, θεος (theos) is the predicate noun, ην (ēn) is the copulative verb linking the two. And John constructs this clause the way he did--putting the anarthrous predicate before the verb--not to say that the Word was A "god" but to show that the Word was GOD. We see the same principle, with slightly different constructions in the following writings of this same apostle:

1st John 1:5--God is light (ο θεος φος εστιν [o theos phos estin])
1st John 4:8--God is love (ο θεος αγαπη εστιν [o theos agapē estin])

In these verses, an anarthrous predicate noun precedes the verb, and is translated without the indefinite article. That said.........

• Would it make sense to translate 1st John 1:5 as "God is A light?" NO.
• Would it make sense to translate 1st John 4:8 as "God is A love?" NO.

But the WT will say that it makes sense to translate John 1:1c as "the Word was A god." So the WT breaks its own rules of translation in order to cling to its theology. But in John 1:1c, John is showing that everything about the Word was Deity.

Just like in 1st John 4:8, where John is telling us that everything about God is love. In fact, if you were to take 1st Corinthians 13:4-14:1, and substitute "God" everywhere it says "Love" you would find that when dealing with those He loves:

• God is patient
• God is kind
• God does not envy (for what does He have to envy?)
• God is not prideful
• God does not behave impetuously
• God does not impute our sins to our account (if we confess Christ as Lord and Savior)
• God does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth
• God is slow to wrath
• God never fails
• Pursue God

You see, if John had wanted to say that the Word was A "god" he could have put the word θεος (theos) at the end of the clause, after the verb. If he had done that, there would be no question that John was saying that the Word was A "god." He could have constructed it like this:

και ό λóγος ην θεος
kai o logos ēn theos

But John was not saying that the Word was A "god." He was saying that the Word was GOD.

Now, this is not to say that every predicate noun preceding a verb does not get an indefinite article. A JW over at my blog once challenged me with the following verses (key Greek words in bold italics and rendered in Greek)--

Mark 6:49--...they supposed He was a ghost (εδοξαν φάντασμα ειναι, edoxan phantasma einai [they believed that a ghost He was]).
Mark 11:32--...all believed John to have been a prophet indeed (απαντες εικον τον Ιωαννην οτι οντως προφητης ην, apantes eikon ton Ioannen oti ontos prophētēs ēn [literally, all held to this John because truly a prophet he was]).
John 6:70--"Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?" (και εξ υμας εις διαβολος εστιν, kai ex umas eis diabolos estin [and of you, one is a devil]).
John 10:13--"The hireling flees because he is a hireling..." (οτι μισθωτος εστιν, oti misthotos estin [because he is a hireling]).
John 10:33--"...and because You, being a Man..." (οτι συ ανθρωπος ων, oti su anthropos on [because you, being a man {literally, "a man you are being"}]).
John 12:6--...but because he was a thief... (αλλα οτι κλεπτης ην, alla oti kleptēs ēn [but because he was a thief]).

In all these verses, the predicate nominatives come before the verbs, but they all get the indefinite article "a"--why? Why do these get the indefinite article and θεος (theos) in John 1:1 doesn't?

I'm glad you asked.

Notice one thing. None of these verbs are copulative. In other words, the verb is not joining two nouns--the subjects in these sentences and clauses are provided by the verb itself. That being the case, the indefinite predicate nominative gets the indefinite article in English. In John 1:1, the verb ην (ēn, was) is copulative, joining ό λóγος (o logos) with θεος (theos). That is the difference.

Also, John could NOT have used the definite article with θεος (theos) because if he did, that would make θεος (theos) and λóγος (logos) interchangeable as subject and predicate. If θεος (theos) and λóγος (logos) were interchangeable, either one of them could be the subject noun, and it could have been interpreted to say, "and God was the Word." This reading would mean that all that is θεος (theos) would be the λóγος (logos) and John would have thus been teaching Sabellianism--that God was FIRST the Father, THEN He was the Son, THEN He was the Spirit (I have no idea who they think He is now).

That is not to say that the Word did not possess everything that it means to be God. For, as Paul wrote, in Him dwelt the fullness of the Godhead bodily (Colossians 2:9). The word translated "Godhead" is the Greek θεοτης (theotēs). Even a Unitarian like Joseph Henry Thayer defines θεοτης (theotēs) thus:

“deity, i.e. the state of being God, Godhead: Col. ii. 9. [SYN. theotēs, theiotēs. Theotēs (deity) differs from theiotēs (divinity), as essence differs from quality or attribute.”

What he is saying is that not only did Jesus share the same attributes as God, but He possessed in Himself everything that it means to be God. It is for this reason that Paul used the word μορφή (morphē) in Philippians 2:6--who, being in the form (μορφή, morphē) of God... The word μορφή (morphē) denotes the totality of the one being referred to--essence, nature. He was not the form of God, He was IN the form of God. That is to say, God was not confined to being the Word. But everything about Jesus was Deity. John was NOT saying that Jesus ALONE was God--that is Sabellianism-Modalism-Oneness, and that is nowhere near what John was teaching.

By the same token, John was not teaching that Jesus was a created being, separate from God. While Jesus is "separate and distinct" from the Father, Jesus is still "God." On that note, the WTBTS tries to use a quote by Phillip Harner in The Journal of Biblical Literature (JBL), and they try to say that Mr. Harner was giving credence to their claim that Jesus was "A God." Their claim [WT words in blue, Harner's words in red, all emphases mine]:

“The Journal of Biblical Literature says that expressions ‘with an anarthrous [no article] predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning.’ As the Journal notes, this indicates that the logos can be likened to a god.” (Should You Believe in the Trinity?, 1989, p. 27; cited at Witness 4 Jesus)

But is that what Harner is really saying? Listen to what the JBL says directly before this (all words are from Mr. Harner, all emphases are mine):

[A clause] with the verb preceding an anarthrous predicate, would probably mean that the logos [Word] was ‘a god’ or a divine being of some kind, belonging to the general category of theos [God] but as a distinct being from ho theos [the God]. (Philip B. Harner, "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1," The Journal of Biblical Literature, 1973, pp. 84-85, 87; cited at Witness 4 Jesus)

If you notice, the anarthrous noun θεος (theos) precedes the verb ην (ēn, was) in this clause. Then, immediately after, Harner says (emphases mine),

[The construction John uses] means that the logos [Word] has the nature of theos [God]. In this clause, the form that John actually uses, the word theos [God] is placed at the beginning for emphasis...This would be one way of representing John’s thought, which is, as I understand it, that ho logos, [the Word] no less than ho theos, [the God] had the nature of theos [God].” (Philip B. Harner, "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1," The Journal of Biblical Literature, 1973, pp. 84-85, 87; cited at Witness 4 Jesus)

So now you see how disingenuous the WTBTS can be when they cite a source to back up their claims. What, you thought the ellipses they put in those quotes were simply for brevity? No. The reason they leave out huge chunks from their quotes is so you don't see what the person actually said.

One final note about the grammar of this clause. Remember, again, what is the verb? Yes, ην (ēn). What tense is it in? Imperfect. What does that mean again? It implies a continuation of action from a previous point. So John is saying, basically, that "In the beginning...the Word had been being God." From before the foundation of the world, the Word was being God.

Here is a quote from B.F. Westcott, of Westcott & Hort (W&H). Why would I quote this man? Because it is the W&H Greek text that the WTBTS uses as the basis for their Kingdom Interlinear Translation (KIT). I mean, if you are a JW, who can you trust if you can't trust one of the men who built the Greek text of one of your Scriptures? Anyway, this is what Westcott said of John 1:1c (emphases mine)--

"The predicate [God] stands emphatically first, as in [John] 4:24. It is necessarily without the article...No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true Deity of the Word...in the third clause 'The Word' is declared to be 'God' and so included in the unity of the Godhead." (The Gospel According to St. John, Eerdmans, 1953- reprint. p. 3; The Bible Collector, July-December, 1971, p. 12; cited at Let Us Reason.)

How tragic that this group would lead so many down a road to destruction just to hold on to a failed theology and flawed interpretation. And it is no wonder they mangle the Scriptures--Not a one of them EVER studied biblical Greek. How sad that they will not allow the Holy Scriptures to do their perfect work. Instead, they hide inside their bunkers in Brooklyn, churning out lies and deceit and clothing them in the guise of "biblical scholarship" and declaring that they alone are the ones "announcing God's Kingdom." Their destruction does not slumber.

Please pray for those who are being deceived, that they may see the light of truth--
That Jesus IS YHVH.
That the Word was God.

Jesus Christ is Lord.
Amen.

Verse-by-verse through Joel (2:31-3:8)

Joel 2:31-3:8--2:30 "And I will show wonders in the heavens and in the earth: Blood and fire and pillars of smoke. 31 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the coming of the great and awesome day of YHVH. 32 And it shall come to pass that whoever calls on the name of YHVH shall be saved. For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be deliverance, as YHVH has said, among the remnant whom YHVH calls. 3:1 For behold, in those days and at that time, when I bring back the captives of Judah and Jerusalem, 2 I will also gather all nations, and bring them down to the Valley of Jehoshaphat; and I will enter into judgment with them there on account of My people, My heritage Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations; they have also divided up My land. 3 They have cast lots for My people, have given a boy as payment for a harlot, and sold a girl for wine, that they may drink. 4 Indeed, what have you to do with Me, O Tyre and Sidon, and all the coasts of Philistia? Will you retaliate against Me? But if you retaliate against Me, swiftly and speedily I will return your retaliation upon your own head; 5 because you have taken My silver and My gold, and have carried into your temples My prized possessions. 6 Also the people of Judah and the people of Jerusalem You have sold to the Greeks, that you may remove them far from their borders. 7 Behold, I will raise them out of the place to which you have sold them, and will return your retaliation upon your own head. 8 I will sell your sons and your daughters into the hand of the people of Judah, and they will sell them to the Sabeans, to a people far off; for YHVH has spoken."

Blood and fire and pillars of smoke returned to the land after God commanded His army to leave. We know that the blood and fire and pillars of smoke were even greater than before. But, the "blood and fire and pillars of smoke" were the result of the animal sacrifices. The fact that God had restored the sacrifices of grain and animals and blood was good for the people of Judah. It meant that they now had a way to cover over their sins. Of course, sometimes, a little freedom isn't such a good thing. After all, why did the blood and fire and pillars of smoke return? Because the people were bringing sacrifices. And why were they bringing sacrifices? Because they were sinning. Which would God prefer: a person bringing an animal sacrifice? Or the person not needing to bring an animal sacrifice? Let's allow the Scriptures to answer that question. Psalm 51:17--The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and a contrite heart—these, O God, You will not despise. Hosea 6:6--"For I desire mercy and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings." And He would later say through the prophet Isaiah, "To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices to Me?” says YHVH. "I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fed cattle. I do not delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs or goats...Bring no more futile sacrifices; incense is an abomination to Me. The New Moons, the Sabbaths, and the calling of assemblies—I cannot endure iniquity and the sacred meeting. Your New Moons and your appointed feasts My soul hates; they are a trouble to Me, I am weary of bearing them" (Isaiah 1:11-14). God would rather we not have to bring a sacrifice to Him, then to continually weary Him with our dead bulls and goats. He would rather we enter His presence with praise, than enter with blood.

But, He would one day bring an end to these sacrifices, so that all nations would be able to entreat Him for mercy and forgiveness. All nations would be able to live in holiness to YHVH, and He would dwell within them and be their God. That neither circumcision would be necessary, nor sacrifice. But, verse 2:32, it shall come to pass that These words would be echoed by the apostles Peter (Acts 2:21) and Paul (Romans 10:13), who quote the Septuagint and say/write, whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved. And who, exactly, is that Lord? Of course, it is Christ. Now, I wasn't planning on doing a study of the deity of Christ, but like I always say, God laughs at the plans of men. Hold your place here in Joel, and turn to Romans 10. Because Paul demonstrates the deity of Christ without actually coming out and saying, "Jesus is God." And no, for all you who have ever had dealings with Jehovah's Witnesses, the Bible does not contain the exact phrase, "Jesus is God." But, we find the fact that Jesus is God all throughout the NT. Here is one example.

Romans 10:9-13--if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the Scripture says, Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame. For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him. For whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved. What does he say in verse 9? If you confess...the Lord Jesus. This is not negotiable. The modern heresy that is so popular today, that we can separate confessing Christ as Savior from confessing Him as Lord, is truly an abomination. No one can be saved apart from confessing Jesus Christ as Lord. We do not make Him Lord--He already IS! Acts 2:36--"This Jesus whom you have crucified, God has made Him both LORD and Christ." So we confess Jesus as Lord. Verse 11. Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame. Believes on who? Jesus. John 3:16--"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in HIM...will have everlasting life." Acts 16:31--"Believe on the LORD JESUS CHRIST and you will be saved." So what Lord is it we are called upon and commanded to believe and confess? We are called upon to believe and confess that JESUS CHRIST is LORD. This is the promise to all nations, verse 12--For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him. Sensing a pattern here. Who is this "Lord of all?" Acts 10:36--The word which God sent to the children of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ—He is LORD of all. Philippians 2:10-11--that at the name OF JESUS, every knee should bow...and that every tongue should confess that JESUS CHRIST IS LORD, to the glory of God the Father. So every tongue will confess--whether in love or in agony--that Jesus Christ is Lord. He is, indeed, Lord of all, and verse 13--whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved.

Who is Lord? Jesus. That's what Paul has been saying, even if you go back to verse 1 of Romans 10. This whole section is about Christ. Christ is the end of the Law (Romans 10:4). Christ is Lord. Christ is Lord over all. And if you call on the name of the Lord Christ you will be saved. It is faith in Christ that leads to salvation. Who did Paul say we must confess as Lord in verse 9? The Lord Jesus. Let's keep going to Romans 10:14--How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? Who is it that people must believe in? Christ. Paul's unbroken theme for this entire section of his letter to the Romans is about proclaiming the name of Christ, believing in Him and confessing Him as Lord. And whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved.

Now, flip back to Joel 2:32. Whoever calls on the name of YHVH shall be saved. What have we just finished looking at in Romans 10? That Paul is letting it be known that Jesus Christ is Lord. That whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved, and if we want to make it even clearer to the reader or listener, whoever calls on the name of the Lord Jesus will be saved. Yet God says through Joel that whoever calls on the name of YHVH shall be saved. Can there be a clearer display of the deity of Jesus Christ than this?

Can there be a clearer display of the mercy of God than this? For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be deliverance, as YHVH has said, among the remnant whom YHVH calls. Hold your place again, and turn to Romans chapter 11. Here we see Paul giving a picture of the Jewish people embracing Jesus as Messiah. Romans 11:1-7--I say then, has God cast away His people? Certainly not! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel, saying, "LORD, they have killed Your prophets and torn down Your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life"? (see 1st Kings 19:10, 14) But what does the divine response say to him? "I have reserved for Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal" (see 1st Kings 19:18). Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work. What then? Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded. Poor Elijah. Sitting all alone in the cave, feeling sorry for himself, thinking that God was too weak to save His people. Thinking that all of Israel was doomed. Thinking that he would be the last Jew who would ever worship God.

But what did God tell him? He said, "Hey, look, I've still got 7000 men who have not deserted me." And Paul is letting it be known that God has not finished building the body of Christ with Jewish believers. Look at the end of verse 1--I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. He expands this identification with Israel in Philippians 3:5--circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; concerning the law, a Pharisee. What nation were the apostles from? Israel. What nation was the Lord Jesus born into? Romans 9:3-5--I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, who are Israelites...from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen. Paul was an Israelite. Jesus was, in flesh, an Israelite. Has God cast away His people? Certainly not! Verse 5, Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

So why don't Jews accept Jesus of Nazareth as their Messiah? Skip ahead to Romans 11:11-12--I say then, have they [the Israelites] stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles. Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness! The Jews have not believed that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ of God for one simple reason: so that the Gentiles may be saved through faith. Will the Jews be forever disbelieving? Romans 11:25-26--For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: "The Deliverer will come out of Zion, and He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob; for this is My covenant with them, when I take away their sins" (see Isaiah 59:20-21). One day, light will come to the Israelites, and there will be a massive revival in Israel, just before the return of the Lord Christ. Back to Joel.

Chapter 3 verses 1 and 2. For behold, in those days and at that time, when I bring back the captives of Judah and Jerusalem, I will also gather all nations, and bring them down to the Valley of Jehoshaphat; and I will enter into judgment with them there on account of My people, My heritage Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations; they have also divided up My land. Much speculation has been spent on properly defining where/what is meant by the "Valley of Jehoshaphat." Some say it is meant to be the valley that was later given this appellation. I would have to respectfully disagree, since that was not so named until some 300 years after the resurrection of our Lord. If it is meant to be applied to the valley where God overcame the Moabites, Ammonites, and Edomites (2nd Chronicles 20:11-22), then this would be the Valley of Berachah (2nd Chronicles 20:26). Others believe Joel to be speaking of the Kidron Valley.

But still others hold to a view I tend to gravitate towards. That this "Valley of Jehoshaphat" is none other than the Har Megiddo, where God the Son will come and judge the nations--not with mercy or compassion--but with a sword. For the name Jehoshaphat means "YHVH judges." In the very last days--and I have not studied the chronological order of the occurrence of these things, so don't let that sidetrack the conversation--light will come to the Israelites, so that many will worship Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ of God. Another significant event will occur when the temple in Jerusalem will be rebuilt. Israelites from all around the world will descend on Jerusalem, and establish residence there because the animal sacrifices will return, with the resultant blood and fire and pillars of smoke. The Antichrist will sit as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God (2nd Thessalonians 2:4). The seething, blaspheming, Antichrist-worshiping Gentile nations will increasingly rage against Israel, will seek to utterly destroy them, will give away the land to the highest bidder. They will rage against God and against His Christ. They will dare God to come down and do something about it...........and He will. Revelation 19:11-16--Now I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse. And He who sat on him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and makes war. His eyes were like a flame of fire, and on His head were many crowns. He had a name written that no one knew except Himself....Now out of His mouth goes a sharp sword, that with it He should strike the nations. And He Himself will rule them with a rod of iron...And He has on His robe and on His thigh a name written: KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS. And thus, God will gather all nations, and He will bring them down to the Valley, and He will enter into judgment with those who have scattered His people among the nations and those who have divided up His land.

And what will be the charges He will bring against those who ravaged His people and divided His land? Verses 2-8. "On account of My people, My heritage Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations; they have also divided up My land. They have cast lots for My people, have given a boy as payment for a harlot, and sold a girl for wine, that they may drink. Indeed, what have you to do with Me, O Tyre and Sidon, and all the coasts of Philistia? Will you retaliate against Me? But if you retaliate against Me, swiftly and speedily I will return your retaliation upon your own head; because you have taken My silver and My gold, and have carried into your temples My prized possessions. Also the people of Judah and the people of Jerusalem You have sold to the Greeks, that you may remove them far from their borders. Behold, I will raise them out of the place to which you have sold them, and will return your retaliation upon your own head. I will sell your sons and your daughters into the hand of the people of Judah, and they will sell them to the Sabeans, to a people far off; for YHVH has spoken."

A two-fold revelation. In the immediate context, God speaks of the nations who carried away the people of Judah and Jerusalem, and sold them and got whatever they could out of the deal. For which God was so very patient in exacting His vengeance upon such vile men. It is said that when Jerusalem was overthrown in 70 AD,

Titus disposed of the prisoners, whose number reached 97,000 in the course of the war, in the following manner: Those under seventeen years of age were publicly sold; of the remainder, some were executed immediately, some sent away to work in the Egyptian mines, some kept for the public shows to fight with wild beasts in all the chief cities of Rome; and only the tallest and most handsome for the triumphal procession in Rome (compare Josephus, The Jewish Wars, vi. 9, 2, 3). And the Jews who were taken prisoners in the Jewish war in the time of Hadrian, are said to have been sold in the slave-market at Hebron at so low a price, that four Jews were disposed of for a measure of barley.--From Keil & Delitzch, Commentary on Joel 3:2-8.

But it is not only for the Israelites that God will recompense the nations. We are all--those who believe in Christ Jesus as Lord and Savior--Israelites. This is a great truth. A truth that we should all understand, for God has promised to ransom Israel. For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God (Romans 2:28-29). There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed (Galatians 3:28-29). Romans 11:26, 29--And so all Israel will be saved...For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. Matthew 1:21--"And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name JESUS, for He will save His people from their sins." Does God make a promise and go back on it? He has even promised those who have lost their lives for the sake of the Lord Jesus that He will avenge them (see Revelation 6:9-10, Revelation 19:2).

We have His word that these things will happen. The end of verse 8, "...for YHVH has spoken." Do we need any further evidence than the fact that God said it? What will the Postmodern or the Emergent have to answer in that day? They who do not believe that simply trusting in the word of God is enough. They who seek some higher truth. As if there is any! There is NO higher truth than that which comes from God. And there is no other truth than that which God calls truth. You may say, "Oh, but look at all these laws of logic! Look at all these laws of physics and mathematics and..." so on and so forth. What? You think man makes a truth and God has to live by it? Who are you, O man, to question God? If it is a truth--of physics, of mathematics, of economics, of geometry, of logic--then it is only because it has been decreed to be truth by God. For apart from Him, there is no truth.

Why does the physical world obey the laws of physics? Because God orders things to act in a certain way. Why does 2+2 ALWAYS equal 4? Because God ordered that numbers whould behave in a certain way. Why does a certain amount of money, earning a certain amount of interest, over a certain amount of time, compounded at certain periods, earn a certain amount of interest? I suppose you will say "Because that's what banks and lending institutions have determined." And you would be so wrong that the distance between your assertion and the true reason could not be measured by human measurements. Meausre the distance in light years--you will be no closer to the truth than the ant crawling across the sidewalk will come to the farthest reaches of our galaxy. That money earns however much interest it does because God has determined that those numbers--calculate them however you will--can only equal one fixed number. Whatever laws of truth we think that we have invented--at their rock bottom and foundation, exist for one simple reason--"...for YHVH has spoken."

And if it is YHVH who has determined the truths of the physical world, how much more has He determined the things concerning Himself. What, you think some guy over in Rome, sitting in a big chair and surrounded by his acolytes dressed in cardinal red, determines what the Scriptures mean? You think it is the woman in Revelation 17:1-2 who holds the last word on who enters Heaven and who doesn't? No mere man determines anything of God. Only the word of God is sufficient to speak of the things of God. "...for YHVH has spoken."