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."

Quick Question #3

Quick Question for Jehovah's Witnesses:

If John 1:1 is supposed to be translated "...and the Word was A God" because there is no definite article before θεος, the why doesn't the NWT translate Philippians 2:6 as saying "...who, although he was existing in A God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to A God" since there is no definite article before θεος in either instance of the word in THAT verse?

"JEHOVAH"--God's "personal name?"

DISCLAIMER: The purpose of this post is NOT to discourage the use of the name "Jehovah." The purpose is to dispel the notion put forth by the Watchtower Society that it is the ONLY name we are to use when referring to God. There is nothing wrong with using "Jehovah," nor is it the only name we can use. That said...

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

The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (WTBTS, OR WT for short) has spent years trumpeting that they alone use, quote, "The personal name of God." But do they really?

Question--How many Jews, speaking Hebrew, about 4000 years ago, in the Middle East, used the sound we associate with the letter "J"?

Answer--"Yeah, I'd like to answer that. Uh, what?"

Now, I don't claim to be a Hebrew scholar, but I have studied what many have had to say on this subject. That said, let's take a look at the evolution of the name "JEHOVAH."

For the sake of those of you who may be new to the Bible, whenever you see the word "LORD" in all capital letters in the Old Testament, that is how the translators render the Hebrew word יהוה (Reading right-to-left, the Hebrew characters Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh. Transliterated into our alphabet, literally, "YHVH").

Now, keep in mind that the Hebrew alphabet has no vowels to speak of (any Hebrew scholars, feel free to correct me here). So the writer would insert dots (called "vowel points") above, under, and/or inside the characters to indicate the proper pronunciation. And according to most Bible scholars who have studied biblical Hebrew, the correct pronunciation would be "YAW-vey."

Next, we bring in the Hebrew word "Adonai," which translates into "Lord." Eventually, because of the dispersions the Jews suffered, the Hebrew language began to fade. Legend has it that about 200 years before christ, Hebrew scribes began adding the vowel points for "Adonai" to the Tetragrammaton, (Either out of reverence for God's name, or out of superstition they would mispronounce it, depending on who you read), thus making it to read "YaHoVaH" when transliterated into English. English changes over the years, the "Y" becomes a "J", the first "a" becomes an "e" and we now have "Jehovah."

This is where things get tricky for the JW. According to OFFICIAL WTBTS MATERIAL [Emphasis mine],

"The first recorded use of this form dates from the thirteenth century C.E. Raymundus Martini, a Spanish monk of the Dominican Order, used it in his book "Pugeo Fidei" of the year 1270." (from Jehovah's Witnesses own book "Aid to Bible Understanding" p.884)

In other words, the WTBTS considers the "personal name of God" to be a name erroneously invented by a 13th Century Catholic Monk. Their excuse? [Emphasis mine]

Today many Hebrew scholars prefer Yahweh as the true pronunciation.

However, consistency favors Jehovah. In what way? The pronunciation Jehovah has been accepted in English for centuries.

Those who object to using this pronunciation should also object to the use of the accepted pronunciation Jeremiah and even Jesus. Jeremiah would need to be changed to Yir·meyah' or Yir·meya'hu, the original Hebrew pronunciations, and Jesus would become Ye·shu'a` (Hebrew) or I·e·sous' (Greek). Hence, many Bible students, including Jehovah's Witnesses, feel that consistency favors the use of the already well-known English-language "Jehovah" and its equivalent in other languages.

Stop! Ummmm, wait a sec. We have to pronounce it "Jehovah" in English--but it has, quote, "its equivalent in other languages." So, if you pronounce THE EQUIVALENT in other languages, you don't have to pronounce it "Jehovah." But if you speak English, you have to say "Jehovah." What about Jews? How are they supposed to pronounce it? I'm confused.

OK, so help me out here. The WTBTS is trying to tell us that the proper pronunciation of, quote, "The personal name of God" DEPENDS ON ITS ACCEPTANCE IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE (Or its equivalent in other languages)??? So, basically, Moses, David, Solomon, Abraham--these men did not know how to properly pronounce this name because THEY DIDN'T SPEAK ENGLISH!!

Oh, then there's this one, from the Watchtower magazine itself [Emphasis mine]:

"...down through the centuries, the correct pronunciation of the divine name in Hebrew has been lost. Hence, it is uncertain what vowels should be used to fill in the name."(Watchtower, Feb.1, 1980).

There is also evidence from other sources that "YAW-vey" is closer to the true pronunciation. From Let Us Reason Ministries [Emphasis mine]:

THE UNIVERSAL JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA says "JEHOVAH is an erroneous pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton, a four lettered name of God, made up of the Hebrew letters Yod He Vav He. The word "JEHOVAH" therefore is a misreading for which there is no warrant and which makes no sense in Hebrew. The Hebrew letters point to a Yod Y...the more correct pronunciation is Yahweh or some form deriving from the same consonants. For example Yah is used in its shorter form in Ex.15:2 and 17:15, Isa.12:2 and Ps.118:14 .

The WTBTS is not sure what vowels should be used. They believe that the English rendering of YHVH is to be trusted over the rendering given by those who speak the language the Old Testament was written in. They say that we non-JW's don't use the real, quote, "personal name of God" when they themselves don't even know what it is.

Oops.

Fake Translation of the Week--Revelation 1:17-18

(Real translation here)

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus was a created being. They twist and corrupt different passages of Scripture--passages that affirm the deity of Christ--to make it sound as if these verses actually prove thir point. I wonder how today's passage would have to read for them to make their case?

In fact, the dilemma is, who do they say is speaking? If it's Jesus, then He is calling Himself "The First and the Last"--a title that is claimed by YHVH in Isaiah 44:6. If it's the Father, do they believe He died? Well, here are two different ways to read it, depending on which day of the week you hear from the Watchtower (Altered text in bold italics)

Fake Jehovah's Witnesses Translation #1:
Revelation 1:17-18--And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as dead. But He laid His right hand on me, saying to me, "Do not be afraid; I am the First and the Last. But not THE First and THE Last, because that name belongs to the Father. I am simply a representative of His Firstness and His Lastness. I'm not trying to say I'm God. Because I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore. Amen."


Fake Jehovah's Witnesses Translation #2:
Revelation 1:17-18--And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as dead. But He laid His right hand on me, saying to me, "Do not be afraid; I am the First and the Last. I am He who lives, and was dead. But it wasn't Me who died. That was My Son. I'm just saying that through Him I died. Because behold, I am alive forevermore. Amen."

New Link--Jesus is YHVH

For those who are looking for some really good research and breakdown of the heretical teachings of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society and the Jehovah's Witnesses, I would encourage you to check out this site, which will now have a link in the "Christian Links" section of the left sidebar:

Jesus is YHVH

The posts are not exactly light reading, there is a huge amount of information, and all the posts are written in a very scholarly manor. And unlike WTBTS material, which leaves out crucial parts of a quote to make it sound like the one being quoted agrees with WT theology, this fellow posts entire quotes, with nothing left out, to let you know that they DID NOT agree with WT theology.