Wednesday, March 15, 2017

John 6:45 - Jesus and His God as Teachers

John 6:45 - It is written in the prophets, 'They will all be taught by God.' Therefore everyone who hears from the Father, and has learned, comes to me.
Isaiah 54:13 - All your children shall be taught of Yahweh[Jehovah]; and great shall be the peace of your children.
The World English translation is used throughout unless otherwise stated.
Since Jesus is spoken in the scriptures several times as a teacher, some have claimed that by Jesus' words recorded in John 6:45, Jesus is applying the prophecy of Isaiah 54:14 to himself, and that such offers proof that Jesus is Jehovah. In actuality, if we read Jesus' words carefully, we see that he is not applying the prophecy to himself. His own words as recorded in John 6:45 answers the false claim, since he applies to words of Isaiah 54:14 to his God and Father, when he says, "Therefore everyone who hears the Father, and has learned [from the Father] comes to me."
Jesus is our teacher, but he is so by the appointment of the only true God who sent him. (John 17:3) Rather than claiming, however, that he was Jehovah, Jesus plainly said: "My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me. If anyone desires to do his will, he will know of the teaching, whether it is from God, or if I speak from myself. He who speaks from himself seeks his own glory, but he who seeks the glory of him who sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him." (John 7:16-18) "The word which you hear isn't mine, but the Father's who sent me." (John 14:24) Who sent Jesus? Isaiah prophetically quotes Jesus as saying: "Jehovah ... sent me." (Isaiah 61:1, American Standard) Deuteronomy 18:15-22 states prophetically that Jesus was come in the name of Jehovah, and that he would speak the words of Jehovah, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. (Exodus 3:14,15) Furthermore, Jesus calls the One who sent him "the only true God." -- John 17:1,3.
As related in John 17:5, Jesus refers to a time when he was with the only true God before he became a human of flesh. Jesus had been with the only true God and learned from him before he became man, thus Jesus could say: "I say the things which I have seen with my Father." (John 8:38) Only Jesus had descended from heaven so as to be able to speak of heavenly things. (John 3:12,13) And Jesus says that he gave to his disciples the words of his God and Father, when in prayer to the only true God, saying: "The words which you have given me I have given to them." (John 17:8) "I have given them your word." -- John 17:14.
Likewise Jesus, the great pastor of the flock, appointed special teachers under him, the apostles; and still others in the church to be teachers and under-shepherds of Jehovah's flock, instructing them, "Feed my sheep" (John 21:17); "feed my lambs." (John 21:15) "Take heed therefore to yourselves and to all the flock, over which the Holy Spirit has appointed you overseers, to feed the church of Christ which he has purchased with his blood.." (Acts 20:28, Lamsa) Yet none of these teachers were to teach doctrines of their own, which could be only "wisdom of this world." (1 Corinthians 1:20) The people of God were to be all taught by Jehovah, and none can be true teachers save as they present to men the words and plan and character of Jehovah as the standards of truth and excellence. In doing this they necessarily call attention to 'the teachings of Christ' and 'the apostle's teachings,' all of which were but expressions and inculcations of the Father's grand and eternal law.
Moreover, Jehovah showed through the prophets that Jesus, the great pastor appointed by the Master Teacher, Jehovah (Ezekiel 34:23), would be himself taught of Jehovah; and in order "that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest" to humanity in "things pertaining to God [Jehovah]," and be proved worthy to be "the captain of our salvation," (Hebrews 2:17, King James Vrsion) it was needful that he be perfected in experiences through things which he suffered. (Hebrews 2:9,10) Note how clearly the following prophecies declared long before that our Lord would be taught by Jehovah, and would learn well the lessons, and manifest love for the law and obedience to the Law-giver:
Isaiah 50:4-10 (Green's Literal)- The Lord Jehovah has given to Me the tongue of learned ones, to know to help the weary with a word. He arouses in the morning; He wakens the ear to Me, to hear as the learned. The Lord Jehovah has opened My ear and I did not rebel; I did not turn away backwards. I gave My back to strikers, and My cheeks to pluckers; I did not hide My face from shame and spitting. And the Lord Jehovah will help Me. On account of this I was not ashamed. On account of this I set My face like flint, and I know that I shall not be ashamed. My Justifier is near. Who will contend with Me? Let us stand up together. Who is master of My judgment? Let him come near to Me. Behold, the Lord Jehovah will help Me; who is He who will condemn Me? Behold, like a garment they shall wear out; the moth shall eat them.[10] Who among you fears Jehovah, obeying the voice of His Servant, who walks in darkness, and no light is in him? Let him trust in the name of Jehovah, and lean on his God.
-- See: Matthew 26:67; 27:26,30; Isaiah 53:11


Hear further on this subject the word of Jehovah's testimony respecting the preparation of our Lord Jesus for the grand office of high priest for mankind:
Isaiah 11:1-10 (Green's Literal) - And a Shoot goes out from the stump of Jesse, and a Branch will bear fruit out of his roots. And the Spirit of Jehovah shall rest on Him; He will have the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and power, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of Jehovah. And He is made to breathe in the fear of Jehovah. But He shall not judge by the sight of His eyes, nor decide by the hearing of His ears. But He shall judge the poor in righteousness, and shall decide rightly for the meek of the earth. And He shall strike the earth with the rod of His mouth, and He shall cause the wicked to die with the breath of His lip. And righteousness shall be the encircler of His loins, and faithfulness the encircler of His reins. And the wolf shall live with the lamb; and the leopard shall lie with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little boy shall lead them. The cow and the bear shall feed, their young shall lie together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. And the infant shall play on the hole of the asp; yea, the weaned child shall put his hand on the viper's den. They shall not do evil, nor destroy in all My holy mountain. For the earth shall be full of the knowledge of Jehovah, as the waters cover the sea. And it shall be in that day, the Root of Jesse stands as a banner of peoples; nations shall seek to Him; and His resting place shall be glory.
-- See: Hebrews 2:18
Again prophetically Messiah is represented as saying: "I will bless Yahweh [Jehovah], who has given me counsel." (Psalm 16:7) "You [Jehovah] will show me the path of life." (Psalm 16:11) These expressions occur in connections quoted by the apostles as applicable to our great pastor, Jesus. (Psalm 16:7-11; Acts 2:25-31; 13:35-38) Thus is confirmed by prophecy the statement of the Evangelist, "The child grew, and grew strong in spirit, filled with wisdom, and the grace of God was on him. Jesus advanced in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men." -- Luke 2:40,52.
Jesus, however, faithfully carried out the will of his God and Father, and thus Jehovah does instruct us through His son, who in, turn sent God's holy spirit to help his apostles to instruct us. Thus, the entire New Testament are the teachings from Jehovah given through Jesus and the apostles. This does not mean that the son of Jehovah is Jehovah Himself.
Related Books
Please note that I do not necessarily agree with all that is stated in these books. -- Ronald
The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity's Self-Inflicted Wound -- Presents unitarian viewpoint; denies the pre-human existence of Jesus, but otherwise, the book contains a lot of good information.
When Jesus Became God -- Gives a lot of historical background.
The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture - The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament
Concepts of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - A Classification and Description of the Trinitarian and Non-Trinitarian Theologies Existent Within Christendom
Divine Truth or Human Tradition A Reconsideration of the Roman Catholic-Protestant Doctrine of the Trinity in Light of the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures
The Trinity's Weak Links Revealed A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

1 John 4:3 - Jesus Has Come in the Flesh





1 John 4:3 World English
and every spirit who doesn't confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God, and this is the spirit of the antichrist, of whom you have heard that it comes. Now it is in the world already.
2 John 1:7 World English
For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who don't confess that Jesus Christ came in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the Antichrist.
It is somewhat puzzling as to why those who wish to add to the scriptures that Jesus is his God often quote 1 John 4:3 as proof that Jesus is his God. As best as we can determine, many seem to think that this verse says: "Every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ [is God] come in the flesh is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world." (We added what some evidently read into this verse in brackets "[is God]".)
Bible Students certainly should confess and thoroughly believe that Jesus did indeed come in the flesh, for which purpose was to offer that sinless flesh, his sinless humanity, in which was life, in sacrifice to God for the church and the world of mankind. (Matthew 20:28; John 6:51; Luke 22:19; Romans 3:25; 5:8,12-19; 1 Corinthians 15:21,22; Ephesians 5:2; Titus 2:14; Hebrews 10:5,10; 1 Peter 3:18; 1 John 2:2; 4:10) We believe this is why John emphasized that Jesus had come in the flesh, since this is the whole basis of the atonement as set forth in the New Testament.
Usually those who believe that Jesus is his God, by what they teach, actually are denying the purpose for which he came in to the flesh, for most of them claim that Jesus is still flesh, that he took back his flesh and still has his body that he died with; some even believe that he still has the physical wounds that were physically inflicted upon his body when on the day of his death. There are, however, those who do not believe that Jesus is his God who also believe that Jesus still has his body that he died in. All such would, in effect, deny that Jesus actually came in the flesh in order to give his flesh in sacrifice for the life of the world.
Nevertheless, if one rejects Jesus as who he claimed to be -- "the Son of God" -- then such could be of the class spoken of here. While the trinitarian has come up with some ingenious reasoning to explain how Jesus is the God of whom he is the Son, in reality, the trinity doctrine does reject Jesus as who he claimed to be. Likewise, any who claim that Jesus is his God do likewise.
There were many spirits -- theories, doctrines -- amongst the Christians, even in the first century -- which did indeed deny Jesus -- not necessarily that they denied that they believed in Jesus, but they wished for their Jesus to be other than whom he said he was. Some were claiming that he was God; some were claiming that he was an angel "incarnated" in flesh; others were saying that he was simply a good, yet sinful man, as all others; others were saying that his death did not purchase anyone, etc. All of these theories actually cannot confess the true Jesus, but actually confess another Jesus, and deny the true Jesus as having come in the flesh. -- 2 Corinthians 11:4.
Jesus, as the one whom he claimed to, the Anointed One of Yahweh, the one sent by Yahweh, the Son of Yahweh, the one who came from his God, is the true foundation upon which our faith should be built. "Other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, Jesus Christ." -- 1 Corinthians 3:11.
Jesus is Not Yahweh (Jehovah)
Nevertheless, those who wish for Jesus to be God himself build another foundation, the trinity doctrine or similar doctrine; such usually claim their doctrine to be the foundation upon which one should build their faith.
The world does not confess Jesus to be "Lord." and few of the professed Christian systems are ready to confess the true purpose for which Jesus came in flesh.
Many people have believed that Jesus lived, but who have denied his being the Christ -- the Anointed of Yahweh, are of the the same class of anti-christs today, who, by their claim that Jesus is God, in effect, deny that "Jesus is the Son of God", son of the Most High.
Jesus became flesh (holy, undefiled) in order to pay the price or penalty against us -- death. The affirmation or denial of Messiah's having come in the flesh was and still is a sure test -- the ransom test stated in one of its forms: every doctrine that denies it is an active opponent of the truth.
All who believe that Christ is still a man -- with a body of flesh -- since his resurrection and that he will come a second time as a man, are thereby, in effect, denying the ransom, for this would deny -- in effect -- that there really was a ransom price paid to God. It would deny that Jesus gave his human body as a sacrificial offering to his God (Ephesians 5:2; Hebrews 7:27; 9:14) to pay the debt of sin for the church and the human race. -- Luke 22:19; Romans 5:12-19; 1 Corinthians 11:24; 15:21,22; 1 Timothy 2:5,6; 1 John 2:2; Hebrews 10:10.
Christ's Second Coming in the Flesh?
Another argument often used concerning 1 John 4:3 is that it says that Christ is to come again in the flesh, and thus to deny that Christ's second coming in the flesh would be antichrist.
1 John 4:3 does not say one word about Christ returning in the flesh. What it does say:
Every spirit who doesn't confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God, and this is the spirit of the antichrist, of whom you have heard that it comes. Now it is in the world already. - World English Bible version.
Compare this with:
For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who don't confess that Jesus Christ came in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the Antichrist. -- 2 John 1:7
John was writing about a past event, "Christ came [past tense] in the flesh"; he was writings about Christ's first coming, not his second coming.
This agrees with Hebrews 5:7, which speaks of the "days of his flesh" -- the days in which Jesus as having come in the flesh -- as something in the past. Jesus is no longer in the days of his flesh.
Why is it important to recognize that Jesus "has come in the flesh"? He came in the flesh to offer that flesh as a sacrifice, not that he would be flesh for eternity. It was the man Christ Jesus who gave himself a ransom for all. (1 Timothy 2:5,6) Jesus said that the bread represented his human flesh "which is given for you." (Luke 22:19) And the scripture reads that believers "have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." (Hebrews 10:10) And Peter tells us: "Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring you to God; being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit." (1 Peter 3:18) If Jesus had not come in the flesh, then there would have been offering to cover our sins. But Jesus tells us: 'the bread which I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world." (John 6:51) Further on in same chapter (1 John 4), John writes concerning the reason Jesus came in the flesh: "By this was God's love revealed in us, that God has sent his only born Son into the world that we might live through him. 10 In this is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son as the atoning sacrifice for our sins." (1 John 4:9,10) Thus, John emphasized earlier that confession of Jesus as having coming in the flesh is necessary, since Jesus has come in the flesh to offer that flesh as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. Any teaching that teaching otherwise is anti-christ (against, or replaces Christ).

It is being claimed that to deny that Christ is flesh, to deny that he still has the body of flesh and bones, is the spirit of antichrist.
No scripture says such a thing. Indeed, if Jesus today still has the body of flesh (a sinless fleshly man has the glory of a body that is a little lower than the angels. -- Psalm 8:5; 1 Corinthians 15:40; Hebrews 2:9), then such is the spirit of antichrist, for it would deny the purpose of why Jesus came in the flesh, since it would deny that Jesus has actually sacrificed that flesh.
Respecting Acts 1:11. It seems strange that so many Christians overlook the fact that the angel did not say anything about what kind of a body our Lord would have at his second coming, but merely that it would be "this Jesus" -- the same that was with the Father before the world was, and that for a time, and for a purpose, was made or became flesh (John 1:14), made a little lower than the angels (Hebrews 2:9), and dwelt among us, and died for us and rose a life-giving spirit (1 Corinthians 15:45). It was this same Jesus, who, during the forty days since his resurrection, the world had not seen, and who his disciples had seen only for a few times and for a few moments, when he occasionally "showed himself" to them, to demonstrate the fact that he was risen and changed. It was this same Jesus who would come again, in the same "manner" as he left. As to the "manner" in which he went away, it was quiet, unknown to the world, and so will be the manner of his second coming -- unknown to any except a few of his disciples.
See:
Jesus Died a Human Being - Raised a Spirit Being
Raised in the Spirit
Jesus’ Appearances in the Locked Room
Did Jesus Raise Himself from the Dead?
The World Will See Me No More
Christ's Parousia - Presence or Arrival?
Astrape
It is claimed that the spirit of the antichrist will never acknowledge the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. No scripture says this, and we believe that the spirit of antichrist may acknowledge the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, but then deny the purpose for which God sent Jesus in the flesh by saying that Jesus is still a man.
However, acknowledging -- as we do -- that Jesus was put to death in the flesh, suffering once for sin, and that he was made alive in the spirit, is not the spirit of antichrist, and the fact that acknowledging that God raised Jesus from death as a spirit being certainly does acknowledge the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.

John 8:58,59; 10:30-33 - The Real Reason the Jews Sought to Kill Jesus

John 10:33 - The Jews answered him, "We don't stone you for a good work, but for blasphemy: because you, being a man, make yourself God."
Jesus, had asked them, "I have shown you many good works from my Father." Then he asked them, "For which of those works do you stone me?" (John 10:32) This question was not merely rhetorical; Jesus was indeed pointing out the true reason that these Jews wanted to kill him, that is, because he did the works of his God and Father, Jehovah, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The lying, deceptive, Jewish leaders denied that they sought to kill Jesus because his good works from his God and Father, but they claimed that they wished to kill Jesus because, he being a sinful man, would make himself out to be God, or a god. I believe that Jesus, in his question as related in John 10:32, gave the real reason they sought to kill Jesus, and which the Jewish leaders denied in verse 33. Either the Jews were lying in John 10:33, or else Jesus presented a question that had no truth in it in verse 32.
A similar incident had occurred earlier. We read in John 7:1: "After these things, Jesus walked in Galilee, for he would not walk in Judea, because there were Jews who sought to kill him." However, in John 7:19,20, we read:
Didn't Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keeps the law? Why do you seek to kill me? The multitude answered, "You have a demon! Who seeks to kill you?"
Thereby the Jews were, in effect, declaring two lies: (1) that Jesus had a demon, and (2) that no one was seeking to kill Jesus, or else Jesus was asking a question that had no truth in it.
Nevertheless, in John 7:25, we read:
Some therefore of them of Jerusalem said, "Isn't this he whom they seek to kill? Behold, he speaks openly, and they say nothing to him. Can it be that the rulers indeed know that this is truly the Christ?"
Then, again, as recorded in John 8:59, the Jews again sought to kill Jesus. Many like to point to John 8:58,59, and claim that the reason they wanted to kill Jesus was that he stated that he was the I AM of Exodus 3:14,15, or that he was claiming to Jehovah of Isaiah 41:4; 43:10, etc. Having discussed John 8:58 in several other studies, we will not discuss that verse here, except to the note the connections many read into what Jesus stated.
The idea to kill Jesus, however, did not spring suddenly; it was not a new issue in the record stated in John 10:33, nor even as recorded in John 7:1 or when they attempted to kill Jesus as recorded in John 8:59; it was an idea that had been in the minds of the Jewish leaders for some time. The idea of charging Jesus with being God (or, a god), or equal to God (or, a god), developed over time, as a result of the desire to kill Jesus, not the other way around. The Jews knew that they could not present a case as "that since he healed people, that he should be killed"; so they watched and waited for an occasion for which they could accuse him publicly. The Jewish leaders knew that they had to have a good reason -- in the eyes of the people -- to justify the killing of Jesus. (Matthew 21:46) They wanted to kill Jesus, just as they wanted to kill John the Baptist. (Matthew 14:5) They had much earlier realized that the work of Jesus was showing them up as being deficient as leaders. Thus, they began to test Jesus, seeking to find something that could be used to publicly accuse him.
The first recorded attempt on his life by any of the Jews was in his hometown of Nazareth. He had already performed many works from God in Capernaum, and evidently the people of Nazareth knew of those works. However, when Jesus read Isaiah 61:1, and, in effect, proclaimed that he was the one spoken of in that prophecy, the Jews became angry, and tried to throw him off a cliff. There is nothing at all in the record that hints that Jesus here proclaimed himself to "God," nor is there any hint that he claimed to be Jehovah. Rather than claiming to be Jehovah, he was claiming that he was the one spoken of as anointed by Jehovah -- "Jehovah has anointed me." (Isaiah 16:1, World English) Yet, this is all that was needed to get the people angry enough to want to kill Jesus. They evidently knew from the prophecy that Jesus had read that Jesus was claiming to be the promised Messiah, the Anointed One of Jehovah. However, they had known Jesus before, and couldn't accept him as promised prophet, for Jesus says: "Most assuredly I tell you, no prophet is acceptable in his hometown." (Luke 4:24) Their familiarity with Jesus as the humble carpenter's son led them to believe that Jesus was not what they expected the messiah to be. (Luke 4:14-28) However, there is nothing in the record that indicates that they tried to kill Jesus because Jesus allegedly claimed to be God.
In Matthew 5:20, Jesus pointed to the lack of righteousness amongst the scribes and Pharisees. Then after performing several miracles in the name of his God and Father, he told of how the sons of kingdom were to be thrown into outer darkness. (Matthew 8:1-12) There is no doubt that the Jewish leaders began to take note of his activities. Additionally, the lying and deceptive nature of these leaders are recorded for us.
Thus, the scribes falsely claim he committed blasphemy, as recorded in Matthew 9:1-8; Mark 2:3-12; and Luke 5:12-16, by falsely claiming that no one but God could forgive sins. Jesus responded that he, as the promised son of the man (David), had been given authority to forgive sins. Jesus did not claim that he was the source of his own authority, but freely proclaimed that the authority had been given to him.
Then the Pharisees, in effect, falsely accused him, by asking "Why does your teacher eat with the tax collectors and the sinners?" (Matthew 9:11; Mark 2:16; Luke 5:30) And thus, it becomes apparent that these leaders had already begun seeking something to legally accuse Jesus of before the people.
Jesus healed two blind men, and later he cast out a demon from a mute man. (Matthew 9:27-32) Were Jewish leaders joyful that the works of God were being performed by this man from Galilee? Absolutely not! Instead, they were greatly angered. Thus, the Pharisees said: "By the prince of demons, he cast out demons."
In Matthew 11:19, Jesus reports the evil that was being said of him, when Jesus said: "The son of the man (David) came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Behold, a glutonous man, and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!'" Yes, the Jews were very experienced in bringing forth false accusations against Jesus, and twisting matters to make them appear something that they were not.
The Jewish leaders got their chance to bring up another false charge when the disciples of Jesus plucked grains from a field, rubbed them with their hands, in order to satisfy their hunger. The accusation of the Jewish leaders was, "your disciples do what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath." (Matthew 12:1,2; Mark 2:23,25; Luke 6:1,2) Notice the word "lawful." Jesus uses that word several times. It was indeed forbidden under the Law to work on the sabbath. The law states: "You shall not do any work in it, you, nor your son, nor your daughter, your man-servant, nor your maid-servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates." (Exodus 20:10) Does this, however, mean to do absolutely no work at all? Certainly not! One has to do some work just get up; to eat; to take care of his being alive. Even the very act of breathing could be considered "work." However, the word is used in the sense of the work usually done on a normal working day. Would the plucking, crushing, and eating of grain from a field fall under the category of a such normal work? We should note that the Law forbids taking a sickle to a neighbor's grain as is normally done, what Jesus' disciples were doing was permitted as an exception to the general rule of the Law. (Deuteronomy 23:25) Jesus, thus, points to exceptions are made to what would normally not be "lawful." While on the one hand, it would be not lawful to do such plucking and reaping, on the other hand, as Jesus says, there are some circumstances where there are exceptions to what is "not lawful," and therefore, what would normally not be lawful would become lawful. Thus, later, Jesus said, "it is lawful to do good [rightly] on the Sabbath day." -- Matthew 12:12.
The intent of the Law regarding the Sabbath was for man's good, not for man to starve himself so that he might keep the law. Jesus was saying that it was "lawful," under the circumstances for David and those who were with him, to eat of the showbread, which would normally be "not lawful." Likewise, what Jesus' disciples were doing was a necessity just as it was with David, and thus would be an exceptional case to what was "not lawful." As Jesus stated: "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath" (Mark 2:27); and "The son of the man* is also lord of the sabbath." -- Mark 2:28.
==========
*The Greek has the definite article before man, referring to Jesus' being the son of a specific man, that is, the son of David.
The issue was raised again when Jesus healed on the sabbath. Mark 3 reports of Jesus' healing of the man with a withered hand, which miracle was done on the sabbath. Thus, in their search for a reason to kill Jesus, rather than thinking about praising God if Jesus did a good from God, we read: "They watched him, whether he would heal him on the Sabbath day, that they might accuse him." (Mark 3:2) This definitely shows that they were already seeking some reason to accuse Jesus. Thus Mark 3:6 says: "The Pharisees went out, and immediately took counsel with the Herodians against him, how they might destroy him." Here they thought they might have a clear legal "cause" for which to kill Jesus. It does show that they were already seeking a way to destroy Jesus *before* they came up the false charge that Jesus was claiming to be God [or, a god], or equal to God [or, a god]. Thus, their seeking to kill Jesus after falsely claiming that Jesus was claimed to "God" [or, a god] is not the real reason they were seeking to kill Jesus (John 10:33), but rather the false accusation that was being used as an excuse to do what they had already determined to do. Jesus had already pointed to the real reason they sought to kill Jesus, that is, because Jesus performed the works of his God and Father. -- John 10:32.
John 5:16 thus relates: "For this cause the Jews persecuted Jesus, and sought to kill him, because he did these things on the Sabbath." Considered all the earlier accusations against Jesus, and their further seeking a reason to accuse Jesus, we have no doubt that they had already determined beforehand to kill Jesus,. Thus, John here relates the legal "cause" that they were setting forth, the legal excuse, so to speak, that they were setting forth to justify their seeking to kill Jesus.
Then Jesus says: "My Father (who is also his God -- Matthew 27:46; 15:34; 20:17; John 17:1,3; Romans 15:6; 2 Corinthians 11:31; Ephesians 1:3; 1 Peter 1:3; Revelation 3:12) is still working, so I am working, too." (John 5:17) The Jews recognized that Jesus was speaking about God, and proclaiming God to be his Father, and himself as God's son, which, they claimed, was tantamount to a sinner man making himself out to either be equal to God, or equal to the godship (of the angels). Thus, John relates in John 5:18: "For this cause therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only broke the Sabbath, but also called God his own Father, making himself equal with God [TW THEW]."
The Greek "tw thew," "THE GOD," could be referring collectively to the angels as "the mighty," as in Psalm 8:5, and in a similar manner that Psalm 82:1 uses the Hebrew collectively of the "children of the Most High" spoken of in Psalm 82:6. A similar usage may also be found in Exodus 21:6; 22:8,9,28, where the judges of Israel are being spoken of collectively as "HA ELOHIM" (which phrase can also be translated as "The God." The Jews were, no doubt, familiar with the terminology of Job regarding these angels, that is, as "sons of God." (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7) I am also sure that they were aware of the terminology of Psalm 8:5 (see Hebrews 2:7). If this is what the Jews meant, then they were not saying that Jesus was claiming to be equal with God Almighty, that he was claiming to be equal to the angels. Of course, as a human, Jesus was not making such a claim, although, I believe that before he became a human he was the only-begotten firstborn mighty one (THEOS) of the Most High (John 1:1,18; 3:16-18; Colossians 1:15), pre-eminently one step above the angels (since the angels were made through Jesus -- Colossians 1:15,16,18), and thus Jesus was never actually equal to the angels. However, as a human, he was one step below that of the angels. (John 1:14; Colossians 15:40; Hebrews 2:9; 5:7) After his being raised from the dead, he was exalted far above the angels. (Ephesians 1:21; Colossians 1:18; 2:9,10; Philippians 2:9; Hebrews 1:4,6; 1 Peter 3:22) So he has never been equal to the angels, and never will be, equal to the angels.
Others, however, proclaim that the Jews of that time believed that "God begets God," and thus for God to beget a son, the son would be equal to God who begot the son. As yet no one has produced any proof that the Jews of that age actually took such a view. They may have adopted such a view from Hellenistic philosophy. The idea as I have seen it presented argues, that since man begets man, dog begets dog, and bird begets bird, then God begets God. Such a view actually brings God down so as to be subject to reproductive limits that God set for his physical living creation on earth. To take this kind of reasoning to is logical conclusion, however, would necessitate that God need a wife with whom to have intercourse before any begettal could take place (and I have actually heard some argue that he did have a wife -- claiming the "person" of God's holy spirit (God's finger is God's wife? -- Matthew 12:28; Luke 11:20) is God's wife. Thus, it would appear that God had sexual intercourse with his holy spirit (his finger) and thus produced the only-begotten son, although none of this happened at any point in time, but rather it is alleged to have happened outside of all time, in an alleged dimension in which time of any sort does not exist, etc. Thus the son of God is now and for all eternity past and for all eternity future being begotten by sexual intercourse of God with his finger!
Of course, most trinitarians do not claim that God's wife is his holy spirt, but most do claim that for God to beget another person, that person has to be God, in effect, since there is one God, that one God begets the one God who is the one God who does the one God begetting. To accommodate this apparent self-contradiction, the trinitarian has conjured and added to the scriptures a story about one person of God who begets another person of God who is not the first person of God but yet who is the one God who has existed from all eternity! Most trinitarians do argue that this begetting is in an alleged eternity that is totally outside of any time, and thus that right now Jesus is and always will be in the condition of being begotten by God (which they would take to mean only the person of God that they call "God the Father" who is not part of God, but all of God, as distinct from the person of God whom they call "God the Son", who is also not part of God, but all of God.)
In John 10:33, the claim of the Jewish leaders was that Jesus was a human sinner, not the Son of God as Jesus claimed to be. And then, because Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, it appears that they may have added to this the false claim that Jesus was claiming to be God. If this was their claim, then this not something that Jesus claimed for himself. However, if their claim was that Jesus, by calling God his father, was making himself "god" in the sense that an angel, as a son of God, might be called elohim, Jesus most certainly was that in his prehuman existence, since he had been more than angel.
Getting back to John 5:17,18, however, regardless of what the deceived and deceiving Jewish leaders believed, taught or thought, the scriptures never say that the son of the Most High would have to be Most High. Such a thought has to be added to and read into the scriptures. If the Jews believed this, their belief in such an idea is irrelevant to whether Jesus himself actually claimed to be equal to his God, which, of course, Jesus never claimed such an idea. The only Most High can certainly beget, bring forth into being, a son, who is not the Most High. That which is begotten by the Most High does not have to be the Most High.
Nevertheless, the stated cause is only a justification of their desire to kill Jesus; the stated cause does not reveal the real reason in their hearts. John 5:18, however, adds to the evidence that they had already determined in their hearts to kill Jesus before their attempts to do so as related in John 8:59 or John 10:33.
Jesus had earlier stated that the world "hates me, because I testify about it, that its works are evil." (John 7:7) He had told these Jewish leaders: "You do the works of your father." (John 8:41) But he claimed for himself: "I must work the works of him who sent me." (John 9:4) [Who sent Jesus? It was Jehovah (Jehovah), the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who sent Jesus, and has already been shown.] And again: "The works that I do in my Father's name, these testify about me." (John 10:25) [In whose name did Jesus do his works? As has already been shown by prophecy (Deuteronomy 18:15-19), Jesus did his works in the name of Jehovah, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.] Thus, John testified concerning this: "Everyone who does evil hates the light, and doesn't come to the light, for fear that his works would be reproved." (John 3:20)
Thus, the Jews avoided the true answer to why they sought to kill Jesus, which Jesus asked concerning in John 10:32, and produced a trumped "legal" reason for doing, as recorded in John 10:33.
To note their crafty deception, we read:
Mark 14:1
It was now two days before the feast of the Passover and the unleavened bread, and the chief priests and the scribes sought how they might seize him by deception, and kill him.
Mark 14:2
For they said, "Not during the feast, because there might be a riot of the people
Matthew 26:4
26:4
They took counsel together that they might take Jesus by deceit, and kill him.
See also our studies:
Related Books
Please note that we do not necessarily agree with all that is stated in these books.

The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity's Self-Inflicted Wound -- Presents unitarian viewpoint; denies the prehuman existence of Jesus, but otherwise, the book contains a lot of good information.

When Jesus Became God -- Gives a lot of historical background.

The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture - The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament

Concepts of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - A Classification and Description of the Trinitarian and Non-Trinitarian Theologies Existent Within Christendom

The following numbers represent links to sites that have used John 10:33 as an alleged proof that Jesus claimed to be his God, or equal to his God. We, of course, do not agree their conclusions.

1 * 2 * 3 * 4 * 5 * 6 * 7 * 8 * 9 * 10

1 John 4:2; 2 John 1:7 -- "Is Come" or "Coming"

For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. -- 1 John 4:2, King James Version.
For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who don't confess that Jesus Christ came in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the Antichrist. -- 1 John 4:2, World English.
The following is taken from The Watch Tower, June 15, 1896, pages 138,139:

"IS COME" OR "COMING"?

Question.--Some quote 1 John 4:2 and 2 John 1:7 as evidence that our Lord Jesus is to return in the flesh, claiming that the verb "is come" should be "coming." Is this claim well founded?
Answer.--In reply we give, by the kindness of Bro. J. M. Blose, a written opinion on these two texts furnished him by J. R. Rinehart, Ph.D., Professor of languages in Waynesburg College, a thorough scholar.

After quoting the above passages in Greek, Prof. Rinehart says:--

"(1) The foregoing quotations are from the Emphatic Diaglott of Wilson, purporting to be from the original Greek text of the New Testament. The word eleluthota is the accusative, singular, masculine, of the second perfect participle of the verb erchomai, having the same relation to this verb that any other perfect participle has to its verb. It stands with the verb homolegei in indirect discourse, and represents a finite, perfect tense, according to ordinary Greek syntax.--Goodwin's Greek Grammar, Nos. 1588, 1288.

"The following translation of the first quotation is, therefore, essentially correct. 'Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, is of God.'

"(2) The word erchomenon in the second quotation is the accusative, singular, masculine, of the present participle of the verb erchomai, and is subject to the same rules of syntax as the word above. Its relation to eiselthon through homologountes, as well as the context, justifies its translation as of past time.--Ibid, No. 1289.

"The translation of the second quotation, therefore, is properly given as follows: 'For many deceivers went forth into the world--those who do not confess that Jesus Christ did come in the flesh.'"

In our issue of March, '87, we published a report from the Professor of Greek in Rochester, N.Y., to the same effect. Indeed, we have never known a Greek scholar to take any other view, and do not believe that any Professor of Greek in any creditable University would hesitate for one moment to pronounce the above and our Common Version rendering correct. Only those who have first of all formed the opinion that our Lord's second advent will be in the flesh find anything whatever in these texts over which to confuse and stumble themselves and others.

Friday, February 24, 2017

John 3:13 and Jesus' Supposed Omnipresence

John 3:13: No one has ascended into heaven, but he who descended out of heaven, the Son of Man, who is in heaven. -- World English
John 3:13 is often presented by trinitarians and others as proof that Jesus is God Almighty, since it supposedly shows that Jesus is omnipresent, and, it is claimed that such omnipresence is an incommunicable attribute of the Most High.

Taken as it reads in several translations, this would have Jesus in heaven and on earth at the same time. While such does not necessarily prove that Jesus would be omnipresent (present everywhere all at once), it would indicate that he could at least be in two places at once.

The words "ascended" and "descended are the Greek ana-bai no and kata-baino; meaning to ascend, to spring up; and to descend, to come down. The Greek words translated "except" are *Ei me*, meaning but, except, save, excluding. Jesus actually spoke these words about three years before his ascension. Therefore, we have no reason to think that he was referring to his later ascension or that even that Jesus was referring to his own ascension. Nevertheless, Jesus had previously been in heaven before he came to earth, and thus we do have reason to think that Jesus did refer to his heavenly origin. "Jehovah formed me as the beginning of his way, the first of his works of old" (Proverbs 8:22 American Standard Version Margin).

We need to consider the context, for Jesus had just stated: "If I have told you about earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you about heavenly things?" (John 3:12) What Jesus is speaking of in the context is his witness concerning heavenly things. He is saying that no human has ever ascended into the spiritual heavens so that he could tell of such things, excluding the Son of Man, not because he had already ascended to where he had been before (Mark 16:19; John 6:62; 13:1; Acts 3:20,21; Ephesians 1:20; Hebrews 4:14; 9:24; 1 Peter 3:22), but because he had descended from the heavens -- from the presence of his Father, the only true God. (John 17:1,3) Thus no man had ever so ascended into the spiritual realm of God's presence where Jesus had been before he came to the earth, and where he returned after being raised from the dead. Jesus alone had previously been in heaven, and had descended from the heavens.
==========
http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/kjv/ei-me.html

Thus, this scripture actually proves that Jesus was with his Father before earth, not that he was in two places at once. The reference to the one who descended from heaven is concerning Jesus. And then concerning mankind in general, Jesus said: "No one has ascended into heaven." This agrees with Proverbs 30:4.

Adam Clarke states in his commentary concerning John 3:13: "This seems a figurative expression for, No man hath known the mysteries of the kingdom of God; as in De 30:12; Ps 73:17; Pr 30:4; Ro 11:34. And the expression is founded upon this generally received maxim: That to be perfectly acquainted with the concerns of a place, it is necessary for a person to be on the spot. But our Lord probably spoke to correct a false notion among the Jews, viz. that Moses had ascended to heaven, in order to get the law. It is not Moses who is to be heard now, but Jesus: Moses did not ascend to heaven; but the Son of man is come down from heaven to reveal the Divine will."
==========
http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=joh&chapter=003

Another point of concern here regarding the alleged dualism that is often attributed to Jesus. Trinitarians often like to point to the term "son of man" as representing Jesus' being as human, not his alleged being as the Most High. If the term "son of man" here refers to Jesus' human being, then this would have his human being in heaven at the same he is on earth; it would not indicate a divine being in heaven and a human being on earth as some have argued.

However, the oldest Greek MSS (the Sinaitic and the Vatican as well as many other manuscripts) omit the last four words of verse 13 with evident propriety, for although our Lord is now in heaven, he was not in heaven at the time he addressed Nicodemus. Thus many translations render this verse similar to Rotherham: "And no one hath ascended into heaven save he that out of heaven descended,  The Son of Man."

In view of the above, we can see that there is nothing in John 3:13 that proves that Jesus is Jehovah, nor is there anything in this verse that proves that Jesus was existing on two planes of existence at once.

God Never Descended?

One has stated that the one true living God never descended or ascended since he is spirit and is everywhere.

It is true the one and only true God never descended as Jesus spoke of himself. Of course, our trinitarian friends may say that God, as represented in the first person of their triune God, did not descend, but that God, as represented in their alleged second person of the trinity, did descend. Of course, this is all based on the use of human imagination to produce such assumptions.

However, the scriptures do speak of Jehovah as descending, but not in the manner of which Jesus spoke of himself as descending.

Exodus 19:18 World English Bible (WEB)
Mount Sinai, the whole of it, smoked, because Yahweh descended on it in fire; and its smoke ascended like the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mountain quaked greatly.

Exodus 34:5 (WEB)
Yahweh descended in the cloud, and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of Yahweh.

We will also add that just being a spirit being does not mean that one is always everywhere. The angels are spirit beings, but are they always everywhere?

One has responded, using the New King James Version of John 1:13, which reads:

No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven.
The claim is made that this should be understood in this manner:

No one has ascended to heaven (the Son is talking about the future), but He who came down from heaven, (the Son is talking about the past) that is, the Son of Man who is heaven.(the Son is talking about the present) 
And we are asked, "How could the Son be on earth and be in heaven at the same time?" The assumed answer is that "the Son has dual natures, one God and one Man. His humanity might be on earth while he was speaking, but his Deity can be everywhere even in heaven."

No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven : the Son of Man. — John 3:13, New American Standard.


No one has ascended into heaven except the One who descended from heaven-the Son of Man. — John 3:13, Holman Christian Standard.

No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven–the Son of Man. — John 3:13, New International Version.

And, no one, hath ascended into heaven, save he that, out of heaven, descended, – The Son of Man. — Rotherham’s Emphasized Bible.

Actually, it is the insistence that Jesus is omnipresent that leads some to imagine that Jesus was saying something that he did not say in John 3:13.

The phrase “no one has ascended to heaven” is definitely speaking of the past, not the future. Jesus was not saying that no one was to acend into heaven at any time in the future; what would be the point of his stating such? Indeed, what he was saying is that no one — no human being — had ever (in the past, not the future) ascended into heaven (in order to tell of heavenly things — John 3:12), but, rather, that there is one who came down from heaven, who can tell of heavenly things because he had been with the Father in heaven (John 17:1,3,5), and that this one who descended to tell us of these heavenly things is the Son of the Man, David.

Even most trinitarian scholars acknowledge that Jesus was speaking of the past, when he stated, “no one has ascended to heaven”.

Robertson thus stated:

There is no allusion to the Ascension which came later.

http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/robertsons-word-pictures/john/john-3-13.html

Adam Clarke stated:

Our Lord probably spoke to correct a false notion among the Jews, viz. that Moses had ascended to heaven, in order to get the law. It is not Moses who is to be heard now, but Jesus: Moses did not ascend to heaven; but the Son of man is come down from heaven to reveal the Divine will.

http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?bk=42&ch=3

The phrase “which is in heaven” added to John 3:13 in many manuscripts and translations is considered by many, if not most, Bible scholars as being spurious. Many translations do not add that phrase, as seen the translations given above.

However, assuming that the added words are not spurious, some believe that John added his phrase parenthetically, not as the words of Jesus, but his own words, to show that at the time John wrote this, Jesus was in heaven. Others believe that since the earlier manuscripts do not have the phrase, that a later copyist added it to be understood parenthetically, to denote that Jesus was in heaven, not at the time Jesus spoke his words, but at the time that the copyist added the phrase.

There is no need, however, to use the spirit of human imagination so as create the idea that Jesus was in two places at once, and then to further imagine that Jesus possesses two “natures” (planes of existence? planes of sentiency? beings: Supreme Being and Human Being?) at the same time, and then further to read into the scripture that Jesus is present absolutely everywhere in the whole universe.




Related:

Jesus: Body, Soul and Spirit

Monday, February 20, 2017

Ephesians 1:23 - Is Jesus the Fullness of Him Who Fills All?

Ephesians 1:23 is sometimes offered as proof that Jesus is the Supreme Being with the assertion that Jesus Christ is the fullness of him who fills all. In some vague manner it is thought that this assertion means that Jesus is God Almighty. Actually, Ephesians 1:23 does not say that Jesus is the fullness of him who fills all, although if one should read it that way, it still would not mean that Jesus is the Supreme Being.

Ephesians 1:22 - He [the God and Father of Jesus -- Ephesians 1:3,17] put all things in subjection under his [Jesus'] feet, and [the God and Father of jesus] gave him [Jesus] to be head over all things to the assembly [the church, the saints],
Jesus did not call himself to the position of headship of the Church but was appointed to it by God. "No man takes this honor on himself." -- Hebrews 5:4.

Ephesians 1:23 - which is his [Jesus'] body, the fullness [completeness, plenitude] of him who fills [accomplishes] all in all.
This could be read several different ways.

"Which" is referring back to the church [the saints]; "his" refers to Jesus. The body of Jesus is made up of the church.

"The fullness" could be seen as referring to the church; "of him" could be referring to Jesus (or God).

"The fullness" could be referring to either Jesus' fullness or God's fullness, although this would hardly fit the context.

Nevertheless, Christ is the bond of unity to his Church -- Christ is in each individual, and each individual in Christ. Each member has been grafted into the true Vine, though in different places. Each member has some function in the mystical Body. All were reckoned in Jesus when he died, and rose, and entered the Father's presence. In him each member has access into the grace wherein they stand. The gift of Christ, on the other hand, has been made to each one of these, that he might realize himself through all the experiences of his members. God provided four Gospels to reveal to the church (not to the world in this age) who and what Jesus Christ is; nevertheless,all believers are required to set forth and exemplify to the world all the excelling glories of Emmanuel. It is for this reason that we are told that the Church is his Body, "the fulness [completeness, full development, plenitude, Greek pleroma, Strong's #4138] of him who fills [brings to completion, consumates, accomplishes, Greek, pleero, Strong's #4137] all in all." -- Ephesians 1:23.

It was Jesus himself who said: "The glory which you have given me, I have given to them; that they may be one, even as we are one; I in them, and you in me, that they may be perfected into one." (John 17:22,23) Due to the covering of Jesus' righteous blood, in such radiance the Church already now stands before God. He sees her essential unity. Its denial does not disintegrate it. Its obscuration does not impair it. The very members of the Church that compose the unity may be unaware of it, and may denounce each other; but even so, the twelve stones are in the same breastplate and the twelve loaves stand side by side on the same table. The members of a large family of boys and girls may dispute with each other, and may be scattered far and wide over the world, but to the mother, in her daily and nightly prayer, there is but one family, and to her they seem sheltered still under the wings of her brooding love.

Jesus himself gives us an illustration: "Most assuredly I tell you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains by itself alone. But if it dies, it bears much fruit." (John 12:24) The "much fruit" owes all its prospects to that one grain of wheat. Possibilities of bread inherent in the one grain of wheat. That one grain of wheat is not of itself a harvest. The "much fruit", is the full development of that grain of wheat, and indispensable if it would realize its possibilities. So also with Christ. The church's all is in him, as he declared, "apart from me (or severed from me) you can do nothing." (John 12:24) The hand is of no use severed from the body; it will simply corrupt. Jesus illustrated this well in his picture of the vine; "Remain in me, and I in you. As the branch can't bear fruit by itself, unless it remains in the vine, so neither can you, unless you remain in me." (John 15:4) "If a man doesn't remain in me, he is thrown out as a branch, and is withered." (John 15:6) The life is in the vine, and only in the vital union with the vine can the branch bear fruit. And yet in this same picture we have a seed thought for the Apostle's other declaration that the Church is the full development of the Christ. It is the branches that bear the fruit. True, the fruit is not their own, but the fruit of the vine, for the life in the branches is the life of the vine, yet in order that the vine may express its life fully in fruit bearing, the branches have their part to play. The branch is only a channel for the expressing of the one life, not a life of its own; but the life of the vine. And the member of the Body of Christ is only a channel for the expressing of the one life, not a life of his own that he is living in the power of the spirit, as Paul said of himself: "I have been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I that live, but Christ living in me." So it is of the Christ, it is not because of any inherent value in any member. It is simply the extended operation of the Christ life that makes the Church, which is his Body, "the full development of him who accomplishes all [these things, Greek panta] in all [Greek, pansin]."

What we do not find in Ephesians 1 is any thought that Jesus is the Supreme Being; indeed, throughout, Jesus is distinguished from God. Additionally, God is not exalted to higher position of power by another, but it is God who exalts Jesus to such great power.

Sunday, February 12, 2017

Jeremiah 23:6 - Our Righteousness

Lo, days are coming -- an affirmation of Jehovah, And I have raised to David a righteous shoot, And a king hath reigned and acted wisely, And done judgment and righteousness in the earth. In his days is Judah saved, and Israel dwelleth confidently, And this his name that Jehovah proclaimeth him, `Our Righteousness.' -- Young's Literal Translation

Jeremiah 23:5- Behold, the days come, says Jehovah, that I will raise to David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and act wisely, and He shall do justice and righteousness in the earth.
Jeremiah 23:6 - In His days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely. And this is His name by which He shall be called, Jehovah our Righteousness. -- .Green's Literal translation.
Many quote the above scripture to support the claim that Jesus is Jehovah. The claim is that Jesus is being called "Jehovah (Jehovah) in Jeremiah 23:6, thus Jesus must be Jehovah.
We have shown elsewhere that Jesus is the Son of the unipersonal God, he was sent by Jehovah, he spoke for Jehovah, etc.
See:
Jesus is Not Jehovah
But let us examine how Young renders Jeremiah 23:5,6:

Lo, days are coming -- an affirmation of Jehovah, And I have raised to David a righteous shoot, And a king hath reigned and acted wisely, And done judgment and righteousness in the earth. In his days is Judah saved, and Israel dwelleth confidently, And this his name that Jehovah proclaimeth him, `Our Righteousness.' -- Young's Literal Translation
We should note that verse 5 definitely tells us that it is Jehovah who raises to David a righteous shoot. This, in itself, should tell us that the "righteous shoot" of David is not Jehovh. In answer our trinitarian neighbors explain call up the spirit of human imagination so as to read into the scriptures that Jehovah is more than one person, thus one person of Jehovah raises another person of Jehovah as the "righteous shoot of David." They do not seem to realize that this explanation has to be added to the scriptures, since the Bible no where speaks of Jehovah as being more than one person.
Nevertheless, notice that Young renders the the expression: "this is the name that Jehovah proclaimeth him, 'Our Righteousness.'" This translation does away with any thought that Jesus is being called Jehovah.
Regarding Jeremiah 23:6, Paul S. L. Johnson states (Books of the Bible expanded to full name):

This trinitarian doctrine contradicts the fact that in the Bible God's Name, Jehovah, applies to the Father alone, and is never used as the personal name of the Son, who repeatedly in contrasted passages is shown not to be Jehovah; for He is in them distinguished from the Father, who by contrast is alone called Jehovah. In Isaiah 42:6-8, not only is the name Jehovah applied to the Supreme Being as His exclusive name; but as Jehovah he is shown not to be the Son, who is here represented as being called, held, kept, given by Jehovah, which is the Hebrew word used in the text always where we have the word LORD written entirely in capitals in the A. V., as is the case with the word LORD used in Isaiah 42:6-8. Jeremiah 23:6, when properly translated, markedly distinguishes between God as Jehovah exclusively, and Christ. Trinitarians have grossly mistranslated and miscapitalized this passage to read their trinitarianism into it, as they have done in other cases. The proper translation shows that Christ is not Jehovah: "This is the name which Jehovah shall call Him [Christ], Our Righteousness." Please compare this with 1 Corinthians 1:30. Thus He is Jehovah's appointed Savior for the world, not Jehovah Himself. See the literal translation of Dr. Young, who, though a trinitarian, translates it substantially as we do. While mistranslating Jeremiah 33:16, they have not miscapitalized it, and that because they doubtless feared the same kind of capitalization would suggest that the Church was also Jehovah, which their translation actually makes of her, if their procedure in Jeremiah 23:5,6, be allowed to rule as a parallel case. Here the proper translation is: This is the name that Jehovah shall her, Our Righteousness. The following are the violations of grammar committed in almost all trinitarian translations in rendering these two closely resembling passages: They have rendered an active verb, shall call, as a passive verb -- shall be called; they have made the subject of this active verb, Jehovah, an attributive object, hence one of its objects, and they have made the object of this verb, him, its subject, he shall be called; so greatly did their error on the trinity blind the translators to these elementary matters of Hebrew syntax. Rightly translated, the first passage proves that Jesus is not Jehovah, while the false translation of both passages makes Jesus and the Church, Jehovah, which on trinitarian principles would give us 144,003 in one! Rightly translated, how clearly Jeremiah 23:6 distinguishes between Jehovah and Christ, and Jeremiah 33:16 between Jehovah and the Church!
--- from "Epiphany Studies in the Scriptures",Vol. I - God, (by Paul S. L. Johnson) pages, 478,9.
Another suggested way of translating the Hebrew phrase is "Our righteousness of Jehovah".
The following is a quote from the book, The Lord Our God is One. We have expanded scriptural references to the full name of the Bible books.

We are told that in Jeremiah 23:5,6, our Lord Jesus is called Jehovah, for that prophecy respecting Messiah reads, "And this is the name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS (Jehovah-Tsidkenu)."

They fail to point out, however, that in Jeremiah 33:16 the church, pictured by Jerusalem, is called by the same name: "and this is his name wherewith she shall be called, The Lord our righteousness (Jehovah-Tsidkenu)."

Certainly the church is not a part of or persons of Jehovah. To bolster their prejudice, the translators had the words printed in capitals in the first instance, but tucked it away with small letters in the second. Jehovah-Tsidkenu could more properly be translated, "Our Righteousness of Jehovah" —a fitting title for our Lord Jesus, who in execution of the Father’s will has become the source of justification for believers in his name. The title is appropriate also for the church, to whom is committed the ministry of reconciliation, the great commission of bringing sinners back into harmony with God. —- 2 Corinthians 5:20; Revelation 22:17*

*For other examples of the use of Jehovah in a compound word, see Genesis 22:14; Exodus 17:15; Judges 6:23.24.
Notwithstanding, even if we allow for the translation as it appears in the World English Bible translation: "Yahweh our righteousness," or as it appears in the New Revised Standard Version: "The Lord is our righteousness", it does not follow that this means that Jesus is Jehovah, it would only mean that this is a title given to him, similar to the titles given in Genesis 22:14, Exodus 17:15, and Judges 6:23,24. The title given to the altar by Moses, "Jehovah our Banner", does not mean that the altar is Jehovah. (Exodus 17:15) Nor does the title given to the altar by Gideon, "Jehovah is peace", mean that that altar was Jehovah. Nor should we think that the title given to the seed of David in Jeremiah 23:6 would mean that the promised one was actually Jehovah himself. We need to remember that the same title is given to Jerusalem (antitypically the church). (Jeremiah 23:16) If it means that Jesus is Jehovah, then it would also mean that the church (Jerusalem) is Jehovah. In truth, there is nothing in Jeremiah 23:16 that shows that Jesus is Jehovah.
Objection

In Samson Levey's The Messiah, An Aramaic Interpretation, in giving rabbinic parallels to the targum on Jer 23:1-8, we read (page 70):

'What is the name of the King Messiah? R. Abba b. Kahana said: His name is "the Lord"; as it is stated. And this is the name whereby he shall be called. The Lord is our righteousness (Jer 23:6)' Lamentations Rabbah 1:51.
Isn't this proof that this scripture means that Jesus is Jehovah?

Actually, no, for this is only someone's opinion. We should not place our trust in Jewish tradition, which is often wrong. -- Matthew 12:1-8; 15:2-20; Mark 7:3-9; Luke 6:1-11; Colossians 2:8; 1 Timothy 1:4; 4:7; Titus 1:14; 1 Peter 1:16,18.

We do not have a copy of the "Lamentation Rabba", or "Lamentations Rabbah" so that we are not fully able to evaluate what is said there, but the online nationmater.com encyclopedia, under "Midrash", states concerning this: "Eicha Rabba, Lamentations Rabbah (seventh century) Lamentations Rabbah has been transmitted in two versions. One edition is represented by the 1st printed edition, 1519 Pesaro; the other is the Buber edition, based on manuscript J.I.4 from the Biblioteca Casanata in Rome. This latter version (i.e. Buber) is quoted by the Shulkhan Arukh, as well as medieval Jewish authorities. It was probably redacted sometime in the 5th century."
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Midrash also online at:
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Midrash
At any rate, this Jewish literature is not the source for a basis of how Jeremiah 23:6 should be viewed. The scriptures themselves gives us the proper viewpoint when taken as a whole, as demonstrated above.