Sunday, January 31, 2016

Colossians 2:9 - Tes Theotetos

Walter Martin, in his book, Kingdom of the Cults (page 82), makes the claim that the "triune Godhead" is one of greatest doctrines of the Scriptures. He, in effect, gives the Greek transliteration of Tes Theotetos as meaning "triune Godhead". Thus, evidently, he is claiming that the Greek term transliterated as Tes Theotetos is speaking of the alleged triune God, three persons all whom are equally and wholly the Supreme Being.

Colossians 2:9 - For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. -- King James Version

 The expression Tes Theotetos occurs only once in the Bible and that is at Colossians 2:9, where the King James Version renders it as "Godhead". The problem with using Tes Theotetos as meaning "Triune Godhead" is that it would mean that there are three persons who are dwelling in the Son bodily: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It would have one alleged person of the alleged trinity, the Son, dwelling in the same alleged person of the alleged trinity.

1 Corinthians 4:6 - Now these things, brothers, I have in a figure transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that in us you might learn not to think beyond the things which are written, that none of you be puffed up against one another. -- World English

On page 89 of his book, Martin renders Tes Theotetos as "deity"; the word "deity" as applied to forms of the Hebrew and Greek words fin the Bible or "God/god" could be applied to others than the Supreme Being or a false god. On page 112, he refers to Colossians 2:9 as speaking of Jesus' "full deity." Jesus certainly was given the fullness of deity (mightiness) to do the work that the only true Supreme Being had given him to do (John 17:1,3; Colossians 2:10; Ephesians 1:3,17-23); this does not mean that we need to imagine and assume that Jesus is the Supreme Being, and then further imagine and assume that Jesus is a person of the Supreme Being.

Trinitarians give an array of conflicting theories as how Colossians 2:9 is alleged to be, in some vague way, about their triune God philosophy. Nevertheless, all of these theories have to be formulated by thinking beyond what is actually written, and adding assumptions to, and reading assumptions into, what is actually written. One explanation when have seen is that it the alleged God the Son who dwells in the human body of the man, Christ Jesus. That is not, however, what is stated, and would conflict with many scriptures, since Jesus, having sacrificed that body to God for sin (Hebrews 10:10), was no longer in the days of his flesh. (Hebrews 5:7) Having discussed these points before, wewill not do so again here, but will simply provide links to some of our earlier studies, as well as some other related studies:

The Fullness of Deity
Mystery of the Godhead?
Jesus Died a Human Being - Raised a Spirit Being
The Hebraic Usage of the Titles for "God" 

What we do not find in Colossians 2:9, or anywhere else in the entire Bible, is any thought that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is more than one person, or any idea that Jesus is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Thursday, January 21, 2016

Genesis 3:22 - One of Us

Genesis 3:22 - Jehovah God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil. Now, lest he put forth his hand, and also take of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever..."
This scripture is often referred to as an alleged proof that God is more than one person, and thus is offered as proof of the trinity. Evidently what is being imagined and assumed here is that “one of us” refers to three persons of the presumed triune God.

Instead of calling upon an idea that has to be assumed in the realm of human imagination, we can reasonably reach the conclusion scriptures themselves regarding who God is speaking to. Before man sinned, he only knew of good, not bad. Having sinned, he came to know of bad. We know from other scriptures that it was the one who was later called Satan the Devil (John 8:44; Revelation 12:9) that led Adam and Eve to sin. His sinful ambition was surely known to God and and the Son of God, and even to the angels.

 The “king of Babylon” is used to picture Satan as saying: “I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; and I will sit on the mountain of congregation, in the uttermost parts of the north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.” (Isaiah 14:13,14) “Stars”, in the Bible, is sometimes figuratively referring to the spirit sons of God. Jesus himself is called the “bright and morning star”. (Revelation 22:16) These sons of God were indeed also present at the creation of the world of mankind, as we can see from Job 38:7; see also Job 1:6; 2:1. Thus all of these had come to have knowledge of both good and bad, although we are not to think that either Jesus, or his God, or the faithful angels, had sinned. They had, however, witnessed sin in the first angel that sinned, and thus they knowledge of sin. Now that man had sinned, God could say that man had become as “one of us, knowing good and bad.” It is possible that God, in saying "one" of us, was referring to Satan only, as he was there at that time, and the instigator in getting Eve to sin.

What we do not find in Genesis 3:22 is any statement that God is more than one person. There is definitely nothing in the statement "one of us" that would mean that God is more than one person, any more than if a group of people are stranded, and there is only means for one them to go get help; thus, one of them says, "One of us needs to go for help."



Genesis 1:26 - "Let us" and the Trinity - c


Genesis 1:26; Genesis 3:22, Genesis 11:7 and Isaiah 6:8 have been presented as allegedly being proof of the plurality of persons who are claimed to make up the triune God. Regarding Genesis 1:26; Genesis 11:7 and Isaiah 6:8, Walter Martin (Kingdom of the Cults, page 82) claims that the "plurality" of these verses are speaking of Trinity. Let us examine these verses to see if this is so.
lolcat_bible

Genesis 1:26 - God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the sky, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."
We find nothing at all in this verse about there being a God consisting of three persons; any such thought has to imagined, assumed, added to, and read into, what “God” said here. Evidently, the unipersonal “God”, in saying “Let us,” is speaking to someone else. By comparing spiritual with spiritual, we conclude that he was speaking to His Son here, but that does not mean that we need to imagine and assume that His Son is a person of God Himself. If I say to my son, “Let’s build our house according to our plans,” I am not saying that my son is person of myself.

Jesus was evidently of a celestial glory (1 Corinthians 15:40,41) higher than the angels before he became flesh, but that does not mean that he did not have the image of his God and Father before he became flesh. While in the days of his flesh (Hebrews 5:7), he possessed a sinless glory of God (Romans 3:23) -- a little lower than the angels -- which glory he offered up in sacrifice for sin. -- Hebrews 2:9, 9:26,28; 10:5; 13:11.

Regarding Genesis 3:22, see our study:
One of Us
Genesis 11:7 Come, let's go down, and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.
Again, if I say to my son, "Come, let’s go shopping as we had planned," I am not saying that my son is a person of myself; since this is along the same line as Genesis 2:6, see what I have said earlier regarding that scripture. God certainly did not say that He was more than one person; one has to call upon the spirit of human imagination and read such a thought into what God stated.
Isaiah 6:8 And I heard the voice of the Lord, saying: "Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" Then I said: "Here am I; send me."
A trinitarian argues, evidently by applying the spirit of human imagination, that Isaiah heard the voice of God, and that God is referring to himself as more than one person.

One claims that the words attributed to God in Isaiah 6:8 were said in eternity. Obviously, there is nothing in Isaiah 6:8 about these words being said in eternity past. Such an idea has to be added to and read into what Isaiah said. Following such reasoning, one would conclude that Isaiah had been hearing these words in eternity past, and thus that Isaiah himself had existed in eternity past so as to be hearing these words in eternity past.

If applied prophetically to the church, it is more reasonable to conclude that Isaiah himself is playing a part in the exemplary prophetic role, depicting the church of Jesus who was yet to be. Each believer is depicted as hearing the voice of the Lord Jesus, asking, "Whom shall I send?", and thus is depicted as responding: "Here am I."

The Masoretic text has the word often transliterated as "Adonai" where "the Lord" appears in Isaiah 6:8. The claim has been made that this is one of the places copyists replaced Jehovah with Adonai, and thus some translations have the holy name in the scripture. However, we find that the Great Isaiah Scroll does not have the Holy Name in Isaiah 6:8, but rather the Hebrew characters representing what would b transliterated from the Masoretic text as Adoni [my Lord] or Adonai [Literally, my Lords, used singularly, as a plural intensive, as a superlative or superior "Lord" -- without any vowel points added, both words appear the same in the original Hebrew]. At any rate, it is probable, as some have suggested, that Isaiah originally meant this to be "my Lord", referring to the coming Lord of Isaiah [Isaiah is possibly being used to represent the Christian believer], that is, Jesus, the promised Messiah. In such a case, the words in question, who will go for us, are those of Jesus directed toward Jehovah. The "us" refers to both Jehovah and Jesus. The one to "go" for them would be Isaiah (being a figure of the church members individually). The fulfillment of the prophecy supports that 'the Lord' in Isaiah 6:8 is not Jehovah but Jesus, the one whom Jehovah anointed (made christ) as our Lord. -- Isaiah 61:1; Acts 2:36; 20:21.

What we do not find in those words is any thought that Jehovah is a triune God of three persons. It is being claimed that the word "Elohim" and the pronoun “us” are plural forms, and these rare "definitely referring in the Hebrew language to more than two." It is further claimed the word ELOHIM denotes "the aspect of plurality in God." The plurality of ELOHIM means “gods”, thus any thought along this line would mean that Jehovah is more than one God. Two Gods? Definitely not! Although “us” certainly refers to more than one, ELOHIM most definitely refers to only one who is ELOHIM. Genesis 1:26 – God [ELOHIM] said [singular verb], “Let us make [plural] man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the sky, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” The verb that corresponds with ELOHIM is not plural in the Hebrew text, but it is singular. The verb that corresponds with US is plural in the Hebrew text, which is correct, since the Singular “God” was speaking to someone else who was not Himself.
Genesis 3:22 Jehovah God said [singular verb in Hebrew], "Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil. Now, lest he put forth his hand, and also take of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever..."
Again in Genesis 3:22, we find that a singular verb is used relating to ELOHIM, not a plural verb. The “Lexical Aids to the Old Testament” that appears in Key Study Bibles, notes this concerning ELOHIM.
This mas. Hebr. noun is pl. in form, but it has both sing. and pl. uses. In a pl. sense it refers to rulers or judges with divine connections (Ex. 21:6); pagan gods (Ex. 18:11; Ps. 86:8); and probably angels (Ps. 8:5; 97:7). In both of the passages where “angels” is the apparent meaning, it is so translated in the Sept... In the singular sense it is used of a god or a goddess (1 Sam. 5:7; 2 Kgs. 18:34); a man in a position like a god (Ex. 7:1); God (Duet. 7:9; Ezra 1:3; Is. 45:18 and many other OT passages).... It usually takes a sing. verb so no implication of any plurality of the divine nature can be inferred from the fact that the word is plural. -- page 1598 in the King James Hebrew -Greek Key Word Study Bible, edited by Spiros Zodhiates.
The fact is, that ELOHIM, when used in a singular setting, that is, when the verb and/or pronouns, etc., in context are singular, ELOHIM is used as what many linguists call a "plural intensive," "honorific plural", or "majestic plural", that is, the word, although it is plural in form, is singular in usage to denote something similar to a superior or superlative usage.

Since the plurality of ELOHIM means “gods”, not persons, there definitely is nothing in that word that would connect with a triune God, not unless one would think that Jehovah is Gods, more than one Mighty One.

RELATED STUDIES:

Let Us and Elohim
Genesis 1:26,27 - Who is God Speaking To?
Elohim - Does This Word Indicate a Plurality of Persons in a Godhead?
Genesis 3:22 - One of Us




Sunday, January 17, 2016

Matthew 28:19 & the Baptismal Name

"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name [Greek, onoma] of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit." -- Matthew 28:19, New American Standard Version
This scripture is often used by trinitarians to make it appear that there are three persons in the Supreme Being. Others refer to the scripture as meaning that Jesus is expressed as three modes, manifestations, etc. What we want to know is exactly what does this scripture say, what does it not say, and how this verse harmonizes with the rest of the scriptures.

We first note that there is nothing in Matthew 28:19 that says the three mentioned are co-equal or co-eternal. We find nothing about three persons all of whom are the Supreme Being. We know many like to imagine that since it says "name" -- singular -- that this means that there are three persons being spoken of with one name, and that this proves that there is a trinity of persons in one God, or that there is something about Matthew 28:19 that would mean that all three are equal in being, uncreated, etc. Matthew 28:19 does not say that these are three persons, although two of those mentioned are persons. But even if it was speaking of three persons, it does not say or imply that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three persons in one Supreme Being.

It should be apparent that the word "name" here does not refer to any separate appellations of the three mentioned. We have the personal name of the God and Father of the Messiah -- Jehovah. (Isaiah 61:1,2; Micah 5:2; Ephesians 1:3) We have the personal name of the Son -- Jesus. But the scriptures do not give a personal name for the holy spirit. Evidently, "name" here means something other than a name by which we call a person.

We note that the Bible does make use of the word "name" as meaning authority, power, character, reputation, cause etc. Thus David sent his men to Nabal in his name, that is, with his authority. (1 Samuel 25:5,9) In Matthew 7:22, many are described as claiming to have done many works in the Master's name, that is, with his authority. Peter and Paul were asked by the priests: "By what power, or in what name, have you done this?" (Acts 4:7) These references all show that by coming in the name of another means to come with the authority given by that person. It does not necessarily refer to the word or appellation itself that is used to distinguish that person.

Some have argued that the Greek word for "in" here means "into", rather than simply "in". Actually Strong gives the following definitions: "to or into (indicating the point reached or entered, of place, time, fig. purpose, result)." In reference to this Robertson states concerning Matthew 28:19:
  • The use of name (onoma) here is a common one in the Septuagint and the papyri for power or authority. For the use of ei with onoma in the sense here employed, not meaning into, see Matthew 10:41ff. (cf. also Matthew 12:41). -- Robertson, A.T. "Commentary on Matthew 28:19". "Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament".
    https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/rwp/matthew-28.html#verse-19. Broadman Press 1932,33, Renewal 1960.
For some studies related to the usage of the Hebrew/Greek words often transliterated as onoma (name):

https://studylight.org/lexicons/eng/hebrew/8034.html
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/8034.htm

For some studies related to the usage of Greek word often transliterated as eis:

https://biblehub.com/greek/1519.htm
https://studylight.org/lexicons/eng/greek/1519.html

However, we note that the disciples never used this formula when baptizing, but they simply baptized "in the name of Jesus." (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48) Does this mean that Jesus is the Father, the Son and the holy spirit, as some -- usually promoting the "oneness" dogma -- have claimed? No, like the trinity, this idea has to be read into these scriptures. Jesus is the Son and is always represented as being distinct from Jehovah, his God. (Deuteronomy 18:15-19; Micah 5:4; Isaiah 61:1,2; Acts 3:13-26; 1 Peter 1:3) The Messiah in no scripture is ever presented as being Jehovah, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jaocb, although that thought is often imagined, assumed, added to, and read into many scriptures. But the question does remain as to why the disciples baptized "in the name of Jesus", when he said to baptize in the name of the Father, and the of the Son and of the holy spirit.

There have been many scholars who have claimed that Matthew 28:19 has been changed from what Jesus originally said. This conclusion is reached because of several reasons. The conclusion is usually reached that Jesus originally told his disciples to baptize "in my name", not in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Noting that Eusebius, who had copies of earlier manuscripts that no longer exist, cites Matthew 28:19 eighteen times always as: "Go and make disciples of all nations in my name," without the mention of "the name" of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy spirit, we believe that Matthew 28:19, as it has come to us, probably does indeed contain a textual corruption.

For instance, in his *Demonstratio Evangelica*, Eusebius gives this testimony concerning the commission of Matthew 28:19 (col. 240, p. 136):
For he did not enjoin them 'to make disciples of all nations' simply and without qualification, but with the essential addition 'in his name.' For so great was the virtue attached to his appellation that the Apostle says, God bestowed on him the name above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee shall bow of things in heaven and on earth and under the earth. It was right therefore that he should emphasize the virtue of the power residing in his name but hidden from the many, and therefore say to his Apostles, Go ye and make disciples of all nations in my name.
For more on this line of reasoning, see:

Evidence for Matthew 28:19
Matthew 28:19 Corrupted 

Matthew 28:19 Examined
Analysis of Matthew 28:19 
Water Baptism in the Name of Jesus 
The Matthew 28:19 Forgery
What is the Original Wording of Matthew 28:19?
These links are provided only because of the evidence presented; we do not necessarily agree with all conclusions presented by the authors.


Furthermore, the Shem-Tobb's Evan Bohan manuscript presents Jesus as saying nothing about baptizing anyone in Matthew 28:19. It simply says "Go" which is then connected to Matthew 28:20. 
See: 

Due to the overwhelming evidence that has been presented to us, we can say that there is a high possibility that Jesus may have never said the words as they appear in the extant Greek manuscripts. We cannot, however, be dogmatic about this, either with the claim that the words commonly given in Matthew 28:19 are genuine or that they are not genuine.

Nevertheless, what if Jesus did actually say the words as they appear in our Bible today? It should be apparent from the scriptures as a whole that the singular use of the word "name" does not indicate three persons in one Supreme Being, nor that Jesus is being spoken of three modes all of whom are Jesus Christ. One has to go beyond what is written and formulate several assumptions to support these conclusions.

We should note also that the word "name" is often used singularly to denote a commonality even when speaking of many individuals, especially when speaking in the sense of reputation or authority: Genesis 5:2; 48:6; Deuteronomy 7:24; 9:14; 12:3; 18:20; Joshua 23:7; Ruth 1:2; Ezra 2:61; Nehemiah 7:63; Psalm 9:5; 109:13; Hosea 32:14; Zephaniah 3:19; Revelation 3:1.

Ruth 1:2 - The name of the man was Elimelech, and the name of his wife Naomi, and the name of his two sons Mahlon and Chilion, Ephrathites of Bethlehem-judah. They came into the country of Moab, and continued there. -- World English.

In Ruth 1:2 we find that a singular usage of "name" is used in reference to two names. Should we imagine and assume that Mahlon and Chilion are both the same human being, since the singular of name is used? Actually, the more logical conclusion is that the singular of "name" is being used to denote either commonality, or that it is distributive individually to both the sons of Ehmeliech. We believe the same reasoning should be applied to Matthew 28:19.

Another thought concerning the usage of the singular word "name" in Matthew 28:19: We notice that Psalm 77:20 states: "You led your people like a flock, By the hand of Moses and Aaron." It speaks of Jehovah leading Israel by the hand [singular] of Moses and Aaron. This supplies another example of the usage of a singular with more than one person, in this case, two persons: Moses and Aaron. We would not think that since the singular [hand] is used of two, that these two persons must be one human being (as it is claimed that Matthew 28:19 shows two persons in one God being), nor should we think that since the singular [name] is used of three in Matthew 28:19, that these three must be one "God" being.

Concerning the Messiah, it is prophesied that he was to speak in the name of Jehovah, his God. -- Deuteronomy 18:15-19.
  • Jehovah said to me, They have well said that which they have spoken. I will raise them up a prophet from among their brothers, like you; and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I shall command him. It shall happen, that whoever will not listen to my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him. -- Deuteronomy 18:17-19.
Jesus said: "I have come in my Father's name, and you don't receive me. If another comes in his own name, you will receive him." (John 5:43) The Jewish leaders claimed that when Jesus called God his Father, Jesus was a mere human sinner, making himself equal to God. In saying the above, Jesus was letting these Jewish leaders know where he received his authority, that is, from Jehovah his God and Father. This harmonizes with Micah 5:4, where we are told the Messiah was stand and shepherd in the strength of his God, Jehovah.

Likewise, when the disciples are told to go make disciples and baptize, Jesus told them by what authority they were to baptize. In Matthew 28:19: the word "name" is used to represent the solidarity with the authority and or cause of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Thus to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit would also signify to baptize in union with all three, which designates that the authority in the cause of all three is in total agreement.

As mentioned before, the word "name" is often used singularly as a collective term to denote a commonality even when speaking of many individuals, especially when speaking in the sense of reputation or authority:
  • Genesis 5:2 - He created them male and female, and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
  • Genesis 48:6 - Your issue, who you become the father of after them, will be yours. They will be called after the name of their brothers in their inheritance.
  • Deuteronomy 7:24 - He will deliver their kings into your hand, and you shall make their name to perish from under the sky: there shall no man be able to stand before you, until you have destroyed them. See also Deuteronomy 9:14; 12:3.
  • Deuteronomy 18:20 - But the prophet, who shall speak a word presumptuously in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or who shall speak in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.
  • Ruth 1:2 - The name of the man was Elimelech, and the name of his wife Naomi, and the name of his two sons Mahlon and Chilion, Ephrathites of Bethlehem-judah. They came into the country of Moab, and continued there.
  • Ezra 2:61 - Of the children of the priests: the children of Habaiah, the children of Hakkoz, the children of Barzillai, who took a wife of the daughters of Barzillai the Gileadite, and was called after their name.
  • -- See also: Nehemiah 7:63; Psalm 9:5; 109:13; Hosea 32:14; Zephaniah 3:19; Revelation 3:1.
Consequently, if we assume that the text as it appears in most texts is correct, the singular usage of the word "name" in Matthew 28:19 may be recognized as being distributed to each of the three given, as representing the authority of, or being baptized in harmony of the three, or it could refer to being baptized into the common cause of the three.

Additionally, we have the verse preceding the statement that all authority that Jesus has is given to Jesus, thus indicating that the Son receives his authority from another, a being superior to himself, that is, Jehovah, Jesus' God (Micah 5:4) and Father. (Ephesians 1:3) This agrees with 1 Corinthians 15:27, where we find that the giver of this authority is excluded, and also John 17:1,3, where Jesus refers to his Father as the "only" true Supreme Being, and then excludes himself from being any part of that only true Supreme Being by saying that he was sent forth by that only true Supreme Being. Additionally, it agrees with 1 Corinthians 8:6, which shows the Father as being the source (hence, the Supreme Being), and Jesus as being the instrument. This is further corroborated by John 20:17, where Jesus refers to the Father as the Supreme Being over himself. Nor could this have been a temporary condition, for we find similar statements by Jesus in Revelation 3:12, after his exaltation by the Father. This is also shown in Ephesians 1:17-22, in that the Supreme Being of our Lord Jesus "set him" at his own right hand in the heavenly places. Thus Jesus has been given authority above all the governments and dominions. -- Daniel 7:13,14; Psalm 2:6-8; 110:1,2; Matthew 11:27; John 3:35.

Nonetheless, there is no reason to read "trinity" into the phrase "name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit". Regardless of how Matthew 28:19 originally read, there is nothing there about a "trinitarian baptism formula". Such an idea has to be formulated beyond what is written, and the trinitarian assumptions have to be added to, and read into, what is written. There is absolutely nothing in this phrase that hints of three persons in one God. Nor is there anything there that supports the "Jesus only" dogma. Such ideas have to be "read into" what is stated in Matthew 28:19. -- Genesis 5:2; 48:6; Deuteronomy 7:24; 9:14; 12:3; 18:20; Joshua 23:7; Ruth 1:2; Ezra 2:61; Nehemiah 7:63; Psalm 9:5; 109:13; Hosea 32:14; Zephaniah 3:19; Revelation 3:1.

Appendix One - English Examples  


We note below some online quotes in English that make use of the singular name in reference to more than one person or authority giver. No one would think of these as being one being made up of more than one person.

"Columbus .... took possession of the land in the name of the king and queen of Spain."

"Deputy Prime Minister Kong Sam Ol, head of a Royal Ministry delegation of Cambodia, visited the embassy and laid this basket in the name of the king and the queen before the portrait of the president there and paid tribute to him."

"Such medals shall be presented personally by the President of the United States for and on behalf, and in the name of the President and the Congress of the United States of America." 

Such a statement as the above does not mean that the President is one person and the Congress is another person, nor does it mean that the President is the same "being" or "entity" as the "Congress". Both the President and the Congress do represent the same government, but are totally separate parts of the government. The President is not wholly and fully government, nor is the Congress wholly and fully the government.

We should note examples where "name" (singular) is used in reference to persons as well as abstract principles, such as: "in the name of the Queen and the law!"

The above references are not in the Bible and are in English, not Hebrew or Greek. As stated earlier, we have no specific Biblical references that follow the actual same Greek construction using the singular word "name" (or the plural word "names") as given in Matthew 28:19. But, we believe that if one looks hard enough one will find this is true in most languages, that the phrase "in the name of" is usually singular even though more than one person and/or things are being of, without meaning that all those persons are wholly and fully one entity (as trintarians claim that the Father is wholly and fully the one God, the Son is wholly and fully the one God and the Holy Spirit is wholly and fully the one God. There is no plural usage in the Bible of the phrase "in the names of" at all. All of the other usages of "in the name of" in the Bible relate to only one person, so there is nothing else in the Bible itself -- neither in the Old Testament or the New Testament -- to compare Matthew 28:19, as far as the phrase, "in the name" followed by persons or things connected with "and". We believe that if such a claim that the singular usage of "name" in Matthew 28:19 was so important as proof of the alleged trinity doctrine, then God would have made sure that there were other scriptures for comparison with the same or similar construct, but we do not find any, either with the singular usage of the phrase "in the name of", or the plural usage as "in the names of". Without such an example for comparison, perhaps the expression would be used "in the names of [this person], and of [that person] and of [someone else], then one could at least say there would be a better argument that the singular usage of the word "name" in Matthew 28:19 had a greater significance, although such a comparison would still not be enough to make Matthew 28:19 say what trinitarians wish to make it say, that is, that there are three persons in one God.

What we do find in the Bible, however, are many usages of the singular word "name" in reference to more than one person or thing (although in some cases it should be apparent that the singular is used collectively). Genesis 5:2; 11:4; 48:6; Exodus 17:7; 23:13; Deuteronomy 7:24; 9:14; 12:3; 18:20; Joshua 7:9; 23:7; Ruth 1:2; 2 Samuel 7:9; 1 Chronicles 4:38,41; 1 Chronicles 6:65; 7:16; 12:31; 16:41; 17:18; Ezra 2:61; Nehemiah 7:63; Psalm 9:5; 109:13; Hosea 2:17; Zephaniah 3:19; Revelation 3:1.

There is one usage that is spoken of by David Moore in the "bgreek" discussion threads. He states:
  • On the use of the singular ONOMA with more than one name, as in Mat. 28:19, let me mention Deissmann's citation of a possibly related construction in a papyrus from Fayyum in the "reign of Antonius Pius" (?). The phrase runs in Greek as follows: TA U(PARCONT[A] EIS ONOMA DUEIN. Which translates to, "that (i.e. property or means) which belongs to the name of the two." http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/archives/greek-3/msg00388.html

Appendix Two - A Single Name  


The argument is made that the word "name" signifies a single name, that is, an appellation that applies to all three. Where would this kind of reasoning lead us? What would this "name" be? There is no record in the New Testament writing of anyone being baptized in the name of Jehovah (Yahweh), or in the name of the Father, or the name of the Spirit. One site says the single "name" referred to is "God". Again, we find no reference to anyone being baptized in the name of "God" in the New Testament. As far as we know, there is no reference in the ante-Nicene writings of the so-called "church fathers" that support this idea either. In the New Testament writings the only "name" referred to in which one is baptized in the name "Jesus." (Acts 2:28; see also: Acts 8:16, 10:48, 19:5) Making an application of this to the single usage of the word "name" in Matthew 28:19 would cause us to believe that the name, "Jesus", is applied to the Father and the holy spirit, as well as to the Son of God.

Some trinitarians seem to contradict themselves with this idea, for in reference to Matthew 28:19 they will refer to the "names" [plural] of the Father and of the Son and the holy spirit, but then at the same time insist that the singular usage of "name" means that this is speaking of three persons in one God.
In actuality, the word "name" is not referring to any appellation, but rather to the common cause into which the disciples were to baptize, or possibly in the common authority of the three.
See also: Matthew 28:19 - One Name

Links to Sites Owned By Bible Students
In Whose Name Are We to Be Baptized?

*******


Friday, January 15, 2016

John 8:58 - Is "I AM" As Used by Jesus the Holy Name of God?

Some have claimed that Jesus used the name I AM [EGO EIMI, transliterated] to make an ontological statement about his divine name and nature. From this, trinitarians (and some others) claim that Jesus is Jehovah, and/or a person of Jehovah.

Actually, in the Bible, in all the statements wherein Jesus used "I am" he never once claimed that this expression was a name, or that his name is is "I am". He certainly never claimed his name to be EHJEH (or, Ehyeh) of Exodus 3:14,15 the first person form of the name of the only true God who had sent him.

Who sent Jesus? Prophetically, the Messiah declares:

The Spirit of the Lord Jehovah is upon me, because Jehovah hath anointed me to announce glad tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me. -- Isaiah 61:1, Darby.

Thus, it was the Lord Jehovah of Exodus 3:14,15 who sent Jesus, and Isaiah 61:1 distinguishes the Messiah from the Lord Jehovah.

And while yet in the days of his flesh (Hebrews 5:7), Jesus said in prayer to his God and Father (John 17:1):

This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Jesus Christ. -- John 17:3, World English.

And who raised up Jesus as the prophet like Moses, as foretold in Deuteronomy 18:15-19? Peter tells us that it was the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob who raised up Jesus as the prophet like Moses. (Acts 3:13-26) The default reasoning is that Jesus is not Jehovah of Exodus 3:14,15.

Jesus, however, in all the instances where he used the expression often transliterated as EGO EIMI, never once mentioned this as being the name of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Regarding John 8:58, some claim that Jesus quoted the LXX, however, the short form of EHJEH (or, as some prefer, EHYEH) in the LXX is given, not as EGO EIMI, but as HO ON. Thus, if Jesus quoted the LXX, supposedly claiming to be the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob of Exodus 3:14,15, he would have said something to effect that he is "HO ON". In reality, no name is even mentioned in John 8:58, nor in its context, nor is there any indication that Jesus was claiming that his name is Ehjeh of Exodus 3:14.

Most modern translators have recognized that in Koine Greek what we call in English the present tense when used in a past tense context denotes a continuous action taking place in the past that may or not extend to the present. Most translators, however, disregard this in John 8:58, and have come up with excuses for doing so, while it should be apparent that the only real reason to disregard this in John 8:58 would be the desire to claim that Jesus was expressing himself to be EHJAH of Exodus 3:14,15. Nevertheless, a few translators, even though they may be trinitarian, have recognized this usage in John 8:58, and have thus recognized the past tense context so to express EGO EIMI in English as in the past:

The Bible – James Moffatt – “Truly, truly I tell you,” said Jesus, “I have existed before Abraham was born.”
Moffatt was a trinitarian, but he showed the past tense understanding of this verse.

Twentieth Century – “In truth I tell you,” replied Jesus, “before Abraham existed I was.”
http://www.archive.org/details/twentiethcentury00newyiala
Translated by a company of twenty scholars representing the various sections of the Christian Church

The Bible-An American Translation, E. Goodspeed – Jesus said to them, “I tell you, I existed before Abraham was born!”

The New Testament in the Language of the People – Then Jesus said to them, “I most solemnly say to you, I existed before Abraham was born.”
Translated from the Greek by CHARLES B. WILLIAMS

Peshitta, Lamsa Translation – Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Before Abraham was born, I was.

Murdock’s Syriac New Testament Translation – Jesus said to them: Verily, verily I say to you, That before Abraham existed, I was.

See also: The New Testament Or Rather The New Covenant (S.Sharp); The New Testament in the Language of the Day (W. G. Beck); The Simple English Bible (International Bible Translators and the Bible Translation Committee);  The Complete Gospels (R. J. Miller, editor); The New American Standard Bible, footnote alternative reading in the 1963-1970 editions.

It should be obvious from the context of John 8:58 that Jesus was not discussing his name, or anything about the Holy Name of Exodus 3:14,15, but rather his existence in time before Abraham had been born. This harmonizes well with the question just asked him: "You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?" The Jews did not ask him about his name, but rather about his age as related to Abraham. Jesus simply responded that he was existing before Abraham was.

Likewise, in all instances where Jesus used the Greek EGO EIMI, there is nothing in any of the contexts that says anything about this being the Holy Name, and by Jesus' usage of his expression, that he was claiming that this is his name. Any such thoughts have to be imagined beyond what is actually stated, and it has to be assumed upon what is stated, thereby adding such assumptions to, and reading such assumptions into, the scriptures.

By Ronald R. Day, Sr. -- Restoration Light Bible Study Services

Click Here for more studies related to John 8:58

*************