Isaiah 44:6 – The King And Redeemer Of Israel

{Isaiah 44:6} This is what Jehovah, the King of Israel and his Redeemer -- Jehovah of Hosts -- says: "I am the first, and I am the last; and aside from me there is no ELOHIM. -- Restoration Light Improved.

One trinitarian states: “The prophet Isaiah speaks of two Persons as Jehovah. We read: ‘Thus saith Jehovah, the King of lsrael, and His Redeemer, Jehovah of hosts: I am the first, and I am the last, and besides Me there is no God’ (Is. 44:6). Jehovah is here revealed as (1) ‘the King of Israel,’ and as (2) ‘His Redeemer.’ Both of them bear the name Jehovah.” Another tell us that in Isaiah 44:6, “two YAHWEHS speak as one.” Another states concerning Isaiah 44:6: “In this passage of the Old Testament, two Jehovahs are mentioned, indicating two divine beings with one name Jehovah.” 

On one site we read:

There are two Jehovahs in Isaiah 44:6 “Thus saith the LORD [Jehovah] the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD [Jehovah] of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.” The first named Jehovah in this verse would be our heavenly Father and the second one would be Jesus, for in Revelation 1:11 and 17, Jesus said, “I am the first, and I am the last” (See also John 10:30). 

The name "Jehovah' appears twice in Isaiah 44:6, and only in that sense could be said that there are two "Jehovahs" in Isaiah 44:6. Any other thought that there are two Jehovahs in Isaiah 44:6 actually contradicts Deuteronomy 6:4, which declares the God of Israel to be "one" Jehovah, not two Jehovahs. (See our study:  As far as the trinity is concerned the idea has to be first assumed that Jehovah is more than one person, and then it has to further imagined, assumed and added and read into Isaiah 44:6 that two of imagined persons of Jehovah are being spoken of here, and it has to imagined, assumed, added to and readinto Isaiah 44:6 that "Jehovah" the King of Israel in one of persons of Jehovah further imagined and assumed to be the God and Father of Jesus (Ephesians 1:3), while it is imagined, assumed, added to and read into Isaiah 44:6 that Jehovah the redeemer of Israel is another person of Jehovah. See also links to studies related Detueronomy 6:4. Regarding Revelation 1:11 and 17, see our studies related to Alpha and Omega.

On another site, we find regarding Isaiah 44:6:

This passage clearly indicates two Jehovahs but it is followed by a declaration that must include both of them and yet is stated with the singular pronouns "I and me."

Again, the idea of "two Jehovahs" is presented, which, in reality contradicts Deuteronomy 6:4. Since the one person who is the "King" of Israel is also Israel's redeemer, He definitely should refer to Himself as "I and me". 

We read on another site regarding Isaiah 44:6

Clearly, two Jehovahs are mentioned in this verse. How can we reconcile this passage with the clear teaching that there is only one God? The only possible way is to understand that God is a plurality in unity.

That which is claimed to be clearly mentioned actually has to be assumed, added to, and read into this verse so as to claim that there is one Jehovah speaking, who is the King of Israel, and there is another Jehovah who is Israel's redeemer (evidently with the thought that "redeemer" refers to Jesus), who is also called Jehovah of hosts, and that this in some vague manner supposedly proves a plurality of persons in the trinitarian idea of Godhead. Is this really what Isaiah is saying? Is he speaking of two Jehovahs in this verse, one who is the King of Israel, and another who is Israel’s redeemer?

We should reiterate that the thought of two Jehovahs has to be read into the text. Jehovah is referred as one person who is both the King and the Redeemer of Israel. Deuteronomy 6:4 plainly tells us that Jehovah is only one Jehovah, he is not two or three. There is nothing in Isaiah 44:6 about two persons and certainly nothing about a plurality of persons in one God. Nor is there any scriptural reason at all to imagine and assume that "the only possible way to understand" this verse is "that God is a plurality in unity." The verse is easily understood without creating a lot of assumptions and adding those assumptions to what is stated, so as to imagine and assumed that two different persons of Jehovah are being referred to.

We would say, however, that most trinitarian scholars do not read this verse as meaning two Jehovahs. (See Bible Hub's comments from various trinitarian scholars) Some renderings make this clearer (Remember that God's Holy Name, often rendered in English as Jehovah,  has been changed to “the LORD”.:

This is what the LORD, Israel’s King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty, says: I am the First and the Last; there is no other God. — New Living Translation

The Lord, who rules and protects Israel, the Lord Almighty, has this to say: “I am the first, the last, the only God; there is no other god but me. — Good News in Today’s English

The Lord, the king of Israel, is the Lord All-Powerful, who saves Israel. — New Century Version

The LORD is Israel’s king and defender. He is the LORD of Armies. — God’s Word Translation

The Lord, the King of Israel, even the Lord of armies who has taken up his cause. — Bible in Basic English

Jehovah also says in this scripture: “I am the first and I am the last.” Jehovah, of course, is the first and last of all who are uncreated. He is first to never have had a beginning, and the last to never have had a beginning. There will never be another who will be uncreated. Jehovah is also the first and last in Might [ELOHIM], since he is the source of all might. There was no Might or power formed before him (since he has always been) and there will be no Might formed after him (since he will always be). (Isaiah 43:10) Of course, none of the idol so-called "gods" formed by the hands of men can claim to be the first and last as does Jehovah, as they cannot even think, and have no power at all. Nor can any of these idols claim to be the Mighty One Innate as does Jehovah: “besides me there is no God [ELOHIM, meaning Might, Power, Strength].” — Isaiah 44:8-20.

See our studies related to Alpha and Omega.

See also our study on:

The Hebraic Usage of the Titles for God

Thus we find that there is nothing in Isaiah 44:6 that actually supports the idea of a plurality of persons in the one Jehovah. Indeed, one does have to think beyond what written (1 Corinthians 4:6),  formulate many assumptions, and then read those assumptions into what is stated, in order to force the triune God concept into what is stated. The most natural reading, in harmony with the entire testimony of the Bible, is that Isaiah speaks of Jehovah as both the  king and redeemer of Israel, not that there are two Jehovahs being spoken of in this verse.

See also:

The Meaning of Echad
One God, One Lord

One argues that we are misrepresenting the trinity doctrine by claiming that trinitarians believe in “two Jehovahs”. In fact, we are only repeating what trinitarians themselves have said, and it is the trinitarians who speak of “two Yahwehs”, or “two Jehovahs”, in Isaiah 44:6 and other verses.  We gave links to our sources of trinitarians who said such. To further verify this, all one needs to do is search with Google for “two Yahwehs”, “two Jehovahs”, “two YHWHs”, etc., and one can find many statements by trinitarians. Of course, we realize that the idea of "two Jehovahs" actually goes against man's forumlated doctrine of the trinity, which, in effect, claims that there is one Jehovah who three persons. At the same time, many trinitarian apologists will refer to "two Jehovahs" or "two Yahwehs", etc., without realizing that such actually contradicts the doctrine they claim to be defending.

Furthermore, although we are sure that trinitarian apologists don't mean to say such, in reality saying that there are two Jehovahs would actually be the same as saying that there are "two Gods", but most trinitarians would not say that there two "Gods".  For instance, in John 1:1, we do not find the trinitarian referring the two appearances of the word "God" as being "two Gods", although they claim that that it is speaking of two persons who are the one God.  Yet, it is many of these same trinitarians who not seem to see the self-contradiction in saying that there are "two Jehovahs."
For links to some of our Studies Regarding John 1:1

While the word "Jehovah" does appear twice in this scripture, and several other scriptures many trinitarians cite as speaking of "two Jehovahs", the trinitarian usually doesn't simply speak of it as the word "Jehovah" appearing twice, but as there being "two Jehovahs."

Of course, by "two Jehovahs" the trinitarian evidently does mean two persons of the one Jehovah, but then, that idea is no where even once presented anywhere in the Bible; it is certainly not presented in Isaiah 44:6.

The reality, however, is that there is nothing in Isaiah 44:6 that says that Jesus is Jehovah, or that Jehovah is more than one person, etc. Such ideas do have to be added to the what is stated and read into what is stated.

Ronald R. Day, Sr., Restoration Light Bible Study Services (ResLight, RlBible), Updated, 10/11/2018; 12/22/2020; Updated 07/07/2022.

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

2 Peter 1:1 – Our God And Our Savior

2 Peter 1:1

From four translations:

SIMON PETER, a servant and legate of Jesus the Messiah, to those who have obtained equally precious faith with us, through the righteousness of Our Lord and Redeemer, Jesus the Messiah. — Murdock’s Syriac Translation.

Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained a like precious faith with us in the righteousness of our God and the Saviour Jesus Christ. — American Standard Version.

Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ. — King James Version.

Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours in the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ. — Revised Standard Version.

As can be seen from the above, there are several ways that translators have rendered this verse, so there is some dispute over how it should be viewed. Adam Clarke -- although he believes that rendering as given in the Revised Standard Version is correct -- notes, "the Syriac and two Arabic versions have Κυριου, Lord, instead of Θεου, God." While Brother Clarke dismisses the Syriac and Arabic versions, if these are correct, then we should plainly see that this verse is not referring to Jesus as Jehovah. If one views the Greek word for "God" in the Textus Receptus as referring to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the usage of "Lord" rather than "God" changes the meaning drastically. The Syriac is probably correct, since this is the expression that Peter used in 2 Peter 1:11; 2:20; 3:2 and 3:18, and thus it would seem that Peter would have also used this expression at the beginning of his letter.

However, if we lay aside the Syriac, and assume that Jesus is being called “THEOS” in this verse, this would not mean that Jesus is Jehovah, since Jesus is not the "one God" who is the source of all. (1 Corinthians 8:6) The default reasoning should be that if the Greek word THEOS is applied to anyone other than the "one God" of 1 Corinthians 8:6, it is not in the sense of GOD who is the Supreme Being, the source of all, but rather in harmony with the Hebraic usage of forms of the Hebrew word often transliterated EL, it is being used in the sense of might or strength in a sense other than being the MIGHTY ONE INNATE, the source of all might, the Supreme Being. Jehovah is the God and Father of Jesus. (Micah 5:2; Romans 15:6; 2 Corinthians 1:3; 11:31; Ephesians 1:3,17; 1 Peter 1:3) The Father of Jesus is the only true God -- the only true Supreme Being -- who sent Jesus. (John 17:1,3; Deuteronomy 18:15-19; Isaiah 61:1) Jesus is not that only true God who sent him.

==========

*See our study on the Hebraic usages of words for “God”:

https://jesusnotyhwh.blogspot.com/2016/09/hebraicusage.html

Furthermore, the above translations (as well the translations presented later) show that there is not a general agreement as to how the verse should be translated, even from the Textus Receptus (Received Text). Some translations make a total separation between “God” and “our Savior”, while others make it appear that Jesus is being called “our God and Savior”. Concerning this Albert Barnes states:

God and our Saviour Jesus Christ - Margin, “our God and Saviour.” The Greek will undoubtedly bear the construction given in the margin; and if this be the true rendering, it furnishes an argument for the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ. Middleton, Slade, Valpy, Bloomfield, and others, contend that this is the true and proper rendering. It is doubted, however, by Wetstein, Grotius, and others. Erasmus supposes that it may be taken in either sense. The construction, though certainly not a violation of the laws of the Greek language, is not so free from all doubt as to make it proper to use the passage as a proof-text in an argument for the divinity of the Saviour. It is easier to prove the doctrine from other texts that are plain, than to show that this must be the meaning here.

Brother Barnes, believing in the trinity doctrine, would desire the marginal reading of the King James Version to be correct, but he does show that many scholars disagree with this, and that Erasmus supposed that it could be rendered either way. Brother Barnes believes that 1 Peter 1:1 is proof of Jesus' divinity. This method is often used with the idea that proof of Jesus' divinity is proof that Jesus is Supreme Being, Jehovah, and even proof that Jehovah is more than one person, etc. Of course, in reality, Jesus' divinity does not prove that Jesus is the God is of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. -- Acts 3:13-26.

There is no scripture in the Bible, however, that "proves" the doctrine of the trinity. For any and every scripture presented to supposedly support the trinitarian doctrine, many assumptions have to formulated beyond what is written and then the assumptions have to be added to the scriptures in order to "see" the trinity concept in the scriptures.

While we accept the Syriac, which would have Peter saying “our Lord and Savior” as Peter states several times in his letters, there is a dispute regarding this verse over whether Sharp’s “article+substantive-kai-substantive” rule should apply or not. (Of course, if the Syriac is correct, as we believe, there is no need for this dispute. Additionally, there is also the assumption that Peter would have such a rule in mind when he wrote 2 Peter 1:1, and also assuming that the Syriac is not what Peter wrote. Sharp’s first rule of Greek grammar states: “When two personal nouns of the same case are connected by the copulative kai, if the former has the definite article, and the latter has not, they both relate to the same person.” In accordance with this, his rule #6 states: “If they are connected by the copulative, and both have the article, they relate also to different persons.” He then has other rules that give “exceptions” to these rules. We should note that his rules and exceptions cannot be applied to the Septuagint Greek with any degree of consistency, so we cannot be for sure how valid these rules are. Sharp’s purpose for his study was to prove that Jesus is God, and the manner in which he narrows the rules and exceptions as applied to the NT Greek seems to narrow these rules to suit the purpose he sought. For the first rule to apply, both must be personal, both must be singular, and both must be non-proper (i.e., common terms, not proper names). Sharp makes an exception to his rule #6 for John 20:28, on the grounds that the evidence shows that it is speaking of one person.

See our study on John 20:28:

https://jesusnotyhwh.blogspot.com/2016/09/john-2028.html

Assuming the validity of Sharp’s rules and exceptions, etc., the question often raised is, are proper names being used in 2 Peter 1:1, or does the context indicate that two different persons are being referred to? Is there contextual evidence that shows that two persons, and not one, are being referred to? Was Peter -- if he did write this expression as it appear in most manuscripts -- trying to follow some alleged rule of Greek grammar to indicate that Jesus is God, or was he thinking of God and Jesus as two separate persons when he wrote 2 Peter 1:1? Sharp, of course, in accordance with the purpose of his study, concluded that Peter is definitely calling Jesus “God” in 2 Peter 1:1. Our question is, is his conclusion solid?

Many argue that in 2 Peter 1:1, “God” can be viewed as a proper name, and that “Savior Jesus Christ” can also viewed as a proper name, which would call for an exception to Sharp’s general rule, and mean that two different persons are being spoken of. Believing as we do, that the Syriac more than likely represents what Peter actually wrote, we can only address this from the their assumption that Peter actually wrote the phrase as it appears in the Textus Receptus (and other Greek texts), which assumption we do not share.

Another scriptural exception to Sharp’s rule is that provided by evidence and context. What does evidence and context demonstrate regarding Jesus and God in 2 Peter 1:1? We note a tradition found in the New Testament letters that show that it was usual to start their greetings by references both the Father and his Son, to Jesus and to the God of Jesus. (Romans 1:1-3; 1 Corinthians 1:3; 2 Corinthians 1:2,3; Galatians 1:3; Ephesians 1:2,3; Philippians 1:2; Colossians 1:2,3; 1 Thessalonians 1:1,3; 2 Thessalonians 1:1,2; 1 Timothy 1:1,2; 2 Timothy 1:2; Titus 1:1; Philemon 1:3; Hebrews 1:1;2; James 1:1; 1 Peter 1:3; 1 John 1:3; 2 John 1:3) This gives another reason to believe that, if Peter did actual use the word “God” here, rather “the Lord” (Syriac), then it should be viewed as applied to the God and Father of Jesus (Micah 5:4; Ephesians 1:3), not to Jesus.

Further evidence can be seen in the context, where Peter makes references to “God” as the Father, and distinguishes “God” from Jesus (1 Peter 1:2,3,21; 2:5; 3:18,21; 4:10; 2 Peter 1:17); thus it is highly unlikely that Peter would have meant anything different in 2 Peter 1:1. Even in the following verse Peter distinguishes between God and Jesus, thus the context does indicate two persons are being referred to. (2 Peter 1:2) This is the basis for some translations that render this in such a way so as to show a distinction between “God” and “Our Savior, Jesus Christ”.

Below are some other renderings of the phrase from 2 Peter 1:1, some of which show a distinction is indicated between God and Jesus:

the righteousness of God and our Savior Jesus Christ — Third Millenium Bible translation

of our God and the Saviour Jesus Christ — New Revised Standard Version, margin

through the righteousness of our God and of our Deliverer Yeshua the Messiah — The Complete Jewish Bible translation

through the righteousness of God and our Savior Jesus Christ — Webster’s Bible Translation

righteousness of our God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ. — Weymouth New Testament

the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ — New International Version

our God and the savior Jesus Christ — New American Bible translation, margin

the righteousness of our God, and the Saviour, Jesus Christ: — Concordant Literal New Testament

thro’ the veracity of our God, and of Jesus Christ. — Daniel Mace New Testament (1729)

the righteousness of our God and our Savior, Jesus Christ — Literal Translation of the HOLY BIBLE, by Jay P. Green, Sr.

the righteousness of our God and of our Savior Jesus Christ — Simple English Bible translation

share the faith that God in his justice has equally allotted to us; as well as that of our Saviour Jesus Christ. — 21st Century NT

Of course, as has already been stated, if the Syriac manuscript is correct — which is our first consideration, the word “God” does not even appear in 2 Peter 1:1.

At any rate, one should see, at the least, that it is very questionable that Peter would be referring to Jesus as THEOS. Of course, Jesus is our THEOS, our might, in the power and authority given to him by God, but any such usage of THEOS does not mean that Jesus is the one God who is the source of all. (1 Corinthians 8:6) Thus, even if Peter did apply the word THEOS to Jesus in 2 Peter 1:1, there is still nothing in the verse that says that Jesus is God Almighty. Definitely, there is surely nothing there that gives any idea that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is more than one person, and that Jesus is a person of God, etc.

Below are some links we recommend, although we do not necessarily agree with all that is said.

http://jehovah.to/exe/discussion/more_5.htm

Our Savior Jesus Christ by Greg Stafford

http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-archives/html4/1998-04/index.html#24763

B-Greek: Sharp’s Rule and Quasi-Propr Names (Forum Discussions)

http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-archives/html4/1998-04/index.html#24805

BGreek Discussion: Another Carson Question, Granville-Sharp Rule

http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-archives/html4/1998-04/index.html#24838

BGreek: Final Thoughts on Sharp’s Rule – Greg Stafford; see also Correction

http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-archives/html4/1996-06/13588.html

BGreek Forum Discussion: Sharp’s Rule

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