Deuteronomy 6:4 - The Meaning of Echad

---

Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God is one Jehovah. - (Deuteronomy 6:4, Green's Literal Translation)
Hebrew and Greek words are transliterated throughout.

The claim is often made that the Hebrew word translated "one" [echad] means "composite unity", or others may prefer, "compound unity" or "complex unity". From this it supposed that the word "one" jehovah consists of more than one person, and thus it is claimed that the usage of echad in Deuteronomy 6:4 offers proof of the trinity in the Hebrew Scriptures.

It is true that "one" can mean "composite unity", "complex unity" or "compound unity", whether in Hebrew or English. There is no evidence, however, that the Hebrew word echad means anything different from the English word "one". There is nothing mystical about the Hebrew word "one" as used in Deuteronomy 6:4 that would mean that Jehovah is more than one person.

Echad [Strong's #259 "united, i.e., one; or (as an ordinal) first"] simply means one [whether composite, complex, compound or absolute] just the same as our English word means one. Look at its usage in a Hebrew concordance: "one door" Ezekiel 41:11); "one reed" (Ezekiel 40:5-8); "one gate" (Ezekiel 48:31); "one saint" (Daniel 8:13) -- just a few examples. (See also Numbers 7:11,13,14,26,32,38,44; 9:14; 16:22, for a start) It is used exactly the same as our English word "one". Being a single individual, object, or unit. noun: A single unit, a single person or thing.
https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/kjv/echad.html

The English word "unit" is defined as:

a : a single thing, person, or group that is a constituent of a whole
b : a part of a military establishment that has a prescribed organization (as of personnel and materiel)
c : a piece or complex of apparatus serving to perform one particular function
d : a part of a school course focusing on a central theme
e : a local congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses

-- Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary
https://www.yourdictionary.com/

The word composite means "made up of distinct parts." A composite unity, therefore, consists of various parts, each in itself making up a part of one total. The separate parts do not equal the total, and do not necessarily equal each other, as is claimed for the trinity. One part is not the other part. Many trinitarians point to Numbers 13:33, which speaks of "one cluster" of grapes. It is often claimed that this provides an illustration of "one" as applied to the Hebrew word Echad and their trinity doctrine. However, one grape on a cluster is a part of the cluster, but it would not be proper to say that the one grape is the cluster. This is true in both Hebrew and English. One grape could hardly be said to wholly and fully the one cluster, as is claimed for each of the alleged persons of the triune God. Deuteronomy 6:4 says that there is only one Jehovah. (Deuteronomy 6:4) It is this one Jehovah who speaks to Jesus in Psalm 110:1 -- two separate beings. It is this "one Jehovah" who is the God of the Messiah. (Micah 5:4) Jehovah is not presented as being more than one person, nor is Jesus presented as being Jehovah.

Sometimes we read of some who say that echad means "compound unity". The word "compound" means to put parts together to form a whole; to form by combining parts, etc. Thus this word means practically the same as "composite."

Additionally, sometimes the trinitarian will used the term "complex unity".  Webster refers to "complex unity" as a meaning of the English word "whole," and describes it as meaning "a coherent system or organization of parts fitting or working together as one." 

Jehovah is different from the false deities of the heathen, which were often worshiped as triads consisting of three parts. Jehovah is one Jehovah -- not two parts, not three parts.

Jay Green's interlinear says: "Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God (is) Jehovah one." His translation reads: "Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God is one Jehovah." Echad is used here as an adjective modifying Jehovah. It really shows that there is but one Jehovah, not two Jehovahs or three Jehovahs, etc. However, in this context, Jehovah is warning about Israel's worship of the idol-gods of the nations. (Deuteronomy 6:12-15) He certainly foreknew that Israel would get involved in such idolatry and would even use His Holy Name in worship of those idols. Thus, it was important to for Him to note that He, as their God, Jehovah, is not more than one Jehovah; there are not a multiplicity of Jehovahs being represented as is found in the heathen lands around Israel. While some of the heathen may have used forms of the name Jehovah (Yahweh) in their worship, without a covenant Jehovah was not their God, except in the broad sense that Jehovah is the God of all his creation. As such, however, He is still only one Jehovah, but he is not represented by any idol even if the heathen or even the children of Israel may have used a form of His name as applied to an idol.

While it is true that the word "one", whether in English or "echad" in Hebrew, can mean a composite/compound/complex unity, and "one" can have more than one part, as in one cluster of grapes (Numbers 13:23), each grape is a part of the cluster, not the whole. One grape in a cluster does not equal the whole cluster, nor does any grape in the cluster equal the cluster, etc.; each grape is only a part of the whole. One of the people (Genesis 34:16) does not mean one person is wholly the people as is claimed in the trinitarian dogma, as that dogma claims that each of the alleged persons of their trinue God are "wholly" God -- not a part of God.

Likewise, your body is made up many parts, all of which go to make up the composite whole. Your arm is not your whole body, nor is your leg, etc., but only a part.

If this idea of composite, compound or complex unity is applied to the idea that God is more than one person, then you would have the Father as a part of God, but not all of God; you would have the Son as a part of God, but not all of God; and the Holy Spirit as a part of God, but not all of God. Thus allowing that all three persons are equal, we would have 1/3 of God as the Father, 1/3 of God as the Son and 1/3 of God as the Holy Spirit. Yet the trinitarian dogma does not define the trinitarian "godhead" as such, for they claim that Jesus is "fully God." They do not claim that the Father is part of God, they claim that he is fully God, etc. Therefore, their usage of "composite unity", "complex unity" or "compound unity" as a means to see the trinity in the word "echad" does not, in reality, exist, except that they should create their own definitions to suit their trinitarian dogma.

Is Jehovah a Unity? We can say that Jehovah is love, but Jehovah is not "all" love and nothing else. "Love" is not equal to the whole of who Jehovah is. It is only one component of who Jehovah is. The many components of Jehovah's being, personality and character are discussed in Paul S. L. Johnson's Book entitled *GOD*, which can be ordered from the Bible Standard.

Additionally, did the Hebrew writers themselves consider the usage of echad to mean more than one person in one God? There is nothing in anything that they wrote that presents them as believng such an idea. It is only by adding the trinitarian philosophy and then reading the trinitarian philosophy into the expressions used that one can find the concept of a triune God as defined by trinitarians in the Bible.

One Flesh in Marriage

Genesis 2:24 - Therefore a man will leave his father and his mother, and will join with his wife, and they will be one flesh.

The argument is often put forth that Genesis 2:24 illustrates that echad means more than one person in unity. Of course, we allow that echad can mean more than one person in unity, but this does not mean that the persons involved are the same being, sharing the same sentiency as is claimed for the trinity dogma: three persons in one omniscient being, all three of which are individually wholly and fully the one omniscient being. The unity involved in marriage, if divided equally, still would be 1/2 + 1/2 = the whole. The marriage still consists of two separate parts that equal the whole. The same holds true for the many other "illustrations" of composite unity that our trinitarian friends come up with. We do not deny that echad means composite unity when that term is used properly; the meaning of composite unity, however, does not describe the dogmatic definition given of the trinity.

A married couple does not literally become one flesh human being. The man, after marriage, still has his own sentiency, his own thoughts, and his own self, and a woman after marriage still has her own sentiency, her own thoughts, and her own self. The marriage union does not make the two one sentiency or one human being as is claimed for each of the members of the alleged triune God, that is, they are all three claimed to be the one Supreme Being. And trinitarians further claim that each of the three alleged persons is individually wholly and fully the Supreme Being (not a part of the Supreme Being).

Some claim that the expression "one flesh" means that the two are the same substance, as is claimed for the trinity. The problem is that a man and woman are both of the same substance before they get married, thus their becoming "one flesh" does not mean that they become of the same substance when they are joined together in marriage. Obviously, the expression "one flesh" in Genesis 2:24 does not mean the same thing that "one substance" is claimed for the trinity, for the trinity claims that all three persons of the alleged trinity are all omniscient, thus all one sentient being, since all three, being omniscient, would have all have the same sentiency. Nor does the idea of "one flesh" in the marriage union mean that they both, as a result of the marriage, then become the same flesh substance (or "nature" as trinitarians often express it), as some have argued, since the man and woman already are of the same fleshly substance before marriage. Thus all mankind is spoken of as "one flesh", in the sense of actual substance, but all mankind do not constitute one sentient human being. -- 1 Corinthians 15:39.

When a man and woman become married, they definitely do not become one sentient being, and no longer two sentient beings, for then there would be no such thing as a married "couple". Nor do either one of the two equal the whole of the union, as is claimed for each person of the alleged trinity, in that is claimed that each person of the trinity is wholly God, not part of God. The man and woman who come together are still each only part of that union; neither is equal the whole union.

Strictly speaking, the "one flesh" that is being spoken of is in the marriage union, in which the two come together in the marriage bed as though one body. That this is what is being spoken of can be seen by 1 Corinthians 15:39, where Paul refers to this scripture in describing fornication with a prostitute. In the case of such fornication, the man and woman usually do not remain together as in marriage, but they do become as one body during the act of fornication. For such a union to take place, however, there have to be the two who are already flesh before they unite with each, neither of which is equal to the whole.

Of course, we can also see that the marriage union as a whole could also be included. But still, neither party is equal to and wholly the union, but each remains a "part" of the union. The trinitarian dogma claims that the Father is not "part" of God, but all of God, the Son is not "part" of God, but all of God, and the holy spirit is not "part" of God, but all of God. Therefore, is the "one flesh" union of Genesis 2:24 a composite unity? Absolutely! Does it offer any illustration that would apply to the trinity? No.

Additionally, composite unity does not mean that the various parts of the unity are neccessarily equal to each other, for in the husband-wife relationship a man is not equal in all respects to the woman, nor is the woman equal in all respects to the man, etc. Not all of a man's organs are the same as that of a woman, and thus, not all of a woman's organs are the same as a man.

Additionally, in a cluster of grapes, one grape may be bigger than another, but then a cluster of grapes includes not only the grapes but the stems that link the whole the cluster together. The stem is not equal to the grape, nor the grape to the stem. So again we find that the one cluster of grapes does not provide any illustration of the trinity.

Echad corresponds with the Greek heis -- one. It is simply the common Hebrew word for "one".

"He is unique... He is not many, but one... Yahweh is a single unified person... one Lord is also opposite to diffuse... He is single... God's person and his will are single... Israel is called to concentrate it's undivided attention in Yahweh himself. He alone is worthy of full devotion and He is one-single and unique." -- The Broadman Bible Commentary

YACHIYD

Another word related to echad is Yachiyd (Strong's #3173). This word corresponds with our English word "only". It is most commonly used in the expression "only son". (Genesis 22:2,12,16; Judges 11:34; Jeremiah 6:26; Amos 8:10; Zechariah 12:10) Like Echad, it is also closely associated with Yachad, meaning "to join, unite" (Strong's 3161), thus Yachiyd carries a similar connotation of unity as does Echad. Strong gives its basic meaning as "united", "sole", and further as "beloved", "lonely". The *Brown, Driver, Briggs, Gesenius Lexicon* adds also "only" and "unique". The KJV translates this word in Psalm 86:6 as "solitary", in the sense of "lonely".

The word (often transliterated as Yachiyd) is not used of Jehovah in the Bible, and it usually refers to an only son. It corresponds most closely with the English word "only", especially in the sense of only son, only beloved, or lonely, which is perhaps the reason it is not used of Jehovah, since Jehovah is not a son of anyone, nor is he a man, that he should be "lonely".

Another word that sometimes means "only" is the word often transliterated as "bad" (Strong's #905), meaning "alone, by itself, besides, a part, separation, being alone". It is used in Deuteronomy 8:3, where the Hebrew word is translated into Greek as *monos*. (Matthew 4:4; Luke 4:4) *Monos* is the word used to describe the Father in John 17:3 as the "only true God." *Bad* is also used of Jehovah in Nehemiah 9:6, Psalm 83:18; 136:4; Isaiah 2:11,17; 37:16; 44:24.
http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/nas/bad.html

The Triple Point of Water

It has been argued that water provides a good illustration of composite unity as applied to the trinity. It is claimed that water can be in three forms at once yet all forms are still one thing: water. The test-tube experiment is cited: in a single test tube, the water can be in all three states at the same time! Actually, this is deceptive, to say the least, since not all of the molecules of water in the test tube are in all three states all at once. For this to be a valid demonstration of the trinity, such would have to occur. What these trinitarians are referring to is called the triple point of water. We present below some quotes from the WEB on the triple state:

All three boundary lines meet at a point called the triple point. At this temperature and pressure, all three phases are in equilibrium with one another
https://mars.nasa.gov/education/modules/mars.pdf

Triple point-the temperature and pressure in which all 3 states of matter co-exist in equilibrium.
http://www.learnchem.net/tutorials/som.shtml

Note that this does not say that all of the water molecules are in all three states at once; it says that they are in equilibrium. Thus, about 1/3 of the molecules would be in the state of, or changing to, the bonding as ice; about 1/3 of the molecules would be in the state of, or changing to, the bonding as liquid; and about 1/3 would be in the state of, or changing to, the bonding as gas. (If applied to the trinity, then 1/3 of God would the Father; 1/3 of God would be the Son, and 1/3 of God would be the Holy Spirit.) Never are all the molecules in the given container in all three states at once! Never is one molecule in all three states at the same time. Putting the three phases in equilibrium at the triple point actually does nothing to change the fact that there are still three phases of a single substance, which coexist in different parts of the vessel that holds them. For this analogy to have any merit toward providing a demonstration of the trinity, you would have to produce a solid liquid gas, that is, the whole body of H2O under consideration would have to be liquid through all of its molecules, and at the same time solid throughout all of its molecules, and at the same time gas throughout all of its molecules.

At least one trinitarian has noted the fallacy of the triple state argument as applied to the trinity, and has written about it online. We will quote a part of what he states:

The three phases of water analogy of the Trinity, although often suggested, is, in fact, an inadequate explanation as understood by traditional orthodox Christianity.... In the water (three states or phases) analogy we see a similar problem. Water, in the aggregate (not individual molecules but in bulk) will be in a phase (solid, liquid, or gaseous) depending on the temperature and pressure. [Along a phase line (of temperature and pressure) it can exist in two phases and at the triple point in all three.] Water can transform from one phase to another, just as the "persons" can in a modalist Trinity. However, in the orthodox understanding of the Trinity, the "persons", while all God, do not change into each other. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. But the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Father, the Father is not the Spirit, the Spirit is not the Father, etc. Nor do they change into/from one another. Water can change from one phase to another. Thus, the three phases of water are an inadequate, i.e. heretical, model for the Trinity even though it has some partial value. -- a post by Edward Pothier

The above statement was made by a trinitarian in the newsgroups, and can be found online at:
https://groups.google.com/group/soc.religion.christian/msg/d247185e57b134dc?oe=UTF-8

We also received the following email on this concerning whether all the molecules were in all three states at once:

In really short answer, any one molecule can only be in one state at once. The Triple Point is the temperature and pressure at which all three phases can exist together, however each molecule will be in one phase. For more about triple point see this website:
http://onsager.bd.psu.edu/~jircitano/phase.html (Site no longer exists)
Marcy M. Seavey
Education Director
Iowa Project WET and GLOBE Iowa
Iowa Academy of Science

Having shown that this does not give an adequate illustration of the trinity, we now ask: what if there should be a substance that could be in three states throughout all at once? Possibly God could create such. Would it be proof of the trinity? No. It would only prove that such a substance could be in all three states throughout all at once, nothing more. It would not offer a reason to add the idea of the trinity to the scriptures.

The "One Lord" Deception

Some trinitarians will quote Deuteronomy 6:4 from the King James Version (or similar translation) like this: "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD." Then they will turn to 1 Corinthians 8:6, where we read that to the church there is "one Lord Jesus Christ." There is "one Lord", they say, and that "one Lord" is Jesus. Most scholars should know that the two scriptures are not speaking of the same thing. In Deuteronomy 6:4, the KJV, as well as many other translations have substituted "LORD" for the divine name. This should not be done, but because it is most often done, to those ignorant of the truth, the above reasoning seems logical. Some will claim that the Greek word "kurios", often rendered "the Lord" in the New Testament, means "Jehovah", since in the extant Greek NT manuscripts we find that kurios is often substituted for the divine name. Such is sophistry, however, for kurios is used of others than Jehovah in the NT, as well as in other Greek writings.* The word "kurios" does not mean "Jehovah", any more than the Hebrew words for "Lord", such as "adon" or "adonai"**, mean "Jehovah". 1 Corinthians 8:6 is not identifying Jesus as the one Jehovah of Deuteronomy 8:6.
==========
*See our studies on the holy name:
https://nameofyah.blogspot.com/p/on-this-site.html

Likewise, sometimes our trinitarian neighbors will compare Deuteronomy 6:4 and 1 Corinthians 6:8 with Zechariah 14:9, using the King James Version, or a similar translation, to reach the conclusion that the "one Lord" of these scriptures is Jesus. Zechariah 14:9, reads, according to the King James Version, "And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one." By use of the word "LORD" in all caps, the KJV shows that in the Hebrew text, the divine name appears, and that "the LORD" has been substituted for the divine name. Thus the World English Bible translation renders this verse in this manner: "Yahweh will be King over all the earth. In that day Yahweh will be one, and his name one." Green's Literal renders this verse as: "And Jehovah shall be King over all the earth. In that day there shall be one Jehovah, and His name one." By this, we can readily see that Zechariah 14:9 is not speaking about the Lord Jesus, as in 1 Corinthians 8:6, but rather of Jehovah, the God and Father of Jesus. - Micah 5:4; Ephesians 1:3
==========
See:
Jesus is Not Jehovah
https://jesusnotyhwh.blogspot.com/2016/09/jesusnotjah.html

Others will say that Jehovah is referred to as "Lord" many times in the Hebrew scriptures, such as Genesis 15:2,8, Exodus 4:10; 5:22; 15:17; 23:17; 24:17; Deuteronomy 3:24; 9:26; 10:17; Joshua 3:13; 7:7; and many more. Thus, they ask, how can only Jesus be the "one Lord", as stated in 1 Corinthians 8:6, if Jehovah is also "Lord"? Actually, 1 Corinthians 8:6 does not state that there is only "one Lord". Let us read 1 Corinthians 8:5,6 from Young's Literal Translation: "for even if there are those called gods, whether in heaven, whether upon earth -- as there are gods many and lords many -- yet to us [is] one God, the Father, of whom [are] the all things, and we to Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom [are] the all things, and we through Him." What it says is that "to us [to the church] there is one Lord "through whom are all things, and we through him." Jehovah is "Lord", but he is not the one Lord "through whom" are the all (Greek transliteration: ta panta). Thus to the church, God has appointed one Lord through whom all things are provided from the God and Father of Jesus to the church (as well as the blessings of the age to come), including the existence of the believers as new creatures in Christ. -- John 1:17; Romans 3:22; 5:10,21; 2 Corinthians 1:20; 5:17,18; Galatians 4:7; 6:15; Ephesians 1:5; 2:10; Philippians 1:11; Titus 3:6.

Paul had just written concerning the idol-gods of the nations, and declares that the informed Christian knows that these idols gods are nothing, they have no power or might to good or to do evil. (Jeremiah 10:5) It is these that Paul refers to as those who are "called" gods (mighty ones). On earth, of course, the idols are something in that the carved images are made of wood or stone, and wood and stone is indeed "something", but as far as having the will and might to bring about or influence events in the world to a purposeful outcome, these gods are nothing. Thus, while they are "called" gods, they are not so by nature, which nature is special "might, strength", power, as based on the Hebraic meaning of the words that are translated as "God/god"*. (Galatians 4:8) They have no special might of themselves to perform any prophecy, any purpose, that might be attributed to them. In the heavens, the sun, the moon, stars and constellations, etc., have been called "gods". The sun, the moon, the stars, etc., are indeed something, as far as the substances that are combined in their make-up is concerned. But they are nothing as far as the claim that these are "gods", in that they do not have any will or might bring about any purposeful outcome amongst the intelligent creation, they are "nothing". Yet these have been called "gods" and "lords". The word Adonis comes from the Hebrew word "Adon", meaning "Lord". Thus these are "called" gods and lords, although they are not so by nature, as they, of themselves, cannot perform or accomplish any will, prophecy, or purpose that might be attributed to them. Most are familiar with the usage of the word "baal" (meaning "the Lord", "lord", or "the master") and its usage regarding false gods.
=========
*See
Hebraic Usage of the Titles for "God"

But Paul continues, "as there are gods many and lords many." The Westcott and Hort Interlinear has this as: "as even are gods many and lords many." Paul acknowledges that there are those who are "called" gods who have no might, no power, and yet he also goes on to acknowledge that there are indeed "many gods and many lords". Does the Bible speak of others than Jehovah as god or lord? Yes, it does. Moses was said to made a god -- a mighty one -- to Pharaoh. (Exodus 7:1) The judges of Israel were spoken of as the ELOHIM, the might (as a collective body), in Israel. (Exodus 21:6; 22:8,9,28 -- see Acts 23:5) The angels are spoken of as "gods" (elohim) in Psalm 82:6,7. (compare Hebrews 2:9; also Psalm 50:1 and 96:4.) The wicked spirit that impersonated Samuel is called elohim, a god, a mighty one. (1 Samuel 28:13) Various kings are referred to as "gods" -- "the strong" (KJV) -- in Ezekiel 32:21. All of these are indeed "gods", and while they have might, strength, power, they do not have such of their own being, but only as they have received such from the Might of the universe, Jehovah. Likewise, many are indeed "lords" in various capacities. The Hebrew word "adon", means "lord" or "master". This word is used of a master over slaves (Genesis 24:14,27), rulers (Genesis 45:8), and husbands. (Genesis 18:12) The original Hebrew text contained only consonants, and adon appears is represented by the four consonants: "aleph-dalet-vav/waw-nun", corresponding somewhat to our A-D-W-N (). Some transliterate this as "'adown". Two other forms of adon are adoni (my Lord), and adonai, my Lords (plural), or a plural intensive -- the plural form used as a superlative -- of "my Lord") The form "adoni" ("my Lord") is represented by the Hebrew characters "aleph-dalet-nun-yod" (corresponding, roughly to the English characters ADNY. The Masoretes, in about the third century or later after Christ, added the vowel point roughly called "quamets" (sounds like the English "a" in the word "all") to form the word "adonai". They added this vowel point wherever they believed that the word referred to Jehovah, and not someone else. Where ADNY appeared to be referring to someone else than Jehovah, they added the vowel point roughly called "hireq", corresponding to the English letter "i" carrying the English short "i" sound, as in the word "machine". This is usually transliterated from the Masoretic text as "adoni".

KURIOS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

Once in a while, someone will claim that, while "lord" in the Old Testament may be used of others than Jehovah, in the New Testament the word "kurios" is only used of Jesus and his Father. Let us examine to see if this is true.

The Hebrew form adoni is used of Jesus in Psalm 110:1: "Jehovah says to my Lord [adoni], "Sit at my right hand, Until I make your enemies your footstool for your feet." This scripture is translated into the Greek as "kuriw [an inflection of kurios] mou" [literally, "lord of me"] in Matthew 22:44; Mark 12:36; Luke 20:42; and Acts 2:34, where it is applied to Jesus as David's Lord. Thus we can say that Kurios of the New Testament corresponds to the Hebrew word adown (and its variations).

While there are several instances in the parables of Jesus that have the word "kurios" applied to master of a house, or the master of the workers, etc., some may claim that these instances actually apply the word indirectly to Jesus. It is interesting to note, however, that the King James Version renders kurios as "sir" in Matthew 21:30; John 4:11,15,19,49; 5:7; 12:21; as "master(s)" in Mark 12:35; Luke 14:21; 16:13; and as "owners" in Luke 19:33. In many of these instances, it is clear that the speaker is not addressing Jesus as "Jehovah", but simply as an address to a man. Nevertheless, in Matthew 27:63; Acts 17:16,19,30; Ephesians 6:5,9; Colossians 4:11, we have definite instances where the Greek word Kurios is used of others than God or Jesus. Thus it is indeed true that there are indeed "many lords", as stated in 1 Corinthians 8:6. None of these "lords", however, is the "one Lord" "through whom" the church receives all things, nor are the members of the church "through" any of these other lords.

Paul further states: "yet to us [is] one God, the Father, of whom [are] the all things, and we to Him." Several words are usually added by translators to the Greek here, and Young's translation above shows two words added by the brackets []. However, it does not show that the word "things" is also added, although the word "things" is actually added by the translators. The Westcott & Hort Interlinear has "ta panta" as "the all (things)", with the word "things" in parentheses, denoting that it is added to the rendering. The Greek phrase "ta panta" literally means "the all", pertaining to the church. The all that the church has is "of" or "from" the one God, the God and Father of Jesus. "The all" is "from" any of the other who are indeed "gods", and certainly not from any of the idols that are "called" "gods". The believer has offered himself "to" the God and Father of Jesus, through Jesus. -- Acts 20:32; Romans 5:10; 6:10,11; 12:1; 14:8; 2 Corinthians 2:15; 9:11; Galatians 2:19; Ephesians 5:20; Philippians 4:18; 1 Thessalonians 1:9; Hebrews 7:19,25; 11:6; 12:28; 13:15; James 4:7,8; 1 Peter 2:5; 3:18; 4:6.

The scriptures identify the only true God -- the Supreme Being, the "might" or "MIGHTY ONE" of the universe -- as Jehovah, the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, and the prophets. (Jeremiah 10:10; 42:5) Jesus identified the God he prayed to as the same God as that of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and by stating that his Father is "the only true God" signified that there is only one true Supreme Being, one true Might of the universe. (Luke 20:37; John 8:54; 17:1,3) Who sent the prophets? None other than Jehovah, the Father of Jesus. (Judges 6:8; 1 Samuel 3:20; 1 Kings 16:12; 2 Kings 14:25; 17:3; 2 Chronicles 25:15; Jeremiah 28:12; 37:2,6; 46:1; Ezekiel 14:4; Hosea 12:13; Haggai 1:3,12; 2:1,10; Zechariah 1:1; Acts 3:8) It is this same Jehovah -- the only true God, the God and Father of Jesus -- who also sent Jesus. This same God is therefore the God and Father of Jesus. -- Matthew 23:39; Mark 11:9,10; Luke 13:35; John 3:2,17; 5:19,43; 6:57; 7:16,28; 8:26,28,38; 10:25; 12:49,50; 14:10; 15:15; 17:8,26; Hebrews 1:1,2; Revelation 1:1.

Jesus is appointed as the one Lord of the church by Jehovah, the God of Jesus. There is one God, the Father, Jehovah, the God of Israel, who sent Jesus (John 17:1,3), and this one God has appointed for the church (as well as for the world regarding the age to come) one Lord, Jesus. -- Deuteronomy 18:15-19; Psalm 2:2,6,8; 45:7; Isaiah 9:7; 61:1; Matthew 28:18; Luke 1:32; John 3:35; 5:22,26,27,30; Acts 2:36; 5:31; 10:42; 17:31; Romans 14:9; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Colossians 1:18; Ephesians 1:17,20-22.

ELEINU in Deuteronomy 6:4

Some note that the Hebrew form of the word for "God" in Deuteronomy 6:4 is transliterated as ELEINU (a form of ELOHIM, Strong's #430), and that this word does not mean an absolute singularity, but that it allows for "God" to be more than one. One gives the usage in the Hebrew of Numbers 20:15 (our fathers) and Isaiah 53:5 (our iniquities) for comparison. Actually, if this word is used as a plural, it would mean "our gods", and not "our God". Such would be stating that Jehovah is more than one god*, not more than one person. This would not at all fit in the context of Deuteronomy 6:4, which distinguishes Jehovah as being one as compared to the heathen around them who worshiped a multiplicity of gods. Nevertheless, in Hebrew, a plural form of a word can be used to represent a singular with an intensified meaning. Many scholars refer to such usage as "plural intensive." This can be seen from Mark 12:29, where the Greek word for "God" is not at all plural, but singular. Thus, forms of ELOHIM, as applied to Jehovah who is one, although actually plural as to form, do not mean "gods" not any kind of plurality, but rather the forms of ELOHIM take on the intensified singular meaning of God, as Superior God ("Mighty One") or Supreme God (Mighty One). (See our study: Elohim – Does This Word Indicate a Plurality of Persons in a Godhead?

Since it is a reference to Him who is the source of all might (1 Corinthians 8:6), it would mean Supreme God (Supreme Mighty One). Comparing scriptures, such as Numbers 20:15 (Abith'inu = our Fathers); and Isaiah 53:5 (Aunthi'inu = our iniquities), and 1 Samuel 12:9 (Chtath'inu = our sins), is irrelevant since in the latter scriptures the forms are not being used as a plural intensive. Indeed, applying the plural usage in the scriptures given to ELEINU in Deuteronomy 6:4 would result in the meaning of "gods". The plural intensive forms of ELOHIM are used in such verses as: Genesis 1:26; 3:5; Deuteronomy 10:17; Joshua 24:19; 2 Samuel 7:23; Job 35:10; Psalm 29:1; 58:11; and many other scriptures; nevertheless, the use of the plural intensive in these verses gives no evidence at all that Jehovah is more than one person. Thus, there is nothing in the word, ELEINU, that gives any reason to think that Jehovah was saying that He is more than one person. The plural usage of ELEINU does not designate persons all whom are wholly and fully the one God, but rather it designates gods, more than one god.
==========
*Trinitarians usually object if one says that they believe that there are three Gods.

See:
Deuteronomy 6:4 - Elohim and Echad

John 2:19-22; 10:17,18 - Did Jesus Raise Himself from the Dead?

John 2:19-22

John 2:19 - Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."
John 2:20 - The Jews therefore said, "Forty-six years was this temple in building, and will you raise it up in three days?"
John 2:21 - But he spoke of the temple of his body.
John 2:22 - When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he said this, and they believed the Scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.

Many believe that the above scripture says that Jesus raised himself from the dead. In actuality there is nothing the verse about Jesus' raising himself from the dead, but rather John speaks of Jesus' raising up the "temple of his body" after it had been destroyed for three days. The phrase "raise up" does not necessarily refer to "resurrection."

The Jews demanded of our Lord by what authority he set up so high a standard as he required of them in the cleansing of the temple. (John 2:13-18) He answered them as noted in the above text. It was a dark saying of our Lord and few understood the meaning. The Jews thought he was speaking of the glorious temple of Herod under construction for forty-six years. They were incensed at him, and we recall that this was one of the charges against him a few days later. They took his words as blasphemy against the temple, that he could raise it up again in three days if it were destroyed.

Nevertheless, Jesus spoke of the temple of his body. Jesus did 'raise up' his body [cause his body to appear] when he temporarily appeared in his body of flesh and bones (blood is not mentioned, since he was at this point a spirit being) to his disciples in the locked room. (Luke 24:36-49; John 20:19,20) Eight days later he also caused his body to appear on behalf of Thomas. (John 20:24-29) This was after his Father had already raised him from the dead in a spiritual body (1 Corinthians 15:38,44), thus Jesus did not have to raise himself from the dead in order to raise up his body of flesh. (1 Peter 3:18*) Therefore we view that there was an fulfillment of this in the actual body of Jesus.
==========
*See our study:
Jesus Died a Human -- Raised a Spirit Being

In stating the above, we want to emphasize that Jesus was not raised from the dead in a fleshly body. The Bible informs us that Jesus sacrificed his body as an offering to God, which offering he presented to God, as represented in its blood, after he ascended to heaven. (Hebrews 9:11,12,23,24,25; 10:1,10) It speaks of the "days of his flesh" as something past and gone. (Hebrews 5:7) Having offered his body in sacrifice, he does not take it back, so as be permanently encased in a body of flesh. Nonetheless, we note that Jesus did not actually present his body to God until after he ascended. Thus, before his ascension, he could raise his body, and assume that body, for the appearances in the locked room.
==========
See:
https://www.studylight.org/lexicons/greek/1453.html
See also our study on:
Jesus' Appearances in the Locked Room

However, we also believe the Lord was using the event of raising his body of flesh to illustrate the raising of his church -- the temple of which the apostle Peter wrote, that we as living stones are built together upon Christ for a habitation of God through the Spirit.

The Scriptures repeatedly tell us that the Church is "the body of Christ." (Romans 12:5; 1 Corinthians 10:16; 12:12,27; Ephesians 3:6; 4:12) The apostle Peter declares that each of the Lord's saints is a living stone prepared for and being placed in the glorious "temple" which God is building -- whose chief cornerstone and cap stone is Christ Jesus our Lord. (1 Peter 2:5; 2 Corinthians 6:16; Ephesians 2:19-22; Hebrews 3:6) While this "temple" is a temple not completed in its perfected spiritual condition, it already has an existence in this present age -- even now believers are reckoned as the "the body of Christ, and members individually." In harmony with this it could be that this is what Jesus meant when he spoke, as recorded in John 2:19, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up" -- "he spoke of the temple of his body" -- that is, the Church, of which he is the Head.

The three days we understand to represent the days of the larger week, one thousand years to each day. The "last day" -- the day in which the saints are resurrected -- is spoken of in Revelation 20:4 as a thousand years. (John 6:39,40,44,54; 11:24) In this "last day", when Satan is bound, and there are no deceptions, the temple of God is finally completed and raised up in glory. This we believe will occur in the third millennium after the literal temple's destruction in Jerusalem, thus in three "days". It is to be early in the morning of this third day -- the Millennium -- that the body of Christ, the temple of God, is to be brought together as a spiritual temple and filled with the glory of God, to the end that from it may flow the blessing of reconciliation to all the families of the earth. -- Genesis 12:3; 22:18; Isaiah 2:2-4; Galatians 3:7-9,16,29; Hebrews 6:13-20; Acts 3:19-25.
See our study: The Day of Judgment

Further insight is provided in 2 Corinthians 4:14, which reads: "Knowing that he who raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise up us also by [with, through] Jesus, and shall present us with you." In John 6:44 we read a similar thought: "No man can come to me, except the Father . . . draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day." This shows that God's power would not be exercised independently but through Jesus in the resurrection of the body -- the church -- of Christ.

Hence it is Jesus who will take an active role in raising his Church from the dead. John shows in John 14:2,3 when that will be. He says: "And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself, that where I am, there ye may be also." So we are not are still alive with Jesus at the moment of death, but, as Jesus said, it is at Jesus' second advent that his faithful followers will be with him. Other Bible texts detail the timing of the Church's resurrection yet further. Peter declares that "One day is with the Lord as a thousand years" (2 Peter 3:8). If we divide the time from man's creation into one-thousand-year days, Jesus was crucified and resurrected on the fifth (thousand year) day. If he returns in three days to raise his body members, counting inclusively from the fifth day, we arrive at the seventh (thousand year) day, which is the grand Millennial Day of blessing.

Another statement, similar to this and interpretable, we believe, in the same manner, was the Lord's answer to Herod -- "I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I complete my mission." (Luke 13:32) This last statement could not be interpreted in any other way than that above suggested. The cures and blessings of divine grace have prevailed during the fifth, the day in which our Lord and the apostles lived, and also during the sixth thousand-year day; and on the seventh, the grand millennial sabbath, Christ and his Church will be perfected and the cures correspondingly increased. Thus the body of Christ -- God's true temple -- the house of Jehovah -- will then be fully erected -- "raised up," and all nations will begin to flow into it. -- Isaiah 2:2.

John continues to write: "When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he said this, and they believed the Scripture, and the word which Jesus had said." (John 2:22) Some have felt that this means that Jesus was raised from the dead in his fleshly body, but that is not what it says. Jehovah, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus, raised Jesus from the dead, in a spirit body. We note that the disciples did not remember Jesus' statement as recorded in John 2:22 on the very instant, the very moment of the resurrection of Jesus, for they did not even know he had been raised in the very moment he was raised, but rather sometime after. The Greek word "when" does not set a specific instant of time, but a duration of time. Thus the thought is in some time period following the event of his being raised -- when he had been raised, Jesus' disciples recalled that he had said this.
==========
https://www.studylight.org/lexicons/greek/3753.html

We must remember that when Jesus said the above words, the disciples had no concept of a spiritual temple, or any reward on a spirit plane. They still had the belief that all of this was to be fulfilled in literal Jerusalem here on earth. This we can see since in Acts 1:6, they asked Jesus if he was then going to restore the kingdom to Israel. They had not yet received the enlightenment of the holy spirit, which was to bring to their memories all that Jesus had said to them. (John 7:39; 14:26) Subsequently, they came to realize they were to be a part of the body of Christ and that God would "raise up us also by Jesus" (2 Corinthians 4:14). That is what they remembered Jesus' words to mean.

Matthew 27:40

Matthew 27:40 - and saying, "You who are going to destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, save Yourself! If You are the Son of God, come down from the cross."

Sometimes someone points to this scripture and claims it has something to do with the idea that Jesus resurrects himself from the dead. Actually, there is nothing in this that says such. The words quoted are not the words of Jesus' disciples but of those who were mocking Jesus. These Jewish opposers did not have the holy spirit and thus we should not take their words above as giving the true meaning of what Jesus had said. (Mark 14:57,58) It seems from this that at least some of these Jewish opposers were still under the erroneous concept that Jesus claimed that he would destroy the literal temple in Jerusalem and rebuild it in three days. This certainly has nothing to do with the idea that Jesus would raise himself from the dead, nor is it a correct application of what Jesus was speaking of in John 2:22 (as some writers have implied), as this is not Jesus himself or even his disciples speaking, nor is this said after Jesus' resurrection.

Matthew 27:63

Matthew 27:63 - and said, "Sir, we remember that when He was still alive that deceiver said, 'After three days I am to rise again.'"

This scripture is also sometimes offered and it is assumed to refer to John 2:19, and therefore in some vague way is thought to prove that Jesus meant that Jesus would raise himself in the flesh from the dead. This, of course, calls for a lot of conjecture. We have seen that the Jews had thought that Jesus' claim, as recorded in John 2:19, was concerning the temple of Herod. But here they are referring to his claim that he would be raised after three days. There does not appear to be any reference here to Jesus' words in John 2:19 at all. How did they know about Jesus' claim that would be raised after three days? Jesus had on several occasions began to teach his disciples concerning his coming death and resurrection. In Matthew 17:22, 23, Jesus said, speaking of his approaching death: "The Son of Man is about to be delivered up into the hands of men, and they shall kill him, and they will kill him, and the third day he will be raised up." (See also Luke 9:21,22; 18:33; Matthew 16:21; 17:23; 20:19; Mark 8:31) The angels quoted our Lord's words to the women who witnessed his resurrection

Luke 24:6

Luke 24:6 - He isn't here, but is risen. Remember what he told you when he was still in Galilee,
Luke 24:7 - saying that the Son of Man must be delivered up into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again?"

These verses fit in with the Bible testimony that God raised Jesus on the third day. Evidently, these sayings of Jesus had reached some of the non-believing Jews. Nevertheless, what he had spoken of to the unbelieving Jews was the "sign of Jonah". (Matthew 12:38-40) It is apparent that the Jewish opposers of Jesus knew of his teaching that he would be raised from the dead in three days, and that they did not understand what he had said as recorded in John 2:19 to apply to his being raised from the dead, but to the actual temple in Jerusalem.

One more scripture that is used to claim that Jesus raised himself from the dead is:

John 10:17,18

John 10:17 - Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again.
John 10:18 - No taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received from my Father." -- King James Version

Based on the English translation as it appears in most translations, many trinitarians and oneness believers claim that since only God could raise up Christ and thus if Jesus could lay down his life and take it up again he must be God. This, of course, contradicts John 17:1,3, in which Jesus proclaimed that the Father is the only true God, and contrasts himself as the one sent by the one true God. It also contradicts.

Obviously, since Jesus was in the oblivious condition of death in Hades/Sheol (Psalm 16:10; Ecclesiastes 9:5,10; Acts 2:31), Jesus had no "power" at all to do anything and thus his God and Father had to save, or deliver, Jesus out of the oblivious death condition. -- Hebrews 5:7.

One should see our pages with links:
Studies Related to Sheol
Studies Related to Hades

Whatever power or authority Jesus had in this regard, we must agree that this authority or power was received from the God and Father of our Lord Jesus, He who is the source of all. (Romans 15:6; 2 Corinthians 1:3; 8:6; 11:31; Ephesians 1:3,17; 1 Peter 1:2) This is, in fact, what Jesus himself stated: "This commandment have I received from my Father." Jesus is not his God who gives to him this authority. -- See Matthew 28:18; Luke 10:22.

The Greek word translated "received" in this sentence is Strong's #2983, which the King James Version translates as "receive" 133 times, and as "take" 106 times. In our passage this same word is earlier translated "take" in most translations: "Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I may take [Strong's 2983, receive] it again. No man taketh [not 2983, but Strong's #142, take] it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take [Strong's #2983] it again. This commandment have I received [Strong's #2983] from my Father."

The Greek word lambano (Strong's #2983) is not as strong as the Greek word airo (Strong's #142) and is not as personal in action as airo. While the word lambano can mean "take", it is not necessarily the result of one's own action, but most often results from the action of another. See the usage of both words and how they are translated in the King James Version by consulting The Englishman's Greek Concordance of the New Testament or by visiting:
https://www.studylight.org/lexicons/greek/2983.html
https://www.studylight.org/lexicons/greek/142.html

The text should be translated: "Therefore my Father does love me, because I lay down my life, that I might receive it again. No man takes it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to receive it again." Thus this passage shows that Jesus receives his life again from the unipersonal Jehovah, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Abraham (Exodus 3:14,15), the only true God (John 17:1,3), in agreement with Acts 2:24; 3:13,15,26; 4:10; 5:30; 10:40; 13:34,37; 17:31; Romans 4:24; 6:10; 8:11; 10:9; 1 Corinthians 6:14; 15:15; 2 Corinthians 4:14; 13:4; Galatians 1:1; Ephesians 1:20; Colossians 2:12; 1 Thessalonians 1:10; Hebrews 5:7; 1 Peter 1:21.

Rotherham renders John 10:18: "No one forced it from me, but I lay it down of myself, -- Authority have I to lay it down, and authority have I again to receive it: This commandment received I from my Father."

The New English Bible renders the passage this way: "The Father loves me because I lay down my life, to receive it back again. No one has robbed me of it; I am laying it down of my own free will. I have the right to lay it down, and I have the right to receive it back again; this charge I have received from my Father."

Interestingly, the New Living Translation renders verse 17: "The Father loves me because I lay down my life that I may have it back again." But it renders verse 18: "No one can take my life from me. I lay down my life voluntarily. For I have the right to lay it down when I want to and also the power to take it again. For my Father has given me this command."

The Good News Bible in Today's English does similarly: "The Father loves me because I am willing to give up my life, in order that I may receive it back again. No one takes my life away from me. I give it up of my own free will. I have the right to give it up, and I have the right to take it back. This is what my Father has commanded me to do."

The claim has been made that John 10:18 proves that Jesus did not receive back a "new" life, evidently with the thought that if he did not come back in his body, he would receive a "new life" instead of his former life. Thus it is claimed that he received back his "human" life. The assumption is placed upon the scripture that would have it say that that since Jesus received back his life that the life he received back had to be human. What Jesus actually said is "I lay down my life." (Italics ours for emphasis) He is referring to his life. Thus, from this context, for it to have a been a new life -- a different life -- that he received back, then, would, in effect, mean that he did not receive back his life, but a life as some one else. Jesus, of course, did not get a new life, a life that was not his life, for he was still himself when he was raised from the dead. So it is still true that did not receive his life back as a human, but as a spirit being. It was still his life, whether that life be physical (earthly-terrestial) or spiritual (heavenly-celestial). In Jesus' case, Jesus was not raised in the flesh, but in the spirit. -- 1 Corinthians 15:40-48; 1 Peter 3:18.

Who did raise Jesus from the dead? Jesus himself was dead and in the oblivious realm of hades for parts of three days. He could not literally raise himself from the dead for he was dead. The dead are unconscious and cannot raise themselves from the dead. (Ecclesiastes 9:5,10) That Jesus was likewise unconscious while he was dead is confirmed by the words of Hebrews 5:7, which shows that he had to be saved from death.

The Bible plainly tells us that it was the God and Father of Jesus, that raised Jesus from the dead. -- Acts 2:24,32,36; 3:15; 4:10; 10:40; 13:30,33,37; 17:31; Romans 4:24; 8:11; 10:9; 1 Corinthians 6:14; 15:15; Galatians 1:1; Colossians 2:11,12; 1 Thessalonians 1:9,10; 1 Peter 1:21; 3:18

Some of our trinitarian neighbors tell us that it was the "divine nature" of Jesus that raised his "human nature" from the dead. We have no reason to add all of this conjecture to Bible. There is no scripture that says that Jesus raised himself from the dead, nor is there any scripture that says that Jesus had two planes of being (a spirit being and a human being -- two sentient beings, two persons?) present in one divine person (one sentient [omniscient] being/person?).

Thus we see that there is nothing in the Bible that says that Jesus raised himself from the dead.

Related Studies

Jesus Raised His Body

Jesus Appearances in the Locked Room

Other Authors:

Some present a different view than we have presented above; we do not necessarily endorse each and every statement made by these authors, nor do we necessarily agree with all the teachings expressed on the web sites.

Did Jesus Christ Raise Himself From the Dead? by Ivan Maddox.

Importance of Jesus' Resurrection by C. T. Russell

The Temple of His Body by C. T. Russell

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

Jesus Received Worship

The Worship Given to Jesus

It is claimed that Jesus accepted worship without rebuke and that this shows that he is Jehovah.

The Hebrews used the words for worship, not only for worshiping the only true God, but also as showing homage to a king, a ruler, or any person to whom respect was being given. Most translations render the words for worship in the Old Testament with words such as "bow down", "bowed before", etc., when the words for worship are being used respecting rulers, dignitaries, showing respect, etc.

In the New Testament, however, most translations fail to make that distinction, although some do in a few cases. Believing that Jesus is Jehovah (whom Jesus actually claimed as his God), trinitarians and some others claim that Jesus is being worshiped as Jehovah, who is actually the God of Jesus. God, by means of his holy spirit, reveals through the scriptures that Jehovah is the only true God, the God and Father of the Lord Jesus. Jesus has One who is the Supreme Being over him; Jesus is not his Supreme Being whom he worships, prays to, and who sent him, and whose will he carried out in willful obedience. -- Deuteronomy 18:15-19; Matthew 4:4 (Deuteronomy 8:3; Luke 4:4); Matthew 4:7 (Deuteronomy 6:16); Matthew 4:10 (Exodus 20:3-5; 34:14; Deuteronomy 6:13,14; 10:20; Luke 4:8); Matthew 22:29-40; Matthew 26:42; Matthew 27:46; Mark 10:6 (Genesis 1:27; Genesis 2:7,20-23); Mark 14:36; 15:34; Luke 22:42; John 4:3; 5:30; 6:38; 17:1,3; 20:17; Romans 15:6; 2 Corinthians 1:3; 11:31; Ephesians 1:3,17; Hebrews 1:9; 10:7; 1 Peter 1:3; Revelation 2:7; 3:2,12.

The question should be asked, as related to the Biblical usage of the words for "worship": In what way did these people spoken of in the NT pay homage to Jesus? Do the scriptures reveal that they thought that they were bowing before Jehovah, the only Most High?

The main Greek word involved is usually transliterated as proskueno.
http://www.studylight.org/lexicons/greek/gwview.cgi?n=4352

The main Hebrew word involved is often transliterated as shachah.
http://www.studylight.org/lexicons/hebrew/hwview.cgi?n=7812

Let us examine some instances in the New Testament where the Greek word proskuneo is used similarly to the Hebrew word shachah, wherein worship of God is not intended.

The wise men who came to see Jesus as a child worshiped (proskuneo) before him as a king, not as God Almighty. Despite all the speculations many have presented, we do not know for a certainty who these magi were, or even if they believed in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. -- Matthew 2:2-11.

In Matthew 9:18, we find a rich young ruler named Jairus (Luke 8:41; Mark 5:22) who came and worshiped (proskuneo) before Jesus. There is no indication that this rich young ruler thought that he was actually worshiping the Almighty Jehovah. Indeed, such a thought has to be created beyond what is written and added to what is written, and that only to satisfy the dogma of man. The crowds gave the praise to God, who had given the power to Jesus to perform these works, saying: "A great prophet has arisen among us!'. (Matthew 9:8; Luke 7:16,17) Thus they believed him to a be a prophet of God, and did not claim Jesus as God Almighty, nor do we have any reason to believe that Jairus would think Jesus was Jehovah, the only true God whom Jesus claimed has sent him. -- John 17:1,3,5.

We have no more reason to believe that Jairus thought he was bowing before God Almighty than when the Shunammite woman bowed to [Strong's Hebrew #7812 - worshiped] to Elisha. -- 2 Kings 4:37

Some have attempted to say that Jairus knew he was worshiping before Jesus as God Almighty, since he expected Jesus to raise his daughter from the dead. We should note that when Jairus first approached Jesus and worshiped Jesus, it was with the hope that he would heal his daughter as she had not yet died. -- Mark 5:21-43; Luke 8:40-56.

Some have thus suggested that Jairus was worshiping Jesus as God Almighty, since Jesus was healing and raising the dead. This, of course, has to be read into the text, evidently only to satisify the doctrine that Jesus is God Almighty. The fact that Jesus healed and raised the dead does not mean that he was Jehovah. The authority to heal and raise the dead was *given* to Jesus from his Father, the only true Supreme Being, the only Source of all. (Matthew 11:27; 28:18; Luke 10:22; John 3:35; 5:19-22,25-27; 13:3; 17:2; 1 Corinthians 8:6) The authority to heal and raise the dead was also given by Jesus to the apostles. Does this make the apostles God Almighty? -- Luke 9:1; Acts 3:6,15,16: 4:7-11; 9:36-41; 20:7-12.

After performing the miracle of raising Jairus' daughter, two blind men called him, not Jehovah, but "the Son of David." -- Matthew 9:27.

Some note that they called Jesus, "Lord", and thus claim that they were speaking to Jesus as being Jehovah (Matthew 9:28) This kind of argument usually is based on the idea that the word Lord means Jehovah, and is thus only used of the only true God. The use of the title transliterated as Kurios does not in itself carry any meaning of Jehovah. The same Greek word (kurios) is used in Revelation 7:14, where John address the elder who spoke to him. It is also used in Acts 16:30, when the jailor spoke to Paul and Silas. Thus the blind men's use of this word toward Jesus as a man was not unusual. Similarly, the young man who came to David with the news of Saul's death bowed down (shachah - worshiped) before him and called David "Lord" -- Adon. -- 2 Samuel 1:2-10.

In Matthew 14:33, we find that after Jesus calmed the winds, the men in the ship came and bowed (proskuneo) before Jesus, calling him, not God Almighty, but "Son of God" -- Son of the Supreme Being. We have no more reason to think that these men thought they were bowing before Jehovah than would should think that King Saul was Jehovah when "David stooped and bowed himself [shachah] to the earth" before King Saul. -- 1 Samuel 24:8.

In Matthew 15:22-28, we read of the Phoenician woman who came to Jesus. She did not call Jesus God Almighty, but rather "Son of David." Then she bowed (proskuneo) before him to plead on her daughter's behalf. There is nothing here for us to suppose that this Phoenician woman really believed that she was bowing before the Almighty God of the universe! Again, we read that the crowds glorified the God of Israel for the miracles being performed through Jesus. (Matthew 15:31) Similarly, when Bathsheba did obeisance to [shachah - worshiped] King David without rebuke, should we think thereby that David thought that he was Jehovah? -- 1 Kings 1:16,31.

In Matthew 20:20-23 we read of the mother of Zebedee's children who came to Jesus and, bowing (proskuneo), asked that her two sons sit beside him in his kingdom. That she bowed before him as the rightful heir of the kingdom should be apparent from the scripture itself. We need to note that Jesus' heirship to God's kingdom does not include dominion over Jehovah himself; Jesus continues to be in subjection to his Father, Jehovah. (1 Corinthians 15:27,28; Revelation 1:1; 3:12; 5:7) Similarly, when the sons of the prophets came and bowed before (shachah - worshiped) Elisha, should we think that Elisha thought of himself as Jehovah, since Elisha gave them no rebuke? -- 2 Kings 2:15.

In Matthew 28:9 we read of the women who went to the tomb where Jesus' body lay, found it empty and to whom an angel appeared who told them to go tell his disciples of the risen Jesus. Jesus met them on the way and the women held onto his feet, and bowed down (proskuneo) to him. In this instance, the text implies that the women had simply bowed before Jesus at his feet, and there is nothing to suggest that they were worshiping the Almighty Jehovah.

In Mark 15:16-19, we read of the soldiers who mockingly called him "King of Jews" and who bowed their knees and [mockingly] gave homage (proskuneo) to Jesus. These soldiers certainly did not have any idea of "worshiping" Jesus as Almighty God. They were mocking the claim that Jesus was King of the Jews, not that he was God Almighty!

In John 9:35-38 the blind whom Jesus healed, when finding out that Jesus was the "Son of God", Son of the Supreme Being, bowed down (proskuneo) before him. Jesus was not depicted to this once blind man as the Supreme Being, but rather the Son of the Supreme Being.

Nevertheless, if one is worshiping any person or thing as opposed to Jehovah, or as before Jehovah, or giving a person or thing the worship that is only due to Jehovah himself, then such a person should be rebuked. Such was not the case in the above scriptures respecting the homage being given to Jesus. We are given an example of angel worship (worship of the messenger in such a way that such worship should only be given to God himself) in Revelation 22:8,9. We know that earlier in the book of Revelation, proper homage (Greek, Proskuneo, worship) given to God's representatives is not condemned. (Revelation 3:9) Evidently John was giving the angel the worship that was only due to the Father. The angel, recognizing this, told him that this was not to be done.

For more regarding this, see:

Jesus Received Worship

The claim is being made that the only way to worship the One whom Jesus worshipped, is to worship Jesus. It is further being claimed that one cannot worship the father except you worship Jesus, and he who worships Jesus worships the Father.

The only way one can approach the only true God is through the way, the one shepherd, that only true God has appointed over His people (Ezekiel 34:23; 37:24; John 10:14,29; 14:6; Acts 2:36; 1 Corinthians 8:6), which does necessitate that we bow down, give worship to, the one whom the only true God has given the throne of David (Luke 1:32), similar to the worship given to King David of old (1 Chronicles 29:10), and that to the glory of the God and Father of Jesus. (Philippians 2:11) This does not mean that Jesus is the only true God, nor does it mean that we are to give to Jesus the worship as being the Most High (Luke 1:32), the only true God (Supreme Being), the source of all, who sent him. -- John 17:1,3; 1 Corinthians 8:6.

Ronald R. Day, Sr.

See also: Worship of Jesus

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

John 10:11,14 - The One Pastor Whom Jehovah Appointed

John 10:11 - I am the genuine pastor. The genuine pastor lays down his life for the sheep.
John 10:14 - I am the genuine pastor. I know my own, and I am known by my own.

Psalms 23:1 - A Psalm of David. Jehovah is my [pastor]; I shall not lack.-- Green's Literal

Ezekiel 34:15 - I myself will be the [pastor] my sheep, and I will cause them to lie down, saith the Lord Jehovah. -- American Standard.

The above scriptures are presented (and sometimes a few others such as: Isaiah 40:10,11; Hebrews 13:20; 1 Peter 2:25; 1 Peter 5:4; Revelation 7:17) with the idea of leaving the impression that Jesus is Jehovah, who is presented as "shepherd/pastor" spoken of in Psalm 23:1; Ezekiel 34:15; Isaiah 40:10,11.

While Jehovah claims for Himself the role of pastor for His sheep, the prophecy in Ezekiel 34 further shows that Jehovah pastors His sheep by appointing another who is not Himself to perform the actual pastoring. Thus, Jehovah pastors the sheep "through" the one appointed, just he will come to judge the world "through" the one he appointed. -- Psalms 96:13; 98:9; Acts 17:31.

Ezekiel 34:23-24 - And I will set up one [pastor] over them, and he shall feed them, even my servant David; he shall feed them, and he shall be their [pastor]. And I, Jehovah, will be their God, and my servant David prince among them; I, Jehovah, have spoken it. -- American Standard.

David here is used to represent the Messiah, who comes from the house of David. Jehovah says that He will "set up one pastor over" his sheep, and that this one pastor is to feed them, and he identifies that shepherd as "David." "David," of course, is not Jehovah. David is prophetically used many times in the Old Testament to designate the "the son of the man," David, the Messiah.

The Greek word "Kalos" often rendered "Good" in the expression "Good Shepherd" in John 10:11,14 can also mean "Genuine" or "Approved", depending on how it is used in the context. 

Due to the fact that many fail to appreciate that the Hebrew and Greek words often rendered as "shepherd" are also rendered as "pastor", we have decided to present the words with forms of "pastor" so that one can come to appreciate that our "Pastor" should be the Lord Jesus, whom Jehovah has appointed. -- Hebrews 13:20.

Many before Jesus had claimed to be that pastor promised by Jehovah in Ezekiel 34:23,24, but Jesus spoke of himself as the "Genuine Pastor". In view of the context, both in John 10 and Ezekiel 34, it should be apparent that the expression "Good Shepherd" used in many translations would better be understood as the "Genuine Pastor" in John 10:11,14.

Only Jesus had kept the Law perfectly, unlike all the false pastors who came before, thus only Jesus was that "Genuine Pastor". Only the Genuine Pastor would be sin-free so as to be able to lay down his human existence in death for the sheep. Nevertheless, Jesus never claimed to be Jehovah, to whom the sheep belonged. He claimed that he received the sheep from Jehovah, his Father, as we can see from the context of John 10:11,14:

John 10:29 - My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all. No one is able to snatch them out of my Father's hand.

Jesus here speaks of the sheep entrusted to him by his God and Father.

John 17:9 - I pray for them. I don't pray for the world, but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours.

And thus Jesus acknowledges the actual ownership of the "sheep" belongs to the only true God who sent him, and the only true God had given these sheep to him. -- John 17:1,3.

Jesus thus corroborates Ezekiel 34.

None of this means that Jesus is Jehovah, but rather shows that it was Jehovah who appointed Jesus as pastor of the flock.

Instead of claiming to be God (the Supreme Being), Jesus claimed to be sent by the only true God. - John 17:1,3.

Ronald R. Day, Restoration Light Bible Study Services (ResLight, RLBible)

John 1:1 - In the Beginning

John 1:1,5 - Light, Darkness and the Logos

Genesis 18:27 - Does this Speak of Jesus?

Does "Lord" in Genesis 18:27 refer to Jesus?

Above Obtained from:
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Hebrew_Index.htm

In some vague way some trinitarians (and some others) point to Genesis 18:27 as "proof" that Jesus is Jehovah. The claim apparently is that the usage of "Lord" in 1 Corinthians 8:6, and in other scriptures as applied to Jesus, means that Jesus is Jehovah of Genesis 18:26. Many claim that Jesus is "Jehovah" throughout Genesis 17 and 18, but for now we are examining this one verse.

In reality, the usage of Adonai, as often transliterated from the Masoretic text in Genesis 18:27, does not at all offer any proof whatsoever that Jesus' being made "Lord" (Acts 2:36) means that Jesus is Jehovah. It is the Lord Jehovah of Isaiah 61:1 and Ezekiel 34:20 who anointed and sent Jesus, thus making Jesus to be "Christ" (anointed), and it was the same Lord Jehovah who made Jesus to be both shepherd and prince (hence "Lord"). (Ezekiel 34:23,24) Nothing in this means that Jesus is Jehovah; indeed, if were so, it would mean that the Lord Jehovah at some point and time made his Son to be the Lord Jehovah.

Genesis 18:27 is one of the scriptures that Ginsburg lists in which it is claimed that God's Holy Name originally appeared but was changed by copyists to Adonai (transliterated). See our study: Adonay, The Tetragrammaton, and the Great Isaiah Scroll. As pointed out in that study, Ginsburg's conclusions are not always correct. If, however, Gingsburg is correct regarding Genesis 18:27, then Abraham did not use a form of the word transliterated as ADON at all in Genesis 18:27.

Assuming that Abraham did call Jehovah ADNI (transliterated) in Genesis 18:27, it would simply mean "my Lord". Some put "ha adonai" -- the Lord -- into this at Genesis 18:27, although the definite article "ha" does not appear before ADNI of Genesis 18:27. At most, one could claim that Abraham was referring to Jehovah as "my Supreme Lord", assuming that the Masoretes are correct in adding the vowel point to form ADONAI in Genesis 18:27. This, of course, would not mean that any verse in the New Testament in which Jesus is referred to as "Lord" (KURIOs) would mean that Jesus is Jehovah. Any application of "KURIOS" to Jesus in the New Testament does not mean that Jesus is the Lord Jehovah.

There is definitely nothing in Genesis 18:27 (or anywhere else in the Bible) about a triune God, or that Jehovah is more than one person. One still has to imagine, assume such, and then add what is being assumed to the scripture in order read such an idea into the scripture.

The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is always presented as being one person, and separate and distinct from Jesus. Jehovah, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, is the only true Supreme Being who sent Jesus; Jesus speaks the words given to him from the only true Supreme Being. — Exodus 3:13,14; Deuteronomy 18:15-19; Isaiah 61:1; John 3:34; 5:19; 6:29; 7:16,28; 8:26,28,42; 10:36; 12:44-50; 14:10,24; 17:1,3,8; Acts 3:13-26; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Galatians 4:4; Hebrews 1:1,2; 1 John 4:9,10.

The default reasoning is that Jesus is not the only true Supreme Being who sent Jesus.

Other related studies:

Abraham and the Three Angels
One God, One Lord

Studies that have the word KURIOS on this site

Studies that have the word KURIOS on the Holy Name site

• 
  

Revelation 1:8 - Is Jehovah or Jesus Being Quoted?

"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come (ho erchomenos, W&H transliteration), the Almighty." -- Revelation 1:8, New American Standard Version

Many often refer to Revelation 1:8 and claim that this is Jesus referring to himself as "God Almighty". We do not believe that this is Jesus that is being quoted, and here we provide scriptural evidence regarding this.

The scripture directly says it was the "Lord God" (as it reads in most translations) speaking, thus we have no reason to believe that any other than Jehovah is speaking. From verse 1, we ascertain that it is actually the angel speaking, quoting Jesus, who in turn is quoting his Father, Jehovah.

The phrase "Lord God" is based on the later Septuagint tradition of substituting forms of the word transliterated as Kurios (meaning, Lord) or (Theos, meaning God) for the Holy Name, Jehovah. The Hebrew phrase (transliterated) is Jehovah Elohim (Jehovah God), or Adonai Jehovah (Lord Jehovah). In the extant NT Greek manuscripts Jehovah has been substituted with Kurios [Lord] and sometimes with Theos [God]. (This does not mean that the Greek KURIOS is actually a "translation" of the Holy Name, since the Holy Name is an active verb, not a noun. It actually means that the Holy Name has been changed to KURIOS.) Elohim is translated as "Theos". This can be seen by comparing Acts 3:22; 7:37 with the Hebrew of Deuteronomy 18:15. In all instances where the phrase occurs in the NT, it is in reference to Jehovah, the Father of our Lord Jesus. -- Luke 1:32; 1 Peter 3:10-15; Revelation 11:17,19; 15:3; 16:7; 18:8; 21:11; 22:6.

Likewise, with the phrases "the Lord our God" and "the Lord your God": These phrases are always used unipersonally in reference to Jehovah, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus. -- Matthew 4:7 (Deuteronomy 6:16); Matthew 4:10 (Deuteronomy 6:13; 10:20); Matthew 22:37 (Deuteronomy 6:5); Mark 12:29 (Deuteronomy 6:4); etc.

Additionally, we note that there are Christian translations into Hebrew that contain the Holy Name in this verse. While their purpose usually is to try to prove that Jesus is called "Jehovah", they nevertheless did recognize that this should be "Jehovah" in this verse. The following are some Hebrew translations that contain the Holy Name in Revelation 1:8: NT, by W. Robertson, 1661; NT, by J. C. Reichardt, 1846; NT, by J. C. Reichardt & J. H. R. Biesenthal, 1866; NT, by F. Delitzsch, 1981 edition; NT, by I. Salkinson & C. D. Ginsburg, 1891.

Of course, many claim that Jesus is Jehovah, and therefore that Jesus is here referring to himself as "Jehovah" in this verse. However, as we shall see, this does not fit the context. As we shall see, He who is, was, and is to come, is differentiated from Jesus, and is not being depicted as being Jesus.

Looking at Revelation 1:1, we note that the Revelation is from God who gave it to Jesus. (This should be enough to prove that Jesus is not God, and that "God" is not three persons, but one person.) The message is delivered through an angel to John. In Revelation 1:4 John says the message is from the Father, Jehovah, who is and who was and who is to come. Then in verse 5, John says: "*and* from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood." Thus John identifies two individuals which the messages are from, the Father, Jehovah, and Jesus, God's Son.

Then in verse 8 we find the quote: "'I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End', says the Lord God, 'the being who was and who is to come -- the Almighty.'" -- World English.

Thus we conclude that the "The Lord" in this verse is Jehovah, not Jesus, as shown from Revelation 1:4.

Some claim that the phrase "who is to come", or "who is coming" in Revelation 1:8 refers to Jesus, since it is Jesus who is coming. This line of thought would prove self-contradictory if applied to Revelation 1:4,5, and it would not harmonize with the expressions "who is" and "who was" in Revelation Revelation 1:4,8; 4:8. It would have the Revelation being from Jesus who is to come in Revelation 1:4 and additionally from another Jesus in Revelation 1:5. It should be apparent, however, that in Revelation 1:4, it is not Jesus who is being spoken of as "who is to come"/"who is coming", but it is rather speaking of the Father of Jesus, from whom Jesus receives the revelation. -- Revelation 1:1.

Nevertheless, Revelation 1:8 is not referring to God as "coming" in the same manner that verse 7 speaks of Jesus as coming in the clouds, but rather he "is to come", and this is in relation to God's being -- his existence -- in the past and the present. Most, if not all, scholars agree that when it speaks of he "who was" it is referring to past existence, and when it says that he "who is", it is referring to present existence. As far as we know, no one claims that when the Almighty says "who was", this means that he was coming from somewhere. Likewise, we know of no one who claims that when he says "who is", it means he is presently going somewhere. In other words, the Almighty was not speaking of coming or going somewhere in the past, or that he is coming or going somewhere in the present, and thus, He is likewise not saying that He will be coming from or to somewhere in the future; thus, "is to come" refers to God's being -- His existence -- in the future. Consequently, verse 8 speaks of God's being, his eternal existence, past, present and future.  "Is to come" is similar to an expression we often use in English, as when we might say, "Who knows what is to come?"

In Revelation 1:8, it is the Almighty Jehovah, the God and Father of Jesus who is speaking. He is the one who was, is and is to come. Jesus is not the one who was, is, and is to come. The peculiar phrase in Revelation 1:8 only belongs to Jehovah, not to Jesus. Jehovah has existed from all eternity past, he exists now, and he exists for all time to come. This is basically what Jehovah is saying in Revelation 1:8.

Additionally, although we do not believe that Revelation 1:8 speaks of this, Jehovah is also to come with judgment through the one whom He has ordained. (Malachi 3:1-6; Psalm 96:13; Micah 1:3; Revelation 1:1; 22:6. Psalm 96:98; 110:1; Matthew 22:43-45; 26:64; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44; Acts 2:34; 7:55: Romans 8:34; Colossians 3:1; Hebrews 1:13; 10:12,13; 1 Peter 3:22; John 5:22) This harmonizes with 1 Corinthians 8:6; only the God and Father of Jesus is the source; Jesus is the instrument.

In verses 9 and 10 John refers to himself when he heard a loud voice, as of a trumpet, (verse 11) saying, "Write what you see... This quote is from Jesus, not Jehovah, as described in the following verses. In verse 18 Jesus says: "I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore." Jesus was actually dead and not alive anywhere, if this is to make any sense at all, for he contrasts his being dead with being alive forevermore. Now we know that God cannot die, so Jesus is thus by this verse proved to not be God Almighty.

Some isolate the phrase "who is coming," and claim that this phrase designated the Messiah, since it is used of the Messiah many other scriptures. (The phrase ho erchomenos appears in the following scriptures, and sometimes it is applied to Jesus, and sometimes to others: Matthew 11:3; 21:9; Mark 11:9; Luke 6:47; 7:19; 7:20; 13:35; 19:38; John 6:14; 6:35; 12:31; 2 Corinthians 11:4; Hebrews 10:37; Revelation 1:4; 1:8; 4:8) Often this is coupled with the claim that entire phrase of Revelation 1:8 designates the holy name, Ehyeh, of Exodus 3:14, Yahweh/Jehovah of Exodus 3:15. (The holy name actually signifies action, and not just existence.) From this, then, they claim that Revelation 1:8 is Jesus speaking, and thus that Jesus is stating that he is the Almighty God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. We have already seen that "ho erchomenos" in Revelation 1:4 is not speaking of Jesus, otherwise we would have the Revelation from one Jesus in Revelation 1:4, and then from another Jesus in Revelation 1:5. In reality, when "ho erchomenos" is used of the Messiah of Jehovah, it is used as depicting the Messiah of Jehovah as being sent by Jehovah, not as Jehovah Himself, and thus a distinction is made between the Messiah and the One who sent the Messiah. For instance, in Matthew 21:9, Mark 11:9, Luke 13:35, John 12:13, he who comes, ho erchomenos, is said to do that coming in the name of Jehovah (Psalm 118:26), thereby showing Jehovah to be distinctly one person, who is not the Messiah that comes in the name of Jehovah; thus the default reasoning is that Jesus is not the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, not that Jesus is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Furthermore, the phrase is used of others who are not the Messiah, thus the phrase is not a distinctive phrase unique to the Messiah. -- Luke 6:47; John 6:35; 2 Corinthians 11:4.

We should also note that in Revelation 1:4,8; 4:8, the phrase "ho erchomenos" is referring to God's continuous existence into the future (in contrast to his existence in the past and present, from everlasting to everlasting), whereas "ho erchomenos" when applied to the Messiah in the Gospels does not refer to Jesus' eternal existence in the future, but rather to his coming into the world as one promised to be sent by Jehovah. -- Deuteronomy 18:15-19; Isaiah 61:1; Matthew 11:3; 21:9; Mark 11:9; Luke 7:19,20; Luke 13:35; 19:37,38; John 6:14; 12:13.

Jesus is anointed [made christ, the anointed one] by Jehovah (unipersonally). Again, the default reasoning is that Jesus is not Jehovah who thus anoints him. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is never identified in the Bible as more than one person, but He is ALWAYS identified as one person. -- Psalm 2:2; 45:7; Isaiah 61:1; Acts 2:36; 4:27; 10:38.

Someone writes: "There is only one Alpha and Omega, the father had no beginning and he has no ending; Jesus holds this title, no one else! Verse eight is about Jesus, not about the Father." This, at least admits that the phrase is Revelation 1:8 refers to no beginning and no ending, and would thus negate the argument that would connect "coming" in Revelation 1:8 to Jesus' coming as spoken of in Revelation 1:7 (although, in the Greek, two different forms are used, often transliterated as erchetai in Revelation 1:7 and ho erchomenos in Revelation 1:8 .)

We find the phrase "Alpha and Omega" in Revelation 1:8; 21:6; 22:13; if one examines these verses closely, one will see that all three verse refer to Jehovah -- not Jesus -- as "Alpha and Omega". My conclusion is that this phrase is therefore not used of Jesus. Many translations have the words added in verse 11, before the word "Write": "I am the Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last." However, this sentence does not appear in the oldest Greek manuscripts and therefore does not appear in many, if not most, Bible translations, and we therefore should regard it as spurious.

Revelation 22:12-16: "See, I am coming soon; my reward is with me, to repay according to everyone's work. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end." Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they will have the right to the tree of life and may enter the city by the gates. Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and fornicators and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood. "It is I, Jesus, who sent my angel to you with this testimony for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star."

The angel delivering the message recorded in Revelation 22:13 is quoting Jehovah, the Father of Jesus, who comes to judge the world, not only with and by means of Jesus, but also with the saints. -- Malachi 3:1-6; Psalm 96:13; 98:9; Daniel 7:18,22; Micah 1:3; Zechariah 14:5; Acts 17:31; 2 Peter 3:7,8; 1 Corinthians 6:2; Psalm 90:4; Revelation 1:1; 20:4,11-13; 22:6.

Earlier, John says that the angel spoke these words, evidently quoting Jehovah. (Revelation 22:6) In verse 8 John is the one speaking, and the angel rebukes him in verse 9. In verse 10 John begins to quote the angel again, but in verse 12, the angel is delivering the words of Jehovah (see verse 6) -- it is evident that the angel is not referring to himself. In verse 16, it is evident that the angel is quoting Jesus, and then in verse 17 the angel is prophetically quoting the spirit and the bride. In verses 18-20, the angel again is quoting Jesus, while the last verse is John himself speaking.

In Isaiah 41:4; 44:6; 48:12 we find the expression "first and last" used of Jehovah. From Isaiah 44:6,7 this expression, "first and last" appears to mean that which is begun is carried through to completion, something which the false gods of the heathen cannot do. However, most of our trinitarian and oneness neighbors appear to read into this expression 'from eternity past to the eternal future,' although there is nothing in the scriptures to warrant this meaning. It certainly refers to uniqueness, as being the first and last of a kind. Jehovah is certainly the first and the last of all who are from "everlasting to everlasting"; He is also the first and the last of all who the Most High; additionally, He is the first and the last of those who is the source of the all (1 Corinthians 8:6); and, He is also the first and the last of those who have the final say regarding the destiny of His creation.

The Alpha and Omega symbolism only emphasizes the same thing, since Alpha is the first or start of the Greek alphabet, and Omega is the last or end of the Greek alphabet. "First and Last" is used of Jesus in Revelation 1:17 and Revelation 2:8, but it should be apparent that is not used in the same sense as it is used of Jehovah, since Jehovah does not die.

Thus seen, however, Alpha and Omega could be applied both to Jehovah as the originator of His divine plan and the one who sees it to the completed end, and to the Son as the one who carries out the divine plan by means of his death, resurrection and the coming day of judgment. The Father is uniquely the source, while the Son is uniquely the appointed Lord through whom God's works are accomplished. (1 Corinthians 8:6) We should note that Jesus is the first human to be raised to life without end by Jehovah his Father, thus he is called the "firstborn of the dead". (Colossians 1:18) Jesus is therefore "the first and last" of this kind: the firstborn of the dead. He is also the first and last to be so resurrected directly by Jehovah since all others who eventually receive such a resurrection will be through Jesus, not by Jehovah directly. (John 5:21,22; 6:39,44; 11:25) Thus there appears to be a connection between his statements that he who became dead was now alive forever and ever. His holding the keys of death and Hades (Revelation 1:18) shows the authority given to him by his God of releasing all who are in death and hades. -- John 5:27-29 (New American Standard); Revelation 20:11-13.

With this in mind, however, we can see that each -- both Jesus and Jehovah -- is uniquely the first and the last of his peculiar kind: Jehovah is the first and the last of his peculiar kind, in that he is the first and the last one to be increate, that is, never to have been created. No one was before Jehovah in this sense and no one will be after him in this sense. The Son is the first and the last of his peculiar kind, in that he is the first and the last to have been directly created by God, all other creatures having been indirectly created by God, that is, through the agency of the Logos. Thus the Father and the Son are both unique -- which is the meaning of these three expressions -- but each of them is unique in a different sense: The Father is unique in that he is the only -- the first and the last -- being never created; the Son is unique in that he is the only -- the first and the last -- being ever directly created by Jehovah without the assistance of an agent, which creative assistance by the Logos occurred in the case of all the rest of creation -- the Logos himself being excepted. (John 1:3; 1 Corinthians 15:27) Thus Jehovah is the first and the last, the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end of increation -- the only being who never was created. The Logos is the first and the last, the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end of God's direct creation. These terms used with reference to the Son are equivalent to his being called: "the only begotten of the Father." (John 1:14,18; 3:16,18; 1 John 4:9) Their use with reference to the Father implies that he is from eternity, though not directly teaching it, the direct teaching being his uniqueness in that he never was created or begotten, as was the Son.

One, evidently holding to the belief that Revelation 1:8 is quoting Jesus as being "Almighty", has stated:

Again the question to ask would be how he received this power, Did Jesus drain all the power of God, was God in heaven powerless. This does not make sense as God cannot lose his power. Thus the only rational explanation would be that God was in Christ hence incarnated in his Son making him all powerful. All the early Christians believed this, it is not a trinitarian doctrine. Please refer to the doctrines of the early church fathers. Paul further attest to this truth by stating that God was manifested in the flesh, how else would this be possible except if God was incarnated in Jesus Christ.

Our Reply: The very fact that Jesus is given power shows that he is not Jehovah, the source of all power and mightiness. (1 Corinthians 8:6) As Paul tells us, it should be evident that all the power that Jesus is given does not include that of being the Almighty Jehovah. (1 Corinthians 15:27) Of course, Jesus did not drain his God of all power. Nevertheless, the very fact that Jesus' God has exalted Jesus above all dominions actually shows that Jesus did not have such power until his God so exalted him. 

There is no evidence at all that the New Testament writers believed that Jesus was Jehovah incarnated, or that Jesus was Jehovah in the flesh. There is definitely nothing in Revelation 1:7,8 that presents God Almighty as more than one person, or that Jesus is a person of God Almighty.

For links to some of our other studies related to:

Alpha and Omega, First and Last

More of our studies related to Revelation 1:8.