Deuteronomy 32:39 -- No Gods With Me

Deuteronomy 32:39 (JUBILEE BIBLE 2000) See now that I, I [am] he, and [there are] no gods with me; I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal; and there is not one that can deliver out of my hand.

Deuteronomy 32:39 is often cited as proof that no one else can be legitimately be a god (mighty one) except Jehovah.

"Gods" above is ELOHIM indefinite in the Hebrew, evidently being used in a plural sense. Obviously, in Deuteronomy 32:39, Jehovah is not referring to the angelic host, who are ELOHIM in Psalm 8:5. Nor is it excluding Moses from being ELOHIM before Pharoah. (Exodus 7:1) In context, God is probably referring to the false gods mentioned in verses 16,17,21. The idols of the nations have no might in them at all, thus they are not actually gods. These are those that are called "gods" as Paul mentioned in 1 Corinthians 8:1-6 and Galatians 4:8. None of these "gods" are with Jehovah.

If one, however, should apply Supreme Being to ELOHIM in Deuteronomy 32:29, there is indeed definitely no other Supreme Being with Jehovah. The angels, although ELOHIM, are not Supreme in their being, nor is Jehovah's firstborn son Supreme in his being. Some like to point out that in Deuteronomy 32:39, "gods" has the small letter "g", not the capital letter "G", and thus that it is not being used in the sense of Supreme Beings. The point evidently is that GOD applied to Jesus cannot be used in the sense of a small letter "g". In reality, this is irrelevant.

Ancient Hebrew does not distinguish between "Gods" and "gods", since it did not have the capitalization that we usually use in English and which is common in most languages today. While the Hebrew and Greek do not show such a difference, we can agree that in English translators should use the lower "g" when it is not speaking of Jehovah, the God of the Messiah, or else they should render it with some form of might, power or strength. We believe that since Jesus is not the "one God" of whom are all (1 Corinthian 8:6), that any application of the words for "God/god" to Jesus should be with a lower "g", or else with some form of "might, power or strength". Translators do this in many cases, but usually fail to do so when it comes to Jesus, because of the preconceived concept that Jesus is the Supreme Being. Nevertheless, in Deuteronomy 32:39, ELOHIM could be referring Supreme Beings, or it could be referring the idol gods of the nations.

Regardless, Deuteronomy 32:39 cannot mean that forms of EL, including forms of ELOHIM, cannot be used of others than Jehovah or false gods, since the Bible does make use of forms EL in many ways other than designating Supreme Being or false gods. There is nothing in Deuteronomy 32:39 that forbids the usage of the Hebrew and Greek words often translated as "God/god" of others, including Jesus,  in a sense of might or power without meaning the Supreme Mighty One. This we have shown in our study on The Hebraic Usage of the Titles for "God" as well as several other studies.

The phrase "I am he" is often connected with John 8:58 or one of the scriptures where Jesus uses the Greek phrase EGO EIMI, which can mean "I am he. In Deuteronomy 32:39, Jehovah does not use EHJEH of Exodus 3:14, and he is not speaking of his name. The Hebrew has no corresponding verb for "am", but a verb is called for in most languages. Thus, the Christianized LXX uses the Greek verb usually referred to as EIMI. This is not a use of the Holy Name; Jehovah was simply declaring Himself to be the Supreme Being.

See also our resource page for links to some of our studies related to "Ehjeh and I am"

John 4:26 - Did Jesus Claim to Be God of Isaiah 43:10-12; 52:6?

Some trinitarians are using John 4:26 connected with Isaiah 43:10-12 and/or Isaiah 52:6 as proof that Jesus is Jehovah. The assumption is that Jesus' usage of the Greek phrase usually transliterated as "EGO EIMI", often translated as "I am he", in John 4:26 means that Jesus was declaring himself to Jehovah in Isaiah 43 and Isaiah 52, since Jehovah used "I am he" in those verses.

However, in Isaiah 43 and Isaiah 52 Jehovah is declaring himself to be the one that he describes in the context, and likewise Jesus does the same thing in John 4:26. Let us examine who Jesus was declaring himself to be:

John 4:25-26 - The woman said to him, "I know that Messiah comes," (he who is called Christ). "When he has come, he will declare to us all things." Jesus said to her, "I who speak to you am he."
-- World English.

Jesus was not declaring himself to be the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but rather he was declaring himself to be the Messiah, meaning "anointed" or "anointed one".

Who anointed Jesus?

Isaiah quotes the Messiah as prophetically stating:

Isaiah 61:1 - The Spirit of the Lord Jehovah is on Me, because Jehovah has anointed Me to preach the gospel to the meek. He has sent Me to bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to captives, and complete opening to the bound ones. -- Green's Literal.

It is the Lord Jehovah who anointed and sent the Messiah. This is the same Jehovah who speaks in Exodus 3:14,15. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in Exodus 3:14,15 is not Jesus; we know this because Peter refers to the God and Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in Acts 3:13 and shows in Acts 3:13-26 that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is the one who raised Jesus up as the foretold prophet like Moses. -- Deuteronomy 18:15-19.

Thus, in John 4:25,26, Jesus was not declaring Himself to be the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Exodus 3:14,15), but he was declaring himself to be one whom the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob anointed and sent.

Jesus later referring the Lord Jehovah of Isaiah 61:1 as the "only true God" who had sent him. (John 17:1,3) Paul shows that the God and Father of Jesus is the only true Supreme Being when he declared Him to be the "one God" who is the source of all. -- 1 Corinthians 8:4-6.

Nevertheless, many will not accept the simple truth, but will imagine, assume, add to, and read into, the scriptures that Jehovah of Isaiah 61:1 is not their "triune God", but rather they would imagine, assume, add to, and read the verse that the Lord Jehovah there is only the alleged "first person" of the alleged triune God, and continue to imagine, and assume such throughout all the scriptures related to this, etc. They then present what they have imagined and assumed as being factual, and claim that if one cannot disprove all that they add to the scriptures, then what they have imagined and assumed must be true.

Some of the less informed trinitarians try to tie the Greek expression of transliterated as EGO EIMI in John 4:26 with EHJEH of Exodus 3:14, usually by use of the "I am" phrase as it appears in the translations in both verses. Many of the same principles I have presented in my study on the "I am" statements of Jesus also apply to Jesus' usage in John 4:26; indeed, it is self-apparent that by his words recorded at John 4;26 Jesus was not speaking of his name as being Ehjeh, but that he was simply stating that he was the promised Messiah.

See also our Studies related to "Is Jesus God?"

Ephesians 3:11-15 – Must We See Trinity in What Paul Wrote?

Ephesians 3:11 - according to the eternal purpose which he purposed in [instrumental EN (Strong's #1722), by means of] Christ Jesus, our Lord;
Ephesians 3:12 - in [by means of] whom we have boldness and access in confidence through our faith in him.
Ephesians 3:13 - Therefore I ask that you may not lose heart at my troubles for you, which are your glory.
Ephesians 3:14 - For this cause, I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord, Jesus Christ,
Ephesians 3:15 - from whom [This is evidently referring to the God and Father of Jesus] every family in heaven and on earth is named [evidently not referring to appellations, but rather to positioning -- Genesis 28:4],
Ephesians 3:16 - that he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, that you may be strengthened with power through his Spirit in the inward man. -- World English.

John Ankerberg and John Weldon (The Facts on Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988 edition, page 14) claim that the above verses are impossible to understand if one does not accept the triune God philosophy. Is there really anything in the verse that is impossible to understand without using human imagination so to assume the trinity dogma over the verse? Absolutely not! The scriptures are completely understandable without the necessity of adding what has to be imagined beyond what has been written.

First of all, in order to “see” the triune God in these verses, what does the trinitarian have to imagine, assume, add to, and read into these verses? In Ephesians 3:11 the phrase “he purposed”, the “he” refers back to “God” in Ephesians 3:10. The trinitarian has to conclude that the word “God” in verse 10 does not mean their alleged triune God, but rather only one person.  The trinitarian would, of course, imagine and assume that "God" is referring to what they claim to be "the first person" of their triune God. Thus, they would imagine and assume that Paul is saying:

Ephesians 3:11 according to the eternal purpose which the first of the trinity purposed in the second person of trinity, our Lord;
Ephesians 3:12 in whom [the second person of the trinity] we have boldness and access in confidence through our faith in him [the second person of the trinity].
Ephesians 3:13 Therefore I ask that you may not lose heart at my troubles for you, which are your glory.
Ephesians 3:14 For this cause, I bow my knees to the first person of the trinity who is the Father of our Lord, the second person of the trinity,
Ephesians 3:15 from whom [the trinitarian, however, would have to imagine and assume that it is referring a triune God]  every family in heaven and on earth is named ,
Ephesians 3:16 that he would grant you, according to the riches of the glory of the first person of the trinity, that you may be strengthened with power through the third person of the trinity of the first person of the trinity in the inward man. 

Is all of this necessary? Is there any reason that one would have to add all of the above assumptions to what Paul said in order for what Paul wrote to be understood? Absolutely not! What Paul wrote is completely understandable without adding all the trinitarian assumptions into the verses.

Indeed, throughout the letter to the Ephesians, Paul constantly refers to “God”, not as three persons, but as one person, and he constantly distinguishes “God” from Jesus. Nowhere in the Bible does Paul ever refer to Jesus as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of Israel. In Ephesians 1:3, Paul identifies “God”, not as three persons, but as one person, saying, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord, Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in [by means of] Christ.”  Ephesians 4:30 identifies the Holy Spirit, not as “God”, or as a person of God, but as belonging to “God”.

Nowhere is “God” or the “Father” identified as being one of three alleged persons of God, nor is Jesus Christ ever identified as being one of three alleged persons of God, nor is the Holy Spirit of God ever identified as being one of the three alleged persons of God.

Actually, reading triune dogma into the above verses tends to make the verses appear to be confusing. The statement made by Ankerberg and Weldon “that assuming God is not three persons makes it impossible to understand” these verses actually makes no sense since we can certainly understand the verses without adding the trinitarian assumptions to what Paul wrote.

Isaiah 61:1 — The Spirit Of Jehovah On The Anointed One

The Spirit of the Lord Jehovah is on Me, because Jehovah has anointed Me to preach the gospel to the meek. He has sent Me to bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to captives, and complete opening to the bound ones; – (Isaiah 61:1, Green’s Literal)

Isaiah 61:1 is often cited by trinitarians as an alleged reference to the trinity in the Old Testament. The claim is that all three alleged persons of the alleged triune God are mentioned in this verse, and thus it is claimed as a reference to the trinity. Actually, there is nothing in the verse at all about the trinity, nor is there any reference to three persons of the alleged trinity.

What we do find is that Jehovah, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Exodus 3:15), is being presented as one person as He is throughout the Bible. The Messiah is presented, not as being Jehovah, but as the one whom Jehovah anointed and sent. Then the Messiah speaks of Jehovah as "our God" in Isaiah 61:2, thus including himself in the "our", showing that the Messiah has Jehovah as his God. This agrees with Micah 5:4. Jehovah is not presented as three persons, so what the trinitarian has to imagine and assume regarding the verse is that “Jehovah” is not speaking of the three persons of “Jehovah”, but only of the assumed “first person” of their assumed trinitarian dogma, and read their assumption into what is being said.

Then, regarding the one being anointed by Jehovah, they have to imagine and assume that this is really the second person of Jehovah being anointed by the assumed first person of Jehovah, and then they have to add that assumption to and read that assumption into, what is actually said.

Then the trinitarian has to imagine and assume that the spirit which is placed upon the one anointed is one of the imagined and assumed persons of Jehovah. Accepting what they have imagined and assume to be fact, they thus read into Isaiah 61:1 their imagined and assumed trinity concept. 

So what the trinitarian actually presents as evidence of the trinity, is not what is actually said in the scripture, but what has to be presumed upon what is actually stated.

In reality, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Jehovah/Yahweh) is presented here as He is presented throughout both the Old and New Testaments, that is, as one person, and the one anointed by that one person is distinguished from being Jehovah who anointed him. Indeed, in Isaiah 61:2, the Messiah is depicted as referring the Jehovah as "our God". That designates Jehovah of Isaiah 61:1 as only one person, in harmony with Micah 5:4 and Ephesians 1:3.

The spirit of Jehovah is put on the one anointed. The Messiah is anointed by God's Holy Spirit. The expression itself indicates that this is not a person; it is, however, the personal power of the one to whom the spirit belongs. (See Isaiah 11:1-3) There is no indication, here or anywhere else in the Bible, that the personal spirit of Jehovah is a separate and distinct person of Jehovah.

John 20:17,28 - The God of Me

The Incredulity of Saint Thomas. (2022, December 12). In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Incredulity_of_Saint_Thomas_(Caravaggio)

John 20:17

legei autee ieesous mee mou haptou oupw gar
IS SAYING TO HER JESUS NOT OF ME BE TOUCHING, NOT YET FOR
3004 0846_6 2424 3361 1473_2 0680 0681 3768 1063

anabebeeka pros ton patera poreuou de pros
I HAVE ASCENDED TOWARD THE FATHER; BE GOING BUT TOWARD
0305 4314 3588 3962 4198 1161 4314

tous adelphous mou kai eipe autois anabainw
THE BROTHERS OF ME AND SAY TO THEM I AM ASCENDING
3588 0080 1473_2 2532 1511_7 0846_93 0305

pros ton patera mou kai patera humwn kai theon
TOWARD THE FATHER OF ME AND FATHER OF YOU AND GOD
4314 3588 3962 1473_2 2532 3962 4771_5 2532 2316

mou kai theon humwn
OF ME AND GOD OF YOU.
1473_2 2532 2316 4771_5

John 20:28

apekrithee thwmas kai eipen autw ho kurios mou
ANSWERED THOMAS AND HE SAID TO HIM THE LORD OF ME
061 2381 2532 1511_7 0846_5 3588 2962 1473_2

kai ho theos mou
AND THE GOD OF ME!
2532 3588 2316 1473_2

The expression GOD OF ME appears in both verses. However, in John 20:28, it is not simply "GOD OF ME", but rather it is "THE GOD OF ME". Verse 28 has the definite article before the form of THEOS, whereas in John 20:17, Jesus did not use the definite article. This difference in the Greek text has led to some to believe that this was designed by God to show that Thomas was not speaking to Jesus as being his "God", but rather that Thomas was referring Jesus' God.

If Thomas was referring to only one person in his statement recorded in John 20:28, the Greek would normally have only required the definite article before the Greek word translated as "lord", as can be seen by the words (in the Greek) that Jesus spoke as recorded in John 20:17. However, Thomas did not follow that pattern in his words recorded in John 20:28, for we find the definite article twice, which could indicate that Thomas could have first referred of Jesus as his Lord and then turned to the God of Jesus and acknowledged him as his God.

Trinitarians, however, claim that it was not the Supreme Being who was standing before Thomas, but applying their "dual natures" dogma, they claim that it was the human being Jesus. This would mean, if actually applied to the context, that Thomas addressed the man Jesus as being his Supreme Being!

To read the trinitarian idea into John 20:28 would require that trinitarian separate verse 20 from verse 19. The trinitarian would also need to add to what is written that Jesus had two natures, one nature of being the Supreme Being and another nature of being a human being. The trinitarian would have to further assume that Thomas knew that Jesus had these two natures, so that when he spoke to the one standing before the words recorded in John 20:28, they would imagine and assume that Thomas was not addressing the human Jesus of their alleged "dual natures" as spoken of in verse 27, but rather the Supreme Being Jesus, even though, according to their application of the context, it was not the Supreme Being Jesus standing there before him. Of course, I do not have any reason to scripturally add all the assumptions that trinitarians have made concerning the alleged "dual natures" of Jesus to what God has revealed, for what God has revealed in the Bible is fully in harmony with itself without adding all those assumptions. Additionally, although trinitarians may deny this, if Jesus has two sentiencies, one that is omniscient, and another that is limited to the sentiency of a human being, this would, in effect, mean that Jesus is two beings, one of which is the Supreme Being, and the other which is a human being, at the same time, and that two relative sentiencies would actually result in Jesus' being two persons.

Nevertheless, assuming that Thomas did refer to Jesus when he said "the god of me", it does not follow that we need to imagine and assume that Thomas meant that Jesus is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and then to further imagine, assume, add to, and read into, what Thomas said that Thomas meant that Jesus was not "God" as Jesus spoke of in John 20:17, but rather imagine and assume that Jesus used the term "God" to mean only one person of "God", and then further imagine and assume that Thomas spoke of Jesus as another person of God. Nor would the possessive usage of the definite article offer any proof that Thomas thought the Supreme Being was standing before him.

We do not find any Biblical tradition for referring to Jesus as "the god of me" (often worded in translations as "my God") or even "the god of us" (often worded as "our God"). In harmony with the rest of the Bible, one should recognize that the Hebrews used the words for "God" not only of the Supreme Being and false gods, but in other ways to denote power, might, strength. Indeed, the basic mean of the Hebrew word often transliterated as EL is strength, might, power, etc. The King James Version can be used to demonstrate this usage in many verses in which the KJV translators rendered forms of the word for "God", not as "God" or "god", but with other words. readily seen by anyone who will carefully note the following texts from the King James Version, in which English translations of forms of the Hebrew word El are in denoted by *..*: “It is in the *power* of my hand.” (Genesis 31:29) “There shall be no *might* in thine hand.” (Deuteronomy 28:32) “Neither is it in our *power*.” (Nehemiah 5:5) “Like the *great* mountains.” (Psalm 36:6) “In the *power* of thine hand to do it.” (Proverbs 3:27) “Pray unto *a god* [mighty one] that cannot save.” (Isaiah 45:20) “Who among the sons of the *mighty*.” (Psalm 89:6) “God standeth in the congregation of the *mighty*.” (Psalm 82:1) “Give unto the Lord [Jehovah] of ye *mighty*.” (Psalm 29:1) “The *mighty* God even the Lord [Jehovah].” (Psalm 50:1) There are other scriptures also that could be used for this. All one need to do to verify the above is to look into the Englishman’s Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance, under Hebrew words #430 and #410. The point is that Thomas, if he did use the Greek word often transliterated as THEOS of Jesus, would more than likely simply making use of such a Hebraism. To render this usage into English as applied to Thomas' words would be something like, "the lord of me and the might of me", or "the lord of me and strength of me", or even "the lord of me and the mighty one of me".

Jesus commended Thomas for his belief concerning Jesus' being resurrected. Jesus did not respond to Thomas by saying that it was good that Thomas recognized him as his God (Supreme Being), as many seem to assume. John stated these things were written, not so that one may believe that Jesus is God (the Supreme Being), but "that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name." -- John 20:31, World English.

There is definitely nothing in John 20:28 that presents Jehovah as being more than one person, or that Jesus is God Almighty, or that Thomas was giving any worship to Jesus as being Jehovah, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

John 3:13 - Was Jesus Talking About His Ascension? (Working on)