[[The following is from a Seminary paper my husband wrote as a student, it is strict academic style and you are almost required to be a Seminarian to fully understand it.]]
Almighty God (YHWH) is The Head of Christ:
God is the head of Christ just as a husband is head of the wife.
It is not a matter of superior and inferior but superior and subordinate. This, no doubt is how it should be between a Father and Son.
Father and Son, husband and wife are 2 separate and distinct persons
and beings. One came before the other. They do not share an essence,
there is no hypostatic union here.
However, before He became a man Jesus was not a servant but an equal to
God. (This is something I get from Phil 2)
Before Jesus became a man, he had a God someone that was God to him
(Micah 5:4).
What you get from Phil 2 is perhaps not the best way to translate
that verse, and many agree:
"A vigorous debate still continues around the hymnic passage.
However, the suggestion that the hymn has been constructed with a
strong allusion to Adam, or even modeled after the template of Adam
christology is still persuasive." p. 282, The Theology of Paul the
Apostle, by James D.G. Dunn
This ambiguity I is simply one that is shared by many translators and exegetes.
The Harper Collins Study Bible NRSV states that some of the key
words used here "had puzzled interpeters" and are "problematic."
Sure, we have the way that Trinitarians like to look at this verse,
as is stated in Heinz Cassirer's "did not look upon his equality
with God as something to be held in his grasp," but there are many
others that do not see this in the same way:
"who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an
equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking
the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men" (American Standard Version; ASV)
"who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard
equality with God a thing to be grasped" (New American Standard Bible; NASB).
"who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with
God a thing to be grasped" (Revised Standard Version; RSV).
"Who, in form of God, subsisting, not, a thing to be seized,
accounted the being equal with God." (Rotherham Bible; RB).
"who, though he was in the form of God, did not consider equality
with God a thing to be grasped" TCE
"Christ Jesus, who, when he was in the form of God, did not regard
equality with God as a prize" Bible in Living English
"Who, being in the form of God, did not count equality with God
something to be grasped" New Jerusalem Bible
"Who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with
God something to be grasped" (New American Bible; NAB)
"who, though being in God's Form, yet did not meditate a Usurpation
to BE like God" Emphatic Diaglott
"Who, [beginning] [existing] in a form of God did not consider a
seizing, to be equal to God" 21st Century Literal
"although he was like God in nature, he never even considered the
chance to be equal with God." 21st Century Free
"who, being in the form of God, counted it not a prize to be on an
equality with God." Revised Version
"Though he possessed the nature of God, he did not grasp at equality
with God." An American Translation/Goodspeed
"who though he existed in the form of God did not regard equality
with God as something to be grasped" NET Bible
"who though he had god-like form, did not regard it as a prize to be
equal to God." The Original NT-Schonfield
[Footnote: "Referring to the sin which Adam was tempted by Satan to
commit, and which Lucifer in his former state had committed (Gen
3:5; Isa 14:12-14). Moses is said to have had a divine form, and as
an infant to have received the crown from Pharoah's head (Josephus,
Antiq II 232-235). The Christ Above of the Jewish mystics had
angelic likeness as a Son of God (Dan 4:25-28; Job 1:6-7)."]
"who - did not think it a matter to earnestly desired." -Clarke
"Did not regard - as an object of solicitous desire." -Stuart
"Thought not - a thing to be seized." -Sharpe
"Did not eagerly grasp." -Kneeland
"Did not violently strive." -thingyinson
"did not meditate a usurpation." -Turnbull
If, as the New Scofield Bible says, that this verse is the strongest
assertions of Christ's deity, then those who hold such a position
have a real problem.
These verses are about humility, and how, unlike Adam, Jesus did not
try to be equal to God. That is why the preceeding verse it tells us
to "have the same attitude that was in Christ." Does that mean that
we should try to cling to our equality with God? Of course not. To
translate this verse in a way that promotes the deity of Christ robs
it of its true force and meaning.
The Jews were angry with Jesus and were looking for a reason/excuse to
stone Him and that is what Jesus gave them at John 8:58. The
other "I am" statements could be seen as part of normal everyday speech but not this one.
Reply: I agree this verse is different, as even many trinitarians
agree, and rob it of it connection to the ANY "I am" statements by
realizing the force of the Present of Past Action Idiom:
The Living New Testament: "The absolute truth is that I was in existence before Abraham was ever born." The 20th Century New Testament:
"before Abraham existed I was." Noyes, G.R. N.T. (1878)
_Jesus said to them, _truly, truly do I say to you, from before
Abraham was, I have been.__Hanson, J.W. New Covenant (1884)
_Jesus said to them, _truly, truly, I say to you, I am before
Abraham was born.__Kraeling, E.G. Four Gospels (1962)
_With another amen-saying, Jesus declares to them that before
Abraham was, He (Jesus) is (hint of His preexistence). Parker, P.G. Clarified N.T._Jesus answered, before Abraham existed,
I existed._ Cotton Patch Version (1970)
_To this Jesus replied, _I existed before Abraham was born.__
Ledyard, G.H. New Life Testament (1969)
_Jesus said to them, _for sure I tell you, before Abraham was born,
I was and sum and always will be._,, Dr. E.C. Dymond N.T. (1972)
__Yes, indeed!; said Jesus: _He saw me in prospect. The fact is,
that long before Abraham was conceived in his mother_s womb, that
individual who I now am had been conceived in God_s mind: He had
completed the plan and specifications, so to speak, and therefore He
was able to give Abraham a mental preview of me__. Good News for the World (1969)
_Jesus answer, _I tell you the truth. I already was before Abraham
was born.__ The New Testament, An American Translation by Goodspeed:
"I tell you I existed before Abraham was born." The Complete Bible, An American Translation Goodspeed:
"I tell you I existed before Abraham was born." New Believers Bible, New Living Translation:
"I existed before Abraham was even born." The New Testament, C. B. Williams:
"I solemnly say to you, I existed before Abraham was born." The Book, New Testament:
The absolute truth is that I was in existence before Abraham was ever born." The Living Bible:
"I was in existence before Abraham was ever born." Lattimore:
"Truly, truly I tell you, I am from before Abraham was born."
The New Testament, From the Penutsta Text, Lamsa:
"Before Abraham was born, I was." An American Translation, In The Language of Today, Beck:
"I was before Abraham." New Testament Contemporary English Version:
"I tell you.that even before Abraham was, I was, and I am." The Unvarnished New Testament:
"Before Abraham was born, I have already been." The New Testament, Kleist & Lilly:
"I am here-and I was before Abraham." The New Testament in the Language of the People, Williams:
"I existed before Abraham was born." The New Testament, Noyes:
"From before Abraham was, I have been." A Translation of the Four Gospels, Lewis:
"Before Abraham was, I have been." Wakefield, G. N.T. (1795):
_Jesus said unto them: Verily verily I say unto you, before Abraham
was born, I am He._ The Syriac New Testament, Murdock:
"Before Abraham existed I was." The Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels, Burkitt& The Old Georgian Version of the Gospel of John
Blake & Briere:
"Before Abraham came to be, I was." The New Testament Or Rather the New Covenant, Sharpe:
"I was before Abraham was born." The 20th Century New Testament 1904:
"Before Abraham existed I was already what I am." The New Testament, Stage:
"Before Abraham came to be, I was." International Bible Translators 1981:
_Jesus said to them, _I am telling the truth: I was alive before
Abraham was born!__The Coptic Version the New Testament in the
Southern Dialect, Horner:
"Before Abraham became, I, I am being." The Documents of the New Testament, Wade:
"Before Abraham came into being, I have existed." Noli, M.F.S. N.T. (1961):
_Jesus answered them: _Well, well, I tell you, I existed before
Abraham was born.__ The Concise Gospel and The acts, Christianson:
"I existed even before Abraham was born." A Translators Handbook to the Gospel of John, Nida:
"Before Abraham existed, I existed, or.I have existed." The Simple English Bible:
"I was alive before Abraham was born." The Original New Testament, Schonfield:
"I tell you for a positive fact, I existed before Abraham was born."
The Complete Gospels Annotated Scholars Version, Miller:
"I existed before there was an Abraham." Swann, G. N.T. (1947):
Jesus said to them, verily, verily I say unto you, I existed before
Abraham was born_International English Version (2001)
"I was alive before Abraham was born"
Stephen's blasphemy would have been to say that He saw Jesus in
a position > of authority equal to God.
Reply: Is being at the "right hand of God" a position of equality?
APPENDIX:
[1] Heinz writes:
Jesus identifies himself as the one "sent" by a superior, he did not
come of his own accord (Jn.8:16,29,42,). This superior is identified
as "Father" and "God" (8:54). Is not the sender
The superior of the one sent? (Jn.13:16 cf Jn. 14:28). Jesus does
nothing of his "own initiative" and he can only speak what he
was "taught" by the Father (8:28). Jesus does not seek his own
glory, but God's and "keeps His word" (8:50, 54). Could this be said
of Almighty God?
So why do the Jews try to kill him? Probably for the same reason
that they stoned Stephen. Does this mean that Stephen was claiming
equality with God?
Let us look at the context even more closely:
Jesus says they will die (v.21)
Jesus says they are killers (v.37,40)
Jesus says their Father is not God (v.41)
Jesus says their Father is Satan (v.44)
Jesus says he is above Abraham (vss. 53-58)
Says A Rabbinic Anthology, "So great is the [merit] of Abraham that
he can atone for all the vanities committed and lies uttered by
Israel in this world." (London, 1938, C. Montefiore and H. Loewe, p.
676)
It was only after all this, and after FIVE "I AM's" [EGW EIMI vss.
12, 18, 24, 28, 58] that they tried to stone him. The Jews did not
understand the I AM to mean that he was saying he was Jehovah, they
were upset at him for elevating himself above Abraham, and this is
only heightened by the fact that he was hurling the above rebukes at
them, simply put.
Brian replies:
God is the head of Christ just as a husband is head of the wife. It is not
a matter of superior and inferior but superior and subordinate.
This, no doubt is how it should be between a Father and Son. However
before He became a man Jesus was not a servant but an equal to God. (This is
something I get from Phil 2) and His being sent was not the same as a
servant or slave being sent.
Just as He willingly subjects Himself to God when all His enemies have
been put under His feet, so He willingly came to earth.
As a man His Father became His God also and as a man and a servant Jesus
does only as His master, Father and God gives Him to do.
He did not act on His own initiative or seek His own glory or teach
something out of His own head but followed the lead of His Father in all
things.
As a man Jesus ('wisdom' as many say) grew in wisdom and stature but
Jesus, through all this, stayed the same.(the same, yesterday, today and
forever)
It is because He stayed the same that we read that He said that He can do
nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do is what He does. Jesus
can do nothing but what God does. Even as a man Jesus could do nothing but
what God does. (Maybe this means that Jesus could not sin just as God
cannot)
The Jews were angry with Jesus and were looking for a reason/excuse to
stone Him and that is what Jesus gave them at John 8:58. The other "I am"
statements could be seen as part of normal everyday speech but not this one.
Stephen's blasphemy would have been to say that He saw Jesus in a position
of authority equal to God.
[2] I agree; the arguments in "The Orthodox Corruption of
Scripture" are often weak. But if you want to really be alarmed, read Ehrman's
earlier book, "Jesus - Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium."
It is as the sages have said: "By their 'Lives of Christ' ye shall know them."
Btw, though I recommend the NKJV and WEB, I don't consider the
Majority Text equal to the original text. I favor an eclectic
approach (without accepting the theory of the Lucianic recension, and
with the observation that *if* such a recension were the combination
of three ancient threads rather than two, it would still look mighty
similar). But I am much more comfortable with translations based on
an accretion-rich text that convey the original message accurately
than I am with translations based on a somewhat pruned text that
don't convey the original message quite as accurately (due to over-
paraphrasing, or a poor application of "dynamic
equivalance," or
whatever). The motive for my recommendation of the NKJV and WEB is
at least as pastoral as it is scientific -- i.e., there is no perfect
option, and I would rather have people reading translations with
benign accretions than with not-so-benign deletions and adulterations.
Yours in Christ,
Jim Snapp II
Minister, Wayne Church of Christ
Wayne, Ohio
www.waynecoc.org[3] Subject: RE: Trinity Argument
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 15:25:44 -0800 (PST)
Show Full Headers
Back To [INBOX]
Bottom of Form
Hello Mrs. Puls
I'm kind of surprised, but flattered that your son decided to forward my comments to you and I thank you for your words on this subject. I have an answer back though to your "echad" comment. The argument I'm coming back with though came from a Jehovah's Witness actually. While I do not hold to ANY JW beliefs he has more knowledge on the subject of ancient languages and their uses, and makes a better case than I do when it comes to disproving the Trinity, so therefore I took use of his more scholarly knowledge to make my point. I also want you to be made aware of WHAT kind of a Christian I am so I am not subjected to prejudices or misrepresentations. I am non denominational in the PUREST sense. I hold to NO set form of beliefs though Nathan asked in one of his later emails if I was part of the Way. My parents were members of it before Victor Paul Wierwille was caught out in his scandal and they dropped from it when that came out. While I was brought up with most of the Way's teachings I have also been taught by Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans and an assortment of other denominations so my upbringing as a Christian has definitely been "eclectic" to say the least. The beliefs I hold to are STRAIGHT from the Bible and they are the ONLY truth I hold to, not ANY man's understanding. Though I do claim partiality to Victor Paul Wierwille's views, it is only because I never knew him personally and therefore was only acquainted with his understanding of the scriptures, and that understanding I have so far deemed from my own personal walk was IMPECCABLE. I can not stress that enough because I believe a man's work should&n bsp;not be shadowed by his human weakness and his is a good example in my opinion. The man was a born again believer and spoke to God, no matter that the Devil caused him to fall so far from grace but I do believe he had divine revelation in his understanding of the scriptures. So, with that statement, which is to make certain your understanding on just WHAT I am that way you don't think I'm trying to convert your son to some cult or that I'm secretly working for the JW's I'll get into the argument of "echad". I'm just a simple believing Christian Mrs. Puls that believes in following the Bible to the letter and practicing in faith as the early believers and apostles did. As well if you'd like I could send along the ending argument of the Trinity, as I just finished writing up the e nd chapters of the book, "One God: The Unfinished Reformation" by Bob Carden for the others to benefit from. If you're interested just send a response back and I'll send it in another email. Here is the excerpt:
Witnessing to those 'Witnessing to the Witnesses' Series- Part Three:
Jehovah's Witnesses and the Doctrine of the Trinity
by Mark Larson
Deuteronomy 6:4
Here it is written: "Hear O Israel, Jehovah our God, Jehovah is one" (ASV; Dar.; NWT). At first some may think it strange to attempt to use this verse to prove that Jehovah is more than one, since it says He is one. It is said by various Trinitarians: 'The word "one" (Hebrew, echad) has the meaning of several unified into one'. To demonstrate this avowed meaning , Genesis 2:24: "and they shall be one" (echad) flesh", and Numbers 13:23: "a branch with one" (echad) "cluster of grapes", are put into use. Those using these scriptures to promote their view of the word "one", tell us: 'See how the word has a composite sense?' It is true, those scriptures have such a sense. But, Deuteronomy 6:4 does not say, "Jehovah, they are one", nor "Jehovah our cluster of God is one". When "one" is used with plural or composite modifiers it can have a composite meaning. However, we do not find such modifiers at Deuteronomy 6:4. The proffe d examples (already cited) have no bearing on the matter. "One", used without plural or composite modifiers has the significance of, "single", "individual", and "only". We will illustrate:
1) About Lot it was said at Genesis 19:9: "This one (echad) fellow came in to sojourn". Lot was only one person.
2) At Genesis 22:2, Jehovah tells Abraham to offer Isaac on "one" (echad) "of the mountains" of the land of Moriah; not on several of them.
3) The disturbed Esau comes to his father and says: "Hast thou but one" (echad) "my father?" (Genesis 27:38). If "one" meant a group, why was Esau worried? Isaac could have drawn from the 'group' of blessings and given one to Esau; but the "one blessing" for the firstborn, had already been given.
4) Second Samuel 1:15 informs us "And David called one" (echad) "of the young men..and he" (not they) "fell on him".
5) At 1 Kings 4:19 we find: "he was the only" (echad) "officer that was in the land". "Echad", at this location is translated "only", in the Authorized Version (King James, AV); New American Standard Version (NASV); New International Version (NIV); New King James Version (NAV); ASV. (see Is. 51:2; Gen. 40:5; 41:38; 42: 11,13; Ex. 29:3, 15, 23, 39 (AV, NASV) Deut.21:15; Ez. 21:19; 34:23). Strong's Concordance.
How clear it is, that "echad", used as it is at Deuteronomy 6:4, without plural modifiers, has the meaning of a single individual. As to this correct understanding of "echad", we find well recognized commentaries reporting on Deuteronomy 6:4:
"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, in loc. cit.
"Yahweh, our God, Yahweh one." ....The object of Israel's exclusive attention, affection, and worship...is not diffuse but single...Israel's attention is undivided: it is confined to one definite being whose name is Yahweh." The Interpreter's Bible, in loc. cit.
In the Septuagint Version (LXX), the word the Jewish scholars used to translate "echad" into Greek was "heis". "Heis" has the meaning of "one", the same as "echad". When Jesus quoted Deuteronomy 6:4 at Mark 12:29, the word Mark used to translate whatever word Jesus used in Aramaic into Greek, was "heis". We find no plurals employed to denote the oneness of God at Deuteronomy 6:4 nor any quotations of it.
Some may point to Acts 4:32 as an example of "heis" having a composite meaning. The scripture reads: "And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that aught of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common." (KJV) See also NIV "one in heart and mind" "No one claimed." Here, the first occurrence of "one" is from the Greek "mia" (the nominative singular feminine form of "heis"), and has reference to the "multitude": and does have composite connotations. The second occurrence of "one" has reference to what each one was "saying" in their individual hearts; a singular connotation. So, one must consider the person or thing to which "one" refers and the modifiers which apply to the subject. Then only can one determine if it has singular or composite meanings.
One additional related matter that is brought up by some related to our topic in Deuteronomy 6:4, is the Hebrew word from which "our God" is taken. (This has often been presented to Jehovah's Witnesses in their Ministry).The word is "eloheynu. It has been defined , in some publications, and verbally, as "our Gods". Such a translation is totally inaccurate. "Eloheynu", in usage, means , "the God of us, or "our God". (See "The New International Version Interlinear Hebrew -English Old Testament", John R. Kohlenberger III, editor, at Deuteronomy 6:4). Indeed, Jehovah was "God" to the people; not "Gods" to them. Today He is the God worshipped by Christians; not their Gods.
At this point, we should mention that, regardless of the above, there are teachers of the Trinity doctrine who will continue to attempt using Deuteronomy 6:4 as a scriptural "proof" of a Trinity as taught in the Old Testament, or Hebrew scriptures. One such person is Robert Morey, in his publication, "The Trinity: Evidence and Issues "(Grand Rapids: Word Publishing, 1996) 88-89. References by Morey relates God as "one" to a "compound unity". Robert Morey states that the Hebrew word for "one" (echad) which is used in Deuteronomy 6:4, "refers to a compound oneness in which a number of things together are described as 'one'". Remarkably, he further claims:
"The use of (Echad) in Deut.6:4 is exactly what Trinitarians expect to find in the Bible because it is the only way in the Hebrew language to indicate to the reader that God is a composite unity of several Persons and not just a solitary person. There are no other words in the Heb rew language by which such an idea could be expressed."
The distance between Morey's view and the true import of 'echad in Deuteronomy 6:4 could not be greater. He creates a false analogy by comparing the use of echad in eight other verses which contain either a numerical plural or mention more than one item or person, with the use of 'echad in Deuteronomy 6:4. For example, he refers to "the evening and the morning" comprising the "first" or "one" day in Genesis 1:5. But, again, unlike Deuteronomy 6:4 here we are dealing with more than one item: "morning" and "evening". In Genesis 2:24 it is Adam 'and' Eve (two human beings) who become "one flesh". In Genesis 11:6 the 'people' (a group of persons) become "one". A similar use is found in Genesis 34:16, 22. The references in 2 Chronicles 30:12 (those in Judah are given "one heart"), Ezra 2: 64 (the "congregation" is viewed as "one group") and Jeremiah 32:39 (where the "people" are again given "one heart") are also numerical plurals or impersonal singular term denoting a group (such as "congregation"). But Trinitarians will not accept an impersonal sense or a genuine plural for 'elohim ("God"") in Deuteronomy 6:4!
Those who claim that 'elohim, being a plural in form, is somehow consistent with Trinitarianism, fail to realize that intensive or majestic plurals are quite common in the Hebrew Bible, and thus plurals are either genuinely plural (that is, more than one) or intensive plurals. For example, in Genesis 39:2 the plural form of the Hebrew word for "master" or "lord" is used in reference to Potiphar, "the Egyptian" ( a singular reference). So either it means "masters", which cannot be sustained in view of the following singular description in verse 2 ("the Egyptian") or it is an intensive, majestic plural. The same is true for 'elohim.
The Hebrew word 'elohim is not only used in reference to Jehovah (Genesis 1:1), but it is also used of Moses (Ex 7:1), the Philistine god Dagon (1 Sam 5:7), Chemosh (Judges 11:24) and others who are not multi-personal beings. That 'elohim is not used in these texts as a numerical plural is clear from the fact that the LXX translates them with singular terms. Thus, in view of these and other uses words that are plural in form but not in meaning, H.W.F. Gesenius rightly calls this usage the 'plural of excellence or majesty'. (See H.W.F. Gesenius, Gesenius' Hebrew Grammer, ed. E. Kautzsch, trans. A.E. Cowley, 2d Eng. Ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980), 398-399.
It is of interest to note that Morey also cites the use of "one" in Genesis 3:22 as though it supports his idea of "compound oneness". He says that this verse speaks of "Adam and Eve becoming 'one' (echad) with God." But Genesis 3:22 does not say anything about Adam and Eve becoming "one with God." [Morey, The Trinity, 88] In fact, the verse does not mention Eve at all, but only "the man" (ha 'adam). Since Morey is intent on proving a "compound oneness" for the use of "echad", it seems he is willing to add persons to the text in order to preserve his view of "echad"!
In fact, Genesis 3:22 does not even use "echad" in reference to "the man", but to God and those to whom He speaks, those whom the man has become "like" (note that "echad" has the prefixed preposition (meaning "like" or "as") before it). Indeed, the use of "echad" in passages such as Isaiah 51:2 ("Abraham...was 'one' when I called him" ) shows that it can most certainly be used of a single subject, without implying any kind of "compound oneness".
Herein now lies a major blow to Trinitarianism: The distinction Trinitarians make between a "person" and a "being", as it relates to the Trinity, is not supported by the Bible. The Bible does not even imply such a distinction. Rather, what it does say implies that the distinction between the Father and Son is not merely one of "person", but one of essence or nature. They may have the same kind of nature (that is, they are both spirit beings, John 4:24; 1 Corinthians 15:45) but they each have their own individual substance of being, which is why one of them can be considered the "God of" the other. (Revelation 3:12). For the same reason they can be distinguished from one another by using ontological terms such as theos (John 1:1).
A plurality of "persons" within the "one God" is also unknown in the Bible. Philosophical arguments regarding God's ability to express perfect love only if God is multi-personal are not scriptural. Attempts to read a multiplicity of persons into the plural word for "God" in Hebrew (elohim) cannot be sustained by the evidence. Either the plural word 'elohim is a genuine plural word (God's) or it is an intensive plural designed to emphasize the majesty or excellence of the subject. Even Trinitarian writers argue against this use of 'elohim, concluding that "the plural form 'elohim for God in the Old Testament cannot be evidence of the Trinity." (See "Why You Should believe in the Trinity, 49).
As a final thought on this matter of Deuteronomy 6:4, it would only be appropriate to bring up some recently published research material pertaining to the writings of the Late Walter Martin.
Even JW opposers like M. James Penton refer to a reference publication entitled "They Lie in Wait to Deceive", Volume 3, by Robert and Rosemary Brown,
" Robert and Rosemary Brown have thoroughly exposed the dishonesty of the late Walter Martin, the self proclaimed "Bible Answer Man", and one of the best known "anti-cultists" in the world today. But their critique of him does not really serve the purpose they intend. Although Martin was a person of monumental ego who gave a highly misleading picture of himself, that fact in itself says little about the nature of his scholarship."
"Nor does it indicate anything about the claim that he made to speak for "orthodoxy" within the Reformed tradition. That Martin's scholarship is bad can be proven by a careful examination of "Jehovah of the Watchtower" and Kingdom of the Cults", two of his best known books...In those works he indulges in ad hominem arguments, character assassination, and demonstrably unsound reasoning. But why discuss his scholarship nearly a year after his death? Would it not be better to let him rest in peace? Quite frankly, no. His books are sold by almost every Evangelical bookstore in North America and are still among the primary "anti-cult" publications distributed today, and they continue to have a major impact on a large number of uninformed readers. Religious communities such as the Christian Scientists, the Jehovah's Witnesses, and the Latter-Day saints, whom those books attack, are open to searching criticism, but such criticism should be fair and scholarly. Unfortunately, Martin's works are neither, and the public needs to be warned that they are not to be regarded as such.
Then, too, there is another good reason for outlining just how bad Martin's publications are. Over the years they have been printed, published, and distributed by such Protestant Evangelical publishing houses as Moody press, Bethany House Publishers, and Vision House Publishers, apparently without their showing any interest in examining carefully what they have been selling. Hence, those publishers, whose Owners claim to be Christians, need to be reminded that they have an obligation not to engage in what amounts to the promotion of unsound scholarship and commercialized hate peddling.
So with these thoughts in mind, the following article will give a brief analysis of some of the inadequacies of Martin's scholarship which seem to reflect, in part at least, his own strangely warped life."
This article totals 14 pages, outlining, in part, the false charges against Charles Taze Russell, Martin's constant slipping into the presentation of "modalism", the idea that the one person of the God of Israel appeared to mankind in different modes or guises at different times. "In at least one case, however, he (Martin) identifies Jehovah with God the Father. Hence, one never quite knows from his writings whether the name Jehovah denotes the first person, or the second person of the Trinity, or the Trinity per se." Also highlighted is Walter Martin's lack of understanding of the Biblical languages, effectively "sabotaging", undermining his own "arguments" against Jehovah's Witnesses, (which arguments Jehovah's Witnesses ha ve "exposed" and "disposed" of time after time both in our Field Ministry and in direct letters to Mr. Walter Martin. However, let us focus on one specific topic. Deuteronomy 6:4.
Further we read:
"It is strange, too, that Martin made so much of Charles Taze Russell's lack of knowledge of biblical languages, for Martin himself demonstrates ignorance of them. For example, on page 69 of "Kingdom of the Cults", (1985 Edition), he attempts to exegete Deuteronomy 6:4 AV- "Hear, O' Israel, the LORD our God is one LORD"- so that the word "one" in Hebrew, that is echod, is understood as "not solitary, but composite unity." But this old canard, (false rumor, an absurd or extravagant piece of news) which is used to attempt to show that the doctrine of the Trinity is present in the Old Testament, will not do.
In Hebrew the word echod is used as is the cardinal number "one" and the ordinal number "first" in English. That is, it is used to denote one unit or one set, or the first unit or the first set of anything. So there is no necessary concept of composite unity in the word at all. Anyone doubting this should take a look at George V. Wigram's "The Englishman's Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970), pages 41 and 42, where the biblical uses of echod are given.
Anyone trying to foist the idea that echod necessarily has a composite meaning is either dishonest or unaware of the facts. Thus Martin's safari into Hebrew is specious. It is, however, in his attempt to explicate ("unfold the meaning", "interpret") biblical Greek that he shows real ignorance. In his attacks on Jehovah's Witnesses, Martin often huffs and puffs about their New World Translation and various doctrinal positions which they have taken..."
END
And there's that As for God's usage of "us" then it must mean the "plural of majesty" as well with regard to Elohim, since the Jews have NO problem understanding that their God was ONE God, not One God who revealed himself in three persons, or MANY Gods. Because that IS the only meaning you could take out of those verses such as "Us" or "We" and a plural form for the name of God was MANY Gods, not a Three in One God in the Jewish understanding. This belief in ONE God was ESSENTIAL since we see that the Jews would run after "many foreign" gods and God had to keep reprimanding them for that. Anyway, as I said before we're not SURE who God is refering to and it is not our place to make something up or "infer" or "assume". That is a mystery of scripture I can attest to, but it in NO WAY proves the Trinity anymore than Elohim does. There are "better" non-trinitarian w ays to explain that scripture and fit in correctly with the Jewish understanding, which was the culture and language the Bible came from.
I stand on scripture Ms. Puls and the choice seems just as obvious to me as well. I'm not here to convert, but I'm definitely here to give my fellow believers a better understanding of the Word and to improve them in their walk because a correct knowledge of the Scriptures is VERY important, as Hosea 4:6 makes the case, "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge" If you let something in that is NOT Biblical, you open up a way for the Devil to decieve and lie to you. And yes it's happened to many great men and women of God so I'm not saying you are not a true Christian or don't know the "Truth" but you've definitely been decieved by this which was a pagan doctrine from the council of Nicaea, a council which the early reformers for Protestant religions held as heresy and abolished most if not all of their decisions, unfortunately ONE of those doctrines has still managed to fester in the new Church, the Trinity is that doctrine.
Love in Christ
Lauryn
[4] Defacto made a excellent comment clearly showing in few words that Almighty God (YHWH) and Jesus (Yeshua) are two separate and distinct beings as follows, "I don't have a problem at all with either of those verses, Ed. The Father is Pure Spirit whereas Jesus gave up His original pure spirit existence so the Father could send Him to us in the flesh! Jn.1:14! There are two! The Father and the Son, period! Among other obvious supporting Scriptures to that fact - is that the Father raised the Son from the dead! Rom.10:9, beside Jesus being with the Father before the World began! Jn.17:5. Then returning to the Father and being seated on His right hand side. Jn.16:5 and Rom.8:34." Let's hope all realize this fact now and we can get onto a subject other than the false doctrine of the trinity.
[5] I would like to respond to this message. I wonder if you mean
that Jesus was limited only in that he left heaven and took the form
of man, being a little lesser that angels. However he was further
limited even in heaven in that even after the thousand years he turns
the Kingdom over to "His God and father" at 1 Corinthians 15:24-28.
Also at Philippians 2:8 it says that he "became obedient" and later
in verses 9-11 "God exalted him" to a superior position. Further,
that "Jesus is Lord to the glory of God the Father. Sound to me from
the scriptures that he was not only limited but in subjection to his
father's headship.
[6] Jesus Christ on the Infallibility of Scripture
Dr. David Livingston
There is considerable debate these days concerning the inerrancy
(infallibility) of Scripture. The authority of God's Word is the
main issue. But, if one yields to the authority of Jesus Christ
(Yeshua HaMoshiach), he must, in turn, yield to Christ's view of the
Scripture itself. Anyone and everyone who claims to be a Christian
(a believer under the authority of Christ) must hold to the same
view He did! What was it?
I. Negative Aspects (an argument from silence - but a loud silence!)
Jesus (Yeshua) never belittled Scripture (as some modern critics
do), or set it aside (as the Jewish leaders of His day had done with
their Oral Traditions), or criticized it (although He criticized
those who misused it), or contradicted it (although He rejected many
interpretations of it), or opposed it (although He sometimes was
free or interpretive with it), nor spoke in any way as "higher"
critics do of the Old Testament (Tanakh).
II. Christ's Use of Scripture
As L. Gaussen has asserted, "We are not afraid to say it: when we
hear the Son of God quote the Scriptures, every thing is said, in
our view, on their divine inspiration - we need no further
testimony. All the declarations of the Bible are, no doubt, equally
divine; but this example of the Savior of the world has settled the
question for us at once. This proof requires neither long nor
learned researches; it is grasped by the hand of a child as
powerfully as by that of a doctor. Should any doubt, then, assail
your soul let it behold Him in the presence of the Scriptures!" 1
1. He knew the Scriptures thoroughly, even to words and verb tenses.
He obviously had either memorized vast portions or knew it
instinctively: John 7:15. 2
2. He believed every word of Scripture. All the prophecies
concerning Himself were fulfilled 3, and He believed beforehand they
would be. 4
3. He believed the Old Testament (Tanakh) was historical fact. This
is very clear, even though from the Creation (cf. Genesis 2:24 and
Matthew 19:4, 5) onward, much of what He believed has long been
under fire by critics, as being mere fiction. Some examples of
historical facts:
* Luke 11:51 - Abel was a real individual
* Matthew. 24:37-39 - Noah and the flood (Luke 17:26, 27)
* John 8:56-58 - Abraham
* Matthew 10:15; 11:23, 24 (Luke 10:12) - Sodom and Gomorrah
* Luke 17:28-32 - Lot (and wife!)
* Matthew 8:11 - Isaac and Jacob (Luke 13:28)
* John 6:31, 49, 58 - Manna
* John 3:14 - Serpent
* Matthew 12:39-41 - Jonah (vs.42 - Sheba)
* Matthew 24:15 - Daniel and Isaiah
4. He believed the books were written by the men whose names they
bear:
* Moses wrote the Pentateuch (Torah): Matthew 19:7, 8; Mark 7:10,
12:26 ("Book of Moses" - the Torah); Luke 5:14; 16:29, 31; 24:27, 44
("Christ's Canon"); John 1:17; 5:45, 46; 7:19; ("The Law [Torah] was
given by Moses; Grace and Truth came by Jesus Christ.") 5
* Isaiah wrote "both" Isaiah's: Mark 7:6-13; John 12:37-41.
* Jonah wrote Jonah: Matthew 12:39-41.
* Daniel wrote Daniel: Matthew 24:15.
5. He believed the Old Testament (Tanakh) was spoken by God Himself,
or written by the Holy Spirit's inspiration, even though the pen was
held by men: Matthew 19:4, 5; 22:31, 32, 43; Mark 12:26; Luke 20:37.
6. He believed Scripture was more powerful than His miracles: Luke
16:29, 31.
7. He actually quoted it in overthrowing Satan (Hasatan)! The O.T.
Scriptures (Tanakh) were the arbiter in every dispute: Matthew 4;
Luke 16:29, 31.
8. He quoted Scripture as the basis for his own teaching. His ethics
were the same as what we find already written in Scripture: Matthew
7:12; 19:18, 19; 22:40; Mark 7:9, 13; 10:19; 12:24,29-31; Luke 18:20.
9. He warned against replacing it with something else, or adding or
subtracting from it. The Jewish leaders in His day had added to it
with their Oral Traditions: Matthew 5:17; 15:1-9; 22:29; (cf.
5:43,44); Mark. 7:1-12. (Destroying faith in the Bible as God's Word
will open the door today to a "new" Tradition.)
10. He will judge all men in the last day, as Messiah and King, on
the basis of His infallible Word committed to writing by fallible
men, guided by the infallible Holy Spirit: Matthew 25:31; John 5:22,
27; 12:48; Romans 2:16.
11. He made provision for the New Testament (B'rit Hadashah) by
sending the Holy Spirit (the Ruach HaKodesh). We must note that He
Himself never wrote one word of Scripture although He is the Word of
God Himself (the living Torah in flesh and blood, see John, chapter
1). He committed the task of all writing of the Word of God to
fallible men - guided by the infallible Holy Spirit. The apostles'
words had the same authority as Christ's: Matthew 10:14, 15; Luke
10:16; John 13:20; 14:22; 15:26, 27; 16:12-14.
12. He not only was not jealous of the attention men paid to the
Bible (denounced as "bibliolatry" by some), He reviled them for
their ignorance of it: Matthew 22:29; Mark 12:24.
13. Nor did Jesus (Yeshua) worship Scripture. He honored it - even
though written by men.
The above leaves no room but to conclude that our Lord Jesus Christ
(Yeshua HaMoshiach) considered the canon of Scripture (Tanakh) as
God's Word, written by the hand of men.
Although some religious leaders profess to accept Scripture
as "God's Word," their low view of "inspiration" belies the fact.
They believe and teach that Scripture is, to a very significant
degree, man's word. Many of their statements are in essential
disagreement with those of Jesus Christ (Yeshua HaMoshiach). From
the evidence of their books, we conclude that some Christian leaders
are opposite to Christ in His regard for the authority, the
inspiration, and the inerrancy of Scripture.
And now, the most important point.
III. Jesus Christ Was Subject to Scripture
Jesus (Yeshua) obeyed the Word of God, not man. He was subject to
it. If some leaders' view of inspiration were true, Jesus (Yeshua)
was subject to an errant, rather casually thrown-together "Word of
Man." Jesus (Yeshua) would have been subject, then, to the will of
man, not the will of God.
However, in all the details of His acts of redemption, Jesus
(Yeshua) was subject to Scripture as God's Word. He obeyed it. It
was His authority, the rule by which He lived. He came to do God's
will, not His own, and not man's. Note how all of His life He did
things because they were written - as if God had directly commanded.
He fulfilled Old Testament (Tanakh's) prophecies about Himself. The
passages are found all over the Old Testament (Tanakh). We cite here
only a very few quoted in the New Testament (B'rit Hadashah):
Matthew 11:10; 26:24, 53-56; Mark 9:12,13; Luke 4:17-21; 18:31-33;
22:37; 24:44-47.
He Himself IS the Word of God. All the words from His lips were the
Word of God. (John 3:34). If He had desired, He could have written a
new set of rules and they would have been the Word of God. But, He
did not. He followed without question the Bible already penned by
men.
This is the sensible thing for every believer to do. May all who
read this adopt Jesus' (Yeshua's) attitude and become subject BOTH
to Him as Living Word (living Torah) AND to the Bible as the
infallible, written Word of God.
Footnotes
1. Gaussen, L., The Plenary Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures,
(Chicago: The Bible Inst. Colportage Association, n.d.), p. 93.
2. Jesus need not verify every passage in the Canon or else we would
find the whole Old Testament (Tanakh) requoted in the New Testament
(B'rit Hadashah), which is unnecessary. He verifies enough of it to
assure us of complete approval of it all, including passages from
all but a few books. Yet those also were in His Canon. He did not
refute any of them.
3. A good summary of fulfilled prophecy, see: Wenham, J. W., Our
Lord's View of the Old Testament, London: Tyndale Press (1953), pp.
23, 24.
4. See: Matthew 26:53-56; Luke 24:25-27; John 5:39-47.
5. The Pentateuch (Torah) is but one book in five parts. Meredith
Kline's Treaty of the Great King has demonstrated convincingly that
it was written by one person as a unity. Therefore, Christ's
reference to any part of it as written by Moses infers He believed
it was all written by Moses.
The holy Scriptures... make you wise to accept God's salvation
(Hebrew yeshua) by trusting in Christ Jesus (Hebrew Yeshua
HaMoshiach). The whole Bible was given to us by inspiration from God
and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what
is wrong in our lives; it straightens us out and helps us do what is
right. It is God's way of making us well prepared at every point,
fully equipped to do good to everyone.
- II Timothy, Chapter 3, Verses 15-17, Living Bible
(This paper is an excerpt from Dr. Livingston's M.A. Thesis titled,
A Critique of Dewey Beegle's book titled: Inspiration of Scripture.
Copyright 2003 David Livingston.
[7] The Right Hand. The right hand was considered to be of great
importance, symbolically. Joseph was displeased when Jacob crossed
his hands in order to lay his right hand on Ephraim, Joseph's younger
son. But Jacob did this purposely, to give Ephraim the superior
blessing. (Ge 48:13-20) To be on the right hand of a ruler was to
have the most important position, next to the ruler himself (Ps
110:1; Ac 7:55, 56; Ro 8:34; 1Pe 3:22), or a position in his favor.
(Mt 25:33) Jesus is spoken of in the vision of Revelation as having
the seven stars of the seven congregations in his right hand. That
is, all these bodies of elders have his favor and are under his full
control, power, and direction.-Re 1:16, 20; 2:1.
For God to take hold of one's right hand would strengthen that one.
(Ps 73:23) Usually the right hand of a warrior was his sword-wielding
hand, and it was unprotected by the shield in the left hand.
Therefore, a friend would stand or fight at his right hand as an
upholder and protector. This circumstance is used metaphorically with
regard to God's help and protection to those serving him.-Ps 16:8;
109:30, 31; 110:5; 121:5.
The writer of Ecclesiastes says: "The heart of the wise is at his
right hand, but the heart of the stupid at his left hand." In other
words, the wise one inclines toward a good, favorable path, but the
stupid one inclines toward a bad course.-Ec 10:2.
Directions. The Hebrew _expressions for "right hand" (Heb., ya•min´)
and "left hand" (Heb., semo´l´) are also translated "south"
and "north," respectively (Ge 14:15; Ps 89:12), since directions were
reckoned from the standpoint of a person facing the E. Hence, S would
be to his right.-1Sa 23:19, 24.
It is never used to describe someone who is the same person
sitting at the right hand of himself. The below comment also shows
that a protector or one who fights for someone is at his right hand.
Rather than Jehovah being in subjection or as you have put it "God is
serving Jesus", he is the Sovereign of the universe and can give
rulership to whoever he pleases see (Dan4:17 and especially verse 35
of this chapter) At Daniel 7:13,14 in no way is these scriptures
any indication that the son of man is uqual to the ancient of days in
fact to the contrary the son of man knows who the soveriegn of the
universe is ( read Ps 83:18 and Is 42:8 where it says that to no one
will he give his glory to, that is his soverignty as almighty God.
[source ihackman50]
[8] 1 Cor 15:42-50 brings out that Jesus was resurrected into a
spirtual body, flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom.
Also there are no scriptures that shows that Jesus ever ever
ever said or even tried to show that he was ever or in the future be
equal to his God.
In addition you understnding of John 20:28 is faulty. Jesus
appearance to Thomas and the apostles was met with disbelief by
Thomas and possibly others. Jesus had removed that doubt and the now
convinced Thomas exclaimed "My Lord and my God" [literally
meaning "The Lord of me and the God {ho Theos} of me! "] Some
scholars view this as an exclamation of astonishment spoken to Jesus
but actually directed to God, his father. Some though claim (as you
have) that this is directed to Jesus as Thomas's God and that the
original Greek requires it to be directed to Jesus. Even if this is
so the _expression "My Lord and my God" would still have to harmonize
with the rest of the inspired Scriptures. The record shows that
Jesus had previously sent his disciples the message "I am ascending
to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God"there is no
reason for believing that Thomas thought Jesus was almighty God. Also
John 20:30,31 after recounting this incident said that these signs
were given so that you would believe that "Jesus is the Christ, the
son of God " not Almighty God
[9] But isn't the Son still in subjection to his Father's authority? The
one under authority doesn't come out from under authority because of
gaining extra privilege. The discreet slave Jesus spoke about was
apparently still under subjection (or should have been) while he was
away and those who did not comply with his will while he was gone
received judgement.
We know Jesus always does the will of His Father but that is the
point... it is not Jesus' will even during the time period that
Scriptures talks about.
In that sense Jesus is under subjection... he does things the way
Jehovah wants him to do them so in effect it is still Jehovah ruling
because what He would do is what is being done... He has just
delegated that privilege to His Son.
If a rancher has a son and leaves his son in charge of everything
while he is away on business... isn't the son still in subjection to
his father and doesn't the ranch still belong to his father?
[10] On my posting about the new P.E.B. bible, TJ, I see the
difference now that you have explained it. Guess I didn't catch the
thing about the footnotes. You asked about John 8:58. What I meant
was that the translators put "I am" under Ego Eimi in the
interlinear, but not in the version.
There are times when I think that translators do a disservice by
translating word-for-word from the Greek, and I believe this is one
of them. Let's look at the Concordant Version here:
"Verily verily I am saying to you, Ere Abraham came into being, I am."
I think to many people, the above is nonsensical. It is awkward, and
does not convey the proper meaning to the receptor language.
There is an idiom at work here called the "Extension from the Past"
idiom or PPA (Present of Past Action). The reason for this are the
words PRIN ABRAAM GENESQAI (before Abraham was).
"The verb 'to be' is used differently, in what is presumably its
basic meaning of 'be in existence', in John 8:58: prin Abraam
genesthai ego eimi, which would be most naturally translated 'I have
been in existence since before Abraham was born', if it were not for
the obsession with the simple words 'I am'. If we take the Greek
words in their natural meaning, as we surely should, the claim to
have been in existence for so long is in itself a staggering one,
quite enough to provoke the crowd's violent reaction."
John's Gospel," Expository Times (1996): 302-303)
'I am' in John's Gospel
BY K. L. MCKAY, MA, FORMERLY OF THE AUSTRALIAN UNIVERSITY
[11] *** w84 9/1 p. 26 "We Worship What We Know" ***
"Incidentally, it should not be forgotten that, probably in the
fourth century C.E., an overzealous Trinitarian Latin scribe added
to 1 John 5:7 the words "the Father, the Word and the holy spirit;
and these three are one." This addition, known technically as
the "Johannine Comma," was protected by the Vatican until 1927, in
spite of the fact that even some Catholic scholars had raised doubts
about its authenticity as early as the sixth century."
[12] From Carl Conrad [[[One of the greatest Koine Greek scholars of modern times and a former professor at Washington University.]]]
"I will agree that the perfect tense is one of the peskier Greek
forms to get across into English; one of the reasons is that it is
relatively rare in Greek narrative; another is that it corresponds
only in part to the English present tense. Properly speaking, of
course, the Perfect is an Aspect rather than a Tense: it indicates
COMPLETION of the verbal action; it has two tenses, Present and Past
(as I would--if I ever wrote a grammar--like to say that
the "Imperfect" Aspect indicating acting that is in progress or
beginning or uncompleted, which we normally call "Present," also has
two tenses Present and Past--what we conventionally call Present
and Imperfect). The Present Perfect expresses the present CONDITION
of COMPLETION of the action, while the Past Perfect (= Pluperfect)
expresses a past CONDITION OF COMPLETION, e.g.:
Present: APOQNHiSKEI " ... is dying"
Imperfect: APEQNHiSKE(N) " ... was dying"
Aorist: APEQANE(N) " ... died"
Present Perfect: APOTEQNHKE(N) "is dead" = "has died"
Past Perfect: APETEQNHKEI "was dead" = "had died"
There are verbs such as OIDA which are, properly (morphologically)
speaking, in the perfect tense but which can only be properly
translated in English in the present tense. Thus OIDA means "I know"-
-it certainly DOES NOT mean "I have known"--although one might like
to conjecture that it originally meant something like "I have a full-
formed vision," inasmuch as this is historically and morphologically
the perfect-tense form of the verb which we know in the Aorist as
EIDON (from the root wEID/wOID/wID).
Aristotle somewhere--I don't recall offhand whether it's in the
Metaphysics or in the De Anima, probably the former--notes that his
idea of ENTELEXEIA, which is usually translated as
either "actuality" or "realization," but could just as well be
translated "fulfillment," often finds _expression in verbs in the
perfect tense. I would say that this is true of hESTHKA, which
is the ONLY way that Greek can express the sense, "I am standing." A
similar verb is GI(G)NOMAI, where GI(G)NOMAI means " ... come into
existence," EGENOMHN means "came into existence," but GEGONA
means " ...exist full-formed." Worth looking at are the Greek verbs
in John's prologue, 1:3-4:
"all things came into existence (EGENETO) through his agency, nor
did a single thing come into existence (EGENETO). What has existence
(GEGONEN) was, in fact (HN, "philosophic" or "explanatory"
imperfect) Life in Him.""
See Part Two:
