"No Man Has Seen the Father"

"No Man Has Seen the Father"

John 5:37 - "The Father who sent me ... his form you have never seen" - RSV.

Numbers 12:8 - "with [Moses] I speak mouth to mouth ... and he beholds the form of [Jehovah]."

Therefore, some trinitarians claim, Moses saw the form of Jehovah. And since Jesus said that men have never seen the form of the Father, the Father must not be Jehovah. Jehovah God of the Old Testament must really be Jesus, they say.

First, we should note that Jesus was speaking to first century Jews at John 5:37. Of course they had never seen the "form" of Jehovah. That does not necessarily mean that Moses did not see the "form" of the Father more than a thousand years earlier!

Second, John tells us that no man has ever seen God (John 1:18, 1 John 4:12). And yet many men have seen Jesus (hundreds saw him even after his resurrection). Therefore, Jesus cannot be God, but Jehovah certainly is God. Therefore Jesus cannot be Jehovah!

Furthermore, we know Jehovah is not Jesus:

Psalm 110:1 - "Jehovah saith unto [Jesus - compare Acts 2:34-36]" - ASV;

Ps. 2:2 - "the rulers take counsel together against Jehovah, and against his anointed [Messiah - compare Acts 4:24-27]" - ASV;

Ps. 2:7 - "I will tell of the decree: Jehovah said unto me, thou art my son; this day have I begotten thee' [compare Acts 13:33,34]" - ASV;

Micah 5:2, 4 - "And he [Jesus] shall stand, and shall feed his flock ... in the majesty of the name of Jehovah his God." - ASV.

We also know that Jehovah is the Father, not the Son. Jehovah is never called "the Son," "the Messiah," "the only-begotten," "the firstborn," etc. But he is called the Father: "O Jehovah, thou art our Father" - Is. 64:8 ASV (compare Is. 63:16; Jer. 3:19, 20; Deut. 32:6; Ps. 89:26, 27).

And we know that Jehovah alone is the only true God.

"Father,.... This is eternal life to know thee who alone art truly God..." - Jn 17:1, 3, NEB. Cf. Ps. 86:6, 10; Is. 45:5, 6, 21, 22.


Numbers 12:8 Examined

So, how can we reconcile Nu. 12:8 ("[Moses] beholds the form of Jehovah") with the rest of the Bible? Especially when Jehovah Himself said just before he showed Moses His "form": "man shall not see me and live" (Ex. 33:20 - ASV)!

First, Robert Young tells us in Young's Analytical Concordance to the Bible, "Hints and Helps to Bible Interpretation":

"What a SERVANT says or does is ascribed to the MASTER."

That is why angels sent directly from God and perfectly speaking God's very words to humans are frequently called "God" or "Jehovah": Ex. 3:2, 4; Gen. 32:24-28, 30 and Hosea 12:3, 4; Gen. 31:11, 13; Gen. 16:11, 13; Judges 13:21, 22. Therefore, seeing the form of one of God's perfect representatives was spoken of as seeing God. (E.g. Manoa knew he had spoken with an angel of Jehovah and yet said: "we shall surely die because we have seen God." - Judges 13:21, 22 ASV.)

Second, the Hebrew word translated "form" at Nu. 12:8 is temunah which is used 10 times in the entire Old Testament. It can be translated "form," "likeness," "image," or "similitude" (as in KJV). "Similitude" means "one that is like or similar; a facsimile."

In fact, Dr. William F. Beck, noted Lutheran scholar, translated Nu.12:8 - "[Moses] sees what the LORD is like." - The Holy Bible in the Language of Today.

And the Holy Bible: Easy-to-Read Version translates Nu. 12:8 - "Moses can look at the very image of the Lord." (Examine uses of temunah at Ex. 20:4; Deut. 4:16, 23, 25; and 5:8.)

So, just because Jehovah's angel, speaking and acting for Jehovah, showed Moses a portion of his glory as a "likeness" or "image" of God does not mean that Moses literally saw God "face to face." (For another interpretation of Nu. 12:8 examine the footnote in the NIVSB.) In fact, we see that, even though Moses had just spoken "face-to-face" with God (Ex. 33:11), God says that no man (including Moses, of course) can actually see His "face" and live! (Ex. 33:20, 23).

We can see, then, that when John said that no man had ever seen God, he meant it in the literal, physical sense: no man has actually seen the very person of God (who is the Father, Jehovah, only) with his physical eyes. We can also be confident that, since many men have seen Jesus (both before and after his resurrection - and, probably, in his pre-existent form as the Angel of Jehovah whom Moses saw, as even some trinitarian reference works show ), Jesus cannot be God!

* * * * * * *

Walter Martin uses his version of this trinitarian "evidence" on pp. 69-70 of The Kingdom of the Cults (1985 ed.) to show that "Jesus ... was truly an incarnation of Jehovah":

"As recorded in the eighteenth chapter of Genesis, Abraham had three visitors. Two of them were angels (Genesis 19:1), but the third he addressed as Jehovah God, fourteen times! .... To further confuse the Witnesses' peculiar view of God as a solitary unit [only one person], Jesus Himself said concerning His Father, `... you have not at any time either heard his voice or seen his form ... for God is a Spirit ...' (John 4:24; 5:37). Now then, here is the evidence. Moses declares that God spoke face to face with Abraham (Gen. 18:26), and Jesus and John say, `No man hath seen God at any time.' But Jesus makes it clear that He is referring to the Father, and so does John [?]."

So, again, we find people in the Old Testament "seeing" God and the New Testament denying that any human has ever literally, physically seen God.

Martin then tells us that there is only one "solution to this dilemma": God the Father was in heaven while "God the Son" spoke face to face with Abraham (see the IMAGE study, p. 6 and f.n. #7). We already have seen another, more honest, "solution to this 'dilemma'" above. Now notice what Martin himself admits about this "dilemma" in a later place in this same book.

Martin tells us that the Mormon idea that the Father and the heavenly-resurrected Son are persons with bodies of flesh who can, therefore, be seen and touched by humans is totally false. He tells us that the angels in heaven are

" 'ministering spirits' (Hebrews 1:7), beings who have immaterial 'bodies' of spiritual substances and yet exist." - p. 205.

He then points out that God the Father, the Holy Spirit, and the Son (before coming to the earth as Jesus Christ) had "immaterial bodies" of spirit - p. 206.

Martin continues (p. 207):

"The Mormon teaching that God was seen 'face to face' in the Old Testament (Exodus 33:9, 11, 23; Exodus 24:9-11; Isaiah 6:1, 5; Genesis 5:24; Genesis 6:5-9, etc.) is refuted on two counts, that of language and the science of comparative textual analysis (hermeneutics).

"From the standpoint of linguistics, all the references cited by the Mormons to prove 'that God has a physical body that could be observed' melt away in the light of God's expressed declaration, 'Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me and live' (Exodus 33:20).

"Exodus 33:11 (face to face) in the Hebrew is rendered `intimate' and in no sense is it opposed to verse 20. Similar expressions are utilized in Deuteronomy 5:4, while in Genesis 32:30 it is the angel of the Lord who speaks, not Jehovah himself. The Old Testament is filled with theophanies (literally, Godforms), instances where God spoke or revealed Himself in angelic manifestations...."

Isn't it strange that when he wants to defend a trinity idea, Martin can find only one explanation for God speaking face to face with someone: Jesus was God! And yet, when he needs a different understanding for a different purpose, he can see a different (and more honest in this case) explanation.

Notice that Martin claims that Jesus is equally God with the Father and that they both had immaterial spirit bodies during the time written about in the Old Testament. Having immaterial spirit bodies and being God, neither of them could have been seen by humans! However, if Jesus had had the same type of spirit body that the other sons of God (angels) had, and if he were not God, he could have temporarily assumed a body of flesh during a meeting with humans upon earth just as they did at various times in the Old Testament.

But God (whether father, son, "cousin," "uncle," "nephew," etc.) has never been seen by man - Jn 1:18; 1 Jn 4:12.

As Martin tells us,

"all the references cited ... to prove 'that God has a physical body that could be observed' melt away in the light of God's expressed declaration, 'Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me and live' (Exodus 33:20)."


* * * * *


NOTES


1.
E.g. - "Angel of the Lord - occurs many times in the Old Testament, where in almost every instance it means a supernatural personage to be distinguished from Jehovah (Gen.16:7-14; 22:11-18; 31:11,13; Ex.3:2-5 [etc.]). Some feel the preincarnate Christ is meant." And, "Titles and Names of Jesus Christ. .... Angel of the Lord (Ex.3:2; Judg.13:15-18)." - pp. 39, 624, Today's Dictionary of the Bible, Bethany House Publishers, 1982.

Traditional Christian interpretation has held that this "angel" was a preincarnate manifestation of Christ as God's Messenger-Servant." - footnote for Gen. 16:7 in The NIV Study Bible, 1985, Zondervan.


2.
For a discussion of John 14:9 ("He who has seen me [the Son] has seen the Father") see the OMN study paper.

Why didn't God give us more information than what is found in the Bible?

We have everything we need to know, but not everything that there is to know.

Why?

God's reasoning on this may be likened to the perspective of Him being our Father (our parent).

For example: for many human parents, there are some things that they don't bother telling their children about because age and experience will be the best teacher for them. Some things are too deep and are very difficult for their children to be able to comprehend at that time.

Similarly, since God's "ways are higher than [our] ways, and [His] thoughts than [our] thoughts" (Isa. 55:9), He has given us all of the information that we need for right now.

However, we can discern a lot of (otherwise "hidden") information right now as we progress in our understanding:

"The path of the righteous ones is like the bright light that is getting lighter and lighter until the day is firmly established." (Prov. 4:18)

Unfortunately, a large problem some may have is that they give up on God simply because they are unable to find the information that they are looking for in the Bible or that there is just a misunderstanding of the information that they already have. We are encouraged not to give up, but to keep seeking and to keep searching for understanding - likening it to "hid treasures":

"My son, if you will receive my sayings and treasure up my own commandments with yourself, so as to pay attention to wisdom with your ear, that you may incline your heart to discernment; if, moreover, you call out for understanding itself and you give forth your voice for discernment itself, if you keep seeking for it as for silver, and as for hid treasures you keep searching for it, in that case you will understand the fear of Jehovah, and you will find the very knowledge of God." (Prov. 2:1-5) NWT

For more, see:

Bible - Links to Information (Search For Bible Truths)

Why doesn't the Bible give all of the answers? (Jehovah's Witnesses Questions and Answers)

Does Acts 8:29 Prove That the Holy Spirit is a Person?

In an attempt to show that the Holy Spirit is a person, some have pointed to Acts 8:29 which says:

"So the spirit said to Philip:

"Approach and join yourself to this chariot."' - NWT


Because the Scripture mentions that the "spirit" actually spoke this sentence, some claim that this shows that the Holy Spirit must be a person because only people speak. But is this really the case?

In order to verify the true situation here, this Scripture needs to be put in context. Back up to verse 26:

"However, Jehovah's angel spoke to Philip, saying: "Rise and go to the south to the road that runs down from Jerusalem to Ga´za." (This is a desert road.)

"With that he rose and went, and, look! an E·thi·o´pi·an eunuch, a man in power under Can·da´ce queen of the E·thi·o´pi·ans, and who was over all her treasure. He had gone to Jerusalem to worship, but he was returning and was sitting in his chariot and reading aloud the prophet Isaiah.

"So the spirit said to Philip: "Approach and join yourself to this chariot." (Acts 8:26-9) NWT

In verse 26 we see that it was not the Holy Spirit who began talking to Philip but instead it was "Jehovah's angel". "Jehovah's angel" continues his instructions to Philip in verse 29. Note: verse 29 does not say the Holy Spirit, but only "spirit" (as is seen in numerous translations). The Greek language shows that "spirit" does also mean merely "angels" as the context here indicates.

And even if it was talking about the Holy Spirit here, it still doesn't call the spirit "God". In fact, it clearly calls the spirit "Jehovah's angel" or "an ANGEL of God"... a term (angel) that trinitarians seem to be extremely sensitive to. Also, this was not a specific angel such as a title "The Angel of the Lord". No, this was "an" angel of God...one of many angels available who carried the message.


For more, see:

Holy Spirit - Links To Information (Defend Jehovah's Witnesses)

The Holy Spirit - Not a Person or God, But an Impersonal Force From God (Original File With Notes) (Defend Jehovah's Witnesses)

Quotes: Holy Spirit is a Force from God, Trinitarians Admit (Defend Jehovah's Witnesses)

"Holy Spirit" in the Original Greek is Neuter - "It," "Itself" are Used in the Original New Testament Greek (Defend Jehovah's Witnesses)

Exposing the False Reasoning Behind Holy Spirit 'Proof-Texts' (Defend Jehovah's Witnesses)

Do Scriptures Personifying the "Holy Spirit" Really Mean That it is a Person? (Defend Jehovah's Witnesses)

How can the Holy Spirit be "grieved"? (Eph. 4:30) (Search For Bible Truths)

The Bible's Stated Principles Concerning Marriage

The Bible's stated principles concerning marriage:

When God instituted marriage, there was no mention that He made any provision for divorce...it was not intended:

"That is why a man will leave his father and his mother and he must stick to his wife and they must become one flesh." (Gen. 2:24)

The Scriptures instruct married people to not even "depart" (or separate) from each other but if they do then they should "remain unmarried":

"To the married people I give instructions, yet not I but the Lord, that a wife should not depart from her husband; but if she should actually depart, let her remain unmarried or else make up again with her husband; and a husband should not leave his wife." (1 Cor. 7:10, 11)

The marriage bond is permanent until the death of the spouse:

"For instance, a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is alive; but if her husband dies, she is discharged from the law of her husband. So, then, while her husband is living, she would be styled an adulteress if she became another man's. But if her husband dies, she is free from his law, so that she is not an adulteress if she becomes another man's." (Rom. 7:2, 3)

Aside from death, the only other way it may be broken is on the ground of "fornication," which causes the offending one to become one flesh with an illicit partner. It therefore may be used by the innocent party as a ground for dissolving the marriage if that one chooses to do so, and the innocent one may then remarry:

"However, I say to YOU that everyone divorcing his wife, except on account of fornication, makes her a subject for adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery." (Mt. 5:32)

For more, see:

MARRIAGE - Links to Information (INDEX; Watchtower Online Library)

MARRIAGE (Insight-2 pp. 340-344; Watchtower Online Library)

Marriage (Search Results From the Watchtower Online Library)

What Can I Expect From Marriage?​—Part 1 | Young People Ask (JW.ORG)

What Can I Expect From Marriage?—Part 2 | Young People Ask (JW.ORG)

Does Happiness Depend on Marriage? (JW.ORG)

What does the Bible say about gay marriage? Does the Bible Comment on Same-Sex Marriages? (JW.ORG)

Keys to Family Happiness - Maintaining Commitment in Your Marriage (JW.ORG)

How Children Change a Marriage (JW.ORG)

Surviving the First Year of Marriage (JW.ORG)

Can Your Marriage Be Saved? | Is Divorce the Answer? (JW.ORG)

Managing Conflicts in My Marriage (JW.ORG)

Practical information in resolving marital problems between Christian mates (Jehovah's Witnesses Questions and Answers)

Marriage and the Scriptures (Jehovah’s Witnesses Official Media Web Site)

VIDEO - "The Beginning of God's Creation" (A grammatical and historical consideration of Revelation 3:14.)

For more concerning Rev. 3:14, see:

Some take the view that what is meant is that the Son was ‘the beginner of God’s creation,’ that he was its ‘ultimate source.’ But Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon lists “beginning” as... (rs p. 405-p. 426; Watchtower Online Library)

Appreciate Jesus’ Unique Role in God’s Purpose; "The Amen" Why is Jesus called “the Amen”? (w08 12/15 pp. 12-16; Watchtower Online Library)

Rev. 3:14 - Does 'Arkhe' Mean "Beginning" or Does it Mean "Origin" or "Source"? (Defend Jehovah's Witnesses)

NWT - Rev. 3:14 (Defending the New World Translation)

BWF - 'Beginning,' 'Wisdom,' and 'Firstborn' (Examining the Trinity)

Revelation 3:14 "...the beginning of the creation by God." (IN Defense of the NWT)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

            BACK TO HOME PAGE           INDEX 

Does Isa. 9:6 Prove That Jesus is God?

Many (but not all) trinitarians will tell you that Isa. 9:6 proves that Jesus is God.

Isa. 9:6 says –

“For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder; and his name shall be called Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.”

All Christians, I believe, accept this son as being the Christ. Some will tell you that since the meaning of this symbolic name includes the words “Mighty God, Eternal Father,” then Jesus is the Mighty God and the Eternal Father”

But there are at least two other ways this personal name has been interpreted by reputable Bible scholars. (1) The titles within the name (e.g., “Mighty God”) are intended in their secondary, subordinate senses. (2) the titles within the name are meant to praise God the Father, not the Messiah.

First, there is the possibility that the words (or titles) found in the literal meaning of the name apply directly to the Messiah all right but in a subordinate sense. In other words, Christ is “a mighty god” in the same sense that God’s angels were called “gods” and the judges of Israel were called “gods” by God himself (also by Jesus - John 10:34, 35), and Moses was called “a god” by Jehovah himself. This is the interpretation of Is. 9:6 by the WT Society at the time of this writing (1986).

Yes, men and angels were called gods (elohim - Hebrew; theos - Greek) in a proper, but subordinate, sense by Jehovah and his inspired Bible writers (see the DEF and BOWGOD studies). Although they were given this elevated title in a proper sense (not false gods), it was obviously with the clear understanding that it in no way implied a comparison with the Most High, Only True God. (A bank employee calling his boss, the head of the bank, “the president” would certainly not imply an equality of position, power, etc. with “The President” [of the USA].)[1]

The word “god” as understood by those who used that term simply meant a “mighty one” - see Young’s Concordance. In fact the word “Mighty” as found at Is. 9:6 (Gibbor in the original Hebrew) is also applied to the angels at Ps. 103:20 (see a modern concordance such as the New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible). It is interesting that the ancient translation of the Old Testament that Jesus frequently quoted, the Septuagint Version, renders Is. 9:6: “and his [the Messiah’s] name is called the Angel [aggelos, messenger] of Great Counsel.” (And a footnote in Zondervan’s Edition adds that the Alexandrine text renders it, “Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty One, Potentate, Prince of Peace, Father of the age to come.”) The very early (ca. 160 A.D.) Christian Justin Martyr quoted Is. 9:6 also as “The Angel of mighty counsel” - “Dialogue With Trypho,” ch. LXXVI.

So, just as “Lord” was applied to anyone in authority: angels, masters over servants, husbands, etc., so, too, could “god” be applied to anyone (good or bad) who was considered a “mighty person.” Of course only one person could be called the “Most High God,” or the “Only True God,” or the “Almighty God”!

In the same way, “Eternal Father” could mean that the Messiah is one who has been given eternal life and through him God has brought eternal life to many others. (We might make the comparison that the Heavenly Father has brought men to life in this world through their earthly fathers.) This would be intended in a clearly subordinate sense and not to take anything away from the ultimate honor, glory, worship, etc. due the Most High God and Father in heaven - Jehovah.

At any rate, even trinitarians do not confuse the two separate persons of the Father and the Son. They do not say the Son is the Father. They say the Father and the Son are two separate individual persons who are equally “God”!

Therefore, since we obviously cannot take “Eternal Father” in the literal sense to mean that Jesus is the Father[2], we cannot take the rest of that same name (esp. ‘Mighty God’) in its literal highest sense and say that Jesus is Mighty God, etc., either.

In addition to the distinct possibility of the use of the secondary subordinate meanings of the titles such as “God/god” as explained by Bible language scholars (see the BOWGOD study), we can see by the actual renderings of some trinitarian Bible translators at Is. 9:6 that they believe such subordinate meanings were intended by the inspired Bible writer.

Instead of “Mighty God,” Dr. James Moffatt translated this part of Is. 9:6 as “a divine hero;” Byington has “Divine Champion;” The New English Bible has “In Battle Godlike;” The Catholic New American Bible (1970 and 1991 revision) renders it “God-Hero;” and the REB says “Mighty Hero.” Even that most-respected of Biblical Hebrew language experts, Gesenius, translated it “mighty hero” - p. 45, Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon.

Also, The NIV Study Bible, in a f.n. for Ps 45:6, tells us:

“In this psalm, which praises the king and especially extols his ‘splendor and majesty’ (v. 3), it is not unthinkable that he was called ‘god’ as a title of honor [cf. Isa 9:6].” (Bracketed information is included in original footnote; emphasis is mine - RDB.)

In addition, Rotherham has rendered “Eternal Father” as “father of progress,” and the New English Bible translates it: “father of a wide realm.”

The above-mentioned Bible translations by trinitarian scholars which apply the words in the name at Is. 9:6 in a subordinate sense directly to Jesus clearly show that they do not believe this scripture implies an equality with Jehovah the Father.[3]

And second, another way competent Bible scholars have interpreted the meaning of this name is with the understanding that it (as with many, if not most, of the other Israelites’ personal names) does not apply directly to the Messiah (as we have already seen with “Elijah,” “Abijah,” etc.) but is, instead, a statement praising the Father, Jehovah God.

Personal names in the ancient Hebrew and Greek are often somewhat cryptic to us today. The English Bible translator must fill in the missing minor words (especially in names composed of two or more Hebrew words) such as “my,” “is,” “of,” etc. in whatever way he thinks best in order to make sense for us today in English.

For instance, two of the best Bible concordances (Young’s and Strong’s) and a popular trinitarian Bible dictionary (Today’s Dictionary of the Bible) differ greatly on the exact meaning of many Biblical personal names because of those “minor” words which must be added to bring out the intended meaning.

Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance, for example, says the name “Elimelech” (which is literally just “God King”) means “God of (the) King.” Young’s Analytical Concordance says it means “God is King.” Today’s Dictionary of the Bible says it means “ God his king” - p. 206, Bethany House Publ., 1982.

Those missing minor words that the translator must supply at his own discretion can often make a vital difference! - For example, the footnote for Gen. 17:5 in The NIV Study Bible: The name ‘Abram’ “means ‘Exalted Father,’ probably in reference to God (i.e., ‘[God is the] Exalted Father’).” - bracketed information is in the original.

This is why another name the Messiah is to be called by at Jer. 23:6 is rendered, 'The LORD [YHWH] IS Our Righteousness' in the following Bibles: RSV; NRSV; NEB; NJB; JPS (Margolis, ed.); Tanakh; Byington; AT; and ASV (footnote). Of course other translations render it more literally by calling the Messiah "The LORD [YHWH] Our Righteousness" to help support a 'Jesus is God' doctrine. Some of these (such as the NASB) actually render the very same name at Jer. 33:16 as "The LORD [or Jehovah] is Our Righteousness"! - [bracketed information is mine].

(Unfortunately for "Jesus is Jehovah" advocates, the very same name given to the Messiah at Jer. 23:16 is given to a city at Jer. 33:16.) [4]

Therefore, the personal name at Is. 9:6 has been honestly translated in the footnote as:

“And his name is called: Wonderful in counsel IS God the Mighty, the Everlasting Father, the Ruler of Peace” - The Holy Scriptures, JPS Version (Margolis, ed.)

to show that it is intended to praise the God of the Messiah who performs great things through the Messiah.

Also, An American Translation (by trinitarians Smith and Goodspeed) says:

“Wonderful Counselor IS God Almighty, Father forever, Prince of Peace.”

Of course it could also be honestly translated:

“The Wonderful Counselor and Mighty God Is the Eternal Father of the Prince of Peace.”[5]

And the Tanakh by the JPS, 1985, translates it:

[a]“The Mighty God is planning grace;

[b] The Eternal Father [is] a peaceable ruler.”

This latter translation seems particularly appropriate since it is in the form of a parallelism. Not only was the previous symbolic personal name introduced by Isaiah at Is. 8:1 a parallelism (“Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz” means [a]“quick to the plunder; [b] swift to the spoil” - NIV footnote) but the very introduction to this Messianic name at Is. 9:6 is itself a parallelism: [a]“For unto us a child is born; [b] unto us a son is given.” It would, therefore, be appropriate to find that this name, too, was in the form of a parallelism as translated by the Tanakh above.

So it is clear, even to a number of trinitarian scholars, that Is. 9:6 does not imply that Jesus is Jehovah God.

We often find trinitarians insisting that the three “persons” of the "Trinity" all share the very same personal name: Jehovah (or Yahweh). This is impossible on the face of it. After all, a personal name is a name given to a single person as a method of identifying that individual person. And trinitarians themselves agree that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three separate persons! Just as each person has his very own identifying title (“Father,” “Son,” “Holy Spirit”), so too, must they each have his very own personal name (“Jehovah,” “Jesus,” and ???).[6]

Many people recorded in the Bible were given personal names praising Jehovah as the Father (e.g. “Abijah,” “Abiah,” “Joab,” etc.). No such names ever praised him as the Son, Messiah, Holy Spirit, etc.

Straightforward statements of Scripture actually identify Jehovah as the Father (e.g. Is. 64:8 - “O Jehovah, thou art our Father,” ASV) but never as the Son, Messiah, Firstborn, etc.

The unique personal name 'Jehovah' is always applied to the Father (never the Son, etc.): in Ps 110, for example, the heavenly glorified Jesus sits at the right hand OF Jehovah (cf. Acts 2:33-36 and Eph 1:17, 20); “Yet it pleased Jehovah to bruise [the Messiah]” - Is. 53:10, ASV; Jesus does his work “in the majesty of the name of Jehovah HIS GOD” - Micah 5:4, ASV; “I will tell of the decree: Jehovah said unto me [Christ], Thou art my son; This day have I begotten thee.” - Ps 2:7, ASV (cf. Acts 13:33); “The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, Against Jehovah and against his anointed [Christ]” - Ps. 2:2, ASV (cf. Acts 4:25, 26).

Isn’t it clear that “Jehovah” is the name of the Father only? Jehovah is the Father’s unique personal name. No other person has that personal name. (In cases where more than one person really do share the same personal name in the Bible writings and there is a possibility of confusing the identity of them, that personal name is usually further identified: For example: “Simon who is called Peter” - Matt. 4:18, RSV; “Simon, the Cananaean” - Matt. 10:4, RSV; “Simon, a tanner”- Acts 10:6, RSV.)

It would certainly be foolish not to do this, and we continue the same custom today. And yet the only time this most important of all personal names [”Jehovah”] is further identified, IT IS ALWAYS AS THE FATHER!) Jehovah is the Father only. But many trinitarians are forced to deny this because only Jehovah (the Father alone) is God - 2 Ki. 19:19; Is. 37:16; 45:5, 21, 22, ASV. Only the Father (Jehovah alone) is God!

The Personal Name “Jehovah”

“5. ‘Jehovah’ - The name most distinctive of God as the God of Israel is Jehovah .... The meaning may with some confidence be inferred ... to be that of the simple future, yahweh, ‘he will be.’ It does not express causation, nor existence in a metaphysical sense, but the covenant promise of the Divine presence, both at the immediate time and in the Messianic age of the future.... It is the personal name of God.... Characteristic of the OT is its insistence on the possible knowledge of God as a person; and Jehovah is His name as a person. It is illogical, certainly, that the later Hebrews should have shrunk from its pronunciation, in view of the appropriateness of the name and of the OT insistence on the personality of God, who as a person has this name. [The ASV] quite correctly adopts the transliteration ‘Jehovah’ to emphasize its significance and purpose as a personal name of God revealed.” - The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, p. 1266, Vol. 2, Eerdmans, 1984.

So the ASV properly translated the thousands of places in the Holy Scriptures where this Holy Name appears as “Jehovah.” Unfortunately the vast majority of Bibles today still follow the dishonest tradition of changing those thousands of instances into “LORD.”[7]

“Jehovah denotes specifically the one true God, whose people the Jews were, and who made them the guardians of his truth. .... The substitution of the word Lord is most unhappy, for it in no way represents the meaning of the sacred name.” - p. 220, Smith’s Bible Dictionary, Hendrickson Publ.

“The name of God is described as his ‘holy name’ more than all other adjectival qualifications taken together. It was this sense of the sacredness of the name that finally led to the obtuse [stupid] refusal to use ‘Yahweh’ [‘Jehovah’], leading as it has done to a deep loss of the sense of the divine name in [English Bibles] (with the notable exception of JB).” - p. 813, New Bible Dictionary, Tyndale House Publishers, 1984.

“Jehovah, the special and significant name (not merely an appellative title such as Lord) by which God revealed himself to the ancient Hebrews” - p. 330, Today’s Dictionary of the Bible, Bethany House Publ., 1982.

“Here is why we did not [use ‘Jehovah’ in the NIV Bible]: You are right that Jehovah is a distinctive name for God and ideally we should have used it. .... We are the victims of 350 years of the King James tradition. It is far better to get two million to read it - that is how many have bought [the NIV] to date [1979] - and to follow the King James [‘LORD’], than to have two thousand buy it and have the correct translation of Yahweh [or Jehovah].... It was a hard decision, and many of our translators agree with you.” - Edwin H. Palmer, Th.D., Executive Secretary for the NIV (See 'Tribute' in foreword of The NIV Study Bible, 1985.), quoted from letter published in 15 July 1979 WT.

NOTES

1. Remember, there was no capitalization (or punctuation) in the original Bible manuscripts (or their copies for many hundreds of years thereafter). Therefore, it is strictly up to the personal interpretation of the translator as to when and where he wants to add capitalization! Of course, since the words in question at Is. 9:6 are parts of a name, all the major words found there are often capitalized in English (as is done for most other names). For example, Ex. 17:15 - “The-LORD-Is-My Banner” - NKJV, NASB, NLV, and “The LORD is my Banner” - NIV, REB, GNB, and “Under-the- Eternal’s-Banner” - Moffatt. Is. 8:3 - “Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz”, NIV, NKJV, NJB, ETRV, and “Quick-Loot-Fast-Plunder” - GNB. Rev. 19:13 - “the name by which he is called is The Word of God,” most translations.

Therefore, it is not meaningful that ‘God,’ ‘Father,’ etc. are also capitalized in most translations of the name at Is. 9:6. (Trinitarian Dr. James Moffatt, for example, translated this name in Is 9:6 in all lower case letters.)

2. Jesus was never called by the title “Father,” and he didn’t want anyone to take the title “Father” (in a religious sense, of course) other than his Father, Jehovah, in heaven. (Matt. 23:9) The relationship between Jesus and men (some men, at least) isn’t described as Father and sons but brothers. (Ro. 8:29; Heb. 2:10-18)

The evidence given in the Aid book proving that the title “Alpha and Omega” must be applied to the Father and not Jesus, applies equally well to the title “Eternal Father” of Is. 9:6. The Aid book says:

“The title [Alpha and Omega] occurs again at Rev. 21:6, and the following verse (21:7) identifies the speaker by saying: ‘Anyone conquering will inherit these things, and I shall be his God and he will be my son.’ Inasmuch as Jesus referred to those who are joint heirs with him in his kingdom as ‘brothers’ not ‘sons,’ the speaker must be Jesus’ heavenly Father, Jehovah God.” - Aid, p. 57.

3. “… on occasion [Elohim (‘God’ or ‘god’ in Heb.)] is used of the heavenly beings {Angels} around Yahweh’s throne (Ps. [8:5]); ... 97:7; 138:1), judges (Ps. 82:1, 6... and also John 10:34-36), Moses (Exod. 7:1; cf. 4:16), and the apparition of Samuel (1 Sam. 28:13; cf. Isa. 8:19). It is also relevant to note that Isaiah [9:6] combines the two terms used in Psalm 45 to address the king (viz, [‘Mighty’ and ‘God’]) and applies the title to the ideal king of the future {Christ} .... Because, then, Israelites regarded the king as God’s viceroy on earth, his legitimated son who exhibited divine qualities, it is not altogether surprising that ... a Davidic king should exceptionally be given a title [Elohim: “God” or “god”] that was in fact not reserved exclusively for deity.” - p. 202, Jesus as God, Murray J. Harris (highly trinitarian), Baker Book House (highly trinitarian), 1992.

4. For those trinitarians who insist that the “name” of the Messiah given at Jeremiah 23:6 (“Jehovah Is Our Righteousness”) proves that he IS Jehovah - - compare Jeremiah 33:16 where the very same “name” in the original OT Hebrew is given to a CITY. - KJV, RSV, NRSV, NASB, NEB, JB, NJB, NIV, ASV, NAB (‘70), NAB (‘91’), GNB, AB, Tanakh, JPS (Margolis, 1917), Beck, Moffatt.

5. After I posted some of this on the “GreekTheology” internet discussion group, I received this reply from “bar_enosh”:

“Several Jewish versions do follow this thought, that the "name" here actually describes God, or what God is doing through the Child.  For example, the Tanakh (Jewish Publication Society, 1985) reads: "He has been named 'The Mighty God is planning grace, The Eternal Father, a peaceable ruler.'"

“The Stone Tanach (Artscroll Mesorah, 1999) gives: ‘The Wondrous Adviser, Mighty God, Eternal Father, called his name Sar-shalom [Prince of Peace].’

“These renderings essentially follow the classical Jewish commentators, such as Rashi and Kimchi, who render 'the God, who is called and is Wonder, Counselor, the mighty God, the eternal Father, calls his name the Prince of Peace.  Another commentator, Luzzato, renders, "God the mighty, the eternal Father, the Prince of Peace, resolves upon wonderful things," and is prophetically declarative, as were the names of Isaiah's sons.  (Keil & Delitzsch)

“Grammatically, the Hebrew terms in the Hebrew text can be read in several different ways, as mini-sentences or as straight ‘titles.'  Additionally, Jewish commentators generally apply the sentence-title to King Hezekiah, or to Hezekiah as a "type" of the Messiah.  But they translate in a way that shows God as the actor, in behalf of this child who would bear the name.”

6. Even IF the trinity were true (and it clearly is not), it seems ridiculous that the three separate PERSONS of the “trinity” would all have the same personal name. Why differentiate between them at all then? It is more than just strange that we would take the effort and time to call one the Father, and one the Son, and one the Holy Spirit to identify those separate persons and then not have them also differentiated by distinctive personal names!

Every scripturally important person has his own personal name in the Bible (and in everyday life). When it so happened that more than one person actually had the same name in Scripture, they would, as one would naturally expect, nearly always be further differentiated. For example: “Simon who is called Peter” - Matt. 4:18, RSV; “Simon, the Cananaean” - Matt. 10:4, RSV; “Simon, a tanner”- Acts 10:6, RSV.

Notice how the inspired Bible writers identified even much less important persons in the Scriptures. Yes, just as writers today, the Bible writers very often identified their subjects so as not to confuse their readers. More than one individual in the Bible actually shared the same singular, personal name, but the Bible simply does not allow them to be perpetually confused!

(1) Judas - Lk 6:16 (bis)-examine all 12. Why do some have ‘identifiers’ (‘appositives’)?

- Acts 1:13 - examine all 11 names. Why do some have identifiers?

- Acts 5:37

(2) Mary - Mk 15:47

- Jn 19:25

- Acts 1:14

- Acts 12:12

(3) James - Mt 10:2

- Mt 10:3

 - Acts 1:13

- Acts 12:2

Do we ever see in the Bible one name or title shared by different persons continually being used with no further identification (or only occasional identification of only one of them )? No, only when a person cannot be confused with another of the same name is there no need of further identification. For example, Abel (like Job, Balaam, Cain, Isaac, Moses, etc.) is the ONLY person so named in the Bible, and thus there is no need for identifiers when “Abel” is used. But when confusion could arise, further identification is usually provided with Bible names! - Matt. 23:35 (note Zechariah’s identifier - - why?); James 5:11; Jude 11; Gal. 4:28; Acts 6:11.

Certainly the much more important name of Jehovah would not be without identifiers if more than one person really had that name: ‘Jehovah, the Son;’ ‘Jehovah, the Father;’ ‘Jehovah, the Holy Spirit.’ Needless to say, except for “Jehovah is the Father,” this NEVER occurs in scripture. “Jehovah” is used without further identification nearly 7000 times in the inspired scriptures (and when he is identified it is always as the Father!). This simply would not happen if “Jehovah” were really the name of three persons!

7. Unbelievably, most trinitarian scholarly (and not-so-scholarly) works completely ignore this terrible blasphemy. For example the respected trinitarian scholars Dr. Sakae Kubo and Prof. Walter F. Sprecht in their review of modern Bible translations were so upset by the New King James Version’s use of clearly spurious [added by later copyists] passages such as 1 Jn 5:7 (KJV; NKJV) that they wrote:

“The brochure advertising this revision [the NKJV] gives as the purpose of the project “to preserve and improve the purity of the King James Version.” To improve the purity would surely include the removal from the text of any scribal additions that were not a part of the autographs [original writing]. No devout reader of the Bible wants any portion of the sacred text as penned by the original authors removed. But neither should he want later additions, in which some passages have crept into the text, published as part of the Word of God.” - p. 294, So Many Versions?, Zondervan Publ., 1983 ed.

How ironic (and extremely hypocritical) when the most blasphemous removal of (and addition to) the original inspired words, the most sacred Name of God Himself, is virtually ignored. The only mention of such a practice by nearly all trinitarian Bibles is certainly not condemned by these scholars, but actually condoned. (e.g., pp. 156, 227).

For much more, see:

God at Isa. 9:6 (rs p. 405-p. 426; Watchtower Online Library)

“Mighty God” and “Eternal Father” (ip-1 chap. 10 pp. 117-132; Watchtower Online Library)

Isa. 9:6 "Mighty God, Eternal Father" (Examining the Trinity)

Isa. 9:6 - NWT (Defending the New World Translation)

NAME - “Jesus,” “Immanuel,” and Is. 9:6 (Examining the Trinity)

BOWGOD (God and gods) (Examining the Trinity)

Does Isa. 9:6 prove that Jesus is God? (Search For Bible Truths)

One God in Three? (Pastor Russell; Heading: "No Trinity in the “Old Testament”')

How does the Codex Sinaiticus render Is. 9:6? (Jehovah's Witnesses Questions and Answers)

How is translated Isaiah 9:6 in old Aramaic Targums? (Jehovah's Witnesses Questions and Answers)

Should Jesus Really Be Considered to be God Because He Was SYMBOLICALLY “Named” Immanuel (Isa. 7:14; Mt. 1:23) Which Means “God is With Us”?

“Jesus,” “Immanuel,”

Another fairly common trinitarian “proof” that “Jesus is God” uses the meanings of personal names. It is very true that personal names were extremely important to God and to his people as recorded in the Bible. The meanings of their names were often carefully selected by their parents and were sometimes changed during their lifetimes because of changing circumstances.

Many trinitarians will tell you that, since the name “Jesus” (probably “Yehoshua” in Hebrew) means “Jehovah is Salvation” (or “Jehovah Saves”), then Jesus is Jehovah.

If that were true, then all the other people in the Bible whose names had that same meaning (which includes all those named “Jesus,” “Joshua,” “Jeshuah,” and “Isaiah”) are also Jehovah!

It is very interesting that Joshua was originally named ‘Hoshea’ (“Salvation” - p. 303, Today’s Dictionary of the Bible, Bethany House Publ.), but Moses began to call him ‘Joshua’ (Yehoshua: ‘Jehovah is Salvation’ or ‘Jehovah the Savior’ - p. 358; “[Jehovah] Saves” - Young’s Concordance; “Jehovah Saved” - Strong’s Concordance) at a certain point. - Numbers 13:8, 16. Obviously Moses meant in no way to imply that Hoshea had become Jehovah! The addition of “Jehovah” to Hoshea’s name merely indicated Moses’ understanding of Hoshea’s loyalty to Jehovah (and that any salvation that might occur through the man Joshua most certainly came originally from Jehovah!)

(Notice that the actual name for “Joshua” in the original language of the NT is identical to the name for “Jesus.” See Heb. 4:8 and compare Heb. 6:20 in the NT Greek portion of a New Testament Greek-English interlinear Bible. Also see Acts 7:45 and compare Acts 16:7 and Matt. 26:51.)

Not only that, but hundreds of others with names similar to “Elijah” (“God Jehovah”), “Abijah” (“Father Jehovah”), “Eliathah” (“God is Come” - Young’s), “Jehu”[1] (“Jehovah is He” - Today’s Dictionary of the Bible; Strong’s Concordance; Young’s Concordance; and Gesenius), etc. are also obviously not Jehovah Himself!

It is certain that many (if not most) of the personal names of God’s people had meanings which were meant to honor God, not to glorify the person who bore that personal name.[2]

I hardly think anyone would consider Ananias (Acts 5:1-6) as being Jehovah simply because his name means “Jehovah has shown favor” or “Jehovah is Gracious” - p. 35, Young’s Analytical Concordance; p. 673, Today’s Dictionary of the Bible (TDOTB), Bethany House Publishers, 1982. Nor is it necessary to imagine that this doomed wretch was in any way the subject or the object of “Jehovah’s Favor”!

Of course it is possible that Ananias’ parents meant that their new son was a favor from Jehovah, but this interpretation is only one possibility. It is just as possible that the name was intended solely as a praise to Jehovah for all He has done (for mankind generally and for Israel specifically). It is certain that no one should believe that this man who was destroyed by God was either Jehovah Himself or a “favor from Jehovah” - no matter what his personal name actually meant!

Should Jesus really be considered to be God because he was symbolically “named” Immanuel (Is. 7:14; Mt. 1:23) which means “God is with us”? No more so than Gabriel was calling himself God when he visited Mary and declared: “The Lord is with thee” - Luke 1:28. Nor did Zacharias mean that John the Baptizer (his new son) was actually God when he was asked, “I wonder what this child [John] will turn out to be?”, and he answered, “Praise the Lord, the God of Israel, for he has come to visit his people and has redeemed them.” - Luke 1:66-68, LB.

Gabriel and Zacharias (Zechariah) meant exactly what Israelites have meant throughout thousands of years when saying “God is with us” and similar statements. They meant “God has favored us” or “God is helping us”! - Joshua 1:17; 1 Samuel 10:7; 2 Chron. 15:2-4, 9 (cf., Jer. 1:8; Haggai 1:13).[3] But if we insist on trinitarian-type “proof,” then Gabriel must have meant that he (Gabriel) is God! And Zacharias (whose own name means ‘Jehovah is renowned’ - p. 678, TDOTB) must have meant that John the Baptizer is God! – Also see 1 Sam. 17:37; 2 Sam. 14:17; 1 Ki. 8:57; 1 Chron. 17:2; 22:18; 2 Chron. 1:1; 35:21; 36:23; Ezra 1:3; Is. 8:8, 10; Is. 41:10; Amos 5:14; Zech 8:23. (Also see “Immanuel” in the Insight books.)


This understanding is seen throughout the Bible. For example, “But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all, the secrets of his heart are disclosed; and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you.” - 1 Corinthians 14:24-25, RSV.

Or, in a Psalm many of us apply to ourselves or our friends:

4 Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil; for thou art with me - ASV.

The widely acclaimed trinitarian Bible dictionary, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 1986, Vol. 2, pp. 86, 87, states:

“The name Emmanuel [or Immanuel] which occurs in Isa. 7:14 and 8:8 means lit. ‘God [is] with us’ .... In the context of the times of Isaiah and King Ahaz the name is given to a child as yet not conceived with the promise that the danger now threatening Israel from Syria and Samaria will pass ‘before the child knows how to refuse evil and choose the good.’ Thus, the child and its name is a sign of God’s gracious saving presence among his people .... [The name Emmanuel] could be a general statement that the birth and naming of the special child will indicate that the good hand of God is upon us.” - p. 86. And, “The point of the present passage [Matt. 1:23] is to see in the birth of Jesus a saving act of God, comparable with the birth of the first Emmanuel. Both births signify God’s presence with his people through a child.” - p. 87.
.............................................


NOTES

1. “JEHU - ‘Jehovah is he.’

(1.) The son of Obed, and father of Azariah (1 Chronicles 2:38).

(2.) One of the Benjamite slingers that joined David at Ziklag (1 Chronicles 12:3).

(3.) The son of Hanani, a prophet of Judah (1 Kings 16:1, 7; 2 Chronicles 19:2; 20:34), who pronounced the sentence of God against Baasha, the king of Israel.

(4.) King of Israel, the son of Jehoshaphat (2 Kings 9:2), and grandson of Nimshi.” - Easton’s Bible Dictionary, ‘Jehu,’ from Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Thomas Nelson Publ. (Also p. 331, Today’s Dictionary of the Bible, Bethany House, 1982.)

So four different men, worshipers of the one true God, Jehovah, were named ‘He is Jehovah’ in the Holy Scriptures!

2. “Now Malchiel means ‘God is king,’ ... Gedaliah ‘Jehovah is great,’ Zerahiah ‘Jehovah hath risen in splendor,’ Jehozadak ‘Jehovah is righteous,’ and Joel, if a compound name, ‘Jehovah is God.’ A moment’s reflection makes clear that these names do not describe the persons who bear them, but in every case speak of God. They emphasize the important facts that personal names might be, and often were, memorial and doctrinal, and that personal names were a part of the ordinary speech of the people, full of meaning and intelligible to all, subject to the phonetic laws of the Hebrews, and obedient to the rules of grammar. ....

“But with Jehoshaphat, Abijah’s grandson, early in the 9th cent. [B.C.], the custom became established. Henceforth it was conventional for the king of Judah to have for his name a sentence with Jehovah as its subject. .... During the five centuries and a half, beginning near the close of Solomon’s reign and extending to the end of Nehemiah’s administration, 22 high priests held office, so far as their names have been preserved in the records. Of these pontiffs 17 bear names which are sentences with Jehovah as subject, and another is a sentence with El [God] as subject. .... evidently the priests of Jehovah’s temple at Jerusalem not only recognized the appropriateness for themselves and their families of names possessing a general religious character, but came to favor such as expressly mentioned God, especially those which mentioned God by His name of Jehovah.” - p. 2115, Vol. 3, The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Eerdmans, 1984 printing.

3. Barnes' Notes on the NT:

Phil. 4:9

And the God of peace shall be with you.

The God who gives peace. Comp. Hebrews 13:20; 1 Thessalonians 5:23. See Barnes "Philippians 4:7". The meaning here is, that Paul, by pursuing the course of life which he had led, and which he here counsels them to follow, had found that it had been attended with the blessing of the God of peace, and he felt the fullest assurance that the same blessing would rest on them if they imitated his example. The way to obtain the blessing of the God of peace is to lead a holy life, and to perform with faithfulness all the duties which we owe to God and to our fellow-men.

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

The Adam Clarke Commentary

Ruth Chapter 2

Verse 4. Boaz came from Beth-lehem

This salutation between Boaz and his reapers is worthy of particular regard; he said, Yehovah immachem, "Jehovah be with you!" They said, yebarechecha Yehovah, "May Jehovah bless thee!" Can a pious mind read these godly salutations without wishing for a return of those simple primitive times? The words may be thus paraphrased: "May God be with you, to preserve you from accidents, and strengthen you to accomplish your work!" "May God bless THEE with the increase of the field, and grace to use his bounty to the glory of the Giver!"

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

The Adam Clarke Commentary

Luke 1:28

The Lord is with thee

Thou art about to receive the most convincing proofs of God's peculiar favour towards thee.

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

The Adam Clarke Commentary

Phil. 4:9

And the God of peace

He who is the author of peace, the lover of peace, and the maintainer of peace; he who has made peace between heaven and earth, by the mission and sacrifice of his Son, shall be ever with you while you believe and act as here recommended.

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

The Adam Clarke Commentary

Ps. 46:7

The Lord of hosts is with us

We, feeble Jews, were but a handful of men; but the Lord of hosts-the God of armies, was on our side. Him none could attack with hope of success, and his legions could not be over-thrown.

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

John Darby's Synopsis of the New Testament

Phil. 4:9

"Moreover, the Christian, although walking (as we have seen) in the midst of evil and of trial, is to occupy himself with all that is good, and is able to do it when thus at peace, to live in this atmosphere, so that it shall pervade his heart, that he shall be habitually where God is to be found. This is an all-important command. We may be occupied with evil in order to condemn it; we may be right, but this is not communion with God in that which is good. But if occupied through His grace with that which is good, with that which comes from Himself, the God of peace is with us. In trouble we shall have the peace of God; in our ordinary life, if it be of this nature, we shall have the God of peace. Paul was the practical example of this; with regard to their walk, by following him in that which they had learnt and heard from him and seen in him, they should find that God was with them."

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

The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible

Luke 1:28

the Lord is with thee;

so the angel to Gideon, (Judges 6:12) or "be with thee", an usual form of salutation among the Jews; (Ruth 2:4)

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

The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible

Ruth 2:4

and said unto the reapers, the Lord be with you;

to give them health, and strength, and industry in their work

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

The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible

1 Chronicles 22:18

Is not the Lord your God with you?

Blessing them with wealth and riches:

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

The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible

2 Chronicles 1:1

And Solomon the son of David was strengthened in his kingdom,

Well settled and established on the throne of his father, after the death of some persons, from whom he might expect trouble, see (1 Kings 2:46)

and the Lord God was with him;

directing and instructing him, prospering and succeeding him

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

Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament

Ruth 2:4

Jehovah be with thee. Jehovah bless thee

(Ruth 2:4). It seems that these were customary salutations, acknowledging the blessing of the Lord in the abundance of the harvest.

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

Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament

Ps. 46:7

Jehovah of hosts is with us

(Psalms 46:7). If God be for us, who can be against us, is the New Testament echo of this confidence. The great security is in God.


For more, see:

IMMANUEL (INDEX; Watchtower Online Library)

IMMANUEL (Insight-1 pp. 1187-1189; Watchtower Online Library)

NAME (Examining the Trinity)

Does Matthew 1:22, 23 Really Imply That Jesus is God? (Defend Jehovah's Witnesses)

Were the "sons of God" mentioned in Genesis 6:2 angels, and if so, how could they produce offspring (Nephilim) in the time of Noah?

Who were the "sons of God" mentioned in Genesis 6:2?

The most likely interpretation is that these "sons of God" were angels:


"'Son of God' in the OT can refer to a 'heavenly court' of supernatural beings [angels] (Gen. 6:2, 4; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Ps. 29:1; 82:6; 89:6 ...)" - p. 571, Vol. 4, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988. [Bracketed information and emphasis added.]

Further supporting this is how the Bible mentions that it was disobedient angels that left their place in heaven during the time of Noah, came down to the earth, and took on fleshly bodies:

"The angels that did not keep their original position but forsook their own proper dwelling place..." (Jude 6)

Their reason for doing this is explained in the following Scripture:

“The sons of the true God began to notice the daughters of men, that they were good-looking; and they went taking wives for themselves, namely, all whom they chose.” (Genesis 6:2)

Supporting the conclusion that these were ANGELIC "sons of God" is the apostle Peter’s references to “the spirits in prison, who had once been disobedient when the patience of God was waiting in Noah’s days” (1 Pet. 3:19, 20), and to “the angels that sinned,” mentioned in connection with the “ancient world” of Noah’s time. (2 Pet. 2:4, 5)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

So if these "sons of God" were angels, and since angels are spirits, how did they produce offspring (Nephilim) in the time of Noah?

As it was briefly mentioned above, the angels must have taken on fleshly bodies in order to marry human wives and perform incarnation. That these angelic sons of God were not truly human but had materialized bodies is shown by the fact that the Flood did not destroy these angels, but they dematerialized and returned to the spirit realm. - Jude 6; Gen. 6:4; 1 Pet. 3:19, 20; 2 Pet. 2:4

In Noah’s day disobedient angels materialized, married women, fathered a hybrid generation known as Nephilim, and then dematerialized when the Flood came. (Gen. 6:1-4) However, upon returning to the spirit realm, they did not regain their lofty original position, because Jude 6 says: “The angels that did not keep their original position but forsook their own proper dwelling place he has reserved with eternal bonds under dense darkness for the judgment of the great day.” (1 Pet. 3:19, 20) So it is in this condition of dense spiritual darkness that they must now confine their operations. (2 Pet. 2:4)

After the Flood, it seems evident that they became restrained from materializing again. However, they still have great power and influence over the minds and lives of men, even having the ability to enter into and possess humans and animals, and the scriptures indicate that they also use inanimate things such as houses, fetishes, and charms. (See Mt. 12:43-45; Luke 8:27-33)
------------------------------------------------------

Did Jesus materialize a human body as those angels had done long ago?

No.

The Bible very plainly shows through it's descriptive account of Jesus having ‘become flesh’ (John 1:14), and having ‘come to be out of a woman’ through his conception and birth to the Jewish virgin Mary. (Gal. 4:4; Luke 1:34-36)

Jesus did not simply materialize a human body as angels had done long ago, but was actually a ‘son of mankind’ through his human mother. (See 1 John 4:2, 3 and 2 John 7)

Because of all of these things, it is fitting for Jesus to have applied the expression "Son of Man" to himself. (John 1:51; 3:14, 15)

For more, see:

Who were the Nephilim? (Search For Bible Truths)

Angels (Search For Bible Truths)

What is an angel? (Search For Bible Truths)

Angels - Why are they referred to as male in the Bible? (Search For Bible Truths)

Ransom - Links to Information

Click on any of the following links to view:

Ransom - Links to Information (INDEX; Watchtower Online Library)

Why did Jesus have to sacrifice his life? - What is the Ransom? (Search For Bible Truths)

Why Was It Necessary for Jesus to Suffer and Die? - “No One Has Love Greater Than This” (Pastor Russell)

Christ Jesus’ Role as Ransomer (Pastor Russell)

The Ransom and YOU (Pastor Russell)

Do Jehovah's Witnesses deny the Ransom? (Pastor Russell)

Does the Bible Liken Death to Sleep?

Evidence shows that people sleep in cycles. Each cycle is made up of a deep sleep followed by a lighter sleep. During periods of deep sleep it is very difficult wake a person. She is completely unaware of her surroundings and the things that may be occurring about her. There is no conscious activity.

The Bible mentions that the dead are “conscious of nothing at all.” (Eccl. 9:5, 10; Ps. 146:4) That is why death is like sleep.

Notice the many occurrences in the Bible where death is likened to sleep:

"Consider [and] answer me, O Jehovah my God: Lighten mine eyes, lest I sleep the [sleep of] death." (Ps. 13:3) - ASV

"After he had said this, he went on to tell them, "Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep; but I am going there to wake him up." His disciples replied, "LORD, if he sleeps, he will get better." Jesus had been speaking of his death, but his disciples thought he meant natural sleep. So then he told them plainly, "Lazarus is dead." (John 11:11-14)  - NIV

"And they stoned Stephen...And he kneeled down , and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep" ("he died" NRS; NLT; NWT;). (Acts 7:59, 60) - KJV

"A wife is married to her husband as long as he lives. If her husband dies ("sleep", Young's Literal Translation; "fallen asleep", Darby), she is free to marry whomever she wishes, but this must be a marriage acceptable to the Lord." (1 Cor. 7:39) - NLT

"But let me tell you a wonderful secret God has revealed to us. Not all of us will die ("sleep", ASV; ESV; RSV KJV; NKJV; NIV), but we will all be transformed." (1 Cor. 15:51) - NLT

"But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers and sisters, about those who have died ("asleep", NIV; KJV; NKJV; NRV; ASV; Young's), so that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope." (1 Thess. 4:13) - NRS


The Bible likens death to sleep whether it be of a man or of an animal:

The psalmist wrote: “At thy rebuke, O God of Jacob, Both chariot and horse are cast into a deep sleep ("dead sleep"; NAS; KJV; NKJV)." (Ps. 76:6) - ASV

So when we die we are said to “sleep” because due to Christ’s ransom sacrifice there is the hope of a resurrection. (1 Corinthians 15:22) Were it not for God’s purpose to awaken persons from the sleep of death, they would never wake up. (See Job 14:10-15 and Jer. 51:39, 57)

As recalled above, when Lazarus died, Jesus said: “I am journeying there to awaken him from sleep.” Like Lazarus, the Bible talks about a promised hope in the future for us:

"The hour is coming in which all those in the memorial tombs will hear [Jesus'] voice and come out." (John 5:28, 29)

"There is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous." - Acts 24:15.

For more, see:

Death Compared With Sleep (Insight-2 pp. 980-981; Watchtower Online Library)

The Bible compares death to sleep (g 12/07 pp. 5-9; Watchtower Online Library)

What Jesus Said About Death (bh chap. 6 pp. 57-65; Watchtower Online Library)

Death is like sleep (w12 11/1 pp. 6-7; Watchtower Online Library)

Death - Links to Information (Defend Jehovah's Witnesses)

Should the name Jehovah not be used because it is said that the letter "J" isn't in Hebrew?

We can easily understand why many scholars prefer "Yahweh" since it clearly uses the four consonants YHWH. But why do we find so many Bibles using the name which has a "J"?

In the Middle Ages, the "Y" sound of the Greek "I" came to be written as either "I" or "J" (for the first letter of words, at least), and "Iesvs" became either "Iesvs" or, more ornamentally, "Jesvs." And, finally, the "v" came to be written as "u" and the name came into its final written form (in English) as "Jesus." (In fact, even the first editions of the King James Version still used the initial "I" instead of the equivalent "J" which shows that it was still pronounced "Yay-soos" in the English of 1611:

"In form, J was originally merely a [more ornamental] variation of `I,' arising in the 14th century .... Not until the middle of the 17th century did this usage [the new pronunciation of the new letter `J'] become universal in English books; in the King James Bible of 1611, for example, the words Jesus and judge are invariably Iesus and iudge." - p. 4823, Vol. 13, Universal Standard Encyclopedia (Funk & Wagnalls), 1955.

"In the word `hallelujah' the j retains its early consonantal value of i or y." - p. 571, Vol. 15, The Encyclopedia Americana, 1957.

So even for some years after the KJV began using the new letter "J," the pronunciation of it was still "Y." But eventually (18th century?) we began to have "Jesus" (and other "J" words, including "Jehovah," "Jeremiah," "Jerusalem," "Joshua," etc.) with the modern English pronunciation of those letters: "Jee-suz." Nearly all modern English Bibles have purposely retained the earlier tradition concerning biblical names, and "Jesus" (and "Jeremiah," "Jerusalem," "Joshua," etc.) remains in all modern English Bibles.

Many believe that there is nothing wrong with retaining this tradition even though it is not the original pronunciation of the name of the Messiah (Yehoshua) nor even the original Greek rendering of it (Yaysoos). It is still an honest transliteration of the original proper name of the Messiah, however, and it is common to all speakers of English. (In like manner, although `Cristobal Colon' may be the original pronunciation, many do not object to calling the famous explorer `Christopher Columbus' in modern English.)

In the same way the only proper name of God Himself, YHWH, which is used nearly 7000 times in the original writings of the Old Testament is sometimes transliterated as "Jehovah" in English (ASV, Young's, KJIIV, NWT, Byington, and, in some verses only, in NEB, MLB, KJV, and Living Bible) and, more rarely, as "Yahweh" (JB, NJB, and Rotherham). (Of course it is more often improperly rendered "LORD" in most places in most Bibles.)

So which is the proper pronunciation of God's name - "Jehovah" or "Yahweh"? Well, many Bible scholars in more recent times have preferred "Yahweh" as the probable original Hebrew pronunciation. But there is still more to say for "Jehovah" in addition to the fact that it is the older, more traditional, and better-known form.

"In the Elizabethan alphabet the letters 'u' and 'v' were the same letter as were and 'i' and 'j'." - http://www.elizabethan-era.org.uk/elizabethan-language.htm

So "Iehouah" (Yehowah) could also be written "Jehovah."

We are to know and use Jehovah's name. We also must not misunderstand how extremely important it is to Him (and to us). One of God's Ten Commandments, for example commands:

"You shall not misuse the name of Yahweh your God, for Yahweh will not leave unpunished anyone who misuses his name." - Ex. 20:7, NJB [cf. NRSV, NIV, NEB, REB, GNB, NLV, ETRV].

God certainly didn't say, "Don't ever use my Holy Name"! By direct Bible statements and commands and by the clear, thousand-fold repeated examples of all the prophets of God in the OT we know that God's Holy Name must be known and used by his people. (Mt. 6:9) This surely wouldn't mean for it to be withheld from usage or omitted from His Word the Bible, as unfortunately many copyists have kept to following the tradition of eliminating the distinctive name of God by replacing it with Ky´ri·os and The·os´ ("LORD" and "GOD").

God Himself makes it clear in the Bible how important His name is:

"Jehovah ... This is my name for ever; this is my title in every generation." (Ex. 3:15) - NEB

Neutrality

Click on any of the following to view:

Neutrality - Links to Information (INDEX; Watchtower Online Library)

What is neutrality and why should true Christians not share in patriotic ceremonies? (Jehovah's Witnesses Questions and Answers)

Why Don't Jehovah's Witnesses Vote, Pledge Allegiance Or Support The Military? (Search For Bible Truths)

How do Jehovah's Witnesses view voting? (Jehovah's Witnesses Questions and Answers)

How do Jehovah's Witnesses view voting? (Search For Bible Truths)

Voting in Political Elections (lv pp. 212-215; Watchtower Online Library)

Why Don't Jehovah's Witnesses Vote? (Slate article)

The refusal to participate in millitary service includes maintaining respect for governments and their participants. (Jehovah's Witnesses Questions and Answers)

Why don't Jehovah witnesses say the pledge of allegiance? (Search For Bible Truths)

Christian Neutrality (Jehovah's Witnesses United)