Mark 12:29: The Lord is One or There is One Lord?

I was following a discussion online the other day about the Trinity and the divinity of Christ when the following verse came up:

Mark 12:29, “Jesus answered, “The foremost is, ‘Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is one Lord.”

In this passage, Jesus is quoting Deuteronomy 6:4. From the perspective of believing in the Trinity, I understand that there are three Persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) but that They exist as one God so I see this verse as a confirmation of my belief. But when I try to put aside my preconceived notions (which is a difficult thing to do, I confess) I noticed that this verse sounds rather odd in English. What does it mean, exactly? How does it sound to someone who doesn't believe in the Trinity?

I practiced reciting the verse out loud a couple of times and realized it's more than a little ambiguous. It's impossible with the written word to convey different inflections in my voice so I'll try to describe it. What if I stressed “one Lord”? That seems to give the impression there could be other gods and Jehovah is only one of them.

Since I can't inflect my voice in a blog post, let me give an analogy that might help: I teach a Sunday School class. In my church, there are other teachers who teach other classes. So if someone in my class were having a discussion about teachers, he might say, “Our teacher, RKBentley, is one teacher.” Can you see how that might apply to the verse in question?

Since I don't believe that Jesus is trying to teach us that Jehovah is one Lord among many, what else might that verse mean? To refer to God as “one Lord” really doesn't make any more sense than referring to someone as “one person.” It would seem to be the epitome of stating the obvious to say, “RKBentley is one person.” I don't know what that might mean except to say, “RKBentley is one person among many others.” Apart from a paradigm of the Trinity, I can't make any sense of Mark 12:29.

Perhaps Jesus intended the verse to be a validation of the Trinity. Or could there is another translation of verse that conveys a different meaning? That is what I wanted to look at. I can't speak to the Hebrew of Deuteronomy, but here is the passage in Greek. By the way, I'm omitting the narrative and only focusing on His quote of Deuteronomy:

Ἄκουε (Hear/listen!) Ἰσραήλ (Israel) Κύριος (Lord) ὁ θεὸς (The God) ἡμῶν (of us/our) κύριος (Lord) εἷς (one) ἐστίν (He is)

Here is a transliteration of the passage for those who can't read the Greek characters: AKOUE ISRAĒL KUROIS hO THEOS hĒMŌN KURIOS hEIS ESTIV

You may have noticed that I removed the punctuation. The original Greek would not have had punctuation and I didn't want the editor's choice of punctuation to influence my translation.

The salutation, Ἄκουε Ἰσραήλ, is rather simple and leaves little room for interpretation: Hear, Israel! or Listen, Israel!

The rest of the translation turns upon the use of predicate or attributive adjectives. In English, an example of a predicate construction would be “The dress is red.” In that sentence, “red” is a predicate adjective modifying “dress.” If I put “red” in the attributive position, it would change to “The red dress...”

Κύριος ὁ θεὸς is a simple predicate construction. It's taught in Greek 101. Since the article modifies θεὸς we know that it is the subject noun. The verb is implied by the construction so we have to provide a verb in English but, by itself, this clause too leaves little wiggle room in translation: God is Lord or The God is Lord.

Now, since ἡμῶν immediately follows θεὸς, it most certainly modifies θεὸς so we must keep it with θεὸς: Our God is Lord.

The last clause is the tricky one: κύριος εἷς ἐστίν. Εἷς is an adjective modifying κύριος but κύριος lacks an article. Εἷς must be attributive rather than predicative. It's in the same position as ἡμῶν in the previous clause. He is “our God” (attributive). It wouldn't make any sense to say, “God is ours” (predicate). I don't know why, but some English translations, like the NIV, treat εἷς as a predicate predicate adjective: “the Lord is one.” If we move εἷς to the attributive position, the clause would become, “He is the one Lord.”

It may be terribly presumptuous of me to say I have a better translation that the majority of English Bibles but here is what I propose:

Listen Israel! Our God is the Lord. He is the one Lord.

Hopefully, this translation conveys the meaning of the original text better than some of the other versions. We could even paraphrase it a little and say, Our God is the Lord. He is the only Lord. The mainstream translations could be understood this way, but I don't think they convey this meaning clearly. Does the verse still affirm the Trinity? I think so. But I believe my proposed translation removes any possibility of a pantheon of gods.

There is only one God; His name is Jehovah!

Acts 20:28: The Blood of God or the Blood of His Son? An Argument of Exceptions

“Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.” Acts 20:28

I was online the other day, discussing this verse. It's one of special, theological importance. A plain reading of this verse shows that God purchased the church, “with His own blood.” Obviously, it was Jesus who shed His blood on the cross so this verse seems to affirm the divinity of Jesus. That is, Jesus is God.

The person with whom I was discussing this verse took exception to that understanding. He resorted to a “mistranslation” argument. I've had dealings with this individual before and his Greek is not really that good. However, in this case, there is a certain amount of ambiguity in the Greek that he was leveraging to bolster his point.

The Greek reads, διὰ (through) τοῦ (the) αἵματος (blood) τοῦ (the) ἰδίου (His own).

The most obvious translation of this verse is the one rendered in most Bibles, “through His own blood.” Another translation, which is a little more awkward in English, is “through the blood which is His own.” But there is still another possibility: “through the blood of His own (Son).”

The latter translation is not the most likely but it is still possible. The question is, which is the intended translation of the three? Since the critic I was conversing with online did not believe Jesus is God, he argued the 3^rd translation, the least likely one, is the correct one. He hooted and cheered that even RKBentley, a conservative Christian, acknowledged that “through the blood of His own” had merit as a possible translation. Of course, he ignored that I said it is the less likely one. As far as he was concerned, it is THE translation because Jesus is not God.

From there, we began discussing some other verses that referred to Jesus as God. Here are a few that I cited – please excuse my frequent use of the word, “clearly,” I was making a point:

In John 20:28, Thomas clearly says to Jesus, “The Lord of me and the God of me.”

John 1:1c clearly says, “the Word was God.”

Titus 2:13 clearly says, “the great God and our Savior, Jesus Christ”

2 Peter 1:1 clearly says, “our God and Savior, Jesus Christ”

In John 10:11, Jesus clearly said, “I AM (ἐγὼ εἰμι) the good shepherd” while Psalm 23:1 clearly says, “Jehovah is my shepherd.”

In Matthew 3:3, John the Baptist said he was preparing the way for the Lord (who is clearly Jesus) just like Isaiah said. Isaiah 40:3 clearly said the prophet will prepare the way for Jehovah.

Joel 2:32 clearly says that whoever calls upon the name of Jehovah will be saved. Roman 10:13 clearly says whoever calls upon the name of the Lord (Jesus) will be saved.

Revelation 1:8, we clearly see that God is the Alpha and Omega. In Revelation 1:17, Jesus clearly says He is the first and the last. In Revelation 22:13, we clearly see that the Alpha/Omega and the first/last is the same Person.

In John 5:21, Jesus clearly says He gives life just as the Father gives life.

In John 5:23 Jesus clearly says we should honor Him in the same way we honor the Father

In John 10:30, Jesus clearly said, “I and the Father are one.”

We also have many clear instances of people worshiping Jesus; The man born blind (John 9:38), the magi (Matthew 2:11), the disciples in the boat (Matthew 14:33), et al.

So we see time after time where the Bible clearly identifies Jesus as God. The response from my critic friend online was to cite William Barclay:

But we shall find that on almost every occasion in the New Testament on which Jesus seems to be called God there is a problem either of textual criticism or of a translation. In almost every case we have to discuss which of two readings is to be accepted or which two possible translations is to be accepted.

Note that Barclay said, “almost every occasion.” If the Bible says even once that Jesus is God, then that would clear up the ambiguous verses but never mind that now. What struck me was that the rebuttal I usually hear to seemingly clear references of Jesus' divinity is to say that the Bible doesn't really mean what it clearly seems to be saying.  Each and every time the Bible seems to identify Jesus as God, they say a more obscure translation of the verse is the correct one.

Is that the best they have? Their only response - ever - is to say, “what that really means is....”  We argue rules and they argue exceptions. How odd it would be if God gave us His revelation in code. How are we expected to understand any part of the Bible if the most ordinary meaning of any verse is never the correct one?

Why Doesn't God Just Show Himself?

Critics of Christianity have often asked, Why doesn't God just show Himself and prove He exists? This is often asked by the controversial and irreverent comedian, Bill Maher. The question is flawed on many levels but the critics must think it's clever so they continue to ask it. I thought I'd take a moment and explore it's many failings.

Questions like this have a sort of doubting-Thomas feel to them. Thomas, you will recall, refused to believe in the resurrection of Jesus until he saw the risen Savior for himself. He was fortunate because Jesus did appear to Thomas prompting him to exclaim, “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28). It seems natural to think that if God appeared to anyone then that person would believe. Thomas saw and believed but Jesus said that those who believe without seeing would be even more blessed. I certainly look forward to seeing Jesus but so much evidence exists for His life and resurrection that I don't need to wait until I see Him to believe.

When answering this question, we must first remember that God is under no obligation to appear to us. He has already given us His revelation in the form of the Bible. There is nothing else we need in order to know how to be saved. The Bible itself attests that the Scriptures are able to make us wise unto salvation (2 Timothy 3:15). If someone wishes to ignore the written word of God and insist that God appear to him personally, then that is his loss (and a very great loss it is).

However, even though God has no obligation to appear to us, He already has! John 1:14 says, “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.” While on earth, Jesus gave us many signs and miracles as evidence of who He was, He told us He was the only way to the Father, He promised eternal life to everyone who believed in Him, and we have the written record of His words and miracles. What more exactly do these people want? Do they expect Jesus to appear every couple of years just to remind everyone that He is real and meant what He said?

Even if Jesus appeared on earth right now, I don't believe that would be enough to convince the skeptic anyway. At His first appearance, many of the people who heard His words and saw His miracles still not believe (John 12:37). Even the Pharisees, as they mocked Jesus on the cross said, “If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him” (Matthew 27:42). Yet when Jesus appeared alive again after His death, their first act was not to repent and believe but to cover up His resurrection (Matthew 28:13). God appeared to these 1^st century Jews and proved who He was through many miracles culminating in His resurrection. Even so, many witnesses still did not believe in Him. I suspect the same would be true today.

Additionally, we know that His one death on the cross was sufficient to atone for every sin (Romans 6:10, Romans 7:27). Therefore, there will be no more incarnations of the same kind as the last one. Someday, though, there will be a glorious appearance of Jesus. At that time, every knee will bow to Him and every tongue shall confess to God (Romans 14:11). Unfortunately, it will be too late then for the non-believers. How sad.

Finally, what is the significance of Jesus not appearing now? There's a subtle implication that God doesn't appear because He isn't real. That's laughable. He did appear and we have the written record of His appearance; we simply were not alive during the time of His ministry on earth. So what if He doesn't appear now? You might as well ask why neither Augusta Caesar nor George Washington appear. What would be the point? Are Caesar and Washington imaginary? I only know these people existed because of the written evidence we have of them. Am I to believe that these critics do not believe in any person they have not seen personally? Yet incredibly, they claim it makes more sense to believe that Jesus doesn't appear to us because He is imaginary!

Happy Easter

“Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee. But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” (Matthew 12:38-40)

It is not possible to overstate the importance of the Resurrection. It is the lynchpin of Christianity. Without the Resurrection, there is no Christian faith. The Apostle Paul said, “And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain” (1 Cor 15:14). 

The significance of the Resurrection is two-fold.  First, the Resurrection secures our hope for eternal life. Christ promised that those who believe in Him will never perish (John 3:16). Yet what good is His promise if Jesus Himself is dead in the ground? If Jesus died and did not rise, then His promise for our eternal life died with Him.

But the real significance of the Resurrection goes far beyond our hope in the afterlife. When the Pharisees and scribes questioned the authority of Jesus, they asked for a sign so that Jesus could prove He spoke in the name of God. Jesus promised them only one sign – the Resurrection! Everything that Jesus said and did is validated by His Resurrection: Every promise He made, every commandment He gave, and every doctrine that He taught us were all proven true on that first Easter Sunday.

Some people say that Jesus was a great teacher. Yet if He did not rise, everything He taught would be a lie.

Some people say that Jesus was a prophet. Yet if He did not rise from the dead, then His prophecies were all false.

Some people say that He is the Son of God. Yet if He did not rise from the dead, then He was just a man like every other.

Jesus was a teacher, and a prophet, and the Son of God only because He rose from the dead. To believe in Jesus, you must believe He rose from the dead for there is no salvation in a dead Jesus. The Bible tells us that a belief in the Resurrection prerequisite to salvation.

“That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved” (Romans 10:9).

The Apostle Thomas said that unless he saw the risen Jesus himself, he would not believe in His Resurrection. When Jesus appeared to Thomas, He said, “Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing” (John 20:27).

The words of Jesus are my prayer this Easter. Consider the Risen Savior. Know that everything He said was proven true by His Resurrection. Be not faithless, but believing!

Happy Easter

Granville Sharp's Rule and Christologically Significant Verses

If any “rule” can exist in Koine Greek, the Granville Sharp Rule must qualify as the most contested yet most proven. Granville Sharp was the 18th century son of the Archbishop of York. He is best known for his work as an abolitionist but has left us a great legacy in his theological writings. Sharp had no formal education but, while working as a young apprentice to a London linen-draper, he taught himself Greek.

In his studies, Sharp discovered an important Greek idiom – the rule which now bears his name. He noticed that whenever an article+noun+“kai”+noun construction occurred, both nouns always referred to the same person. This construction is commonly called the “TSKS construction.” A key point to this rule is that only the first noun has the article (“the”) and the second noun is anarthrous. Additional points include that the nouns must be singular, personal, and not proper names.

The rule sounds more complicated than it really is. Here is an example in English so that you can see how the construction works: 2 Peter 2:20, “the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (τοῦ Κυρίου καὶ σωτῆρος ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ). This short clause has the article (“the”), noun (“Lord”), kai (“and”), and noun (“Savior”). Therefore, according to Sharp's rule, both of these nouns refer to the same person. In this context, they obviously both refer to Jesus.

Here are a few more instances:

Matthew 12:22, τον τυφλον και κωφον (the blind and dumb)

2 Corinthians 1:3, ὁ Θεὸς και πατηρ (the God and Father)

Ephesians 6:21, ὁ ἀγαπητὸς ἀδελφὸς και πιστος διάκονος (the beloved brother and faithful minister)

Hebrews 3:1, τον αποστολον και αρχιερεα (the Apostle and High Priest)

Revelation 16:15, ὁ γρηγορῶν καὶ τηρῶν (the one watching and keeping)

The context of these examples clearly demonstrates that both nouns in each verse are references to the same person. Setting aside textual variations, the TSKS construction occurs some 80 times in the NT and most scholars agree there are no exceptions to Sharp's rule.

Sharp's rule takes on considerable, theological significance when applied to two verses: Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1. Here are the verses in the Greek:

Titus 2:13, τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ (the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ).

2 Peter 1:1, τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ (our God and Savior Jesus Christ).

In both of these verses, “God” has the article and “Savior” is anarthrous so, according to Sharp's rule, they are references to the same Person. In these contexts, that Person is Jesus. Therefore, this explicitly means that Jesus is both God and Savior.

Those who deny the divinity of Christ refuse to see what should be obvious. The usual objection raised is to question the intent of the original authors: was this “rule” in the minds of the writers as they penned the New Testament? Considering the frequency where the TSKS construction appears and the large number of unambiguous examples that exist in the NT, I would say the writers understood well and precisely meant to say that Jesus is God and Savior. Indeed, where such a large number of unambiguous examples exist, to insist that these two passages are exceptions is nothing more than special pleading.

John 1:1c: Is the Word “God” or “a god”?

I had a recent visitor who goes by the name, JohnOneOne. Gee, do you think he has an agenda? Anyway, John left a couple of comments concerning my treatment of John 1:1 in my last post. His first comment was little more than spam so I basically ignored it but his second had a little more substance. John 1:1 was really not the topic of my last post but I get so few comments on my posts dealing with Greek and John 1:1 is certainly worthy of discussion so I was inspired to write a more formal response.

When I write about Greek, I try to do it in such a way that non-Greek readers can still understand the gist of what I'm saying. This subject, though, gets a little complicated so it might be a little more technical than usual. I apologize in advance.

The debate is over the correct translation of John 1:1c, “καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.” Most modern translations render this as, “and the word was God.” John disagrees and defends the NWT translation of, “and the word was a god.” Now, in John's defense, I did characterize the NWT translation as “amateurish”, which was perhaps a bit hasty. Jehovah's Witnesses have gone to great lengths and much research to justify their translation. I still believe it is wrong, notwithstanding.

It's difficult to discuss John 1:1 without Colwell's Rule coming up. Colwell basically said that when a predicate nominative precedes the copula, and which is apparently definite, it usually lacks an article. If θεὸς in John 1:1c is definite, then it certainly fits Colwell's rule. However, if we assume θεὸς is definite then we are assuming the very thing we are trying to determine! In this regard, Colwell's rule is often abused – especially in the case of John 1:1c. Colwell's rule deals with definite nouns being anarthrous yet people cite it as though it's evidence for anarthrous nouns being definite. In other words, they are arguing the inverse of the rule as though it's a rule. Let me give an analogy: suppose I make a rule that says, “all dogs are mammals.” This is absolutely true without any exception. However, the inverse of this rule, namely that “all mammals are dogs,” would not be true. Therefore, we cannot say that the anarthrous θεὸς in John 1;1c is definite according to Colwell's rule.

However, JohnOneOne seems to suggest something completely contrary to Colwell's rule. He would have us believe that since θεὸς is “a singular anarthrous predicate noun (meaning, without the Greek definite article), but one which is also *preceding the verb and subject noun (implied or stated)*” [which is a fairly close paraphrase to Colwell's rule] then it is necessarily indefinite. In my analogy above, this would be akin to arguing that no mammal is ever a dog!

John cited several verses where predicate, nominative, anarthrous nouns are translated in mainstream Bible versions with an indefinite article. I don't have time to discuss all of them but let us consider the first in his list (John 4:19). Here, the Samaritan woman (the woman at the well) says to Jesus:

Κύριε, θεωρῶ ὅτι προφήτης εἶ σύ., “Lord, I see that you are a prophet.”

Because the word for “prophet” (προφήτης) here is anarthrous, it seems to be indefinite and the English translation has been modified by the indefinite article, “a.” Some people might understand this to mean the woman intended to include Jesus in a class of prophets (i.e. he is another of any number of prophets). It would be in the same manner as saying Jesus is “a carpenter.” In this sense, the use of the indefinite article would include Him into a class of people. This isn't really the correct understanding. Rather, the word prophet here is a qualitative noun describing a characteristic of Jesus. She could perceive that He had the gift of prophecy. She could describe Him in this way even if there were no other prophets. This might be hard to grasp so let's look at a another verse from this same passage that might make it easier to understand.

John 4:24 states πνεῦμα ὁ Θεός. This has been translated as “God is a spirit” and also as “God is spirit.” Either way, the meaning is the same. Spirit is a qualitative noun that describes the nature of God. He is spirit or He is a spirit. He is not simply another in a class of spirits. Likewise, the woman saw that Jesus possessed the gift of prophecy. It was something qualitative about Him; not general.

Θεός in John 1:1c is a qualitative noun in the same category. Ironically, I could live with the translation “a god” if it is understood to be qualitative: that is, Jesus is divine. He is not one of a class of gods but instead has the very nature of God. What God is, the Word is also.

Mounce has described this more succinctly. He said concerning John 1:1:

In brief,[1] its emphatic position stresses its essence or quality: "What God was, the Word was" is how one translation brings out this force. Its lack of a definite article keeps us from identifying the PERSON of the Word (Jesus Christ) with the PERSON of "God" (the Father). That is to say, the word order tells us that Jesus Christ has all the divine attributes that the Father has; lack of the article tells us that Jesus Christ is not the Father. John's wording here is beautifully compact! It is, in fact, one of the most elegantly terse theological statements one could ever find. As Martin Luther said, the lack of an article is against Sabellianism; the word order is against Arianism.

To state this another way, look at how the different Greek constructions would be rendered:

καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν ὁ θεός
"and the Word was the God"
(i.e., the Father; Sabellianism)

καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν θεός
"and the Word was a god"
(Arianism)

καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
"and the Word was God"
(Orthodoxy).

What more can I say? Amen!!

Further reading:

Revelation 13:18: What is the Number of the Beast?

What is the Name of God? A Look at the Tetragrammaton

Jesus is Jehovah

A while back, I wrote a brief post discussing the tetragrammaton. Just recently, while I was in a Christian forum which discussed the tetragrammaton, I came across a very interesting post written by a brother who goes by the screen name, Old Shepherd. He listed 26 verses from the OT that use the name YHWH (יהוה) and then paired them with NT verses showing how they are actually references to Jesus. I saved a copy of his post and it's 5 pages long so I won't cite all of the passages here. However, I wanted to share a few of the most significant ones.

Isaiah 40:3, “The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD (יהוה), make straight in the desert a highway for our God.”

Most Christians will immediately recognize this verse as being cited by John the Baptist in Matthew 3:3, “For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.”

As is characteristic of Matthew, he actually cites the book of Isaiah in his gospel so we know without a doubt that was thinking specifically of Isaiah 40:3. Furthermore, it cannot be credibly denied that John the Baptist was sent to prepare the way for Jesus. The conclusion is inescapable that the LORD (יהוה) in Isaiah 40:3 is the Lord Jesus in Matthew 3:3.

Another very compelling example comes from Joel 2:32, “And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD (יהוה) shall be delivered:”

Of course, in Romans 10:13 we read, “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”

From Romans 10:9 we can be certain that the “Lord” in Romans is Jesus. Again the conclusion is inescapable: we are saved by calling on the Lord – who is both Jesus and Jehovah.

The last verse we'll review is Isaiah 45:23, “I (יהוה) have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.”

Now compare this to Romans 14:10-11, “But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.” This same point is expressed again in Philippians 2:10-11, “That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”

Time and time again we see that what is said of the LORD (יהוה) in the OT is also said of Jesus in the NT. Verses that clearly identify Jehovah in the OT are mirrored in the NT when discussing Jesus. Some people go to great lengths to deny the significance of Jesus' “I AM” quote in John 8:58. I have no doubt they will do the same to distinguish the LORD (יהוה) of the OT from the Lord (Jesus) in the NT. In my opinion though, the meanings of these verses are self-evident. A clear reading of the verses in question will reveal just how desperate the critics' arguments are. Jesus is Jehovah!

Further reading: What is the Name of God? A Look at the Tetragrammaton

What is the Name of God? A Look at the Tetragrammaton

God is called by many names: Elohim (Creator), El Shaddai (God Almighty), El Elyon (Most High), and many others. However, when Moses asked God His name, the Lord answered, “I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you” (Exodus 3:14). From this verse, we have an indication as to how God identifies Himself. The word He uses is comprised of four letters (יהוה) collectively known as the tetragrammaton (from Greek literally meaning four lettersh). The English equivalent of these letters are, YHWH.

The tetragrammaton occurs some 6500 times in the OT but there is some debate over the correct pronunciation of the word. Because of the commandment to not take the Lord's name in vain (Exodus 20:7), Jews would not speak the word out of fear of accidentally breaking the commandment. So wherever the word occurred, the Jews would instead say, “Adonai”, meaning, “Lord.” In the King James and other translations, wherever the tetragrammaton appears, it is translated as “LORD” with all upper case letters.

In the original text, Hebrew did not contain vowels. Then around 500-600 AD, scholars began to add “points” to indicate vowel sounds. These points were added around the characters so that the actual text was not altered. To the tetragrammaton, they added the vowel points belonging to “Adonai” so that the reader would know to pronounce the word as, “LORD.” Eventually, people began to pronounce the letters of the tetragrammaton with the vowel points of “Adonai” and thus the name, “Jehovah,” was born.

The tetragrammaton is most likely pronounced as, “Yahweh” (yä'-wā). Alternatively there could be an additional vowel sound: “Yahoweh” (yä-hō'-wā). There is the further complication of the letter vav/waw which can be pronounced as the English “w” or “v.” Occasionally, the letter is even silent but that isn't likely here. So the Name could be pronounced as “Yahweh,” “Yahveh,” “Yehowah,” or “Yehovah.” In spite of the many variations, however, we can be certain the correct pronunciation is not, “Jehovah” as there is no “j” sound in Hebrew!

The word is believed to be an imperfect form of the Hebrew verb, “hayah” meaning “was.” In the passage of Exodus 3:14, it is understood in a sense to mean “the One who is” or “the One who exists.” When the Bible was translated into Greek in the 3rd century BC (a work known as the Septuagint), the tetragrammaton is usually rendered as “kurios” (κύριος), meaning, “Lord.” In Exodus 3:14, the word is translated using two different Greek verbs: “Ego” (εγώ) which is the personal pronoun, “I” and the verb “eimi” (ειμι) which means, “I am.” The redundant use of the pronoun with the verb creates an emphatic expression that literally reads, “I, I am.” This is sometimes rendered in all uppercase letters - “I AM.”

There are some disputed claims that early Hebrew copies of the New Testament included uses of the tetragrammaton but most scholars disagree. However, in the NT, Jesus often referred to Himself with the emphatic, εγώ ειμι. Perhaps the most notable example occurs in John 8:58 where Jesus said, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.” The verse is significant because Jesus invoked of Himself the same divine name God used in Exodus 3:14. This does not escape the attention of His Jewish audience and verse 59 says they took up stones to stone Him. Those who deny the divinity of Jesus often boast that Jesus never claimed to be God. Yet in those instances where He used this emphatic expression, He is doing essentially just that.

Further reading:

Jesus is Jehovah

John 1:1c: Is the Word “God” or “a god”?

Is Jesus God?

There are some people who deny the divinity of Christ. The typical argument goes something like, Jesus is the Son of God; He is not God. To justify their position by pointing to the many references where Jesus calls Himself the “Son of God” and further point out that Jesus never said, “I am God.”

So what are we to believe? Are there any verses that claim Jesus is God? There are actually more than I can list in a single blog. But we’ll look at a few of the most obvious examples. For the sake of certainty, I picked some verses from the OT which clearly describe God and compared them to some verses from the NT which clearly describe Jesus. See what you think:

The heavens are the work of God's hand and He laid the foundation of the earth. (Psalms 102:24-25)
The heavens are the work of Jesus Christ's hand and He laid the foundation of the earth. (Hebrews 1:8-10)

God is the Creator of the earth (Jeremiah 27:5)
Jesus Christ is the Creator of the earth (John 1:10)

God Himself is judge (Psalm 50:6)
Jesus Christ judges the quick and the dead (2 Timothy 4:1)

Only God is our savior (Isaiah 43:11)
Jesus Christ is our savior (Titus 2:13)

God is the first and last (Isaiah 44:6)
Jesus Christ is the first and last (Revelation 1:17-18)

To God, every knee will bow and every tongue confess (Isaiah 45:22-23)
To Jesus Christ, every knee will bow and every tongue confess (Philippians 2:1011)

Forgiveness is with God (Psalms 130:4)
Forgiveness is in the blood of Jesus (Ephesians 1:7)

Jehovah is God Almighty (Genesis 35:11)
Jesus Christ is God Almighty (Revelation 4:8)

Are you convinced yet? And as if these weren’t enough examples, consider this: When Moses asked God His name, God answered, “I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you” (Exodus 3:14). So I AM is a reference to Jehovah of the OT.

In the New Testament, Jesus often referred to Himself as, I AM. The most famous example is in,John 8:58 where Jesus said, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.”

But John recorded many instances where Jesus used the name I AM even though it was not translated as such. Another very good example is John 8:24, “I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.” In the KJV, italicized words (such as “he” here) are not in the original Greek.

So any attempt to deny the divinity of Christ is easily refuted. Christ is the Son AND He is God. I’ll leave you with this final verse:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” John 1:1