John 1:1c Primer - For Grammatical Rules That Supposedly "Prove" the Trinity

(From the RDB Files)

John 1:1 Primer

For Grammatical Rules "Proving" the Trinity

John 1:1c - English translation: "The Word was God [or 'a god']."
- NT Greek: θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
---------------"god was the word."



The NT Greek word for "God" and "god" is theos (θεὸς). In the writings of the Gospel writers (including John) when an unmodified theos (the form used for subjects and predicate nouns) is accompanied by the article, "the" (ὁ [pronounced ho] in Greek), and has no added phrases (e.g., "the god of this world"), then it always refers to the only true God. - See DEF study. 


But Jn 1:1c has an unmodified "theos" without the article. Therefore, even some trinitarian scholars are forced to admit that this passage may be literally translated as "the Word was a god"!
This includes W. E. Vine (An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words); 

Dr. C. H. Dodd (director of the New English Bible project); 

Murray J. Harris (Jesus as God); 

Dr. Robert Young (Young's Concise Critical Bible Commentary); Rev. J. W. Wenham, The Elements of New Testament Greek.

Of course, being trinitarians, they often insist that the correct interpretation of such a literal translation must be, somehow, trinitarian.

The usual trinitarian interpretation for John 1:1c ("the Word was God") is based on the fact that an unmodified theos is used as a predicate noun (predicate nominative) without a definite article (anarthrous) and comes before the verb in the original New Testament (NT) Greek. When you find an anarthrous predicate noun in that position, some trinitarians will say, it is to be interpreted differently ("qualitative" or "definite": i.e., as though it actually had the definite article with it) from a predicate noun which normally comes after the verb. 

Although such a "reversed" word order is extremely rare in English, it is common in NT Greek because word order within a sentence has little significance in NT Greek! 

In fact, one of the first things a beginning student of NT Greek learns is that word order has very little, if any, significance as far as the meaning is concerned. For example, respected NT Greek authorities, Dr. Alfred Marshall and Prof. J. Gresham Machen tell us in their NT Greek primers that, unlike English, NT Greek does not use word order to convey meanings but instead uses the individual endings on each word (inflections).

"The English translation must be determined by observing the [Greek word] endings, not by observing the [word] order." - p. 27, New Testament Greek For Beginners, Machen, The Macmillan Co. (Cf., pp. 7, 22, New Testament Greek Primer, Marshall, Zondervan) 

And in a later example illustrating predicate nouns Prof. Machen gave this example: “ho apostolos anthropos estin [word-for-word translation: ‘the apostle man is’],” and he translated that sentence (which has an anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb as in John 1:1c) as “the apostle is a man.” - p. 50, New Testament Greek For Beginners, The Macmillan Company, 1951.

And In Exercise 8 (p.44) of the Rev. Dr. Alfred Marshall’s New Testament Greek Primer, the noted trinitarian scholar asks us to translate phoneus esti into English. (Notice that the predicate noun [phoneus, ‘murderer’] precedes the verb [esti, ‘he is’].) The answer is given on p. 153 where Dr. Marshall translates it as “He is a murderer.” – Zondervan Publishing House, 1962.

And Prof. N. Clayton Croy on p. 35 of his A Primer of Biblical Greek translates prophetes estin ho anthropos (literally, “prophet is the man”) as “The man is a prophet.” - Eerdmans Publ. Co., 1999.   (Emphasis, as usual, is mine.)

In Learn New Testament Greek by John H. Dobson we find on p. 64 two interesting Greek clauses and their translations by Dobson: the clauses are: (1) prophetes estin and (2) prophetes en. In both of these the predicate noun (prophetes) comes before the verb (‘he is’ and ‘he was’).

Here is how Dobson has translated these two clauses: “He is a prophet.” And “He was a prophet.” – Baker Book House, 1989.

Also see p. 148, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, where trinitarians Dana and Mantey translate an example they admit is parallel to John 1:1c as “And the place was a market,” The Macmillan Company.

We also find trinitarian NT scholars B. M. Newman and Eugene A Nida using a similar example to describe the usage at John 1:1c - “John Smith is a teacher.” - p. 9, A Translator’s Handbook on The Gospel of John, United Bible Societies, 1980. (They want it to be understood in a trinitarian “Qualitative” manner, however.)

And noted trinitarian NT scholar, A.T. Robertson, when analyzing John 18:37b where the predicate noun “king” comes before the verb [“you say that king am I”], prefers this translation: “Yes, because I am a king.” - p. 294, Vol. 5, Word Pictures in the New Testament. 

However, if truth means anything to us, instead of rejecting the trinitarian-devised John 1:1 rules strictly on the basis of the wishful interpretations of these NT Greek authorities, it would be much fairer and more certain to examine all the usages of a predicate noun found before its verb in John's writings that are as close to the example of John 1:1 as we can find. 

Before we examine all of John's uses of the predicate noun before its verb, we may need to review some basic grammar: We are dealing exclusively with nouns as found in John 1:1c. That is, a word which is a person, place, or thing and which can be used with both an indefinite article ("a" or "an" - in English only. Greek has no indefinite article) and a definite article ("the") and which can be properly changed into a recognizably plural form (these are sometimes called "count nouns."): 

"WORD": "a word"/"the word"/"words;" - 

"GOD": "a god"/"the god"/"gods;" - 

"HOUSE": "a house"/"the house"/"houses;" etc. 

So we can see that words like "pretty," "holy," or "true" cannot normally be made plural ("trues") and do not use articles ("a pretty," "a true") and are, therefore, not nouns as found at John 1:1c and cannot be used as proper examples in an attempt to prove or disprove a rule for John 1:1c. 

Also, this noun, to be a proper example (equivalent to John 1:1c), must be without additional phrases joined to it: "a man of the world," "a house of bricks," etc. For a detailed examination of the improper examples, or exceptions) see the DEF and QUAL studies. 

...........................................
Most important exceptions are nominative nouns with attributive genitive nouns or prepositions.:

As Dana and Mantey tell us, “The use of prepositions, possessive ... pronouns, and the genitive case also tend to make a word definite. At such times, even if the article is not used, the object is already distinctly indicated.” -p. 137, D&M Grammar.

In section VIII, ‘The Absence of the Article,’ Professor Robertson quotes Gildersleeve and tells us, “prepositional phrases and other formulae may dispense with the article” - p. 790. And “(b) with genitives. We have seen that the substantive may still be definite if anarthrous, though not necessarily so.” - p. 791. - A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, A. T. Robertson.

“(d) Absence of Article Before a Noun Which Governs a genitive. In Heb. a noun may be in the construct state or have a suffix attached to it, and in either case it would be anarthrous. This influenced the LXX [Septuagint] and, in turn, the NT writers in varying degrees. - pp. 179-180, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. III, J. H. Moulton, 1963.

“The article … is sometimes missing, especially after prepositions … and with a genitive which depends on an anarthrous noun (especially a predicate noun).” - Blass & Debrunner, p. 133, 135, University of Chicago Press, 1961.

“#1146. A substantive followed by an attributive genitive and forming with it a compound idea, usually omits the article.” - Smyth’s A Greek Grammar for Colleges.

Since John 1:1c does not have its predicate noun with a “prepositional” construction anyway, it is necessarily a part of proper research to select parallel examples (i.e., without “prepositional” constructions) in any attempt to show a similar effect as claimed for John 1:1c.
...........................................

To be most certain, we need such proper examples to have a subject (a noun which is "doing" the verb) coming after the verb and a predicate noun (a noun as described above which is the same thing as the subject) which has no article coming before the verb in the NT Greek exactly as found in John 1:1c.


To find such examples we need a Greek-English New Testament Interlinear Bible (available in any "Christian" book store or from any Jehovah's Witness). Then we search through all of John's writings to find all the predicate nouns which come before the verb (and meet the above requirements) in the NT Greek. Since we are concerned about John's use (or non-use) of grammatical rules in order to determine the intended meaning of John 1:1c, we must use only examples from John's writings as proper evidence. (For others see DEF and SEPTGOD studies.)

The easiest way to do this is to carefully read through all the full-English portion in an interlinear Bible and find all the verbs which could take a predicate noun ("is," "are," "am," "was," "were," "be," "become," "became"). Then determine if a noun (as described in our requirements above) comes after that verb in the English. If it does, and if it is "equal to" the subject, we have found a predicate noun, e.g., "the bird was an eagle." In English, then, the noun "bird" comes before and is "doing" the verb "was" and is therefore the subject. The noun "eagle," in English, comes after the verb "was" and is the same thing as the subject and is therefore a predicate noun (p.n.). 

Then, after finding a proper predicate noun (p.n.), we must look at the NT Greek text (which has the equivalent English word written above each Greek word) and see if the predicate noun we found in the English translation on the other page actually comes before the verb in the original Greek. If it comes before the verb and if it is anarthrous (that is, without the definite article, "the") and meets the other requirements above, then we may have found a proper example to compare with John 1:1c. 

In the following list if the p.n. has no article, it has "an." (anarthrous) written before it. "Art." means the article "the" is with it (articular). Improper examples have "prep.," "poss. pronoun" (possessive pronoun modifier), "abstract," "numeral," etc. written after them. 

"Prep." indicates that the p.n. has a phrase joined to it (prepositional). "Abstract #": the p.n. is abstract and/or an indeterminate amount (a 'non-count' noun - see DEF 14-15). "No subject" means the subject is clearly understood, but only by the verb form used. "Participle" means the subject is not present and is only imperfectly identified by a participle ("having," "sleeping," etc.).


All Verses by John Where the Predicate Noun Precedes Its Verb

an. Jn 1:1 (verse under study)
an. John 1:12 - prep.
an. Jn 1:14 - plural (amount)
art. Jn 1:21
an. Jn 1:49 (b) - prep.
an. Jn 2:9 - accusative, not p.n
an. Jn 3:6 (a) - plural (amount)
an. Jn 3:6 (b) - abstract #
an. Jn 3:29 - participle

-an. Jn 4:9 (a)
an. Jn 4:9 (b) (adj.?)

#an. Jn 4:19
an. Jn 4:24 - abstr. # - NO VERB
an. Jn 5:27 - prep.
art. Jn 6:51 (b) - prep.
an. Jn 6:63 - abstract

-an. Jn 6:70
an. Jn 8:31 - prep.
an. Jn 8:33 - prep.
an. Jn 8:34 - prep.
an. Jn 8:37 - prep.
an. Jn 8:39 - prep.
an. Jn 8:42 - prep.
-an. Jn 8:44 (a)
an. Jn 8:44 (b) - no subject

#an. Jn 8:48
an. Jn 8:54 (a) - abstract
an. Jn 8:54 (b) - prep.
an. Jn 9:5 - prep
an. Jn 9:8 (a) - no subject
an. Jn 9:17 - no subject

-an. Jn 9:24
an. Jn 9:25 - no subject
an. Jn 9:27 - prep.
an. Jn 9:28 (a) - prep.

-an. Jn 10:1
an. Jn 10:2 - prep.
an. Jn 10:8 - plural
an. Jn 10:13 - no subject
art. Jn 10:21 - prep.

-an. Jn 10:33
an. Jn 10:34 - plural
an. Jn 10:36 - prep.
an. Jn 11:49 - prep.
an. Jn 11:51 - prep.
an. Jn 12:6 - prep
an. Jn 12:36 - prep.
an. Jn 12:50 - abstract
an. Jn 13:35 - (poss. pronoun)
art. Jn 15:1 (b)
an. Jn 15:14 - prep.
an. Jn 17:17 - abstract
an. Jn 18:26 - prep.

-an. Jn 18:35

#an. Jn 18:37 (a)
?an. Jn 18:37 (b) - no subject (except in TR and 1991 Byzantine text)
an. Jn 19:21 - prep.an.
art. Jn 20:15
art. Jn 21:7 (a)
art. Jn 21:7 (b)
an. 1 Jn 1:5 (b) - abstract #
an. 1 Jn 2:2 - prep.
an. 1 Jn 2:4 - participle
an. 1 Jn 3:2 - prep.
an. 1 Jn 3:15 - participle
an. 1 Jn 4:8 - abstract
an. 1 Jn 4:16 - abstract
an. 1 Jn 4:20 - no subject
an. 1 Jn 5:17 - abstract
art. 2 Jn :6 (b)
an. Rev. 1:20 (a) - prep.
an. Rev. 1:20 (b) - numeral
an. Rev. 2:9 - accusative, not p.n.
an. Rev. 3:9 - accusative, not p.n.
an. Rev. 13:18 - prep.
an. Rev. 14:4 - no subject/plural
an. Rev. 17:9 - numeral
an. Rev. 17:10 - numeral
an. Rev. 17:11 - numeral
an. Rev. 17:12 - numeral
an. Rev. 17:14 - prep.
an. Rev. 17:15 - plural
an. Rev. 18:7 - no subject
art. Rev. 19:8 - prep.
art. Rev. 19:9 - prep.
an. Rev. 19:10 (a) - prep.
art. Rev. 20:14 - numeral
an. Rev. 21:3 - prep.
an. Rev. 21:22 - prep.
art. Rev. 21:23 - prep. - NO VERB
an. Rev. 22:9 - prep.

_______________________

90 total (excluding John 1:1c) 

The 3 (or 4 if we use the Received Text or the 1991 Byzantine text) closest examples to Jn 1:1c have the anarthrous predicate noun before the verb and the subject after the verb. These 3 proper examples are shown above with a numeral sign (#) before them. And they also exclude personal names, abstract nouns, numerals, prepositional constructions (prep.), "time/season" nouns, clauses in which the subject is missing [but clearly understood by the verb], clauses in which the subject is only uncertainly "represented" by a participle ["having," "stealing," "hating," etc.], plurals [especially plural/amount: 'blood,' 'wine,' 'flesh,' 'fat,' 'honey,' etc.]. These are proper exceptions to the rule. They must not be included among examples where the rule is being properly used.[1] 

Here, then, are ALL the proper examples (truly comparable to Jn 1:1c) from the writings of John (W and H text)[2]  for an honest examination of "Colwell's Rule" (or any related rules, including Harner's "qualitative" rule, concerning the simple, unmodified anarthrous predicate noun coming before the verb): 


H,W  1. John 4:19 - ("a prophet") - all Bible translations
H,W  2. John 8:48 - ("a Samaritan") - all translations
H,W  3. John 18:37 (a) - ("a king") - all
[H,W 4. John 18:37 (b) - ("a king") - from the Received Text (TR) and the 1991 Byzantine text]


H: Also found in Harner's list of "Colwell Constructions"
W: Also found in Wallace's list of "Colwell Constructions"

These are all indefinite nouns. All modern trinitarian Bible translations I have examined render them as indefinite!

If we wish to supply more examples, we must include some which are less perfect than these three (or four). The best we can do is to include ALL those constructions (Westcott and Hort text) which comply with the other qualifications above but which, unlike Jn 1:1c, have the subject noun before the verb also. Since trinitarian scholars themselves include such examples, they should not object if we also include ALL such examples. 

When we add those constructions to our list, we have: 


H.....1. John 4:9 (a) - indefinite ("a Jew") - all translations
H,W...2. John 4:19 - indefinite ("a prophet") - all
H,W...3. John 6:70[3] - indefinite ("a devil"/"a slanderer") - all
H,W...4. John 8:44 (a) - indefinite ("a mankiller/murderer") - al
H,W...5. John 8:48 - indefinite ("a Samaritan") - all
H,W...6. John 9:24 - indefinite ("a sinner") - all
H,W...7. John 10:1[4] - indefinite ("a thief and a plunderer") - all
H,W...8. John 10:33 - indefinite ("a man") - all
H,W...9. John 18:35 - indefinite ("a Jew") - all
H,W...10. John 18:37 (a) - indefinite ("a king") - all
[H,W..11. John 18:37 (b)[5] - indefinite ("a king") - Received Text and 1991 Byzantine text]
 
These are all indefinite nouns (not definite[6], not "qualitative"). All trinitarian Bible translations I have examined render them as indefinite! We should have enough examples to satisfy the most critical (but honest) scholar now. (And I wouldn't strongly resist the use of the "no subject" examples above which clearly intend the subject as being a pronoun included with the verb, e.g., "[he] is," which would then bring our total of ALL proper examples to nearly 20.)[7]

These would include:

H,W 12. Jn 8:44 (b) - indefinite (“a liar”) - all

H,W 13. Jn 9:8 (a) - indefinite (“a beggar”) - all

H,W 14. Jn 9:17 - indefinite (“a prophet”) - all

H,W 15. Jn 9:25 - indefinite (“a sinner”) - all

H,W 16. Jn 10:13 - indefinite (“a hireling/hired hand”) - all

H,W 17. Jn 12:6 - indefinite (“a thief”) - all

        18. 1 Jn 4:20 - indefinite (“a liar”) - all 

And, possibly,

H,W  19. 1 John 2:4 - liar (he) is.

So when all the proper (those most closely equivalent to the actual usage found at John 1:1c) examples found in John's writings are examined in various trinitarian Bibles (KJV, NASB, RSV, NIV, etc.), we find they are always translated with indefinite concrete nouns such as "you are a prophet" (Jn 4:19) which perfectly corresponds with a rendering of John 1:1c as "The Word was a god"! 

Such a rendering is not only a grammatical probability (perhaps a certainty) as we have seen above, but it is not such a surprising concept as many modern members of Christendom might think. Other righteous persons and faithful angels have been called "gods" or "a god" by the inspired Bible writers - see the DEF (sections 13-19); TRUE (f.n. #1); and BOWGOD studies. 

It is only in lands whose people are ignorant of the NT Greek language that trinitarians can convince them that the original NT Greek of Jn 1:1c means "the Word was God"! I have been told that in Greece itself the trinitarian churches carefully avoid using Jn 1:1c as evidence for the trinity doctrine or as proof of the "Deity" of Christ because the people there would scorn such an obvious misuse of their language. Even if this is incorrect, the most knowledgeable of the early Christian Greek-speaking scholars, Origen (died 254 A.D.), tells us that John 1:1c actually means "the Word was a god"! - See DEF f.n. #1.

We also find in very early Coptic language translations of John 1:1c that it is rendered “and the Word was a god.” - http://nwtandcoptic.blogspot.com/

In fact, even certain trinitarian scholars have correctly admitted that those very first readers for whom John wrote his Gospel were already aware of the 'Logos' concept even before John wrote to them. This was the concept of famed Jewish scholar and writer, Philo. In this best-known Jewish concept of the Logos of that time, the Word ("Logos") was "the Son of God" and "with God" and "a god" in his own right, but that he was certainly not God nor equal to the one true God! (See the QUAL and LOGOS studies.) 

The fact that John provided no further explanation of the Word proves that he intended the Logos concept that his readers already knew: "The Word was a god."!

And, of course, John himself recorded the following prayer by Jesus: "Father, .... This is eternal life: to know thee who ALONE art truly God..." - John 17:1, 3, New English Bible.

......................................................................

NOTES


1. There are many rules (and their exceptions) found in all languages. For example, a well-known rule in the English language is that the pronoun “I” is used for subjects and the pronoun “me” is used for objects.

So, to use familiar examples with subject and direct object: “I saw the boy.” And “The boy saw me.”

But what about this?: “It was me.” Most of us use this kind of wording, but it is incorrect, because we are not familiar with an apparent exception. That is: when we are using a predicate noun after its verb, we must use subject pronouns. Since “was” in the sentence is a verb of “being” which makes the following pronoun ‘the same as’ the subject (actually, a predicate noun), a ‘subject’ pronoun must be used: It was I.”  


Or,

Most native-English speakers are aware of the difference between the singular past tense verb “was” (“I was,” “She was,” etc.) and the plural past tense verb “were” (“They were,” “We were,” etc.)

So what if an English grammar expert decided to further his religious or philosophical beliefs by writing the following in a journal or textbook:

“Whenever a singular noun or pronoun is used as the subject and is followed by a plural verb, it means that the subject is a multiple-person being [or something similar].”  Then out of the thousands of examples where the singular noun or pronoun agrees with a singular verb, this expert purposely chooses the following as 'proof' examples: "If I were a king...." or "He wished he were a cowboy."

Of course there are enough English grammar experts and textbooks available to us today to prove this is a purposely false ‘rule.’

But imagine if English were an old, poorly understood language and some future language expert were outlining its grammar and syntax for speakers of his language of the future. Not knowing the exceptions that we grew up with today, and wanting this to be true, many of these future people would believe this man’s ‘rule.’

This might even be convincing to a number of English-speaking people today who never learned (or ignored) the exception to the general rule of verb agreement: the subjunctive mood in English ("If I were a king," "He wishes he were somewhere else."  Look up in an on-line search). But imagine how convincing it might be if this scholar were teaching future non-English speaking people who had no access to the common understanding of the English of today!

The rule of verb agreement is merely determined by a rule and its proper exceptions which have nothing to do with a “plural oneness.”

If you don’t know the exceptions, you don’t know the rule!



2. A correspondent asked me about the earliest manuscripts and also asked: "Do we know if the original writers understood, or used, the proper rules of composition?" My response:
 
It really doesn't matter. In the investigation of John 1:1c, for example, I am interested in the grammar, syntax and usage of John only. If the original writer did not fully understand the "rules," it does not matter since I am looking for parallel usages by him to see what he intended by them.

I am not talking about the 1000-year old (and even later) manuscripts (used for the Received Text), nor even manuscripts made 500 years after the originals. I am speaking of those made from about 50 years after the original and up to about 300 years after the original. And yes, even the 4th century manuscripts were still in the NT (Koine) Greek, as a comparison with the older papyri show.


Copies of the NT Greek (Koine) manuscripts were copied to follow the original. The copyists of the first three or four centuries, at least, were made by those who understood the language. And the copies thereafter, when copied with the care we should expect for such work, should have also retained the grammar and syntax of the original in most cases.


Origen, 185-254 A.D., not only had access to extremely early manuscripts (possibly even originals), but actually spoke the NT Greek language and even taught it professionally. 


He wrote a "Commentary on John" in which he quotes the Greek of John 1:1 (and more) just as we have it in all early manuscripts still existing today. And, moreover, he tells us in this same Commentary that the language of John 1:1 shows Jesus to be a god, not God (as the parallel constructions by John in a proper study also prove)!


And the John 1:1c parallel of "king am I" at John 18:37 is found in p66, p90 (150-200A.D.), and p52 (100-125 A.D.)!　 The earliest complete "letter uncial" manuscripts of the 4th and 5th centuries show the same.
If an error has been made in John 1:1c (or any of its parallels in John's writings), it is very strange that it hasn't shown up in any of these very early manuscripts! The evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the text we have of John's writings matching the original (at least in the places which parallel his usage at John 1:1c)! And that is all we need for an examination of this important scripture.

Not only did the earliest Christian writers, like Origen, not understand John 1:1c as intending that the Word was God, but even as late as 325 A.D. (when Constantine forced the beginning of the official 'trinity doctrine' on his subjects at the Council of Nicea), trinity-pusher Athanasius and fellow trinitarians did not use this scripture as evidence for Jesus being God.


3. John 6:70 - "out of you one devil is" - NT Greek text. - "... one of you is a devil" - RSV.

"One who sins belongs to the devil, like Cain (1 Jn 3:8, 12); or he is a devil himself, like Judas, the betrayer (Jn 6:70). .... Jesus' enemies are called children [and sons] of the devil, i.e. those who share his nature and behaviour (Jn 8:44) [Acts 13:10; 1 Jn 3:10]." - p. 472, Vol. 3, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 1986, Zondervan.


"#Joh 6:70 'One of you is a devil'. … diabolical, or under the influence of the evil one." - People's New Testament Notes.


So a man who is from [literally "out of," ek] the Devil (1 Jn 3:8), and is a 'son of the Devil' (Acts 13:10), and who is "with the Devil (whether physically or figuratively) may also be called "a devil" (Jn 6:70)! So Judas, for example, could be described in NT terms: "Judas was with ho diabolos [the Devil], and diabolos was Judas." And no matter how anyone wants to interpret it, it would be incredibly wrong to insist (as many trinitarians do about Jn 1:1c) that this meant Judas was literally, equally the Devil himself! Whether you translated it literally ("Judas was with the Devil, and Judas was a devil") or 'qualitatively' ("Judas was with the Devil, and Judas had the "nature" of the Devil"), it would mean essentially the same thing: Judas simply shared to some degree some (or one) of the qualities of the Devil, or is under the Devil's influence, but he is not equally the Devil with Satan himself! No reasonable person would accept this as evidence for some mysterious 'Satanity'! This is precisely the same as the use of 'god' (theos) at John 1:1c !!!


Also examine John 4:24 (no verb!) If word order and verb placement is really so important for understanding predicate nouns, how could John possibly leave the verb out in such a case?



4. "That one thief is and plunderer." The problem here is that Jesus uses 'thief' before the verb and 'plunderer' after the verb. Do we really think he intended us to understand the thief to be a 'qualitative' p.n. ('thiefish,' 'having all the qualities of thiefdom') and also "a plunderer"? "That one has all the qualities of thieves and is a plunderer"?



5. The ancient manscripts for the second use of 'king' in John 18:37 (18:37b) are without punctuation and could just as easily be understood to say "a king am I" in the NT Greek. In fact it seems that this is the correct understanding here to be more parallel with the first half of the verse. This would mean that it truly is a fourth proper example (or 10th in the second list of proper examples) as indicated in the Received Text (translated by the KJV, NKJV, MKJV, and others following the KJV traditions) and in the 1991 Byzantine text).



6. For those who believe that constructions like that of John 1:1c (where the predicate noun comes before its verb) mean the predicate noun has an understood definite article: why would there be any such constructions actually using the definite article (if it is really understood anyway)?


John 1:21 - definite article used
John 15:1(b) - definite article used
John 20:15 - definite article used
2 John :6 (b) - definite article used


7. Colwell and Harner use this type of construction in their JBL articles. And Daniel B. Wallace uses it also in his Grammar. Wallace and Harner, in fact, list these proper examples which I have listed in the Gospel of John: John 8:44b; 9:8, 17, 25; 10:13; 12:6. I have also listed 1 Jn 4:20 and Rev. 18:7 in this ‘understood subject’ category. Adding these Colwell/Harner/Wallace-approved constructions to our list of ALL proper examples in John's writings would leave us with:


1. John 4:9 (a) - indefinite (“a Jew”)


2. John 4:19 - indefinite (“a prophet”)


3. John 6:70 - indefinite (“a devil”/“a slanderer”)


4. John 8:48 - indefinite (“a Samaritan”)


5. John 9:24 - indefinite (“a sinner”) - all


6. John 10:1 - indefinite (“a thief and a robber”)


7. John 10:33 - indefinite (“a man”) -


8. John 18:35 - indefinite (“a Jew”) -


9. John 18:37 (a) - indefinite (“a king”) -


10. John 18:37 (b) - indefinite (“a king”) - in TR and 1991 Byzantine text


11. John 8:44(b) - (“a liar”)


12. John 9:8 - (“a beggar”)


13. John 9:17 - (“a prophet”)


14. John 9:25 - (“a sinner”)


15. John 10:13 - (“a hireling/hired man”)


16. John 12:6 - (“a thief”)


17. 1 John 4:20 - (“a liar”)


18. Revelation 18:7- (“a widow”)

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

For more concerning John 1:1, see:

John 1:1 - Links to Information (Defend Jehovah's Witnesses Category)

The Shamrock, St. Patrick and The Trinity

The following quote shows how the great symbol of St. Patrick and St. Patrick's Day (the shamrock or clover) was used to explain the Trinity:

"The doctrine of Three Gods in One, each separate and distinct, yet each totally God, is claimed by Christians to be a mystery and is accepted on faith. In trying to teach his converts about the trinity, St. Patrick held up a shamrock explaining that the three leaves represented the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, while the stem was the Godhead itself from which they proceeded. This is said to be the origin of the use of the shamrock which is customarily worn on St. Patrick's Day.

"Scholars have discovered that the shamrock, or trefoil, was initially used in ancient Celtic fertility rites. It represented a triad of goddesses..." - pp. 79-80, Celebrations - The Complete Book of American Holidays, Robert J. Myers, Doubleday; Co., 1972.

Though it is clear that the shamrock was used as a symbol to explain the Trinity and represented a triad of pagan goddesses, this should in no way associate the clover itself as pagan. The history of the Trinity Doctrine certainly shows that the concept of the only true God being comprised of three persons is not a Bible teaching. It is not found in the Bible and developed gradually over several centuries after Christ.

The Trinity Has Pagan Origins

"The trinity was a major preoccupation of Egyptian theologians .... Three gods are combined and treated as a single being, addressed in the singular. In this way the spiritual force of Egyptian religion shows a direct link with Christian theology." - Egyptian Religion. (For much more, see Trinity And Pagan Influence.)

Historian Will Durant said that

"Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it. . . . From Egypt came the ideas of a divine trinity."

And Arthur Weigall stated that

"Nowhere in the New Testament does the word `trinity' appear. The idea was only adopted by the Church three hundred years after the death of our Lord; and the origin of the conception is entirely pagan." - The Paganism in our Christianity, pp. 197, 198.

How Does God View Paganism?

True Christians should avoid pagan associations and view them as serious because God views these things very seriously. (Lev. 19:2) God Himself said: "You must not have any other gods against my face. Because I Jehovah your God am a God exacting exclusive devotion." (Ex. 20:1-5) NWT

Notice how exclusive the worship of God must be: "Be careful to do everything I have said to you. Do not invoke the names of other gods; do not let them be heard on your lips." - Exodus 23:13, NIVSB.

1 Tim. 3:16 God "manifest in the flesh" KJV

1 Tim. 3:16 ("God was manifest in the flesh")

(From the RDB Files)

As this is translated in the KJV it makes Paul say that Jesus is God “manifest in the flesh.”


Although the KJV translates 1 Tim. 3:16 with “God” as above, nearly all other translations today use a word which refers, not to God, but to Jesus: “he” (NIV; RSV; NRSV; JB; NJB; REB; NAB [‘70]; AT; GNB; CBW; and Beck’s translation), “he who” (ASV; NASB; NEB; MLB; BBE; Phillips; and Moffatt), “who,” or “which.” Even the equally old Douay version has “which was manifested in the flesh.” All the very best modern NT texts by trinitarian scholars (including Westcott and Hort, Nestle, and the text by the United Bible Societies) have the NT Greek word ὃς (“who”) here instead of θεὸς (“God”).Why do the very best trinitarian scholars support this NON-trinitarian translation of 1 Tim. 3:16?


     Noted Bible scholar Dr. Frederick C. Grant writes:
 
“A capital example [of NT manuscript changes] is found in 1 Timothy 3:16, where ‘OS’ (OC or ὃς, ‘who’) was later taken for theta sigma with a bar above, which stood for theos (θεὸς, ‘god’). Since the new reading suited …. the orthodox doctrine of the church [trinitarian, at this later date], it got into many of the later manuscripts .....” – p. 656, Encyclopedia Americana, vol. 3, 1957 ed. (This same statement by Dr. Grant was still to be found in the latest Encyclopedia Americana that I examined – the 1990 ed., pp.696-698, vol. 3.)

A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament by the United Bible Societies (1971 ed.) tells why the trinitarian UBS Committee chose ὃς [‘who’ or ‘he who’] as the original reading in their NT text for this verse:

“it is supported by the earliest and best uncials.” And, “Thus, no uncial (in the first hand [by the ORIGINAL writer]) earlier than the eighth or ninth century supports θεὸς [“God”]; all ancient versions presuppose ὃς [or OC, “who” - masc.] or ὅ [“which” - neut.]; and no patristic writer prior to the last third of the fourth century [370 A.D.] testifies to the reading θεὸς. The reading θεὸς arose either (a) accidentally, through the misreading of OC as ΘC, or (b) deliberately....” - p. 641.

In actuality it appears to be a combination of both (with the emphasis on the latter). You see, the word ὃς was written in the most ancient manuscripts as OC (“C” being a common form for the ancient Greek letter “S” at that time). Most often at this time the word for God (θεὸς) was written in abbreviated form as ΘC. However, to show that it was an abbreviated form a straight line, or bar, was always drawn above ΘC. So no copyist should have mistaken ὃς (or OC) for ΘC, in spite of their similarities, simply because of the prominent bar which appeared over the one and not over the other.

What may have happened was discovered by John J. Wetstein in 1714. As he was carefully examining one of the oldest NT manuscripts then known (the Alexandrine Manuscript in London) he noticed at 1 Tim. 3:16 that the word originally written there was OC but that a horizontal stroke from one of the words written on the other side of the manuscript showed through very faintly in the middle of the O. This still would not qualify as an abbreviation for θεὸς, of course, but Wetstein discovered that some person at a much later date and in a different style from the original writer had deliberately added a bar above the original word! Anyone copying from this manuscript after it had been deliberately changed would be likely to incorporate the counterfeit ΘC [with bar above it] into his new copy (especially since it reflected his own trinitarian views)!

Of course, since Wetstein’s day many more ancient NT manuscripts have been discovered and none of them before the eighth century A.D. have been found with ΘC (“God”) at this verse!

Trinitarian scholar Murray J. Harris also concludes: “The strength of the external evidence favoring OC [‘who’], along with considerations of transcriptional and intrinsic probability, have prompted textual critics virtually unanimously to regard OC as the original text, a judgment reflected in NA(26) [Nestle-Aland text] and UBS (1,2,3) [United Bible Societies text] (with a ‘B’ rating) [also the Westcott and Hort text]. Accordingly, 1 Tim 3:16 is not an instance of the Christological [‘Jesus is God’] use of θεὸς.” - Jesus as God, p. 268, Baker Book House, 1992.

And very trinitarian (Southern Baptist) NT Greek scholar A. T. Robertson wrote about this scripture:

“He who (hos [or OC in the original text]). The correct text, not theos (God) the reading of the Textus Receptus ... nor ho (neuter relative [pronoun]), agreeing with [the neuter] musterion [‘mystery’] the reading of Western documents.” - p. 577, Vol. 4, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Broadman Press.
And even trinitarian NT Greek scholar, Daniel B. Wallace uses the relative pronoun ὃς (‘who’) in this scripture and tells us:
 
“The textual variant θεὸς [‘god’] in the place of ὃς [‘who’ or ‘he who’] has been adamantly defended by some scholars, particularly those of the ‘majority text’ school. Not only is such a reading poorly attested, but the syntactical argument that ‘mystery’ (μυστήριον) being a neuter noun, cannot be followed by the masculine pronoun (ὃς) is entirely without weight. As attractive theologically [for trinitarians, of course] as the reading θεὸς may be, it is spurious. To reject it is not to deny the deity of Christ, of course; it is just to deny any explicit reference in this text.” [italicized emphasis is by Wallace]. - pp. 341-342, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Zondervan, 1996.

The correct rendering of 1 Tim. 3:16, then, is: “He who was revealed in the flesh ….” - NASB. Cf. ASV; RSV; NRSV; NAB; JB; NJB; NIV; NEB; REB; ESV; Douay-Rheims; TEV; CEV; BBE; NLV; God’s Word; New Century Version; Holman NT; ISV NT; Lexham English Bible; The Message; Weymouth; Moffatt; etc.

Even if we were to insist that those later manuscripts that used theos were, somehow, correct, we would have to recognize that it is the anarthrous (without the definite article) theos which we find. This is rarely, if ever, the form used for the only true God (when the known exceptions are taken into account - see MARTIN study). Instead, it either points to the probability that it is a corrupted OC (which of course would not have the article in the first place), or, less probable, but still possible, that Christ is being called “a god” - see the BOWGOD and DEF studies.

Also see:

How does the 2nd/3rd century Sahidic Coptic version translate this text? (JWQand A)

'Sharp's Rule' Primer

Sharp's Rule: Primer

(From the RDB Files)

In an attempt to prove the trinity doctrine, Granville Sharp made up a rule in 1798. It is often called "Sharp's Rule" by trinitarians. It says, in effect, that when two or more words (nouns) in the original Greek New Testament (NT) text are joined by the word "and," they all refer to the same person if the word "the" (the article) comes before the first noun and not before the other noun(s).

For example, if we saw "the king and _master of the slave" in the Greek text of the Bible, it would always mean, according to Sharp, that only one person was being called both "king" and "master." ("King" and "master" are joined by "and" - - only "king" has the article.)

Sharp invented this rule after he noticed this particular construction (sometimes called a "Sharp's construction") was used with "God" and "Christ" in 5 places in the NT. If he could convince others that his "rule" was true, then they would think there was finally (after 1400 years of a "trinity" tradition) absolute grammatical Bible proof (see WALLACE study paper) that God and Jesus are the same "person"!

The 5 "proofs" of Jesus' Godhood according to Sharp are (in the literal wording of the original manuscripts):

(a) Titus 2:13: "of the great God and savior of us Christ Jesus"

τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ

(b) 2 Pet. 1:1: "righteousness of the God of us and savior Jesus Christ"

 δικαιοσύνῃ τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ

(c) 2 Thess. 1:12:"the grace of the God of us and Lord Jesus Christ"

τὴν χάριν τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ

(d) 1 Tim. 5:21: "in sight of the God and Christ Jesus and the chosen angels"

ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ καὶ τῶν ἐκλεκτῶν ἀγγέλων

(e) Eph. 5:5: "...in the kingdom of the Christ and God"

ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ θεοῦ

Since the first noun ("God" in the first four scriptures) has the article ("the") with it and the following noun ("savior" in the first two scriptures) does not have the article ("the"), then (according to Sharp) God and Christ (the savior, etc.) are the same person!

There are a number of reasons why Sharp's Rule, as applied to these 5 "proofs," is invalid (See the SHARP study). One important strike against it is the fact that even many respected trinitarian NT grammar experts and translators have rejected it as a valid rule - e.g., see G. B. Winer; J. H. Moulton; C. F. D. Moule; Dr. James Moffatt (see Titus 2:13; and 1 Tim. 5:21); Dr. William Barclay (2 Thess. 1:12); and Roman Catholic scholar Karl Rahner (2 Peter 1:1).

In vol. 5, p. 257 the respected The Expositor's Greek Testament says: "In the present case [Jude 1:4], however, the second noun (kupiov [“lord”]) belongs to the class of words which may stand without the article .... A similar doubtful case is found in Tit. ii. 13.... Other examples of the same kind are Eph. v. 5 ... 2 Thess. i: 12 ... 1 Tim. v. 21 (cf. 2 Tim. iv. 1) ... 2 Peter i. 1."

 

For example, examine the following trinitarian Bible's renderings of these "Sharp's Constructions":

2 Thess. 1:12 - KJV; KJIIV; NASB; NAB (1970); MLB; LB; GNB; RSV; NRSV; NIV.

Eph. 5:5 - KJV; KJIIV; RSV; NRSV; LB; MLB; NIV; NEB; REB; GNB; TEV; NAB (`70,'91).

2 Tim. 4:1 - most trinitarian Bibles.

1 Tim. 6:13 - all trinitarian Bibles.

These many respected Bibles, translated by expert trinitarian New Testament scholars, clearly disregard Sharp's "Rule" at these (and other) places and show two persons being spoken of!

Notice Eph. 5:5, for example. Most trinitarian Bibles translate this example of Sharp's Construction: "in the kingdom of Christ and of God" - KJV; NRSV; RSV; NIV; NEB; REB; NAB; Douay; MLB; LB; GNB; TEV; The Amplified Bible; Third Millenium Bible; New Living Translation; New Century Version; God's Word; Holman Christian Standard Bible; Wesley's New Testament; Phillips; and the Webster Bible. This is not the way it would be translated if the two descriptions were of the same person! (At the very least it would be rendered more literally as "the kingdom of the Christ and God.") Instead it clearly shows two persons!

Even trinitarian scholar Murray J. Harris notes, in discussing Eph. 5:5, that “It is highly improbable that Paul would introduce a profound, unqualified doctrinal affirmation (Christ is theos) in an incidental manner [such as here], in a context where the assertion is not crucial to the flow of argument.” - p. 262, Jesus as God, Baker Book House, 1992.

Also, 1 Tim. 6:13 is translated in trinitarian Bibles as: "before (in the sight or presence of) God ... and before Christ Jesus...". Although Sharp's Rule insists that this should be translated to show that it is speaking of the same person, it obviously is not! Most trinitarian grammar experts simply do not believe Sharp's Rule is a valid absolute rule!

Of the many reasons invalidating Sharp's Rule grammatically there are at least two of extreme importance - each of which is conclusive by itself.

(1) Prepositional Constructions (with phrases containing prepositions: "of God;" "in the Lord;" "God of...;" etc.) are known by NT grammarians to cause uncertainty of article usage. That is, if a prepositional phrase (including genitives) is attached to a word, that word may sometimes have the article ("the") and sometimes not have it -- without changing the intended meaning! (See A. T. Robertson, pp. 780, 790, 791; C. F. D. Moule, p. 117; J. H. Moulton, pp. 175, 179-180; et al.)

This means that the NT writers sometimes wrote, for example, "The God of me" (with article) and "_God of me" (without article) with exactly the same intended meaning. The definite article ("the") was ambiguous in such cases.

Therefore any grammatical rules which depend on the presence or absence of the article in the NT Greek must not use as examples those scriptures which use a 'prepositional' construction attached to a word (noun) in question if they are to be used honestly and properly.

But if you examine the 5 trinitarian "proofs" above, you will see that they all use such prepositional constructions: "of us" in (a) Titus 2:13 and (b) 2 Peter 1:1 is a "prepositional" genitive, and even "savior" itself is a genitive in both scriptures and literally means "of savior;" "Lord" in (c) 2 Thess. 1:12 is a genitive and literally means "of Lord" (as rendered in the Modern Language Bible; Living Bible; Good News Bible; Douay Version; New American Bible [1970 ed.]; and Barclay's Daily Study Bible); "Christ" in (d)1 Tim. 5:21 is a genitive and literally means "of Christ" (as in the Good News Bible [and TEV]; New American Standard Bible; Modern Language Bible; Revised Standard Version; and New Revised Standard Version); and "God" in (e) Eph. 5:5 is a genitive and literally means "of God" (as in the King James Version; Revised Standard Version; New Revised Standard Version; Living Bible; New English Bible; Revised English Bible; Modern Language Bible; New American Bible (1970 and 1991); Douay Version; New International Version; Good News Bible; and Phillips translation).

Therefore all 5 Sharp's "proofs" are invalid on the basis of prepositional constructions alone!

(2) New Testament scholars, including noted trinitarian NT grammar experts, point out that the use of proper names ("John," "Moses," "Jesus," etc.) also causes uncertain article usage in NT Greek. (A. T. Robertson, Grammar, p. 791, and Word Pictures, p. 46, Vol. iv; C. F. D. Moule, p. 115; J. H. Moulton [Turner], Vol. 3, pp. 165-167; et. al.)

So not only did the NT Bible writers sometimes use the article and sometimes not use the article with the very same intended meaning with the very same proper name (e.g. "the James" and "James"), but even when a proper name is used as an appositive it also causes irregular article usage with the other associated nouns. - Robertson, pp. 760, 791.

For example, when "Jesus" and "Christ" are in apposition to each other ("Jesus Christ" or "Christ Jesus"), they are nearly always (96% of the time - see SHARP study) written without the definite article in the writings of Paul regardless of "Sharp's rule" or any other grammatical/syntactical consideration!

If we examine the first 4 of the 5 "proofs" above, we see that the proper name "Jesus" is used as an appositive with the word in question in each case! In other words, "Christ Jesus" is the appositive for "savior" in Titus 2:13. This means sometimes "savior" will have "the" with it in such a situation and sometimes it won't (with no change in meaning). "Jesus Christ" is the appositive for "savior" in 2 Peter 1:1, and article usage (or non-usage) with "savior" in the original NT Greek in such circumstances is virtually meaningless. "Jesus Christ" is in apposition to (an appositive for) "Lord" in 2 Thess. 1:12. And "Jesus" is in apposition (at least) to "Christ" in 1 Tim. 5:21. These examples, therefore, are completely invalid as evidence for Jesus being God even if there were actually some validity to Sharp's "Rule" with proper examples! And the 5th example, Eph. 5:5, is incredibly poor in context alone. Even noted trinitarian scholar A.T. Robertson has to admit that the 'evidence' of Eph. 5:5 is doubtful - Word Pictures, Vol. 4, pp. 46 and 543. No objective person could accept it alone as real evidence of Jesus' Godhood!

Some PREPOSITIONAL examples found in NT Greek:

"The God of Abraham and _God of Isaac and _God of Jacob" - Luke 20:37.

"The God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob" - Matt. 22:32.

"James, _slave of God and _Lord Jesus Christ" - James 1:1

"By command of _God savior of us and _Christ Jesus" - 1 Tim. 1:1.

"I am the root and the offspring of David" - Rev. 22:16.

Some PROPER NAME examples found in NT Greek:

"having seen _Peter and _John" (no articles) - Acts 3:3.

"holding fast ... the Peter and the John" (both articles) - Acts 3:11.

"beholding the outspokenness of the Peter and _John" (Sharp's) - Acts 4:13.

"But the Peter and _John" (Sharp's construction) - Acts 4:19.

So we see the Bible writer who is recognized as the most knowledgeable in NT Greek (Luke) showing the great ambiguity of article usage with proper names. If we did not exclude proper names as valid examples, we would have to agree that either Luke believed Peter and John were the same person or that he was completely unaware of Sharp's Rule (or any first century equivalent)!

* * * * *

So, although we can find such constructions as "the king and master of the slave" where the first noun (with the definite article, `the') is the same person as the second noun (without the definite article), there is no grammatical reason that this must always be so. Such constructions as "the boy and girl" and "the President and Vice President" (found in Amendment XX [as ratified in 1933] of the Constitution of the United States of America), which refer to more than one individual, are just as grammatically correct in both English and NT Greek.

* * * * * *

Note: Although Watchtower Society (WTS) research and scholarship is usually at least the equal of (and often superior to) that of other sources, I have tried to rely most heavily on other sources in Christendom itself (preferably trinitarian) or my own independent research to provide evidence disproving the trinitarian `proof' being examined in this paper. The reason is, of course, that this paper is meant to provide evidence needed by non-Witnesses, and many of them will not accept anything written by the WTS. They truly believe it is false, even dishonest. Therefore some of the preceding information, all of which helps disprove specific trinitarian "proofs," may be in disagreement with current WTS teachings in some specifics (especially when I have presented a number of alternates). Jehovah's Witnesses should research the most recent WTS literature on the subject or scripture in question before using this information with others. - RDB.

ELOHIM - Plural 'God'

(From the RDB Files)

ELOHIM   (~yhla - BSTHebrew font)


Plural “God” (Elohim) And “Let US make man”


Many trinitarian apologists will tell us that the Hebrew word for God (Elohim) is plural because it shows that God is a trinity. For example:

"Among Trinitarian Christian writers it is [often] seen as evidence for the doctrine of the Trinity, a plurality in the Godhead." - Theopedia, "Elohim."
......................................................

That the Hebrew plural is often used for a singular noun to denote “a ‘plural’ of majesty or excellence” is well-known by all Biblical Hebrew language experts and has been known from at least the time of Gesenius (1786-1842), who is still regarded as one of the best authorities for Biblical Hebrew!


Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament (“long regarded as a standard work for students”), p. 49, shows that elohim, ~yhla (“God/gods”) is sometimes used in a numerically plural sense for angels, judges, and false gods. But it also says,


“The plural of majesty [for elohim], occurs, on the other hand, more than two thousand times.” And that elohim when used in that sense “occurs in a [numerically] singular sense” and is “constr[ued] with a verb ... and adjective in the singular.”


Gesenius - Kautzsch’s Hebrew Grammar, 1949 ed., pp. 398, 399, says:
“The pluralis excellentiae or maiestatis ... is properly a variety of the abstract plural, since it sums up the several characteristics belonging to the idea, besides possessing the secondary sense of an intensification of the original idea. It is thus closely related to the plurals of amplification .... So, especially Elohim ... ‘God’ (to be distinguished from the plural ‘gods’, Ex. 12:12, etc.) .... That the language has entirely rejected the idea of numerical plurality in Elohim (whenever it denotes one God) is proved especially by its being almost invariably joined with a singular attribute.”

Peloubet’s Bible Dictionary, 1925 ed. Pg. 224:

Elohim "is either what grammarians call the plural of majesty, or it denotes the fullness of divine strength, the sum of the powers displayed by God."

More modern publications (trinitarian Protestant and Catholic) also make similar acknowledgments of the intended plural of majesty or excellence meaning for elohim. (See the New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. v., p. 287.)


Nelson’s Expository Dictionary of the Old Testament, describes elohim:


“The common plural form ‘elohim,’ a plural of majesty.” - Unger and White, 1980, p. 159.


Pluralis Majestatis: Biblical Hebrew
"The term ‘majestic plural’ or pluralis majestatis refers to the use of a plural word to refer


honorifically to a single person or entity. It is also called the ‘plural of respect’, the ‘honorific

plural’, the ‘plural of excellence’, or the ‘plural of intensity’. In the Hebrew Bible such plural

forms are most commonly used when referring to the God of Israel, e.g., adonim ‘I am a master (lit. ‘masters’)’ (Mal. 1.6), although it can also be used when referring to a human, e.g., abraham adonaw

‘Abraham his master (lit. ‘masters’)’ (Gen. 24.9), an object, e.g. gibroteka ‘your grave (lit. ‘graves’)’ (2 Kgs 22.20), ...." - ENCYCLOPEDIA OF HEBREW LANGUAGE AND LINGUISTICS, p. 145, vol. 3, 2013.


The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia says:


“It is characteristic of Heb[rew] that extension, magnitude, and dignity, as well as actual multiplicity, are expressed by the pl[ural].” - Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1984 ed., Vol. II, p. 1265.


Today’s Dictionary of the Bible, 1982, Bethany House Publishers, written by trinitarian scholars, says of elohim:


“Applied to the one true God, it is the result in the Hebrew idiom of a plural magnitude or majesty. When applied to the heathen gods, angels, or judges ..., Elohim is plural in sense as well as form.” - p. 208.


The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Vol. xxi, July 1905 (Aaron Ember) tells us: “several phenomena in the universe were designated in Hebrew by plural expressions because they inspired the Hebrew mind with the idea of greatness, majesty, grandeur, and holiness.”


Ember also says:


“Various theories have been advanced to explain the use of the plural elohim as a designation of the God of Israel. least plausible is the view of the Old Theologians, beginning with Peter Lombard (12th century A. D.), that we have in the plural form a reference to the Trinity .... that the language of the OT has entirely given up the idea of plurality [in number] in elohim (as applied to the God of Israel) is especially shown by the fact that it is almost invariably construed with a singular verbal predicate, and takes a singular attribute.


“...elohim must rather be explained as an intensive plural denoting greatness and majesty, being equal to the Great God. It ranks with the plurals adonim [‘master’] and baalim [‘owner’, ‘lord’] employed with reference to [individual] human beings.”


The famous trinitarian scholar, Robert Young, (Young’s Analytical Concordance and Young’s Literal Translation of the Bible) wrote in his Young’s Concise Critical Commentary, p. 1,


“Heb. elohim, a plural noun ... it seems to point out a superabundance of qualities in the Divine Being rather than a plurality of persons .... It is found almost invariably accompanied by a verb in the singular number.”


Both Exodus 4:16 and 7:1 show God calling Moses "a god" (elohim).  This alone shows the error of some that the plural elohim must mean a "plural oneness" unless we want to believe Moses was a multiple-person Moses!


And The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan Publishing, 1986, tells us:


“Elohim, though plural in form, is seldom used in the OT as such (i.e. ‘gods’). Even a single heathen god can be designated with the plural elohim (e.g. Jdg. 11:24; 1 Ki. 11:5; 2 Ki. 1:2). In Israel the plural is understood as the plural of fullness; God is the God who really, and in the fullest sense of the word, is God.” - p. 67, Vol. 2.


The NIV Study Bible says about elohim in its footnote for Gen. 1:1:


“This use of the plural expresses intensification rather than number and has been called the plural of majesty, or of potentiality.” – p. 6, Zondervan Publ., 1985.


And the New American Bible (St. Joseph ed.) tells us in its “Bible Dictionary” in the appendix:


“ELOHIM. Ordinary Hebrew word for God. It is the plural of majesty.” – Catholic Book Publishing Co., 1970.


A Dictionary of the Bible by William Smith (Smith’s Bible Dictionary, p. 220, Hendrickson Publ.) declares:


“The fanciful idea that [elohim] referred to the trinity of persons in the Godhead hardly finds now a supporter among scholars. It is either what grammarians call the plural of majesty, or it denotes the fullness of divine strength, the sum of the powers displayed by God.”


And the prestigious work edited by Hastings says about this:


"It is exegesis of a mischievous if pious sort that would find the doctrine of the Trinity in the plural form elohim [God]" ("God," Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics).


To show how ancient Jewish scholars themselves understood this we can look at the work of the seventy Hebrew scholars who translated the ancient Hebrew Scriptures (OT) into Greek several centuries before the time of Christ. The Greek language did not use the “plural of excellence” that the Hebrew did. So, if we see a plural used in the Greek Septuagint, it was really intended to represent more than one individual!


So how is elohim rendered in the Greek Septuagint by those ancient Hebrew scholars? Whenever it clearly refers to Jehovah God, it is always found to be singular in number (just as in New Testament Greek): theos ! Whenever elohim clearly refers to a plural (in number) noun, it is always found to be plural in number in Greek (just as in the New Testament Greek): theoi or theois (“gods”).


For example: “I am the Lord thy God [elohim - plural of excellence in Hebrew becomes theos - singular in the Greek Septuagint]” - Ex. 20:2. And “know that the Lord he is God [as always, the plural elohim, as applied to the God of Israel, becomes the singular, theos in the Septuagint] he made us...” - Ps. 100:3.


But when elohim really does mean plural in number, we see it rendered into the Greek plural for “gods” in the Septuagint: “Thou shalt not worship their gods [elohim in Hebrew becomes theois - plural in the Greek Septuagint], nor serve them .... And thou shalt serve the Lord thy God [singular - Greek].” - Ex. 23:24-25.


We see exactly the same thing happening for translations of the plural elohim in the ancient Septuagint and in the Christian NT.


Yes, all the NT Bible writers, whether quoting from the OT or writing their own God-inspired NT scriptures, always used the singular “God” (theos) in NT Greek when speaking of the only true God of the Bible. (If the plural form had been used for the only true God, we would even discover a new “trinity” at John 10:34.)


It is absolutely incredible that John, Paul, and the other inspired NT writers would not have used the plural Greek form to translate the plural Hebrew form of “God” if they had intended in any degree to imply that God was in any way more than one person! [1]


“Let Us Make Man in Our Image”


Before we discuss the above-quoted use of plural pronouns by Jehovah at Gen. 1:26, we must fully understand the use of the word “through” (dia in NT Greek) and Jesus’ role in the creation of man.


The Watchtower Society believes and teaches that Jesus was the very first creation by Jehovah God (Jehovah became the Father at that point). Being the first (and only direct) creation by Jehovah makes Jesus “the firstborn of all creation” (Col. 1:15), and the beginning of the creation of God” (Rev. 3:14), and “the only-begotten Son” of God (1 John 4:9).


Furthermore, Jehovah made all the rest of creation through Jesus, his firstborn Son who is the Master Worker. The proper understanding of the NT Greek word dia (“through”) clearly tells the whole story.


To illustrate: Suppose the one all-powerful ruler of the land decided to build a nice little palace out in the wilderness. He sends for his servant, the Master Worker, and commands him to build that palace. The King provides whatever materials are necessary for the Master Worker and tells him in great detail exactly how he wants it built.


The Master Worker sends for the chief stone mason, the chief carpenter, the chief artist, etc., tells them what their assignments are, and oversees their work.


It is clear that the king built the palace through his servant the Master Worker. It was at the command (and because of the will) of the King that the palace was created through the Master Worker (also through the stone mason, through the carpenter, etc.). This obviously does not mean the King and his servant both together, somehow, make up a mysterious two-in-one King!


The fact that both the King and his servant, the Master Worker, built the palace can be clearly explained by the word “through.” The King built the palace through his servant, the Master Worker. There is no mystery here. The King can properly say, “I built that palace;” the Master Worker can properly say, “I built that palace;” and even the stone mason can properly say, “I built that palace.” The word “through” can clear up any possible confusion there might be from these apparently conflicting statements.


Certainly the carpenter, stone mason, and even the Master Worker would not, in any way, intend to hint that they were equally the King! That honor can go only to the one person whose command and will caused the palace to be built. Certainly the faithful Master Worker would say, “not by my will but by your will, O King.” - Luke 22:42, John 4:34.


We can see that, in the ultimate sense of “source” or “originator,” there is only one person whose will, command, design, and supply of building materials allow him to be called “the only one who created the palace.” - See the BWF study. [2]


Notice how “through” solves any possible confusion in the following scriptures. Even though the Law was spoken of as “the Law of Jehovah” - 1 Chron. 16:40, and “the law of the God of heaven” - Ezra 7:12, and we are specifically told “there is only one Lawgiver ...” - James 4:12, NASB, we still see another person “giving the law”! Is that person, then, also equally God?


Yes, the inspired scriptures also tell us, “Did not Moses give you the law?” - John 7:19 NASB. And the same “Law of Jehovah” is also called “the Law of Moses” - Malachi 4:4. Must we conclude then, trinitarian-style, that Moses is Jehovah the God of heaven? Of course not!!


Even if we were unable to figure it out on our own, scriptures such as John 1:17 (“The law was given [from God] through [dia] Moses”) clearly explain it.


The Greek word dia is a “primary preposition denoting the channel of an act; through”[3] - Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance, #1223. There should be no confusion when Paul says:


“I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through [dia] me in leading the Gentiles to obey God by what I have said and done” - Ro. 15:18 NIV.


Certainly no one is so dense as to say: “This scripture shows that Christ has caused the Gentiles to obey God. And Paul, by his words and deeds, has caused those same Gentiles to obey God. Therefore, Paul IS Christ!” Even if we were gullible enough to fall for this type of dishonest argument, surely we would understand what was intended here by Paul simply by his use of the word dia (“through”)![4]


Because of the many changes in the English language in the last 400 years, the English rendering for dia in the King James Version is frequently misleading in modern English. What was translated “of” in the Elizabethan English of the KJV may mean “by” in modern English. And what was translated “by” in the KJV may mean “through” today. (Of course “by” sometimes includes the meaning of “through.”)


For example, the meaning intended by the KJV translators is shown in modern translations of Matt. 1:22 as “spoken by the Lord through the prophet.” - NASB. However, in the English of 1611, that very same meaning was expressed by these words: “spoken of the Lord by the prophet.” - KJV. This has a very different meaning in today’s English. It sounds to us today as if the KJV were saying that something was spoken about the Lord by the prophet. This is not what was intended in the language of 1611. - see any modern translation.


Keeping in mind, then, the clear distinction shown by the word dia (“through” in modern English) and the example of the king whose will and spoken command caused the palace to be created, carefully analyze the following scriptures:


Ps. 33:6, 8, 9 - “By the word of Jehovah were the heavens made” “For he spake, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast.” - ASV. Also see Ps. 103:20, 21.


Ps. 148:5 - “Let them praise the name of Jehovah; for he commanded, and they were created.” - ASV.


Rev. 4:11 - “because of thy will [the will of the Lord God Almighty who is seated on the throne when Jesus, the Lamb, approaches him (5:6, 7)] they were, and were created.” - ASV.


Malachi 2:10 - “Have we not all one Father? Hath not one God created us?”


Acts 4:27 - “Thy holy servant Jesus” - Jesus is the Father’s servant.


Rev. 3:14 - “[Jesus] the beginning of the creation of God.” - ASV.


Prov. 8:22-30 - “Yahweh [Jehovah] created me when his purpose first unfolded, before the oldest of his works.” And, “I was by his side, a Master Craftsman [‘Master Workman’ – ASV], delighting him day after day.” - Jerusalem Bible (JB). This scripture (Ps. 8:22-30) has been understood to represent “Wisdom” as the pre-existent Jesus Christ by the majority of Christians since (at least) the time of the Apostle Paul. - See the BWF study.


Col. 1:15, 16 - “He is the image of the unseen God [‘no man has ever seen God’ - John 1:18] and the first-born of all creation ... all things were created through [dia] him and for him.” - JB.


1 Cor. 8:6 - "yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through [dia] whom are all things and through whom we exist." - RSV


Even the trinitarian The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 1986, Zondervan, (which attempts to show that “Sometimes ... dia seems to express ... the sole cause” and “may be emphasizing the agency, rather than the mediator”) has to admit: “On the other hand, in 1 Cor. 8:6 the function of God the Father as the source of creation is distinguished from Christ’s role as mediator of creation.” - p. 1182, Vol. 3.


John 1:3, 10 - “through [dia] him [the Word] all things came to be ...” and “He was in the world that had its being through [dia] him.” - JB.


We see, then, that just as all things must go up to God (the head of Jesus - 1 Cor. 11:3) through Jesus (man’s head - 1 Cor. 11:3), so too all things have come down from God through Jesus!


So how does Gen. 1:26 (“Let us make man in our image”) provide any real evidence for a three-in-one God? (Does Is. 1:18 prove Jews are God?)


Isn’t it obvious at Gen. 1:26 that Jehovah was speaking to his Master Worker, the first-born of all creation (and, possibly, to the rest of the angels also [5]), who was also made in God’s image, before commanding him to make man? It is still Jehovah God alone who created man through his Master Workman, Jesus!


...............................................................................

NOTES


1. One trinitarian defense of the “plural elohim ‘evidence’” claims that there are a few instances in the OT manuscripts where plural verbs are found with elohim. This is supposed to be evidence that elohim is one God composed of multiple persons. This “evidence” claims there are 4 such places: Gen. 20:13 (“They caused me to wander”); Genesis 35:7 (“They appeared to him”); 2 Sam. 7:23 (“They went”); and Ps. 58:11 (“They judge”).


But there are thousands of places where “God” has a singular verb and pronouns! What is the significance of only four instances that seem to contradict many thousands?


And are these 4 instances really exceptions? I have three Hebrew Interlinears: The NIV Interlinear Hebrew-English Old Testament, John R. Kohlenberger (JRK), Zondervan, 1980; The Interlinear Bible, Green, Baker Book House, 1982; and The Interlineary Hebrew and English Psalter (Psalms only), Bagster, Zondervan, 1979 printing. These are all trinitarian publications!


Gen. 20:13 “He make wander” - JRK; “had made me wander” - Green.


Gen. 35:7 “They appeared to him” - JRK; “revealed himself” - Green.


2 Sam. 7:23 “They went” - JRK; “went out” - Green.


Ps. 58:11 (12) “Ones judging” - JRK; “judging” - Green; “judging” - Bagster.


It’s not surprising that trinitarian-published interlinears would support a trinitarian interpretation. But notice that at least one trinitarian interlinear (two for Gen. 20:13 and Ps. 58:11) in each of the above four examples has not given such an interpretation!


It’s entirely possible that in only four verses (out of thousands) the Hebrew manuscript is ambiguous enough or simply not clearly understood well enough so that a trinitarian interpretation can be one possibility. This is not proof nor even good evidence.


For example, at 2 Sam. 13:39 it says of King David: “she longed” to go to Absalom - see JRK. Proof positive that King David is actually the Holy Spirit (which is always feminine in the OT Hebrew), right? No, we know from thousands of other scriptures that David nearly always has masculine verbs just as we would expect. But if I wanted King David to be God, I could make my own definitions of “David” and “God” which would “prove” my case! (See the DAVID study and the REDEF study.) No matter what straightforward scriptural statement anyone could find proving that David is not God, my own variable definitions for “God” and “David” would counter them. Is this the kind of “proof” we should find acceptable?


However, it appears that a trinitarian interpretation in these four verses is not even an honest possibility. When I examined a number of trinitarian Bible translations, I found that not even the most avid (nor the ones which were most “free” in their translating - such as GNB and LB) translated any one of these four scriptures in any way resembling a trinitarian interpretation. This simply would not be the case if there were even the slightest chance that this was an honest interpretation. Not only did GNB, LB, NASB, RSV, NRSV, NAB, KJV, NIV, NEB, REB, The Amplified Bible, the Septuagint, and Lamsa’s translation from the ancient Syriac not give any indication of a plural verb in these scriptures, but many of them actually indicated a SINGULAR verb and pronoun instead!


For example, GNB, RSV, NRSV, AB, NIV, NASB, NAB (1991 and 1970), NEB, and REB say, “revealed himself” at Gen. 35:7. NASB, NIV, NKJV, Septuagint, and Lamsa have, “went out to redeem as a people for himself” at 2 Sam. 7:23. And GNB, NASB, RSV, NRSV, NEB, NIV, KJV, NKJV, the Septuagint, and Lamsa all say at Ps. 58:11 (12), “A God who judges [‘judgeth’ - KJV]”. And “judges” [“judgeth”] is strictly a SINGULAR verb!


And, of course, all the verbs in question here (like all other verbs and pronouns which are clearly applied to God) are also singular in the Septuagint! But if God were actually a trinity, there would be thousands of clear instances in scripture where plural verbs and plural pronouns would be used for Him!


We should compare what are probably the two nearest parallels to what trinitarians would like us to believe about the Bible writers’ understanding of God.


The nation of Israel began, of course, with the man named Israel who was also earlier named Jacob. The Bible, then, most often calls the nation God has chosen: Israel. It also calls that nation ‘Jacob’ at times. When it speaks of the nation of Israel, or Jacob, it will sometimes use singular verbs and pronouns. In this sense it is referring to the man from whom the nation sprang as representing the entire nation (‘Israel gives his sacrifice to God’). At other times it will use plural verbs and pronouns (‘all Israel gave their thanks to God’). In this sense it is referring directly to all those who make up the nation of Israel. The point being, that, even though we can see Israel used in a plural or a singular sense to refer to the same thing, it is frequently used both ways. And we know from the history so carefully laid out in the Bible why it can be used both ways.


We also have the example of Man. When “man” is used in the generic sense, the Bible will sometimes use singular pronouns and verbs with it and, at other times, it will use plural pronouns and verbs. For example at Gen. 1:27,28 we read:


“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them and ....” - NIV.


And at Gen. 5:1, 2 we read:


“When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female and blessed them. And when they were created, he called them ‘man.’” - NIV.


Again, the point is that, even though we can see the generic “man” being used in a plural and a singular sense to refer to the same thing, it is frequently used both ways. And we know from the history so carefully laid out in the Bible why it can be used both ways (the name of the first man, Adam, was the same word for “man”).


Therefore, if “God” or “Jehovah” could be used with either a plural or a singular sense (as trinitarians must try to do at various places in scripture) in the Bible, we would see many instances of both usages. But if one or the other (plural or singular) were the actual intended meaning at all times, then we would have only that one usage throughout the Bible.


And, sure enough, in spite of the “plural’ form of the word elohim and the singular form of the name Jehovah, they (and other singular words in the original Bible languages which mean “God”) always use (many, many thousands of times) only singular verbs and pronouns with them.

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

2.   We can see this understanding of a powerful person creating or building something without ever lifting a hand in the process of creation or building in Scripture:


There are many instances of this (look in a concordance under “built,” for instance), but here are a few. 1 Kings 6:2; 6:14; 7:1; 8:27; 9:10; 15:23; 22:39; 2 Chron. 26:9; Ezra 5:11, etc.


1 Kings15 23 - Now the rest of all the acts of Asa and all his might and all that he did and the cities which he built, are they not written in the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah? - NASB.


1 Kings 22:39 - Now the rest of the acts of Ahab and all that he did and the ivory house which he built and all the cities which he built, are they not written in the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel? - NASB.
........................................
3. 
Here’s what Thayer tells us about dia:

“III. …. 1. Of one who is the author of the action as well as its instrument, or of the efficient cause…, Ro. xi. 36; also Heb. ii. 10 …. 2. …. a. in passages where a subject expressly mentioned is said to do or to have done a thing by some person or by some thing: … Lk. i.70; Acts i.16 …. B. in passages in which the author or principal cause is not mentioned, but is easily understood from the nature of the case, or from context: …. Jn i.3; 1 Cor viii.6...Col. i.16 … cf. Heb. i.2 (Philo de cherub.” - p.133, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Baker Book House, 1977.

There are scriptures stating that Jehovah (or the Father) created everything. In fact the very use of the title ‘Father’ indicates that He is the source. And, in addition, we see at 1 Cor. 8:6:

“yet for us [Christians] there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through [dia] whom are all things and through [dia] whom we exist.” - NRSV.

And,

Heb. 1:2 - "but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through [dia] whom he also created the worlds." - NRSV.


.......................................
4. Walter Martin in his The Kingdom of the Cults, 1985 ed., frequently accuses Jehovah’s Witnesses of “dishonesty,” “blatant deception,” “unparalleled deceit,” etc. Often his “proof” for such statements disregards evidence from recognized “orthodox” trinitarian scholars which support teachings of the Watchtower organization and its NWT.


At other times, however, Martin will dishonestly set up a “straw man.” This technique is used when a person dishonestly claims that his opponent teaches a certain thing or backs a certain principle. He then proceeds to easily discredit (tear down the “straw man” he has built) this nonexistent condition.


For example, Martin, on p. 94, implies that the Watchtower supports an interpretation of Jesus’ glory at John 17:5 (see “Glory” in the MINOR study) whereby para (“with” in NT Greek) is to be understood as “through” (dia in NT Greek). I have been unable to find any support for such a claim in any Watchtower publications. I have found them upholding the meaning of “with” for para in their interlinear, but not “through”! I have determined Martin’s implication to be completely false by examining Watchtower discussions of John 17:5 in the 1988 Insight book and the 1962 Watchtower Magazine (pp. 476 and 561).


So, when Martin tells us that somewhere some unnamed “average Jehovah’s Witness interviewed recently” suggested that para in John 17:5 really meant “through,” he has manufactured his own “straw man” so he could beat the stuffing out of it. Para does not mean “through” at Jn 17:5 (although Thayer lists “from” as a possible meaning for para under certain conditions - p. 477) and the Watchtower Society doesn’t claim that it does!!


What is even more interesting here is Martin’s insistence on the proper use of dia when “through” is truly intended by a New Testament writer. This, he admits, shows that the individual involved is merely an intermediary and not the source of the subject under discussion. In other words, when scripture tells us that the Law came to Israel through (dia) Moses then we know Moses was not the origin or source of that Law.


But when Martin refers to scriptures that are supposed to “prove” that Jesus was the Creator (or the Source of creation) he never seems to notice the word dia! For example, John 1:3 really says “all things came into existence through [dia] him.” But Martin is forced to use the nearly 400-year-old KJV here (p. 75) because, when the KJV was written, the word “by” actually meant “through.” Modern translations, however, use modern English and therefore translate it “all things were made through him.” - RSV. The use of dia here proves, as Martin himself admitted above, that Jesus cannot be the source of Creation but merely an intermediary. Martin’s use of Col. 1:16 (p. 124) to prove Jesus is the Creator also ignores the actual meaning of dia - compare 1 Cor. 8:6 (see pp. 4-5 in the BWF study).

…………………………….


The following correspondence (Nov. 2014) has caused me to look more closely at the word dia:

Timitrius asked me:

I'm confused about Romans 11:36 and Hebrews 2:10, which both use the word "through".

Hebrews 2:10 MIGHT be referring to Jesus, but many translations and commentaries, including the WTS, say that it refers to the Father.

Romans 11:36 is a doxology to God, and quotes verses referring to Jehovah, but then says that all things are "through" (dia) him and "for" him, which Colossians 1:16 says of Christ.

Can you help me understand this?
 ……………………

My answer:

The preposition dia (“through”) can have more than one meaning. According to my copy of A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (BAG), University of Chicago Press, 1957, it may be used for the author or originator of an action. Among the scriptures listed under this meaning as used for God (p. 179) are Ro. 11:36 and Heb. 2:10b.

And another use of dia is that of an intermediary. “Christ as an intermediary in the creation of the world J[ohn] 1:3, 10; 1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:16” - p. 179. (Cf. p. 133, Thayer.)


.......................................

5. Other comments by trinitarian translators and scholars:


“The plural ‘us,’ ‘our’...probably refers to the divine beings who compose God’s heavenly court (1 Kg. 22:19; Job 1:6).” - Gen. 1:26 footnote in The New Oxford Annotated Bible (1977).


And “Perhaps the plural of majesty .... But possibly the plural form implies a discussion between God and his heavenly court.” - The Jerusalem Bible footnote for "us" in Gen. 1:26.

And noted trinitarian scholar Dr. William Barclay agrees: “[God’s angels] were thought of as God’s senate; God did nothing without consulting them. For instance, when God said: ‘Let us make man’ (Genesis 1:26), it was to the angel senate that he was speaking.” - p. 17, The Letter to the Hebrews, Revised edition, “The Daily Study Bible Series,” The Westminster Press, 1976.


The trinitarian NIV Study Bible (1985, Zondervan) says in its note for Gen 1:26, "us ... our. God speaks as the Creator-King announcing his crowning work to the members of his heavenly court." And, in this same work, the footnotes for Job 1:6 and 38:7 say concerning “the sons of God”: "1:6 angels came to present themselves. .... They came as members of the heavenly council who stand in the presence of God." And "38:7 .... When the earth was created, the angels were there to sing the praises of the Creator, but Job was not."

Dr. Charles Ryrie explains the plurals as plurals of majesty: "Gen. 1:26 us . . . our. Plurals of majesty" (Ryrie Study Bible, NIV, p.6).

"The explanation of the first person plural forms is probably that the Creator speaks as heaven's King accompanied by His heavenly hosts" (The New Bible Commentary, p. 82).

"It is possible that this plural form implies a discussion between God and his heavenly court... Alternatively, the plural expresses the majesty and fullness of God's being" (New Jerusalem Bible, p. 19).


“(a) From Philo onward, Jewish commentators have generally held that the plural in Gen 1:26 is used because God is addressing his heavenly court, i.e., the angels (cf. Isa 6:8). Among recent commentators, Skinner, von Rad, Zimmerli, Kline, Mettinger, Gispen, and Day prefer this explanation. ….

“(b) From the Epistle of Barnabas and Justin Martyr, who saw the plural as a reference to Christ,… Christians have traditionally seen this verse as [foreshadowing] the Trinity. It is now universally admitted that this was not what the plural meant to the original author.” (World Biblical Commentary  http://www.amazon.com/Word-Biblical-Commentary-Vol-Genesis/dp/0849902002#reader_0849902002 ).


* * * * *

Note: Although Watchtower Society (WTS) research and scholarship is usually at least the equal of (and often superior to) that of other sources, I have tried to rely most heavily on other sources in Christendom itself (preferably trinitarian) or my own independent research to provide evidence disproving the trinitarian ‘proof’ being examined in this paper. The reason is, of course, that this paper is meant to provide evidence needed by non-Witnesses, and many of them will not accept anything written by the WTS. They truly believe it is false, even dishonest. Therefore some of the preceding information, all of which helps disprove specific trinitarian “proofs,” may be in disagreement with current WTS teachings in some specifics (especially when I have presented a number of alternates). Jehovah’s Witnesses should research the most recent WTS literature on the subject or scripture in question before using this information with others. – RDB.

Ps. 110:5 - Second Jehovah? And ‘surname’

Comments in blue are from debatingchristianity.com:

“It must be noted that the term 'Adonay' in [Ps. 110:5] was changed from ‘Jehovah’ by the Sopherim during the corrupted temple era. This is a known perversion of the original Hebrew scripture and was carried on later by the Mazoretes into modern extant copies. ….

“Therefore, verse 5 should read: "..the Jehovah on your right.." and we can resolve the Adon in verse 1 to a second Jehovah who is beckoned to sit at the right hand of the first Jehovah. This is later confirmed in Acts 5:31, Romans 8:34, and Hebrews 10:12. Jehovah should then be known as the family surname of the biblical Elohim made up of the Son, Jehovah on the right; and the Father, Jehovah on the left. This conclusion is inescapable, and is the only rational result from scripture.”

John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible tells us at Psalms 110:5 that the words “The Lord at thy right hand,.…” may have several interpretations.  The first one listed by him is that these words are directed to Christ, at whose right hand the Lord [Jehovah] was to help and assist him, Ps. 16:8"

Ps. 110:5  "The Lord at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath." Now that he has come into the field of action, the infinite Jehovah comes with him as the strength of his right hand.” - The Treasury of David.

“The Lord [Jehovah], says Psalm 110:5, dashes in pieces kings at the right hand of this priest-king [Christ], in the day when His wrath is kindled (Psalm 2:12, cf. Psalm 21:10).  ['Lord’] is rightly accented as subject. The fact that the victorious work of the person addressed is not his own work, but the work of [Jehovah] on his behalf and through him, harmonizes with Psalm 110:1.”  - Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament.


“5. at thy right hand-as Ps 109:31, upholding and aiding, which is not inconsistent with Ps 110:1, where the figure denotes participation of power, for here He is presented in another aspect, as a warrior going against enemies, and sustained by God.” - Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

Further comment by above poster on debatingchristianity.com: “In fact, the name Jehovah itself is a family surname like my surname is Jones.”

But here are the facts about surnames in the OT:

“Surname

sur'-nam (kanah; epikalein): A word derived from the French., meaning ‘an additional name’; in modern English always the family name of a person. Indeed, the spelling ‘surname’ in the King James Version 1 Macc 1:10; 2:2; 6:43 may be due to a confusion with ‘sire's name.’ But the custom of family names was entirely unknown among the Hebrews. The word is used twice in the King James Version of the Old Testament, namely, Isa 44:5; 45:4. The Hebrew word means ‘to give flattering or honorary titles.’  In the former passage foreigners are so envious of the prosperity of the Jews that they are anxious to be surnamed by the name of Israel, i.e. to be enrolled as members of the Jewish nation. In the latter case Yahweh gives Cyrus an honorary title, namely, ‘servant of Yahweh,’ and thus appoints him to be His instrument in the restoration of His people. The same word is rendered in Job 32:21, the King James Version, ‘give flattering titles.’  Elihu declares his intention to examine the situation without fear or favor. He will not allow such high-sounding titles as ‘Your Worship’ or ‘My Lord’ to stand in his way. He will not be overawed by Job's social position. ….”  - p. 2872, Vol. IV, International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Eerdmans Publ., 1984. (Also see p. 481, Vol. 3, “Name,” A Dictionary of the Bible, Hastings - Hendrickson Publishers, 1988 reprint.)