I can see you are still defending the POPE's PAGAN Trinity on behalf of your protestant brethren.
hahaha, wu told u that d pope was present in nicea? He was too old to travel so he sent representatives. To ascribe d trinity to the pope is to declear ur ignorance in public.
Ubenedictus: he didnt just mention 'wife'. He said God can only create he cant beget because he doesnt have a wife. That is nonesense
You are now beating about the bush. This happens when you don't have answers and you think you must defend your cause.
You are not satisfied with the meaning of 'beget', even the meaning you presented negates your believe. If only it can be deleted from the bible, you will be, just fine.
I still want to know what 'until' means in Greek before being translated to english.
You can take a break to avoid answering outside the context.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible When he saw his glory - Isaiah 6:1-10. Isaiah saw the Lord (in Hebrew, יהוה Yahweh) sitting on a throne and surrounded with the seraphim. This is perhaps the only instance in the Bible in which Yahweh is said to have been seen by man, and for this the Jews affirm that Isaiah was put to death. God had said Exodus 33:20, "No man shall see me and live;" and as Isaiah affirmed that he had seen Yahweh, the Jews, for that and other reasons, put him to death by sawing him asunder. See Introduction to Isaiah, Section 2. In the prophecy Isaiah is said expressly to have seen Yahweh John 12:1; and in John 12:5, "Mine eyes have seen the King Yahweh of hosts." By his glory is meant the manifestation of him - the Shechinah, or visible cloud that was a representation of God, and that rested over the mercy-seat. This was regarded as equivalent to seeing God, and John here expressly applies this to the Lord Jesus Christ; for he is nor affirming that the people did not believe in God, but is assigning the reason why they believed not on Jesus Christ as the Messiah. The whole discourse has respect to the Lord Jesus, and the natural construction of the passage requires us to refer it to him. John affirms that it was the glory of the Messiah that Isaiah saw, and yet Isaiah affirms that it was Yahweh; and from this the inference is irresistible that John regarded Jesus as the Yahweh whom Isaiah saw. The name Yahweh is never, in the Scriptures, applied to a man, or an angel, or to any creature. It is the unique, incommunicable name of God. So great was the reverence of the Jews for that name that they would not even pronounce it. This passage is therefore conclusive proof that Christ is equal with the Father.
Spake of him - Of the Messiah. The connection requires this interpretation.
Clarke's Commentary on the Bible When he saw his glory - Isaiah 6:1, etc. I saw Jehovah, said the prophet, sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple. Above it stood the seraphim; and one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is Jehovah, God of hosts; the whole earth shall be full of his glory! It appears evident, from this passage, that the glory which the prophet saw was the glory of Jehovah: John, therefore, saying here that it was the glory of Jesus, shows that he considered Jesus to be Jehovah. See Bishop Pearce. Two MSS. and a few versions have Θεου, and του Θεου αὑτου, the glory of God, or of his God.
John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible These things said Esaias,.... Concerning the blinding and hardening of the Jews:
when he saw his glory, and spake of him; when he saw, in a visionary way, the glory of the Messiah in the temple, and the angels covering their faces with their wings at the sight of him; and when he spake of him as the King, the Lord of hosts, whom he had seen, Isaiah 6:1, from whence it is clear that he had respect to the Jews in the times of the Messiah. The prophet says in Isaiah 6:1 that he "saw the Lord": the Targumist renders it, "I saw", , "the glory of Jehovah"; and in Isaiah 6:5 he says, "mine eyes have seen the King", Jehovah, Zebaot, the Lord of hosts; which the Chaldee paraphrase renders, "mine eyes have seen", , "the glory" of the Shekinah, the King of the world, the Lord of hosts. Agreeably to which our Lord says here, that he saw his glory, the glory of his majesty, the glory of his divine nature, the train of his divine perfections, filling the temple of the human nature; and he spoke of him as the true Jehovah, the Lord of hosts; and which therefore is a very clear and strong proof of the proper divinity of Christ. And it may be observed from hence, that such persons who have a true, spiritual, and saving sight of Christ, of the glory of his person, and the fulness of his grace, cannot but be speaking of him to others, either in private, or in public, as Isaiah here did, and as the church in Sol 5:10; and as the apostles of Christ, John 1:1; and indeed, should they hold their peace, the stones would cry out; such must, and will speak of his glory in his temple, Psalm 29:9.
Vincent's Word Studies When (ὅτε)
The best texts read ὅτι, because.
His glory
In the vision in the temple, Isaiah 6:1, Isaiah 6:3, Isaiah 6:5.
Of Him
Christ.
Geneva Study Bible These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him.
Wesley's Notes 12:41 When he saw his glory - Christ's, Isa 6:1, and c. And it is there expressly said to be the glory of the Lord, Jehovah, the Supreme God.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary 41. These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him-a key of immense importance to the opening of Isaiah's vision (Isa 6:1-13), and all similar Old Testament representations. "The Son is the King Jehovah who rules in the Old Testament and appears to the elect, as in the New Testament THE Spirit, the invisible Minister of the Son, is the Director of the Church and the Revealer in the sanctuary of the heart" [Olshausen].
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary 12:37-43 Observe the method of conversion implied here. Sinners are brought to see the reality of Divine things, and to have some knowledge of them. To be converted, and truly turned from sin to Christ, as their Happiness and Portion. God will heal them, will justify and sanctify them; will pardon their sins, which are as bleeding wounds, and mortify their corruptions, which are as lurking diseases. See the power of the world in smothering convictions, from regard to the applause or censure of men. Love of the praise of men, as a by-end in that which is good, will make a man a hypocrite when religion is in fashion, and credit is to be got by it; and love of the praise of men, as a base principle in that which is evil, will make a man an apostate, when religion is in disgrace, and credit is to be lost for it.
The bible say Yahweh will not share His glory with another yet John say Jesus' glory was Yahweh's glory in Isaiah, so if Yahweh will not share His glory with another, and yet Jesus' glory is Yahweh's glory in Isaiah according to John, then explain how Jesus is not Yahweh in the Old Testament?
The Yahweh that Isaiah saw in the Old Testament is The Jesus Christ of the New Testament according to the apostle John, see "Isaiah saw Jesus as Yahweh (Compare John 12:37-41 with Isaiah 6:1-10)" at:
We’re going to resume our study tonight of the Trinity and going through the gospel of John. I’m not going to cover the Triumphant Entry since we’ve already done that. I’d like us instead go to another part of John 12. Greeks have come to see Jesus. When that happens, Jesus says that the time has arrived and John gives a commentary on all that happens. I recommend you read the relevant portions prior to our text starting in verse 37.
37Even after Jesus had done all these miraculous signs in their presence, they still would not believe in him. 38This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet: ”Lord, who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? 39For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere: 40“He has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn—and I would heal them. 41Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus’ glory and spoke about him.
Jesus has been doing miraculous signs for the people and now, even the voice of God has spoken, and the people refuse to believe. What is going on exactly? John’s commentary on what has happened comes straight out of Isaiah. Let’s look at the first passage.
1 Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
This passage should sound familiar. It’s Isaiah 53 which is the noted servant song that speaks about Christ and how he would be rejected as Messiah. The second passage is also a passage of rejection, but it is one that comes much earlier. This comes from Isaiah 6. It’s in verse 10, but I will quote the first five verses.
1 In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord seated on a throne, high and exalted, and the train of his robe filled the temple. 2 Above him were seraphs, each with six wings: With two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying. 3 And they were calling to one another: “Holy, holy, holy is the LORD Almighty; the whole earth is full of his glory.” 4 At the sound of their voices the doorposts and thresholds shook and the temple was filled with smoke.
5 ”Woe to me!” I cried. “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the LORD Almighty.”
Can there be any doubt that Isaiah here saw YHWH? Verse 5 should dispel any hesitancy to say that. Notice how YHWH is described as high and exalted. Is that language used elsewhere in Isaiah. YES!
13 See, my servant will act wisely he will be raised and lifted up and highly exalted.
Where is this? Chapter 52. In fact, it’s the prelude to the servant song.
The term used to describe YHWH is used to describe Christ but notice how John’s description continues. Let’s look at why he says Isaiah said these things in John 12:41.
41Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus’ glory and spoke about him.
What glory did Isaiah see? He saw the glory of YHWH. That is who anyone would think of when he asked who Isaiah saw and that’s what John wishes us to see. John 12:41 is pointing back to say that the one on the throne is Jesus Christ.
Which also makes Isaiah 6 fit in with John 1:18 as no one has seen God as he is, that is, the Father, but the Son has revealed him.
The bible say Yahweh will not share His glory with another yet John say Jesus' glory was Yahweh's glory in Isaiah, so if Yahweh will not share His glory with another, and yet Jesus' glory is Yahweh's glory in Isaiah according to John, then explain how Jesus is not Yahweh in the Old Testament?
Isaiah 6:1: In the year of King Uzziah's death, I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, lofty and exalted, with the train of His robe filling the temple.
Isaiah 6:8-9 Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?" Then I said, "Here am I. Send me!" And He said, "Go, and tell this people: 'Keep on listening, but do not perceive; Keep on looking, but do not understand.'
I. Jesus is Yahweh:
A. Isaiah saw Jesus Christ (Yahweh)
"In the year of King Uzziah's death I saw Yahweh sitting on a throne, lofty and exalted, with the train of His robe filling the temple. " Isaiah 6:1 "For my eyes have seen the King, Yahwah of hosts." Isaiah 6:5 "Then I heard the voice of Yahweh, saying, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?" Then I said, "Here am I. Send me!" " Isaiah 6:8 "These things Isaiah said because he (Isaiah) saw His (Christ's) glory, and he spoke of Him (Christ)." John 12:41 B. The context of John 12:41: "These things Isaiah said because he saw His (Christ's) glory, and he spoke of Him (Christ)." John 12:41
The section focuses on Christ being glorified, with the Glory he had before creation (Jn 17:5) and how men were to believe in Jesus as the Saviour of the world. John quotes from Isaiah several times about how men could not believe in Jesus. The "Him" in John 12:41 can only be Jesus: when Jesus was glorified v16 the Son of Man to be glorified v23 Father, glorify Your name (by glorifying Jesus) v28 they were not believing in Christ v37 Lord, who has believed our report v38 to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed v38 these things Isaiah said because he saw His (Christ's) glory, and he spoke of Him (Christ) v41 many even of the rulers believed in Him v42 Jesus cried out and said, He who believes in Me v44 He who sees Me sees the One who sent Me v45 A simple reading of the context of John 12 makes it clear that John is saying that Isaiah saw the glory of Jesus Christ himself in Isaiah 6. This proves Jesus is Yahweh. C. Full context of John 12:41 proves Isaiah saw Jesus' glory.
"These things His disciples did not understand at the first; but when Jesus was glorified, then they remembered that these things were written of Him, and that they had done these things to Him. " John 12:16 "And Jesus answered them, saying, "The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. " John 12:23 ""Now My soul has become troubled; and what shall I say, 'Father, save Me from this hour'? But for this purpose I came to this hour. "Father, glorify Your name." Then a voice came out of heaven: "I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again." " John 12:27-28 "But though He (Christ) had performed so many signs before them, yet they were not believing in Him (Christ). This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet which he spoke: "Lord, who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?" For this reason they could not believe, for Isaiah said again, "He has blinded their eyes and He hardened their heart, so that they would not see with their eyes and perceive with their heart, and be converted and I heal them." THESE THINGS ISAIAH SAID BECAUSE HE SAW HIS (CHRIST'S) GLORY, AND HE SPOKE OF HIM (CHRIST). Nevertheless many even of the rulers believed in Him (Christ), but because of the Pharisees they were not confessing Him (Christ), for fear that they would be put out of the synagogue; for they loved the approval of men rather than the approval of God. And Jesus cried out and said, "He who believes in Me, does not believe in Me but in Him who sent Me. "He who sees Me sees the One who sent Me. " John 12:37-45 II. Plural pronouns used of God proving the trinity:
A. Three plural pronouns, (We, Us, Our) used 6 different times in four different passages. Remember the word God (elohim) is also plural every time it is used in the Old Testament. Gen 11:7 also includes a plural verb (confuse) which even further, through grammer reinforces the plural "elohim" and the plural pronoun US.
"Our" Gen 1:26 "Us" Gen 1:26; 3:22; 11:7; Isa 6:8 "We" Isa 6:8 B. These are the four passages where God speaks for Himself and uses plural pronouns:
"Then God [plural elohim] said, "Let Us [plural pronoun] make man in Our [plural pronoun] image, according to Our [plural pronoun] likeness" Genesis 1:26 "Then Yahweh God [plural elohim] said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us [plural pronoun], knowing good and evil" Genesis 3:22 "Come, let Us [plural pronoun] go down and there confuse [plural form of balal] their language, so that they will not understand one another's speech." Genesis 11:7 "Then I heard the voice of the Lord [plural elohim], saying, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us [plural pronoun]?"" Isaiah 6:8
The bible say Yahweh will not share His glory with another yet John say Jesus' glory was Yahweh's glory in Isaiah, so if Yahweh will not share His glory with another, and yet Jesus' glory is Yahweh's glory in Isaiah according to John, then explain how Jesus is not Yahweh in the Old Testament?
Biblical Basis for Trinity
THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD Deuteronomy 6:4 Isaiah 43:10 Isaiah 44:6-8 OLD TESTAMENT EVIDENCES OF THE TRINITY Genesis 1:1,26,27 Isaiah 6:1-10 Isaiah 48:12-16 Zechariah 2:10-11 (Points I & lll are not contested by those who deny the Trinity, therefore little space is given them here.)
THE FATHER IS GOD I Peter 1:17 John 5:17-23 THE SON IS GOD He Is Called God Explicitly Matthew 1:23, "Emmanuel-God with us." John 1:1, "The Word was God." (Note: There is no scholarly support for the NWT rendering it "a god." For a thorough treatment of this issue request our study on John 1:1) John 5:17-23, The Son is "equal" to his Father John 8:53-59, Jesus is the "I AM" of Exodus 3:1-15 John 10:28-33, Jesus and the Father are equal John 20:28 "The Lord of me and THE GOD of me." Romans 9:5, Christ is God over all Colossians 2:9, All the fullness of deity Titus 2:13, "our Great God and Saviour." Hebrews 1:8, "Thy throne O God." I John 5:20, "The true God." He Is Described In Terms Reserved Only For God Creator of ALL Things John 1:3 Ephesians 3:9 Colossians 1:16,17 Hebrews 2:10 Revelation 3:14 The Almighty Revelation 1:8 with 21:5-7; and 22:12,13,16,20 The First and Last Revelation 1:17; 2:8; 22:13 (Compare Isaiah 44:6) The Exact Representation of The Father Hebrews 1:3 John 12:45 and 14:6-11 Isaiah 46:9 He Is Worshipped As God. (See Luke 4: Revelation 5:11-13 (Compare Revelation 4:9-11) Hebrews 1:6 O.T./N.T. Cross-Reference Proves Jesus Is God Isaiah 40:3 with John 1:23 & 3:28 Isaiah 45:23 with Philippians 2:10,11 and Romans 14:11 Isaiah 44:24 with John 1:3 Isaiah 6:1-5 with John 12:37-41 Isaiah 8:13,14 with I Peter 2:7,8 Isaiah 42:8 with John 17:5 Isaiah 60:19 with Luke 2:30-32 Psalms 102:24-27 with Hebrews 1:10-12 Psalms 45:6,7 with Hebrews 1:8,9 Psalms 23:1 with Isaiah 40:10,11 and John 10,11 I Kings 8:39 with Revelation 2:23 Joel 2:32 with Romans 10:9-13 Exodus 3:14 with John 8:58,59 Malachi 3:1 with Matthew 11:10 Exodus 19:18-21 with Hebrews 12:18-26 Zechariah 12:10 & 13:6,7 with John 19:34-37 Zechariah 14:4,5 with Matthew 24:29-31; Matthew 25:31; Jude 14,15; II Thessalonians 1:7-10; Revelation 19:11-21 Jesus Is God Made Flesh Philippians 2:5-8: Jesus "being in the form of God" (i.e., deity), did not consider it something to cling to, but emptied himself of his divine glory and perogatives, NOT his divine nature, and took UPON his divine form "the form of a servant" (i.e., humanity), in order to suffer death. John 1:1,14: "In the beginning was (eternally) the Word and the Word was with God (i.e., the Father and Holy Spirit), and the Word was God (deity)." "And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us." Hebrews 1:3 and 2:9-18: Jesus is the "EXACT REPRESENTATION of His (God's) VERY BEING" (NWT). No creature could possibly do that! But, Jesus set aside his infinite glory to become one of us so that he could be to us an, example in faith, the perfect sacrifice, our High Priest, Comforter, and Saviour. Who Is The "Angel Of Jehovah?" Genesis 16:7-13 Genesis 18:1,13,17,20-22,26,33; 19:24 Genesis 22:11-18 Genesis 31:11-13 Genesis 32:24-30 (compare Hosea 12:4,5) Genesis 48: 15,16 Exodus 3:1-15 (compare vs. 5 with Joshua 5: 14,15) Exodus 23:20,21 Judges 6:11-23 Note: In these passages the "Angel of Jehovah" speaks as Jehovah, is called Jehovah, does the works of Jehovah, and is worshipped by those to whom He appears. He is Jesus, the Son of God. "Angel" means "messenger" and is applied to the angelic beings, men (evangelists), and to God (see above)
Answers To Common Antitrinitarian Prooftexts John 14:28 "My Father is greater than I." Just as the husband is positionally greater than the wife so the Father is greater the the Son. Both husband and wife are equally human as the Father and Son are equally divine. Colossians 1:15 "the Firstborn of all creation." "Firstborn" (Gr. Prototokos), not "first created" (Gr. "Protoktistos". Firstborn is term that means first in importance. These scriptures bear that out: Genesis 41:51,52 with Jeremiah 31:9; Deuteronomy 21:15-17; Exodus 4:22; and Job 18:13. Revelation 3:14 "the beginning of the creation of God." We derive many words such as architect, archangel, arch-rival, from the Greek word "arche" translated "beginning" in this verse. It means "origin," "source," "chief," and "ruler." Jesus is the origin of ALL, or the creator. THE HOLY SPIRIT IS GOD He Is Called God Acts 5:3,4 Lying to the Spirit is lying to God II Corinthians 3:17 "The Lord is that Spirit." (compare this with Exodus 34:29-35) He Is Omnipotent Isaiah 40:12-14 (See Romans 11:34 and I Corinthians 2:16) He Is Omniscient I Corinthians 2:10,11 Isaiah 40: 13,14 He Is Omnipresent Psalm 139:7 He Is Eternal Hebrews 9:14 He Has The Attributes Of Personality Intellect Romans 8:27, "The MIND of the Spirit." I Corinthians 2:10-12, The Spirit "KNOWS." Will I Corinthians 12:11, "The Spirit WILLS." Emotion Ephesians 4:30, "GRIEVE" not the Spirit His Self-Cognizance Is Shown By These Actions: He Speaks Acts 8:29; 10:19; 13:2; 21:11 Revelation 2:7,11,17,29; 3:6,13,22 He Teaches Luke 12:12 John 14:26 I John 2:26,27 Says "I" Acts 10:20 If the Holy Spirit is a self-cognizant personality, and is also eternal, then He must be God, for God is the only eternal being. Conclusion
"So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet there are not three Gods, but one God." (from The Athanasian Creed)
gbrookes02:Who Is the Angel of the Lord? (Judg 6:22-23)
IF GIDEON ONLY SAW AN ANGEL, WHY DID HE FEAR THAT HE MIGHT DIE? Many interpreters believe that an angel takes God's place and acts as his representative. However, others do not feel this explanation fits all the data. Who, then, is this "angel of the LORD"?
The angel of the Lord first appears in Genesis 16:7 and then intermittently throughout the early Old Testament books. In other passages an individual manifesting himself in human form is frequently called "the LORD" (Gen 12:7; 17:1; 18:1). If this angel actually were God, why is he called an angel? Since the root meaning of angel is "messenger" or "one who is sent," we must determine from context whether the word refers to the office of the sent one or to the nature of created angels as finite beings.
Initially, some contexts of the term "angel of the LORD" appear to refer to nothing more than any other angel (as in Judg 6:11). But as the narrative progresses, that angel soon transcends the angelic category and is described in terms suited only to a member of the Trinity. Thus in the Judges 6 episode, we are startled when verse 14 has the Lord speaking to Gideon, when previously only the angel of the Lord had been talking.
Many Old Testament passages state that this angel is God. Thus, after being told that Hagar had been speaking with the angel of the Lord (four times in Gen 16:7, 9-11), Genesis 16:13 informs us that Hagar "gave this name to the LORD who spoke to her: `You are the God who sees me.'" Jacob's testimony in Genesis 48:15-16 is even more striking. He identifies the God in whose presence his fathers Abraham and Isaac had lived as "the God who has been my shepherd all my life to this day, the Angel who has delivered me from all harm."
This angel spoke to Jacob earlier in a dream and identified himself by saying, "I am the God of Bethel, where you anointed a pillar and where you made a vow to me" (Gen 31:11, 13).
Likewise in Exodus 3:2-6 the phrase "the angel of the LORD" is used interchangeably with "the LORD." In fact the angel claims, "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob" (Ex 3:6).
The passage, however, that really clinches this remarkable identification is Exodus 23:20-23. There God promises to send his angel ahead of the children of Israel as they go through the desert. The Israelites were warned that they must obey and not rebel against this angel. The reason was a stunning one: "Since my Name is in him." God would never share his memorial name with anyone else, for Isaiah 42:8 advised that he would never share his glory with another. Thus the name of God stands for himself. And when a person is said to have the name of God in him, that person is God!
This angel has divine qualities, prerogatives and authority. He has the power to give life (Gen 16:10) and to see and know all (Gen 16:13; Ex 3:7). Only God can forgive sin, yet this angel did the same in Exodus 23:21. The angel performed miracles such as keeping a burning bush from being consumed (Ex 3:2), smiting Egypt with plagues (Ex 3:20), calling forth fire on the rock to consume the meal set for him (Judg 6:21) and ascending the flame of the altar (Judg 13:20).
Finally, this angel commanded and received worship from Moses (Ex 3:5) and Joshua (Josh 5:14). Angels were not to receive worship. When John attempted to worship an angel in Revelation 19:10; 22:8-9, he was corrected quickly and told not to do it.
It is clear from this abundance of evidence that the angel of the Lord in the Old Testament was a preincarnate form of our Lord Jesus Christ, who would later permanently take on flesh when he came as a babe in Bethlehem. But mark it well: the one who came after John had already been before--he was that angel of the Lord. His full deity was always observed and yet he presented the same mystery of the Trinity that would later be observed in "I and the Father are one" (Jn 10:30) and "my other witness is the Father, who sent me" (Jn 8:18). It is that word sent that ties together the angel, messenger or sent one into an Old Testament theology of christophanies, appearances of God in human form.
See also comment on GENESIS 32:23-33; EXODUS 24:9-11; 33:18-23.
gbrookes02:Granville Sharp's Rule Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1
by James White
This information sheet is divided into two sections. The first is a brief, basic discussion of what is known as "Granville Sharp's Rule." This rule is very important in translating and understanding Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 (as well as other passages), and as these passages bear directly on the discussion of the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ, we feel Christians should be informed on the subject. The second section of this paper is a much more in-depth discussion of the same subject, providing references for those familiar with the Greek language and the translation of the New Testament.
Section 1
Basically, Granville Sharp's rule states that when you have two nouns, which are not proper names (such as Cephas, or Paul, or Timothy), which are describing a person, and the two nouns are connected by the word "and," and the first noun has the article ("the" while the second does not, *both nouns are referring to the same person*. In our texts, this is demonstrated by the words "God" and "Savior" at Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1. "God" has the article, it is followed by the word for "and," and the word "Savior" does not have the article. Hence, both nouns are being applied to the same person, Jesus Christ. This rule is exceptionless. One must argue solely on theological grounds against these passages. There is truly no real grammatical objection that can be raised. Not that many have not attempted to do so, and are still trying. However, the evidence is overwhelming in favor of the above interpretation. Lets look at some of the evidence from the text itself.
In Titus 2:13, we first see that Paul is referring to the "epiphaneia" of the Lord, His "appearing." Every other instance of this word is reserved for Christ and Him alone.(1) It is immediately followed by verse 14, which says, "who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds." The obvious reference here is to Christ who "gave Himself for us" on the cross of Calvary. There is no hint here of a plural antecedent for the "who" of verse 14 either. It might also be mentioned that verse 14, while directly referring to Christ, is a paraphrase of some Old Testament passages that refer to Yahweh God. (Psalm 130:8, Deuteronomy 7:6, etc). One can hardly object to the identification of Christ as God when the Apostle goes on to describe His works as the works of God!
The passage found at 2 Peter 1:1 is even more compelling. Some have simply by-passed grammatical rules and considerations, and have decided for an inferior translation on the basis of verse 2, which, they say, "clearly distinguishes" between God and Christ.(2) Such translation on the basis of theological prejudices is hardly commendable. The little book of 2 Peter contains a total of five "Granville Sharp" constructions. They are 1:1, 1:11, 2:20, 3:2, and 3:18. No one would argue that the other four instances are exceptions to the rule. For example, in 2:20, it is obvious that both "Lord" and "Savior" are in reference to Christ. Such is the case in 3:2, as well as 3:18. No problem there, for the proper translation does not step on anyone's theological toes. 1:11 is even more striking. The construction here is *identical* to the construction found in 1:1, with only one word being different. Here are the passages as they are transliterated into English:
1:1: tou theou hemon kai sotaros Iesou Christou
1:11: tou kuriou hemon kai sotaros Iesou Christou
Notice the exact one-to-one correspondence between these passages! The only difference is the substitution of "kuriou" for "theou". No one would question the translation of "our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ" at 1:11; why question the translation of "our God and Savior, Jesus Christ" at 1:1? Consistency in translation demands that we not allow our personal prejudices to interfere with our rendering of God's Word.
Dr. A. T. Robertson examined this very subject, and in conclusion said,
Sharp stands vindicated after all the dust has settled. We must let these passages mean what they want to mean regardless of our theories about the theology of the writers.
There is no solid grammatical reason for one to hesitate to translate 2 Pet. 1:1, "our God and Saviour Jesus Christ," and Tit. 2:13, "our great God and Saviour Christ Jesus."... Scholarship, real scholarship, seeks to find the truth. That is its reward. The Christian scholar finds the same joy in truth and he is not uneasy that the foundations will be destroyed.(3)
Hopefully all involved can echo Dr. Robertson's words. We need not think that God's Word is our enemy, or that we must twist it around to suit our needs. God's truth will stand firm, despite all of mankind's attempts to hide it, or twist it. Christians are looking for that blessed hope; the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. In the meantime, let us do good deeds to others, living in the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ.
********************************************
Section 2:
Anyone familiar with the koine Greek, the language of the common people in Jesus' day, knows that it is a very expressive and full language. It is indeed complicated, and it rarely follows its own rules all the time. A common joke amongst Greek students is the foolishness of using the word "always" when asking a question of the professor. There is seemingly always an exception to the rule.
One would expect, then, to find a number of exceptions to the rule here under consideration, that of Granville Sharp. But before that can be determined, we need first to define the rule itself. That sounds simple, but it has been my discovery that it is not. Take, for example, the definition given by Curtis Vaughn and Virtus Gideon:
"If two nouns of the same case are connected by a "kai" and the article is used with both nouns, they refer to different persons or things. If only the first noun has the article, the second noun refers to the same person or thing referred to in the first."(1)
Kenneth Wuest, in his _Word Studies in the Greek New Testament_ defines it this way:
"We have Granville Sharp's rule here, which says that when there are two nouns in the same case connected by a kai (and), the first noun having the article, the second noun not having the article, the second noun refers to the same thing the first noun does and is a further description of it."(2)
Note the absence of the second part of Vaughn and Gideon's definition, that of the two nouns both with articles. Dana and Mantey give probably the most accurate definition when they write:
"The following rule by Granville Sharp of a century back still proves to be true: "When the copulative kai connects two nouns of the same case, if the article ho or any of its cases precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle; i.e., it denotes a further description of the first-named person."(3)
However, much to my surprise, I have found that none of these definitions, even the one by Dana and Mantey, accurately reflect what Granville Sharp actually said or meant. It has been due to these less- than-accurate definitions that Sharp's rule has come in for a lot of the criticism that it has. One of the longest and best discussions that I have been able to find is found in A. T. Robertson's fine work, _The Minister and His Greek New Testament,_ pages 61 through 68, under the title, "The Greek Article and the Deity of Christ." It was here that I first found an accurate rendering of Granville Sharp's actual rule. Since that time I have been fortunate enough to track down an 1807 edition of Granville Sharp's actual work entitled, _Remarks on the Uses of the Definitive Article in the Greek Text of the New Testament, Containing Many New Proofs of the Divinity of Christ, From Passages Which are Wrongly Translated in the Common English Version._ This work actually puts forth six rules, the other five being corollaries of the first.
Granville Sharp's rule, according to Granville Sharp, is:
"When the copulative kai connects two nouns of the same case [viz. nouns (either substantive or adjective, or participles) of personal description, respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connexion, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill,] if the article ho, or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle: i.e., it denotes a farther description of the first named person."(4)
The vital point that is available to the reader of Sharp's work is this: *Sharp's rule is valid only for singulars, not plurals; and it is not intended to be applied to proper names*. His rule only applies to persons, not things. As you can see, Granville Sharp's rule is much more limited in its scope than the more modern definitions reveal.
Does this more accurate and definite definition make a big difference? Indeed it does! There are 79 occurrences of "Granville Sharp" constructions in the writings of Paul, using Vaughn and Gideon's definition. Hence, here we have constructions that mix singulars and plurals, descriptions of places and things, and constructions that reflect both nouns as having the article. A quick glance over the list reveals a maximum of 15 exceptions, and a minimum of five. Even this ratio would be considered very good for a general rule of grammar. However, Sharp claimed that the rule *always* held true. Obviously, if the modern versions of his rule are accurate, Sharp was not. But when the constructions in the New Testament that truly follow Granville Sharp's rule are examined, a very unusual thing happens: *it is found to be entirely exceptionless!* As Robertson quotes from Sharp's work, "But, though Sharp's principle was attacked, he held to it and affirms (p. 115) that though he had examined several thousand examples of this type, "the apostle and high priest of our confession Jesus" (Heb. 3:1), he had never found an exception."(5) From my own research, I concur with Sharp. The rule, in its pure form, is exceptionless.
An examination of a few key texts is in order. The two that have most triggered the controversy over the rule are Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1. Both passages exhibit what might be called "classical" Sharp constructions. Titus 2:13: ten makarian elpida kai epiphaneian tes doxes tou megalou theou kai soteros hemon Iesou Christou, and 2 Peter 1:1: tou theou hemon kai soteros Iesou Christou. Titus 2:13 is correctly translated as "the blessed hope and the appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ," and 2 Peter 1:1, "our God and Savior, Jesus Christ." The reason for the controversy is, of course, quite obvious. Should these texts stand, the Arian theological position becomes untenable. Hence Greek grammarians of the rank even of George B. Winer have taken their best shot at these passages, all to no avail. The 2 Peter passage seems to be the strongest of all the passages, especially due to its context. Four other Sharp constructions occur in 2 Peter, a rather high occurrence in a letter that is only three chapters long. The other examples occur in 1:11, 2:20, 3:2, and 3:18. For brevity's sake, I will examine only 1:11, as it is almost identical with 1:1 in wording (exchange kuriou for theou), and it *is* identical in form: tou kuriou hemon kai soteros Iesou Christou, "our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." No one has any problem seeing that both "Lord" and "Savior" refer to the same person, Jesus Christ, and that both nouns are to be taken under the one article. Why, then, balk at correctly translating 1:1?? It is an identical construction. Titus 2:13 also occurs in a context that strongly supports the contention of Sharp's rule. First, the term epiphaneian is never used of the Father anywhere in the New Testament (2 Thess. 2:8, 1 Tim. 6:14, 2 Tim. 1:10, 4:1, Tit. 2:13).(6) Hence, the anti-trinitarian argument is in trouble from the start. Verse 14 continues, "who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds." It is interesting to note also that Psalm 130:8 says that it is Yahweh that redeems from all iniquities. There is no contextual, syntactical, or grammatical argument that can be urged against either of these passages. Only a theological prejudice could interfere with translation. Why, then, does the AV, the ASV, and a few other older versions incorrectly translate these passages? Robertson maintains that it is mainly due to the influence of George B. Winer and his grammatical work. For three generations his work was supreme, and many scholars did not feel inclined to "fly in his face" and insist on the correct translation of these passages. However, Winer himself, being an anti-trinitarian, admitted that it was not grammatical grounds that led him to reject the correct rendering of Titus 2:13, but theological ones. In the Winer-Moulton Grammar (as cited by Robertson), page 162, Winer said, "Considerations derived from Paul's system of doctrine lead me to believe that soteros is not a second predicate, co-ordinate with theou, Christ being first called megas theos, and then soter." However, Robertson put it well when he said, "Sharp stands vindicated after all the dust has settled. We must let these passages mean what they want to mean regardless of our theories about the theology of the writers."(7)
Kenneth Wuest in his _Expanded Translation_ brings out the Sharp constructions in a number of other instances. For example, 2 Thessalonians 1:12 reads, "in accordance with the grace of our God, even the Lord Jesus Christ." 1 Timothy 5:21: "I solemnly charge you in the presence of our God, even Jesus Christ,..." and 2 Timothy 4:1: "I solemnly charge you as one who is living in the presence of our God, even Christ Jesus,..." All these demonstrate further examples of Sharp's rule. Not all examples, of course, deal with the fact of the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. 1 Thessalonians 3:2 reads, ton adelphon hemon kai sunergon, "our brother and fellow-worker," in reference to Timothy. Philemon 1 contains a similar reference, and Hebrews 3:1 is yet another example. One of the most often repeated examples has to do with the idiom, "God and Father." Pure Sharp constructions occur at 2 Corinthians 1:3, Ephesians 1:3, Ephesians 5:20, Philippians 4:20, and 1 Thessalonians 3:11. Finally, other examples of Sharp constructions occur at 1 Corinthians 5:10, 7:8, 7:34, Ephesians 5:5, Philippians 2:25, and Colossians 4:7. There are, of course, others outside the writings of the Apostle Paul.
Having seen that Granville Sharp correctly identified a rule of grammar that the ancient koine Greek writers faithfully followed, next we will examine whether the more modern and far less accurate definitions of Sharp's rule can be used effectively. Some examples that follow Sharp's principle (but are not actually Sharp constructions) include Romans 3:21, "by the law and the prophets," demonstrating the use of the article with both nouns. Others are Romans 15:4, "through the grace and through the exhortation," 2 Corinthians 8:4, "the gift and the fellowship," and 1 Thessalonians 3:6, "your faith and your love." Some that have only the one article are Philippians 1:20, "according to my eager expectation and hope," 2:17, "upon the sacrifice and sacrificial offering of your faith," and Colossians 2:8, "through philosophy and empty deception." There are, however, a number of exceptions, such as Philippians 1:19, "through your entreaty and the support of the Spirit," and 2 Corinthians 1:6, "your encouragement and salvation." Robertson( demonstrates that when both nouns have the article, they are to be distinguished. He lists Mt. 23:2, Mk. 2:18, 6:21, 11:9, 11:18, 12:13, Lk. 11:39, 15:6, 23:4, Jn. 4:37, 1 Cor. 3:8, Jas. 3:11, Acts 26:30, Rev. 18:20, adding that the list can be extended indefinitely. He also mentions that at times, the use of one article with two nouns can demonstrate that the author was viewing the two things as one, even though they might be numerically or generically distinct. Also noted is the fact that differences in number and gender tend to bring the article into play.
On the basis of the foregoing, unless the context demands otherwise, the interpreter would do well to consider the possibility that the author, when using a construction that utilizes two nouns, the first having the article, and the second not, had in mind one object for both nouns (participles or adjectives). Also, when both nouns have the article, it is quite likely that the writer meant to keep them quite distinct. Though these suggestions do lend themselves to exceptions, they can be generally quite helpful. When discussing the real Granville Sharp rule, however, totally different considerations need be applied. A real Sharp construction will hold to what Sharp actually said, and will hold true in all cases. Hence, Sharp's rule is an invaluable instrument in the interpreter's bag. Unlike so many rules, one does not have to worry about the many exceptions to the rule. It is amusing to imagine the Apostle Paul listening in on a discussion amongst modern grammarians, and being very confused as to just what "Granville Sharp's rule" is. He certainly would acknowledge the fact of what he wrote and what it meant, but we must remember that all Granville Sharp did was accurately observe a principle that had been around for over 1700 years. Paul never kept Granville Sharp's rule: Granville Sharp correctly followed Paul's rule (and Peter's and James' and so on). Sharp's rule has stood the test of time, and will continue to be a strong force to be reckoned with in the future.
Footnotes:
(On Section 1
1. 2 Thess. 2:8, 1 Tim. 6:14, 2 Tim. 1:10, 4:1, 4:8, Tit. 2:13. W. F. Moulton, A. S. Geden, H. K. Moulton, Concordance to the Greek Testament, 5th edition, (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1980) p. 374. 2. Alford, New Testament for English Readers, p. 1671. 3. A. T. Robertson, The Minister and his Greek New Testament, pp. 66-67.
(On Section 2
1. Curtis Vaughn, and Virtus Gideon, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament, (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1979), p. 83. 2. Wuest, Wuest's Word Studies In the Greek New Testament, 2:195. 3. Dana and Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p. 147. 4. Granville Sharp, Remarks on the Uses of the Definitive Article in the Greek Text of the New Testament: Containing Many New Proofs of the Divinity of Christ, From Passages Which are Wrongly Translated in the Common English Version, (Philadelphia: B. B. Hopkins and Co., 1807), p. 3. 5. Robertson, The Minister and His Greek New Testament, p. 62. 6. W. F. Moulton, and A. S. Geden, Concordance to the Greek Testament, p. 374. 7. Robertson, The Minister and His Greek New Testament, p. 66. Further scholarly corroboration of this interpretation of these passages can be found in A. T. Robertson's Word Pictures in the Greek New Testament, vol. 6, pages 147-148, in Nicoll's Expositor's Greek Testament, vol. 5, p. 123, and in B. B. Warfield, Biblical and Theological Studies, pp. 68-71. Grundmann, in Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 4, p. 540 says, "Hence we have to take Jesus Christ as the megas theos. This is demanded by the position of the article, by the term epiphaneia ..., and by the stereotyped nature of the expression...Hence the best rendering is: "We wait for the blessed hope and manifestation of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ." 8. A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, pp. 786-787.
Inscribed “To God Jesus Christ” Early Christian Prayer Hall Found in Megiddo Prison By Vassilios Tzaferis
TALKBACK Add Your Comment
View captions and large images. In the late 1990s, authorities at the prison that sits near the base of Tel Megiddo in northern Israel decided they needed more room. Accordingly, an addition was planned within the prison compound and work commenced. It was not long, however, before the construction workers (prisoners) hit ancient remains. Work on the prison extension was immediately stopped and the Israel Antiquities Authority notified. A so-called salvage, or rescue excavation was organized under the direction of archaeologist Yotam Tepper, and the archaeologists were soon in the field. (The prisoners also helped; Tepper dedicates his popular pamphlet on the excavation “to the inmates of the Megiddo and Zalmon Prisons whose personal circumstances brought us together in the excavation and without whose dedicated work we could not have exposed the remains at the site.”)
View captions and large images. What Tepper and the prisoners exposed is probably the earliest church1 ever discovered in the Holy Land (the excavators date it to the first half of the third century, around 230 A.D.) and one of the very few churches from this early period anywhere in the world—from a time before Christianity became the religion of the Roman empire in the early fourth century during the reign of Constantine the Great.
Although Tepper had no idea of the church he would discover, he was hardly surprised that there were ancient remains here. Earlier archaeological surveys in the area (the most recent of which Tepper himself led) identified the site of an ancient Jewish village (Kfar Othnay), as well as the headquarters of two Roman legions and later the Byzantine city of Maximianopolis beside the Jewish village.
Kfar Othnay is mentioned in Jewish sources (Mishnah Gittin 7:7) and in Ptolemy’s writings, and is located on the famous Peutinger map (originally drawn in the second century A.D.), where it is called by its Latin name, Caporcotani. The excavation uncovered a number of miqva’ot (Jewish ritual baths) in Kfar Othnay, but they may have been used by the Samaritans rather than the Jews, because the sources also indicate that Othnay was home to Samaritans as well—a very multicultural place, as we shall see.
During the second and third centuries, the Romans erected a military camp near the Jewish village where at least two of their legions, the Second Traiana and the Sixth Ferrata, were stationed. The entire region then became known as Legio. The modern Arabic name of the site, El Lajjun, preserves a memory of the Roman military camp Legio. Dozens of roof tiles bear stamps of the Second Legion Traiana and the Sixth Legion Ferrata. A spectacular bronze statuette of the Roman house-god Lar was also recovered in the excavation.
At the end of the Roman period and during the Byzantine period, the Jewish village and Roman Legio became part of a city, or polis, named Maximianopolis in honor of the western emperor Maximian (286—305). A bishop from Maximianopolis attended the influential Council of Nicaea in 325, indicating that Maximianopolis remained an important Christian community even after the Roman legions left the site. Following the Arab conquest in the seventh century, Maximianopolis became the fortified capital of the district of Palaestina Secunda.
Perhaps the most interesting building in the area where the bronze statuette of the Roman god Lar was uncovered (Area Q) was a large structure at least 65 by nearly 100 feet (20 x 30 meters) at the edge of the Jewish village. This rectangular structure featured an open central courtyard surrounded on all sides by small rooms and halls.2 The building served several functions. Some of the rooms appear to have been dwellings for legionnaires and their families. (Overall the building was not unlike the other buildings in this residential quarter.) In the northern wing the archaeologists found juglets, cooking pots and basalt querns for grinding food. Other sections of the building served an administrative or military function. A Roman spearhead and knife were found in and around the building. Evidence of its function as a Roman military administrative center also includes two bread stamps. Bread was a staple of the Roman army diet, and it was customary for the military bakers to stamp their breads, either with the name of the Roman commander or the name of the baker.a Bread for the nearby Roman camp was apparently baked in the building. The names on the stamps, Lic[i](nius) Priscus and Jul(ius) Maxim(us), clearly demonstrate that the bakers were members of the Roman legion.
The southwest corner of this building served a religious function for the Christians who served in the army, as well as for the local Christian community. In the extreme southwest corner of the building is what the excavators call a Christian prayer hall measuring about 16 by 32 feet (5 x 10 meters).
Monolithic pilasters protruding from the walls were probably the bases for an arch rising above. Just under the center of the supposed arch were two rectangular stones pressed into the pavement of the hall. These were almost surely supports for a kind of table for the Eucharist (trapeza)—the symbolic imbibing of the blood and body of Christ in the wine and bread. Several liturgical tables from North Africa may give us an idea of what the altar/table at the Megiddo prayer hall looked like.
The most spectacular find in the excavation, however, was a beautifully preserved mosaic floor that clearly indicates the function of the room. On each of the four sides of the remains of the Eucharist table (the base of which the excavators call the podium) are individual mosaic panels outlined by straight rows of black tesserae. On the two side panels, the mosaic consists only of geometric panels.
On the front and back (north and south) are more elaborate panels. The one on the southern side contains two inscriptions facing one another. The one on the northern side contains not only an informative inscription, but also an elaborate rectangle enclosing eight smaller rectangles and rhombuses to form an internal octagon. Within the octagon, decorative tesserae transform the octagon into a circle or medallion. In the center of the medallion are two fish facing in opposite directions—a distinct Christian symbol for Christ.
View captions and large images. The Greek word for fish is ichthys. It is said to have been adopted as a Christian symbol because it contains the initial letters of the appellation “Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior” in Greek (I[esous] Ch[ristos] Th[eou] Y[ios] S[oter]; Ι[ησουζ] Χ[ρισιοζ] Θ[εου] Υ[ιοζ] Σ[ωτηρ]). And of course fish are frequently referred to in the Gospels, in such incidents as the multiplication of the loaves and fishes (Matthew 14:16—21; 15:32—38; Mark 6:38—44; Luke 9:12—17), the prodigious fishing catch of Simon Peter in the Sea of Galilee (Luke 5:4—7) and the miraculous catch of a fish in whose belly Peter found a coin to pay the half-shekel tax for Jesus and himself in Capernaum (Matthew 17:24—27). At this time, the cross had not yet been adopted as the prime Christian symbol (see “Jesus Christ, God’s Son, Savior”).
The three Greek inscriptions in the mosaics, published by Israel’s leading Greek epigraphist Leah di Segni, to whom I am much indebted for this discussion, are in rectangular frames within the larger rectangular panels. The one on the northern side of the table base is a typical memorial inscription of four named women: Primilla, Cyriaca, Dorothea and Chreste. Scholars are already discussing what this inscription indicates about the place of women in the early church.
A second inscription, on the northern side on the right, honors the man who paid for the mosaic and the artisan who made it:
Gaianus, also called Porphyrius, centurion, our brother, has made the pavement at his own expense as an act of liberality. Brutius carried out the work.
This is a clear indication that the Christians who worshiped in this prayer hall were Roman soldiers. The donor of the prayer hall was a Roman officer, a centurion. That there was a community of congregants is indicated by use of the term “our brother.”
View captions and large images. The third and final inscription makes it unmistakably clear that this place was intended to serve the religious needs of the Christian community organized in the Roman military camp. It also removes any doubt that a table once existed in the center of the hall—paid for by a woman named Akeptous: “The God-loving Akeptous has offered the table to God Jesus Christ as a memorial.”
The words “God Jesus Christ” on the next-to-last line are abbreviated in the form of a contraction consisting of the first and last letters of the two words. Above the two sacred words is a straight line. While these abbreviations and the line above indicating sacred words was later a common practice, this is their earliest attestation.b
View captions and large images. And this is the earliest inscription ever found in Israel, and perhaps anywhere, that mentions Jesus Christ!
The word “offer” is of special interest. The Greek prosferein (“to offer”) echoes language in the Gospels; for example, the Magi, following the star from the East, “offer” the baby Jesus gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh (Matthew 2:11).
The word for memorial, mnemosynon, has its own story to tell. In Acts 10:4, where Cornelius the centurion becomes the first gentile convert to Christianity, an angel tells him that his prayers and alms have ascended as a memorial (mnemosynon).
The rooms adjacent to the prayer hall in this wing of the building served the multiple religious and social needs of the Christian community of Roman soldiers: vestries, baptisteries, confessionals, etc.
How can we date this building complex? There are a number of indications: pottery, coins and the paleography of the Greek inscriptions.
The excavators date the potsherds found beneath and above the floors of the building to the third century. A few sherds in one of the rooms have a larger chronological range, from the early third to early fourth centuries.
The numismatic evidence points to the same dates—that is, to the second, third and fourth centuries.
View captions and large images.
View captions and large images. Epigraphist Leah di Segni is also comfortable with a third-century date based on the paleography and comparative forms in the inscriptions.
The excavator tentatively dates the construction of the building to the first third of the third century: a period that he suggests was a tranquil one for Christians. The calm was to be cut short by Maximinus, who became emperor in 235 and is well known for his persecution of Christian clergy.
In my judgment, based on a different historical context, I would date the construction to the second half of the third century. Although many Christians served in the Roman legions during the second and third centuries, the conversion of great numbers of legionnaires to Christianity occurred only in the second half of the third and the beginning of the fourth centuries.
The building was apparently abandoned late in the fourth century. The archaeologists found no sign of any conflagration, damage or destruction. On the contrary, it appears that before leaving, the occupants of the building took steps to protect the mosaic with a thick layer of plaster and pottery sherds. That is why it is now in such pristine condition.
The excavator suggests that the building was abandoned sometime during the reign of the eastern emperor Diocletian (284—305), who undertook a major reorganization of the Roman army. All of the 28 coins found in the building date to the third century or earlier. The occasion for the abandonment of the Legio building may have been the transfer of the headquarters of the Sixth Legion Ferrata.
The closest Christian religious structure to this one is a nearly contemporaneous building uncovered in the 1930s by Yale University at Dura Europos in Syria.3 It was an ordinary two-story dwelling converted into a Christian shrine. The well-preserved lower story contained an open central courtyard surrounded on three sides by rooms of various sizes and on the fourth by a portico. Although no clear evidence indicates whether the building was planned from the beginning as a religious structure or was an ordinary dwelling later converted to a church, the second alternative appears more likely, especially because three rooms underwent alterations designed to adapt them to religious functions. A partition that was removed created a prayer hall 16 by 42 feet (5 x 13 meters). Against the eastern wall was a raised platform upon which stood, very probably, the Eucharist table or the seat of the bishop. A small adjacent room was probably the vestry. Another became the baptistery.
The entire baptistery at Dura Europos was decorated with wall paintings depicting various Christian scenes: the Good Shepherd, Adam and Eve in Paradise, processions of praying women, several miracles of Christ, and others. Interestingly, fragments of frescoes that once covered the walls of the Megiddo structure housing the prayer hall were found lying on the floor. Geometric patterns were painted in blue, white, pink and yellow.
The Christian structure at Dura Europos is clearly dated to the first half of the third century. A prudent member of the community scratched into the fresh plaster a date for the alteration of a wall in the prayer hall (equivalent to 231 A.D.). The building was demolished in 257 to facilitate the erection of a new city wall.
Several other pre-Constantinian churches installed within ordinary houses are known from Greece and Rome. One was found on the island of Delos and another in Dion in southern Macedonia.4 Four other house churches were found in Rome, installed in private dwellings whose owners held legal title to the buildings.
Early Christians began to use house churches in the second century. The domus ecclesia (house church) replaced the “congregation room” used during the apostolic period and in the last decades of the first century.5 The house churches of the second century were not yet permanently dedicated as places of worship in the sense of a church (ecclesia). Christian assemblies moved from one dwelling to another in houses that belonged to the members of the community.
However, at the end of the second century and during the third, when the Christian communities acquired a more developed inner social organization, the provisional house church was abandoned in favor of a more permanent place dedicated not only to worship, but also to various other needs of the Christian community. Previously Christian worship had been based on prayers, sermons and communal dinners. By the third century, rituals officiated by ordained clergy were introduced. For this, different spaces were needed, such as baptisteries, vestries, confessionals, teaching rooms and special apartments for the clergy.
View captions and large images. In addition, furnishings, such as the Eucharist Table (trapeza eucharistion) or the Offering Table (trapeza prosforon) became an integral part of Christian ritual, permanently fixed within the prayer hall.
The house churches of the third century had become similar to Jewish synagogues: They were communal centers meeting all the religious and social needs of the members of the community.6
During the third century, the church fathers referred to these house churches by different names, such as ecclesi,7 dominicum8 and domus Dei (House of God).9 The church father Minucius Felix (c. 200 A.D.) called them sacraria (shrines). He says they are found “all over the world” (per universum orbem).10 Origen (185—254) says these house churches are “the permanent place for the worship of God.”11
These house churches established the foundation for the future Christian church.
During the second half of the third century (until the Great Persecution of Diocletian between 303 and 313), Christians enjoyed a period of relative peace. The Roman emperors were engaged in civil wars. At this time Christians managed to enlarge existing houses of worship and build new ones. The church historian Eusebius (260—430) describes “those assemblies thronged with countless men, and the multitudes that gathered together in every city, and the famed concourses in the places of prayer; by reason of which they were no longer satisfied with the buildings of olden time, and would erect from the foundations churches of spacious dimensions throughout all the cities.”12
The second half of the third century was also a formative time in the development of the mode of worship. The simple gatherings for prayer evolved into the Divine Liturgy. The rite of Eucharist became one of the most important Christian sacraments. As such, it was performed in the most prominent place in the church, on the bema (dais) located at the eastern end of the prayer hall.
Finally, all this culminated in a kind of church structure that was accepted by all Christians. In the early fourth century, during Constantine’s reign, Christianity became the religion of the Roman empire. Several monumental churches (such as the basilicas built over the tomb of Jesus in Jerusalem and the one over his birthplace in Bethlehem) were built in the mid-fourth century as an expression of the triumph of Christianity. With those exceptions, however, churches were built according to traditions established during the last decades of the third century. Responding to these new traditions, the universal architectural plan for the Christian church was the basilica, borrowed from Greek and Roman architecture.
View captions and large images. One such early basilica dating to the first half of the fourth century was recently excavated in Aqaba (ancient Aila) on the Red Sea, just across the border between Israel and Jordan. Two other basilical churches from the early fourth century were excavated: one in Salona on the Dalmatian coast of Greece and the other in Aquileja, Italy, on the northern Adriatic coast.
Into this brief history of church architecture, we must fit the church in the Megiddo prison complex.
NOTES 1. The excavator and epigraphist call it a prayer hall, rather than a church, because it is not a separate building in the plan of later churches. They also prefer prayer hall to domus ecclesia (house church) because the building was owned privately rather than by the Christian community. In common parlance, however, the prayer hall would certainly be considered a church.
2. Yotam Tepper and Leah di Segni, A Christian Prayer Hall of the Third Century C.E. at Kefar Óthnay (Legio) (Jerusalem: IAA Publications, 2006).
a. A Roman bread stamp found in Jerusalem was recently published in BAR. See Eilat Mazar, “Hadrian’s Legion Encamped on the Temple Mount,” BAR 32:06.
b. George Howard,“The Name of God in the New Testament,” BAR 04:01.
3. Clark Hopkins, The Excavations at Dura-Europos, by Mikhail Rostovtzeff (New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press, 1934), pp. 238—253, pl. xxxix.
4. A. Orlandos, in Bulletin de Correspondance Hellenique (1930), p. 49; (1936), p. 84, Fig. 15.
5. Mark 14:15; Luke 22:12 Acts 10:9; Romans 16:5, 23; Colossians 4:16.
6. Lee I. Levine, “Ancient Synagogues—A Historical Introduction” in Ancient Synagogues Revealed (IEC Publications, 1981), pp. 1—5.
9. J.I. Dolger, Antike und Chrisentum (1941), pp. 161—195.
10. Migne, Patrologia Latina 3.270.
11. Origen, On Prayer, ed. Berlin, 31, 6.
12. Eusebius of Caesarea, The Ecclesiastical History, trans. J.E.L. Oulton (1957), Book VIII, 1.5.
Vassilios Tzaferis is a former Greek Orthodox monk who has written extensively about monks and monasteries in the Byzantine period. He excavated numerous sites within Israel, is currently digging at Kursi, and discovered the only archaeological evidence of crucifixion yet found in the Holy Land. He is a member of the Supreme Archaeological Council in Israel.
Inscribed “To God Jesus Christ” Early Christian Prayer Hall Found in Megiddo Prison By Vassilios Tzaferis
View captions and large images. In the late 1990s, authorities at the prison that sits near the base of Tel Megiddo in northern Israel decided they needed more room. Accordingly, an addition was planned within the prison compound and work commenced. It was not long, however, before the construction workers (prisoners) hit ancient remains. Work on the prison extension was immediately stopped and the Israel Antiquities Authority notified. A so-called salvage, or rescue excavation was organized under the direction of archaeologist Yotam Tepper, and the archaeologists were soon in the field. (The prisoners also helped; Tepper dedicates his popular pamphlet on the excavation “to the inmates of the Megiddo and Zalmon Prisons whose personal circumstances brought us together in the excavation and without whose dedicated work we could not have exposed the remains at the site.”)
View captions and large images. What Tepper and the prisoners exposed is probably the earliest church1 ever discovered in the Holy Land (the excavators date it to the first half of the third century, around 230 A.D.) and one of the very few churches from this early period anywhere in the world—from a time before Christianity became the religion of the Roman empire in the early fourth century during the reign of Constantine the Great.
Although Tepper had no idea of the church he would discover, he was hardly surprised that there were ancient remains here. Earlier archaeological surveys in the area (the most recent of which Tepper himself led) identified the site of an ancient Jewish village (Kfar Othnay), as well as the headquarters of two Roman legions and later the Byzantine city of Maximianopolis beside the Jewish village.
Kfar Othnay is mentioned in Jewish sources (Mishnah Gittin 7:7) and in Ptolemy’s writings, and is located on the famous Peutinger map (originally drawn in the second century A.D.), where it is called by its Latin name, Caporcotani. The excavation uncovered a number of miqva’ot (Jewish ritual baths) in Kfar Othnay, but they may have been used by the Samaritans rather than the Jews, because the sources also indicate that Othnay was home to Samaritans as well—a very multicultural place, as we shall see.
During the second and third centuries, the Romans erected a military camp near the Jewish village where at least two of their legions, the Second Traiana and the Sixth Ferrata, were stationed. The entire region then became known as Legio. The modern Arabic name of the site, El Lajjun, preserves a memory of the Roman military camp Legio. Dozens of roof tiles bear stamps of the Second Legion Traiana and the Sixth Legion Ferrata. A spectacular bronze statuette of the Roman house-god Lar was also recovered in the excavation.
At the end of the Roman period and during the Byzantine period, the Jewish village and Roman Legio became part of a city, or polis, named Maximianopolis in honor of the western emperor Maximian (286—305). A bishop from Maximianopolis attended the influential Council of Nicaea in 325, indicating that Maximianopolis remained an important Christian community even after the Roman legions left the site. Following the Arab conquest in the seventh century, Maximianopolis became the fortified capital of the district of Palaestina Secunda.
Perhaps the most interesting building in the area where the bronze statuette of the Roman god Lar was uncovered (Area Q) was a large structure at least 65 by nearly 100 feet (20 x 30 meters) at the edge of the Jewish village. This rectangular structure featured an open central courtyard surrounded on all sides by small rooms and halls.2 The building served several functions. Some of the rooms appear to have been dwellings for legionnaires and their families. (Overall the building was not unlike the other buildings in this residential quarter.) In the northern wing the archaeologists found juglets, cooking pots and basalt querns for grinding food. Other sections of the building served an administrative or military function. A Roman spearhead and knife were found in and around the building. Evidence of its function as a Roman military administrative center also includes two bread stamps. Bread was a staple of the Roman army diet, and it was customary for the military bakers to stamp their breads, either with the name of the Roman commander or the name of the baker.a Bread for the nearby Roman camp was apparently baked in the building. The names on the stamps, Lic[i](nius) Priscus and Jul(ius) Maxim(us), clearly demonstrate that the bakers were members of the Roman legion.
The southwest corner of this building served a religious function for the Christians who served in the army, as well as for the local Christian community. In the extreme southwest corner of the building is what the excavators call a Christian prayer hall measuring about 16 by 32 feet (5 x 10 meters).
Monolithic pilasters protruding from the walls were probably the bases for an arch rising above. Just under the center of the supposed arch were two rectangular stones pressed into the pavement of the hall. These were almost surely supports for a kind of table for the Eucharist (trapeza)—the symbolic imbibing of the blood and body of Christ in the wine and bread. Several liturgical tables from North Africa may give us an idea of what the altar/table at the Megiddo prayer hall looked like.
The most spectacular find in the excavation, however, was a beautifully preserved mosaic floor that clearly indicates the function of the room. On each of the four sides of the remains of the Eucharist table (the base of which the excavators call the podium) are individual mosaic panels outlined by straight rows of black tesserae. On the two side panels, the mosaic consists only of geometric panels.
On the front and back (north and south) are more elaborate panels. The one on the southern side contains two inscriptions facing one another. The one on the northern side contains not only an informative inscription, but also an elaborate rectangle enclosing eight smaller rectangles and rhombuses to form an internal octagon. Within the octagon, decorative tesserae transform the octagon into a circle or medallion. In the center of the medallion are two fish facing in opposite directions—a distinct Christian symbol for Christ.
View captions and large images. The Greek word for fish is ichthys. It is said to have been adopted as a Christian symbol because it contains the initial letters of the appellation “Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior” in Greek (I[esous] Ch[ristos] Th[eou] Y[ios] S[oter]; Ι[ησουζ] Χ[ρισιοζ] Θ[εου] Υ[ιοζ] Σ[ωτηρ]). And of course fish are frequently referred to in the Gospels, in such incidents as the multiplication of the loaves and fishes (Matthew 14:16—21; 15:32—38; Mark 6:38—44; Luke 9:12—17), the prodigious fishing catch of Simon Peter in the Sea of Galilee (Luke 5:4—7) and the miraculous catch of a fish in whose belly Peter found a coin to pay the half-shekel tax for Jesus and himself in Capernaum (Matthew 17:24—27). At this time, the cross had not yet been adopted as the prime Christian symbol (see “Jesus Christ, God’s Son, Savior”).
The three Greek inscriptions in the mosaics, published by Israel’s leading Greek epigraphist Leah di Segni, to whom I am much indebted for this discussion, are in rectangular frames within the larger rectangular panels. The one on the northern side of the table base is a typical memorial inscription of four named women: Primilla, Cyriaca, Dorothea and Chreste. Scholars are already discussing what this inscription indicates about the place of women in the early church.
A second inscription, on the northern side on the right, honors the man who paid for the mosaic and the artisan who made it:
Gaianus, also called Porphyrius, centurion, our brother, has made the pavement at his own expense as an act of liberality. Brutius carried out the work.
This is a clear indication that the Christians who worshiped in this prayer hall were Roman soldiers. The donor of the prayer hall was a Roman officer, a centurion. That there was a community of congregants is indicated by use of the term “our brother.”
View captions and large images. The third and final inscription makes it unmistakably clear that this place was intended to serve the religious needs of the Christian community organized in the Roman military camp. It also removes any doubt that a table once existed in the center of the hall—paid for by a woman named Akeptous: “The God-loving Akeptous has offered the table to God Jesus Christ as a memorial.”
The words “God Jesus Christ” on the next-to-last line are abbreviated in the form of a contraction consisting of the first and last letters of the two words. Above the two sacred words is a straight line. While these abbreviations and the line above indicating sacred words was later a common practice, this is their earliest attestation.b
View captions and large images. And this is the earliest inscription ever found in Israel, and perhaps anywhere, that mentions Jesus Christ!
The word “offer” is of special interest. The Greek prosferein (“to offer”) echoes language in the Gospels; for example, the Magi, following the star from the East, “offer” the baby Jesus gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh (Matthew 2:11).
The word for memorial, mnemosynon, has its own story to tell. In Acts 10:4, where Cornelius the centurion becomes the first gentile convert to Christianity, an angel tells him that his prayers and alms have ascended as a memorial (mnemosynon).
The rooms adjacent to the prayer hall in this wing of the building served the multiple religious and social needs of the Christian community of Roman soldiers: vestries, baptisteries, confessionals, etc.
How can we date this building complex? There are a number of indications: pottery, coins and the paleography of the Greek inscriptions.
The excavators date the potsherds found beneath and above the floors of the building to the third century. A few sherds in one of the rooms have a larger chronological range, from the early third to early fourth centuries.
The numismatic evidence points to the same dates—that is, to the second, third and fourth centuries.
View captions and large images.
View captions and large images. Epigraphist Leah di Segni is also comfortable with a third-century date based on the paleography and comparative forms in the inscriptions.
The excavator tentatively dates the construction of the building to the first third of the third century: a period that he suggests was a tranquil one for Christians. The calm was to be cut short by Maximinus, who became emperor in 235 and is well known for his persecution of Christian clergy.
In my judgment, based on a different historical context, I would date the construction to the second half of the third century. Although many Christians served in the Roman legions during the second and third centuries, the conversion of great numbers of legionnaires to Christianity occurred only in the second half of the third and the beginning of the fourth centuries.
The building was apparently abandoned late in the fourth century. The archaeologists found no sign of any conflagration, damage or destruction. On the contrary, it appears that before leaving, the occupants of the building took steps to protect the mosaic with a thick layer of plaster and pottery sherds. That is why it is now in such pristine condition.
The excavator suggests that the building was abandoned sometime during the reign of the eastern emperor Diocletian (284—305), who undertook a major reorganization of the Roman army. All of the 28 coins found in the building date to the third century or earlier. The occasion for the abandonment of the Legio building may have been the transfer of the headquarters of the Sixth Legion Ferrata.
The closest Christian religious structure to this one is a nearly contemporaneous building uncovered in the 1930s by Yale University at Dura Europos in Syria.3 It was an ordinary two-story dwelling converted into a Christian shrine. The well-preserved lower story contained an open central courtyard surrounded on three sides by rooms of various sizes and on the fourth by a portico. Although no clear evidence indicates whether the building was planned from the beginning as a religious structure or was an ordinary dwelling later converted to a church, the second alternative appears more likely, especially because three rooms underwent alterations designed to adapt them to religious functions. A partition that was removed created a prayer hall 16 by 42 feet (5 x 13 meters). Against the eastern wall was a raised platform upon which stood, very probably, the Eucharist table or the seat of the bishop. A small adjacent room was probably the vestry. Another became the baptistery.
The entire baptistery at Dura Europos was decorated with wall paintings depicting various Christian scenes: the Good Shepherd, Adam and Eve in Paradise, processions of praying women, several miracles of Christ, and others. Interestingly, fragments of frescoes that once covered the walls of the Megiddo structure housing the prayer hall were found lying on the floor. Geometric patterns were painted in blue, white, pink and yellow.
The Christian structure at Dura Europos is clearly dated to the first half of the third century. A prudent member of the community scratched into the fresh plaster a date for the alteration of a wall in the prayer hall (equivalent to 231 A.D.). The building was demolished in 257 to facilitate the erection of a new city wall.
Several other pre-Constantinian churches installed within ordinary houses are known from Greece and Rome. One was found on the island of Delos and another in Dion in southern Macedonia.4 Four other house churches were found in Rome, installed in private dwellings whose owners held legal title to the buildings.
Early Christians began to use house churches in the second century. The domus ecclesia (house church) replaced the “congregation room” used during the apostolic period and in the last decades of the first century.5 The house churches of the second century were not yet permanently dedicated as places of worship in the sense of a church (ecclesia). Christian assemblies moved from one dwelling to another in houses that belonged to the members of the community.
However, at the end of the second century and during the third, when the Christian communities acquired a more developed inner social organization, the provisional house church was abandoned in favor of a more permanent place dedicated not only to worship, but also to various other needs of the Christian community. Previously Christian worship had been based on prayers, sermons and communal dinners. By the third century, rituals officiated by ordained clergy were introduced. For this, different spaces were needed, such as baptisteries, vestries, confessionals, teaching rooms and special apartments for the clergy.
View captions and large images. In addition, furnishings, such as the Eucharist Table (trapeza eucharistion) or the Offering Table (trapeza prosforon) became an integral part of Christian ritual, permanently fixed within the prayer hall.
The house churches of the third century had become similar to Jewish synagogues: They were communal centers meeting all the religious and social needs of the members of the community.6
During the third century, the church fathers referred to these house churches by different names, such as ecclesi,7 dominicum8 and domus Dei (House of God).9 The church father Minucius Felix (c. 200 A.D.) called them sacraria (shrines). He says they are found “all over the world” (per universum orbem).10 Origen (185—254) says these house churches are “the permanent place for the worship of God.”11
These house churches established the foundation for the future Christian church.
During the second half of the third century (until the Great Persecution of Diocletian between 303 and 313), Christians enjoyed a period of relative peace. The Roman emperors were engaged in civil wars. At this time Christians managed to enlarge existing houses of worship and build new ones. The church historian Eusebius (260—430) describes “those assemblies thronged with countless men, and the multitudes that gathered together in every city, and the famed concourses in the places of prayer; by reason of which they were no longer satisfied with the buildings of olden time, and would erect from the foundations churches of spacious dimensions throughout all the cities.”12
The second half of the third century was also a formative time in the development of the mode of worship. The simple gatherings for prayer evolved into the Divine Liturgy. The rite of Eucharist became one of the most important Christian sacraments. As such, it was performed in the most prominent place in the church, on the bema (dais) located at the eastern end of the prayer hall.
Finally, all this culminated in a kind of church structure that was accepted by all Christians. In the early fourth century, during Constantine’s reign, Christianity became the religion of the Roman empire. Several monumental churches (such as the basilicas built over the tomb of Jesus in Jerusalem and the one over his birthplace in Bethlehem) were built in the mid-fourth century as an expression of the triumph of Christianity. With those exceptions, however, churches were built according to traditions established during the last decades of the third century. Responding to these new traditions, the universal architectural plan for the Christian church was the basilica, borrowed from Greek and Roman architecture.
View captions and large images. One such early basilica dating to the first half of the fourth century was recently excavated in Aqaba (ancient Aila) on the Red Sea, just across the border between Israel and Jordan. Two other basilical churches from the early fourth century were excavated: one in Salona on the Dalmatian coast of Greece and the other in Aquileja, Italy, on the northern Adriatic coast.
Into this brief history of church architecture, we must fit the church in the Megiddo prison complex.
NOTES 1. The excavator and epigraphist call it a prayer hall, rather than a church, because it is not a separate building in the plan of later churches. They also prefer prayer hall to domus ecclesia (house church) because the building was owned privately rather than by the Christian community. In common parlance, however, the prayer hall would certainly be considered a church.
2. Yotam Tepper and Leah di Segni, A Christian Prayer Hall of the Third Century C.E. at Kefar Óthnay (Legio) (Jerusalem: IAA Publications, 2006).
a. A Roman bread stamp found in Jerusalem was recently published in BAR. See Eilat Mazar, “Hadrian’s Legion Encamped on the Temple Mount,” BAR 32:06.
b. George Howard,“The Name of God in the New Testament,” BAR 04:01.
3. Clark Hopkins, The Excavations at Dura-Europos, by Mikhail Rostovtzeff (New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press, 1934), pp. 238—253, pl. xxxix.
4. A. Orlandos, in Bulletin de Correspondance Hellenique (1930), p. 49; (1936), p. 84, Fig. 15.
5. Mark 14:15; Luke 22:12 Acts 10:9; Romans 16:5, 23; Colossians 4:16.
6. Lee I. Levine, “Ancient Synagogues—A Historical Introduction” in Ancient Synagogues Revealed (IEC Publications, 1981), pp. 1—5.
9. J.I. Dolger, Antike und Chrisentum (1941), pp. 161—195.
10. Migne, Patrologia Latina 3.270.
11. Origen, On Prayer, ed. Berlin, 31, 6.
12. Eusebius of Caesarea, The Ecclesiastical History, trans. J.E.L. Oulton (1957), Book VIII, 1.5.
Vassilios Tzaferis is a former Greek Orthodox monk who has written extensively about monks and monasteries in the Byzantine period. He excavated numerous sites within Israel, is currently digging at Kursi, and discovered the only archaeological evidence of crucifixion yet found in the Holy Land. He is a member of the Supreme Archaeological Council in Israel.
Boomark: You are now beating about the bush. This happens when you don't have answers and you think you must defend your cause.
You are not satisfied with the meaning of 'beget', even the meaning you presented negates your believe. If only it can be deleted from the bible, you will be, just fine.
what meanings negate by belief? It is not a must that to "beget" must include a wife, if u dont know that the u shuld read up ur biology.
I still want to know what 'until' means in Greek before being translated to english. You can take a break to avoid answering outside the context.
i already gave u an explanation and a link what more do u want??
gbrookes02: The Yahweh that Isaiah saw in the Old Testament is The Jesus Christ of the New Testament according to the apostle John, see "Isaiah saw Jesus as Yahweh (Compare John 12:37-41 with Isaiah 6:1-10)" at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zmE43MQMkQ Who Did Isaiah See? We’re going to resume our study tonight of the Trinity and going through the gospel of John. I’m not going to cover the Triumphant Entry since we’ve already done that. I’d like us instead go to another part of John 12. Greeks have come to see Jesus. When that happens, Jesus says that the time has arrived and John gives a commentary on all that happens. I recommend you read the relevant portions prior to our text starting in verse 37. 37Even after Jesus had done all these miraculous signs in their presence, they still would not believe in him. 38This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet: ”Lord, who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? 39For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere: 40“He has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn—and I would heal them. 41Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus’ glory and spoke about him. Jesus has been doing miraculous signs for the people and now, even the voice of God has spoken, and the people refuse to believe. What is going on exactly? John’s commentary on what has happened comes straight out of Isaiah. Let’s look at the first passage. 1 Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed? This passage should sound familiar. It’s Isaiah 53 which is the noted servant song that speaks about Christ and how he would be rejected as Messiah. The second passage is also a passage of rejection, but it is one that comes much earlier. This comes from Isaiah 6. It’s in verse 10, but I will quote the first five verses. 1 In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord seated on a throne, high and exalted, and the train of his robe filled the temple. 2 Above him were seraphs, each with six wings: With two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying. 3 And they were calling to one another: “Holy, holy, holy is the LORD Almighty; the whole earth is full of his glory.” 4 At the sound of their voices the doorposts and thresholds shook and the temple was filled with smoke. 5 ”Woe to me!” I cried. “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the LORD Almighty.” Can there be any doubt that Isaiah here saw YHWH? Verse 5 should dispel any hesitancy to say that. Notice how YHWH is described as high and exalted. Is that language used elsewhere in Isaiah. YES! 13 See, my servant will act wisely he will be raised and lifted up and highly exalted. Where is this? Chapter 52. In fact, it’s the prelude to the servant song. The term used to describe YHWH is used to describe Christ but notice how John’s description continues. Let’s look at why he says Isaiah said these things in John 12:41. 41Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus’ glory and spoke about him. What glory did Isaiah see? He saw the glory of YHWH. That is who anyone would think of when he asked who Isaiah saw and that’s what John wishes us to see. John 12:41 is pointing back to say that the one on the throne is Jesus Christ. Which also makes Isaiah 6 fit in with John 1:18 as no one has seen God as he is, that is, the Father, but the Son has revealed him. http://deeperwaters./2009/05/28/who-did-isaiah-see/ The bible say Yahweh will not share His glory with another yet John say Jesus' glory was Yahweh's glory in Isaiah, so if Yahweh will not share His glory with another, and yet Jesus' glory is Yahweh's glory in Isaiah according to John, then explain how Jesus is not Yahweh in the Old Testament?
good! it would be of no doubt to say Yahweh was and is Jesus but truth did not identify it as u understood. see who do you know is God
You have a Problem because you do not take into consideration the abilities of an Entity Who created all Space and Time, but remains superior to Space and Time. Therefore He has an aspect which is outside of all Space and all Time, an Aspect that is Stationary in Space and Time, and an aspect that moves in Space and Time.
.1st JOHN 5:7.
7. For there are three that bear record in Heaven, The Father, The Word, and The Holy Ghost: and these Three are One.
while the second does not, *both nouns are referring to the same person*. In our texts, this is demonstrated by the words "God" and "Savior" at Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1. "God" has the article, it is followed by the word for "and," and the word "Savior" does not have the article. Hence, both nouns are being applied to the same person, Jesus Christ. This rule is exceptionless. One must argue solely on theological grounds against these passages. There is truly no real grammatical objection that can be raised. Not that many have not attempted to do so, and are still trying. However, the evidence is overwhelming in favor of the above interpretation. Lets look at some of the evidence from the text itself. 
demonstrates that when both nouns have the article, they are to be distinguished. He lists Mt. 23:2, Mk. 2:18, 6:21, 11:9, 11:18, 12:13, Lk. 11:39, 15:6, 23:4, Jn. 4:37, 1 Cor. 3:8, Jas. 3:11, Acts 26:30, Rev. 18:20, adding that the list can be extended indefinitely. He also mentions that at times, the use of one article with two nouns can demonstrate that the author was viewing the two things as one, even though they might be numerically or generically distinct. Also noted is the fact that differences in number and gender tend to bring the article into play. 