The
simple answer is yes… if you understand what the word god means. This idea may
be a bit difficult to grasp for people who were raised in a monotheistic
society where God refers to just One. However,
remember that the Greeks (whose language we are translating) were a
polytheistic society (they worshiped many gods), and to them the word theos referred to a large
group of individuals who were simply more powerful than men. So, theos just meant powerful
one, not Creator (which is what the Hebrew name Jehovah implies –
He who causes to be).
To prove
that translating the word Theos as powerful is
correct, notice how the Bible calls men gods at Psalm 82:6 (which Jesus also
quotes at John 10:34-36), where it says, ‘I said You are gods;
of the Most High you’re sons!’
Also,
notice that at Exodus 7:1, God told Moses, ‘Look! I’ve made you a god to Pharaoh, and
your brother Aaron is your prophet.’
So, the
terms god and gods just refer to the powerful. And even men can be gods… that
is, in the truest sense of the word’s meaning (powerful ones). Thus, a
word-for-word literal translation of John 1:1 can read, ‘In ancient time was
the Word; and the Word was toward the Powerful One; and powerful was
the Word.’
Then,
why did we use the term God, rather than Powerful One, at John 1:1? We’ve left
the first term (God) in place, because that’s what people call the Divine One
today.
So, is
the Logos the God or just god (powerful)? From the context of
John 1:1, it appears as though Jesus (the Logos) is theos
– powerful – but not The God (gr. ton Theon).
For notice that Jesus described himself as simply God’s son (gr. Uios tou Theou eimi) at John 10:36.
Also
notice that (at John 1:1) Logos (λογος)
and Theon (θεον)
are both preceded by the definite article the (ο λογος and τον
θεον), except in the case where
the Logos is referred to simply as theos
(θεος). By employing such
wording, John was obviously differentiating Jesus from The God. You can clearly
see the differences in the words when you read John 1:1, 2 in Greek: ‘Eν αρχη ην ο λογος,
και ο λογος
ην προς
τον θεον, και
θεος ην ο λογος.
Oυτος ην εν
αρχη προς
τον θεον.’
That the
early Christians didn’t view Jesus as the God is supported by the fact that
Christians still worshiped at the Temple of Jehovah in Jerusalem until shortly
before it was destroyed in 70-C.E. (see Acts the Twentieth chapter).
This is because Christian Jews didn’t consider Christianity to be a new
religion with a new god, but rather, that it was the natural outgrowth of the
old, and Jesus was the promised ‘Messiah’ or ‘Anointed One of God’ who was to
assume ‘the throne of David his father.’
For more
information, see the document, Who Was
Jesus? Also for more information, see the linked Note in Psalms ‘The Gods of Psalm 82.’
To see
how Jesus was described at John 1:1 in the most ancient Coptic texts, see the
link http://depts.washington.edu/cartah/text_archive/coptic/coptjohn.shtml, and to see why the Coptic texts are relevant, see
the link http://www.integlogic.com/sahidica/pages/sahidicpaper1990.html.
Use your
browser BACK button to return to the text you were reading
Jesus
was referred to (herein) as the only-created son at John
In other
Bibles, this word is rendered as only begotten, but begotten
isn’t exactly a word that you would read in the newspaper today (where ‘common’
American English may be read), so not everyone will understand what that means
either. Remember that the goal of these translators to choose words that are
common, easy to understand, and which carry the proper nuance in contemporary
American English.
We also
might have used the terms only fathered, or, only conceived, or, only
born. However, none of those words accurately describes the situation of
Jesus. For, while he was the only son ever born through a woman to God, He was
also the only creature (son, god, or powerful one) that was directly created by
God. For, John went on to elaborate on what he actually meant at Revelation
3:14, where he referred to Jesus as ‘the earliest creation of
God’ (gr. he arche tes ktiseos tou Theou – or – the most/ancient creation of/the God).
And John wrote of Jesus at John 1:3, ‘Everything [else] came into existence
through him’ (gr. panta di
autou egeneto – or – all
by him generated).
So,
although the term only created may not be exactly what was said in a
word-for-word translation, it appears to be what John meant in this case.
Use your
browser BACK button to return to the text you were reading
The Greek word aionos is
what the English word eon is derived from. It means an indefinite
period. However, there is no exact English word to translate it. The best
equivalents are age(s) or era. Please note that where the plural
form of the word (ages) is used, it refers to a long time, at least
multiple generations. However, where the singular form is used (age or era),
this appears to mean a much shorter period, such as a lifetime, generation, or
era. And where the term ‘ages of ages’ is used (such as at Ephesians
It is noteworthy that aionos is
the word that is used in the Greek Septuagint in place of the Hebrew word ohlam, which is also translated as forever
and time indefinite in popular versions of the Hebrew Scriptures. So,
this one word (aionos) is translated as forever,
everlasting, eternal, system of things, time indefinite, [end of] the world,
long ago, from of old, etc. Obviously, something is very wrong here,
because the word can’t mean a period having a definite end in one place and
infinity in another.
Take for example, the unique way that aionos
is used in the question that Jesus’ Apostles asked him, which is found at
Matthew 24:3, ‘Tell us, when will these things happen? What will be the signs
when you are near and this age will finally end?’
The word aionos (which we
have translated as age here) is also translated as world (KJ) and
as system of things (NW) in other Bibles. However, if the Apostles had
meant any of those words, they would have used the Greek word cosmos,
not aionos for world or system of things.
You can see that the word aionos
obviously doesn’t mean forever, everlasting, or eternal in this case, nor
did it mean world or system of things. It simply meant the age or time before
the end would come. And for them, that meant the age when the
The ancient Hebrews viewed everything (and rightly so) as
having a beginning and an end. For that reason, you will only find three places
in the Bible where words are used that imply no end and none that imply no
beginning. An interesting possible insight on the reason for this can be found
at Hebrews 1:10-12, which says:
‘Long ago, O Lord, You laid the foundation of the earth
and Your hands made the heavens. They will destroy
themselves, but You will remain. They will grow old just like clothes do.
Then, as [You would do to] a robe, You will wrap them
up and repair them like clothes. Yes, You are the One,
and Your years will never run out.’
The problem with most Bible translations is that when they
encounter the word aionos in all its different
tenses, they interpret it according to accepted doctrine, not according to the
way that Jesus and his disciples used it. So, the common renderings forever,
eternal, and everlasting are used even when the word is in its singular
form (aioni, aiona, aionos, aioniǒn, aionian, aionios, aioniou), and this totally distorts the meaning of the
text.
Take for example, the scripture at John 5:24, where Jesus
said, ‘I tell you the truth; the one who hears what I say and believes in the
One that sent me will have life in this age.
He won’t have to be judged, but has crossed over from death to life.’
Most Bibles translate Jesus as saying that those who
believe in the One who sent him will have everlasting life (or the
equivalent). However, the words that Jesus used there were, zoe aioniŏn
(life age – singular), not zoe aioniōn (life ages
– plural).
Notice how Jesus explained the meaning of these words with
his next statement, ‘He won’t have to be judged, but has crossed over from
death to life.’
So, what Jesus was saying here, wasn’t that they would
have everlasting life, but that they would (in their current life)
be considered among the ‘living,’ not among the ‘dead’ (see Revelation
From consideration of the evidence found in the bulk of
Jesus’ words about life, the conclusion might be logically reached that he
never taught the hope of ‘life eternal,’ ‘everlasting life,’ or ‘immortality,’
in those specific words. However, the concept is still there. What he taught
was that (unlike those whom God considers to be ‘dead’) living people would
receive ‘life in the age,’ meaning, they will be considered worthy of life by
God during their lifetimes. How long these ages will last is unclear from the
references. Yet, as Jesus said, everyone who puts faith in him will be
given this life.
Two words imply infinity in the Bible. One is the Greek
word athanasia, which means undying or immortal(ity) and is only found in
two places, 1 Corinthians the Fifteenth Chapter (where it mentions resurrected
ones as clothing themselves with immortality) and at 1 Timothy
For more information, select the linked document, The Hereafter.
Use your
browser BACK button to return to the text you were reading
The Greek word psyche (as in psychology)
has been translated many ways, including soul, life, etc. However, psyche
actually means something that breathes. It is used in the Bible to
describe both breathing animals and breathing humans. So, by definition, a soul
cannot leave the body, because a soul is what the living body (whether human or
animal) is (see Genesis
2:7).
In
ancient
However,
such Greek philosophical thought never influenced Jesus and his Apostles. So,
they consistently used psyche to indicate a living person or animal. The
teaching that the soul is immortal stands in direct conflict with Jesus’
promise of a resurrection, because, if a person is immortal (can never die), he/she can never be resurrected (brought back to life).
In
addition, the teaching of the immortality of the human soul is totally without
support from the Bible. The word immortal(ity) (Gr: athanasia
or undying) is only mentioned in the Bible in two places, and it isn’t
used with or applied to the word soul in either case. Both of these
scriptures show that immortality is only given by God as a reward for righteousness.
And as Ezekiel 18:4 says, ‘The person (gr. psyche or ‘soul’) that is
sinning will die (gr. apothaneitai).’
Of
course, there are places in the Bible where the word soul means more than just
a living, fleshly body. For example, God is recorded to have spoken of ‘My
Soul’ in several places. Obviously, God is much more than just a ‘soul’ as most
people think of that term, and He surely wasn’t talking about His having a
human body. So, we must conclude that what He was referring to is His life.
Then there
are Jesus’ words found at Matthew 10:28, which read, ‘Don’t be afraid of those
who kill the body but can’t kill the person (psyche). Rather, be
afraid of him who can destroy both the person and the body in the garbage
dump.’ Here, Jesus is using the word psyche (soul) to refer to the value of
life that remains with God until the resurrection. And he obviously isn’t
referring the soul as immortal here, because he says God will destroy (gr. apolesai) the [unrighteous] soul or person.
Unfortunately,
no single word that can be used to translate psyche in every possible
Bible application, so various terms are used herein, depending on the
circumstances, but always in an attempt to harmonize with the meaning.
Use your
browser BACK button to return to the text you were reading
The
Greek word pneuma (as in pneumonia, a breathing
disease) means breath or wind – the movement of air. In other Bible
translations, this word is often translated as spirit or ghost – as in Holy
Spirit or Holy Ghost. However, spirit is just a shortened form of the
Latin word espiritu, which (again) means
breath. And ghost conveys another meaning altogether.
The most
common use of the word pneuma in the Bible is to
imply an unseen force (such as breath or wind). And the problem with translating
it as spirit or ghost is that many people have started believing that the
unseen force that is called [God’s] Holy Breath herein, is another God-like
person and part of a Divine ‘Trinity.’ This can’t be true, because the only
scripture that can be used to support this theory (that is, where the Father,
the Son, and the Holy Breath are supposed to be ‘one’) is found at Matthew
28:19, which simply says that baptism should be done ‘in the name of’ (or, in
recognition of) these three. All other scriptures that are used to prove the
Trinity theory fail to mention the Holy Breath as part of that group. And the
King James wording of 1 John 5:7 (which was used for years to attempt to
prove the Trinity) is spurious (something that was added to the Bible).
So to
prevent confusion, the Greek word pneuma is usually
translated as breath here. The only exceptions would be in instances where the
Bible refers to demons as ‘spirits.’ Translating pneuma
as breath in these cases, although correct, might just be confusing.
Another
important use of the word pneuma is in the
phrase, ‘Breath of Life.’ This phrase means more than just breathing, it
refers to the entire mechanics of life itself. It’s the unseen force of life
for all creatures. It’s what makes each cell alive. However, nowhere does the
Bible describe the ‘pneuma’ as immortal, nor is it
the same as the soul (a breathing thing), so it can (figuratively) ‘return to
God’ at death,’ because all hope of future life depends on God and His promise
of a resurrection. For more information, see the attached link, The Powers of God’s Holy
Spirit.
Use your
browser BACK button to return to the text you were reading
The
Greek word en simply means in. However, it is translates as in,
one, in union with, and as other words, depending on the context.
Especially in the book of John do we find the question raised, was Jesus really
the same person as the God? This question is raised because the text at
John 10:38 literally says, ‘… the works believe you in order that you should
know and you may be knowing that in (en) me the Father and I in (en) the
Father.’
The text
above is often translated as, ‘I and my father are one.’ Is this the true sense
of what John wrote? Is Jesus ‘in’ or ‘one with’ (the same as) the
Father? That could be a correct translation – however, not in the context of
the way the book of John was written. For example, notice how another
scripture, John
So, if
John 10:38 means that Jesus is the same person as his Father, then John 14:20
means that all of Jesus followers are the same person and that they are also
the same persons as Jesus and his Father. Is this a logical conclusion? No,
because it doesn’t harmonize with numerous other scriptures that show his
followers to be individuals, but at one with (or in unity with)
Jesus and God.
Use your
browser BACK button to return to the text you were reading
The
Greek word stauros simply means pole.
So, regardless of popular tradition and doctrine, there is no mention of a pole
with a cross piece (cross) in the original Bible. Also, the Greek word staurotheto, which is translated crucified
(hung on a cross) is translated impaled (put on a pole or stake) here,
because that’s what it means.
Use your
browser BACK button to return to the text you were reading
The word
Kingdom is translated from the Greek word basileia,
which refers to the realm of a king (basil).
A common
misconception about this Kingdom is the idea that it isn’t real – that it’s
just a state of mind. This conclusion is based on Jesus’ words found at Luke
So, what
did Jesus mean? He was saying that he, the king of that Kingdom, was there in
their midst, and that the hope of becoming kings in that Kingdom was being
offered to them. And while it’s true that real Christians ever since that time
have in fact been members of that Kingdom in their hearts, the word Kingdom (an
area of rulership) implies that there will be an
actual time of rulership and a realm for Jesus and
his ‘anointed.’ And, because the kings will rule from heaven, the place where
they rule from is called ‘the
This
That such
faithful individuals as Abraham weren’t really in heaven at the time Jesus
spoke these words (but they were alive in God’s memory), is confirmed by what
Jesus said at John 3:13: ‘Nobody has gone to heaven other than he who came from
heaven, the Son of Man.’
So,
Matthew 8:10-12 must be referring to Abraham and his descendants living under
the rule of a heavenly Kingdom government. These faithful ones don’t appear to
qualify to be rulers in heaven themselves, because they weren’t ‘born again’ to
receive the value of a spiritual life, nor were they part of the ‘Sacred
Agreement for a Kingdom’ (Luke
22:29) that Jesus made with his Apostles just prior to his arrest and
execution.
However,
there is a definite time for this Kingdom to start its rule. This is made clear
by the words of Revelation 12:10. For there we read, ‘Then I heard a loud voice
in heaven say, This is the moment
when the salvation, the power, the Kingdom of our God, and
the authorization of his Anointed One began. Because the one who has been accussing our brothers has been thrown
down… the one who has been complaining about them day and night in front of our
God!’
So, when
the Opposer and his messengers are/were expelled from
heaven, God’s Kingdom begins there. However, it must await the end of the
‘short period of time’ before God’s opposers are
destroyed at ‘Armageddon’ and any of its effects will be seen on earth. For
more information, see the linked document, The ‘Seed’ – God’s
Kingdom.
Use your
browser BACK button to return to the text you were reading
Satan, Devil, Lucifer, BeelZebub
It is
appropriate that the heavenly name of the great Opposer
and Slanderer of God is never given in the Bible. However, several terms (and
one mistakenly) have been used to describe him. Here is a list of those
descriptions:
Satan: This is a Hebrew word meaning,
opposer, resistor, a smart person
who does things to serve his own interests, and/or a person who can’t be
fooled. It was applied to the Evil One because of his opposition to God. To
prevent people from thinking of it as a name, it is translated as ‘the Opposer’ herein.
Devil: This is the only Greek word (Diabolos) used in the Bible to describe the evil
one. It is often used in the Septuagint as a synonym for Satan. The first part
of the word, dia, means through. Bolos
means throw (it’s where we get the English words ball and bowl).
So, Devil means one who throws through, as with a spear, which implied Slanderer
in Greek, so that’s the way it’s translated herein.
Lucifer is a Hebrew word, but it isn’t
really a name for the Slanderer. This is a translating error that created a
myth. A prophecy found at Isaiah the Fourteenth Chapter is speaking of the King
of Babylon, but these words also seem to be a subtle reference to the Wicked
One. So, an ancient translator took the word lucifer,
found in verse 12, and rather than translating it correctly as ‘shining one,’
or ‘son of the dawn,’ he just left the word untranslated
because he assumed Lucifer to be the proper name of the Slanderer. It isn’t.
BeelZebub: There are eight references in
the Bible to this Hebrew word, and it does refer to the Slanderer. However,
once again, this is not a proper name. It appears to be a title. Beel (like Baal) means Lord. Zebub
appears to refer to flies (the insects). So, BeelZebub
likely means Lord of Flies.
Is the Opposer (Slanderer or BeelZebub)
a real person? All one has to do is look at the titles he was given above to
realize that he is. To deny his existence negates the rest of the Bible. For
example, when dealing with Adam’s sin, why did God adhere so closely to a law
when other options were available to Him? Why didn’t he just destroy rebellious
Adam and create another man?
The fact
is, He created men and His messengers with the ability to choose whether to
serve Him or not, so none are automatons. And as a man failed in the Paradise
of Pleasure, we can assume (and the Scriptures support) that there were
failures (and rebels) in the heavens also. This is the reason why it became
necessary to have a law
that clearly outlined what rebellion against God constituted, and what the
consequences of violating that law would be. It was obviously for the sake of
the millions of millions of heavenly spirit (breath) creatures that the issue
of rebellion here on the earth had to be resolved by legal means, and in a way
that demonstrated the love and loyalty of God’s first-born son, which resulted
in the painful need for a ‘ransom’ (Jesus’ death).
And
other questions are raised. For example, while Jesus was being tempted in the
desert, was he simply struggling with the bad inside himself rather than
against a real, evil personality? If so, we would have to conclude that there
was bad in Jesus.
Also,
was the battle in heaven, as spoken of at Revelation the Twelfth Chapter, just
figurative and not a real war against the Opposer and
his messengers? If so, then ‘evil thoughts’ were rampant in heaven prior
to that battle. And, in what sense would ‘the Opposer’
and his ‘messengers’ have lost the battle and have been confined to the earth?
Also, why would internal evil be ‘angry’ in knowing that he just has ‘a short
period of time left?’
And
lastly, when the Opposer entered God’s presence and
spoke to Him (Job the First Chapter), can we assume
that this inherent evil was found in God? That isn’t likely.
Use your
browser BACK button to return to the text you were reading
The
English word resurrection comes from the Greek word, anastasia
(that’s right, the female name Anastasia means resurrection). It means ‘to
stand again.’
At John
11:24, we can see what Jesus’ disciples believed about the resurrection. Here,
after Jesus’ friend Lazarus had died, his sister Martha said to him, ‘I know
that he will stand again in the resurrection on the last day.’
So, she
believed in a resurrection that would happen ‘on the last day’ (not in
immediately, into heaven).
However,
at John 5:25, it is recorded that Jesus said, ‘I also truthfully say that the
time is coming – and it is now – when the dead will hear the voice of the Son
of God and those who listen will [start to] live.’
Now,
Jesus’ words could be construed as meaning that the resurrection would happen
immediately (which it did for Lazarus, but he died again). However, the ‘dead’
that Jesus is talking about here don’t appear to be the physically dead,
but rather, sinful, dying, mankind in general who will listen to Jesus’ voice
and ‘start to live’ by becoming his followers.
Then
Jesus went on to sat at John 5:28, 29, ‘Don’t be surprised at this, because the
hour is coming when everyone in the tombs will hear his voice and come out,
those who did good things to a resurrection of life and those who practiced
what is bad to a resurrection of judgment.’
These
two resurrections seem to refer to the different outcomes of those who ‘start
to live’ and the multitudes of ‘the dead’ that the Bible says will also be
resurrected. For more information, see the document, ‘the Resurrection.’
Use your
browser BACK button to return to the text you were reading
At John
Well, at
Philippians 4:3, Paul speaks of fellow Christians as already having their names
written in ‘the Book of Life.’ So, it appears that Jesus’ reference is to them
having their names written in that book while they are still living.
This
seems to be the same as the scrolls that are spoken of at Revelation 20:12,
which says, ‘Then I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing in front of
the throne. Several scrolls were opened; then another scroll was opened, which
was the Scroll of Life. The dead were then judged by the things that were
written in the scrolls, by the things that they did.’
Since
Christians who lived in the first century already had their names written in
that book, we must assume that they were written there at the time of their
baptism. And such writing assumes that they have already been approved by God
(but that doesn’t mean that their names couldn’t be erased if they turned from
a Godly course).
Notice
that Revelation speaks of several ‘scrolls’ being opened and of the ‘dead’
being judged by the things that are written in those scrolls, before their
names can be recorded in the Scroll of Life. Who are these ‘dead?’
Well, by
the time that these events will have occurred, the resurrection will have
already happened (see Revelation 20:4-6), so, these individuals won’t really be
dead any longer, and they were seen to be standing. This must mean that
they will still be under the condemnation of death as imperfect descendants of
Adam, but not literally dead.
That
‘the dead were judged by the things written in the scrolls,’ could mean that
they are judged by things they do after the resurrection and during the
thousand-year period while the Slanderer is bound and thrown into the pit (see
Revelation 20:2, 3 and verses 5, 6). If so, this means that
millions of humans will be brought back in a resurrection on earth, and that
they will be given a final opportunity to prove whether they are worthy of life
without opposition from the Slanderer.
Use your
browser BACK button to return to the text you were reading
The word
Kingdom is translated from the Greek word basileia,
which refers to the realm of a king (basil).
A common
misconception about this Kingdom is the idea that it isn’t real – that it’s
just a state of mind. This conclusion is based on Jesus’ words found at Luke
So, what
might Jesus have meant? Well, he, the king of that kingdom, was there in their
midst. So, perhaps that’s what he s implying. At the same time, it’s true that
real Christians ever since that time have in fact been members of that Kingdom
in their hearts. But the word Kingdom (an area of rulership)
implies that there will be an actual rulership and a
realm for Jesus and his chosen ones. And, because the kings will rule from
heaven, the place where they rule from is often called ‘the
However,
not all scriptural references to people being in the
‘I say
that many from the sunrise and sunset will come and recline [at the table] with
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the Kingdom of the Heavens. However, the Sons of
the Kingdom will be thrown into the darkness outside. There they will cry and
grind their teeth.’
Since Jesus
said (at John 3:13), ‘Nobody has gone to heaven other than he who came from
heaven, the Son of Man,’ it would have been impossible for those ancient
patriarchs to be in heaven at the time that Jesus said what he did in Matthew
the Eighth Chapter. And since they weren’t ‘born again’ to receive the value of
a spiritual life, and they weren’t part of the ‘Sacred Agreement for a Kingdom’
(Luke 22:29) that Jesus made with his Apostles just prior to his arrest and
execution., the opportunity of going to heaven was never offered to them at
all.
Notice
that Jesus didn’t say that they would live in heaven in the Kingdom, but that
they would live in the Kingdom of the Heavens. So, what Jesus said about
Abraham and his descendants ‘reclining at the table’ probably means that they
will live in the Kingdom, which will be ruled from the Heavens. And similar
citations in other Bible verses could carry the same meaning.
However,
as the result of the above scriptural citations, some have gone to the other
extreme of arguing that the rulers of this Kingdom (those who are part of the
Sacred Agreement for a Kingdom) will do so from the earth. But if this was
true, such faithful ‘friends of God’ as Abraham could have no part in rulership on this earth, since that earthly position would
have already been filled by the later ‘Kingdom heirs.’
And what
hope would there be for John the Baptist of whom Jesus said at Matthew 11:11,
‘I tell you the truth, of those who have been born to women, there never has
been anyone raised that is greater than John the
Baptist. But a person who is the least in the Kingdom of the Heavens is
greater than he is.’ If that Kingdom rulership were earthly, he would have had no hope of a resurrection at all.
That
there is to be a definite time for this Kingdom to start its rule is made clear
by the words of Revelation 12:10, which say, ‘Then I heard a loud voice in
heaven say, This is the moment when the salvation, the power, the
Kingdom of our God, and the authorization of his Anointed One began.
Because, he who accused our brothers has been thrown down,
the one who complained about them day and night in front of our God!’
So, when
the Opposer and his messengers are/were expelled from
heaven, God’s Kingdom begins there. However, any hope of a Kingdom over the
whole earth must await the end of the ‘short period of time’ before God’s opposers are destroyed at ‘Armageddon.’
2 Peter
2:4 speaks of ‘messengers’ who were put into ‘Tartarus’
for bad acts they committed during the time of Noah. Genesis 6:3 speaks of
these as ‘sons of God’ (gr. uioi tou Theou) and it tells of
their coming to earth to marry ‘the daughters of men’ (gr. thygateras
ton anthropon). However, these ‘sons of God’
don’t appear to be quite the same as the ‘messengers’ who are to be thrown out
of heaven during ‘the Lord’s Day,’ mentioned at Revelation 12:7-9. Since the
‘sons of God’ who came to earth and assumed human bodies in Noah’s day couldn’t
be destroyed by the downpour (flood) and they had forsaken heaven, they were
apparently put into a prison-like state here on the earth, where they are no
longer able to roam. This group is specifically referred to as the demons
in the Bible.
It is
interesting that, except among modern materialistic and scientific societies,
demons are recognized as real throughout the world and by almost all of its
religions, both modern and primitive. Such universal acknowledgement by diverse
people with no cultural ties is one of the strongest arguments for their
existence.
Demon is
a Greek word that seems to be derived from diameno,
which means fixed in one place. From other Bible accounts about demons,
it appears that this ‘fixing in one place’ means that they must be associated
with either living or non-living things, which is referred to as ‘possession.’
Use your
browser BACK button to return to the text you were reading
The
Day of ‘the Lord’ and of Jehovah
Throughout the Bible, we find references to ‘the Day of
Jehovah,’ and ‘the Day of the Lord (Jesus).’ Are both of these references to
the same time, and if so, how do we know?
There is no conflict between the two Days; in fact, they
are the same. Notice what we are told in the Revelation, when it is speaking of
the beginning of that Day (at Revelation
As you can see, the purposes of that Day are tied
together. The establishment of God’s Kingdom (with the battle in
heaven and the ouster of the Opposer and his
messengers) and the authorization for Jesus (the Lord) to rule, begin at
the same time.
So, does the Lord’s Day begin when the Opposer
and his messengers are thrown out of heaven? It appears so, because the
Revelation (which covers these events) starts out with John’s words (Revelation
What are some of the features of that Day? Well,
apparently, almost all the things that were prophesied to happen in Revelation
are included in that Day. They start with the ouster of the Opposer
and his messengers from heaven (See Revelation 12), which is followed by the
destruction of ‘
That the period of the Lord’s Day corresponds to Jesus’
prophecy of the time when Jesus would be ‘near’ (as he foretold at Matthew 24),
is confirmed by the horsemen that were spoken of at Revelation 6:2-8. Notice
that the one on the white horse (who pictures Jesus), is the first to begin his
ride, followed by the plagues. This gives us a good picture of what Jesus’
‘nearness’ really means. He starts his ‘ride’ in heaven with the ouster of the Opposer and his messengers, which is followed by the
plagues of world war, famine, and disease.
Peter wrote in length about this period at 2 Peter 3:5-13,
which says, ‘Then I saw a new earth and sky, because the previous earth
and sky had disappeared, as did the sea.’ And although many misinterpret these
words as describing just the destruction of the wicked at Armageddon, the
context shows that he was looking at a much longer period of time, the total
‘Lord’s Day’ or ‘Judgment Day’ – the ‘thousand-year’ period spoken of at
Revelation Chapter Twenty. For what he said about the burning of the earth and
sky and of the ‘new earth and sky’ corresponds exactly with the promises found
at Revelation 21:1,
So, from
the periods described in the Revelation, near the end of Jesus’ thousand-year
reign, there will be a judgment of the wicked and they will be destroyed. Then
there will be a ‘new earth and sky.’ In other words, all the wicked on the
earth will be gone, as will the wicked who have ruled over the earth (the old
‘sky’), then the earth will come under the rule of a ‘new sky,’ the ‘New Jerusalem’
of Revelation 21:2.
Use your
browser BACK button to return to the text you were reading
This is
a tough one and we won’t say that our position on the translation of this word
can’t be changed. The Greek word that we are struggling with is eulogetos. The first part of the word eu, is Greek for good. The
last part of the word, logetos (from
logos), means words, or expressions. So, a literal
translation is good words. Is this all that a blessing amounts to?
Yes, we
know that this word has been translated as bless, blessed, and blessing in
other Bibles. So, why rock the boat? Because, we have found
too many errors in commonly accepted renderings. And here, for example,
if eulogetos is properly translated as
blessing every time (which carries the English nuance, ‘cause good things to
happen’), then, how can humans ‘bless God?’ All we can really do is praise
God.
Eulogetos is the word that we derive the English word eulogy from... that
is, the kind words that are said of the deceased at a funeral. Such words
aren’t said as a blessing (it’s a bit late for that) they are said in praise of
the deceased individual. However, there are definitely places in the Bible
where eulogetos can’t be translated as praise
or praising. Perhaps the real meaning is (or is at least is similar to) praise…
and when praises come from God, this results in blessings to the recipients.
Eulogetos
isn’t the same word that we have rendered as blest in other portions of this
translation, for example, at Matthew 5:5. The word in question there is makarios, which is rendered as happy in some
other Bibles. However, we believe that blest is the proper translation of that
word. See the Notes in Matthew under the topic, ‘Blest or Happy?’
Use your
browser BACK button to return to the text you were reading
Throughout
the Greek Scriptures (New Testament), we read of a time that is referred to as
‘the last days’ (gr. tas hemera eschata). These words
seem to be speaking of the same period or periods, however, many religious
groups prefer to identify them as separate and distinct eras. Take for example,
the prophecy of Joel that Peter quoted on the day of Pentecost, 33-C.E. There
we read (at Acts
‘In the
last days, I will pour out some of my Breath
on all flesh, and your sons and daughters will prophesy. Your young men will
have visions and your old men will dream dreams. In fact, I will pour out some
of my Breath in those days, and my male and female slaves will prophesy. And I
will send omens from the heavens above and signs to earth below, blood, fire,
and a smoky mist. Before the great and shining day of [Jehovah] arrives, the sun will be
changed into darkness and the moon into blood. And everyone who calls on the
name of [Jehovah] will be saved.’
Peter’s
application of this prophecy clearly indicates its fulfillment as happening
during the time that he was saying this, during and after Pentecost 33-C.E. So,
many religions teach that Joel’s prophecy concerning the last days had its
application just in the last days of ancient Jerusalem, before its destruction
by Roman armies in 70-C.E. On the other hand, where these same words (last
days) are found in other Bible verses, these same religions teach that the
fulfillment comes just during ‘the Lord’s Day.’ For example, notice the words
found at 2 Timothy 3:1-5:
‘Recognize
that the last days will bring fierce times. People will love themselves and
money. They will be braggers, arrogant, blasphemers, disobedient to their
parents, unthankful and disloyal. They won’t love their families or be willing
to agree on anything. They will be slanderers who don’t have any self-control.
They will be wild and won’t love anything that is good. They will be betrayers
who are headstrong and proud. They will prefer pleasures to caring about
God. They will have some form of religion, but they won’t follow it.’
Obviously,
at least in the prophecy of Joel, the last days do refer to the time between
Pentecost of 33-C.E. and 70-C.E. However, notice that this prophecy also
mentions its fulfillment as happening during ‘the great and shining day of [Jehovah],’ so it seems to also indicate
another fulfillment as coming in these last days.
That
there would be a future period of last days to come after
It is
noteworthy that John didn’t then go on to explain that the resurrection had
already started with the destruction of
1.
The last days of
2.
The Lord’s Day in which we now appear to
be living.
That
both last days would see similar fulfillments is indicated by Jesus’ words as
found in Matthew 24 and Mark 13. If you read these chapters and reference the
linked Notes, it seems clear that both last days would see the fulfillment of
many (but not all the same) prophecies. So, is there to be some fulfillment of
the outpouring of God’s Breath and its gifts as seen at Pentecost in these last
days? Although every religion has reached strong but differing opinions and
doctrines on this, the answer isn’t totally clear.
That
there will be (or has been) some special outpouring of God’s Breath in these
last days appears to be indicated by Joel’s prophecy. However, while many
religions that claim to experience these gifts usually express it through
healing, snake handling, and speaking in tongues, notice that Joel’s prophecy
speaks specifically of miraculous prophesying. And Paul, when speaking of such
gifts at 1 Corinthians 12, 13, 14, actually discouraged speaking in tongues. He
put prophesying and developing Christian love as foremost. And although the
early Christians actually did so, divine healing isn’t mentioned in Joel’s
prophecy. So, if there is to be some modern fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy, it
seems to center on prophesying (more so than giving interpretations of Bible
doctrines) and on an unusual expression of love.
Use your
browser BACK button to return to the text you were reading
John
In
Greek, the word we have translated as world is cosmou,
or arrangement. You may recognize that the English words cosmos and
cosmetology come from this source. However (thanks to Carl Sagan),
when we hear the word cosmos today we usually think of the universe of the
heavens. So, why have we translated cosmos as world, and what is meant by the
term world?
Actually,
cosmos is used many times in the Bible and in many different ways. For example,
when Paul urged Christian women to dress modestly, he used the word cosmos
to describe well-arranged clothing, and arrangement is
probably the closest English meaning of the word.
And
although it is thought that the word world doesn’t appear at all in the
Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament), cosmos really does appear several
times in the Greek Septuagint; however, it is variously translated in different
Bibles and in different places as arrangement, ornamentation, honor,
delight, universe, earth, army, etc.
However,
in the Greek Scriptures, where the word appears several times, cosmos is
usually translated as world… such as the world of Noah, the light
of the world, the field is the world, etc. So, the term doesn’t
apply to the earth, but rather to the arrangement of human society on the
earth, or the world. And just when did this arrangement come about?
Unfortunately,
the Bible doesn’t give us a definitive answer. However, it seems likely that
the arrangement that we call ‘the world’ came about after Adam’s sin in the
Paradise, when man created for himself and all earthly creation a new set of
circumstances, which was something other than what God had planned. We have
come to this conclusion based on the many scriptures that refer to the world in
a negative context, and the fact that it (the current set of negative
circumstances) will soon be done away with. For we read at 1 John
In the
case of the words about Jesus at John 1:10, it appears as though this verse is
saying that Jesus was there and witnessed the sin of Adam, and that he played
an active part in creating this new ‘arrangement’ called ‘the world.’ Yet, John
1:3 says that ‘Everything came into existence through him.’ So, we must
conclude that he was also with God much earlier, and was responsible for the
creation of the universe (and our earth).
Use your
browser BACK button to return to the text you were reading
Although
there are no existing ancient Bible (Greek Scripture) manuscripts that contain
the full name Jehovah, there are four reasons why we (and other Bible
scholars and translators) believe that it existed in the original text. They
are:
1. &nbssp;
The Name is found
in many of the Hebrew Scripture texts that are quoted by Jesus and his
disciples (but it isn’t found in the existing Greek texts now)
2. &nbssp;
Jesus mentioned
God’s having a Name in ‘The Lord’s Prayer,’ and at John
3. &nbssp;
The Name still
appears in a combined form in Revelation where the word hallelujah is
used (Hallel means praise, u
implies second person, and Jah is a shortened
form of Jehovah)
4. &nbssp;
The fact that
Christians who lived in Jerusalem were still worshiping at the Temple of
Jehovah late in Paul’s ministry proves that they still viewed Jehovah as their
God (see Acts 21:20-26)
In view
of the fact that there is no evidence that early Christians ever used the name
Jehovah, one might wonder why these translators have taken the unusual position
of adopting it. Well, if you believe that there are two in the Bible who are
spoken of as ‘the Lord’ – ho Theos (the God)
and tas Christos (God’s Christ,
The word
that is translated lord (gr. kyrios) is
found throughout the Bible in Greek texts and is usually used as a term of
respect for men, such as a king, governor, or homeowner… and it is also
frequently translated as master. So, whenever you see the term master
used in the Bible, recognize that it is translated from the same Greek word as lord.
And as translators, it’s easy to see how inappropriate it is to refer to God as
‘the Lord.’ This was something that was started by later Jewish copyists, and
the custom was adopted in English Bibles in the Fifteenth Century. Yet even
then, the translators showed where God’s name once appeared in the Hebrew text
by capitalizing all the letters, as in LORD (see Exodus 6:1). And in the King
James Bible, the name Jehovah still does appear in four texts (see Exodus 6:3).
Some
have objected to putting the name Jehovah in the Greek text, for they say that
that use of the Name would have been offensive – and might have resulted in
stoning – if Jesus and his disciples had actually spoken it. Yet, the
Name had to be used when preaching to the gentiles, or they simply wouldn’t
have known which Lord the disciples were talking about (remember, they were
polytheistic). And to call God the Lord when most gods (and many men)
were also called lord would have been very confusing to everyone that Jesus’
disciples preached to, both Jews and Gentiles. So, we question whether the use
of God’s name was considered as offensive prior to
The
reason why the Name was removed from later copies of the Hebrew Scriptures was
because Jewish Scribes had become so awed with God’s name that they refused to
write it or say it, so, they started substituting the term ‘the Lord’ (the
Master) wherever His name was found. And since all existing versions of the
Septuagint come from the second century or later, it isn’t surprising that
God’s Name has been omitted from such modern texts. The fact that the name
Jehovah was once there is well substantiated from ancient Bible manuscripts,
both Hebrew and Greek. In fact, a verse in the Jewish Talmud claims that Jesus
received his miraculous powers because he had sewn the Holy Name (Jehovah) into
his skin, which indicates both their (his enemy’s) recognition of Jesus’
miraculous powers and the common view of God’s name.
What
about the Greek Scriptures? Recognize the fact that most early Christian
Congregations (especially the one in
That the name Jehovah (which means, He who Causes
to Be, or, The Creator) was originally in the Bible is documented in
all ancient Hebrew texts. And it
appears that the Septuagint translation that was available to Jesus and his
Apostles carried that Name, but in the four Hebrew characters, YHWH.
Perhaps
Christians would more deeply appreciate the need to use the name Jehovah,
rather than the title ‘Lord,’ when referring to God, if they understood that
the term ‘the Lord’ in the language of the Canaanites was ‘Baal’ or ‘Beel.’ And the same term in modern-day Arabic is ‘Allah.’
Then,
what of those who prefer a more exact Hebrew pronunciation of the Name (which
is Yahweh, Yahwah, or Yehwah)?
That is commendable if their reasons are consistent. For if their concern is to
properly pronounce Bible names (not a hatred for God’s name as it is pronounced
in English), then they will also be found promoting the proper Hebrew
pronunciation of His son’s name, Ieshuah, or Iehoshuah… or at least the proper pronunciation of his name
in Greek, Iesous.
Use your
browser BACK button to return to the text you were reading
Understand
that the word ‘Jew’ is a uniquely English pronunciation of ‘Judean.’ And when
John spoke of the Judeans, he was usually referring to people who came from or
lived in the Roman Province of Judea.
Since
Jesus and eleven of his Apostles (although of the Tribe of Judah) lived in the
(northern)
With the
above said, it becomes easier to understand what John meant when said that the
water jars at Cana were there for the ‘Judeans’ to
wash in, and the ‘Judeans’ were looking to kill Jesus, and the ‘Judeans’
rejected Jesus. In these cases, he wasn’t referring to the nation as a whole,
but to the people who lived in
Use your
browser BACK button to return to the text you were reading
The idea
that the Jews are God’s chosen people and that they will eventually rule over
the earth from the City of
For
instance, notice Jesus’ words to the people of that city as found at Matthew
So,
their ‘house’ (the position of special favor with God) was removed from them
due to their repeated rejection of God’s ways and His prophets, and for
murdering His Son.
Notice
how Jesus pictures this rejection of the Jews as God’s chosen people in his
parable of the king who hired laborers to work in his vineyard at Matthew
21:33-41. The story ends when the cultivators killed the king’s son. And what
was the result? Verse 41 says, ‘Then he will hire others to cultivate the
vineyard who will give him the fruit when it’s due.’
In
Chapter 22 (verses 1-10) Jesus repeats this theme with the parable of the king
who invited guests to a grand meal, but none of those who were invited (the Jews)
showed up. In fact, they killed his messengers. The account says, ‘So,
he sent his army to destroy the murderers and burned their city.’ Then
he sends his attendants out to invite ‘others’ to this great feast.
Who are
these ‘others?’ Well, out of respect for His Sacred Agreement with Abraham, God
continued to offer the opportunity to be ‘kings and priests’ in the Kingdom
exclusively to the Jews (and the related Samaritans) for the next 3-1/2 years.
Then the opportunity to become ‘Spiritual Jews’ was offered to the first
‘Gentile’ converts, Cornelius and his family. Thereafter, the Bible speaks of
growing numbers of Gentile converts, as Paul was appointed the ‘Apostle to the
Nations.’
Notice
also Jesus’ words found at Matthew 8:12, where he foretold, ‘However, the
Sons of the Kingdom will be thrown into the darkness outside. There they
will cry and grind their teeth.’ Since the Jews were ‘the sons of the kingdom’
or the sons of the Abrahamic promise, the indication
here is that they as a nation were being rejected.
Then in
the letters of Paul, we read scripture after scripture that show these Gentiles
were thereafter included in the promise to Abraham, and that they comprised a
‘New Jerusalem.’ Notice what Paul wrote at Romans 2:28, ‘So, a Jew
isn’t what you are on the outside, nor is circumcision something that’s
outside on the flesh.’
In other
words, the Gentiles had become ‘spiritual Jews,’ or the symbolic ‘twelve tribes
of
So, the
Jews were not only rejected by God, they verbally rejected God and asked for
the blood of Jesus to be on them and their children (all future generations).
This is why the prophecies regarding
But what
of Paul’s statement, found at Romans 11:25, 26, ‘
Doesn’t
this mean that the entire nation will eventually be saved? No, for notice what
Paul said at Romans 9:6-8 ‘Now, the word of God didn’t fail, because, not
all who came from
Then he
added at Romans 9:27 ‘Isaiah shouted this, about
So, it
appears as though
And the
fact is, those who believe that all of
But,
couldn’t ‘all of
So, the
Jews (those who practice Judaism) can never be considered righteous as long as
they continue to trip over the ‘stumbling stone,’ their promised Messiah,
Jesus.
Use your
browser BACK button to return to the text you were reading
At
Jesus’ ‘Last Supper,’ which fell on the Jewish celebration of the Passover,
Jesus instituted a ritual that he told his Apostles to continue to do in memory
of him and his death. At Luke 22:19, 20 we read, ‘Then he took a loaf [of
bread], gave thanks, broke it, and gave it to them saying, This
is my body, which is being handed over for you. Keep doing this in
memory of me. And he did the same thing with the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new Sacred Agreement of my
blood, which is being poured out for you.’
Notice
that he didn’t say this means, he said this is (gr. es). However, contrary to the beliefs of some (that
these emblems actually become flesh and blood), they were obviously just symbols.
Partaking of Jesus’ ‘flesh and blood’ symbolizes that those who do so are
expressing their desire to become a party to the ‘New Sacred Agreement.’
Speaking
ahead of time of this ritual, Jesus said (at John