Monday, May 18, 2015

THE NAME OF THE DEITY (The Tetragrammaton)


 How important is a name? Very. One’s name is most important, especially when that one is the Deity we worship. We might ask another question: “What is in a name?”  Biblically, one’s name is not only the identity of the person but the very essence, or presence of the person. This principle is magnified to the nth degree when Yahweh is in view. Somethings important to know about the proper name of God follow.



The Hebraic Concept Of The Proper Name Of A Person, As It Relates To Yahweh
Tetragrammaton:  The letters “YHWH” known as the Tetra-grammaton stand for the covenant name of God throughout the Old Testament. The Tetragrammaton is from the Greek τετραγράμματον, meaning “four letters” and refers to the Hebrew theonym (Hebrew: יהוה‎) it is transliterated to the Latin letters YHWH. (While YHWH is the usual transliteration of the tetragrammaton in English academic studies, the alternatives YHVH, JHVH and JHWH are also used. ) It is derived from the verb that means “to be,” and is the proper name of the God of Israel used in the Hebrew Bible.  Due to the Jewish fear of accidentally taking God’s Name in vain (Leviticus 24:16), they basically quit saying it out-loud altogether; this took place about the third century B.C..  (The avoidance of the original name of God both in speech and, to a certain extent, in the Bible was due, according to Geiger ("Urschrift," p. 262), to a reverence which shrank from the utterance of the Sublime Name; and it may well be that such a reluctance first arose in a foreign, and hence in an "unclean" land, very possibly, therefore, in Babylonia. According to Dalman (l.c. pp. 66 et seq.), the Rabbis forbade the utterance of the Tetragrammaton, to guard against desecration of the Sacred Name; ) Instead, when reading, they substituted the actual Tetragrammaton (which is only the consonants of the Divine Name “YHWH” since Hebrew is not usually written with vowels included) with the word Adonai (Lord).  Even in the Septuagint (the Greek version of the Old Testament) the translators substituted Kurios (Lord) for the Divine Name. Eventually the vowels from Adonai (“Lord”) found their way into the consonants YHWH, thus forming “YaHWeH.” When the King James translators rendered the Bible into English they followed the Jewish tradition of substituting YHWH with the word “Lord” in all upper case letters to indicate that it stood in place of the Tetragrammaton. According to actual count, the Tetragrammaton occurs 5,410 times in the Bible, being divided among the books as follows: Genesis 153 times, Exodus 364, Leviticus 285, Numbers 387, Deuteronomy 230 (total in Torah 1,419); Joshua 170, Judges 158, 1&2 Samuel 423, 1&2 Kings 467, Isaiah 367, Jeremiah 555, Ezekiel 211, Minor Prophets 345 (total in Prophets 2,696); Psalms 645, Proverbs 87, Job 31, Ruth 16, Lamentations 32, Daniel 7, Ezra-Nehemiah 31, Chronicles 446 (total in Hagiographa 1,295; Hagiographa |ˌhagēˈägrəfə, ˌhāgē-| pl.noun the books of the Bible comprising the last of the three major divisions of the Hebrew scriptures, other than the Law and the Prophets. The books of the Hagiographa are: Ruth, Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Daniel, Esther, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles. Also called the Writings). “Yah,” an abbreviated form of the Tetragrammaton, occurs 23 times: 18 times in the Psalms, twice in Exodus, and three times in Isaiah. This form is identical with the final syllable in the word “Hallelujah,” and accounts for the power of that particular praise.

For some time the Tetragrammaton was pronounced as “Jehovah.” In the early 19th century, Hebrew scholars were still critiquing “Jehovah” [a.k.a. Iehovah and Iehouah] because they believed that the vowel points of יְהֹוָה did not represent (and were never intended to represent) the vowel sounds of the early authentic pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton. The Latin pronunciation of the letter I/J as a consonant sound was the ‘y’ sound of the English word ‘you.’ This changed in descendant languages into various stronger consonants, including, in English, the sound [], the ‘j’ sound of the word ‘juice.’ Thus the English pronunciation of the older form Jehovah has this ‘j’ sound. In order to preserve the approximate original Hebrew pronunciation, however, English spelling uses an initial Y, and for the third consonant uses W, a letter unknown in Latin, thus producing the form Yahweh. This name is pronounced: Yahweh. (Yahweh: The Hebrew scholar Wilhelm Gesenius [1786–1842] had suggested that the Hebrew punctuation יַהְוֶה, which is transliterated into English as "Yahweh", might more accurately represent the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton than the Biblical Hebrew punctuation "יְהֹוָה", from which the English name "Jehovah" has been derived. His proposal to read YHWH as "יַהְוֶה" was based in large part on various Greek transcriptions, such as ιαβε, dating from the first centuries AD, but also on the forms of theophoric names. In his Hebrew Dictionary, Gesenius supports "Yahweh" (which would have been pronounced [jahwe], with the final letter being silent) because of the Samaritan pronunciation Ιαβε reported by Theodoret, and that the theophoric name prefixes YHW [jeho] and YH [jo] can be explained from the form "Yahweh". Today many scholars accept Gesenius's proposal to read YHWH as יַהְוֶה. Gesenius' proposal gradually became accepted as the best scholarly reconstructed vocalized Hebrew spelling of the Tetragrammaton.) Wherever the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) appears in the KJV it is translated Lord in all upper case letters. See, for example Exodus 6:3 and 15:3,
 “I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name Lord (YHWH) I was not known to them” (Ex 6:3 NKJV). ∼ The KJV has “Jehovah” for the Tetragrammaton in this place.The Lord is a man of war: the Lord is his name.” ∼ In this text, both times YHWH appeared the KLV translators rendered it as “Lord.” This pattern holds true throughout the KJV and NKJV Old Testaments.
Lord Is Not His Name
As elementary as this may sound, it needs to be pointed out that the Father’s name is not “Lord.” In the early days of the author’s ministry, while traveling across the nation preaching revival meetings, he came into contact with a number of ministers who taught very sincerely (on the strength of Exodus 6:3 and 15:3) that the actual name of the Father was “Lord;” consequently, then, the name “Lord” (according to them) had to accompany the name “Jesus” for baptism to be valid. These ministers only knew the King James Version of the Bible. They only read English, and, in fact, had an aversion to Bible study which employed study sources other than the actual Bible. Hopefully, these minister have grown in their understanding and have moved beyond this embracing position. to understand that Adonai (Lord) was a “place holder” for the Tetragrammaton (YHWH).
Defending the Tetragrammaton
Before we move from this point we will speak a few words in defense of the Tetragrammaton; in that it is under attack as being a very late (3rd or 2nd century B.C.) name for Israel’s God—borrowed from the pagans. 

What we will show here is evidence of YHWH during the 7th and early 6th centuries B.C. Our comments will concern an archeological discovery associated with temple and private worship. The discovery is associated with the formal blessing, or benediction, recorded in Numbers 6:22-26, 
And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, 23 Speak unto Aaron and unto his sons, saying, On this wise ye shall bless the children of Israel, saying unto them, 24 The Lord bless thee, and keep thee: 25 The Lord make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee: 26 The Lord lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.

In 1979 Gabriel Barkay was excavating an area on the outskirts of Jerusalem in the backyard of St. Andrews church. He had a group of 12 and 13 year old kids helping him. They discovered some tombs, but they were empty—having been looted long ago.
One boy, Nathan, was given the task of cleaning out the dirt from the nooks under the burial benches. Like a true boy, he started banging the nook with a hammer. It broke, revealing an entrance to a secret chamber containing more than 1000 objects. There were 125 objects of silver, 40 iron arrowheads, gold, ivory, glass, bone, 150 semi-precious stones, and skeletons. The objects dated to the late  seventh and early sixth centuries B.C. Among the objects were two, tiny rolled-up silver scrolls 1” long.
It took three years to develop a process to unroll them without breaking them to pieces. Once opened, it was discovered that they contained ancient Hebrew writing. 
Amulet I (3.8” x 1.1”) reads: [...]YHW...the grea[t...who keeps] the covenant and [g]raciousness toward those who love [Him] and those who keep [His commandments...]. The Eternal? [...]. [the?] blessing more than any [sna]re and more than Evil. For redemption is in Him. For YHWH is our restorer [and] rock. May YHWH bles[s] you and keep you. [May] YHWH make [His face] shine...”.

Amulet II (1.5” x .4”) reads: “[First line almost completely illegible.] May h[e]/sh[e] be blessed by Yahweh, the warrior [or “helper”] and the rebuker of [E]vil: May Yahweh bless you, keep you. May Yahweh make His face shine upon you and grant you p[ea]ce”.
Both amulets contained the same inscription: “May Yahweh bless you and keep you; May Yahweh cause his face to shine upon you and grant you peace.” This is a near quote of the priestly benediction in Numbers 6:24-26.
Significance:
  1. This is the oldest copy of any portion of Scripture in existence. 
  2. This is good evidence against the liberal critics who said the Pentateuch was a late, post-exilic creation—post fifth century; when it is being quoted in the late seventh or early sixth century B.C.
  3. It contains the second-oldest reference to “YHWH.” The oldest known inscription of the tetragrammaton dates to 840 BCE, on the Mesha Stele. (The Mesha Stele (also known as the "Moabite Stone") is a stele (inscribed stone) set up around 840 BCE by King Mesha of Moab (a kingdom located in modern Jordan). Mesha tells how Kemosh, the God of Moab, had been angry with his people and had allowed them to be subjugated to Israel, but at length Kemosh returned and assisted Mesha to throw off the yoke of Israel and restore the lands of Moab. Mesha describes his many building projects (Rollston 2010, p. 53–54.)
  4.  It bears the earliest certain extra-biblical reference to the Israelite God Yahweh.
  5. It is proof that the tetragrammaton (the name of the Hebrew’s God, therefore of Father God), consisting of the four letters yod, he, vav, and he, transliterated consonantally usually as YHWH, now pronounced as Adonai in substitution for the original pronunciation forbidden since the 2nd or 3rd century B.C.) (YHWH) was the name of God known to Judah seven hundred years before Christ. Therefore, those attacking the Tetragrammaton as being a third or second century introduction to Hebrew religiosities are mistaken at the least and knowingly blaspheming  at the worse. 
The Tetragrammaton’s Association With the Name “Jesus”
Jewish Encyclopedia.Com makes the following observation concerning the connection between the Tetragrammaton and the name of Jesus: The cures, or the exorcisms, of demons in the name of Jesus which are mentioned in the New Testament and the Talmud imply that Jesus was regarded as a god and that his name was considered as efficacious as the Tetragrammaton itself, for which it was even substituted.”
The Place Where Yahweh Dwells
Exodus 20:22 and vs 24. 
Then the Lord said to Moses, “... In every place where I record my name I will come unto thee, and I will bless thee.” (NKJV)

This passage establishes the promise of Yahweh, that His presence and blessing will be wherever His name is recorded. The Lord will choose a particular place for His name (YHWH) to be recorded.  In Deuteronomy 12:11 “Then there shall be a place which the Lord thy God shall choose to cause his name to dwell there;” Yahweh’s name (YHWH) equals His presence: See vv 12 and 18. “And you shall rejoice before the Lord your God, ... 18.  But you must eat them before the Lord your God in the place which the Lord your God chooses, ... and you shall rejoice before the Lord your God in all to which you put your hands.” Because the Lord’s name was placed in the temple, what was done in the temple was said to be done “before the Lord your God.”

The Lord chose to place His name (YHWH) in His temple in Jerusalem: 1 Kings 8:29; 9:3. During Solomon’s prayer of dedication he reminds YHWH of His promise to meet His people where His name was placed: 1 Kings 8:29. King Solomon prayed it this way: “... that Your eyes may be open toward this temple night and day, toward the place of which You said, ‘My name shall be there,’ that You may hear the prayer which Your servant makes toward this place.” Later the Lord (YHWH) says: “I have heard thy prayer and thy supplication, that thou hast made before me: I have hallowed this house, which thou hast built, to put my name there for ever; and mine eyes and mine heart shall be there perpetually” (1 Kings 9:3).

In the time of national trouble the name of the Lord (YHWH) in the temple was Israel’s great hope. We see the assurance of this from II Chronicles 20:8-9, “And they dwell in it, and have built You a sanctuary in it for Your name, saying, 9 ‘If disaster comes upon us—sword, judgment, pestilence, or famine—we will stand before this temple and in Your presence (for Your name is in this temple), and cry out to You in our affliction, and You will hear and save.” (NKJV) The temple was a SANCTUARY for the name of the Lord (YHWH) v 8. The Lord’s name (YHWH) being in the temple caused His presence to be in the temple: v 9: “in Your presence (for Your name is in this temple)” (NKJV). The Prophet Amos foretells of the total destruction of the temple (Amos 9:1-10) and of it being replaced by the TABERNACLE OF DAVID (Amos 9:11-12). The prophecy of Amos was fulfilled when the Romans destroyed the city of Jerusalem with its Temple in 70 AD. (See Mathew 23:37-38; 24:2, 34). 

According to James (the Lord’s half brother) the TABERNACLE OF DAVID, which replaced the temple, is the New Testament Church: Acts 15:15-17.

The TABERNACLE OF DAVID (as prophesied of by Amos and brought into existence by the Holy Spirit at Pentecost) includes all races upon whom the name of the Lord (YHWH) is called: Amos 9:12 and Acts 15:17.
“That they may possess the remnant of Edom, And all the Gentiles who are called by My name,” Says the Lord who does this thing” (Amos 9:12 NKJV).
The Hebrew of this text is literally as the text is quoted in the book of Acts: “Upon whom my name is called.” That name is YHWH. Acts 15: 17 “…upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord (YHWH).”  The word “called” (in Acts 15:17) is the Gk word “epikaleo.” Epikaleo: “To put a name upon someone, the name of one is named upon someone” Thayer. 

A New Testament example of the use of “epikaleo” is found in James 2:7.  “Do they not blaspheme that noble name by which you are called?” ∼  Literally, “Do not they blaspheme that noble name that was called upon (over) you at one time in the past, that, then, produced a result that continues to the present?” The name of Jesus is called upon (epikaleo) believers. Here “epikaleo” is aorist tense, which means it was a one-time calling that produced a result which continues. The invoking of the name of Jesus remitted the sins of the person it was called upon and placed the baptized into Christ. The results, of the calling of the name in baptism, continues on forever—in faith.

Concerning Matthew 28:19 W. E. Vine states: ‘“Baptizing them into the name’ would indicate that the baptized person was closely bound to, or became the property of, the one into whose name he was baptized.” ∼ The name of the LORD called, in faith, upon a believer assures the presence and blessings of God in said believer’s life.  According to 1 Corinthians 6:19, the believer’s physical body is the Temple of the Holy Spirit.

The result, then, is that the name of the Lord (YHWH) is recorded (Ex 20:24) upon (epikaleo) His temple (the person of the believer) at baptism, making all believers, collectively, the TABERNACLE OF DAVID upon whom the name of the Lord is called (Acts 15:16-17).  One may see this played out in the apostolic church when Ananias tells Saul to get his sins washed away by having the name of the Lord Jesus called upon himself (Acts 22:16). James, in his Epistle, speaks directly to this when writes “Do they not blaspheme the fair name by which you have been called?” (NASB).  The Amplified Bible reads: “Is it not they who slan-der and blaspheme that precious name by which you are distinguished and called [the name of Christ invoked in baptism]?”
Why The Name: Jesus?
Why this name, only? Acts 4:12 states clearly that there is “… salvation in … none other name…” Exactly, what is it about the name of Jesus that is unique to itself? We may begin to understand by observing that we are told in Matthew 1:21, “You shall call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.” Therefore, the very name given to Mary’s baby has an association with salvation from sins. So, lets look at this name.

Our English name, Jesus, is the Greek “Iesous.” According to Strong’s Concordance #G2424, the original of the Greek “Iesous” is the Hebrew “Yehowshuwa.” Yehowshuwa is defined by Strong’s (#H3091) as being from two Hebrew words: Yehovah, which is Jehovah (YHWH, Strong’s #H3068), and yasha (Savior; or bring salvation; Strong’s #H3467). Therefore, the Hebrew Yehowshuwa comes into Greek (the language of the New Testament) as Iesous, which, in turn, comes into English (the language of our Bibles) as Jesus, which translates to “Jehovah/Yahweh Savior” in all three languages. The profound truth is that the English name, “Jesus,” is the New Covenant name of Yahweh (YHWH) God, to English speaking people. The tetragrammaton (YHWH) is easily seen in the Hebrew name for “Jesus:” Y e H o W s H u w a.
When two passages, one from the Old Testament and one from the New Testament, are juxtaposed the identity of Yahweh with Jesus is clearly seen.

The Name Is The Same; The Person Is The Same
Isaiah 45:22-23, “Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.” 23 I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righ-teousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.”
  Philippians 2:10-11 “That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Yahweh Is Not A Shared Name
Yahweh (Hebrew: יהוה‎; transliterated to the Latin letters YHWH), is the Old Testament name of Father God.  The God of Heaven stated in Exodus 6:3 “By my name YHWH (Yahweh) was I not know to them.” As we have already mentioned YHWH (We will employ the name Yahweh for the tetragrammaton) is used for the name of God at least 5430 times in the Hebrew Scriptures. According to the Psalmist Yahweh is the name but one only, and no other. He wrote it this way: That men may know that thou, whose name alone is Yahweh, (The KJV has Jehovah better rendered as Yahweh; the original Hebrew has YHWH. The Masoretic text (Hebrew) from which the OT KJV was translated followed the Jewish tradition since long before Christ of not writing the tetragrammaton but every where YHWH appeared the Hebrew word for “LORD”  (Adonai) was substituted.?) art the most high over all the earth” (Ps 83:18). The truth of truths is that only one has the name Yahweh. The Shema is everywhere confirmed through the Word of God:  “Sh’ma` Yis’ra’El Yahúwah ‘Eloheynu Yahúwah ‘echad” (given here reading from left to right) “Hear, O Yisrael! Yahweh is our El, Yahweh is one!” (Deut 6:4). It must be acknowledged that “Yahweh” is not the family name of three individuals. Yahweh is an exclusive name for the exclusive One Sentient Almighty God Being.

The revelation of who Jesus is comes biblically to the disciple when: first he understands that: one, and only one person/being/ individual has the name Yahweh, and two, when it is seen clearly that Jesus is called Yahweh. 
  • The prophet Jeremiah identifies the Messiah (Christ) as being Yahweh Tsidkenu. Jeremiah wrote it this way: “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. 6 In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, The Lord Our Righteousness” (Jer 23:5-6). The prophet declared the “Righteous Branch (Jesus Christ) would be “Yahúwah tsid’qenu” the “Yahweh our righteousness.” Only one has the name of Yahweh.
  • The prophet Zechariah foretold that the Messiah would be Yahweh who would be pierced: “In that day saith the Lord ... they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, ...” (Zech 12:4, 10). “Saith the Lord” Hebrew: “n’um-Yahúwah.” the one pierced in v10 is Yahúwah of v4. We know for the New Testament that the one pierced is Jesus Christ. Therefore Zechariah declared Jesus to be Yahweh—only one has the name of Yahweh!
  • John the Revelator Identifies Jesus with Zechariah’s Yahweh pierced. This is how John writes it: “Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen” (Rev 1:7).
Above, we read: “Yahweh” is not the family name of three individuals. Yahweh is the exclusive name of the exclusive One Sentient Almighty God Being.” It was needful to say that, though it may have not been clear why, at the moment. Now we address it directly. The pluralists (especially Trinitarians), realizing that Jesus is identified as Yahweh, are fond of arguing for “Yahweh” being the group name of all three persons/individuals of their Godhead. We are told that each one of the three are called Yahweh, and further, that they are called Yahweh as a collective. This blasphemy is asserted even in the face of such texts as Psalms 83:18 speaking of God with single pronouns and says that only one has the name “Yahweh.” Then there is the prophet Isaiah to consider. Isaiah records the words of Yahweh as saying that He would never pollute  His name by giving His glory to another (Isa 48:11). From Yahweh’s lips to our hears: He will never give the glory of His name to another. The integrity of His name is safeguarded by the fact that only One has the name and only One welds the power and authority that is the NAME. It is for no reason that orthodox Jews, holding that the Name is too holy to speak, call their God “HaShem:” The Name. (HaShem: It is common Jewish practice to restrict the use of the names of God word to use in a liturgical context. Therefore in casual conversation, some Jews, even when not speaking Hebrew, will call God "HaShem" (השם), which is Hebrew for "the Name" (cf. Leviticus 24:11 and Deuteronomy 28:58). Likewise when quoting from the Tanakh or prayers, some pious Jews will replace God's name Adonai by "HaShem". For example, when making audio recordings of prayer services, HaShem [16] will generally be substituted for Adonai. A popular expression containing this phrase is "Baruch HaShem", meaning "Thank God" (literally, "Blessed be God"))

Not that further proof is needed, but what follows will help defend this Bible absolute from mischievous perverters of God’s Word. 

The pluralist claim that Yahweh is also the name of the human Son of God. Now, notice, we Modalist do claim the deity of Jesus of Nazareth to be Yahweh in very fact; just not another Yahweh. What we deny is that the human Christ was/is Yahweh. The dual nature of Jesus must be protected and everywhere declared: Jesus has existence on two planes that while distinct yet commingled as one person.  When the Father Yahweh addressed the Son (the human Christ) in the Old Testament, it is clear from the address that the Son was not Yahweh. Notice: 
  • Isaiah 49:8, “Thus saith the Lord, In an accept-able time have I heard thee, and in a day of salvation have I helped thee: and I will preserve thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, to establish the earth, to cause to inherit the desolate heritages;” It can little be argued but that the one speaking is Yahweh; notice “Thus saith the Lord,...” This is the Tetragrammaton (YHWH), and the one being addressed is not Yahweh. Most particularly Yahweh is addressing Israel and prophetically the future King of Israel—the Son of Man, who is not Yahweh.
  • Psalms 110:1, “The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.” Psalm 110 is the most quoted Psalm in the New Testament, vs. 1(at least 25 times) and vs. 4 (5 times). It shines Christologically as bright as the noon-day sun. Here King David plays the role of poetic prophet, receiving from God in heaven a revelation of the coming Messiah that joins company with Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53. Notice that the Lord said to David’s Lord... The First Lord is the speaker throughout this particular Psalm and is Yahweh. We English readers know this because the word is in all capital letters. The second Lord is not Yahweh. We English readers know this because it is not written in all uppercase. Here, David’s Lord is, of course his descendent Jesus the Messiah who was/is not Yahweh.
  • Psalms 2:7 “...the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.” First it is acknowledged that Yahweh (Father God) is speaking to His Son who is not Yahweh. Second, it is acknowledged that David is speaking in the first person as the Messiah and speaks of the day of His conception as being present. This is a prophetic present.  David speaks as the Christ and speaks of the day when the Angel spoke the Word to Mary and she conceived by the Holy Spirit as being present. 


In none of the above passages was the Son referenced as Yahweh. These texts demonstrate the distinction between Yahweh and His Son. Any time this type of distinction is made in Scripture it is ALWAYS showing the distinction between the Deity and the human Christ. The pluralists wish to make THIS Son of God “a” Yahweh. There is but one Yahweh, and he will not share His glory with any other.

Saturday, May 16, 2015

CAN CHRISTIANITY AND ISLAM CO-EXIST?




Here is what all who want to defend Islam by comparing the Quran to the Old Testament do not know:

  1. The Old Testament is the jewish scripture which is, it is true, the foundation for the Christian scriptures (the ten commandments) which is the New Testament. But the Old Testament lays the ground work for a Savior to come and transform the kingdom of God to one of love and peace --Jesus did that.
  2. Islam cannot (it is impossible to) change from its character of hate and murder. Why? Because the Quran is clear that there are no prophets AFTER Mohammed. He was the last and perfect revelation. So even IF Islam wanted to change, it cannot, because there is no wiggle room in their religion for another revelation other than the Quran. Judaism blossomed into Christianity. Islam is permanently set; there can be no evolving; there can be no further revelation.

The above being true, there is no co-existence possible between Islam and Christianity.

The difference between the Quran and the Bible when it comes to Jesus is that the Quran calls Him a prophet and says that when He returns He will kill all the Jews and break to pieces all the crosses. The Bible on the other hand insists that Jesus is Almighty God.

Islam is the natural enemy of Christianity and the Bible, to say nothing of the world at large.

What confuses people concerning Islam is that the Muslims we know personally are not Quran believing Muslims (they are Muslims in name only) and are in just as much danger from true Muslims as we are. Most people who "call" themselves Christians know next to nothing about the Bible; just so, most people who profess Islam know next to nothing about the Quran. 

However, when the nominal Christian becomes religious and turns to their holy book they are taught to be forgiving and to love, even their enemies, etc. When the nominal Muslim gets religious and turns to their holy book they are taught to kill all Jews and kill or subjugate all of humanity that will not accept their religion.

The world must wake up to this danger. All true Muslims are radical jihadists. A Muslim who is not a radical jihadist is not Muslim.

Persons calling themselves Christians does not make it so; a Christian's life must line up with the New Testament.
Likewise: persons calling themselves Muslims does not make it so; a Muslim's life must line up with the Quran.

At some point in the not too distant future the world will have to decide which holy book is conducive to its peace.

Apostolically Speaking
☩ Jerry Hayes

Thursday, May 14, 2015

JESUS, ON GOD’S RIGHT HAND

The Glorified Christ Dwelling In Light, 1 Tim 6:16
This article is an excerpt from my book "Godhead Theology," Look for it at Amazon Books.

But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,  And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God. (Acts 7:55-56; see also Ephesians 1:20; Romans 8:34; and Colossians 3:1)


The “Right Hand of God” argument has long been a weapon in the arsenal of the pluralist that is trotted out whenever the debate between themselves and Modalism ensues. It would only be right to present all the New Testament passages that are germane to this topic:
  • “Which he [God] wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,” (Eph 1:20).
  • “Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.” (Rom 5:34)
  • “If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God.” (Col 3:1)
It is an honest argument, I suppose, and, therefore one deserving a response. The objection to Modalism is simply stated as: “If Jesus is seated on the right hand of God, He must be a different person from God.”
Modalism’s Response
Although the “Right Hand” objection to Modalism is used by both the Trinitarian advocates and Subordinationists alike, the argument has more honesty with the latter than with the former. This is said with confidence for the following reason: Every passage of the New Testament that is used to support the “Right Hand” argument states that Jesus is at the right hand of “God.” This argument has more currency with the Subordinationists (Arian Unitarians) than it does among the Trinitarians because the Subordinationists deny the deity of Christ and could  honestly support a doctrinal position that has Jesus on the righthand of God positionally. For the Trinitarian, however, this is not such an honest argument. Why? Because Jesus is said to be on the righthand of “God.” If this is true, in a literal sense (and that is the sense they mean) then Jesus would NOT be God—since He is to the right of God. The Trinitarian theology could not, then, be consistent with the “Right Hand” argument; at some point it would break down.
An Inconvenient Truth
A biblical truth that is inconvenient for all pluralists (Trintarian and Subordina-tionists alike) is that the “right hand of God” expression is a biblical idiom that is always symbolic in its meaning and application. The laws of Scriptural interpreta-tion demand that we apply, especially, the Law of Context and the law of First Mention to the “right hand of God” sayings. The Law of Context (when related to Scripture) has two categories: local and universal. In our case it is the universal context that is most important. In the universal context we are concerned with how the “right hand of God” is understood throughout the entirety of Scripture. Listed below is a sampling of how the “right hand of God”  sayings are employed by the Old Testament writers. As we list these we first come to the first mention of the right hand of God. The Law of First Mention demands that whatever the meaning of a thing when that thing is first mentioned in Scripture is to be considered the meaning throughout Scripture, unless there is a clear reason not to and that reason is made know by being stated or by strong and necessary inference. So, then, we are concerned with two “laws” of interpretation here: Law of Context and Law of First Mention.

Exodus 15:6 “Thy right hand, O Lord, is become glorious in power: thy right hand, O Lord, hath dashed in pieces the enemy.” This is the first mention of the right hand of God in holy Scripture. According to the Law of First Mention  the meaning of the phrase here is to be the standard meaning for the same phrase throughout Scripture. The meaning of the right hand of God here is a symbolic one that emphasizes the power and favor of Yahweh.

The text that captures the full meaning and intent of the “Right Hand” saying is Psalms 77:7-10,
“Will the Lord cast off for ever? and will he be favourable no more? 8 Is his mercy clean gone for ever? doth his promise fail for evermore? 9 Hath God forgotten to be gracious? hath he in anger shut up his tender mercies? Selah. 10 And I said, This is my infirmity: but I will remember the years of the right hand of the most High.”

     The right hand of God is forever and everywhere an idiom of God’s power, favor, mercy, judgement etc. This phrase NEVER references a literal right hand position. The following passages are given as a sampling of the usage of the biblical idiom “the right hand of God.”
  • Exodus 15:12 “Thou stretchedst out thy right hand, the earth swallowed them.”   The right hand of God is an idiom for the power of God.
  • Psalm 16:11 “Thou wilt shew me the path of life: in thy presence is fulness of joy; at thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore.” The right hand of God is an idiom for the position of the favor of God.
  • Psalms 17:7 “Shew thy marvellous lovingkindness, O thou [God] that savest by thy right hand them which put their trust in thee from those that rise up against them.” The right hand of God is an idiom for His saving power.
  • Psalm 18:35 “Thou [God] hast also given me the shield of thy salvation: and thy right hand hath holden me up, and thy gentleness hath made me great.” The right hand of God is an idiom for the power of God to sustain His children.
  • Psalm 20:16 “Now know I that the Lord saveth his anointed; he will hear him from his holy heaven with the saving strength of his right hand.” The right hand is an idiom of saving strength.
  • Psalms 44:3 “For they got not the land in possession by their own sword, neither did their own arm save them: but thy right hand, and thine arm, and the light of thy countenance, because thou hadst a favour unto them.” The right hand and arm of the Lord are idioms for the favor of the Lord.
  • Psalm 48:10 “According to thy name, O God, so is thy praise unto the ends of the earth: thy right hand is full of righteousness.” The right hand of God is an idiom of favor, power and judgement.
What has preceded should be enough to convince any that the “right hand” statements are not referencing a literal right hand position. The Bible states that Yahweh will shelter His people beneath His wings. We do not suppose from that that Yahweh actually has wings. No, we understand that it is a metaphor. Even so, when the Bible assigns human body parts to God. Outside of Christ, the Deity is not to be thought of as a human person. We need to understand the purpose and also the limitations of anthropomorphisms.

There are a number of New Testament passages which state that the power of God has a right hand. Are we to, then, say that Power is, yet, a fourth person of the Godhead? Certainly not. (See Matt 26:64; Mark 14:62; and Luke 22:69.) 
It is time for some hard truths:
Truth of Scripture
God is omnipresent. Yahweh asked a question in Jeremiah 23:24, “Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the Lord.” We all agree that the answer to Yahweh’s question is: Yes, He does fill Heaven and earth.
Truth of Reason
If, metaphorically, God is a circle whose center is everywhere and whose cir-cumference is nowhere—if He fills all space and there is nowhere where He is not—then, it is impossible to occupy a position to the right of God. In other words, to be at God’s right hand in any literal sense one must occupy a position that God, Himself, does not occupy. This should demonstrate the absurdity of such literalism concerning the the right hand of God.
Truth of Reason and Scripture
If, for the sake of argument, God has a literal right hand, it would follow, then, that He has a literal right knee. The problem that this presents is an insurmountable one. For, you see, the Scripture states emphatically that every knee in Heaven and earth will bow to Jesus Christ (Phil 2:10).  So, then, according the the Trinitarian’s understanding of the “right hand of God” the First Person of their Godhead un-deifies Himself to worship the second Person of their Godhead. However, the Subordinationists do not fare any better; for their only God (the Father) is dethroned and worships the created Son of God. Am I being silly? No more silly than the pluralists’ position demands. 

We introduced this subject with the narrative of the deacon Stephen describing his vision of heaven as he died. Luke recorded that Stephen saw the “glory of God and Jesus standing on the right hand of God.” These words spark the imagination of the pluralist and visions dance in their heads of the Father seated on the throne and the Jesus standing at His right side. But, one must desire and seek a biblical understand this narrative or violence with be done to the sanctity of monotheism in general and the Shema in particular.

We will first began by acknowledging that God (outside of Christ) is invisible. Now, we know this is true because John wrote, “No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.” And Paul wrote, “Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.” And again in the same letter the Apostle wrote, “Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.”

Second, we will acknowledge that the only way to see God is in the person of Jesus Christ. Now, we know this is true because Paul wrote that Jesus, “...is the image of the invisible God, ...” Of course Paul is only stating what He learned from the Lord Himself; who had said concerning Himself: “Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?” Jesus further stated, “And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me.” “If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father.”

We know then, that when Stephen saw Jesus standing on the right hand of God, he did not see another person of deity apart from Christ. We know this is true because: 1. God is invisible, and 2. Jesus is the only way to see God for He is the visible image of the invisible God. 

So, what did Stephen see?

The Scripture is clear enough: Stephen saw the “glory of God” (not the person of God), and the “Son of man” (not God the Son). Stephen saw the “glory of God” and the human Christ. We are now arriving at the biblical understanding of what the deacon saw. The “glory of God” is described as “light,” “This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.” Luke records that: “And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.” So, then, Stephen’s vision was of the light of God’s glory and the Son of man, the human Christ. Stephen saw the glorification of Christ into deity. The Apostle Paul writes to his son Timothy concerning this glorification this way, “Who [the Lord Jesus Christ] only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.”

The evangelist Luke tells us what Stephen saw: i.e. “the glory of God.” Then Stephen, himself, explains how he saw “the glory of God:” “I see ... the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.” What Stephen saw was a fulfillment of Matthew 26:64//Mark 14:62//Luke 22:69, “Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, ... .” The Jews became very angry at this point for they understood the idiom of “the right hand of God.” This made Jesus God. The effect Stephen’s vision had on the Jews is the same effect that Jesus’ words had on them when He had said that He was the Son of God. In both cases the Jews reached for the stones—for the same reason. 

Stephen understood his vision. He understood that the light of God’s glory and Jesus engulfed within that light meant that Jesus had been glorified into deity. Stephen’s way of expressing that truth was with the Old Testament idiom—that Jesus was on the “right hand of God.” In other words: Jesus was the force of Deity. This incensed the Jews! The Jews and Stephen understood, for Stephen dies calling on God ... he was not calling on the pluralists’ god-person to the left of Jesus .. No! he died calling on the only God he knew; and he said “Lord Jesus receive my spirit.”

It is God alone that receives the spirits of men at death (Ecc 12:7). Jesus had prayed a very biblical prayer when He prayed, “Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit.” The prayer of Jesus was the prayer of Stephen the deacon.

This article is an excerpt from my book "Godhead Theology," Look for it at Amazon Books.


Wednesday, May 13, 2015

THE BAPTISM OF JESUS

(Answering Objections to Modalism)

This article is an excerpt from my book "Godhead Theology," Look for it at Amazon Books.

Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. 14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? 15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him. 16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: 17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. (Matthew 3:13-17)

To many in the Trinitarian camp, Matthew’s account of the baptism of Jesus gives a convincing narrative for proving the existence of a Trinity of individual God-persons in the Godhead. Modalism is challenged by the pluralists by the three manifestations of God found in Matthew 3:13-17. We are told that the Trinity is revealed here for all to see. The Son of God is in the water being baptized by the Baptist, God the Holy Spirit descends from heaven and settles upon the Son, then God the Father speaks from Heaven. In the face of this event it is argued that the Trinity must be true. 
Since nothing suffers from examination except error, we will proceed to examine this Matthean narrative.

Modalism’s Response
First there is this to point out: while Trinitarianism sees three persons in the baptism story, Modalism sees three manifestations and will argue that manifestations do not necessitate persons. As an example we will point to the advent of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost. This narrative is found in Acts 2:1-4, 
“And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. 2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. 3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.”

In Matthew’s water baptism narrative there were three manifestations of Yahweh present: the Voice, the Dove-like Spirit, and the Person in the water.  Notice that these manifestation were discernible by the senses: two by sight and one by hearing.  Likewise, in Luke’s Spirit baptism narrative there are three manifestations of the Holy Spirit: The Wind, the Fire, and the Utterance of the Spirit. Notice that these manifestation, on the Day of Pentecost, were discernible by the senses, as were the manifestations at the baptism of Christ: again, two by sight and one by hearing. Now, there is just as much authority to argue that the three manifestations of the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost prove three persons of the Holy Spirit as there is to argue that the three manifestations of God at the baptism  of Jesus prove three persons in the Godhead.

We should stop and consider what a “person” is, before we go arguing for three persons of God present at the baptism of Christ, or anywhere else for that matter. The Trinitarian argues for “person” in the sense of an individual sentient being, not as a persona, or mask (Grk: prosōpon), that would be the Modalist’s way of arguing “persons” for the Godhead. Therefore, in this corporal sense of person Joseph Henry Thayer gives this definition: “consisting of body and soul; face or countenance, the natural face one is born with.” So, we ask: How many “persons” were present at the baptism of Jesus?

The unadulterated truth is: a voice does not constitute a person. If a voice constituted a person then Wisdom and Understanding are persons of the Godhead for Wisdom and Understanding are said the have  voices: “Doth not wisdom cry? and understanding put forth her voice?”

Likewise, neither does a bird constitute a person. Therefore, according to Thayer’s definition of person (“consisting of body and soul; face or countenance, the natural face one is born with.”) the only “person” of the Godhead present at the baptism of Jesus was Jesus Himself. Of course this is proper for Paul did write that Jesus is the image (face, or coun-tenance) of the invisible God. In fact he wrote it this way: “Who [Jesus] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:”

If the events surrounding the baptism of Jesus were not for revealing the Trinity, what were they for? The Bible gives the answer to that question in John 1:33-34, “And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. 34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.” We must only speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where the Bible is silent. The Bible states clearly what the signs were for that particular event. Their purpose was not to teach a Trinity and it would be wrong to say so. Their purpose was to reveal to the Baptist who the Messiah was. To say more than that is to speak where the Bible does not speak and to take the text where neither God nor the scribe (in this case Matthew) intended it to go.

It is convenient for the Trinitarian that there were three signs; but, why was that? The answer is simply this: Three is God’s biblical number of confirmation. The law of witnesses was established in Deuteronomy 17:6 and 19:15.

According to the law of witnesses, any evidence for a matter must be confirmed by two or three witnesses. This rule of confirmation has been followed throughout Scripture. (See Num 35:30, cf Matt 18:16; 2 Cor 13:1; 1 Tim 5:13; Heb 10:28). It is no less visible in the account of the “witnesses’ given to the son of Zachariah and Elizabeth. We may safely assume that it was for this very reason of confirmation that the advent of the Holy Spirit had three witnesses as well. Confirmation is also why the seraphim cry a threefold “holy.”

The seraphim cry “holy, holy, holy,” before the throne not to give equal honor to three god-persons but to confirm their praise and to confirm Yahweh’s worthiness to receive it.

The end result is that the three manifestations that Yahweh chose to confirm His witness to the Baptist of the Messiah do not reveal three person of God, but they do  reveal two natures of the Son of God. The two manifestations of the Voice and the Dove, of course, speak of the Father and the Spirit. The Father and the Spirit are the deity that is incarnated in the humanity of Jesus. We are taught from John 4:24 that God is Spirit: Not “a” Spirit, but is “Spirit.” Further, the Christian is informed by the apostle Paul that in relation to God there is but ONE Spirit;the same apostle wrote that the Father is the only God.

Therefore, the Father and the Holy Spirit is the self same God-individual in different ways of being. This Spirit of God the Father settling upon the human Christ in the water is a witness of the Incarnation. No, the Incarnation did not happen at this time, as the doctrine of Adoption would suggest; this descent of the Spirit was but a witness to John—it was for his benefit only. Christendom has been blessed that John shared his testimony; but it is just that, John’s personal testimony of how he came to know the Son of God from all others he baptized.

This article is an excerpt from my book "Godhead Theology," Look for it at Amazon Books.


Tuesday, May 12, 2015

HEBREW MONOTHEISM


This article is an excerpt from my book "theology of the Godhead," Look for it at Amazon Books.

Paul tells us that the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. Ask any Hebrew, in the days of Christ, about deity, and you would discover that there was no confusion in his theology. The answer was a universal one: “Here, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord.” (Deuteronomy 6:4). THE SHEMA! 
With the coming of Jesus, the radical monotheism of the Hebrew prophets was enforced. The Great Teacher rehearsed the SHEMA to a young man that would know of the first commandment of all, “The first of all commandments,” Jesus said, “is , Hear, O Israel! The Lord Our God Is One Lord(Mark 12:29).
Much is learned about a man by listening to him pray. No doubt the apostles were listening in on Jesus’ John 17 prayer. (I have no doubt but that the prayer was prayed, entirely, for their benefit.) Jesus taught his hearers by His prayers. We hear him pray in John 17:3, “And this is life eternal, that they may know thee, the only true God.” Jesus sat on the brim of a well just outside of Sychar (The Well sitting on a well) and instructed a woman in the correctness of Jewish theology. After hearing the words of Christ on this occasion, one would never think that Christianity could add an iota to the Hebrew concept of deity. Hear the words of the teacher: “Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when you shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. You worship you know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews” (John 4: 21, 22). Here, once for all, Jesus validated the Hebrew idea of God! “You all,” Jesus said (meaning, the Samaritans), “do not know what you worship, we” (meaning, the Jews) “know in what we worship.” Here, Jesus put His stamp of approval on the radical monotheism of the Jews (The belief in and worship of One Only indivisible, eternal and sentient God-being.). No matter what men may think of Jesus, he had not come to clear up a misunderstanding concerning Hebrew theology of God’s person; He had come to confirm it! Just where He, personally, fit into the scheme of that Godhead, was a question that would be debated, almost from the very beginning, and, right on down to our day.
One thing is certain, the Jews knew absolutely nothing of a Trinity;  nor, did they know, of a plurality of persons in their Godhead. Moses Maimonides (A. D. 1135–1204, original name Moses Ben Maimon, also called Rambam, Arabic name Abū ʿImran Mūsā ibn Maymūn ibn ʿUbayd Allāh (born March 30, 1135, Córdoba [Spain]—died Dec. 13, 1204, Egypt), Jewish philosopher, jurist, and physician, the foremost intellectual figure of medieval Judaism. His first major work, begun at age 23 and completed 10 years later, was a commentary on the Mishna, the collected Jewish oral laws. A monumental code of Jewish law followed in Hebrew, The Guide for the Perplexed in Arabic, and numerous other works, many of major importance. His contributions in religion, philosophy, and medicine have influenced Jewish and non-Jewish scholars alike.), the Jewish scholar, writes: “… worship of a trinity is polytheism.” He called Christians “heathens,” “idolaters,” “violators of the command-ment, ‘thou shall have no other gods before me’” (Exodus 20:3). Maimonides considered only Jews and Muslims to be true monotheist. Alfred J. Kolatch, in “The Second Jewish Book of Why” pages 76 and 204 states: “Judaism cannot be denied the glory of being the only genuinely monotheistic religion on earth.” (Maimonides and Kolatch only knew of Rome Catholic Christianity.) The Jews of Christ day, the Jews of our day, even the Jews of the days in between, knew nothing of a God that existed in a plurality of entities.
The apostles of our Lord accepted the radical monotheism of their Hebrew forefathers. That Jesus was God, they knew; that Jesus was a man, they knew. Instead of taking pain to examine this acceptance of Christ into the Hebrew system of deity it was simply assumed. When a teaching has no rivals, it is unnecessary to attempt a proof, or to defend. I mean, what do you defend from? If there is no offensive opponent? To whom do you offer proof, if there is no questioning rival? Onto such a landscape stepped the apostles of our Lord: assuming, not proving, the deity of Christ, and the Modalistic Monarchianism (the whole fullness of the Godhead dwelt in Christ, and maintain that the names Father and Son were only different designations of the same subject. One ruler (Monarch) was manifested in “modes.” that was to characterize the first 300 years of the churches history. Not until pagan priest, supposedly, converted to Christianity was the position of Christ, as God Almighty (Revelation 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.)brought into question. When men such as Marcion (85-160), Justin Martyr (100-165), Tertullian (160-225), Hippolytus (170-235),  and Origen (184/185 – 253/254), to name but a few of the better-known, arrived on the scene, they found the Hebrew concept of one God and the Hebraic-Christology (the theology concerning Christ based on the revelations of the Hebrew prophets.),  with Jesus as the “monarchy,” deeply entrenched in the heart and soul of the rank-and-file of Christianity.
The Hebrew concept of God is clearly seen in the Shema Israel, “HEAR, O ISRAEL: THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD.” (Deuteronomy 6:4). The ONE, here referred to, is a Solitary, not a Compound, One. We do see this beyond question in Deuteronomy 32:39. Let us look closely at this scripture:
“See now that I, even I, am he, and there is not God with me, I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal; neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand.
Here the spokesman is Yahweh, Who alone is the Most High. He speaks of Himself as a single Being. “I”  first person singular per-sonal pronoun. “He” third person masculine singular personal pronoun. “With me” it is the preposition ‘immad’ suffixed with the first person singular personal pronoun.  The personal pronouns in an abbreviated form are affixed to nouns, prepositions, etc, to express the genitive and objective cases. THEREFORE, THE OBJECT OF THE PREPOSITION IS A SINGLE PERSON. “My hand” is the first person singular possessive pronoun. THE HAND WAS THE POSSESSION OF ONE PERSON. All the verbs of this verse are the first person singular form.  In Hebrew the verb must agree with its subject in number and gender.

Thus, the Divine person, in this verse, spoke of Himself as a single person and stated that no other person of deity exists.It is abundantly clear that Hebrew Monotheism was a believe in one solitary God. It was not an understanding of “one” in a compound sense. To believe in God as a solitary being is of so much importance that Jesus taught it to be the first of all commandments. When Jesus was asked, by a young man, which of the Commandments was the first of all, he was told by Christ that the first commandment was “Here O, Israel the Lord Our God Is One Lord.” (Mark 12:29).

This article is an excerpt from my book "theology of the Godhead," Look for it at Amazon Books.