Church History 281-325

 THE MONARCHIAN PROLOGUES 

TO THE GOSPELS

These Latin prologues were placed at the beginning of the four Gospels as a short commentary of subject matter to which the author of the prologue wished to call the reader’s attention. There has been some debate over the dating of the Prologues: some say they appeared as early as A.D. 200 (Vetus Latina) or as late as the A.D. 400’s. All are agreed, however, they are of Monarchian origin and serve to demonstrate the dominance of the Monarchian Faith in the early centuries of Christianity especially in the West, where Latin was the dominant language—as opposed to Greek. It must be acknowledged that at the time these Latin Gospels were in use, the Monarchian Prologues were considered orthodox. Monarchianism, as we have seen, believes that God is of only one essence (homoousios), and that, therefore, the Father and the Son are in fact one and the same Deity in different ways of being, or modes of being. The prologues preceded the Gospels in many Latin manuscripts.  They are presented here in the order which their very contents insist, namely, the canonical order typical of the Latin tradition before Jerome’s Vulgate: Matthew, John, Luke and Mark. This order militates against a date later than the third century.

The English Translation of the Latin Matthean Prologue:

of Christ, who was working from the beginning. God is Christ, who was made from a woman, who was made under the law, who was born from a virgin, who suffered in the flesh, who fixed all things on the cross so that, triumphing over them for eternity, rising in the body, he might restore both the name of the Father to the Son in the Father’s and the name of the Son to the Father in the Son’s, without beginning, without end, showing that he is one with the Father, because he is one. … not be silent that the economy of God at work must be diligently understood by those seeking to do so.

The English Translation of the Latin Johannine Prologue:

This is John the evangelist, one from the twelve disciples of God, who was elected by God to be a virgin, whom God called away from marriage though he was wishing to marry, for whom double testimony of his virginity is given in the gospel both in that he was said to be beloved by God above others and in that God, going to the cross, …, placing the first sign which God did in a wedding … since Christ says: I am the alpha and the omega.

The English Translation of the Latin Lucan Prologue:

after all the perfection of God come in the flesh was made manifest, … from the beginning of his human nativity, so that he might demonstrate to those who thoroughly seek, insofar as he had apprehended it, that, by the admitted introduction of a generation which runs back through a son of Nathan to God, the indivisible God who preaches his Christ among men made the work of the perfect man return into himself through the son, he who through David the father was preparing a way in Christ for those who were coming. … we have avoided public curiosity, lest we should be seen as, not so much demonstrating God to those who are willing, but rather having given it to those who loathe him.

The English Translation of the Latin Marcan Prologue:

Mark, the evangelist of God and in baptism the son of the blessed apostle Peter and also his disciple in the divine word, performing the priesthood in Israel, a Levite according to the flesh, but converted to the faith of Christ, wrote the gospel in Italy, showing in it what he owed to his own race and what to Christ. For, setting up the start of the beginning with the voice of the prophetic exclamation, he showed the order of his Levitical election so that he, preaching by the voice of the announcing messenger that John the son of Zechariah was the predestinated one, might show at the start of the preaching of the gospel not only that the word made flesh had been sent out but also that the body of the Lord had been animated in all things through the word of the divine voice, so that he who reads these things might realize not to be ignorant to whom he owes the start of the flesh in the Lord and the tabernacle of the coming God, and also that he might find in himself the word of the voice which had been lost in the consonants. Furthermore, both going on with the work of the perfect gospel and starting that God preached from the baptism of the Lord, …, and to understand the divine nature of the Lord in the flesh.

Alexander

As the differences between the Monarchian bishop of Alexandria (Alexander) and one of his Subordinationist presbyters (Arius by name), over the person of Jesus Christ, spilled over into the rank and file of Christians throughout the empire, it was Hosius that hand delivered letters from Constantine to these men, urging peace between them. No doubt, upon returning from his mission, Hosius convinced the Emperor that the situation had gone beyond the ability of mere individuals to correct, and a council should be called. The purpose, then, of the council, called by Constantine at the urging of Bishop Hosius, was to bring the empire back to a place of peace.

As the differences between the Monarchian bishop of Alexandria (Alexander) and one of his Subordinationist presbyters (Arius by name), over the person of Jesus Christ, spilled over into the rank and file of Christians throughout the empire, it was Hosius that hand delivered letters from Constantine to these men, urging peace between them. No doubt, upon returning from his mission, Hosius convinced the Emperor that the situation had gone beyond the ability of mere individuals to correct, and a council should be called. The purpose, then, of the council, called by Constantine at the urging of Bishop Hosius, was to bring the empire back to a place of peace.

Arius (A.D. 250 or 256–336), who was an ascetic North African Christian presbyter and priest in Alexan-dria, Egypt, of the church of Baucalis, and was of Libyan origins. Arius, who was tall, lean, learned, morally exemplar, a fine orator, and inclined to be disputatious, was educated in a theological school of Antioch under the distinguished scholar Lucian. This school was noted for its emphasis upon (1) the historical and inductive method of religious investigation, (2) the unity and transcendence of the Godhead. Combined with these was a tendency to regard Christ as a created being, subordinate to the Father, a view that affected Arius.

His teaching on the Godhead was the belief that God is One Sentient Being and that Jesus is His first creation; as such Jesus is His Son and may be called “God” in the second sense, and by association; mostly the Holy Spirit is viewed as the Spirit of God and not another person from Him. However, some Arians see Jesus as the archangel Michael, or even Gabriel. (Many groups who are Arians call themselves Unitarians.) 

Arianism’s claim to monotheism is that the Father is the only true God, and, therefore, excludes Jesus of Nazareth from the Godhead in any real sense. In the Arian belief, Jesus is the first created being of God. (Modern institutionalized Arians are the Jehovah’s Witnesses, followers of Armstrongism, and the Way International.)

Baukalis is a section in Alexandria, Egypt where St. Mark was reported to have been martyred. It is also where Arius (Greek: Ἄρειος, AD 250 or 256–336) was a Christian presbyter and priest. Coptic Church tradition holds that the city of Alexandria was evangelized for the first time by St. Mark. The first Christians there built a church for Mark at Baucalis. Later, Partriarchs of Alexandria were elected at the Church of Baucalis, as the oldest church in the city. Arius, son of Ammonius, was a popular priest appointed presbyter for the district of Baucalis in 313. After his condemnation in 321, Arius withdrew to Palestine with the support of Eusebius of Caesarea. 

Eusebius became bishop of Caesarea (in Palestine) about 313. When about 318 the theological views of Arius, a priest of Alexandria, became the subject of controversy because he taught the subordination of the Son to the Father, Eusebius was soon involved. Expelled from Alexandria for heresy, Arius sought and found sympathy at Caesarea, and, in fact, he proclaimed Eusebius as a leading supporter. Eusebius did not fully support either Arius or Alexander, bishop of Alexandria from 313 to 328, whose views appeared to tend toward Sabellianism. Eusebius wrote to Alexander, claiming that Arius had been misrepresented, and he also urged Arius to return to communion with his bishop. But events were moving fast, and at a strongly anti-Arian synod at Antioch, about January 325, Eusebius and two of his allies, Theodotus of Laodicea and Narcissus of Neronias in Cilicia, were provisionally excommunicated for Subordinationist views. (Encyclopedia Britannica) 

Philip’s Request Is the World’s Yearning!

 “Lord, show us the Father” 

We should look at John 14:18 from the Greek text: Οὐκ ἀφήσω ὑμᾶς ὀρφανούς, ἔρχομαι πρὸς ὑμᾶς. (Ouk aphaso humas orphanous, erchomai pros humas) “I will not leave you orphans, I am coming to you.” (Please notice that the word “coming” [erchomai] is present tense: “now coming and continuing to come.”) One must take note of the setting of this statement, in order to appreciate these words of Jesus. The Last Supper was over, Judas had departed to betray Him, He is speaking intimately, with His disciples, of personal things: of last minute things, things that He had purposely not spoken of until now. He spoke to them of the Father, v9; and He spoke to them of His death, that was only hours away. How distressing this must have been on the Apostles. Like children uncertain of their future, afraid of tomorrow, without their parent to guide them, the Apostles became fretful, and all of them at once clamored to ask Jesus questions—questions that reflected their fears. It was as though they had lost all direction, and were reaching out from the darkness of their despair for a hand to ... comfort them. Simon Peter spoke first, and said, “Lord, whither goest thou?” Jesus told Simon that he could not go with Him. Just as a child, afraid of being left alone, Simon replied, “Lord, why cannot I follow thee? I will lay down my life for thy sake.” Why would Simon mention death if he did not have, at least, some idea that that was where the Lord was going? And why would he be pleading to follow his Master into death, if he were not afraid of being left alone? Now it is Thomas, his mind tearing at the words of Jesus, trying to make some sense of them: “And whither I go ye know and the way ye know,” Jesus had said. Speaking from the cavern of his fear, his voice betraying more than his words ever could, Thomas asked, “Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way?” Philip speaks, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.” Can you not hear his cry, “Lord, if we cannot go with you, please do not leave us without anyone, introduce us to the Father.” 

Unto these fearing and fretful children, their Father speaks and says, “I will not orphan you, I am coming to you.” Oh friend, notice his words, I am (even now) coming to you. I am not leaving, I am actually coming. I am not going away, I am just arriving. I am with you now, but in just a moment I will be in you. My dying is an act of arriving. I must pass through my flesh in order to dwell within your flesh. It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I do not go away the Comforter will not come unto you. No, my children, I will not orphan you! 

Notice, again, the scene: death, a father, fearful children, then a promise: “I will not leave you as orphans, I am coming to you.” 

__________________________

Jesus spoke of His oneness with the Father in parables (figures of speech). Jesus said, 

“These things have I spoken to you in proverbs: but the time is coming when I shall no more speak to you in proverbs, but I shall show you plainly of the Father” (John 16:25). 

The fulfillment of the promise to “show you plainly of the Father” is fully fulfilled in the book of Revelation.  Phillip’s request (John 14:8), “Lord, show us the Father,” if not fulfilled that day to his satisfaction, surely it is here. 

The prophet Isaiah had written of the Messiah, that He would be the “Mighty God” (Isa 9:6). Many, have accepted Isaiah’s testimony in a limited way, and said: Yes, Jesus the Messiah, is “A” mighty God – along with two other mighty god-persons. But, here, in the Apocalypse (the unveiling) of the Messiah, the Messiah announces Himself to be, not just “A” mighty God, but, “THE ALMIGHTY.” There may be many that are “mighty;” but there could be only ONE “Almighty!” 

The Holy Spirit, as a master artist, had worked for aeons on a sculptured masterpiece, and had now come to the day of unveiling what no human had ever fully seen. Humanity was gathered with all eyes riveted on the veiled figure; the breathing of the masses was momentarily suspended, as the Veil rippled and flowed, like a mystic wave, from the object of adoring anticipation. Then, finally, there for all to behold, stood the awesome Truth. From head to foot He was revealed: the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the Ending, the Yahweh who is “the Almighty;” (Grk—pantokratōr; Heb—Shaddai), namely, the absolute and universal Sovereign, the Omnipotent One: Jesus! Selah. 

Apostolically Speaking;

Bp. Jerry L Hayes D.D.

View the video of this essay at the link provided here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_qC5t4P_cQ&t=4s&ab_channel=BishopJerryLHayes

Early Christians 181 - 281

Logos-christology

Classical logos-christology had its origins with the Apologists of the second century, who needed an offensive against the Modalism of the orthodox. The Apologists labored to establish a personal difference between the Father and the Son. The dis-tinction began as an abstract thought, as was expressed by men like Athenagoras of Athens (which did no violence to the Modalistic views of the Lord’s church), when he presented the thought that the Son (logos) and the Holy Spirit were effuences (something that flows out) of God, flowing out and returning, like the rays of the sun. (The Modalistic views of Marcellus of Ancyra  seem to have taken this tack.) However, the logos idea evolved and developed into a personal distinction from the Father. Also, those who accepted and promoted a logos-christology moved progressively through stages of subordinationism (such as was propagated by Justin, Origen and Arius), to what later became the Trinity of the Athanasian Creed (7th or 8th century). Logos Christianity stemmed from the need of Greco-Roman Christians to reconcile their faith with the widely accepted philosophical views of their culture.  It was a Greco-Roman perspective on a Jewish theme. The fact that Christianity was a new religion seemed to be impeding its progress; Christian apologists overcame this difficulty by showing that Christianity had common ground with Judaism and philosophy. In this task one cannot underestimate the influence of one Philo of Alexandria, Egypt.

Philo, a contemporary of Christ and the apostles, was a Jewish philosopher of Alexandria who was a student of Plato and the Stoics. Greek philosophy had worked on the concept of God for several hundred years, and had transformed the ancient super-stitions of half-animal and half-human gods to an homogenized form of ‘principles’ and ‘energies.’ It was theorized that there is only one God who is God in Himself (in this it is suggested by Philo that the Greeks were influenced by Moses: i.e. the Shema, Deut 6:4), who could not touch or be touched by a created universe. This transcendent deity must, then, communicate through an intermediary that was called the logos. Since more will be said about Philo later, let it be sufficient here to say that he saw in the Greek logos the promised Hebrew Messiah.  (The link between Plato's teachings and the Trinity as adopted by the Roman Catholic Church is so strong that Edward Gibbon, centuries later in his masterwork The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, referred to Plato as “the Athenian sage, who had thus marvelously anticipated one of the most surprising discoveries of the Christian revelation—the Trinity.”) Philo was a Jew, not a Christian; but a disciple of his by the name of Justin (called by Christians, Justin Martyr) embraced the thought of Philo con-cerning the logos and the Christ. Justin and other Christian apologists began to promote this logos-christology, of Philo and the Greeks, in their Christian circles. (Justin was a Platonic philosopher before he became a Christian and continued to wear his philosopher’s cloak as he preached his version of the Gospel. He saw Christianity as being the fruition of all true philosophies.) The doctrine of logos-christology is  basically this: 

God Himself is too holy and pure to become involved in the created world of matter: so a secondary entity was brought into being and called the logos, who created all things in behalf of God the first principle; this logos was called the second principle. This “second god” (as both Justin and Origen  called Him) came to earth and was born of the virgin Mary and died for the sins of the world.

The latest offering of logos-christology is applying the term  Christophany to Old Testament manifestations of the Deity. This has only happened since a publication by James Borland in 1978. The term “Christophany” is new enough that it is not listed in the Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary © 1981, although “Theophany” does appear. Many teachers of logos-christology hold that each and every manifestation of God in the Old Testament is a Christophany (a manifestation of the Logos, the second god-person and not God the Father). “The practice of the Greek Fathers from Justin Martyr, who identified the ‘angel of the Lord’ with the Logos, furnish excuse for conceiving also the theophanies of the Old Testament as christophanies.” In this newest posturing of the logos-christology, the Father is NEVER manifested in the Bible—only God the Son. In this writer’s mind, this positioning is now taking place because of the friction between Trinitarianism and Monarchianism in the form of the Oneness theology in America (includes Oneness Pentecostalism, but also New England Trinitarianism) and Barthianism in Europe. The debate has established that the Jesus of the New Testament is the God manifested in the Old Testament. Therefore, instead of the adherents of logos-christology conceding the debate, they have doubled down on their position to the point of denying the presence of God the Father in holy Scripture, apart from His agent—in their person of the Logos.

Here is the truth: Modalist apologists have proven that the God who speaks, and is manifested, in the Old Testament is in very fact Jesus of the New Testament. Now, Trinitarian apologists have tweaked, once again, their theology to accept that fact; but say that God the Father is too transcendent to associate directly with crea-tion, so He does so through the Logos (Word/Son), an intermediate  person. Part of that tweaking is the new term “Christophany” which, in many circles at least, is replacing “Theophany.”

“The doctrines of the logos, ... and the Trinity, received their shape from Greek Fathers, who . . . were much influenced, directly or indirectly, by the Platonic philosophy ... . That errors and cor-ruptions crept into the Church from this source cannot be denied.”

The logos-christology does not take into account the Hebrews’ revelation of God. This was the mistake of the Apologists - possibly because they were anti-semitic. The Old Testament reveals one only God who brooked no other god-persons. The New Testament scriptures, then, should be viewed and interpreted through the lens of Old Testament revelation. The real question, then, is: What glasses are we to look through? The first century church of the apostles had only the Old Testament scriptures for its foundation. With and through these, they understood the person of Jesus. In short, they viewed Jesus through the glasses of the Old Testament. As a result, they worshipped Him as the Father incarnate in flesh. Consider this: With the coming of the Greek and Latin church fathers, Jesus began to be viewed through the lens of the Platoic/Philo Logos. So, then, entered the “logos-christology.”

 The christology of the Imperial Church claims the Greeks as its headwater, not the Hebrew prophets. Hence, Modalism is the oldest and original orthodoxy of the Church, and as such is the true teaching of the apostles: because the first century christology was Hebraic, not Hellenic. One cannot help but recall the warning of Apostle Paul, when in A.D. 62 he wrote to the church of Colossae from a prison cell: “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.  And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power.”

The priority and preeminent position of Monarchianism is underlined by the writing of the renowned Professor Adolf von Harnack (1851-1930): “The really dangerous opponent of the Logos Christology in the period between A.D. 180 and 300 was ... the doctrine which saw the deity Himself incarnate in Christ, and conceived Christ to be God in a human body, the Father become flesh. 

Justin Martyr developed the first Christology (Philip Schaff, pg 549,History of the Christian Church Vol 2)

Irenaeus: the Father is the invisible of the Son, and the Son the visible of the Father. 

The Two Dionysii,

According to J. N. D. Kelly, “... it is in the fourth char-acteristic phrase of the creed, the words ‘of one substance with the Father, homoousion to patri,’ that the full weight of the Orthodox reply to Arianism was concentrated” (E.C.C., 3rd Ed., p., 238). This word “homoousios” asserted the full deity of the Christ, and asserted that the Son shared the very being, or essence, of the Father. It was a strong word, to be sure. It was a word with which most were uncomfortable, but by it’s use Subordinationism was defeated. The word “homoousios” caused most of the bishops concern, because it had been, for generations, the watchword of the Modalist Monarchians. That this word was identified as Monarchian is seen from the account of the two Dionysii, a full sixty years before Nicæa. J. N. D. Kelly gives us the account:

“...current interpretation of “homoousios” was provided by the affair of the two Dionysii in the sixties of the third century. Bishop Dionysius of Alexandria, it will be recalled, had been put to much trouble by an outbreak of Sabellianism [Modalist Monarchianism] in the Libyan Pentapolis. [Meaning that the Monarchian orthodox in the Libyan Pentapolis were raising up in rebellion against the logos-christology of the Alexandrian bishop.] When he took forceful measures to eradicate it, the leaders of the ... group made formal complaint to the Roman pontiff, alleging among other things that the bishop of Alexandria declined to say that the Son was “homoousios with God.” There is little doubt that the Sabellians stood for that ancient [from the days of the apostles, themselves] and, in popular circles, at any rate, widely established brand of Monarchianism which regarded Jesus Christ as the earthly manifestation of the divine Being. To them the Origenist approach, with its distinction of the three hypostases and its tendency to subordinate the Son, was anathema. When they appealed to “homoousios” as their watchword, they meant by it that the being or substance of the Son was identical with that of the Father. The way in which they invoked “homoousios” in their complaint to the Pope is thus highly significant. It suggests, first, that it was already becoming in certain circles a technical term to describe the relation of the Father and the Son, and, secondly, that they expected it would be recognized and approved at Rome.” 

Kelly goes on to say that Pope Dionysius writes to condemn the views reported to him, and that his reply took a markedly Monarchian line (E.C.C. 3rd Ed., p. 247).

Paul of Samosata

Along with this event of the two Dionysii, there is Paul of Samosata. In A.D. 268 Paul of Samosata was condemned by the synod at Antioch (populated by Subordinationists) on the strength of this very word. Paul invoked “homoousios” as his explanation of the oneness of the Father and the Son. For this very word he was condemned.

Isaiah 44:6, An Exegesis; by Bp. Jerry L. Hayes D.D

 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD
of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God. —Isaiah 44:6

The Exegesis

Thus saith the LORD ... ~ Here, the prophet Isaiah is introducing a saying of Yahweh. It is the Tetragrammaton1 (Hebrew: יהוה; Latinized: YHWH) that is, here, translated as “LORD” in the KJV, and most other English versions of holy Scripture. The translators of our KJV follow the tradition of the Hebrews of substituting the Hebrew word Adonai (Lord, in English) for the Tetragrammaton. The Hebrews did this for fear of taking the name of the Deity in vain (Exodus 20:7). However, where the word “LORD” is substituted for the name of God (Yahweh), our translators capitalized all letters in the word to inform the readers that this word “LORD” is a substitution for the Hebrew Tetragrammaton.

the King of Israel, ... ~ Yahweh is, here, proclaimed as the true “King of Israel”. Earlier, the prophet Isaiah had identified Yahweh as the “King of Jacob” (Isaiah 41:21). Moreover, the prophet records Yahweh saying, “I am the LORD, your Holy One, the creator of Israel, your King” (Isaiah 43:15). In that Jacob’s name was changed to Israel (Genesis 35:102) Isaiah is using these two names interchangeably to reference the same subject. What is more, he is employing

1Tetragrammaton: the Hebrew name of God transliterated in four letters as YHWH or JHVH and articulated as Yahweh or Jehovah. Greek, neuter of tetragrammatos ‘having four letters’, from tetra- ‘four’ + gramma, grammat- ‘letter’. The Tetragrammaton (/ˌtɛtrəˈɡræmətɒn/; from Ancient Greek τετραγράμματον (tetragrámmaton) '[consisting of] four letters'), or the Tetragram, is the four- letter Hebrew theonym יהוה (transliterated as YHWH or YHVH), the name of God in the Hebrew Bible. The four letters, written and read from right to left (in Hebrew), are yodh, he, waw, and he. The name may be derived from a verb that means "to be", "to exist", "to cause to become", or "to come to pass". While there is no consensus about the structure and etymology of the name, the form Yahweh is now accepted almost universally, though the vocalization Jehovah continues to have wide usage. The books of the Torah and the rest of the Hebrew Bible except Esther, Ecclesiastes, and (with a possible instance of the short form יה in verse 8:6) the Song of Songs contain this Hebrew name.[4] Observant Jews and those who follow Talmudic Jewish traditions do not pronounce יהוה nor do they read aloud proposed transcription forms such as Yahweh or Yehovah; instead they replace it with a different term, whether in addressing or referring to the God of Israel. Common substitutions in Hebrew are אֲדֹנָי (Adonai, lit. transl. My Lords, Pluralis majestatis taken as singular) or Elohim (literally "gods" but treated as singular when meaning "God") in prayer, or HaShem ("The Name") in everyday speech.

2 Genesis 35:10, And God said unto him, Thy name is Jacob: thy name shall not be called any more Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name: and he called his name Israel.

them in a personification3 for the nation to whom he is prophesying. This is seen in v1 of this 44th chapter: “Yet now hear, O Jacob my servant; and Israel, whom I have chosen:” The personification aspect of the names Jacob and Israel is further seen in vv3 and 5. In v3 Yahweh speaks of the “seed” and “offspring” of Jacob/Israel; this is anthropomorphic4 language. Further, in v5 we read, “One ... shall call himself by the name of Jacob; another ... shall surname himself ... Israel.” Clearly, the nation is being personified as a person: i.e. Jacob/Israel. Thus, when Isaiah calls Yahweh the “King of Israel” the imagery is that of the nation being a person: i.e. the person Israel, the son of Issac. This type of personification is also employed by the prophet Hosea. In Hosea 11:1 that prophet wrote: “When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.”

and his redeemer ... ~ The antecedent of the pronoun “his” is “Israel”, not “King”, as many suppose. This exegesis has already established that “Israel”, in this text, is a reference to the nation of Israel as though to one person, i.e. Isaac’s son. Thus, the redeemer of Israel is the “LORD (Yahweh) the King”. This interpretation of the text is born out when other respected English versions of the Bible are considered. Here, we will list five of them:

This is what the Lord, the King of Israel and its Redeemer, the Lord of Armies, says: I am the first and I am the last. There is no God but me. (Christian Standard Bible, CSB)

The Lord, Israel’s king and redeemer, the Lord of heavenly forces, says: I am the first, and I am the last, and besides me there are no gods. (Common English Bible, CEB)

Thus says Adonai, Isra’el’s King and Redeemer, Adonai-Tzva’ot: “I am the first, and I am the last; besides me there is no God. (Complete Jewish Bible, CJB)

This is what the Lord, the King of Israel and its Redeemer, the Lord of Hosts, says: I am the first and I am the last. There is no God but Me. (Holman Christian Standard Bible, HCSB)

“This is what the Lord says, He who is the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of armies: ‘I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me.’” (New American Standard Bible, NASB)

The LORD of hosts ... ~ Here, Yahweh is mentioned the second time in the text. This is not to indicate two Yahwehs, which would violate the Perimeter of Interpretation as established by Psalms 83:18, “That men may know that thou, whose name alone is Yahweh, art the most high over all the earth.” The Perimeter Marker that cannot be broken (John 10:35) is that only one has the name Yahweh. In the text Isaiah is simply identifying the “Yahweh King of Israel” as the “Yahweh of hosts”. The manner in which the prophet worded this text is purposeful. It raises Israel’s eyes from Yahweh being their King and Redeemer, to also being the Yahweh of the “hosts” of Heaven as well. This term “hosts” has the hosts of Heaven in view. The armies of Heaven, in particular. This is Isaiah’s message: Yahweh is not only a deity to whom earth must

3 personification: the attribution of a personal nature or human characteristics to something nonhuman, or the representation of an abstract quality in human form; a person, animal, or object regarded as representing or embodying a quality, concept, or thing.

4 Anthropomorphic: having human characteristics.

give an answer; but is, moreover, the Deity to Whom all creation, earthly and Heavenly must submit. Just as terms “Jacob” and “Israel” are referencing the same subject throughout the text, so, too, are the two Yahweh references viewing the same subject. This point is underlined in bold color in the next statement of the text.

I am the first, and I am the last ... ~ Yahweh references Himself in the singular, as He always does. The personal singular pronoun “I” gives testimony, from the Deity Himself, that the previous two references to Yahweh, in this verse, by Isaiah, is a reference to the selfsame subject and not to two Yahwehs. This “First and Last” title for the God of holy Scripture was presaged by the prophet’s previous words, where he quotes the Deity as saying: “Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me” (Isaiah 43:10). Both of these texts are sine wave tones5 that echo the Shema6. In the book of Revelation the “First and Last” title is claimed by Christ Jesus (Revelation 1:8, 17; 22:13). Whom John identifies in Revelation 1:8 as “κύριος ὁ θεός”: “the Lord God”.

and beside me there is no God ~ Apart from the speaker (Yahweh) there is no God that exists. The “First and Last” claim, previously considered, and this affirmation from Yahweh Himself, of exclusivity to God-ness, is the final word on biblical monotheism.

An Eisegesis

Above, we have given a biblical exegesis of Isaiah 44:6; but all will not agree with our exposition. I say this because during the friction between the Oneness and Trinitarian theologies, the Pluralists have seized upon this text and, through the process of eisegesis, have read into it a meaning that it does not have.

An eisegesis study of a written text is the opposite of exegesis. Exegesis means to draw out; whereas eisegesis means to draw in. An exegetic study is what we have done above. We have drawn out of the text its meaning without imposing our preconceived notions. On the other hand, an eisegetic commentator will import or draw in their own subjective interpretations into the text, that are unsupported by the text itself. The pluralists have done just that to Isaiah 44:6.

Their doctrine of plural persons in the Godhead pressures them to locate those persons in the Old Testament. According to many of them, Isaiah 44:6 fits the bill. They would posit that the text presents two Yahwehs, the second being the redeemer of the first. That is to say: The second Yahweh redeems fallen creation in behalf (at the behest) of the first Yahweh. In this view the antecedent to the pronoun “his” in the statement “and his redeemer the LORD of hosts” is “the LORD the King”, from the first part of the verse. This essay has already demonstrated how this cannot be the case.

How do the Pluralists come to such a view? The answer is: Eisegesis.

5 sine wave tone: a pure tone: an even Hertz frequency that forms an s-shaped sine wave; it transcends the human ability to produce.

6 Shema: Deut. 6:4, Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord: 

Concerning the theology of the Pluralists, Cardinal John Henry Newman7, when referencing Dr. E. Hawkins8 (with whom he agreed) stated: “the sacred text was never intended to teach doctrine, but only to prove it, and that, if we were to learn doctrine we must have recourse to the formularies of the Church; for instance to the Catechism, and to the Creeds. ... after learning from them the doctrines of Christianity, the inquirer must verify them by Scripture.”9 This is a mandate from Newman and those of his ilk to study the Holy Bible by eisegesis. Through this means they “import” or “draw into” holy Scripture what they learned exterior to It.

This official hermeneutic (eisegesis) of the Pluralists creates the madness that is their interpretation Isaiah 44:6.

The Perimeter Markers of Interpretation that are violated by making the antecedent of the pronoun “his” to be “the LORD (Yahweh) the King” instead of “Israel” is troubling beyond measure, not the least of which is that such an understanding produces two Yahwehs—which is, indeed, their intention. The problem, however, is that that is one more Yahweh than holy Scripture allows. The Shema states it clearly enough: “Shema Ysrael, Yahweh Eloheinu, Yahweh Echad” (Deuteronomy 6:4). Yahweh is ONE. Moreover, the Psalmist writes “Thou whose name along is Yahweh ...” (Psalm 83:18). Because of the Societal Trinitarian doctrine, which they learned from their Catechism and Creeds, they must hold that Yahweh is the family name of three god-persons. In fact they often speak of the “God family”. When they go to holy Scripture to attempt proof for what they were taught by the Catechism and Creeds, they do violence to God’s Word, as is demonstrated here.

One should wonder: If this text presents two Yahwehs, why it is that when they both spoke and said, “I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God”, single, and not plural, pronouns were used? Notice, Yahweh the King of Israel, and Yahweh of hosts, did not say “We are the first, and we are the last; and beside us there is no God”. What is more, since the Pluralists posit two Yahwehs from our text, the second one being God the Son (they say), they have God the Son speaking through the prophet Isaiah in the Old Testament: for the text says “Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts... ”; so, both Yahwehs are speaking. This interpretation violates the Perimeter Marker of Interpretation that is Hebrews 1:1-2. The writer to the Hebrews opens his epistle (sermon really) by stating that it was Father God “who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in times past unto the fathers by

7 Cardinal John Henry Newman: (21 February 1801–11 August 1890)  English theologian, academic, intellectual, philosopher, polymath, historian, writer, scholar and poet, first as an Anglican priest and later as a Catholic priest and cardinal, who was an important and controversial figure in the religious history of England in the 19th century. He was known nationally by the mid-1830s,and was canonised as a saint in the Catholic Church in 2019.

8 Edward Hawkins (27 February 1789 – 18 November 1882) was an English churchman and academic, a long-serving Provost of Oriel College, Oxford.

9 Apologia Pro Vita Sua, by John Henry Newman, Dover Publication, Inc. Mineola, New York, 2005 unabridged publication of the original 1908, page 6.

the prophets”.10 The Pluralists desperately need to find the Son speaking in the Old Testament. In spite of their great effort, they have found no such place in Isaiah 44:6. This should give the Pluralists pause, but it does not. Why are they willing to ignore and defy the context to present their pretext? Why can they not see the inconsistency of their position?

Jesus spoke of such darkness: “But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!” (Matthew 6:23.) Their illumination are beams of darkness. Thus, they walk in darkness compounded.

Unregenerate man has a propensity to create and worship many gods (theoi-ropê). The holy Scripture demands that we worship but one.

Apostolically Speaking, 

Bp. Jerry L Hayes, D.D.

10 God (ὁ θεὸς ). God with the article, thus, the autotheos, namely, the Father. Throughout the New Testament the term "God" designates the Father, but especially when Theos (ὁ θεὸς ) carries the article as here. That Theos (θεὸς), here, designates the Father is emphasized by the mentioning of this God’s Son in verse two.

If the Bishop's ministry has been a blessing to you, please make a donation at the link provided here. In this way you will help this ministry to continue its work. Thank you. https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=4EXSWA2A47ARC