Believer's Home Page


A Literal Translation of the New Testament


John 1:1 - Why Ignore The Nominative Case?



By Hal Dekker



Last page update: 2018.02.14



It's superfluous to designate one god as being in a higher position than another god if there are no other gods against which to compare (Luke 1:32).


Luke 1:32 (LIT/UBS4) This one (houtos) shall cause himself to be (estai) a great one (megas), and (kai) he shall be called aloud (klēthēsetai) ‘son (huios) of [the] highest one (hupsistou)’.  


And (kai) [the] Lord (kurios), the (ho) God (theos), shall give (dōsei) to him (autō) the (ton) throne (thronon) of David (Dauid), [the throne] of the (tou) father (patros) of him (autou).


According to the hierarchy chart in God's Word of the relationship of the gods to one another, at the top is God the heavenly Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father being the most high God (Mark 5:7; Heb. 7:1; Gen. 14:18-22; Isa. 44:8; Dan. 2:47).  On the next level down, and to the right of God the heavenly Father is His son Jesus Christ (John 20:17; Luke 1:32, 22:69).  On the third level down and lower are other gods; some of which God the heavenly Father has chosen to designate as "gods"; such as Moses (Ex. 7:1), and other mortals referred to in the Bible as gods (John 10:34-35; Acts 14:11).  Additionally, the biblical writers refer to false gods (Isa. 44:15; Gal. 4:8), and mortals who declare themselves to be gods (Eze. 28:2).  Apostle Paul, on account of how the God manifested/energized Himself in and through him, was referred to by others as a god (Acts 14:11). 


Constantine the Great, a Roman god-man emperor in the early 4th century, considered himself to be a god, and demanded people treat him as such.  He is the one who used the might of his government to abolish the orthodoxy of Christ and his apostles and replace it with a mortal-made theological invention, the triune godhead "orthodoxy" invented in the 4th century and established at the Council of Nice in A.D. 325, which error most all who claim to be Christian still follow today.  A good fact-based label or title of modern Christianity would be Constantinian "Christianity".


On the very bottom level on the hierarchy chart of gods, according to God's Word, is the devil, Satan, to whom apostle Paul referred to as, "the (ho) god (theos) of the (tou) age (aion) of this (toutou)" (2 Cor. 4:4).  He is only "a god" for as long as he has left, before he shall be stripped of the power and authority of Adam, which power and authority was transferred to him (Luke 4:6) upon the sin of Adam to believe the devil's lie (Gen. 3:4-5), which sin was a sin of high treason against the one true God, the same kind of sin which the devil still commits.


We can obviously see several levels of gods as they are mentioned in the Bible.  But there are yet other references to "gods" in God's Word.  Recognizing that God's Word refers to other kinds of gods is not polytheism, but simply observation, simply recognizing what is said in God's Word.  Worshipping any other god instead of the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is idolatry according to God's Word, which worship breaks the first commandment (Mat. 22:36-38; Ex. 20:1-3). 


What is the scriptural evidence about how we are to esteem Christ Jesus?


The introduction of the Constantinian "Christian orthodoxy" has created a Christological issue over the identity of Christ Jesus.  It's imposition caused the destruction of countless early Christian texts which originated in the first through third centuries which blatantly contradicted and condemned a triune godhead concept, some of which were used to support aspects of the Arianism Christology. 


The true Christian orthodoxy and its associated Christology, which Christ Jesus personally believed and taught, and which his apostles believed and taught, can be clearly seen in Jesus' own words, and in many passages in the new covenant texts.  Christ Jesus' orthodoxy was supposedly the orthodoxy which Arius preached and taught in the third century until Christ's orthodoxy and Arius were condemned as heretical, with the traumatic imposition of the Constantinian "Christian orthodoxy".


John 14:24 (LIT/UBS4) The one (ho) not (mē) loving (agapōn) me (me) absolutely does not keep watch (ou tērei) of the (tous) Words (logous) of me (mou)!


And (kai) the (ho) Word (logos) which (hon) you hear (akouete) is (estin) absolutely not (ouk) mine (emos), BUT (alla), of the (tou) Father (patros) having sent (pempsantos) me (me)!


John 14:28 (LIT/UBS4) You heard (ēkousate) that (hoti) I (egō) enunciated (eipon) to you (humin), ‘I get underway (hupagō), and (kai) I cause myself to come (erchomai) to (pros) you (humas).’


If (ei) you were loving (ēgapate) me (me) perhaps (an) you would have been caused to rejoice (echarēte) that (hoti) I cause myself to go (poreuomai) to (pros) the (ton) Father (patera);


because (hoti) "the (ho) Father (patēr) is (estin) a greater one than (meizōn) me (mou). 


Most all sects of Christianity, which in volume are Trinitarian-based sects of Christianity, teach that what Jesus said, "the (ho) Father (patēr) is (estin) a greater one than (meizōn) me (mou)"  is heretical, through teaching the opposite, through contradicting Jesus and teaching that Jesus is co-equal with his heavenly Father.  Those Trinitarian scholars then point to verses such as John 5:22-23 to adamantly declare that Jesus spoke of his own equality with the Father.


Jesus Christ never claimed to be equal in anything to the God, whom he claimed to be his heavenly Father.  But Jesus could and did claim the God to be his heavenly Father, since Jesus himself received a new birth above in God's gift of His holy Spirit, subsequently to him receiving a water baptism from John the Baptist, alongside the Jordan river (Mat. 3:*13-17, 17:5; Mark 1:9-*11, 9:*7; Luke 3:*21-*22; John 1:26-34, 3:1-7).  Jesus did claim to be a son of God on account of his new birth above, which new birth was the beginning of the coming to pass of God's promised new covenant, and the promised outpouring of His gift of holy Spirit, i.e., the "promise of the Father" to which Jesus referred, of which the Joel 2:28-32 prophecy is an obvious one of those prophecies (Acts 2:16-21).  But the assertion of the Judeans that his claim of sonship made him equal to his heavenly Father, the God, was a lie they invented, or was invented for them, in their own minds. 


John 5:18 (LIT/UBS4) Therefore (oun), through (dia) [the sake, AE] of this (touto) the (hoi) Judeans (Ioudaioi) were searching (ezētoun) more (mallon) to kill (apokteinai) him (auton), because (hoti) absolutely not (ou) only (monon) he was letting loose (eluen) the (to) sabbath day (sabbaton), BUT (alla), he was saying (elegen) also (kai) his own (idion) Father (patera) [to be] the (ton) God (theon), making (poiōn) himself (heauton) equal (ison) to the (tō) God (theō)!


Jesus immediately contradicts their assumption that he makes himself equal to the God, who he can claim to be his heavenly Father.


John 5:19 (LIT/UBS4) Therefore (oun), the (ho) Jesus (Iēsous) caused himself to make [a] decision (apekrinato), and (kai) he was saying (elegen) to them (autois), “Truly (amēn), truly (amēn) I say (legō) to you (humin), the (ho) son (huios) can absolutely not inherently power himself (ou dunatai) to do (poiein) absolutely not one thing (ouden) from (aph’) of himself (heautou), if perhaps (ean) he may not look at (mē blepē) what (ti) the (ton) Father (patera) is doing (poiounta)!  


The Judean leadership was either ignorant of the ancient prophecies of God's coming new covenant, and of the outpouring of His gift of holy Spirit, or they were deliberately denying it openly and publicly because they were lying, and working for their father, the devil.  Apostle John records for us that the later was true, and quotes Jesus epitomizing them openly and publicly for being liars, and for working for their father, the devil (John 8:44)!  It's a lie of the devil that Jesus was trying to make himself equal to his Father, the one true God.  In these verses and more to come, which you can read with your own eyes, Jesus is stating the very opposite, that his Father, the God, is a greater one than himself.  In mathematics the symbol for greater than is ">", and the symbol for co-equal is "=".  To you, do the two symbols mean the same thing?


But Jesus did state that on account of his sonship position, he has been given future responsibilities of judgment over all mortalkind.  And on account his sonship and this huge future responsibility he should be highly esteemed/honored.


John 5:22 (LIT/UBS4) Because (gar) the (ho) Father (patēr) but absolutely not (oude) judges (krinei) absolutely not one (oudena)!


BUT (alla), all (pasan) the (tēn) judgment (krisin) has been given (dedōken) to the (tō) son (huiō);


John 5:23 (LIT/UBS4) in order that (hina) all (pantes) may highly esteem (timōsi) the (ton) son (huion), down according to as (kathōs) [all] may highly esteem (timōsi) the (ton) Father (patera)!  


The one (ho) not (mē) highly esteeming (timōn) the (ton) son (huion) absolutely does not (ou) highly esteem (tima) the (ton) Father (patera), the one (ho) having sent (pempsanta) him (auton)!


So then does Christ Jesus contradict himself in John 5:23 through stating later in John 14:28 that "the (ho) Father (patēr) is (estin) a greater one than (meizōn) me (mou)"?   Anyone who can read and think knows that any verse of holy scripture must be understood in light of all other holy scriptures related to it, to discover all of the scriptural facts, in order to come to the whole truth about any given scriptural subject matter in the holy scriptures.  That's what this study does.  These two passages and verses, as well as many other passages presented in this study, are related to exactly what apostle John meant in John 1:1. 


I don't literally present all of the verses related to John 1:1 here in this study for sake of brevity, since that's just about all of the new covenant texts.  But I present well more than enough to help any reader recognize the true Christology and orthodoxy of Christ, and come to a scripturally-informed conclusion about exactly what did apostle John mean in John 1:1.  These passages will show also that the inventors of the 4th century triune godhead theory were shallow and uninformed of this knowledge of the holy scriptures, which disparity led them to their error. Or, were they liars too, as were the Judean religious leaders working for their father, the devil (John 8:44)?


Was apostle John in John 5:22-23 writing in agreement with Christ Jesus' statement in John 14:28, in which Jesus says,  "the (ho) Father (patēr) is (estin) a greater one than (meizōn) me (mou)", or was apostle John stating somehow that Jesus was a co-equal head of a triune godhead orthodoxy?  Is apostle John making Jesus appear to be a liar?  What do you think?


John 5:22-23 are related to the scriptural concept of agency, like the agency relationship an ambassador has to his king to represent his king while visiting another land.  Jesus is saying that because he represents his heavenly Father here on earth, in this cosmos, that he should be esteemed/respected, because he is his Father's ambassador, and all authority for judgment of mortalkind has been given into his responsibility.  Trinitarian theology ignores Jesus' statements of his agency to his heavenly Father, that his Father sent him, and he is not here to do his own will but the will of his Father who sent him, because the concept of agency contradicts the co-equal and co-eternal parts of the triune godhead theological theory. 


Try to find the scriptural subject of agency in any Trinitarian book on Systematic Theology.  It's not there.  It's all ignored, but more likely, not even comprehended!  But in addition to their ignorance of agency, Trinitarian scholarship implies that "esteem" here means "worship".  But then we have a record in Rev. 22:8-9, which apostle John wrote, about what Christ Jesus said to him while Jesus was giving revelation to him in his vision, again quoting Jesus' own words:


Rev. 22:8 (LIT/UBS4) And I (kagō), John (Iōannēs), [am] the one (ho) hearing (akouōn) and (kai) seeing (blepōn) these things (tauta).  


And (kai) when (hote) I heard (ēkousa) and (kai) I looked (eblepsa), I fell4098 (epesa) in front (emprosthen) to bow to4352 (proskunēsai) the (tōn) feet (podōn) of the (tou) messenger (angelou), of the (tou) [messenger, RE] thoroughly showing (deiknuontos) to me (moi) these things (tauta).


Rev. 22:9 (LIT/UBS4) And (kai) he says (legei) to me (soi), “Do not (mē) gaze (hora) [at me]!  


I am (eimi) a slave together with (sundoulos) you (sou), and (kai) of the (tōn) brothers (adelphōn) of you (sou), of the (tōn) prophets (prophētōn), and (kai) of the ones (tōn) watchfully keeping (tērountōn) the (tous) Words (logous) of the (tou) little scroll (bibliou) of this (toutou).  


Bow to4352 (proskunēson) the (tō) God (theō)!


Apostle John refers to the ascended Christ Jesus as an angel/messenger (angelou) in verse 8.  This is exactly what the Word was before it "caused itself to become (egeneto) flesh (sarx), and (kai) it tented (eskēnōsen) among (en) us (hēmin)" (John 1:14)This is what the writer of Hebrews teaches us in Heb. 1:1-.  Here's Heb. 1:4 in an unfudged English translation, the LIT.  This verse is fudged into oblivion in all Trinitarian "translations" to remove out of the holy scriptures the part where the writer states that the Word was an angel/messenger of God.


Heb. 1:4 (LIT/UBS4) he [the Word] having caused himself to become (genomenos) a so much (tosoutō) stronger positioned one (kreittōn) of the (tōn) messengers (angelōn), for as much as (hosō) he has inherited (keklēronomēken) a different (diaphorōteron) name (onoma) alongside (par’) of them (autous)!


The entire book of Revelation was delivered to apostle John from the ascended Christ Jesus, after his earthly ministry, and back into his heavenly ministry, performing the duty of a messenger again, to deliver the prophetic Word of God to Christ's one body through the apostle John.  As the Word in the beginning, and then as Christ Jesus in his earthly ministry, and then again as Christ Jesus after his ascension back into a heavenly ministry again, in all three phases of his ministries Christ Jesus has always been a messenger of the one true God delivering God's Word to mortalkind!  


Yes, the ascended Christ Jesus was now a paternal son of God, since he received a new birth above in God's holy Spirit alongside the Jordan river moments after his water baptism.,  But even now that the Word in the beginning has now become a paternal son of God, Christ still did not allow apostle John to bow/worship to him because he was not the highest God, his heavenly Father was, still is, and will always be the only one true highest God.  I don't understand how Trinitarian scholars can claim to be scholars while ignoring all of this scriptural evidence I've shown so far, and so much more I am about to show out of the holy scriptures.


In Rev. 22:9 above, proskunēson means to bow to.  It is used throughout the new covenant Greek texts of the Bible to refers to ancient bowing in several different ways depending upon the appropriate social custom for the occasion, of which some methods of bowing are the following: 


to bow only the head,

to bow at the waist,

to drop to one's knees and bow forward,

and to lie fully prone flat on the ground on one's belly with one's head at the feet of the one toward which you are bowing, or toward the sunrise. 


Whatever method of bowing apostle John demonstrated toward Christ Jesus in Rev. 22:9, Jesus set him straight (and teaches us, and sets all of us straight now too, right?) that that kind of bowing, i.e., that kind of honor/veneration/worship should be demonstrated toward only the one true highest God, Christ Jesus' heavenly Father, who is our one true highest God, and heavenly Father also.


Descriptions of various kinds of bows can be seen in the old covenant records of the Bible utilizing searches on Strong's numbers.  This is sola scriptura, scriptural evidence for what we should believe!  Looking up all of these verses in their contexts teaches us all about bowing, and that not all bowing constitutes what is referred to as worship.  All of you scholars, read it and learn about the differences between bowing and worship, and that not all of the various kinds of bowing constitute, or are equal to, "worship".  In the new covenant writings, when various people came up to Jesus and bowed to him, that was custom, and still is over there.  Everybody gets bowed to, probably several times throughout the day.  It's simply their custom. 


Maybe some passages may be about people bowing to Jesus to "worship" him.  But from reading and knowing Rev. 22:9, and other passages such as Php. 2:5-6, where apostle Paul states that Christ Jesus absolutely did not allow himself to be led, or lead himself, into a thought or thoughts of stealing equality with his heavenly Father, the God, I'm led to believe that Jesus would have corrected them on the spot, not to "worship" him, the same way as he corrected apostle John not to "worship' him as recorded in Rev. 22:9.


• kaphaph, Strong's # 03721

• kara', Strong's # o3766

• natah, Strong's # 05186, to stretch out

• avah, Strong's # 05753

• qadad, Strong's # 06915

• shuwach, Strong's # 07743

• shachah, Strong's # 07812

• shachach, Strong's # 07817


Trinitarian Bibles translate every bow as worship, and then use that unscriptural private interpretation as evidence that Jesus is God himself, "or else why would they worship him?"  But from simply reading the texts we can see that culturally, different kinds of bows were done at various times to indicate different levels of honor, and/or respect, and/or worship being shown by the one bowing.  Bowing the head toward someone for a brief moment, or bowing slightly forward from the hips, indicated a level of honor and respect toward someone similar to our Western handshake.  While a fully prone bow, especially extended over a period of time, indicated the very highest level of honor, respect and/or worship. 


Proskunēson is erroneously translated as worship in most all Trinitarian Bibles, which is most all Christian Bibles.  The KJV translates it in all 60 usages as worship, which practice goes way beyond translation and into the land of fudging-in theological private interpretations into a Bible, in lieu of the knowledge of the cultural practice of bowing, or in spite of it!  Virtually all English Trinitarian translations ignore proskunēson in the texts, and fudge in its place "worship", to help make Jesus appear in their translations to be God Himself.


In Luke 22:40-45 Luke records two examples of Jesus Christ bowing to his heavenly Father, first on his knees (Luke 22:41), and then fully prone (Luke 22:44) stretched out, as he becomes more intense in being well-thankful to God over his request that if possible the "cup of death" from which he must "drink" can somehow be avoided.


In Acts 12:5 Luke gives us another example of prayer being made in the prone position toward God by the entire assembly (ekklēsias), to demonstrate the highest level of desire, sincerity, and well-thankfulness toward God to grant them their request of Him to answer their prayer for apostle Peter's release from the guard-room, or guard house where king Herod placed him.


Acts 12:5 (LIT/UBS4) Therefore (oun), truly (men), the (ho) Peter (Petros) was being watchfully kept (etēreito) in (en) the (tē) guardroom (phulakē)


But (de) [a] prayer of well-thankfulness to4335 (proseuchē) [God, AE] coming to pass (ginomenē) under (hupo) [authority, AE] of the (tēs) assembly (ekklēsias), it was being (ēn) stretched out1618 (ektenōs) to (pros) the (ton) God (theon) about (peri) him (autou).


In Acts 26:7, in Luke's account of apostle Paul's defense to king Agrippa about the accusations against him from certain Judeans, Paul describes for the king Paul's belief in the prophetic message given to his fathers about the promised coming messiah and the new covenant, and the outpouring of God's gift of His holy Spirit, the "promise of the Father" as Jesus Christ preached and taught (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4, 2:33, 39, 13:23, 32, 26:1-23; Rom. 4:13-20, 9:8; Gal. 3:14, 17-29, 4:23, 28; Eph. 1:13, 2:12, 3:6; 2 Tim. 1:1; Heb., etc.).


Acts 26:6 (LIT/UBS4) And (kai) now (nun), over (ep’) [the sake , AE of the (tēs) hope (elpidi) of the (tēs) promise (epangelias) unto (eis) the (tous) fathers (pateras) of us (hēmōn), it having caused itself to come to pass (genomenēs) under (hupo) [authority, AE] of the (tou) God (theou), I have stood (hestēka) being one judged (krinomenos);


Acts 26:7 (LIT/UBS4) unto (eis) which (hēn) [promise] the (to) twelfth tribe (dōdekaphulon) of us (hēmōn), in (en) serving (latreuon) stretched out1618 (ekteneia) night (nukta) and (kai) day (hēmeran), hopes (elpizei) to come down face to face (katantēsai), about (peri) which (hēs) hope (elpidos) I am called into question (enkaloumai) under (hupo) [authority] of Judeans (Ioudaiōn), king (basileu)!


Apostle Paul describes his whole tribe, the one of Benjamin, as being well-thankful to God being stretched out (a fully prone bow) night and day in hopes of receiving that new covenant promise and all of the benefits along with it, stretched out in thankfulness to God, in prayer to the God, to receive that great and precious promise (2 Pet. 1:4).


In 1 Pet. 4:8 apostle Peter writes of the kind of prayer which shows well-thankfulness toward God, which is a prayer of stretched out love toward God.


Back to Rev. 22:9


In Rev. 22:8 did apostle John demonstrate a fully prone, stretched out bow to Christ Jesus?


Rev. 22:8 (LIT/UBS4) And I (kagō), John (Iōannēs), [am] the one (ho) hearing (akouōn) and (kai) seeing (blepōn) these things (tauta).  


And (kai) when (hote) I heard (ēkousa) and (kai) I looked (eblepsa), I fell4098 (epesa) in front (emprosthen) to bow to4352 (proskunēsai) the (tōn) feet (podōn) of the (tou) messenger (angelou), of the (tou) [messenger, RE] thoroughly showing (deiknuontos) to me (moi) these things (tauta).


The scriptural evidence shows that apostle John did a bow which placed his head at the feet of Christ Jesus, the messenger of God who was giving to John the revelation of the Word of God, in fact, the entire book of Revelation.  This kind of bow, fully prone and stretched out, with your head at the feet of the one to whom you are bowing, was customarily reserved primarily for YHWH, the God of Abraham and the children of Israel.  This must have been the kind of customary bow which apostle John showed toward Christ Jesus, of which Christ Jesus disapproved.  Do we have any scriptural evidence of what kind of a bow, if any, mortalkind is to show toward Christ Jesus to highly esteem him, as he asked us to, for which apostle John quotes Jesus asking in John 5:22-23?  Yes we do!


Php. 2:8 (LIT/UBS4) He humbled (etapeinōsen) himself (heauton), he having caused himself to become (genomenos) attentive (hupēkoos) until (mechri) death (thanatou), but (de) death (thanatou) of [a] stake (staurou)!


Php. 2:9 (LIT/UBS4) And (kai) through which (dio) the (ho) God (theos) <set> him (auton) over above (huperupsōsen, and (kai) caused himself to be gracious (echarisato) to him (autō);


[he having given, AE] [to him, RE] the (to) name (onoma), the one (to) over (huper) every (pan) name (onoma);


Php. 2:10 (LIT/UBS4) in order that (hina) in (en) the (tō) name (onomati) of Jesus (Iēsou) every (pan) knee (gonu) may bend2578 (kampsē);


of [every knee] over heavenly things (epouraniōn), and (kai) of [every knee] over lands (epigeiōn), and (kai) of [every knee] down under grounds (katachthoniōn);


Php. 2:11 (LIT/UBS4) and (kai) every (pasa) tongue (glōssa) may cause itself to confess out (exomologēsētai) that (hoti) [the] lord (kurios) [of him] [is] Jesus (Iēsous) Christ (Christos), into (eis) glory (doxan) of God (theou), of [the] Father (patros).


Apostle Paul indicates to us that the proper bow to highly esteem Christ Jesus is a kind of customary bow which is done through bending one's knees.  In a fully prone bow the knees are not bent, but the legs are straight out behind the one lying flat on the ground on his belly.  I believe it would have been customarily proper for apostle John to show this kind of bow to Christ Jesus to highly esteem him, instead of the other kind of bow, a fully prone bow, which apostle John did show toward Christ Jesus, which kind of bow should be reserved only for Christ Jesus' God and Father, and our God and Father, the one true God almighty, YHWH.


Is anyone still wondering why the common social custom of bowing, and all of the scriptural records of various kinds of bows to show various levels of honor and esteem toward another, are coincidentally fudged out of all Trinitarian Bibles?  According to the Greek texts of the new testament, noticing those distinctions clearly shows that Jesus himself enforced a level of honor being shown to him to be less than the level of honor and high esteem which should be shown to the God, his heavenly Father, on account of the kind of customary bow which should be used.  In all of the Trinitarian Bible publications simply "translating" all of the inflected forms of proskuneō as "worship" handily removes this distinction from any reader's probing eyes, to help those omniscient scholars preserve the 4th century Constantinian "Christian" invention of a co-equa triune godhead.


Whatever was apostle John's level of intended respect or worship to show toward Christ Jesus (v16) in Rev. 22:9 through bowing to him using a certain kind of customary bow, Christ Jesus would have none of it!  Proskunēson in Rev. 22:9 is in the imperative mood, meaning it was a command.  Christ Jesus commanded apostle John not to bow to him using that kind of a bow, but to use that kind of bow to bow to the God, thusly stating that he is not the God, his heavenly Father.  Jesus made it clear that whatever kind of bow apostle John did, it should be done toward only the heavenly Father, the God.


What else has Christ Jesus stated about himself, or has his apostles of him stated about him, in relationship to the God, about his own Christology and orthodoxy?  All of this scriptural evidence has a direct bearing upon what apostle John meant to say in John 1:1, about Jesus' Christology.  Where are all of the records in the Greek texts

of Jesus' own statements, or those of his apostle, about Jesus' Christology and orthodoxy being Trinitarian?  There are none!  ALL of that Trinitarian stuff is fudged into Trinitarian Bible "translations"!  It's all extra-scriptural and invented.  I call it Constantinian "Christianity", which was invented in the 4th century, which is virtually all Christianity in the world today. 


Christ Jesus was aware of bowing customs, and his heavenly Father's command for the people of Israel to have no other gods except Him.  And accordingly, Christ Jesus commanded apostle John in Rev. 22:9 not to bow to him , BUT to bow to their heavenly Father, the God.  In light of this, the Trinitarian "orthodoxy" declares God's first-born son, Christ Jesus, to be God Himself, and the leadership of Trinitarian sects command their followers to bow to, to worship, Christ Jesus as the one, true, highest God; thereby leading all of those people who consider themselves Christians into idolatry!  And then they claim that God and Christ Jesus don't do miracles anymore, like the ones in the gospel records and book of Acts!  Could practicing idolatry, worshipping Christ Jesus, a messenger of the God as the God Himself, have something to do with that?


In Mat. 6:5-13, a record of the "Lord's Prayer", of Jesus teaching his disciples how to get their needs met through the use of prayer to his and their heavenly Father, he taught them not to pray to him, but to his and their heavenly Father, the highest God (Luke 1:32)!  Jesus didn't say "pray to God", which wordage could be theologically misconstrued and thereby claimed to be a reference to a three-headed godhead, but specifically to pray to the "Father (pater) of us (hēmōn)..." (v9)Jesus specifically stated, "Father (pater) of us (hēmōn)..." (v9).  That's who Christ Jesus considered to be the one true highest God, his God.  Do you scholars see that?  That's specifically about Jesus' own Christology and orthodoxy, the words out of his own mouth!  Can you scholars see and hear that?  If not, then why don't you tear that page out of your Bible, instead of carrying around all of that weight, as if you actually care about what those pages say? 


What has apostle Paul stated in regards to how highly should believers esteem/respect the Father of our Lord Christ Jesus?  How deep should we "bow"?  In 1 Cor. 8:3-6 apostle Paul clearly defines the one and only highest God as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. 


1 Cor. 8:3 (LIT/UBS4) But (de) if (ei) anyone (tis) loves (agapa) the (ton) God (theon), this one (houtos) has been known (egnōstai) under (hup') him (autou).


1 Cor. 8:4 (LIT/UBS4) Therefore (oun), about (peri) the (tēs) food (brōseōs) of the (tōn) idolatrous sacrifices (eidōlothutōn), we have seen (oidamen) that (hoti) an idol (eidōlon) in (en) [the] cosmos (kosmō) [is] absolutely not one thing (ouden)


And (kai) that (hoti) [there is] absolutely not one (oudeis) God (theos) if (ei) not (mē) one (heis)!


1 Cor. 8:5 (LIT/UBS4) Because (gar) if so be it (eiper) there are (eisin) ones being said (legomenoi) [to be] gods (theoi) also (kai), whether (eite) in (en) heaven (ouranō), whether (eite) upon (epi) land (gēs), (as (hōsper) [it is said] there are (eisin) many (polloi) gods (theoi), and (kai) many (polloi) lords (kurioi)),


1 Cor. 8:6 (LIT/UBS4) BUT (all’), to us (hēmin) [there is] one (heis) God (theos), the (ho) Father (patēr), out (ex) of whom (hou) [are] all things (panta);


and (kai) we (hēmeis) [are] into (eis) him (auton)


And (kai) [there is] one (heis) lord (kurios), Jesus (Iēsous) Christ (Christos), through (di’) [the sake] of whom (hou) [are] all the things (ta panta);


and (kai) we (hēmeis) [are] through (di’) [the sake] of him (autou).


(Dia or di') through, shows agency.


Can you scholars see and hear that?  Just look at those parts I've underlined instead of imagining stuff that's not in there.  You scholars, quit drinking your own koolaid, i.e., reading your own fudged "translations", and throw them down, and start reading the Greek texts.  And quit imagining stuff that's not in them!


From this passage it can be seen that Apostle Paul's concept of "one God" was clearly not a three-headed monstrosity of pagan invention, but it was the Father alone.  All through the book of Acts and Paul's various letters to the believers throughout Asia we can see that he experienced first-hand most all of the pagan worship practices to idols, and to the false gods they represented, from he personally visiting those places, and from he talking, witnessing, preaching and teaching those people about who is the one and only true God, such as how Paul preached and taught in Athens on the hill of Ares (Mars Hill) (Acts 17).  These passages reveal yet more vital hard scriptural evidence which must be considered in forming a logical conclusion about exactly what apostle John may have meant in John 1:1, and thereafter, in his own writings.


What did apostle Paul preach and teach to the Philippian believers as well?  Apostle Paul taught them, as we should consider ourselves as being taught also, that the mindset of Jesus Christ was absolutely not to consider himself as being greater than, or even equal to in godliness, the level of godliness of his heavenly Father, the God, which the ancient prophecy stated would be his Father, the highest God (Luke 1:32). 


(You Trinitarian scholars had this verse fudged in your Bibles for so long (KJV), to say just the opposite of what the text actually says, and you used to call this passage a "proof text" to prove Trinitarian theology.  Remember that?  When computers came along, and Bible study software like concordances, analytical Greek lexicons, and online Greek texts, such as the UBS4, suddenly you had to un-fudge this verse a little in later "translations" because it became too obvious of a fudge.  Remember that?  Get ready, the rest of this study exposes many more fudges in your Bibles.)


Php. 2:5 (LIT/UBS4) Think (phroneite) of this (touto) in (en) you (humin), which (ho) [thought, v3, RE] [was] in (en) Christ (Christō) Jesus (Iēsou) also (kai);


Php. 2:6 (LIT/UBS4) who (hos), beginning to be [a] subordinate one (huparchōn) in (en) [a] form (morphē) of [a] god (theou), he absolutely did not lead himself (ouch hēgēsato) of [a] thing snatched (harpagmon), of the (to) [thought, v3, RE] to be (einai) equal (isa) to [a] god (theō)!


Php. 2:7 (LIT/UBS4) BUT (alla), he emptied (ekenōsen) himself (heauton), he having taken (lobōn) a form (morphēn) of a slave (doulou), he having caused himself to become (genomenos) in (en) a likeness (homoiōmati) of mortals (anthrōpōn), and (kai) one having been found (heuretheis) [in] a scheme (schēmati) as (hōs) a mortal (anthrōpos)!


Please notice the middle voice of genomenos.  This is how he began to earn a name above all other names.


Php. 2:8 (LIT/UBS4) He humbled (etapeinōsen) himself (heauton), he having caused himself to become (genomenos) attentive (hupēkoos) until (mechri) death (thanatou), but (de) death (thanatou) of a stake (staurou)!


Apostle Paul describes Jesus' mindset to us by stating that Jesus didn't snatch, i.e., steal equality with a god, or the God, in the thoughts of his own mind, although he was being in the form of a god in the beginning.  This sola scriptura evidence again shows the mortal-made triune godhead co-equal assertion to be in direct contradiction to Christ's true Christology.


There is no evidential scriptural wording in the Greek texts (only private interpretation of passages which private interpretation is called "evidence") to support the supposition that Jesus and any of his disciples and apostles taught the evangelism of Christ Jesus using references to a pagan triune godhead concept, BUT, just the opposite!  So then in light of all of these clear evidential passages of the holy scriptures, and more, how should we, or anyone having been educated to these passages, honestly conclude what may be the meaning of apostle John in John 1:1?


If apostle John was a disciple of Jesus Christ, and Jesus preached and taught that his heavenly Father was greater than he, then shouldn't we conclude that what apostle John writes in John 1:1 should be understood in light of what Jesus preached and taught about himself, that his heavenly Father was greater than he?


John 1:1 - Apostle John's Grammar, And Use of the Nominative Case


Now that we have seen some scriptural evidence of what Jesus states about his own inequality in power and authority with his heavenly Father, and apostle Paul's description of his own belief, preaching and teaching about one God, and his witness to us that Jesus didn't think in his own mind that he was equal to a god, let's look at an argument about the meaning of John 1:1 based upon the common usage of the nominative case in biblical Greek grammar.


Let's focus in on John 1:1 to specifically notice how his use of the nominative case should be understood in light of how other scriptural writers commonly used the nominative case in their own writings to distinguish what or who is the subject.  The following are four descriptions of how the nominative case in used throughout the Greek texts of the new testament of the Bible, explaining three common ways the nominative case is used, and one not so common way it is used.


1. The most common use of the nominative case by the ancient biblical writers was/is to use it to identify the subject of a sentence, usually a noun or pronoun, which subject would either produce the action of the verb or be affected by the action of the verb.  In many of these passages the subject noun is not overtly stated but a pronoun is implied by the inflected form of the verb.  


2. Another common use of the nominative case by biblical writers of the Greek texts is to identify multiple subjects within a sentence, usually nouns, by putting them in the nominative case.  This is done where the writer wishes to inform the reader of a list of associated but yet distinct subjects which shall all affect, or be affected by, the action of the verb (Mat. 2:3, 12:50, 13:55; John 1:45; Acts 1:13; Rom. 4:14, 8:35, 39; 2 Cor. 12:20; Gal. 2:9; Eph. 2:1; 1 John 2:16; Jude 1:18). 


3. Another very common use of the nominative case by biblical writers is to express other nouns and pronouns in the sentence in the nominative case to assign their attributes as defining qualities of the subject of the sentence (Rom. 8:6, 17, 35, 38-39, 9:4, 11:12, 15, 14:17, 16:21; 1 Cor. 1:30, 3:9, 5:11; 2 Cor. 8:23; Gal. 5:19-21, 22-23; James 3:15-16; 1 Pet. 1:24; 2 Pet. 3:10; 1 John 4:15; Jude 1:12-13). 


4. We can see a rare example in one of apostle John's letters where he uses both compound subjects along with nominative case nouns to define attributes for each of those subjects, all in the same sentence (1 John 2:22).  Sentences with compound subjects are relatively rare throughout the texts.


How do Greek rules of grammar shed light upon the meaning of John 1:1?


Dr. Mounce has stated in his book "Basics of Biblical Greek", what I assume is a reflection of a rule of Greek grammar, and especially a rule about the importance of the nominative case in the relationship between the subject and its predicate:


    "The nominative case is the case that the subject is in.  When the subject takes an equative verb like 'is' (i.e., a verb that equates the subject with something else), then another noun also appears in the nominative case - the predicate nominative.


When a predicate nominative is thrown in front of the verb, by virtue of word order it takes on emphasis.  A good illustration of this is in John 1:1c.  The English versions typically have, 'and the Word was God.'  But in Greek, the word order has been reversed.  It reads,


kai theos ēn ho logos


and God was the Word.


We know that 'the Word' is the subject because it has the definite article, and we translate it accordingly: 'and the Word was God.'" (Mounce, Dr. William D..  Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar, Second Edition.  Grand Rapids, MI.  Zondervan, 1993, 2003. 27)


What?  Mr. Mounce said, in reference to John 1:1, "We know that 'the Word' is the subject because it has the definite article, and we translate it accordingly: 'and the Word was God."  I believe that statement is not correct.  I say that we know "the (ho) Word (logos)" is the subject because of the nominative case spelling of logos. Whether an article is present means nothing in determining a subject. A nominative case verb, noun, or whatever, is all determined by the word's inflected form of spelling.  Of the eight inflected forms of logos used in the new covenant writings, only two are used in the nominative case, logos a nominative singular, and logoi a nominative plural.  The other six inflected forms of logos are two each of accusative, dative, and genitive.


Dr. Mounce apparently gives authority to the presence of a definite article as indicating the subject also, as well as the nominative case of the predicate when the predicate is preceded by an equative verb like "is", i.e., which is the verb used in John 1:1a, 1:1b, and 1:1c, and in John 1:2 From simply looking at the scriptural evidence in this verse, and elsewhere throughout all of the new covenant texts, the presence of a definite article preceding a noun means nothing as far as indicating whether that noun is the subject.  The use of a nominative case spelling is always the determining inflected element of a word indicating it is the subject.


Another issue which I haven't heard Mr. Mounce address is that theon in 1:1b is in the accusative case, and theos in 1:1c is in the nominative case, which means the writer is grammatically, and deliberately, distinguishing two separate and distinct gods from one another, or else both word spellings would be in the nominative case.  You want more scriptural evidence?  Just look throughout all of apostle John's writings and notice how he uses nominative case spellings to either associate or disassociate nouns from one another.  Trinitarian theology ignores the accusative spelling theon, and then interprets the meaning of the verse as if theon was a nominative case spelling.  By using theos in 1:1c apostle John handily disassociates that god from the theon God in 1:1b.  The Trinitarian theology assumes apostle John was mistaken in his writings.


From closely examining the texts of apostle John's writings anyone can see that he typically used the nominative case in the same ways as all of the other writers of the new covenant texts of the Bible.  And this is how he uses the nominative case in John 1:1 The words in green are in the nominative case in the Greek texts (UBS4), which case identifies the subject of the verse.


John 1:1a (LIT/UBS4) In (en) [a] beginning (archē) there was being (ēn) the (ho) Word (logos);

John 1:1b and (kai)
the (ho) Word (logos) was being (ēn) toward (pros) the (ton) God (theon);

John 1:1c and (kai)
[a] god
2316 (theos) was being (ēn) the (ho) Word (logos) .


For verification of the Word being a god, see Psalm 45:6-7, Heb. 1:8-9.


In John 1:1b two definite articles are used, but only one of the nouns is in the nominative case,  the (ho) Word (logos) Although God (theon) follows an "is" verb, was being (ēn), and it is preceded by a definite article, the (ton) , it is not in the nominative case but the accusative.  This means the (ton) God (theon) is not the predicate nominative of the (ho) Word (logos) in John 1:1b


In John 1:1c, a god (theos) is in the nominative case, and so is the (ho) Word (logos), and the latter so happens to follow an "is" verb (ēn).  And so we can be absolutely assured that the (ho) Word (logos) is the predicate nominative of a god (theos).  But there is no definite article used before theos!  This means the use of a preceding definite article before a noun cannot be relied upon as a proof indicator of a subject, but that the nominative case is the defining element of inflection to indicate the subject. 


And so now here is Dr. Mounce's problem, or anyone's problem:


If in John 1:1b the (ton) God (theon) does follow an "is" verb (ēn), and the noun (theon) is preceded by a definite article, but it is not in the nominative case, then either apostle John is dramatically contradicting himself between his statements in John 1:1b and John 1:1c, about exactly who is the predicate nominative, or else the (ton) God (theon) in John 1:1b is absolutely not the same god (theos) as apostle John speaks of in John 1:1c!


John's use of the definite article in John 1:1b in the (ton) God (theon) is his statement that the (ho) Word (logos) was not toward or alongside of Himself, but defines that the (ho) Word (logos) and the (ton) God (theon) are two separate and distinct beings, one toward (pros) or alongside of the other. 


Further more, the fact that apostle John states in John 1:1b that the (ho) Word (logos) was being toward (pros) or alongside of the (ton) God (theon), and not the other way around, casts the (ho) Word (logos) as being in a subordinate relationship to the (ton) God (theon), which agrees with many other passages of holy scripture by all of the other apostles, and agrees with Jesus' own witness of himself, more of which I'll show you momentarily!  


1) John's use of the nominative case to identify his subject:  


The Word (ho logos) in the first and second clauses, John 1:1a and John 1:1b, is not the God (ton theon) in the second clause, because ton theon is not in the nominative case as is the subject, the Word, but in the accusative case.  John immediately, in the very opening of his letter to believers, deliberately and grammatically, clearly distinguishes that the Word (ho logos) is not the God (ton theon) in John 1:1b, through the use of the nominative case.  Thereby John makes it perfectly clear that ton theon is not the same God as theos in John 1:1c, who is a god.  And in the third clause, John 1:1c, apostle John summarily states that, "a god was being the Word", or, as we would say in English syntax, "the Word was being a god."


Here in the very opening of his letter to believers, not in the middle of his letter, and not toward the end of his letter, but right up front, the very first thing he desires other believers to clearly know and understand is that the Word was not the God, but yet a god of some kind.  Apostle John clearly distinguishes for us, through his skillful use of the nominative case, two separate and distinct gods in John 1:1: the Word was a god, stating it in the nominative case, but not the God, stating that reference in the accusative case. 


Other passages, which are usually fudged in most all English Bibles, and most all English Bibles are produced by Trinitarians, show that the Word was a created being who worked for God to bring the entire creation into existence, as is explained to us in various passages throughout God's Word (John 1:2-3, 10; *Col. 1:16-17; Heb. 1:2, *3:2; and others.  You find them in your fudged Bibles!).  For example, check Heb. 3:2 where poiēsanti, meaning to do or to make, is fudged to say "having appointed" instead of "having made", because "having made" disagrees with the mortal-made triune godhead concept of the Word and/or Christ Jesus being co-eternal and co-equal to the Father.  According to that mortal-made 4th century anti-scriptural "orthodoxy", Jesus, who is supposedly God, can't possibly have a beginning, a "birth", be a created being of some kind.


Apostle Paul, the writer of the letter to the believers in the area of Colosse, wrote that what became the son of God, before it became a son of God when it was the Word, it was the first thing to which God gave a "birth", referring the the Word as "[the] first-born one (prōtotokos)" of every created thing (Col. 1:15).  In its initial "birth" the Word was not yet a son of God, which subsequent paternal "birth" was yet to come.  The spirit-based being, the Word, was [the] first-born one (prōtotokos) of every created thing.  It was the first thing born (tikto) in the "birth" of everything else created by God.  So then, was the whole creation "born"?  Yes.  Apostle Paul describes all of God's creation as having a beginning, a "birth".  The ancients, as well as us today, associate the word "birth" with the idea of something coming alive.  The Word was [the] first-born one (prōtotokos) of every created thing.  Subsequent to its initial "birth" in the beginning, the Word has yet several more "births" to come, according to the holy scriptures.  Each of those subsequent "births" produced a different result.


The next "birth" the Word experienced was a "birth" into a being of flesh and bone (Mat. 1:25; Luke 2:7; John 1:14), as Jesus Christ.


Then the next "birth" Jesus Christ experienced was a "baptism", a new "birth" above in God's gift of His paternal seed (1 Pet. 1:23), the God's gift of His holy Spirit, immediately after Jesus' water baptism from John the Baptist (John 1:29-34; Mat. 3:13-17; Mark 1:9-11; Luke 3:21-22).  This is exactly when, according to the holy scriptures, not mortal-made guesswork, theories and opinions, Jesus Christ became [the] first-born (prōtotokos) son of God, and [the] first-born son of many brothers (Rom. 8:29).  Up until this "birth" Jesus Christ did not have paternal sonship with the God.  God was not yet his paternal Father through God's "seed", His holy Spirit (1 Pet. 1:23). 


Christ Jesus had yet a fourth kind of "birth", he being [the] first-born one (prōtotokos) out of the dead ones, in reference to his resurrection (Col. 1:18; Rev. 1:5).  That's four kinds of "births" as I count them, according to scriptural fact, sola scriptura!  I wonder if any Trinitarian scholars notice these scriptural facts, and make these "birth" distinctions in the holy scriptures?  The "God", according to the mortal-made theory invented in the fourth century, has been [the] first-born one (prōtotokos) of some kind or another, already four times!


Christ Jesus, whose example we are to imitate (1 Thes. 1:6; 1 Pet. 2:21), was one being first-placed (prōteuōn) in all things (Col. 1:18).  Now it's mortalkind's turn, for all those who believe upon the name of Jesus, who have already had a birth into flesh and bone, to believe upon Jesus' name to receive a new "birth" above, a baptism in God's gift of His paternal holy Spirit.  And then to receive yet another birth, a birth into new life out of death and the grave.


In John 1:1c the Word which was being a god, was not yet a paternal son of the God!  But the Word was a creation of the God, and according to scriptural evidence, the first-born one of all of creation; which subsequent creation the God created through His instrumental use of the Word (John 1:3, 10; Col. 1:16-17; Heb. 1:2-3). 


The writer of Hebrews tells us that the Word was a messenger (Heb. 1:4,1-14).  Heb. 1:4 is yet another verse fudged into goo pucky on the barn floor in all Trinitarian English Bibles, which is virtually all English Bible "translations" with the exception of the LIT and a few others. 


Here's the KJV of Heb. 1:4:


Heb. 1:4 (KJV) having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.


This is what Heb. 1:4 actually says about the Word:


Heb. 1:4 (LIT/UBS4) he having caused himself to become (genomenos) a so much (tosoutō) stronger positioned one (kreittōn) of the (tōn) messengers (angelōn), for as much as (hosō) he has inherited (keklēronomēken) a different (diaphorōteron) name (onoma) alongside (par’) of them (autous)!


As anyone can see, the writer of Hebrews deliberately used the middle voice inflection in his choice and use of the verb genomenos.  He wasn't writing absent-mindedly, as Trinitarian theory-based translators assert through their adoption of deponent verb theory, which was invented and exists as a pretense to accomplish post-history revision of what the apostles of Jesus actually wrote.


In John 1:1 the apostle John uses not only the nominative case, but two other obvious grammatical tools in sentence structure, which all apparently work together to identify that the Word was a god


2) John’s use of the preposition pros, which meaning indicates the movement of something to or toward something else:


John's deliberate use of pros shows yet further that the Word (ho logos) and the God (ton theon), are separate and distinctly individual entities from one another.  John's use of pros functions as a spatial barrier to keep the reader guided exactly on the path of understanding exactly what was the Word which holy Spirit revealed to him, and what was its relationship to the God.  John's use of the nominative case distinguishes two separate and distinct identities grammatically.  John's use of the preposition pros distinguishes two separate and distinct identities spatially


Jesus himself uses pros, and thereby defines the meaning of it:


Mark 14:49a (LIT/UBS4) Down (kath’) each day (hēmeran) I was causing myself to be (ēmēn) toward (pros) you (humas) in (en) the (tō) sacred place (hierō), teaching (didaskōn), and (kai) you absolutely did not powerfully hold (ekratēsate) me (me)!


Pros is used very often in the holy scriptures to indicate the beginning of, or continuance of, a relationship between to entities or people.  And in many of the contexts of the usages of pros corresponding to relationship it is often used to show the submission and subordination of one entity to or toward another, toward the one to which it is coming (Mat. 11:28, 13:2, 19:14; 23:37, 26:55; Mark 1:5).  Apostle John used pros in this context of meaning because this is how Jesus spoke using pros, as apostle John quotes him very often (John *3:20-21, 26, 4:30, 5:40, 6:5, 35, 37, 44-45, 65, 68-69, 7:33-34, 37-38, 10:41, 12:32, 13:1, 3, 14:3, *6, 12, *23, 28, 16:5, 7, 10, 28, 17:11, 13, 20:17; 1 John 1:1-2; Rev. 3:20, 12:5). 


The preposition para, which means alongside, and pros, are often used somewhat interchangeably in the ancient Greek texts (Mark 12:10-11).  Therefore, we can’t simply turn our heads and hold our hands over our eyes and say, “Oops, I didn’t see apostle John's use of the word pros in the text, John's spatial illustration of one distinctly individual entity in submission and subordination toward another distinctly individual entity, as Jesus used pros to show this relationship and subordination (John 3:20-21)!”  It's already too late, pros is already in there in the second clause of John 1:1b of the ancient texts!  The Word was being (ēn) toward (pros) the God (John 1:1b), showing both the beginning of the Word's relationship with the God, and the Word's subordination to the God


In addition to these vital evidential passages of holy scripture which all have a direct bearing on exactly what apostle John meant in John 1:1, we have these other passages of holy scripture as well, in which Jesus makes statements which focus directly upon the issue of Jesus stating his level of equality with his heavenly Father, the God, passages of Jesus stating his inequality with his heavenly Father, the God, who is greater than he (*Mat. 9:8; Mark 6:5; Luke 5:17, 7:16; John 3:2, 5:19-20, 8:16, *29, 9:33, *10:38, *14:10-11, *16-20, 28, 16:32b; *Acts 2:22, 10:38; *2 Cor. 5:18-19; Eph. 3:16-19, 4:6; *Col. 1:19-20, 2:9; 1 John 5:20), and many more which would make this presentation too tedious with further elaboration, since the point should already appear to be well made to anyone who really believes and lives by sola scriptura


The writer of Hebrews, in Heb. 1:1-4, in a theologically unfudged translation, the LIT, states what was the Word in the beginning before it caused itself to become flesh and tent among us; that it was a heavenly messenger, an "angel", who stepped up and volunteered for the hazardous duty of becoming the promised redeemer of all mortalkind! 


Heb. 1:1 (LIT/UBS4) The (ho) God (theos), long ago (palai) having spoken (lalēsas) many portions (polumerōs) and (kai) many ways (polutropōs) to the (tois) fathers (patrasin), [having spoken] in (en) the (tois) prophets (prophētais),


Heb. 1:2 (LIT/UBS4) over (ep’) last (eschaton) of the (tōn) days (hēmerōn) of these (toutōn) He spoke (elalēsen) to us (hēmin) in (en) a son (huiō);


whom (hon) was put in place (ethēke) an heir (klēronomon) of all things (pantōn);


through (di’) whom (hou) He made (epoiēsen) the (tous) ages (aiōnas) also (kai)


(For all things coming to pass through God’s instrumental use of the Word, see John 1:3, 10; Col. 1:16-17; Heb. 1:2)


Heb. 1:3 (LIT/UBS4) who (hos) is being (ōn) a reflection off (apaugasma) of the (tēs) glory (doxēs),


and (kai) [who is being] a characterization (charaktēr) of the (tēs) understanding (hupostaseōs) of Him (autou),


and (te) [who is] bringing (pherōn) all the things (ta panta) [to come to pass through] the (tō) statement (rhēmati) [of Him], the (tēs) work of inherent power (dunameōs), of Him (autou),   


he having caused himself to make (poiēsamenos) a cleansing (katharismon) of the (tōn) sins (hamartiōn), he sat down (ekathisen) in (en) right (dexia) of the (tēs) magnificence (megalōsunēs) in (en) high places (hupsēlois);


A reflection is not the source of the light it reflects, but a reflection reflects light coming from another source!


Heb. 1:4 (LIT/UBS4) he having caused himself to become (genomenos) a so much (tosoutō) stronger positioned one (kreittōn) of the (tōn) messengers (angelōn), for as much as (hosō) he has inherited (keklēronomēken) a different (diaphorōteron) name (onoma) alongside (par’) of them (autous)!


The writer of Hebrews speaks of the historical origin of the son as "he having caused himself to become a so much stronger positioned one of the messengers..." alongside (par') of them.  That's a quote of the writer of Hebrews, the LIT quoting no more and no less.  See the preposition para in that verse, its inflected form par', a closely associated preposition to pros?  It shows the relationship of the Word, which became the son, to the other messengers as being one of them in the beginning, it being alongside of them.   It was alongside of them initially, until after it received a new name, the Word, which then caused itself to become alongside of the God.


Because of the significance of the truth of this verse, which truth dramatically contradicts Trinitarianism, the translators of virtually every other English translation fudge this verse into goo pucky;


- through ignoring the middle voice of the verb genomenos,


- and through ignoring the genitive case in the phrase tōn angelōn, which literally means "of the messengers",


- and through inserting into their translations the comparative conjunction "than", which makes the writer sound like he is disassociating the origin of the son from being one of the messengers, through whom (notice the agency) the God made the ages long ago (which apostle Paul also witnesses to us in Col. 1:15-16), and through whom the God has spoken to us over the last of the days of these!  That the God speaks to his creation through angels/messengers is recorded throughout God's Word!


- and through post-history redefinition/hijacking of the meaning of the word hupostaseōs (2 Cor. 9:4, 11:17; Heb. 1:3, 3:13-14, 11:1),


- and through other ways, if anyone cares to look more closely at what the ancient writer actually wrote!


Apostle John's witness, to anyone who can read Rev. 1:1, 22:8-21, shows us that after Christ Jesus arose out of the grave, and with the passing of 40 days, he ascended up into heaven where he still has a ministry, a heavenly ministry, in which he still works as a son and a prophet (Luke 1:32, 76), and a slave and angel/messenger (angelou) for his heavenly Father, the highest God (Luke 1:32, 76).  The sola scriptura terminology used by the witnesses of Jesus, his own disciples and apostles, absolutely does not indicate Jesus having a co-equality of any kind with the highest God, but exactly the opposite, subordination to and inequality with his heavenly Father, the highest God, in all three phases of his ministry; 1) in his pre-earthly ministry as the Word, 2) and then in his earthly ministry after the Word became flesh and tented among us, 3) and then again in his post-earthly ministry after he ascended up into heaven shortly after his resurrection out of dead ones!


Pros shows us that the Word was toward the God in the beginning (John 1:1a, 1b).  


Para shows us that the Word which became flesh, Christ Jesus, stayed or remained alongside the God, which staying or remaining alongside the God shows continued submission and subordination to the God (Mark 12:10-11; John 1:14, 4:40-41, *5:44, 6:45-46, 7:29, 8:26, 38, 40, 9:16, 33, 10:18, 14:17, 23, 25, 15:15, 26, 16:27-28, 17:5, 7-8, Rev. 2:28, 3:18).

In John 5:44, Jesus teaches us that we are to do as he did, first as the Word, and then as Christ Jesus, searching for his own glory through staying and remaining alongside of his heavenly Father.  Apostle Paul preaches and teaches this also in Rom. 6:13, stand yourselves alongside (parastēsate heautous) to the God.  As we can see here apostle Paul uses the compound parastēsate, in the sense of us choosing sides.   Mark 12:10-11 states that Christ Jesus caused himself to come to pass, i.e., caused himself to accomplish all that he accomplished as a heavenly and earthly agent of his heavenly Father through staying and keeping himself alongside of the Lord God!  This is a prime example for us to follow.  Some Christian denominations refer to this as "staying in fellowship" with the Father and his son Christ Jesus (1 John 1:3).  This aspect of discipleship can be seen through tracking the word menō, meaning to stay or to remain, and its inflected forms throughout the new covenant writings (John 15:4, 9-10; 2 Tim. 3:14-15; 1 John 2:24-28).


The idea of choosing which side to submit to and to become subordinate to is the inherent contextual meaning in the uses of pros and para in the verse references I've given above for each of those prepositions.  To which service are we going to stand ourselves alongside, to submit and to become subordinate to it: to serve sin or righteousness (Rom. 6:16)?  Are we going to choose to serve death or life?  Are we going to choose to serve the devil or the highest God, our heavenly Father?  In the beginning the Word chose to be toward (pros) the God (John 1:1b), and it chose to remain alongside (para) the God (John 1:14).


3) John's use of a non-articulated theos


The word translated in the LIT as a god, theos in John 1:1c, is not articulated in the text, i.e., preceded by a definite article "the" (Gk. ho and other forms), which usages of an article in the Greek texts is very often used to indicate a definite proper noun, but not necessarily a subject.  This fact, along with the fact that theos is in the nominative case, and the phrase the God is obviously an articulated definite proper noun and absolutely not in the nominative case, point to this translator's conclusion that theos must be considered an indefinite noun.  Therefore the LIT supplies the article "a" as in a god, only because our western English language grammar, in this example, calls for an indefinite article to distinguish it as an indefinite common noun. 


According to English grammar, the general rule is:


Non-proper nouns that are preceded by the article 'a(n)' are considered indefinite nouns, while non-proper nouns that are preceded by the article 'the' are considered definite nouns.  With the exception of how indefinite nouns are spoken in English, through preceding them with the spoken article  'a(n)', this rule agrees very closely with the ancient Koiné Greek rule of grammar concerning the usage and identification of both definite and indefinite nouns. 




"Let's go to the church." - I want to go to a specific church (definite)

"Let's go to a church." - I don't care which church I go to (indefinite)


In John 1:1 the deliberate non-use of the definite article is very meaningful.  Apostle John is not accidentally or absentmindedly writing!

In John 1:1 these three grammatical components, 1) John's use of the nominative case , 2) and John’s use of the preposition pros, 3) and John's use of a non-articulated theos symphonize together to describe exactly what he meant, that the Word was absolutely not the God, but yet it was a god.  The way apostle John crafted this verse is dramatic.  John is not simply suggesting that the Word is not the God, he’s emphatically stating it, using a combination of at least these three grammatical components. 


These grammatical components in this verse, along with all of the other passages in related local and remote contexts about who was the Word, especially Christ Jesus' own witness of himself, evidentially lock-in for me what apostle John meant, that the Word was absolutely not the God, BUT, the Word was a god, who was in subjection and submission toward (pros) the God


The Word, God's Messenger


Some, have attempted to harmonize the general themes Christ Jesus portrays in each of the four gospel records:


Matthew - Jehovah's King

Mark - Jehovah's Servant

Luke - Jehovah's Man

John - Jehovah Himself


These themes may vary depending upon various scholar's opinions.  But from actually looking at the opening subject matters of each of the four gospel records, assuming those writers followed a pattern of informing their readers right up front of the general subject and thematic content of their writings, then the theme of apostle John's gospel must be the Word, the God's messenger.


Matthew tells us right up front what is the thematic subject of his entire scroll/book:


Mat. 1:1 (LIT/UBS4) [This is] a scroll (biblos) of [the] genesis (geneseōs) of Jesus (Iēsou) Christ (Christou), [a] son (huiou) of David (Dabid), [a] son (huiou) of Abraham (Abraam).


Concerning the Christology of Christ Jesus in the flesh, Matthew's witness in his first chapter is about the royal lineage of the ancestry of Jesus' mother in the flesh, Mariam, and thusly Jesus' royal lineage in the flesh, which entitled him to be a king of Israel.  Matthew's second chapter is about the magi coming from the East the find the child born to be a "king of the Judeans".  throughout Matthew's witness he establishes that Jesus Christ was a king of Israel in the flesh.  Everything about Jesus which Matthew wrote should be understood in light of this contextual framework, that Jesus Christ was a king of Israel.


So far we have:


Matthew - The King of Israel


Mark tells us right up front what is the thematic subject of his witness about Christ Jesus:

Mark 1:1 (LIT/UBS4) [The] beginning (archē) of the (tou) Evangelism (euangeliou) of Jesus (Iēsou) Christ (Christou), son (huiou) of God (theou),

Concerning Jesus Christ's purpose, Mark's witness is to us begins with his introduction to us of Jesus Christ's role as an evangelist, sent to "preach the evangelism of the God" (Mark 1:14), about the soon to come "Kingdom of the God" (Mark 1:15).  Secondarily, Mark introduces us to the prophet John, the one baptizing, who was sent to preach a baptism of repentance to Israel (Mark 1:2-8).  Everything about Jesus which Mark wrote should be understood in light of this contextual framework, that Jesus Christ preached the true evangelism/orthodoxy of God, his heavenly Father, about the soon coming Kingdom of the God.


So far now we have:


Matthew - The King of Israel

Mark - The Evangelist


Luke's witness doesn't tell us right up front what is the primary thematic subject of his witness about Christ Jesus, but rather his witness is a digest of the things which Jesus Christ did throughout all of his earthly ministry.  Luke's approach in recording for us his witness is to record not only his own, but the witnesses he received from others, other eyewitnesses and "under-oarsmen" of Christ, arranging all of this historical information into a form of a digest, a digest of the things Jesus Christ fulfilled, throughout his earthly ministry.


Luke 1:1 (LIT/UBS4) So be it since (epeidēper) many (polloi) took upon hand (epecheirēsan) to cause themselves to arrange up (anataxasthai) a digest (diēgēsin) about (peri) the (tōn) practical issues (pragmatōn) having been fulfilled (peplērophorēmenōn) among (en) us (hēmin),


Luke 1:2 (LIT/UBS4) down according to as (kathōs) the ones (hoi) from (ap’) [the] beginning (archēs) passed along (paredosan) to us (hēmin), they having caused themselves to become (genomenoi) eyewitnesses (autoptai) and (kai) under-oarsmen5257 (hupēretai) of the (tou) Word (logou),


A very apropos title for Luke's gospel record could be The Acts of Jesus Christ.  Luke's digest form in his "gospel" record, of recording what he and other eyewitnesses saw Jesus Christ do, is identical to Luke's digest form he uses in the Acts of The Apostles


Because of Luke's preference for using a digest form for recording what all of the associated witnesses of Jesus Christ saw him do, there are no announced main themes about Jesus' Christology or purpose specifically given in the beginnings of either the the "gospel" of Luke or the Book of Acts.  Those digests contain many varied facts and subject matters related to Jesus' Christology and purpose throughout those digests.   


But like Mark's book, Luke begins by introducing us to both Jesus Christ and to John the Baptist, but in reverse order, explaining in much detail first how the birth of John the Baptist came to pass (Luke 1:5-25), and then how the birth of Jesus Christ came to pass (Luke 1:26-38). 


So far now we have:


Matthew - The King of Israel

Mark - The Evangelist

Luke - A Digest of the Acts of Jesus

John - ?

Acts - A Digest of the Acts of the Apostles


In John 1:1 the first thing apostle John does in the first verse of his witness to us is to introduce us to the Word.  Why do you suppose apostle John chose that particular descriptive title for Christ Jesus?  Apostle John doesn't immediately say to us in so many words, "I chose that title as a reference to him because...".  But isn't that what a messenger is supposed to do, bring the "word" or words of his superior to the ones to whom he has been sent?  Isn't a messenger supposed to carry a message to someone on behalf of another? 


From reading any and all of apostle John's writings, especially the ones titled John and Revelation, it's obvious to anyone who can see John's references to Jesus referring to himself as being sent in the book of John, and to John's references to Christ Jesus as being a messenger in the book of Revelation, that apostle John's witness of Christ Jesus' role in his earthly and heavenly ministries is as a messenger for his heavenly Father, the highest God. 


The evidential theme of apostle John in both his gospel witness and in his book titled Revelation, is of the Word as a messenger (angelos), one sent (pempō) from the God to deliver God's latest revelation of His redemptive plan to mortalkind (Heb. 1:1-4).  Of the 81 usages of the inflected forms of pempō, meaning to send, 33 of those usages, or 41%, are used in apostle John's gospel, quoting Jesus speaking of himself as having been sent from his heavenly Father, the God.  If we include the book of Revelation, another 5 usages, that's a total of 38 usages, or 47% of them in apostle John's writings alone.


So far now we have:


Matthew - The King of Israel

Mark - The Evangelist

Luke - A Digest of the Acts of Jesus

John - The Word of God, The Messenger

Acts - A Digest of the Acts of the Apostles


Christ Jesus was sent primarily to deliver the God's latest revelation to mortalkind of His Word.  While Christ Jesus delivered this latest revelation given to mortalkind, the proof of his authenticity as the promised coming redeemer was confirmed through he dramatically fulfilling all of the ancient prophecies of his redeeming work, and the God working signs, miracles and wonders through him, to bring to pass the promised new covenant, and mortalkind's deliverance from the penalty of sin.


Luke 4:18 (LIT/UBS4) “Spirit (pneuma) of [the] Lord (kuriou, Adonay, YHWH) [is] upon (ep’) me (eme).


He christened (echrisen) me (me)  on account (heineken) of which (hou) to cause myself to evangelize (euangelisasthai) to poor ones (ptōchois)


He has sent (apestalken) me (me) to preach (kēruxai) of [a] deliverance (aphesin) to ones captured at spear point (aichmalōtois);


and (kai) [to preach, RE] to blind ones (tuphlois) of [an] ability to look up (anablepsin);


to send (aposteilai) ones having been shattered (tethrausmenous) in (en) to [a] deliverance (aphesei);


Luke 4:19 (LIT/UBS4) to preach (kēruxai) an acceptable (dekton) year (eniauton) of [the] Lord (kuriou, YHWH).”


John 14:24 (LIT/UBS4) The one (ho) not (mē) loving (agapōn) me (me) absolutely does not keep watch (ou tērei) of the (tous) Words (logous) of me (mou)!


And (kai) the (ho) Word (logos) which (hon) you hear (akouete) is (estin) absolutely not (ouk) mine (emos), BUT (alla), of the (tou) Father (patros) having sent (pempsantos) me (me)!

As can be seen from the scriptural evidence of the opening sentences of each gospel writer's introduction to us of the thematic content of their books, the sola scriptura evidential method used by the gospel writers is dumped by some scholars who choose to ignore it, to replace it with thematic descriptions which support a triune godhead concept, which is especially tragically misleading from the true thematic content of apostle John's gospel record to us of Jesus Christ as the WORD, the MESSENGER of the highest God sent to deliver the true evangelism/orthodoxy of God, about the Kingdom of God. 

What else has apostle John said about the Word:

John 1:2 (LIT/UBS4) This one (houtos), in (en) [a] beginning (archē), was being (ēn) toward (pros) the (ton) God (theon)


John 1:3 (LIT/UBS4) Through (di’) [the sake, AE] of him (autou) everything (panta) caused itself to come to pass (egeneto).  


"Through [the sake] of him" - There's the agency again.


And (kai) without (chōris) him (autou) but absolutely not one thing caused itself to come to pass (egeneto oude hen) which (ho) has come to pass (gegonen)!


What has apostle Paul said:


Col. 1:16 (LIT/UBS4) because (hoti) in (en) him (autō) were created (ektisthē) all the things (ta panta) in (en) the (tois) heavens (ouranois) and (kai) upon (epi) the (tēs) land (gēs), the (ta) seeable things (horata) and (kai) the (ta) unseeable things (aorata).


Whether (eite) thrones (thronoi), whether (eite) lordships (kuriotētes), whether (eite) chief ones746 (archai), whether (eite) authorities (exousiai), all things (panta) have been created (ektistai) through (di’) him (autou) and (kai) into (eis) him (auton).


"through him and into him" - There's the agency again.


Col. 1:17 (LIT/UBS4) And (kai) he (autos) is (estin) before (pro) all things (pantōn), and (kai) he has stood together (sunestēken) all (panta) the things (ta) in (en) him (autō)


"in him" - There's the agency again.


What has the writer of Hebrews said:


Heb. 1:1 (LIT/UBS4) The (ho) God (theos), long ago (palai) having spoken (lalēsas) many portions (polumerōs) and (kai) many ways (polutropōs) to the (tois) fathers (patrasin), [having spoken] in (en) the (tois) prophets (prophētais),


"in the prophets" - There's the agency again.


Heb. 1:2 (LIT/UBS4) over (ep’) last (eschaton) of the (tōn) days (hēmerōn) of these (toutōn) He spoke (elalēsen) to us (hēmin) in (en) a son (huiō);


"in a son" - There's the agency again.


whom (hon) was put in place (ethēke) an heir (klēronomon) of all things (pantōn);


through (di’) whom (hou) He made (epoiēsen) the (tous) ages (aiōnas) also (kai)


"through whom" - There's the agency again.


Heb. 1:3 (LIT/UBS4) who (hos) is being (ōn) a reflection off (apaugasma) of the (tēs) glory (doxēs),


and (kai) [who is being] a characterization (charaktēr) of the (tēs) understanding (hupostaseōs) of Him (autou),


and (te) [who is] bringing (pherōn) all the things (ta panta) [to come to pass through] the (tō) statement (rhēmati) [of Him], the (tēs) work of inherent power (dunameōs), of Him (autou),


"[who is] bringing all the things [to come to pass through] the Word" - There's the agency again.  


he having caused himself to make (poiēsamenos) a cleansing (katharismon) of the (tōn) sins (hamartiōn), he sat down (ekathisen) in (en) right (dexia) of the (tēs) magnificence (megalōsunēs) in (en) high places (hupsēlois);


Heb. 1:4 (LIT/UBS4) he having caused himself to become (genomenos) a so much (tosoutō) stronger positioned one (kreittōn) of the (tōn) messengers (angelōn), for as much as (hosō) he has inherited (keklēronomēken) a different (diaphorōteron) name (onoma) alongside (par’) of them (autous)!


This sheds light on who were the gods, Elōhîym (plural), in Gen. 1:1, the gods being the one true highest God, and a god, the WordElōhîym can't scripturally be proven to be a trinity, but in consideration of all of these related passages, it can be proven to be a duality, a duality of a lesser god working for a greater god, the highest God, when we understand all of the new covenant passages about the Word's instrumental use as an agent of the highest God in the creation of all of God's creation (John 1:2-3, 10; Col. 1:16-17; Heb. 1:2).


These verses in John, Colossians and Hebrews define for us what was the plurality of elōhîym in Gen. 1:1, that it which was a duality, and not a trinity.  Everything that can be found in God's Word, much more than has been presented here, says that the God is the highest God, the God in charge of the creation, and that a lesser god, the Word was a created messenger which acted as the highest God's agent, not acting autonomously but subordinately at the command of the highest God to bring all of creation into being.  Nowhere, and I repeat, nowhere can it be found in the ancient texts of the holy scriptures where it is stated by the ancient writers (not fudged into English translations by erroneous privately interpreted paraphrases) that the Word was co-equal to the highest God!


So now what do you conclude that all of this scriptural evidence shows regarding what Jesus may have meant as recorded by apostle John in John 5:23?


John 5:23 (LIT/UBS4) in order that (hina) all (pantes) may highly esteem (timōsi) the (ton) son (huion), down according to as (kathōs) [all] may highly esteem (timōsi) the (ton) Father (patera)!


All of the evidence shows me that Jesus meant that he should be duly esteemed for the roles he has played in his agency throughout the ages to his heavenly Father, the highest God, as a messenger sent to deliver the latest and greatest revelation of all time about his and our heavenly father's plan for mortalkind's redemption.


Here's an honest translation of Gen. 1:1.  The only other translation which I know of in which the translators show that they have recognized the plurality of Moses' use of elōhîym in Gen. 1:1 is Young's Literal Translation (YLT).


Gen. 1:1 (LIT) In (bě) a beginning (rē šît) gods (elōhîym) have created (br) for themselves (ēt) the (ha) heavens (šāmayim), and (wĕ) for themselves (ēt) the (ha) land (eres).


From the records we have in John 1:3, 10; Col. 1:16-17; Heb. 1:2 and elsewhere it seems likely to me that the plurality of elōhîym refers to at least the one true highest God, and to the Word which was [the] first-born one (prōtotokos) of every created thing (Col. 1:15) and made (poiēsanti, Heb. 3:2) before all other things in God's creation.  Which Word was subsequently and instrumentally used by the God to form, make and created the heavens and the earth and all things therein, the cosmos. 


Based upon this alone, that the God and the Word constitute as a duo in this plurality, in no evidential way can elōhîym be construed as proof of a triune godhead of some kind.  It shouldn't be construed into anything else than what the scriptural evidence shows it to be, that the God produced and made for Himself a created being, the Word, an angel/messenger for Him to use instrumentally as a tool, in the manufacture of all of creation.  Based upon all of this mounting scriptural evidence from within the holy scriptures themselves it seems clear to me that the Word was absolutely not co-eternal in its existence, nor co-equal in its role as an instrumental agent in the creation of the cosmos, nor co-equal as a sent messenger to deliver the latest revelation of the God's redemptive plan for mortalkind.


What about the Sabellianism and Arianism Arguments?


Some writers mention these theological inventions as targets toward which apostle John was writing against in John 1:1.  This introduces the idea of apostle John writing against something, rather than simply writing in favor of his subject matter in John 1:1, or about any of his subject matters in any of his writings.  It's noticeable to anyone who may be paying attention to apostle John's grammar in John 1:1 that he is choosing his syntax, words, and their inflected forms, very carefully to make his point.  But this by no means suggests that he was writing against something.  That's no less of a privately interpreted mental soap opera than what Sabellianism and Arianism have both been claimed to be. 


Sabellianism became a theologically competitive idea (among those who are competing) in the early 3rd century, more than two centuries after apostle John wrote his evangelism of Christ Jesus.  Arianism became a theologically competitive idea early in the 4th century, over three hundred years after apostle John wrote his evangelism of Christ Jesus.  Why wouldn't apostle Johns' well-articulated scriptural evidence itself, throughout all of John's writings, not to mention it being in symphonic harmony with the writings of the other apostles, be well potent enough to combat against erroneous theoretical ideas, either then or two or three centuries into the future?  But of course, anyone's written ideas are only as plausible as anyone may believe they are.


But as if the idea has any credibility at all, that apostle John was writing against some unknown erroneous theoretical/theological ideas coming sometime in the future, then what about those obvious erroneous theoretical/theological ideas which were actually present and in discussion during the time of the writing of his evangelism of Christ Jesus (fl. c. 60–c. 100)?  IF apostle John could have or was writing against something, could it have been the truism popular among most all of the world's pagan religions?  There were many pagan religions with three-headed godheads already in existence, and still in existence today, about which apostle John could have written against, instead of him writing specifically in favor of the scriptural Truth of the oneness of the Spirit of God manifesting in and through all those who believe (agents) upon the name of Christ Jesus (John 8:41, 10:30, 16, 11:52, 17:11, 21, 22, 23). 


If a pagan godhead concept is to be forcefully overlaid over apostle John's writings, thereby forcing God's entire family, all those who have believed upon the name of Jesus, into a godhead of some kind, the resulting godhead would by necessity need to be infinitely larger to accommodate many more than only three "persons", or agents acting on God's behalf!  The ancient writers of the holy scriptures have referred to this, God's family, as a "mountain", and as a "city", and as the new "Israel", and as the raised up "tent" of David, and as the "one body of Christ", the ekklēsia, the assembly of God.  Against the backdrop of all of this scriptural evidence and truth, the theological concept invented in the 4th century of a godhead containing only three "persons" looks rather conspicuous, and ridiculous.  The ancient Biblical writers never used the word "godhead" to describe the God, the heavenly Father's paternal family, but those who have received God's seed (sporas, 1 Pet. 1:23) in a new birth above (Mat. 3:11; John 3) are now of His genus (genos, Acts 17:28-29; 1 Pet. 2:9), His family.




The opening declaration of apostle John is similar in nature to that of Moses in Gen. 1:1.  But apostle John identifies and describes another being of the plurality of elōhîym as the WordAnd apostle John characterizes the Word as a godlike being of some kind.  Apostle Paul classifies heavenly beings as being spirit-based beings (1 Cor. 15).  The writer of Hebrews states that one of the ways the God has spoken to mortalkind lately was through His son (Heb. 1:1-2), through whom (agency) the God made the ages (Heb. 1:2-3), who was previously a messenger of Him (Heb. 1:4).  Apostle Paul states that it was the first thing the God produced out of all of His creation (Col. 1:15).  The writer of Hebrews refers to him as something the God made (Heb. 3:2).


So therefore from a careful examination of the holy scriptures we can see that Adam was the first mortal being the God created among soul-based mortalkind, but not the first being the God created!  The scriptural evidence shows us that the Word, a spirit-based being of some kind, who apostle John referred to as "a god" (John 1:1c), was the very first thing the God produced, made (Col. 1:15; Heb. 3:2, "made", not appointed").  And then through the instrumental use of the Word as His agent the God produced the entire heavens and earth, the cosmos (Gk. kosmos), and all the things within (John 1:2-3, 10; Col. 1:16-17; Heb. 1:2), including mortalkind!  And that subsequently over time the Word came into the cosmos (John 8:23, 16:28, 17:5, 11, 14-18, 23-24, 16:28, 18:36-37) and became flesh and tented among us (John 1:14), still offering himself as the God's agent.  I believe that this is the true witness of holy Spirit working in and through all of the ancient writers of the holy scriptures, working in and through all of the agents of the God and His Word.


Further clarity of the distinct individuality of the highest God from the godlike being he created to be his agent in the creation of the cosmos, can be understood from an examination of Heb. 1 and Col. 1:15-20, and many other scriptural references (See Prov. 8:22-31; John 1:1-2, 14, 30, 3:13, 8:23-25, 58, 13:3, 16:27-30, 17:5-8, 24; Rom. 8:29; 1 Cor. 10:4, 15:47; Gal. 4:1-5; Eph. 4:8-10, Php. 2:6; Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:6, 3:2; 1 Pet. 1:20; 1 John 1:2; Rev. 3:14).


The scriptural evidence of the meaning of John 1:1, in both the immediate and remote contexts, shows apostle John chose his syntax, words, and their inflected forms very carefully to make his point that in the beginning of Christ Jesus as the Word it was as a godlike being of some kind, which the God used to create all of His creation, but that the Word was not the God Himself, as apostle John skillfully shows, withholding the nominative case in John 1:1b and stating the accusative, "...and (kai) the (ho) Word (logos) was being (ēn) toward (pros) the (ton) God (theon)".  If apostle John wanted to state that the Word was the God he would have written it that way using the nominative case appropriately to eliminate any possible equivocation.  But within his carefully chosen wordage he used the nominative case to grammatically distinguish another separate and distinct being from the God, and the preposition pros to spatially distinguish that separate and distinct being from the God, both to unequivocally point out that the Word was the agent of the God which the God used instrumentally in the beginning to create the heavens and the earth and all things therein.


How Has The God Used The Word As His Agent?


In virtually all English translations, versions, etc. the vast majority of the ancient writers' usages of middle and/or passive voice verbs are withheld from reaching the reader's eyes.  Middle and passive voice verbs primarily show causation.  Middle voice verbs show the subject's self-motivation in the employment of his own volition, while passive voice verbs show the imposition of the volition of another or others, and/or circumstances from outside of the subject, being imposed upon the subject, who is then required to deal with those circumstances being imposed upon him.  On account of the erroneous imposition of mortal-made deponent verb theory by translators and translation committees upon the writings of the ancient Biblical texts of the new testament of the Bible, the causational effects produced by those middle and passive voice verbs have been stripped out of the writings of the ancient writers of the holy scriptures in those translations, in a giant stroke of post-history revision. 


This has affected, and continues to affect virtually all English Bible translations, or should I say "translations".  When the subject is Christ Jesus, who is the prime example for his disciples, the one body of Christ, to imitate, the vitally important and valuable lessons which can be learned of how the mortal man Jesus (Rom. 5:15; 1 Cor. 15:21-22, 47; Eph. 2:15; Php. 2:7-8; 1 Tim. 2:5), the Son of Man, dealt with himself and others around him in his spiritual walk, is stripped out of English Bibles!  The LIT, which simply quotes the ancient Biblical writers, restores into English the effects intended to be portrayed by the writers of the holy scriptures through their use of the middle and passive voice verbs.   


The writers of the new covenant texts of the Bible were not writing absent-mindedly.  The ancient writer's usages of middle and passive voice verbs in their descriptions of how the Word, and subsequently Jesus Christ, conducted his own spiritual walk, both before and after the Word became flesh, run contrary to how those who adhere to Trinitarian theology wish to portray only the godliness of a second "person" of a "godhead" and not the mortal characteristics of the Son of Man Jesus Christ.  But neither the individual volition of holy Spirit, the God, working in and through Christ Jesus, nor the individual volition of the Word, or Christ Jesus, can be honestly and accurately portrayed in the writings of the holy scriptures without the preservation of all of the middle and passive voice verbs which were deliberately used to show causation in relation to a scriptural characters' own volition.


The following is an introductory passage followed by a list of the accomplishments which the Word and subsequently Christ Jesus caused himself to do as a messenger and agent of the God, to acquire for himself a throne at the right of his heavenly Father, and to acquire for himself a name above all other names.  Watch carefully for the writer's usages of *middle and *passive voice verbs which show causation, showing the Words' and subsequently Christ Jesus' exercise of his own volition to do the will of his heavenly Father, the highest God  (Luke 1:32), and the God's conspicuous acts of His own volition.   How can the God have a god?  the ancient scriptural writers witness to us that the highest God still is Christ Jesus' God (Mat. 27:46; John 20:17; Rev. 3:2), for whom Christ Jesus worked and still is working as His agent!


Mat. 3:13 (LIT/UBS4) Then (tote) the (ho) Jesus (Iēsous) causes himself to become alongside3854 (paraginetai) upon (epi) the (ton) Jordan (Iordanēn) from (apo) the (tēs) Galilee (Galilaias), to (pros) the (ton) John (Iōannēn) of the (tou) [water baptism, v11, RE], to be baptized (baptisthēnai) under (hup) [authority] of him (autou).


Mat. 3:14 (LIT/UBS4) But (de) the (ho) John (Iōannēs) was forbidding him to go through (diekōluen auton) [[a] baptism, v13, RE], saying (legōn), “I (egō) have (echō) need (chreian) to be baptized (baptisthēnai) under (hupo) [authority, AE] of you (sou), and (kai) you (so) cause yourself to come (erchē) to (pros) me (me)!?”


Mat. 3:15 (LIT/UBS4) But (de) the (ho) Jesus (Iēsous) *having been caused to make a decision (apokritheis), he enunciated (eipen) to (pros) him (auton), “Let [[a/the] baptism, v13, RE] go (aphes) at this time (arti), because (gar) thusly (houtōs) it is (estin) being conspicuous (prepon) for us (hēmin) to fulfill (plērōsai) all (pasan) righteousness (dikaiosunēn).”  


Then (tote) he let go (aphiēsin) of him (auton) [to be baptized, v13, RE].


Mat. 3:16 (LIT/UBS4) But (de) having been baptized (baptistheis), straightaway (euthus) the (ho) Jesus (Iēsous) stepped up (anebē) from (apo) the (tou) water (hudatos).  


And (kai) behold (idou), the (hoi) heavens (ouranoi) were opened up (ēneōchthēsan) to him (autō), and (kai) he saw (eiden) the (to) Spirit (pneuma) of the (tou) God (theou) coming down (katabainon) as if (hōsei) [a] dove (peristeran), and (kai) *causing itself to come (erchomenon) upon (ep) him (auton)!


Mat. 3:17 (LIT/UBS4) And (kai) behold (idou), [there was] [a] voice (phōnē) out (ek) of the (tou) heavens (ouranōn), saying (legousa), “This one (houtos) is (estin) the (ho) son (huios) of me (mou), the (ho) beloved one (agapētos), in (en) whom (hō) I well-approved (eudokēsa).”


For “this one”:


- who became the son of Me, see 2 Sam. 7:14; Psalm 2:7; Jer. 31:33; Ezek. 11:20; Mat. 3:*16-17, 17:5; Mark 1:9-*11, 9:*7; Luke 3:*21-*22; Acts 13:33; Heb. 1:*5, 5:*5, 8:*10; 2 Pet. 1:*16-18; Rev. 21:*3, *7;


- who was the first-born one of every created thing, of the heavenly messengers, see Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:*4, 2:7-*9, 3:2;


- who was the Word, see John 1:1-2; Php. 2:5-*6;


- who caused itself to be hand-chosen before, see Acts 3:*20; Heb. 1:6-*13, 2:5-*9;


- who caused itself to become God’s agent in the creation of the whole cosmos, see John 1:2-3, 10; Col. 1:16-17; Heb. 1:2;


- who was sent into the cosmos to do God’s will, see Mat. 10:40, 15:*24, 26:*42; Mark 14:36; Luke 4:18, 43, 22:42; John 3:17, 4:34, 5:30, 6:38-40; Gal. 4:4; 1 John 4:9-14;


- who caused itself to become flesh, see John 1:*14; Rom. 1:*3; Php. 2:*7-*8; Heb. 2:*16-*17;


- who then caused himself to become the first-born son of God, see Mat. 3:*13-17; Mark 1:9-*11; Luke 3:*21-22; Heb. 12:23;


- who then said “Yes” to cause himself to shed his own blood for the release of all mortalkind from the penalty of its sin, see Mat. 26:28, *39-44; Mark 14:36; Luke 22:20, 42; Acts 20:*28b; Eph. 5:*2, *25; Col. 1:*13-14; 2 Cor. 1:*19; Gal. 3:*13; Php. 2:*7-*8; Heb. 1:*3, 2:10-*17, 9:*12-10:20, 19-26, 12:24; Titus 2:*14; Rev. 2:*8;


- who shed his own blood to put through a new and better covenant between God and mortalkind, see Mat. 26:28; Luke 22:20; Rom. 11:26-*27; 1 Cor. 11:25; Heb. 7:22, 9:*15-*18, 10:9, *16-17, 12:24, 13:20;


- who caused himself to become a sacrificial high priest of God under the new covenant, see Heb. 5:6, 10, 6:*20, 7:*11-8:6, 9:*11, 10:21;


- who baptizes all, the ones who believe upon his name, in his heavenly Father’s gift of His own paternal holy Spirit, see Mat. 3:*11; Acts 2:29-33; Gal. 3:*13; Heb. 5:*9;


- who causes himself to build the new prophesied true “tent” of God, God's new domed-roof house, see 2 Sam. 7:11c-16; Jer. 31:31-34; Psalm 118:22-23; Amos 9:11-12; Mat. 21:*42, 26:*61, 27:63; Mark 8:31, 12:*10, 14:*58; Luke 20:*17; John 2:*19-21; Acts 4:1-*11, 10:39-*40, 15:13-19; 2 Cor. 6:16-*18; Eph. 2:20; Heb. 8:1-2, *8-*13, 9:*11; 1 Pet. 2:*4-8;


 who caused himself to do all of this to obtain a name above all other names except God’s, see Luke 2:21, 24:47; John 1:*12, 20:31; Acts 4:12, 29-30; Php. 2:9-*11; Heb. 1:*4; Rev. 3:12, 19:12-13;


- who caused himself to obtain his own throne, the throne of David, see Mat. 3:*13*-17, 19:28, 25:31; Luke 1:*32-33; Acts 2:29-33; Heb. 1:6-*13, 8:1-2, 12:2; Rev. 3:21, 7:17, 12:5, 19:*5, 21:*5;


- who caused himself to be seated at the right of his heavenly Father’s throne, see Isa. 16:5; Mat. 22:*44, 26:*64; Mark 12:*36, 14:*62, 16:19; Luke 20:*42, 22:*69; Acts 2:33*-35, 5:31, 7:55-56; Rom. 8:34; Eph. 1:20; Col. 3:*1; Heb. 1:3*-*13, 8:1, 10:12-*13, 12:2; 1 Pet. 3:*22.



Brother Hal Dekker