Mark 13:32 states the following (NASB):

"But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only."

This seems pretty straight forward to me. Not even the Son of the Father knows the day and hour of the coming that is predicted in Mark 13.

One of the attributes of Deity is that Elohim is omniscient - all knowing. There is absolutely zero that Yahweh Elohim does not know. There are too many passages in the Bible that make this clear. Isaiah 46:9-10 (KJV) will suffice for now:

"Remember the former things of old: for I am Elohim, and there is none else; I am Elohim, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure."

I have shown Mark 13:32 to many Trinitarians as well as Oneness believers and generally they usually explain to me that the Son really does know the day and the hour, exactly the opposite of what the passage blatantly says. The response goes something like this:

"Well, Matthew, he was talking about his human nature not knowing, but his divine nature really did know."

What this amounts to is someone saying, "I realize he said he did not know, but I believe that he really did know." Is this what Yeshua was trying to get across to his listeners when uttering these words? Was he trying to tell them that although he said he did not know he could at any point switch over to his divine nature and know all of a sudden? Do you honestly believe that is really what he meant?

Is is much easier to allow the passage to speak to us from its context. The Son of the Father doesn't know, right in line with the angels and me and you. This is what the Bible says, and there is nothing in the context of the passage that would lead us to believe otherwise. I'd much rather stay with what is actually said, rather than the exact opposite of what is said.

Matthew Janzen

I've been doing my best to read material by learned trinitarians lately. This coming up weekend I'm engaging in a debate with a Messianic Jewish Rabbi on the doctrine of the Deity of the Messiah. When dealing with Messianics you do at times encounter teachers who have no qualms with professing what classic trinitarianism already holds to. At other times the verbage Messianics use is somewhat hazy compared to modern scholarship in the area of defining just how "many" Yahweh really is. 
----------------------------- 

I was talking to my oldest daughter yesterday (almost 10) about the Trinity. She was telling me that her school cirriculum has trinitarian teachings within it. I knew this of course, and my wife and I pretty much have the children skip right over this kind of "Biblical" teaching. I asked her if she understood anything she had read about the Trinity. "All I know Dad," she said, "is that they believe there is one God in three persons." I then asked her if she believed this contradicted the shema. She answered quickly and directly, "Yes Sir." 

I teach my children to quote the shema at least twice daily. I want to engrain the teaching of Deuteronomy 6:4 into my children's minds. I want them to really believe in the Mighty One of Israel, Yahweh, and in doing so believe He is all alone; believe He is really one. To my children though, this is no great task. When they read Deuteronomy 6:4 they have no problem understanding the meaning of the verse. One really does mean one to them, but it seems that Christian theology today, one can sometimes really mean two or three. I have to ask that if one really means three, what does three really mean? Maybe a dozen? 

It is nothing short of bizarre what theologians attempt to do with the Hebrew word for one: echad. In Hebrew this is the numeral one. Brown, Drivers, and Briggs Hebrew-English Lexicon (a standard authority for Bible study) defines the word as follows: 

1) one (number) 
1a) one (number) 
1b) each, every 
1c) a certain 
1d) an (indefinite article) 
1e) only, once, once for all 
1f) one...another, the one...the other, one after another, one by one 
1g) first 
1h) eleven (in combination), eleventh (ordinal) 

According to this lexicon (and others I might add) the word echad means a numeral one. When small Jewish children learn to count today they are taught to begin counting by saying, echad. 

There are several crystal clear examples in the Tanak (Old Testament) of the numeral oneness of the word echad. One of my favorite examples is Ecclesiastes 4:9-12. 

"Two are better than one; because they have a good reward for their labour. For if they fall, the onewill lift up his fellow: but woe to him that is alone when he falleth; for he hath not another to help him up. Again, if two lie together, then they have heat: but how can one be warm alone? And if one prevail against him, two shall withstand him; and a threefold cord is not quickly broken." 

Here we see the word echad being translated as "one" and "alone." Are people really going to argue about the word alone too? 

Arguments for a "compound unity" about echad stem from somewhat of a "flim flam" by the presenters of the teaching. "One flock" to them indicates that the word echad somehow is speaking of a compound of sorts, a "uni-plural" in the verbage of certain teachers. However, it is the collective noun "flock" that is plural, while the word one retains its meaning of numeral oneness. "One flock" most certainly means one flock and not two flocks. "One cluster of grapes" doesn't mean "two clusters of grapes" and so on. 

The Hebrew word echad functions pretty much like our English word one. The word "one" in English means a numerical one, but it can be used in certain contexts to denote a unity between persons. For instance Genesis 2:24 says that the husband and wife are "one flesh" (not two fleshes). This means that the husband and wife are unified in marriage. Nothing in this dismisses the numerical oneness of the word one, it only shows how the word one can be used in a different context. Our English versions of the Bible show forth this meaning in 1 Corinthians 3:8 (KJV) were both he that planteth (the spiritual seed) and he that watereth are one. They are united. 

Trinitarian theology believes that God is one in being or essence but three in person or subsistence. Some trinitarian theologians are meticulously careful to define the word person in their declaration. They do this in a great attempt to maintain strict monotheism (belief in one sole God). However, the Bible just does not teach that Yahweh is three in "subsistence." Rather the teaching of Scripture is that God is one in being and one in person. What I mean can be somewhat illustrated by recognizing your "being" and your "person." I am a human being, that is "what" I am. Who I am is Matthew Janzen; I am one person. This illustrates to some degree what the Bible teaches about Yahweh. He is "God being" but at the same time He is one person - the Father. This is why passages such as 2 Kings 19:15a state: "O Yahweh God of Israel ... thou art the God, even thou alone..." 

You know, theologians can argue "till the cows come home" about what "echad" means in Deuteronomy 6:4, but let us not forget that the Bible is its own best commentary. Many times we find the Scriptures stating a commandment and then later on in Scripture the commandments meaning or greater definition is given. Such is the case with the shema. Go and read Mark 12:28-32 where a Judahite (Jewish) scribe comes to Yeshua and asks him what is the most important commandment. Yeshua quotes the shemaand the scribe responds by saying, "Teacher, you've answered correctly, for there is one God, and there is none other but He." Notice that this Judahite scribe believed the shema gave a numerical oneness, an alone-ness, to Yahweh. Yeshua did not argue with the scribe, He rather complimented the scribe on his understanding. Deuteronomy 6:4 most assuredly doesn't have two or three persons being unified, it rather has Yahweh proclaiming to be one in number. 

Take note that the scribe did not believe Yeshua was the Yahweh of the shema. The scribe believed the shema spoke of someone other than Yeshua. Yeshua agreed with the scribe. Yeshua thus did not believe that He was really Yahweh, the one God of Israel. Do you agree with Yeshua and the scribe? 


Matthew Janzen

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." [John 1:1 KJV]

Last but certainly not least we come to the end of verse one where we read, "...and the word was God". We have up to this point noted the following:

(1) In the beginning references us to the original creation and reminds us of Genesis 1:1.

(2) The "word" that was in the beginning is a plan, promise, purpose placed into a spoken word; in this case the spoken word of Yahweh (Psalm 33:6).

(3) This plan is said to be "with" Yahweh in the sense that in Hebrew thought a man's plans or words are "with him" that is to say "in his mind or thought".

But what about the word being God?

First, think about it in relation to you and your own word. Your word is expressive of your very being. Even “old timers” say, “A man’s word is his bond,” or “A man’s only as good as his word.”A man’s thoughts, plans, promises, purpose, words, etc. are (in Hebraic thought) said to be with him, and can also be said to be him in some sense of the phrase. Your thoughts and plans are reflective of yourself. I have a good friend who's been in carpentry for over 25 years. His thoughts, plans, and words often come out in the form of a finished house. The finished house show's forth the excellency and skill of the carpenter; the house is not one-to-one identical with the carpenter but is an expression of the previously existing plans in the mind of the carpenter.

Secondly, let me say that a technicality must be discussed here in reference to the translation of John 1:1c. Please stay with me as I know technicalities can sometimes be difficult, but you must realize that the Bible was not written in English and the translations into English do not always exactly “mirror” the original intent of the original language. In this case we must look at the Greek text of John 1:1c in order to determine the proper understanding of the “word was God.”

Literally the text reads: “kai theos en o logos,” which is in English “and God was the word.” In Greek this reveals to us that the word is the subject because of the definite article “the” before it. Notice that there is no definite article before theos (God), showing that this use of God is slightly different from the former use of God in this very same verse. John 1:1b “the word was with God” literally reads “the word was withthe God,” with “the” God meaning Father Yahweh. This is why translations of John 1:1c place “the word” first in the clause. It is because the subject is the word and God is used as somewhat of an adjective and not a noun as in John 1:1b. (Adjectives describe nouns and even adverbs at times. A very simple sentence to illustrate is “The grass is green.” Grass is the subject and green is the adjective describing the color of the grass.).

In English the subject comes first, but in Greek the subject can come second, but be distinguished as the subject because of the definite article before it. Such is the case with John 1:1c.

If God was to have the definite article then we could say that the “word” is to be identified exactly with the noun “God,” but this is not the case. An example in English will suffice. If I say “THE preacher is THE man, or THAT man,” then I am identifying the preacher as some direct, specific man. However if I say, “The preacher is man,” the word man becomes an adjective. In this case I mean that the preacher is to be classified as male, he is human.

This is why the New English Bible states, “What God was, the word was.” James Moffat renders this “And the word was divine.” In other words Yahweh’s (God’s) word, plan, promise, thought, intent that was with him was in and of itself divine because it belonged to him. It was the expression of the very being and nature of God. And this word became flesh or humanity and dwelt among men.

Yeshua Messiah did not exist literally in the beginning with God, but the thought, plan, purpose, intent, etc. of Yeshua Messiah existed in the beginning – in the plan or word of Almighty Yahweh. Remember G.B. Caird's translation of John 1:1, 14:

"In the beginning was the purpose, the purpose in the mind of God, the purpose which was God’s own being… this purpose took human form in Jesus of Nazareth." [New Testament Theology, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995, pg. 332.]

PS: For further explanation of John 1:1c please see the following resources:

1. Basics of Biblical Greek, Second Edition by William D. Mounce, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1993.

2. Jesus as They Knew Him, by William Barclay, Harper and Row, New York, 1962, pg. 21-22.

Matthew Janzen

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." [John 1:1 KJV]

In my last post I identified the "word" as the thought, mind, plan, purpose of Yahweh. This is seen to be perfectly legitimate when examining the Greek text behind "word" which reads logos. When one does not already have the presupposition that "word = Son" in their minds, one can easily see that there is no pre-existent Son being spoken of in John 1:1. Many scholars, theologians, and Bible translations have been faithful to the text of Scripture and rendered the remainder of John 1:1 in a fashion that does not equal trinitarian dogma, but rather remains true to the original intent of the text.

We next come to the statement, "...and the word was with God..." One may at this point ask how can a man’s word or more correctly in this context, Yahweh’s word, be with Him? At this point I need to bring up a concept which you most likely already believe, at least to an extent. In Hebraic thought items or even persons of great magnitude and importance are said to exist in the thought, plan, and purpose of Yahweh before ever coming into existence literally or actually.

For example passages like Romans 8:28-30, Ephesians 1:3-9, and 1 Peter 1:1-2 speak of Yahweh foreknowing His elect children even to the extent of glorifying those elect in his beginningless plan. Likewise 1 Peter 1:18-20 states that Yeshua the Messiah was foreordained before the foundation of the world but was made known or revealed in these last times for us. This must be a reference to Yeshua being the antitypical lamb that was slain from the foundation of the world (Revelation 13:8). We know that he was not actually or literally slain, hanging there beside the Father since the beginning of time, but in the mind and plan of Yahweh the crucifixion could not be thwarted. Yeshua always existed, but his existence wasn't actual it was ideal or as John later writes "in the bosom of the Father" (John 1:18).

Allow me to give a human example of this to illustrate. What If I told my second son Elijah, “Our car was once in the mind of its designer?” Elijah (6 years old) may respond, “But Dad, how did that car fit in a man’s head? It’s way too big for that!” The concept or thinking of my child would be inaccurate because he would be thinking that the actual or literal car was in a man’s mind, rather than the thought, plan, or blueprint (if you will) existing in the mind of the designer.

Consider these passages:

Job 10:12-13 – “Thou hast granted me life and favour, and thy visitation hath preserved my spirit. And these things hast thou hid in thine heart: I know that this is with thee.”

Job 23:13-14 – “But he is in one mind, and who can turn him? and what his soul desireth, even that he doeth. For he performeth the thing that is appointed for me: and many such things are with him.”

Job 27:11-13 – “I will teach you by the hand of Elohim: that which is with the Almighty will I not conceal. Behold, all ye yourselves have seen it; why then are ye thus altogether vain? This is the portion of a wicked man with God, and the heritage of oppressors, which they shall receive of the Almighty.”

Job 12:12-13 – “With the ancient is wisdom; and in length of days understanding. With him is wisdom and strength, he hath counsel and understanding.”

This last reference is to and elderly man, but it still significant in showing that in Hebrew thinking when something is logded in a persons mind or thoughts, that something can be said to be "with" a person or being. Thus Yahweh's plan has always been with Him; therefore the Son has truly always been with the Father, but not as a co-equal, co-eternal person. His pre-existence is in the plan of Yahweh.

I must also labor the point that the word "God" in the phrase "...and the word was with God..." is a direct reference to the Father. The term in the Greek is "ho theos" having the meaning of "The God" being used as a noun in the Greek language. In other words "The thought, plan, and purpose was with the God in the beginning." The reason for pointing this out will been seen even further in my next post which will examine the phrase (KJV) "...and the word was God."

Matthew Janzen