1:1¹ ^Word: Notice in the following texts that the “Word of Yăhwēh” is a person: “And Shemū’ēl not yet had known Yăhwēh, and not yet was revealed unto him the Word of Yăhwēh” (1Sam. 3:7). Does “revealed” mean only that the prophet was told the prophetic word, or does it mean the visible Word of Yăhwēh was shown to him? Consider vs. 10: “Then Yăhwēh came. Then he made himself to be stationed. Then he called as at time by time.” Here, it is clarified that a visible appearance did in fact occur. The concluding statement is in vs. 21, where the word “revealed” is repeated parallel to the word “seen”: “So Yăhwēh made added to be seen in Shilōh, because Yăhwēh had been revealed unto Shemū’ēl in Shilōh, in the Word of Yăhwēh” (1Sam. 3:7, 10, 21). It is not the prophetic word that the text emphasizes, but a revealing that can be seen: לְהֵרָאֹה lehēra’ōh. The prophetic word was not delivered in writing, so this is not what seen and revealed refer to. It refers to the fact that the Word of Yăhwēh (also “Messenger of Yăhwēh”) was seen by Shemū’ēl when he spoke.
As the word manifests the unseen thought in a spoken form, so the Word of Yăhwēh manifests the unseen Yăhwēh (the Făther) in a visible form. This is the analogy that Yōḥanan is teaching. The Word of Yăhwēh stationed himself in the holy place, probably next to the golden altar of incense. This does not mean every use of the phrase “word of Yăhwēh” refers to the Sŏn. Many uses clearly do not. But 1Sam. 3:7 is the only place where the verb “reveal” has as its subject “The Word of Yăhwēh.” And 1Sam. 3:21 is the only place where the verb “reveal” has a subject that is explained to be “The Word of Yăhwēh,” and vs. 21 is the only place where “Word of Yăhwēh” is set parallel to “to be seen.” It is clear then that “Word of Yăhwēh” is being used the same way as “Messenger of Yăhwēh,” (who is Yăhwēh), and “Arm of Yăhwēh” (Isa. 53:1), who is Yăhwēh’s right arm, the Mĕssiah.
Please note that certain modern translations have blotted out the connections, e.g. 1Sam. 3:21, NLT, “The LORD continued to appear at Shiloh and
1:1² ^And Almĭghty, the Word has been: Translation correction Note: “And the Word was God.” Firstly, the Greek word θεὸς stands in the Greek text as
The commentators have explained that θεὸς has the sense of an adjective in the last clause of John 1:1, that the attributes of divinity are being ascribed to the Word without equating the persons of the Făther and the Sŏn. For example, “The Word was with the Divine One, and the Word was Divine.” This can be more easily explained with the meaning of the Hebrew, which is the plural of אֱלוֹהַּ e̕ lōah. In the singular it means “mighty” or “powerful”, and with the intensive plural i̱m, “Almĭghty,” אֱלֹהִים e̕ lōhi̱m. The word sees use as both a noun an an adjective, though its grammatical form is a noun. Sometimes nouns (in grammatical form) see use as adjectives, e.g. “The
In a number of cases the LXX understands אֱלֹהִים as an adjective. Exodus 31:3, 35:31, πνεῦμα θεῖον = רוּחַ אלֹהִים; Proverbs 2:17, διαθήκην θείαν, בְּרִית אֱלֹהֶיהָ, (your) Divine covenant. Job 27:3, πνεῦμα δὲ θεῖον, רוּחַ אֱלוֹהַּ, (and the) Divine Spĭrit; Job 33:4, πνεῦμα θεῖον, רוּחַ אֵל, rūaḥ e̕ l. It should be noted that not all head nouns (
It is worth pointing out that !qs% could equally represent a nomina sacra for the word “divinity” or “divine.” θεῖος, since the first and last letters are the same. But as seen above, the Hebrew word already lends itself to this use. Another way to put it, “The word was with the deity, and the word was deity.” The word Deity is only a noun in English, and has no particular adjective form. But it sees attribute use, e.g. “The (false) deity Dagōn.” Even θεός is defined as “Deity” in Liddell. Indeed “Deity” is a synonym of “God.” Gen. 1:1 could go, “In the beginning of the Deity’s creating....”
The difficulty with the John 1:1 is not the word “God”
I find it helpful to use some synonymous titles, e.g. Lord. “The word was with the lord, and the Word was lord.” This, of course, is less potent than, “And |Almighty,| the Word has been ” (as still is). But it shows the usage meant. The word Almighty in English is classified as a noun and adjective. In Greek the word is παντοκράτωρ, compounded from the word “all” and the word “might.” It is classified as a noun in Greek, but is always glossed “Almighty,” which is indeed a noun, but is capable of attributive use. In fact, παντοκράτωρ much better represents the sense of אֱלֹהִים than θεὸς.
Also of interest here is Mark 15:39, ἀληθῶς οὗτος ὁ ἄνθρωπος υἱὸς θεοῦ ἦν: “truly, this man, the |Almighty Son| has been.”
Daniel B. Wallace allows the translation, “And the Word was Divine” (also Moffatt, Strachan and Goodspeed). The Hebrew substitution gives a better sense, “And the Word was Almĭghty,” because it tells what divine is, or what divine means. It means to be Almighty, whereas the word “divine” often sees a reduced use, e.g. “What a divine pastry this is!” Admittedly, even the Hebrew word almighty in the examples given above is seeing a reduced use, almost against the nature of the word, so as to be a sacrilege. For this reason, the whole matter does not depend on John 1:1c, but we need vs. 2-3 to define what sort of Almĭghty Yōḥanan means. He means the one who creates, the one who makes everything, with no exceptions.
I agree completely with Daniel B. Wallace, but take a different pragmatic approach. Here is what he says:
“Possible translations are as follows: “What God was, the Word was” (NEB), or “the Word was divine” (a modified Moffatt). In this second translation, “divine” is acceptable only if it is a term that can be applied
So we see above that Wallace allows, “The Word was Divine,” which I believe is weaker than, “The Word was Deity,” or “The Word was Almĭghty.” But Wallace prefers the confusing “The Word was God,” because he says in foot note 31 (on the same page), “Although I believe that θεός in 1:1c is qualitative, I think the simplest and most straightforward translation is, and the Word was God. It may be better to affirm the NT teaching of the diety of Christ and then explain that he is
I have done the translation so that there is very little explaining to do. Firstly the term Almĭghty is much less open to the weaknesses of the the term “divine.” John 1:1 means the same thing as, “Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Παντοκράτορα, καὶ Παντοκράτωρ ἦν ὁ Λόγος.” Furthermore, the Yōḥanan’s word order throws the emphasis on |Almĭghty|, which is why I place it first in the translation, but the subject must go second, and the verb last: “And |Almĭghty|, the Word has been.” Finally, the present perfect (has been) translates the Greek imperfect ἦν. Following Porter, I point out that the Greek imperfect laps into the present, so that the sense is “has been” (and still is) Almĭghty. The English translation “was” simply does not do justice to the Greek imperfect here, since it locates the assertion entirely in the past.
The Watchtower Version says, “the word was a god.” The point of the version appears to be that the word is a separate and independent god from the Făther. This is disproved by vs. 2-3. The Făther creates all things, and so does the Sŏn, therefore they are united in creative acts. The Almĭghty is One. This is like saying “the people is one,” a statement possible in Hebrew: הָעַם הוּא אֶחָד, although ungrammatical in English which needs to say, “the people
So then, what is wrong with the translation, “And the Word was God”? What is wrong is that English readers rarely perceive the word “God” as having an attributive, or qualitative use, or a plain adjectival use. It
1:1‡ ^בְּרֵאשִׁית הָיָה הַדָּבָר, וְהַדָּבָר הָיָה אֶל־יַד הָאֱלֹהִים, וֵאלֹהִים הָיָה הַדָּבָר׃
General note (vs. 1): The Word (Mĕssiah) was existing continuously prior to the beginning and at the beginning. The Word has been continously at the side of the Făther, except when leaving the side of the Făther on occassion. The Word has been Almĭghty, and still is Almĭghty.
The word Almĭghty is used in two senses, firstly for the Făther, and secondly as an adjective for the Sŏn. The almĭghtiness of the Făther and the Sŏn are a united almĭghtiness.
The Greek ἦν naturally expresses the past perfect continuous (had been), but is unable to distinguish between the fine shade of meaning between the English present perfect continuous (has been) and the past perfect continuous (had been). The first use is past perfect. The second is present perfect. The Biblical Hebrew, likewise does not distinugish between past and present perfect. It may be debated whether the Greek imperfect laps into the present. Porter says it does, i.e. John 11:8, “The disciples said to him. Rabbi, now they have been seeking (ἐζήτουν) to stone you, and still you go there?” That is they have been, and still are seeking to stone him. Therefore, like the English present perfect continuous, so also the Greek imperfect may lap into the present, i.e. “I have been married over 20 years,” includes the present.
The Hebrew perfect is a timeless perfect. Therefore the verse can go like this in Biblical Hebrew, “In the beginning the Word will (would) have been, and the Word will (would) have been at the side of the Almĭghty, and almĭghty the Word will (would) have been.” The usage of “will (would) have been” in English here may be called the future perfect in the past (or the future perfect). The past point of view looks forward to its future (our past) and looks backward from its future point of view and uses the perfect tense to describe it. The second clause can also be future perfect relative to the reader, and so also the third.
Therefore, anyone is ill advised to conclude that the Sŏn was only Gŏd in the past, and then ceased to be at some point. The translation, “The Word was God” might imply that he no longer is. A Hebraic translation, “Almighty the Word has been,” on the other hand is better, and strangely enough the English continuous present perfect actually can lap into the present, like saying, “I have been married over 20 years.” This means I still am married. This sense, according to Stanley Porter is not foreign to the Greek, and he does not allow it to be blamed on Semitic influence either.
A note of caution: I refer to English tenses as a way of illustrating range of possible meanings in Hebrew, and not as a precise explanation of how the English tense is supposed to be used. Further, I often bend the English tense to extraordinary use to capture the sense of the original, and even further, tense in Hebrew is supplied by other contextual elements. The word “will” has to be supplied by the translator. The translation English sometimes looks awkward in my translations, but even if so, as long as it is intelligible, it is better to translate the original precisely as possible.
1:2¹ ^at the side of: אֶל־יַד e̕l-yad. The Greek πρὸς answers naturally to the Hebrew אֶל. Therefore, I beg to differ with the use of אֶת found in Delitzsch’s Hebrew New Testament, which means “along with.” The Hebrew I chose was “at the hand/side of”, an anthropomorphic idiom seen in 2Sam. 18:4, “at the side (of the gate).” I have done this to allude also to Psalm 110:1, where in “at the right hand,” the word hand is often supplied.
1:2‡ ^זֶה הָיָה בְראֵשִׁית אֶל־יַד הָאֱלֹהִים׃
1:3‡ ^הַכֹּל עַל־יַדוֹ נִהיָה, וּמִבַּלעָדָיו נִהיָה אֵין־דָּבָר אֶחָד, אֲשֶׁר הֻוָּה׃
1:3¹ ^(Translation correction note): The plural in πάντα is intensive (translated with emphasis bars |Everything!|, which is equivalent to הַכֹּל, and therefore ἐγένετο may be translated as 3ms נִהיָה nihyah, “has become.” A subject is dropped from ἐγένετο due to its being middle, rendered Niphal in Hebrew. The translation for ἐγένετο is non durative due to the aorist. Hebrew contributes the perfect, and English the simple present (perfect), for “has become.” The final verb γέγονεν has a durative aspect. This is captured by the English progressive and present perfect continuous: “has been made to be existing” The Greek perfect answers to the Hebrew Piēl, or emphatic use with an infinitive absolute, or other derived stem (other than Qal). Pual in this case seems best.
The typical English version obliterates the Greek perfect, e.g. KJV, “were made...was not made...was made.” The progressive aspect of the perfect is ruined. Likewise the ESV (were made, was not made, was made). The NAU tries to import progressive aspect: “came into being...nothing came into being...come into being,” but this is a disaster since all the verbs carry the same sense. The NIV does better, “were made...was made...has been made.” “Has been” nails the progressive aspect. This does not quite capture the emphatic sense though, because it does not quite emphasize the resulting present state enough. I like to think the sense is also explained by: הַהֲוֵה יַהֲוֶה hahªwēh yahªwēh, “(which) making become, he will make become.”
1:4‡ ^בּוֹ הָיוּ חַיִּים, וְהַחַיִּים הָיוּ אֶת אוֹר הָאֲנָשִׁים׃
1:5¹ ^or הִשִּׂיגָֽהוּ, 1. catch up with, 5. grasp, understand. The Greek word κατέλαβεν may mean either, to grasp (understand) or to grasp (sieze hold of to overcome or tear down).
1:5‡ ^וְהָאוֹר בַּחֹשֶׁךְ נֹגֵהַּ, וְהַחֹשֶׁךְ לֹא אֲחָזָהוּ׃
1:6‡ ^וַיְהִי אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר נִשׁלַח מֵאֵת הָאֱלֹהִים, וּשְׁמוֹ יוֹחָנָן׃
1:7† ^Hebrew: יַאֲמִינוּ ya’ami̱nū = “(so that all) might make support (through him),” i.e. where make =
1:7‡ ^זֶה בָּא לְעֵד עַל הָאוֹר, לְמַעַן הַכֹּל יַאֲמִינוֹ בְּדַרכּוֹ׃
1:8‡ ^הַהוּא לֹא הָיָה אֶת הָאוֹר, כִּי אִם בָּא לְמַעַן יָעִיד עַל הָאוֹר׃
1:9‡ ^וַיְהִי כִּי הָיָה הָאוֹר הָאֲמִתִּי, הַמֵּאִיר אֶתּ־כָּל־אִישׁ, בָּא אֶל־הָעוֹלָם׃
1:10‡ ^בָּעוֹלָם הָיָה, וְהָעוֹלָם עַל־יָדוֹ נֶהֱוָה, וְהָעוֹלָם לֹא הִכִּיר אֹתוֹ׃
1:11‡ ^אֲלֵיהֶם שֶׁלּוֹ הוּא בָּא, וְהֵם שֶׁלּוֹ לֹא לְקָחוּהוּ׃
1:12† ^Hebrew, “making support to his name,” הַמַּאֲמִינִים. Greek: those affirming to be faithful to his name.
1:12‡ ^אַךְ לְכֹּל אֲשֶׁר לְקָחוּהוּ, נָתַן אֶת יְכוֹלֶת לִהיוֹת בְּנֵי אֱלֹהִים, אֶל הַמַּאֲמִינִים לִשְׁמוֹ׃
1:13‡ ^אֲשֶׁר לֹא מִדָּםִים, וְלֹא מֵרָצוֹן הַבָּשָׂר, וְלֹא־מֵרָצוֹן אָדָם, כִּי אִם־מֵאֱלֹהִים נוֹלְדוּ׃
1:14¹ ^Strictly, “only special one.” μονογενοῦς derives from only and genus. It means “one of a kind,” and not “only begotten.”
1:14‡ ^וְהַדָּבַר נִהיָה בָשָׂר, וַיֶּאֱהַל בְּתוֹכֵנוּ, וְנֵּרֶא אֶת כְבוֹדוֹ, כְבוֹד כְּשֶׁל בֵּן יָחִיד מֵאֶת הָאָב, מָלֵא חֶסֶד וֶאֱמֶת׃
1:15‡ ^יוֹחָנָן יָעִיד עָלָיו, וְצִעֵק לֵאמֹר, ”זֶה הָיָה אֶת אֲשֶׁר אָמַרתִּי, ’הַבָּא אַחֲרַי לְפָנָי הָיֹה הָיָה, כִּי רוֹאשׁוֹן־לִי הָיָה‘“׃
1:15¹ ^The Greek perfect verb γέγονεν is grammatically active but lexically passive. My solution is purely pragmatic.
1:16¹ ^The construction here is often explained as “Epexegetical καί” (
Yōḥanan first refers back to the ḥesed mentioned in vs. 14, then he expands his topic, adding a new detail: ἀντὶ χάριτος, meaning either that Mĕssiah’s ḥesed stands on his previous ḥesed (עַל חֶסֶד), or comes under the previous (תַחַת חֶסֶד), depending on whether he was thinking ἀντὶ as equivalent to תַחַת or עַל. In the parallelism vs. 16 ᵃ corresponds to vs. 17 ᵅ, and vs. 16 ᵇ corresponds to vs. 17 ᵝ.
1:16² ^The word here is ἀντὶ. Thayer, “1. properly, it seems to have signified
It is possible to explain the idea by תַּחַת. A king reigns taḥat king (Gen. 36:33, תַּחתָּיו). The son of the high priest serves “under” his father (Lev. 16:32). Therefore, the loving-kindess of Mĕssiah’s coming may be viewed as coming
1:16 ^כִּי מִמְּלוֹאוֹ כֻּלָּנוּ לָקַחנוּ, אָמנָה חֶסֶד עַל הֶסֶד,
1:17† ^The syntax here resembles that of case law in the Torah, where the case is introduced with “when,” or “As” (כִּי, ki̱) and the nature of the case stated. This is then followed by a statement giving the conclusion of the case, where in English we expect the word “then” to follow, but which is typically omitted in Hebrew, for example Exodus 22:14, “And when a man may borrow¹ from with his neighbor, and it has been broken, or it has died, the owner of it was not with him,
John wrote his account to combat the anti-law position among non-Yehūdi̱m, and the Gnostics. Here John is alluding to the fact that Yēshūa̒ was at Mt. Si̱nai̱ for the first dispensation of loving-kindness, and that it was Mĕssiah’s hand that put the Law into the hand of Mōshēh. It is clear from vs. 18 that Yōḥanan has Exodus 24:10 in mind.
Here is an amplified version: “16 Indeed, from his fullness, we all have received, and
Translators try to force a denial of the law into the text by forcing the word “but” into the second clause, “[but] grace and truth came by...” (KJV, NLT, NET, Aramaic Bible in Plain English, Peshitta, GWT, Jubilee Bible, King James 2000, AKJV, Webster’s), or ISV “because while the law was given...” etc. The articles are also commonly deleted so that the reader does not wonder about what definite “loving-kindness” and definite “faithfulness/truth” are being referred to.
The final verb in the clause, ἐγένετο, is singular, evidently treating “the loving-kindness, and the truth” as a singular concept. It might be better to understand “had become” as “was brought forth,” as the English use of the verb “become” is rather much narrower than the Greek. Thus Delitzsch is not completely off base in translating: בָּאוּ = “they (loving-kindness and truth) had come (by the hands of Yēshūa̒”. By using the definite articles (ἡ χάρις καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια) i.e.
The failure of most Christians to connect “loving-kindness and truth” with the Law is that they do not read the Law, i.e. Exodus 20:6, “and doing loving kindness to a thousand [generations], to those loving me, and to those keeping my commandments.” And Exodus 34:6, Yăhwēh is “great of loving-kindness and truth” (וְרַב חֶסֶד וֶאֱמֶת). They have been taught by false teachers to hate the law, and so it never occurs to him that Yēshūa̒ gave the law himself, and that the Făther’s commandments are his commandments (cf. John 15:10). Missing this, they fail to complete the parallelism in the text, and fail to realize that the Tōrah is the foundational love for the love of Mĕssiah.
1:17¹ ^The phrase, חֶסֶד וְאֱמֶת occurs in Gen. 24:49, translated, “mercy and righteousness” in the LXX, and then in Gen. 47:29, translated, “mercy and ἀλήθειαν,” translated by the NAS, “in kindness and faithfulness.” It appears on Exodus 34:6, translated in the LXX “mercy ... and ἀληθινὸς” and then in the ESV, “love and faithfulness.” The Greek word ἀλήθεια does not simply mean truth in the abstract sense. BDAG 3rd edition defines, “1. truthfulness, dependability, uprightness.” The Hebrew word in back of this is אֶמֶת n.f. “firmness, faithfulness, truth (contracted for אֱמֶנֶת from אָמֵן)” (see BDB). The word defines what is “faithful,” that is, what is true and reliable, what may be affirmed or supported. Also, the text is not referring to truth in the abstract coming into existence, but the reality of the truth as subjectively expressed in the life of Yĕshūa̒ on earth. In the abstract, truth is expressed in the written word before Mĕssiah and in eternal wisdom before that, yet he is the giver of it call. It all became through him. When Mĕssiah came he subjectively demonstrated the truth. Thayer states, “II. (subjectively) "truth as a personal excellence; that candor of mind which is free from affectation, pretence, simulation, falsehood, deceit."”
The loving kindness and the truth that became reality in Mĕssiah can also be regarded as the messianic promises in the Torah and the Prophets, i.e. the specific promised truth had become.
1:17‡ ^כִּי הַתּוֹרָה, בְּיַד־מֹשֶׁה, נִתְּנָה, הַחֶסֶד וְהָאֱמֶת בְּיַד־יֵשׁוּעַ הַמָּשִׁיחַ נִהיָה׃
1:18† ^The Almĭghty no one seeing, he has ever seen. The only special Sŏn, the Almĭghty being at the bosom of the Făther, that one has related him. Repeated in 1John 4:12, and John 5:37, which states, “And the Făther sending Me, that one testifying he has testified about Me. Neither his voice at any time heeding you have heeded nor his form ascertaining you have ascertained.”
1:18ᵅ ^The Greek word μονογενὴς means “one of a kind,” “an only one” It is equivalent to the Hebrew יָחִיד yaḥi̱d (cf. Zech 12:10; Gen. 22:2, 12, 16, where the Greek text uses τὸν ἀγαπητόν, the beloved one for יָחִיד). In context it usually means an only child or a special child, either a son or a daughter (cf. Judges 11:13; Luke 7:12; Luke 8:42; Luke 9:38), with or without the word daughter or Son. The word Sŏn is often supplied to go with the word where it is lacking (cf. John 1:14; 1:18; Heb. 11:17; Luke 9:38). It does not mean “only
Μονογενὴς standing by itself, as a substantive adjective means “the only special Sŏn.” (cf. John 1:14). Daniel B. Wallace points out that such is the case here. Against the adjectival use, i.e.
The Făther is not seen, but the Sŏn is seen. Both are Yăhwēh Almĭghty. This is the explanation between the clear cases of the Almĭghty being seen face to face, and the Almĭghty not being able to be seen. The only logical resolution of the two sets of passages is that there are two persons in the one Almĭghty being spoken about. The one who denies the deity of the Sŏn on the basis of a few passage about the Almĭghty not being able to be seen, has also to deny the greater number of passages talking about him being seen. This is not a logical solution in light of the revelation that the Almĭghty speaks of himself as “us” at the beginning. It is a position begotten from a deeply rooted tradition of rebellion against Yăhwēh’s interaction with his creation.
1:18ᵝ ^The better and more ancient manuscripts read Almĭghty in this place instead of Sŏn. The original text looked like thus: !qs%. The change was to !us%, involving only one letter. It could indeed have been an accident. But it is almost certain that it was not an accident. John 1:1 taken in junction with John 1:18 is an irrefutable argument for the deity of Mĕssiah, and for the observation that Mĕssiah is a person that is
1:18ᵞ ^Greek: εἰς. This does not mean “in” the bosom of the Făther, but like John 1:1 “next to” or “at” his side. The Hebrew is אֶל.
1:18‡ ^אאֶת הָאֱלֹהִים לֹא רָאֹה רָאָה אִישׁ אֵי־פַּעַם׃ הַיָּחִיד, הָאֱלֹהִים אֲשֶׁר הוֹיֶה אֶל חֵיק הָאָב, הַהוּא סָפַר אֹתוֹ׃
1:19‡ ^וְזֹאת עֵדוּת יוֹחָנָן כַּאֲשֶׁר שִׁלְּחוּ הַיְּהוּדִים מִירוּשָׁלָיִם אֶת כֹּהֲנִים וְאֶת לְוִיִּם לְמַעַן יִשְׁאֲלוּ אֹתוֹ, ”מִי אָתָּה“׃
1:20‡ ^ וַיּוֹדֶה, וְלֹא כִחֵשׁ, וַיּוֹדֶה כִּי, ”אֵינֶנִּי אָנִי הַמָּשִׁיחַ“׃
1:21‡ ^ וַיִּשׁאֲלוּ אֹתוֹ, ”מִי אֵפוֹא אַתָּה, הַאִם אַתָּה אֵלִיָּהוּ,“ וַיֹּאמֶר ”אֵינֶנִּי,“ ”הַאִם הַנָּבִיא אַתָּה,“ וַיַּעַן ”לֹא“׃
1:22‡ ^אָז אָמרוּ אֵלָיו, ”מִי אַתָּה, לְמַעַן נִתֵּן אֶת מַעֲנֶה אֶל הֵם שֶׁשִׁלְּחוּנוּ, מָה אַתָּה אֹמֵר עַל עַצמֶךָ“׃
1:23† ^The Greek word εὐθύνατε means “make straight” (imperative), but the text is quoted from Isaiah 40:3, where the Hebrew פַּנּוּ means “make to be turned (obstacles out of the way)”; Piel imperative.
1:23‡ ^וְהוּא אָמַר, ”אֲנִי ’קוֹל קוֹרֵא בַמִּדְבָּר פַּנּוּ דֶּרֶך יַהוֶה,‘“ כַּאֲשֶׁר אָמַר יְשַׁעְיָהוּ הַנָּבִיא׃
1:24‡ ^ וְהַשְּׁלוּחִים הָיוּ מִן־הַפְּרוּשִׁים׃
1:25‡ ^ וַיִּשׁאָלוּהוּ, וַיֹּאמרוּ אֵלָיו, ”לָמָה אֵפוֹא אַתָּה מַטְבִּיל אִם־אֵינךָ הַמָּשִׁיחַ, וְלֹא אֵלִיָּהוּ, וְלֹא הַנָּבִיא“׃
1:26‡ ^וַיַּעַן יוֹחָנָן אֹתָם, לֵאמֹר, ”אֲנִי מַטְבִּיל בַּמָּיִם׃ בְּתוֹכֲכֶם אִישׁ מְיַצֵּב אֲשֶׁר לֹא נִכַּרתֶּם,
1:27‡ ^ הוּא הַבָּא אַחֲרַי, לַאֲשֶׁר אֵינֶנִּי רָאוּי לְהַתּיר אֶת שְׂרוֹךְ נְעָלָיו“׃
1:28‡ ^הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶה, בְּבֵית עַניָה, הָיוּ, מֵעֵבֶר הַיַּרדֵּן אֲשֶׁר שָׁם הָיָה יוֹחָנָן מַטבִּיל׃
1:29¹ ^הַנֹּשֵׂא hannōsē̕ From the verb נ׳שׂ׳א n-sh-̕ , “to bear, to carry away, to lift up, to take away.”
1:29‡ ^וַיְהִי מִמָּחֳרָת, וְיַּרא אֶת יֵשׁוּעַ בָּא אֵלָיו, וַיֹּאמֶר, ”הִנֵּה, שֵׂה הָאֱלֹהִים, הַנֹּשֵׂא חַטַּאת הָעוֹלָם!׃
1:30¹ ^ἔμπροσθέν μου is equivalent to לְפָנָי lepanai̱. The word is used in both the sense of time before, really time at the face of someone looking back in time, and also in the sense of place, in which someone stands before another, or goes before another, “at the face of.” Yōḥanan is using the word in both senses, and possible a future sense also. Mēssiah comes both before and after him. He ranks before him, and he creates before him, and after him.
1:30² ^“Headmost:” רֹאשׁוֹן rō’shōn = πρῶτός. Here the Greek word is used in the sense of πρότερος, which is used in both a comparative and superlative sense (cf. LSJ), the “foremost” in rank, and the “foremost” in time. This is thought to be the same as the word רִאשׁוֹן ri’shōn, which may originally have had the sense of “headmost,” but however, does not have this meaning any longer. Therefore I have pointed the word רֹאשׁוֹן, “head” joined with the archaic Aramaic intensive ending ־וֹן, ōn. The sense is the same as the Greek, the “headmost,” or using coined English, “firstest.”
1:30‡ ^זֶה הוּא עַל אֲשֶׁר אָמַרתִּי, ’אַחֲרַי יָבֹא אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר לְפָנָי הָיֹה הָיָה, כִּי רֹאשׁוֹן לִי הָיָה‘׃
1:31‡ ^וְאֲנִי לֹא נִכַּרתִּי אֹתוֹ, אֶלָא לְמַעַן יִגָּלֶה בְיִשׂרָאֵל, עַל־כֵּן בָּאתִי אֲנִי מַטבִּיל בַּמָּיִם“׃
1:32‡ ^וַיָּעֶד יוֹחָנָן, לֵאמֹר ”כִּי הָראֵה הָראֵיתִי אֶת הָרוּחַ יֹרֶדֶת כְּיוֹנָה מִשָּׁמַיִם, וַתָּנַח עָלָיו׃
Technical notes, vs. 33: הַהוּא אָמַר compare Gen. 10:11, הַהוּא יָצָא, LXX: ἐκείνης ἐξῆλθεν.
1:33‡ ^וְאֲנִי לֹא הִכַּרתִּי אֹתוֹ, אֶלָּא שֶׁהַשּׁוֹלֵחַ אֹתִי לְהַטבִּיל בַּמַּיִם, הַהוּא אָמַר אֶלַי, ’עַל־מִי אֲשֶׁר תִּרְאֶה הָרוּחַ רֹרֶדֶת וְנָחָה עָלָיו, זֶה הוּא הַמְּטַבֵּל בְּרוּחַ קָּדוֹשׁ‘׃
1:34¹ ^And being made to see, I have been made to see, and making witnessed, I have made witnessed that this is the Almĭghty Sŏn. This is the same as saying, הַבֵּן הָאֱלֹהִים ha-bēn ha-e̕ lōhi̱m (ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ = o!us%tou!qs%), and means “the Almĭghty Sŏn.” The Almĭghty Sŏn is still the Sŏn of the Almĭghty, but he is also of the same nature. See John 19:7. Nebūḳadnetsar referred to Mĕssiah as “the Sŏn of gŏds” בַּר־אֱלָהִין bar e̕ lahi̱n (Old Imperial Aramaic, Dan. 3:25), which is exactly equivalent to the Hebrew, בֶּן־אֱלֹהִים. The phrase attributes deity to the Sŏn. In like phrases “son of _____” is used in other Hebrew phrases as a from of attribution, and indeed the construct syntax itself is often used as a substitute for an adjective. This connection is lost on the usual English reader of “Son of God,” who is apt to interpret the phrase the same as “sons of God” (cf. Rom. 8:19; Psa. 82:6. Gen. 6:2, 4).
In Hebrew and Greek, the phrase “son of ____” may express varying degrees of connection to the stated object, all the way up to saying the person has the same nature as the object he is a son of. For example, in 1Kings 20:35, a
There is, of course, no English word “of” standing in a construct relation in Hebrew or Greek. There is just a grammatical structure which says, “these two words are related, and somehow they modify each other’s meaning.” Very often “of” best translates the sense, and sometimes it does not, as translators will admit. It is, however, impossible to reproduce the ambiguity in the phrase ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ. It mean mean “the Sŏn
In 1John 4:15, Yōḥanan writes, “Who ever may confess that Yēshūa̒ is the Sŏn
In Hebrew it is said that a warrior is a “son (of) valor” (בֶּן־חַיִל, ben ḥayil, 1Sam. 14:52, 2Chron. 28:6, 2Sam. 17:10). The ESV translated “valiant man” and “valiant men” in 2Sam. 17:10, in order to avoid the Hebrew idiom. But we see that the ESV converted the relation to an adjective. The sense is more accurately, “son
It should now be plain that in order to translate the text into English, the text must be interpreted from the context. Yōḥanan clearly means to show Mĕssiah as Almĭghty, and so I have no choice but to understand the genitive as “
It should be noted that there are many speakers of Hebrew who do not understand Biblical Hebrew usages. Keep in mind that Biblical Hebrew to a Modern Hebrew Speaker is at best like reading the KJV, and can be as bad as reading Shakespeare. Therefore, things need to be explained even to speakers of Modern Hebrew. Furthermore, there are many affiliated with the Hebrew roots movement who deny the divine Sŏnship of Mĕssiah, and who have come to that denial by abandoning both the good and the bad in Christianity, in large part, because they had no good foundation to begin with. In any case, one can expect a lot of unreasoning resistance from this group. These may be quite happy with the Hebrew translation I have provided, and even if they think they know Hebrew, it will be clear that they don’t really know what בֶּן־הָאֱלֹהִים really means.
Among first century Yehūdi̱m, there was a significant number who understood that the Messenger of Yăhwēh was Yăhwēh, and further that this Messenger would become the Mĕssiah. The faithful therefore comprehended Mĕssiah and the Almĭghty Sŏn as nearly interchangeable concepts. What was not understood at first was exactly when the Mĕssiah would appear, and to whom he would appear. The first opposition was not to the minority that held the correct concepts of what to look for in Mĕssiah, but it was to Yēshūa̒ himself. It was only later that heretics in Judaism and Christianity tried to deconstruct and confuse biblical language and prophecy. And sadly, sometimes this deconstruction causes even the faithful to project parts of the heretical storyline back onto their understanding of first century culture and religious views.
1:34‡ ^וַאֲנִי הָראֵה הָרְאֵיתִי, וְהָעֶד הֵעַדתִּי, כִּי זֶה הוּא בֶּן־הָאֱלֹהִים“׃
1:35‡ ^וַיְּהִי מִמָּחֳרָת, עוֹד הִתיַצֵּב יוֹחָנָן וּמִתַּלמִידָיו, שְׁנָיִם׃
1:36¹ ^ = made (a look), Hiphil.
1:36‡ ^וּכְהַנבִּיטוֹ אֶל יֵשׁוּעַ, אֲשֶׁר מִתְהַלֵּךְ סְבִיב, יֹאמַר, ”הִנֵּה שֵׂה־הָאֱלֹהִמים“׃
1:37‡ ^וַיִּשׁמְעוּ הַתַּלמִידִים הַשְּׁנִי שֶׁלוֹ, אֹתוֹ דֹּבֵר, וַיֵּלכוּ אַחֲרֵי יֵשׁוּעַ׃
1:38‡ ^ וַיִּפֶן יֵשׁוּעַ, וַיַּרא אֹתָם הֹלכִים אַחֲרָיו, וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵיהֶם, ”מַה מְבַקְּשִׁים,“ וְהֶם אָמרוּ אֵלָיו, ”רַבִּי“ (אֲשֶׁר הוּא אָמוּר מְתֻרגָּם מוֹרֶה) ”אֵיפֹה יוֹשֵׁב“׃
1:39‡ ^.וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵיהֶם, ”בֹּאוּ, וְאַתֶּם תִּראוּ.“ לָכֵן בָּאוּ. וַיִּראוּ אֲשֶׁר שָׁם הוּא יוֹשֵׁב. וְעִמוֹ יָשׁבוּ אֶת הַיּוֹם הַהוּא. וְהַשָּׁעָה הָיְתָה כָּעֲשִׂירִית׃
1:40‡ ^ וְאַנְדְּרַי, אֲחִי שִׁמְעוֹן פֶּטְרוֹס, הָיָה אֶחָד מִן־הַשְּׁנָיִם, אֲשֶׁר שָׁמְעוּ מֵאֵת יוֹחָנָן. וַיֵּלְכוּ אַחֲרָיו׃
1:41‡ ^הַהוּא יִמצָא רִאשׁוֹן אֶת שִׁמְעוֹן אָחִיו שֶׁלוֹ, וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו ”מָצֹא מָצָאנוּ אֶת־הַמָּשִׁיחַ,“ אֲשֶׁר הוּא מְתֻרגָּם כְּרִיסטוֹס׃
1:42‡ ^וַיָּבֵא אֹתוֹ אֶל־יֵשׁוּעַ, וַיַּנבֵּט יֵשׁוּעַ אֵלָיו, וַיֹּאמַר ”אַתָּה שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן־יוֹחָנָן, אַתָּה יִקָּרֵא ’כֵּיפָא,‘“ אֲשֶׁר הוּא מְתֻרְגָּם פֶּטְרוֹס׃
1:43‡ ^וּמִמָּחֳרָת רָצָה לָצֵאת הַגָּלִילָה. וַיִּמצָא אֶת פִּילִפּוֹס. וַיֹּאמֶר יֵשׁוּעַ אֶלָיו, ”לֵךְ אַחֲרָי“׃
1:44‡ ^וּפִילִפּוֹס הָיָה מִבֵּית־צָיְדָה, עִיר אַנְדְּרַי וּפֶטְרוֹס׃
1:45‡ ^וּפִילִפּוֹס יִמצָא אֶת־נְתַנאֵל. וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו, ”אֶת־אֲשֶׁר כָּתַב מֹשֶׁה בַּתּוֹרָה וְהַנְּבִיאִים, מָצֹא מָצָאנוּ: אֶת־יֵשׁוּעַ בֶּן־יוֹסֵף מִנְּצָרֶת“׃
1:46‡ ^וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו נְתַנְאֵל, ”הֲמִנְּצֶרֶת יוּכַל כָּל־טוֹב לִהיוֹת.“ וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו פִּילִפּוֹס, ”בֹּא וּרְאֵה“׃
1:47¹ ^Netan‘ēl didn’t feel he needed to disguise his doubts, like a more diplomatic person might do. Therefore he was without guile.
1:47‡ ^וַיַּרא יֵשׁוּעַ אֶת־נְתַנְאֵל בָּא אֵלַיו. וַיֹּאמֶר עָלָיו, ”הִנֵּה בֶּאֱמֶת יִשׂרְאֵלִי אֲשֶׁר בּוֹ אֵין מִרמָה“׃
1:48‡ ^וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו נְתַנְאֵל, ”מֵאַיִן אַתָּה יוֹדֵעַ אֹתִי.“ וַיַּעַן יֵשׁוּעַ. וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו, ”בְּטֶרֶם קְרֹא פִּילִפּוֹס אֹתךָ, בִּהיוֹתךָ תַּחַת הַתְּאֵנָה, אָנֹכִי רְאִיתִיךָ“׃
1:49‡ ^וַיַּעַן נְתַנְאֵל אֵלָיו, ”רַבִּי אַתָּה בֶּן־הָאֱלֹהִים! אַתָּה הוּא מֶלֶךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל!“׃
1:49¹ ^The King of Yisra’ēl was Yăhwēh, “Then Yăhwēh said unto Shemū‘ēl, ̒Listen to the voice of the people, to all which they will say unto you, because they have not rejected you, but Me they have rejected from being King over them!” (1Sam. 8:7). Do not be surprised that Netan‘ēl connected the Mĕssiah to the concepts of King, the Messenger of Yăhwēh (a.k.a. Angel of Yăhwēh, who is Yăhwēh), and the Almĭghty Sŏn. Both Church and Synagogue have done much since that time to deconstruct the thoughts of the average Jew, and reconstruct them in terms of newer heretical traditions.
1:50¹ ^Greek: pledge loyalty, faithfulness, commitment; Hebrew: confirm support, make/cause support. Often an implied possessive pronoun is added to smooth the English out, e.g. “their.”
1:50‡ ^וַיַּעַן יֵשׁוּעַ. וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו, ”יַעַן אֲשֶׁר אָמַרתִּי אֵלֶיךָ כִּי ’רְאִיתִי אֹתךָ תַחַת הַתְּאֵנָה‘ אַתָּה מַאֲמִין? גְּדֹלוֹת מֵאֵלֶּה תִּראֶה“׃
1:51‡ ^וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו, ”אָמֵן, אָמֵן! אֲנִי אֹמֵר אֲלֵיכֶם, תִרְאוּ אֶת הַשָּׁמַיִם מְפֻתָּחִים וּמַלְאֲכֵי אֱלֹהִים עֹולִים וְיֹורדִים עַל בֶּן־הָאָדָם“׃
2:1‡ ^ וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי, חֲתוּנָּה הָיְתָה בְּקָנָה אֲשֶׁר בַּגָּלִיל. וְהָיְתָה, אֵם יֵשׁוּעַ, שָׁם׃
2:2‡ ^וְגַּם קָרָא יֵשׁוּעַ, וְתַלְמִידָיו, אֶל־הַחֲתוּנָּה׃
2:3‡ ^וְכַּאֲשֶׁר חָסֵר הַיָּיִן, וַתֹּאמֶר אֵם יֵשׁוּעַ אֵלָיו, ”אֵין לָהֶם יָיִן“׃
2:4‡ ^ וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלֶיהָ יֵשׁוּעַ, ”מַה־לִּי, וָלָךְ אִשָּׁה? עוֹד לֹא בָאָה עִתִּי“׃
2:5‡ ^וַתֹּאמֶר אִמּוֹ אֶל־הַמשָׁרֲתִים, ”כֹּל מַה־אֲשֶׁר יֹאמַר לָכֶם עֲשׂוּ!“׃
2:6‡ ^וְהָיָה שָׁם כַדֵּי־אֶבֶן שִׁשָּׁה, עֲרוּכִים כְּטָהֳרַת הַיְּהוּדִים, מְכִילִים כֹּל אֶחָד עַד בַּתִּים שְׁנַיִם אוֹ שְׁלוֹשָׁה׃
2:7‡ ^ וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵיהֶם יֵשׁוּעַ, ”מַלְאוּ הַכַּדִּים מָיִם.“ וַיְמַלאוּם עַד־הָעֶלִיוֹן׃
2:8‡ ^וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵיהֶם, ”שַׁאֲבוּ עַתָּה וְהָבִיאוּ אֶל־שַׂר הַמַשׁקִים.“ וַיָּבִיאוּ׃
2:9‡ ^וִכַאֲשֶׁר טָעַם שַׂר הַמַשׁקִים אֶת־הַמַּיִם, מְהֻוֶּה אֶתּ־יַיִן, וְלֹא יָדֹעַ יָדַע מֵאַיִן הוּא, אַךְ הַמְּשָׁרֲתִים יָדֹעַ יָדעוּ, (הַשּׁוֹאֲבִים אֶת־הַמַּיִם), וַיִּקרָא שַׂר הַמַשׁקִים אֶת־הֶחָתָן׃
2:10‡ ^ וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו, ”כָּל־אִישׁ רִאשׁוֹן אֶת־הַיַּיִן הַטּוֹב מֵשִׂים, וִכַּאֲשֶׁר הֵם רֻוּוּ, אֶת־פְּחוֹת עֵרֶך. אַתָּה שָׁמֹר שָׁמַרתָּ אֶת־הַיַּיִן הַטּוֹב עַד עַתָּה!“׃
2:11† ^Or: “became loyal to him.” Technical Note: The Hiphil יַאֲמִינוּ ya’ami̱nū, gives the sense of “cause support.” The causative may be rendered in various ways, “give fidelty (to), make support (to).” Yōḥanan does not use the usual preposition בְּ be after the verb, but switches to לְ le. This is because he wants to emphasize making support to Mĕssiah, rather than making support on Mĕssiah. The Qal meaning of the Hebrew root אמן ’mn is “to support” (BDB). Here are the various conjugations:
Qal support Niphal be supported Piel make to be supported Pual be made to be supported Hithpael make oneself to be supported Hiphil make support Hufal be made to support
The causative sense of the Hiphil need not be expressed by the English verb “make,” though this is a good first approximation. Other helping verbs that indicate an action is being indirectly caused, or the cause is set in motion, e.g. “give support, pledge support.” When used with an preposition and object the Hiphil verb becomes “make support on ________” אמן ב״, or “make support to ________” אמן ל״. The blank can be filled in with a person, or a truth claim. “Make support on [person]” is fundamentally to trust, or rely on. To make support on [a fact, or truth] is to believe the truth or fact. To make support to [a person] is to pledge fealty or loyalty to the person, to swear fidelity or faithfulness to a person.
In John 2:11 the context and the use of the aorist makes the focal point the beginning of the action of their fidelity, hence “affirmed to be faithful,” but in John 1:12, the present participle is focusing on the progressive and continuation of faithfulness, i.e. “being faithful.”
לְהַאֲמִין בְּ־ (to) put support on 16x Hiphil
= make reliance on (stronger) 17x
= make loyalty on (weaker) 11x
= make loyalty on the basis of (possible with a data object) 2x
= make reliance on the basis of 2x
לְהַאֲמִין׃ (to) affirm support.
(to) confirm support.
= make loyalty (to) (always implied personal object)
= believe (only if implied object is data)
לְהַאֲמִין לְּ־ (to) affirm support to 10x Hiphil
= make loyalty to (w/ personal object) 3x
= make affirmation to (w/ data object) 2x
= affirm support of a testimony 9x
וְיֵאָמְנוּ דִבְרֵיכֶם (then your words) will be supported Niphal
יַאֲמִינוּ כִּי (they may) affirm support that Hiphil
πιστεύω εἰς affirm to be faithful to 43x
pledge fidelity to
πιστεύω ἐν affirm to be faithful in 3x (with personal object)
pledge fidelity 2x (on the basis of an important truth)
πιστεύω. affirm to be faithful (with personal object)
affirm to be trustworthy (with data object)
2:11‡ ^זֶה , הָרִאשׁוֹנָה לָאֹתוֹת, עָשָׂה יֵשׁוּעַ בְּקָנָה, אֲשֶׁר בַּגָּלִיל. וַיִּגֶל אֶת־כְּבוֹדוֹ. וְיַּאֲמִינוּ לוֹ, תַּלְמִידָיו׃
2:12‡ ^אַחֲרֵי זֹאת, יָרַד אל־כְּפַר־נַחוּם, הוּא וְאִמּוֹ וְאֶחָיו וְתַלְמִידָיו. וְשָׁם יָשׁבוּ יָמִים לֹא רַבִּים׃
2:13‡ ^וְקָרוֹב הָיָה פֶּסַח הַיְּהוּדִים. וַיַּעַל יֵשׁוּעַ לִיוּשָׁלַיִם׃
2:14‡ ^וַיִּמצָא בַּהֵיכָל אֶת־הַמֹּכרִים שְׁוָרִים וְצֹאן וְיוֹנִים, וְאֶת הַחַלפָנִים יוֹשׁבִים׃
2:15‡ ^וַיַּעַשׂ שׁוֹט מֵחֲבָלִים. וַיְּגָרֶשׁ אֶת־כּוּלָּם מִן הַהֵיכָל, גַּם אֶת הַצֹּאן, וְאֶת הַשְּׁוָרִים. וְאֶת־מַטבֵּעַ הֶחַלְּפָנִים שָׁפַךְ, וְאֶת הַשּׁוּלחָנוֹת הָפָךְ׃
2:16‡ ^וְאֶל מוֹכרֵי הַיּוֹנִים אָמַר, ”שְׂאוּ אֶת־אֵלֶּה מִפֹּה! אַל תַּעֲשׂוּ אֶת־בֵּית אָבִי אֶת בֵית מִסחָר!“׃
2:17‡ ^ וַיִּזְכְּרוּ תַלְמִידָיו, כִּי הִכָּתֵב נִכתַּב, ”קִנְאַת בֵּיתךָ אֲכָלַתנִי“׃
2:18‡ ^וַיַּעֲנוּ הַיְּהוּדִים. וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֵלָיו, ”מָה אוֹת הֶראֵיתָ לָּנוּ כִּי תַעֲשֶׂה אֶת־אֵלֶּה?“׃
2:19† ^I suppose that Yĕshūa̒ touched both his shoulders with his hands when he said “this Temple,” as a gesture to himself. If they had known their prophecies about the Mĕssiah, and had seen the gesture, they would have understood at once.
2:19‡ ^וַיַּעַן יֵשׁוּעַ. וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵיהֶם, ”הִרְסוּ אֶת־הַהֵיכָל הַזֶּה וּבְעוֹד שְׁלוֹשֶׁת יָמִים הֲקַמתִּיהוּ“׃
2:20‡ ^ וַיּאֹמְרוּ הַיְּהוּדִים, ”אַרְבָּעִים וָשֵׁשׁ שָׁנָה נִבנָה הַהֵיכָל הַזֶּה, וְאַתָּה בְּעוֹד שְׁלשֶׁת יָמִים הֲקַמתָּהוּ?!“׃
2:21‡ ^אַךְ, הַהוּא הָיָה מְדַבֵּר עַל־הֵיכַל גְּוִיָּתוֹ׃
2:22† ^Greek sense: confirmed faithfulness in the Scripture, i.e. found that Scripture was faithful.
2:22‡ ^לָכֵן, כַּאֲשֶׁר קָם מִן־הַמֵּתִים, נִזכְּרוּ תַלְמִידָיו כִּי־אֶת־זֹאת הָיָה אוֹמֵר אֲלֵיהֶם. וַיַּאֲמִינוּ בַּכָּתוּב וּבַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר־אָמָר יֵשׁוּעַ׃
2:23† ^Hebrew: had made support to his name. Greek: affirmed to be faithful to his name or pledge loyalty.
2:23‡ ^וִכַאֲשֶׁר הָיָה בִּיוּשָׁלַיִם, בַּפֶּסַח, בֶּחָג רַבִּים הֶאֱמִינוּ לִּשְׁמוֹ, בִּרְאוֹתָם אֶת־הָאוֹתוֹת אֲשֶׁר הָיָה עוֹשֶׂה׃
2:24¹ ^BSI: לֹא סָמַךְ עֲלֵיהֶם = not he had supported upon them. The BSI gloss represents a failure of the Modern Hebrew to retain the sense of “make support,” which it is in Biblical Hebrew. The translators obviously felt the MH verb האמין means “believe.” And of course, “he had not believed himself to them” makes utter nonsense! But Biblical Hebrew cannot be discarded, and neither can the fact that ἐπίστευεν stands in the Greek text, where it carries the sense of “he did not affirm to be faithful himself to them,” (or become trustingly faithful). In other words, they pledged loyalty to him, but he did not pledge loyalty to them in the sense that he was beholden to them. Of course the Almĭghty is faithful to us through his covenant, and this is not what is being negated here. It will be necessary to re-educate speakers of Modern Hebrew who do not properly know Biblical Hebrew. For this reason I have in accord with the Greek text provided the English translation with the Biblical Hebrew meanings, and not the supposed Modern Hebrew sense.
2:24‡ ^וְהוּא יֵשׁוּעַ לֹא הָיָה מַאֲמִין אֶת עַצמוֹ בָּהֶם, בְּדַּעְתּוֹ אֶת־כּוּלָּם,
2:25‡ ^וְכִי אֵין צֹרֶךְ הָיָה הֹוֶה לוֹ, אֲשֶׁר אִישׁ יָעִיד עַל־הָאָדָם, כִּי הוּא עַצמוֹ הָיָה יוֹדֵעַ מָה הָיָה הֹוֶה בָאָדָם׃
3:1‡ ^וַיְהִי אִישׁ מִן־הַפְּרוּשִׁים, וְנַקדִּימוֹן שֵׁם לוֹ, נַשִׂיא הַיְּהוּדִים׃
3:2‡ ^זֶה
3:3† ^There are three ideas in the word ἄνωθεν, 1. again, 2. from above, 3. from the beginning. The last two ideas can be expressed by מֵרֹאשׁ mērō’sh, meaning, 1. (from the) head, 2. (from the) top, 3.(from the) beginning (cf. Syriac, ܕܿܪܝܫ). The English translation and Hebrew translation use a phrase to translate the Greek word, “מִחָדָשׁ מֵעָל”, “again from above.”
3:3‡ ^וַיַּעַן יֵשׁוּעַ. וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו, ”אָמֵן, אָמֵן, אֲנִי אוֹמֵר לָךְ, אִם לֹא יִוָּלֵד אִישׁ מִחָדָשׁ מֵעָל, לֹא יוּכַל לִראוֹת אֶת־מַלכוּת הָאֱלֹהִים׃
3:4¹ ^Then Naqdi̱mōn said unto him, “How will a man be able to be born in
The Syriac word for Nicodemus is like the English word for Nicodemus. It is Ni̱qadimaws (נִיקָדִמָוס, ܢܺܝܩܳܕ݂ܺܡܳܘܣ). Now the Greek is Νικόδημος, Ni̱kōdēmōs. The Hebrew name for Nicodemus is, Naqdi̱mōn, (נַקְדִּימוֹן). His full name was probably, “נַקדִּימוֹן בֶּן־גּוּריוֹן.” The Hebrew name was נַקדִּימוֹן, Naqdi̱mōn, which in Hebrew means, “innocent blood” (from נקה and דם). Clearly, though, the Syriac translator was faced with a Greek word when he translated the text. For he rendered it: Ni̱qadimaws (נִיקָדִמָוס, ܢܺܝܩܳܕ݂ܺܡܳܘܣ), imitating the 3rd masculine singular nominative ending put on proper names by the Greeks: -ος. The Greek version also has a meaning, “victory of the people.”
Probably most of those “believing” that the original NT was written in Aramaic don’t know how to read Syriac script, or to decipher its grammar. And if they do not know that much, then certainly they don’t know enough Greek to compare the Syriac and the Greek. But for those of us who can, the dependency of the Aramaic on the Greek, to the point of slavish imitation, is plainly seen. As for those so called scholars who promote Aramaic Primacy, their arguments us a script foreign to most people, and a language that his harder to study than Hebrew. But this is changing with more tools becoming available. Their infantile arguments are being exposed more and more every day as being at the level of fanatic King James Only defenders.
What most Peshitta defenders do not know, is that the Syriac contained in it is a Late Palestinian Syriac, really an ecclesiastical Aramaic, which did not exist before the 2nd or 3rd century AD, and was never spoken in the 1st century or before. I know the things I am say are so because I have studied both Greek and Aramaic and have compared the two in various phases. Aramaic Primacy is an easy place for deceivers in the Messianic Faith, who want to be known as scholars, to hide. This is because Hebrew is so widely known, and there are so many tools for it, that deception in that department is much harder. There are too many experts that can expose the deceiver. In Aramaic, however, the tools are much fewer, and the knowledge is much more restricted. Therefore those wanna be scholars who want the mystique of being experts find it easy to project that image of themselves behind a wall of Syriac to unwitting Christians discovering the Hebrew Roots of the Faith.
3:4‡ ^וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו, נַקדִּימוֹן, ”אֵיךְ יוּכַל אִישׁ לְהִוָּלֵד בִּהיוֹתוֹ זָקֵן? הֲלֹא יוּכַל אֶל־בֶּטֶן אִמּוֹ לָבוֹא שֵׁנִית וּלהִוָּלֵד?“׃
3:5‡ ^וְיַּעַן יֵשׁוּעַ, ”אָמֵן, אָמֵן, אָמרִי לָךְ, אִם לֹא יִוָּלֵד אִישׁ מִמַּיִם וְרוּחַ, לֹא יוּכַל לָבוֹא אֶל־מַלכוּת הָאֱלֹהִים!׃
3:6† ^being made to be born: The doctrine of regeneration, as taught by Augustine and Calvin derives Gnostic Philosophy. This predestinated regeneration happens prior to conversion or at conversion, and makes it possible to convert. It is a false doctrine, insofar as it denies the simple truth that the good news may be put before a person by the Holy Spĭrit, and then the person is free to choose for it or against it. The person is enabled to choose for or against, but the matter is not compelled by predestination, or by a heart regeneration.
The text uses a perfect Greek verb, γεγεννημένον, which by normal standards is unusual use. It almost always denotes emphasis on a present state. Further it is progressive in aspect. Moreover, it is a participle, and is therefore progressive in aspect from that point alone. It is doubly progressive. A past cause may be in view, but it is not being emphasized. The past cause need not be predestination either. The agent of the cause in the past is twofold, the good decision of the person combined with the sanctifying power of the Spĭrit, and or the evil decision combined with the sinfulness of the flesh.
It is certain that Naqdi̱mōn was confused by Yĕshūa̒’s figurative use of born again language. He got hung up on the literal physical sense. Yĕshūa̒ redirected him to a spiritual sense. And this way we must understand “flesh,” and “being made to be born from the flesh.” The evil nature, or decision, works with the sinful flesh to beget fleshliness, i.e. sinfulness, and is flesh. Flesh here is not being used for the created body, but as a metaphor for depravity, as the worst common depravities involve exposure of the flesh in various sexual sins. The decision to sin is constantly being made by the sinful, and they are birthing the fleshly nature jointly with the sin nature. This is a process which keeps recurring in the present, and leads to ultimate death.
The Greek perfect participle brings out this aspect, “being made to be born,” and this answers to a derived conjugation in Hebrew, namely a Pual Participle, מְיֻלָּד meyūllad. Most other translations fail at this point, putting “is born,” which is too punctilliar and non-iterative. It is also gnomic, or proverbial. Even the Syriac uses a Peal participle, ܕ݁ܺܝܠܺܝܕ݂, which must be regarded as simple present, due to the changing use of the participle. Originally the Semitic participle was a progressive, but then it was adopted for the present tense, and thereby lost this uniqueness. The correct tense communicates a state of being begotten in the present, a state of being begotten which is logically initiated in the immediate past. The incorrect sense is all the action being completed in the past, and a static state in the present. Sometimes the Greek perfect is misunderstood that way, and or too readily translated into an English present perfect.
And “that which is being made to be born from the Spĭrit is spirit.” As flesh means fleshly, so also spirit means spiritual. The new (spiritual) nature is begotten by the Holy Spĭrit, cooperating with the willingness of the human spirit. His faithfulness cooperates with our faithful response. Again the process is iterative and continous in the present, “being made to be born.” Yĕshūa̒ expects, first an acknowledgement of human imperfection, and second the willingness to go through the process of being born again. One is not regenerated at conversion. One is spiritually regenerated by cooperating with the Spĭrit. And there is no “I was regenerated,” or “I had been regenerated,” until Yĕshūa̒ returns to complete the job (Jer. 31:31-34).
3:6‡ ^אֶת אֲשֶׁר מְיֻלָּד מִן־הַבָּשָׂר, בָּשָׂר הוּא, וְאֶת אֲשֶׁר מְיֻלָּד מִן־הָרוּחַ, רוּחַ הוּא׃
3:7‡ ^אַל־תִּתמַהּ כִּי אָמַרתִּי לְךָ, ’אַתָּה צֹרֶךְ לְהִוָּלֵד מֵחָדָשׁ, מֵעַל‘׃
3:8¹ ^We may understand “breathes” here: נוֹפֵשׁ nōphēsh. Also the Hebrew word for Spĭrit, רוּחַ, means “wind.”
3:8† ^The wind causes effects in the real world, but we cannot see the effect coming, nor can we see where the effective force goes afterward. Being saved is not a matter of knowing all the right doctrines, or practicing all the right practices, as if one has arrived. For we are far short of perfection. Being saved requires the Spĭrit to cause an effect within the saved to change them, or send them in a new direction, so as to further sanctify them. We don’t see these spiritual effects coming from far off, and after we detect that something has been done in us, only the evidence is left behind, and it is never very clear where the Spĭrit is going to act next. When we hear his voice, we ought to respond faithfully, because we do not know when he will speak next. Nicodemus had every reason to think he had arrived, but the voice of the Spĭrit was speaking through his intellect that continuing faithfulness to Gŏd would require him to acknowledge that Yĕshūa̒ was the Mĕssiah. Deciding rightly could cost him dearly in terms of reputation, or worse. Nicodemus did not ignore the working of the Spĭrit with him.
3:8‡ ^הָרוּחַ הֵיכָן יַחפֹּץ נוֹשֶׁבֶת, וְאֶת קוֹלוֹ אַתָּה שׁוֹמֵעַ, אַךְ לֹא יָדַעתָּ מֵאַיִן בּוֹאוֹ, וְאָנָה לֶכתּוֹ. כֵּן כָּל הַמְּיֻלָּד מִן־הָרוּחַ“׃
3:9‡ ^וַיַּעַן נַקְדִּימוֹן. וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו, ”אֵיךְ יוּכַלוּ אֵלֶּה לִהיוֹת?“׃
3:10‡ ^ וַיַּעַן יֵשׁוּעַ. וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו, ”הַאַתָּה מוֹרֶה יִשׂרָאֵל וְאֶת־אֵלֶּה לֹא יָדָעְתָּ׃
3:11‡ ^אָמֵן, אָמֵן, אֲנִי אוֹמֵר לָךְ כִּי, אֵת אֲשֶׁר־יָדַעְנוּ, אֲנַחנוּ מְדַבְּרִים, וְאֵת אֲשֶׁר־רָאֹה רָאִינוּ אֲנַחנוּ מֵעִיד, וְאֶת עֵדוּתֵנוּ לֹא אַתֵּם לוֹקחִים׃
3:12‡ ^אִם דִּברֵי הָאָרֶץ אָמַרתִּי לָכֶם, וְלֹא אַתֶּם מַאֲמִינִים, אֵיךְ תַּאֲמִינוּ אִם־אֹמַר לָכֶם אֶת דִּברֵי הַשָּׁמַיִם?“׃
3:13‡ ^ וְאֵין אִישׁ עָלוֹה עָלָה הַשָּׁמַיְמָה אִם־לֹא הוּא אֲשֶׁר יָרַד מִן־הַשָּׁמָיִם, בֶּן־הָאָדָם׃
3:14‡ ^וְכַאֲשֶׁר מֹשֵׁה הֵרִים אֶת־הַנָּחָשׁ בַּמִּדבָּר, כֵּן צָרִיךְ הוּא לְהֵרוֹם, אֶת בֶּן־הָאָדָם,
3:15† ^Yōḥanan’s use of the word “on” (or “in”, ἐν, בְּ) here places emphasis on the idea of trust. One must put their support on Messiah, and he will hold us up. However, the phrase “put support on” still implied loyalty, because what constitutes “support” also involves obedience, and therefore putting one’s obedience on him. We may also render, “affirming trustworthiness in him,” i.e. that he is trustworthy.
3:15¹ ^“is able to be inheriting”, or in Greek “may be having.” The present subjunctive ἔχῃ is by nature conditional and future. The present tense gives a progressive aspect to the future conditional promise. John uses the indicative present tense in several passages, like 3:36, “inherits life eternal” or “is inheriting life eternal.” We say in English that, “Jack inherits the estate” and we do not mean that he is inheriting it right now, but that he is going to inherit it. In Greek this present indicative would come out, “is going to possess/have/” This purely futuristic use is described by Daniel B. Wallace in the Exegetical Syntax on pages 535-537.
3:15‡ ^לְמַעַן כָּל־הַמַּאֲמִין בּוֹ יָכוֹל לִהיוֹת נוֹחֵל אֶת הָחַיֵּי הָעוֹלָמִים,
3:16† ^ The Almĭghty so greatly has loved the world, so that now he has given his only special Sŏn, so that anyone confirming his faithfulness |to|† him might not perish, but is able to be inheriting¹ everlasting life.‡ The first point here is that πιστεύων εἰς does not mean “believes in”, but but “being loyal to”; πίστις is fidelity, and the verb form πιστεύω is to pledge fidelity or to confirm it. For that is the sense of the word when used with a personal object.
Genuine faith is a fidelity that produces works, and not a barren trust (or believing) only (cf. James 2:24). The promise must be embraced via repentance borne of true fidelity, for which the evidence is obedience to the commandments (cf. John 3:36; 15:10). For forgiveness is only understood in the context that one has done wrong, and truly accepted with the resolve and commitment to do right by that which one formerly did wrong.
Yōḥanan uses the word “to” here (εἰς, לְ) because he wants to emphasize the idea of giving loyalty to the Sŏn. Giving support (the Hebrew idea of הֶאֶמִין) is not just supporting the intellectual truth. To give support to the Son means to obey him. For speakers of Modern Hebrew, it needs to be explained that כָּל־הַמַּאֲמִין means nearly the same thing as כָּל־הַמַּתמִיךְ. This can be detected by reading the B.S.I. Modern Hebrew translation of John 2:24, where they were compelled to translate, אֶלָּא שֶׁיֵּשׁוּעַ לֹא סָמַךְ עֲלֵיהֶם, “except that Yĕshūa̒ had not put support on them.” The reason for this is that the Biblical Hebrew meaning has been forgotten in Modern Hebrew. The text runs thus: וְהוּא יֵשׁוּעַ לֹא הָיָה מַאֲמִין אֶת עַצמוֹ בָּהֶם.
Now there is no doubt that אָמַן a̕man means
The Syriac version (ܒ݁ܶܗ), B.S.I. (בּוֹ), Margoliouth, Delitzsch, and Ginsburg, all incorrectly translate Yōḥanan as (believe) “
Normally the Syriac Text is very excellent, and overall the Peshitta is one of the most literal and accurate translations possible. It is too bad that few people can understand Aramaic, or know how to use the tools, or know grammar. If they did, then no one would deceive them about the origin of the text! Syriac also suffers from the fact that it is written in a late ecclesiastical Aramaic, where the words resemble Hebrew, but they have changed meaning to conform with Church theology!
Many promoters of Hebraic Roots also promote Aramaic texts as superior to a “corrupt Greek”, and they despise, downgrade, or dismiss the Greek texts, depriving them of the authority they deserve. I mean no offense to real scholars of Aramaic, whom I hold in the highest esteem. But, imagine how it feels to a Christian discovering Torah, wherein he has been told all his life about the accuracy of the Greek texts, then to be told that the Greek texts are corrupt and that the Aramaic Peshitta, or some other Aramaic Manuscript is the real truth, and the authoritative text of the New Testament. Believing the Aramaic Lie, then, shears the foundation, and casts doubt on every correct and true teaching that the faithful have learned from the Greek text. The Mystique of faultless Aramaic is the siren call luring the unwary to shipwreck their faith in doubt and heresy.
It is a completely diabolical stunt, to dress up heresy in a hebraic sheepskin and present it to those wanting to know the Hebrew Roots of the faith. Yet many teachers have gone down this path, some ignorantly, and some heretics being used by the devil.
3:16¹ ^inherit: I have here followed the B.S.I. Hebrew translation as a suggestion in translating, “is able to be inheriting”, only I have added a present progressive element since the verb is present subjunctive. It has a future sense due to the subjunctive, but it is progressive in aspect because it is present. The proper rendering the subjunctive and realization that the present tense Yōḥanan uses elsewhere should be rendered as a futuristic present (cf. vs. 15 notes above) destroys the “once saved, always saved” argument that tries to reason from a present possession of eternal life. When the subjunctive is clearly seen, and the futuristic present elsewhere, then eternal life is correctly a future promise contingent on present fidelity to Mĕssiah.
3:16‡ ^כִּי כָּכָה אָהַב מְאוֹד הָאֱלֹהִים אֶת הָעוֹלָם, כָּךְ שֶׁעַתָה נָתַן אֶת־בְּנוֹ יְחִידוֹ, כָּךְ אֲשֶׁר, כָּל־הַמַּאֲמִין לוֹ, עָלוּל לֹא יֹאבַד, כִּי אִם הוּא יָכוֹל לִהיוֹת נוֹחֵל אֶת חַיֵּי עוֹלָמִים׃
3:17‡ ^כִּי לֹא שָׁלַח הָאֱלֹהִים אֶת בְּנוֹ אֶל הָעוֹלָם כָּךְ שֶׁיָדִין אֶת הָעוֹלָם, אֶלָּא לְמַעַן אֲשֶׁר יִוָּשַׁע הָעוֹלָם עַל יָדוֹ׃
3:18† ^only: only one of a kind (μονογενοῦς). The word denotes one of a class, one of a kind, of a unique kind by itself. The translation, “begotten” is an ancient mistake incorrectly derived.
3:18‡ ^הַמַּאֲמִין לוֹ לֹא נִדּוֹן, אַךְ הוּא שֶׁלֹא מַאֲמִין, כְּבַר הִשָּׁפֵט נִשׁפַט, כִּי לֹא הַאֲמֵן הֶאֱמִין לְשֵׁם בֶּן הָאֱלֹהִים הַיָּחִיד׃
3:19‡ ^וְזֶהוּ הַמִּשׁפָּט, כִּי הָאוֹר בּוֹא בָּא אֶל הָעוֹלָם, וְהָאֲנָשִׁים אָהֲבוּ יוֹתֵר אֶת הַחוֹשֶׁךְ מִן הָאוֹר, כִּי הָיוּ מַעֲשֵׁיהֶם רָעִים׃
3:19¹ ^See 1:11. Yōḥanan is thinking of one specific historical instance here of Jewish rejection of Mĕssiah. However we should not overlook the larger truism that men in general love darkness because their works have been evil, and to this end I have employed the present perfect, “have loved” (and still do).
3:20‡ ^כִּי כָּל אִישׁ הַפּוֹעֵל אֶת הָעַולָה שׂוֹנֵא אֶת הָאוֹר, וְאֵינֶנּוּ בָא אֶל הָאוֹר כָּךְ שֶׁלֹא יִוָּכחוּ אֶת מַעֲשָׂיו׃
3:21‡ ^אֲבָל הָאִישׁ עוֹשֵׂה אֶת הָאֱמֶת, הוּא בָּא אֶל הָאוֹר, כָּךְ שֶׁיִגָּלוּ מַעֲשָׂיו, כִּי בֵּאלֹהִים הֵם מְעֻשִּׂים׃
3:22‡ ^וַיְהִי אַחֲרֵי הַדְּבַרִים הָאֵלֶּה, וַיָּבֹא יֵשׁוּעַ וְתַלְמִידָיו אֶל אֶרֶץ יְהוּדָה, וְשָׁם הָיָה גָּר עִמָּהֶם, וְהָיָה מַטבִּיל׃
3:23‡ ^וְגַּם יוֹחָנָן הָיָה מְטַבִּיל בְּעֵינוֹן קָרוֹב לְשָׁלֵם, כִּי מַיִם רַבִּים הָיוּ שָׁם. וְהָיוּ בָּאִים לְיַד, וְהָיוּ נִטבָּלִים׃
3:24‡ ^כִּי עוֹד לֹא הָיָה מְשֻׁלָּךְ אֶת יוֹחָנָן אֶל הַמִּשׁמָר׃
3:25‡ ^ לָכֵן הָיְתָה מַחֲלֹקֶת מִתַּלְמִידֵי יוֹחָנָן עִם יְהוּדִי עַל טָהֳרָה׃
3:26† ^The tags in the texts are to connect pronouns and their referents: disciplesᵨ = theyᵨ. And ᵝYehūdi̱ is a subset of ᵝall.
3:26‡ ^ וַיָּבֹאוּ אֶל יוֹחָנָן. וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֵלָיו, ”רַבִּי, הוּא שֶׁהָיָה עִמּךָ בְּעֵבֶר הַיַּרדֵּן, אֲשֶׁר הָעֵד הֵעַדתָּ, הִנֵּה זֶה הוּא מְטַבִּיל, וְכֹּל בָּאִים אֵלָיו!“׃
3:27‡ ^וַיַּעַן יוֹחָנָן. וַיֹּאמַר, ”לֹא־יוּכַל אִישׁ לָקַחַת אֵין דָבַר, אֶלָּא שֶׁהִנָּתֵן נִתָּן לוֹ מִן הַשָּׁמַיִם׃
3:28‡ ^וְאַתֶּם עַצמְכֶם לִי מֵעִיד כִּי אָמַרתִּי, ”לֹא אֲנִי הַמָּשִׁיחַ, אַךְ כִּי מְשֻׁלָּחַ אֲנִי לִפְנֵי הַהוּא׃
3:29¹ ^= he who possesses the bride.
3:29² ^= while he hears.
3:29‡ ^הוּא שֶׁלוֹ הַכַּלָּה, הוּא הֶחָתָן. וְרֵעַ הֶחָתָן מֵתַצֵּב, וּבשָׁמעוֹ אֹתוֹ, שָׂמוֹחַ יִשׂמַח בְּקוֹל הֶחָתָן. עַל כֵּן, זֹאת שִׂמחַתִי מֻלְּאָה׃
3:30‡ ^הַהוּא צוֹרֵךְ לִפרוֹת, וַאֲנִי להִמָּעֵט׃
3:31‡ ^הַבָּא מֵעָל, עַל פְּנֵי הַכֹּל הוּא. הוּא שֶׁהֹוֶה מִן הָאָרֶץ, מִן הָאָרֶץ הוּא, וּמִן הָאָרֶץ מְדַבֵּר. הוּא אֲשֶׁר מִן הַשָּׁמַיִם בָּא, עַל פְּנֵי הַכֹּל הוּא׃
3:32‡ ^אֶת אֲשֶׁר רָאוֹה רָאַה, וְשָׁמוֹעַ שָׁמַע, זֶה אִישׁ מֵעִיד, וְאֶת עֵדוּתוֹ אֵין לוֹקֵחַ׃
אֶת אֲשֶׁר רָאוֹה רָאַה, וְשָׁמוֹעַ שָׁמַע, זֶה אִישׁ מֵעִיד, וְאֶת עֵדוּתוֹ אֵין לוֹקֵחַ׃Greek → English (Hebrew style) → Hebrew.
101-110 2-4
Greek English Hebrew
aorist participle who + perfect + tense אֲשֶׁר + perfect
aorist participle Sub + *ha* -ed perfect
present participle -ing, -er, + ones, one participle
present subjunctive progressive, durative infin abs. + imperfect
aorist subjunctive not progressive, durative Imperfect
------------------------------------------------------------
has +ed aorist perfect, Qal, Hiph
had +ed aorist perfect, Qal, Hiph
were, was +ed Aw/passive Niphal imperfect
has become +ed Aw/passive Niphal perfect
have become +ed Aw/passive Niphal perfect
had become +ed Aw/passive Niphal perfect
have +ed aorist perfect, Qal, Hiph
will have +ed aorist perfect, Qal, Hiph
+ed aorist waw consec imperf.
D simple present aorist imperfect Qal, Hiph
D simple present Aw/passive imperfect Niph, Hoph
Then + simple past aorist waw consec imperfect
Then + simple past Aw/middle waw consec imperfect Niph
Then + simple past Aw/passive waw consec imperfect, Hoph, Niph
------------------------------------------------------------
also called Extensive
has made to be +ed perfect Consummative Piel perfect
makes to be +ed perfect Consummative Piel imperfect
are/is/am made to be +ed PCw/passive Pual imperfect
are/is/am making to be +ed perfect Consummative Piel imperfect
has been made to be +ed PCw/passive Pual perfect
have made to be +ed perfect Consummative Piel perfect
have been made to be +ed PCw/passive Pual perfect
will have made to be +ed perfect Consummative Piel perfect
will have been made to be+ PCw/passive Pual perfect
(In the case of the verb “to be, to become”; the Hiph. or Hophal also works).
------------------------------------------------------------
had made to be +ed pluperfect Consummative (263x) Piel perfect
had been made to be +ed CPLUw/passive Pual perfect
will have had made to be +ed pluperfect Consummative (263x) Piel perfect
will have had been made to be +ed CPLUw/passive Piel perfect
-------------------------------------------------------------
also called Intensive
are/is/am being made to be +ed PRw/passive Imperfect Pual
are/is/am making to be +ing perfect Resultative Imperfect Piel
have ___________ to be +ing perfect Resultative Perfect Piel
have been made to be +ing PRw/passive Perfect Pual
has _________ to be +ing perfect Resultative Perfect Piel
has been made to be +ing PRw/passive Perfect Pual
will have ______ to be +ing perfect Resultative Perfect Piel
will have been made to be +ing PRw/passive Perfect Pual
-------------------------------------------------------------
had _______ to be +ing Resultative pluperfect (263x) Perfect Piel
had been made to be +ing RPLUw/passive Perfect Pual
will have had _______ to be +ing Resultative pluperfect (263x) Perfect Piel
will have had been made to be +ing RPLUw/passive Perfect Pual
______ = helping verb, {come, made, caused}
-------------------------------------------------------------
had been +ing imperfect (5607x) perfect, inf. abs.+perfect
had been +ed Mw/passive perfect, inf. abs.+perfect
has been +ing imperfect """"""""""""""""""""""""""
has been +ed Mw/passive """"""""""""""""""""""""""
have been +ing imperfect """"""""""""""""""""""""""
have been +ed Mw/passive """"""""""""""""""""""""""
was/were +ing imperfect Progressive *Perfect
was/were being +ed MPROG/passive *Niphal Perfect
was/were +ing +selves MPROG/middle Niphal conv. Imp
was/were being +ed MPROG/passive waw-consec. Imp.
---------------------------------------------------------------
simple present present Imperfect
is/are +ed Mw/passive Imperfect Niphal
present progressive present participle
is/are being +ed Mw/passive niphal participle
future future imperfect
will be +ed Fw/passive imperfect
------------------------------------------------------
Qal --> Piel Causitive Intenstive
some verbs are converted in sense: [causitive/intensive]
he learned ----> he made to be learned (taught)
he became -------> he made to become (created)
Qal ---> Piel Intensive only
some verbs are not converted: [Intensive]
he was priest ----> he was made to be priest
he broke --------> he made to be broken (shattered)
he was right----------->he was made to be right
he was holy ------------>he was made to be holy
[Sometimes the verb has to be passified to preseve the sense]
he had seen ---------------->he had been made to be seeing (static passive)
he had gotten to be seeing (dynamic passive)
The intensive was created by a Niphal-Hiphil.
A Qal: He ______ the _________. B Hipil: He made ________the _________.
If sense A = B
The Apocalypse and Semitic Syntax, Steven Thompson
e.g. Ezkiel 3:10 (piel-->perfect), 5:13 (piel-->perfect), Dan (Theod.) 9:13. (piel-->perfect); Exo. 2:14 (Niph-->perfect)
Ezek. 8:12 (hiph-->perfect הֶרְאֶיתָ) Exo 32:1 (pol-->perf).
Mat. 13:46 made to be sold; Mar. 11:2, being made to be bound
John 3:32, What he has been made to see, and has heard, this he tesitfies
Acts 21:28 and he has made to be profaned (no present results), Piel perfect
(or Aramaic Pael).
Ex 20:25 then you will make it to be profane (by Greek perfect passive).
Mat. 22:4. I have made to be ready (make ready, כון hiph).
Rev. 2:3 gotten to be weary, (passive conv.)
Rev. 16:6 have made to be given, Rev. 18:3 drink.
Rev. 7:14 made to be said, ואדבר See Num. 12:2. λελάληκεν.
Rev. 19:3, 5:7. 8:5. 3:20. 8:2, 12:4 (3x more = pual stationed)
4:50¹ ^or “trusted,” as the context allows. But his trust here appears to be no more than that he is willing to go and see to confirm Yĕshūa̒’s word. Only afterward did he and his family affirm faithfulness to Yĕshūa̒.
5:3† ^The most ancient manuscripts lack the end of vs. 3, and all of vs. 4.
5:7¹ ^There is something very strange about this water movement, and the explanation of the missing verses may not be too far off. However, the fickle nature of the stirring of the waters, and the superstition of the people matches that of many modern superstitions connected to holy sites. The phenomenon may be the work of one of the fallen benēi̱ Elōhi̱m with some healing arts or gifts. We should note that the Scripture does not affirm that the phenomenon is from the Almĭghty.
5:11† ^
5:17† ^The Almighty rested from creative work on the Shabbat, but not the work of maintaining or rescuing. The law concerning the ox in the ditch shows the principle of rescuing. Yeshua is the judge of when rescuing is necessary from both a spiritual perspective and a physical one.
5:24¹ ^Or “is going to have;” this is a futuristic present. See Daniel Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, pg. 536.
5:24† ^The faithful person’s status is changed from a death sentence to a sentence of life.
5:25¹ ^See Matthew 27:52. The word ὥρα has a general sense of “time.”
5:31† ^
5:32† ^
5:37† ^He is not saying his voice was never heard, but that it was not heeded. And Yĕshūa̒ is the image of the Făther, yet they did not ascertain it.
6:4† ^John specifies the feast of the “Jews” because false teachers were introducing their own times for Passover. The Yehūdi̱m still had the set time correct then, and also around A.D. 90 when he wrote the book. The Levitical Service was still operating at that time also.
6:19¹ ^A
6:31† ^Psa. 78:24; Neh. 9:15.
6:44† ^The language “draw him” suggests a gentle persuading. That is how He calls, but the call may be refused.
6:45† ^Isa. 54:13.
6:63† ^The words that I have spoken to you represent spirit and represent life. The disciples were hung up on the literal sense because they did not realize Yĕshūa̒ was speaking in metaphors. When they complained, he did not confirm a literal sense, but instead said the words were “spirit.” It is the meaning of participating in his death and his resurrection that counts, not the supposed eating of flesh or drinking blood.
The Lutherans wish to say that the spirit of Christ is specially present in the Eucharist, which is thus necessary to partake, according to them, to receive his spiritual life. They call this the “real presence” doctrine, and they say that grace is mediated by it. But Yĕshūa̒ did not say his divine life was mediated by the symbolic items at the Seder. His divine life is mediated by affirming faithfulness to Him. That’s how we receive sanctification and righteousness, by cooperating with him by our faithfulness. Affirming faithfulness is in the spirit, and manifests in obedience to his commandments. By so abiding in him, the faithful receive his loving kindness, forgiveness, and righteousness. By affirming faithfulness to him we ARE partaking of his divine nature. To say this function is mediated by the Eucharist is to put sacrifice, ritual, and tradition in the place of faithful obedience. So, the tradition of the real presence doctrine in opposed to receiving loving kindness through affirming faithfulness to Mĕssiah. We expect to receive divine life anytime he helps us to obey in conjunction with our affirmation of faithfulness. And he who so abides in him remains in his love. But he who trusts in receiving grace through traditions of men will be disappointed.
7:5† ^putting their support onto him, הֶאֱמִינוּ בּוֹ.
7:8‡ ^Go up to the feast yourselves. I do not yet go up to this feast because my time has not yet fully come.”‡ The texts are divided on the reading “not yet” vs. “not.” The reading οὔπω, “not yet” has the support of P66 and P75 as well as an impressive array of other texts. But the Western text including D and א disagree. Aland 27th clearly went with the harder and shorter reading, but these rules are not in themselves absolute. It is almost certain that Yĕshūa̒ and his parents missed a few feasts when the fled to Egypt, and Yĕshūa̒ missed at least one Passover in AD 33 when he was travelling in the region of Tyre. A mortal threat to one’s life is probably a reasonable justification for not attending a feast, i.e. the higher law to preserve life takes precedence. So whichever the reading is, I don’t see a problem with any alleged violation of the Torah by Yĕshūa̒.
8:11‡ ^7:53-8:11: This passage is lacking in a good number of manuscripts. I think it is genuine, but that possibly it was added to a later copy by John himself after several copies went out ●Yeshua’s ruling is completely in accord with the Law. Two or three witnesses were required, but the possible witnesses left, because they did not want to be cross-examined, exposing their own guilt in the matter—such as who was the man involved in the adultery.
8:24‡ ^Unless you will affirm your faithfulness, because I AM, you will die in your sins.”‡ Most of the translators and commentaries add to the text, “I am
Yĕshūa̒ is saying that he is the אַהֲוֶה אֲשֶׁר אַהֲוֶה a̓hªwēh a̓sher a̓hªwēh, i.e. the one who creates everything: Yăhwēh. See Exodus 3:14. This confession is essential to the Messianic Faith. The Shema (Deut. 6:4) includes Yĕshūa̒ along with the Făther and Holy Spĭrit.
The phrase, “I AM” in Greek, of course, begs the question “I AM” what? It serves to point us to what the Hebrew of Exodus 3:14 really says, “I make to be”, or “I am he that makes become.” So the words, “I AM” are incomplete without the Scriptural context of Exodus 3:14, and the meaning in that place. “I AM” said in this way points in that direction for understanding.
Equally part of the confession is to truly from the heart affirm faithfulness to Him, and this means to abide in him by loving him and keeping his commandments.
And anyone who does not affirm Mĕssiah to be Yăhwēh our Almĭghty, the same person is not of the Messianic Faith, and the same person has not placed their faithfulness in the Almĭghty. And anyone who denies that obeying his commandments is an essential part of and evidence of true faith, this one is an impostor, and a heretic, and is not of the Messianic Faith.
It is written in Yesha̒yahū, “I am Yăhwēh, and no one else. Besides me there is no Almĭghty.†” (Isa. 45:5). He who denies that “I” includes Yĕshūa̒ denies the Messianic Faith. He who says that “I” means the Făther only does not know the Făther or the Sŏn. He who believes (or says) that singular pronouns in Hebrew always denote singular persons does not know Hebrew or its usage, but believes a lie implied by the Rabbis, because it is written in many places where I, my, he, refer to an entity of more than one person (see EHSV Isa. 45:5). “But Tsi̱yōn said, Yăhwēh has forsaken me, and Adŏnai has forgotten me.” “The place is too cramped from me. Make room for me that I may dwell here” (Isa. 49:20). Is not Tsi̱ōn the people of Yisra’ēl? And Yisra’ēl speaks as “I” and “me.”
The Kingdom of the Almĭghty is like a field of wheat, and at night the enemy of the king came and sowed weeds in the field, so that the crop would be ruined. And when the weeds started to appear, the King told his servants not to pull the weeds, because the grain might be pulled up also.
So brothers and sisters, the weeds have multiplied, and are choking the wheat, and the kingdom is infested with them, with weeds that pretend to look like wheat. Soon Yăhwēh will have to do some weeding or the good wheat will be lost. And while we wait we need to become experts in weed identification, so we can carefully pull those weeds that are teaching the faithful to cross breed with the weedy heresies that teach faithlessness and do not acknowledge the rightful and true King of Yisra’ēl, Yĕshūa̒.
Whosoever teaches any other doctrine about Mĕssiah to our brothers and sisters affirming loyalty to Mĕssiah is accursed. Rebuke them sternly, and be sure they know you know they are not of the Messianic Faith. Seek out the wheat in danger of being choked by the enemy, and render all aid and assistance to the faithful to overcome the deceivers trying to rob them of their faith and their membership in the kingdom. And teach the faithful their tactics so that they are made stronger.
Whosever may speak a word against the Almĭghty Sŏn may be forgiven upon repentance. But whosover would speak against the Spĭrit of the Almĭghty can not be forgiven in this age, or in the one to come. There really are people, brothers and sisters, who have so denied the testimony of the Spĭrit in their hearts that they have gone down that path. It is a warning not to fall under the curse of the enemy. And keep in mind that we cannot judge if others have committed this sin or not. Only the Almĭghty can. We are allowed to suspect it, and if you do, then avoid that person.
8:35‡ ^i.e. forever.
8:52† ^They deliberately misunderstood Yeshua.
8:57† ^Genesis 18:1
8:58‡ ^The combination of “I AM” with the statement of his pre-existence takes any doubt away that “I AM” means Yăhwēh. Clearly they understood the meaning by their reaction in vs. 59. A mere man does not risk death over a misunderstanding. And Yōḥanan does not record it with any other intended meaning.
9:36‡ ^Or, “affirm trusting faithfulness to him.” As usual in the book of John, the text reads, πιστεύσω
10:3† ^
10:4† ^See 1 John 2:3.
10:16‡ ^
10:22† ^ἐγκαίνια. The Greek term means “in newness,” suggesting renewal. The Hebrew term means “dedication.”
10:36‡ ^Yĕshūa̒ answered them, “Has it not been written in the Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? See comments on Psalm 82. The tactic sounds diversionary on the surface, but it is not. Yĕshūa̒ does not actually say he is one of these gods (really demi-gods) who were the sons of Gŏd. He asks the question that that raises the subject of the two powers, namely Yăhwēh who is unseen, and Yăhwēh who is seen and who stands in the assembly of Gŏd in the midst of the [lesser created] gods (Psa. 82:1). For this is the Yăhwēh who is sent into the world. See Gen. 19:24; Isa. 48:16. This subject angered them, and Yĕshūa̒’s point was clear. He was claiming to be the Mĕssenger of Yăhwēh, who is Yăhwēh. This is the one meant when Ya‘aqōv̱ struggled face to face with the Almĭghty and lived (cf. Gen. 32:30; 48:16). Yĕshūa̒’s words are no diversion, as many suppose, as if he were claiming ‘see here are some men calling themselves e̕lōhi̱m, so then why can’t I?’ (The Rabbis will sometimes admit that men are called e̕lōhi̱m.) On the contrary, Yĕshūa̒’s remark brings up the ultimate arguments for who he is. In making his defense, he is actually pointing in the direction of who he is.
11:4† ^if not (ἀλλ᾽). The conjunction limits or qualifies the preceding statement. ἀλλὰ is equivalent to the Aramaic אִלָּא or Hebrew אִם לֹא, which oppose or limit a statement: Statement #1, [oppose,limit by] Statement #2. The Semitic terms mean “if not” and may be seen to oppose, “if not, then,” or limit, i.e. the first statement is false without the second to qualify it. Thayer has suggested the gloss, “not...so much as” when ἀλλὰ is combined with a negative. Liddell opens its definition with, “A.
It may be, however, that Yĕshūa̒ had a different perspective on death than his disciples, namely as a distinction between the first death and the second death. The first death was described a sleep, and so was not final death, and the second dead was the final death because both body and spirit are destroyed. His denial then may be with the second definition in mind. In the first death, “all live to him” (Luke 20:38). It may be minimally explained that a person is not truly dead until the Almĭghty purges his memory of the blueprint for reconstructing the person. So as long as Gŏd can wake up a person, then the first death can be called “sleep.”
11:6† ^It took one day for the messenger to reach them, then they stayed two additional days, and then it took them one day to travel to Bēi̱t-a̒nyah. They arrived on the fourth day.
11:11‡ ^Yĕshūa̒ gives his divine perspective on the first death. It is like a sleep from Gŏd’s point of view, and the second death is the complete death, where both body and soul are destroyed.
11:16¹ ^= Twin.
11:17† ^Another proof of inclusive counting. The messenger took one day. They delayed two days, and traveled one day, arriving on the fourth day, which is termed “four days.”
11:18¹ ^A stadia is about 600 feet. Total distance 1.7 miles.
11:25† ^
11:26‡ ^
11:48† ^or “swear fealty,” “pledge fideliy.”
11:52‡ ^Yōḥanan is alluding to the two sticks prophecy here. See Ezek. 37.
11:55† ^Yōḥanan specifies “of the Yehūdi̱m”, not because he is being anti-Semitic, but because false teachers were disagreeing with the Jewish timing of Passover, and he wanted to make it clear which one Yeshua observed. The Jewish timing was still correct at this time.
12:1‡ ^Then Yĕshūa̒, six days before the Passover, came to Bēi̱t-a̒nyah where E’la̒zar was, whom Yĕshūa̒ had raised from the dead. Then they made him a dinner there, and Marta̕ was serving. Mark 14:1 reckons the Passover “after two days” starting from Nisan 12, and so also Mat. 26:2. This counts the Passover to be on Nisan 14. So days “before” (πρὸ) the Passover are reckoned back from Nisan 14, the 13th of Nisan being one day before the Passover. This takes us back to Nisan 8 as the day that Yĕshūa̒ went to Bēi̱t-a̒nyah. The calendar below shows the layout. And it is one day different than in previous editions of the Scroll Book (Editions 1-6), as previously, I had counted days before Nisan 15. The change is necessitated on account of the parallel reckoning of Matthew and Mark. The first Passover offering is counted on Nisan 14 according to the sunrise epoch 14♦, and is parallel to the statements in Mat. 26:2 and Mark 14:1. This would mean that Yĕshūa̒ arrived late on Nisan 8, well after the dinner hour, and probably took only a light meal. The next day, the large noon meal, “dinner” was prepared for him and his disciples. This chronology avoids Marta̕ serving on the Sabbath.
Month: I AVIV, AD 34 4173 A.M. Sab. Cyc: 1. Jub. Cyc: 8 Cycle No: 85
Q1: 1.501 A Q2: -0.493 G LG: 102m W: 1.068' AL: 20.8 AV: 20.8
New Moon calculated for longitude: 35.17 and latitude 31.77
Location of calculations: Jerusalem Author: Daniel Gregg
I II III IV V VI VII
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~█████▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒
↑ │ 1 │ 2 │ 3 │
AVIV/NISAN cresent │New Moon │ │ │
MAR 10 │ MAR 11 │ │ │
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~█████▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒
│ 4 │ 5 │ 6 │ 7 │ 8 │ 9 │ 10 │
│ │ │ │ │ 6 │ 5 │ 4 │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~██╫██▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~█████▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒
│ 11 │ 12 │ 13 │ 14♦ │ 15 │16-0-1 │17-1-2 │
│ │ │ │Passover │Passover │ Sheaf │ │
│ 3 │ 2 │ 1 │ MAR 24 │ MAR 25 │ MAR 26 │ MAR 27 │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~██╫██▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~█████▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒
│18-1-3 │19-1-4 │20-1-5 │21-1-6 │22-1-7 │23-1-8 │24-2-9 │
│ │ │ │7thULB │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ MAR 31 │ │ │ │
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒
│25-2-10 │26-2-11 │27-2-12 │28-2-13 │29-2-14 │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ APR 8 │
│ │ │ │ │ │
The Friday crucifixion view entails severe difficulties with this six days. With Nisan 14 on a Friday, counting six days before it would put the 6th day squarely on the Sabbath. Yĕshūa̒’s point of departure appears to be from the town of Yeri̱ḥō. In any case, with all of his disciples with him, it is mostly unlikely that they would have done the distance on a Sabbath. A further difficulty comes with Marta̕ having to serve on Sabbath. Also, putting the meal on the next day (so also to avoid making Marta̕ serve on Sabbath) completely wrecks the Catholic and Protestant tradition of “Palm Sunday” for the triumphal entry.
The Scribe of P66 apparently detected the problem, because he changed “six” to “five” days before in John 12:1. Under the traditional Friday assumptions, then, five days before Nisan 14 on a Friday would be Sunday. This also wrecks the Palm Sunday tradition, but it avoids a Sabbath contradiction with table service or a large group traveling on that day.
12:12† ^Also known as the “Triumphal Entry.” The day was on the weekly Sabbath before the Passover. Yĕshūa̒ had gone up to Bēi̱t-a̒nyah on the previous Thursday, six days before the Passover. He and his disciples had arrived late, and took a light meal. The next day they prepared a large super in his honor. The traditional date of the “Triumphal Entry” is placed on a Sunday due to the mistaken Friday crucifixion. This forces the 6th day previous from the crucifixion to be on a Sabbath, when they traveled. In order to fit the facts, the chronology has to be backed up two days. The crucifixion was on a Wednesday, and the 6th day previous was Thursday of the week preceding. See notes on 12:1.
12:13† ^Psa. 118:26.
12:15† ^Zech. 9:9.
12:38† ^Isa. 53:1. See note 12:40‡ for explanation.
12:40‡ ^Isa. 6:10. A portion of every people have received Yăhwēh’s judgment upon themselves, to be blinded to the truth, so that they might not be saved. When does he make someone blind? When someone persists in intellectual dishonesty toward the truth, then the Almĭghty sends them a spirit of blindness, so that they may fall and be judged. The people who did not affirm their faithfulness to Messiah had been intellectually dishonest with the Scripture they had already received, and so they had a spirit of blindness to cause them to be judged for their error, and so they did not affirm faithfulness to Mĕssiah.
12:43† ^But they are not denying him before men, and they are confessing him in private to spouses, children, and siblings, or others who have made the public confession. The danger is that the public test will come anyway. And anyone is this situation must consider if they would like to confess in public at a time of their choosing or be tempted at a time of the devil’s choosing to make a denial!
13:1† ^
Some interpreters, in a vain effort to move John’s crucifixion date onto Nisan 15, speculate that the sense is only that he
13:18† ^Psa. 41:10(9).
13:19‡ ^From now on I am telling you before it comes to pass, so that when it does occur, you may confirm your faithfulness, because I AM.‡ At first sight, it would seem to most readers that “I AM” is taken from Exodus 3:14, but this not the case (see on Mark 6:50).
“Thus you shall say to the sons of Yisra’ēl, I make be has sent me unto you” (Exodus 3:14b). The Hebrew אֲהַיֶּה means “I make be”, or “I make happen.” What Yĕshūa̒ says here is: אֲנִי־הוּא, “I am,” or “I exist,” which is equivalent of the literal Greek ἐγώ εἰμι in terms of LXX usage. It only makes sense by completion with the Hebrew sense in Exodus 3:14, “I am the one who makes be,” i.e. creates. One might translate, “I am
That being said, the bridge between ἐγώ εἰμι and the divine name may be connected linguistically via “I am He” (אֲנִי־הוּא) in Isa. 41:4 (LXX: ἐγώ εἰμι), “I Yăhwēh am the firstmost, and the lastmost, I am He” (אֲנִי־הוּא, ἐγώ εἰμι). Also Isa. 43:10, “I am He, at my face no gŏd has been formed, and after me none will be” (I am He: אֲנִי הוּא, ἐγώ εἰμι). And Isa. 43:13, “Even before day existed, I am He.” Isa. 46:4, “And onward old age, I am He.” Isa. 48:12, “I am He, I am first, yea I am last” (אֲנִי הוּא, ἐγώ εἰμι). Isa. 52:6, “I am He, the one making be spoken, behold Me” (אֲנִי הוּא, ἐγώ εἰμι). The connection is also made in the LXX of Isa. 45:18, “ἐγώ εἰμι καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ἔτι” = “I am Yăhwēh, and none yet” (אֲנִי יַהוֶה וְאֵין עוֹד). Also Isa. 51:12, “I, I am He...” (אָנֹכִי אָנֹכִי הוּא, ἐγώ εἰμι ἐγώ εἰμι.) See note on Mark 6:50.
13:29† ^For some were supposing, because Yehūdah had the money box, that Yĕshūa̒ was saying to him, “Buy the things we have need of for the feast”, or else, that he should give something to the poor.† This proves without a doubt that it was Nisan 14 on which the last super occurred. For the buying and selling of food was prohibited on Nisan 15. See Nehemiah 10:31.
The meal had already begun, as noted in 13:2, “and during supper....,” and 13:4, “raised himself from supper....,” and 13:12, “reclined at the table.” Food is served in 13:26 to Yehūdah, “he had dipped the morsel.” It is also noted in 13:30, “And so after receiving the morsel he went out immediately, and it was night.” The notation of “night” is critically important, because it proves that the time was past sunset. It was therefore supposed that Yehūdah was out in the night to buy provisions for the feast or to give something to the poor.
The time between sunset and night varies. IST the sunset was 17h:49m on MAR 23, AD 34. Venus, then the stars appeared in the twilight about 18:04 hours. At the earliest nightfall is 13.5-18 minutes after sundown or the equivalent of 3-4 degrees. According to the latest opinion, nightfall occurs 72 minutes after sundown, or 6.45 to 16.1 degrees below the horizon. This case is 16 degrees @19:02. The Rabbis mandated the early time as the limit for activities which must be performed by day, and the later limit for activities which must be performed by night. The Seder must be eaten at night, and for this the Rabbis chose the later time, which is 72 minutes after sunset (cf. Zmanim, Wiki).
And so after receiving the morsel he went out immediately, and it had been night. The sentence begins with the aorist and ends with the imperfect (ἦν δὲ νύξ). We may conclude from these words that the meal that night was neither on an Annual holy day or on the Sabbath. Therefore, the day following this night was the 14th day of Nisan.
Now I proceed with proof by contradiction. Many argue that the crucifixion was on Nisan 15 and on a Friday. This view would make the last supper an official Passover Seder. Now the night of the Passover Seder begins the Annual Sabbath (cf. Lev. 23:7) because the seven days of unleavened bread are reckoned from sunset on the 14th to sunset on the 21st day of Nisan (cf. Exodus 12:18). Buying and selling was prohibited on the annual Sabbath (cf. Neh. 10:31 [32]), so much so that even the gates were closed before the Sabbaths to prevent it (cf. Neh. 13:19). No one, therefore, would think that Yehūdah went out to buy provisions for the feast during the night. But the text supposes that some thought this. This is a contradiction.
Furthermore, if John had meant it to be the official seder night, then he would have realized that even if a few disciples did not know the prohibition was in the Torah (which itself is inconceivable) that John would not have mentioned it, knowing it would confuse the issue. But the reason he does deliberately mention it is to give a definite clue that that night was not the annual Sabbath, but in fact the night before the Seder night.
In light of these facts, the claim that the crucifixion was on Nisan 15 generates a contradiction.
13:34† ^Compare 1John 2:7-8. The new commandment is an old commandment. Many commentators strive to find something truly novel in the commandment that had not been before, but it is all in vain, since the old commandment had nothing faulty with it. Meyer reports, “further, a renewed commandment (Calvin, Jansen, Maldonatus, Schoettgen, Raphel, and already Irenaeus), or even one that renews the old man (Augustine).” That these were compelled by the context to so explain it adds all the more justification to regarding the so called “new testament” as the “renewed covenant.”
13:38‡ ^The cock-crow is a technical term derived from a rooster’s crow which designates the call or trumpet for changing the last night watch at 3 a.m, as well as a real rooster crow. A synopsis of Yĕshūa̒’s words are, “in this night, before the cockcrow sounds twice, today you will deny me three times” (cf. Mat. 26:34; Mark 14:30; Luke 22:34). See also Mark 13:35.
It seems to me that the first cockcrow was the trumpet for the watch at 3 a.m., and that the second cockcrow was a real rooster at the crack of dawn. So I suppose that Matthew, Luke, and John are referring to the real rooster when they summarize Yĕshūa̒’s words. Mark, on the other hand, being the associate of Peter, knew that Yĕshūa̒ had referred to two cockcrows, and that assumed under the term
It is often said that there were no roosters in the city because the priests would not allow it lest they interfere with the Temple. But this can only mean free roaming birds, and not caged birds. For it is evident that caged birds of the clean kind were available for sacrifice. It is equally likely that there were businesses that kept and fed caged roosters with their caged hens to provide meat and eggs to the city market.
14:16† ^
14:21† ^
14:24‡ ^The conjunction limits the preceding statement by qualifying it with the second statement.
14:28‡ ^
15:1† ^
15:2† ^
15:25† ^The oldest mss, P66 reads, “the Law.” Other mss read, “their Law.” Psa. 35:19; 69:5(4).
17:3‡ ^And this is everlasting life, that they may acknowledge you the only true Almĭghty, and the one whom you have sent, Yĕshūa̒ the Mĕssiah.‡ The sentence construction is similar to this English sentence, “The people will acknowledge you the only true heir, and your son.” So both personal objects are the only true heir. Likewise in the Scripture text both the Făther and the Sŏn are the only true Almĭghty.
It would seem that the English speakers difficulty with the verse is the English translation, “
The
17:11‡ ^
17:21‡ ^
17:22† ^And the glory which you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as we are one† The logic of the matter is thus: The Făther, Sŏn, and Spĭrit are One is the divine sense (Almĭghty sense) and also in the personal sense. Yĕshūa̒ is speaking in the personal sense here, i.e. shared thoughts, feelings, goals, and love. When he says “just as” (καθὼς), he has person to person unity in view.
18:20† ^He means he did not tell the world one teaching and keep a secret teaching for his disciples, as often cultists will do to sure the unsuspecting into their secret teachings.
18:27† ^The final cock crow. I believe this was a real rooster, caged somewhere. The first cock crow was the alarm for the changing of the watch at about 3 a.m. This cock crow was just after the crack of dawn.
18:28† ^This refers to the Passover lamb to be killed on the 14th between noon and sunset. See Mat. 26:17; Mark 14:12; Luke 22:7. It was eaten in the night after the 14th day.
19:14‡ ^Now it was the preparation of the Passover.‡ Preparation (παρασκευὴ) means the actual preparations of the passover lamb on Nisan 14, before the feast, which was the chief time of preparation. Opponents have claimed that the word παρασκευὴ means Friday, and further that because it must mean “Friday” that it cannot mean preparation of the Passover on some other day of the week.
The demand that the word παρασκευὴ must mean Friday collapses when we consider its usage in contemporary Greek. Firstly, we must resist adding “day” to the text, so as to read “preparation day.” The word is an abstract noun, as we shall see, not referring to any time of preparation other than the context suggests. Preparation is always before some point in time for which the preparations are intended to be completed. In a genitive construction the head noun does not have to agree in gender or case with the genitive noun. The grammar works the same way with the Hebrew construct. For example Mark 1:4, “βάπτισμα (neuter accusative) μετανοίας (feminine genitive),”
Now I proceed to prove that “preparation” (παρασκευὴ), is simply an abstract noun for preparation. In Judith 2:17 we have, “εἰς τὴν παρασκευὴν αὐτῶν”,
Ant. 2:226,320,333 Ant. 3:50,52 Ant. 5:154 Ant. 6:187 Ant. 7:60,281 Ant. 8:166,169 Ant. 9:105,222 Ant. 10:1,31,84 Ant. 11:33 Ant. 12:196,368 Ant. 13:116,143 Ant. 14:52,291 Ant. 15:61,109,273 Ant. 16:111,137f,163,234,400 Ant. 17:8,92,127 Ant. 18:62,125,247,271,289f Ant. 20:50 Wars 1:138,233 Wars 2:647,651 Wars 3:342 Wars 4:188,262,513 Wars 5:104 Wars 6:341 Wars 7:156,295,297,299,331,375,439 Life 1:126 Apion 1:50,277 Apion 2:292
The same can be said about Philo. Almost every one of his usages cannot be applied to the specific day of the week Friday:
Opif. 1:43,79,85 Leg. 3:62,147,221 Sacr. 1:48 Deus 1:144 Plant. 1:65 Conf. 1:45 Mut. 1:89 Somn. 1:126 Abr. 1:220,233,238 Ios. 1:115,118,206,234,253 Mos. 1:25,142,174,225,260 Decal. 1:14 Spec. 1:7,62,159,221 Spec. 2:19f,187,193 Spec. 3:138 Spec. 4:28,126,220 Virt. 1:48,216 Contempl. 1:48,53f Flacc. 1:86 Legat. 1:108,257,344 Hypoth. 6:6 Hypoth. 11:4 Prov. 2:1,29 QG 4:76
We could continue this study by looking at the verb form of “preparation”, παρασκευάζω. This appears 135 times in Josephus, 49x in Philo, and 20 times in the LXX and NT, including 4x in the NT.
Finally, we should look at the Aramaic Peshitta to show that the original sense was not Friday. “וַערֻובתָּא הוָת דּפֵצחָא”,
Torrey had argued that ערֻובתָּא was a technical word for Friday. But this imposition of CPA Aramaic is an anachronism of Christian Syriac introduced to the lexicon after the Church stopped keeping Passover at its appointed time. Then the eve of Passover ceased to exist for Syriac Christians as a meaningful concept.
The opposition always argues their dogmatism based on the fallacy of
The Catholic and Protestant apologists for the Friday-Sunday have historically chosen to make “preparation” = “friday” the centerpiece of their argument. The first dogma you will hear from a pastor or Seminary Greek graduate is a snappy curt reply to any inquires regarding the possibility of a Wednesday crucifixion, is that “It's impossible, because the preparation means Friday and only Friday.” This byline is ignorant, arrogant, and wrong, and expecially so, since they are not telling you any evidence, but simply expect you to believe them. It is calculated to make one recoil from their angry response as if it is dire heresy to question it, and by no means should one commit the sin of investigating it to find the truth.
19:14† ^Now it was the preparation for the Passover. It was about the third hour. We know from the parallel passage in Mark 15:25 that “third hour” is correct. So the manuscripts of John which read “third” (τριτη) are correct: אc01C2 Dsuppl05 Xtxt033 Δ037 72.72. 88.88. 123*mg123. 151.151.
I do not accept the arguments faulting Mark’s text. The third hour would be a fact not easily gotten wrong for 50 years before John wrote, and therefore what Mark is established to say, he says. And it makes much more sense on the time line. Neither do I accept the arguments any longer expanding the definition of sixth hour back to 10:30 a.m., or the third hour forward to 10:30 am. We can easily see an estimate of ±1 hour being acceptable in the naming of hours. But this is burdened with the fact that Mark 15:25 is speaking of events at a point in time quite a bit after when John speaks in 19:14. That would be at least a half hour different, and so the wideness of hour has to be pushed all the way to ±2 hours. John is accustomed to better accuracy than that (cf. John 1:40; 4:6; 4:52). What I am more willing to accept now is that the text of John is in error, even with only a few manuscripts to attest to “third,” because the gap is too large between the oldest mss and the original to reject the possibility that an error occurred in copying. We have to be willing to accept that we have not found out all the copy mistakes. And also the rule of the harder reading has to be suspended when it entails leaving an actual contradiction in the text. And this is something that the Higher Critics often in control of textual criticism are unwilling to do.
The error might be explained by the scribe copying John not being familiar with Mark’s third hour, but being familiar with the oft repeated sixth hour for the onset of the darkness, and therefore, he put sixth from memory or supposition when writing the sentence, and did not double check his exemplar. Believing in the laziness of an early scribe is easier than supposing John was so inaccurate as to put sixth.
19:24† ^Psa. 22:19(18).
19:31‡ ^The Yehūdi̱m therefore, because it had been the day of preparation, so that the bodies should not remain on the cross on the Shabbat (because that Shabbat had been great), had asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.‡ The High Sabbath mentioned here is the first day of unleavened bread, which was the first annual Sabbath of the year. In AD 34 it fell between Wednesday Sunset, March 24, AD 34, and Thursday Sunset, March 25, AD 34.
The annual Sabbath nature of this day is confirmed by Mark 16:1, i.e. that the spices were purchased after the Sabbath. This only makes sense if they were purchased after the annual Sabbath, on Friday, which was a regular working day between the annual Sabbath and the weekly Sabbath. The weekly Sabbath after Passover is called the “first of the Sabbaths,” (John 20:1; Luke 6:1), which was the resurrection day. So the only time to buy spices after the Sabbath was on the day after the annual Sabbath.
The opposition succeeded in the first place by corrupting the texts, and even changing Greek texts to suit their view (cf. Luke 24:21). Everything else they explain away with ad hoc arguments. We need to observe that even with their ad hoc responses, they have not succeeded in refuting the validity of the translations and interpretations given for the Sabbath resurrection. Just because they believe their interpretation, “first day of the week” is possible does not make, “first of the Sabbaths” impossible.
Armed with this, it is important to note that all the facts are neatly explained by “first of the Sabbaths,” and this includes the whole calendar and Daniel 9. So we have to conclude one of two things: firstly why is it possible that all the facts can be neatly explained to agree with the Sabbath resurrection? If the Sunday resurrection is true, did the Almĭghty mean to leave such a huge hole in the evidence for the Sunday resurrection-- a hole so huge that the same words can prove a Sabbath resurrection? Or secondly: ultimately the arguments for the Sunday resurrection peter out, and they are truly based on changes and alterations that were originally lies made up to deceive the elect, and the case for the Sunday resurrection is really a pseudo-case. If the resurrection had been on Sunday in the first place, then it should not be possible to demonstrate a Sabbath resurrection. But if the resurrection were on the Sabbath, according to the literal sense of the texts, then there is a ready explanation for the twisting of texts, interpretations, and facts, to force a Sunday resurrection onto it: hatred of the the Torah and Prophets.
Consider this: at no place is the Sabbath resurrection stopped short by any fatal flaw, and the whole time it is supported by the literal and natural explanation of things. The very fact that this is the case should shut the mouths of the critics! One does not witness the building of a case where all the facts start adding up and then dismiss it off hand, or with ridicule and disrespect.
We are fact with the startling truth. If all the facts fit the Sabbath resurrection, then either the Almĭghty did not care prove a Sunday resurrection, since he left the door open for a Sabbath resurrection, or second, the whole Sunday resurrection is a lie, and the Sabbath resurrection is proved. So which do you want to believe? 1. In a god that does not believe in stating clearly the most important date in history?, or 2. In men that tell lies, and turn the lies into tradition to create their own explanation of the facts?
So now I return to John 19:31 to mention the ad hoc arguments. Those among the traditionalists who agree that Nisan 14 was the day of the crucifixion argue that a “high Sabbath” occurs when a feast day happens to land on the weekly Sabbath. Therefore, they say Nisan 15 landed on the weekly Sabbath that year, because they believe in a Friday to Sunday chronology. This is purely an assume what you want to prove argument. They assume that “high sabbath” means when a feast lands on a Sabbath. But why would such an idiom exist? Ordinarily feast days do not land on the weekly Sabbath. In 6/7 cases they land during another day of the week. So the assumed idiom “high Sabbath” meaning a coinciding of a feast and regular Sabbath would only be reinforced in 1/7 cases. What about the other 6/7 cases? Does mama ask papa why only 1/7 feast days are called high Sabbaths, and the other six are not? And then papa says they are only high when they fall on the weekly Sabbath.
It should be obvious, then, why the claim for “high Sabbath” meaning a 1/7 coincidence is of no practical value. A feast is not made greater because it happens on a weekly Sabbath. And if a Sabbath is made great by the feast, then the feast must already be great. So then, why is it not great on some other day of the week! The feast makes the day great no matter what day of the week it comes on, and since rest is commanded on the first day of unleavened bread, it is a Shabbat.
The opposition is not going to let their audience be exposed to the reasoning I have shown here. They are going to quote me out of context, and they are going to stand off at the horizon and shoot their rail guns with Mach 7 of ridicule, insult, and disrespect. Or more often, they will argue with straw men versions of the Sabbath resurrection rather than take on the real thing. And these versions also they disrespect and ridicule.
Now what of those who think that the crucifixion was on Nisan 15, on a Friday. Since the rest day of the feast, according to them, was the crucifixion day, it begs the question why the next day is called a “High Sabbath.” They are reduced to saying it is high because it falls in the middle of a feast, or because it falls on Nisan 16, and they expect the temple to be busier that day due to the wave offering. But there arguments are arbitrary. All annual Sabbaths are great because they are extraordinary Sabbaths.
If the “high Sabbath” in John 19:31 had been on a weekly Sabbath (and so defined as the traditionalists claim), then John would have no purpose to offer the words “because that Shabbat had been great” as an explanation (ἦν γὰρ μεγάλη ἡ ἡμέρα ἐκείνου τοῦ σαββάτουἦν γὰρ μεγάλη ἡ ἡμέρα ἐκείνου τοῦ σαββάτου). It could be an extraneous piece of information. But John does not give it as extra info. He gives it as the explanation introducing the clause with the word γὰρ, which means, “for” or “because.” In fact the “greatness” (using any of the explanations of the traditionalists) would have nothing to do with the reason for avoiding leaving the bodies up. They would have wanted to avoid this on any Sabbath, and not just a great one. Rather John mentions it because the designation “great Sabbath” was tied to Nisan 15 in every case, whether it came on a weekday or on the weekly Sabbath, and in that particular case, the great Sabbath was not on a weekly Sabbath, and therefore the great Sabbath was the only reason that could be given for getting the bodies off the cross as soon as possible. When the other evangelists mention this Sabbath, they call it “the Sabbath,” but they mean what John makes clear. It was the “great Sabbath,” the annual one. So more specifically the reason for getting the bodies down was that that Sabbath was the great one. The reason makes sense only in that it was not on a weekly Sabbath that year, and that about 40-50 years after the other evangelists wrote he is making clear what false teachers had confused in the meantime.
The Roman Church presumes that every Sabbath after good Friday is the “Great Sabbath,” even when the Sabbath in question does not fall in the feast of unleavened bread, or line up with a feast day. They have fixed the definition according to their false doctrine. On the other hand, the post Temple Judaism teaches that “Shabbat HaGadōl” is the Sabbath before Passover. This too contradicts John 19:31, which cannot be referring to the Sabbath before Passover. Clearly then, both Judaism and the Church have changed the definition of the Great Sabbath. And if the Church’s definition is to have any validity, it must be obtained from Jewish sources, which clearly it is not, since it contradicts both later Jewish tradition, and John’s earlier Jewish source.
Indeed, there is no Jewish tradition to back up the Friday-Sunday defenders ad hoc explanation of “High Sabbath,” and any Christian tradition agreeing with them does not extend back into John’s time.
19:36† ^Psa. 34:21(20); Ex. 12:46; Num. 9:12.
19:37‡ ^Zech. 12:10.
19:40‡ ^This was done on Friday between the two Sabbaths, which is why the detail is in parenthesis. The burial on Wednesday was a speedy affair, because they had to finish it before the annual Sabbath began (cf. vs. 31).
19:42† ^This detail gives the reason the location and tomb were chosen, but evidently it is a detail added as an afterthought and not in chronological order. For that choice had been made before the annual Sabbath, but Nicodemus embalmed the body after the annual Sabbath on the preparation for the weekly Sabbath.
20:1† ^Now on the first of the Shabbats Miryam Ha-Magdali̱t came early, while it was still dark at the tomb, and saw the stone already taken away from the tomb.† This was the first weekly Sabbath after Passover. It is called “first” on account of the commandment for counting seven Sabbaths in Lev. 23:15. The text says, “while still dark,” which means that it was still night everywhere except in the east where, if one could look, he could see the coming dawn of day. John notes this, because the resurrection occurred at the end of the third night, and not after the day had begun. The missing stone indicates that the resurrection had happened.
The first of the Shabbats (John 20:1): The phrase in the evangelists for the resurrection day is μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων. The opposition argues for first day of the week. However the definition “week” for σαββάτων did not exist before the Didache (ca. AD 100-130) in Greek, a text which we cannot be certain was redacted, or Seder Olam (AD 140-160) in Hebrew. The assumption of a definition of “week” for the word σαββάτων or שׁבת in the first century is an anachronism. And where the sense “week” appears, it has been edited into the texts (cf. LXX Psalm titles), or inserted into translations well after the origination of the source texts, and always many years after the resurrection passages. And it always appears in texts or works designed to either uphold the Sunday tradition, or to deny correct chronology for the faithful (i.e. Seder Olam). In other words, all the texts asserting the sense “week” are heretical texts produced by Gnostic, Catholic, or Christian sects rejecting Torah, or by Rabbis rejecting Mĕssiah, and wishing to confuse and corrupt sacred chronology (i.e. Seder Olam). And all these corruptions appear well after the resurrection of Messiah.
Besides the non-existence of the usage “week,” we have actual usage of the word שׁבת in counting days
Therefore if a Hebrew speaker wanted to say “week,” then there was a ready way to do it: ביום אחד בשׁבוע. And if a Greek speaker wants to say the same, then he says, πρωτη του εβδομαδος. So there was already a ready made way to communicate “first day of the week.” Why then would it be thought that שׁבת would need to mean week? So it should be plain that the 4Q317 means “on one to the Sabbath.”
Now how would 4Q317 (באחד לשׁבת) look in Greek? It would go like this εν τη μια εις το σαββατον or εν τη πρωτη [ημερα] προς το σαββατον.
Even the Mishnaic Hebrew (אחד בשׁבת) would have to look like this in Greek: πρωτη εν τω σαββατω.
So what is the precedent for μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων? According to Greek grammar rules, the adjective μιᾷ implies that the word “day” (ημερα) should be interpolated. No Greek scholar is going to dispute this, though a lot of laymen foolishly do so. The text then expands to: “first [day] of the Sabbaths”: μιᾷ [ἡμέρᾳ] τῶν σαββάτων. The ordinary phrase for the Sabbath day is embedded here: ἡμέρᾳ τῶν σαββάτων. This is almost exactly as if in English the idiom for the Sabbath day was, “Day of the Sabbaths,” and then we ran into a text, “first Day of the Sabbaths.” The Greek text in the resurrection passages is nothing more than the ordinary idiom for the Sabbath day modified by the adjective first. In Hebrew it can be put, אחת השׁבתות, or יום השׁבת, הראשׁון.
That the Latin Translators knew how to translate the Greek literally, is evident from the Latin versions. They employ the word
It is clear from the Latin readings of the New Testament, whether from the Vetus Latina (the Old Latin Bibles) or from Jerome’s Vulgate made after the council of Nicaea, that the first translators of the Greek into Latin were well aware of Messiah resurrecting on the Sabbath. In Greek, we have τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων, which the Codex Bobiensis (c. 350 AD) translated as “prima sabbati” which translates into English as “on the first Sabbath.” An even better translation of the Greek into Latin comes from an older manuscript called the Codex Bezae (c. 450 AD). It reads as “una sabbatorum,” which sticks to a perfectly literal translation of the Greek and in English is translated as “one of the Sabbaths.” Codex Bezae also reads, “Sero autem sabbatorum” in Mat. 28:1a, “On the late
Jerome’s later Vulgate (c. 400 AD) reads as “prima sabbati” (on the first [day] of the Sabbath) in passages such as Matthew 28:1 and “una sabbatorum” (on one [day] of the sabbaths) in Mark 16:2, evidently copying these phrases from earlier manuscripts that have the various readings. What can be certain, however, is that from these three versions of the Latin handed down to us from the 4th and 5th centuries that even after the church began to adopt Sunday as their main day of worship, the first translators faithfully translated the Greek into Latin and understood Messiah’s resurrection to have occurred on the weekly Sabbath. This is evidently so because Jerome found it necessary to change the earlier
The first Latin texts were done by faithful who knew the resurrection was on the Sabbath. After the translation was set, it was impossible for them to translate it first day of the week, viz. “prima die hebdomadis” or “prima die septimanae” (on the first day of the week). But what they could not do to the Latin, they did to the English at the time of the Reformation.
20:19‡ ^When therefore it was later, on that day, the first of the Shabbats (John 20:19): The same first Sabbath after the Passover upon which Yĕshūa̒ rose from the dead. See vs. 1. The women arrived at the tomb at dawn on the weekly Sabbath, and Yĕshūa̒ met with his disciples later that same day.
It has already been proved that “first of the Sabbaths” means the first Sabbath day. Since this is the case, then it is the first Sabbath of seven Sabbaths to be counted according to Lev. 23:15. The following calendar shows the consequences to the passion chronology of counting the seven Sabbaths to Shavuot two different ways, one according to the 9th century AD Karaites, and the other according to the first century AD Pharisees.
Month: I AVIV, AD 34 4173 A.M. Sab. Cyc: 1. Jub. Cyc: 8 Cycle No: 85
Q1: 1.501 A Q2: -0.493 G LG: 102m W: 1.068' AL: 20.8 AV: 20.8
New Moon calculated for longitude: 35.17 and latitude 31.77
Location of calculations: Jerusalem Author: Daniel Gregg
Legend: ↑ or NM = New Moon sighted.
SBT = Shabbat
P1 = Pharisees 1st day of the 50.
K1 = Karaite 1st day of the 50.
1S = First of the Sabbaths
2S = Second of the Sabbaths
♦ = Crucifixion
▲ = Resurrection
█████▀▀▀▀▀ = weekly Sabbath
██╫██▀▀▀▀▀ = annual Sabbath
I II III IV V VI VII
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~█████▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒
↑ │ 1 │ 2 │ 3 │
AVIV/NISAN NM │New Moon │ │ │
3/10/34 │ Day │ │ │
MAR 10 │ │ │ │
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~█████▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒
│ 4 │ 5 │ 6 │ 7 │ 8 │ 9 │ 10 │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~██╫██▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~█████▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒
│ 11 │ 12 │ 13 │ 14♦ │ 15 │ 16 ▲ 17 │
│ │ │ │ ANNUAL SBT │ WEEKLY SBT │
│ │ │ │ │ │ P1 1S│ P2 │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~██╫██▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~█████▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒
│ 18 │ 19 │ 20 │ 21 │ 22 │ 23 │ 24 │
│ │ │ ANNUAL SBT │ │ WEEKLY SBT │
│ P3 │ P4 │ P5 │ P6 │ P7 │ P8 2S│P9 │
│ K1 │ K2 │ K3 │ K4 │ K5 │ K6 1S│K7 │
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒
│ 25 │ 26 │ 27 │ 28 │ 29 │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ P10 │ P11 │ P12 │ P13 │ P14 │
│ K8 │ K9 │ K10 │ K11 │ K12 │
The Karaite method of counting starting after the weekly Sabbath fails to identify the resurrection day as the “first of the Sabbaths.” Instead it identifies the Sabbath a week after the resurrection as the “first of the Sabbaths,” but this disagrees with the four Evangelists that the resurrection day was the “first of the Sabbaths.” The Evangelists agree with the Pharisees counting, showing that the resurrection day was on P1 and 1S, the third day from Nisan 14.
Matthew 28:1 says it was “The late one of the Sabbaths” (cf. Mt. 28:1), and this is parallel to the phrase, “at the dawning on the first of the Sabbaths.” The second phrase explains the first clause. They are two explanations for the same time period, i.e. the later of the Sabbaths is the same as the first of the Sabbaths. This shows that the resurrection day was the Sabbath, and that the second phrase does not mean “first day of the week.” Neither does the first clause mean the “end” or “after” the Sabbath, since this does not occur at dawn, and so would contradict the second clause that the time mentioned be dawning. The word means “late” and so must the late one of two Sabbaths. And the word for Sabbaths is plural, so the sense should be the late one of the Sabbaths, and not “after the Sabbath.” For the translators have corrupted both the word “late” and the plural of Sabbaths, changing both, so that they can force their tradition onto the text.
The overall Scriptural chronology confirms the solution. First Daniel 9 starts with the rebuilding of Jerusalem in 445 BC, and the predicted Sabbatical years require AD 32/33 to be the 69th seven (7+62), and the prophecy says the crucifixion will be after this. So only AD 34 fits the timing. AD 34 is also the last year to agree with the start of Mĕssiah’s ministry in AD 30, and the length of it recorded in Luke 13 (4 years, and 5 Passovers). AD 34 also yeilds only a Wednesday for Nisan 14, and the calendar cannot be jumped forward due to lack of lunar visibility, as Adar that year already had 30 days. Also AD 34 follows the equinox rule perfectly and the mercy rule, which is to say there is to be no delay in first fruits, but also the first fruits must be offered in the new year. This allows a unique astronomical solution for AD 34. Finally, the prediction that the resurrection is on the third day, which according to biblical types is counted inclusively, starting from Wednesday, ends at dawn on the Sabbath. This makes it impossible to arrive at Sunday for the resurrection, and also impossible for the women to go to the tomb on Sunday, or for the visit later that Sabbath (John 20:19) to be on Sunday. This proves that the words “first of the Sabbaths” refer to the weekly Sabbath immediately after Nisan 15, and shows that counting the 50 days beginning on Nisan 16 is correct.
20:26† ^And after eight days, his disciples were inside again,† The resurrection was on the day of the wave sheaf, which was from dawn on Friday to dawn on the Sabbath, overlapping half of the Sabbath (at point
Month: I AVIV, AD 34 4173 A.M. Sab. Cyc: 1. Jub. Cyc: 8 Cycle No: 85
Q1: 1.501 A Q2: -0.493 G LG: 102m W: 1.068' AL: 20.8 AV: 20.8
New Moon calculated for longitude: 35.17 and latitude 31.77
Location of calculations: Jerusalem Author: Daniel Gregg
SUN MON TUE WED THUR FRI SABBATH
I II III IV V VI VII
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~█████▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒
↑ │ 1 │ 2 │ 3 │
AVIV/NISAN │New Moon │ │ │
MAR 10 │ MAR 11 │ │ │
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~█████▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒
│ 4 │ 5 │ 6 │ 7 │ 8 │ 9 │ 10 │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~██╫██▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~█████▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒
│ 11 │ 12 │ 13 │ 14♦ │ 15 │16-0-1 ♦│17-1-2 │
│ │ │ │Passover │Passover │ Sheaf ♦│ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ R │ 1 │
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~██╫██▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~█████▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒
│18-1-3 │19-1-4 │20-1-5 │21-1-6 │22-1-7 │23-1-8 │24-2-9 │
│ │ │ │7thULB │ │ │ │
│ 2 │ 3 │ 4 │ 5 │ 6 │ 7 │ 8 │
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒
│25-2-10 │26-2-11 │27-2-12 │28-2-13 │29-2-14 │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
The eight days are counted after the resurrection, which is marked