John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word [Jesus], and the Word [Jesus] was with God [the Father], and the Word [Jesus] was [also a] God.
Hebrews 1:8-9 But unto the Son [Jesus] he [the Father] saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou [Jesus] hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God [the Father], even thy God [He’s even Jesus’ God], hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness [the Holy Ghost – Acts 10:38a…God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power…] above thy fellows [above any other Old Testament prophet - Acts 3:20-22 calls Jesus a prophet].
These “fellows,” these Old Testament worthies, were to also bring forth Jesus unto the throne of the Father, and to present Him to the Father (or, as the Old Testament also calls the Father, The Ancient of Days – for He has been from everlasting to everlasting), and say that this slain Lamb is worthy to receive honor above themselves for what He has done for our salvation. Let’s watch this happen in a prophecy by Daniel:
Daniel 7:13-14 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man [a reference to Jesus: Matthew 13:37; 16:13; etc.; referring, that is, to His earthen bodied-self] came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days [the Father], and they [these clouds] brought him [Jesus] near before him. And there was given him [Jesus] dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.
Who were these clouds that had the ability to present Jesus to the Father as a worthy King? Worthier, that is, than their-selves. No, not natural clouds, but metaphorically, they were people who, like a cloud, could hold water; i.e. they could hold-in the Holy Ghost (referred to, at times, as water in scripture: John 7:37b-39a; Isaiah 44:3; 1 Corinthians 12:13). Jude shows us opposite people who couldn’t hold the Holy Ghost: Jude 1:12b “…clouds they are without water, carried about of winds…” That is, wind of man’s doctrine: Ephesians 4:14 “That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive.” Peter, also, tells of such evil men: 2 Peter 2:17b “…clouds that are carried with a tempest…” Again, by the wind of man’s doctrine. But, of whom we’re speaking particularly, they were not wicked people, but we’re the worthy saints of the Old Testament: Hebrews 12:1a “Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses…” Speaking here about all the Old Testament worthies that were spoken on during chapter 11 of Hebrews, and calling them clouds. Clouds, that is, that could hold the Holy Ghost. It was they who had presented the Lamb of God (Jesus) unto the Ancient of Days (the Father) as the only one who could be crowned King of kings and Lord of lords. Daniel, therefore, was presenting to us the coronation of Jesus Christ, being crowned thus . . . Now, let’s now finish in Hebrews:
Hebrews 1:10 And, Thou, Lord [Jesus], in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands [John 1:3].
(A special Note on John 1:1 will appear after this chapter’s finished…)
John 1:2 The same [this Word – Jesus] was in the beginning with God [Proverbs 8:22-30].
Jesus pre-existed before He came to earth as a baby. He even pre-existed before the heavens or the earth were created.
John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
John 1:3 All things were made by him [Jesus]; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Colossians 1:13-17 [the Father] Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son [Jesus]: In whom [Jesus] we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him [again, Jesus] were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
John 1:4 In him [Jesus] was life [i.e. true reality; as opposed to temporal reality upon earth]; and the life was the light of men.
Light means enlightenment of Godly truth; see Psalms 43:3; 119:105; 119:130; Proverbs 6:23; Ecclesiastes 11:7; and Isaiah 8:20.
John 1:5 And the light [enlightenment] shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
John 18:37-38b Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice. Pilate saith unto him, What is truth?...
John 1:6-12 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John [the Baptist]. [1:7] The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. [1:8] He [John] was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light [Jesus; who shared this Light through His testimony and preaching]. [1:9] That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. [1:10] He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. [1:11] He came unto his own [the chosen people of God, the Jews], and his own received him not [on a whole, the majority had rejected Him]. [1:12] But as many as received him [the few, the chosen], to them gave he power to become the sons of God [on the Day of Pentecost, when the Holy Ghost came in its fullest power], even to them that believe on his name:
Or, that is, believing and living His divine nature (2nd Peter 1:4); of which divine nature is described as the Fruits of the Spirit:
Galatians 5:22-23a But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance…
Of which Fruit defines us a Christians:
Matthew 12:33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.
John 13:35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.
Which, in turn, gives us a glimpse of the Fruits which hung from the two trees in the Garden of Eden, back in Genesis. One had the Fruits, or workings, of the Spirit, the other of the flesh. Let’s move up just a few verses in Galatians to see the bad fruits; i.e., bad works:
Galatians 5:19-21 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Let’s read verse 12 in John again:
John 1:12 But as many as received him [the few, the chosen], to them gave he power to become the sons of God [on the Day of Pentecost, when the Holy Ghost came in its fullest power], even to them that believe on his name:
John 1:13-14a Which were born [born again, by Spirit on the Day of Pentecost], not of [natural] blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. [1:14a] And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,
John 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh [the Word of God] of the Son of man, and drink his blood [God’s Spirit], ye have no life in you.
The flesh of Jesus is the Word of God; but, not the Written Word, but the Living Word; for, Jesus was a living Being, expressing the Word of God while upon earth. Then, when His Word was put down into written form, it became the Written Word – which, the difference between the two is important to understand in the Bible. For instance:
Ephesians 6:17b …the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.
I believe this to be the Written Word, especially when we compare it to:
Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God [the Living Word this time] is quick, and powerful, and SHARPER [not as sharp as; but, sharper] than any twoedged sword [the Written Word; edge one is the Old Testament in written form; edge two is the New Testament in written form], [the Living Word pierces] piercing even to the dividing asunder of [a living] soul and [a quickening] spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
The Living Word, Jesus, is more powerful than a written document; for He, personally, can divide our living soul from our quickening spirit – that is, our Outward Man (who is the son of the first man Adam, who fell!) from our Inward Man (the second man Adam – Jesus) who did not fall.
1 Corinthians 15:45-49 And so it is written, The first man Adam [from Genesis] was made a living soul [Genesis 2:7]; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit [Ephesians 2:15 – becoming twain, one new man]. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural [again, first man Adam was natural]; and afterward that which is spiritual [2nd Adam, Jesus, was of the Spirit]. The first man is of the earth, earthy [carnal . . . Again he fell]: the second man is the Lord from heaven [Jesus is spiritual]. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall [when receiving God’s Spirit inside of us] also bear the image of the heavenly [we shall pass from the carnal to the spiritual, as well, if we embrace the Spirit of God, and are born a second time].
But, we can’t do so unless we eat His flesh – which has much more benefits than eating natural bread in a natural communion; which, again, only “represents” true, spiritual, communion; and, we need to drink His blood – the Spirit of God; for, “Blood” at times, metaphorically, also (besides water) represents the Holy Spirit in the Bible – the blood of the everlasting covenant:
Hebrews 9:7-8b But into the second [compartment of the Tabernacle in the wilderness] went the high priest alone once every year, not without [natural animal] blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people: The Holy Ghost this signifying…
That is, the natural animal blood in the Old Testament sacrifices metaphorically represented the Holy Ghost; for, it’s really the Holy Ghost, and not natural animal blood, that can actually wash away sins. So, eating Jesus’ metaphorical flesh [the Word of God – and NOT his natural flesh] and drinking his blood [the Spirit of God – and, not His natural blood], is partaking of God’s true communion.
John 1:14b…(and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Jesus was the only Being that the Father had ever birthed; Jesus, afterward, begot mankind. See again Colossians 1:16-17.
John 1:15 John [the Baptist] bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.
Again, showing the pre-existence of Jesus – who made the worlds at the beginning of time.
John 1:16-18a And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace [again, by the receiving of the Holy Ghost; and, being birthed a second time, of the Inner Man]. [1:17] For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. [1:18a] No man hath seen God [the Father] at any time…
Literally! Nor did anybody even know of the Father prior to Jesus introducing Him to the world; for, it was Jesus who had dealt with the world Himself during the Old Testament:
John 8:57-58 Then said the Jews unto him [Jesus], Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I AM.
Exodus 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.
Showing us, again, that Jesus was the great I AM who had dealt with the children of Israel during the Old Testament. But, again, nobody knew of the Father; for, they only knew about the great I AM – Jesus.
Matthew 11:27b …neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.
John 5:37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.
For, again, it was the Son, Jesus, whom the children of Israel had to deal during the days of the Old Testament.
[A special Note on John 1:18a will also follow this first chapter]
John 1:18b …the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
Philippians 2:9-11 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
John 1:19-21 And this is the record of John [the Baptist], when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou? [1:20] And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ [I’m not the expected Messiah – the anointed, Holy One of God]. [1:21] And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? [Elijah, the prophet] And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.
Deuteronomy 18:15 [Moses speaking] The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet [Jesus] from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken.
Some thought “that prophet” may have been Jeremiah:
Matthew 16:14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias [Jeremiah], or one of the [other] prophets.
John 1:22-23 Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself? [1:23] He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias [quoting Isaiah 40:3].
John the Baptist was sent as a forerunner to Jesus’ ministry, to announce the Lord’s arrival.
John 1:24-25 And they which were sent were of the Pharisees [a religious sect of Judaism in the 1st century]. [1:25] And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?
Again, John the Baptist was the announcer of the Lord’s ministry; and, he baptized people in water to cleanse them for Jesus’ upcoming ministry; unto repentance, preaching the remission of sins – that is, preparing folks for Jesus to take sins away by His sacrifice on the cross; because, natural water cannot take away sins, but Jesus’ Holy Ghost Baptism can.
Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire.
Mark 1:4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
John 1:26-29 John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not; [1:27] He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose. [1:28] These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing. [1:29] The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
Again, John preached about remission of sins, preparing the way for Jesus to actually do so, but not he . . . Jesus was called the Lamb of God because He metaphorically stood for the Lambs that were sacrificed in the Old Testament, which symbolized sins being taken away from the people; and, in turn, symbolized what Jesus (being called a sacrificial Lamb) was going to do in the future – that is, to die on the cross; making, therefore, no more animal sacrifices for sin.
Hebrews 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins.
Hebrews 9:26c …he [Jesus] appeared [on earth] to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
A Lamb is mentioned many times in the book of Revelation; and, this is but another way of identifying Jesus in that book.
Revelation 5:12b …Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing.
John 1:30-34 This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me. [1:31] And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel [a forerunner; an announcer], therefore am I come baptizing with water. [1:32] And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. [1:33] And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. [1:34] And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.
There are a few ideas of just exactly how this was done – that is, how the Spirit of God alighted upon Jesus at John’s baptism. Was there a literal dove that landed on Jesus’ shoulder? Or, was that expression just a metaphoric phraseology which simply meant that God’s Spirit came upon Jesus like a gentle dove would alight gracefully upon a person? . . . The most important thing, actually, is in knowing that God’s Spirit came upon Jesus prior to the Day of Pentecost. And, therefore, I’d like to propose an idea that not too many may have spoken on before – that Jesus did, indeed, receive the Baptism of the Holy Ghost prior to the Day of Pentecost – which was still about 3 and a half years distant into the future – even if we can’t prove that He spoke in tongues at the baptism of John. Consider, though, that the way unto this heavenly realm had to be created by Jesus Himself before anybody else could enter in. Jesus came to fulfil the ways of the Old Law, and the Old Covenant. The Old ways, therefore, had to be fulfilled in the life of Jesus before a New and Living way could even come into existence.
Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
He did this by living the lifestyle of the Old Testament before his baptism by John. Then, once he was baptized, He was therefore ready to take the world head-on in an unprecedented ministry! But, not beforehand. I believe this is why He told Nicodemus that He was already in heaven whilst He was still upon earth – metaphorically speaking, of course…
John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which IS [present-tense] in heaven.
…He was in a “heavenly place” that nobody else could attain to until the Day of Pentecost. Therefore, His ministry was a preparation for all others to follow Him into a whole new Kingdom. Because, a new Kingdom couldn’t even come into existence until after Jesus died on the cross; showing us, definitely, that the New Testament did not exist until He rose from the tomb:
Hebrews 9:15-18 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.
Despite some ideas concerning John 7:39, when it said that the Holy Ghost was not yet given to the world, we don’t have to look upon that as saying that the Spirit didn’t exist before the Day of Pentecost; for, even the prophets of the Old Testament, as Peter attests to, had the Spirit of Christ in them when they wrote the Old Testament books:
1 Peter 1:10-11 Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.
But, that doesn’t mean that they had an Acts chapter 2, Holy Ghost experience – which they didn’t; for, as Jeremiah tells us, they had no “container” (an Inner Man) to keep the Spirit within them (they having had only “broken cisterns” that couldn’t hold-in the Holy Ghost – Jeremiah 2:13) to where the Spirit could actually “dwell” (stay) inside of them long enough to give them a born-again experience (Romans 8:11). But, the Holy Ghost has always been working with mankind since the beginning of time; but, John tells us, in John 7:39, that man hadn’t had the “full” expression (full submersion) of that Spirit because Jesus hadn’t yet ascended up to His Father so that the Comforter could come in complete fashion for salvation purposes. But, Jesus Himself didn’t have to wait until the Day of Pentecost to receive the Holy Ghost fully; such waiting was for everyone else; for, no other person could say that they were THE Resurrection (John 11:25); the Lord of the Sabbath (Matthew 12:8); the Way, the Truth, and the Life (John 14:6); or, the Light of the World (John 1:9). Jesus, also, was a representative of the Holy Ghost; because, as we’ve already seen, it’s called His own blood (John 6:53-56 and Hebrews 9:7-8) – the blood of the Lamb; which, in turn, He puts inside of us to make us alive.
Revelation 7:14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them WHITE [not red] in the blood of the Lamb.
It’s not red blood because it isn’t natural blood, but is simply “pure life;” or, that is, “white blood.” Pure = white; and, life = blood. But, even though not red blood, as we understand it in the natural, it still “metaphorically” represents blood, since, as the Bible attests to, life is in the blood of any creature:
Leviticus 17:11a For the life of the flesh is in the blood…
Leviticus 17:14 For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.
And, since blood = life, how can it be more fitting to say that the Holy Ghost, metaphorically, can be called the blood of the Lamb? Or, the blood of the everlasting covenant? (Hebrews 9:7-8) i.e. of the second covenant.
John 1:35-39 Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples; [1:36] And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God! [that is, the sacrificial Lamb of the Father] [1:37] And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus. [1:38] Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,) where dwellest thou? [1:39] He saith unto them, Come and see. They came and saw where he dwelt, and abode with him that day: for it was about the tenth hour.
Tenth hour = 4pm, since a Jewish day begins at 6am. Even on the Day of Pentecost, Peter declared that those folks weren’t drunk, since it was only 9am, which he called the third hour of the day [Acts 2:15].
John 1:40-42 One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother. [1:41] He first findeth his own brother Simon [Peter], and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ. [1:42] And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.
Not the Rock, with a big “R,” but a stone, a little rock. Jesus Himself holds the title of Rock, with a big “R,” and nobody else.
John 1:43-51 The day following Jesus would go forth into Galilee, and findeth Philip, and saith unto him, Follow me. [1:44] Now Philip was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter. [1:45] Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph. [1:46] And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and see. [1:47] Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile! [1:48] Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee. [1:49] Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel. [1:50] Jesus answered and said unto him, Because I said unto thee, I saw thee under the fig tree, believest thou? thou shalt see greater things than these. [1:51] And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.
Note for John 1:1
Acts 3:20-22 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began. For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.
Quoting: Deuteronomy 18:15; 18 . . . To see that the Father is also known as the Ancient of Days, read Daniel 7:13 very carefully. How can Jesus (known as the Son of Man in scripture – even He calling Himself so many times in the Gospel) be presented to Jesus, if Jesus is the Ancient of Days Himself? Even if Jesus seems to be indicated in other Old Testament scriptures as to being the Ancient of Days, it would be very hard to prove it by this one scripture alone.
Note for John 1:18a
For a discussion on Jesus being the great I AM, we need to discuss both italicized words in the Bible, and of Angels … First on italics: It’s a well-known fact that italics in the Bible were not put-in for the emphasizing of words, but were words that did not appear in the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek source-texts of the scriptures. Especially, these italicized words did not appear in what’s called the Masoretic text of the Old Testament (which was used as the source text for Luther, Tyndale, and the King James Version), and of the Textus Receptus (the Received Text – which, again, were used by Luther, Tyndale, and the KJV panel) of the Greek New Testament. When using these same source-texts, a certain J.P. Green Sr, in the early to mid-1900’s, in his wonderful Bible compilation called the Interlinear Bible (combining Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and English together in one book), and going word by word, he completely overlooks a lot of italicized words from the King James Version. Let’s see an important example:
John 18:3-6 (from the KJV) Judas then, having received a band of men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons. Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him, went forth, and said unto them, Whom seek ye? They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them. As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he, they went backward, and fell to the ground.
Not only did J.P. Green Sr not type-in the word “he” into his Interlinear Version (after the words “I am”), but he actually emphasis the term “I AM” in caps – showing us why the small army of men fell backward to the ground when they heard the words “I AM” spoken. Proving to many that Jesus was truly the great I AM of the Old Testament. Could that just have been a mere coincidence, though? But, can that really make sense, seeing as many consider the great I AM as to being the Father Himself . . . Well, let’s also consider who was speaking to Moses to begin with in the burning bush. It did not start off by saying that it was God the Father, but, rather, it was the “angel of the Lord.”
Exodus 3:2 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.
It was even the same angel who said that He was the great I AM; because, once the angel begins His dialog with Moses, no other Being takes over the conversation thereafter . . . Now, we can say that this “angel” was merely speaking on God’s behalf; but, frankly, it actually becomes more of a possibility to say that this angel was Jesus Christ Himself. In another area of the scriptures, it actually calls Jesus an angel:
Malachi 3:1 Behold, I will send my messenger [i.e. John the Baptist – H4397], and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even [who is] the messenger of the covenant [i.e. Jesus, the Angel of the Covenant – H4397], whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.
Messenger, Mal'âk, H4397, from Strong's Hebrew Dictionary (Published 1890, public domain): From an unused root meaning to despatch as a deputy; a messenger; specifically of God, that is, AN ANGEL (also a prophet, priest or teacher): - ambassador, angel, king, messenger.
As we see from other scriptures, the word angel doesn’t describe the “kind” of being that the messenger is (its race; its class), but of what the “duty” of the creature is – to deliver a message – showing us that an angel can either be heavenly (celestial) or earthly (terrestrial):
Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
If we are to take the term angel here traditionally, and say that it’s an actual Being from heaven, then we just might be in trouble today! Why? Were there really corrupt angels in heaven, during Paul’s day, in circa AD 60? That is, many, many years after the bad angels – as is supposed, and is sometimes taught – had fallen out of heaven? If that’s really the case, then we could be in serious trouble today if heaven truly is unstable! But, that’s not what Paul meant. The very next verse – and, even with an inserted, italicized word – the KJV panel helps us to understand that Paul was referring to natural men, who were trying to be “messengers” from God. That is, trying to convey “heavenly” messages; but, not that they were literally from heaven:
Galatians 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any MAN preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
And, this also explains why there were “angels” over the churches of Asia in the book of Revelation, during chapter 2; they weren’t literally heavenly Beings, but human messengers of God’s Word. Not only, but we already saw how that John the Baptist was also called an angel, along with Jesus, in Malachi 3:1 . . . So, no, I’m not suggesting that it was wrong for the KJV panel to add in some “extra” words into the text; for, most of the time they actually help us to understand otherwise obscure passages much, much better. But, in the extremely “few” times that they “might” cause us to miss a certain thought, it can be argued (and, I argue this myself!) that God had those men (of the King James Bible panel) insert these italicized words on purpose – to force His people to actually dig for the truth. Because, God hides things from the wise and prudent on purpose (Matthew 11:25), and reveals truths (albeit, sometimes at a slow pace) to those who have a love for truth. If that’s not true, then why did Jesus Himself hide things from certain people?
Matthew 13:10-17 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? [i.e. allegories; figures; similes; metaphors; etc.] He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias [Isaiah], which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear. For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.
1 Corinthians 2:6-14 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Therefore, I declare, that it can’t be a far stretch of the imagination to say that God can purposely hide things in His Word from certain people on purpose – even in the usage, at times, of italicized words . . . Now, let’s reconsider that Jesus was the greatest messenger-angel for the Father that the world has ever known…
John 12:49 [Jesus speaking:] For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.
Therefore, Jesus was not only God’s messenger (His angel – albeit, an archangel, chief of all angels – which I’ll actually speak on in the very next Explanatory Note, just below), but He was also a God – as so says John:
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word [Jesus], and the Word [Jesus] was with God [the Father], and the Word [Jesus] was God.
Notes on Michael the Archangel
1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these words.
So, what's the connection between these verses and Michael the Archangel? It's, of course, in the mentioning of the Archangel…
Revelation 12:7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels.
How is this a connector? It's, once again, when 1st Thessalonians mentions the archangel:
1 Thessalonians 4:16a For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God...
Why does this necessarily have to be Michael, though? Of course, at first, it may seem like a long-shot that I am tying in Revelation chapter 12 with 1st Thessalonians; but, for the meantime, please humor me with the fact that I’m fixing to declare boldly (and, without apology!) that I believe Michael to be the military leadership name of Jesus Christ. For, and just like in many other instances, where Jesus has other names and applications in scripture, I believe this is just another . . . According to Strong's Hebrew Dictionary, the Hebrew meaning for the name Michael is "Who is like God?" Which, even though in the form of a question, can denote a Being who is in the image of God; and, yet, not be God Himself – that is, not to be the Father God. But, what's funny about figuring out whom Michael is from scripture is that most modern-day scholars will tell you who He's not rather than who He is. And, when others try to figure the mystery out, many are quick to point a convicting finger ¬– especially if one were to say that it's Jesus. However, and despite popular belief, believing so doesn't make you part of a cult. Honestly, we must let the scriptures decide such things for us – with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, of course. And, even though none of them make this "direct" connection for us within its pages (that is, by actually calling Jesus Michael), we can actually glean a good picture of whom Michael is by combining clues together, whilst applying sound reasoning into the mix. In such cases, circumstantial evidence is very handy.
"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." – Sherlock Holmes; The Sign of the Four, 1890.
Especially is this true for the book/letter of Jude – which is perhaps the most obscure example of Michael's role; and, is a situation that has stumped scholars for years.
Jude 1:9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.
Nelson's New Illustrated Bible Dictionary, © 1995: "This reference is a puzzle to scholars, because the incident to which Jude refers does not appear anywhere in the Old Testament."
And, that's because it doesn't happen during the Old Testament, for Jude was referring to incidences that had actually occurred during the four Gospels; and, this "body of Moses" to which he referred were none other than those who had usurped that position:
Matthew 23:1-3 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
But, if that is so, then how, as Jude continued to explain, did Jesus not put forth an accusation toward them:
John 5:45 (Jesus speaking) Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.
Therefore, the "Lord" of whom will rebuke them, in Jude's words, is actually the Father Himself; because, even though Jesus said that Moses accused them, it was actually the Law that was given to the people through Moses which did the accusing; but of which, of course, was relayed by God. And, even though I've already stated herein that Jesus was the God of the Old Testament, it was in reference to Him being the Being with whom the Israelites had to deal with (and, too, that it was He who had actually created everything – Colossians 1:12-19); but, direct instructions, and of which was followed to the letter by the Son, was first originated within the mind of His Father (Proverbs 8:22-30).
Ephesians 3:9c …God [the Father], who created all things BY Jesus Christ.
John 5:30 [Jesus speaking] I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.
Acts 1:6-7 When they [the disciples] therefore were come together, they asked of him [Jesus], saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.
And, etc. . . . But, going back to Jude's reference, we can even see from the Gospels that Jesus did not advance the religious leadership of His day and time, but rather and simply spoke to the people instead; so, He didn't come to rebuke those leaders, because they, by not following the Law that was heavily illustrated by Moses himself, had already condemned them (because, they were not following it – Matthew 15:3), and had set their fate for the upcoming war with Rome, which had ended with the Temple's destruction in AD 70. Therefore, looking at Jude's words in this way explains a lot of things. But, and admittedly, a thorough sifting of all of Jude's words would make for a better argument, because they all actually back this notion to an even greater degree than just this quick, single scriptural quote.
Daniel 10:13 But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia.
What throws us off more than anything else is the fact that it said Michael was "ONE of the chief princes," and not THE chief prince. Not only, but instead of calling him an angel, or even an archangel, it instead calls him a prince. What do we make of all this? . . . As far as fighting the notion of he actually being Christ Jesus, Albert Barnes (who did not believe that Michael was Jesus), in his Notes on the Bible (1847-85, public domain), quickly offers up these words – though, not knowingly, paints a different picture for us of whom Michael is – opposing what he had apparently intended . . . I'll insert my own notes along the way to complete the picture:
But, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes – Margin, “the first.” That is, the first in rank of the “princes,” or the angels. In other words, Michael, the archangel.”
First of all, Mr. Barnes quickly offers up the solution of why he's only ONE of the princes and not THE prince in Daniel's reference by concluding that the archaic writing of both the ancient Hebrew and the Old English really meant that he was actually, indeed, Chief of all princes, and Chief of all angels. A conclusion that most scholars actually agree on. But, by stressing that Michael is simply an angel (albeit, an archangel), as most scholars also agree on, it automatically dismisses him as to being Jesus Christ . . . Or, does it? . . . Let's continue with Mr. Barnes:
The proper meaning of this name (Michael – מיכאל mı̂ykâ'êl) is, “Who as God,” and is a name given, undoubtedly, from some resemblance to God. The exact reason why it is given is not anywhere stated; but may it not be this - that one looking on the majesty and glory of the chief of the angels would instinctively ask, “Who, after all, is like God? Even this lofty angel, with all his glory, cannot be compared to the high and lofty One.” Whatever may have been the reason of the appellation, however, the name in the Scriptures has a definite application, and is given to the chief one of the angels.
Again, by stressing that, as high of a rank as this Michael is, he's not God Himself. This is another reason why a lot of scholars refuse to accept the notion that Michael can be Jesus. However, they are actually missing the clues that are blaringly (or, glaringly) staring them right in their own faces. In fact, Mr. Barnes admits that the name itself (and, as Strong's Hebrew Dictionary confirms – as we have already seen) means Who is as God? – which, though in the form of a question, many scholars contribute, as Mr. Barnes just did, as a statement, which could mean that Michael is "similar” to God – as to being in the image of the Almighty; or, His ambassador. But, frankly, what other Being, if this is so, can claim such a role other than Jesus Himself? As high-up as Jesus was – and is – He cannot compare in status to the Father. Paul paints that picture plainly for us in that even though He'll enjoy the title of King of kings, and Lord of lords for a certain period of time (similar, one could say, to Michael's role of Chief of Princes and Archangel of angels – because, only Michael is actually called an archangel in scripture, and none other: not even Gabriel!), that He'll actually and eventually relinquish all of His power (and, this is WAY after He ascended back up to Heaven) and give it all on over to the Father, the greater God, so that the Father can be all in all.
1 Corinthians 15:24 Then cometh the end, when he [Jesus] shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he [Jesus] shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.  And when all things shall be subdued unto him [the Father], then shall the Son [Jesus] also himself be subject unto him [the Father] that put all things under him, that God [the Father] may be all in all.
Matthew 19:17a And he [Jesus] said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God [the Father]...
Continuing with Mr. Barnes, he now shows us that "Michael" is a proper name, in that as Jesus already has a name, this has to be a separate Being:
The word “Michael,” as a proper name, occurs several times in the Scriptures, Num_13:13; 1Ch_5:13; 1Ch_6:40; 1Ch_7:3; 1Ch_8:16; 1Ch_12:20; 1Ch_27:18; 2Ch_21:2; Ezr_8:8. It is used as applicable to an angel or archangel in the following places: Dan_10:13, Dan_10:21; Dan_12:1; Jud_1:9; Rev_12:7.
First of all, as any Bible studier can tell you, Jesus is not only known as Jesus, but He has many, many “applications” throughout the Bible. But, still, one could argue that these are applications and not actual names. Though, the Bible itself calls some of these applications names:
Exodus 6:2-3 And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the LORD: And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.
But, is this meaning that Jehovah is a proper name?
AMG's Annotated Strong's Dictionaries, © AD 2009: A noun meaning God ... Although the exact derivation of the name is uncertain, most scholars agree that its primary meaning should be understood in the context of God's existence, namely, that He is the "I AM THAT I AM" (Exodus 3:14), the One who was, who is, and who always will be (Rev 11:17).
But, again, does that mean Jehovah is a proper name? (a question that I’ll actually be revisiting in a much later chapter here in John’s Gospel – stay tuned!) Again, God plainly told Moses that His name was I AM – which, again, is an application and not an actual, proper name. So, if Jehovah, or even I AM, aren't proper names – that is, in the way that we understand names – then could we simply say that He was stating that His name was majestic and mighty? Yet, not being an actual name? It's just like when some people baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, they actually quote those very words, as if Father and Son are names. Therefore, one can assuredly ask: "What, then, is the name of God?" Paul perhaps gives us the answer here:
Ephesians 3:14-15 For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Of whom the WHOLE family in heaven and earth is named.
So, is Jesus then the Father's name, too? Well, if it wasn't, it certainly seems to be now! And, yet, just like in the case of "Michael," other "people" shared this name of God. Was not Jesus an actual known name for folks during both the Old and New Testaments? Sure, it was. So, what's the difference, then, with the “name” Michael? Just because other people had that name, it's not a foregone conclusion that Michael, for this archangel, was really an actual name and not a title of sorts. This is very similar to Melchisedec. Ask most scholars, and they'll tell you that this was the actual name of some priest who lived during the days of Abraham. And, yet, the Apostle Paul makes a big deal about him.
Hebrews 7:4 Now consider how great this man was [i.e. Melchisedec], unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.
Not only so, but the Bible itself is adamant in telling us that Melchisedec is NOT a “proper” name, but is the title of a priestly "order" (see Hebrews 5:6; 5:10; 6:20; 7:17). One that Jesus Himself occupies (Psalms 110:4). And, if that’s so, then why would Jesus take on the name and priesthood of mere man when there was already a fleshly, priestly order that was established in the Old Testament – that of Levi and Aaron? (Hebrews 7:11-12) No, folks, there's more to all this than to simply say that Michael is the “proper” name of some top angel, and then dismiss the matter too quickly. I myself have come to the conclusion that Michael (in the sense of the heavenly realm as opposed to that of the flesh world) is a title, an application, an order of military leadership. And, I'm not the only one who feels this way – as if I am the first person to ever come to this conclusion:
John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible (1748-1763 & 1809, public domain): But, lo, Michael one of the chief Princes, came to help me; called in the New Testament an Archangel, the Prince of angels, the Head of all principality and power; and is no other than Christ the Son of God, an uncreated Angel; who is "one", or "the first of the chief Princes" (x), superior to angels, in nature, name, and office; he came to "help" Gabriel, not as a fellow creature, but as the Lord of hosts; not as a fellow soldier, but as General of the armies in heaven and earth, as superior to him in wisdom and strength.
Geneva Bible Translation Notes (published in 1599; public domain): Even though God could by one angel destroy all the world, yet to assure his children of his love he sends forth double power, even Michael, that is, Christ Jesus the head of angels.
John Wesley's Explanatory Notes (1755-1766, public domain): Michael here is commonly supposed to mean Christ.
Daniel 10:21 But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth: and there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your prince.
Again, not just THE archangel, but a Prince! Could it be a coincidence that Jesus is also known as a Prince?
Revelation 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood.
John Wesley's Explanatory Notes: Michael - Christ alone is the protector of his church, when all the princes of the earth desert or oppose it.
John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible: Christ the Prince of the kings of the earth, he was the Prince, Protector, and Guardian of the people of the Jews; he is the Angel that went before them in the wilderness, and guarded them in it, and guided them into the land of Canaan; he is the Angel of God's presence, that bore, carried, and saved them all the days of old, and was their King and their God, their Defender and Deliverer, still; he took their part, and was on their side; yea, he was on the side of, and took part with, them that were for them, the holy angels; and there was none but him that exerted his power, and strengthened Gabriel to act for them in "these things" relating to their peace and prosperity: or, "against these."
Again, concerning Albert Barnes, and continuing with his dialog, even though not believing Michael to be Christ, he at least admits Michael's very large role in the lives of the Israelites:
But Michael your prince - See the notes at Dan_10:13. The patron, or guardian of your people, and of their interests. The idea intended to be conveyed here undoubtedly is, that Michael was a guardian angel for the Jewish people; that he had special charge of their affairs; that his interposition might be depended on in the time of trouble and danger, and that, under him, their interests would be safe. No one can prove that this is not so.
But, honestly, why would Michael have to do this when Jesus was already doing so? That is, if Michael and Jesus are two separate Beings. Again, this speaks more of Christ than of just a mere angel. So, by trying to say that Michael and Jesus are two different Beings, are we therefore just straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel whole?
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the whole Bible (published in 1708-1714; public domain): Here is Michael our prince, the great protector of the church, and the patron of its just but injured cause: The first of the chief princes, Dan_10:13. Some understand it of a created angel, but an archangel of the highest order, 1Th_4:16; Jud_1:9. Others think that Michael the archangel is no other than Christ himself, the angel of the covenant, and the Lord of the angels, he whom Daniel saw in vision, Dan_10:5. He came to help me (Dan_10:13); and there is none but he that holds with me in these things, Dan_10:21. Christ is the church's prince; angels are not, Heb_2:5. He presides in the affairs of the church and effectually provides for its good. He is said to hold with the angels, for it is he that makes them serviceable to the heirs of salvation; and, if he were not on the church's side, its case were bad. But, says David, and so says the church, The Lord takes my part with those that help me, Psa_118:7. The Lord is with those that uphold my soul, Psa_54:4.
Poor Man's Commentary by Robert Hawker (published in 1805; public domain): As to what is said of Michael, the prince of the people, this serves to confirm it more than lessen it. For the battle in heaven is said to have been by Michael against the old serpent the Devil. And though some may be found, who speak of archangels as well as angels; yet, the scriptures uniformly speak only of one archangel, for there is but one; and this one can be no other than the Lord Jesus Christ, the Angel of the covenant. Mal_3:1; 1Th_4:16; Jud_1:9.
Malachi 3:1 Behold, I will send my messenger [i.e. John the Baptist], and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even [who is] the messenger of the covenant [i.e. Jesus, the Angel of the Covenant], whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.
Messenger, Mal'âk, H4397, from Strong's Hebrew Dictionary: From an unused root meaning to despatch as a deputy; a messenger; specifically of God, that is, AN ANGEL (also a prophet, priest or teacher): - ambassador, angel, king, messenger.
Jesus was a messenger of God the Father; for, the Son was the WORD (message) OF GOD, and that same Word (message/angel) was God (John 1:1); i.e., the God of the Old Testament . . . Being the Word, how, therefore, could He not have been an angel/messenger of God? This is why, in 1st Thessalonians, He (the Lord) had shouted with the voice of the archangel. Why borrow the voice of another when you can do something your own self? Unless, of course, it is your voice . . . Let's see that again:
1 Thessalonians 4:16a For THE LORD HIMSELF [i.e. Jesus] shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God...
Which, He being Michael, this was a war cry. And, with His wonderful messages, this is in a direct fight against the great, red dragon and his evil messages/angels.
1. Do you believe that Jesus pre-existed before His birth by Mary, his earthen mother?
I don’t know
2. Do you personally believe that the Bible contains “metaphors?” That is, earthen sayings that contain heavenly messages for God’s people?
I don’t know
3. Is it really possible, as John 1:18a suggests, that nobody, including Moses, has ever seen the Father?
I don’t know
4. In your personal outlook, was there a literal dove that landed on Jesus’ shoulder at John’s baptism?
I don’t know
5. What does “Rabbi” mean?
6. Based on Jewish tradition, that the third hour of the day is 9am, what time was it when the disciples came to see where Jesus was staying at the tenth hour?
7. What does the name “Cephas” mean?
A large Rock
8. What do you think that the “Blood of the Lamb” really is when referenced metaphorically?
9. According to Hebrews 9:15-18, when did the New Testament actually begin?
Death at Cross
Still hasn’t begun
10. Is there any possibility, at all, that Jesus (because of His mission, and of who He is) might have had a full Acts chapter 2 Holy Ghost experience – perhaps even speaking in tongues – when He was baptized by John at the river? That is, many years before the Day of Pentecost even happened?
Yes, but not speaking in tongues
11. True or False: italicized words were NOT in the original books of the Bible, but were added-in later by translators to help with the ease of sentence flow:
I don’t know
TO RETURN TO JOHN'S GOSPEL TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE, CLICK HERE!