Jesus' Divinity (two links; opposing views; same scripture)

[Unveiled Artist]

I'll try to shorten it:

That being said, I will pick out some points from both links that seem contradictory yet makes sense on their own. If there is someone who knows scripture well enough to give me objective context behind the scripture, it will make more sense which is true (based on the site author's claim) and which is taken out of context. Thanks up front.

Jesus Is God
Bible Verses that say “Jesus is God” (Jesus Is God)

John 8:58 - Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.” If Jesus was not God, He would not refer to Himself as I AM.

Philippians 2:5-7 - Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bond-servant, and coming in the likeness of men. Jesus made Himself equal to God; unless He is God's twin, He'd have to be God to do so.

1 Timothy 6:14-16 - “our Lord Jesus Christ's appearing, which He will manifest in His own time, He who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see, to whom be honor and everlasting power. Amen.”
God, alone, has immortality. Did God give Jesus the same immortality as He or was He just a human representative with the authority to spread and Be God's Word?

ON THE OTHER HAND

Jesus is Not God
14 Bible Verses That Indicate Jesus Is Not God | Interfaith forums (Jesus is Not God)

3. John 5:26
For as the Father has life in Himself, so he has granted the Son to have life in himself. If Jesus were God, He can't grant life to Himself.

4. John 5:30 and 5. John 5:19
By myself, I can do nothing...The Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees the Father doing, because whatever the Father does, the Son does also. Why can't God do nothing by Himself?

6. Mark 10:18
Why do you call me good? No one is good, except God alone.
Jesus is not good by Himself. He can be tempted with sin just like anyone else. So why are Christians praising Jesus as if He is God when He directly referred Paul (or was it Peter) to His Father instead?

11. 1 Corinthians 15:27-28
For he "has put everything under his feet." Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ.Jesus did everything through God. He is always under His Father's command. He does not claim to the the Father Himself.

12. Hebrews 1:3
The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being. (Comment from Site author: Jesus is the exact representation of his being. I send my representative to Congress. He is not me, myself. He is my representative.)

13. Hebrews 4:15 (compared with James 1:13) Jesus is tempted; God cannot be tempted

This is an interesting comparison between people who believe Jesus IS God and people who believe He is NOT God.

THE END

While I have read many comments about whether or not Jesus is God or not, that isn't the point of this thread. If anyone (either for Jesus' divinity or against it) versed in the Bible can give me some context to which any of these verses (pick one or two or all) apply, I'd greatly appreciate it.

 

[lovemuffin]

I hate to dump a link to an obnoxiously long thread on you, but I tried to cover the idea of the ambiguity of the text, and the apparent conflict and its resolution, in this thread about the Trinity.

There is an appendix at the end with a longer list of scriptures on both sides. I also think this post might be useful (and the thread) in explicating a way in which the various verses could be harmonized, insofar as the primary tension is between understanding the idea of the unity between the Father and Jesus ("I and my father are one") and the sort-of hierarchical order ("The father is greater than I").

 

[leibowde84]

I hate to dump a link to an obnoxiously long thread on you, but I tried to cover the idea of the ambiguity of the text, and the apparent conflict and its resolution, in this thread about the Trinity.

There is an appendix at the end with a longer list of scriptures on both sides. I also think this post might be useful (and the thread) in explicating a way in which the various verses could be harmonized, insofar as the primary tension is between understanding the idea of the unity between the Father and Jesus ("I and my father are one") and the sort-of hierarchical order ("The father is greater than I").

It seems pretty obvious that the disparity was due to the lack of understanding held by the writers of the Gospels. They just didn't have the capability of understanding such a complex concept. Honestly, I'm not sure that our minds/brains are capable of such understanding.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I should replace my thread with yours and just keep the two other links. Those verses are 5 percent of what's on the actual links.

I hate to dump a link to an obnoxiously long thread on you, but I tried to cover the idea of the ambiguity of the text, and the apparent conflict and its resolution, in this thread about the Trinity.

There is an appendix at the end with a longer list of scriptures on both sides. I also think this post might be useful (and the thread) in explicating a way in which the various verses could be harmonized, insofar as the primary tension is between understanding the idea of the unity between the Father and Jesus ("I and my father are one") and the sort-of hierarchical order ("The father is greater than I").

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Think I read part of that. Pretty thick.

I hate to dump a link to an obnoxiously long thread on you, but I tried to cover the idea of the ambiguity of the text, and the apparent conflict and its resolution, in this thread about the Trinity.

There is an appendix at the end with a longer list of scriptures on both sides. I also think this post might be useful (and the thread) in explicating a way in which the various verses could be harmonized, insofar as the primary tension is between understanding the idea of the unity between the Father and Jesus ("I and my father are one") and the sort-of hierarchical order ("The father is greater than I").

 

[lovemuffin]

"pretty thick" is my middle name!

 

[Pegg]

Carlita i will get some info on the rendering of the verses because i believe some bible translations are inaccurate in how they translate the greek. For example it has been noted by several scholars that the rendering of 'I Am' is is not correct and it should be ''I have been'

When you read the text with the correct text the verse is actually saying 'before Abraham existed, I have been'
So the verse is speaking of Jesus life before becoming human... he is not calling himself God.

But i will give more details later when im on my computer.

 

[lovemuffin]

Carlita i will get some info on the rendering of the verses because i believe some bible translations are inaccurate in how they translate the greek. For example it has been noted by several scholars that the rendering of 'I Am' is is not correct and it should be ''I have been'.

The text is εἶπεν αὐτοῖς Ἰησοῦς, "Ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὐμῖν, πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι, ἐγὸ εἰμί". There are no significant textual variants. The translation "I am" is correct, it's the very plain meaning of the words. eimi is present tense. Arguments that it should be made into the perfect rest on the fact that "before abraham was, I am" is improper usage. The problem is, John's gospel uses εγω ειμι some 20 times or so, always in the present tense, and it's clear that the improper usage is intentional on the part of the author. There is no good argument to change it to "have been".

 

[bird]

I always liked this scripture from Isaiah 9:6: "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mightyGod, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."

 

[Pegg]

I'll try to shorten it:

That being said, I will pick out some points from both links that seem contradictory yet makes sense on their own. If there is someone who knows scripture well enough to give me objective context behind the scripture, it will make more sense which is true (based on the site author's claim) and which is taken out of context. Thanks up front.

Jesus Is God
Bible Verses that say “Jesus is God” (Jesus Is God)

John 8:58 - Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.” If Jesus was not God, He would not refer to Himself as I AM.

πρὶν - ᾿Αβραὰμ - γενέσθαι - ἐγὼ - εἰμί
prin - A·bra·amʹ - ge·neʹsthai - e·goʹ - ei·miʹ


There are alternate renderings of this verse... and I can provide two references as to why its been translated this way:
NWT John 8:58 Jesus said to them: “Most truly I say to you, before Abraham came into existence, I have been.”

Syriac—Edition: A Translation of the Four Gospels from the Syriac of the SinaiticPalimpsest, by Agnes Smith Lewis, London, 1894.​

“before Abraham was, I have been”
Curetonian Syriac—Edition: TheCuretonianVersionoftheFourGospels, by F. Crawford Burkitt, Vol. 1, Cambridge, England, 1904.
“before ever Abraham came to be, I was”

Syriac Pe****ta—Edition: TheSyriacNewTestamentTranslatedintoEnglishfromthePe****toVersion, by James Murdock, seventh ed., Boston and London, 1896.
“before Abraham existed, I was”

Georgian—Edition: “The Old Georgian Version of the Gospel of John,” by Robert P. Blake and Maurice Brière, published in Patrologia Orientalis, Vol. XXVI, fascicle 4, Paris, 1950.
“before Abraham came to be, I was”

Ethiopic—Edition: NovumTestamentum...Æthiopice (The New Testament . . . in Ethiopic), by Thomas Pell Platt, revised by F. Praetorius, Leipzig, 1899.
“before Abraham was born, I was”​

The reason they translate it this way is because ei'mi' is an action which began before the subject (Abraham) existed and is still in progress and there are other examples of this throughout the greek scriptures.

A Grammar of New Testament Greek, by J. H. Moulton, Vol. III, by Nigel Turner, Edinburgh, 1963, p. 62, says: “The Present which indicates the continuance of an action during the past and up to the moment of speaking is virtually the same as Perfective, the only difference being that the action is conceived as still in progress . . . It is frequent in the N[ew] T[estament]: Lk 248 137 . . . 1529 . . . Jn 56 858

A Grammar of the Idiom of the NewTestament, by G. B. Winer, seventh edition, Andover, 1897, p. 267, says: “Sometimes the Present includes also a past tense (Mdv. 108), viz. when the verb expresses a state which commenced at an earlier period but still continues,—a state in its duration;

Trinitarians translate the verse as 'I Am' because they are trying to link Jesus with Jehovah.... its nothing more then bias on their part.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Translation??? Trinitarians are misinterpreting "I Am" to be present tense (which grammatically it is) and it should be "have been" is past principle (past and continued to present)? How does that make a difference? One is saying Jesus was there before His incarnation (not implied he is God by that statement takn literally) the other says He was there back the "and" now.

Both say present tense. I dont understand what you are explaining.

πρὶν - ᾿Αβραὰμ - γενέσθαι - ἐγὼ - εἰμί
prin - A·bra·amʹ - ge·neʹsthai - e·goʹ - ei·miʹ


There are alternate renderings of this verse... and I can provide two references as to why its been translated this way:
NWT John 8:58 Jesus said to them: “Most truly I say to you, before Abraham came into existence, I have been.”

Syriac—Edition: A Translation of the Four Gospels from the Syriac of the SinaiticPalimpsest, by Agnes Smith Lewis, London, 1894.​

“before Abraham was, I have been”
Curetonian Syriac—Edition: TheCuretonianVersionoftheFourGospels, by F. Crawford Burkitt, Vol. 1, Cambridge, England, 1904.
“before ever Abraham came to be, I was”

Syriac Pe****ta—Edition: TheSyriacNewTestamentTranslatedintoEnglishfromthePe****toVersion, by James Murdock, seventh ed., Boston and London, 1896.
“before Abraham existed, I was”

Georgian—Edition: “The Old Georgian Version of the Gospel of John,” by Robert P. Blake and Maurice Brière, published in Patrologia Orientalis, Vol. XXVI, fascicle 4, Paris, 1950.
“before Abraham came to be, I was”

Ethiopic—Edition: NovumTestamentum...Æthiopice (The New Testament . . . in Ethiopic), by Thomas Pell Platt, revised by F. Praetorius, Leipzig, 1899.
“before Abraham was born, I was”​

The reason they translate it this way is because ei'mi' is an action which began before the subject (Abraham) existed and is still in progress and there are other examples of this throughout the greek scriptures.

A Grammar of New Testament Greek, by J. H. Moulton, Vol. III, by Nigel Turner, Edinburgh, 1963, p. 62, says: “The Present which indicates the continuance of an action during the past and up to the moment of speaking is virtually the same as Perfective, the only difference being that the action is conceived as still in progress . . . It is frequent in the N[ew] T[estament]: Lk 248 137 . . . 1529 . . . Jn 56 858

A Grammar of the Idiom of the NewTestament, by G. B. Winer, seventh edition, Andover, 1897, p. 267, says: “Sometimes the Present includes also a past tense (Mdv. 108), viz. when the verb expresses a state which commenced at an earlier period but still continues,—a state in its duration;

Trinitarians translate the verse as 'I Am' because they are trying to link Jesus with Jehovah.... its nothing more then bias on their part.

 

[lovemuffin]

Re: the Pe****ta, in the Syriac text it's also in a basic tense where, like in greek where there is no perfect form of eimi, there isn't any textual basis for a perfect or past rendering in the syriac either: http://www.dukhrana.com/pe****ta/an...8&source=ubs&font=Estrangelo+Edessa&size=125%

(see also http://www.wordsense.eu/ܐܢܐ/)

I think a better argument might be that the mere fact that εγω ειμι is present tense doesn't necessitate a theological conclusion that Jesus is claiming to be the same one who spoke in Exodus, although I think it's quite difficult to read John's gospel, with all it's "I am" references and not hear an allusion. But it would be reasonable to say that the mere allusion doesn't settle a theological dispute in an exact way. However, it's quite clearly wrong to say that the only reason for the translation is bias, because there is no real disagreement about the literal grammatical presentation of the text. There is only a question on what the author's intent may have been, which could certainly be nuanced. As is usually the case, I think it's a mistake to think that the theological argument hinges on the translation.

 

[Pegg]

Translation??? Trinitarians are misinterpreting "I Am" to be present tense (which grammatically it is) and it should be "have been" is past principle (past and continued to present)? How does that make a difference? One is saying Jesus was there before His incarnation (not implied he is God by that statement takn literally) the other says He was there back the "and" now.

Both say present tense. I dont understand what you are explaining.

But in this case, it is a 'perfective' tense meaning the action began in the past and continues into the present. In other words, Jesus was alive when Abraham existed and he is still alive.... he has been existing since before Abrahams time.

He's clearly speaking about his prehuman existence which fits with the context of the surrounding verses.

ie, Verse 56 Abraham your father rejoiced greatly at the prospect of seeing my day, and he saw it and rejoiced.”+57 Then the Jews said to him: “You are not yet 50 years old, and still you have seen Abraham?”

Why would they ask such a question. They obviously understood that Jesus had implied that he was alive when Abraham was alive. But how could a man who is only 50 years old have been alive 1,000 years ago when Abraham was alive??? Obviously the context of Jesus discussion with them was about his lifespan, not about being God.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Eh, my grammar. I was thinking that the reason Jesus' disciples asked about His age in relation to Abraham is that Jesus' relationship with God (He has seen God) is perfect to where He has met the prophets who have followed in God's footsteps. Somewhat like saying He is part of a generation of people who serve God. If that makes sense?

But in this case, it is a 'perfective' tense meaning the action began in the past and continues into the present. In other words, Jesus was alive when Abraham existed and he is still alive.... he has been existing since before Abrahams time.

He's clearly speaking about his prehuman existence which fits with the context of the surrounding verses.

ie, Verse 56 Abraham your father rejoiced greatly at the prospect of seeing my day, and he saw it and rejoiced.”+57 Then the Jews said to him: “You are not yet 50 years old, and still you have seen Abraham?”

Why would they ask such a question. They obviously understood that Jesus had implied that he was alive when Abraham was alive. But how could a man who is only 50 years old have been alive 1,000 years ago when Abraham was alive??? Obviously the context of Jesus discussion with them was about his lifespan, not about being God.

 

[Pegg]

Eh, my grammar. I was thinking that the reason Jesus' disciples asked about His age in relation to Abraham is that Jesus' relationship with God (He has seen God) is perfect to where He has met the prophets who have followed in God's footsteps. Somewhat like saying He is part of a generation of people who serve God. If that makes sense?

Oh yes, i see what you are asking.

But actually, we can see by the question the jews asked him that they were actually asking along the lines of "how could you have been alive when Abraham was alive"

So Jesus wasnt claiming to be God in the context of the discussion. He was claiming to have been a witness to the life of Abraham. Thats why they asked "you are only 50 years old and yet you have seen Abraham?"

You asked for the 'context' of the verse.... this is it.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I understand. Was the verse youbgave context to in the op or links? some threads i disregard when there isnt a jump start so i jinda forgot. Have to rerrad my op.

That makes though. I disagree Jesus is God, I thought it interesting that bith sides have compelling arguments on the issue.

Oh yes, i see what you are asking.

But actually, we can see by the question the jews asked him that they were actually asking along the lines of "how could you have been alive when Abraham was alive"

So Jesus wasnt claiming to be God in the context of the discussion. He was claiming to have been a witness to the life of Abraham. Thats why they asked "you are only 50 years old and yet you have seen Abraham?"

You asked for the 'context' of the verse.... this is it.

 

[Pegg]

I understand. Was the verse youbgave context to in the op or links? some threads i disregard when there isnt a jump start so i jinda forgot. Have to rerrad my op.

That makes though. I disagree Jesus is God, I thought it interesting that bith sides have compelling arguments on the issue.

Yes i know what you mean, the divinity of Jesus has been hotly debated since around the 4th century.

But when we analyse the verses in question, a lot of the issue comes down to how the verse has been translated. I'll give you another example of one the verses you posted...

Philippians 2:5-7 - Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bond-servant, and coming in the likeness of men. Jesus made Himself equal to God; unless He is God's twin, He'd have to be God to do so.​

The KJV rendered the greek word har·pag·monʹ as robbery. Robbery means to take the possesion belonging to another. So this verse implies that Jesus did not consider it wrong to be equal to God. And this is why trinitarians like using this verse... it seems to show that jesus was comfortable with being equal to God. However, the context of the verse speaks otherwise.

Verse 5 tells Christians that they should imitate Christ in this matter. Vs5 Keep this mental attitude in you that was also in Christ Jesus..., This would mean that christians should likewise not consider it “robbery,” to be equal with God. Does that sound right to you? Should our attitude be that we feel we too are equal to God?


The real meaning of the word har pag mon' is described here:
The Expositor’s Greek Testament says: “We cannot find any passage where [har·paʹzo] or any of its derivatives [including har·pag·monʹ] has the sense of ‘holding in possession,’ ‘retaining’. It seems invariably to mean ‘seize,’‘snatch violently’. Thus it is not permissible to glide from the true sense ‘grasp at’ into one which is totally different, ‘hold fast.’”—(Grand Rapids, Mich.; 1967), edited by W. Robertson Nicoll, Vol. III, pp. 436, 437.

Now it makes sense. The meaning of the word is to take something violently by force because its not something we would normally possess so we have to snatch it from another. So the verse is really saying the opposite of what the trinitarians claim. Jesus never thought he was equal to God and gave no consideration to snatching violently such equality.
Thats why the NWT bible translates the verse this way;

5 Keep this mental attitude in you that was also in Christ Jesus,+6 who, although he was existing in God’s form,+ gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God.​

 

[lovemuffin]

The problem is the more typical translation follows the actual greek, and the NWT inserts the word "namely" and a pause, which are simply not present, and which alter the actual text, in order to avoid what the translators considered to be a theological difficulty. But the difficulty as you've presented isn't really much of a difficulty, because it's quite easy to parse the passage as far as what is meant by "having this mind in you which is in Christ Jesus". It relates to the bold phrases:

"Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure"
​

In other words, the mind in question is the mind that aims towards humility and obedience, not towards equality with God, in the same way as Jesus did not seek to live his human life as though he "deserved" some special accomodation, even though he "did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped".

 

[james2ko]

BTW. I am not or have ever been, and have no interest in becoming a JW. I am a Christian who strives to study the Scriptures in their ancient context and languages. Here a few excerpts from my study on the first three passages:

I'll try to shorten it:John 8:58 - Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.” If Jesus was not God, He would not refer to Himself as I AM.

This one is addressed here:
John 8:58 | ReligiousForums.com

Philippians 2:5-7

- Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bond-servant, and coming in the likeness of men. Jesus made Himself equal to God; unless He is God's twin, He'd have to be God to do so.

Philippians 2:6 is a favorite among those who believe Paul is claiming the Son is “equal” to the Father, hence He could not have been created. A deeper look will reveal Paul was actually implying quite the opposite—the Son was not equal to the Father. The King James and several other translations, translate it:

“Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery [harpagmos] to be equal with God”

The NASB, RV and other translations render it:

“who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped”[harpagmos]

According to Greek scholars, both translations are “linguistically” correct. The former indicates Christ did not think of it as “seizing or stealing” to be equal with God. The latter implies Christ thought being equal with God was not something to try and “grasp or seize”—obviously implicating He was not equal with the Father. Context and syntax would determine which is correct. The key Greek term of the passage is robbery or grasped [harpagmos-G725] Thayer’s defines it as:

1) the act of seizing, robbery 2) a thing seized or to be seized 2a) booty to deem anything a prize 2b) a thing to be seized upon or to be held fast, retained.

The surrounding verses (3-5, 7, 8) makes it clear how verse 6 is to be understood. The Philippians were urged: “In humility, let each esteem others better than themselves”(vs 3). Then Paul uses Christ as the outstanding example of this attitude: “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus”(vs 5). What “mind”? That Christ thought his equality with God was not considered robbery? No, that would be just the opposite of the point being made! Rather, Jesus, as a spirit being, ‘esteemed God as better than himself,’ would never ‘grasp for equality with God,’ but instead “humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death!”

Further supporting this interpretation is the parallel between the Christ, Adam, and satan. Adam and satan both had the opportunity to rule the earth. But senselessly thought there was nothing wrong with grasping or seizing [harpagmos] an opportunity at equality with God (Gen 3:5; Isa 14:14[1]), and through pride and disobedience lost the opportunity to rule the earth. In contrast, Christ chose not to grasp at being equal with the Father instead choosing to do the opposite by emptying himself of his divinity (vs7-RV) becoming a fleshly, lowly human being, and through obedience, allowed to be sacrificed in order to be exalted by God as Lord (verses 9, 10), and consequently replaced Adam and satan as ruler of the earth.

Some claim, however, that the NASB rendering implies that (1) Jesus already had a (grasp-harpagmos) on equality but did not want to hold on to it or that (2) he did not need to grasp-harpagmos--at equality because he already had it. In this regard, Dr. Ralph Martin, Ph.D, esteemed New Testament Scholar who based his doctorate dissertation on the book of Phillipians, says of the original Greek in his commentary of Phillipians 2:6:

“It is questionable, however, whether the sense of the verb can glide from its real meaning of ‘to seize’, ‘to snatch violently’ to that of ‘to hold fast.’” The Expositor’s Greek Testament also says: “We cannot find any passage where ἁρπάζω [har·pa′zo-G726] or any of its derivatives[2] has the sense of ‘holding in possession,’ ‘retaining’. It seems invariably to mean ‘seize,’ ‘snatch violently’. Thus it is not permissible to glide from the true sense ‘grasp at’ into one which is totally different, ‘hold fast.’​

Dr. Daniel Wallace, Ph.D, a prominent Greek Trinitarian Scholar, as well as, founder and Executive Director of the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts also agrees with Dr. Martin’s conclusion:

“…Thus if [huparcho-being] is casual, [harpagmos] means robbery (“who being in the form of God, did not consider equality with God as robbery); if huparcho-being] is concessive, then [harpagmos] means a thing to be grasped (“who being in the form of God, did not consider equality a thing to be grasped”). As attractive as the first alternative might be theologically, it is not satisfactory. ..”[3]​

In other words, the NASB and RV reflect the correct rendering of the passage. Far from saying that Jesus thought it was appropriate to be equal to God, the syntax and context of Philippians 2:6, when translated objectively, reflects just the opposite!

[1] Although the term “harpagmos” is not used in these verses, the implication of the term is present.

[2] LXX-Gen 37:33; Lev 6:4; 19:13; Dt 28:31; Jdg 21:21; 2Sa 23:21; Job 20:19; 24:2,9,19; Ps 7:2; 10:9; 22:13; 50:22; 69:4; 104:21; Isa 10:2; Eze 18:7, 12, 16, 18; 19:3,6; 22:25,27; Hos 5:14; Amo 1:11; 3:4; Mic 3:2; 5:8; Nah 2:12; NT-Mt 11:12; 13:19; Jn 6:15; 10:12,28,29; Act 8:39; 23:10; 2Co 12:2,4; Php 2:6; 1 Th 4:17;
Jde 1:23; Rev 12:5

[3] Wallace, Daniel. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996. Pg 634-635 Print​

1 Timothy 6:14-16

- “our Lord Jesus Christ's appearing, which He will manifest in His own time, He who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see, to whom be honor and everlasting power. Amen.” God, alone, has immortality. Did God give Jesus the same immortality as He or was He just a human representative with the authority to spread and Be God's Word?

Some will quote 1 Ti 6:14-16 as a reference Christ has co-existed from eternity with the Father:

“that you keep this commandment without spot, blameless until our Lord Jesus Christ's appearing,15 which He [The Father] will manifest in His own time, He who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords, 16 who alone has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see, to whom be honor and everlasting power. Amen.”

Verse 16 is actually referring to God the Father who alone has immortality. It cannot be referring to a glorified Christ, as some suggest, because He was seen in His glorified state (1 Co 9:1; Rev 1:11-17). Although Christ is the subject of the last clause in verse 14, there is a transition made at the beginning of verse 15 that switches the context to the Father. Some argue against this transition but a look at the word order in The Greek-English New Testament dispels this argument:



Notice how the numbered word order indicates the phrase "shall show" should be the last phrase (#6) of the verse. When translated correctly, the transition from Christ to Father becomes apparent:

"...the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ; Which in his own times the Blessed and only Potentate shall show" (1 Tim 6:14-15)​

The Blessed and only Potentate is the one who "shall show" or set the time of Christ's appearing. This corresponds with other Scriptures, which suggests only the Father knows the time of Christ's return (Mat 24:36; Mk 13:32; Act 1:7). And The Father is the "only one" who has immortality-- meaning He is the only one who cannot die. This cannot be a reference to Christ because He was not the only immortal being at the time Paul penned these words. Couple this with the fact Christ has been seen and we can definitively conclude it can only be a reference to the Father.

Most believe the Greek phrase used in Rev 19:16 when Christ is called, "King of kings and Lord of lords," is the same Greek phrase used in 1 Tim 6:15 "King of kings and Lord of lords” thus proving Paul was making a reference to Christ and not the Father. But a closer look will reveal a stark difference:

[Christ] Rev 19:16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written,KING G935 OF KINGS,G935 AND LORD G2962 OFLORDS.G2962

[God the Father] 1Ti 6:15 Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King G935of [the] kings,[kingships-G936] and Lord G2962 of [the] lords [lordships-G2961] ​

Notice the two different pairs of Greek terms for kings and lords. In Rev 19, Christ's title denotes a ruler over rulers, but the Father’s title expresses more of one who places rulers over other rulers. This is consistent with Jesus' response to James' and John's mother who asked Jesus to assign positions of authority to her sons to whom Jesus replied only the Father is able to do this:

Mat 20:23 So He said to them, "You will indeed drink My cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with; but to sit on My right hand and on My left is not Mine to give, but it is for those for whom it is prepared by My Father." ​

Act 10:42 And He commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that it is He [Christ] who was ordained by God [The Father] to be Judge of the living and the dead. ​

In Rev 19:16, the plural Greek terms for "kings" and "lords" are nouns. In 1 tim 6:15, they are verbs. Also worth noting is the definite article "the" is present in the Greek manuscripts for 1 Timothy 6:15 but absent in Rev 19:16. This is also the only time in the NT the Greek term for kingships [basileuonton] and lordships [kurieuonton] appears with this case ending, further suggesting distinction and exclusivity.

God the Father is the one who decides who will rule and who will be king. That is why He is referred to as the King of the Kingships (not kings) and "the Lord of the lordships" (not lords). With this information as well as the information contained in the study, we can safely conclude it is the Father who alone has immortality--unable to die—who gave life to all things, including Christ. The Father is the only “EL” who has lived from everlasting to everlasting (Ps 90:2)--eternity in the past to eternity in the future! Hope this helps..