Issued: 7/6/24

“But let him who glories glory in this, that he has understanding, and knows Me, that I am Yahweh Who exercises loving kindness, justice, and righteousness in the earth, for I delight in these things.“

Jeremiah 9:24

PLEASE NOTE:  Because Bible versions sometimes differ from each other in crucial ways, the version quoted here will be the one that best clarifies the point being made.  For a quick comparison between versions, please go to: http://www.biblehub.com.

   All bracketed material may be authorial comments, attempts at proper syntax, or minimal rewordings of Scripture for the sake of clarity and continuity.  These emendations will not be italicized.

   The “/” will be used to signify “and/or.”  The symbol “↔” is used to connect verses corroborating each other and so establishing doctrinal truths (Matthew 18:16↔2Corinthians 13:1).

   In differentiating between Yahweh Son [Jesus] and Yahweh Father [the Most High God], lower case letters have been used when discussing the former; upper case letters are reserved for the Only and Most High God.  Since Jesus was at pains to differentiate himself from Father, we have followed his lead here.

   The term neo-Christians will be used to differentiate between false Christians and Jesus’ true followers.

   Familiarity may breed contempt in human relationships but in Christian doctrine it seems to foster lack of attention to detail. The Lord’s prayer is a good example: It has devolved into some kind of rote incantation rather the doctrinal trove it is. Adding insult to injury, Matthew’s and Luke’s versions differ in one crucial passage: “For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever,” which is truncated in Luke 11:4. Whether this is some scribal omission or Scriptural ‘trap’ to ensnare the unwary (Isaiah 28:13), we cannot say. When Jesus himself was always at pains to credit Father for everything men wrongly accrued to him, Matthew 6:13 was Jesus’ way of re-directing praise to his God (Revelation 3:12) and ours.

   Yet a cursory examination of this verse in http://www.biblehub.com shows the following translations depriving Father of this exaltation: New International Version, New Living Translation, English Standard Version, Berean Standard Bible, New American Standard Bible, Christian Standard Bible, American Standard Version, Contemporary English Version, Douay-Rheims Bible, English Revised Version, Gods Word Translation, Good News Translation, International Standard Version, New American Bible, NET Bible, New Revised Standard Version, New Heart English Bible, Weymouth New Testament, Catholic Public Domain Version, Anderson New Testament, Godbey New Testament, Mace New Testament.

The Evidence

   Let us begin by quoting the New King James version of Matthew 6:13:

“Our Father in Heaven, Hallowed be Your name. Your kingdom come, Your will be done
on earth as it is in Heaven. Give us this day our daily bread; and forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from evil. For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.“

The Objective

   The Lord’s Prayer summarizes everything Father is and stands for. John 3:16 is quoted as some sort of iron-clad guarantee that Father loves us unconditionally, but the fact that His promise to Jews and Christians depend on strict obedience to the terms of covenants proves there is nothing ‘unconditional’ about His feelings for and designs towards us. He means us well (Jeremiah 29:11) but will have nothing to do with us unless we live up to our pledge (Proverbs 28:9; Isaiah 66:2↔John 9:31; Hebrews 10:38)—the basis for the ‘fear’ that is both the “beginning of wisdom” (Proverbs 1:7) and a reality Jesus encouraged us to keep ever present in our minds (Matthew 10:28). However much the Most High God is Father in terms of giving us bodies, souls, and sustenance, He is no human daddy in the sky catering like a genie to men’s expectations: His love must be earned; faith in Him must be tested—oftentimes at great personal cost; and gratitude expressed in terms of worship for His unilateral decision to bond with creatures in all respects inferior to Him (Job 7:17-18; Psalms 8:4, 144:3).

   Simply put, the Lord’s Prayer is about the imperative of giving credit to Whom it is due—which is, by the way, the way we like it done to ourselves.

The Subject of Worship

   Though many believe Father and Jesus to be one God, Jesus was not nor claimed to be the Father he was subservient to (John 14:28; 1Corinthians 15:24-28); and though stating to be one with Him in terms of channeling Father’s will and not his own (John 10:30), Jesus always credited Father for the doctrine he preached (John 7:16) and the miracles he was able to perform (John 14:2,10). The Kingdom to come, though Jesus called it his own in terms of having been chosen to rule over it (John 18:36↔Isaiah 22:22-23; Ezekiel 37:24-28; Revelation 3:7), belonged to the Father Who had chosen to bequeath it to him (Psalms 2:8; Luke 22:29); even the citizenry his blood redeemed was allotted him by Father (John 6:39; Hebrews 2:13). Furthermore, Jesus’ ultimate victory over his enemies was the outcome of Father‘s interventions in human affairs (Job 12:16-25; Psalms 2:8, 110:1; Daniel 4:35, 5:21; Revelation 17:17). Nothing Yahweh Son/Jesus ever did, except his willingness to die horribly for others [↔Isaiah 53:10-12; Philippians 2:8-11; Hebrews 12:2], was credited to him but to Father.

   Our first conclusion, therefore, is that the “Father” Jesus exalted was not himself but the Most High Sovereign¹ sitting on the throne to Jesus’ left. If we expand Psalms 110:1, it would read: “Yahweh [Father] said to my [David’s] Lord [Son/Jesus], “Sit at My right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool for your [Son‘s] feet.” Acts 7:55-56 [visual confirmation] corroborates their respective positions vis-à-vis one another; and so does Revelation 5:1-7: The Lamb who died and was resurrected by Father (Acts 2:24,32; Romans 8:11; Revelation 1:18) takes the scroll from the right hand of the immortal God sitting on the throne (Revelation 4:9↔1Timothy 6:16); so that by no stretch of the imagination can one on the right and one on the left, or he who died and One Who never does be the same person. Furthermore, Revelation 4:11 is essentially a restatement of the omission in Matthew 6:13.

   Revelation 1:8 and 4:8 are examples of those ‘confusing’ verses where two Gods—one True Deity and the other appointed proxy God—are identified by the same descriptor: “The Almighty, who was, who is, and who is coming” [Revelation 1:8↔Son‘s testimony and Revelation 4:8↔said of Father]. It is important to note two things: 1) In accordance to the ‘Silent Father, Speaking Son’ dynamic we discussed in Predestination, Part II, Son voices his claim as Father‘s proxy but someone else speaks for Father, Who remains silent; and 2) though not All-Knowing like Father (Mark 13:32; Acts 1:7; Revelation 1:1), Father has endowed Son with plenipotentiary powers like His own (Matthew 28:18; Revelation 2:26-27). And once again we find two Gods unequal in rank (John 4:28) and hierarchy (1Corinthians 15:24-28; Revelation 3:12), the gist of Isaiah 44:6 as applicable to Yahweh King [Father] and to His chosen King over men, Yahweh the Redeemer [Son↔Ezekiel 37:24↔Isaiah 11:1-5↔Revelation 22:16; Revelation 5:9].

   Thus the Father Whose will prevailed on earth as in Heaven was not the Son/Jesus formulating the Lord’s Prayer but the Most High God Who through Son/Jesus determined all things (Daniel 4:35; Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:2) . For inside the human body Jesus inhabited then on earth was the pre-existent Yahweh Son of the Old Testament, evident from his claims in John 8:58 and John 17:5; from Holy Spirit-inspired testimonies [↔2Peter 1:20-21] like John 1:1, Colossians 1:15, and Hebrews 1:2; and from re-installed proxy God Jesus not in his previous Yahweh Son form but now as immortal flesh (Matthew 28:18↔Revelation 1:18, 2:27; Colossians 1:18↔Psalms 17:5; 1Corinthians 15:53; 1John 3:2). Although it is true that Father commanded angels to venerate Son by virtue of his parentage and future accomplishments on behalf of men and heavenly beings (Hebrews 1:3-6; Revelation 5:8-13), Scripture makes clear that Father (Psalms 37:4-5; Matthew 22:36-37; 1Peter 5:6-7; Revelation 5:14, 22:9), was to be foremost and exclusively the subject of universal veneration/dependence/gratitude. The Lord’s Prayer was one way Jesus ensured individual compliance to that duty.

The Provider

   Next came the plea for daily sustenance, which Jesus taught to keep simple: Do not be like babbling unbelievers asking for essentials Father knows are needed (Matthew 6:7-8): “If you who are evil know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in Heaven give good things to those who ask Him” (Matthew 7:11). Which is not to say the sky was the limit [↔James 4:3-4] even if Father was committed to supplying daily needs (1Timothy 6:8): He would only provide those in keeping with His objectives (1John 5:14-15). Hence Matthew 6:31-34: “Therefore do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For after all these things [unbelievers] seek. For your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. But seek first [His] Kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you.“ Simply put, tit for tat.

   That been said, “give us our daily bread” is no guarantee we will get it: The time may come when despite pleading for sustenance, we may be faced with an empty table. Though loving and merciful, Father feels under no obligation to gratify human expectations (Leviticus 25:23↔Hebrews 11:13; 1Peter 2:11; Job 41:11). And worse still takes a dim view of people failing to keep in mind what was given to rather than achieved by them (Hosea 13:6); as shown by David↔2Samuel 24:2-3,10; Nebuchadnezzar↔Daniel 4:29-31; and even Satan himself↔Ezekiel 29:3-9. In Judeo-Christian ‘economics,’ supply and demand are secondary to acknowledging the Provider of goods. While it is also true that Father “makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust” (Matthew 5:45), this is so because both are needed to sustain life in the expectation—while the time of grace lasts (Isaiah 49:8; Zephaniah 2:2-3)—that men repent to have a shot at salvation (2Peter 3:9).

   Initially Jesus insisted his Apostles carry no provisions when he sent them to preach (Matthew 10:9; Mark 6:8; Luke 9:3), and on their return confronted them with the fact they had lacked no essentials (Luke 22:35); yet when it came to evangelizing beyond Jewish lands, he advised a modicum of self-sufficiency (Luke 22:36). Father would provide somehow, as Elijah had shown (1Samuel 17:3-16); nonetheless, Paul speaks of enduring penuries and hunger (2Corinthians 11:25-27), which he interpreted as part of his spiritual training (Philippians 4:12-13). In terms of clothing, he seems to have had only two cloaks (2Timothy 4:13); and having been estimated to have walked over 10,000 miles during his missionary work, we can hardly imagine how he fared with footwear. And though he indubitably practiced the Lord’s Prayer, Paul acted in the certainty Father would help him if he helped himself (Acts 20:34); perhaps following Solomon’s advice that two approaches to the same problem covered all bases (Ecclesiastes 11:6).

   Our second conclusion, therefore, is that gratitude for what we are about to receive is not about the quantity/quality/certainty of the food laid before us but that Father allowed it to be there. It may be that what we pray for may not be forthcoming; perhaps as a test of faith to see whether we behave like Job (Job 2:10) or like his wife (Job 2:9), but with the understanding that what He gives is not an entitlement but a show of grace. Yet it is true that when Father takes things away or fails to deliver those we want, we get angry at Him for failing to do what we expect. The point to remember is that enduring disappointments/ordeals [↔1Peter 1:6-7] will accrue us spiritual dividends [↔2Peter 1:5-7,10-11]—which on the merits of our tested and proven faith may possibly benefit our loved ones [↔Hebrews 11:7,31].

The Forgiver

   Jesus is not the Forgiver: Father is (Matthew 6:14-15, 18:35; Mark 11:26). Which brings us to another seeming ‘contradiction’: “The Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins” (Mark 2:10; Luke 5:24). Which is the operant word here? Son was given authority, meaning Father empowered him to forgive sins; which begs the question that if Father had not so wished, Son would not be in a position to forgive anything/anyone. Naturally, as Father‘s proxy God/Creator, Son acted in lieu of Father, but this does not mean that on his own, Son/Jesus was ultimately responsible for his actions. “I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father dwelling within me does His works” (John 14:10); in other words, He has told me what to say and shown me what to do (John 5:19, 12:49). As was the case with the Apostles, Father‘s objectives found expression through Jesus, who was neither dynamo nor energy but conduit: I will send you the Holy Spirit but He will endow you with whatever Father wishes: wisdom↔John 15:26, 16:13; 1Corinthians 2:10; 1John 2:27 / polyglotism↔Acts 2:4, 10:44-46, 19:6 / predictive powers↔Acts 20:22-23; 1Timothy 4:1. Jesus was making that distinction clear in the Lord’s Prayer: Do not pray to me for forgiveness I cannot give unless Father‘s okays it. Pray to Him that I may be empowered to do so.

   Though Jesus is the anointer (1John 2:27) of the Holy Spirit carrying out Father‘s designs, Jesus taught that the Holy Spirit too was under orders from Father (John 16:13). But here we run into the Father/Holy Spirit Dyad Whose exact nature and intricate synergy is superficially dealt with in Scripture. If God is Spirit (John 4:24), is the Divine Dyad a Spirit within a Spirit? Is the One God in fact Two Independent Minds: The One Who calls the shots and the Other Who plumbs the “deep things” of the former (1Corinthians 2:10)? Yet while the Holy Spirit lives in us (1Corinthians 6:19; Ephesians 4:30) and intercedes for us with Father (Romans 8:26), in prayer we can approach Father in Heaven through the “veil” of Jesus’ flesh (Hebrews 10:19-22);² so that even in this scheme of things, Father is the ultimate, dominant authority. The Holy Spirit may plead for forgiveness but only Father bestows it. Each plays an essential role in our spiritual evolution and salvation.

   Nevertheless, divine forgiveness is predicated on our ability to forgive wrongs done us by others (Matthew 6:15). If we seek revenge against them, we are in breach of the one act Father has reserved for Himself (Deuteronomy 32:35↔Romans 12:19). There is no room in Christian doctrine for “three strikes, you are out” notions: “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother who sins against me? Up to seven times? Jesus answered…not just seven times, but seventy times seven” (Matthew 18:21-22).³ And while it thrills some to “stand their ground” and blow their aggressors away, by that same standard they shall be measured, so that by killing they are liable for incineration (Matthew 7:2; Matthew 26:52; Hebrews 10:26-27). And Who will be doing the burning? Father (Matthew 10:28; Hebrews 10:31; Revelation 20:9).⁴

   Third conclusion: Jesus wanted prayers to be constantly reminded that divine forgiveness depended on like-minded behaviors.

The Non-Tempter

   On May 22, 2019 changes to the wording of Matthew 6:13, “Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil,” were the result of Francis Bishop of Rome’s campaign to do away with the impression that Father induced temptation. He need not have worried: James had make that clear (James 1:13-15). Nor it had worried Jesus, who had he wanted to would have worded the Lord’s Prayer differently. But since Francis is under the—prophesied—delusion that he is Jesus’ spokesman on earth (Ezekiel 28:2-5↔2Thessalonians 2:3-4), he felt competent enough not only to contradict Jesus but to correct him.

   As was to be expected, the emendation unleashed tsunamis of controversies throughout Christendom. It contradicted Biblical examples where God appears to work with the devil to tempt men (Exodus 4:21, 11:10, 14:14; 1Samuel 18:10-11; 2Samuel 17:14; 1Kings 22:18-23) and even Jesus himself (Matthew 4:1)—though these are the result of the inability to differentiate between Yahweh Father and Yahweh Son in Scripture and their reasons permitting as well as controlling Satan’s actions. Scholars pointed out Francis’ interpretation went against the plain meaning of Greek texts—though Biblical scholarship had been declared useless as well as unreliable (Isaiah 29:10-14↔1Corinthians 1:19, 3:19; Jeremiah 8:8-9). There were opinions that changing words so deeply ingrained was “very upsetting”; and that Francis has a habit of saying controversial things that create confusions and “cumulative unease.” British Roman Catholics shrugged that though changed in the Italian, there were no plans to alter the English version.

   In typical fashion, the transgressions that truly mattered were all overlooked. Francis had changed the law as given to him, so he qualified for Jesus’ assessment (Matthew 5:19). Worse still, Francis had engaged in Scripture’s perennial no-no: Do not in any way, shape or form alter or add anything to what Father has stated (Deuteronomy 4:2; Proverbs 30:6; Ecclesiastes 3:14; Revelation 22:19); so that by encouraging the emendation amongst his flock, Francis was misleading them. And far more troubling, the attention given Francis’ decision proved his continued hold—despite all Scriptural invectives against Babylon the Great—on the minds of men.

   Now Jesus, like Father, could not care less what people thought (John 6:60,66): He had been given a gospel to preach and men either accepted it as given or else. Having pre-existed as the Yahweh Son of the Old Testament, Jesus did not need to sugarcoat the reality of his past interactions with Satan and the roles he had played permitting/controlling Satan’s homicidal sprees (Exodus 12:13,23; 2Samuel 24:12-16; 1Chronicles 21:15). But he had done so following Father‘s non-negotiable terms: Punishment for transgressions was inescapable (Numbers 14:18; Jeremiah 30:11); and as Father‘s proxy ruler, Son had to implement Father‘s will no matter how it personally impacted him (Isaiah 63:8-9). It has been one of our contentions that what justified Jesus’ ordeals allowed by Father (Isaiah 53:10; John 18:11, 19:11) was the necessity for Jesus to learn—post resurrection—absolute compliance to and the severity of divine rule (Psalm 2:9↔Revelation 2:27, 12:5) that brooked no indecisions on his part (Hebrews 2:10, 5:8).

   And the same applied to the Apostles, our appointed guides and exemplars of faith (Romans 11:13; Galatians 2:7-9). In relation to Peter, he was warned Satan had asked Father [Who else since Jesus was doing the warning?] “to sift you as wheat” (Luke 22:31), meaning Satan needed Heaven’s OK to put Peter through the grinder; yet the time would come when not Satan, but Heaven, would come to Peter’s assistance in his time of need (John 21:18). One assumes that though Jesus was the assistor, he acted in accordance to Father‘s regulations (1Corinthians 10:13); and in Paul’s case, it was certainly Jesus, not Father, who implementing Father‘s ‘disciplinary actions’ (Hebrews 2:10) raked Paul over the proverbial hot coals (Galatians 6:7). Like Jesus said, I act in imitation of Father (John 5:19).

   Thus “lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil” is another way of asking Father not to give Satan the opportunity to tempt us and make us sin [↔James 1:13-15]; a notion which, giving credit where it is due, Francis Bishop of Rome understands quite well. It is a valid plea since all must endure Father‘s discipline to obtain holiness and legitimacy as His children (Hebrews 12:8,10), though not all are called to suffer to the same degree [↔John 21:21-22; 1Corinthians 10:13]. That being said, the faith of all must undergo a “baptism of fire” (Matthew 3:11; Hebrews 11:39-40; 1Peter 1:6-7)—with Jesus as baptizer (Matthew 3:11) implementing Father‘s will (Psalms 66:10; Isaiah 1:25, 48:10↔Ezekiel 22:18-22; Zechariah 13:9).

   Fourth conclusion: Pray Matthew 6:13 as Jesus taught, for his objective was to tell us that however powerful Satan is, Father allows Satan to beset us; and only Father can curb his instincts or ameliorate the suffering he will inflict. Resisting sin is a human onus (James 4:7) by which Father gauges the sincerity of our commitment to Him: It is an inescapable but necessary evil He will monitor but not entirely keep away from us.

The Specific Meaning of “Father“

   Though Jesus told us not to call “anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He Who is in Heaven” (Matthew 23:9), Jesus was not proscribing the use of the word we apply to our male progenitors. A distinction must be made between the ‘paternity’ of flesh, resulting from genetic contributions, and Father‘s spiritual contributions—i.e., souls. Male parents are the outcomes of genetics set in motion during Creation (Genesis 1:26-28); so that in terms of body, though Yahweh Son/Jesus was the de facto Creator of human beings (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:2), the empowering Most High God is ultimately mankind’s Progenitor. With respect to Jesus, we find notions of his ‘surrogate paternity’ in Hebrews 2:13 and Isaiah 9:6, 22:21, where the boy/son/prince is called “Everlasting Father” to dwellers of Jerusalem and Judah—both shadow to the substance of Heavenly Jerusalem’s spiritual offspring and to Jesus’ “tribe” (Hebrews 7:14)—i.e., Christians.

   To which we must add that although souls inhabit human bodies and animate them (John 6:63), souls are not by-products of Creation, but are ostensibly introduced in uteri by Father (Psalms 139:13-16). As Paul argued, mortal flesh cannot cannot enter spiritual realms (1Corinthians 15:50), but the soul never loses its divine properties—which is the reason why no bodies but only souls return to Father after death (Genesis 3:19; Ecclesiastes 12:7) and are sent back to animate human remains (Ezekiel 37:1-14) either at the first resurrection, or to be destroyed at Armageddon following the second (Daniel 12:2; Matthew 10:28; John 5:29; Acts 24:15; 1Thessalonians 4:14; Revelation 20:5-6).

   Thus we see that in Judeo-Christian theology at least, spiritual parenthood is a male rather than a female function: Father, Who obviously must be genderless, gave Son a male ‘gender’ (Colossians 1:15)⁵—hence Jesus’ descriptor, “Son of Man,” as men’s Savior (Matthew 18:11). Son in turn made Man in the “image” he shared with Father (Genesis 1:26).⁶ It is in terms of fostering spirituality that male preachers ‘beget’ new creatures in Jesus’ image (John 3:6-7↔2Corinthians 5:17)—which is what Paul was driving at in Galatians 4:19 and Philemon 1:10, and John suggested by calling converts “little children” (1John 2:18, 3:7,18, 5:21 vis-á-vis “beloved” (1John 3:2,21, 4:1,7,11) and “brothers” (1John 3:13).

   The same concept applies to Abraham, who is called the father of faith (Romans 4:16; Galatians 3:7); and to every subsequent male leader, prophet, and preacher who were hand-picked to fulfill the substance of Genesis 38:8—passed orally—and Deuteronomy 25:5-6—codified into law: To raise spiritual progeny for Jesus, the childless brother who had died, in order that his name should endure in the Israel to come. This emphasis on ‘maleness’ or ‘patriarchy’ is derided by unbelievers as Biblical ‘misogyny’ or ‘male chauvinism,’ when the aim is to trace a spiritual lineage from Father to Jesus via males rather than females.

   Which is not to say that females do not play a role in spirituality; only that being forbidden to preach (1Corinthians 14:34-37; 1Timothy 2:12), they foster conversion through deeds and behaviors particular to their sex (Mark 15:40-41; Luke 8:1-3; 1Corinthians 7:16; 1Peter 3:1-6). Mary is the classic exemplar: She was the virgin prophesied in Isaiah 7:14, but nothing about her fetus was contributed by her, so that Jesus was wholly and for the second time out of three—Father‘s creation (Luke 1:31-35).⁷ While it is blasphemous to call Mary ‘the mother of God,’⁸ it is permissible to say that she was Jesus’ ‘mother’; Scripture calls her so (Acts 1:14), while at the same time making the point that Jesus’ lineage was traced through Joseph (Luke 3:23), not Mary.⁹ Let us not ignore that Jesus went to great lengths to nix the notion that Mary enjoyed special treatment from him or that his ministry prioritized her in way (Matthew 12:46-50; Luke 2:49; John 2:1-4, 19:26).

   In terms of spirituality, and specifically in relation to religious leaders, no one amongst them holds the key to salvation (Proverbs 146:3): Jesus does precisely because he was no son of man. Addressing Francis Bishop of Rome as ‘Holy Father’ or any priest/spiritual guide in similar fashion insults Father‘s exclusive attribute; besides disobeying Jesus’ instructions that all men are brothers forbidden to hold sway over each other and disrespecting his position of Teacher over the all the faithful (Matthew 20:25-27, 23:8). If loyalty to institution overrides obedience to Father, so be it; but when called to task do not claim ignorance of explicit instructions given to avoid adverse consequences.

   Dear Jesus, not all have glorified our Father as you instructed us; and yes, Father, Your complaint in Hosea 11:7 remains valid to this day. May this present discussion redress in some small way the wrongs done to either of you.

¹ Paul’s use of this word in 1Timothy 6:15-16 links us to many of Father‘s attributes which He does not share with Jesus. He alone is immortal while Jesus was dead for three days (Mark 8:31; Acts 2:32; Romans 8:11; Revelation 1:18). No one has seen (John 5:37) or heard Him (1John 4:12), as opposed to proxy Angel God Son who was seen and heard by Abraham at Mamre (Genesis 18:16-33, see verse 25↔John 5:22; Acts 17:31); Jacob at Peniel (Genesis 32:24-30↔Hosea 12:4); Moses (Exodus 3:2-6) as well as Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel (Exodus 24:10-11↔Deuteronomy 4:12,33) at Sinai; Joshua at Jericho (Joshua 5:13-15↔Exodus 3:5; Isaiah 9:6-7); Samson’s parents (Judges 13:9-11,13,22↔Exodus 3:14↔Isaiah 9:67↔John 18:6).

² The substance of Exodus 26:33 [shadow], which was rent post-crucifixion (Matthew 27:51) to signal Jesus’ vacating earthly temples to serve as High Priest in their heavenly prototype (Hebrews 8:1-5, 10:19-22). Needless to say, Father never inhabited Moses’ Tabernacle or Solomon’s and Ezra/Nehemiah’s Temples (Acts 7:47-50, 17:24-25). Son did; although following upgrades by the execrable Herod, the Jerusalem Temple became defiled; so that Jesus carried on his entire ministry outside a Holy of Holies devoid of divine presences.

³ Some translations read “seventy seven times” [i.e., 77] rather than “seventy times seven” [i.e., 490]. Given that “7” and “490” figure prominently in Scripture (Genesis 2:1-3; Daniel 9:24-27; Revelation 1:20, 5:6), we lean towards the second interpretation. Please note that in relation to the Revelation verses, the “seven spirits of God” appear to exercise some oversight over the spiritual state of congregations (Revelation 2:1,8,12,18, 3:1,7,14) and report back to God on that of humanity at large (Revelation 5:6). This is in keeping with the angelic reconnoiterers before the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 18:20-22, 19:12-13), one of which was Yahweh Son/Jesus himself, Father‘s appointed Judge of all flesh (Genesis 18:25↔John 5:22; Acts 17:31).

   Please note that while In Revelation Jesus is addressing each angel individually, he acknowledges the Holy Spirit as the source of his information (Revelation 2:17).

⁴ By the way, those readers who have swallowed the Roman Catholic notion of a hell where Satan sits pretty watching the damned being tormented for eternity, polish up on your Revelation 20:10,14↔Hebrews 3:15; Revelation 6:8). As the über-killer of those entrusted to but betrayed by him (Isaiah 14:20↔Luke 4:5-6), Satan will not escape the same fate of every soul he deceived and damned.

⁵ Divine beings are sexless (Matthew 22:30).

⁶ Because Woman was taken from Man’s flesh, she is not considered a different entity from him, as attested to in Genesis 5:2. Likewise since Genesis 2:23-24 is shadow to the substance of Ephesians 5:30-32, Jesus’ Bride/Church, as his body, is considered one with him.

⁷ The first being Genesis 1:3↔John 1:9, 8:12; Colossians 1:15; Revelation 3:14; and the third when He brought Jesus back from the dead as an immortal man (Luke 24:37-39; Acts 13:30,37; Colossians 1:18).

⁸ Due to the Roman Catholic dogma that Father and Son are manifestations of the same God.

⁹ Yet even that label is essentially incorrect. If Son was Creator, then Mary was one of his by-products, not the other way around. We can apply Paul’s argument regarding Moses to Mary and come with the same conclusion: However worthy of glory, the builder has more honor than the house, never the house over the builder (Hebrews 3:3). Whereas Mary’s womb ‘housed’ Jesus’ fetus, the womb itself was Jesus’ creation; and so her entire person, so that it cannot be said that creature gave birth to Creator.