The God of this world

This article comes from my book “Messiah’s Methodical Manifesto Hidden in the Parables”, which explains how to interpret the parables of the Savior. Here is that chapter.

Let’s discuss another matter related to this topic by addressing a commonly misinterpreted verse used to ‘prove’ satan was not bound as Jesus said he was.

Well-meaning Christians will assert that satan is still ‘the god of this world’, but they have misinterpreted that passage.  Here it is:

2Cor. 4:3 “and if also our good news is veiled, in those perishing it is veiled, (unbelievingJews of 1st century)

2Cor. 4:4 in whom (unbelieving1st century Jews) the god of thisage (supposedly satan) did blind the minds of the unbelieving (Jews), that there doth not shine forth to them (Jews)the enlightening of the good news of the glory of the Christ, who is the image of God.”

Let’s focus on verse 4 to see if there is another possible interpretation. Our first word is theos, which is Greek for ‘deity’, or divine being.  Nave’s Topical Bible, Strong’s Dictionary, Young’s Literal Concordance, Thayer’s Greek Definitions, Torrey’s New Topical Textbook, Smith’s Bible Dictionary, Hitchcock’s Bible Names, Easton’s Bible Dictionary, Baker’s Evangelistic Dictionary all define ‘theos’ as Yahweh/Jehovah/the Supreme Being.  Not once do they allow for the definition of devil or satan. This alone should alert false teachers of their errors. 

Of the 1,196 verses found in the New Testament containing ‘theos’, only four of those DO NOT describe Yahweh.  Here are those verses:

Acts 7:42 ‘theos’ is used in Stephen’s defense speech when speaking of the Children of Israel wandering in the desert worshipping the ‘god’ Moloch; not God.

Acts 12:22, Herod is killed by Yahweh for accepting the praise of the people calling him a ‘god’; not God.

Acts 28:6 We read the account of Paul getting bit by the viper and shaking it off with no harm done. The Islanders then claimed that Paul was a ‘god’; not God.

Lastly, we are left with 2 Cor. 4:4. The modern church interprets and teaches that Paul referred to satan as the one who blinds the minds of unbelieving Jews. Does this interpretation and teaching hold up when examining context, and is it consistent with other usages?  Survey says: undeniably “No”.

To gain a clear understanding, we need to apply the principle of ‘the analogy of faith’. Meaning, we need to let Scripture interpret Scripture. We’ve already seen that Jesus explained exactly Who closed the minds of the unbelieving Jews and it wasn’t the ‘devil’. Isaiah 6:10 and Jeremiah 5:21 set the precedence of just ‘Who’ blinds eyes and hardens hearts.

Jesus used His audience’s understanding of Scripture when he makes the statement; “ever seeing, ever hearing.” Now we can understand why God closed their minds; so that gentiles might share a relationship with Yahweh.    

When commenting on 2 Cor.4:4, Albert Barnes wrote this: “There can be no doubt… that Satan is here designated by this appellation; though some of the fathers supposed that it means the true God, and Adam Clarke inclines to this opinion.”  Barnes was pointing out that most ‘experts’ thought it was satan but that Adam Clark believed it to be Yahweh.

Barnes was Adam Clark’s contemporary and was very aware of Clark’s views.  Here is Adam Clark’s opinion of this verse:

“I must own I feel considerable reluctance to assign the epithet ὁΘεος, ‘The God’, to Satan; and were there not a rooted prejudice in favor of the common opinion, the contrary might be well vindicated, viz. that by the “God of this world” the Supreme Being is meant, who in His judgment gave over the minds of the unbelieving Jews to spiritual darkness, so that destruction came upon them to the uttermost.  Satan, it is true, has said that the kingdoms of the world and their glory are his, and that he gives them to whomsoever he will; but has God ever said so?  Are we to take this assertion of the boasting devil and father of lies for truth? Certainly not. We are not willing to attribute the blinding of men’s minds to God, because we sometimes forget that he is the God of justice, and may in judgment remove mercies from those that abuse them; but this is repeatedly attributed to him in the Bible. On these very grounds, it is exceedingly likely that the apostle means the true God by the words the “god of this world”.

This is a perfect example of the ‘Calf Path’ mentality; men continually regurgitating the same errors until it is taught as truth. 

I did some studying on this passage and here’s what I found: it is accepted that 2 Corinthians was written around early 56 a.d., with 1st and 2nd Thessalonians, 1 Corinthians., and 1st Timothy. written before 56 a.d. This leaves Galatians, Titus, Philippians, Romans, 2nd Timothy, Philemon, Colossians, and Ephesians written after 56 A.D.

In writing his 13 Epistles, Paul used the word ‘theos’ a total of 569 times.  In 2 Corinthians, he used it 75 times! He also used ‘theos’ to describe God 187 times before writing 2 Corinthians 4:4, and 307 more times after writing 2 Corinthians 4:4. Guess how many times Paul used the word ‘theos’ to describe the defeated enemy? NONE!  ZERO!  NADA!  NIL!  ZILCH!

Maybe I’m missing something here with context, continuity, consistency of grammar, word usage and etymology? Paul writes four epistles using the word ‘theos’ 187 times to describe Yahweh, then out of the blue, in one verse, in the 5th epistle, uses ‘theos’ one time to describe satan, then goes right back to assigning ‘theos’ as Yahweh 365 more times? In 2nd Corinthians alone he used it 18 times in the first four chapters, then proceeds to use it 56 more times as ‘Yahweh’ just in that one letter!

Paul was either: 1) a poor communicator, or 2) the translator misunderstood this verse because of a “Rooted Prejudice” a.k.a. ‘doctrinal presupposition’. It wasn’t an uncommon occurrence for those early translators to struggle with confusing passages or words through their own preconceived ideas resulting in a wrong translation.  It is vital to study Scripture yourself to find out what it says. Don’t let the ‘experts’ spoon-feed you crumbs they found along the Calf Path.

Recap: One of the main principals of Biblical interpretation is discovering word usage and the context in which it appears.  Paul had already defined ‘theos’ as meaning “Yahweh” 187 times before verse 4, then another 365 times after. Unless Paul has a momentary lapse of memory, he never used it for ‘the devil’. This interpretive mistake belongs to the translator and sadly is taught today as ‘truth’.

In writing about this passage, John MacArthur was half-right when he stated“although Paul uses the same Greek word theos here to describe the devil, the truth is that…satan, of course, is not a god but a created being.”  This is about the only time I would agree with John, but he is left with a perilous choice to make about Paul’s theology:

 #1. Paul’s doctrine was inconsistent

 #2. Paul elevated satan to co-redemptor

 #3. Paul was a poor communicator

 #4. The translator got this wrong and so did John     

MacArthur. (I’ll take Door #4 for $200.)

William Barclay wrote this about 2nd Corinthians 4:4, “In their case, the god of this world has blinded the minds of those who refuse to believe, in order that upon them there may not dawn the light of the good news which tells of the glory of Christ in whom we can see God.”

Barkley’s assertion is wrong on two levels; First, their minds weren’t blinded ‘because’ they refused to believe; they refused to believe because their minds were blinded by Yahweh.  Secondly, this logic makes the devil a co-redemptive partner working in tandem with God.

John Eleazer, a.k.a. Lazarus, explained the process of God hardening the Jewish heart;

John 12:40 “He has blinded their eyes and has hardened their heart, that they might not see with the eyes and understand with the heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.” (ESV)

Do you see the connection? In our study verse, it is wrongly taught the devil blinds the eyes, yet here it is God performing the blinding. I never realized how well these two guys worked together…

The word “hardened” is in the Greek active voice which speaks of action performed by the subject (Yahweh) on the recipient (heart) that was unable to comprehend the true purpose of the Old Covenant.  The ‘hardening’ caused them to reject the Messiah. Yahweh hardened their hearts and the result was unbelief. William Barkley got it backwards.

Saul (a.k.a. Paul) had a heart hardened by sin and consequently arrested disciples and was breathing murderous threats before his conversion (Acts 9). Paul’s heart was so hardened that Jesus appeared in person to convince Saul Yeshua was the true Messiah. In 1st Timothy 1:13-16, Paul admitted his previous actions stemmed from an unbelief so powerful that the Savior had to ‘undo’ the hardening, healing him from his unbelief.

Hermeneutics provides the framework and guidance for interpretation, but often this essential ‘truth-finding’ is not applied, resulting in bogus logic and wrong interpretation. The following chart is an example I found where hermeneutics was not applied and resulted in a heretical interpretation assigning to satan that which has always been God’s role.

Just like the Sesame Street song “One of these things is not like the other”, the author of the chart wrongly assigns to satan, that which was God’s. Had the translator replaced satan’s name with God’s then we would have a perfect example of the type of Jewish poetry that is contained in Scripture. This chart does not reflect the Hebrew writers ‘X=Y’ style of writing. As translated, we see that satan shares the exact same power as Yahweh. Performing identical works. Yet, Jesus said ALL power was given to him. (Matt. 28:18) Which is it?  Was Jesus lying and satan somehow held on to his power, or did the translator get this wrong?

Here is further Pauline proof that God was the executor of the Jewish blindness:

Romans.11:7 “What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.”

Romans.11:8 “According as it is written, ‘God hathgiven them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear; unto this day.’

Romans.11:9 ‘And David said, let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumbling block, and a recompense unto them.’

Romans.11:10 ‘Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back always.’”

You may think you have solid arguments certain to correct my logic, so let’s have a quick mock debate:

Argument #1: “TJ, in 2nd Corinthians 4:4 ‘god’ is written in lower case letters indicating Paul was not referring to Yahweh”.

My response: ‘theos’ does not have a capital letter. The translator chose to use upper or lower-case letters determined by context and usage.  Paul did not write ‘theos’ 567 times with a Capital ‘T’ then only once with a lower case ‘t’.  Paul only wrote the word ‘theos’. NEXT!!!!

Argument #2: “TJ, 2nd Corinthians 4:4ἐν οἷς ὁ Θεος τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου ἐτύφλωσε τα νοήματα τῶν ἀπίστων εἰς το μηαὐγάσαι αὐτοῖς… (yeah, doesn’t it intimidate you when authors write entire sentences as if you read Greek?) See TJ, notice how the definite article ‘the’ is used. (Greek letter ‘O’ is the word ‘the’) That proves Paul was not referring to ‘God’ but a god, or a false god.” 

My answer:  First, ‘a’ is not an option. (as in ‘a god’). The letter ‘a’ as a single object is not used as a definite article.  But if you are trying to prove the definite article (‘the’) in v.4 somehow means Paul was not referring to the Father, then let’s see how that argument holds up in light of Scripture.  If what you say is true, we should not be able to find Paul ever using ‘the’ to refer to any of the names of the Trinity: Fair enough?

Romans1:4 “declared to bethe Son of God with power, Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.”

Romans 1:17 “for therein is the righteousness of God.”

Romans 1:25 “…and served the creature more than the Creator.”

Romans 3:29 “is he the God of the Jews only? In our hearts by the Holy Ghost.”

Romans 8:9 “But ye are not in the flesh, but inthe Spirit.”

Romans 8:16 “The Spirit itself bears witness.”

Romans 10:9 “confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus.”

Other examples; the will of God, the church of God, the right hand of God, the voice of God, the Spirit of God, etc.

We find this in 2nd Corinthians 1:3- “blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of compassions.”

2 Corinthians 3:3 “you are demonstrating that you are the Messiah’s letter.”

There is a problem with this verse! Paul did not supply the definite article in that verse. The translator added it!

Let’s continue:

2nd Corinthians 4:4 “in their case, the god of this world has blinded the minds of those who do not believe to keep them from seeing the light of the glorious gospel of the Messiah, who is theimage of God.”

2nd Corinthians 6:16 “…the temple of the living God,”

Have I proven that adding the Greek definite article ‘the’ in front of ‘theos’ does not mean it is satan? Now you understand it was the decision of the early translators to convert ‘theos’ into either God or god; which they got wrong in this instance.

What would it mean if Paul HAD supplied ‘the’ as a definite article in front of ‘theos’ and the translator chose to remove it? Would it be considered irresponsible of the translator? Would we call it heresy?  Would it mean the translator was trying to hide something or eschew Paul’s writings to make the text fit into the translator’s understanding? For this next point I will make, let me be a little more preposterous: would it mean the opposite of what Paul was writing?  

Here’s my example: Look at 2nd Corinthians 4:6, which comes two verses after our study verse. 

“For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ”.

Seems normal, right? Here’s the problem: The Greek manuscripts commonly used, meaning the Textus Receptus, the Apostolic Bible Polyglot… (don’t ask), the Greek NT, and the Westcott Hort, clearly carried the definite article ‘the’ in front of the word ‘theos’.  So, it should read like this: “For the God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of the God in the face of Jesus Christ”.

See my point?  Here’s a perfect example of Paul writing ‘the God’ but the translators choosing to leave it out.  Gee, in our culture, isn’t that the same as a jot or tittle?  Isn’t that the same as taking away or adding to Scripture?

“Maybe it’s the devil Paul was writing of since people think it is the devil two verses earlier?”

I’m being sarcastic here, but in both verses, separated by less than 50 words, Paul really did write ‘the god’, yet in one verse we are told it was the devil and two verses later told it was Yahweh?

You can’t assume the ‘devil’ in verse 4 and God in verse 6.  If Paul wrote ‘the’ in verse 6, why wasn’t it inserted in the Bible? Because the translator erred again. Why would a translator make this mistake? Because they interpreted manuscripts based on their presuppositions and flawed doctrines.

You need to understand that men from all centuries have translated Scripture based on their own concept of doctrine. It’s unavoidable. To a degree, they must rely on their understanding of doctrine or 90% of the manuscripts would make no sense.  But it’s the 10% that continues to cause trouble.  

Another example: 2nd Corinthians 9:13 “By their approval of this service, they will glorify God because of your submission flowing from your confession of the gospel of Christ.”

The manuscripts mentioned earlier all recorded that Paul wrote “the God because of your submission” but the translators omitted it. Does that mean Paul was writing about satan? Paul intentionally wrote “the god.” It’s the exact phrase used in 4:4 and we have been told by the experts that 4:4 referred to satan, because it has a little “g” (which really doesn’t even exist).  Clear as mud, right?   

Here is one last example of liberties taken by translators:

Matthew 2:22: “But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned ‘of God’ in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee”

KJV, ASV, Geneva, Kingdom Bible, and several others added “of God” to this verse.  The ESV, LITV, YLT, The New Greek Testament, The Aramaic English NT, The NET Bible, The New English Bible, The Life Application Bible and others did not add these two words to the text. Why? Because they were not supplied by the original author. The translators thought they were helping us understand who was doing the warning by sending the dream. 

Just because the definite article is or is not translated, and is or is not capitalized, does not mean that a verse speaks of the devil. Clearly Paul used the phrase for Yahweh and translators ignored it. 

What’s my point? Be a Berean and study it for yourself. Don’t depend on the translation. Understand New Covenant theology and you will sense when you are reading something that isn’t consistent with established doctrine. Understand the nature of how Yahweh moved through the Old and New Covenants and you will understand Who the only person is Who can truly blind the minds of those who did not believe.

You probably forgot we are in the middle of a mock debate, so let’s resume.

Argument #3: “TJ, have you forgotten about this verse? Matthew 4:8 “Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory and he said to him, ‘All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me’.”  See TJ! satan was in control of the world, even if only back then. Because he said he was!

My response:……Well, you got me there. Yeah.  I guess you are right. But wait! I’m thinking of a verse in…umm…

John 8:44 Yeshua said, “You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.”    

Let’s think logically here, Ok?  The only time satan decided to tell the truth was when he told Jesus he had the authority to give Jesus the kingdoms of the world?  This same satan, Jesus describes as having nothing to do with the truth? If satan said he controlled the world and kingdoms and Jesus said satan was the father of lies, then satan lied about that too.  The reason satan was unable to give the Kingdoms to Jesus was because he was not the ruler of this world. If you want to continue believing that satan was telling the truth to Jesus that day, then go right ahead. 

Remember Matthew 28:18? “And Jesus came and said to them, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me’”.

Consider this: If Paul believed satan was still god of that world 25 years after Jesus said that HE alone possessed all authority in heaven and on earth, then either Paul was; 1. a heretic, 2. a servant of satan, 3. horribly confused. 

OR! (Drum-roll please) 4.Jesus did possess all authority and Paul knew that and never believed nor wrote that satan was the god of this world!

At no time in the entire New Testament did Jesus, James, Luke, the writer of Hebrews, Jude, Matthew, Mark, Peter, John, Paul, or any other writer EVER refer to satan as “a god”. 

Who really closes the minds, blinds the eyes, and shut’s the hearts of people?

Therefore, we can believe that God was the “god” of that age. It was not a statement of disgust from Paul. He was saying something he had said many times before. Every judgment brought upon the Jews in their 1500-year history was imposed by Yahweh, not satan. There is no other valid interpretation of this verse. 

I have been saving this last ‘treat’ just to exemplify how easily translators make mistakes. Here is the verse from the Aramaic Peshitta Bible;

2nd Corinthians 4:4 “To those in this world whose minds have been blinded by God, because they did not believe, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the likeness of God, should shine on them.”

The Peshitta Bible and the Exegesis Ready Study Bible are two versions I found that correctly interpreted the word. You can rest assured I am not bringing some new teaching and that some translators did get it right!

My emphasis in parenthesis

At least not mentioned as effective or active in the NT. He was a graven image they did worship but no mention of interaction or communication.

Albert Barnes’: Notes on the New Testament 1870

AT Robinson’s book “Re-dating the New Testament”

As mentioned in Adam Clark’s opinion

https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/45-09/the-wrath-of-god

Wrong on this part as I will prove

THE LETTERS TO THE CORINTHIANS (c) 1954

New discoveries and Scriptural evidence have brought questions of whether John the Apostle or John Eliezer wrote the Gospel of John.  I gravitate to John Eleazer as he was the only man referred to as “the one whom Jesus loved”. Since Scripture only mentions Lazarus as the one Jesus loved, then he also wrote John.  Study for yourself, then decide.