|
|
| |
|
| by Erik Wait |
| |
 |
| |
Introduction
In June 1993 I moved from living in an apartment complex with an intercom system, which required any visitor to ring the tenant from the lobby, to a complex which allowed visitors to go directly to one's door. I knew that once I moved into the complex with direct door access that I would probably receive visits from newspaper delivery boys, Mormons, and Jehovah's Witnesses but I did not realize just how soon my expectations would come to pass. Within a few days of having moved into my new apartment, before I had even finished unpacking, I received a knock on the door at which time I met two sharply dressed women with plain black briefcases. But before they even said a word I said to them, "You're from the Watch Tower Society, aren't you?" They were a bit surprised that they did not have to identify themselves and even more surprised when I quickly invited them in for a discussion about the Bible and the person of Jesus Christ.
I knew that I should not waste time discussing peripheral doctrines such as eternal torment in hell verses annihilation, whether or not one should be able to receive blood transfusions or the identity of the 144,000 in the Book of Revelation and thus I went directly to discussing the identity of Jesus Christ. Prior to this occasion I had not met a Jehovah's Witness, nor read any of their material so I decided to approach this as a learning experience. Early in our conversation the doctrine of the Trinity arose as they handed me a little pamphlet titled “Should You Believe in the Trinity?” [1] At first glance it seemed to have some very incriminating evidence against the doctrine of the Trinity. But not wanting to just believe what it asserted, I decided for the remainder of the summer to spend countless hours at the Graduate Theological Union Seminary Library in Berkeley researching the documentation cited in their pamphlet. With the help of Robert Bowman's book You Should Believe In The Trinity [2] I accumulated photocopies of the material supposedly cited by the Watch Tower Society and put together a resource book which not only proves the Biblical and theological errors of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society but also their fraudulent citations and misrepresentations of the works of the early church fathers. [3]
In the process of gathering material in the library I came to the conclusion that there is a strong link between studying church history and apologetics, for the history of the Church revolves around its constant battle against heretics. However, rather than these heretics being a hindrance to the church they have forced the church to constantly define what it believes and crystallize its doctrines. In the novel Never Cry Wolf an Eskimo tells the main protagonist, who is researching the impact of wolves on the caribou population, that it is the wolf that keeps the caribou herd strong for they only prey on the diseased and thus weed out the weak. If the cults such as J.W.s have been able to flourish in our country it is only because the church for so long has been intellectually and theologically weak. The end result of my encounter with the two ladies that early summer day was a deeper desire to seek a better theological education and seminary degree.
The Historical and Theological Roots Of The Watchtower Society
Over the past few decades there has been a growing interest in the need to preserve our nation's resources and thus a growing interest in recycling reusable materials. Our cities have employed collection services so that all one has to do to recycle one's cans, bottles, and newspapers is to put them on the edge of the curb in a designated receptacle and they will picked up by the city recyclers. When you return to the store to purchase a six-pack of beer or soda, a glass jar of pickles or mayonnaise, or a paper product, you are most likely purchasing a product which comes in a container made from materials which have been purchased before. The materials have been reshaped, cleaned, and given perhaps a different appearance but they are essentially of the same material.
Similarly, it would seem when one studies the history of the church and its confessions, which were formed to combat heresy, that Satan too is involved in recycling. However, his interest is not in cans, bottles, or newspapers but in false doctrine. Over and over again he reuses the same lies which, though they have been defeated in the past, are reshaped, perhaps cleaned up a bit, and given a different look and title but again are essentially the same heresy. Particularly, he seems to focus on the two central elements of the gospel which are the person and the work of Jesus Christ.
It was not long after the New Testament church was born that Satan introduced heresy through false teachers against which Christ's apostles were put to the task to defend the church. For example, in Galatians 1:8 the apostle Paul warns the church, “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned." The issue which Paul was addressing to the saints in Galatia revolved around how a sinner may be justified before God. The central theme of his epistle is that we are justified by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone and to attempt to add the works of the law to the finished work of Christ is damnable as he writes, "You Foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. I would like to learn one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the Law, or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?" (Galatians 3:1).
However, not only did Paul have to defend against a different doctrine of justification but also a different doctrine of Christ as he wrote to the believers at Corinth, "But I am afraid, lest as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds should be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ. For if anyone comes to you and preaches a Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted..." (1 Corinthians 11:3-4).
Not only did Paul write against false doctrines but the apostle John also wrote in his epistles to combat false doctrines concerning Christ, “For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.... By this you know the Spirit of God; every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God.” (1 John 1:7; 4:2).
Unfortunately false doctrines concerning the identity of Christ did not end with the apostolic era for a raging battle within the church continued in the following centuries. One of the most prominent heresies was that of Arianism. Arianism was a fourth century heresy named after Arius (c.250-c.336), a priest in Alexandria. According to J.N.D. Kelly, Arius and his colleague's doctrines can be summarized in four propositions. First, they denied the full deity of the preexistent Son of God who became incarnate in Jesus Christ. Second, they held that the Son, while divine and like God ("of like substance"), was created by God as the agent through whom he created the universe. Arius said of the Son, “there was a time when he was not.” Third, "the Son can have no communion with, and indeed no direct knowledge of, His Father." Thus, “in himself he is, like all other creatures, 'alien from and utterly dissimilar to the Father's essence and individual being.'" Fourthly, "the son must be liable to change and even sin.” However, they taught that the Father saw that he would not sin and thus bestowed upon him grace in advance. [4]
The effect on the church by Arius and his followers was no mere trifle dispute for Arianism became so widespread in the Christian church and resulted in such disunity that the emperor Constantine convoked a church council at Nicaea in 325 to settle the dispute. Led by Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, the council condemned Arianism and stated that the Son was consubstantial (of one and the same substance or being) and coeternal with the Father, a belief formulated as homoousios (“of one substance”) against the Arian position of homoiousios (“of like substance”).
Though the council was triumphant in defending orthodoxy the battle continued due to the conflicting politics of the empire after the death of Constantine in 337. From which, three types of Arianism emerged: radical Arianism, which asserted that the Son was "dissimilar" to the Father; homoeanism, which held that the Son was similar to the Father; and semi-Arianism, which shaded off into orthodoxy and held that the Son was similar yet distinct from the Father. After an initial victory of the homoean party in 357, the semi-Arians joined the ranks of orthodoxy, which finally triumphed except in Teutonic Christianity, where Arianism survived until after the conversion of the Franks (496).(5) Although to some it may seem like the dispute about Arianism was a mere a battle over words, the difference between homoousios and homoiousios, a fundamental issue involving the integrity of the Gospel was at stake: whether God was really in Christ reconciling the world to himself.
Though the Council of Nicaea condemned Arianism, it continued well after the beginning of the seventh century. Williston Walker in his book A History of the Christian Church states, "In Spain, the Visigoth king, Recarred, renounced Arianism in 587, an act which was confirmed at the third Council of Toledo in 589. In about 590, the gradual conversion of the Lombards to catholic Christianity was begun, though it was not completed until about 660. In this way Arianism finally disappeared."(6) However, it would seem that Walker may have hammered the last nail into Arianism's coffin prematurely for, as I shall argue in this paper, it would later be revived in 1870 by a man named Charles Taze Russell. Russell founded a Bible class which in time would grow to become what is known today as the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, or what is commonly referred to today as the Jehovah's Witnesses. [7]
While there are many cultic aspects of the Jehovah's Witnesses, both sociologically and theologically, I shall in this paper focus on their false teachings on the person of Jesus Christ. First, I shall demonstrate that their doctrine of Christ meets the four basic propositions of Arianism, as described by Kelly. Then I shall refute those theological fallacies, and finally demonstrate not only their false doctrine of Christ but their repeated misconceptions and misrepresentations of the doctrine of the Trinity and the early church fathers which are used to deceive people to believe their doctrine.
The Watch Tower Society’s Link With Arianism
According to the Watch Tower magazine true Christianity apostatized at the end of the apostolic era as, they claim, it infused pagan philosophy with Biblical Christianity, "The death of the apostles removed a restraining influence, allowing a widespread apostasy to develop... An organization grew up that unworthily professed to be God's congregation. It falsely claimed to be the holy nation anointed with God's spirit to rule with Jesus." [8] Thus, according to The Watch Tower Society, this apostasy resulted in the doctrine of the Trinity at the council of Nicaea in 325 C.E. which, according to them, "fits in with what Jesus and his disciples foretold would follow their time." [9] Yet, The Watch Tower Society claims that true Christianity did not totally disappear from the face of the earth for they believe that there were always those whose teachings were in line with Watch Tower theology. The true Church, according to them, would be in darkness until it was more fully unveiled by Charles Taze Russell. But who were those "faithful remnant"?
According to the Watch Tower Society's pamphlet “Should You Believe in the Trinity?” the Ante-Nicene fathers such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Origen all taught that Jesus was a created being and thus, "the testimony of the Bible and of history makes clear that the Trinity was unknown throughout Biblical times and for several centuries thereafter." [10] Of course in their pamphlet they do not cite their sources so that one might check to see if their claims are accurate. Thus, when they assert that Justin Martyr believed that the prehuman Jesus was a created angel who is "other than the God who made all things" their readers are not likely to check the Watch Tower's sources to see if they are correct. In fact, while Justin stated things such as, "Now the Word of God is His son, as we have before said. And He is called Angel and Apostle," they fail to point out that Justin goes on to say, " the Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first begotten word of God, is even God." [11[ In fact, Justin also states:
"And of old He appeared in the shape of fire and to other prophets; but now in the times of your reign, having, as we before said, become Man by a virgin, according to the council of the Father, for the salvation of those who might believe on Him, He endured both to be set at nought and to suffer, that by dying and rising again He might conquer death. And that which is said out of the bush to Moses, 'I am that I am, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, and the God of your Fathers,' this signified that they, even though dead, are yet in existence, and are men belonging to Christ Himself." [12]
It is clear, contrary to The Watch Tower Society claims, that Justin, while he did not use such terms as "Trinity," believed Jesus to be YHWH (Jehovah). [13] While it might be said that the Ante-Nicene fathers did not have a succinct formulation of the Trinity, like that found in the Nicaean and Athanasian Creeds, they did believe that Jesus was God incarnate and by no means could it be said that they were in line with Watch Tower theology. For example, contrary to the pamphlet “Should You Believe in the Trinity?” Irenaeus taught that the entire church held to the following unified confession:
“[She believes] in One God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father ' to gather all things in one,' and to raise anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father...” [14[
Not only did the universal church, according to Irenaeus, believe that Jesus was Jehovah but that he was raised from the dead in the flesh which the Watch Tower Society denies as they assert, “King Christ Jesus was put to death in the flesh and was resurrected an invisible spirit creature.” [15] According to Jehovah's Witness J.F. Rutherford, "The fleshly body is the body in which Jesus humbled himself, like a servant, and is not the body of his glorification, nor the body in which he was resurrected." [16] Thus they conclude, “Whether it was dissolved into gases or whether it is still preserved somewhere as the grand memorial of God’s love, of Christ's obedience, and of our redemption, no one knows." [17]
Space permitting I could go on with further examples of The Watch Tower Society's misrepresentations of the Ante-Nicene fathers but suffice it to say that all of them, with perhaps the exception of Origen, could be considered to be in line with Trinitarian theology and not that of the Jehovah's Witnesses. What then might we consider to be The Watch Tower Society's historical lineage? It is none other than the ancient heresy of Arianism for just as the Arians denied the full deity of the preexistent Son of God so do the Jehovah’s Witnesses:
“Jesus had an existence in heaven before coming to the earth. But was it as one of the persons in an almighty eternal triune Godhead? No, for the Bible plainly states that in his prehuman existence, Jesus was a created spirit being, just as angels were spirit beings created by God... Jesus in his prehuman existence was the 'first-born of all creation.” [18]
In addition, just as the Arians taught that Jesus was created by God as the agent through whom he created the universe so do the Jehovah's Witnesses:
“So it was by means of this master worker [Jesus Christ] his junior partner, as it were, that Almighty God created all other things... It no doubt was to this master craftsmen that God said: 'Let us make man in our image (Genesis 1:26) Some have claimed that the 'us' and 'our' in this expression indicates a Trinity. But is you were to say, 'Let us make something for ourselves,' no one would normally understand this to imply that several persons are combined as one inside of you. You simply mean that two or more individuals will work together on something. So, too, when God used 'us' and 'our,' he was simply addressing another individual, his first spirit creation, the master craftsmen, the prehuman Jesus.” [19]
Thus we see that the Jehovah’s Witnesses meet Kelly’s first two propositions of Arianism. However they also meet the third criteria, in that they hold that Jesus is alien from and utterly dissimilar to the Father's essence and individual being, when they state, "Jesus further showed that he was a separate being from God by saying: 'Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.' (Mark 10:18, JB) So Jesus was saying that no one is as good as God is, not even Jesus himself. God is good in a way that separates him from Jesus." [20] Fourthly, they meet the last proposition of Arianism when they deny His impeccability, immutability and thus Jesus was liable to change and even sin:
"At Matthew 4:1, Jesus is spoken of as being 'tempted by the devil.' After showing Jesus 'all the kingdoms of the world and their glory,' Satan said: 'All these things I will give you if you fall down and do an act of worship to me.' (Matthew 4:8, 9) Satan was trying to cause Jesus to be disloyal to God. But what test of loyalty would that be if Jesus were God? Could God rebel against himself? No. but angels and humans could rebel against God and did. The temptation of Jesus would make sense only if He was, not God, but a separate individual who had his own free will, one who could have been disloyal had he chosen to be, such as an angel or a human." [21]
A Biblical Response To The Claims Of The Watch Tower Society
One of the first problems that the Watch Tower Society has with the doctrine of the Trinity is their misunderstanding of it, thus their twisting of what it claims. In "Should You Believe in the Trinity?"" they try to assert that the doctrine of the Trinity has its origins in pagan thought and the influences of Platonism. Thus, they show various triads of pagan religions, such as an Egyptian triad of Horus, Osiris, and Isis; a Hindu triad; and Kampuchea, a three faced Buddhist god and assert that these influenced the framers of the Nicene creed. However, what they fail to point out is that these, and others illustrated, have their origins in the seventh, twelfth, and later centuries which is after the council of Nicaea and that the others are from countries geographically too distant to have any influence on the Christian church. In addition, in their confusion about the doctrine of the Trinity they seem to think that it teaches that because the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, yet there is only one God that it teaches that there are somehow three Gods in one God, or trithiesm. Thus, they make such statements as the Holy Spirit being "no part of a Trinity" [22] as if the doctrine of the Trinity teaches that each member is 1/3 of God.
Perhaps we might say that the average J.W. is not entirely at fault at being confused about the doctrine of the Trinity for undoubtedly countless of times Jehovah's Witnesses have come to the door of professing Christians who are also confused about the doctrine of the Trinity. The level of ignorance about such basic doctrines is at an all time high in the church today thus many J.W.s find it hard to follow a doctrine which professing Christians, though they profess to believe in it, can not even explain much less defend. However, it must be asserted, contrary to the opening pages of "Should You Believe in the Trinity?", that just because some professing Christians are ignorant or confused about the doctrine it should not be rejected. While we might be understanding with the average J.W. as to their confusion The Watch Tower Society itself should not be given any slack for it opens its pamphlet by saying, "This confusion is widespread. The Encyclopedia Americana notes that the doctrine of the Trinity is considered to be ' beyond the grasp of human reason'" Thus, they conclude that because it is beyond the grasp of human reason and that some are confused about it that it should be rejected. However, what they fail to point out is that The Encyclopedia Americana goes on to say, "... it is, like many of the formulations of physical science, not contrary to human reason, and may be apprehended (though it may not be comprehended) by the human mind." [23] Not only has the organization twisted the fact about the early church father's beliefs about the Trinity it decidedly deletes important statements made by contemporary resource literature.
Seeing that so many are confused about the doctrine, should we seek to reduce our doctrine of the infinite and eternal God so that He fits into our finite minds? Should we reject what the Scriptures teach or bend them to meet our expectations? Or should we submit to what the Bible says and try to apprehend what God has revealed even though we may not be able to fully comprehend it? Obviously the latter, as Isaiah 55:8-9 states, "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Neither are your ways My ways,' declares the LORD. 'For as the heavens are higher that the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts'" and the apostle Paul exclaims, "Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! For who has known the mind of the LORD, or who has became His counselor?" (Romans 11:33-34).
What then, does the doctrine of the Trinity teach concerning the person of Jesus Christ? First, although the word Trinity does not appear in Scripture nevertheless its doctrine is clearly taught in the Bible. The Watch Tower Society makes much ado about the term not being in the Bible and asserts that it is a Greek pagan notion that was added to Christianity. However, what they fail to point out is that there are many concepts and terms which they themselves use which can not be found in the Bible such as theocracy, monarchy, liturgy, etc. which are nonetheless concepts found in the Bible. As summarized by the Nicene Creed the doctrine of the Trinity teaches about Jesus Christ that:
“We believe in one God, the Father almighty... And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, begotten from the Father before all ages, God from God... true God from true God... begotten not made; of the same essence as the Father. Through Him all things were made. For us and for our salvation He came down from heaven; He became incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary, and was made human. He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried. The third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures. He ascended to heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again with glory to judge the living and the dead. His kingdom will never end.” [24]
Likewise, the Athanasian Creed states:
“That we worship one God in Trinity and the Trinity in unity, neither blending the persons nor dividing their essence. For the person of the Father is a distinct person, the person of the Son is another. But the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one, their glory equal, their majesty coeternal.... Just as Christian truth compels us to confess each person individually as both God and Lord, so catholic religion forbids us to say that there are three gods or lords... now this is the true faith: That we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, God's son, is both God and human, equally. He is God from the essence of the Father, begotten before time; and He is human from the essence of His mother born in time; completely God, completely human... Although He is God and human, yet Christ is not two but one. He is one however, not by His divinity being turned into flesh, but by God's taking humanity to Himself.” [25]
The failure of the J.W.s to understand what the doctrine of the Trinity teaches lies in the difference between the terms person and essence. In addition, they fail to understand that historic Christianity does not claim that the term Trinity is to be found in the Scriptures but that it is a term used to describe the necessary conclusion that one must come to when one considers all the Biblical data as to the person and essence of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
The unity of God is clear from Scripture in that there is but one God and that the divine nature is undivided and indivisible. God does not consist of parts nor can He be divided into parts (Deuteronomy . 4:35, 39; 6:4; I Kings 8:60; Isaiah 45:5 f.).(26) Yet the Biblical data, as argued by Trinitarians, also demonstrates that while the Father is God, the Son and the Holy Spirit are also called God, yet, contrary to Sabellianism, there is a distinction among them as we see in such texts as Matthew 3:16-17, "...and after being baptized, Jesus went up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon Him, and behold, a voice out of the heavens, saying, 'This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.'" Thus, the Trinitarian doctrine, as stated in the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds, holds that while there is one substance or essence in God there are three distinct persons, or personalities, in the Godhead. It is here that the Jehovah's Witnesses, and others, become confused when they read the various texts cited by Christians to support the doctrine of the Trinity such as John 1:1 as they state, "Someone who is 'with' another person cannot be the same as the other person."(27) In the mind of the J.W. this statement is to be construed as a refutation of Trinitarianism while in fact every Trinitarian would be in solid agreement with the statement. What the previous citation from “Should You Believe in the Trinity?” is arguing against is Sabellianism, [28] which in their misunderstanding, or misrepresentation of the doctrine of the Trinity, does not teach.
In their pamphlet “Should You Believe in the Trinity?” the Watch Tower Society tries to refute some of the classic texts used to support the doctrine of the Trinity such as John 1:1 and John 8:58. For the remainder of this paper I shall deal with these texts as well as some inconsistencies within The Watch Tower Society's New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (NWT) which actually demonstrate the deity of Jesus Christ. [29]
John 1:1
The NWT translates John 1:1 as, "In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." While the space restrictions of this paper does not allow me to fully discuss the complexities of this passage many other competent theologians and scholars have gone to great lengths to demonstrate the fallacy of the NWT's translation. Thus, rather than discussing the various rules and technical difficulties in translating John 1:1, as has Robert Bowman has so well done in his book "Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus Christ, & The Gospel of John,"(30) I shall instead demonstrate their false translation by showing their misuse of Greek Scholars and the inconsistencies in the application of their supposed rule in an attempt to justify their translation. In an attempt to justify their translation the Watch Tower Society asserts:
“At John 1:1 there are two occurrences of the Greek noun the-os' (god). The first occurrence refers to Almighty God, with whom the Word was ('and the Word [lo'gos] was with God [a form of the-os']'). This first the-os' is preceded by the word ton (the), a form of the Greek definite article that points to a distinct identity, in this case Almighty God ('and the Word was with [the] God') On the other hand, there is no article before the second the-os' at John 1:1. So a literal translation would read, 'and god was the Word.' Yet we have seen that many translations render this second the-os' (a predicate noun) as 'divine,' 'godlike,' or 'a god'” [31]
Of course few Christians, and even fewer J.W.s, have ever studied Greek so to make such assertions seems quite authoritative even though most likely none of their readers understands what the Watch Tower Society is talking about. In addition, in an attempt to support their translation they seemingly site several scholarly resources:
"The Journal of Biblical Literature says that expressions 'with an anarthrous [no article] predicate preceding the verb are qualitative in meaning.' As the Journal notes, this indicates that the can be likened to a god. It also says of John 1:1 'The qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun [the-os'] cannot be regarded as definite."(32)
Of course, as with all their other citations, they do not give any reference as to where the quote may be found so that their reader may see for themselves if the citation is being quoted correctly and used within its context. For example they fail to note that in the proceeding paragraph of the Journal of Biblical Literature after quoting various English translations and discussing the difficulty in translating the passage into English states, "But in all these cases the English reader might not understand exactly what John was trying to express. Perhaps the clause could be translated, “The Word had the same nature as God.' This would be one way of representing John's thought, which is, as I understand it, that ho logos, no less than ho theos, had the nature of theos.”[33] Thus, contrary to the Watch Tower Society's given implication the Journal of Biblical Literature supports rather than refutes the doctrine of the Trinity.
According to the quote from “Should You Believe in the Trinity?” above whenever theos is anarthrous one should insert “a” thus the Word is "a god" and not “God.” However, is the Watch Tower Society consistent in their translation in regard to this supposed rule? In John 1:18 we again find theos to be anarthrous yet they translate it, "No man has seen God [theos oudeis euraken popote] at any time; the only begotten god who is in the bosom with the Father is the one that has explained him." Again in Matthew 5:9 we read in the NWT, “Happy are the peaceable, since they will be called 'sons of God' [uioi theou klethesontai].” If they were consistent with this supposed rule they would translate John 1:18, “No man has seen a god...” and Matthew 5:9, “...they will be called 'sons of a god.'” [34]
Obviously, from context alone, it is not necessary to translate Greek nouns that have no definite article as having an indefinite article. According to S.M. Baugh, “When a noun is used as a predicate nominative in a predicate statement, the presence or absence of an article with that noun may be determined by word order rather than by whether the noun is definite or not.” [35] Subsequently Baugh lists John 1:1 as an example and translates theos en o logos as “The word was God.”
To the Christian mind to assert that Jesus could be “a god” and yet not be Jehovah is quite ludicrous for the Bible clearly states that there is only one God (Deuteronomy . 6:4). But to the J.W. the term god may be used of any superior power, such as an angel, thus they teach that while there are many gods there is only one "Almighty" God. However, when the Bible uses the term theos or elohim, it is either referring to the one true God or a false god not that Jehovah is an Almighty God (greater power) above all other mighty gods (lesser powers). Thus, even if Jesus is "a god" he must be either a true god or a false god. If we believe he is not a false god and is not Jehovah then we must resort to polytheism, as has The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints, commonly referred to as the Mormons.
John 8:58
The NWT translates John 8:58 as, “Jesus said to them: 'Most truly I say to you, Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.” In contrast to the NWT, most standard recognized Bible versions translate the last word in the statement, ego eimi, as "I am." For example the KJV states, "Jesus said unto them, 'Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am'" and the NASB states, "Jesus said to them, 'truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.'" In addition, most Bible commentators note that in John 8:58 Jesus is making the claim to be God, that is Jehovah, Leon Morris comments:
“Before the great patriarch, who lived centuries before, Jesus' existence went on. His ‘Verily, verily’ marks this out as an important and emphatic statement ... whether we translate 'before Abraham was' (as AV), or 'was born' (as ARV, NEB, etc.) the meaning will be 'came into existence', as the aorist tense indicates. A mode of being which has a definite beginning is contrasted with one which is eternal... It should also be observed that He says "I am", not "I was". It is eternity of being and not simply being which has lasted through several centuries that the expression indicates.” [36]
Many Christians in their attempt to refute J.W.s who come to their door quote John 8:58 and then cite Exodus 3:14 which states, “And God said to Moses, 'I AM WHO I AM'; and He said, 'Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you'" (NASB). Thus the Christian asserts that when Jesus said “ego eimi”" ( I am) that He was using the divine name from which we get YHWH which is translated Jehovah. [37] To avoid any possible correlation between these two verses the NWT translates Exodus 3:14 as, "At this God said to Moses: 'I shall prove to be what I shall prove to be.' and he added: 'This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, 'I shall prove to be has sent me to you.'" In an attempt to refute any correlation between John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14 in “Should You Believe in the Trinity?” the Watch Tower Society asserts:
“The expression at John 8:58 is quite different from the one used at Exodus 3:14. Jesus did not use it as a name or a title but as a means of explaining his prehuman existence... the Jews wanted to stone Jesus for claiming to 'have seen Abraham' although, as they said, he was not yet 50 years old. (verse 57) Jesus' natural response was to tell the truth about his age. So he naturally told them that he 'was alive before Abraham was born!” [38]
Several things should be noted concerning these two passages. First, even if Jesus was not making a reference to Exodus 3:14 in the phrase in John 8:58, “prin Abraam genesthai ego eimi.” Jesus is not merely stating that He preexisted Abraham. The usage of eimi is in the present active indicative yet the NWT avoids translating it in the present tense but as Leon Morris noted in the above citation, “He says 'I am', not 'I was'.” If Jesus wanted to merely to assert preexistence he could have said, “prin Abraam genesthai ego gegona” which we would translate, “before Abraham became I came into existence.”
Jesus' usage of ego eimi alone, apart from any allusion to any Old Testament passage, is a statement of eternality which only Jehovah could claim. The Watch Tower Society however denies this by asserting that ego eimi must be viewed as a historical present. A historical present is a special use of the present tense in which one speaks of a past event as if it were a present event. For example, it is frequently used in narrative literature in which the speaker desires to portray the even more vividly than he would if he spoke in the past tense [39] In defense of the NWT translation Dennis Light states, "The Greek verb eimi, literally present tense, must be viewed as a historical present, because of being preceded by the aorist infinitive clause referring to Abraham's past." [40] To this Daniel B. Wallace replies:
"This argument has several flaws in it: [1] The fact that the present tense follows an aorist infinitive has nothing to do with how it should be rendered. In fact historical presents are usually wedged in between aorist (or imperfect) indicatives, not infinitives. [2] If this is a historical present, it is apparently the only historical present in the NT that uses the equative verb eimi. The burden of proof, therefore, lies with one who sees eimi as ever being used as a historical present. [3] If this is a historical present, it is apparently the only historical present in the NT that is in other than the third person." [41]
Obviously from the context in John 8:58 Jesus is not telling a story or describing a past event in the present tense but is comparing himself with Abraham. Second, contrary to the Watch Tower Society's claim Jesus is not merely "explaining his prehuman existence" but is indeed from the context using ego eimi as a title or name. Robert Bowman comments:
"The passage begins with an emphatic statement by Jesus about his identity (v. 12); notably, the statement begins with the words ego eimi ("I am the light of the world"). Then follows a discussion of the validity of this statement, ending with Christ's assertion, "You know neither me nor my Father" (v. 19) - that is, they do not know the true identity of Jesus. In the next segment, Jesus makes some strong statements, ending with the warning (translating literally), "Unless you believe that I am [italics added], you will die in your sins" (v. 24) Whatever else may be the meaning of the words "I am" (ego eimi) here, the statement clearly means that the Jews will suffer condemnation unless they acknowledge Jesus' true identity. The Jews' response, naturally, is to ask, "Who are you?" (v. 25). Jesus’ response is to note that he has been telling them all along, but that they will only know "that I am" after his death (vv. 26-30)." [42]
Finally, just as the NWT is inconsistent in its translation of theos when it is anarthrous so also they are inconsistent in translating ego eimi in John 8:58 in order to avoid any implications of deity should it rendered "I am." For example in John 6:35, 48, and 51 the NWT states, "I am (ego eimi) the bread of life..." and in John 10:7, "Therefore Jesus said again: "Most truly I say to you, I am (ego eimi) the door of the sheep" and in John 10:11, "I am (ego eimi) the fine shepherd..."
Fatal Inconsistencies in the New World Translation
The NWT has been retranslated many times in order to align it with Watch Tower Theology but even the current version of the New World Translation demonstrates that Jesus is Jehovah. When one compares the verses which refer to John the Baptist preparing the way for Jesus in such passages as Isaiah 40:3-5, Malachi 3:1, Matthew 3:1-3, and Mark 1:1-3 one clearly sees that even the NWT demonstrates that Jesus is Jehovah. The NWT translates Isaiah 40:3-5 as:
“Listen! Someone is calling out in the wilderness: 'Clear up the way of Jehovah, you people! Make the highway for our God through the desert plain straight. Let every valley be raised up and every mountain and hill be made low. And the knobby ground must become level land, and the rugged ground a valley plain. And the glory of Jehovah will certainly be revealed, and all flesh must see [it] together, for the very mouth of Jehovah has spoken [it].”
Malachi 3:1 as:
“Look! I am sending my messenger, and he must clear up a way before me. And suddenly there will come to His temple the [true] Lord, whom you people are seeking, and the messenger of the covenant in whom you are delighting, Look! He will certainly come, ' Jehovah of Armies has said.”
Matthew 3:1-3 as:
“In those days John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness of Judea, saying: 'Repent, for the kingdom of the heavens has drawn near.' This, in fact, is the one spoken of through Isaiah the prophet in these words: 'Listen! Someone is crying out in the wilderness, Prepare the way of Jehovah, you people! Make his paths straight.”
and Mark 1:1-3 as:
“[The] beginning of the good news about Jesus Christ: Just as it is written in Isaiah the prophet: (Look! I am sending forth my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way;) listen! someone is crying out in the wilderness, 'Prepare the way of Jehovah, you people, make his roads straight.”
According to the NWT the one who is speaking in Malachi 3:1 is “Jehovah of Armies’ who states that, “...he must clear up a way before me.” In addition, it is clear by its quotation in Matthew 3:1-3, Mark 1:1-3 and that the “he” is John the Baptist and the “me” is Jesus Christ. Thus, John the Baptist is clearing up the way for the speaker in Malachi 3:1 who is Jesus Christ who also must be “Jehovah of Armies.” The implication of these passages is so clear and simple that even a child can see it.
In fact, on one occasion I was greeted at my door by two young lads, who were approximately ten years old, that identified themselves as being from the Watch Tower Society and that they wanted to give me some of their literature. I thought it was rather unusual for such young boys to be out proselytizing but I took the opportunity to share with them the above verses in their own Bible and said to them, “Maybe you can help me out. How can the one being spoken about in Malachi 3:1 be Jehovah and yet in Matthew 3:1-3 and Mark 1:1-3 be Jesus?” One of the boys had a puzzled look on his face and then he responded, "Jesus is Jehovah?" Unfortunately, as soon as those words came from his mouth his father, who had been hiding in the bushes, came running out and I no longer had the opportunity to continue the conversation with him.
Conclusion
Unfortunately for over a century The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society has been deceiving people into believing in the ancient heresy of Arianism through their literature. Not only do they teach doctrine which is contrary to Scripture, as I have shown, but they manipulate their readers through deliberate misquotes and manipulations in their material. Thus, rather than coming to know the one true Jesus Christ who is God incarnate they have come to believe in what the apostle Paul called, “a Jesus whom we have not preached” (1 Corinthians 11:3-4). But what perhaps may be even worse is that so many people who have been raised in a Christian church and have met J.W.s at their door have not be able to "make a defense to everyone who asks " (1 Peter 3:16). In fact the Watch Tower Society forms its strategies because they know that the church at large cannot defend itself as a former member once wrote:
“The Watchtower leadership sensed that within the midst of Christendom were millions of professing Christians who were not well grounded in the 'truths once delivered to the saints,' and who would rather easily be pried loose from the churches and led into a new and revitalized Watchtower organization. The Society calculated, and that rightly, that this lack of proper knowledge of God and the widespread acceptance of half-truths in Christendom would yield vast masses of men and women, if the whole matter were wisely attacked, the attack sustained and the results contained, and then reused in an ever-widening circle.” [43]
|
| | |
| End Notes |
| |
| (1) Copyright 1989 Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of New York Inc.
(2) Robert Bowman"Why You Should Believe In The Trinity" Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Mich.,1989.
(3) This work as of this date is not published.
(4) J.N.D. Kelly "Early Christian Doctrines," Harper Collins Publishers, New York NY.,1978 pg. 227-231
(5) Ibid. pg. 247-251.
(6) Williston Walker, "A History of the Christian Church," Simon & Schuster Inc., 1985. p. 151
(7) Walter Martin, "The Kingdom of the Cults" Bethany House Publishers, Minneapolis, MN., 1985. pg. 38
(8) "The Watchtower," June 15 1992, pg. 19.
(9) "Should You Believe in the Trinity?" Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of New York Inc., 1989. pg. 9
(10) Ibid. pg. 7
(11) Justin Martyr "First Apology in The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 35," ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, rev. ed. A. Cleveland Coxe The Christian Literature company, Buffalo 1886. pg. 184.
(12) Ibid. pg. 184.
(13) YHWH is a tetragram from "I Am that I Am" the identity of God given to Moses and claimed by Jesus in John 8:58, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am."
(14) Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.10.1 in "The Ante-Nicene Fathers" Ibid. 1:330
(15) Samuel Rutherford "Let God Be True" Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society Brooklyn N.Y.., 1946 pg. 272
(16) J.F. Rutherford, "The Truth Shall Make You Free," Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society Brooklyn N.Y.., 1944 p. 264
(17) Charles Taze Russell "Studies In The Scriptures" Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society Brooklyn N.Y.., 1943 Vol. 2; The Time is at Hand, p. 129.
(18) "Should You Believe in the Trinity?" pg. 14
(19) Ibid. pg. 14
(20) Ibid. pg. 17
(21) Ibid. pg. 14-15
(22) Ibid. pg. 22
(23) Fredrick C. Grant, "Trinity, The." in "The Encyclopedia Americana," Vol. 27 Danbury, Conn.: Americana Corp., 1980. pg. 116.
(24) "Ecumenical Creeds and Reformed Confessions" CRC Publications Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1988. pg. 8.
(25) Ibid. pg. 10.
(26) Henry C. Thiessen "Lectures in Systematic Theology" W.. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co. Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1977. pg. 89.
(27) "Should You Believe in the Trinity?" pg. 27.
(28) Sabellianism , also referred to as Modalism, while holding to the divinity of the Father , Son, and Holy Spirit, taught that each was the same person but each in a different mode. Thus, it may be likened to a man who is at the same time a parent to his children, a child of his parents, and a grandparent to his grandchildren.
(29) Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society Brooklyn N.Y.., 1961.
(30) Robert M. Bowman "Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus Christ, & The Gospel of John" Baker Book House Grand Rapids Michigan, 1989.
(31) "Should You Believe in the Trinity?" pg. 27
(32) Ibid. pg. 27
(33) Philp B. Harner, "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1," "Journal of Biblical Literature" Vol. 92 March 1973, Page 86.
(34) Ron Rhodes, "Reasoning From The Scriptures With The Jehovah's Witnesses" Harvest House Publishers Eugene Oregon, 1973. pg. 108.
(35) S.M. Baugh "Index to NT Phrase Syntax" (unpublished) pg. 8.
(36) Leon Morris "The Gospel According to John" W. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co. Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1977. pg. 473-474
(37) See foot note #13 on pg. 5 and Justin Martyr's statement that Jesus is the one who spoke out of the bush to Moses.
(38) "Should You Believe in the Trinity?" pg. 26.
(39) For further explanation see Daniel B. Wallace's "Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics" Zondervan Pub. Grand Rapids Michigan, 1996. pg 526-531.
(40) quoted in Ibid. pg 530
(41) Ibid.
(42) Robert M. Bowman "Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus Christ, & The Gospel of John" Baker Book House Grand Rapids Michigan, 1989. pg. 123
(43) W.J. Schnell "Thirty Years a Watchtower Slave" Baker Book House Grand Rapids Michigan, 1956. pg. 19 |
| |
|
