A DISCUSSION ON JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES

by

Shandon L. Guthrie

Introduction

If you happen to be one of the loyal members of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, I ask that you please consider the material in this essay before putting it down. The following material is simply a gentle response to some of the most sought-out questions Jehovah's Witnesses have concerning important theological information. As a side note the research I had done has been exhaustive and extensive. The position taken by the Jehovah's Witnesses will be documented and in some cases reproduced in this paper in order to maintain fairness. I am not interested in "bashing" or "deceiving." Instead, the subject matter of this paper is presented as to fulfill the commandments given in the New Testament. That is, in order to "Make sure of all things" and to "hold fast to what is fine" (1 Thessalonians 5:21; NWT), it is imperative that both sides review the evidence in order to draw a conclusion. Lastly, I am only interested in the truth as revealed in Jesus Christ (John 14:6). The debate here is over the nature of God and His Son Jesus. It is generally acknowledged that the nature of God and the nature of Christ are the paramount issues involved in comparative religions. It must be mentioned at the outset that the organization of the Jehovah's Witnesses itself is highly suspect in its presentation of true biblical theology. Therefore, I will provide a simple review of the prophetic history of the Watchtower in order to invalidate its credibility. The reason why such an approach is central is due to the nature of the Watchtower organization itself. It is a self-proclaiming prophetic structure designed to supposedly speak for God. This important stand then will require an analysis of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society.

The History of the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society⁽¹⁾

With the rise of the first Watchtower magazine, Zion's Watch Tower by founder Charles Taze Russell, the Jehovah's Witness organization officially began in 1879. Russell⁽²⁾ also authored six of the seven volumes of the Studies in the Scriptures series which established some of the doctrinal beliefs of the organization.⁽³⁾ Joseph Franklin Rutherford (president 1917-1942) and Nathan Homer Knorr (1942) also contributed with their extensive doctrinal writings. The Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, as it is known today, is headquartered in Brooklyn, New York. There are approximately 97 branch offices supervising the work in 210 different lands. The local assemblies where members attend are called Kingdom Halls (refer to footnote 3). Jehovah's Witnesses have strived to remain in Jehovah's organization, as it were, by going door-to-door and proclaiming the belief that Christ has been present on this earth since 1914 A.D.⁽⁴⁾

The existence of the Watchtower is due in part to the alleged "aberrations" and "doctrines of demons" supposedly present in the Christian world view (usually referred to as Christendom by familiar Jehovah's Witnesses). For example, the doctrine of the Trinity is dismissed on grounds that it is a result of antecedent Babylonian influence.⁽⁵⁾ The driving force of Jehovah's Witnesses and their eventual and hopeful destination is that of a restored paradise here on earth. This paradise will be restored to its original state as it was in the Garden of Eden.

Jehovah's Witnesses are usually prepared to avoid any apologetic works written or simply administered by a professing born-again Christian on grounds that they are of satanic origin. Thus, all caution is given as to deliver the content of what this paper is defending without reference to any apologetic source. If you are a Witness reading this paper, remember that logic dictates that you examine the arguments, not the person who holds them.⁽⁶⁾ Truth is determined by what God says, not by what man thinks God says ("Let God be true and every man a liar" - Romans 3:4).

The Jehovah's Witness Concept of God

Misconceptions in comparative religions always seem to originate on the ontological status of God. In this section, I will list some of the Jehovah's Witnesses' beliefs concerning the Watchtower's view of who God is and what the nature of Jesus Christ is considered to be. Keep in mind that the Watchtower itself proclaims, ". . . God . . . will not look with favor on persons who cling to organizations that teach falsehood . . . a religion that had not been honest with you."⁽⁷⁾

Here is a brief list of the Watchtower's concepts of God, Christ, and the Spirit.

1) The Christian doctrine of the Trinity is considered to be a false doctrine.⁽⁸⁾ Further, its origin is demonic.⁽⁹⁾

2) Jesus Christ is not Jehovah God.⁽¹⁰⁾

3) Jesus Christ is the archangel Michael.⁽¹¹⁾

4) The Holy Spirit is not Jehovah God.⁽¹²⁾

5) The Holy Spirit is not a Person but an "active force."⁽¹³⁾

The above five statements outline some of the key factors in the position the Watchtower organization takes against the orthodox view of God, Christ, and His Spirit. Historical information dictates that this position is tantamount to claims of Arianism. This has led many to speculate that Arianism was indeed the influencing factor Russell had in his assessment of Christianity. Since the defense of Jehovah's Witness claims is quite lengthy, I will only outline the most prominent biblical passages utilized.

Arguments for the Jehovah's Witness Concept of God

The Watchtower organization prides itself on rebutting the claims of historic Christianity. Below are some of those arguments that proponents of the Watchtower adhere to. Keep in mind that for the sake of a healthy discussion we must always view both sides and consider what each party has to say regardless of any animosity felt toward the people as individuals or as a group. The following arguments are numbered to correspond with the assessments following.

1) The Witnesses maintain that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is false and is the product of a demonic intelligence. To buttress this view, it is argued that the word "trinity" is nowhere to be found in the pages of the Bible. Secondly, the conversations between the Father and the Son call such a doctrine into question. Lastly, the word "trinity" was never used by any of the early Church Fathers to describe the Godhead.

2) The Watchtower bolsters the idea that Jesus is not Jehovah God. They have indicted the Christian church for falsely believing that Jesus is God and is disconfirmed by four main biblical passages. First, Revelation 3:14 states that Jesus is "the beginning of the creation by God" (NWT⁽¹⁴⁾

). This means that Jesus was the first being to exist in the order of creation. Second, Colossians 1:15 states that Christ "is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation" (NWT). It is argued that the text calls Jesus the first one born in all of creation. Thirdly, Proverbs 8:22-25 states, "Jehovah himself produced me (Wisdom) as the beginning of his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago . . . I was brought forth as with labor pains" (NWT). Witnesses argue (1) that Jesus is the "wisdom" of God (1 Corinthians 1:24) and (2) the wisdom being referred to in this passage. Now this passage states that this wisdom was "brought forth." Thus Jesus's existence is contingent upon God's creative act. Lastly, Jesus Himself declared that "the Father is greater than I am" (John 14:28; NWT). Witnesses maintain that equality is further from the mind of Jesus. Therefore, Jesus and Jehovah are not equal and, consequently, not the same being.

3) The Watchtower argues strenuously that Jesus is Michael the archangel. First, the Lord Jesus is said to descend from heaven "with an archangel's voice" (1 Thessalonians 4:16; NWT). Second, Michael is called the "foremost prince" according to Daniel 10:13, 21 and 12:1. It is noted that Jesus is called a "prince" in Isaiah 9:6. Therefore, Jesus is the archangel Michael.

4) The Holy Spirit, according to Jehovah's Witnesses, is not Jehovah God. The only objection given rests primarily on argument #5 below. If it can be established that the Spirit is not a Person, then the Spirit cannot be, of course, Jehovah. Besides, how can God be in two places at once (this posits a similar situation with the Father and the Son).

5) The "holy spirit"⁽¹⁵⁾

is not a person according to Watchtower adherents. It is argued that the New Testament consistently puts the Holy Spirit in an impersonal context where He (it) is said to be compared to "fire" (Matthew 3:11) and to "wind" (John 20:22). Lastly, the Spirit is not present in Stephen's vision of heaven (Acts 7:55). That is, when heaven "opened up" there was the Son and the Father, but no Holy Spirit personage was present.

Jehovah's Witnesses have attempted to dissect the Greek and Hebrew texts in an attempt to demonstrate their arguments against the Christian world view. Some of these secondary arguments will be dealt with in a following section. For now we will focus on the important issues spread out on the table before us.

Some Problems With the Jehovah's Witness Concept of God

In this section I will deal with the Christian defense of the doctrine of the Trinity, the Deity of Jesus Christ and the Personality of the Holy Spirit by answering the arguments Jehovah's Witnesses advance. Again, I am not utilizing "apostate literature" because I am simply enunciating the arguments Christians give in healthy discussions with Jehovah's Witnesses. Therefore, the following material is for a balanced defense of Christian theology and not a personal attack on any individual currently enrolled as one of the loyal Jehovah's Witnesses. Below is an assessment of Watchtower theology.

1) It would be presumptuous to declare that the doctrine of the Trinity is Holy or demonic on the basis of a premature assumption. Thus, the following arguments for the Deity of Christ and the presence of the Trinity in Holy Writ must be proven or disproved in order to substantiate a conclusion. Several arguments, however, have been given to disprove the veracity of the Trinity and as such will require an adequate response. First, the JW maintains that the word "trinity" does not appear in the Bible; Therefore, the Trinity is false. This is a non sequitur argument because while the name itself may not appear, it does not follow that its concept is vacant in Scripture. The existence of the Trinity as a concept is clearly seen at the baptism of Jesus (Matt. 3:16-17) and at the incarnation (Luke 1:35). It can be noted that the word "bible" does not appear in the Bible either, yet it would be absurd to conclude that the 66 books we now possess do not exist.

Secondly, the recorded conversations between the members of the Godhead (i.e. the Father and the Son) do not contradict the doctrine of the Trinity.⁽¹⁶⁾

Indeed, there is theological compatibility between two centers of consciousness and their self-same substance. Therefore, to argue that the distinction in Personality (or the centers of consciousness) refutes the Trinity is to fail to provide an adequate premise that would somehow show an incompatibility.⁽¹⁷⁾

JWs make the mistake of defining the Trinity as "three gods in one" or making an inclusion of Mary, the Mother of Jesus, at the expense of the Christian view of the Godhead.

Lastly, it is false to declare that the early Church Fathers did not believe in the concept of the Trinity. Tertullian, for example, was the one to establish a clear definition of it and even used the Latin term trinitas to define it! Further, the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. established a working definition as well in order to provide a standard of measurement against the rivaling heresy of that time. It would be like disconfirming the freedom of speech because the U.S. Bill of Rights was written by men who utilized terms from their century. Finally, the Athanasian Creed, written by early Church Fathers, identified Jesus as "very God of very God" and used Hebrews 1:3 to prove that Jesus was of the same "substance" (Greek: upostasews) as the Father! This is a far cry from the early Church Fathers denying such a doctrine. Lastly, why then was there a need for the Watchtower Society to detach itself from orthodox Christianity if it has rejected the doctrine of the Trinity all along? The Jehovah's Witness has no answer if he or she is to maintain Watchtower theology.

2) Jehovah's Witnesses maintain as one of their foremost positions that Jesus is not Jehovah God. Four passages are offered in their support of such a belief: Revelation 3:14, Colossians 1:15, Proverbs 8:22-25, and John 14:28. At this point we shall examine each text in turn..

First, Revelation 3:14 declares that Jesus is the "beginning of the creation by God." The definition of this text is made clear in the Greek word for "beginning" (arch). This same word appears in John 1:1 where John states that "in the beginning was the Word". The obvious reference of arch is to the origin of time, not the first event of a series. Thus, "at/since the origin of time was the Word" is a proper rendering of the text. Secondly, and the older versions of the New World Translation agree that the word translated "origin" for arch is synonymous with the word "source." This is true by simply checking a thesaurus on the matter. Therefore, Jesus as the "beginning" is really in reference to Him as the "origin" or "source" of God's creation. A second witness to this can be found in Revelation 1 where Jehovah Himself is called the "beginning and the end." However, JWs do not maintain that Jehovah had a beginning. So the text clearly identifies Jehovah as the beginner and consummator of all things, not the beginning of a series of Jehovahs. Hence, Revelation 3:14 does not revoke Jesus of His divinity.

Second, Colossians 1:15 states that Jesus "is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation." There are several problems with viewing this as Jesus being the first one born in a literal sense. First, the text states that Jesus is the "firstborn of creation" (emphasis mine). That is, if we take the JW interpretation seriously then Jesus was birthed out of the class called "creation". But it is obviously unlikely that "creation" begat Jesus (although some atheists and humanists would like to take this position). Second, the assertion that Jesus is the first one born in a literal sense is an equivocation of the text. Let me explain. The Greek word prwtotokos (prototokos) has the ostensive meaning of "first one born" as was the case with Jesus being the first one born of Mary.⁽¹⁸⁾

However, prwtotokos also has the connotation of "heir" or "preeminent one" as is indicated in the text of Colossians 1:18. An verification of this can be seen in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament by seventy scholars) in Genesis 25:33-34 where the word for "birthright" is clearly a figurative meaning since no one can literally "sell" his birthright. Also, a comparison of prwtotokos being used in Genesis 41:51-52 and Jeremiah 31:9 demonstrates the clear connotation of "preeminent one." In the former passage the "firstborn" was Manasseh and the "second born" was Ephraim, but in the latter passage the "firstborn" was changed to Ephraim.⁽¹⁹⁾

It would be absurd to believe in a literal switching of firstborns and would defy the allegory clearly implied.

Further, the passage is clearly defined in its immediate context. Verse 17 confirms that Jesus is "before all things" and "in Him all things hold together" (NASB).⁽²⁰⁾

The previous verse (16) tells us that "all things have been created by Him and for Him." One need only refer to Romans 11:36 to see that similar wording is applied to God. Thus, the Lord Jesus is clearly seen as God according to these texts. Also pay attention to the fact that Jesus is "before all things" thereby eliminating any possibility that He was created. Does Colossians 1:15 substantiate the Jehovah's Witness interpretation? The answer is a resounding "No!" This very text affirms the dignified title of "Creator" who is identified as the preeminent Jesus Christ. The text does not allow one to interpret the passage as referring to Jesus as a created being.

Third, Proverbs 8:22-25 is an Old Testament passage used to defend the created Jesus theory. It shall be demonstrated that this cannot be found in the passage. First, the entire argument rests on a presupposition. That is, it is assumed that Jesus is the "Wisdom" being mentioned here. The cross-reference (1 Cor. 1:24) is unrelated to Proverbs 8 (keep in mind that Proverbs is not a prophetic book but a book on wisdom - literally). To demonstrate its irrelevance to 1 Cor. 1:24, note that Jesus is also called the "power" of God. But Romans 1:20 calls the power of God eternal! Therefore, Jesus is eternal and not created. Such a relation is unfounded even though the latter citation suggests my position. Second, the JW interpretation reads more into the wording then what is actually there. The texts says "brought forth" and not "created." That "brought forth" does not necessarily entail creation can be seen in texts such as Genesis 1:21; 24:23; 30:39; 40:10; Exodus 29:46; and Psalms 105:43. The connotation of "brought forth" in these texts is clearly "to bring out" or "to reveal." Thus it makes more sense in this context to read: "when there were no depths, I was revealed" (Prov. 8:24). It is simply a more likely translation. Besides, it would be absurd to conceive of a time when God was without wisdom. The passage must be referring to a revelation of that which is already there. Lastly, the word for "wisdom" in Proverbs 8 is in a feminine gender. Consider that Proverbs 7:4 calls wisdom "sister." It should also be mentioned that Jesus must live with someone named "prudence" (v. 12) in a house with seven pillars (9:1)! So the idea of Christ being mentioned here is incredible and unfounded, to say the least.

Finally, John 14:28 is used to support the inferiority of Christ to Jehovah. There are some serious problems with this faulty interpretation beginning with the context of Jesus' humanity. First, Jesus is speaking as a man who, according to Jewish law, must be submissive to his or her God. Jesus, in perfect keeping with Jewish principles as a Jew Himself, submitted to His God. Philippians 2:6-9 verifies this theologically for Christ surrendered His right to act as God. Second, the Greek word for "greater" (meizwn) is not equivalent to the Greek word for "better" (kreittwn). To support the idea that Jesus is inferior to the Father is to equivocate the word meizwn with the word kreittwn since the former denotes positional or functional stature while the latter signifies a superiority of nature and character (cf. Hebrews 1:4).⁽²¹⁾

There simply is no evidence to suggest that Christ was anything less than deity and humanity synthesized into one person.

3) When we focus further on the nature and essence of Jesus Christ then a rather new approach impinges upon orthodox Christianity, namely Jesus is considered to be Michael the Archangel of 1 Thessalonians and Daniel. However, the Jehovah's Witness viewpoint consisting of an affirmation of this claim is weak and logically flawed as will be demonstrated. First, there is admittedly no good evidence to directly verify such a claim. Jehovah's Witnesses are content to pair a variety of verses that supposedly link Jesus with Michael. But such a connection is unwarranted. For example, Jehovah's Witnesses note that Jesus is called a "prince" (Isaiah 9:6), and then they conclude with the passage that calls Michael the archangel a "prince" (Daniel 10:13, 21; 12:1) that Jesus and Michael are one in the same. But Abraham is called a "prince" in Genesis 23:5-6 and Satan is called a "prince" in Matthew 12:24, yet we would not conclude that everyone that calls himself a "prince" is one in the same. Secondly, Daniel 10:13 says that Michael is only one of the "chief princes." Now if Jesus is Michael the archangel then we must ask who else is like Jesus. Thirdly, Jehovah's Witnesses maintain that since Jesus is coming "with an archangel's voice" (1 Thessalonians 4:16) then Jesus must actually be the archangel in order to have his voice. Here, I think, the passage is simply misconstrued. The only information that 1 Thessalonians 4 tells us is that Jesus is merely accompanying the archangel's voice. Otherwise we can conclude that Jesus is God solely on the basis that Jesus is coming "with the trumpet call of God (ibid.). But that is a doctrine Jehovah's Witnesses would not like to admit. Finally, Jude 9 presents a grand contrast between Jesus and Michael. Jude 9 states, "But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him but said, 'The Lord rebuke you!'" (NASV; Emphasis mine). But Jesus was adept at casting devils out of possessed people on command (Matthew 12:28; Mark 1:34). So on this basis Jesus could not possibly be Michael the archangel.

4) On the deity of the Holy Spirit Jehovah's Witnesses deny that He is God. Of course if Jehovah's Witnesses maintain that the Holy Spirit is not even a person then there would be no reason to think the Spirit to be God either (I will have more to say on this below). The central argument against the deity of the Holy Spirit rests on the differentiation between Father and Spirit in various passages (i.e. John 1:32 - the Spirit is seen as descending from God out of the sky as a dove and settling on Jesus). But the descriptions of the Spirit appearing "separate" from God are only indications of separate consciences not natures. The fact of the matter is that personality distinction is theologically and logically compatible with the doctrine of the Trinity.

5) What about the Jehovah's Witnesses' denial of the personality of the Holy Spirit? There are several responses that can be given against the arguments Witnesses buttress. First, Witnesses maintain that since the Spirit is compared to "wind" (John 20:22) and "fire" (Matthew 3:11) then the Spirit must be an impersonal force as well. But this is about as veridical as wives being impersonal forces since restraining a quarrelsome wife "is like restraining the wind" (Proverbs 27:15-16). Secondly, the contexts of Matthew 3 and John 20 do not imply the ontological status of the Holy Spirit. In the case of John 20, Jesus simply ritualistically delivered the Holy Spirit to his disciples via blowing on them. Matthew 3 compares the effects of baptizing people with the Holy Spirit and with fire. But the implication is that Jesus will both empower peoply by the Holy Spirit and will judge. There is no warrant for equating the Spirit with fire. Further, God Himself is called "a consuming fire" (Deuteronomy 4:24) and even appeared as a fire in a burning bush (Exodus 3:2-4). But there is no indication that God is an impersonal force. Finally, the non-presence of the Spirit in Stephen's vision of heaven (Acts 7:55) does not discredit the personality of the Holy Spirit. Instead, Acts 7 only mentions the two power of Jesus in God's glory. It is not clear if "standing at the right hand of God" (v. 56) implies that the Person of the Father was actually present. The phrase "as the right hand of" connotes "at the center of power" as it does in instances where this phrase is utilized of ordinary human beings and in other references to God (cf. Psalm 16:8; 80:17; Ezekiel 16:46). Besides, under the auspices of Acts 7:55 it is not prudent maintain that because the Holy Spirit is not mentioned as being "next" to Jesus that He is not part of the Trinity. It is only an argument from silence and carries very little weight.

Now that we have observed some of the arguments Jehovah's Witnesses utilize in disconfirming Christianity, we will now look as some positive arguments affirming the deities of Christ and the Spirit and the Trinity of God.

The Argument for the Trinity

Having reviewed and answered objections raised by Jehovah's Witnesses on the natures of God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit, I will now present a systematic argument for the personality of the Spirit, His deity, and the deity of Christ. By way of inference, the Trinity is to be preferred. The argument, in short, is this:

P1: The Bible affirms the deity of the Father.

P2: The Bible affirms the deity of Jesus Christ.

P3: The Bible affirms the personality of the Holy Spirit.

P4: The Bible affirms the deity of the Holy Spirit.

P5: The Bible affirms that there is only one God.

C: Therefore, the Bible affirms that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the same God.

Categorically, if the premises are true then the conclusion must be certainly true. Given that each person is God and that there is only one God, then it logically follows that each person is the same God.

Premise 1: The Bible affirms the deity of the Father. Jehovah's Witnesses do not contest this premise since it agrees with Watchtower theology. However, one may read Ephesians 1:2 and understand that the Father is clearly called God.

Premise 2: The Bible affirms the deity of Jesus Christ. There are several subarguments that can be given in support of this premise. Since there are several avenues one may take in vindicating the thesis that Jesus is God then we shall look at each one in turn.

A) Jesus is said to be resurrected by God (Acts 3:15). Given this, we are also told that Jesus would resurrect Himself from the dead as well (John 2:19-21). But if God raised Jesus from the dead and the Bible says that Jesus was going to raise Himself, then it follows inescapably that Jesus is God.

B) John 20:28 records doubting Thomas' words as he gazed upon the risen Messiah. Thomas declared to Jesus, "My Lord and My God!" Now the Jehovah's Witness publication Aid to Bible Understanding poignantly observes, " . . . when [anyone] says my God, he means Jehovah." But even the most skeptical scholar must concur with the Greek wording on the passage which literally states, "The Lord of me and the God of me!" The designation of the definite article ho implies Jehovah God. A favorite Watchtower objection to Jesus' divinity alluded to in John 1:1 (more on this later) is the absence of the definite article ho before theos thereby granting the grammatical license to render just theos as "a god." But Jehovah's Witnesses maintain that the presence of the definite article ho unequivocally makes theos Jehovah God. Therefore, John 20:28 makes Jesus Jehovah God.

C) Colossians 2:9 states, "For in Christ all the fulness of the Deity lives in bodily form." The particular wording of this passage vindicates this particular translation. The word used for "Deity" here is qeothtoz which carries the univocal meaning implied in this translation declined in the genitive case from its root qeothz.

D) Titus 2:13 states, "the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ." It is unanimous that the Greek phraseology utilized here has no definite article in front of "Savior, Jesus Christ" and so any interpretation suggesting that a definite areticle be placed in front of this phrase would be unwarranted. What makes the placement of "the" in front of this verse, like the NWT does, is that a distinction is made between God and Savior. It reads in the NWT as, "our God and [the] Savior Jesus Christ." The brackets around "the" make it an auspicious rendition and imply, according to the NWT Introduction⁽²²⁾, that it does not appear in the original Greek manuscript. So there is no justification for placing it there except to keep the division of Christ with God consistent with preconceived doctrine. The fact that the definite article is absent before "Savior" but present before "great God" implies that the two are the same one being referred to. Parallels of this construction where this is true are found in 2 Peter 1:11; 2:20; 3:2, 18. Therefore, Jesus is called God in Titus 2:13.

E) When we compare a few passages denoting the same being then we have to conclude that whatever is true of one referent is true of the other.⁽²³⁾ In the case of Jesus, we come to the conclusion that Jesus is the same God as the Father. First, Revelation 1:8 says that God is "the Alpha and Omega . . . who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty." So the implication that the Alpha and Omega is Jehovah is rather clear. When we compare this to the same book in Chapter 22 we see more about the Alpha and Omega, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End" (v. 13). Now we learn that the Alpha and the Omega is also the First and the Last (this is additionally confirmed by Isaiah 44:6). Now two things are evident from this. First, if we continue to read on as the Alpha and Omega speaks in Revelation 22:16 we see the Alpha and Omega identified when the speaker says, "'I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches." Further confirmation of this is found in the repeated statement "I am coming quickly/soon" found throughout the chapter in verses 1, 12, and 20 where the identification of Jesus is revealed in verse 20 which says, "He who testifies to these things says, 'Yes, I am coming soon.'" Additional confirmation of this is found in Revelation 1:17 where John says, "When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: 'Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever!" The fact that the First and the Last "was dead" and is "alive for ever and ever" suggests that this is referring to Jesus. The context is inescapable.

F) The names applied to Jehovah God are also applied to Jesus. For example, Jehovah is called the exclusive "Savior" in Isaiah 43:11 and 49:26. But Jesus is called "Savior" in John 4:42. If there is only one Savior then the identity between Jesus and God is clinched. Secondly, Isaiah 33:22 says that Jehovah is the "Judge." But Jesus is also called the "Judge" in John 5:30. Thirdly, the Bible tells us that Jehovah is the "Rock" according to Psalms 18:2, 28:1, 62:2, and 94:22. Ultimately, Jesus is called the "Rock" in the New Testament as well (1 Corinthians 10:4). Numerous other transitive titles could be cited as applying to both Jehovah and Jesus but suffice it to say that Jesus, according to these comparisons, must be Jehovah God.

It is evident in the Bible that the deity of Jesus Christ is affirmed. Despite Watchtower attempts to the contrary, we have seen some powerful biblical passages confirming the Christian hypothesis that Jesus is the same God as the Father.

Premise 3: The Bible affirms the personality of the Holy Spirit. There are several passages that contain remarks that belong properly to a personal agent. Certain passions are attributed to the Holy Spirit that only make sense if the Spirit is a consciousness. Another instance of personality is recorded in Acts 13:2 which states, "the holy spirit said: 'Of all persons set Barnabas and Saul apart for me for the work to which I have called them'" (NWT; Emphases mine). We find in this passage that (i) the Holy Spirit speaks, and (ii) the Holy Spirit "called" Barnabas and Saul according to his own will ("I have called them" not "He has called them"). Any attempts at making the Spirit something other than a personal agent are contrary to what God's word delineates.

Premise 4: The Bible affirms the deity of the Holy Spirit. One could easily draw this conclusion once one understands that (i) there is only one God, and (ii) the Holy Spirit is a person who is neither an angel nor a human being. Although inferring deity from (i) to (ii) would be dubious, we are left with either a third category of being or the Spirit is God Himself. There are primarily two biblical texts that substantiate the deity of the Holy Spirit. First, the discourse between Peter and Ananias and Sapphira clue us in to the deity of the Holy Spirit in this exchange, "But Peter said: 'Ananias, why has Satan emboldened you to play false to the holy spirit and to hold back secretly some of the price of the field? As long as it remained yours, and after it was sold did it not continue in your control? Why was it that you purposed such a deed as this in your heart? You have played false, not to men, but to God'" (Acts 5:3-4; NWT). One may notice right away the downplay of this conversation in the phrase "played false." But it is evident that "lied" is to be inferred. What else would it mean? But the most important connection here is between the two statements Peter makes, (a) "Why has Satan emboldened you to play false to the holy spirit," and (b) "You have played false, not to men, but to God." So Peter is conveying that through Ananias' and Sapphira's cheating of their offering, they have miscommunicated the truth to the Holy Spirit who is God Himself. Secondly, 2 Corinthians 3:17 is very supportive of the Spirit's deity when it states, "Now Jehovah is the Spirit; and where the spirit of Jehovah is, there is freedom" (NWT). This connection is linked again in verse 18 where we are told of "Jehovah [the] Spirit." The connotation of the Holy Spirit being Jehovah is conclusive.

Premise 5: The Bible affirms that there is only one God. Jehovah's Witnesses as well as Evangelicals both assert monotheism as the most plausible view. This is confirmed by various biblical passages where Jehovah God is said to be the only God in existence. Isaiah 43:10 records God saying, "Before me there was no God formed, and after me there continued to be none" (NWT). Isaiah 44:6 states, "I am the first and I am the last, and besides me there is no God." The Hebrew shema is clear as to the quantity of deities when it states, "Listen, O Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah" (Deuteronomy 6:4). The New Testament also affirms unequivocally that there is only one God. 1 Corinthians 8:4 tells us that "there is no God but one" and Galatians 3:20 states that "God is only one." Any speculative claims about there being more than one God are unquestionably unbiblical.

Conclusion: Therefore, the Bible affirms that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the same God. When we consider premises (1) through (5) which maintain that each person is God and that there is only one God, then we cannot even imagine a way in which the conclusion could be false. The conclusion that orthodox Christianity has sustained throughout the centuries is vindicated in light of good textual analysis.

A Discussion on John 1:1

When I have dialogued with Jehovah's Witnesses throughout my studies on the Watchtower movement, the conversations usually headed toward an analysis of the original languages in which the Bible was written. Far from being trivial matters of peripheral doctrine, Jehovah's Witnesses have maintained (and do maintain) that John 1:1 ought to properly read as "In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god" (NWT; Emphasis mine). Such an interpretation provides two possible views. (i) Jesus possesses divine qualities; or (ii) Jesus is a secondary, subordinate deity. Our previous analysis of premise 5 above precludes thesis (ii) from being a viable option. But what about thesis (i)?

Although many interesting discussions arise during analyses of "In the beginning the Word was" and "the Word was with God," our primary focus will be on the controversial "the Word was a god" bolstered by alleged scholars of the Watchtower. The Greek text on John 1:1c reads:

"kai theos en ho logos"

The permission of the "a god" translation stems from the fact that theos is anarthrous, or without the definite article "the." This has led, purely on an isolated and removed perspective, the NWT translators to supply "a god" for the nonarticular theos present in the text. But we are not asking if this translation is permitted for the isolated instance of theos, but rather if the translation is warranted by the contextual "kai theos en ho logos." In support of a scholarly answer to this, we have to conclude that it is not for seven reasons. (1) We are already aware of the passages that vindicate the deity of Jesus Christ (John 20:28; Colossians 2:9; Titus 2:13) and the passages that stipulate that there is only one God (Isaiah 43:10; 44:6; 1 Corinthians 8:4) and, as such, demand that we interpret John 1:1c as "The Word was God" given that "a god" implies more than one God. (2) Qualitative understandings about a subject's ontological stature (i.e. the nature of the thing being described) preclude the debate of anarthrous versus arthrous from being a significantly relevant factor. Just like it is irrelevant whether or not terms like "a woman" have any articular connotation since "Sue was a woman" and "Sue was the woman" both indicate that Sue can be described as having all the attributes that a woman would have under normal and unstipulated circumstances. It is in the latter case that we are given more information, namely that Sue was the woman to which a reference has been made. But this distinction is immaterial. (3) John 1:1c may be, at worst, placed in the ranks of qualitatively indefinite nouns and one may still maintain that theos refers to a description of nature just like other qualitatively indefinite nouns as "love" (cf. 1 John 4:8), "life" (cf. John 6:63), "spirit" (cf. John 4:24), and "flesh" (cf. John 1:14; 3:6). So the construction of, for example, "God is spirit" cannot mean anything but that God's nature is incorporeal and unextended in time and space. (4) In instances where the nonarticular, or anarthrous, predicate nominative theos precedes the linking (or copular) verb, it is clear that each instance demands that the God is the one alluded to. These instances include Mark 12:27, Luke 20:38, John 8:54, Philippians 2:13, and Hebrews 11:16. The conclusion here is inescapable. (5) According to various scholars on Greek grammar and construction, we are informed quite unanimously that John 1:1c is a direct reference to Jesus' deity. (a) E. C. Colwell maintains that "Predicate nominatives in relative clauses regularly follow the verb whether or not they have the article" and that "Definite predicate nouns which precede the verb usually lack the article."⁽²⁴⁾

Given this information and the construction of John 1:1c, it follows that such a rule applies and determines that "the Word was the God" is the proper rendition of the text. (b) Philip B. Harner, often misquoted by Jehovah's Witnesses as supporting the "a god" interpretation, reveals that Jesus is definitely God in John 1:1c.

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.⁽²⁵⁾

Harner's analysis concludes that Jesus is no less than the same theos with whom He is said to be with. (c) William Barclay noted in a letter to the Watchtower organization in response to a misrepresented quotation from him that "What I was meaning to say, as you well know, is that Jesus is not the same as God, to put it more crudely, that he of the same stuff as God, that is of the same being as God."^{(26) (27)}

(6) The Watchtower's errors on the grammatical construction of John 1:1c diminish their credibility for any serious Bible student to consider "a god" as a viable option. In fact, such alterations and errors by the Watchtower on this topic lead us to believe that they will jump from one understanding to another, whether right or wrong, in order to avoid the deity of Jesus Christ. The most glaring example is the original footnote to John 8:58 in the 1950 edition of the New World Translation which justifies Jesus' claim as "I have been" instead of the "I am" rendering on the basis of it being in the "perfect indefinite tense." But such grammatical terminology is non-existent in the Greek language and could not possibly be true. When the Watchtower organization became aware of this glaring error, they had altered modern editions of the NWT to consider the "I have been" rendering in the "perfect tense indicative," "perfect indicative," or just "perfect tense" depending upon which publication date one reads. This sort of dishonest "scholarship" calls the Watchtower's interpretation into serious question. (7) It is incorrect to rely on those translations (see Goodspeed, Moffat) that use "divine" in place of theos since the usual inference is that "divine" implies an adjectival form of "divinity" which is "deity."

Therefore, John 1:1 most definitely teaches that Jesus Christ is the same God with whom the Father is considered to be.

A Discussion on John 8:58

Similar to our analysis of John 1:1c, we find a Watchtower misrepresentation on the John 8:58 passage that is classically considered to be supportive of the deity of Jesus Christ. Contrary to this interpretation, Watchtower affiliates have redefined the Greek passage to declare simply a preexistence for Christ. The Greek passage in John 8:58 in dispute is:

"amen, amen, lego humin, prin Abraam genesthai, ego eimi"

This passage is properly rendered (and literally, for that matter) as "Amen, amen, I say to you, Before Abraham came into existence, I am." What the Jehovah's Witnesses contest is the "I am" reference which is designated as "I have been" by Watchtower reference works. The significance is that there is no longer any parallel between Jesus' claim to be the "I am" and the Old Testament passage where God calls Himself the "I am" (Exodus 3:14). But Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the grammatical structure warrants the "I have been" rendering. This, I think, is the central focus of the dispute. If sufficient evidence is advanced to favor the "I am" interpretation, then it follows that Jesus is God. The primary evidence for this assumption is that Jehovah's Witnesses demand that "I have been" is the better rendition of the text. This would not be their initial focus, given that the scholarly support is incredibly weak, since all a Jehovah's Witness would have to do is contest any similarity between the similar usages between John 8 and Exodus 3. Their eagerness to demand the "I have been" interpretation demonstrates that denying such a similarity of "I am" statements would be futile given that "I am" is warranted in John 8:58.

So what is the evidence to support the "I am" interpretation? There are at least three main lines of evidence to support this. (1) Since genesthai or "came into existence" (a temporal origin) is contrasted with ego eimi or "I am", it follows that whatever "I am" refers to, it must be the opposite of "came into existence" and, thus, a trans-temporal declaration (i.e. eternal). (2) The fact that ego eimi is a copulative term (a verb that normally carries a predicate) adds considerable support for such a term to be rendered as a "predicate absolute." Thus "I am" is vindicated. (3) Old Testament parallels, at the exclusion of Exodus 3:14, posit "I am" as the favorable interpretation of John 8:58. For example, Psalm 90:2 states:

"Before the mountains were brought into existence . . . from age to age, you are."

Grammarians, then, feel amply justified in making "you are (su ei; LXX)" into its intended meaning of "you are God." The same is said of John 8:58 where similar language and identical structure are incorporated: a durative present tense verb. The same can be said of other Old Testament passages (cf. Isaiah 41:4; 43:10; 46:4: 52:6; cf. Deuteronomy 32:39).

So, it seems implausible to render ego eimi as anything but "eternal" or "I am [God]" since both the grammatical construction and similar parallels demand such a view.⁽²⁸⁾

A Discussion on Greg Stafford's Book Jehovah's Witnesses Defended: An Answer to Scholars and Critics

In recent years Jehovah's Witnesses have gradually mounted a variety of attacks on the claims of mainline (and may I add "orthodox") Christianity. They continue to undermine Christian apologetics toward the advancement of their peculiar teachings partially covered in this essay. Like the Latter-Day Saints in Mormonism there has been a growing trend in defending one's faith against the arguments buttressed by Evangelical Christians. The Jehovah's Witnesses are no exception to this. In a recent book by fellow Witness author Greg Stafford entitled Jehovah's Witnesses Defended: An Answer to Scholars and Critics we see the continuation of the Watchtower saga of defending and maintaining some basic Watchtower beliefs. While Stafford does not claim to have written his work at the behest of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society,⁽²⁹⁾ there is some indication that Jehovah's Witnesses in general will profit by Stafford's latest apologetic even if they do not understand the technical and complicated language imported.⁽³⁰⁾ They repose confidence in Stafford's erudite jargon to, at the very least, academically threaten his critical readers. By way of criticism, we have only limited space to examine some of the arguments Stafford advances and not enough to exhaustively critique the errors he so abundantly commits. As such, we will only look at some arguments that directly attempt to undermine the arguments advanced in this author's essay.

Colossians 1:15-17. When we covered this passage above it had been concluded that the Greek word prwtotokos ("firstborn") implied a metaphorical meaning when contextually realized in Colossians 1:15-17. Greg Stafford gives several reasons why prwtotokos should mean "first of the created order"⁽³¹⁾ when applied here to Jesus, one of which is leveled against New Testament commentator J. B. Lightfoot and another which is an unsupported presupposition meriting no real status as an argument.⁽³²⁾ The other reasons we will consider here pertain to prwtotokos directly. First, Stafford argues that the Church Father Justin Martyr acknowledged a literal understanding of prwtotokos when applied to Jesus by citing his Dialogue with Trypho where Justin uses such phrases as "before all creatures" and "proceeded before all creatures" in reference to Jesus. The problem here is that (i) the early Church was not an infallible source of doctrinal information, contrary to Roman Catholic claims, even if such citations of the Fathers turned out to be accurately portrayed, and (ii) Justin certainly did not believe that Jesus was created. His language used in regard to Jesus is intended to portray his procession from the Father, not his creation. The vernacular of the early Church Fathers was much more different than it is now and, when matched against today's usages, would naturally confuse those unaware. For example, when a Church Father would deify human beings in their relationship to God, they would not imply that human beings could become actual deities. Mormons have often made this mistake on various occasions.⁽³³⁾ Instead, they wished to convey a transformation power within the life of the believer so overwhelming that they appeared God-like in their pursuit. Likewise, Stafford's citation of Justin is similarly misleading. Justin Martyr himself has confessed the Deity of Christ by using such obvious statements as "I have proved at length that Christ is called God."⁽³⁴⁾ This seems to abolish Stafford's historical understanding of Justin.

Stafford then states that "the Bible does not speak of Christ's status as firstborn in terms of a 'placement' or 'appointment.'"⁽³⁵⁾ But he fails to provide any arguments for this view. Instead, he continues as though this claim were factual and concludes "he is 'the firstborn of all creation' because of his having been created by the Father before all those things he was instrumental in making."⁽³⁶⁾ This question-begging is a recurring problem with Stafford which makes him an easy target. Worse than that he proclaims that when the Septuagint (LXX) uses prwtotokos in the Old Testament (as alluded to in an earlier section) then a metaphorical meaning is to be understood, but when the New Testament uses prwtotokos of Christ it "does not use the title firstborn to indicate a 'placement,' 'adoption,' or 'election' of Christ to a more favored position."⁽³⁷⁾ Again, there is no argument in support of this assumption. He leaves the reader at a loss for good substantial support against the obvious metaphorical connotation of prwtotokos in Colossians 1.

Stafford's next argument is a mere inference (and a poor one at that). His argumentative inference that Jesus was indeed created stems from the suggested "temporal priority" latent in Col. 1:15.⁽³⁸⁾ But this argument fails miserably. Even if temporal priority were implied by Col. 1:15 it does not necessarily sustain the conclusion that Jesus is the first of a class of created beings. Analogously, Jehovah himself is also the first of all unextended, non-spatial, physically timeless beings (e.g. angelic beings) prior to the creation of mankind (cf. Isaiah 14; Ezekiel 28). But this in no way implies that Jehovah is a created being.

Stafford also presses for a literal meaning for prwtotokos by appealing to Colossians 1:18 and Revelation 1:5 where Jesus is said to be the "firstborn from the dead." He concludes that "Christ is shown to have been the first one 'born' from the dead to a special kind of resurrection in which others would follow."⁽³⁹⁾ Although it is true that believers will become engaged in a similar resurrection at the consummation of the church age (1 Corinthians 15:20, 51-54; 1 John 3:2), there is no reason to utilize inconsistent usages of prwtotokos that bespeak interpretive hypocrisy. To say that "first-" (prwto-) is a literal designation but that "-born" (-tokos) is figurative is to have your cake and eat it, too. It cannot be in the confines of the selfsame reference that prwtotokos is in one sense figurative and in another literal. Stafford of course opts for this etymological distinction since he cannot live with the fact that prwtotokos would imply a literal birth of Jesus from God Himself!⁽⁴⁰⁾ This is perhaps why Stafford surreptitiously switches "created" with "born."

By observing Stafford's apologetic for a created-Jesus meaning, the reader may notice that such a defense centers around the mere possibility of prwtotokos meaning "first created" instead of the preferability of it. This is to say that Stafford argues for his interpretation outside of a given context and reserves his justifications for abstract observations of prwtotokos independently of any contextual considerations. Thus Stafford's objections on this matter are, at best, vacuous.

Proverbs 8:22-31. Unique to Jehovah's Witnesses is the claim that King Solomon alludes to Jesus Christ in a direct manner concerning His creation. As we have already seen, Proverbs 8 has nothing really to do with the person of Christ in the personification of Wisdom. Greg Stafford maintains that Proverbs 8 certainly does point to Jesus and that His absolute inception is inferred, not from the Hebrew qanah ("brought forth"), but from the equivalent LXX usage of ektisev. So Stafford builds his case on the basis that the context mandates a literal genre for ektisev. This attempt, as expected, fails miserably. If one takes the context seriously there is no fashionable translation whereby one may gracefully abstract an identification of Jesus from the Wisdom mentioned by Solomon. Stafford then makes his claim in response to Christian apologist Robert Bowman, Jr. regarding the conjoining of another personified attribute. Stafford supposes that the surrounding circumstances of Wisdom existing "with someone named 'Prudence' (cf. 8:12) in a house with seven pillars (9:1)"⁽⁴¹⁾ is explained by suggesting that the Wisdom of 8:23 is different than the Wisdom mentioned in the other passages.⁽⁴²⁾ But there is no contextual reason to suppose that Solomon is referring to Wisdom in one sense in 8:12 and in another sense in 8:23 with a return to the previous Wisdom in 9:1. I find this difficult to take seriously. Secondly, Stafford supposes that since "Prudence" does not speak then it is confidently understood to be dissimilar to Wisdom and reduced to mere metaphor (which is how conventional translators understand Wisdom to be understood). The problem here is that Prudence is said to live with Wisdom in a house with seven pillars (cf. 9:1). This implies that whatever genre we are to make of Prudence must certainly be reflective of Wisdom with whom Prudence is said to dwell. If one is personified then the other must be as well. Further, Proverbs 8:12 is cited by the Apostle Paul to refer to the conjoined "wisdom and prudence" as a combination of divine attribution (Ephesians 1:8). In neither case is Wisdom or Prudence supposed to be taken as metaphors for Jesus in every or any aspect. Finally, Stafford wishes to maintain a creative sense for ektisev instead of the conventional "produced", "buy", or "get." But his argument rests only on a fraction of citations from other books of the Bible that use ektisev in this way. One can easily advance a stronger argument by noting that since other passages in Proverbs itself use ektisev in the latter fashion we need not infer "create" from its context.⁽⁴³⁾ Even if Wisdom (whether Jesus or not) "received" its existence, it does not mean that such a statement concerns a beginning in time since Wisdom is said to have been "received from everlasting" (8:23a). Stafford then makes no attempt at refuting those objections concerning Wisdom's feminine gender, the problem of God being without wisdom at some time, and the problem of equating the "power of God" with Jesus as eternal.⁽⁴⁴⁾ He ignores these considerations completely.

John 1:1. Stafford spends a great deal of time observing Christian translations of "beginning" in John 1:1a and the application of Colwell's rule.⁽⁴⁵⁾ It isn't until the section on P. B. Harner when the controversy surrounding "kai theos hain ho logos" is actually addressed. The interesting maneuver made by Stafford is the conclusion that "the English indefinite article 'a' is most appropriate" in the sense that "and the Word was God" (1:1c) would be consistent with denying Jesus' identification with God.⁽⁴⁶⁾ His argument rests on previous allusions to passages such as John 6:70 where Jesus says, "one of you is a devil" (NASB). The connection between 6:70 and 1:1 is found in the construction of the qualitatively indefinite diabolos ("devil") which appears to be comparable to theos. This is to say that such a reference implies a more general understanding of diabolos than what is initially understood. Stafford maintains that this parallels theos. But this is unwarranted for two reasons. First, many scholars prefer to place theos into the categories of either qualitatively definite nouns or qualitatively substantial nouns and not in the qualitatively indefinite nouns category.⁽⁴⁷⁾ Secondly, the term diabolos might be preferably translated as "slanderer" instead of "devil." This would grammatically militate against any such connection between theos and diabolos since diabolos would no longer be confused with Satan.

Stafford's next argument entails the seemingly impossible attempt at reconciling the problem of how Jesus can be with God and yet be God. This is actually a repackaged Jehovah's Witness argument and has been answered already (see the above section on John 1:1).⁽⁴⁸⁾ But suffice it to say, such an objection fails to appreciate a distinction of personages rather than a distinction of beings.⁽⁴⁹⁾ This perhaps motivates Stafford to take a fallback position. He proposes that even if "kai theos hain ho logos" ought to be rendered "and the Word was God" then we may compartmentalize such a rendering into the same category as the angels and mighty judges who are themselves called "gods."⁽⁵⁰⁾ But the obvious problem here is that the "gods" mentioned in these passages do not reflect an ontological deification. Instead, their being called "gods" is perceptual to observers who saw the power of God operative through them. Note how Exodus 7:1 stipulates such an understanding when it proclaims Moses as "a god" but qualifies it by overtly stating "a god to Pharaoh" (emphasis mine). Similarly, such passages as Psalm 82:6, while portraying human judges as "gods", implies their non-deified status by God's pronouncement "but you will die like men" (v. 7). This prompts Stafford to add the auxiliary ad hoc hypothesis that "secondary divine beings are said to serve Him."⁽⁵¹⁾ But there is no indication anywhere in the Bible that there is some sort of secondary class of demigods who ontologically exist somewhere between angels and God Himself. It is just a theological interpolation injected into the text to force it to conform to the Jehovah's Witness interpretation. And this is precisely what Stafford impugns Christians for doing.⁽⁵²⁾

Next, Stafford moves for a deliberate misrepresentation of the Christian apologetic. In response to Ron Rhodes' dilemma that Jesus is either a true God or a false one and in response to his citation of John 17:3 for support, Stafford states that "it seems to assume that 'true,' as used by Jesus in John 17:3, has the meaning of 'right' or 'correct' with its opposite meaning being 'false' or 'wrong' . . . This is far from what Jesus meant when he said the Father is the only true God!"⁽⁵³⁾ But I think this is not how Rhodes uses "true." Instead, Rhodes cites two Watchtower publications that use "true" in the sense of exclusion. Rhodes simply borrows the Jehovah's Witness understanding and applies it to the question-Is Jesus a true God or a false one?-in the sense that either Jesus is God or he is not. Secondly, Rhodes clearly defines what he means by "the only true God" when he says "The Greek word for 'true' in this verse carries the meaning 'real' or 'genuine.' Hence, Jesus in this verse is simply saying that the Father is . . . the only real or genuine God."⁽⁵⁴⁾ This directly contradicts what Stafford accuses Rhodes of doing and blatantly misquotes him!⁽⁵⁵⁾ Therefore, Stafford's defense of John 1:1 is hopelessly muddled in the biases that antedate his book and reflect a pseudoscholarship that permeates his conveniently concealed knowledge of the Greek language.

John 20:28. As I read Stafford's objection to the proposition that John 20:28 preserves doubting Thomas' assertion that Jesus is his "Lord and God", I am forced to conclude another ad hoc interposition. Stafford explains that although Thomas addresses the newly risen Christ as "my Lord and my God", it is to be patterned after the similar addressing of angels as "Lord" and "God" (cf. Genesis 18:1-5; Judges 13:9, 19-22).⁽⁵⁶⁾ But such theophanies do not parallel such instances unless one first assumes that Jesus is not God. In the Old Testament angelophanies the authors clearly import their commentary as to qualify that an angel is the literal presence of God when they carefully use the qualifier "Angel of the Lord". The peculiar absence of this phrase in Genesis 18 may imply that angels are not to be envisaged here⁽⁵⁷⁾

but either a pre-incarnate apparition of God or a visionary experience. In any case, the theophanic appearances are restricted to the Old Testament encounters with the "Lord" as explicitly noted in Hebrews 1:2 which states that God "[h]ath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds" (KJV). And since Stafford states that John 20:28 must be "qualified . . . by the whole of Scripture"⁽⁵⁸⁾ then we ought not to forget about those passages addressed that demand Christ's deity. Therefore, a theophanic understanding of Jesus' words to Thomas are not to be preferred.

John 14:28. Jehovah's Witnesses maintain that Jesus is an ontologically inferior creature to that of God the Father. As noted above, the allusion to John 14:28 is cited to vindicate this contention. My response has supposed that (i) "greater" may not imply an ontological inferiority, and (ii) Jesus' bifurcated nature allows for a declaration of ontological inferiority. Let me address these claims in reverse. In (ii) I sought to defend Jesus' right to act and speak as a human Rabbi would. This means that Jesus could and did understand God the Father to be ontologically distinct from his human mind. Stafford, in addressing the problem of John 14:28, does not answer this criticism. But Stafford spends some time in addressing (i) where Jesus' use of meizon instead of kreitton implies only positional superiority. He argues with the Grimm-Thayer lexicon that where meizon is used it is in the connotation of superiority of "nature and power" instead of the mere outranking of Jesus.⁽⁵⁹⁾ Whether this is true or not (and it seems that it is not since the overwhelming majority if New Testament scholars recognize that meizon functions operationally) is irrelevant given (i). That is, even if Jesus did acknowledge an ontological superiority over and above himself it still fails to account for Jesus' bifurcated nature. But one set of commentators address the problem in this enlightening thought:

So, far from being a statement of Christ's ontological inferiority to the Father, Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown suggest that it would be audacious for any human being to utter the words "the Father is greater than I" in conjunction with "I go unto my Father" at the time of death since it purports a sort of superiority complex that would be regarded as blasphemous if spoken by anyone less than God. Therefore, Jesus' usage of the twofold expression seems to secure his deity and maintain his human stature in the selfsame passage.

Titus 2:13. Stafford attempts to present his case that Titus 2:13 is not a conjoined reference to one person (e.g. Jesus Christ) in "the Great God and Savior, Jesus Christ" expression. Instead, he supposes that the application of the 18^th Century work by Granville Sharp entitled Remarks on the Use of the Definitive Article in the Greek Text of the New Testament: Containing Many New Proofs of the Divinity of Christ, from Passages which are wrongly Translated in the Common English Version would not rightly apply to 2:13 since we are to understand "Great God" and "Savior" as two proper names instead of descriptions.⁽⁶¹⁾ But, amazingly, he offers no evidence whatsoever of this interpretation. Instead, "we must not arbitrarily assume that just because the two titles 'God' and 'Savior' are used together in such close proximity that they ipso facto apply to one person."⁽⁶²⁾ This sort of assumptive reasoning only adds to the problem Stafford has to account for in seeing Titus 2:13, as Sharp himself understood, as a reference to Christ's deity.

This brief critique of Stafford's book, Jehovah's Witnesses Defended, is intended to show the distance a Jehovah's Witness must go in order to maintain a belief in Watchtower theology. As such, we have covered several rejoinders buttressed by Stafford as well as criticisms of his own advanced arguments regarding the deity of Christ (and ultimately the nature of God). Also, Stafford never bothers to explain the personality and deity of the Holy Spirit. Perhaps it was a subject that was better left untouched. Nonetheless, the failure of Stafford's attempts at disproving the deity of Christ will only serve to vindicate what New Testament scholars, Church historians, and First Century Christians have long since believed.

Concluding Remarks

While I was editing this essay with updated information and more thorough analyses of selected biblical passages, I had the opportunity to engage in friendly dialogue with three Jehovah's Witnesses on the topics of God, salvation, and the identity of Jesus Christ. We basically had debated some of the topics discussed extensively in this essay. It was delightful to experience such a conversation from people who normally distance themselves from academic and philosophical encounters. It is my wish that more Jehovah's Witnesses, as well as Evangelicals, continue to dialogue with each other in order to force us into the Word of God. I suspect that if each side continues to pursue essential biblical issues extensively, then such an honest search for evidence will certainly yield reasons to believe why Jesus Christ is God and other conclusions arrived at by this author.

Unless and until more Jehovah's Witnesses are willing to come out from behind academic walls, we will never have the opportunity to address these crucial issues of our time. My personal experience and pursuit of evidence has taught me that Jesus Christ is the Savior of anyone who is willing to submit his or her will to this God of the Bible. I can only pray that fellow Jehovah's Witnesses will put what I say to the test by "carefully examining the Scriptures daily as to whether these things [are] so" (Acts 17:11; NWT). And that is the real truth.

END NOTES

1. Historical information can be derived from such Watchtower publications as: Awake! and Watchtower magazines; Creation, 1927; Paradise Restored to Mankind-By Theocracy, 1972; Studies in the Scriptures (originally called Millennial Dawn), Vol. 1-6, 1886-1904; Vindication, Vol. 1-3, 1931-32; 1939 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses, 1938. All of the above references were published in Brooklyn, New York.

2. Charles Russell was sometimes referred to as "Pastor" Russell.

3. Jehovah's Witnesses usually reject the word "church" in reference to a Watchtower community because, they reason, the "church" is applied to those of Christendom. According to Watchtower sources, Christendom is condemned as apostate and is devilishly inspired.

4. Watchtower June 15, 1905, p. 3576 and Watchtower May 15, 1984, p. 5.

5. Such gods were tri-theistic (a trilogy) and not Trinitarian (three Persons in one God). JWs attribute the pagan concept of three gods to the orthodox Christian concept of one God in three.

6. The fallacy of attacking the person instead of the argument is called an argumentum ad hominem.

7. Is This Life All There Is?, 1974, p. 46.

8. Watchtower (4/1/1970), p. 210; "Let God Be True," second edition, 1952, p. 100; Watchtower, "The Trinity--Should You Believe It?" (2/1/1984).

9. Reconciliation, 1928, p. 101.

10. Watchtower (9/22/1959), p. 7.; ibid., "The Trinity--Should You Believe It?".

11. Watchtower (5/15/1969), p. 307; ibid. (12/15/1984), p. 29.

12. Studies in the Scriptures, vol. 5, p. 244.

13. Watchtower (7/1/1973), p. 402.

14. NWT is the acronym for the New World Translation. This is the translation that the Watchtower society has published. More will be said about this translation later.

15. "Holy spirit" in lower-case letters is the way Jehovah's Witnesses inscribe this. They maintain that since the spirit is not a Person, then it would be incorrect to capitalize the letters.

16. I have made this same point in my online essay, "A Discussion on Mormonism" (http://sguthrie.net/MORMONIS.htm), under the heading, "Problems with the Mormon Concept of God."

17. The doctrine of the Trinity can be expressed this way: Within the nature of the one God are the three Persons who are distinct from each other yet of the same undivided substance.

18. cf. Luke 2:23.

19. Note that even Gen. 41:52 even calls Ephraim the "second born."

20. The NWT inserts the word "other" into the text and forces Jesus to be one of the "things" created. Since this is not found in the Greek manuscripts, it would be haphazard to conclude that the insertion of the word "other" would be justified. Even the Kingdom Interlinear Translation (the JW interlinear of the New Testament) correctly leaves this word out.

21. For example, the father of his household is certainly greater than his children by virtue of the family rank, but no one would concede to the idea that the father was better than his children.

22. The portion of the Introduction that mentions the usage of brackets states, "Single brackets [ ] enclose words inserted to complete the sense in the English text" (New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, 1984 edition, p. 7). What the reader is led to believe is that the insertion of the brackets suggests a proper rendition of the passage. But in the case of Colossians 2:9 the meaning of the passage is altered with the presence of the interpreter's brackets. We go from "great God and Savior" to "great God and [the] Savior" which evinces a dichotomy between God and Savior.

23. The indiscernibility of identity demands that if one referent is identical to the second then anything true of the first must be true of the second. This identity formula is expressed as:

(x) (y) [(x=y}(P) (PxPy)]

We can see this illustrated in the example where x is "the writer of this essay" and y is "Shandon Guthrie." Although we have two different referents, we can promote the unity in identity so that if a property P were to describe x then y also has property P. What makes this formula inescapable is the antecedent fact that x and y are indeed identical. The biblical passages cited in support of the identity of Jesus as God provide the sufficient evidence to warrant the additional property "deity" in reference to Jesus.

24. E. C. Colwell, "A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament," Journal of Biblical Literature 52 (1933), p. 20.

25. Philip B. Harner, "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1," Journal of Biblical Literature 92, 1 (March 1973), p. 87.

26. Letter from William Barclay to Donald P. Shoemaker, August 26, 1977.

27. Those who have followed the Watchtower citations of various Greek scholars will notice that Harner and Barclay have been misquoted by the Watchtower as teaching the "a god" theory. But our analysis here demonstrates otherwise.

28. It is obviously impossible to condense a wealth of material on the subjects of John 1:1 and 8:58. But I have categorized the main lines of evidence in this essay. For a more thorough and detailed analysis of these topics, see Robert Bowman, Jr., Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus Christ, and the Gospel of John (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Company, 1989).

29. Greg Stafford, Jehovah's Witnesses Defended: An Answer to Scholars and Critics (California: Elihu Books, 1998), p. xiv.

30. In recent debates with Jehovah's Witnesses I have encountered some who have cited Stafford's book as if to nullify a priori any arguments I advanced simply by saying something like, "Have you read Greg Stafford's book? He answers what you and others are saying." But after having said this they are generally unfamiliar with the argument(s) Stafford employs. This seems to suggest that Jehovah's Witnesses who do this imply that Stafford's book is the final and unchallenged word on the subject. Because of their ignorance, however, they may be closed-minded to any criticism mounted against him.

31. Ibid., p. 93.

32. Stafford argues against Lightfoot that his citation of R. Bahya ben Asher (R. Bechai) in support of prwtotokos applying to God as "firstborn" in a metaphorical sense by citing C. F. D. Moule's remarks that Bechai had ties to the Jewish Cabala. But this is scholarly hypocrisy since the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society has, on numerous occasions, cited Johannes Greber as a scholarly source. Greber himself relied on self-proclaimed mystical and occultic experiences to produce certain translations of the Bible. Stafford, having anticipated this, stipulates in an Appendix that the attack on Greber is unwarranted since "they may have cited his translation, among others, as supporting what was considered to be an accurate translation of certain passages, without knowing the details of Greber's involvement with spiritism" (Ibid., p. 339). Do you see the double-standard here? We are expected to accept the ignorance of Watchtower individuals who have cited Greber since they may have been unaware of his occultic background while Lightfoot's citation of Bechai is ruled out on the very same criticism. The other argument Stafford puts forth is really no argument at all. He states that eikon (Greek for "image" in Col. 1:15) does not imply Christ's deity at all and so maintains a creation status for Jesus (Ibid., p. 98). But there is no argument here at all! He just states it as some sort of given intending to justify the Jehovah's Witness concept of prwtotokos.

33. Mormon apologist Stephen E. Robinson has made the same error and even cites Justin Martyr as teaching Mormon theology in Are Mormons Christians? (Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1991), pp. 61-3. Christian apologist James White goes to great length to reply to such misquotations of the Church Fathers and cites them in extenso in his book Is the Mormon My Brother? (Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers, 1997), pp. 219-27.

34. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 124, Sage Library CD-ROM, 534.

35. Stafford, Jehovah's Witnesses Defended, p. 95.

36. Ibid.

37. Ibid., p. 97.

38. Cf. ibid., p. 100.

39. Ibid., p. 98.

40. There are only two general ways prwtotokos is translated. It either means "first one born" or "preeminent one." Stafford, who wants to avoid the Mormon conclusion that Jesus was literally birthed into existence, imports a new interpretation where Jesus is both "first" in a literal sense but "born" in a figurative one. In no biblical passage is this novel interpretation used - not a single one! Further, the phrase used in Col. 1:15 is not "firstborn of God" but "firstborn of all creation." As stated in an earlier section, it renders Jesus' birth as the product of the class of "creation" instead of as the product of Jehovah.

41. Robert Bowman, Jr., Why You Should Believe in the Trinity: An Answer to Jehovah's Witnesses (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1989), p. 60 and quoted in Stafford, Jehovah's Witnesses Defended, p. 102.

42. Believe it or not, this is Stafford's objection. See Stafford, Jehovah's Witnesses Defended, p. 103.

43. See Proverbs 1:5; 4:5, 7; 8:22; 15:32; 16:16; 17:16; 18:15; 19:8;20:14; 23:23.

44. 1 Corinthians 1:24 calls Jesus the "power of God" while Romans 1:20 says that the power of God is eternal. This and the other objections to a Wisdom-is-Jesus interpretation are addressed above.

45. It is interesting to point out that while Robert Bowman understands Colwell to be sanctioning the permission of non-definitiveness in the anarthrous "theos", Stafford tries to explain that Colwell nonetheless argues in favor of deifying Christ in John 1:1c (see Stafford, Jehovah's Witnesses Defended, pp. 174-9)!

46. Stafford, Jehovah's Witnesses Defended, p. 184.

47. For a deeper explanation of this see Bowman, Jehovah's Witnesses, pp. 45-53.

48. In a review of Stafford's Jehovah's Witnesses Defended book which can be accessed at http://www.amazon.com, one critic suggests that Stafford uses "repackaged" arguments. Although I do not see this as entirely true, it certainly seems to be the case in this instance.

49. Stafford claims that since two Greek terms are used for "God" there cannot possibly be a correlation between what God the Father is supposed to be (ho theos) with what the Son is supposed to be (theos). The problem here is that Jesus is clearly addressed as ho theos in other passages where the definite article exists (e.g. John 20:28; Titus 2:12; 2 Peter 1:1; 1 John 5:20). Therefore, this distinction fails.

50. Cf. Psalm 8:5; 82:6; John 10:34-36; Stafford, Jehovah's Witnesses Defended, pp. 186-96.

51. Stafford, Jehovah's Witnesses Defended, p. 201.

52. Stafford states, "We must not allow our preferred religious views to keep us from recognizing the fact that the Bible . . . allows for the existence of other divine beings who serve Him" (ibid., p. 200). But it is precisely his "preferred religious views" that are defining John 1:1 in order to avoid a trinitarian conclusion!

53. Ibid., p. 196.

54. Ron Rhodes, Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses (Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 1993), p. 229.

55. Stafford misquotes Rhodes elsewhere concerning the "divine name" and cites Rhodes as saying "there is no justification for the term Jehovah" when Rhodes really says "there is no biblical justification for the term Jehovah" (cf. Stafford, Jehovah's Witnesses Defended, p. 3 and Rhodes, Reasoning from the Scriptures, p. 51). The distinction is important because while Stafford accuses Rhodes of denying any credibility to the proper name "Jehovah," Rhodes seems to only say that there is no exclusive biblical warrant for "Jehovah" but adds that though "most modern scholars believe Yahweh is the correct rendering (as I do), we really cannot criticize the Jehovah's Witnesses for using the term Jehovah where the Hebrew consonants YHWH appear in the Old Testament" (Rhodes, Reasoning, p. 51). Rhodes is absolutely right. While there is no biblical evidence for the name "Jehovah" there may be some etymological evidence up for debate. Stafford's carelessness in citing Rhodes is a direct violation of the principle of charity.

56. Stafford, Jehovah's Witnesses Defended, p. 205.

57. See Matthew Henry's Commentary on Genesis 18:1-8 (PP3). However, it must be noted that some commentators generally suppose that Abraham did indeed encounter these men as angels (see Lawrence O. Richards, Richard's Complete Bible Handbook (Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1987), p. 52). The understanding of an angelophany may be the preferred one.

58. Stafford, Jehovah's Witnesses Defended, p. 205.

59. Ibid., p. 71.

60. Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary in PC Study Bible on CD-ROM (published by Biblesoft, 1997), John 14:28, PP1.

61. Stafford, Jehovah's Witnesses Defended, p. 239.

62. Ibid., p. 243.

Atheism | Theological Issues | Ethical Issues | Debates | About the Author | Links | Home

Copyright © 1988, 1998 Shandon L. Guthrie